Catholic apologist Dr. Karlo Broussard joins Cy Kellett to respond to a caller’s question about why Catholics believe in the distinction between mortal and venial sins—especially when those exact terms aren’t found in the Bible. Drawing on Scripture, particularly 1 John 5, and the Church’s theological tradition, Karlo explains how this distinction is deeply rooted in both biblical reasoning and the lived reality of sin’s effect on the soul.
Transcript:
Cy: Someone might ask, why do Catholics believe in the doctrine of mortal sin and venial sin in the first place? Or someone might say that to you. So why do we believe that? I mean, I hate to be like, I know we have. Sometimes I do want to just say that, like, I don’t think the words mortal and venial are in the Bible. And I know that that’s not a Catholic thing, that every word we believe has to be in the Bible. But that would be, I think, you know, for many people. Look, why do you believe in this? That’s not.
Karlo: Yeah. And it’s a good question. To kick off today’s show and the answer for theological reasons why, I would recommend that our listeners and viewers check out St. Thomas Aquinas in his *Summa Contra Gentiles*. In book three, chapter 139, he goes through a litany of theological reasons which simply goes beyond the boundaries of what we can talk about on the air today. But we can appeal to Sacred Scripture, the Catechism of the Catholic Church, in paragraph 1854, when it’s giving its teaching on the distinction between mortal and venial sin as being a part of the tradition of the Church. It references First John, chapter 5, verses 16 through 17, where St. John writes, “If anyone sees his brother committing what is not a deadly sin, a sin that is not deadly, he will ask, and God will give him life. For those whose sin is not deadly, there is sin which is deadly.” He goes on to say, “I do not say that one is to pray for that.” All wrongdoing is sin. He concludes in verse 17, “But there is sin which is not deadly.”
And so in the Catholic tradition, we have looked to this passage and seen in the distinction of sins here a reference to mortal and venial sin, mortal sin referring simply to sin that brings about the death of the soul, that is spiritual death, God’s life no longer existing in the soul. In a sin not deadly, we call that a venial sin, a sin that does not lead to death of the spiritual life in the soul. And so that’s the classic text that provides a reason why we as Catholics make this distinction between mortal and venial sin.
Cy: Okay? And this is something that you do very well because Karlo wrote the book *Meeting the Protestant Challenge*, and then he wrote another book *Meeting the Protestant Response*. So you never just go, well, that answers it. That’s done. Because there will be the counter argument. And here a counter argument might be. And I think some Protestants make this argument that when the Bible refers to non-deadly sin, that means sin that a born-again Christian. And a deadly sin refers to sin committed by unbelievers because for them the non-deadly sin doesn’t lead to spiritual death because a Christian can’t lose their salvation and the only death he has to worry about is physical death. But the punishment for sin for someone who is an unbeliever leads to spiritual death because they’re outside of Christ and therefore they’re liable to condemnation.
Karlo: Yeah, so I actually deal with this counter in an article at catholic.com entitled “A Protestant Tackles Mortal and Venial Sin.” So our listeners might want to check that out. But in that article, I respond to this counter by saying, first of all, this sort of counter that tries to dodge the mortal-venial sin distinction assumes or works if and only if the assumption that a Christian cannot lose his salvation is true. Because notice this counter argument is assuming, well, since a Christian can’t lose his salvation, the non-deadly sin, the sin that doesn’t lead to death, that must refer to the Christian and the brother. As John says, if a brother commits a non-deadly sin and the prayer, and so it’s non-deadly for the Christian because a Christian cannot lose his salvation, the Christian cannot sin and incur spiritual death. So the non-deadly sin must only refer to a Christian. And when John says pray that he may have life and God give him life, that’s referring to praying that God not punish the Christian on account of some heinous sin he commits with physical death. But the punishment is not going to be spiritual death. Therefore it’s non-deadly because he’s already born again and he’s secure in his salvation.
But notice that’s an assumption in the text and that’s an assumption that we would challenge because we argue that the Bible teaches once a Christian, it’s not guaranteed you’re always a Christian. Because it is possible for born-again Christians to fall outside of Christ. As Paul writes in Galatians 5:4, there are some who have been severed from Christ, implying that they once were in Christ and because they’re seeking justification in the old law, they’re no longer in Christ, thereby making themselves subject to condemnation once again.
Secondly, this counter argument reads into the text something that is not there. Notice this counter argument says that the non-deadly sin refers to the believers. The deadly sin that John talks about refers to the unbelievers. But guess what? John never makes this distinction between believer and non-believer. That’s an assumption that’s read into the text.
And finally, as I argue in my article, we can provide positive evidence for the distinction between mortal and venial sin in light of the distinction between death and life that John makes two chapters earlier in chapter three, which clearly refers to spiritual death and spiritual life. He talks about this in First John, chapter 3, verses 11 through 14, when he speaks of death, it’s spiritual death. When he speaks of life, it’s spiritual life. So when we come back to First John, chapter 5, this just two chapters later, and once again, he’s talking about this distinction between death and life within the context of these different kinds of sins, we can conclude that he is envisioning spiritual death and spiritual life. So there are some sins that are non-deadly, that’s to say, they do not lead to spiritual death. And you would have spiritual life even with those sins. And then other sins, he says, which are deadly, we call those mortal, leading to spiritual death. And so that’s one reason why we would conclude that what John is teaching us here is the distinction between mortal and venial sin.
Cy: Okay, but the text itself, where John says, if you see your brother committing the sin that’s not deadly, pray that God will give him life. So if that’s a reference to venial sin, and we say, well, venial sin doesn’t kill the life of charity in the soul, that he still got his spiritual life. So why would we pray that he, if it’s a venial sin, if we’re saying it’s a venial sin, why would we pray that God would give him life?
Karlo: Yeah, the idea, and that’s a reasonable question, because if he already has life, why would you pray that God give him life?
Cy: Right, yeah.
Karlo: Well, in response, on the Catholic view, we understand that we can increase in that spiritual life. So even though a brother, a Christian, has the spiritual life in virtue of his baptism, we can still pray that God give him spiritual life to increase in that life and to preserve that life from any future sin. So the prayer that John requests be made on behalf of the brother who has a non-deadly sin can still fit within the Catholic paradigm of venial sin here, because spiritual life can still be continued to be communicated to the brother, to the Christian in order to increase that life. So it’s not necessary that this be a prayer for the Christian, that God spare him of punishment through death and taking his life, that God spare his life on account of some sin that he commits. That’s not a necessary entailment of what John is teaching here. What John offers or instructs us to pray for the non-deadly sin or for the brother who has the non-deadly sin can also fit within the Catholic paradigm as well.
Cy: Okay, but John, if John says don’t pray for the sin that’s deadly or that leads to death, then we can’t pray for someone that we see committing mortal sin.
Karlo: Yeah, and that’s an interesting question. The first point to make here is notice many people mistake what John says here. They think John is saying, do not pray for someone who’s committed a deadly sin, but he doesn’t say that. He just simply abstains from giving instruction to pray. And there’s an essential difference between the two.
And it is a bit of a mystery as to why John abstains from giving instruction to pray for this particular sin like he does for the non-deadly sins. And regardless of what position you take, you still got to face the mystery there. It’s possible in the Catholic view that John doesn’t necessarily have the certitude that God will give life and spiritual life and give the grace of repentance for someone who’s committed mortal sin like he has concerning God giving spiritual life for those who haven’t committed mortal sin. We know for sure that it is God’s will that whenever we pray for a fellow Christian brother in the mystical body of Christ, grace will be given to them and they will increase in spiritual life. That’s part and parcel of the revelation of membership in the mystical body of Christ.
But we do not have that same certitude. As I point out in my article, for those who are outside of membership in the mystical body of Christ, we can only implore and hope that God would give the grace of repentance. So it’s possible that given that lack of certitude, John just simply abstains from making the prayer requests because in John’s mind, he’s going to pray in accordance with the divine will. Since he doesn’t know precisely the divine will for those unbelievers who are guilty of mortal sin, he doesn’t give any sort of instruction to pray. So that’s a plausible explanation. But again, there is a bit of mystery here that we bow in humility.
Cy: All right. And that’s what we’re talking about, a teaching of the Catholic Church. What does the Catholic Church teach that you might have trouble with? Or you might say, why? Why did the Catholic Church teach that?