THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
-IS IT OF GOD OR COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND MAN-MADE?

One of the more interesting doctrines of Roman Catholicism concerns the subject of sin, and the distinction that the Catholic Church makes between what they call “mortal sin” and “venial sin.” Around this distinction between sins has grown up an entire system of what is called “moral theology.” It was inevitable that such would occur, because in actual practice this doctrine of mortal and venial sins is not quite as clear as it may appear to be at first glance. There are too many sins that do not clearly belong in one category or another, there are too many gray areas, and consequently, Roman Catholic theologians have addressed themselves to this problem. The result of their studies is a system of “Moral Theology” that is at once arbitrary and man-made. It is a system that cries out for the simplicity of God’s Revealed Word.

Let us begin by saying that God’s Word makes no such “mortal, venial” distinction between sins. It does not categorize some as being more serious than others. God’s Word simply says, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” (Rom. 3:23). God’s Word further reveals, “For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal Life through Jesus Christ our Lord” (Rom. 6:23 ). Any sin unrepented of, will result in eternal damnation. There are not some that will bring about this result and others that won’t.  Any unrepented-of sin will have the same result.

In Romans 1:29-32, there are several sins listed, some of which would be called venial and others which would be called mortal under the Catholic system, and yet God’s Word makes no such distinction.  The ultimate result of all of them is the same. Paul wrote in that passage, “Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, covenant-breakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful; who knowing the judgment of god, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.”

    So, the true Bible believer does not accept this Roman Catholic distinction because it is nowhere found in God’s Word.

    But what then is this Roman Catholic distinction, and what are some of the problems that it leads to?  For the remainder of this tract, I will be referring, from time to time, to a Roman Catholic college textbook entitled, College Moral Theology.  It was written by Anthony F. Alexander, Department of Religion,   John Carroll University , 1958.  The book bears the Nihil Obstat of Rev. Joseph T. Mangan, S.J., and the Imprimatur of Samuel Cardinal Stritch, D.D. The stated purpose of the book was “the moral formation of Catholic youth.”  Let’s let the system speak for itself.

    “50.  A mortal sin is a complete disruption of the moral order which God has commanded us to follow to reach our goal in life.  All legitimate authority comes from God.  Every mortal sin is in some way a rebellion against God’s authority.  The attack may be on a law directly laid down by God, as is the case of breaking the natural or positive divine law…The attack may constitute an indirect invasion of God’s authority as the breaking of an ecclesiastical law.  God has seen fit to invest certain organizations such as the Church and the state with his authority to legislate.  This implies the power to impose penalties on those who break their laws.  These governments can, if they wish, make their just laws bind under pain of sin.  To break them seriously is then an indirect attack on God’s authority.” P. 33.

    “51.  The malice of a mortal sin lies in the fact that by it one completely rejects God in favor of a forbidden creature which one cannot possess simultaneously with the love of God.  Example: Meat in itself is not bad.  But the sin of a Catholic who eats meat on Friday lies in the fact that he implicitly tells God that he would rather have it than God’s love and friendship.  His preference and his rejection are embodied in a single deliberate choice.” P. 34.

    It is interesting to note that the Roman Catholic hierarchy no longer requires American Roman Catholics to abstain from meat on Fridays.  That which was once a mortal sin is no longer even a venial sin under this totally arbitrary system.  One is forced to wonder what happened to those who died with the mortal sin of eating meat on Fridays unforgiven.

    “54.  Sins differ from each other in kind when they are violations of different commandments or different virtues…A forbidden act can have as many malices as the number of Commandments it breaks.  A single act may break a single Commandment and so be a sin of single malice.  It may constitute a simultaneous attack on tow or even three Commandments and so be a sin of double or triple malice.  All the seriously sinful malices of an act must be removed before one can recover sanctifying grace.” P. 36.

    “55.  One who departs this life in mortal sin is immediately condemned to hell:  he there suffers the terrible frustration of having eternally lost his goal in life and the happiness which God had intended for him? P. 36

    Now let’s turn our attention to Venial sins.

    “56.  A venial sin constitutes a blameworthy delay in making progress towards God; it does not constitute a rejection of God in favor of a seriously forbidden object.  A venial sin is essentially different from a mortal sin.  In a venial sin the forbidden object is small enough to co-exist with the love of God.” P. 37.

    “57.  It is possible to commit a venial sin by freely and deliberately choosing a slightly evil object.” P. 38.

    “58.  It is possible to commit a venial sin by choosing an object which in itself is seriously forbidden but the choice is made by an imperfect human act.” P. 38.

    It is important that I present here the example given in this case to show the ridiculousness of this system of theology in practice.  In example #58 the writer says, “There is a row of cheaply priced books on a shelf in a second-had book store.  Instead of buying a certain book, James steals it.  It is really a valuable first edition, but until he learns its real value, he is guilty of only venial sin.”

    So you can see that under the Roman Catholic system of moral theology it is not the stealing itself, but the value of that which was stolen, that determines the seriousness of the sin.  Under God’s Law, all stealing is serious, period, with the value of that which was stolen bearing no weight at all as far as the ultimate result is concerned if the sin of stealing is not repented of.

    “59.  Those who depart this life if venial sin or who must satisfy for temporal punishment due to sin, go to purgatory: before being admitted to heaven, they undergo great suffering caused principally by their delay in seeing God.” P. 39.

    This, then, is the Roman Catholic distinction between mortal and venial sins.  Already we can get an inkling of the arbitrariness of this system.  But again it is important that we let Roman Catholic authorities speak for themselves, so let’s notice further how they put this system into practice.

    “8.  The gravity of an injustice against an individual involving material goods is determined according to a relative standard.  The existence of a relative standard can be proved.  Different individuals have different obligations according to their state in life.  The obligations of some are more pressing and more numerous that others depending on such factors as number of children or condition of health.  Varied sums are needed to meet varied sizes of obligations.  Some can afford less a loss than others.  This standard is called relative because it varies from person to person… The commonly accepted verdict is that it is a mortal sin to deprive a person and his family of the amount needed for a day’s upkeep.;  Several factors can cause variation in this.  The student is to notice that a day’s upkeep is not the same as a day’s wages, for one must live even on the days that he does not work.  It is a week’s wages divided by seven.  To steal a less amount is a venial sin.  EXAMPLE:  To steal over $2.00 from a widow drawing a monthly pension check of $60.00 is a mortal sin.  To steal about $7.00 from a wage-earner who works five days a week at $10.00 per day is a mortal sin.” P. 203 & 204.

    “10.  If a person takes temporal goods in a series of venial thefts, he steals the amount necessary for a mortal sin when the stolen amounts add up to twice the amount set down in the relative or absolute standards.” P. 205.

    “14.  The gravity of the guilt of a person who has committed an injustice is determined on the basis of the knowledge which he had when he made his choice to commit the wrong.  Sin is committed when one chooses what he knows to be a seriously forbidden object.  If one takes an object of notable value while unsuspectingly believing that it is of slight value, he then commits a venial sin.  But if he later comes to know its great value, he commits a mortal sin at the moment that he intends to keep doing it.” P. 208.

    On and on we could go giving example after example from their own writings, indeed from the very textbook used for teaching moral theology in Roman Catholic Universities.  But these few statements are sufficient to show that the mortal, venial sin distinction and the accompanying moral theology as taught by Roman Catholicism is not of God.  It is completely arbitrary and totally man-made.