Conscience question

[Nate13]

Ummm, you were actually a part of one of the threads thistle:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599533&highlight=mortal+sin+conscience

And your own quote:
“However, if you think something is of grave matter when in reality it is of venial matter and you go ahead and commit the act then you have committed a mortal sin because thinking it is of grave matter satisfies the first condition.”

Ouch, yeah this would be incorrect. If I think pony riding is a grave matter and is a mortal sin, but do it anyways that does not make it a mortal sin haha. You actually have to offend God, in order to offend God. You would be guilty of offending what you thought was God though

 

[Debora123]

Ummm, you were actually a part of one of the threads thistle:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=599533&highlight=mortal+sin+conscience

And your own quote:
“However, if you think something is of grave matter when in reality it is of venial matter and you go ahead and commit the act then you have committed a mortal sin because thinking it is of grave matter satisfies the first condition.”

 

[LaSainte]

Haha no the point of it was that an objective truth always out rules a subjective one. When there is no obvious objective truth on a matter we do the best we can with our subjective one.

For example there is no objective truth that says if you are making $50,000 a year you are financially stable enough to have X amount of kids. Its a matter of conscience for us to ascertain how many kids we are actually able to support on that salary. Its also our duty to inform that conscience so as to ensure we are making informed choices based in reality with consideration for what God wants.

You should also realize the importance of natural law. If natural law did not exist then anyone who had never heard of Christianity and what God taught could not be held accountable for their sins and could never commit a mortal sin. This is not the case however because natural law is written on the hearts of men and there is no excuse for not knowing that murder among other things is wrong. If you do not believe in natural law then you must believe that all the people throughout history who never heard the Word of God will eventually be in Heaven since by that belief they would never be able to commit a mortal sin.

Please provide a quote from the Catechism. Your basically saying that God will condemn me if I choose not to murder someone if that is what my conscience is telling me to do.

But it is a LOT harder for someone who is not Catholic to commit a mortal sin, which is honestly why I sometimes wish I wasn’t raised catholic. Killing someone is of course a no-brainer. But even murderers who aren’t catholic can just pray for forgiveness and be forgiven because they don’t know about confession, so they get a pass. But when it comes to trickier thing like contraception, which is supposedly a matter of “natural law” as well, they get a pass for that too, because they honestly can’t be expected to know it is “evil”. I don’t know one person who isn’t catholic who honestly thinks contraception is evil based on natural law, but everyone intrinsically knows that murder is wrong. Actually, I don’t know and Catholics in real life who think it is wrong either-just scaredy cats like me who are too afraid of hell to go against the church.

 

[LaSainte]

Ouch, yeah this would be incorrect. If I think pony riding is a grave matter and is a mortal sin, but do it anyways that does not make it a mortal sin haha. You actually have to offend God, in order to offend God. You would be guilty of offending what you thought was God though

But is it automatically grave matter to deliberately set out to offend God, if I hopped on that pony and said, “Haha God, take that! I bet your feelings are really hurt now! Score one for Satan!”

 

[Bookcat]

I will try to find the thread. I believe Bookcat was involved. If he remembers, perhaps he can clear it up.

Yes I understand what she is getting at…

 

[Castello]

Correct.

God knows what is in your heart and what your intentions are. He will thus judge you accordingly.

That is contrary to Scripture and to all teaching of the Church.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#1752

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

II. GOOD ACTS AND EVIL ACTS

1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).

The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.

1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[Bookcat]

Ouch, yeah this would be incorrect. If I think pony riding is a grave matter and is a mortal sin, but do it anyways that does not make it a mortal sin haha. You actually have to offend God, in order to offend God. You would be guilty of offending what you thought was God though

Actually she is correct.

Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.

(note though that those who are scupulous need to not fret for they know they are so …and know they need to follow their confessor etc and act contrary to their scuples …and that they do no sin thereby)

 

[Debora123]

That is contrary to Scripture and to all teaching of the Church.

No it is not.

That is why there are 3 conditions to mortal sin.

If someone doesn’t know something is a sin, or doesn’t have ill intentions, that person will be judged differently than someone with bad intentions who knew that what they were doing was wrong.

 

[Nate13]

But it is a LOT harder for someone who is not Catholic to commit a mortal sin, which is honestly why I sometimes wish I wasn’t raised catholic. Killing someone is of course a no-brainer.

This smacks of disrespect for the Eucharist? Who in their right mind would ever dream of giving up that privilege? Maybe this is where your problems lie.

But even murderers who aren’t catholic can just pray for forgiveness and be forgiven because they don’t know about confession, so they get a pass.

False, they are under the same constraints we are. If they make an act of perfect contrition they will be forgiven. You or I could do the same. You should not envy them because how can you ever know for sure whether you are perfectly contrite for sure? How hard would it be to be completely contrite about masturbating for example with the knowledge that you were almost going to for sure fail within the week?

But when it comes to trickier thing like contraception, which is supposedly a matter of “natural law” as well, they get a pass for that too, because they honestly can’t be expected to know it is “evil”.

They get no automatic pass. As you said contraception is a matter that someone without knowledge of God can come to know is wrong through reason because it goes against natural law.

I don’t know one person who isn’t catholic who honestly thinks contraception is evil based on natural law, but everyone intrinsically knows that murder is wrong. Actually, I don’t know and Catholics in real life who think it is wrong either-just scaredy cats like me who are too afraid of hell to go against the church.

They are out there they probably just don’t call it natural law Anything to the effect that it imposes on human dignity is on the same line or reasoning as natural law. Anytime someone says they are against contraception because it made them feel used they are citing a reason based on natural law.

If there really aren’t any Catholics who practice and truly understand the teaching in your area then I have even more empathy for your struggle with the teaching.

 

[LaSainte]

Haha no the point of it was that an objective truth always out rules a subjective one. When there is no obvious objective truth on a matter we do the best we can with our subjective one.

For example there is no objective truth that says if you are making $50,000 a year you are financially stable enough to have X amount of kids. Its a matter of conscience for us to ascertain how many kids we are actually able to support on that salary. Its also our duty to inform that conscience so as to ensure we are making informed choices based in reality with consideration for what God wants.

You should also realize the importance of natural law. If natural law did not exist then anyone who had never heard of Christianity and what God taught could not be held accountable for their sins and could never commit a mortal sin. This is not the case however because natural law is written on the hearts of men and there is no excuse for not knowing that murder among other things is wrong. If you do not believe in natural law then you must believe that all the people throughout history who never heard the Word of God will eventually be in Heaven since by that belief they would never be able to commit a mortal sin.

Please provide a quote from the Catechism. Your basically saying that God will condemn me if I choose not to murder someone if my conscience was telling me to murder them.

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. ... His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

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.

How can this be reconciled with passages elsewhere that tell us to just submit to church authority. If my conscience is telling me that such would be a grave error, then who wins?

 

[Castello]

No it is not.

That is why there are 3 conditions to mortal sin.

If someone doesn’t know something is a sin, or doesn’t have ill intentions, that person will be judged differently than someone with bad intentions who knew that what they were doing was wrong.

See the Catechism posted above.

Mortal sin requires:

Grave matter
Free Will
Knowledge

 

[Bookcat]

Ouch, yeah this would be incorrect. If I think pony riding is a grave matter and is a mortal sin, but do it anyways that does not make it a mortal sin haha. You actually have to offend God, in order to offend God. You would be guilty of offending what you thought was God though

Actually she is correct.

Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.

(note though that those who are scupulous need to not fret for they know they are so …and know they need to follow their confessor etc and act contrary to their scuples …and that they do no sin thereby)

 

[Castello]

1776 "Deep within his conscience man discovers a law which he has not laid upon himself but which he must obey. Its voice, ever calling him to love and to do what is good and to avoid evil, sounds in his heart at the right moment. ... For man has in his heart a law inscribed by God. ... His conscience is man’s most secret core and his sanctuary. There he is alone with God whose voice echoes in his depths."47

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.

How can this be reconciled with passages elsewhere that tell us to just submit to church authority. If my conscience is telling me that such would be a grave error, then who wins?

Read the catechism portions on conscience that you skipped here - they speak very clearly about conforming one’s conscience to the Church.

 

[Nate13]

Actually she is correct.

Because of the willingness to do what one believes is grave matter. One does so with full knowledge and complete consent. One can sin mortally via an erroneous conscience.

(note though that those who are scupulous need to not fret for they know they are so …and know they need to follow their confessor etc and act contrary to their scuples …and that they do no sin thereby)

That would speak of intent. Your intent was to commit what thought was a grave sin. However objectively it would still not be a grave matter and thus would be a venial sin.

1749 Freedom makes man a moral subject. When he acts deliberately, man is, so to speak, the father of his acts. Human acts, that is, acts that are freely chosen in consequence of a judgment of conscience, can be morally evaluated. They are either good or evil.

I. THE SOURCES OF MORALITY

1750 The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;

• the end in view or the intention;

• the circumstances of the action.

The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1751 The object chosen is a good toward which the will deliberately directs itself. It is the matter of a human act. The object chosen morally specifies the act of the will, insofar as reason recognizes and judges it to be or not to be in conformity with the true good. Objective norms of morality express the rational order of good and evil, attested to by conscience.

1752 In contrast to the object, the intention resides in the acting subject. Because it lies at the voluntary source of an action and determines it by its end, intention is an element essential to the moral evaluation of an action. The end is the first goal of the intention and indicates the purpose pursued in the action. The intention is a movement of the will toward the end: it is concerned with the goal of the activity. It aims at the good anticipated from the action undertaken. Intention is not limited to directing individual actions, but can guide several actions toward one and the same purpose; it can orient one’s whole life toward its ultimate end. For example, a service done with the end of helping one’s neighbor can at the same time be inspired by the love of God as the ultimate end of all our actions. One and the same action can also be inspired by several intentions, such as performing a service in order to obtain a favor or to boast about it.

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

1754 The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death). Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

 

[Bookcat]

That would speak of intent. Your intent was to commit what thought was a grave sin. However objectively it would still not be a grave matter and thus would be a venial sin.

Objectively the act is not sinful.

Subjectively the person has* committed a mortal sin*.

 

[Debora123]

See the Catechism posted above.

Mortal sin requires:

Grave matter
Free Will
Knowledge

Right, so as I said, it all depends on what was in that person’s heart. If they don’t know it’s a sin they won’t be punished in the same way as if they knew.

That’s why only God can judge people. He’s the only one who knows what is in our hearts. Nothing I said was incorrect.

 

[LaSainte]

Nate13:
Believe me, I would never disrespect the Eucharist. That is why I stay in the Church and follow the rules, even though it is an ENORMOUS struggle for me to follow such a hard teaching. Look at it this way: people who actually BELIEVE in the church teaching on contraception have a hard time with it. Now imagine if you thought it was just something totally made up and STILL chose to try and follow it out of obedience/fear. It sucks.

As far as feeling used goes, I sometimes wonder if some women who practice NFP feel just as used when they are often basically a sexual outlet to keep their husbands from sinning whether they feel like it or not (this does not apply to me, but I wonder). I wonder if they ever feel like it’s just masturbation for him.

The bottom line is, feeling used can happen with NFP or ABC. It’s all about the people involved, not whether or not a condom is used.

 

[LaSainte]

Right, so as I said, it all depends on what was in that person’s heart. If they don’t know it’s a sin they won’t be punished in the same way as if they knew.

That’s why only God can judge people. He’s the only one who knows what is in our hearts. Nothing I said was incorrect.

Yep.

 

[Nate13]

Objectively the act is not sinful.

Subjectively the person has* committed a mortal sin*.

The subjective sin of not obeying what they thought God wanted from them? How does this work when a person does not even know of God, or believes in multiple gods? If they failed to do a grave matter concerning what they believed one of those multiple gods told them to do would they have committed a mortal sin subjectively?

 

[LaSainte]

Objectively the act is not sinful.

Subjectively the person has* committed a mortal sin*.

So then if I think subjectively that it would be a mortal sin to both withhold sex from my husband and to not use condoms, NFP and coitus interruptus for whatever reason, then what should I do (hypothetical-this is not the case with me)? If I follow my conscience, I am supposedly OBJECTIVELY committing a mortal sin. If I follow the Church, I am SUBJECTIVELY committing a mortal sin.

Damned if you do…etc.