About mortal sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zynxensar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

Zynxensar

Guest
If a person steals $5000 from the average person (most cases, GRAVE matter) in the sense of actually stealing the money, knowing that it is wrong and still consenting to the deed out of his own free will (without any other factors influencing it), does he commit another mortal sin if he spends the money on non-sinful items? Or does he not commit another mortal sin, but is still in the state of mortal sin (that is, until he confesses this and returns the $5000 to the owner — or if in cases where this is impossible, reparation through donations, charity etc)?
 
Last edited:
Why do you say “which is undoubtedly a mortal sin”?

You do understand the three conditions that must be met for sin to be mortal, yes?

Also, that there are times/situations when taking something that does not “belong” to you does not rise to the level of “stealing” and is justified, right?
 
Sorry, I meant it in the general sense of unlawfully taking someone else’s money I.e stealing money from someone’s bank account. In this sense, in most cases it is a mortal sin (stealing a large amount of money is a grave matter), unless for VERY exceptional circumstances like the person being mentally disabled and not knowing that stealing is a sin.

Either way, I’ll rephrase it. Thanks for pointing that out
 
Stealing 5,000 $ is a grave matter, but it isn’t a mortal sin for everyone in every case. In order for a sin to be mortal, 3 criteria must be met:
  1. That it is a grave matter. (Stealing 5K would be a grave matter)
  2. The person who did the act knew that stealing 5k was a grave sin.
  3. The person who stole the 5k fully intended to steal the money of their own free will despite knowing that it was gravely wrong.
A person who is mentally ill might not be in a state of mortal sin due to diminished capacity. The person who stole the money may have been coerced in some way. If this person stole the $5,000 dollars to save his child’s life from a kidnapper, those circumstances might mitigate his culpability.
 
You are starting to get it. I hope that by fully evaluating your own actions, you are able to use these criteria to determine whether you have committed a mortal sin or not. That helps a lot when you are suffering anxiety from scrupulosity attacks.
 
Andy235 said:
Stealing 5,000 $ is a grave matter,…
Click to expand...
Is it, really? Is it really the cold hard figure? $5000 vs. $5?

Is it necessarily grave matter when “as much as” $5000 is stolen from someone who has 10 billion in liquid cash?

Is it necessarily venial sin when “only” $5 is stolen from the homeless beggar who would have used it to buy his only burger for the day?

Gravity of sin goes much more than just the hard value.
 
I’ve been aware of the three criterions required for a mortal sin all along, though I had some trouble implementing them with my case.

Surprisingly, reading some answers online actually helped me with these scruples, that, and also the Apologists’ answers especially Fr Vincent Serpa
 
that is an excellent point. The gravity is relative to the offense to God, your neighbor or yourself. Stealing the last $5 from someone who is homeless would be much more harmful than stealing $5k from Warren Buffet or Jeff Bezos.
 
Not doing this (searching up stuff online) because I’m reluctant to get a Confessor; just can’t find one yet :confused:
 
Zynxensar said:
Not doing this (searching up stuff online) because I’m reluctant to get a Confessor; just can’t find one yet :confused:
Click to expand...
You would have been told multiple times by now that this behaviour is HARMFUL to you and still you come up with excuses to not find a confessor. If you can’t find a regular confessor, then set an appointment with who’s available.
 
I myself have the bad habit of searching online and it can cause scrupulosity attacks. I would advise staying away from asking too many questions online, or spending too much time looking online about sins----there are many sources out there, and not all are of the same quality.
 
Theft should be assumed to be grave matter. Its not always, but one should be careful in assuming it is not.

From the excellent moral theology book The Way of the Lord Jesus, by Germain Grisez:
c) Such acts should not too quickly be regarded as light matter. Like most other injustices, many forms of wrongful taking can admit parvity of matter. Casuists have discussed this question so often that legalistically minded thieves may be able to find opinions which seem to treat what they are doing as light matter. Before judging that one can engage in such an injustice without committing a mortal sin, however, a person should bear several things in mind.
First, the matter is not light if it is likely to cause serious harm to anyone. For example, stealing a very small amount from a child or a poor person can cause great distress; taking something of little value in itself can lead to considerable trouble and inconvenience. The matter cannot be judged light if a reasonable person in the circumstances of any individual harmed would consider the harm significant, that is, would be noticeably saddened or angered by harm of that kind and amount (see S.t., 2–2, q. 66, a. 6, ad 3). In evaluating the significance of harm suffered, however, one may take into account that a reasonable person might be less attached to property than some owners in fact are. For example, a wealthy individual of a miserly disposition might be very distressed if it appears that a cashier has shortchanged him or her by one dollar.
Again, even if an act or practice of wrongful taking does not harm any one person significantly, it may be gravely unjust because of its effect on the community as a whole. For example, petty cheating by some merchants in classifying, adulterating, weighing, and measuring goods can render honest competition impossible. Similarly, petty shoplifting can increase the costs of doing business so greatly that it cannot reasonably be considered insignificant; a sign of this is that public opinion generally supports the enforcement of laws forbidding it.
Given that an act is wrongful taking, doubts about its seriousness should be settled by presuming the matter grave. Someone who is willing to do wrong while doubtful about how serious the wrong will be, is willing to do the more serious wrong (see 5.I.2.a).
Click to expand...
Please note, that the catechism specifically states:
There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tafan2 said:
…quote snipped
Click to expand...
I would be VERY cautious about posting old moral theology manuals. Consider the OP of this thread. Old-style moral theology, while solid, are written in ways that can seriously harm the scrupulous, or trigger it. For the scrupulous, these principles cannot apply, and often, they SHOULD in fact quickly regard things as light matter, because the scrupulous, quite often, have no trouble recognizing real mortal sin (their scruples do not flare up).

Your quote is correct. But ONLY for those with normal conscience. We must insist that the scrupulous do NOT follow these principles.
 
Last edited:
The book I posted is by no means old. It was published in the 80s. The author is a very well respected theolgian.
I provided a link to the online source, which includes all the publishing information.
Do at least 15 seconds of research before you respond next time.
 
tafan2 said:
The book I posted is by no means old. It was published in the 80s. The author is a very well respected theolgian.
I provided a link to the online source, which includes all the publishing information.
Do at least 15 seconds of research before you respond next time.
Click to expand...
And again, recognize that you are dealing with an EXTREMELY scrupulous poster.

Do not condescend to me again.
 
Before I posted, there were no less than 4 other posts discussing when/if stealing $5,000 was a mortal sin. My commenting on that fact was obviously done in a proper context. You then assumed that my post was based on “old moral theology manuals”. I provided exactly who the author was, it would be easy for you to find that was not the case. Indeed, even the wording of the quote indicated it was not from an old manual. So please do not misrepresent my posts. Also, you should take the time to look up Mr. Grisez’s work, was a good servant of the Church.

As to the issue of another post being scrupulous, how am I supposed to know that? There is nothing scrupulous about thinking that theft of $5000, being done "knowing that it is wrong and still consenting to the deed out of his own free will " is a mortal sin. I have no way of knowing who is scrupulous and who is not. I see nothing in my original post that would be a problem for anyone reading it, even if they are scrupulous. The second sentence states clearly that theft can admit parvity of matter.
 
Last edited:
Stealing the money is sinful, spending it is another sin because, possessing money that belongs to another, the next choice is whether to return it or spend it. Making the latter choice is another sin. Sins are essentially knowing deliberate immoral choices.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top