Can a sin be charged to someone who doesn't realize it is a sin?

[AHapka]

I am by no means trying to excuse any sin. Sorry if I came off that way. I am only making an argument that there are both venial and mortal versions of this particular sin possible.

And I agree with the rest of what you said.

 

[nunsense]

I am by no means trying to excuse any sin. Sorry if I came off that way. I am only making an argument that there are both venial and mortal versions of this particular sin possible.

And I agree with the rest of what you said.

Perhaps I wasn’t flexible enough in the beginning to get that you were talking about mitigating circumstances, like real need. But even in a case of need, I would hope that the person doing the stealing would pay back the owner eventually, when possible. As for amount being stolen, I have real reservations about people making excuses for sins in this way. It starts with something small like stealing office supplies and graduates to a lack of conscience with regard to stealing other, more valuable things. Give the devil an inch and he will take a mile.

 

[Annie]

Did you read the article I linked?

But even in a case of need, I would hope that the person doing the stealing would pay back the owner eventually, when possible.

First, you need to understand the definition of stealing, which is to take (without violence) against the reasonable will of the owner.

In the case of a starving person, the owner is not being reasonable in refusing food. The owner is actually obliged to give the starving man the food.

Thus, this is not theft, nor is the starving person in any way obliged to pay the owner back.

As for amount being stolen, I have real reservations about people making excuses for sins in this way.

No one is “making excuses,” we are simply setting forth what the Church teaches.

Stealing a small amount is venial rather than mortal because in order for a sin to be mortal, it must involve grave matter. Stealing a penny is not grave matter.

As for amount being stolen, I have real reservations about people making excuses for sins in this way. It starts with something small like stealing office supplies and graduates to a lack of conscience with regard to stealing other, more valuable things. Give the devil an inch and he will take a mile.

This is absolutely correct, and is why venial sin is dangerous. However, this does not make a venial sin mortal.

 

[nunsense]

@Annie I don’t know if you are arguing for the sake of arguing or just want to have the last word or what. Did ask if I read your link - did you read the link I posted? I have quoted it below for you.

Basically how I interpret it may be different than how you interpret it - and that might be because I don’t believe in making excuses for sin. Adam did this when he tried to blame Eve for their fall, instead of accepting responsibility for his own actions. Both of them sinned. Taking things that don’t belong to you is a sin. Yes, there can be mitigating circumstances, but those aren’t simply how much was stolen, but for what purpose. In the case of need, such as stealing a loaf of bread, this might not be a sin or might only be a venial sin, but it could very well still be a crime, so I see theft as serious. As for being a mortal sin, if it meets all three criteria of mortal sin, it is mortal sin. If it doesn’t meet all three, then it isn’t mortal sin. I have posted this over and over again on this site.

So then we come to ‘serious’. Is it serious to steal $20? It might be, it might not. There are a lot of things to consider, time, place, economy, etc, but rather than trying to find reasons why it might not be a mortal sin, why not just avoid the sin completely?And back to the penny thing - instead of saying, it’s only a penny, why not ask for the penny and give the person a chance to be charitable, rather than stealing from them? I know this whole issue is contentious (it seems) but I prefer to err on the side of not sinning as opposed to arguing whether my sin is venial or mortal.

As for paying back - yes, even if it was venial, part of repentance is making amends, so yes, I think things should be paid back, if the person can do so.

I am happy to agree to disagree on this issue as we obviously see it differently. theologians don’t all agree on it either.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.191 2409 *Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment:

 

[F_Marturana]

Stealing isn’t always grave matter.

Stealing a pen is not the same gravity as robbing a family’s life savings.

 

[F_Marturana]

Yes.

If I had a habit of stealing all the towels given to me at a hotel, then I could see that being more grave.

(Actually I wonder if it is stealing at all, hotels factor an occasional missing towel into the cost, and actually charge you for larger items such as robes. The slippers are complimentary. As are the toiletries. )

 

[nunsense]

Stealing isn’t always grave matter.

Stealing a pen is not the same gravity as robbing a family’s life savings.

We are beating a dead horse here. I posted this above:
I could agree that stealing a loaf of bread when you are starving mitigates the sin, but stealing from someone knowingly without a mitigating reason is theft, plain and simple. Humans are able to rationalize any behavior if it suits their purposes. I prefer to err on the side of caution by avoiding occasions of sin if I am aware that they are sinful acts.

I also posted this:
So then we come to ‘serious’. Is it serious to steal $20? It might be, it might not. There are a lot of things to consider, time, place, economy, etc, but rather than trying to find reasons why it might not be a mortal sin, why not just avoid the sin completely?And back to the penny thing - instead of saying, it’s only a penny, why not ask for the penny and give the person a chance to be charitable, rather than stealing from them? I know this whole issue is contentious (it seems) but I prefer to err on the side of not sinning as opposed to arguing whether my sin is venial or mortal.

I stand by my belief that making excuses for sin is wrong. I also continue to post the three conditions for mortal sin, so what more is there for me to say?

So I think my contributions to this thread are over. The OP asked about something unrelated to stealing, so I think the hijack of this thread is over for me.

 

[nunsense]

Yes.

If I had a habit of stealing all the towels given to me at a hotel, then I could see that being more grave.

(Actually I wonder if it is stealing at all, hotels factor an occasional missing towel into the cost, and actually charge you for larger items such as robes. The slippers are complimentary. As are the toiletries. )

The above statement is rationalization of a criminal and sinful act. It is amazing how easy this is for people to do.

 

[nunsense]

If I go to a hotel and they charge me 250 dollars for a room, and 100 dollars of the charge is to cover towels, I paid for the towel. I paid for many towels.

You don’t steal them for a matter of courtesy. But the hotel isn’t at a loss. They are charging for this.

It isn’t grave matter.

You can rationalize it all you want, you are committing a crime and a sin.If the hotel is overcharging you don’t have to stay there.If the hotel is committing a crime or a sin, you don’t make it even by sinning yourself. Two wrongs and all that…

 

[nunsense]

A crime? For a towel? And grave matter?

When my son was a toddler he had an explosive diaper and dirtied a hotel towel.

I threw it away, because I wasn’t sure it could be laundered sufficiently well.

That’s a crime? Is there a warrant for my arrest?

Why are you so defensive? I wasn’t attacking you. I was stating the ideal. If my child had done that and I had to deal with the towel, I would simply have rinsed out the towel, put it in a plastic bag and told the hotel staff.Of course it could be cleaned, hospital towels are cleaned all the time. But even if I had thrown it away, I probably would have mentioned that too. There is no reason not to be honest.

But this isn’t about you personally, so please don’t take it that way. I just try to imagine the ideal - you know, what would saint so and so do in this situation - and work close to that goalpost. We are all human and make mistakes, but no sense is pretending that wrong is right.

 

[FOG]

Never heard of one being “charged” with sin.

 

[Dourbest]

But what if he believes it is vernial, but it is in fact mortal?

 

[Thrstypirate]

From my understanding, then it’s venial.

 

[Annie]

that might be because I don’t believe in making excuses for sin

Who is making an excuse for sin? Part of moral theology is to examine the minutiae of sin.

It did not seem from your link that theologians disagree on this, since the link agrees with me: I believe that some acts of stealing may be mortal, and others venial, dependant, in part, upon that which is the stolen, the intention and the circumstances. For instance, to take a pen from work and keep it when working for a large corporation would probably be a venial sin, with little tangible impact upon your employer.

No one here is trying to plan a theft and trying to avoid mortal sin while doing so. We are just trying to answer the question asked by the originator of the thread.

 

[Vico]

But if one doesn’t know if it is venial or mortal, how do they have full knowledge? Also, what if they think a sin is bad but not super bad?

A person is responsible to find out if a matter is grave or not. However read this from the Baltimore Catechism No 4:

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the
act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the
“matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But
suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be
“grievous matter.” “Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what
you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you
stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small
piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient
reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that
what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it
after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin. “Full
consent.” Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed
a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or
wish to kill a man.

However the intention is important. What if the intention was to remain ignorance willfully?

Catechism

1779 It is important for every person to be sufficiently present to himself in order to hear and follow the voice of his conscience. …

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[TK421]

Hello.

Forgive me if the answer to this question is obvious, but I am still learning about Catholic theology as I seek to discern whether I am called to conversion.

At any rate, the question is pretty basic, and I presume the answer will be as well, though I’m not at all sure of it.

Does God charge a sin to someone’s account even if a person doesn’t realize that what he is doing is sinful? My question applies to both venial and mortal sins. If someone sincerely and legitimately has no knowledge that something he/she is doing is a sin, is it still charged to his account, whether as a venial or mortal sin? Or, rather, does God completely overlook it until the time if and when the person comes to realize the sinfulness of his/her action? So, if a person dies who has committed such sin without realizing it and if he can be said otherwise to be in a state of Grace, will he/she be taken into Heaven, or, rather, will he/she at least suffer some pains in Purgatory?

Thanks.

Jesus says that those who know their Master’s will and do not do it will be beaten with many blows and those who do not know their Master’s will and do not do it will be beaten with few blows.

100% ignorance of sin is rare or non-existent because human beings are ingrained with a vague sense of right and wrong, but some people can be drastically less culpable than others.

 

[Edmundus1581]

nunsense:

You need to know it is a sin for it to be a mortal sin, but yes, you can commit sins unknowingly. But in that case, they cannot be a mortal sin.That doesn’t mean though that they can’t be serious.

The OP asks the question ‘Can a sin be charged to someone who doesn’t realize it is a sin.’ And the answer is yes, but if the person doesn’t know it is a sin, then it can only be a venial sin, even if it is a serious sin (by definition of mortal sin). I would think though, that once a person has realized that they have sinned, especially if it is a serious sin, they should treat it as if it were a mortal one by attending confession as soon as possible. And once they know that it is a serious sin, then if they repeat it, it becomes a mortal sin because they know and act anyway.

A sin CANNOT be committed accidentally, be it venial or mortal. All sin committed is deliberate.

Why emphasise that a sin “CANNOT be committed accidentally” when no-one has suggested that it can?

The issue is whether a sin can be committed “unknowingly” or without “realising” that it’s a sin. That is the original question, what the post is addressing, and which is, as we’ve seen, a deep question.

Perhaps it has been over-simplistic statements like this which gave the OP the impression that the answer to her question is obvious, and in the negative.

No one is debating whether it’s a sin to accidentally pick up someone else’s phone from a table, but rather, if having never heard of “theft”, it is a sin to deliberately take it.

It also arguable whether sin has to be “deliberate”. Sins of omission are frequent and can be mortal, but the requirement for “deliberate” is not clear. I see someone pick up a phone which I suspect is not theirs, and say nothing. Questions of this nature are regularly seen in this forum, and the answer can be complex, rather than simplistic. Whether my inaction was “deliberate” is an over-simplification.

 

[PetraG]

You have simply quoted the facts for a mortal sin, not a venial sin. And yes, I agree that a mortal sin cannot be unintentional. But unless you can find a source that states a venial sin cannot be unintentional, then I still stick to what I have already said.

Neither venial nor mortal sin is imputed unless the person committing the evil had, by exercising reasonable diligence, the opportunity to know how to act rightly and also had the capacity to do so, yet by his or her fault failed either to learn how to act rightly or failed to act in accord with what he or she knew was right.

From the Catechism:
IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible [see below], or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61

[Note: According to Catholic Answers: “Ignorance is invincible if it a person could not remove it by applying reasonable diligence in determining the answer.” (Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible | Catholic Answers)]

So, yes, a person could be imputed with guilt for sinning without knowing it if the person did not apply reasonable diligence to learning the difference between right and wrong.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I’ve just returned from Mass where we confessed our sin:

I have sinned in thought, word, and deed; in what I have done and in what I have failed to do, by my fault, by my fault, by my most grievous fault;

I realise now the beauty of those words “my fault”, which, like every word in the liturgy have been chosen with most care. It’s not “intentionally”, “knowingly’” or “deliberately”, it’s “my fault”.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

There are several significant parables and sayings in the Gospels where someone is excluded from the Kingdom of Heaven without having sinned intentionally or knowingly (apparently).and is consigned to “wailing and gnashing of teeth”,

Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who. does the will of my Father who is in heaven.
[Matt 7:21]

The “wicked and lazy servant” who hid his talent under a bushel [Matt:5-26], the foolish virgins who didn’t keep enough oil [Matt 25], the guest who didn’t wear wedding garment to the wedding feast [Matt 22:12].

“Unless your virtue exceeds that of the scribes and pharisees you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven” [Matt:5-20]

“But I say to you that everyone who is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘You fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.” [Matt:5-22]

 

[PetraG]

Conversely, no one imputes guilt on someone who commits an act that brings about evil while the person acting is mentally incapacitated from exercising their conscience or innocently not in control of their actions or if the person was raised in such a way or traumatized in such a way that all inkling of the reality of natural law becomes extinguished and/or twisted. The outcome of the action might very well be an evil, but it is as if an animal or a force of nature brought it about.

Justice only requires that we do the best we can with the faculties and the opportunities that the Almighty can rightly judge we had at our disposal. We neither need to fear an unjust judgement nor should have we give ourselves any room to even think about escaping the notice of the Just Judge. (We of course need mercy and the merits of the Savior to hope to be delivered from the just consequences of our actions and our failures to act.)