4 Intriguing Questions

[SteveGC]

Feel free to answer as briefly, or as verbosely, as you wish:

Question 1:

Mortal sin is mortal sin. It doesn’t cease being mortal just because a non-Catholic doesn’t realize it is so. True or False?

Question 2:

Consequence for living in mortal sin is the same for a non-Catholic Christian as it is for a Catholic. True or False?

Question 3:

If the answer to #2 depends on the concept of invincible ignorance, is it safe to say that a devout Bible-only Christian with full mental faculties can NOT claim invincible ignorance simply because they don’t agree with (or haven’t yet come across)Catholic moral teaching?

**Question 4: **

In your opinion, based on those 3 questions, are non-Catholic Christians (and Catholics too) who are now remarried after divorcing from previously valid marriages, living in a perpetual state of mortal sin, and thus in severe danger of losing their salvation? (Assumption: Catholic teaching is that it is gravely immoral to re-marry following any valid marriage)

(obviously we judge no one’s eternal destiny, but having a gut opinion on this does benefit us - to know who we need to fervently pray for).

Thanks!

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Feel free to answer as briefly, or as verbosely, as you wish:

Question 1:

Mortal sin is mortal sin. It doesn’t cease being mortal just because a non-Catholic doesn’t realize it is so. True or False?

False. Mortal sin means the sin must be grave, and that the sinner knows sufficiently that it is wrong. Sins like murder are part of natural law, so a non-Catholic would be guilty of mortal sin if they committed murder. Grave sins which natural law does not clearly testify to would still be grave but would not be mortal sin if done without sufficient knowledge. But the same goes for a Catholic who commits a grave sin without realizing it is so.

Question 2:

Consequence for living in mortal sin is the same for a non-Catholic Christian as it is for a Catholic. True or False?

It all depends. Generally it is worse for the Catholic because they should know better and knowing better increases the gravity of the sin.

Question 3:

If the answer to #2 depends on the concept of invincible ignorance, is it safe to say that a devout Bible-only Christian with full mental faculties can NOT claim invincible ignorance simply because they don’t agree with (or haven’t yet come across) Catholic moral teaching?

If they are not under the authority of the Catholic Church, then they would not be guilty for sins like missing mass, but they certainly should be aware of the majority of grave sins touching morality which extend beyond visible communion with the Church and easily reach those who only go by the “Bible alone”.

**Question 4: **

In your opinion, based on those 3 questions, are non-Catholic Christians (and Catholics too) who are now remarried after divorcing from previously valid marriages, living in a perpetual state of mortal sin, and thus in severe danger of losing their salvation? (Assumption: Catholic teaching is that it is gravely immoral to re-marry following any valid marriage)

You need to be careful here. A valid marriage can involve anyone, be they Christian or not. A valid marriage can be dissolved under certain circumstances. A sacramental marriage means both members have to be Baptized, and if this is so the marriage cannot be dissolved except by death. If someone breaks away from a sacramental marriage and remarries, they are living in “perpetual adultery” so long as they are sharing the same bed. There are some difficult cases where children are involved where it would be painful to break apart so it is sometimes suggested the spouses decide to live as brother and sister in their own separate beds but under the same roof.

 

[thessalonian]

Question 1:

Mortal sin is mortal sin. It doesn’t cease being mortal just because a non-Catholic doesn’t realize it is so. True or False?

Neither - Depends on knowledge and will as well as gravity. But one can be culpable if their lack of knowledge or will was due to neglect. God in the end is the final judge. Paul says he doesn’t even judge himself, though he knows nothing against himself.

Question 2:

Consequence for living in mortal sin is the same for a non-Catholic Christian as it is for a Catholic. True or False?

As a general rule false though it depends on the formation of the Catholic and that of the protestant. We have more grace through the Eucharist and confession.

Luke 12 says “to who much has been given much is required” "but the one who did not know will recieve a light beating.

Question 3:

If the answer to #2 depends on the concept of invincible ignorance, is it safe to say that a devout Bible-only Christian with full mental faculties can NOT claim invincible ignorance simply because they don’t agree with (or haven’t yet come across)Catholic moral teaching?

No, it is not safe to say that. The Catechism around para 818 recognizes that there are biases in them that may not be their fault that prevent them from seeing the truth of the CC. They also are not taught in the fullness of the truth. Again, in the end God is the ultimate and final judge.
**Question 4: **

In your opinion, based on those 3 questions, are non-Catholic Christians (and Catholics too) who are now remarried after divorcing from previously valid marriages, living in a perpetual state of mortal sin, and thus in severe danger of losing their salvation? (Assumption: Catholic teaching is that it is gravely immoral to re-marry following any valid marriage)

Final principle - let God do the judging of the soul. We can judge the actions as good or bad and try to influence them but your questions are out of bounds for what we are to do. Note that my answers should not be misconstrued as weak. We are to hope as that everyone will go to heaven but pray and work as if everyone is going to hell. God is the only one able to judge lives, minds, and hearts.

(obviously we judge no one’s eternal destiny, but having a gut opinion on this does benefit us - to know who we need to fervently pray for).

Thanks!

 

[DavidFilmer]

A sacramental marriage means both members have to be Baptized, and if this is so the marriage cannot be dissolved except by death. If someone breaks away from a sacramental marriage and remarries, they are living in “perpetual adultery” so long as they are sharing the same bed.

To clarify for the OP, we must also keep in mind Catholic Dude’s comments in regard to Question #1. If someone “divorces” a Sacramental marriage and “marries” again then s/he is living in adultery, but this sin may not be mortal if the person is not aware of it.

I think this is a common sin that people are not aware of, because many protestant denominations actually and explicitly teach that divorce and re-marriage is OK. Ministers are perfectly content to perform second (third, etc). It’s easy for folks to be mislead in this regard (and birth control is another such sin).

 

[Teflon93]

Feel free to answer as briefly, or as verbosely, as you wish:

Question 1:

 

[Catholic_Dude]

I think this is a common sin that people are not aware of, because many protestant denominations actually and explicitly teach that divorce and re-marriage is OK. Ministers are perfectly content to perform second (third, etc). It’s easy for folks to be mislead in this regard (and birth control is another such sin).

Good point. When the PASTOR is giving the green light, then really it is hard for the average pew sitter not to be confused.

 

[jmcrae]

Feel free to answer as briefly, or as verbosely, as you wish:

Question 1:

Mortal sin is mortal sin. It doesn’t cease being mortal just because a non-Catholic doesn’t realize it is so. True or False?

False. The gravity of the sin remains, but full knowledge and consent of the will are the other two components that make it a mortal sin, rather than simply grave matter (which can be venial or mortal, depending on the level of knowledge and degree of consent).

Question 2:

Consequence for living in mortal sin is the same for a non-Catholic Christian as it is for a Catholic. True or False?

True. If a non-Catholic commits a grave sin, knowingly, and with full consent of the will, he will go to Hell, just like a Catholic would.

Question 3:

If the answer to #2 depends on the concept of invincible ignorance, is it safe to say that a devout Bible-only Christian with full mental faculties can NOT claim invincible ignorance simply because they don’t agree with (or haven’t yet come across)Catholic moral teaching?

“Invincible ignorance” requires that not only does the person not know a certain thing, but is not ever able to learn it, either now or in the future. Presupposes either congenital idiocy or a lack of available teaching resources.

Fortunately, my answer to question #1 didn’t depend on invincible ignorance - just on lack of knowledge at the time that the sin was committed.

**Question 4: **

In your opinion, based on those 3 questions, are non-Catholic Christians (and Catholics too) who are now remarried after divorcing from previously valid marriages, living in a perpetual state of mortal sin, and thus in severe danger of losing their salvation? (Assumption: Catholic teaching is that it is gravely immoral to re-marry following any valid marriage)

While it’s difficult to fathom how someone could “not know” that divorce and remarriage is contrary to God’s will for marriage, the possibility does exist. Also, full consent of the will may not have been present with regard to a second marriage - in the case of a housewife with children (assuming no marketable job skills), financial desperation could lead her to enter into a marriage of convenience after a divorce from the father of her children, especially if he is a dead-beat.

That having been said, I don’t like their chances, and pray for some kind of death-bed conversion for those who find themselves in such situations.

 

[SteveGC]

Thank you to all who have (and who may continue to) post responses to my questions.

Thank you for reminding me about the important conditions of mortal sin in Question 1, and how that definition applies to the remaining 3 questions. It has helped me come to terms with my situation (some protestant family members who have remarried), and has provided me with some peace as I battle with these concepts. Most importantly, you exhort me to be careful in my temptation to judge others, even if for seemingly noble reasons.

Invincible ignorance is a funny thing. Seems like it lets alot of people off easy, while Catholics are left to rise up, sacrifice some worldly happiness, and follow Mother Church’s teaching. But on the other hand, the great equalizer is that Catholics are unique recipients of the fullness of Truth, with the full assortment of treasures of the Christian faith. No. Not even an equalizer, is it? It really is better to be Catholic.

Thanks again to everyone.

Steve

 

[Mijoy2]

False. The gravity of the sin remains, but full knowledge and consent of the will are the other two components that make it a mortal sin, rather than simply grave matter (which can be venial or mortal, depending on the level of knowledge and degree of consent).

.

I think I understand the direction the OP is going with his question. Please allow me to take the above quote to the next logical conclusion.

If full knowledge and full consent are required for a grave sin to be “mortal”, this would imply the person committing the grave matter was fully aware he/she was offending the Lord God he/she believed in, and was still, at the time, willing to sacrifice thier salvation for the sin, again knowing, they’d burn in hell throughout eternity for committing the sin.

Now I must ask, who in thier right mind would do such a thing?
I’d suggest not a single person who ever walked the earth.

Does this render our concept of “mortal sin” almost uncommitable? Given the definition and assuming the person was of sound mind.

 

[Teflon93]

Invincible ignorance is a funny thing. Seems like it lets alot of people off easy, while Catholics are left to rise up, sacrifice some worldly happiness, and follow Mother Church’s teaching. But on the other hand, the great equalizer is that Catholics are unique recipients of the fullness of Truth, with the full assortment of treasures of the Christian faith. No. Not even an equalizer, is it? It really is better to be Catholic.

Thanks again to everyone.

Steve

Absolutely. One must also consider the benefit of the full complement of sacraments. The path is hard to the Narrow Gate; it is much more difficult without the waypoints and safety rails the sacraments provide.

Invincible ignorance simply describes a condition whereby some may not be explicitly rejecting the Church of Christ and committing a mortal sin thereby. Right and wrong having been written on each of our hearts, however, it says nothing about the propensity for each of us to be in a state of unrepentant mortal sin and thus be damned in the end.

A correct understanding of sin and repentance is crucial—Catholics have it; Protestants do not.

 

[Mijoy2]

Absolutely. One must also consider the benefit of the full complement of sacraments. The path is hard to the Narrow Gate; it is much more difficult without the waypoints and safety rails the sacraments provide.

Invincible ignorance simply describes a condition whereby some may not be explicitly rejecting the Church of Christ and committing a mortal sin thereby. Right and wrong having been written on each of our hearts, however, it says nothing about the propensity for each of us to be in a state of unrepentant mortal sin and thus be damned in the end.

A correct understanding of sin and repentance is crucial—Catholics have it; Protestants do not.

I’d appreciate feedback on an issue that often troubles me regarding invincible ignorance.

The majority (I venture to say vast majority) of Catholics do not understand the concept of the infallibility of the Magisterium regarding defined dogma. They believe they can disagree with the Church on certain matters and not be culpable because the Church may be incorrect.

My dilema regarding this is, is the misinformed Catholic (for whatever reason) equally invincibly ignorant as the non-Catholic Christian?

If not why not? How do you come to this conclusion?

 

[jmcrae]

I think I understand the direction the OP is going with his question. Please allow me to take the above quote to the next logical conclusion.

If full knowledge and full consent are required for a grave sin to be “mortal”, this would imply the person committing the grave matter was fully aware he/she was offending the Lord God he/she believed in, and was still, at the time, willing to sacrifice thier salvation for the sin, again knowing, they’d burn in hell throughout eternity for committing the sin.

“Full knowledge” refers to the full knowledge that the action is wrong; not to full knowledge that they are offending God - otherwise, an atheist could never commit sin - which is just silly.

A child thinking, “Mummy’s going to get mad if I do this,” and then doing it anyway, has the level of “full knowledge” required to make his action a mortal sin, assuming whatever he’s doing is in the category of “grave matter.”

Now I must ask, who in thier right mind would do such a thing?

Not everything we do as human beings is completely logical. Even at the human level of knowing that “Mummy’s going to get mad,” we still do things that we know are wrong - speeding through playground zones, passing on gossip about a neighbor or friend, walking away with someone’s expensive pen, etc.

We always have our excuses - our self-justifications - But Officer, I didn’t see any kids around, and I was in a hurry - it’s not like everyone didn’t already know, anyway, and it made for a good story to tell - He’s always been mean to me; I took his pen because he was enjoying it too much. He needed to be brought down a peg or two; he’s such a snob anyway.

 

[jmcrae]

I’d appreciate feedback on an issue that often troubles me regarding invincible ignorance.

The majority (I venture to say vast majority) of Catholics do not understand the concept of the infallibility of the Magisterium regarding defined dogma. They believe they can disagree with the Church on certain matters and not be culpable because the Church may be incorrect.

My dilema regarding this is, is the misinformed Catholic (for whatever reason) equally invincibly ignorant as the non-Catholic Christian?

If not why not? How do you come to this conclusion?

Invincible ignorance is a specific category of ignorance. As I mentioned above, it presupposes either congenital idiocy, or that the relevant information is simply not available. “Invincible” means that the person not only doesn’t know something at the present time, but will never, and can never, know that information, for his entire life on this earth.

It refers to the state of otherwise sinless persons who have absolutely no libraries, no Internet connections, no churches, monsteries, convents, or schools of any kind, no Bibles, no prayer books - nothing whatsoever that they could ever randomly encounter, and find out about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As Catholics, we know that one of our duties is to make sure that we are educated as far as we can be, in the precepts and tenets of our faith. So, a Catholic can never be “invincibly ignorant” even if at the present moment he is lacking in certain critical information.

Further, invincible ignorance of the Church can only “save” someone who never knowingly commits any kind of sin in his life - never rebels against his parents as a teenager - never goes joyriding - never has too much alcohol to drink - never looks/thinks with lust upon a member of the opposite sex (whether real or imaginary) - never makes fun of the weird kid at school, or never shuts out the strangely quiet, shy person at work from social activities.

Lacking the full knowledge necessary to make some particular sin a mortal sin is not “invincible ignorance.” It makes the sin committed to be venial, but it doesn’t cause it to not be a sin at all. And it doesn’t take away those sins the person has committed which were mortal.

 

[Teflon93]

It’s a point worth emphasizing: invincible ignorance does not pertain to natural law, written as it is on every man’s heart, except perhaps in the case of people who are very much insane.

Moreover, what are non-Catholics who commit mortal sins to do?

They may attempt a perfect act of contrition, but how often does one see that outside of the Church?

Indeed, whenever one sees some public figure in the dock for sin, they invariably attempt to downplay, mitigate, justify, or deny what they’ve done. They off the classic non-apology apology: “I am sorry IF…”

We saw how difficult this contrition is outside of the Church with David, resulting in the Psalms.

It is not easier to take the path of ignorance, but much more difficult.

Oscar Wilde: “The Catholic Church is for saints and sinners alone. For respectable people, the Anglican Church will do.”

 

[Mijoy2]

Invincible ignorance is a specific category of ignorance. As I mentioned above, it presupposes either congenital idiocy, or that the relevant information is simply not available. “Invincible” means that the person not only doesn’t know something at the present time, but will never, and can never, know that information, for his entire life on this earth.

It refers to the state of otherwise sinless persons who have absolutely no libraries, no Internet connections, no churches, monsteries, convents, or schools of any kind, no Bibles, no prayer books - nothing whatsoever that they could ever randomly encounter, and find out about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

As Catholics, we know that one of our duties is to make sure that we are educated as far as we can be, in the precepts and tenets of our faith. So, a Catholic can never be “invincibly ignorant” even if at the present moment he is lacking in certain critical information.

Further, invincible ignorance of the Church can only “save” someone who never knowingly commits any kind of sin in his life - never rebels against his parents as a teenager - never goes joyriding - never has too much alcohol to drink - never looks/thinks with lust upon a member of the opposite sex (whether real or imaginary) - never makes fun of the weird kid at school, or never shuts out the strangely quiet, shy person at work from social activities.

Lacking the full knowledge necessary to make some particular sin a mortal sin is not “invincible ignorance.” It makes the sin committed to be venial, but it doesn’t cause it to not be a sin at all. And it doesn’t take away those sins the person has committed which were mortal.

I appreciate this thank you. However it is a bit general. I was hoping to pose this question without specifics but possibly a specific is needed for me to better articulate my question.

I feel I have to remember where I am when I ask questions such as this. The majority of people in these forums seem to answer in a manner that suggests “catholics” understand thier faith. The fact is the vast majority do not. When we read in posts “catholics believe this”, we are speaking of what Catholic dogma states as opposed to what the majority of catholics believe (two very different things). I am not in anyway suggesting this is a good thing. I am just stating it as a reality (as I have witnessed it my long life).

So when I read the well intentioned good posts from the good people of these forums, I often walk away depressed knowing virtually all my catholic friends and relatives simply are clueless to these issues. Again just the reality of it all. Maybe the people of these forums surround themselves with well educated catholics.

We have two people, one a catholic the other a protestant who both use contraception.

The protestant feels it is not a sin because he/she was led to believe this as fact.

The catholic feels it is not a sin because he/she believes (truly believes) that the catholic church is incorrect in this teaching. I mean, after all the other christians believe it is okay.

Are both equal culpable? Both are committing a sin of grave matter, I think we all agree. However are both in mortal sin?

 

[puzzleannie]

Feel free to answer as briefly, or as verbosely, as you wish:

Question 1:

Mortal sin is mortal sin. It doesn’t cease being mortal just because a non-Catholic doesn’t realize it is so. True or False?

Mortal sin is always objectively gravely evil. The individual incurs guilt for the sin according to his circumstances–did he have full knowledge and free consent of the will. We cannot assign guilt to any individual on any matter unless we are that person’s confessor hearing the confession.

**

Question 2:

 

[davidv]

{snip}

Are both equal culpable?

I don’t think so.

Both are committing a sin of grave matter, I think we all agree.

I agree.

However are both in mortal sin?

I believe this is a question that neither of us should attempt to answer, as it requires a knowlegde of the heart that is only available to God.

 

[jmcrae]

I appreciate this thank you. However it is a bit general. I was hoping to pose this question without specifics but possibly a specific is needed for me to better articulate my question.

I feel I have to remember where I am when I ask questions such as this. The majority of people in these forums seem to answer in a manner that suggests “catholics” understand thier faith. The fact is the vast majority do not. When we read in posts “catholics believe this”, we are speaking of what Catholic dogma states as opposed to what the majority of catholics believe (two very different things). I am not in anyway suggesting this is a good thing. I am just stating it as a reality (as I have witnessed it my long life).

So when I read the well intentioned good posts from the good people of these forums, I often walk away depressed knowing virtually all my catholic friends and relatives simply are clueless to these issues. Again just the reality of it all. Maybe the people of these forums surround themselves with well educated catholics.

We have two people, one a catholic the other a protestant who both use contraception.

The protestant feels it is not a sin because he/she was led to believe this as fact.

The catholic feels it is not a sin because he/she believes (truly believes) that the catholic church is incorrect in this teaching. I mean, after all the other christians believe it is okay.

Are both equal culpable? Both are committing a sin of grave matter, I think we all agree. However are both in mortal sin?

It’s impossible to say - and it’s not up to us. What would you do if you knew someone was in mortal sin? How would your knowing that fact help either you or them?

All you can do is correctly teach those who are under your authority (your children if you are a parent, your students if you are a teacher/catechist, your parishioners if you are the priest), and pray for the rest. But the teaching has to come before the opportunity to sin occurs - it is nearly impossible to get someone out of sin, who has become attached to it.

Very rarely, someone might say, “Thank you for telling me. I didn’t know. I will stop immediately.” But most of the time, they want to argue and justify themselves, and it goes nowhere.

With regard to the issue of contraception, it just seems odd that it wouldn’t be obvious to people that it’s wrong.

Didn’t we march through Europe one time, and have some kind of big war or something, because some people were sterilizing other people, and making it impossible for them to reproduce? Didn’t we call it “genocide”?

Didn’t a whole bunch of doctors get their licenses suspended one time, because they took away some people’s ability to reproduce, even though it was for their own good?

What happened between then and now, to make what was once among the worst possible crimes to be so acceptable, and now suddenly people are actually doing this to themselves, on purpose?

We live in dark times, indeed.