SINS KNOWN AND NOT KNOWN?
SINS VOLUNTARY AND INVOLUNTARY?

© 1998 by Orchid Land Publications
[updated 2-6-99]

     While, as a result of the Fall caused by the sinning of our first ancestors, human beings have lost the Likeness of God--the Energy of Grace enabling us to serve and obey the divine will--we have not lost the essentials of human nature--the Icon (Image) of God, viz. reason and freewill.   Without reason and freedom, we would not be responsible for our acts but would just be robots, unable to sin or act virtuously.  People sin, not natures.  As St. Maximos said,

Thus nothing natural opposes God, for all natural things were clearly produced and generated by Him. We are not subject to any accusation because of any of the things that exist in us essentially; but we are clearly subject to accusation because of our perversion of those natural things.

It should be noted that "natural" here has its classical sense of "being in accord with such-and-such a nature"; it does not refer to everything that happens in "nature."  Whether our heart beats fast or slowly is involuntary and hence not a matter of morality, though actions that cause it to beat faster or more slowly may be moral matters.   Since morality presupposes knowledge and freedom of choice--we cannot be blamed for what we do not know, unless we are blameworthy (to the degree our mental capacities permit)  for making no effort to find out what is right and wrong.   But where we cannot know that something is wrong--e.g. marrying a person too closely related to oneself without knowing that our spouse is a relation, or receiving the Holy Communion too infrequently as the result of false teaching--we can hardly be guilty of sinning.  In such involuntary cases, our sinning is formal only and does not entail guilt.  One's intention is the key to the business--that's why the Ten Commandments, when properly translated as "do no murder," forbid murder but not other kinds of killing.  But intention (a product of freewill) depends on prior knowledge and one's duty to know what one is choosing.  If we neglect to obtain the necessary knowledge for a rational choice, then our intention becomes tainted.  Passing on gossip with no intention of harm can still be sinful if the gossip is--perhaps unknown to us--false.  We have a duty to check the information, though the duty will vary with one's ability and the difficulty of obtaining the information in question.  If passing on the gossip is known to be harmful, then one's intention and the offence are that much worse.   Telling the truth under the wrong circumstances can be as sinful as a lie; silence is often better.

      If freedom of choice is so basic to morality and automatons cannot sin, why do the Orthodox ask forgiveness for sins voluntary and involuntary?   Well, life is complicated, as the example just given shows.   Sometimes, we may be forced to choose the "lesser evil" of two evil choices--and determining which evil is the lesser may yield resutls that differ (for one act) according to different circumstances.  Killing one person to save a number of harmless people that he would otherwise murder (say, in war) has generally been recognized as falling in the category of the lesser evil.  Committing the lesser evil when it is forced on a person is not sinning, even though one may feel that one has  involuntarily done evil and ask for forgiveness, just to be sure.  But one is guilty of the evil consequences ensuing from an act that in itself is neutral if one is aware (or has culpably failed to make oneself aware) of such consequennces.  Being unaware of the ill consequences of an act may be due to inexperience, in which case we would be guilty to the degree we had neglected to gain such relevant experience as our abilities would warrant.  Unintended but foreseeable evil consequences can thus result in involuntary sinning.  Missing a given Church service or not fasting properly may not be sinful, say, if we do not know of our obligation; but it can be an involuntary sin if we are culpable of the ignorance that opens the way for failing to observe the obligations in question.  Leaving a loaded gun where it can be found by children may be due to no evil intention; but it is sinful, even if no damage is intended or even takes place; and one is of course culpable of whatever evil  ensues from this act, despite one's not having intended any evil consequences.  Loading a gun with real bullets while supposing them to be blanks may be an inculpable error, but it could more often be due to sinful carelessness, in which event any damage done as a result of that--even consequences not intended as such by the doer and consequences perhaps even unknown to the doer--do entail guilt.  Here we have really sinned though involuntarily.  A killing due to a driver’s drinking or taking drugs is of course voluntary and culpable, because the driver has consumed alcohol or drugs before driving; not intending the killing itself does not relieve one from of the sinful burden of voluntary drinking in full knowledge of the foreseeable consequences of drinking before driving.  Buying an objectionable book without knowing its character in advance is culpable to the degree that one has been neglectful in finding out the nature of the material.  Another all too frequently met with category of involuntary sin occurs when we infringe on others' rights through inadvertence--without consciously intending to do so--in situations in which we ought to be thinking of others (rather than ourselves).
     The degree of provocation is not irrelevant to the sinfulness of a spontaneous act that comes close to being involuntary while in essence it remains culpable.  Doubtful sins should be discussed with the priest or starets.   It can be sinful to obsess too much over the possiblity of sinning, e.g., when this causes a person to be so wrapped up in one's own purity that one ignores one's duties and obligations.  This sort of self-centeredness is one extreme, while Luther's "sin boldly" is the other extreme.  It is doubtless possible to sin by confessing when this is done merely for show or out of a "holier than thou" sort of pridefulness.  Confession is not required of a person newly baptized (though there may be variations in this practice), because Baptism forgives all past sins.  One may go to confession over inadvertences that one can hardly be blamed for, though there are of course culpable inadvertences.  One may confess to get a burden off of one's conscience without intending to amend one's ways; in that event, confession loses much of its value.  Forgetfulness at confession may be inculpable or culpable, depending on the circumstances.  The Orthodox treat confession and absolution as an individual matter.  Even when a general confession is read while standing in line to receive the most holy Mysteries, it is a reminder of our confession rather than being a real confession; after all, no absolution is pronounced after it has been read. 

     In cases of doubt, one often takes the safer course just to be safe.  When that becomes an excuse for neglecting some duty (the Latins speak of tutiorism), it can easily (though does not necessarily) become blameworthy.  One can harm one's body through misguided rigor and thus attempt a greater saintliness than one is capable of; or one may do so prematurely, before one has attained to the degree of growth to make the rigor profitable for oneself.  Or the intention may be laudable and still have some pharisaical immixture, as some true Saints have observed:  Rigor can then become a sort of involuntary sin.  But unnecessarily obsessing over whether the intention is free of pharisaism can be unhealthy too.  It is a touchy matter, for ruining our bodily health can result from a Gnostic view of bodies; only when one is free of heretical views and the desire to appear saintly is an extreme degree of humble asceticism laudable.   Orthodoxy has been blessed with numerous and preëminent examples of humble monks and nuns and others who have given up the world and everything in it for the sake of Christ and their Salvation; these Saints have greatly adorned the human race and humanity.   (In ancient and recent times, the context and occasion for there being confessors and martyrs has not been an adornment of the world; yet the evil of Communism did provide the occasion for there being numerous Saints in recent times.) 
     Everyone needs guidance--a spiritual father--since we are all prone to misvalue our strivings.  Doubtful situations arise.  It is because of the many doubtful choices that we are compelled to make that we need to ask for forgiveness of our involuntary sins--not that it is possible to sin involuntarily in a direct manner, but because there are many indirect ways of sinning, even without the intention to harm others, which are tainted by our knowledge of, or duty to know, the harm that such actions can lead to.
     Once our sins are forgiven, they are forgiven.  One of the Lordsdays in holy Great Lent commemorates St. Mary of Egypt--a most austere and holy solitary--who had been a notorious courtesan (prostitute) before becoming a Christian on a visit to Jerusalem.  While one should do what one can about any continuing consequences of what one has done, one should feel released from guilt and not obsess about one's sins--but rather just go out and do better.  While it is pious to recognize one's general or overall failure to perform each act with a pious motive, it is the failing of scrupulosity, to imagine or find a sin in each individual act when there is no reason to assume such.       
     Western Christians have a problem with infant Baptism.  If Baptism washes away inherited guilt and is without any other ontological effect, and if there can be no guilt without reason and intention, Baptism loses its logic--unless one embraces the absolutely indefensible notion of inherited guilt--accepted by both Latins and the Protestant Reformers?  But if will and intention or consent are necessary for Baptism, how can infants--or the feeble-minded and insane--provide this in order to be Baptized?  It is inconsistent to baptize one and refuse it to the other.  For more on holy Baptism, CLICK HERE.

CLICK HERE FOR FURTHER ON THIS MATTER

CLICK HERE ON RESPONSIBILITIES AND PRIVILEGES