Rough translation of two articles from Teología Moral Fundamental. (Trigo et. al.) cf p. 527-528.

By: Mark Marlonne Lumbera

Internal Sins
Sin is always a free human act. That is to say, it proceeds from the bad will of man.
This free act can and cannot be manifested exteriorly. We have the external sins or sins
committed externally and internally.
It is said above that this division is morally important because it shows a truth that
always necessary present: that the voluntary and free act as such is which proceeds from
the will, the internal act of the will. It is “wanting”. The person with his will—has
specifically decided to the good or to the bad, and made him good or bad. In the place of
which after wanting, it materializes fully in the interior or in the exterior of the subject.
The interior and exterior realization of wanting voluntarily provides diverse qualification
to a moral reality already given: the internal act of man. The wanting voluntarily and its
intensity is which marks, in good measure, the goddess and the badness of the good or
bad acts for their matter, then manifests the degree of commitment of the will of the
personal will with the good or with the bad.
The internal sins are considered in the last two commandments of the Decalogue,
and they appear in the teachings of Jesus (at times, for surprise and including scandal to
his hearers, as in Mt 5,28, when he affirms that one can commit adultery with only
desiring a woman).
Christian morality affirms and teaches also its gravity and importance. It is easy to
understand after talking about the nature of the same voluntary act. However, it is to note
that interior sins, like mortals and venial, are less grave than those exterior results, they
comes from a less intense will that which those acts done also exteriorly: to think
something or desire is not the same with really doing it.
Usually, internal sins can be divided into three groups, arranged according to the
malice of the will: consented thoughts of the sinful actions, the desires of the actions that
will become sin if done, and the satisfaction and joy of the evil acts done in the past.
The internal acts of the evil thoughts consists in the will of thinking and imagining
a concrete immoral act, insofar as it is for the subject. It is to say, he who studying moral
thinks of the sin of adultery, does not commit internal sin; however, the person who,
having not doing it but entertaining it in his mind, committed external sin.
The sin of bad desires consists in the interior desire of something immoral, may
have or may not have affective intention to do it. This is close to bad thoughts and
normally do it.
Finally, the internal sin of satisfaction or joy consists in enjoying something
immoral after doing it by the subject, without which may require the decision of doing it
again. It can take a positive form (satisfaction or joy before an evil act done) or negative
(sadness before an evil act done). Like in the previous case, usually close to the evil
thoughts and evil desires.
Rough translation of two articles from Teología Moral Fundamental. (Trigo et. al.) cf p. 527-528.
By: Mark Marlonne Lumbera

Specific and Numeric Distinction of Sins

Traditionally, to distinguish one sin from the other, they use two criteria. In the first
place, by its kind; in this way, a committed sin against the virtue of justice, it is distinct
from other committed against the virtue of temperance. In the second place, by its
number; in this way, they are distinct to various sins of the same kind committed by the
same person.
These distinctions are important because, on the one hand, they show commitment of
the personal will with the bad in different forms. And on the other hand, the point of
reference of sin, the conversion, requires remorse for all the sins committed, and
therefore, for each and every one whom committed sins. Precisely with this, the
sacrament of Penance is important for one’s repentance and to admit all committed sins,
much in its kind and number.
1. The specific distinction of sins
The kind of sin is distinguished in its object and gravity. This distinction allows to
show in manner in which every sin offends God, according to the disorder that they
involve to the creatures; in the same manner, shows the scope of deterioration of the
person that every sin assumes.
To speak about the kinds of sins usually distinguished between moral and theological.
The moral kind comes from the moral object of the action committed and it takes the
good that results damage by the action, and in which, therefore, the person harmed.
In turn, within the same kind, the gravidity of an act can be major or minor in the role
of the matter of which it may deal with. Moreover, can have actions that, to be opposed
to the different human goods at the same time, they review different specific malice.
They are acts that injure at the same time various virtues. In practice, the moral kind
tends to be frequently distinguished the moral kinds according to the virtues or
according to the commandments. In this manner, the penitent that confesses declares
the kind of sins declaring the virtues or commandments that damaged with them.
The theological kind refers, however, to the degree of the separation from God that
each sin follows, and from this manner, by its theological kind, sins can be mortal or
venial.
2. The numerical distinction of sins
Sins are also distinguished one from the other by its number. The numeric
distinction allows, in certain manner, measure the deterioration of the will, in the
measure of which a major number of sins of the same kind committed, shows a major
attachment of the will to the evil that it deals with, and also, therefore, to the evil that
all sins assume.
Sins are distinguished numerically for the number of actions of the will: much sins
are committed of a type which the various act of the will has produced.
Rough translation of two articles from Teología Moral Fundamental. (Trigo et. al.) cf p. 527-528.
By: Mark Marlonne Lumbera

Normally it is not hard to determine the number of sins of the same kind that has
committed. But, surely, in some occasions one can encounter other difficulty, because
of the matter itself, of the complexity of the situation, etc. In general, one take into
consideration, that there are different acts of the will about the same object when left
destroyed the unity of the moral decision. To end this:
a. In the internal acts temporal termination is enough
b. In the external acts:
a. It is to consider that there is a new voluntary act when it’s about the
premeditated diverse actions. Likewise, little thefts throughout the day
without connection between them, constitutes much sins of real thefts that
they produced.
b. However, one takes into account that there is one sin or act of the will when
different actions converge to a one and the same end. Likewise, many
robberies with the little entire which one commits according to one strategy
that follows a considerable sum, they not constitute different sins of
robbery, but a one sin that, according to the steal quantity, can be however
of major gravity that each of the previous considered alone.