Sin and Its Consequences


Anthony Gonzales


Since the Modernist revolution took place in the 1960's Roman Catholics throughout the world, but particularly in  Europe, the United States and Canada, have been subjected to a constant bombardment of false doctrine concerning sin and its consequences.  Sadly,  many  Catholics have been lured away from the fullness of truth and have swallowed hook, line and sinker  the  philosophical  system  foisted on them under the guise of "a more compassionate view of human nature."  The basic tenant  of  the  New Church morality consists of the idea that  as  long  as you "don't hurt  any one"  then  you  are not committing a sin.  This  extends even further.  Even if  you  do  hurt someone you are probably not really culpable for your actions because the circumstances in your  past or present  mitigated your responsibility. All  sinners  in this philosophical world view are victims. Thus ,  the murderer can be  excused  of  his  crime  of murder  because  his mother drank when he was a fetus, or he was beaten as  a  child  by an over- bearing father, or he was a drug addict at the time of the murders and really didin't know what he was doing. In other words, there is always  an excuse and therefore very few people can be held responsible for their "mistakes" or "failings".


 An illustration of the Modernist concept  of sin can be seen  from  an  incident that took place in my own life.  In my quest  for the priesthood,  I  ended up in the diocese of Santa Rosa, California and was  accepted  as  an "intern".  I  had  completed   all  my  theological  studies,   in Rome and was  ready  to  be ordained.  They  placed me  as  a religion  teacher  for  sophmore  and junior high school  students  at   a  small  parish  school  in  Petaluma, California.  What  a wonderful experience.  I dedicated myself  to  teaching  these  students  their Catholic faith with great zeal.  I  knew  that  once these kids were exposed to the richness of the Catholic Faith they would fall in love with it.  And so they did.  Most of these students had  been  in  Catholic schools  all their lives  and when I tested them on the  first  day  of  class, to see how much they knew,  it  was  frightening  to  see  their lack of understanding.  Out  of  the 85 students that I tested on that day only about  4  answered the majority of questions  correctly and these were very basic questions.  Their  exposure  to the  Catholic  Faith  was  minimal  if  not  totally nonexistent  because  of  the  modernist  education they had received.  As  I began to teach them the  Faith they became more and more on fire with love for it.  Later, I  was  informed  by  others   that many of the students had actually inspired their  parents  to  return  to full participation in the Church and as a family  they would  all  go  to Confession and to holy Mass.  The truth is an exciting thing when one is finally exposed to it.


Now, why  did  I  bring  this  incident  up in an article about sin and guilt?  Let me explain. Because I  was  able to teach these young men and women solid Roman Catholic teaching in a way that  they not only understood also about which they became enthusiastic,  I  became  a  grave  threat  to the Modernist agenda in the Santa Rosa Diocese.  Consequently, when  the first semester had  come  to  an end,  and time came for my  first  review, Sister Maureen,  the feminist principal of the high school, called  me  into  her office to report   that  she  had given me a "terrible" review because of my "backward, Pre-Vatican II theology" and wanted to  know what  I  thought  I  was  doing teaching "all this stuff" to these impressionable kids.  You must realize that  I  had never  been  confrontational  about the Faith with anyone there. In fact, I had gone out of my way  to be as non-confrontational  as  possible (if you can believe that).  I  asked  many  times  how  I  was doing during the semester and the reviews  were  always  very positive. Because  the students were so  ill  informed  about  Catholic teaching  I  had to  incorporate the basics of the Catholic Faith  into the main subject matter required by the curriculum.   For  example,  I taught  the juniors, in  their  class  on  the  sacraments,   the Ten Commandments  as  the foundation to  understanding  the  Sacrament  of  Confession.  So you  can  imagine  my  amazement  when Sister  asked me "What do the 10 Commandments have to do with the Sacraments  anyway?"  I  very  gently  explained to her,  as I would to a little child, that in order to be able to confess one's sins one needed to know what sin was and the best way to know how one offends God and neighbor  is to  learn God's  Commandments.  She then  launched  into   a tirade   about  my "emphasis" on  mortal  sin.  Actually  my  emphasis  was  on love contrasted to mortal sin, its opposite. And here's the point: she proclaimed  indignantly that,   "These kids are incapable of committing a mortal sin." My response to this incredible  statement  was, "I don't know about you, Sister, but  at  that age I was more than capable of committing  mortal  sin  and did  it  quite often, as I recall."  This seemed to end that part of the conversation.  I'm sorry it took me so long to get to my point. But I was forced to set the scene.  Nevertheless, the bottom line is that these Modernists do not believe people are capable of sinning and will  give  any  excuse  they can to  deny  sin  altogether.  They even deny the fact that we are born with original sin by so redefining this dogma that  it no longer  has any resemblance to  the Roman Catholic dogma. The  Catholic  Church  has always taught that the only human person ever conceived without original sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary.  The phony Modernist  "theologians"  today  imply,  if  not explicitly proclaim, that we are  all  immaculately  conceived. This , of  course, is  false and twisted  doctrine  but  it  has  permeated  our Catholic schools and institutions of higher learning for more than 30 years.


The RomanCatholic

Doctrine on Sin


The Real Roman Catholic doctrine on  sin and its consequences is both reasonable and balanced.  It  proclaims the essential dignity  and  intrinsic  freedom  of  man  and  the  fact  that each rational individual alone is  personally responsible for his or her actions and the consequences thereof.


Before we   look  at  the  actual  teaching of  the Church  on  sin it would be beneficial  to  have  a brief  understanding  of the terms "objective" and "subjective."  Simply speaking, the term objective refers  to  anything that stands on its  own  independent  of any one person's preception of it. In the moral  order an objective moral  precept  applies  universally  to  all  humanity,  in  every  place  and at all times, e.g., the prohibition  against adultery.  Subjective,  on the other hand,  refers to an individual's  response to an objective  influence.  In the moral  order  this  would apply to the individual's response within the context of the moral law, e.g, committing the act of adultery.


SIN: A  deliberate  act   of  a  rational  individual's will, either in thought, word, action or  omission, which is contrary  to the  will of  God. The  guilt  and  consequences  of  sin  are determined by the intent of the individual, the  seriousness  of the offense and the circumstances surrounding  the  offense. However, it must be noted that there are certain actions which, by their very nature, constitute  an objectively grave  offense against God  and  His   laws.  These "intrinsically evil"  acts of the will  violate the  objective law of God in two ways: First,  because they  usurp  God's  authority  over  His  creation and,  secondly,  because  they  bring  disorder  and  disharmony to  the intended natural  order  and harmony  of  God's  creation.


There are two  kinds of sin: mortal  and venial.  The difference between  the two  can be described as the difference between a felony and a misdemeanor. A venial sin transgresses God's law but is not of its nature seriously disordered or as damaging. For  example, saying a cuss word can be considered a venial sin  A mortal sin, however, deals specifically with objectively serious matter. A mortal sin  has  the  effect of a felony in the secular order in the way it  affects  not only the person but society as a whole. The action,  thought ,  word  or  omission  of action that  would  do injury both to God's  justice  and  authority  and  also injure oneself  and/or others, such as,  deliberately missing Holy Mass on Sunday  or  a Holy Day of Obligation is  a good example of  a mortal sin.


Now  a sin is only a sin when the person committing the transgression is  aware that  his  actions  are against  the will  of God and he chooses  to  do them anyway.  This knowledge does not  have to be explicit  nor expressed.  One knows things simply by the natural dictates of the Natural  Law and does not necessarilty have to be "informed" by  an  authority.  We  all   a have a natural  sense of what is right and wrong particularly in regards to those things which are dictated by the Natural Law God has woven within  the  very fiber of our being. In these  things  we  also   have  a  certain perception of  the  gravity  of  a particular  action


The greatest problem lies in the fact that human beings have an incredible ability to rationalize and give excuses for  any  action  we do  that  we "know" is not right.  We will do anything to justify  ourselves because we don't want to accept the limitation of our humanity and the failure to do what it right.  Therefore we will bend over backward to convince ourselves and those around us that what we want to do, even  if  it's  wrong, it  is right  for  us.


Now that I have provided at least a brief foundation for a correct understanding about sin I would like to give two concrete examples  of  how  a  particular  serious transgression against  the eternal law and objective will of God can have different results  and  effects  on  the  subjective level in an individual.  It  is  important  to  note  that  every  action  we  do  has  a consequence; therefore, every individual action must be weighted by the application of the  above-referenced principles to determine whether or not the person who transgressed the law can be held fully responsible and therefore guilty. The Modernist  attempts  to  analysize  sin  from a continuous  attitude. They  call this the "fundamental option" or choice.  The Roman  Catholic,  on the other hand, looks  at  every  action on an individual basis and analysizes  each transgression by the same set of criteria.


Rufus  Freespirit is a college student  at the local Catholic University.  He considers himself  "a faithful Catholic"  and  in fact,  goes to Mass not only on Sundays but  as often as he can during the week.  He has a girlfriend with whom he has had an ongoing relationship for 2 years. Often  after he  goes  to  Mass  in  the evening he will head over to his  girlfriend's to "spend the night".  When  confronted by a friend  that  to  have premarital sex  is  a mortal sin Rufus snaps back, "It's not a sin if we love each other."


Buddy Niceguy is a mechanic who works  at his dad's auto shop.  He was raised in a Protestant family who went to church most every Sunday especially when he was young.  He was taught basic morality by his parents but they were pretty typical in regards to 1990's American culture attitudes.  He also has a girlfriend whom he has known for 2 years. The sexual aspect of their relationship  is  expected  and  implicitly  condoned  by their  parents. After a conversion experience of accepting Jesus as his personal  Lord  and Savior Buddy tells his  girlfriend that he wants to remain pure until they get married.  However, that very night before he was going home they kissed and the old habit of their passion over took them.  He fought it as much as possible but gave in.  Nonetheless, he stopped before he completed the act because he was still fighting his passion. He got up. Got dressed and went home.


Now, who do you think had the greater guilt and culpability of a mortal sin?  It is important to note that this is the process that every good confessor  must  go  through to help the penitents understand  his  culpability  and the mitigating  circumstances that may surround the particular objectively wrong action.