Components of mortal sin--grey areas & questions

[whatevergirl]

I know the three components for a sin, to be considered a mortal one. And, here they are as a refresher for us:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

I have read in Catholic interpretations, that a mortal sin obviously cannot be ‘an accident,’ or one cannot be ignorant of the certain grave matters that they committed, and therefore would not be culpable.

So, my question is…if you are doing something…let’s say, for example, you are having to work on a Sunday (it is necessary for your family–it is not a hobby, let’s say) , and cannot make mass–the Church does not consider this a mortal sin.

So, clearly the Church, in its awesome capacity to follow the beliefs that God is most merciful, provides some answers to the ‘grey areas’ of life. That being said…I can see a danger perhaps, in the slippery slopes of human nature, and the grey areas of life. But, only God knows our hearts.

For example–I was taking birth control for many years…and did not know it was sinful. After realizing it was sinful, I went off of it. (I am now culpable because I have awareness) Then, I went back on it not to prevent pregnancy, but rather for hormonal and medicinal purposes. (and that is the truth) Now, I’m off it again–because I just don’t want to be on any type of artificial anything. So…I have discussed this with a priest, and he said that as long my intent is not to prevent pregnancy, b/c pills are fine. So, there lies the rub–my intent. On the outside, to an objective Catholic, it looked like I was in mortal sin–but my heart was in the right place, despite the outward appearance.

So…apparently there are grey areas, and priests show us that God has compassion for such things.

Another example would be sexuality between a married couple. Let’s say a couple has difficulty making love/having sexual intercourse…it is painful, or whatever the reason. The couple, because they want to provide each other charitable and selfless pleasure, choose to ‘finish’ in a different way. Would a mortal sin be committed here, if the couple’s heart is trying to follow the CCC, but physically, they cannot? If you say they are in mortal sin–could you explain why? If the above two examples, have grey areas involved…why wouldn’t this be a grey area, as well?

Just trying to better understand our faith. Thank you for your replies…and for your time to this thread.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

In the example from your personal experience, there is (arguably) no mortal sin because you were not seeking to contracept; you were taking the pills for other health reasons.

In the hypothetical case, however, the intent is to seek gratification and to share sexuality and union, but they are choosing an immoral way to do so. The immorality lies in the fact that there is no openness to life, as well as the lack of true unity. Thus, because the couple is aware of the gravity of the action, their free choice to do it anyway “because we have a good reason, and it’s not fair that we can’t have sex” makes this a mortal sin.

Peace,
Dante

 

[Sure]

I know the three components for a sin, to be considered a mortal one. And, here they are as a refresher for us:

Mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
Mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the sinner
Mortal sin is committed with deliberate consent of the sinner

I have read in Catholic interpretations, that a mortal sin obviously cannot be ‘an accident,’ or one cannot be ignorant of the certain grave matters that they committed, and therefore would not be culpable.

So, my question is…if you are doing something…let’s say, for example, you are having to work on a Sunday (it is necessary for your family–it is not a hobby, let’s say) , and cannot make mass–the Church does not consider this a mortal sin.

So, clearly the Church, in its awesome capacity to follow the beliefs that God is most merciful, provides some answers to the ‘grey areas’ of life. That being said…I can see a danger perhaps, in the slippery slopes of human nature, and the grey areas of life. But, only God knows our hearts.

For example–I was taking birth control for many years…and did not know it was sinful. After realizing it was sinful, I went off of it. (I am now culpable because I have awareness) Then, I went back on it not to prevent pregnancy, but rather for hormonal and medicinal purposes. (and that is the truth) Now, I’m off it again–because I just don’t want to be on any type of artificial anything. So…I have discussed this with a priest, and he said that as long my intent is not to prevent pregnancy, b/c pills are fine. So, there lies the rub–my intent. On the outside, to an objective Catholic, it looked like I was in mortal sin–but my heart was in the right place, despite the outward appearance.

So…apparently there are grey areas, and priests show us that God has compassion for such things.

Another example would be sexuality between a married couple. Let’s say a couple has difficulty making love/having sexual intercourse…it is painful, or whatever the reason. The couple, because they want to provide each other charitable and selfless pleasure, choose to ‘finish’ in a different way. Would a mortal sin be committed here, if the couple’s heart is trying to follow the CCC, but physically, they cannot? If you say they are in mortal sin–could you explain why? If the above two examples, have grey areas involved…why wouldn’t this be a grey area, as well?

Just trying to better understand our faith. Thank you for your replies…and for your time to this thread.

The gray areas you mention are not as gray as they might seem.

In the first case, the obligation attend Mass is not absolute nor is it intrinsically evil (meaning it can never be morally chosen). So sometimes it is moral to fail to attend Mass.

In the second case, when taking a medicine that has a side effect of impeding conception, one commits no evil because it is NOT an act of contraception. When the pill is taken in order to impede conception that is an act of contraception. It is fundamentally a different moral act. St. Thomas Aquinas notes that acts that seem somewhat the same can be fundamentally altered by a “principal condition (circumstance)”, namely a circumstance so significant that it makes the act something else completely.

The last case, is not morally permissible, because the difficulty that a couple may have in intercourse is not a principal condition. The act is an unnatural sexual act and is intrinsically evil. It doesn’t matter how good a reason the couple has to engage in such an act, it is still immoral to do so. An evil act cannot be made good by a good intention. In the first two examples the act itself is not evil, so as long as the intention is good and the circumstances are good, the act as a whole is good.

Underlying all of this is the idea that it is never moral to do something evil even if great good may come of it. Moral theologians make outlandish examples to prove this point, but they are helpful. Fasten your seatbelt…For instance, if you knew that you could instantly prevent the certain deaths of 1,000,000 children by executing one child, it would still be immoral to execute that child. This is because christian moral theology is more than just a sort of “weighing” of the bad effects vs the good effects.

Hope this helps…God bless!

 

[whatevergirl]

In the example from your personal experience, there is (arguably) no mortal sin because you were not seeking to contracept; you were taking the pills for other health reasons.

In the hypothetical case, however, the intent is to seek gratification and to share sexuality and union, but they are choosing an immoral way to do so. The immorality lies in the fact that there is no openness to life, as well as the lack of true unity. Thus, because the couple is aware of the gravity of the action, their free choice to do it anyway “because we have a good reason, and it’s not fair that we can’t have sex” makes this a mortal sin.

Peace,
Dante

So, a person would go to hell for not having intercourse in a marriage? That just sounds so…I dunno…hard to believe. It isn’t up to me to believe it–there are mysteries of our faith that I will never understand…as we can never know the mind of God. I realize that.

Another example-- I also have a friend who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, and had two beautiful boys, a few months ago. The Church also tells her she is in mortal sin for this ‘choice.’ She said she has a hard time thinking that with the medical advances of today, that God would punish her for her desire to have children, and to raise them in the Catholic Church. It isn’t that she cannot accept the CCC’s teachings…but that the Church would tell her or the person/people who fall into my hypothetical example above, that they are in mortal sin, and risk going to hell…is what I find hard to understand. I think we need to strive to please God, and there are some tough teachings, no doubt–and in our human strength, we cannot accomplish the goals set before us, but if other Christians do not follow the CCC, are they going to hell?

If one is Catholic, and not following the moral codes of the Church, then he/she is risking eternal damnation? But, the rest of the people who don’t follow it…can do whatever they please? Are we saying that a person who doesn’t follow the CCC isn’t as holy as someone who does? Again, just trying to understand it all.

 

[whatevergirl]

The gray areas you mention are not as gray as they might seem.

In the first case, the obligation attend Mass is not absolute nor is it intrinsically evil (meaning it can never be morally chosen). So sometimes it is moral to fail to attend Mass.

In the second case, when taking a medicine that has a side effect of impeding conception, one commits no evil because it is NOT an act of contraception. When the pill is taken in order to impede conception that is an act of contraception. It is fundamentally a different moral act. St. Thomas Aquinas notes that acts that seem somewhat the same can be fundamentally altered by a “principal condition (circumstance)”, namely a circumstance so significant that it makes the act something else completely.

The last case, is not morally permissible, because the difficulty that a couple may have in intercourse is not a principal condition. The act is an unnatural sexual act and is intrinsically evil. It doesn’t matter how good a reason the couple has to engage in such an act, it is still immoral to do so. An evil act cannot be made good by a good intention. In the first two examples the act itself is not evil, so as long as the intention is good and the circumstances are good, the act as a whole is good.

Underlying all of this is the idea that it is never moral to do something evil even if great good may come of it. Moral theologians make outlandish examples to prove this point, but they are helpful. Fasten your seatbelt…For instance, if you knew that you could instantly prevent the certain deaths of 1,000,000 children by executing one child, it would still be immoral to execute that child. This is because christian moral theology is more than just a sort of “weighing” of the bad effects vs the good effects.

Hope this helps…God bless!

It somewhat helps, although I don’t look at the greater good coming from evil acts, as being examples of what I was illustrating above. I do know what you are saying though, just the same. I don’t see how/why the Church could tell my friend she is in mortal sin, when her desire to have children (she had surgeries years earlier that caused only a slight percentage of her being able to have children) isn’t a mere desire, but she looks at it as manifesting the love between her and her husband–using modern technology to help this. Can it also be seen that if a person is dying of cancer, and goes through chemo, that this is somehow thwarting God’s destiny? Maybe He wants to take that person home to Heaven, but the Church looks at sustaining life as permissable, but not using the technological advances to bring it forth, as well? I don’t believe in discarding ‘surplus’ embryos in order to accomplish this–my friend told me that this did not happen in her case, that she has a history of twins in her family, and that the doctor felt strongly that she would give birth to twins…and she did.

I can see your point with the married couple…but, I think many people feel that mortal sin is the breaking of the Commandments…where do my examples fall into the 10 Commandments?

 

[1ke]

Then, I went back on it not to prevent pregnancy, but rather for hormonal and medicinal purposes. (and that is the truth)

So…apparently there are grey areas, and priests show us that God has compassion for such things.

No, there are no gray areas at all.

You took medicine for a medical condition. That medicine had a side effect of temporary sterility. That is not a gray area. It’s very clear-- medicines to treat a medical condition that have an unintended side effect are morally licit.

Contraception is never licit. But, you did not engage in contraception.

Another example would be sexuality between a married couple. Let’s say a couple has difficulty making love/having sexual intercourse…it is painful, or whatever the reason. The couple, because they want to provide each other charitable and selfless pleasure, choose to ‘finish’ in a different way. Would a mortal sin be committed here, if the couple’s heart is trying to follow the CCC, but physically, they cannot? If you say they are in mortal sin–could you explain why? If the above two examples, have grey areas involved…why wouldn’t this be a grey area, as well?

There is no gray area here either.

The Church teaching on marital sex acts is clear also. Each act must be an unaltered act of sexual intercourse or it is disordered.

So, what you propose (finishing in “other ways”) is a violation of the Sixth Commandment.

 

[whatevergirl]

Thanks 1ke…I appreciate you cutting to the chase.

How do other Churches (non Catholic) or the Jewish faith, perhaps, view the 6th commandment? Up until a few years ago, I only thought it encompassed adultery–which in my limited understanding meant sex outside of marriage. Not sexual acts not permissible within a marriage…Had I not had an interest to read the CCC myself, I might not know this. Does the Church have an obligation to teach people these things, or should it just assume we all know it…?

I would like to know the understanding of the 6th Commandment, for the sake of this thread, from a Protestant view? Anyone Protestant wish to comment on your take on mortal sin, and sex within marriage? Do you follow moral codes?

 

[Sure]

It somewhat helps, although I don’t look at the greater good coming from evil acts, as being examples of what I was illustrating above. I do know what you are saying though, just the same. I don’t see how/why the Church could tell my friend she is in mortal sin, when her desire to have children (she had surgeries years earlier that caused only a slight percentage of her being able to have children) isn’t a mere desire, but she looks at it as manifesting the love between her and her husband–using modern technology to help this. Can it also be seen that if a person is dying of cancer, and goes through chemo, that this is somehow thwarting God’s destiny? Maybe He wants to take that person home to Heaven, but the Church looks at sustaining life as permissable, but not using the technological advances to bring it forth, as well? I don’t believe in discarding ‘surplus’ embryos in order to accomplish this–my friend told me that this did not happen in her case, that she has a history of twins in her family, and that the doctor felt strongly that she would give birth to twins…and she did.

I can see your point with the married couple…but, I think many people feel that mortal sin is the breaking of the Commandments…where do my examples fall into the 10 Commandments?

I’m not sure what actions your friend took. There are morally permissible actions which assist conception. The point is that whatever action is taken cannot replace the sexual act that is ordained to bring forth life. It can assist it in achieving it’s natural end, but it cannot replace it.

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m not sure what actions your friend took. There are morally permissible actions which assist conception. The point is that whatever action is taken cannot replace the sexual act that is ordained to bring forth life. It can assist it in achieving it’s natural end, but it cannot replace it.

ok, then she did not commit a mortal sin, although, in her reading, taking fertility drugs was thought to be sinful in the eyes of the Church.

 

[1ke]

So, a person would go to hell for not having intercourse in a marriage?

No, of course not. Married couples are not required to have sex with any frequency. They can choose continence and there is no sin in that.

However, choosing to engage in disordered sex acts as a replacement or substitute for sexual intercourse is sinful.

Another example-- I also have a friend who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, and had two beautiful boys, a few months ago. The Church also tells her she is in mortal sin for this ‘choice.’

This is inaccurate. The Church in no way forbids medical intervention that assists a natural act of intercourse. Fertility drugs such as clomid are licit.

One may assist a natural act of intercourse-- one may never replace it. Just as a couple who seeks to replace intercourse with materbatory acts violates the moral order so does a couple who seeks to replace intercourse with laboratory created children.

She said she has a hard time thinking that with the medical advances of today, that God would punish her for her desire to have children, and to raise them in the Catholic Church.

Children are not commodities. They are not things that we can procure at any cost.

We must always work within God’s plan for marriage and sexuality.

Procedures are not necessarily moral just because they are doable.

It isn’t that she cannot accept the CCC’s teachings…but that the Church would tell her or the person/people who fall into my hypothetical example above, that they are in mortal sin, and risk going to hell…is what I find hard to understand.

When we sin, we risk our souls. When people want to do a particular sin badly enough, they start down the path you propose-- “surely God wouldn’t…”

but if other Christians do not follow the CCC, are they going to hell?

Quite possibly.

If one is Catholic, and not following the moral codes of the Church, then he/she is risking eternal damnation? But, the rest of the people who don’t follow it…can do whatever they please? Are we saying that a person who doesn’t follow the CCC isn’t as holy as someone who does? Again, just trying to understand it all.

Everyone is responsible for what they know.

And, God has given everyone the means to know the Truth.

 

[Sr_Sally]

It somewhat helps, although I don’t look at the greater good coming from evil acts, as being examples of what I was illustrating above. I do know what you are saying though, just the same. I don’t see how/why the Church could tell my friend she is in mortal sin, when her desire to have children (she had surgeries years earlier that caused only a slight percentage of her being able to have children) isn’t a mere desire, but she looks at it as manifesting the love between her and her husband–using modern technology to help this. Can it also be seen that if a person is dying of cancer, and goes through chemo, that this is somehow thwarting God’s destiny? Maybe He wants to take that person home to Heaven, but the Church looks at sustaining life as permissable, but not using the technological advances to bring it forth, as well? I don’t believe in discarding ‘surplus’ embryos in order to accomplish this–my friend told me that this did not happen in her case, that she has a history of twins in her family, and that the doctor felt strongly that she would give birth to twins…and she did.

I can see your point with the married couple…but, I think many people feel that mortal sin is the breaking of the Commandments…where do my examples fall into the 10 Commandments?

The friend though had other options available to her to acheive the outcome of having a family. She could have adopted one or more children. She still ends up with a family, which is her goal. All that happens is that she bypasses the stage of being pregnant herself. And then the question becomes, is it worth it to commit and act the church has condemed (whatever her fertility treatments where) in order to experience pregnancy (a relatively fleeting stage)? Also, there are certain fertility aids that the church does allow, I don’t know all the details, but I believe that certain drugs that assist a woman’s fertility are allowed, if the pregnancy is then caused by a normal sex act between the couple.

 

[Sr_Sally]

I have never had a discussion about what is licit inside a marriage with any of my protestant friends. But, considering that protestant churches have no prohibition against contraception, than they don’t see the relationship between the procreative and unitive aspects of sex. Given that then I’d fenture to say that there are no prohibitions against various concenting acts within a marriage. I would also assume that you would more likely find some kind of prohibition within orthodox Jewish circles, but I have no first hand knowledge.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

So, a person would go to hell for not having intercourse in a marriage? That just sounds so…I dunno…hard to believe. It isn’t up to me to believe it–there are mysteries of our faith that I will never understand…as we can never know the mind of God. I realize that.

You’re not suggesting that abstaining from sex in a marriage is damnable, are you? Certainly it isn’t – in fact, it can be virtuous. In addition, if there are health issues preventing intercourse, the Church would not require a married couple to do it.

Another example-- I also have a friend who used fertility drugs to get pregnant, and had two beautiful boys, a few months ago. The Church also tells her she is in mortal sin for this ‘choice.’ She said she has a hard time thinking that with the medical advances of today, that God would punish her for her desire to have children, and to raise them in the Catholic Church. It isn’t that she cannot accept the CCC’s teachings…but that the Church would tell her or the person/people who fall into my hypothetical example above, that they are in mortal sin, and risk going to hell…is what I find hard to understand. I think we need to strive to please God, and there are some tough teachings, no doubt–and in our human strength, we cannot accomplish the goals set before us, but if other Christians do not follow the CCC, are they going to hell?

It is my understanding that fertility drugs are permissible, provided that one does not also engage in IVF or surrogate pregnancies and the like.

All people are bound by the moral law, which is written upon our hearts. If, however, one is brought up non-Catholic and is thus ignorant of (not to mention predisposed to remain so) of the specific moral teachings of the Church, their culpability may be lessened.

If one is Catholic, and not following the moral codes of the Church, then he/she is risking eternal damnation? But, the rest of the people who don’t follow it…can do whatever they please? Are we saying that a person who doesn’t follow the CCC isn’t as holy as someone who does? Again, just trying to understand it all.

The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. It’s not impossible to learn the truth outside of the Church, but it’s far more difficult. The same can be said of holiness, I imagine – which is not the same as saying that Catholics are holier than non-Catholics.

And remember: Christ said that much is expected of those who receive much.

Peace,
Dante

 

[whatevergirl]

You’re not suggesting that abstaining from sex in a marriage is damnable, are you? Certainly it isn’t – in fact, it can be virtuous. In addition, if there are health issues preventing intercourse, the Church would not require a married couple to do it. No, I meant there could be other recourse for such said couple.

It is my understanding that fertility drugs are permissible, provided that one does not also engage in IVF or surrogate pregnancies and the like.

All people are bound by the moral law, which is written upon our hearts. If, however, one is brought up non-Catholic and is thus ignorant of (not to mention predisposed to remain so) of the specific moral teachings of the Church, their culpability may be lessened.

If one is Catholic, and not following the moral codes of the Church, then he/she is risking eternal damnation? But, the rest of the people who don’t follow it…can do whatever they please? Are we saying that a person who doesn’t follow the CCC isn’t as holy as someone who does? Again, just trying to understand it all.

The Catholic Church possesses the fullness of truth. It’s not impossible to learn the truth outside of the Church, but it’s far more difficult. The same can be said of holiness, I imagine – which is not the same as saying that Catholics are holier than non-Catholics.

And remember: Christ said that much is expected of those who receive much.

Yes, He did…I think that there can be different interpretations of that, though.
Peace,
Dante

 

[whatevergirl]

I am not sure I’m fully understanding the mortal sin aspect of having a sexual relationship with one’s spouse, other than intercourse. I will have to pray for enlightenment.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Visit Scrupulous Anonymous.

mission.liguori.org/newsletters/scrupanon.htm

Also, if you visit Google and type in “Scrupulous Anonymous”, a lot of very useful other sites come up.

In addition, if you do a search of Catholic Answers Forums with just the word “scrupulous”, there are a number of related discussions that have gone on in the past.

Useful and helpful stuff.

 

[Mirror_Mirror]

I am not sure I’m fully understanding the mortal sin aspect of having a sexual relationship with one’s spouse, other than intercourse. I will have to pray for enlightenment.

I am going to just jump in here as the other answers that you have received have been wonderful. I like reading answers given by 1ke, very precise.

I am not sure what the question is, but I will answer it based upon what I think that you may be asking. The marital act can be a mortal sin if it is not #1 procreative and #2 unitive.

Procreative in that it is always (each and every time) open to new life.

Unitive in that it unites the husband and wife in a renewal of their marriage vows.

The marital embrace is a renewal of our marriage vows and is one of the ways that we can experience the free, total, faithful and fruitful expression of our love and our vows taken for our spouse.

It becomes a mortal sin when sexual relations are simply used as a means to “just have an orgasm.” If any act within the marital embrace is degrading to one or the other spouse that would be considered a mortal sin. We have been given a great and wonderful gift of sexuality by God for a reason, actually 2 reasons that you see listed above. When we distort that is when we run the risk of falling into sin.

 

[whatevergirl]

The marital embrace is a renewal of our marriage vows and is one of the ways that we can experience the free, total, faithful and fruitful expression of our love and our vows taken for our spouse.

**It becomes a mortal sin when sexual relations are simply used as a means to “just have an orgasm.” **If any act within the marital embrace is degrading to one or the other spouse that would be considered a mortal sin. We have been given a great and wonderful gift of sexuality by God for a reason, actually 2 reasons that you see listed above. When we distort that is when we run the risk of falling into sin.

I don’t see it as being to ‘just have an orgasm.’ I don’t think if someone cannot have intercourse, that they are selfish in desiring intimacy in another way with his/her spouse…isn’t that kind of leaping to judgement?

And I know what the Church teaches (now) on this subject…do you suppose that many know that adultery can take place within one’s own marriage? That is where this type of sin falls under…Commandment #6.

It is most interesting, and thank you for your reply, MM.

 

[HannahLisa]

I would like to know the understanding of the 6th Commandment, for the sake of this thread, from a Protestant view? Anyone Protestant wish to comment on your take on mortal sin, and sex within marriage? Do you follow moral codes?

The sixth commandment simply states “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” Adultery is defined, as far as I know, as a romantic/physical relationship with someone other than one’s spouse. Jesus then extended it to cover looking at people not one’s spouse in a lustful way.

The way I interpret this is, first of all, that if one looks at their spouse with desire, that is perfectly all right. You can’t commit adultery against your spouse with your own spouse! In fact, I think that one should desire their spouse, along with everything else that goes into a healthy marriage. If there is no desire at all, that is a problem! As for what married people do in bed together, that’s up to them. If they can’t have normal intercourse for medical reasons, then why shouldn’t they be able to be intimate in other ways short of that? At that point, openness to life becomes a moot point because it simply isn’t possible for them to have children of their own! That is one Catholic perspective I am really having a hard time understanding.

Protestants do follow moral codes, they just change a lot from person to person, and the penalties are not laid out (aside from “the wages of sin is death”). Of course, quite a few Protestants believe in “once saved always saved,” which probably helps take away emphasis from sins.

 

[rayne89]

ok, then she did not commit a mortal sin, although, in her reading, taking fertility drugs was thought to be sinful in the eyes of the Church.

There is no sin in using fertility drugs. Procedures such as IVF are immoral.