24 SIN 



which is by nature venial, so far as its object 

 is concerned, may become mortal in respect of the 

 person who commits it, either because he inordi- 

 nately seeks his last end in that object, or because 

 he directs the object towards an end which is by 

 nature mortally sinful; — as when one employs a 

 useless word for the commission of a grievous 

 crime. Similarly, a sin which is by nature mortal 

 may become subjectively venial if the act remains 

 incomplete, because there is no full advertence and 

 consent; — as when one is tempted against the 

 faith. 



To be mortal, therefore, a sin need not be committed 

 "with uplifted hand against God," as Schell was accused 

 of having taught, i. e., it need not be inspired by hatred 

 and malice or involve formal rebellion against the Al- 

 mighty. Nor need it be an act of obstinate and impeni- 

 tent opposition to divine truth and grace. The Church 

 would not have drawn up a long list of mortal sins 25 if 

 she believed that there is but one mortal sin, namely, re- 

 bellion or obstinate resistance to the will of God. 26 



25 Cfr. Cone. Trident., Sess. VI, the divine law in an important mat- 

 c. 15; Prop, damnat. ab Alexandro ter is a mortal sin. On the con- 

 VII., n. 23; sub Innocent. XL, 43, trary, I accept this definition: only 

 44, 47, 49, 51 sq. (Denzinger- it falls short of determining what 

 Bannwart, n. 1123, 1193 sq., 1197, is important or unimportant in each 

 1201 sq.) case. . . . Were I asked to define 



26 Cfr. F. A. Gopfert, Moraltheo- the nature of mortal sin, I should 

 logie, 6th ed., Vol. I, p. 219. — It is say it was a voluntary or wilful 

 but just to add that Dr. Schell pro- transgression of a divine law in 

 tested against the construction put an important matter." (H. Schell, 

 upon his teaching by his opponents. Kleinere Schriften, edited by K. 

 "I have never denied," he says, Iiennemann, Paderborn 1908, pp. 

 "that every wilful transgression of 580, 587.) 



