Can an 8 year old commit a mortal sin?

[Caesar517]

Rather, it took a look at what the average level of reason was at various ages, and compared that to the minimum level required to commit a mortal sin. The two matched at 7.

I believe reaching the age of reason makes a person capable of sin, but not necessarily mortal sin. If I am wrong, can you find a authorative source that says the capability for venial sin and the capability for mortal sin are always reached at the age of reason?

I agree with this:

My point is that although the Church has said that the age of reason is the age at which a child becomes capable of sin, it has not defined that age exactly for each person, nor has it defined exactly when* mortal* sin becomes possible, but logic would tell us that it is probably not at the same moment.

 

[Brendan]

I believe reaching the age of reason makes a person capable of sin, but not necessarily mortal sin. If I am wrong, can you find a authorative source that says the capability for venial sin and the capability for mortal sin are always reached at the age of reason?

I agree with this:

The distinction between mortal and venial depends on the gravity of the act, and the abilty to freely choose to do it.

Remember the conditions required for mortal sin.

1. Grave Matter
2. Free Consent
3. Knowledge that the act is wrong.

A 6 year old could commit a act that has Grave matter, and freely choose to do it. but they lack the reason to give free consent.

If there is no free consent, there is no sin, either venial or mortal.

Once the age of Reason has been achived, the person has the ability to give free consent. That means that the person may commit both venial or mortal sin.

If one can commit a venial sin, then one can, by defintion, commit a mortal one because one can consent to the sin.

 

[Joe_5859]

Full knowledge is the criterion that would likely be unfulfilled by someone who has barely reached the age of reason.

The fact that the Sacrament of Penance is made available to many 8-year olds doesn’t mean that the Church presumes them to be in mortal sin. While we are required to confess mortal sins, we are also greatly encouraged to confess venial sins as well. Thus, the average 8-year old may not need that sacrament, but it surely a spiritual aid for them, nonetheless.

My point is that although the Church has said that the age of reason is the age at which a child becomes capable of sin, it has not defined that age exactly for each person, nor has it defined exactly when* mortal* sin becomes possible, but logic would tell us that it is probably not at the same moment.

So I guess what it really comes down to is what is meant by “full knowledge” and at what age can one have it. I suppose this is the point we disagree on. I think it’s possible for an 8 year old to know that what he or she is doing is wrong. Do they understand completely the gravity of their act? Maybe, maybe not. But, do any of us really understand completely the ramifications of our sin? I think if we understood completley the sinfulness of our actions, if we really knew what our sins would do to the body of Christ, we would probably be far too terrified to even consider sinning.

I am certainly not arguing that the Church “presumes them to be in mortal sin”, only that it is possible. I am curious what logic leads you to conclude that the capability of committing sin and committing mortal sin occurs at separate moments.

 

[Lovemyfaith]

I think this is where teaching should factor into things. If a child has religious education, taught in the same parameters as any other type of learning, by the age of 8 someone should have mentioned what sin is. There should also have been talks about what to do about sin. I know my children, in catholic school, by second grade had been given example enough to know of a sin like cheating on a test.
You can’t expect any child, no matter the age, to understand sin nor its seriousness if they have not been taught.

 

[fix]

My point is that although the Church has said that the age of reason is the age at which a child becomes capable of sin, it has not defined that age exactly for each person, nor has it defined exactly when* mortal* sin becomes possible, but logic would tell us that it is probably not at the same moment.

Why would it not be at the same point in time?

This is what canon law says:

Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

 

[cam100]

So I guess what it really comes down to is what is meant by “full knowledge” and at what age can one have it. I suppose this is the point we disagree on.

But I think we both agree that *full knowledge *is greater than partial knowledge, right? And I’m guessing that you would also agree that a child usually has partial knowledge of something before he or she comes into full knowledge of it, since a child’s brain develops along a timeline, becoming more capable as time progresses.

Since partial knowledge is sufficient for venial sin, and full knowledge is required for mortal sin, it follows that a child would be capable of venial before he or she is capable of mortal sin.

In addition, since 8 years old is barely the age of reason, that’s is, the age at which sin becomes possible, it seems unlikely that a child at such an age has acquired full knowledge of the gravity of mortal sin. Therefore, he or she is incapable of mortal sin.

I am certainly not arguing that the Church “presumes them to be in mortal sin”, only that it is possible. I am curious what logic leads you to conclude that the capability of committing sin and committing mortal sin occurs at separate moments.

I think my answer above explains it.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

But I think we both agree that *full knowledge *is greater than partial knowledge, right? And I’m guessing that you would also agree that a child usually has partial knowledge of something before he or she comes into full knowledge of it, since a child’s brain develops along a timeline, becoming more capable as time progresses.

Since partial knowledge is sufficient for venial sin, and full knowledge is required for mortal sin, it follows that a child would be capable of venial before he or she is capable of mortal sin.

In addition, since 8 years old is barely the age of reason, that’s is, the age at which sin becomes possible, it seems unlikely that a child at such an age has acquired full knowledge of the gravity of mortal sin. Therefore, he or she is incapable of mortal sin.

I think my answer above explains it.

While your stance seems reasonable, it’s still possible for an 8 year old to (easily) commit a mortal sin.

Even if they can’t commit a mortal sin (yet), why not get them into the habit of realizing right vs. wrong, and confessing sins?

 

[Joe_5859]

Why would it not be at the same point in time?

This is what canon law says:

Can. 989 After having reached the age of discretion, each member of the faithful is ob-liged to confess faithfully his or her grave sins at least once a year.

I think this certainly supports the idea that the Church very much admits the possibility that someone can commit a mortal sin once they have reached the age of reason.

 

[cam100]

While your stance seems reasonable, it’s still possible for an 8 year old to (easily) commit a mortal sin.

Could you explain your reason for thinking this?

Even if they can’t commit a mortal sin (yet), why not get them into the habit of realizing right vs. wrong, and confessing sins?

Of course we should help children understand right from wrong and develop regular confession as a habit. I never suggested otherwise, in fact, I mentioned earlier that we are encouraged to confess our venial sins as well as our mortal sins.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

Could you explain your reason for thinking this?

Surely, an 8 year old has been exposed to the 10 Commandments, right? And they, at least, on some level can understand, “Thou shalt not steal” or “Thou shall honor thy mother and father,” right? What’s so hard to understand those?

Of course we should help children understand right from wrong and develop regular confession as a habit. I never suggested otherwise, in fact, I mentioned earlier that we are encouraged to confess our venial sins as well as our mortal sins.

 

[fix]

But I think we both agree that *full knowledge *is greater than partial knowledge, right? And I’m guessing that you would also agree that a child usually has partial knowledge of something before he or she comes into full knowledge of it, since a child’s brain develops along a timeline, becoming more capable as time progresses.

How are you defining full knowledge? Full knowledge would be the person knows it is wrong to commit a certain act.

 

[cam100]

How are you defining full knowledge? Full knowledge would be the person knows it is wrong to commit a certain act.

This cannot be correct, because the catechism states that an otherwise mortal can be venial in a particular situation because the person lacks full knowledge. Now, we need at least some knowledge that something is wrong for any sin, even venial sin, to be possible. Therefore, full knowledge has to be more than just knowing something is wrong.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

This cannot be correct, because the catechism states that an otherwise mortal can be venial in a particular situation because the person lacks full knowledge. Now, we need at least some knowledge that something is wrong for any sin, even venial sin, to be possible. Therefore, full knowledge has to be more than just knowing something is wrong.

But, again I state, what’s so hard to understand about the 10 Commandments?

 

[cam100]

But, again I state, what’s so hard to understand about the 10 Commandments?

I don’t quite understand why you’re asking that question. Surely you realize that the level of understanding of the 10 commandments acquired by the average adult is different from the level of understanding acquired by an 8-year old.

That difference in the level of understanding is the focus of this thread.

 

[ComputerGeek25]

I don’t quite understand why you’re asking that question. Surely you realize that the level of understanding of the 10 commandments acquired by the average adult is different from the level of understanding acquired by an 8-year old.

That difference in the level of understanding is the focus of this thread.

An 8 year old can still lie, steal, cheat and disobey thier parents with the best of them, even though they still know it’s wrong. Stealing is stealing, cheating is cheating, etc, whether you are 8 or 80.

 

[fix]

This cannot be correct, because the catechism states that an otherwise mortal can be venial in a particular situation because the person lacks full knowledge. Now, we need at least some knowledge that something is wrong for any sin, even venial sin, to be possible. Therefore, full knowledge has to be more than just knowing something is wrong.

One can be 80 and lack full knowledge.

This is from the old Baltimore catechism:

**

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?

**

A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.
Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.

So, full knowledge means we understand the act is sinful.

 

[cam100]

An 8 year old can still lie, steal, cheat and disobey thier parents with the best of them, even though they still know it’s wrong. Stealing is stealing, cheating is cheating, etc, whether you are 8 or 80.

We’re talking about the level of guilt for a particular situation, not the objective immorality of the action.

 

[cam100]

One can be 80 and lack full knowledge.

This is from the old Baltimore catechism:

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.
Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.

Read your catechism quote carefully. Q. 284 discusses sufficient reflection and ***full ***consent of the will. On the other hand, Q. 285 explains that no guilt is incurred if there is no reflection or no consent.

If you read further, you find Q. 290, which explains that an otherwise grievous (mortal) sin can be venial if it committed without sufficient reflection or ***full ***consent of the will.

Therefore, we have 3 scenarios outlined by the Baltimore Catechism:

1. no reflection and/or no consent = no real sin
2. grievous matter, but lack of sufficient reflection and/or ***full ***consent = venial sin
3. grievous matter, with sufficient reflection AND ***full ***consent = mortal sin.

Think of this example: theft of a diamond ring. If a 1-year old takes the ring, he/she doesn’t realize it is wrong, so no real sin is incurred. If an 8-year old takes it, he/she knows it’s wrong, but doesn’t fully understand the value of ring and the impact of the theft, so it’s venial. If an adult takes it, they probably are well aware of the gravity of the crime, the value of the ring, and their lack of right to have it. So a mortal sin is committed.

 

[fix]

Read your catechism quote carefully. Q. 284 discusses sufficient reflection and ***full ***consent of the will. On the other hand, Q. 285 explains that no guilt is incurred if there is no reflection or no consent.

If you read further, you find Q. 290, which explains that an otherwise grievous (mortal) sin can be venial if it committed without sufficient reflection or ***full ***consent of the will.

Therefore, we have 3 scenarios outlined by the Baltimore Catechism:

1. no reflection and/or no consent = no real sin
2. grievous matter, but lack of sufficient reflection and/or ***full ***consent = venial sin
3. grievous matter, with sufficient reflection AND ***full ***consent = mortal sin.

Think of this example: theft of a diamond ring. If a 1-year old takes the ring, he/she doesn’t realize it is wrong, so no real sin is incurred. If an 8-year old takes it, he/she knows it’s wrong, but doesn’t fully understand the value of ring and the impact of the theft, so it’s venial. If an adult takes it, they probably are well aware of the gravity of the crime, the value of the ring, and their lack of right to have it. So a mortal sin is committed.

There are many examples when an 8 year could commit a mortal sin. That is the point.

See here:

St. Thomas Aquinas, who is an authority of the highest order, which reads: "When children begin to have some use of reason, so that they can conceive a devotion toward this Sacrament (the Eucharist), then this Sacrament can be given to them."6 Ledesma thus explains these words: “I say, in accord with common opinion, that the Eucharist is to be given to all who have the use of reason, and just as soon as they attain the use of reason, even though at the time the child may have only a confused notion of what he is doing.” Vasquez comments on the same words of St. Thomas as follows: “When a child has once arrived at the use of reason he is immediately bound by the divine law from which not even the Church can dispense him.”

The same is the teachings of St. Antoninus, who wrote: “But when a child is capable of doing wrong, that is of committing a mortal sin, then he is bound by the precept of Confession and consequently of Communion.” The Council of Trent also forces us to the same conclusion when it declares: “Children who have not attained the use of reason are not by any necessity bound to Sacramental Communion of the Eucharist.”

From this it is the mind of the Council that children are held to Communion by necessity and by precept when they are capable of losing grace by sin…

From all this it is clear that the age of discretion for receiving Holy Communion is that at which the child knows the difference between the Eucharistic Bread and ordinary, material bread, and can therefore approach the altar with proper devotion. Perfect knowledge of the things of faith, therefore, is not required, for an elementary knowledge suffices-some knowledge (aliqua cognitio); similarly full use of reason is not required, for a certain beginning of the use of reason, that is, some use of reason (aliqualis usus rationis) suffices…

Decree of the Sacred Congregation of the Discipline of the Sacraments on First Communion
August 8, 1910

 

[GemmaRose]

Read your catechism quote carefully. Q. 284 discusses sufficient reflection and ***full ***consent of the will. On the other hand, Q. 285 explains that no guilt is incurred if there is no reflection or no consent.

If you read further, you find Q. 290, which explains that an otherwise grievous (mortal) sin can be venial if it committed without sufficient reflection or ***full ***consent of the will.

Therefore, we have 3 scenarios outlined by the Baltimore Catechism:

1. no reflection and/or no consent = no real sin
2. grievous matter, but lack of sufficient reflection and/or ***full ***consent = venial sin
3. grievous matter, with sufficient reflection AND ***full ***consent = mortal sin.

Think of this example: theft of a diamond ring. If a 1-year old takes the ring, he/she doesn’t realize it is wrong, so no real sin is incurred. If an 8-year old takes it, he/she knows it’s wrong, but doesn’t fully understand the value of ring and the impact of the theft, so it’s venial. If an adult takes it, they probably are well aware of the gravity of the crime, the value of the ring, and their lack of right to have it. So a mortal sin is committed.

I agree. An 8 year old can know something is wrong, like cheating on a test, but still do it because he or she is afraid of failing the test, afraid of parental displeasure, afraid of being punished for getting a bad grade, etc. I think there are few 8 year olds who wouldn’t first consider these things rather than maturely reflecting that they would be offending God.

Using cheating on a test as an example, as adults we know that children brought up not to consider cheating to be wrong might develop into an adult who cheats in a variety of situations… embezzles money from work, cheats on taxes, etc. etc.; but a child in no way can fathom such broadranging consequences – just as the child mentioned in a previous post who set the fires.

A child may know it’s wrong to play with matches, and that he’s disobeying his parents which is also wrong. He may also know that fire can destroy things. However, except maybe with a child who is truly a pyromanic, most children, when striking that match, would never comprehend that they could be starting a raging wildfire which would destroy countless acres, ruin homes, injure or kill people.

Or, using cam100’s above example of stealing a ring. Very small children take things that attract them, plain and simple. How many parents have had the experience of going shopping with a tiny tot in tow, and having to inspect his or her pockets at the check-out… and so we start teaching our children that the item belongs to the store, and we have to pay for the item before it becomes ours.

A child a bit older might take a ring from Auntie’s jewelry box, not because she’s a thief, but because the ring is pretty. She knows Auntie loves her and is always giving her presents, so she thinks Auntie won’t mind her wearing it for a while. A few minutes later, she gets distracted with a toy or a TV show, and before you know it, the ring has slipped off her finger and disappeared. If the child even thinks of the ring again, now she’ll be afraid because she’s lost it, and doesn’t want her Auntie to get mad or sad. As I said, she’s not a little thief, she’s a child; and if the ring is of great value, she certainly would not understand its value. (A child might understand that a dollar might buy some fries from the dollar menu at McDonalds, but to understand that a ring can cost $1,000 ??) To her, a ring is for playing dress-up, as her own plastic children’s rings are. Even is she is 6 or 7 years old and has been taught that stealing is wrong, in her mind she was not stealing, she was borrowing something to play with it.

Children don’t, and can’t, think as an adult. That’s why they’re children. That’s why their brains are still developing. That’s why we don’t give them car keys or beer bottles.

Yes, we teach them, and continue to teach them so their consciences form in accordance with God’s will, and we encourage them to go to Confession even when little Mary’s Confession consists of “I punched Bobby because he pulled my hair,” and Bobby’s Confession is “I pulled Mary’s hair because she’s a girl and girls have cooties.”

So, is an 8 year old able to commit a mortal sin? Maybe.

Is it probable that an 8 year old will commit a mortal sin? In my opinion, no.

In any event, only God knows the depths of our minds and inner recesses of our hearts, and only He can judge whether our sinful actions are mortal sins are not, even with us grown-ups, who think we know it all.