The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1916-04-01
- l6TLoNq, ~
IDOcTRINAE. aSsEgy IITURGICAL


thoughts, knowledge aud mental free
dom are an onan~ book to the ell-sne-
ing eye Cr2God Man coMilaits a hi6F.
tai SIN as often az he THINKS and con-
Tsents to the thought, says or does any
thing ia Violation of an important law
iof Ghd with a full, actual knowledge
or culpable ignorance of what he is
doing and with a complete actual free
dom of will or restrained win and AS
such is guilty oil the greptest possible
evil.
Mortal sin AS defined is a complete
and perfect act of the human mind.
To prove that it is the greatest evil,
it is necessary first to know what is
meant by evil. Evil is the contrary
to good. Thus II one should say,
This thing Is good" ahd another i'll
terposes aud says, mo, it is evil"
The latter contradicts the former.
EVIL or sin is not any permanent eX-
listing thing in the world, for all eX-
listing things, all creatures as such Hfe
good, because they are the works of
God, who Is all gootheBs, that is, i'll
finitc1y good, and consequently incap-
able Of creating evil. Hence, after
having created each department of the
universe, He pronounced it all good.
EVIL then is not an existing thing or
creature, for if it were God, the only
Creator, would be its author, which
is absurd There is not and cannot
be such a thing as an evil Creature in
itself, All Irrational creatures are in
capable OF committing evil, for which,
as shown, knowledge Of the intellect
and freedom of the will are required.
The irrational animals that infict SER
iouS injuries, for example, the rattle
snake, i'll injecting deadly poison, may
seem to us to commit evil ind actually
does against Us, hut yet by doing so,
they are only obedient to the instincts
of nature to defend themselves. Ra-
tiOnal being alone, therefore, are cap
able Of committing a moral evil and
the evil is not i'll the word, thought or
deed, which may be good in them
selves, as in the fact that the consent
to this thought, the saying of this
word and the commission of this deed
are contrary to good, therefore, OPP
posed to God. Moral evil then is a
mere violation or denial
Mortal sin, as shown, is a violation
of some grave commandment of God
with a full knowledge and Il free con
sent Of the will. 1t is then as COM
plete an act of the mind as man is
capable of performing. 1t is the full
expression of mans will against Gods
will. 1t is the creature in open re-
bellion against the Creator, man OPP
posed to God. Therefore, whenyman
commits a mortar SIN, lie compares
God and His law with the devil and
his own passions. Both claim obedi-
ence from him at the same time. God
says to him, Thou shalt not kill
Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not
commit adultery" The devil and his
own passions say. Thou shalt do all
things" Thus after hearing both
| claimants and comparing their respec-
tive claims, he turns to God and says
to Him, Il will not obey You, | will
not serve You. Furthermore, to show
| how | despise You and Your laws, and
prove to You how traitrous | am, I
will here in Your very present desert
Your standard and go over to Your
very Enemy And thus, turning his
| back on God, he turns to the creature,
! the devil or his own passions, and
says to them, Il prefer you to God
and to give you proof of this prefer
encc hereby in Ills presence give you
that obedience and service which He
claimed from me-
BY this act it is evident that man
deliberately, knowingly and willing
| ly, prefers the qualifications of his
own passions or sin, which is worse
than nothing, to God the infinite good.
Sin then is a perfect opposition to in
finite good and as evil is the opposite
Of good, it follows that mortal sin, be-
cause opposed to infinite good, is the
greatest possible evil. 1t is an oppo-
sition to the greatest conceivable good.
st. Thomas contends that mortal sin is
an infinite evil lie reasons as fol
| lows. The malice of an OffenSe is
measured by the nature and relation
of the offender with respect to the of
Tended and an offense rises in the
scale of malice >proportiOn as the
distance measures between the nature,
superiority and dignity of the offended
and those of the offender, or i'll other
words every degree of superiority on
the part of the offended begets Il cor,
responding degree of malice in the
same act in the part of the offender.
To illustrate this important prin-
ciple, we will suppose, for example, a
person has the misfortune to offend
his equal, one on the same social
i plane as himself, he would indeed
commit Il crime against society, but
il he should commit the same act
against police officer, as such, the
crime would be still greater and yet it
would be still greater if offered to the
governor or chief justice in the dis
charge of their duties. But all would
be Insignificant compared to the same
act committed against the president,
who is the representative of the ma
ton. Now, how is it that the same
act increases in malice when commit
ted against different persons? Is it
because the act itself is greater? No.
because the act is supposed to be the
same in all cases. But it is because