Is venial sin ever actually the right thing to do?

[Ziggamafu]

Like, when David and his men ate the consecrated bread because they were hungry. Jesus defended them, right? It was still a venial sin, i would think. And when some girl asks if a dress she can't return makes her look fat - you say no, even if it does, right? Anything else would be very uncharitable. It's a venial sin, but it your conscience would tell you it's the right thing to do.

...i'm sure there are other, better, examples. these are the only two i can think of off the top of my head, though. Maybe other examples could be thought up involving protestant / catholic relations.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:44 PM']Like, when David and his men ate the consecrated bread because they were hungry. Jesus defended them, right? It was still a venial sin, i would think. And when some girl asks if a dress she can't return makes her look fat - you say no, even if it does, right? Anything else would be very uncharitable. It's a venial sin, but it your conscience would tell you it's the right thing to do.

...i'm sure there are other, better, examples. these are the only two i can think of off the top of my head, though. Maybe other examples could be thought up involving protestant / catholic relations.
[right][snapback]801162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I would say under these circumstances, these things are not sinful at all.

[photosynthesis]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:44 PM']Like, when David and his men ate the consecrated bread because they were hungry. Jesus defended them, right? It was still a venial sin, i would think. And when some girl asks if a dress she can't return makes her look fat - you say no, even if it does, right? Anything else would be very uncharitable. It's a venial sin, but it your conscience would tell you it's the right thing to do.

...i'm sure there are other, better, examples. these are the only two i can think of off the top of my head, though. Maybe other examples could be thought up involving protestant / catholic relations.
[right][snapback]801162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
David? you mean the Psalmist? umm.. I don't think Jesus and King David were walking the earth the same time.

as far as the dress thing goes, if my friend looked absolutely horrid in a dress, I would probably find some charitable way to tell her. but that's different, because I'm a woman.

either way, I don't think it's a sin... you're just refusing to state your opinion, which is subjective anyway.

[tojo]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:44 PM']And when some girl asks if a dress she can't return makes her look fat - you say no, even if it does, right? Anything else would be very uncharitable. It's a venial sin, but it your conscience would tell you it's the right thing to do.
[right][snapback]801162[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Sorry to get off track, but how does a dress make her look fat? Either she is fat or she isn't, and the whole dress thing is simply a way of dishonestly disassociating the fat from the woman, isn't it?

Sorry, back on topic....

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 26 2005, 08:46 PM']I would say [b]under these circumstances[/b], these things are not sinful at all.
[right][snapback]801166[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

so venial sin is relative, then?

...oh, and i think the david thing was brought up by jesus when his disciples were picking corn on the sabbath...i could totally be remembering that wrong, btw.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 26 2005, 09:05 PM']so venial sin is relative, then?

...oh, and i think the david thing was brought up by jesus when his disciples were picking corn on the sabbath...i could totally be remembering that wrong, btw.
[right][snapback]801194[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
No, sin of any sort is not relative. But intent does play a major role in the sinfulness of any action.

For instance, shooting a murderous man to protect one's family from being killed is not sinful. However, shooting a man "just to watch him die" (to quote Johnny Cash) would be gravely sinful.

[karin]

it wouldnt be a sin not to tell your friend she looked fat besides there are always ways of stating your opinion without actually answering the question and without being uncharitable

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Nov 26 2005, 09:29 PM']No, sin of any sort is not relative.  But intent does play a major role in the sinfulness of any action.

For instance, shooting a murderous man to protect one's family from being killed is not sinful.  However, shooting a man "just to watch him die" (to quote Johnny Cash) would be gravely sinful.
[right][snapback]801212[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Yeah, but you're talking about grave matter, there. Grave matter is objective, defined by the Church, and judgeable. We're talking about venial sin, here...

[Theoketos]

If something is the right thing to do then it is not a sin.

[Cam42]

The only time a sin is acceptable, is in the case of double effect.

When two evils are the only option, it is better to choose the lesser of the evils.

Example (classic):

One is the pilot of an airplane. The plane is going to crash. There are two options crash into a house that contains two people who are celebrating their 50th anniversary or crash into a school and the 350 children inside.

The only option is to crash into the house. It is better to intentionally take the lives of two older persons than to take the lives of the 350 children.

Both are sinful, because one cannot intentionally take the life of another, however, the lesser sin is the preferred thing to do (ie. it is the right thing to do.)

[photosynthesis]

so then would it be sinful to let your friend go out in a dress that makes her look fat?

i don't think so.

[chickens4life]

[quote name='Cam42' date='Nov 27 2005, 12:14 AM']The only time a sin is acceptable, is in the case of double effect.

When two evils are the only option, it is better to choose the lesser of the evils.

Example (classic):

One is the pilot of an airplane.  The plane is going to crash.  There are two options crash into a house that contains two people who are celebrating their 50th anniversary or crash into a school and the 350 children inside.

The only option is to crash into the house.  It is better to intentionally take the lives of two older persons than to take the lives of the 350 children.

Both are sinful, because one cannot intentionally take the life of another, however, the lesser sin is the preferred thing to do (ie. it is the right thing to do.)
[right][snapback]801251[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Is it even a sin to fly the crashing plane in to the house with the two older people in it when you do it to save the 350 school children?
I have always thought sin is in the intent behind an action, -and in this case- if your intent is to save as many lives as possible then the action would not just be a premisable act, but not a sin at all.
Sin is never the moraly correct thing to do, if it is the right thing to do then it is by definition not sinful.
i think that this is also true of venial sins if it is the right thing to do(and I'm not to sure about not telling your friend who asked you, that her dress makes her look fat) then it wouldn't be a sin. Would it?

Edited November 27, 2005 by chickens4life

[Paphnutius]

Ok Cam beat me to double effect but here are the four "guidlines" for it:

1)The end must be good
2)The evil result must not be desired but only permitted
3) The good must be at least as immediatly present as the evil (meaning no evil means for a good end)
4) The good must be conmesurate to the evil done

The three factors of determing the morality of a human act:
1)End (finis operis)
2) Circumstances
3)Intention of the agent (finis operantis)

So if you put those two together you have the bare basics of moral theology. Is my Latin correct Cam?

So...basically a venial sin may be permitted as a result from a good action if the four guidlines are met above. The sin cannot be willed in itself, but merely tolerated for the greater good. (not in a utilitarian way of course)

[Cam42]

Your Latin was fine.

[FutureSoror]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Nov 26 2005, 11:18 PM']So...basically a venial sin may be permitted as a result from a good action if the four guidlines are met above. The sin cannot be willed in itself, but merely tolerated for the greater good. (not in a utilitarian way of course)
[right][snapback]801327[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Right. This means that the action itself was still bad in itself, but the person doing it is not guilty of the action.

[Ziggamafu]

So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.

So is this kind of judgment left to one's own conscience?

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:44 AM']So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.
[/quote]
I would not say it is the right thing to do. We are using the word "sin" here and I do not think that quite works.

One could better say that one may perform an action foreseeing that evil may result from it (not only sin does this) as long as one approriatly applies the principle of double effect. I do not think that you can say you must sin, even venially, for good because that would, at least at first glance, violate the third guidline.

You could not say that one must sin for some good purpose for that would appear as though God is requiring someone to sin and that is never the case. What you could say, however, is that one may perform a good action for a good end although it is foreseeable that some evil may result from it.

Sin, in the [i]strictest [/i]sense, is never the "right" thing to do, but an evil may be permitted for some greater good circumstantially.

Edited November 27, 2005 by Paphnutius

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 27 2005, 06:44 AM']So then in certain cases, venial sin might be the right thing to do, if another option would seem to be a worse sin.

So is this kind of judgment left to one's own conscience?
[right][snapback]801477[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It is left to one's conscience, however, one may never do an evil in order to bring about good.

In my analogy of double effect, the choices were not made in order to do evil. The choice was made in order to limit evil. The pilot is not doing good, nor is he under the impotice that he is planning on doing good, but rather he is knowingly committing an eivl in order to counteract a greater evil.

It is not so much that committing the sin was the right thing to do, but it was the lesser of the bad things to do.

I would suggest that you look to the Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph nos. 1776-1802.

[Ziggamafu]

Ok. Then I'll get to the point of why I started this thread in the first place. It really bugs me when there are liturgical abuses. Especially blatent ones like not kneeling during consecration.

However...

When I'm at a parish full of nice people who choose to stand, rather than kneel, during consecration, I usually follow suit. ESPECIALLY (maybe "only" if memory serves me) when there is no room between my chair and the chair immediately in front of me (I would have to disrupt Mass by pushing the chairs apart, just so I have enough room). I lump liturgical abuse into the "venial sin" category and I was wondering if double-effect made my actions in such situations the best choice.

[Cam42]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Nov 28 2005, 07:59 AM']Ok. Then I'll get to the point of why I started this thread in the first place. It really bugs me when there are liturgical abuses. Especially blatent ones like not kneeling during consecration.

However...

When I'm at a parish full of nice people who choose to stand, rather than kneel, during consecration, I usually follow suit. ESPECIALLY (maybe "only" if memory serves me) when there is no room between my chair and the chair immediately in front of me (I would have to disrupt Mass by pushing the chairs apart, just so I have enough room). I lump liturgical abuse into the "venial sin" category and I was wondering if double-effect made my actions in such situations the best choice.
[right][snapback]802423[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I don't have time to get into it, cuz of work, but double effect doesn't apply in the cases of liturgical abuse.

I am sure that someone will comment and explain further, however, double effect applies only when the circumstances are grave. And the criteria must be very metered, that is to say, they are very limited.