Definition of mortal sin

[ltravis]

I am a bit confused on one of the conditions for mortal sin, and perhaps one of you can help with a quick answer. To be a mortal sin, it has to be an objectively grave evil, undertaken with full knowledge and consent. Well, what if something isn’t objectively evil, yet the person thinks it is and undertakes it anyway? For example, someone mistakenly thinks Ash Wednesday is a holyday of obligation and out of pure laziness refuses to go? In their heart, their intentions were the same as missing a Sunday mass, but missing a non-holyday is not objectively evil. Shouldn’t this be a mortal sin even though the action wasn’t objectively evil?

LT

 

[awalt]

It has to be grave matter to be a mortal sin, butI would definitely confess it because it sounds like “near occassion to sin” in a way, the person is getting very close to committing a mortal sin - willing to do so, just has not quite done it yet.

 

[jjb5985]

Assuming the person doesn’t have any sort of problems with scrupulosity or what not, couldn’t it still be considered mortal? This is just my opinion, but wouldn’t the concious defiance be a grave matter in itself? So the not going to Ash Wednesday Mass wouldn’t suddenly become a grave matter, but choosing to freely reject God would be a grave matter. This just an opinion, I’d be interested in hearing if there is any official teaching on this.

 

[batteddy]

So the not going to Ash Wednesday Mass wouldn’t suddenly become a grave matter, but choosing to freely reject God would be a grave matter.

Exactly. They wouldn’t suddenly commit the sin of “missing mass on ash wednesday” (because there is no such sin) but rather would commit the more general mortal sin of “doing something you intend to be a rejection of God”

Obviously, if someone thinks caffeine is a grave sin…they would sin in drinking it. But when they get to hell, they won’t be punished with the punishment of “coffee drinkers” because there is no such sin nor corresponding punishment. Rather, they have committed the more general mortal sin of “intent to reject God” but it is certainly not “coffee drinking” which damned them, but rather their disposition. For a murderer, adulter, etc, however, it is “murder” or “adultery” which specifically condemn them, because those things ARE grave matter.

Likewise with merit. There is certainly no reward for “blowing people up”! But if someone sincerely believes it is what God wants (if they have been brainwashed or whatever) then they might recieve the more general reward of “intending a good action”…

 

[awalt]

Obviously, if someone thinks caffeine is a grave sin…they would sin in drinking it.

IMHO I don’t think this is true. The Church teaches “Objectively grave” - meaning, no judgment applied.

Why is that? Well think about it - if the person thinks drinking coffee is a mortal sin therefore it is, they could also think abortion is not a sin and it isn’t - you couldn’t have it both ways. This is relativistic thinking that goes both ways, it is either grave or not.

Now the point that someone could say “I am drinking coffee as my sworn oath to reject God and all He stands for”, and there would sure be a mortal sin there - but nothing to do with the coffee drinking.

This may have been your point exactly, I thought I would clarify just in case it is not. The quoted sentence above is probably not accurate IMHO.

 

[ltravis]

…Obviously, if someone thinks caffeine is a grave sin…they would sin in drinking it. But when they get to hell, they won’t be punished with the punishment of “coffee drinkers” because there is no such sin nor corresponding punishment. Rather, they have committed the more general mortal sin of “intent to reject God” but it is certainly not “coffee drinking” which damned them, but rather their disposition. For a murderer, adulter, etc, however, it is “murder” or “adultery” which specifically condemn them, because those things ARE grave matter…

I am not quite 100% sure about this. I don’t think it is simply murder that condemns the murderer. Rather, I think what condemns them is they understood murder to be gravely wrong and freely did it anyway. It would be the same (but to a greater degree) as with the coffee or Ash Wednesday in the person’s mind.

Obviously, this introduces the factor of concience. As I understand it, the final determinant of moral accountability is the following of a properly formed concience. Thusly, it seems the condition that the action must be “objectively grave” puts a limitation on the role of concience.

That said, please don’t take this to be a relativistic viewpoint that minimizes or evades the truth or right and wrong. Concience is so often used as an excuse, but I in no way imply that. Concience **must **be properly informed, and in fact I think a properly informed concience demands more from the person then an ill informed one does.

LT