Tag: Sin

Quick Apology: “No such thing thing as mortal sin”

5 comments

I haven’t done one of these in a while…

In case you haven’t seen my Quick Apology articles before, these are extremely short posts in which describe how I might respond in thirty seconds or less to objections I often encounter. These might be objections to my pro-life view, or the fact that I believe in God, that I’m a Christian or specifically to my being Catholic.

FeaturedMortalSin

Objection

Today’s objection came from a friend:

“Catholics believe in mortal sin, but the Bible never talks about it. It never makes a distinction – sin is sin”

How might one respond to this objection?

Response

I’ve spoken before about the objection that something is “not in the Bible”, but the above statement is one which can actually very easily be answered from Scripture alone.

When this particular issue comes up, I ask whether or not that person has read chapter five of John’s first epistle:

If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that.

– 1 John 5:16 (Revised Standard Version: Catholic Edition)

So there we go, John seems pretty clear that there is such a thing as mortal sin.

Lost in translation?

However, is this just a translation issue? After all, in the above Scripture quotation, I’ve quoted from a Catholic translation.

Well, the standard Protestant translation is the King James Version, so let’s see how that translation renders the passage:

If any man see his brother sin a sin which is not unto death, he shall ask, and he shall give him life for them that sin not unto death. There is a sin unto death: I do not say that he shall pray for it.

– 1 John 5:16 (King James Version)

As we can see, the KJV renders “mortal sin” as “sin which is…unto death”. Even with this translation the same central meaning remains:

1. There are two kinds of sin

2. One kind of sin leads to “death”

3. Another kind of sin does not lead to “death”

However one chooses to interpret this passage, it’s very clear that Scripture is making a distinction between different kinds of sin and saying that one is more serious than the other.

Not only John

As a quick follow up, I typically point out that John is not the only person in Scripture to distinguish between different kinds of sin. Although it’s a little different, Jesus Himself speaks to this subject:

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven – Matthew 12:31

Again, regardless of how one chooses to interpret this passage, it’s clear that not all sins are the same.

All sin is serious!

After pointing out these two passages, I would typically conclude the brief exchange by saying that, despite these distinctions, in a certain sense it is correct to say that “sin is sin”. It is true that all sin is an offense against God.

The Catholic distinction between different kinds of sin doesn’t mean that venial sin is “okay”. No, all sin is serious. We shouldn’t just try and avoid mortal sin, but all sin and strive for the holiness for which we were made!

Plucking out your eye

5 comments

Today’s post is another entry in response to a recent Facebook conversation. This post won’t be as long as yesterday’s post, but I would like to say a few words about Jesus’ unsettling teaching in Chapter 18 of Matthew’s Gospel:

“…if your hand or your foot causes you to sin cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life maimed or lame than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into the eternal fire.

And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into the hell of fire. – Matthew 18:7-9

This passage from Matthew’s Gospel is rather interesting in that, in my experience, it’s a verse which fundamentalists never take literally (along with John 6 and Acts 2:38). Now, you’ll find pockets of Christians who handle snakes (Mark 16:18), but I have yet to meet someone to apply the same literalistic hermeneutic to that passage. The funny thing about this passage is that the literal sense here is clear – it is better to lose everything in this life rather than to lose Heaven – even hands and eyes.

MrPotatoHead

The central message Jesus teaches here is that we can’t take sin lightly. You can’t treat sin as though it were something with which you can negotiate. You don’t negotiate with cancer! You don’t sit down with a tumour and ask it not to grow too large. No, you cut that stuff out! You eradicate it as quickly as possible because, if left unchecked, it’ll be your ruin. The same is true with sin.

What might be an application of this passage? Well, I would say that we can understand this passage in the context of what is known in Catholic circles as “the near occasions of sin”, which the times and places where we know we can easily fall from grace. In particular, I’d like to apply this passage to the issue of porn.

If you know you are tempted to watch porn when staying a hotel, the best thing to do is cut it off at the source, literally, by phoning ahead and asking the hotel to put a block the channels on the TV. I remember Matt Fradd referencing this passage when speaking about the temptation to watch porn on a smart phone:

“If your iPhone causes you to sin, disconnect it and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life with a dumb phone and poor connectivity, rather than to be thrown into the eternal fire with a touchscreen and wifi access”

But what about Church Scandal?

4 comments

I was recently corresponding with someone who kept bringing up the recent scandals in the Catholic Church. Here’s how I replied:

Your constant refrain concerning scandal in the Church suggests to me that this is a significant issue for you. It’s understandable. It is for many people. In fact, during the early centuries of Christianity this was an extremely important and controversial question: should those who denied Christ under persecution, or who surrendered the Holy Scriptures to be burnt, be readmitted to the Church if they repented? Should those ordained members who renounced their faith be able to return to ministry? There was a schismatic group called the Donatists who said “Absolutely not!”  

At the heart of the matter was the question: what is the Church? The Donatists viewed the Church as a Museum of Saints. The Catholic Church rejected this limited and narrow understanding. Instead, She said that the Church was a Hospital for Sinners. She would therefore readmit fallen away Christians if they repented.

As a consequence, the Church often looks (and smells!) like a hospital. The Church is full of medicine, nurses and doctors, but She is also full of damaged people and the walking wounded. There are often outbreaks of disease. It often doesn’t look pleasant, but it is the best place to be for those who need healing. For this, I’m grateful, otherwise I fear I could never be admitted.

Hospital

Desert Fathers: Brotherly Support

One comment

monks

Two brothers went to a town to sell what they had made. In the town they separated, and one of them fell into fornication.

Afterwards the other brother said, “Let us go back to our cell, brother.” But he replied, “I’m not coming.” The other asked him, “Why, brother?” He replied, “Because when you left me, I was tempted, and was guilty of fornication.” The other, wanting to help him, said, “The same thing happened to me; after I left you, I also fell into fornication. Let us go together, and do penance with all our might, and God will pardon us sinners.”

When they returned to their cell, they told the brothers what had happened to them, and were told what penance they should do. But the one did penance not for himself, but for the other, as though himself had sinned. God, seeing his earnestness and his charity, revealed to one of the elders, a few days later, that he had forgiven the fornicator because of the charity of the brother who had not sinned.

Truly, this was to lay down his soul for his brother.

– De vitis Patrum, Sive Verba Seniorum, Liber V

1 2 3