Thread title fixed, I win and discussion over???

This is what the Catholic Encyclopedia says about "grave sin":
Quote
I have never heard it expressed quite this way before, but it's the Catholic Encyclopedia, so I'm not going to quibble, but rather add this to the lifelong process of further education.  The way I am seeing it here, the category of sin (e.g., stealing, lying, the umbrella category of the Fifth Commandment, and so on) is "grave", but at the same time, there can be parvity of matter, such as stealing a small amount, telling a small lie, quarreling verbally with someone but not to the level that it would be a mortal sin, and so on.

Deliberate and complete carnal acts against the Sixth and/or Ninth Commandments, by their very nature, cannot admit of parvity of matter.

Just out of curiosity, then, what categories of sins would not be "grave"?  Minor violations of one of the Precepts of the Church?  Something else?

I believe St. Thomas Aquinas said that gluttony, for instance, can almost never become a grave sin.  So, the thinking is that if the category of sin is mentioned in the 10 commandments, that puts it inherently into the CATEGORY of grave sin ... but then most moral theologians tie just about every sin somehow to the 10 commandments.  So, for instance, the 8th commandment says not to "bear false witness", but then lesser kinds of "lying" are also considered tied to the 8th commandment.  I find it a bit circular there, and I'm not convinced.  So, for example, answering "no" to "do I look fat in this dress?" is not, IMO, really in the category of "bearing false witness" (sending someone to jail through false testimony).  In any case, this is just an attempt to rationalize or categorize stuff, and the important thing is to understand specifically what are grave and what are venial sins.

There have been some here who say that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is not important, because we should avoid all sin, but I would have to disagree that it's not important.  Not only does it help to understand the principles involved by calling out what can turn a venial sin into a mortal one, but it also helps souls make good confessions and helps them to understand when they may approach Holy Communion after a sin, etc.  Church has always tried to educate the faithful about venial vs. mortal sin.

I believe St. Thomas Aquinas said that gluttony, for instance, can almost never become a grave sin.  So, the thinking is that if the category of sin is mentioned in the 10 commandments, that puts it inherently into the CATEGORY of grave sin ... but then most moral theologians tie just about every sin somehow to the 10 commandments.  So, for instance, the 8th commandment says not to "bear false witness", but then lesser kinds of "lying" are also considered tied to the 8th commandment.  I find it a bit circular there, and I'm not convinced.  So, for example, answering "no" to "do I look fat in this dress?" is not, IMO, really in the category of "bearing false witness" (sending someone to jail through false testimony).  In any case, this is just an attempt to rationalize or categorize stuff, and the important thing is to understand specifically what are grave and what are venial sins.

There have been some here who say that the distinction between mortal and venial sin is not important, because we should avoid all sin, but I would have to disagree that it's not important.  Not only does it help to understand the principles involved by calling out what can turn a venial sin into a mortal one, but it also helps souls make good confessions and helps them to understand when they may approach Holy Communion after a sin, etc.  Church has always tried to educate the faithful about venial vs. mortal sin.

Not at my son's school, they didn't. 

A bit of backstory here: when my son started in school, I was working very long hours, and the greedier my employer got (translated: give me more work instead of hiring the extra people I pleaded with them for years to hire), the longer the hours got.  On top of that, I was forced by court order to render a fairly substantial amount of visitation, so my son (I suppose I should really say "our" son) had to go stay with his mother and her illicit consort as well, and have to witness their adulterous living situation.  I reasoned, well, the school is not perfect, but homeschooling isn't an option,  I'll keep an eye on things, and fill in any of the gaps that may emerge.  That didn't work.  When I finally took my son out of the school, when homeschooling did become an option, we launched right into the Baltimore Catechism #2, and there was lot of damage to undo, no rank heterodoxy, just massive gaps in his knowledge.  We continued with BC #2 (Grade 8 last year was a bit of a hodgepodge, not least because my father was dying and we ended up having class when we could, many times during a late-night meal in the car at McDonald's!) and we have begun BC #3 this year.  Just today my son initiated a description of purgatory that, while a bit fanciful --- he has a vivid imagination!  --- was entirely orthodox, and I used this as an opportunity to read the story of St Catherine of Genoa as it appeared in a spiritual manual posted here on CI a few weeks ago.

So where am I going with this?  When we got to the part of the BC about mortal and venial sin, I just got this "huh?" look from him, and I said "they didn't teach you any of this, did they?".  He said no, all they did was leave him with the impression that all sin was mortal sin, though they didn't use that term.  He was scared to death.  There has been a lot of correction to do on that count, and now he understands.

Moving on directly to your comments, I would just instinctively classify gluttony under the Fifth Commandment, i.e., a doing of damage to oneself through overeating.  In all of my study of catechism throughout the years, I have always just taken for granted that there are sins that are not bad enough to go to Hell for, and sins that are.  Broadly speaking, the former would be the lighter or more trivial (but no sin is "trivial") kinds of sins, as I described, a trivial lie, "pilfering" of a small amount of something, general grouchiness or impatience with others (I find myself guilty of this sin a lot), grumbling or murmuring out of exasperation, and so on.  As I noted above, the Sixth and Ninth Commandments (carnal sins) cannot, in themselves, not be "grave matter", if they consist of deliberate, intentional acts with the two other conditions of sufficient reflection and full consent of the will.  They are a special case, and it is not for nothing that Our Lady of Fatima said that the sins that send more people to Hell than any others are the sins of the flesh --- they are the hardest to stop once becoming habit, they are the ones that most easily blind the sinner to their malice, and they are the ones easiest rationalized.

This was mortally sinful?

I don't think St Joan of Arc, or anyone with whom she was associated, was of the impression that she was in any way not a woman, or not wanting to be a woman.  It was appropriate military attire.  Also, many fashions, or rather, the distinction between fashions, are culturally conditioned.  Scotsmen wear kilts.  

My point exactly.

I was disputing DL:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5

"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"

I stick with what I said. You referred specifically to transsɛҳuąƖs and transgenders. The former are sɛҳuąƖ deviants, which is why they dress as women. That is abominable. The latter deny their God-given nature and seek to change it. That, too, is abominable. Both are gravely sinful.

St. Joan was not doing that for the purpose of sɛҳuąƖ deviancy. If you want to drag it out into the discussion of people just dressing up in the opposite sex's clothes for other reasons, then do so.

That is not what you said or referred to:
"That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5

"Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)"

No, that's what I was referring to. You're the one defending the tranny lifestyle as not mortally sinful here. Increasing the font of your quote of me doesn't change that I firmly believe it is gravely evil, a mortal sin; supported by Scripture.

That's not how God sees it: "A woman shall not be clothed with man's apparel, neither shall a man use woman's apparel: for he that doeth these things is abominable before God." Deut. 22:5
Sounds like a grave sin to me, at least according to how Lad defined "grave sin" (exterior forum)

I don't see how it isn't mortally sinful. It's a grave act against human nature. We could question the disposition of one who commits the act of sodomy and find ourselves in the same position as the heretics in the Novus Ordo who dismiss it because God "made them that way". Ridiculous.

Both transgenderism and transsɛҳuąƖism are both mortally sinful since they defile human nature.

St. Ambrose on Deut. 22:5: 

If you consider it truly, there is an incongruity that nature itself abhors. For why, man, do you not want to appear to be what you were born as? Why do you put on a strange guise? Why do you ape a woman? Or why do you, woman, ape a man? Nature arrays each sex with its own garments. Men and women have different customs, different complexions, gestures and gaits, different sorts of strength, different voices.

Haydock's commentary on Deut. 22:5:

Some take this literally, as the contrary practice is contrary to decency, and might be attended with very pernicious consequences. All know what noise was occasioned by the action of Clodius, who put on women's apparel, that he might be present with the Roman ladies at the feast of the good goddess. Yet others think that Moses here forbids some superstitious practice. St. Ambrose (ep. 69,) remarks, that in some of the mysteries of the idols, it was requisite for those present to change clothes in this manner, sacrum putatur. Lucian testifies, that men put on women's clothes at the feasts of Bacchus. They did the like in those of Venus, while the women took men's clothes in the festivals of Mars. (Jul. Hirmic. c. 4.) (Maimonides) In the East, people honoured the moon, to which they attributed both sexes, and Venus in like manner. Josephus ( iv. 8,) believes that women are here prohibited to engage in warfare. Hebrew, "the vessels (armour) of man shall not be upon a woman. "Semiramis gained a great name by her martial exploits, and commanded all her subjects to dress like herself. (Justin., i) The Amazons were likewise very famous in war, and it is said that half the army of Bacchus was composed of women. Alb. Gentil maintains that Moses here condemns an abominable crime, which he did not wish to mention, at which the Book of Wisdom hints, (chap. xiv. 26,) and which St. Paul condemns more explicitly, Romans i. 26. Moses had already denounced death against the perpetrators of it; and surely the manner in which he now speaks, seems to forbid something more than simply putting on the garments of the other sex, for he (Calmet) Yet that disorderly conduct deserved to be reprobated in strong terms, (Haydock) when it was not excused by some necessity or proper motive, such as actuated some holy virgins, St. Theodora (Tirinus)

^Bolded here referring to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and sɛҳuąƖ perversion, rather than simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex (in St. Joan's case).

No, that's what I was referring to. You're the one defending the tranny lifestyle as not mortally sinful here. Increasing the font of your quote of me doesn't change that I firmly believe it is gravely evil, a mortal sin; supported by Scripture.

St. Ambrose on Deut. 22:5:
Haydock's commentary on Deut. 22:5:
^Bolded here referring to ɧoɱosɛҳųαƖity and sɛҳuąƖ perversion, rather than simply wearing the clothes of the opposite sex (in St. Joan's case).

Thank you for the information.
Font size was not of my doing.