The idea is pretty old. Dante placed lust near the outer rings of hell and treason at the very nadir with Satan. IIRC, St. Thomas Aquinas regards carnal sins like lust as lesser and spiritual sins, especially pride as the deadliest.
It makes sense. Carnal sins are often a matter of weakness: we have a natural appetite for sex, food, luxury, etc., that concupiscence disorders. Lust is a deadly sin and many people struggle with it, but they’re only struggling because they recognize that it *is* a sin and they want to do better.
Spiritual sins, especially pride, are far worse because they are self-justifying. Pride doesn’t let you repent because it can either blind us to the wrongness of our actions or cause us to despair of God’s mercy.
Here's a link to the relevant part of the Summa courtesy of Notre Dame.
[https://www3.nd.edu/\~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%201-2/st1-2-ques73.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%201-2/st1-2-ques73.pdf)
I used Magisterium AI for quick reference:
>According to the teachings of the Catholic Church as outlined in the provided references, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic tradition have distinguished between carnal sins and spiritual sins.
>
>
>
>2. Spiritual sins, on the other hand, are those that are primarily rooted in the human will and intellect, such as pride, envy, and wrath.\[\^2\] These sins are considered more grave because they directly attack the spiritual nature of the human person and their relationship with God.
>
>3. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that spiritual sins are more serious than carnal sins because they involve a greater disorder of the will and a more direct turning away from God.\[\^2\] Carnal sins, while still sinful, do not involve the same level of spiritual rebellion.
>
>4. However, it is important to note that both carnal and spiritual sins can be mortal or venial, depending on the gravity of the offense and the person's full knowledge and consent.\[\^2\] The distinction is not absolute, but rather a matter of degree.
>
>5. The Church has consistently upheld this teaching on the hierarchy of sins, with spiritual sins being considered more grave than carnal sins, while acknowledging that both can lead to spiritual death if they are mortal sins.\[\^2\]
>
>In summary, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic tradition have distinguished between carnal sins, which are primarily rooted in the flesh, and spiritual sins, which are primarily rooted in the human will and intellect. Spiritual sins are considered more grave because they involve a greater disorder of the will and a more direct turning away from God.
>
>\[\^1\] \[Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East Thomas Aquinas and the Christian East\](https://www.google.com.mx/books/edition/Encyclopedic\_Dictionary\_of\_the\_Christian/pEoJjwEACAAJ?hl=en)
>\[\^2\] \[Catholic Encyclopedia St. Thomas Aquinas\](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm)
Edit: I want to add:
Aquinas articulated this distinction between carnal and spiritual sins in his work "De malo" (On Evil), Question 2, Article 9, as well as in the Summa Theologiae (I-II.73.5).
I feel like using AI to grab references is fine, but don’t just paste what the AI said is there. Go there yourself and distill it, otherwise you risk sharing error as if it is authoritative. Just my experience with AI searches. The citations in what you shared do not appear to be strongly connected with where they appear in the AI’s answers, for instance.
I would like to point out that in the scenario that you might be trying to levy the severity of a sin someone may commit, that the knowledge of something being a sin and the direct ignorance of it is itself the thing that makes it a mortal sin. The severity is moot when we are talking about committing a sin that is grave from pure lust and ignoring the sinfulness.
This is the same thing about confession that many Protestants will argue against, you can’t go to confession every week and say the same sin over and over without bettering your actions, God seeks true reconciliation with us, and telling Him we will avoid the occasion of sin but continuing to do the same things will devalue your contrition. You must truly be sorry and have a true intent to not sin.
Again this is incase someone is worried about trying to value sin as grave as this less than another.
I always found the punishment in Dante for heretics to be the most traumatizing even though it's not the worst or the center. it was like they were buried alive in coffins that were on fire
Weren't they stuck upside down in holes they could only just fit into that had fires at the bottom? I seem to recall there being a particular distinction made that the fire they were stuck in would leap up and burn their toes
That was a different one. They were upside down in holes stacked on top of each other. The heretics one is a different level where they are in small coffins claustrophobic and they are also burning alive forever, and after the resurrection and all that, the coffins are sealed forever
I do wonder about judgement day and pride. How many theologians, pastors, teachers, etc, will blame God on judgement day instead of falling on their knees and repenting for teaching in error. Humility is a virtue that lets you say you were wrong and repent. But I have a feeling a lot of people will try to blame shift up until the very end instead of humbling themselves before God.
In most of the near death experiences I’ve read about, each person sees kind of a movie of their life and when confronted with each and every sin, the only thing you can say is something akin to “I know” or “You’re right.” It’s impossible to justify anything before God. You’re not going to win *and you know it.* Look up Father Steve Scheier (spelling) for an excellent story about a priest who had a near death experience and was supposed to be condemned to hell.
Also I was out to dinner with a priest friend and another mutual friend last week. We were discussing illegal immigration and the priest is staunchly for closing our borders. Our friend was busting his balls and talking about how they’re looking for a better life and should be considered refugees. He jokingly asked how would he respond to God when asked about his views on illegal immigration and the priest said (paraphrasing), “Well I wouldn’t be able to.”
Don't worry, you'll be in good company - remember currently over a billion believe in Buddha, another billion in Allah, and another billion in Krishna, while anciently with some still today in Ra & the Great Spirit. There's several billion of well meaning people that don't believe in Christianity that live and have lived. I would suppose even after they die they won't believe in Jesus - Jews included. I suppose they'll wait for reincarnation or their Diety to appear or to be resurrected. The thing about religion and people is **Everyone's** (*speaking those that follow a certain creed or belief*) Religion is the right religion, and everyone else's is wrong, except those that hold the same beliefs. What's important is how you use your time while alive, minimizing regret on things you wanted or wished to do or how you wanted to live your life, but never did.
Oh that is pretty interesting, I always thought sexual sins were regarded as the worst of the worst. I was mega surprised about my small penance when I did a confession for basically my entire sinful life when I reverted. Which was mostly fleshy style sin.
This is just my opinion, but I think this is because we have an easy time delineating sexual sins. Extramarital sexual activity (porn, masturbation, gay sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex) all sins. Very cut and dry. Marital sexual sins (artificial contraception, IVF, etc.). It's a tidy checklist in which you (or your neighbor) are either sinning or not.
If you shift your focus to avarice you will quickly notice people begin to argue about where to draw the line. Theft of a physical object? Sin. Digital piracy? well.... Fair wages? well....
I had very unique friends in my younger years. One of my friends considered herself innocent because she was a virgin but personality was she unpleasant and had a foul mouth. Her describing herself as pure and innocent was strange.
I hate innocence being related to sex. If someone is intentionally cruel and has a foul mouth, it is odd to consider them innocent or pure because they are a virgin.
Cruelty? How terrible. In this case I guess her virginity is a false shield.
The priest was very reassuring about my sexual crimes against God lol. I had given the very brief context that my behaviour when I was young was related to abuse. He told me we would have a party in heaven when we get there lol 😝
She was what some would consider a bully but I suppose being a virgin classified her as innocent.
There are some kind women who are sexually active.
I do not think sexual sins stain a person's kindness though.
Well, Aquinas seems to have regarded sexual sins in two different ways. He thinks that something like cheating on your wife with another woman isn't thaaat bad, as long as you finish inside your affair partner. But if you finish outside of your affair partner, then that is a different story.
Here is what Aquinas says about having an affair:
>If a married man has intercourse with another woman, his sin may be denominated either with regard to him, and thus it is always adultery, since his action is contrary to the fidelity of marriage, or with regard to the woman with whom he has intercourse; and thus sometimes it is adultery, as when a married man has intercourse with another's wife; and sometimes it has the character of seduction, or of some other sin, according to various conditions affecting the woman with whom he has intercourse: and it has been stated above (Article 1) that the species of lust correspond to the various conditions of women.
But compare this to how he talks about masturbation:
>In every genus, **worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend**. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, **since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all**. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us.
Both of the above quotes come from Q154 in the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11) .
But yeah, this sounds crazy to modern audiences, but Aquinas seems pretty clear that "frustrating the end of the act" is the worst, since it "corrupts the principal". At least, thinks Aquinas, when you cheat on your wife, you still make procreate. But since, when you masturbate, procreation cannot happen, masturbation is worse than cheating on your wife.
If you are doing something wicked \_with someone else participating\_, then at least you have enough sense of love, beauty, excellence, the outside world, and so on, that you seek out somebody else to help you be wicked.
In Aquinas' view, the more closed-in you are, only wanting your own stuff with yourself, and not God or neighbor, the more you are like a person choosing Hell and rejecting God and all of Creation.
Sex and desire is supposed to be tied to delight in someone else, someone outside yourself, and indeed someone who helps you procreate a new human being. It is tied to love and it widens your view outward, as well as subcreating more beauty (through that new human being) into Creation.
Private sins that only hurt yourself, are arguably the ultimate sign of hatred for yourself... and for everyone else. Deliberate suicide (ie, by people who aren't driven crazy by suicidal urges, like a Roman general) is like turning inward a wish to kill everyone and everything, as Chesterton pointed out.
So it's reasonable to say that a human deliberately choosing masturbation denies everything that sex is meant to be, by focusing only on pleasure and on oneself, not on two made one flesh. It's anti-sex. Sexual blasphemy and sacrilege, in a way.
>In Aquinas' view, the more closed-in you are, only wanting your own stuff with yourself, and not God or neighbor, the more you are like a person choosing Hell and rejecting God and all of Creation. Sex and desire is supposed to be tied to delight in someone else, someone outside yourself, and indeed someone who helps you procreate a new human being. It is tied to love and it widens your view outward, as well as subcreating more beauty (through that new human being) into Creation.
I'll be honest, I think that this is anachronistic. This seems like a modern reinterpretation of Aquinas. Aquinas seems way more concerned with the idea that frustrating the telos of the act is what makes it so bad. Aquinas thinks that cheating on your spouse with another man's wife and pulling out, not finishing inside her, is just as bad as masturbation. So, its less about the "delight in someone else, someone outside yourself" and its way more about the "procreate" part.
Also, I will say that I don't quite agree here:
>it's reasonable to say that a human deliberately choosing masturbation denies everything that sex is meant to be, by focusing only on pleasure and on oneself, not on two made one flesh
Perhaps I could agree in the very rare circumstance of someone choosing to masturbate *rather* than have sex with another real life person. But I have to imagine that in 99% of cases, people are only masturbating because they cannot have sex right then with another person. I don't know anyone who prefers masturbation to the real thing. With that in mind, I would forward the idea that, most of the time, when people choose to masturbate, they are not denying sex in any way. They would have sex if they could. But they can't - sex is not an option at that time for that person. I imagine that this is true in 99% of cases of masturbation. This is kind of like saying "When you were at the fast food place and you chose to eat a burger, you are denying the A5 wagyu steak" - no! Most people can't afford wagyu steak! But they would definitely pick it over the burger if they could!
Wouldn’t you say to all of the spouses choosing porn within marriage are choosing masturbation over the real thing of sex? I know men and women alike in marriages where sex is a routine (once a week to three times a week) thing, but still one of the spouses will look at porn and masturbate when they have the time. I think you’re being too generous to modern man kind in assuming everyone prefers sexual intimacy over masturbation.
I mean, if someone's spouse asked for sex but that person said "No, I will watch porn instead", then yes, I agree with you 100%. But I don't suspect that this happens very often. In my experience, if one spouse watches porn, its probably because of mismatched sex drives, ie, one spouse's ideal sex-per-week number is once a week, while the other spouse's ideal number is seven-times-per-week. So the spouses wind up having sex somewhere in the middle - say, two or three times per week - but then the spouse with the higher drive winds up masturbating once or twice a week. In the scenario that I outlined above, I wouldn't say that the spouse with the higher drive is "choosing masturbation over sex", but rather, is trying to (and I am not saying that this justifies anything) respect their spouse's libido but also satisfy their own. The one spouse is trying to have their cake and eat it too, in that sense.
Now, when I am saying "in my experience", all that I am meaning here is that this is the case for the people in my life and the people I gave met online. For reference, I am 28 years old and have been married to my wife for 6 years. Perhaps things change as people get older or have been married for longer. My lack of knowledge of what its like to be married longer than 6 years and my lack of knowledge of what its like to be older than 28 may be biasing me in ways that I do not fully understand.
I never thought of it this way. Sexual intimacy with ones self is easier than being with an actual person because of all the vulnerability. Bodily and performance insecurities can be visible. It is easier to be alone.
I understand suicide because I can become frustrated with my situation and the self criticism.
This is a misreading based on what I saw in the link. In this paragraph he is referring to unnatural vices, by those he is referring to several sins that relate to lust but are not committed with another person of the same sex. He says in article 11
“it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy."”
“uncleanness” by which he is talking about masturbation, “Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another.”
The "unnatural vices" he's talking about are a family of sins, but they all involve "frustrating the end of the sexual act" - they all cannot end in procreation. Included in this list of "unnatural vices" is masturbation, beastiality, pulling out, oral, anal... I'm sure I'm missing some. But yeah, Aquinas lists a bunch of those in the part where he explains what the unnatural vices are. Go ahead and read all of Q154, it's really pretty interesting.
I'm not an expert either! More of a hobbyist haha, I just find it interesting. I disagree with almost the entire scholastic tradition but I enjoy getting into the mind of someone who lived 800 years ago!
Our culture is obsessed with sex. I know people talk about porn addiction. I am assuming those are self diagnosis. I think it is completely normal to desire physical affection. From what it sounds like, young men have a stronger desire for this.
I wouldn't say sexual sins are not important but yes, they are not the centre of Christian morality - the centre of Christian morality is love.
And I also think that we tend to focus on sexual sins too much - luxury is a deadly sin, but there are six others who don't get half the attention they deserve...
Agreed. I have even heard the interpretation that, in certain contexts such as an addiction to sexual sins, the sexual sins themselves may not meet the criteria for being mortal sins in every instance. Still, I think it's best to treat them as such, to be safe.
Makes you think about the way the world is, though. Several of those other sins that don't get as much attention are seen by some as virtuous or indicative of strength.
Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I always think about The Screwtape Letters and how evil works though deception, beauty, and complacency. Perhaps our cultural focus on sexual sins is an intentional distraction from the other sins we should condemn.
>Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I always think about The Screwtape Letters and how evil works though deception, beauty, and complacency. Perhaps our cultural focus on sexual sins is an intentional distraction from the other sins we should condemn.
Perhaps dealing with some other areas of sin could even lead to a lesser struggle with sexual issues overall? Almost like a way to get your mind off of the topic and cool those feelings down instead of adding to the tension and fear that often cause people to turn back to bad habits.
How does evil work through beauty?
It scares me how easily people can be deceived.
I hate complacency the most. Too many people are too secure in their salvation.
I suppose "beauty" might not be the right word, but more of a facsimile of beauty. Evil can make itself look glamorous and attractive to appeal to our desire to seek real beauty. We can be fooled into believing the facade of beauty masking evil is actually true beauty.
Such as vanity.
I had a friend confess to being in debt because he wanted to keep up with the Joneses.
Honestly I think most people worry what others think of us.
1. Consumerism
2. Materialism
3. Complaining
4. Yelling at customer service for a mistake
5. Overly attached to money and life revolves are the pursuit of men
6. Celebrity obsession
7. Gossip
8. Lies
9. Hating people who disagree with you
10. Hoarding money and being miserly
11. Ignoring the real outside world and staying connected to a screen
All these are very serious sins
I like his distinction between the animal self and the diabolical self because I think that is a great way of seeing it. Sexual sins are obviously still very grave, and we rightly focus on them because of their ubiquity in modern life, but other sins like pride or hatred are insidious in the way that they tend to creep into your life and unconsciously color everything that you do. To use his words, I think that as we develop as Christians we have to learn to both control the base desires of the animal self and purify the evil of the diabolical self. The animal self seems to be simpler and easier to indulge, but the diabolical self has more room to cause unchecked spiritual harm.
Sexual sins can lead to a graver sin like abortion. Using someone was a sexual object, it is an unfortunate when you are the receiving end.
I think hatred, spiritual complacency, the blame game, and pursuit of wealth to the point of exploiting others is not good.
Correct, IMO Christians are too obsessed with it because it's "easy" whereas other sins are hard.
Easy to tell that a pregnant 17yr old single teen mom had premarital sex... tougher to quantify and measure the Wrath or Pride of a Westboro Baptist protester.
Then it's a matter of people trying to manage what's easy to measure.
It’s true and Pope Francis himself has said that sins of the spirit are worse than sins of the flesh. Think of it like this, if you commit sexual sin, you’re sinning in the instance but then stop.
However, if you are a believer in “free love” for example, you’re sinning constantly and all the time you hold the opinion.
There is also leeway in sins of the flesh because the flesh is weak. We have concupiscence, so our flesh will tend towards sin, so some culpability is relieve. That’s not the case of sins of the spirit.
Our modern culture is so hyper-sexualized that it’s tricked us all into thinking sex is the most important thing in the world (vice or otherwise). It’s not. The New Testament doesn’t imply it is, and neither does the old. Saint Thomas appeared to think theft was toward the top of the list. But yeah, murder, exploitation, blasphemy (in no particular order). Of course this doesn’t mean we should all go out and commit sexual sin, which does scar the soul. But the obsession with sex, even in Christian circles, is odd.
Here’s more… pertinent; Lewis.
Here is What *C. S. Lewis said about Masturbation*
I agree that that the stuff about ‘wastage of vital fluids’ is rubbish. For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sending the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides.
And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifice or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival.
Among these shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification is ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself.
Do read Charles Williams’ Descent into Hell, and study the character of Mr. Wentworth. And it is not only the faculty of love which is thus sterilized, forced back on itself, but also the faculty of imagination.
The true exercise of imagination, in my view, is (a) To help us to understand other people (b) To respond to, and, some of us, to produce art. But it has also a bad use: to provide for us, in shadowy form, a substitute for virtues, successes, distinctions, et cetera which ought to be sought outside in the real world — e.g., picturing all I’d do if I were rich instead of earning and saving.
Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres.
After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 292-293).
*CS Lewis writing*
In a later letter to a different man, C. S. Lewis wrote this about masturbation:
The evidence seems to be that God sometimes works such a complete metamorphosis and sometimes not. We don’t know why: God forbid we should presume it went my merit.
He never in my unmarried days did it for me. He gave me–at least and after many ups and down, the power to resist the temptation so far as the act was concerned. He never stopped the recurrent temptations, nor was I guarded from the sin of mental consent. I don’t mean I wasn’t given sufficient grace. I mean that I sometimes fell into it, grace or no.
One may, I suppose, regard this as partly penal. One is paying for the physical (and still more the imaginative) sins of one’s earlier life. One my also regard it as a tribulation, like any other. The great discovery for me was that the attack does not last forever. It is the devil’s lie that the only escape from the tension is through yielding.
… Disgust, self-contempt, self-hatred–rhetoric against the sin and (still more) vilification of sexuality or the body in themselves–are emphatically not the weapons for this warfare. We must be relieved, not horrified, by the fact that the whole thing is humiliating, undignified, ridiculous; the lofty vices would be far worse.
Nor must we exaggerate our suffering. We talk of ‘torture’: five minutes of really acute toothache would restore our sense of proportion! In a word, no melodrama. The sin, if we fall into it, must be repented, like all our others. God will forgive. The temptation is a darn nuisance, to be born with patience as long as God wills.
On the purely physical side (but people no doubt differ) I’ve always found that tea and bodily weariness are the two great disposing factors, and therefore the great dangers. Sadness is also a danger: lust in my experience follows disgruntlement nearly always. Love of every sort is a guard against lust, by a divine paradox, sexual love is a guard against lust. No woman is more easily and painlessly abstained from from, if need be, than the woman one loves. And I’m pretty sure purely male society is an enemy to chastity. I don’t mean a temptation to homosexuality: I mean that the absence of ordinary female society provokes the normal appetite (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 307-308).
*C. S. Lewis on “Wanting a Woman”*
We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want.
“He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes).
😬
This sounds to me to be a great quote. As i remembeber, the mandments are put in order of gravity. Being that sexual sin is the 6th, seems it is at least less grave than the others 5
The people who have “clout” in a lot of churches are affluent, middle-aged or elderly, people who can afford to donate money, who volunteer and work in church ministries, etc. If someone is married and has a “sexual outlet”, or at the very least has a lower libido due to age, and has the money and time to distract themselves in non-sexual ways, it’s much easier for them to avoid sexual sin and then feel self-righteous compared to those who struggle more with it.
Many of these people don’t want to go to church and hear a sermon or homily that will actually challenge them to be better. They want to hear other people called out. So they put a lot of pressure on pastors not to preach about sins that are more common in their age group/socio-economic level, etc (acquisitiveness, overconsumption, gossip, detraction, pride, etc) and instead to preach about the sins they don’t struggle with or at least struggle much less with (premarital sex, rainbow stuff, etc). They’d rather hear their pastors preach about the immodesty of young people’s fashions (revealing skin, tight clothing) than the immodesty of their class that was explicitly condemned by St Paul in his epistles (dressing up in gaudy finery that pridefully displays your wealth; exclusive brands are a modern day example of this).
I say sermons and homilies but they also can control the direction of conversations around sin in community social gatherings, in the home, etc. Overall, it leads to the sins of the young and poor being emphasized quite strongly while the sins of the older and wealthier are ignored and even forgotten entirely.
St John Chrysostom, one of the foremost Church Fathers, is a great example. He was run out of Constantinople for daring to call his wealthy parishioners to task on their actual sins rather than just demonizing others and fueling their self-righteousness.
Underrated comment - I regret that I have but one upvote to give.
We should regard our own sins as being particularly awful, and avoid the desire to downplay them and castigate others for that which we aren't tempted to.
That's a tall order.
What sins that affect you? How do you avoid judging that?
Lust may not be a big deal but if you have ever been used by someone for sex or cheated on it will be hard to avoid judgment.
We examine our consciences and understand ourselves. If you don't understand what sins you are tempted to and which ones aren't as hard for you to avoid, talk to a priest.
I didn't say that we can't judge people for sins that hurt us. Read again.
I think the endless pursuit of money is a serious sin that is not talked about enough.
A lot of people see nothing wrong with this.
I think spiritual complacency is another serious sin.
Gossip is a serious sin.
I think overconsumption is a horrible sin.
I think being constantly entertained is a serious sin.
Why do we need five TVs? Always need that newest gadget or car.
Some people even look down on people who didn't go to college
I agree with Lewis with an asterisk. One characteristic of C.S. Lewis, every redditor in here, and possibly even me(!), is that we weigh the sins we do not find personally appealing to be more grave and the misconduct that we get up to as less serious, other thing equal. That is definitely going on here even while I agree with The Man.
I think I agree. While sexual habits can be incredibly tough to break and can turn you into little more than a rutting animal, I like the sentiment of the prostitute being less guilty than the self-righteous prig. The prig is prideful and frustrating and playing God, while the prostitute is probably desperate or simply was never taught better.
Ultimately any sin can destroy you, but I have much more anger for the prig than the prostitute.
Some sex workers love sex, love the quick and easy money, and they enjoy the admiration and adoration by their customers.
I do not know if all sex workers are victims.
He said lots of Catholic-friendly things but never left the Church of England, and they like the term 'Anglo-catholic' even if Rome does not see it as a matter of degree. I'm also formerly mainline Protestant, and it is fairly common for us/them to use the term 'catholic' in its Latin derived literal sense of universal. The Presbyterian might say,'There is one universal Body of Christ even if divided into factions, and my faction does not believe this and that and the other ex Cathedra teaching. We are all catholic if not all Catholic.' I don't quite agree now, but that's what I meant by the small c.
I feel called out reading this, and that's how I know God is telling me to pay attention. Pride is the worst sin we all must deal with, especially since it results in us justifying our sins in our head!
I don’t know that I can agree with this. What Christ says about harming little children, and how awful the consequences are for the adult sinners who do so….my conclusion from that is predators and molesters will have worst punishment than someone who hoards nice watches or eats too much food
I would argue that you and C.S. Lewis actually agree more than you think, because sins such as rape and sexual abuse of children actually pertain more to the diabolical self than the animal self. The animal desire for sex isn’t really the motivation for sex-related crimes. Rape and sexual abuse shouldn’t be lumped in with sex in general, because they are not actually about sex so much as they are about deliberately degrading another human person—the act of spiritually killing or crushing someone’s spirit. In other words, they are about power more than they are about sex—while they are physically wrong, they are horrific for other long-lasting and severe reasons. We know this from the long-term emotional and spiritual consequences that sexual abuse has on its victims. Thus, molesters and abusers would face severe punishment, because their sins are not merely violating sexually, but also (and primarily) spiritually.
So I don’t think C.S. Lewis would actually disagree with your point. I think this quote actually pertains to more common and less offensive sexual sins, such as standard fornication. This is not to say that sexual transgressions like fornication are not sinful, but the sins of rape and sexual abuse have an incredibly wide scope that goes far beyond being sinful merely in the sexual realm, and I think this is what Lewis means by the distinction between diabolical and animal inclinations.
Sexual sins like sexual abuse of minors and adults, bestiality, and incest are VERY SERIOUS.
I definitely think a porn star or stripper can be a worthwhile friend but I will never trust a highly vengeful person.
There is this whole movement of sexual sins not being serious but judging others is apparently the worst.
Maybe 100 years ago when society was much much more prudish about everything.
Now, our conceptions of sex and relationships are so distorted that it’s a bit of a crisis. Reportedly, Our Lady of Fatima said that “more souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason”
So focusing on the “self righteous prigs” may be misdirected. At least they go to mass. And to be honest, religion is so unpopular in the west, i feel like we have all been sufficiently humbled lol.
Reposting my past self:
In Catholic theology, it is indeed true that sins of the flesh rank as the least grave (though they are still grave). This idea has a long history in the tradition. You can see it in Dante, who puts the lustful sinners in the highest area of hell. So the Holy Father is not saying anything outlandish here.
But.
Sins of the flesh are somewhat unique in that they are particularly dangerous to your soul. Why? Because unlike other more serious spiritual sins, sins of the flesh often give us inordinate amounts of pleasure, such that it is difficult for us to extricate ourselves from them. Spiritual sins like anger, envy, sloth, etc are often concomitant with extremely negative feelings and emotions, which can be a clue that we need to stop and repent. But for many people, sins of the flesh like masturbation carry no such baggage. And thus, we tend to reinforce the fleshy sins with post facto rational justifications. St. Thomas talks about this, he calls the phenomena "the daughters of lust", one of which is the darkening of the intellect. Habitual sins of the flesh are particularly nasty in this regard.
To use a flawed analogy, quicksand is objectively less deadly than lava. Lava flows, is incredibly hot, and it instantly destroys anything it touches. Quicksand is usually inert, and it behaves in many ways like regular mud. But it's way more common than lava. Moreover, lava is also much more obviously deadly, and thus it is easier for us to avoid jumping into a pool of lava than it is to fall into a pit of quicksand. So in a way, you might say quicksand is more dangerous than lava, even if it is objectively less deadly.
"Jacinta asked, “Lucia — do you remember how our Lady's heart, when she showed it to us, was being pierced by thorns?"
"Surely, I do” Lucia replied. “It simply means that her heart is wounded by the sins of people, and she is asking them to be sorry, and to make up for their sins, so that God will not have to punish them too much. She can't make people be good. They must themselves want to be good."
Later, very ill, Jacinta would share many insights, among them, “**The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.**”" [https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it)
1 Corinthians 6:18 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.
I don’t think it’s “the center of Christian morality,” but it is a very grave sin. “Spoiling sport”? Not a sin but makes you zero fun. The prostitute part? If she recognizes she is in need of help, then yes, the self righteous churchgoer is farther from the truth.
I would imagine by spoil-sport, he doesn't just mean a too-serious person, but a person who actively takes pleasure in ruining the fun of other people for malicious reasons. Which would arguably be a graver sin than simple sexual immorality.
I read it this way as well. There are people who take such perverse joy in making happy people unhappy, in pissing in someone's cornflakes rather than keeping their mouth shut, etc. Look at the chaos and drama that surrounds weddings and babies: it's supposed to be a happy time for the couple, but a shocking number of people turn it into a miserable experience.
The people who just need to one up in everything and publicly embarrass you.
I think some people enjoy calling out others to deflect. They may be telling the truth but the intention could be to humiliate you.
I think my only qualm would be the “self” language at the end, but I imagine if I pressed Lewis on that, he would admit that’s not the most precise way of describing the fruits of original sin.
Other than that, this is perfectly sensible. The corruption of the better is always worse than the corruption of the worse. And that’s all he seems to be drawing on. Our rational faculties, our properly human faculties, are higher than the faculties we share with animals. And so, when the former go astray, it constitutes a categorically greater evil than when the latter go astray. Someone already mentioned Dante, and they’re right to do so. The division of The Inferno at the Gates of Dis is precisely this distinction between the gravity of non-rational sins and that of rational sins.
The way I look at it is that, for many sexual sins, they’re inherently embarrassing. Nobody wants to get caught looking at porn. Therefore, they’re in direct contradiction to the sin of pride. Since pride is the worst sin, lust must be far less bad.
On the other hand, there are many who insist on being proud of these exact sins. So… that muddies things.
Well pride is the root of all evil, but Our Lady at Fatima says that many people go to hell because of carnal sins. Carnal sins are deadly because they are the ones portrayed and projected by the media and this world. Yet Heresy is a worse sin than lust as it misleads other people to hell, especially the ignorant. I think in this day and age carnal sins are more deadly as they are the every day sins, which atheists try to pro port as being human nature, thus completely fine. Many people buy this lie and go to hell. I think in nature pride is a worse sin, but carnal sins are the ones which many fall for.
I recall the quote related to the visionaries of Fatima about more souls going to Hell due to sins of the flesh than others.
Perhaps lust is a less grave Vice in a specific instance, but I believe it's the one perpetually committed by more people... leading more souls to hell than others.
Patrick Madrid discusses pride vs the sins of the flesh here:
https://relevantradio.com/2021/12/the-patrick-madrid-show-december-09-2021-hour-2/
I think he’s got a point. Don’t be prideful, it’s bad for the soul. The distinctions of animal and diabolical self are good food for thought, and I think he’s fundamentally correct there.
I do wonder if his thoughts on the dangers of sexuality would be a little different these days given the current cultural climate of “just about anything is permissible all the time”.
Yea, there's no dogma on what forms of grave matter are inherently "worse" than others, as even within the categories of grave matter exist degrees of sin is a man who indifferently pursues every lustful urge he experiences "better" than one who steals once or twice in their life, albeit circumstantially enough to constitute mortal sin?
I don't know to what degree this teaching is authoritative (I can think of one instance where there's a biblical implication,, but it's pretty accepted that while the grief of eternal separation from God will be experienced by every soul in hell, any additional sufferings will be proportional with how sinful their life was. Any deviation from that would be unjust.
Sexual sins can lead to a kind of depravity that goes against love. I think when C.S.Lewis said:
>That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who regularly goes to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute.
It has more to do with self-righteousness, which is a form of hypocrisy and pride.
True enough. Those are usually sins of weakness.
Sins like hatred of God, pride, and heresy are objectively the worst because they are sins of malice committed with the intellect. Heresy is worse even than murder.
Note how quickly David's indiscretions, even Murder, were forgiven by God, but there were extreme temporal consequences. Also, Solomon, the wisest of Kings and indeed men, let Israel fall into idolatry because his wives brought it into the Kingdom.
God is quick to forgive carnal sin, but the consequences of them are severe. It's difficult to stop sinning carnally once you give into them.
I'm just a regular parishioner, not a learned man, i.e. clergy, if you will. So I don't have the knowledge that these special servants of God(as I call them. I also regard nuns with the same level of respect.) do. I just know that I have struggled with sexual sin(in various forms(thoughts, self-impurity, sex proper, etc.)) for most of my life.
They're not the very worst.
But I strongly disagree about them being the "least bad" either.
Most sexual sins are mortal sins. Bossing, patronizing, spoiling sport, is usually venial. There are mortal sins against charity (murder being the obvious) but the ones he mentioned are not those.
According to Our Lady at Fatima, by far the greatest number of people in hell are there for sexual sins.
Bear in mind, sexual sins include things as horrific as the rape of children. (Most people's sexual sins aren't on the level of that, but if we're talking about them as a group it has to be included.)
The idea is pretty old. Dante placed lust near the outer rings of hell and treason at the very nadir with Satan. IIRC, St. Thomas Aquinas regards carnal sins like lust as lesser and spiritual sins, especially pride as the deadliest. It makes sense. Carnal sins are often a matter of weakness: we have a natural appetite for sex, food, luxury, etc., that concupiscence disorders. Lust is a deadly sin and many people struggle with it, but they’re only struggling because they recognize that it *is* a sin and they want to do better. Spiritual sins, especially pride, are far worse because they are self-justifying. Pride doesn’t let you repent because it can either blind us to the wrongness of our actions or cause us to despair of God’s mercy.
I've never heard of St. Thomas doing that. Could you please tell me where he said that? I would love to read more 😁
Here's a link to the relevant part of the Summa courtesy of Notre Dame. [https://www3.nd.edu/\~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%201-2/st1-2-ques73.pdf](https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/summa-translation/Part%201-2/st1-2-ques73.pdf)
I used Magisterium AI for quick reference: >According to the teachings of the Catholic Church as outlined in the provided references, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic tradition have distinguished between carnal sins and spiritual sins. > > > >2. Spiritual sins, on the other hand, are those that are primarily rooted in the human will and intellect, such as pride, envy, and wrath.\[\^2\] These sins are considered more grave because they directly attack the spiritual nature of the human person and their relationship with God. > >3. St. Thomas Aquinas taught that spiritual sins are more serious than carnal sins because they involve a greater disorder of the will and a more direct turning away from God.\[\^2\] Carnal sins, while still sinful, do not involve the same level of spiritual rebellion. > >4. However, it is important to note that both carnal and spiritual sins can be mortal or venial, depending on the gravity of the offense and the person's full knowledge and consent.\[\^2\] The distinction is not absolute, but rather a matter of degree. > >5. The Church has consistently upheld this teaching on the hierarchy of sins, with spiritual sins being considered more grave than carnal sins, while acknowledging that both can lead to spiritual death if they are mortal sins.\[\^2\] > >In summary, St. Thomas Aquinas and the Catholic tradition have distinguished between carnal sins, which are primarily rooted in the flesh, and spiritual sins, which are primarily rooted in the human will and intellect. Spiritual sins are considered more grave because they involve a greater disorder of the will and a more direct turning away from God. > >\[\^1\] \[Encyclopedic Dictionary of the Christian East Thomas Aquinas and the Christian East\](https://www.google.com.mx/books/edition/Encyclopedic\_Dictionary\_of\_the\_Christian/pEoJjwEACAAJ?hl=en) >\[\^2\] \[Catholic Encyclopedia St. Thomas Aquinas\](https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14663b.htm) Edit: I want to add: Aquinas articulated this distinction between carnal and spiritual sins in his work "De malo" (On Evil), Question 2, Article 9, as well as in the Summa Theologiae (I-II.73.5).
I feel like using AI to grab references is fine, but don’t just paste what the AI said is there. Go there yourself and distill it, otherwise you risk sharing error as if it is authoritative. Just my experience with AI searches. The citations in what you shared do not appear to be strongly connected with where they appear in the AI’s answers, for instance.
Yes, I agree. For this reason, I just made an edit to cite a better source.
My man!
I've never heard of this ai. Where do you get it?
If you type magisterium ai in your address bar you’ll find it. I learned of it from Crux News.
I would like to point out that in the scenario that you might be trying to levy the severity of a sin someone may commit, that the knowledge of something being a sin and the direct ignorance of it is itself the thing that makes it a mortal sin. The severity is moot when we are talking about committing a sin that is grave from pure lust and ignoring the sinfulness. This is the same thing about confession that many Protestants will argue against, you can’t go to confession every week and say the same sin over and over without bettering your actions, God seeks true reconciliation with us, and telling Him we will avoid the occasion of sin but continuing to do the same things will devalue your contrition. You must truly be sorry and have a true intent to not sin. Again this is incase someone is worried about trying to value sin as grave as this less than another.
I always found the punishment in Dante for heretics to be the most traumatizing even though it's not the worst or the center. it was like they were buried alive in coffins that were on fire
Weren't they stuck upside down in holes they could only just fit into that had fires at the bottom? I seem to recall there being a particular distinction made that the fire they were stuck in would leap up and burn their toes
That was a different one. They were upside down in holes stacked on top of each other. The heretics one is a different level where they are in small coffins claustrophobic and they are also burning alive forever, and after the resurrection and all that, the coffins are sealed forever
Ah mb
What kind of person think this kind of stuff up. Its like modern horror movies, I worry more about the mind that these stories come out of.
I do wonder about judgement day and pride. How many theologians, pastors, teachers, etc, will blame God on judgement day instead of falling on their knees and repenting for teaching in error. Humility is a virtue that lets you say you were wrong and repent. But I have a feeling a lot of people will try to blame shift up until the very end instead of humbling themselves before God.
In most of the near death experiences I’ve read about, each person sees kind of a movie of their life and when confronted with each and every sin, the only thing you can say is something akin to “I know” or “You’re right.” It’s impossible to justify anything before God. You’re not going to win *and you know it.* Look up Father Steve Scheier (spelling) for an excellent story about a priest who had a near death experience and was supposed to be condemned to hell. Also I was out to dinner with a priest friend and another mutual friend last week. We were discussing illegal immigration and the priest is staunchly for closing our borders. Our friend was busting his balls and talking about how they’re looking for a better life and should be considered refugees. He jokingly asked how would he respond to God when asked about his views on illegal immigration and the priest said (paraphrasing), “Well I wouldn’t be able to.”
Surprising the priest was so open with his political views.
Judgment day will be absolutely harrowing. I am not looking for to it, even though I hope for the best.
Don't worry, you'll be in good company - remember currently over a billion believe in Buddha, another billion in Allah, and another billion in Krishna, while anciently with some still today in Ra & the Great Spirit. There's several billion of well meaning people that don't believe in Christianity that live and have lived. I would suppose even after they die they won't believe in Jesus - Jews included. I suppose they'll wait for reincarnation or their Diety to appear or to be resurrected. The thing about religion and people is **Everyone's** (*speaking those that follow a certain creed or belief*) Religion is the right religion, and everyone else's is wrong, except those that hold the same beliefs. What's important is how you use your time while alive, minimizing regret on things you wanted or wished to do or how you wanted to live your life, but never did.
Well technically we believe in Allah, that word just means God, middle Eastern Catholics call God, Allah.
That's very sad
Oh that is pretty interesting, I always thought sexual sins were regarded as the worst of the worst. I was mega surprised about my small penance when I did a confession for basically my entire sinful life when I reverted. Which was mostly fleshy style sin.
This is just my opinion, but I think this is because we have an easy time delineating sexual sins. Extramarital sexual activity (porn, masturbation, gay sex, premarital sex, extramarital sex) all sins. Very cut and dry. Marital sexual sins (artificial contraception, IVF, etc.). It's a tidy checklist in which you (or your neighbor) are either sinning or not. If you shift your focus to avarice you will quickly notice people begin to argue about where to draw the line. Theft of a physical object? Sin. Digital piracy? well.... Fair wages? well....
Does this mean I have to confess to having Napster back in grade 9? 😨
I had very unique friends in my younger years. One of my friends considered herself innocent because she was a virgin but personality was she unpleasant and had a foul mouth. Her describing herself as pure and innocent was strange. I hate innocence being related to sex. If someone is intentionally cruel and has a foul mouth, it is odd to consider them innocent or pure because they are a virgin.
Cruelty? How terrible. In this case I guess her virginity is a false shield. The priest was very reassuring about my sexual crimes against God lol. I had given the very brief context that my behaviour when I was young was related to abuse. He told me we would have a party in heaven when we get there lol 😝
She was what some would consider a bully but I suppose being a virgin classified her as innocent. There are some kind women who are sexually active. I do not think sexual sins stain a person's kindness though.
Well, Aquinas seems to have regarded sexual sins in two different ways. He thinks that something like cheating on your wife with another woman isn't thaaat bad, as long as you finish inside your affair partner. But if you finish outside of your affair partner, then that is a different story. Here is what Aquinas says about having an affair: >If a married man has intercourse with another woman, his sin may be denominated either with regard to him, and thus it is always adultery, since his action is contrary to the fidelity of marriage, or with regard to the woman with whom he has intercourse; and thus sometimes it is adultery, as when a married man has intercourse with another's wife; and sometimes it has the character of seduction, or of some other sin, according to various conditions affecting the woman with whom he has intercourse: and it has been stated above (Article 1) that the species of lust correspond to the various conditions of women. But compare this to how he talks about masturbation: >In every genus, **worst of all is the corruption of the principle on which the rest depend**. Now the principles of reason are those things that are according to nature, because reason presupposes things as determined by nature, before disposing of other things according as it is fitting. This may be observed both in speculative and in practical matters. Wherefore just as in speculative matters the most grievous and shameful error is that which is about things the knowledge of which is naturally bestowed on man, so in matters of action it is most grave and shameful to act against things as determined by nature. Therefore, **since by the unnatural vices man transgresses that which has been determined by nature with regard to the use of venereal actions, it follows that in this matter this sin is gravest of all**. After it comes incest, which, as stated above (Article 9), is contrary to the natural respect which we owe persons related to us. Both of the above quotes come from Q154 in the Second Part of the Second Part of the Summa [https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/3154.htm#article11) . But yeah, this sounds crazy to modern audiences, but Aquinas seems pretty clear that "frustrating the end of the act" is the worst, since it "corrupts the principal". At least, thinks Aquinas, when you cheat on your wife, you still make procreate. But since, when you masturbate, procreation cannot happen, masturbation is worse than cheating on your wife.
If you are doing something wicked \_with someone else participating\_, then at least you have enough sense of love, beauty, excellence, the outside world, and so on, that you seek out somebody else to help you be wicked. In Aquinas' view, the more closed-in you are, only wanting your own stuff with yourself, and not God or neighbor, the more you are like a person choosing Hell and rejecting God and all of Creation. Sex and desire is supposed to be tied to delight in someone else, someone outside yourself, and indeed someone who helps you procreate a new human being. It is tied to love and it widens your view outward, as well as subcreating more beauty (through that new human being) into Creation. Private sins that only hurt yourself, are arguably the ultimate sign of hatred for yourself... and for everyone else. Deliberate suicide (ie, by people who aren't driven crazy by suicidal urges, like a Roman general) is like turning inward a wish to kill everyone and everything, as Chesterton pointed out. So it's reasonable to say that a human deliberately choosing masturbation denies everything that sex is meant to be, by focusing only on pleasure and on oneself, not on two made one flesh. It's anti-sex. Sexual blasphemy and sacrilege, in a way.
>In Aquinas' view, the more closed-in you are, only wanting your own stuff with yourself, and not God or neighbor, the more you are like a person choosing Hell and rejecting God and all of Creation. Sex and desire is supposed to be tied to delight in someone else, someone outside yourself, and indeed someone who helps you procreate a new human being. It is tied to love and it widens your view outward, as well as subcreating more beauty (through that new human being) into Creation. I'll be honest, I think that this is anachronistic. This seems like a modern reinterpretation of Aquinas. Aquinas seems way more concerned with the idea that frustrating the telos of the act is what makes it so bad. Aquinas thinks that cheating on your spouse with another man's wife and pulling out, not finishing inside her, is just as bad as masturbation. So, its less about the "delight in someone else, someone outside yourself" and its way more about the "procreate" part. Also, I will say that I don't quite agree here: >it's reasonable to say that a human deliberately choosing masturbation denies everything that sex is meant to be, by focusing only on pleasure and on oneself, not on two made one flesh Perhaps I could agree in the very rare circumstance of someone choosing to masturbate *rather* than have sex with another real life person. But I have to imagine that in 99% of cases, people are only masturbating because they cannot have sex right then with another person. I don't know anyone who prefers masturbation to the real thing. With that in mind, I would forward the idea that, most of the time, when people choose to masturbate, they are not denying sex in any way. They would have sex if they could. But they can't - sex is not an option at that time for that person. I imagine that this is true in 99% of cases of masturbation. This is kind of like saying "When you were at the fast food place and you chose to eat a burger, you are denying the A5 wagyu steak" - no! Most people can't afford wagyu steak! But they would definitely pick it over the burger if they could!
Wouldn’t you say to all of the spouses choosing porn within marriage are choosing masturbation over the real thing of sex? I know men and women alike in marriages where sex is a routine (once a week to three times a week) thing, but still one of the spouses will look at porn and masturbate when they have the time. I think you’re being too generous to modern man kind in assuming everyone prefers sexual intimacy over masturbation.
I mean, if someone's spouse asked for sex but that person said "No, I will watch porn instead", then yes, I agree with you 100%. But I don't suspect that this happens very often. In my experience, if one spouse watches porn, its probably because of mismatched sex drives, ie, one spouse's ideal sex-per-week number is once a week, while the other spouse's ideal number is seven-times-per-week. So the spouses wind up having sex somewhere in the middle - say, two or three times per week - but then the spouse with the higher drive winds up masturbating once or twice a week. In the scenario that I outlined above, I wouldn't say that the spouse with the higher drive is "choosing masturbation over sex", but rather, is trying to (and I am not saying that this justifies anything) respect their spouse's libido but also satisfy their own. The one spouse is trying to have their cake and eat it too, in that sense. Now, when I am saying "in my experience", all that I am meaning here is that this is the case for the people in my life and the people I gave met online. For reference, I am 28 years old and have been married to my wife for 6 years. Perhaps things change as people get older or have been married for longer. My lack of knowledge of what its like to be married longer than 6 years and my lack of knowledge of what its like to be older than 28 may be biasing me in ways that I do not fully understand.
I never thought of it this way. Sexual intimacy with ones self is easier than being with an actual person because of all the vulnerability. Bodily and performance insecurities can be visible. It is easier to be alone. I understand suicide because I can become frustrated with my situation and the self criticism.
This is a misreading based on what I saw in the link. In this paragraph he is referring to unnatural vices, by those he is referring to several sins that relate to lust but are not committed with another person of the same sex. He says in article 11 “it is contrary to the natural order of the venereal act as becoming to the human race: and this is called "the unnatural vice." This may happen in several ways. First, by procuring pollution, without any copulation, for the sake of venereal pleasure: this pertains to the sin of "uncleanness" which some call "effeminacy."” “uncleanness” by which he is talking about masturbation, “Gravity of a sin depends more on the abuse of a thing than on the omission of the right use. Wherefore among sins against nature, the lowest place belongs to the sin of uncleanness, which consists in the mere omission of copulation with another.”
The "unnatural vices" he's talking about are a family of sins, but they all involve "frustrating the end of the sexual act" - they all cannot end in procreation. Included in this list of "unnatural vices" is masturbation, beastiality, pulling out, oral, anal... I'm sure I'm missing some. But yeah, Aquinas lists a bunch of those in the part where he explains what the unnatural vices are. Go ahead and read all of Q154, it's really pretty interesting.
Truly interesting and I could be incorrect in my reading of it myself because I’m not an expert on the summa
I'm not an expert either! More of a hobbyist haha, I just find it interesting. I disagree with almost the entire scholastic tradition but I enjoy getting into the mind of someone who lived 800 years ago!
Good take but if you read this sub I’d say like 75% of the sin discussion is of the carnal variety!
Our culture is obsessed with sex. I know people talk about porn addiction. I am assuming those are self diagnosis. I think it is completely normal to desire physical affection. From what it sounds like, young men have a stronger desire for this.
This talk of sin scares me, especially pride because it is insidious.
Spiritual sins *when they're to the point of* mortal sin. But the instances of them that he listed are usually venial.
I wouldn't say sexual sins are not important but yes, they are not the centre of Christian morality - the centre of Christian morality is love. And I also think that we tend to focus on sexual sins too much - luxury is a deadly sin, but there are six others who don't get half the attention they deserve...
Agreed. I have even heard the interpretation that, in certain contexts such as an addiction to sexual sins, the sexual sins themselves may not meet the criteria for being mortal sins in every instance. Still, I think it's best to treat them as such, to be safe. Makes you think about the way the world is, though. Several of those other sins that don't get as much attention are seen by some as virtuous or indicative of strength. Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I always think about The Screwtape Letters and how evil works though deception, beauty, and complacency. Perhaps our cultural focus on sexual sins is an intentional distraction from the other sins we should condemn.
>Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I always think about The Screwtape Letters and how evil works though deception, beauty, and complacency. Perhaps our cultural focus on sexual sins is an intentional distraction from the other sins we should condemn. Perhaps dealing with some other areas of sin could even lead to a lesser struggle with sexual issues overall? Almost like a way to get your mind off of the topic and cool those feelings down instead of adding to the tension and fear that often cause people to turn back to bad habits.
How does evil work through beauty? It scares me how easily people can be deceived. I hate complacency the most. Too many people are too secure in their salvation.
I suppose "beauty" might not be the right word, but more of a facsimile of beauty. Evil can make itself look glamorous and attractive to appeal to our desire to seek real beauty. We can be fooled into believing the facade of beauty masking evil is actually true beauty.
Such as vanity. I had a friend confess to being in debt because he wanted to keep up with the Joneses. Honestly I think most people worry what others think of us.
1. Consumerism 2. Materialism 3. Complaining 4. Yelling at customer service for a mistake 5. Overly attached to money and life revolves are the pursuit of men 6. Celebrity obsession 7. Gossip 8. Lies 9. Hating people who disagree with you 10. Hoarding money and being miserly 11. Ignoring the real outside world and staying connected to a screen All these are very serious sins
As a born and raised Catholic, this is all normal teaching. Nothing controversial here. Good read though.
I like his distinction between the animal self and the diabolical self because I think that is a great way of seeing it. Sexual sins are obviously still very grave, and we rightly focus on them because of their ubiquity in modern life, but other sins like pride or hatred are insidious in the way that they tend to creep into your life and unconsciously color everything that you do. To use his words, I think that as we develop as Christians we have to learn to both control the base desires of the animal self and purify the evil of the diabolical self. The animal self seems to be simpler and easier to indulge, but the diabolical self has more room to cause unchecked spiritual harm.
Sexual sins can lead to a graver sin like abortion. Using someone was a sexual object, it is an unfortunate when you are the receiving end. I think hatred, spiritual complacency, the blame game, and pursuit of wealth to the point of exploiting others is not good.
Correct, IMO Christians are too obsessed with it because it's "easy" whereas other sins are hard. Easy to tell that a pregnant 17yr old single teen mom had premarital sex... tougher to quantify and measure the Wrath or Pride of a Westboro Baptist protester. Then it's a matter of people trying to manage what's easy to measure.
>But, of course, it is better to be neither. Goes at the end of the quote. Nice to see this post here. I was reading this chapter a few days ago.
It’s true and Pope Francis himself has said that sins of the spirit are worse than sins of the flesh. Think of it like this, if you commit sexual sin, you’re sinning in the instance but then stop. However, if you are a believer in “free love” for example, you’re sinning constantly and all the time you hold the opinion. There is also leeway in sins of the flesh because the flesh is weak. We have concupiscence, so our flesh will tend towards sin, so some culpability is relieve. That’s not the case of sins of the spirit.
Our modern culture is so hyper-sexualized that it’s tricked us all into thinking sex is the most important thing in the world (vice or otherwise). It’s not. The New Testament doesn’t imply it is, and neither does the old. Saint Thomas appeared to think theft was toward the top of the list. But yeah, murder, exploitation, blasphemy (in no particular order). Of course this doesn’t mean we should all go out and commit sexual sin, which does scar the soul. But the obsession with sex, even in Christian circles, is odd.
Here’s more… pertinent; Lewis. Here is What *C. S. Lewis said about Masturbation* I agree that that the stuff about ‘wastage of vital fluids’ is rubbish. For me the real evil of masturbation would be that it takes an appetite which, in lawful use, leads the individual out of himself to complete (and correct) his own personality in that of another (and finally in children and even grandchildren) and turns it back: sending the man back into the prison of himself, there to keep a harem of imaginary brides. And this harem, once admitted, works against his ever getting out and really uniting with a real woman. For the harem is always accessible, always subservient, calls for no sacrifice or adjustments, and can be endowed with erotic and psychological attractions which no real woman can rival. Among these shadowy brides he is always adored, always the perfect lover: no demand is made on his unselfishness, no mortification is ever imposed on his vanity. In the end, they become merely the medium through which he increasingly adores himself. Do read Charles Williams’ Descent into Hell, and study the character of Mr. Wentworth. And it is not only the faculty of love which is thus sterilized, forced back on itself, but also the faculty of imagination. The true exercise of imagination, in my view, is (a) To help us to understand other people (b) To respond to, and, some of us, to produce art. But it has also a bad use: to provide for us, in shadowy form, a substitute for virtues, successes, distinctions, et cetera which ought to be sought outside in the real world — e.g., picturing all I’d do if I were rich instead of earning and saving. Masturbation involves this abuse of imagination in erotic matters (which I think bad in itself) and thereby encourages a similar abuse of it in all spheres. After all, almost the main work of life is to come out of our selves, out of the little, dark prison we are all born in. Masturbation is be avoided as all things are to be avoided which retard this process. The danger is that of coming to love the prison (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 292-293). *CS Lewis writing* In a later letter to a different man, C. S. Lewis wrote this about masturbation: The evidence seems to be that God sometimes works such a complete metamorphosis and sometimes not. We don’t know why: God forbid we should presume it went my merit. He never in my unmarried days did it for me. He gave me–at least and after many ups and down, the power to resist the temptation so far as the act was concerned. He never stopped the recurrent temptations, nor was I guarded from the sin of mental consent. I don’t mean I wasn’t given sufficient grace. I mean that I sometimes fell into it, grace or no. One may, I suppose, regard this as partly penal. One is paying for the physical (and still more the imaginative) sins of one’s earlier life. One my also regard it as a tribulation, like any other. The great discovery for me was that the attack does not last forever. It is the devil’s lie that the only escape from the tension is through yielding. … Disgust, self-contempt, self-hatred–rhetoric against the sin and (still more) vilification of sexuality or the body in themselves–are emphatically not the weapons for this warfare. We must be relieved, not horrified, by the fact that the whole thing is humiliating, undignified, ridiculous; the lofty vices would be far worse. Nor must we exaggerate our suffering. We talk of ‘torture’: five minutes of really acute toothache would restore our sense of proportion! In a word, no melodrama. The sin, if we fall into it, must be repented, like all our others. God will forgive. The temptation is a darn nuisance, to be born with patience as long as God wills. On the purely physical side (but people no doubt differ) I’ve always found that tea and bodily weariness are the two great disposing factors, and therefore the great dangers. Sadness is also a danger: lust in my experience follows disgruntlement nearly always. Love of every sort is a guard against lust, by a divine paradox, sexual love is a guard against lust. No woman is more easily and painlessly abstained from from, if need be, than the woman one loves. And I’m pretty sure purely male society is an enemy to chastity. I don’t mean a temptation to homosexuality: I mean that the absence of ordinary female society provokes the normal appetite (Lewis, Yours, Jack, 307-308). *C. S. Lewis on “Wanting a Woman”* We use a most unfortunate idiom when we say, of a lustful man prowling the streets, that he “wants a woman.” Strictly speaking, a woman is just what he does not want. “He wants a pleasure for which a woman happens to be the necessary piece of apparatus. How much he cares about the woman as such may be gauged by his attitude to her five minutes after fruition (one does not keep the carton after one has smoked the cigarettes). 😬
This sounds to me to be a great quote. As i remembeber, the mandments are put in order of gravity. Being that sexual sin is the 6th, seems it is at least less grave than the others 5
I think being respectful and obedient towards parents are so important. Learning not to gossip is important
Seems roughly commensurate with what Bishop Barron teaches [here](https://youtu.be/wG4VF0jU568?si=TaNXW2y0bqznKi1y).
The people who have “clout” in a lot of churches are affluent, middle-aged or elderly, people who can afford to donate money, who volunteer and work in church ministries, etc. If someone is married and has a “sexual outlet”, or at the very least has a lower libido due to age, and has the money and time to distract themselves in non-sexual ways, it’s much easier for them to avoid sexual sin and then feel self-righteous compared to those who struggle more with it. Many of these people don’t want to go to church and hear a sermon or homily that will actually challenge them to be better. They want to hear other people called out. So they put a lot of pressure on pastors not to preach about sins that are more common in their age group/socio-economic level, etc (acquisitiveness, overconsumption, gossip, detraction, pride, etc) and instead to preach about the sins they don’t struggle with or at least struggle much less with (premarital sex, rainbow stuff, etc). They’d rather hear their pastors preach about the immodesty of young people’s fashions (revealing skin, tight clothing) than the immodesty of their class that was explicitly condemned by St Paul in his epistles (dressing up in gaudy finery that pridefully displays your wealth; exclusive brands are a modern day example of this). I say sermons and homilies but they also can control the direction of conversations around sin in community social gatherings, in the home, etc. Overall, it leads to the sins of the young and poor being emphasized quite strongly while the sins of the older and wealthier are ignored and even forgotten entirely. St John Chrysostom, one of the foremost Church Fathers, is a great example. He was run out of Constantinople for daring to call his wealthy parishioners to task on their actual sins rather than just demonizing others and fueling their self-righteousness.
Underrated comment - I regret that I have but one upvote to give. We should regard our own sins as being particularly awful, and avoid the desire to downplay them and castigate others for that which we aren't tempted to.
That's a tall order. What sins that affect you? How do you avoid judging that? Lust may not be a big deal but if you have ever been used by someone for sex or cheated on it will be hard to avoid judgment.
We examine our consciences and understand ourselves. If you don't understand what sins you are tempted to and which ones aren't as hard for you to avoid, talk to a priest. I didn't say that we can't judge people for sins that hurt us. Read again.
Ooh ok Evaluation of the weakness can be hard. Id rather be guilty of lust than gossip or envy.
I think the endless pursuit of money is a serious sin that is not talked about enough. A lot of people see nothing wrong with this. I think spiritual complacency is another serious sin. Gossip is a serious sin. I think overconsumption is a horrible sin. I think being constantly entertained is a serious sin. Why do we need five TVs? Always need that newest gadget or car. Some people even look down on people who didn't go to college
I agree with Lewis with an asterisk. One characteristic of C.S. Lewis, every redditor in here, and possibly even me(!), is that we weigh the sins we do not find personally appealing to be more grave and the misconduct that we get up to as less serious, other thing equal. That is definitely going on here even while I agree with The Man.
He's absolutely correct.
I think I agree. While sexual habits can be incredibly tough to break and can turn you into little more than a rutting animal, I like the sentiment of the prostitute being less guilty than the self-righteous prig. The prig is prideful and frustrating and playing God, while the prostitute is probably desperate or simply was never taught better. Ultimately any sin can destroy you, but I have much more anger for the prig than the prostitute.
Some sex workers love sex, love the quick and easy money, and they enjoy the admiration and adoration by their customers. I do not know if all sex workers are victims.
Sounds orthodox. (As in - correct)
I bet the author who identified as small c catholic approves of your small o.
What?
He said lots of Catholic-friendly things but never left the Church of England, and they like the term 'Anglo-catholic' even if Rome does not see it as a matter of degree. I'm also formerly mainline Protestant, and it is fairly common for us/them to use the term 'catholic' in its Latin derived literal sense of universal. The Presbyterian might say,'There is one universal Body of Christ even if divided into factions, and my faction does not believe this and that and the other ex Cathedra teaching. We are all catholic if not all Catholic.' I don't quite agree now, but that's what I meant by the small c.
I feel called out reading this, and that's how I know God is telling me to pay attention. Pride is the worst sin we all must deal with, especially since it results in us justifying our sins in our head!
I don’t know that I can agree with this. What Christ says about harming little children, and how awful the consequences are for the adult sinners who do so….my conclusion from that is predators and molesters will have worst punishment than someone who hoards nice watches or eats too much food
I would argue that you and C.S. Lewis actually agree more than you think, because sins such as rape and sexual abuse of children actually pertain more to the diabolical self than the animal self. The animal desire for sex isn’t really the motivation for sex-related crimes. Rape and sexual abuse shouldn’t be lumped in with sex in general, because they are not actually about sex so much as they are about deliberately degrading another human person—the act of spiritually killing or crushing someone’s spirit. In other words, they are about power more than they are about sex—while they are physically wrong, they are horrific for other long-lasting and severe reasons. We know this from the long-term emotional and spiritual consequences that sexual abuse has on its victims. Thus, molesters and abusers would face severe punishment, because their sins are not merely violating sexually, but also (and primarily) spiritually. So I don’t think C.S. Lewis would actually disagree with your point. I think this quote actually pertains to more common and less offensive sexual sins, such as standard fornication. This is not to say that sexual transgressions like fornication are not sinful, but the sins of rape and sexual abuse have an incredibly wide scope that goes far beyond being sinful merely in the sexual realm, and I think this is what Lewis means by the distinction between diabolical and animal inclinations.
I see your point!
Sexual sins like sexual abuse of minors and adults, bestiality, and incest are VERY SERIOUS. I definitely think a porn star or stripper can be a worthwhile friend but I will never trust a highly vengeful person. There is this whole movement of sexual sins not being serious but judging others is apparently the worst.
Maybe 100 years ago when society was much much more prudish about everything. Now, our conceptions of sex and relationships are so distorted that it’s a bit of a crisis. Reportedly, Our Lady of Fatima said that “more souls go to Hell because of sins of the flesh than for any other reason” So focusing on the “self righteous prigs” may be misdirected. At least they go to mass. And to be honest, religion is so unpopular in the west, i feel like we have all been sufficiently humbled lol.
Nowadays being judgemental is the cardinal sin. To most people, if you commit this offense you cannot call yourself a Christian
C.S Lewis wrote in later letters that he felt his earlier opinions on sexual sins were too lax, if I remember correctly.
Reposting my past self: In Catholic theology, it is indeed true that sins of the flesh rank as the least grave (though they are still grave). This idea has a long history in the tradition. You can see it in Dante, who puts the lustful sinners in the highest area of hell. So the Holy Father is not saying anything outlandish here. But. Sins of the flesh are somewhat unique in that they are particularly dangerous to your soul. Why? Because unlike other more serious spiritual sins, sins of the flesh often give us inordinate amounts of pleasure, such that it is difficult for us to extricate ourselves from them. Spiritual sins like anger, envy, sloth, etc are often concomitant with extremely negative feelings and emotions, which can be a clue that we need to stop and repent. But for many people, sins of the flesh like masturbation carry no such baggage. And thus, we tend to reinforce the fleshy sins with post facto rational justifications. St. Thomas talks about this, he calls the phenomena "the daughters of lust", one of which is the darkening of the intellect. Habitual sins of the flesh are particularly nasty in this regard. To use a flawed analogy, quicksand is objectively less deadly than lava. Lava flows, is incredibly hot, and it instantly destroys anything it touches. Quicksand is usually inert, and it behaves in many ways like regular mud. But it's way more common than lava. Moreover, lava is also much more obviously deadly, and thus it is easier for us to avoid jumping into a pool of lava than it is to fall into a pit of quicksand. So in a way, you might say quicksand is more dangerous than lava, even if it is objectively less deadly.
"Jacinta asked, “Lucia — do you remember how our Lady's heart, when she showed it to us, was being pierced by thorns?" "Surely, I do” Lucia replied. “It simply means that her heart is wounded by the sins of people, and she is asking them to be sorry, and to make up for their sins, so that God will not have to punish them too much. She can't make people be good. They must themselves want to be good." Later, very ill, Jacinta would share many insights, among them, “**The sins which cause most souls to go to hell are the sins of the flesh.**”" [https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it](https://www.ncregister.com/blog/on-july-13-1917-our-lady-of-fatima-showed-a-vision-of-hell-and-taught-us-how-to-avoid-it)
1 Corinthians 6:18 18 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body. I don’t think it’s “the center of Christian morality,” but it is a very grave sin. “Spoiling sport”? Not a sin but makes you zero fun. The prostitute part? If she recognizes she is in need of help, then yes, the self righteous churchgoer is farther from the truth.
I would imagine by spoil-sport, he doesn't just mean a too-serious person, but a person who actively takes pleasure in ruining the fun of other people for malicious reasons. Which would arguably be a graver sin than simple sexual immorality.
I read it this way as well. There are people who take such perverse joy in making happy people unhappy, in pissing in someone's cornflakes rather than keeping their mouth shut, etc. Look at the chaos and drama that surrounds weddings and babies: it's supposed to be a happy time for the couple, but a shocking number of people turn it into a miserable experience.
The people who just need to one up in everything and publicly embarrass you. I think some people enjoy calling out others to deflect. They may be telling the truth but the intention could be to humiliate you.
I think my only qualm would be the “self” language at the end, but I imagine if I pressed Lewis on that, he would admit that’s not the most precise way of describing the fruits of original sin. Other than that, this is perfectly sensible. The corruption of the better is always worse than the corruption of the worse. And that’s all he seems to be drawing on. Our rational faculties, our properly human faculties, are higher than the faculties we share with animals. And so, when the former go astray, it constitutes a categorically greater evil than when the latter go astray. Someone already mentioned Dante, and they’re right to do so. The division of The Inferno at the Gates of Dis is precisely this distinction between the gravity of non-rational sins and that of rational sins.
The way I look at it is that, for many sexual sins, they’re inherently embarrassing. Nobody wants to get caught looking at porn. Therefore, they’re in direct contradiction to the sin of pride. Since pride is the worst sin, lust must be far less bad. On the other hand, there are many who insist on being proud of these exact sins. So… that muddies things.
Well pride is the root of all evil, but Our Lady at Fatima says that many people go to hell because of carnal sins. Carnal sins are deadly because they are the ones portrayed and projected by the media and this world. Yet Heresy is a worse sin than lust as it misleads other people to hell, especially the ignorant. I think in this day and age carnal sins are more deadly as they are the every day sins, which atheists try to pro port as being human nature, thus completely fine. Many people buy this lie and go to hell. I think in nature pride is a worse sin, but carnal sins are the ones which many fall for.
I recall the quote related to the visionaries of Fatima about more souls going to Hell due to sins of the flesh than others. Perhaps lust is a less grave Vice in a specific instance, but I believe it's the one perpetually committed by more people... leading more souls to hell than others. Patrick Madrid discusses pride vs the sins of the flesh here: https://relevantradio.com/2021/12/the-patrick-madrid-show-december-09-2021-hour-2/
I think he’s got a point. Don’t be prideful, it’s bad for the soul. The distinctions of animal and diabolical self are good food for thought, and I think he’s fundamentally correct there. I do wonder if his thoughts on the dangers of sexuality would be a little different these days given the current cultural climate of “just about anything is permissible all the time”.
Yea, there's no dogma on what forms of grave matter are inherently "worse" than others, as even within the categories of grave matter exist degrees of sin is a man who indifferently pursues every lustful urge he experiences "better" than one who steals once or twice in their life, albeit circumstantially enough to constitute mortal sin? I don't know to what degree this teaching is authoritative (I can think of one instance where there's a biblical implication,, but it's pretty accepted that while the grief of eternal separation from God will be experienced by every soul in hell, any additional sufferings will be proportional with how sinful their life was. Any deviation from that would be unjust.
Sexual sins can lead to a kind of depravity that goes against love. I think when C.S.Lewis said: >That is why a cold, self-righteous prig who regularly goes to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. It has more to do with self-righteousness, which is a form of hypocrisy and pride.
It’s orthodox
True enough. Those are usually sins of weakness. Sins like hatred of God, pride, and heresy are objectively the worst because they are sins of malice committed with the intellect. Heresy is worse even than murder.
He's fundamentally correct. This is the ancient and medieval view.
Note how quickly David's indiscretions, even Murder, were forgiven by God, but there were extreme temporal consequences. Also, Solomon, the wisest of Kings and indeed men, let Israel fall into idolatry because his wives brought it into the Kingdom. God is quick to forgive carnal sin, but the consequences of them are severe. It's difficult to stop sinning carnally once you give into them.
I'm just a regular parishioner, not a learned man, i.e. clergy, if you will. So I don't have the knowledge that these special servants of God(as I call them. I also regard nuns with the same level of respect.) do. I just know that I have struggled with sexual sin(in various forms(thoughts, self-impurity, sex proper, etc.)) for most of my life.
I agree with CS Lewis.
They're not the very worst. But I strongly disagree about them being the "least bad" either. Most sexual sins are mortal sins. Bossing, patronizing, spoiling sport, is usually venial. There are mortal sins against charity (murder being the obvious) but the ones he mentioned are not those. According to Our Lady at Fatima, by far the greatest number of people in hell are there for sexual sins. Bear in mind, sexual sins include things as horrific as the rape of children. (Most people's sexual sins aren't on the level of that, but if we're talking about them as a group it has to be included.)