Abortion Automatically a Mortal Sin?

[Bookcat]

uncharitable remarks about why I started a thread ( ). .

Huh ?? I am confused here…none where made that I know of and certainly none intended. Sorry for anything that was not worded well.

 

[Bookcat]

If she has an abortion she *has *committed a grave sin. But she has not committed a mortal sin.

No. A person who has done something which is “grave matter” (what is objectively also called a grave sin/mortal sin/serious sin --as in “murder is a grave sin”)-- but does not have the full knowledge or complete consent then they have NOT committed a grave sin.

They have committed a venial sin --if they have committed a sin at all.

(I presume for discussion here that the person does not have either the needed knowledge or needed consent- I am not addressing any particular fictional or real event here)

 

[LittleSoldier]

No, an abortion is “grave matter.” A sin is not a sin unless it is knowingly and freely chosen. Otherwise it is merely disorder or evil. A “grave sin” is, by definition, a “mortal sin,” which is to say, it is a sin pertaining to grave matter.

That’s not what Bookcat says. He/she says it’s a mortal sin and a grave sin - even when the three criteria are not met. I agree with you, except that the CCC and at least a few Popes seem (seemed) to be using grave sin, mortal sin, and grave matter as synonyms.

If I had an abortion and really didn’t know that it was grave matter and/or didn’t give my full consent I would not have committed a mortal sin. That doesn’t mean that the abortion is not grave matter. But there are some who are making it more confusing by using that word “sin” in the term “grave sin.” Then they say it refers to the objective part - which is whether abortion is always grave matter, which it is. But they seem to ignore the other two criteria: knowledge and consent.

And this is semantics and ambiguous. What I can say is that if I had the abortion without meeting all three criteria I would be horrified and think that I had damned myself because I had committed a “grave sin.” And it wouldn’t be true for the reasons you state (“a sin is not a sin unless it is knowingly and freely chosen” (thank you!)).

I think the CCC should use the term “grave matter” or “grave action” instead of “grave sin.” It is just too confusing and ambiguous.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s not what Bookcat says. He/she says it’s a mortal sin and a grave sin - even when the three criteria are not met…

If the person does not have full knowledge or deliberate consent they have NOT committed a mortal sin (grave sin).

that the CCC and at least a few Popes seem (seemed) to be using grave sin, mortal sin, and grave matter as synonyms.

Yes the Church and Theology use the terms as synonyms --AND in two different ways. One way is the talking about the nature of the kind of sin “murder is a mortal sin”. And the other is when speaking of if the sin is personally committed (needing full knowledge and complete consent.

Here is the definition from Fr. Hardon (a theologian whose cause has been introduced) -from his Catholic Dictionary:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34987

 

[Bookcat]

If she has an abortion she *has *committed a grave sin. But she has not committed a mortal sin.

No. A person who has done something which is “grave matter” (what is objectively also called a grave sin/mortal sin/serious sin --as in “murder is a grave sin”)-- but does not have the full knowledge or complete consent then they have NOT committed a grave sin.

They have committed a venial sin --if they have committed a sin at all.

(I presume for discussion here that the person does not have either the needed knowledge or needed consent- I am not addressing any particular fictional or real event here)

 

[fix]

Take a look at the old CE:

Material and formal sin

This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.

This why it is correct to say that objective mortal sins exist, even if one is not subjectively guilty. Hence, objective mortal sins and subjective mortal sins.

 

[Bookcat]

Here is the definition from Fr. Hardon (a theologian whose cause has been introduced) -from his Modern Catholic Dictionary:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34987

 

[LittleSoldier]

No. A person who has done something which is “grave matter” (what is objectively also called a grave sin/mortal sin/serious sin --as in “murder is a grave sin”)-- but does not have the full knowledge or complete consent then they have NOT committed a grave sin.

They have committed a venial sin --if they have committed a sin at all.

(I presume for discussion here that the person does not have either the needed knowledge or needed consent- I am not addressing any particular fictional or real event here)

AHA!! Do you now see the ambiguity? You state that she has not committed a grave sin. But she certainly committed what is grave matter. And you use these terms interchangeably as though they are synonyms. In your post #53 you stated the following:

One can use the term “grave sin” or “mortal sin” or “serious sin” to refer to the act itself (though it is best to use “grave matter” when discussing culpability). In using such terms here the Church and Moral Theology are referring to the objective nature of the act. In itself.

---

So - if she has the abortion she has certainly committed grave matter. So she has, according to you, committed a grave sin or mortal sin or serious sin. You use the terms as synonyms and she certainly had the abortion, which you say is always a mortal sin and I say is always grave matter.

I asked you if we were talking past each other. I still think we are. If you use the term “grave sin” to refer to the abortion and a woman has the abortion she has committed a grave sin - using your words. I say she has had an abortion - a grave matter, but without all three criteria she has not committed a mortal sin.

So what is it? Is it permissible to use the terms “grave sin,” “mortal sin,” and “serious sin” to refer to the act itself? If so, she has committed a grave sin, a mortal sin, a serious sin - using your words and that is because she had an abortion, which is “grave sin,” “mortal sin,” and “serious sin” - using your words.

Perhaps it would be best to settle on one term to describe the act: “grave matter” would be my choice.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Here is the definition from Fr. Hardon (a theologian whose cause has been introduced) -from his Modern Catholic Dictionary:

catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34987

Synonymous, each with slightly different implication?

 

[sw85]

So if someone who gets an abortion and does not believe it to be a sin - does not commit a mortal sin - so only by knowledge and consent one can only commit a mortal sin.If your not catholic , don’t believe in God , you can’t commit a mortal sin because you don’t know the seriousness of your sin.Hmmm something seems wrong with this - some people are accountable and others are not depending on your knowledge of sin.So knowledge can condemn you .
This seems to apply to fully practicing Catholics who have full knowledge of their faith and sin ( many don’t have full understanding ) and have read the CCC. You can’t say they have sinned by not trying to understand the faith as they don’t know any better.
The more knowledge you have of the faith the more accountable you are for your sins - which does make sense - I’m not really liking this but what can I do.

Something is indeed wrong with this – you have “full knowledge” wrong. The natural law is inscribed on the hearts of men: all have at least the capacity to know it. Failure to use that capacity in accordance with its natural end does not excuse people of sin.

“Full knowledge” pertains to knowledge that one is participating in the act, such that, for instance, if I drive a woman to the hospital to get an abortion, I am guilty of sin if I knew she was going to get an abortion but not guilty if she lied to me and told it was a routine check-up.

And yes, faithlessness is usually a sin, as ignorance can be culpable.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Take a look at the old CE:

This why it is correct to say that objective mortal sins exist, even if one is not subjectively guilty. Hence, objective mortal sins and subjective mortal sins.

I would agree with this because you have used the terms “objective mortal sins” and “subjective mortal sins.” You are using two different terms to define two different things. I have no problem with that. It’s when “mortal sin” and “grave sin” are used to mean the same thing that I start having problems with the terminology. Language is supposed to be used to communicate; not to confuse.

However, although I appreciate the link, I am no longer using the New Advent website because I read something on that site which is so anti-Catholic and anti-Christian that I could hardly believe it and when I read it to someone who I believe is knowledgeable she said it had to be wrong - that the Church would *never *teach anything like what I read. I’m still not certain about the truth of what was written there but there was a *nihil obstat *and an imprimatur. If it turns out that the Church indeed does teach what was written there I will be submitting a letter to the archbishop to formally resign from the Church.

 

[sw85]

You are VASTLY overcomplicating this, LittleSoldier.

Let’s start from the beginning.

Sin is a species of disorder (which is to say deviation from the normative order of being, ordained by God).

When disorder is knowingly chosen, it is sin. Sin is a disordered act that is knowingly chosen.

When the matter of the sin is particularly grave, the sin is said to be mortal. When it is not grave, it is venially sinful.

I said a second ago that sin is a disordered act that is knowingly chosen, i.e., it requires knowledge and consent of the will.

“Full consent” means the consent of the will: i.e., I chose to do X.

“Full knowledge” means knowledge that one is committing the act: i.e., I know that I am doing X.

“Full knowledge” emphatically does NOT mean “knowledge that the act is sinful,” because knowledge of ethical principles is inscribed in the hearts of men by way of reason.

Therefore someone who freely chooses to have an abortion and receives one is guilty of mortal sin, whether or not she has ever read the Catechism or encountered Catholic teachings at all.

“Full knowledge” is distinct from “full consent” only in very few cases. For instance, if I say “Houston is the capital of Texas” because I think it is, I have said something wrong (disordered) but not sinful, because I lacked knowledge. Likewise, if a friend asks me for a ride to the hospital where I later discovered she procured an abortion, I have participated in the sinful act (by consent) but had no knowledge of it, therefore I did not sin.

Again, “full knowledge” DOES NOT mean “knowledge that an act is sinful.” Knowledge of, or at least the capacity to know, right from wrong is universally available except where reason itself is discerned; so where the truth of it is not immediately apprehended it can only be because one failed to exercise reason. Rather, “full knowledge” means “knowledge of one’s participation in a sinful act.”

 

[Bookcat]

AHA!! Do you now see the ambiguity? You state that she has not committed a grave sin. But she certainly committed what is grave matter. And you use these terms interchangeably as though they are synonyms. In your post #53 you stated the following:

One can use the term “grave sin” or “mortal sin” or “serious sin” to refer to the act itself (though it is best to use “grave matter” when discussing culpability). In using such terms here the Church and Moral Theology are referring to the objective nature of the act. In itself.

---

So - if she has the abortion she has certainly committed grave matter. So she has, according to you, NOT committed a grave sin or mortal sin or serious sin (if she lacked the needed knowledge or consent -again I am not referring to a particular case -real or imagined here). You use the terms as synonyms and she certainly had the abortion, which you say is always a mortal sin and I say is always grave matter. (objectively it is always a grave sin -in itself “abortion is always a grave sin/mortal sin”)

I asked you if we were talking past each other. I still think we are. If you use the term “grave sin” to refer to the abortion and a woman has the abortion she has committed a grave sin - using your words (if -using my words she has the needed knowledge and consent). I say she has had an abortion - a grave matter, but without all three criteria she has not committed a mortal sin. (correct)

So what is it? Is it permissible to use the terms “grave sin,” “mortal sin,” and “serious sin” to refer to the act itself? yes on the objectively level --murder is always a grave sin/mortal sin If so, she has committed a grave sin, a mortal sin, a serious sin - using your words and that is because she had an abortion, which is “grave sin,” “mortal sin,” and “serious sin” - using your words. No. One can not mix the objective and subjective meanings here. When one says “abortion is always a mortal sin/grave sin” one is referring to “abortion” not to if a particular person has “committed” a mortal sin in having an abortion

Perhaps it would be best to settle on one term to describe the act: “grave matter” would be my choice. That is what I use usually – and especially in discussing if a person has committed a grave sin

 

[LittleSoldier]

Something is indeed wrong with this – you have “full knowledge” wrong. The natural law is inscribed on the hearts of men: all have at least the capacity to know it. Failure to use that capacity in accordance with its natural end does not excuse people of sin.

“Full knowledge” pertains to knowledge that one is participating in the act, such that, for instance, if I drive a woman to the hospital to get an abortion, I am guilty of sin if I knew she was going to get an abortion but not guilty if she lied to me and told it was a routine check-up.

And yes, faithlessness is usually a sin, as ignorance can be culpable.

I think that women who procure abortions are often misled and so it would be more difficult for us to know their culpability (which we really couldn’t know, anyway). They are often victims themselves. In his book The Unaborted Socrates Kreeft brings up this point. Women are told by their own physicians that what they carry inside them is just a blob of cells or that it isn’t a human being until implantation or that it’s perfectly fine and even good medical practice to remove a Down Syndrome baby before she can survive outside the womb. They are also told that they are being prescribed “contraceptives” but not told that these are both contraceptive and abortifacient. People want to trust their physicians and so they believe.

The woman is told that abortion is legal and lots of people haven’t progressed beyond the “legalistic stage” so they base their beliefs on man-made law, not understanding that some laws are immoral and that we really should answer to a higher authority. Not too many people make it to the Universal Level of Kohlberg’s Moral Stages, where human life is held to be more important than man-made laws.

I have a deeper problem with the abortionists themselves. These are supposed to be people who are intelligent enough to get through medical school. They should know abortion is always wrong. Even in the case of an ectopic pregnancy a direct abortion is not morally licit. The “doctors” are the ones who do the actual killing and often this involves torture such as ripping the baby apart or burning her with acid or PBA - the procedure that makes me wonder if we have progressed beyond cavemen.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Bookcat:
The following (the blank part) is what I ended up with when I quoted your post. Please don’t insert responses into my posts; first of all, I end up with a mostly blank page, and I guess I’m supposed to edit your post and clean it up so that I can respond. I don’t do that. Second of all, your words end up appearing as though I wrote them.

So I will not respond to your post.

---

 

[Bookcat]

Also we have to avoid any impression that there are “three” basic categories of actual sins.

Mortal sin, grave sin and venial sins.

Where as there are in reality only mortal and venial (with the names “grave” and “serious” being also used for mortal).

To quote from a modern work of Catholic Moral Theology:

Our Moral Life in Christ" 1997 Published by Midwest Theological Forum (and sold (maybe co-published?) by Scepter Publishers in the past --who does the Navarre).

Here is the short of it from Pg 146 :

“Certain authors have recently and erroneously introduced a threefold division of sin: Mortal, grave and venial…The Magisterium of the Church has condemned this triple distinction, saying that it has no foundation in Scripture, which specifies only two classes of sin. Consequently, mortal and “grave” sins are identical”. P146

Also see this Catholic Dictionary: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=34987

 

[Bookcat]

A nice summary as to when one “commits” a grave sin/mortal sin and when one commits a venial sin.
**
The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI**
**
395. When does one commit a mortal sin?**

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
**
396. When does one commit a venial sin?**

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[LittleSoldier]

You are VASTLY overcomplicating this, LittleSoldier.

No, I am not. But you are.

Let’s start from the beginning.

Sin is a species of disorder (which is to say deviation from the normative order of being, ordained by God).

Well, *that’s *not complicated at all!

When disorder is knowingly chosen, it is sin. Sin is a disordered act that is knowingly chosen.

When the matter of the sin is particularly grave, the sin is said to be mortal. When it is not grave, it is venially sinful.

I said a second ago that sin is a disordered act that is knowingly chosen, i.e., it requires knowledge and consent of the will.

“Full consent” means the consent of the will: i.e., I chose to do X.

“Full knowledge” means knowledge that one is committing the act: i.e., I know that I am doing X.

“Full knowledge” emphatically does NOT mean “knowledge that the act is sinful,” because knowledge of ethical principles is inscribed in the hearts of men by way of reason.

In everyone? In the severely mentally ill? In the insane? In a seven year-old? How many seven year-olds know that abortion (legal in the U.S.) is immoral? What if their parents tell them that there is no child but just a blob of cells? That it’s OK to have an abortion? When I was seven years old I thought that french kissing was a mortal sin and I didn’t even know what french kissing was. My sister thought that kissing led directly to pregnancy. We had no idea what really goes on! And if my Mom had told me that what is present in the womb is not a human being you can bet I would have believed her. She’s my Mom - why would she lie to me?

Therefore someone who freely chooses to have an abortion and receives one is guilty of mortal sin, whether or not she has ever read the Catechism or encountered Catholic teachings at all.

That’s nice of you. So let’s throw out the CCC because we don’t need it.

“Full knowledge” is distinct from “full consent” only in very few cases. For instance, if I say “Houston is the capital of Texas” because I think it is, I have said something wrong (disordered) but not sinful, because I lacked knowledge. Likewise, if a friend asks me for a ride to the hospital where I later discovered she procured an abortion, I have participated in the sinful act (by consent) but had no knowledge of it, therefore I did not sin.

So it’s not universal? Some people don’t have the ability to use reason to learn which acts are sinful?

Again, “full knowledge” DOES NOT mean “knowledge that an act is sinful.” Knowledge of, or at least the capacity to know, right from wrong is universally available except where reason itself is discerned; so where the truth of it is not immediately apprehended it can only be because one failed to exercise reason. Rather, “full knowledge” means “knowledge of one’s participation in a sinful act.”

Oy vey!!

 

[LittleSoldier]

A nice summary as to when one “commits” a grave sin/mortal sin and when one commits a venial sin.
**
The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI**
**
395. When does one commit a mortal sin?**

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
**
396. When does one commit a venial sin?**

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Do you read my posts? I’m beginning to think you don’t. I obviously know about the three criteria; they have been posted several times and yet you post them once again as if it is new information. I clearly explained why you should not have told me why I started this thread and repeated that you had done so in a second post and you seem to not have the slightest clue.

Also, I have stated that I am not going to get into this with you. I still believe you and I are talking past each other and I said that I am not going to write lots of posts or mega-posts. I don’t lie.

I see a lot of confusion from some of the posters in this thread. Actually (as I believe you and I are talking past each other) I think we agree. But I don’t have the time to get into this with you or anyone else.

I am not conceding. But I am leaving this thread.

 

[Bookcat]

Do you read my posts? I’m beginning to think you don’t. I obviously know about the three criteria; they have been posted several times and yet you post them once again as if it is new information.

I am not conceding. But I am leaving this thread.

Yes I know you know the needed aspects for committing grave sin (it was a general post to the thread for all)…

Peace be with you! (and again sorry for anything amiss -such as miscommunication)

Have a great rest of the week and a most blessed Lords Day!