Another mortal sin question

Was the following a near occasion of sin or just OCD/scrupulosity?

I’m attracted to girls from certain countries

My dad, who is an overseas worker asked me half seriously over skype what other countries he should work in

I didn’t dwell on the thoughts, but the countries whose women I am attracted to came to mind. Again, I didn’t dwell on the thoughts nor did I get aroused.

I mentioned the names of those countries to him.

Then after talking to him, I was chatting with my mother and asked her if she would ever let me study abroad in those particular countries. Again, I wasn’t aroused nor did I dwell on any thoughts

Were these near occasions of sin?

I don’t think you are in any sin. It is not wrong to like girls or be attractive to them. As long as you weren’t thinking lustfully about them I think you are okay. I am not the actual judge of this so please note the possibility that I could be wrong. So do not go off of my judgement, because I don’t want to be responsible for causing another to sin!

God Bless

If it is as you did write, no sin, not even close to one.

If you are unable to recognise when you are in scrupulous mode then you need a counsellor or priest or friend to help you in these moments.

That you have come here suggests you have not tried these wise avenues.
If scrupulosity interferes with daily life then it is time to accept you need professional assistance.

Good luck.

No. Finding the traits of certain ethnic groups to be appealing is not a sin. I find Hispanics to be attractive, generally speaking. That isn’t a sin, it is a matter of taste. Lust is when you think “Boy, I would really like to do [ACT X,Y,Z] with that person.” Also, generally speaking, I believe most of the older moral theology manuals required arousal to be present.

Also, if the thought just springs to mind, even if arousal is present, it isn’t a sin. A sin requires consent. The piece of advice given by St. Alphonsus Ligouri (who was quite scrupulous himself, and is the patron of those who suffer from scruples) on stuff like this was that if you pray while you are being tempted for the grace to overcome the temptation, you can be sure of not having sinned.

just short post, Where in the new testament did Christ delineate sin and mortal sin???everyone here seems to assume mortal sins exist,.:rolleyes: but where did it all start,This opens a new thread. Some mortal sin are just old ideas put forth by the church,lets dig deeper william bradl

baseballboy 22,Hi, you state that its ok to like girls,as long as you do not look lustfully at them!!! How do you think the worlld functions,God created a mutual attraction between the sexes,its normal,natural,and provides the worlds population to continue, the 6th commandment is thou shall not committ adultery How did this become thou shall not look lustfully at a girl. Now i’m not avocating moral loosesness, but nature was established by God and for a reason…w bradl.

Attraction does not mean that per se there has been any lust…

As to “not looking lustfully” --but yes God said not to look lustfully. Such is covered by the 6th commandment.

See Matthew 5:27-28

Where Jesus says that everyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart…

The Church teaches by the authority and command of Christ.

He who hears you hears me

Yes they exist.

And mortal sin is a teaching of the Church – to whom Christ gave the authority and command to teach …

Attraction does not mean that per se there has been any lust…

That being said.

As to “not looking lustfully” --yes God said not to look lustfully. Such is covered by the 6th commandment.

See Matthew 5:27-28

Where Jesus says that everyone who looks lustfully at a woman has already committed adultery in his heart…

Here another thought, one man looks at a girl lustfully,he just enjoys the vison of pulchritude, but has no thought of going further, and he catches a train home. Ronald Rapist sees the same girl who is by the way a pole dancer and you can see where this is going…so who has the greater sin? Do we now have levels of Mortal sin??? wbradl


Just as in other mortal sins.

Some are worse than others. Yes there are degrees.


to kid shellen Why does Kid Ssschellen want to go to countries that contain the girls that appeal to him!! is there something else going on??? TO BOOKCAT…when I asked if there were different levels of,mortal sin I referred to different levels of the same sin,not different sins.You answered " just as in OTHER mortal sins" as answering as it was it was a comparison of different sins,while I referred to differences in the Same sin. Another thought,can the same sin have different effects in different people?,a mortal sin for one is not a mortal sin for another? Now we don,t have a one sze fits all concept,where does the church stand on this???w bradl

The two basic categories of actual sin are: venial sin and mortal sin. Within those categories there can yes be degrees.

One can say such and such mortal sin is “more serious” but all are still mortal. For example the murder of one person may be worse than the murder of another – such as for example abortion -the murder of an innocent baby or murdering ones mother or wife is worse than say another murder (which is still of course very serious and mortal).

There is not some “exhaustive list” but for people make up new ways of doing seriously wrong things on an ongoing basis…from murder by roadside bomb to whole genecides…

Just gave example above regarding kinds of murder. So that should rap that partup.

There is an objective aspect (what the thing is it in itself) and a subjective aspect (am I subjectively guilty for such and such)

I can be invincibly ignorant that Y is gravely sinful - innocently in error --I have no clue that such could be so – and do it and not commit a mortal sin. One needs not only the grave matter but also knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a mortal sin.

The thing does not cease to be a “grave matter” but my culpability can be reduced at that time. And thus I commit a venial sin not a mortal one here and now.

See the Catechism on this.

bookcat 5:39,I answer that{:how do youlike the Acquinas retort} …you split hairs,a subjective ,and a object view indeed! We are not talking about object sin , all sin is subjective that was my question ,cld sin be subjective ie mortal objectively and not mortal subjectively.?? we can not have mortal sin slippinp into venial sin ,who cares about venial sin anyway!. If you say mortal sin can slip into venial, then can the reverse be true?venial into mortal??. The aspect of delibert consent intrigues me,who in their right mind wld delibertly commit a mortal sin,? fullwell knowing it brings eternal punishment?,only an idiot wld make that choice!,and wld an idiot be responsible for his acttons?,in the words of John Wayne " not likely ". so he who wld committ a mortal sin wld not culpable ergo we all go to heaven!!!wbradl,i havet get dragon my mind works faster than my poor typing ability…w bradl

to Blue Horizon,I feel in a scrupolus questioning mood tihs morning. I asked this question before but rec,d no replies,and I think it,s important enough to repeat. It,s simple enougg What is the difference between redemption and salvation?..wbradl:confused:

Wbradl, you seem to be falling prey to a false argument that is often put forth by our Protestant brothers and sisters. As Catholics, we believe that Christ left a Church, not a book, and that the Holy Spirit has and continues to guide the Church in her teachings so that they are free from doctrinal error and absolutely authoritative. Protestants often point to Church teaching, and say “Where is THAT in the Bible?” Well, even though almost all Catholic teaching can be found to be based somewhere in Scripture (in this case, look at 1 John 5:17 - “All unrighteousness is sin, and there is a sin not leading to death”), the authority of the teaching isn’t valid BECAUSE of the Scripture. Church teaching just never contradicts Scripture because they’re both from God!

It seems popular nowadays to ignore anything in Scripture that’s not a direct quote of Jesus, a practice which goes well beyond the Protestant doctrine of Sola Scriptura. Proponents of same sex “marriage” often say “When did Jesus actually talk about homosexuality?” while dismissing the writings of Paul, for example.

In summary, the “old ideas put forth by the Church” are what we call Tradition. Tradition is the teaching of Christ, entrusted to the apostles, and handed down faithfully orally and by writing, preserved by the Holy Spirit. The official doctrines of the Church are JUST as binding and accurate as any of the words of Christ preserved in the Gospels. This is because we, as Catholics, believe Church teachings ARE the teachings of Christ, handed down faithfully from generation to generation.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit