Truth Magazine

By Jim Venturino

The Maryknoll Catholic Dictionary defines “Secular Humanism” as, “A type of humanitarianism which is devoted to the cause of humanity as a substitute for religion.” However, an examination of Catholic teaching regarding the seriousness of sin reveals that the Catholic Church and secular humanism are actually united. Both are devoting themselves to situation ethics as a substitute, for God and the Bible, as absolute authority.

As a foundation for this study we need to understand the Catholic position pertaining to the degrees of sin. The New Parish Catechism, by William G. Martin, addresses this subject on pp. 24-26 (lesson 8):

2. There are two kinds of sins, serious (sometimes called mortal) and less serious (called venial sins).

3. Serious sin is a moral offense that destroys the life of grace in the soul and separates the sinner from God.

4. The following serious sins are committed too frequently in the world and are to be avoided by Christians: such hatred of a person or group that brings serious harm to the group, such as racial or religious discrimination causing serious harm; disregard of the poor, the sick, the underprivileged; serious neglect of work of family or other duty; refusal to worship God; seriously injuring the reputation of another; serious violations of chastity; grave misuse of alcohol or narcotics.

9. A venial sin is a less serious rejection of God’s love and God’s law. Venial sins are not something to be disregarded. They weaken love of God and neighbor, and can even prepare one for serious sin. Examples of venial sins are disobedience, gossiping, uncharitableness that does not cause serious harm.

Another modern catechism is Christ Among Us, by Anthony J. Wilhelm C.S.P. In chapter 18, discussing judging the seriousness of sin, we find these statements:

Not all serious wrongs are mortal sins. Many people do serious wrong things without fully realizing they are such, e.g. millions many nominal Catholics who do not sufficiently know their religion, or some converts before studying Catholicism. Some do seriously wrong things, but do not fully want to do them; people often act under pressing mental strain, or from deeply-rooted bad habits. Most would rarely, if ever, make a fundamental and lasting choice of their way over God’s.

Mortal sin, then, is a fundamental choice of ourself over God that engages us to the depths of our being. Rather than thinking of mortal sin as a particular action, we should see it as a fundamental option, an attitude, a state of living, contrary to God, that we knowingly and deliberately choose.

The vast majority Of Sins are less serious rejections of God’s love, called venial (“easily forgiven”) sins. The offense is not serious, or the person does not fully know or fully want to do a serious wrong.

To complete our picture of the differences between mortal and venial sin, let’s look at their respective punishments from pp. 37-38 of the New Baltimore Catechism and Mass, by Michael A. McGuire:

Besides depriving the sinner of sanctifying grace, mortal sin makes the soul an enemy of God, takes away the merit of all its good actions, deprives it of the right to everlasting happiness in heaven, and makes it deserving of everlasting punishment in Hell.

Venial sin does not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace, and can be pardoned even without sacramental confession. Venial sin harms us by making us less fervent in the service of God, by weakening our power to resist mortal sin, and by making us deserving of God’s punishment in this life or in purgatory.

If we examine the above examples of mortal and venial sin, we discover many direct contradictions of the Bible. According to the Catholic Church, a person guilty of hating someone is not guilty of a serious sin unless such hatred caused serious harm. Compare this with the words of Christ, “But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be guilty before the court; and whoever shall say to his brother, ‘Raca,’ shall be guilty before the supreme court; and whoever shall say, ‘You fool,’ shall be guilty enough to go into the hell. of fire” (Mt. 5:22). Supposedly, disobedience and gossiping are only venial sins, and as such do not separate one from God, are not worthy of death, do not deprive the soul of sanctifying grace and can only be punished either in this life or in purgatory. But once again God says something different:

“Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes on the sons of disobedience” (Eph. 5:6).

“He who believes in the Son has eternal fife; but he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him” (Jn. 3:36).

“Let us therefore be diligent to enter that rest (our eternal rest in heaven, JRV), lest anyone fall through following the same example of disobedience” (Heb. 4:11).

“And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being fiRed with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them” (Rom. 1:28-32).

“The Bible teaches that “all unrighteousness is sin,” and, unless repented of, is punishable by death (1 Jn. 5:16-17; Rom. 6:23). Ignorance, contrary to Catholic doctrine, is no excuse for sin. In Acts 17:30 Paul informs us that God no longer accepts ignorance as justification for sin, but rather requires all men to repent. The reason given is that all will stand before the Judgment seat of Christ. At that time, our judgment will be based on the Scriptures, our actions and our ,thoughts (Jn. 12:48; 2 Cor. 5: 10; Heb. 4:12). For this reason we are commanded to “be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is” (Eph. 15:7-17). God says that all righteousness, even disobeying our parents and gossiping, can endanger the soul, cause us to be “rejected as regards ‘the faith,” and keep us out of heaven (2 Tim. 3:1-9; Rom. 1:28-32; 2 Pet. 3:13). Catholicism has truly embraced secular humanism’s situation ethics through “their definitions of mortal and venial sins. For example, racial prejudice is not a mortal sin unless serious harm is caused. Likewise, the amount of knowledge, intent and a variety of other circumstances determine ,the seriousness of sin. Acknowledging the difficulty of this position, Catholic writers make a valiant attempt to explain it away:

Some might conclude that it is impossible to choose to live in mortal sin, to fully and deliberately reject God’s will for us – so that even serious sins need not be taken too seriously. But mortal sin is an attitude of rejecting God that is built up by continual sinning. Each sinful act turns us farther from God, hardens us in our basic attitude which is becoming one of rejection. So each must be taken seriously. One might become so hardened, bit by bit, that he does recognize the point of ultimate rejection (Christ Among Us, p. 284).

They have tried unsuccessfully to dodge the bullet. A still remains nearly impossible to commit a mortal sin. What happens to the person who never recognizes that he has become hardened to the point of ultimate rejection of God? The Catholic Church emphatically teaches that such a soul is free from mortal sin.

In part two of this study we shall examine Catholic answers to a question asked in The New Parish Catechism: “In an individual instance what tells a person whether the action, thought, or omission is a serious sin?” Will Catholicism and Humanism go their separate ways? Or will Catholic doctrine self destruct upon the “stone of stumbling and rock of offense” (1 Pet. 2:8)? Tune in next time for the answer.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, pp. 14-15
January 3, 1985

By Don Martin

When most gospel preachers extend the invitation at the end of a sermon, they tell the alien sinner to believe, repent, confess Christ’s deity, and be baptized for the remission of sin (Acts 16:31; 17:30; Rom. 10:10; Acts 2:38). They also extend the invitation to erring Christians who have publicly sinned to come forward and publicly acknowledge their sin. It is the invitation to the Christian who is guilty of public sin which shall occupy our brief attention in this article.

The usual Scriptures customarily used to establish a public confession of public sin by the Christian are: Matthew 3:5,6, James 5:14-16; Acts 8:22-24; and 1 John 1:9. While I believe these verses contain areas of supportive teaching to the act of the Christian publicly acknowledging public sin, I do not believe they completely and totally lend themselves to the act of publicly confessing sin. For example, the verb (homologomen) rendered “confess” in 1 John 1:9 is first person, plural, present tense, subjunctive mood, and active voice (The Analytical Greek Lexicon, p. 289). In other words, the action contemplated in “confess” is continuous action. Are we going to affirm that all Christians (those who commit private sins) are required to keep on publicly confessing sin? Hence, I do not believe 1 John 1:9 it totally supportive of what we are calling public confession of public sin.

Another Approach

Brethren, I believe public confession of public gin can be soundly established by necessary inference. For example, the Scriptures irrefutably teach fellowship is to be limited and controlled (1 Jn. 1:7,3; Eph. 5:11; Tit. 3:10, 11; 1 Cor. 15:2, 7, 9, 13). If the incestuous man of I Corinthians 5 repented and only privately prayed to God, how would the church know he had repented? You say his ceasing to fornicate would be evidence. However, his cessation of that particular sin would not necessarily be evidence of repentance – perhaps he simply tired of the sinful ttlationship. I knew of a member who stole some money and was apprehended by the authorities. The crime was publicized in all the local papers. The member privately prayed to God for forgiveness. However, they needed to let the local church know they had repented – so the local church would fellowship them and also to correct the wrong against the local church (2 Cor. 2:7). Hence, the case in 1 Corinthians is the scriptural establishment of public confession of public sin.

Abuses Of Public Confession

Beloved, to every biblical subject and teaching there are numerous abuses. The denominational “altar call” is an obvious abuse. The preacher persuades aliens to come and publicly confess their sins and pray through. Then there is the practice in the church of preachers exciting members to come forward and publicly announce their private sins. Indeed, there are many abuses.

Things Which Hinder And Prevent Requisite Confession

Lack of desire to correct a public sin or a sin which has become public keeps many from making themselves right with God (John 7:17). Resentfulness of others and just plain rebellion to God’s law of restoration certainly are hindrances. Then there is pride! I have known of two cases in my preaching experiences involving extreme pride. In both cases the brethren had the choice of publicly acknowledging sin or being withdrawn from. Both responded (separate cases) by acknowledging, “If I have sinned, I am sorry.” When they were told they would have to be more decided, they then said: “Please forgive me of my sins.” Under usual circumstances I personally would think this would suffice, however, before they left the building they both said, “I did not include the ‘sin’ charged against me but simply meant sin in general of which we are all guilty (Rom. 3:23). ” One of these brethren (the third time the church reprehended him) then said (with the help of some “elders” from another local church): “Please forgive me of all sins I have knowingly and unknowingly committed.” Now, this might appear to be accepted except it was maintained that the sin charged against him was not a sin, but that the church had to forgive him anyway – because if it constituted a sin, then he still had repented of it under “sins of ignorance.” Can you imagine such? As a result of this proud, stubborn man (and a defending “eldership”), two churches were severely spiritually crippled!

Those Who Should Make A Public Confession

Brethren, any and all sins which are public should be publicly corrected. Those who lay out of services; the immoral; the factious individual; the gossipper, etc., need to publicly acknowledge their sins to be right in the brethren’s sight and in God’s sight (Heb. 10:25,26; 1 Cor. 5; Tit. 3:10,11; 1 Tim. 5:13).

In closing, public confession of public sin is unquestionably taught in and required by the New Testament (I have not sought to go into some areas of public confession because of the space limitation). Let us ever be willing to publicly confess our public sins so we can enjoy fellowship with God and with our brethren (fellowship with God and with the brethren, in this case, is inseparable).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 20
January 3, 1985

By Kathleen Rogol

On November 29, 1984, sister Rita Warner, a member of the Piscataway, NJ church, quite suddenly and unexpectedly, passed from this life. The shock of the news was even greater to me because I had talked to her on the phone the night before.

Why write this tribute in her memory? Certainly out of respect. But out of a feeling of deep respect because she was an extraordinary woman and a dedicated Christian. This is written to serve as an example and source of inspiration to other sisters in Christ who are burdened with sorrows and difficulties in life as sister Warner was. But you too can have a rich, abundant fife and find the same joy she did by the same manner of life she lived.

I first met sister Warner when we moved to Piscataway, NJ, where my husband worked as an evangelist. Sister Warner was one of the first persons to welcome us there and, throughout our stay there, was very hospitable and supportive of all phases of the work of the church. Sister Warner taught a Bible class of young people. When the members came together to go door-to-door to pass out invitations to meetings, she was always doing her part.

Just before a gospel meeting, she bought fresh flowers for the building to add a touch of beauty. At a few minutes notice, she was ready many times to go to neighboring congregations (which in NJ are not very close) to attend gospel meetings, singings, or other get-togethers of Christians. Many times she visited the sick, the new members and encouraged many Christians to grow in the Lord.

When we moved from that area, she was there to help us with packing and other preparations for our departure. But the most amazing thing about sister Warner is yet to come.

Sister Warner was a widow. Her husband died many years ago when they had two small children, Glen and Jimmy. Not only did she have the difficult task of raising two boys alone, but in addition one of them had juvenile diabetes and often had to deal with complications so often associated with this disease.

Glen, the oldest son, attended Florida College a few years ago and since then returned and is doing a wonderful work spreading the light of the gospel in the Piscataway community as well as among students at Rutgers University. Glen always conducts Bible studies with students of that school. He finds his greatest joy in keeping busy in the service of the Master.

Although Rita had enough burdens to bear, one would never guess that she had any serious problems or difficulties. She was always smiling, cheerful, interested in and concerned for others.

She often talked with young people about their problems and, upon occasions, even helped some find jobs or a place to live. Never did I hear Rita talking or complaining about her lot in life, her burdens and problems; rather, she showed concern for others in their unfortunate situations. She did not ask for herself; she gave herself to others and totally dedicated herself to the Lord.

One time she came to services and had on a lovely black coat. She took it off, put it around my shoulders and said, “It looks good on you; it’s yours.” That’s just another example of the “good deeds” she had done out of love from her heart. This gave her much happiness. As Paul spoke of the Macedonians, so it was true of Rita Warner: “the abundance of (her) joy” was “giving herself first to the Lord” and to others -and that many times “in a great trial of affliction” (2 Cor. 8:1-2).

There was a woman in early New Testament times that the Holy Spirit saw fit to mention and expressed respect for her. In Acts 9:36 we read of Dorcas: “This woman was full of good works and alms deeds which she did.” These words of the Holy Spirit were penned by Luke, not only in tribute to her good life, but to serve as an example for all women through all ages to come.

Truly, we had a “Dorcas” among us in this twentieth century: Rita Warner. As Dorcas died, so did Rita. And as we can know of the good deeds of Dorcas because they were recorded in sacred history, so the life of Rita Warner will long live in the hearts and memories of those who knew her for her goodness of life and of those whose lives were touched and made better by her sincere concern for them.

Dear sisters in Christ, whether young or old, think of sister Warner. Do you have sorrows, burdens and difficulties in life? Do you want the quality of your life to become better with greater meaning and purpose? Let this tribute to sister Warner speak to you to encourage and inspire you to enrich and place your life on a more noble plane. Let this bring a blessing to your life as it did to hers because she found joy in service to God and in giving of herself and comforting others. In what measure that you give to others, in that measure you enrich your own life and find true happiness. No sorrow or tribulation can overcome you if you follow the example of this great servant of Christ.

Indeed a “princess of Israel” has fallen into the beckoning hand of death. But remembering her gives us courage to press on in the calling of Jesus Christ. It proves to us the worth of being devoted servants of the Lord. She cannot come back to us but we can use her example to get strength to travel to heaven in the after-awhile.

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 11
January 5, 1985

By Lewis Willis

Throughout the Bible, exhortations are given to parents to raise their children to be God-fearing and respectful. Parents are to bring up their children in the solemn understanding that the ideals they plant in their minds will be the ideals by which they will live (Prov. 22:6; 23:7). Any parent who is mindful of this duty will feel it as it weighs heavily upon his mind. His loving concern for his child is that which compels him to extend himself to provide those things needful for the present and future well-being of his child.

However, the anxiety of this duty to provide things needful is not all that bears upon the parent. While he labors to give food, clothing, shelter and medical care to his family, there are other forces at work. These forces are led by Satan and the intent is the destruction of the ideals which the parent has sought to instill. Apparently, Satan has achieved a great measure of success, but he has not done the job without help!

Ironically, many of these same parents have helped him! They have done so through neglect and indifference. They do not study God’s Word with their children in the home, nor do they make necessary sacrifices and put forth concerted efforts to study with them in the Bible classes offered by the church. This neglect has given these parents more time for lawn-mowing, fishing and relaxing, but it has left them with young people who are almost, if not altogether, beyond the point of being impressed with anything pertaining to godliness. Such is no longer interesting and exciting enough for today’s youth!

Young people are looking for that which is entertaining and exciting, and they have little trouble finding it. But, it is a discredit to our society that it must be said this excitement has been too frequently found in crime! Several years ago, in 1967, I filed a startling report issued by Evel J. Younger, District Attorney of the City of Los Angeles. At that time he said that 75% of the crime in this country was being committed by young people between the ages of 14 and 22 years. Since the incidents of crime has steadily increased since 1967 there is no reason to believe that the sad situation Mr. Younger reported has improved.

What has happened to our young people? Have they forgotten the ideals they were taught? Or, have these ideals been undermined by carelessness and neglect of the parents who have taught them? Certainly the young are able to see when their parents are inconsistent and do not do the things they teach them to do, such as, attending Bible classes, and worship services, praying, etc.

So, the burden of parents is to teach the lofty ideals expected by God and to live according to those ideals themselves. By doing so, they will set a worthy and effective example before their children. I certainly do not seek to establish myself as an authority on raising children for I have awaiting me, the same problems which many of you are now facing. And, the vice and corruption that prevails in our society does not make the task look easy or pleasant. But, the task is there nonetheless.

“And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord” (Eph. 6:4). And, to the young people, the apostle Paul had this to say: “Children, obey your parents in the Lord for this is right. Honor thy father and mother . . .” (vv. 1-2).

Guardian of Truth XXIX: 1, p. 18
January 3, 1985