Can something become sinful simply by thinking it might be?

[Bookcat]

But that doesn’t seem to be the question in the OP.

Read this article

If you are not certain whether something is sinful, you have to then make the judgment as to whether it would be a sin given the lack of certainty you have based on any relevant factors, including the moral system – see the article – you judge to be best when dealing with such situations. If after all that you are still anxious, then it’s not going to be a mortal sin; find a good priest and follow his advice.

Yes one needs a moral certainty…but this is not uncompatible too with the coexistence of certain “feelings” (negative doubts…unreasonable fears etc) and those fears from scruples etc…

And one must note that these various “moral systems” and the debates between them developed within a particular time (article is from around 1913)…and that the Church has called for a “renewal of Moral Theology”…which has been taking place in orthodox Catholic Theology…see for example Fr. Pinckaers et al. (which does not mean all is scrapped! but one does need to see the whole from Apostolic times to present…)

Also those with scruples to various degrees…ought to seek to avoid scruples in this question and speak with their confessor and follow the principles given them etc…

(even during that time when such “moral systems” were in hot debate with one another (when that article was written)…scruples were seen as a different thing (indeed they are)…that the person was troubled often not by the kind of lack of moral certainty the article refers to …but of a speculative kind…and the kind that was from scruples…thus they would be given often principles to guide them…their scruples placed them in a different boat the other Christians in this regard…for it was not “their conscience” really that was causing the problem but rather their fears…their scruples etc…so with the direction and various principles from their confessor etc …they would learn to ignore the scruples etc…the fears…and act against them…not as real practical doubts…but as what they were…and they would not “sin” by so doing…(and of course this can still be valid today)

 

[Bookcat]

One of course forms ones conscience according to the teachings of the Church and good theology…and one is of course to avoid the things the Church teaches is sin…etc and follow Christ faithfully with ones “Yes!” to him while rejecting the “pomps” of the Devil etc

Catechism:

III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE

1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.

1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.

1789 Some rules apply in every case:

• One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
• the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
• charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58

---

1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

 

[paulinx]

One of course forms ones conscience according to the teachings of the Church and good theology…and one is of course to avoid the things the Church teaches is sin…etc and follow Christ faithfully with ones “Yes!” to him while rejecting the “pomps” of the Devil etc

Yes and the forming of one’s conscience is itself reflecting the judgment of one’s conscience – namely the judgment that one has a duty to form one’s conscience.

 

[Nita]

#1790 …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." ** In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.**

You have a real responsibility to educate yourself as to the objective good or evil of the action in question. To deliberately fail to do so can make you culpable of mortal sin if the act is a grave matter.

 

[McatholicN]

So is the concensus here that one may commit a mortal sin even if there is the slightest of doubt regarding its gravity, unless one is scrupulous?

 

[Nita]

So is the concensus here that one may commit a mortal sin even if there is the slightest of doubt regarding its gravity, unless one is scrupulous?

Yes, it’s possible – if your doubt about the seriousness of the act is because you’ve deliberately chosen not to check out what Scripture and the Church teach regarding such acts because of laziness, or because you think if you don’t know for sure, then it won’t be a mortal sin. Scrupulosity wouldn’t enter into it.

 

[Bookcat]

So is the concensus here that one may commit a mortal sin even if there is the slightest of doubt regarding its gravity, unless one is scrupulous?

No I would not say here “the slightest doubt”…for such can be more what is called a “negative doubt”.

Practical certitude is compatible with “negative doubts” for example foolish or slight doubts without a solid reason behind them…imaginary doubts…unreasonable fears etc

Now one may come to a place where ones conscience tells one “stop you need to find out more here before you do such and such” not from some negative doubt … …from some scruple etc…but from some well founded reason.(like the hunter in the woods in the example i gave up above).

(see also the post above on Prudence etc).

(In fact St. Thomas notes in the Summa (II II 9) that equal certainty should not be looked for in all things…and that …the certainty of prudence can not be so great as to be totally without solicitude.)

In regards to a person with scruples they should get a regular confessor to help them with this and other things…the confessor can give them advice…principles to follow etc…which may include “ignoring” certain fears …certain “doubts”…

In any case…here too…one needs grave matter…full knowledge and deliberate consent to commit a mortal sin.

And I urge all who have a difficulty with scruples…to really not scruple about all this…but see ones confessor and the principles one has been given…