My Spiritual Journey

spirituality - religion

All new web page 6/21/04

NEW INFORMATION 6/21/04

NEW INFORMATION RED SECTION AND A FEW SELECT WHITE PASSAGES AMONG THE RED

"FUNDAMENTALIST"

I want righteous Christians, righteous Muslims to join me in a new fight NO MORE FUNDAMENTALIST - WE NO LONGER WILL ACCEPT THE TERM "FUNDAMENTALIST" WHICH HAS NOW BECOME A PROPAGANDA TOOL OF THE PRESS. THE TERM FUNDAMENTALIST IS LIKE THE UNACCEPTABLE TERM FOR AFRICAN-AMERICANS. JUST AS THE UNACCEPTABLE N WORD ASSUMES UNACCEPTABLE NOTIONS ABOUT AFRICAN-AMERICANS, THE TERM "FUNDAMENTALIST" ASSUMES UNACCEPTABLE

NOTIONS ABOUT RIGHTEOUS MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS. THE TERM I WANT TO REPLACE "FUNDAMENTALIST" WITH IS "PEOPLE TRUE TO THE BIBLE' AND "PEOPLE TRUE TO THE QUR'AN."

JESUS THE ONLY WAY TO SALVATION

I want to say that my giving of information on many religions is not necessarily an endorsement of the modern view that all religions are a legitimate path. I want to say that, as a Christian, I DO support the following Scripture passage that says the only way to salvation is through Jesus Christ.

Acts 4

10: Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole.
11: This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner.
12: Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

However I DO dispute the interpretation that this passage applies only to those professing Christianity. I also DO dispute that a Christian has any business imposing this on people of other faiths. As a man of peace and a man who believes God gave every person a right to choose their own faith and that people of different religions need to learn to live together in peace.

PEACEMAKERS VS HOLY WAR

There are those among us who want to have a "Holy War" a "Crusade". As a Catholic, I have been bashed about the Crusades ever since I became Catholic. I am ashamed enough of the last crusade Catholic did and the legitimate authorities of the Catholic Church feel the same way. Here is a passage from an official Catholic Vatican II document Nostra Aetate

3. The Church regards with esteem also the Moslems. They adore the one God, living and subsisting in Himself; merciful and all-powerful, the Creator of heaven and earth,(5) who has spoken to men; they take pains to submit wholeheartedly to even His inscrutable decrees, just as Abraham, with whom the faith of Islam takes pleasure in linking itself, submitted to God. Though they do not acknowledge Jesus as God, they revere Him as a prophet. They also honor Mary, His virgin Mother; at times they even call on her with devotion. In addition, they await the day of judgment when God will render their deserts to all those who have been raised up from the dead. Finally, they value the moral life and worship God especially through prayer, almsgiving and fasting.

Since in the course of centuries not a few quarrels and hostilities have arisen between Christians and Moslems, this sacred synod urges all to forget the past and to work sincerely for mutual understanding and to preserve as well as to promote together for the benefit of all mankind social justice and moral welfare, as well as peace and freedom.

Let us understand the TRUTH about Islam. Let us talk to LEGITIMATE MUSLIM AUTHORITIES WHO ARE TRUE TO THE QUR'AN ABOUT WHICH BELIEFS ARE TRUE TO THE QUR'AN.

IF WE WANT PEACE, LET US LOOK TO THE MUSLIMS AND STOP SAYING "HELLO", AND START SAYING "PEACE BE WITH YOU" WHICH IS THE MUSLIM GREETING. LET US LISTEN TO ALL THE LEGITIMATE MUSLIM LEADERS WHO DENOUNCED 9/11, DENOUNCED OSAMA BIN LANDEN AND ANNOUNCED THAT OSAMA IS NOT A LEGITIMATE MUSLIM LEADER AND DOES NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE A HOLY WAR. LET US LISTEN TO THE LEGITIMATE MUSLIM LEADERS WHO PROCLAIM THAT SUICIDE AND SUICIDE BOMBING IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE QUR'AN. LET US LISTEN TO LEGITIMATE MUSLIM LEADERS WHO DENOUNCE THE BEHEADINGS AND PASS ALL THIS ON. YES, SOME WANT A "HOLY WAR". LET ALL RELIGIOUS LEADERS MAKE WAR ON THIS HOLY WAR BY SPEAKING OUT THAT THIS HOLY WAR IS CONTRARY TO OUR UNDERSTANDING OF OUR FAITH. THIS NEW "HOLY WAR" BETWEEN MUSLIMS AND CHRISTIANS - LET ALL THE RELIGIONS JOIN IN DENOUNCING THIS NEW HOLY WAR AS UNHOLY AND LET US JOIN AS ST FRANCIS DID, IN SOWING SEEDS OF LOVE IN THE HATE, SOWING SEEDS OF PEACE AMONG THE WAR.

AMERICAN CATHOLICS

AND POLITICS

It is with great sadness that I can no longer support my former hero, Karl Keating and the Catholic Answers as legitimate

apologists for the Catholic Faith. The link to them has now been removed from this page. The reason for this is that Catholic Answers has written a "voter's guide" with 5 "non-negotiable issues." and yes, I agree that these are five "non-negotiable issues", but there are many more "non-negotiable issues", and Catholic Answers has conveniently picked the five "non-negotiable issues" out of many issues like that that just happen to match up with a particular candidate. There are other people in the Catholic faith who are clearly violating the rights of every American to vote their conscience. I know people are being threatened and harassed and there is talk of excommunication - which is denying people to receive the Blessed Sacrament. The final authority in the Catholic faith is the magisterium, which is the bishops IN UNION WITH the Pope. Catholics agree that non-Catholics are not allowed to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Most of us understand that if a Catholic remarries without an annulment, they are welcome in church, but expected not to receive. ALL Catholics pretty well suspect there are large numbers of Catholics in serious sin, but we usually keep our nose out of it and I guess we think that is a matter of their own conscience, God and their confessor. It is true that people in mortal sin are not supposed to receive the Blessed Sacrament. Here the entire section on mortal sin from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which I think most Catholics believe is still a reliable source of Catholic teaching. The white section in the middle of the quotation from the Catholic Encyclopedia is the crucial passage - it lists the 3 conditions of mortal sin. Abortion is indisputably a grave matter in the Catholic Faith. I do not have the authority to make authoritative statements on the Catholic faith, but I would like more clarification from proper Catholic authorities on these matters - Is public endorsement of abortion a grave matter? If so, is it acceptable to excommunicate a person who publicly professes endorsement of abortion without any discussion? What about people who do not make public professions of endorsement of abortion, but endorse abortion privately? What about individuals who endorse such candidates, publicly or privately? What about individuals who ARE pro-life and publicly endorse such a candidate for other reasons? What about individuals who ARE pro-life and vote for such a candidate for others reasons and make no public endorsements? MOST OF ALL, I WANT LEGITIMATE CATHOLIC AUTHORITIES TO MAKE AN OFFICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT ON USING EXCOMMUNICATION AND/OR INTIMIDATION BY CHURCH AUTHORITIES THAT INTERFERES WITH THE VOTING PROCESS IN A DEMOCRACY.

III. MORTAL SIN

Mortal sin is defined by St. Augustine (Contra Faustum, XXII, xxvii) as "Dictum vel factum vel concupitum contra legem æternam", i.e. something said, done or desired contrary to the eternal law, or a thought, word, or deed contrary to the eternal law. This is a definition of sin as it is a voluntary act. As it is a defect or privation it may be defined as an aversion from God, our true last end, by reason of the preference given to some mutable good. The definition of St. Augustine is accepted generally by theologians and is primarily a definition of actual mortal sin. It explains well the material and formal elements of sin. The words "dictum vel factum vel concupitum" denote the material element of sin, a human act: "contra legem æternam", the formal element. The act is bad because it transgresses the Divine law. St. Ambrose (De paradiso, viii) defines sin as a "prevarication of the Divine law". The definition of St. Augustine strictly considered, i.e. as sin averts us from our true ultimate end, does not comprehend venial sin, but in as much as venial sin is in a manner contrary to the Divine law, although not averting us from our last end, it may be said to be included in the definition as it stands. While primarily a definition of sins of commission, sins of omission may be included in the definition because they presuppose some positive act (St. Thomas, I-II:71:5) and negation and affirmation are reduced to the same genus. Sins that violate the human or the natural law are also included, for what is contrary to the human or natural law is also contrary to the Divine law, in as much as every just human law is derived from the Divine law, and is not just unless it is in conformity with the Divine law.

Biblical Description of Sin

In the Old Testament sin is set forth as an act of disobedience (Gen., ii, 16-17; iii, 11; Is., i, 2-4; Jer., ii, 32); as an insult to God (Num., xxvii, 14); as something detested and punished by God (Gen., iii, 14-19; Gen., iv, 9-16); as injurious to the sinner (Tob., xii, 10); to be expiated by penance (Ps. 1, 19). In the New Testament it is clearly taught in St. Paul that sin is a transgression of the law (Rom., ii, 23; v, 12-20); a servitude from which we are liberated by grace (Rom., vi, 16-18); a disobedience (Heb., ii, 2) punished by God (Heb., x, 26-31). St. John describes sin as an offence to God, a disorder of the will (John, xii, 43), an iniquity (I John, iii, 4-10). Christ in many of His utterances teaches the nature and extent of sin. He came to promulgate a new law more perfect than the old, which would extend to the ordering not only of external but also of internal acts to a degree unknown before, and, in His Sermon on the Mount, he condemns as sinful many acts which were judged honest and righteous by the doctors and teachers of the Old Law. He denounces in a special manner hypocrisy and scandal, infidelity and the sin against the Holy Ghost. In particular He teaches that sins come from the heart (Matt., xv, 19-20).

Systems Which Deny Sin or Distort its True Notion

All systems, religious and ethical, which either deny, on the one hand, the existence of a personal creator and lawgiver distinct from and superior to his creation, or, on the other, the existence of free will and responsibility in man, distort or destroy the true biblico-theological notion of sin. In the beginning of the Christian era the Gnostics, although their doctrines varied in details, denied the existence of a personal creator. The idea of sin in the Catholic sense is not contained in their system. There is no sin for them, unless it be the sin of ignorance, no necessity for an atonement; Jesus is not God (see GNOSTICISM). Manichaeism (q.v.) with its two eternal principles, good and evil, at perpetual war with each other, is also destructive of the true notion of sin. All evil, and consequently sin, is from the principle of evil. The Christian concept of God as a lawgiver is destroyed. Sin is not a conscious voluntary act of disobedience to the Divine will. Pantheistic systems which deny the distinction between God and His creation make sin impossible. If man and God are one, man is not responsible to anyone for his acts, morality is destroyed. If he is his own rule of action, he cannot deviate from right as St. Thomas teaches (I:63:1). The identification of God and the world by Pantheism (q.v.) leaves no place for sin.

There must be some law to which man is subject, superior to and distinct from him, which can be obeyed and transgressed, before sin can enter into his acts. This law must be the mandate of a superior, because the notions of superiority and subjection are correlative. This superior can be only God, who alone is the author and lord of man. Materialism, denying as it does the spirituality and the immortality of the soul, the existence of any spirit whatsoever, and consequently of God, does not admit sin. There is no free will, everything is determined by the inflexible laws of motion. "Virtue" and "vice" are meaningless qualifications of action. Positivism places man's last end in some sensible good. His supreme law of action is to seek the maximum of pleasure. Egotism or altruism is the supreme norm and criterion of the Positivistic systems, not the eternal law of God as revealed by Him, and dictated by conscience. For the materialistic evolutionists man is but a highly-developed animal, conscience a product of evolution. Evolution has revolutionized morality, sin is no more.

Kant in his "Critique of Pure Reason" having rejected all the essential notions of true morality, namely, liberty, the soul, God and a future life, attempted in his "Critique of the Practical Reason" to restore them in the measure in which they are necessary for morality. The practical reason, he tells us, imposes on us the idea of law and duty. The fundamental principle of the morality of Kant is "duty for duty's sake", not God and His law. Duty cannot be conceived of alone as an independent thing. It carries with it certain postulates, the first of which is liberty. "I ought, therefore I can", is his doctrine. Man by virtue of his practical reason has a consciousness of moral obligation (categorical imperative). This consciousness supposes three things: free will, the immortality of the soul, the existence of God, otherwise man would not be capable of fulfilling his obligations, there would be no sufficient sanction for the Divine law, no reward or punishment in a future life. Kant's moral system labours in obscurities and contradictions and is destructive of much that pertains to the teaching of Christ. Personal dignity is the supreme rule of man's actions. The notion of sin as opposed to God is suppressed. According to the teaching of materialistic Monism, now so widespread, there is, and can be, no free will. According to this doctrine but one thing exists and this one being produces all phenomena, thought included; we are but puppets in its hands, carried hither an thither as it wills, and finally are cast back into nothingness. There is no place for good and evil, a free observance or a wilful transgression of law, in such a system. Sin in the true sense is impossible. Without law and liberty and a personal God there is no sin.

That God exists and can be known from His visible creation, that He has revealed the decrees of His eternal will to man, and is distinct from His creatures (Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 178 2, 1785, 1701), are matters of Catholic faith and teaching. Man is a created being endowed with free will (ibid., 793), which fact can be proved from Scripture and reason (ibid., 1041-1650). The Council of Trent declares in Sess. VI, c. i (ibid., 793) that man by reason of the prevarication of Adam has lost his primeval innocence, and that while free will remains, its powers are lessened (see ORIGINAL SIN).

Protestant Errors

Luther and Calvin taught as their fundamental error that no free will properly so called remained in man after the fall of our first parents; that the fulfillment of God's precepts is impossible even with the assistance of grace, and that man in all his actions sins. Grace is not an interior gift, but something external. To some sin is not imputed, because they are covered as with a cloak by the merits of Christ. Faith alone saves, there is no necessity for good works. Sin in Luther's doctrine cannot be a deliberate transgression of the Divine law. Jansenius, in his "Augustinus", taught that according to the present powers of man some of God's precepts are impossible of fulfilment, even to the just who strive to fulfil them, and he further taught that grace by means of which the fulfilment becomes possible is wanting even to the just. His fundamental error consists in teaching that the will is not free but is necessarily drawn either by concupiscence or grace. Internal liberty is not required for merit or demerit. Liberty from coercion suffices. Christ did not die for all men. Baius taught a semi-Lutheran doctrine. Liberty is not entirely destroyed, but is so weakened that without grace it can do nothing but sin. True liberty is not required for sin. A bad act committed involuntarily renders man responsible (propositions 50-51 in Denzinger-Bannwart, "Enchiridion", nn. 1050-1). All acts done without charity are mortal sins and merit damnation because they proceed from concupiscence. This doctrine denies that sin is a voluntary transgression of Divine law. If man is not free, a precept is meaningless as far as he is concerned.

Philosophical Sin

Those who would construct a moral system independent of God and His law distinguish between theological and philosophical sin. Philosophical sin is a morally bad act which violates the natural order of reason, not the Divine law. Theological sin is a transgression of the eternal law. Those who are of atheistic tendencies and contend for this distinction, either deny the existence of God or maintain that He exercises no providence in regard to human acts. This position is destructive of sin in the theological sense, as God and His law, reward and punishment, are done away with. Those who admit the existence of God, His law, human liberty and responsibility, and still contend for a distinction between philosophical and theological sin, maintain that in the present order of God's providence there are morally bad acts, which, while violating the order of reason, are not offensive to God, and they base their contention on this that the sinner can be ignorant of the existence of God, or not actually think of Him and His law when he acts. Without the knowledge of God and consideration of Him, it is impossible to offend Him. This doctrine was censured as scandalous, temerarious, and erroneous by Alexander VIII (24 Aug., 1690) in his condemnation of the following proposition: "Philosophical or moral sin is a human act not in agreement with rational nature and right reason, theological and mortal sin is a free transgession of the Divine law. However grievous it may be, philosophical sin in one who is either ignorant of God or does not actually think of God, is indeed a grievous sin, but not an offense to God, nor a mortal sin dissolving friendship with God, nor worthy of eternal punishment" (Denzinger-Bannwart, 1290).

This proposition is condemned because it does not distinguish between vincible and invincible ignorance, and further supposes invincible ignorance of God to be sufficiently common, instead of only metaphysically possible, and because in the present dispensation of God's providence we are clearly taught in Scripture that God will punish all evil coming from the free will of man (Rom., ii, 5-11). There is no morally bad act that does not include a transgression of Divine law. From the fact that an action is conceived of as morally evil it is conceived of as prohibited. A prohibition is unintelligible without the notion of some one prohibiting. The one prohibiting in this case and binding the conscience of man can be only God, Who alone has power over man's free will and actions, so that from the fact that any act is perceived to be morally bad and prohibited by conscience, God and His law are perceived at least confusedly, and a wilful transgression of the dictate of conscience is necessarily also a transgression of God's law. Cardinal de Lugo (De incarnat., disp. 5, lect. 3) admits the possibility of philosophical sin in those who are inculpably ignorant of God, but he holds that it does not actually occur, because in the present order of God's providence there cannot be invincible ignorance of God and His law. This teaching does not necessarily fall under the condemnation of Alexander VIII, but it is commonly rejected by theologians for the reason that a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.

Conditions of Mortal Sin: Knowledge, Free Will, Grave Matter

Contrary to the teaching of Baius (prop. 46, Denzinger-Bannwart, 1046) and the Reformers, a sin must be a voluntary act. Those actions alone are properly called human or moral actions which proceed from the human will deliberately acting with knowledge of the end for which it acts. Man differs from all irrational creatures in this precisely that he is master of his actions by virtue of his reason and free will (I-II:1:1). Since sin is a human act wanting in due rectitude, it must have, in so far as it is a human act, the essential constituents of a human act. The intellect must perceive and judge of the morality of the act, and the will must freely elect. For a deliberate mortal sin there must be full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will in a grave matter. An involuntary transgression of the law even in a grave matter is not a formal but a material sin. The gravity of the matter is judged from the teaching of Scripture, the definitions of councils and popes, and also from reason. Those sins are judged to be mortal which contain in themselves some grave disorder in regard to God, our neighbour, ourselves, or society. Some sins admit of no lightness of matter, as for example, blasphemy, hatred of God; they are always mortal (ex toto genere suo), unless rendered venial by want of full advertence on the part of the intellect or full consent on the part of the will. Other sins admit lightness of matter: they are grave sins (ex genere suo) in as much as their matter in itself is sufficient to constitute a grave sin without the addition of any other matter, but is of such a nature that in a given case, owing to its smallness, the sin may be venial, e.g. theft.

Imputability

That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:

first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the distrubance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

Malice

The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to God, and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in God, who is immutable by nature, but that the sinner by his act deprives God of the reverence and honor due Him: it is not any lack of malice on the sinner's part, but God's immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to God mortal sin is in a way infinite in its malice, since it is directed against an infinite being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended (St. Thomas, III:1:2, ad 2um). As an act sin is finite, the will of man not being capable of infinite malice. Sin is an offence against Christ Who has redeemed man (Phil., iii, 18); against the Holy Ghost Who sanctifies us (Heb., x, 29), an injury to man himself, causing the spiritual death of the soul, and making man the servant of the devil. The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the act are also determining factors of its morality. An act which, objectively considered, is morally indifferent, may be rendered good or evil by circumstances, or by the intention of the sinner. An act that is good objectively may be rendered bad, or a new species of good or evil may be added, or a new degree. Circumstances can change the character of a sin to such a degree that it becomes specifically different from what it is objectively considered; or they may merely aggravate the sin while not changing its specific character; or they may lessen its gravity. That they may exercise this determining influence two things are necessary: they must contain in themselves some good or evil, and must be apprehended, at least confusedly, in their moral aspect. The external act, in so far as it is a mere execution of a voluntary efficacious internal act, does not, according to the common Thomistic opinion, add any essential goodness or malice to the internal sin.

Gravity

While every mortal sin averts us from our true last end, all mortal sins are not equally grave, as is clear from Scripture (John, xix, 11; Matt., xi, 22; Luke, vi), and also from reason. Sins are specifically distinguished by their objects, which do not all equally avert man from his last end. Then again, since sin is not a pure privation, but a mixed one, all sins do not equally destroy the order of reason. Spiritual sins, other things being equal, are graver than carnal sins. (St. Thomas, "De malo", Q. ii, a. 9; I-II, Q. lxxiii, a. 5).

Specific and numeric distinction of Sin

Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct. Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole. When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many sins as there are morally interrupted acts.

Subject causes of Sin

Since sin is a voluntary act lacking in due rectitude, sin is found, as in a subject, principally in the will. But, since not only acts elicited by the will are voluntary, but also those that are elicited by other faculties at the command of the will, sin may be found in these faculties in so far as they are subject in their actions to the command of the will, and are instruments of the will, and move under its guidance (I-II:74).

The external members of the body cannot be effective principles of sin (I-II:74:2, ad 3um). They are mere organs which are set in activity by the soul; they do not initiate action. The appetitive powers on the contrary can be effective principles of sin, for they possess, through their immediate conjunction with the will and their subordination to it, a certain though imperfect liberty (I-II:56:4, ad 3um). The sensual appetites have their own proper sensible objects to which they naturally incline, and since original sin has broken the bond which held them in complete subjection to the will, they may antecede the will in their actions and tend to their own proper objects inordinately. Hence they may be proximate principles of sin when they move inordinately contrary to the dictates of right reason.

It is the right of reason to rule the lower faculties, and when the disturbance arises in the sensual part the reason may do one of two things: it may either consent to the sensible delectation or it may repress and reject it. If it consents, the sin is no longer one of the sensual part of man, but of the intellect and will, and consequently, if the matter is grave, mortal. If rejected, no sin can be imputed. There can be no sin in the sensual part of man independently of the will. The inordinate motions of the sensual appetite which precede the advertence of reason, or which are suffered unwillingly, are not even venial sins. The temptations of the flesh not consented to are not sins. Concupiscence, which remains after the guilt of original sin is remitted in baptism, is not sinful so long as consent is not given to it (Coun. of Trent, sess. V, can. v). The sensual appetite of itself cannot be the subject of mortal sin, for the reason that it can neither grasp the notion of God as an ultimate end, nor avert us from Him, without which aversion there cannot be mortal sin. The superior reason, whose office it is to occupy itself with Divine things, may be the proximate principle of sin both in regard to its own proper act, to know truth, and as it is directive of the inferior faculties: in regard to its own proper act, in so far as it voluntarily neglects to know what it can and ought to know; in regard to the act by which it directs the inferior faculties, to the extent that it commands inordinate acts or fails to repress them (I-II:74:7, ad 2um).

The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could and should do so. The superior reason is the ultimate judge of human acts and has an obligation of deliberating and deciding whether the act to be performed is according to the law of God. Venial sin may also be found in the superior reason when it deliberately consents to sins that are venial in their nature, or when there is not a full consent in the case of a sin that is mortal considered objectively.

Causes of Sin

Under this head, it is needful to distinguish between the efficient cause, i.e. the agent performing the sinful action, and those other agencies, influences or circumstances, which incite to sin and consequently involve a danger, more or less grave, for one who is exposed to them. These inciting causes are explained in special articles on OCCASIONS OF SIN and TEMPTATION. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Ignorance on the part of the reason, infirmity and passion on the part of the sensitive appetite, and malice on the part of the will. A sin is from certain malice when the will sins of its own accord and not under the influence of ignorance or passion.

The exterior causes of sin are the devil and man, who move to sin by means of suggestion, persuasion, temptation and bad example. God is not the cause of sin (Counc. of Trent, sess. VI, can. vi, in Denz.-Bann., 816). He directs all things to Himself and is the end of all His actions, and could not be the cause of evil without self-contradiction. Of whatever entity there is in sin as an action, He is the cause. The evil will is the cause of the disorder (I-II:79:2). One sin may be the cause of another inasmuch as one sin may be ordained to another as an end. The seven capital sins, so called, may be considered as the source from which other sins proceed. They are sinful propensities which reveal themselves in particular sinful acts. Original sin by reason of its dire effects is the cause and source of sin in so far as by reason of it our natures are left wounded and inclined to evil. Ignorance, infirmity, malice, and concupiscence are the consequences of original sin.

Effects of Sin

The first effect of mortal sin in man is to avert him from his true last end, and deprive his soul of sanctifying grace. The sinful act passes, and the sinner is left in a state of habitual aversion from God. The sinful state is voluntary and imputable to the sinner, because it necessarily follows from the act of sin he freely placed, and it remains until satisfaction is made (see PENANCE). This state of sin is called by theologians habitual sin, not in the sense that habitual sin implies a vicious habit, but in the sense that it signifies a state of aversion from God depending on the preceding actual sin, consequently voluntary and imputable. This state of aversion carries with it necessarily in the present order of God's providence the privation of grace and charity by means of which man is ordered to his supernatural end. The privation of grace is the "macula peccati" (St. Thomas, I-II, Q. lxxxvi), the stain of sin spoken of in Scripture (Jos., xxii, 17; Isaias, iv, 4; 1 Cor., vi, 11). It is not anything positive, a quality or disposition, an obligation to suffer, an extrinsic denomination coming from sin, but is solely the privation of sanctifying grace. There is not a real but only a conceptual distinction between habitual sin (reatus culpæ) and the stain of sin (macula peccati). One and the same privation considered as destroying the due order of man to God is habitual sin, considered as depriving the soul of the beauty of grace is the stain or "macula" of sin.

The second effect of sin is to entail the penalty of undergoing suffering (reatus pænæ). Sin (reatus culpæ) is the cause of this obligation (reatus pænæ ). The suffering may be inflicted in this life through the medium of medicinal punishments, calamities, sickness, temporal evils, which tend to withdraw from sin; or it may be inflicted in the life to come by the justice of God as vindictive punishment. The punishments of the future life are proportioned to the sin committed, and it is the obligation of undergoing this punishment for unrepented sin that is signified by the "reatus poenæ" of the theologians. The penalty to be undergone in the future life is divided into the pain of loss (pæna damni) and the pain of sense (pæna sensus). The pain of loss is the privation of the beatific vision of God in punishment of turning away from Him. The pain of sense is suffering in punishment of the conversion to some created thing in place of God. This two-fold pain in punishment of mortal sin is eternal (I Cor., vi, 9; Matt., xxv, 41; Mark, ix, 45). One mortal sin suffices to incur punishment. (See HELL.) Other effects of sins are: remorse of conscience (Wisdom, v, 2-13); an inclination towards evil, as habits are formed by a repetition of similar acts; a darkening of the intelligence, a hardening of the will (Matt., xiii, 14-15; Rom., xi, 8); a general vitiating of nature, which does not however totally destroy the substance and faculties of the soul but merely weakens the right exercise of its faculties.

Some pointers for a good spiritual journey

I do not pretend to be any kind of authority or saint or holy man, but only a man who has a spiritual quest and who wishes to share what he has learned in his quest with others.

As I began my spiritual journey, I asked what constituted an authority in the spiritual. There are the scripture scholars. I would expect a scripture scholar to be knowledgeable of the original languages of the scripture, as well as the historical context in which scripture took place. Then there are the holy men and women. I expect their lives to be examples of what the scripture taught. I looked around and saw that most people fit neither of these categories.

As I searched for holiness, I was struck by examples of holy people not of my faith. There was a Jewish Hassidim who asked me if I sought the higher form of love, giving and asking nothing in return. When I said, "Yes.", he embraced me. I will never forget that. There was a Protestant man who knew nothing of my Catholic faith. He knew only the Bible and was a remarkable example of holiness. There were the monastic examples of people who wanted to be nothing, yet had an incredible peace that melted all my anxieties. I studied Islam, and, although I still believe in the Trinity, found that Muslims had preserved the intellectual spirituality that has been corrupted by psychiatry, psychology and modern philosophy in the West.

I understand that there is no pure Jewish faith, there is no pure Catholic faith, there is no pure Christian faith. ALL have been influenced by other faiths. Yet I am not a holy man who can invent a religion. Ramakrishna, a Hindu holy man tells a parable. A man was digging a well. Just as he started digging, another man came up and told him that there was no water there, and he should dig in this other place. He had not been digging long, when still another man told him still another place to dig. This went on until the man had a number of shallow digs. A holy man came up and said, "Fool. If you had just stuck to one place and dug, you would have struck water." I take this parable to mean that we cannot manufacture a religion out of spare parts of other religions and that we must find a good faith and stick to it. I have stuck to my Catholic faith, but I have studied other faiths to be reminded of what Catholics are supposed to believe and practice. I have ignored the teachings of other faiths contrary to my faith.

My advice to you is to first choose a good faith and stick to it. There are several considerations in choosing a good faith. Is there a community of good followers near you? What kind of literature is available that you can read? Is this a faith that can be practiced where you live? Are deceit and coercion used in getting followers? Is this a faith that excessively exploits its followers in terms of money and time and gives little spiritual return? Even dull and ignorant people should be encouraged to use their minds to grow spiritually. A good faith should be more interested in spiritual growth than fund-raising. Do people there seem to try to impress you more with their own holiness than God's holiness? Do they discourage learning and education?

The Pope, the Dali Lama, Islam, and Hinduism, all teach that there is to be freedom of belief and religion. Yet I think there must be something wrong with a faith that charges excessive money for "courses" in its beliefs. I think there is something wrong with a faith that requires that you leave the world, your family, etc. before you even know what the faith is about. I think there is something wrong with a faith where all of its teachings are "secret" teachings that you must be "ready" for. Truth speaks for itself, and there is no need to use deceit, coercion, or persuasion in teaching truth. Christians who teach not to use the mind break the most important commandment Christ gives when He says to love God with all our heart, soul, and MIND. Religious leaders who try to impress people with their own love, holiness, or knowledge could not possibly have spent much time in the presence of a perfectly loving, perfectly holy, omniscient God.

There are also good faiths that are somewhat impractical to follow where one lives. Many faiths, such as native African, native American, Hinduism, were not really meant to be practiced in other countries. They are very much a part of the land and culture where they originated. They can be studied, but probably never fully practiced without joining the people and the cultures the faiths were intended for.

Most religions teach that there are good and bad spiritual powers. Coping with evil spiritual powers is a part of daily life, but one is to try to avoid the evil powers and not try to control or manipulate them unless one is very spiritually advanced.

Now in my spiritual journey, I read holy books, I study the writings of the scholars of the holy books, I read about holy men, I talk everything over with God, and I seek the company of holy men and scholars. I try to use this knowledge in every aspect of my life - in my marriage, in my friendships, in my work, in my business deals, in my pleasure, and in my play.

It has greatly helped me in my spiritual journey to seek the best spiritual teachers and to acknowledge my ignorance.

A Jewish friend tells me a story about God. A Rabbi said to a bright, young man, "I will give you a sheckle if you will tell me where God is." The bright, young man answered, "I will give you two schekles if you will tell me where God is not."

I have found that the best religious views come from dialogue with other religions. I am recommending that people try to learn from other religions. As for those who think they have nothing to learn from other religions, may God have mercy on their soul.

May the peace of God, which passeth all understanding, be with you.

I have a dream - where every man and woman on earth looks deep into their heart and listens for the still, small voice of God and listens to all holy men and women of all faiths and all holy books for the voice of God. I have a dream - where every man and woman understands that the most important thing they can do is obey God as best they can understand Him. I have a dream - where everyone is more concerned with obeying God as they understand Him than with arguing about His hallowed Name, which should not even be spoken. I have a dream - where people understand that the greater power and security is in obeying God - the greatest power in the universe - than in acquiring money or title. I have a dream - of a heaven on earth where every man and woman try to love and understand as God loves and understands, and His Will is done on earth as it is in heaven. I have a dream - of an age of harmony and understanding. I have a dream - that His kingdom will come and all people will understand that the kingdom, the power, and the glory are God’s.

If people so choose, they make many different substitutions for "God" and "He", such as "the Dau" "It" "The Force' "Brahma" "the goddess" Sanskrit for God - "dyaus" Greek for God - "Zeus" Latin for God - Deus" Arabic for God - "Allah" "the Atman" "the self" "the true self" "The Way" "The Path" "The logos" even "Hey you up there, whatever you are" or "I AM"

Be prepared, my friends, to see that there is freedom of religion in America as long as you don't take religion too seriously. When you try to excel in any religion, expect to be attacked. Sometimes I wonder if people are allowed to practice ANY religion in America. Here is an article I submitted to the New York Times which was not published.

Calling terrorists "Muslim fundamentalists" is propaganda of the American press to slanderously insinuate that taking religion too seriously turns one into a mass murderer. Who are examples of people who took religion seriously? Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr. St Francis. Were they mass murders? Who were the greatest mass murderers in history? Hitler, Stalin. Mao. What religion did they take seriously? For an objective view, compare the total number of people murdered by these three atheists with the total number of all the people murdered in all the religious wars.

my email socrates8972@aol.com

Please put "Mike" in the subject line so that

you will not be deleted as junk mail

I suggest you do some reading before you choose a religion and/or a teacher. Here are some good web sites of some of the better religious information.

New - Get rid of negative energy and confusion - meditate on a black hole http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/95/47.html

New - Traditional African http://www.malidoma.com/Malidoma/index.html

New - Assyro-Babylonian Mythology http://pubpages.unh.edu/~cbsiren/assyrbabyl-faq.html

Ancient Greek

Ancient Nordic mythology

Atheism http://www.infidels.org/

Atheism - Bertrand Russell http://infidels.org/library/historical/bertrand_russell/

Highly recommended - Catholic Encyclopedia http://www.newadvent.org/

Vatican http://www.vatican.va/