Determining if someone is in a state of Mortal Sin

[promethius]

(ie: a mentally retarded person can commit a grave act, but cannot commit a mortal sin, due to his lack of ability to have knowledge; nor can any person ever commit a mortal sin at gunpoint, or by accident, even though they might commit a grave act while under duress, or by accident).

Eh… disagree. Just as we cannot know what acts violating grave matter ARE mortal sin, we can no more judge someone that said act was NOT a mortal sin without clarification of THEIR conscience.

Who knows what a mentally retarded person knows or does not know, but they are CERTAINLY capable of SOME form of mortal sin based on their understanding. They are not animals, they have everlasting souls and moral culpability as well, even if they are generally culpable of less.

Further, I think there ARE cases where having a gun to my head I could commit mortal sin. A threat on one’s life is not a free pass to do whatever you want. We are called to martyrdom for God if need be. If I’m a technician of a nuclear missile silo, and someone points a gun at my head and tells me to launch a missile at New York City, that gun to my head does not impact my free will or my knowledge. I know that I have a moral imperitive NOT to bomb an innocent city, and a duty to die for said moral imperitive. I can’t even use the principle of double effect because the catastrophe caused by my action would completely outweigh any value of saving my life.

If, in said understanding and state of mind, without an irrational fear of death, I choose selfish desire for life rather than embracing God and hope for salvation, then I have commited mortal sin.

So, in short, we cannot know that someone doing grave matter has committed mortal sin, but we likewise cannot know that the person has NOT committed mortal sin either. This is why it is imperitive we counsel people on what is moral, what is grave, and how to choose to do right.

 

[Tannhauser]

Tannhauser, thank you for your replies. However, your views on this are very different than anything I have seen as official Church teaching. You quoted CCC 2333, but only in part. You wrote “We are called, as I have shown stated in the Catholic Catechism, to acknowledge and accept our sexual identities: ‘Everyone, man and woman, should acknowledge and accept his sexual identity.’ CCC 2333”

Then you go on to state that: “To ‘Come Out’ as gay or lesbian is to acknowledge, before one self and others, one’s sexual identity; one’s sexual attractions; and one’s emotional needs. To identify as gay or lesbian, even if also a Catholic, is a perfectly healthy and I would say advisable thing. It does not - does not - automatically mean: I intend to embrace, support, and actively engage in gay or lesbian sexual activities. This is to reduce gay sexual identity to sheer mechanical actions.”

The rest of the text of 2333: Physical, moral, and spiritual difference and complementarity are oriented toward the goods of marriage and the flourishing of family life. The harmony of the couple and of society depends in part on the wy in which the complementarity, needs, and mutual support between the sexes are lived out."

Why would you only quote the first part and leave out all the rest wich properly contextualizes the statement? This has nothing to do with trying to claim that SSA is something to identify oneself as, this is about sexuality, which can only involve the different and complimentary sexes. Strictly speaking, there really is no such thing as a homosexual or a homosexual act, we are just using the terminology that is being peddled by unrepentant sodomites. Sexual intercourse is only sexual as it involves the different and complimentary sexes, the organ of sexual reproduction. Outside of that it is just masturbation using someone elses body or whatever.

Again, in CCC2360 (I quote in part) “Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman.” When discussing SSA, we are not in fact talking about someone’s sexual identity or orientation, there is no such thing because it is not sexuality if it is not ordered to the complimentary and different sex. It is a disordered attraction.

I think this is quite wrong, and quite [unintentionally] homophobic. Sexuality is that which animates our relationships, and orders our emotional, physical, aesthetic attractions. The sexuality professed by a gay man or woman, orientated towards their own sex, whilst it cannot fulfil God’s prescription for sexuality, it nevertheless characterises a sexual identity for that person.

To reduce all sexual acts between those of the same sex as tantamount to nothing more than a selfish act, seeking pleasure for its own sake, is grossly offensive and grossly homophobic. Gay men and women articulate in their sexuality, and in their emotional and physical connections with others, the same needs and desires of any other person. Whilst we agree that it [gay sexuality] cannot ever be unifying or procreative, in the way God has prescribed, it still demonstrates a searching for compatibility and complementarity. For you to insist that anything outside of God’s plan for sexuality within marriage is disordered attraction grossly limits an understanding of the complexity of sexuality e.g. sexuality is often characterised by an intense appreciation of beauty, which is itself never disordered.

Thank-you for your comments.

 

[Tannhauser]

Eh… disagree. Just as we cannot know what acts violating grave matter ARE mortal sin, we can no more judge someone that said act was NOT a mortal sin without clarification of THEIR conscience.

Who knows what a mentally retarded person knows or does not know, but they are CERTAINLY capable of SOME form of mortal sin based on their understanding. They are not animals, they have everlasting souls and moral culpability as well, even if they are generally culpable of less.

Further, I think there ARE cases where having a gun to my head I could commit mortal sin. A threat on one’s life is not a free pass to do whatever you want. We are called to martyrdom for God if need be. If I’m a technician of a nuclear missile silo, and someone points a gun at my head and tells me to launch a missile at New York City,** that gun to my head does not impact my free will **or my knowledge. I know that I have a moral imperitive NOT to bomb an innocent city, and a duty to die for said moral imperitive. I can’t even use the principle of double effect because the catastrophe caused by my action would completely outweigh any value of saving my life.

If, in said understanding and state of mind, without an irrational fear of death, I choose selfish desire for life rather than embracing God and hope for salvation, then I have commited mortal sin.

So, in short, we cannot know that someone doing grave matter has committed mortal sin, but we likewise cannot know that the person has NOT committed mortal sin either. This is why it is imperitive we counsel people on what is moral, what is grave, and how to choose to do right.

With all prior apologies, this is grossly incorrect and a massive, utter distortion of what the Catholic Church teaches. A gun to one’s head absolutely and entirely compromises one’s free will: to say otherwise is nonsensical, and implies that the risk of loosing one’s life is negligible when decision making: it is for this reason that contrition made only through fear of Hell is imperfect.

 

[jmcrae]

Eh… disagree. Just as we cannot know what acts violating grave matter ARE mortal sin, we can no more judge someone that said act was NOT a mortal sin without clarification of THEIR conscience.

Granted, there are certainly nuances in every individual situation - not every mentally disabled person is necessarily completely without the use of reason - which again is why we leave judgement to God, and worry about ourselves and those for whom we are spiritually responsible, rather than thinking about what others are doing.

 

[promethius]

With all prior apologies, this is grossly incorrect and a massive, utter distortion of what the Catholic Church teaches. A gun to one’s head absolutely and entirely compromises one’s free will: to say otherwise is nonsensical, and implies that the risk of loosing one’s life is negligible when decision making: it is for this reason that contrition made only through fear of Hell is imperfect.

That is utter nonsense, and composed entirely of the same moral hubris as saying that someone (outside a situation) can judge without error that an action was a mortal sin. Who are YOU to tell others what their conscience formation is and what will or will not impact their free will? Did God give you some authority in that regard?

Personally, I have no fear of death. A gun to my head makes NO difference whatsoever in my understanding of my need to do right. Being under threat of violence in Afghanistan has NEVER led me to commit an action I have ever considered immoral. I don’t hold that ALL persons who are under threat of violence ARE NOT compromised. I merely hold that SOME who are under threat of violence may NOT be so impacted as to avoid culpability for mortal sin… myself being one of those numbers.

So please, get off peoples’ backs and stop devaluing the formation of their conscience by trying to tell them what they have the capability to decide as a matter of their will.

 

[Tannhauser]

That is utter nonsense, and composed entirely of the same moral hubris as saying that someone (outside a situation) can judge without error that an action was a mortal sin. Who are YOU to tell others what their conscience formation is and what will or will not impact their free will? Did God give you some authority in that regard?

I have stated that the imminent threat of death compromises one’s free will.

Personally, I have no fear of death.

That’s a wonderfully abstract assertion, and quite different from the actual fact of having a gun placed to one’s head.

A gun to my head makes NO difference whatsoever in my understanding of my need to do right.

Of course it does not affect our knowledge of the right and moral, but it compromises our free and spontaneous ability to actually do that which is right and moral.

Being under threat of violence in Afghanistan has NEVER led me to commit an action I have ever considered immoral.

Apologies. I have idea of what you refer to here… being under a threat of violence, which is quite a vague thing to say [what sort of threat? an imminent threat?] is quite different to the original point: a gun placed to one’s head.

I don’t hold that ALL persons who are under threat of violence ARE NOT compromised. I merely hold that SOME who are under threat of violence may NOT be so impacted as to avoid culpability for mortal sin… myself being one of those numbers.

So please, get off peoples’ backs and stop devaluing the formation of their conscience by trying to tell them what they have the capability to decide as a matter of their will.

Two points here: first you are confusing the threat of violence, with the very imminent threat of death, from a gun being placed to one’s head. I think we need to be specific here.

Two. No need to be rude. I said only that a gun to one’s head compromises one’s free and spontaneous ability to act, freely.

 

[davidv]

I think this is quite wrong, and quite [unintentionally] homophobic. Sexuality is that which animates our relationships, and orders our emotional, physical, aesthetic attractions. The sexuality professed by a gay man or woman, orientated towards their own sex, whilst it cannot fulfil God’s prescription for sexuality, it nevertheless characterises a sexual identity for that person.

To reduce all sexual acts between those of the same sex as tantamount to nothing more than a selfish act, seeking pleasure for its own sake, is grossly offensive and grossly homophobic. Gay men and women articulate in their sexuality, and in their emotional and physical connections with others, the same needs and desires of any other person. Whilst we agree that it [gay sexuality] cannot ever be unifying or procreative, in the way God has prescribed, it still demonstrates a searching for compatibility and complementarity. For you to insist that anything outside of God’s plan for sexuality within marriage is disordered attraction grossly limits an understanding of the complexity of sexuality e.g. sexuality is often characterised by an intense appreciation of beauty, which is itself never disordered.

Thank-you for your comments.

Re bold above. This is only true if you are a prostitute.

Christian relationships are to be animated by love (agape). The purpose of sexuality is discussed in the Catholic Cathechism.

2360 Sexuality is ordered to the conjugal love of man and woman. In marriage the physical intimacy of the spouses becomes a sign and pledge of spiritual communion. Marriage bonds between baptized persons are sanctified by the sacrament.

2361 "Sexuality, by means of which man and woman give themselves to one another through the acts which are proper and exclusive to spouses, is not something simply biological, but concerns the innermost being of the human person as such. It is realized in a truly human way only if it is an integral part of the love by which a man and woman commit themselves totally to one another until death."143
Tobias got out of bed and said to Sarah, “Sister, get up, and let us pray and implore our Lord that he grant us mercy and safety.” So she got up, and they began to pray and implore that they might be kept safe. Tobias began by saying, “Blessed are you, O God of our fathers. . . . You made Adam, and for him you made his wife Eve as a helper and support. From the two of them the race of mankind has sprung. You said, ‘It is not good that the man should be alone; let us make a helper for him like himself.’ I now am taking this kinswoman of mine, not because of lust, but with sincerity. Grant that she and I may find mercy and that we may grow old together.” And they both said, “Amen, Amen.” Then they went to sleep for the night.144
2362 "The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the truly human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude."145 Sexuality is a source of joy and pleasure:
The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit. Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment. They accept what the Creator has intended for them. At the same time, spouses should know how to keep themselves within the limits of just moderation.146
2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family. The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

 

[davidv]

I have stated that the imminent threat of death compromises one’s free will.

That’s a wonderfully abstract assertion, and quite different from the actual fact of having a gun placed to one’s head.

Of course it does not affect our knowledge of the right and moral, but it compromises our free and spontaneous ability to actually do that which is right and moral.

Apologies. I have idea of what you refer to here… being under a threat of violence, which is quite a vague thing to say [what sort of threat? an imminent threat?] is quite different to the original point: a gun placed to one’s head.

Two points here: first you are confusing the threat of violence, with the very imminent threat of death, from a gun being placed to one’s head. I think we need to be specific here.

Two. No need to be rude. I said only that a gun to one’s head compromises one’s free and spontaneous ability to act, freely.

Re bold.

Herein lies the fallacy of your argument. Free will is not the freedom to act, it is the freedom to choose morality over immorality, independent of ones ability to carry out any act associated with said decision.

 

[Tannhauser]

Re bold above. This is only true if you are a prostitute.

Christian relationships are to be animated by love (agape). The purpose of sexuality is discussed in the Catholic Cathechism.

Forgive me, but I don’t understand your point. Sexuality animates our relationships: it characterises our emotional needs; or sexual desires; and what we find aesthetically appealing. Prostitution has less to do with sexuality, and more the submission of sexuality to the mechanical actions of sex, in its barest, crudest form.

If you’re going to give an opinion, it’s easier perhaps to explain in your own words, instead of citing huge sections of the Catechism (which of course is not a God breathed interpretation of sexuality).

 

[Tannhauser]

Re bold.

Herein lies the fallacy of your argument. Free will is not the freedom to act,** it is the freedom to choose morality over immorality, independent of ones ability to carry out any act associated with said decision**.

You purposefully ignored the rest of my argument: ‘free and spontaneous ability to do that which is right and moral.’ You’re actually discussing somethinig quite different here, namely, the nature of freedom (e.g. whether it is our ability to intellectually judge, or our ability to physically act).

I made the point, and you’re quite aware presumably, that given the situation (of a man with a gun to his head) his ability to act freely (not intellectually judge) is compromised.

 

[jmcrae]

You purposefully ignored the rest of my argument: ‘free and spontaneous ability to do that which is right and moral.’ You’re actually discussing somethinig quite different here, namely, the nature of freedom (e.g. whether it is our ability to intellectually judge, or our ability to physically act).

I made the point, and you’re quite aware presumably, that given the situation (of a man with a gun to his head) his ability to act freely (not intellectually judge) is compromised.

If he can’t act freely, then his ability to do the right thing (act rightly) is compromised.

 

[promethius]

You purposefully ignored the rest of my argument: ‘free and spontaneous ability to do that which is right and moral.’ You’re actually discussing somethinig quite different here, namely, the nature of freedom (e.g. whether it is our ability to intellectually judge, or our ability to physically act).

I made the point, and you’re quite aware presumably, that given the situation (of a man with a gun to his head) his ability to act freely (not intellectually judge) is compromised.

And that’s where you are wrong. Any martyr’s death can attest to the fact that SOME people are not dissuaded by negative consequences for choosing what is morally right. For these people, they remain totally free to act in accordance with their moral conscience despite any threat to their person.

The only time ANY threat of negative consequence lessens one’s culpability when faced with a moral decision is when it so renders the person in a mental state where they no longer have totally free will. For some people, that state simply does not come about as a result of threat of violence.

And I’m not insulting… I’m insulted that you think me such an ignorant fool that I don’t even understand my own conscience… and I am insulted that you devalue the moral actions of the martyrs by insinuating that the threat of death they faced robbed them of freewill and therefore they are likewise not culpable for THEIR morality. It’s highly offensive.

 

[davidv]

Forgive me, but I don’t understand your point.

Then you should not be so quick to dismiss it. Ask for clarification.

Sexuality animates our relationships: it characterises our emotional needs; or sexual desires; and what we find aesthetically appealing. Prostitution has less to do with sexuality, and more the submission of sexuality to the mechanical actions of sex, in its barest, crudest form.

So you said before. I gave you information that indicated that this not a correct statement. Either provide evidence that counters this and supports your claim or admit you are wrong. Simply repeating yourself does not advance your position.

If you’re going to give an opinion, it’s easier perhaps to explain in your own words, instead of citing huge sections of the Catechism (which of course is not a God breathed interpretation of sexuality).

I am sorry to hear that 6 paragraphs was such a burden. And the first one directly countered your assertion. Did you miss my introductory summary?

“Christian relationships are to be animated by love (agape). The purpose of sexuality is discussed in the Catholic Cathechism”.

 

[comrade1789]

What I mean is, unless you were actually with him and saw him do it, you don’t know whether he did anything at all.

The act is a mortal sin, when done with full knowledge and free consent, because it is grave matter. (ie: a mentally retarded person can commit a grave act, but cannot commit a mortal sin, due to his lack of ability to have knowledge; nor can any person ever commit a mortal sin at gunpoint, or by accident, even though they might commit a grave act while under duress, or by accident).

You can certainly know that an act is grave matter, and that grave matter together with full knowledge and free consent is a mortal sin, without ever needing to look at any examples of people who are doing it.

Okay, I think I am starting to get it. But I am still wrestling with why Fr. Hardon stated (as I shared earlier): “According to the church’s infallible teaching, a person engaging in homosexual behavior acts immorally, contrary to the will of God. Through the centuries the Church has never questioned the moral varity, the mortal sin of deliberate, conscious homosexual acts.”
therealpresence.org/archi…23/0023014.mp3 lectures Series 023 - Catholic Morality and Homosexuality (1997) Lecture # 014 – May 18, 1997 Part 2 - (46:58)

A man that helped create our CCC and who taught Moral Theology and served the Vatican for 20+ years would say this. Don’t most people engaging in “homoesexual” acts do so consciously and deliberately, and if so, then wouldn’t that mean they are in mortal sin?

 

[comrade1789]

I think this is quite wrong, and quite [unintentionally] homophobic. Sexuality is that which animates our relationships, and orders our emotional, physical, aesthetic attractions. The sexuality professed by a gay man or woman, orientated towards their own sex, whilst it cannot fulfil God’s prescription for sexuality, it nevertheless characterises a sexual identity for that person.

To reduce all sexual acts between those of the same sex as tantamount to nothing more than a selfish act, seeking pleasure for its own sake, is grossly offensive and grossly homophobic. Gay men and women articulate in their sexuality, and in their emotional and physical connections with others, the same needs and desires of any other person. Whilst we agree that it [gay sexuality] cannot ever be unifying or procreative, in the way God has prescribed, it still demonstrates a searching for compatibility and complementarity. For you to insist that anything outside of God’s plan for sexuality within marriage is disordered attraction grossly limits an understanding of the complexity of sexuality e.g. sexuality is often characterised by an intense appreciation of beauty, which is itself never disordered.

Thank-you for your comments.

I don’t know what it is you profess, but this looks strange and alien to anything taught by authentic Christianity. Homophobia is a word used by those who either have given themselves over to sexual disorders or those who affirm them, usually code word for “you are crazy, you are hateful.” Truth is, nothing can be more hateful than affirming someone in sin that leads them away from God and his Kingdom. It is not me who “insist that anything outside of God’s plan for sexuality within marriage is disordered,” it is the Catholic Church, built upon the apostles and established by Jesus Christ Himself who insists this. That much is Bible 101. Lucifer disguises himself as an angel of light and beauty, but not all that glitters is gold. Lust is like to Luster, and it may sparkle, but it is a fools gold. Sexual oppression and disorder disguises itself as liberation and beauty, but it is not so, and results in much sorrow and loss. The kind of stuff you are presenting here is very dangerous and harmful and I hope that you will change your outlook one day.

 

[comrade1789]

What I mean is, unless you were actually with him and saw him do it, you don’t know whether he did anything at all.

The act is a mortal sin, when done with full knowledge and free consent, because it is grave matter. (ie: a mentally retarded person can commit a grave act, but cannot commit a mortal sin, due to his lack of ability to have knowledge; nor can any person ever commit a mortal sin at gunpoint, or by accident, even though they might commit a grave act while under duress, or by accident).

You can certainly know that an act is grave matter, and that grave matter together with full knowledge and free consent is a mortal sin, without ever needing to look at any examples of people who are doing it.

At the same time, I can see that we don’t know the amount of grace that God has granted a person, so I can see that we are far better off in not ever being able to state emphatically that someone is in a state of mortal sin; perhaps the blessing rests in the complexity of the matter, that it is purposefully complex and beyond our ability to possess verifiable knowledge as to a person’s state of grace so that we can more fully excercise grace and charity and never despair of someone’s salvation.

 

[jmcrae]

At the same time, I can see that we don’t know the amount of grace that God has granted a person, so I can see that we are far better off in not ever being able to state emphatically that someone is in a state of mortal sin; perhaps the blessing rests in the complexity of the matter, that it is purposefully complex and beyond our ability to possess verifiable knowledge as to a person’s state of grace so that we can more fully excercise grace and charity and never despair of someone’s salvation.

Precisely - I think you have got it, now.

 

[BKulash_eski]

I only put this out there because this is a Catholic web-site, but I actually have a similar dilemma. My wife turned to civil as apposed to canon law. I haven’t figure out myself yet what was wrong with me, but I signed the papers. She went and spoke vows with another man. Outside the church obviously, but I told her we needed to request a tribunal. I am torn because if we do and they determine that the marriage is valid, and she continues, well you know. I do not want to hurt my wife this way, but even if she doesn’t know they are in a perpetual state of adultery.

 

[Tannhauser]

If he can’t act freely, then his ability to do the right thing (act rightly) is compromised.

This was precisely my point. I am glad to see that it was not entirely lost.

 

[Tannhauser]

And that’s where you are wrong. Any martyr’s death can attest to the fact that SOME people are not dissuaded by negative consequences for choosing what is morally right. For these people, they remain totally free to act in accordance with their moral conscience despite any threat to their person.

Quite right. The example of the martyr’s demonstrates that some people are not dissuaded from acting in accordance with their moral conscience.

The only time ANY threat of negative consequence lessens one’s culpability when faced with a moral decision is when it so renders the person in a mental state where they no longer have totally free will. For some people, that state simply does not come about as a result of threat of violence.

Precisely. The formation of masturbation as a habit is precisely one of those examples, as the Catechism testifies to: ‘To form an equitable judgement about the subjects’ moral culpability… one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors…’ CCC 2352

I am of the opinion, and I think the Catechism implies agreement, that a gun pointed to a man’s head, and thus the threat of imminent death, renders such a man in a mental state where he is psychological unable to act in full and free accordance with what he knows to be moral [obviously, as you have pointed out, the example of the martyrs demonstrates this will not always be the case].

And I’m not insulting… I’m insulted that you think me such an ignorant fool that I don’t even understand my own conscience… and I am insulted that you devalue the moral actions of the martyrs by insinuating that the threat of death they faced robbed them of freewill and therefore they are likewise not culpable for THEIR morality. It’s highly offensive.

Firstly, I find you aggressive here… please avoid this. Secondly, I did not state that the threat of death robs one of free will: I maintain that the threat of death always has the real potential to massively compromise one’s ability to act in accordance with one’s moral beliefs.