few years ago I set in on an RCIA class
I wasn't part of the team or the parish
I just happened to be visiting and
thought it'd be great to meet the
catechumens see how the class was taught
a little differently try to learn
something myself it turned out to be a
bit of an awkward situation for me the
topic of the night was sin and so as an
introduction the catechist did this
exercise where he called out different
actions and asked the catechumens to say
whether or not they thought it was a sin
I wasn't particularly enthused by the
idea but my initial reaction was
ambivalent man probably not the best
exercise but maybe he'll use it to spark
some debate we'll get them thinking
offering an opportunity to teach so
whatever that feeling of ambivalence
faded almost immediately there was no
debate there really wasn't even much
explanation or discussion for about five
minutes he listed off actions and then
just emphatically told them whether or
not it was a sin occasionally someone
would protest and try to give some
reasoning against what the catechist
said but he just shut it down the issue
was black and white either it is or it
isn't a sin and there is no in-between
or debate for things like murder or
theft this might not seem like such a
problem no one's really gonna argue that
these things are good but what about
speeding in the car swearing or drinking
alcohol these things are not as
clear-cut and yet he had an emphatic
answer for each one at one point he
asked the class what they thought about
eating greasy fast food or junk food
probably not something you'd expect to
be considered a sin and so the whole
class said it was fine wrong these
things are not good for your body and so
show you don't love the gift that God
has given you sin in that moment I think
my brain just melted it was like a
calculator saying does not compute I was
so confused and angry at what I was
hearing that I was just speechless which
was probably a good thing as I was a
visitor in this class and probably
shouldn't come in and tell the teacher
he has no idea was talking about but
come on this is not the way that our
moral theology works when we as
Catholics try to evaluate actions
through a moral lens there isn't just a
definitive list consult that is
universally true in every case there is
the act itself yes and there may be some
intrinsic value to that action
but there are other factors that must be
considered as well ones intention is
critically important to evaluate
morality of an action what was the
primary ends that the person was trying
to achieve through this act was it
clearly thought-out and intentional or
was it an accident was it meant to bring
goods or to bring harm to people can
perform the exact same act but because
they have different intentions the moral
weight is different
take for instance killing someone by
running them over with a car is it a sin
well it depends while never a moral good
to take another's life there's a huge
difference between premeditated murder
going out of your way to hit them
accidental manslaughter due to
negligence you ran a stop light and
didn't see them and a complete accent
they didn't look and walked right in
front of your car despite being the
exact same action the morality of the
three are radically different because
the intention is different one sought to
do evil in itself murder one sought to
do a lesser evil running a stop light
and one intended no evil at all
they were just driving what's important
about intention and why this catechist
exercise was ridiculous is that even
good acts with the wrong intentions can
be morally corrupt take for example
giving alms to the poor through a
donation to the church obviously a good
act in itself right and yet there are
many reasons that one might do this for
the well-being of the poor for the
acclaim of society to launder dirty
money as a tax write-off the same act
very different morality but this reason
the church teaches that even good things
can be sins if they are done for evil
reasons when we evaluate morality one's
intention is critically important
another factor that must be considered
is the circumstance in which the action
was committed were there mitigating
factors that influence the action or
impeded one's freedom how thoroughly was
the action carried out social pressures
environmental factors and personal
constraints can all have an effect on a
situation unlike intention they can't
change the morality of an act from good
to bad or bad to good but they can
certainly affect a person's
responsibility as it relates to the act
take are running someone over with a car
situation again let's say that it's
intentionally done but it was done
because a passenger in the car was
holding a gun to the driver's head in
effect forcing them to do it this
presents a very different situation that
the driver acting on their own volition
because it's an evil act done
intentionally for an evil end it is
definitely a sin either way but being
under duress and ferrying ones death
greatly diminishes one's culpability in
the matter and often an overlooked
factor in this regard is culture while
the objective value of an act might be
the same theft is always bad if certain
actions are more prevalent more
accessible or even more ingrained in the
culture milieu this may affect one's
culpability as well take an extreme
example you live in the United States in
1860 and so you own slaves not great
slavery that unfortunately it's legal
and everyone else you know owns them and
so there's no way that you could compete
in business unless you have slaves
yourself so you keep them while the act
of owning slaves is always wrong no
matter the situation owning slaves today
when the United States recognizes how
horrible it is and no one openly owned
slaves anymore would greatly increase
the culpability of the act despite being
the very same act with the very same
intention the situation increases the
severity when we evaluate the morality
of human life it is not enough to look
only at the action in a vacuum in
tension and circumstance play a huge
role simply asking whether or not
something is a sin as this catechist did
shortchanges what we believe about moral
theology of course I know what some of
you are thinking does this mean that all
morality is relative that there's no
objective moral code that we must follow
surely there must be things that our
sins no matter the intention or
circumstance according to the church
there are what are called intrinsic
evils actions that no matter the
intention or circumstance are always
flawed and can never be done while no
comprehensive list has ever been put
forth the Second Vatican Council offered
a number of examples whatever's hostile
to life itself such as any kind of
homicide genocide abortion euthanasia
and voluntary suicide whatever violates
the integrity of the human person such
as mutilation physical and mental
torture and attempts to coerce the
spirit whatever is offensive to human
dignity such as subhuman living
conditions arbitrary imprisonment
deportation slavery process
fusion and trafficking women and
children degrading conditions of work
which treat laborers as mere instruments
of profit and not as free responsible
persons all these and the like are a
disgrace and so long as they infect
human civilization they contaminate
those who inflict them more than those
who suffer injustice and they are a
negation of the honor due to the Creator
there are definitely things that are
morally evil no matter the intention or
circumstance the church clearly says so
here and in the Catechism and had the
catechize chosen from this list
exclusively I probably wouldn't have had
as big of a problem with his black and
white mentality then again I still think
I would have had a bit of a problem with
it you see even when dealing with
actions like these even when it is evil
no matter what intention and
circumstance still matter just because
something is always sinful doesn't mean
that it's actually worse than other
things or that one's culpability is
necessarily high abortion is a horrible
act even when the life of the mother is
at risk nothing can ever justify the
murder of an innocent person and so it's
always a sin not going to mass on the
other hands is not necessarily a sin in
the case of illness burden some travel
or lack of availability one is free from
that obligation but if the reason that
someone doesn't go to Mass is because
they're making a defiant act against God
showing God that they hate him and
reject his love the act of skipping mass
becomes worse given the intention and
circumstance than the faithful man torn
inside with the moral dilemma choosing
to have an abortion to save her own life
just because is always sinful doesn't
mean that it's the most sinful intention
and situation matter and I think we do
our moral theology injustice when we
think too simplistically sure it's easy
to have narrow categories and to put
things in boxes sure it makes us feel
like we're in control and we like that
but the fact of the matter is that human
morality is messy the same actions can
be done for different reasons and have
completely different results morality is
not a one-size-fits-all sort of study it
requires patience and careful
discernment my hope and sharing this
today is not to relativize sin or to
encourage people to find loopholes I'm
not trying to justify anything or say
that sin doesn't matter clearly it does
but like a doctor diagnosing a cancer
patient it is not enough to ask broad
questions and then administer radiation
all over the body if our goal is to turn
away from sin to remove evil from our
world it's important that we know where
the problem truly lies sometimes it's in
the act itself but sometimes it's not
sometimes there are more things to
consider
[Music]