On the Damnability of Venial Sin

Brief Notes

A topic of discussion that commonly arises in discussions between Protestants and Catholics concerns the damnability of venial sins, especially in the interpretation of certain Fathers of the Church. Catholics (unfortunately) often give less than satisfying explanations of these texts in light of Catholic teaching on the distinction between mortal and venial sins. Yet, it is preferable to highlight an aspect of Catholic doctrine that does not recevie adequate treatment.

It is common for Catholics to simply state Catholic doctrine as follows: “the damned suffer the punishments of hell for mortal sin.” Yet, this is not entirely accurate.

For the purposes of abstraction, let’s consider four cases. First, an adult who dies outside of a state of grace merely suffering the incursion of mortal sin without venial sin (NOTE: This does not exist in reality). Second, an adult who dies outside of a state of grace suffering the incursion of both mortal sin and venial sin. Third, an adult who dies outside of a state of grace suffering merely the incursion of venial sin (NOTE: This probably does not exist in reality, although Suarez admits the possibility in rare cases, hi casus sunt rarissimi, et facile credi potest Deum illos non permittere). Fourth, an adult who dies in a state of grace suffering merely the incursion of venial sin.

In the fourth case, it is Catholic dogma that they would suffer the punishments of purgatory. Further, in the first case, there is no venial sin to consider. Yet, how would the punishments of hell relate to venial sin in the second and third cases?

According to the common formulation given by many Catholics (i.e., “the damned suffer the punishments of hell for mortal sin”), in the second case, the Catholic would not suffer the punishments of hell on the basis of his venial sin, but only on the basis of his mortal sin. Further, shockingly, in the third case, the Catholic would not suffer any of the punishments of hell whatsoever since he is without mortal sin.

Here, we are able to see that the common formulation given by many Catholics lead to absurdities. Catholic authors commonly affirm that venial sin is actually punished by the fires of hell. While some authors (e.g., Bl. Scotus) state that the punishment of venial sin at some point ceases in hell, the more common opinion (following St. Thomas) is that this is eternally punished due to their irremissibility in that state.

In the third situation, depending on whether one follows either the opinion of Bl. Scotus or St. Thomas, one would either state that they suffer eternally in hell (St. Thomas, followed by Suarez and most theologians) or that they would temporarily suffer a sort of purgatory before going into the limbo of the children (per talem poenam, peccatum veniale tandem purgabitur, et tunc ille qui prius descenderat in purgatorium, ad puerorum limbum transibit).

Yet, according to the more common opinion, original and venial sins are punished eternally by the fires of hell. Yet, the foundation of this eternality of punishment is not on the basis of the gravity of the sin (non debetur poena aeterna ratione suae gravitatis), but by reason of the condition of the subject (ratione conditionis subiecti) who is found to be without sanctifying grace, which is the only basis whereby there can be remission of sin. (ST.I-II.Q87.A5.Rep2)

Hence, the better formulation is not to simply deny that venial sin is punished by the fires of hell in those who are not in a state of grace, but to say that it does not, simply speaking, incur this debt in virtue of its own disorder, but is punished by such a punishment in virtue of the condition of the subject who is not in a state of grace. A distinction between venial sin and mortal sin is found in the differences of the punishments they PROPERLY merit, not in the differences of the punishments they receive. Therefore, it is completely appropriate to speak of venial sins as “damnable” in either the sense that they can receive the punishments of hell or even in the sense that they can be said (in an improper sense) to merit such punishment, although this arises in conjunction with a condition of the subject rather than from the sin considered in itself (sic autem veniale peccatum non meretur poenam aeternam, sed alio modo…aeternitas poenae respondet indelebilitati ipsius, quae quidem convenit aliquando veniali peccato per accidens…tamen…in quantum est coniunctum mortali cum finali impoenitentia, per accidens habet indelebilitatem, QDeMalo.Q7.A10.Rep1-3).

In fact, St. Thomas goes so far as to say that our venial sins, while punished less intensely than mortal sins in hell, make up the greater and more extensive part of our punishments in hell as being more numerous and involving a far greater number of objects, circumstances, and bodily instruments of their execution (QDeMalo.Q7.A10.Rep1). Hence, e.g., even if we did not use our feet to commit a mortal sin, it is inconceivable that we did not use our feet to commit a venial sin, hence they will be punished in hell, yet not by reason of mortal sin, but by reason of venial sin.

Here we can distinguish between the punishment of venial sin (and even that punishment which venial sin can be said to “merit”) considered in sensu composito and in sensu diviso. In the first sense, it is clear that venial sin considered in a subject lacking charity is punished by and merits (by reason of the subject) hell. In the second sense, it can in no wise be said that venial sin merits hell since it does not do so on the basis of its own proper principles.

In order to better understand this, let’s look at a handful of texts from Catholic Authors making this same point.