S
Startingcatholic
Guest
I was taking a quiz online and knowingly looked up one of the questions and knew it was a sin. I feel really bad about it and don’t know if i’m in mortal sin or not.
- Status
S
StJosephPrayForUs
Guest
Make an act of perfect contrition, return to the state of grace, and then go to confession and talk to the priest about it.
C
c4csp
Guest
3 conditions for mortal sin.
- The sin is grave
- You have full knowledge it is grave sin
- you have deliberate consent to commit the sin
M
Mrchatsworth
Guest
Sounds like the three conditions could be met. Go to confession.
S
StudentMI
Guest
Like a quiz for fun? If so you’re fine.
blackforest
Well-known member
That’s my question: What was the context?
Assuming this was a quiz for some graded academic purpose, and not a quiz taken just for fun, I have a very hard time thinking that cheating on one single question rises to the level of mortal sin. (Of course, if it were a quiz “just for fun”, there is no sin whatsoever.)
Not condoning cheating, just saying that we shouldn’t make the sin worse than it actually is. Mention it in confession and see what the priest tells you.
Not condoning cheating, just saying that we shouldn’t make the sin worse than it actually is. Mention it in confession and see what the priest tells you.
Last edited:
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
Not only a sin to cheat. it is a form of a lie which speaks to the character you are developing. As a parent, I would far rather my son/daughter fail a quiz than to cheat on the quiz. There can always be more study, tutors, even repeating a class to learn what needs to be done to pass the quiz. It is monumentally different than to have your conscience dulled so cheating is no big deal.
Unless this was a fun quiz to see what your favorite animal reveals about your personality or which Harry Potter House you belong in, you are cheating yourself of the education.
Unless this was a fun quiz to see what your favorite animal reveals about your personality or which Harry Potter House you belong in, you are cheating yourself of the education.
T
twf
Guest
I agree. It’s a venial sin, and that’s never ok… but grave matter?
I dislike the terms “grave matter” or “grave sin”. There are only two kinds of sin, mortal and venial. Mortal sin removes the state of grace from your soul and makes you liable to eternal damnation. Venial sin doesn’t. Some sins, in and of themselves (when accompanied by the other two conditions, viz. sufficient reflection and full consent of the will), are mortally sinful by their nature, such as deliberate and completed sexual sins, whereas other species of sin can be either mortal or venial depending upon their degree — if this concept of “degree” is all that is meant by “grave sin” or “not grave sin”, then fine, but I fear that it muddies the waters and keeps us from seeing the distinction between mortal sin and venial sin. Stealing a gumdrop from a candy store, in and of itself, is only venially sinful. Stealing a million dollars is mortally sinful. I am seeing a disturbing trend among contemporary Catholics to brand all sins as “grave matter” — such that there can never be a venial sin of stealing, a venial sin of lying, a venial sin of uncharity — which could lead to scrupulosity and warmed-over Jansenism. I don’t think anybody wants that.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
This is your opinion, not the teaching of the Church. Sexual sins are grave matter, yet, a person may have limited or no culpability based on the other two conditions being/not met.
I said the same thing in slightly different words. I am fully aware that less-than-deliberate sexual sins, such as those committed in the throes of addiction or unforeseen passion, may not be mortal sins, due to the two other conditions.HomeschoolDad:
This is your opinion, not the teaching of the Church. Sexual sins are grave matter, yet, a person may have limited or no culpability based on the other two conditions being/not met.
O
OKComputer
Guest
Was it a school quiz or just a fun little quiz online? Sorry if I missed that. Regardless, I think we throw around the term ‘mortal sin’ too much. I’m not sure this classifies as one.
Last edited:
T
twf
Guest
Right, but that’s what I was saying…it is probably a venial sin to cheat on one question on a quiz. I was challenging the idea that this action involves grave matter. The Catechism and canon law use the terms “grave sins” for what its worth.
S
stpurl
Guest
Thank you, sir. One of the scourges of modern times is the era of ambiguity which supposedly ‘permits’ us to find all sorts of wiggle room to excuse our behaviors. No longer do we have mortal and venial sins, the first being grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent, and the second being all that does not fall under ‘mortal’.
no, today we must have all kinds of ‘move the goal post’ excuses. . .mostly, we are told, to save the scrupulous who would fall into despite (and of course, practically on key we will have posts purportedly to support that, with pitiful people saying that they fear damnation for thinking a bad thought, or for saying ‘h e double hockey sticks’).
SELDOM do we hear of the vast majority of “I’ OK you’re OK’ Catholics who blithely assume there is no possible way that any Catholic could commit ‘mortal’ sin because nobody could want to offend our good buddy Jesus or that happy Grandpa God who wants us to ‘be nice’. These are the Catholics who bleat that everything is always ‘fine’, the only people who sin are the ‘rigid’ people who dare to claim Catholic truths as they have been some 2000 years instead of modern interpretations according to their pet experts or the people at HappyRUs.
The same people who will argue for chapters on the fine nuance of ‘daring’ to ‘condemn’ or ‘judge others’ cannot spend a half-dozen words to comment on the objective nature of a particular sin. Heck, you know, there isn’t any such thing as ‘objective wrong’ dontcha know, it’s all circumstance.
Christians have been warned since the beginning about people having ‘itching ears’ about doctrine and seeking for those who make God into THEIR image and likeness.
As for me, I’ll stick with God who would be recognized by St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Pio, etc. and not by the one recognized by Rita Relativity from The Church who welcomes all in the year AD 2020, you know, the one who isn’t like that pesky demanding ‘god’ or Jesus King of the Universe who is merciful AND Just, instead of ‘just merciful’.
no, today we must have all kinds of ‘move the goal post’ excuses. . .mostly, we are told, to save the scrupulous who would fall into despite (and of course, practically on key we will have posts purportedly to support that, with pitiful people saying that they fear damnation for thinking a bad thought, or for saying ‘h e double hockey sticks’).
SELDOM do we hear of the vast majority of “I’ OK you’re OK’ Catholics who blithely assume there is no possible way that any Catholic could commit ‘mortal’ sin because nobody could want to offend our good buddy Jesus or that happy Grandpa God who wants us to ‘be nice’. These are the Catholics who bleat that everything is always ‘fine’, the only people who sin are the ‘rigid’ people who dare to claim Catholic truths as they have been some 2000 years instead of modern interpretations according to their pet experts or the people at HappyRUs.
The same people who will argue for chapters on the fine nuance of ‘daring’ to ‘condemn’ or ‘judge others’ cannot spend a half-dozen words to comment on the objective nature of a particular sin. Heck, you know, there isn’t any such thing as ‘objective wrong’ dontcha know, it’s all circumstance.
Christians have been warned since the beginning about people having ‘itching ears’ about doctrine and seeking for those who make God into THEIR image and likeness.
As for me, I’ll stick with God who would be recognized by St. Paul, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Catherine of Siena, St. Therese of the Child Jesus, St. Pio, etc. and not by the one recognized by Rita Relativity from The Church who welcomes all in the year AD 2020, you know, the one who isn’t like that pesky demanding ‘god’ or Jesus King of the Universe who is merciful AND Just, instead of ‘just merciful’.
T
TheLittleLady
Guest
If I do not know sexual acts are a sin, I cannot be culpable.
If I do not know that eating meat on Friday of Lent (provided I am of good health, age, etc.) and I order up a big ole cheeseburger, I cannot be culpable.
God does not hold people accountable for what they do not know. God does not ever expect the impossible.
If I do not know that eating meat on Friday of Lent (provided I am of good health, age, etc.) and I order up a big ole cheeseburger, I cannot be culpable.
God does not hold people accountable for what they do not know. God does not ever expect the impossible.
S
stpurl
Guest
If you are a Catholic who is literate and over the age of reason and/or have a computer or a catechism easily accessible, and you choose not to bother to learn your faith, then you CAN be culpable.
As for the ‘cheeseburger in Lent Friday’ scenario, first, you have to be Catholic and second, you have to be of age; by virtue of the first, the need to be Catholic, in addition to having the ‘rights’ of being a Catholic, you have the responsibility of knowing what the Catholic faith entails.
Once you get past being of an age where a parent can forbid you or not ‘permit’ you to learn your faith, and by this point it’s right about the age of being responsible for abstinence on Lent Fridays in the US, you become responsible not just for what you DO learn, but for what you DON’T.
I’m not saying that God will hold a person fully responsible, but He also gave us brains to use. If we have the time to learn and the ability to learn, and we don’t bother, then we could have known and we should have known, and we will be held responsible in whatever way is both most merciful AND most just.
Again, too often do we see the rush to ‘excuse’ people because “They didn’t know”. . .
Instead of asking, “As adolescents or adults who supposedly have been baptized Catholic, and are often the first to demand the Eucharist etc. etc., WHY do they NOT know the most basic tenets of the religion they proclaim they ARE?”
As for the ‘cheeseburger in Lent Friday’ scenario, first, you have to be Catholic and second, you have to be of age; by virtue of the first, the need to be Catholic, in addition to having the ‘rights’ of being a Catholic, you have the responsibility of knowing what the Catholic faith entails.
Once you get past being of an age where a parent can forbid you or not ‘permit’ you to learn your faith, and by this point it’s right about the age of being responsible for abstinence on Lent Fridays in the US, you become responsible not just for what you DO learn, but for what you DON’T.
I’m not saying that God will hold a person fully responsible, but He also gave us brains to use. If we have the time to learn and the ability to learn, and we don’t bother, then we could have known and we should have known, and we will be held responsible in whatever way is both most merciful AND most just.
Again, too often do we see the rush to ‘excuse’ people because “They didn’t know”. . .
Instead of asking, “As adolescents or adults who supposedly have been baptized Catholic, and are often the first to demand the Eucharist etc. etc., WHY do they NOT know the most basic tenets of the religion they proclaim they ARE?”
No, we don’t throw around the term “mortal sin” nearly enough. You could name over all the things we’re supposed to be fearful of — COVID-19, 5G smartphones, HIV, electromagnetic pulse bombs that could wipe out our entire information infrastructure (or could severely compromise it), driving without a seatbelt, smoking, vaping, what have you — and none of these is even worth thinking about, compared with mortal sin.
But who can even tell you what a “mortal sin” IS anymore?
I know, and so did pre-Vatican II catechisms and manuals of moral theology. The term has been with us quite a while. But when all is said and done, sin breaks out this way:
(a) Mortal
- the matter itself must be mortally (or gravely, if you prefer) sinful in itself
- you must know what you are doing (sufficient reflection)
- and you must fully realize and want to do it (full consent of the will)
- remove any one of these three conditions, and you have only venial sin
- either the matter itself is a small one — no sin is “okay”, but as I teach my son in catechism, it is a sin not bad enough to go to hell for
- or the matter itself is mortal (grave), but one of the other two conditions were lacking
I’m just going to be perfectly honest about where I see this going. I am concerned that, as a practical matter in people’s lives, this could morph into a third, intermediate category — “grave but not mortal”. There are a few sins that have become “lifestyle accessories” for so many. Two of those are contraception and invalid marriage after divorce with no annulment. Might someone be able to tell themselves “yes, the sin is grave, I don’t deny that, and I’m not willing to give it up right now, but I have to think it falls short of being mortal, because all in all, I do love God, I want to do His Will, but this one little problem area, well, I don’t want to think that I could go to hell because of it”. Other sins of this ilk could be living in a non-celibate homosexual relationship, the habit of solitary sexual pleasure with no effort to stop it, couples living together outside of wedlock in a non-celibate manner, and so on. And, yes, many of the “pet sins” of the modern era are sexual, because human nature inclines towards it, and the larger secular society militates in their favor. “Grave but not mortal” would be a huge escape hatch for those who cannot or will not conform their lives to the Church’s teaching.
S
StJosephPrayForUs
Guest
Grave but not mortal is something people say when they don’t know the moral theology, and it genuinely upsets me. It could be used correctly, for an intrinsically evil act committed without full knowledge of will, which is called an objective mortal sin but not actual I believe, but still. People have forgotten the three fonts, especially the second (moral object, which is either entirely good or entirely evil), and that no knowingly chosen human act is neutral. Things are good or evil, from waking up and choosing to brush your teeth, to taking a life. People have expanded this somehow to including acts they commit with full knowledge and will, but refuse to stop. I hate it. It already is an escape hatch, I try to close it wherever I see it (free spiritual work of mercy too!).
Yes, when sins are condemned as being “grave”, that is good as far as it goes, but the explanation needs to “go all the way” — these sins, if committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, are mortal sins, for which the punishment could be eternal damnation. Hit people between the eyes with it. I have had times in my life when I myself needed to be “hit between the eyes” with this reality.
How often is this heard from the pulpit anymore?
When I first came into the Catholic world, this is one of the first things I learned. Let’s just say it got my attention. Just out of curiosity, when exactly does this come up in RCIA, and how much emphasis is given to it? Anybody know?
Last edited:
- Status