Você está na página 1de 4

THESIS 9 & 11 Group Work Marian Janelle Aliwalas Niko Miguel Falcon Miguel Ignacio Raziele Roma Raeses

Ria Rigoroso THESIS 9

TH 131 D July 22, 2009

9) That which harms or frustrates human growth and well-being is termed evil, both physical and moral (sin). Sin is understood in popular Catholic tradition to refer to three different but related realities: as fact, as an act, and as a state; traditional moral theology has always focused on the morality of sin as an individual act. Sin as fact leads to actual sinan exercise of human freedom, resulting in sin as a state or direction. Individually committed sins are rooted in a more fundamental orientation of sinfulness, occurring on the level of our fundamental option or direction; not only in what we do but also, and more especially in the kind of persons we become. Introduction- Evil Evil is, that which harms or frustrates human growth and well-being is termed evil. If love facilitates spiritual growth of oneself and of others, then it can be said that evil is its opposite of love. Evil harms because it is painful and it hurts our selves and our neighbors and in doing so, we go against Gods will; to love. Three related realities of sin: fact, act and state We are born into original sin therefore sin, as a fact is not something we do but what we are subject to, through experiences, discovery and encounters. Although we are not the doers of original sin we are still accountable for it thus is a curse under which we all stand. Original sin was an act done by Adam and Eve, therefore like them we can also sin making sin something we do. Sin is an act because we knowingly do things that are not out of love. Sin we can decide to sin or not, we can also decide the direction and state of our lives. Relationship of the realities Individually committed sins (fundamental orientation of sinfulness) If sin is a fact today, it is party our fault, too - Since we know about sin (sin as a fact) we end up committing sin thus making it an act. The power to stand on the side of sin, to accept it and embrace it, to let the fact of in define m life and shape it. The culmination of the actions we take in sin (sin as an act) leads to the state of our lives (sin as a state) Conclusion- Fundamental option or direction We are first introduced to sin as a fact of life, which then creates the possibility of actual sin, which finally leads to a sinful life direction. However, what is most important is where we decide to point our lives; pointed either towards sin or towards God which will determine the kinds of

persons we become. THESIS 11 11) Official catholic moral theology distinguishes between objective/material sins (objectively wrong and harmful acts) and subjective/formal sins (objectively wrong acts done with sufficient personal understanding and full consent). Objective/material sins Unintentional sins that harm the self and others, sins that threaten the welfare of self or others, or isolate an individual, or establish in him a disposition toward the formation of unrealistic and immature relationships with people and the world. Also called objective moral wrongs. Examples: excessive alcohol consumption, racial prejudice Excessive alcohol consumption, masturbation, discrimination Subjective/formal sins Actions that are performed intentionally, knowingly and consciously, meaning the person is aware that he/she is sinning. The person has a moral responsibility for committing such actions. Examples: murder, idolatry, slander Thus, one who may have committed an objective/material sin may or may not be subjectively guilty of a formal sin depending on the degree of the persons moral responsibility and involvement full personal knowledge and full consent to the act. If a person is ignorant about the nature of his actions, he is said to be committing an objectively wrong act. He/she is not guilty of a subjective/formal sin due to his lack of understanding/knowledge about the sin. Whether or not one is guilty of committing a subjective/formal sin lies in the level of his personal involvement, his consent and awareness of the action. A subjective/formal sin may either be venial (peripheral sins that can gradually erode our life of grace), grave (serious sins that can threaten, though not completely destroy our life of grace) or mortal (sins involving our fundamental core freedom). Venial Sin Sin that is not grave in nature since the person committing such sin does not have full consent and knowledge. This threatens to break the friendship with God but does not necessarily break it. Example: white lies, gossiping Grave Sin A sin that is a grave matter however such action is done unintentionally. With full consent and knowledge, grave sin can become a mortal sin. Example: indifference, racial discrimination Mortal Sin A grave sin that is committed with full consent and knowledge by the person. Such acts can severe ties with God, and in effect, can be a spiritual death of the soul. Example: Murder, slander, idolatry, abortion, euthanasia

Catholic Revisionist theology Catholic revisionist theology makes a distinction between moral evil (sin), objectively wrong acts and ontic (real) evil. Moral evil is a harmful act done with sufficient knowledge and full consent. Without such knowledge and consent (caused by internal/subjective impediments), the act in question does not constitute sin but remains an objectively wrong act. It is a premoral/ontic evil when the action is performed under external/objective impediments, providing sufficient cause for tolerating the objectively harmful act. Catholic Revisionist theology, on the other hand, distinguishes between moral evil (sin), objectively wrong acts, and ontic (real) evil. In doing so, one must not only consider the nature of the act itself, but also the circumstances, intention, and the personal involvement of the person (freedom, consent, and knowledge of the nature of the act). Objective Wrong o An unintentionally performed action that threatens, hurts, or frustrates the authentic human growth of others and/or of self is what constitutes an objective wrong. These may be actions that threaten the welfare of self or others, or isolate an individual, or establish in him or her a disposition toward the formation of unrealistic and immature relationships with people and the world. In this case the harmful act is performed under the influence of ignorance, insensitivity, impeded freedom on the part of the individual. Ex. Masturbation Moral Evil o However, an objectively wrong act can become something sinful or morally evil when we perform that action willfully even though we know it to be wrong, by freely acting against our well-informed conscience. It is a rejection of our true human calling to be lovers. o The action then must be considered in connection with the knowledge, intention, and freedom of the person performing the act. In other words, the two elements that make an act sinful (morally evil) are the individuals full consent and knowledge of the nature of the act being performed. Example: cheating in a test Ontic Evil o An objective moral wrong may also be considered a premoral, physical, or ontic (real) evil in the presence of definite external or objective hindering circumstances, which are seen as a justification for the performance of the action. Ex. Self defense Premoral evil is not to be seen as morally neutral. An act is to be viewed not in itself, but in context of the situation and the morally relevant circumstances (intentions, motivations, consequences), which lead to the performance of the act


Bibliography: Donovan, Colin B. Mortal Versus Venial Sin EWTN Global Catholic Network, accessed on 22 July 2009; available on http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/mortal_versus_venial.htm; Internet. Genovesi, Vincent J. A Radical Theology of Sin, In Pursuit of Love, 92-99, 106-113. O Connell, Timothy. The Human Person and a Theology of Sin, Marriage and Human Sexuality, 43-67.