A good list of mortal sins:

  • Thread starter Thread starter Layman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I don’t know; I’m not so sold on this list. First of all, where did it come from? Is this an official Church document, or someone’s (albeit well-intentioned) opinion?

Secondly, I am suspicious or flat-out disagree with some of these, for both content and placement.
  • Driving dangerously or recklessly
    This seems closer to “near occasion” than anything. It also seems really hard to hit the “willful intent” prong (“I didn’t mean to hit that parked car, honest!”), or barring that, could easily lead to excessive scrupulosity. Am I, for example, guilty of mortal sin if I get really tired on a long drive, but knowingly push on anyway?
  • Taking or selling illegal drugs
    While I do wish to preface that I don’t approve of drugs at all, it also seems that a good deal more clarification is needed. Is smoking a single joint as serious as being a heroin dealer? Is the former really akin enough to murder to be a mortal sin at all? I am not fully convinced.
  • Excessive tattoos & Excessive body piercing
    Not only is there the huge question of where to draw the line of “excessive,” but I have to wonder about this one at all. If a person’s body is half-covered in, say, Bible verses, or renderings of Marian apparitions, is that wrong? Surely both intent and content have to play a large role in this, if it is to be considered grave matter at all.
  • Piercing of the nipples or sexual organs
    I’d like to see some sort of citation for this one.
  • Oral, anal or other degrading sex practices
    Here, I feel that a distinction need necessarily be drawn between consentual marital foreplay and the earlier-mentioned “non-vaginal ejaculation.” In that regard, it seems fairly redundant and, in fact, unnecessary, to mention at all.
  • “Selective reduction” of babies in the womb
    This is just in the wrong place. “Selective reduction” is just code for “abortion” and belongs under the 5th Commandment.
  • Cross-dressing
    This could also use a lot more clarification.
  • Serious cruelty to animals
    I admit that this is terribly wrong, but as theft? I can’t even begin to see the rationale of that.
All in all, I’d like to see the credentials of both the list’s writer and its content. A list like this can actually be very harmful if it’s not completely accurate, especially to those with a sensitive conscience.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Well, it says it’s a Catholic site, but it doesn’t hurt to be wary. Ha, I found another site while looking around that was along the lines of “modern theological thought says that such-and-such is not a sin”, so you have to use discernment.
 
  • Taking or selling illegal drugs
Click to expand...
Given that which drugs are “illegal” tends to vary geographically by secular law codes, this one seems rather absurd. Does the gravity of a sin depend on whether one happens to be in Argentina or the United States?

I understand that the narcotics trade is generally a violent business, and that helping black market syndicates to profit is, by extension, sinful. But that sort of sinfulness has no bearing on the person who grows his or her own cannabis plant, dries it, and smokes it. Such a practice would be wrong only insofar as a secular government declares it to be; it has no bearing on the actual morality of the act.
 
igator99 said:
That covers so much even things I didn’t consider a true sin much less a mortal sin. I’m going to hell for sure.😦
Click to expand...
You don’t want to say that. That’s despair. You have to be optimistic without being presumptuous. That’s tough too. 😦

Also I didn’t see gluttony on the list. But I did see:
Intentionally placing temptation before the weak
Click to expand...
Does this include a restaurant menu or bringing a cake to work? 🙂

Just kidding.
 
Remember: discernment!

Some things on the list seem odd, like tattoos, but I think it’s a good starting point for a debate or someone more wiser to pitch in.

Also: If you reform yourself, confess your sin and try hard not to do it again, I doubt you’ll be a candidate for a roasting(!).

[My emphasis:]
As a result of Original Sin, human nature is weakened. Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, takes away Original Sin, and turns us back toward God. The consequences of this weakness and the inclination to evil persist, and we often commit personal or actual sin.
Click to expand...
Actual sin is sin which people commit. There are two kinds of actual sin, mortal and venial.
Mortal sin is a deadly offense against God, so horrible that it destroys the life of grace in the soul. Three simultaneous conditions must be fulfilled for a mortal sin:
Click to expand...
**1. Serious matter (things listed in this examination);
Click to expand...
  1. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act**;
Click to expand...
  1. Full consent of the will.
Click to expand...
All three of these conditions must be present simultaneously for a sin to be mortal. This means that if you did not know the act was seriously wrong, then you are not guilty of having committed a mortal sin. If you did not will the act, e.g., if you were forced or if it was in a dream, if you were impaired or emotionally distraught or terrified, etc., you are not guilty of the act committed.
Click to expand...
 
Yggdrasil said:
Given that which drugs are “illegal” tends to vary geographically by secular law codes, this one seems rather absurd. Does the gravity of a sin depend on whether one happens to be in Argentina or the United States?

I understand that the narcotics trade is generally a violent business, and that helping black market syndicates to profit is, by extension, sinful. But that sort of sinfulness has no bearing on the person who grows his or her own cannabis plant, dries it, and smokes it. Such a practice would be wrong only insofar as a secular government declares it to be; it has no bearing on the actual morality of the act.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about that, Yggsy. Smoking refer isn’t just like having a glass or two of wine at table. Pot’s much stronger than that. Doesn’t take much of it to get a person really stoned.
 
igator99 said:
That covers so much even things I didn’t consider a true sin much less a mortal sin. I’m going to hell for sure.😦
Click to expand...
Well, you’re in luck because mortal sin is why Our Lord gave us the sacrament of Confession. Make good use of it. 🙂
 
Lamafacaja said:
I don’t know about that, Yggsy. Smoking refer isn’t just like having a glass or two of wine at table. Pot’s much stronger than that. Doesn’t take much of it to get a person really stoned.
Click to expand...
True that, Mama. As with the sauce, though, a lot of it depends on the person. And being “stoned” differs considerably from being drunk. It’s arguably less dangerous. 😃

But the real snag is that the mortal sinfulness under discussion applies to “illegal drugs.” If a secular government decriminalizes marijuana, is it no longer a sin?
 
I’m not sure I see a need to have a “list” of sins. Go through the examination of conscience and then confess the things that you believe to be wrong, including those that you’re not sure about. The Priest won’t throw you out of the confessional if you confess something that “technically” isn’t wrong or is miscategorised as mortal or venial.

The important thing is to go to confession when you do something that is wrong and I’m not sure that going line by line over a list trying to sort out technicalities between what is mortal and not is really going to achieve that end.
 
Layman said:
netcanada.ca/newslink/mortalsin.aspx
Click to expand...
Note, the website you linked to itself does not bill this as some sort of exhaustive list of mortal sins. It is an examination of conscience, not a list of mortal sins. There is a difference.
Ne_OrangeKnight said:
  • Serious cruelty to animals
    I admit that this is terribly wrong, but as theft? I can’t even begin to see the rationale of that.
Click to expand...
Don’t blame them, blame the Catechism for this one. 😉 Mistreating animals is addressed in the Catechism under the Seventh Commandment, which deals with issues of proper stewardship of the creation God has entrusted to our care. See CCC 2415-2418.
 
Layman said:
Don’t blame them, blame the Catechism for this one. 😉 Mistreating animals is addressed in the Catechism under the Seventh Commandment, which deals with issues of proper stewardship of the creation God has entrusted to our care. See CCC 2415-2418.
Click to expand...
Okay, see, that’s fine. Now we know. I just would have liked such a reference in the document itself, since it’s not an instantly intuitive connection to make. Thanks for providing.

Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
 
Yggdrasil said:
True that, Mama. As with the sauce, though, a lot of it depends on the person. And being “stoned” differs considerably from being drunk. It’s arguably less dangerous. 😃

But the real snag is that the mortal sinfulness under discussion applies to “illegal drugs.” If a secular government decriminalizes marijuana, is it no longer a sin?
Click to expand...
No. Morality is of an action is not bound by domain as my priest told me. Prostitution, abortion, porn, abusive behavior, etc. It’s all immoral no matter where you are at. Marijuana is arguable as far as whether or not it should be considered drugs described in 2991 of the CCC. Some people even regard more than a glass of wine as excessive use of alcohol. And still yet others say alcohol should be avoided completely and that the recreational use of any substance is immoral.

The church doesn’t draw the line specifically on the substance rather that one must avoid substances that gravely negate health, life, and reason. And those substances that don’t gravely affect health, life, and reason, must not be used excessively.
 
This is the list I use for confession. However, I have the one that also has venial sins on it.
Examination of Conscience
I think it’s critical that examinations of conscience distinguish between mortal and venial sins for two reasons: it avoids scrupulosity and it catechizes as well. In the above examination, however, there is one thing that is wrong: the part on Presumption. Read below.
***Presumption ***is a sin committed by him who, in striving for eternal happiness, either trusts too much in his own strength or expects God to do something which, in keeping with His attributes, He cannot grant, or which according to His divine plan He does not will to do.
Click to expand...
He sins by *presumption *who hopes to reach heaven by his own efforts alone, or through the merits of Christ exclusive of all good works; likewise, who expects God to help him in committing sin, etc. or who sins because God is merciful.
Click to expand...
It is not presumption to sin with the hope of being forgiven, since the real cause of such a sin is human weakness and not the hope of forgiveness. Even in the case in which a person would not readily sin if the hope of forgiveness were not present to his mind, this circumstance would not be the cause, but only the occasion of sin. It is likewise not presumption if one sins repeatedly because it is as easy to confess many sins as to confess only one, or if one postpones repentance in the hope of confessing later. This might readily be a sin against love of oneself.
Click to expand...
The above quote comes from a trusted book that even the SSPX priests carry around as a reference for moral questions:
Moral Theology (Jone)
 
Failure to baptize children in a reasonable time (within a few months) after birth **

I had my son baptized at 9 months old. I never knew this was a sin to so late. Our parish priest never said anything about this, he actually said that infant baptism wasn’t necessary, that it was our(my husband and mine) choice that we’re making for him and our responsibility to bring him up in the Church. I’m confused. Are Catholics really required to baptize their babies and in a certain time frame?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top