www.byzcath.org Forums Faith & Christian Life Faith & Theology Understanding Involuntary Sin

InvoSinner, I'm honestly not sure where I lost you.

I'm not sure where you went off, but losing focus during prayer involuntary isn't a sin. I have already discussed what involuntary sin is, as explained by St. Basil. There's a lot of emphasis that blasphemous thoughts aren't yours, at least in eastern theology. It's often talked about how sin starts in the mind by temptation before it seeps into your heart. Losing focus because of fatigue, weakness or the temptations I mentioned have never ever been regarded as sins by Saints, or theologians for that matter. You might as well call every temptation sin at that point, which obviously doesn't work.

I don't mean to analyze you, but you look at the Lord as if he's a tyrant that will punish you for something out of your control (disruptive thoughts during prayer, fatigue at night etc). He loves you so dearly, why should he punish you for such "sins"?

Going further, I am even more confused. Did we not establish that you don't "actually" add a nail with every sin? Why are you going back to it? And how did you come to the conclusion that sin doesn't pain God? I already advised you to not see everything through a legalistic lense and see the beauty of such articulation, of a Lord who loves you so dearly. You came to the conclusion though, that sin doesn't pain God at all, which is a bit arbitrary in my mind. Sin is the separation of you and God, do you think the Beloved doesn't sorrow when you do that? Do you think it doesn't pain the Lord when you fall into the hands of the evil one? I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "feeling pain", but in any case he does feel pain. Just not another "nail to the cross", like I said. It's a metaphor on how serious sin is. If I am misunderstanding you then please let me know, because I feel as though I must have forgotten or missed something. God bless.

Hi HaveFaith, thanks for replying. I'll start by clarifying that when I mention scrupulosity, "punishment" and "legalism" is far from my mind. What torments me is the thought of me hurting God - not the thought of Him hurting me.

In my first post to start the thread I categorized involuntary sins into 2 categories: a) actions deliberately taken as the lesser of multiple evils, and b) actions involuntarily taken. I gave killing in war as an example of the first and losing focus during prayer as an example of the second. I reread your replies and don't see an actual definition of what involuntary sin is in them. I can only see it being one of these two categories, but maybe I'm missing something. Can you give an example of involuntary sin and a definition if you think I'm incorrect? Because you typed before that "involuntary sin requires involuntary imperfection" but now you typed that "losing focus because of [weakness] have never ever been regarded as sins by Saints" which is confusing because that's exactly what I'd consider to be an involuntary imperfection. Didn't Ap. Peter sin involuntarily by falling asleep at Gethsemane? the spirit is wiling but the flesh is weak.

Your replies got me questioning what I had read and I eventually agreed that sinful actions deliberately taken to avoid a greater evil are likely not involuntary sins. That leaves the second category - actions involuntarily taken - as the only other possible thing that an involuntary sin can be. In my mind this would be involuntary actions such as losing focus during prayer, using foul language, eating too much, etc.... This is quite different from how I understand temptation. I'll illustrate with the example of prayer: a man is praying the rosary, and in the middle of a decade he remembers a joke his coworker told [temptation]. He finishes his decade and then realizes that he was not thinking of God during much of the prayer [involuntary sin]. Then he decides it doesn't matter and deliberately continues thinking about the joke throughout the rest of the rosary [voluntary sin]. So temptation does not necessarily equate to involuntary sin - the man could have remembered the joke but rejected the thought immediately.

As for your final paragraph - yes, I have come to believe that sin does not cause God pain, only sorrow. I went back to it because you seem to have disagreed with me by saying that sin causes God to suffer but does not "add a nail". So to rephrase my last post - if involuntary sin is category (b) above, then wouldn't we be causing God pain every hour of our lives? If that is so, that makes me scrupulous and completely miserable to think that most of the times that I pray I end up hurting God. But when I reorient myself into thinking that I am "only" disappointing God (not causing Him to suffer), well that makes it completely manageable and not a big deal (because of the mutual understanding that I'm trying to improve, the disappointment is minimized).


To avoid confusion I'll summarize - I created the post asking for help understanding involuntary sin. After discussion, I have understood that involuntary sins are sinful actions that we take without conscious consent of the will. This initially posed a problem of scrupulosity, but the problem (for me personally) is resolved by believing that sin does not cause God any pain. My intuition has me hesitant to embrace this idea completely, and so I'm eager to hear arguments one way or the other to help me work it out.

InvoSinner,
Glory to Jesus Christ!

I don't mean to distract from your current conversation, but if you don't mind, I would want to offer what little I understand about this. It sounds somewhat familiar to some difficulties I had, though I might repeat some previous points in the process.
I think your focus is, indeed, quite a unique approach. You seem to worry about doing wrong to God in ANY way, at any moment, with any involuntary action. My working understanding of sin was that it is, indeed, any kind of 'falling short' before God. These, however, are not always so much a effect of any direct desire to aggrieve Him as they are part of our wounded nature.
These acts, certainly, are focused on by the Fathers of the Church, as you mention, and in many of our prayers. But they are rarely one's focus, simply because they are typically involuntary. Perhaps, there are a few things to keep in mind:
1. As this Holy Week will show, Christ is taken into captivity, crucified and risen from the dead, conquering death, all to overcome our sinfulness. St. Peter fell short of what Christ wanted by falling asleep at Gethsemane, and he sinned voluntarily even more; and yet, he is now Saint Peter, first among the Apostles, glorified in Heaven.
2. Considering our wounded nature, it is worth remembering what exactly our Saviour asks from us. Most of the job is His; He could, if we were just a 'drag', get rid of us and leave us be if He wanted, but it is because He loves even us, and wants our salvation, that we receive any grace or help in this struggle. While we can't just ignore involuntary sins, then, scrupulousness is not what God asks or wants of us.
3. God, then, wants us to be made perfect in Him, but that takes time; what He wants is for us to slowly move, despite our imperfections, towards Him. Rather than thinking of these things in the absolute, it might be more helpful to think of it as a process, or a movement. If I can make use of St. John Climacus's analogy, we are climbing the ladder, and we might struggle, get stuck, or lose some of our grip; the point, however, is to hold on and keep climbing. God, who lets us do all the good we do in the first place, will help cover the rest. Belief in Him is belief in His boundless mercy; being open to it is the key.

I don't think this is too far off from what you're saying, so I apologise if this sounds like lecturing things you probably already understand. Still, I think there might be an importance in the focus. If we spend all our time fearing & scrupulising over where we fall short, I think we more easily ignore what God actually wants from us here and now. Anxiety cannot and should not replace our joy and thankfulness for His mercy. Perhaps our Paschal joy, then, coming so very soon, can help as a reminder that God loves us and calls for us to love Him back. Hence why St. Paul teaches that "all the law is fulfilled in one word", that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself". But this matter is, at least to my very imperfect understanding, as much an issue of emotion & relationship with God as it is one of understanding him by rational, logical means.

I hope any of this contribution may prove helpful or comforting to you, in heart even if not in mind!

turaŭski

Glory forever to God!

Thanks turaŭski, a lot of what you said is indeed very important to keep in mind. As much as someone like myself might struggle with emotion & relationship, it truly is important in matters as these.

> You seem to worry about doing wrong to God in ANY way, at any moment, with any involuntary action.... While we can't just ignore involuntary sins, then, scrupulousness is not what God asks or wants of us.

I see 3 possibilities: a) sin causes God pain; b) sin "only" causes God sorrow/disappointment; c) sin does not affect God.
When I first started considering this problem over a year ago, possibility (b) was hidden from me and I was greatly confused. Now that I see it, I believe it. The argument presented in post #426009 on page 1 really helped me with that. We can't just ignore our involuntary sins, because they do disappoint God, but we shouldn't be scrupulous over them, because they don't cause Him pain.

> I think your focus is, indeed, quite a unique approach.

This is what is tripping me up. Why is this so unique? Why doesn't this bother anyone else? Most all the conversations I've had with my priest and with others online went something like this: "Does involuntary sin cause God pain?" - <<Yes>> - "So I'm hurting God every hour I live?" - <<Stop worrying about it>> - "Why?" - <<God loves you anyway>> - "???".
The AI tools I've consulted argued that the reason this approach is unique is because it's so ridiculous. Sin obviously does not cause God pain, any authoritative source that suggests otherwise is just using devotional language.
I have a hard time imagining someone who loves God, who believes his involuntary imperfections cause God pain, and yet... just isn't all that bothered by it.

Ah, I see then where I was wrong. I was basing this whole thing on you accepting the eastern thought on involuntary sin. But again, I feel as though in Latin theology it's still wrong to look at it from such a perspective. So, perhaps let's start from the base; what involuntary sin is again, now more Latin.

St. Augustine of Hippo said that sin has three stages. Suggero, delectatio and consensio, Suggestion (temptation), delight in the temptation and conset to it. It is only at the second stage where a potential venial sin could arise, potential, with the third stage being the stage to fully confirm the sin. Taking the example of not focusing in prayer because of fatigue, weakness etc, it stops at the first stage since you don't delight in missing prayer nor consent to it (you can't control fatigue), meaning it is not sinful at all. Or, perhaps, you randomly get a thought and you forget you're in prayer and start to play it out, you don't consent to ignoring prayer, since you aren't aware of it, and neither do you delight in the thought of missing prayer, but you did entertain it a little, but not with full consent, leading to a venial sin (which I'll touch upon later).

Furthermore, St. Francis de Sales even differentiates on what you take pleasure in. In his book "Introduction to the devout life" in section "When Temptation and Delectation are Sin." he teaches this: "But if the person who courts her plays exquisitely on the lute, and she took pleasure, not in the personal attentions paid to herself, but in the sweetness and harmony of the music, there would be no sin in that, although it would be wrong to give way to any extent to her pleasure, for fear of its leading on to pleasure in the pursuit of herself." Now, with this teaching, we can compare it to our example again of losing focus. If a bird outisde hums and you forget to focus, as long as you do not consent to leaving prayer, and delight in the melody and not of accidentally losing focus, you have done no sin (as long as you don't dwell upon it, where St. Francis says sin then could arise). St. Francis de Sales even uses the suggestion of being impressed at a vengeful plan because of its genius rather than bloodthirst, which I think is even better than the last example.

St. Thomas Aquinas even goes as far to say that sin can not be involuntary, ever (Summa Theologiae, I-II, q.74). There he argues that the will is the primary subject of sin because sin is a voluntary, moral act that remains in the agent rather than passing into external matter. I must mention too that he derived this mostly from St. Augustine.

So, then, what IS involuntary sin in Latin theology? To put it shortly, the phrase for involuntary sin is improper in Latin theology and does not exist. Yet it can indicate different things at times when people do bring it up. Most often, it refers to partial consent, or imperfect consent, which would come closer to what you probably thought involuntary sin is. Imperfect consent is when your sensuality acts, like an impulsive thought or feeling, before your reasoning fully consents to the act. This, no matter how grave the sin may have been, will always be considered a venial sin, since mortal sin is when the rational mind willfully turns away from the divine law.

Dominic M. Prummer gives us the 5 reasons in his Handbook of Moral Theology: when an act is committed while half asleep or half drunk ; when the penitent is not in complete possession of himself, v.g., because of a sudden and most vehement surge of passion ; when a person is suffering from pathological states or feelings, e.g., hysteria, mania, phobia. When the penitent can truthfully and certainly assert that he would never have acted in that way if he had thought about it seriously beforehand ;when the penitent in the face of temptation is immediately agitated and sorry because of the devout state of his conscience. This is what one as a Latin can consider imperfect consent.

I hope you came along fine with my explanation. As for "God only feeling sorrow", yes, your issue is (hopefully) resolved now and that you know you don't sin every hour of your life involuntarily (since you can't), but also why? Instead of seeing your multitude of sins and the pain it may cause the Lord, you decided it was too much handle and have come up with this "solution" that basically lets you say that the Lord does not actually hurt because of sin. Why? Your Lord came to serve, he wants you to toss your sins, even if it may be every hour, at him. He wants you to see the pain it causes him when you leave him, his beloved. I can see what you mean by it causing scrupulosity, but at the same time every bit of sin gives you that danger. To become a Saint you must force yourself to rest in the Lord's gaze despite not being perfect. You must see your tainted heart and offer it instead of hiding it. Sin causes pain to the Lord, he doesn't want to leave you. Cling to him till the end of your days. God bless.

[quote=InvoSinner]If that is so, that makes me scrupulous and completely miserable to think that most of the times that I pray I end up hurting God. But when I reorient myself into thinking that I am "only" disappointing God (not causing Him to suffer), well that makes it completely manageable and not a big deal (because of the mutual understanding that I'm trying to improve, the disappointment is minimized)./quote]

I also want to clarify on this that I typed. If I decide to pray for a while I know that it is likely I will end up involuntarily sinning by losing focus. If I think I am only disappointing God then that is fine because it is cancelled out by the good that I do. We can imagine that the prayer is worth 10 points of approval from God and the involuntary sin is worth 1 point of disappointment, so overall God is pleased with my prayer even though I sinned with it.

On the other hand, if I believe that losing focus during prayer causes God pain, then the approval/disappointment axis doesn't matter anymore because now it's about pain. And the approval from doing good can't make up for that.


Anyway, I don't want this to get too personal. The outstanding question is: "Does involuntary sin cause God pain? If so, how does one account for scrupulosity? If not, can we really just write off all language that suggests otherwise as devotional?"

HaveFaith, I made a post on a Roman Catholic forum asking for their understanding of Romans 7 and I didn't get any satisfactory answer. Yet surely they must have an explanation. Perhaps we can say that Ap. Paul was writing about imperfect consent, like what Fr. Prunner wrote about. I also read a commentary by Bp. Challoner (DRC) that said that involuntary sinful actions are "original sins" for which St. Adam ultimately bears fault.
I'm not sure where you got that I was basing my thought off Latin theology. I've only been a devout Christian for around 5 years, so I'm just not rigorously versed in all the distinctions and proper terminology. I would be very grateful for a similarly rigorous explanation of Eastern theology on involuntary sin. I could not find something as clear on the Internet, and that's why I started this post originally.

I hope the little clarification I just typed above (#426051) explains why what you're typing is too much for me to handle. To me there is a huge difference between acknowledging my imperfection and in believing that it constantly causes God pain. I can further add onto it and say that going so far as to embrace my imperfection would lead me to embrace my voluntary sins as well, and I would stop trying as hard to correct them. I know this because I've already tried this (#425593).
I accept your argument that every little venial sin would also cause the same scrupulosity (is this a sin or not?) and so converting to Roman Catholicism wouldn't solve my issue (I had already made another post about this one of their forums to double check).

I also want to get across that I strongly value truth and I'm not just looking for the easy way out. I would not have taken Jesus' yoke upon myself otherwise. However, it is important to me that I understand what I believe and why. I cannot wrap my head around the belief that sin causes God pain, because of the reason of scrupulosity. So I am currently seeking arguments and explanations from both sides to help me make up my mind. The best one I've found so far was given by Qwen in #426009, but I'm eager for more.

InvoSinner, again I am lost. We already vigorously discussed the eastern thought on involuntary sin, by St. Basil. As you described it "choosing the lesser evil". And there's not much left besides the Latin thought on this, as I now described in detail for you. The only thoughts on involuntary sin is in the west and east, so you have basically the two options I presented you to believe in.

And I actually don't understand why what I typed is too much for you to handle. I'm so confused? You keep crawling back to your view of involuntary sin despite the fact that absolutely no Church holds the position you have. Rather it is the two thoughts I described. You say you're not looking for an easy way out, but I feel as though you didn't properly understand me in my explanation? What I said in my last post is basically, oh, you reject the eastern thought so the only one left is the Western/Latin view. Your view on involuntary sin is neither one of them, it's some innovation you made up.

I also don't see how or what this has to do with you not converting to RC. I said every venial sin would cause the same issue you're having, involuntary or not. I can't see what that has to do with RC, especially since you're only talking about the Latin part of the Church. Eastern Catholics reject the thought of "venial sins", if that is what you mean somehow.

Still, you're again crawling back to this idea that sin does not pain God. It's hard for me to believe you have read any mystical writings on this. You mentioned before that St. John Chrysostom said "I sin every hour of my life". But have you sat down and wondered that he is now one of the greatest Saints? That God favored his holiness, that God let him have miracles. He sinned every hour, yet do you not see how God is the one to reach back to us? You didn't understand me when I said you're looking at it from a legalistic perspective. You're seeing this, and instead of looking at the Saints who have dealt with the same thing and have told us to instead focus on the infinite mercy and greatness of God, you have instead focused on your own faults.

I apologize if this sounds, hostile? In a way. I don't mean for it to come off like that. God bless.

InvoSinner,

Thank you for your response and for the many things to consider. I cannot claim to be any proper authority, but I would try to emphasise a specific shift in thinking about this again.

I am very glad this is the case, and I think this may be very helpful indeed. Though, to discuss this in relation to your other question,

Why are they so unbothered? Would God be bothered by their unbotheredness?
I think the Passion, to which we draw towards so soon, is a helpful clue to answering this. Our sins and broader Fall, of course, has at least aggrieved God somehow. But God is love, and yet more than love, and so He seeks to draw us into Him, as He draws Himself into us. We see the culmination of this in the Incarnation, and God's readiness to suffer for all our faults and offer us a way out, a means of defeating death, in the Passion and Resurrection. Perhaps it could help to pray and meditate on this mystery; that, before you committed any sins or were born into a world with the possibility of sin, Christ in His sacrifice, which we partake in through the Eucharist, offers us a means of renewal and constant moving towards him. This is probably what some people mean when they, albeit very reductively, tell you God's love means you 'shouldn't worry about it'.

More broadly, however, I wonder if the reason you feel a struggling to find any concrete, fully defined answer is because, as it perhaps seems clear to you from the start, the Holy Spirit has, through the Church, never seen the need to reveal this to us. God's love to us is a mystery, and the depths of the human soul are similarly unknowable. When we, in our fallen state, do something involuntarily that we would not do in Adam's Paradise or once we're restored, is God made to feel pain or merely sorrow, or what? What, then, would making God feel 'pain' mean? Is it like when He felt the pain of flesh nailed to wood? Does God count all our actions on an approval/disappointment axis?
...and what if God simply doesn't want us to consider these things too deeply, because He, in His eternal wisdom, knows what is spiritually healthy and unhealthy for us and our limited human understandings?

There are a few emphases given to us by the Church. We have, of course, a time and a place for acknowledging sin; our fallen nature, our tendency to sinfulness without God's grace, all the tools we are given to overcome it and to be forgiven for those sins we commit. Central to these, of course, should be a Christian joy. Does dwelling on every way you sin, and the possibility of aggrieving God in anything cause you to grow spiritually? Do you consider more deeply the magnitude of Christ's victory and "the life of the world to come" that He offers us, or is it diminished amidst the mountain of tiny ways you are as of yet unhealed?
I, to my best understanding, understand it to be that God - all-loving, ever-merciful, ever-patient - is aware of our fallen nature and loves us still, and in loving us, wants us to be freed from all our sins keeping us from moving towards Him. Still, we cannot get from A to B in a day, and He understands this. We are instead called to carefully, patiently, work with the Holy Spirit on ourselves and move towards our Heavenly Kingdom. To stop and count each sin we do in the moment is, I think, to miss the point. There are moments set aside in our prayer & lives as Christians to lament our sins, voluntary & involuntary. But if ruminating on a mystery beyond us and counting each sin you do and its corresponding pain to God like a legal contract feels counter-productive to moving towards God, perhaps there is a reason scrupulosity is not the Church's approach.

I think this might be where our approaches differ altogether. I apologise if everything before this has been a simple repeat, but I hope this can be a genuinely useful point.
I don't know if I would call this a product of scrupulosity or simply an overfocus on the mind over the heart, but I wonder if focusing on embracing the limits our understanding has for God, or on what you've repeatedly identified as the 'scrupulosity' powering your approach to this issue is the problem. I remember a friend who, near the beginning of her faith-life, struggled to understand the Trinity and Nicene image of God as anything but logically nonsensical, with 'mystery' thrown in as an excuse, and this gave her a challenge to understanding the role and nature of the Church & its dogmas today. Having embraced God as beyond full understanding and to be engaged with by the heart as much as the head, however, and growing in holiness towards Him, these seeming contradictions and unfilled theological holes labelled 'mysteries' became much easier for her to accept, and even to delight in.
I don't want to assume how exactly you're approaching this, and I don't want to be more personal than you prefer, but I wonder if the problem is the disconnecting of theology from your own feelings & considerations. Theology, after all, must always be linked to God and how those discussing it relate to Him, whether in love, prayer-life, or otherwise. I understand there is always interest in outstanding philosophical questions, in arguments & explanations, but would you feel comfortable with simply not being able to fully understand, as are so many things about God? How do you feel about all the other things we simply can't explain or properly grasp about God?
Sometimes, of course, you can find comfort in these problems with good words and logical points that, no doubt, point us to a truth God has revealed to us; it seems like, to some extent, you've been successful with that. And yet, very often, the best we can do is to always be talking with God about our issues and worries in the second person, not the third, and ask Him for help with embracing the unknowable. He is three persons, after all, and not an abstract concept, and He has given us both hearts and minds to engage with Him.

If, after all these conversations, there does remain some discomfort over this issue, perhaps its worth taking a more direct approach with Him. Having patience is equally important, of course, but with God, others and with yourself. I believe HaveFaith, in his excellent reply, mentioned St. Francis de Sales, so let me add another word of wisdom from that wise man:
“Have patience with all things, but chiefly have patience with yourself. Do not lose courage in considering your own imperfections, but instead set about remedying them — every day begin the task anew.”

This is quite a lot, so forgive me if I have just repeated already-mentioned points - I will try to avoid going in any more circles after this. This final part, however, is what I would ask to emphasise most, and I will be glad if even a single sentence here proved fruitful or helpful for you.

Many prayers,
turaŭski

Hahaha! HaveFaith, I agree, I think we are talking past each other. I was under the impression that what we discussed previously you did so to show that choosing the lesser of two evils is NOT involuntary sin, and so therefore a soldier killing in a war or Jesus hiding from his mother were not sins. But you were just explaining caveats? Can you please state what the Eastern teaching on involuntary sin is again? Specifically, can you give several examples of actions that ARE involuntary sins? Thanks for your patience, I have been told that I am poor at explaining my thoughts. Please don't concern yourself about hostility, I don't take offense, I understand that messages typed can come off that way unintentionally.
To save time I'll ask another question: my priest told me that yelling at someone without meaning to is an involuntary sin. Am I correct to understand you believe that is entirely a Latin teaching? In Eastern thought this is not a sin? But in Latin thought this is just a venial sin of imperfect consent? Why isn't being impressed at an evil master plan also a venial sin of imperfect consent? I'm having trouble especially with the last part, I don't see the difference.

turaŭski, the difference to me is that I don't have to make decisions in everyday life based on my understanding of the intricacies of the Trinity, but I do have to do so based off my understanding of sin. So, if I am told that losing focus during prayer causes God pain, then I am going to refrain from praying when fatigued. To do otherwise is to put my own spiritual well-being over His suffering. And if the answer simply is "pray anyway and don't worry about it", then why should I worry about the serious sins I commit? I just don't feel like going to church this week, I won't worry about it.
I agree that being scrupulous over involuntary sins is to miss the point, but as I've just explained, waving it away as a mystery doesn't work for me, it only brings more problems. That's why I'm seeking a more rational understanding. After over a year of prayer and thought about this I've come up with the understanding that I have now. Still, I of course recognize that I could be wrong, so I'm asking for help. And I am truly thankful for the help I'm receiving!

InvoSinner, I'm glad then we know now at least where it went wrong. And I thank you for making me read some very insightful books today to know more. I honestly have been lacking, so it was refreshing to read St. Damascus and St. Maximus a bit. Now, I'll try my best to simplify the Eastern thought on it so it's still cohesive to one who might not be familiar with them. (I actually also read a bit about St. Augustine! He raises the same issues you have with Romans 7 in a debate. To not make this too long though, I'll push it to the side for now).

To first know what involuntary sin even means, we must first know what sin means in the East (I will be talking about the East generally since they don't differentiate that much). Sin quite literally means "missing the mark", you miss the pathway to Theosis. You are turning away from your goal. We can already see this is much less legalistic than what the Latin consensus is on sin. In this vision anything that leads away from freedom and toward necessity constitutes a turning from the final goal, and these turning aways are sins, even if they're out of our control. So involuntary sin does indeed exist with tbis perspective, since the requirements for sin are simply going off the path, no matter in what way.

Here, St. Damascus and Nemesius take from Aristotle and regard an involuntary action deriving from either ignorance of particulars (as an example, not knowing stealing is bad), or compulsions (though these are not the only options either). I must mention here though that the compulsions are not universally agreed upon, St. Basil for example denies them being involuntary.

Let's start then with a seemingly controversial involuntary sin, miscarriage. The 22nd canon ascribed to St. John the Faster provides tersely: “a woman who involuntarily expelled a baby through miscarriage, receives her penance [i.e. is excluded from Holy Communion] for a year.” Now, I myself, especially as a woman, was a bit bewildered once I saw this. Yet, I believe this is a prime example to not see canons as legalistic tools, rather the Fathers adamantly tell us that this is simply for the "consoling of her soul". She could not do anything about it, for it happened through the involuntary necessity of sexuality, yet it still emotionally hurts the woman, sends her spiraling. This is because she still missed the mark, she bears no fault, but through her emotions she can spiritually heal. This penance may bring her healing back to the path we need to climb.

Now I'll focus more on St. Basil. St. Basil considers a number of possible scenarios of involuntary killing, ranging from angrily throwing an axe or a club at someone to throwing a similar implement against a wild animal but accidentally hitting a human. Here he also will specifically touch upon the topic of Aristotle, if a passion, like anger, renders a sin involuntary (the answer would be no). Namely, St. Basil does not only look at intent, but also common sense. If a husband throws an axe at his wife in rage, no matter if he intended to kill her or not, it would still be voluntary since he knew the power the axe held. If someone kills another with a sword, without the intent of killing them, it would still be voluntary because of the weapon you held.

Another would be the solider scenario too. The reason why St. Basil does not consider them murderers is because war is sadly needed sometimes in our fallen world to defend the good. Obviously, this action then is still not good, but needed to defend the good. The soldier then involuntarily sins, because he technically bears no fault that he is in an imperfect world which needs fighting to uphold the truth, yet still "sins", in that he misses the mark. I feel we got a good idea of what involuntary sin is now.

So, to answer your question, it depends. What do you mean by without meaning to? St. Basil even says that sometimes the lines between voluntary and involuntary may come close, like someone defending themselves from an enemy and striking them in a vital spot, with the intent to injure, yet he dies. St. Basil renders this to something being quite close to voluntary, since because of rage he killed, yet without intent and without something like a hatchet (where St. Basil scoffs and asks how one could even consider that involuntary).

If you mean by without meaning to as in one in anger yells at someone else, it would be voluntary if the person actually meant to yell at them, even if their judgment was clouded in anger. If they didn't mean to, perhaps they just wanted to make their voice a bit louder so it sounds a bit more assertive or to let their voice be heard more since the person talked over them, yet then started yelling at them, continuing on with said yelling since they were so angry too, then yes it would be involuntary. He had lacking intent, basically he did not will to "miss the mark", but did.

I'll answer quickly the Latin part. It's not a "sin", since you did not delight in sin basically, so you did not do the second stage of sin from St. Augustine properly. You heard an evil plan, so exposing yourself to temptation, but you did not delight in being a sadist "yes, this is a wonderful plan to hurt my enemy!". Rather, you thought "my, that is quite genius and well thought out." That means you didn't delight in the sin, rather something else. Anyway, this was probably a bit long despite the fact that I feel I showed it wrong because of my simplification. But regardless, God bless.

You've raised a good point about sins of ignorance. I remember reading an example (by St. John of Damascus?) of a hunter shooting a man by mistake. We can categorize this as (c). So we have to consider: (a) sins of choosing the lesser evil, (b) sins without consent of the will, (c) sins of ignorance.

I have no objections to (c) sins of ignorance, that makes perfect sense to me. I did a quick search and read that Latins call this "invincible ignorance".

Now, for category (a), allow me to counter with precisely how I originally understood your replies a few months ago: the soldier has no imperfection that causes him to kill, rather it is the world that is imperfect. Similarly, Jesus had no imperfection that caused him to hide from His mother, rather it is just the imperfect world that forced Him into that situation. So Jesus involuntarily sinned, but Jesus cannot sin - we have a contradiction. Similarly, God is not the author or sin, but he ordered war and massacre, which we would call involuntary sins - another contradiction.
Can we not instead simply consider the penances prescribed for these involuntary actions as medicinal (as with the miscarriage as well), and not go so far as to say that these actions are sins? Can you share where St. Basil or St. John or another saint explicitly call these involuntary actions sins? As I detailed in #425794, I couldn't find a direct claim of this from a primary source.

For category (b), then, would you agree that losing focus during prayer is an involuntary sin in Eastern thought, since it does not matter if you intended to do so or if you took delight in it? We are missing the mark of perfect prayer, which is how I understood it. Every time we miss the mark we involuntarily sin, we cause God pain - can that really be so? That's my objection to this one, and the resolution I see is that sins don't cause God pain.

I agree, let's not dive into the Latin out of consideration for time. I do appreciate all the time you're taking with me, and hope you're not finding me frustrating. God bless you as well, and everyone who has been trying to help here.

InvoSinner, it seems you believe you're still on the topic of involuntary sin, but you're not. Even in the west where there is no involuntary sin, you'd still have issues. Involuntary or not, those would still be sins technically. Killing? Sin, even if voluntary or involuntary. Jesus causing his Mother pain? Sin, involuntary or not. So, I went a bit off topic then and explained to you how this issue was solved (with divine law, with the Theotokos being permitted to feel distress etc). We can discuss this, I just must warn you that it is a completely different subject.

You say "not go as far to say these are sins". Which tells me you're still looking at sin as a moral crime. It's "as far" to say, sin is all around us. It's missing the mark, you're not breaking a rule. Just imagine you had a miscarriage, would this be the version you want? Is this who you want to be? No, which is why with confession you may heal your soul, it is why when directing yourself to the Divine you get better. Sin isn't merely breaking the law, and you're also putting too much emphasis on it like the Latins do. I'm not sure what you exactly mean by quoting the Fathers. Letter 188 from St. Basil talks more about the soldiers and involuntary killings, St. John Damascus in Expositio fidei hapter 26 talks about the "Voluntary and Involuntary", but I'd personally say he continues this topic till chapter 44 where he talks about freedom, free will etc. If you mean the miscarriage, I quoted a canon which I'd say is quite important.

As for your prayer example, maybe? I feel most sins fall into the "between" category, that is voluntary and involuntary. Father Maximos (bless him, I've been taking so much from him), gave a personal example. A woman goes to his Church with a quite squeaky and, well, annoying voice. Father Maximos said he wantes her to shut up basically, not directly to her face but it echoed in his heart. He used this as a "in between". Is it his fault he finds the voice annoying? No. Is it his fault he still has hatred in his heart? Yes. Is this the person he wants to be? No. In fact, St. Maximus tells us all sins are involuntary which I found to be interesting, though that's a whole other rabbit hole that we needn't to go down right now... The problem with the prayer example is that I've never, and I mean never seen a Father call it a sin. I'm not sure why, but for that I'd just ask your Priest. I'm not exactly a substitute and you should trust him more (this whole time I've been trying to avoid saying my opinion too and just trying to talk generally from both sides).

If you don't want to believe sin hurts God, go on. The problem I see with it is that it's lessens the severance of "I'm the greatest sinner amongst all" which is emphasized in both the Latin and general Eastern tradition. I find fault in it, not just the example I gave but even more. Yet if you truly believe that you can safely, truly safely live with it then sure. Ask your Priests, so long as you have spiritual guidance I can put my grudges with it to the side.

Fr. Maximos' thesis and interview on YouTube was very helpful in guiding me to articulate the concerns I have with involuntary sin. I saw he has a dvd lecture series for sale, but I didn't buy it. Perhaps it's worthwhile and the answer will be found in it.

About the fathers, my point was that they call it "involuntary" not "involuntary SIN". For example, St. Basil says that killing in war is "involuntary" and "perhaps penance should be prescribed", but I didn't see him explicitly calling it an "involuntary SIN". Perhaps it's just semantics though.
I'm not focusing on involuntary sin as a moral crime, I'm just trying to understand it and the explanations I'm finding are not logically consistent. So Jesus sinned but it is OK because the distress was permitted? I don't see it as a differrent subject; I'm not arguing the distress was not permitted or that Jesus made the wrong decision. The point is that He can't sin but we're saying He did. That's a logical contradiction! So, either we're missing something, or choosing the lesser evil is simply "involuntary" - not "involuntary SIN".

On hurting God, this is the way I look at it - we HAVE to lessen the severance of sin. I can't go around crying every time I involuntarily mess up in prayer. At the same time, we can't lessen it too much or we won't care. "Sins dissapoint God but don't cause Him pain" is the balance I found. It really works for me, but what I want to know is if it is permitted or not. Is this dogmatically taught anywhere in Catholicism? It seems not.... My priest said the topic is up for debate, but it didn't seem like he knew much about it. You say "go on," so maybe you also agree, that does make me feel better.

May you have blessed Easter holidays!

Indeed, I like how he used involuntary sin to go deeper into the topic of morality in the Eastern perspective.

For the Fathers, that just does not make much sense. In the Liturgy we chant "forgive our sins, voluntary and involuntary", the Liturgy tells us these are sins. What else would they be if they weren't is my question.

You also did not understand me. You're not on the topic of involuntary sin anymore, you're going on to Christology or something akin to it, on if Christ could sin. But even then, what sin is there?? Is not the whole passage of Jesus at 12 proving that Christ did no wrong? Does not Mary who says she and Joseph were anxious come with rebuke from Jesus because of its implications? Did they forget he is not of this world? Regardless, he still obeys them when they do request of him.
You also can't apply our laws to a Divine God. In fact, here in this case, I'd recommend you to look at the Hebrew words used, which differentiate from unlawful killing and just killing. If you consider this a command to break a moral law, then at that point the whole OT is, no? God ordering polygamy? God allowing divorce because of the hardness of our hearts? Once more, this isn't the topic of involuntary sin anymore.

If you can ask another Priest, or stick with the one you have and ask for guidance on the topic. Do everything with guidance, I believe it is useless for me to try and tell you something otherwise now. As for if God feeling pain is taught in Catholicism, I'm not sure? I thought you did not want to convert to Catholicism either, but it's still not exactly taught anywhere. May you have a blessed Holy Week or Pascha!