Decided to sin but didn't - confession?

  • Thread starter Thread starter javier_29
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

javier_29

Guest
I was hoping someone could clarify if I can receive the Eucharist or if I need to go to confession.

Without getting into much details I was having relations with my wife and since it is close to her ovulation cycle I had made up my mind to contracept because we already have three and right now I just can’t see us having another. Fortunately, my wife changed my mind and so we did not contracept.

Since I had already in my mind agreed to a mortal sin does that constitute one?

I am relieved that I didn’t contracept but feel guilty that I had already decided to.
 
Simply put, yes. The decision or act of the will was made. Kudos to your wife who seems to have her head on straight.
 
javier_29 said:
I was hoping someone could clarify if I can receive the Eucharist or if I need to go to confession.

Without getting into much details I was having relations with my wife and since it is close to her ovulation cycle I had made up my mind to contracept because we already have three and right now I just can’t see us having another. Fortunately, my wife changed my mind and so we did not contracept.

Since I had already in my mind agreed to a mortal sin does that constitute one?

I am relieved that I didn’t contracept but feel guilty that I had already decided to.
Click to expand...
There is too much involved here for us forum members to comment on. I would refrain from the Eucharist and go to confession as soon as possible just to be safe. I emphasize “just to be safe” because you could have fought with your wife but you didn’t. There is a lot of gray area that only you and a priest need to discern. When did the temptation to commit this sin end and the actual sin begin? We cannot know this. Your relief that you did not contracept shows that your full consent may be in question…God Bless teachccd 🙂
 
teachccd said:
There is too much involved here for us forum members to comment on. I would refrain from the Eucharist and go to confession as soon as possible just to be safe. I emphasize “just to be safe” because you could have fought with your wife but you didn’t. There is a lot of gray area that only you and a priest need to discern. When did the temptation to commit this sin end and the actual sin begin? We cannot know this. Your relief that you did not contracept shows that your full consent may be in question…God Bless teachccd 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, as teachccd has implied, there is too much for us to guess at.

I think it much more important that you discuss with your priest the reasons behind the condemnation of contraception, given that your actions indicate you may not be fully aware of the teaching of the Church?

Please go to confession, talk to the priest, and ask him for further guidance. We will only confuse you 👍 😃
 
CCC1857: For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
 
Hi Sir Knight,

I don’t think the word “committed” used in the CCC is opposed to desire to sin. A sin can be a word, deed (including omission), OR a desire.

A desire that includes the deliberate intention to fulfill the desire
(so called “efficacious desire”) would have the same gravity as the external act.

What do you think? Make sense?
VC

p.s. I am not speaking directly to the OP’s situation, but only in a general theoretical way.
 
Isn’t a desire to sin, a temptation? And aren’t temptations only sinful if we do not act upon them?
 
Sir_Knight said:
Isn’t a desire to sin, a temptation? And aren’t temptations only sinful if we do not act upon them?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. I think we would need to make a distinction.

A temptation to sin is some sort of incitement to sin (i.e. an invitation, a solicitation). The sources of all temptations to sin are the world, the flesh, or the devil.

You are right that a temptation is not a sin, no matter the force, imagery, intensity, or duration of a temptation. This is because temptations are antecedent to sin. They only become a sin when there is consent of the will to the temptation.

A desire to sin, however can be a sin. A desire to sin that includes a deliberate intention to fulfill the desire (i.e. a deliberate intention to act to obtain what is desired) would be a sin. The gravity of this sin is determined by the gravity of the aimed at act.

Once someone consents to a temptation to sin, and/or once someone has an efficacious desire to sin, whether or not he changes his mind later or is prevented by some intervening circumstance from accomplishing his goal (such as physical impossibility or a mistake of fact) it would not remove the sinful nature of the desire.

What do you think?
VC

p.s. Again, I am speaking in generalities and not specifically to the OP’s situation.
 
When temptation hits, the initial desire is to act upon it. Where does that end and the struggle to not act upon the temptation begin?
 
Yes, it is confusing.

And to be perfectly clear, I am not arguing a particular position but trying to understand this myself.
 
Well, perhaps what would be helpful is to take a clear case first. Afterwards we can examine some less clear cases.

For instance, take a man who decides to kill another. Up until this point let us say that he feared punishments, both civil and Divine. But he now has decided in his mind that the burden of the other man’s life is too much for him to bear and he resolves: I will kill him, regardless of any punishment.

After such a movement of his will, before he can formulate any plans on how to do so, before rising from his armchair even, he suffers a massive heart attack and dies.

Would you say that the man sinned?

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
Well, perhaps what would be helpful is to take a clear case first. Afterwards we can examine some less clear cases.

For instance, take a man who decides to kill another. Up until this point let us say that he feared punishments, both civil and Divine. But he now has decided in his mind that the burden of the other man’s life is too much for him to bear and he resolves: I will kill him, regardless of any punishment.

After such a movement of his will, before he can formulate any plans on how to do so, before rising from his armchair even, he suffers a massive heart attack and dies.

Would you say that the man sinned?

VC
Click to expand...
Um, yes.
 
That was a fairly clear example of efficacious desire – desire that includes the positive intent, a movement of the will, to obtain what is desired.

Another example:

Our would be murderer resolves to kill this man who has been vexing him. After making that decision, but before taking any more steps, before even arising from his armchair, the man who he intends to kill and who happens to be sitting across the smoking lounge in another armchair suddenly clutches his own chest and dies of a massive heart attack.

Our would be murderer is prevented from taking any action on his resolve due to an intervening event.

However, he is still guilty of sin in this case as well.
VC
 
I am also confused, I don’t see how your examples have anything to do with someone changing their mind and not committing the sin.
 
Nordar said:
I am also confused, I don’t see how your examples have anything to do with someone changing their mind and not committing the sin.
Click to expand...
I was hoping by starting with two clear examples of “interior sin” that it would be easier to see how an instance where someone commits an interior sin of desire and then changes their mind later, even before any exterior action is performed, would still be sinning.

So, once again, let’s say our man in his armchair resolves to murder his comrade across the room. But before he gets up out of his chair. . . he has a change of heart and now resolves NOT to kill the man. The two pass the remainder of the night drinking brandy and smoking cigars.

In each of the three cases our man resolved himself to murder. The movement of his will in each of the three cases was an efficacious desire" – a desire which includes within it the intention to accomplish what has been resolved. In each of the three cases there is no exterior action. Each of the three cases are examples of interior sin.

VC
 
I also want to reiterate that I am speaking hypothetically and generally – I am NOT speaking to the original poster Javier’s situation.

I agree with magicsilence that the specific instance is best left to a pastor or confessor.

VC
 
Verbum_Caro said:
I was hoping by starting with two clear examples of “interior sin” that it would be easier to see how an instance where someone commits an interior sin of desire and then changes their mind later, even before any exterior action is performed, would still be sinning.

So, once again, let’s say our man in his armchair resolves to murder his comrade across the room. But before he gets up out of his chair. . . he has a change of heart and now resolves NOT to kill the man. The two pass the remainder of the night drinking brandy and smoking cigars.

In each of the three cases our man resolved himself to murder. The movement of his will in each of the three cases was an efficacious desire" – a desire which includes within it the intention to accomplish what has been resolved. In each of the three cases there is no exterior action. Each of the three cases are examples of interior sin.

VC
Click to expand...
how so? he changed his his efficacious desire for that circumstance, the intent is lost and the final action is no longer going to be carried out.

how is this different that this situation.

a man has commited a sexual sin (or any mortal sin), he makes the resolve (efficacious desire) to go to Saturday confession, on Friday he dies of a massive heart attack, his action of confession was prevented by a “act of fate” in which he had no control of , and given time he with the last intention on conscious would have carried out the confession. (many believe at this point his contrition is valid and since he died (binded) his efficacious, it would be the same as if he actually went.(provided he made the same degree of intent as your man made to murder) *the opposite of what your scenario is *.

However consider this. the same person had done all as stated before, but some one say to “hey there is a party going on” or something to the effect that would take place the same time as confession would be. if he says “aw i will go some time next week” OR even if he later says " i will not go to confession that Saturday, but i will go sometime soon, and if he were to die Friday (say of a heart attack), this is both before the confession, and the final choice to go to the party OR confession. (in other word he still could change his mind and go to either. HE will NOT be forgiven because he changed the intent.

this is much the same as the armchair scene, both had efficacious desire and conscious intent to do an action, but something that came up caused him to change(cancel) his efficacious desire, (the decision of not going to confession).

why is for the second the man is not forgiven, however for the first the man is locked into that decision by moral law. (we are talking about the one who resolved NOT to kill BEFORE he died.)

i would think that because he made the resolve to NOT kill he canceled his previous efficacious desire, the same as the man who made the choice not to continue with his plans of going to confession.

did i miss something here?
 
zmyr88 said:
i would think that because he made the resolve to NOT kill he canceled his previous efficacious desire, the same as the man who made the choice not to continue with his plans of going to confession.

did i miss something here?
Click to expand...
Hi zmyr88,

That is a good question. The key here is that we were discussing whether or not someone sins by deciding to sin, even if they don’t carry out the action which derives from their desire.

I’ve shown how that it is the case that if someone has an efficacious desire to commit a sinful act that the desire itself is a sin.

In my last example, the man who changes his mind after having a sinful efficacious desire, the man still has sinned. In my scenario he simply changes his mind and decides on another course of action. You bring up another possibility – he could repent. But what is he repenting of? He is repenting of the actual sin he committed (the efficacious desire for something sinful). If his repentance is sincere and coupled with an intention to go to confession (explicitly or implicitly) then the man may be forgiven, even if he dies before going to confession. But, again, he would be forgiven from a sin he actually already committed – and showing that he committed a sin in the first place was my part in this thread.

Someone changing their mind and having a different efficacious desire (whether for good or for ill) does **not **cancel the moral ramifications of a previous efficacious desire, he only “cancels out” or changes his current object. If the previous desire was a)efficacious and b)a desire for something sinful then you have committed a sin regardless of what your new desire may be. If your new desire happens to be true repentance that may address the state of your soul, but it doesn’t change the fact that you have sinned.

Make sense? What are your thoughts?
VC
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top