Discerning if a Sin is Mortal

[Bookcat]

This is good, one thing to note is that if you commit a sin which is grave matter, not meeting conditions 2 & 3 it doesn’t mean that the sin is merely veinial. It’s still grave matter, it still requires confession prior to receiving communion (when you become aware of the sin). It is in fact possible for a sin to be grave but not mortal.

Venial sin’s don’t require confession prior to reception of communion, they are automatically forgiven durring mass.

This not actually the true.

grave sin and mortal sin are the same thing. just different terminology.

If you do something that is a grave matter but with out full knowledge (sufficient reflection as some put it) or without full consent – the matter is yes grave matter but the person does NOT commit a mortal sin. it is a venial sin and does NOT have to be confessed. Period. This is the teaching of the Church.

Of course as the CCC says…Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

but one will know then that it is seriously sinful …

 

[Bookcat]

It seems pretty simple to me: if in doubt, confess! And ask the priest for help in discerning mortal sin.

Regular confession of even venial sins not only is harmless, it’s to be encouraged, and can do a great deal of healing.

Confession of mortal sin is essential.

If in doubt, confession is the surest bet. The priest won’t be mad at you if it’s not mortal, quite the contrary, he’s there for you.

unless the person has a tendency to scruples…then then in doubt they normally do not confess it… or if they find themselves confessing doubt things all the time…

but yes one can ask questions too…

 

[Bookcat]

I could make that really complicated. The simple answer is that, if you had no intention, the sin is not mortal.

The example I have heard about the relative gravity of sin is:

When someone with no money steals a loaf of bread to feed his starving family, it is not grave, because it is both an act of sin and an act of love.

When someone cheats people out of their live savings, leaving them in poverty, there is no love at all in that act. It has done grave damage to the victims, and is contrary to our Lord’s command to love our neighbors. That makes it very grave.

But it still has to be deliberately chosen, and fully understood to be sin, before it is mortal.

I hope I’ve helped. God bless you,

Ruthie

intention is important but it is not the main thing. the key is was it grave matter full , full knowledge and full consent.

a good intention does not make an objective evil into a good…

but it is important to have right intention of course and that is the first step.

also

when a person who is starving takes bread that the other person holds unreasonably from him -when he basicly needs this bread to feed himself and or his family --and does not have another way reasonablly open to him --it is not both a sin and a act of love.

it is rather not a sin due to what stealing means …and due to the universal destination of goods…etc… it just is not stealing.

the ends never justify the means. one has to look at what stealing is . and in that case it is not.

 

[OraLabora]

unless the person has a tendency to scruples…then then in doubt they normally do not confess it… or if they find themselves confessing doubt things all the time…

but yes one can ask questions too…

Good point; this is where a good regular confessor who knows the penitent is worth his weight in gold… if the penitent is being scrupulous, he will point it out and help the penitent.

However if it’s an isolated occasion of a grave matter, and you’re not sure of your culpability, no harm in confession.

 

[Bookcat]

Good point; this is where a good regular confessor who knows the penitent is worth his weight in gold… if the penitent is being scrupulous, he will point it out and help the penitent.

However if it’s an isolated occasion of a grave matter, and you’re not sure of your culpability, no harm in confession.

Right --but one should mention that one is not sure it is mortal or that it is ‘doubtful’ …

for one can not say something IS mortal in confession if one is not morally certain that it is.

and of course one is not obliged of course to confess anything doubtful.

a person who is more lax is particularly recommended to confess something he thinks may have been mortal but has doubts about (again saying it is doubtful or not sure)

 

[Ruthie_again]

Bookcat said

when a person who is starving takes bread that the other person holds unreasonably from him -when he basicly needs this bread to feed himself and or his family --and does not have another way reasonablly open to him --it is not both a sin and a act of love.

it is rather not a sin due to what stealing means …and due to the universal destination of goods…etc… it just is not stealing.

Reasonable or unreasonable, if one doesn’t own it but takes it anyway, that is stealing.
Disobeying a Commandment is grave sin. Doing so with full knowledge and consent makes it mortal.

The gravity of the sin can be mitigated, as it is with the man who stole to feed his family. I was wrong earlier; what mitigates it is the effect the thief’s desperation has on knowledge and consent.

If the person from whom the bread is stolen has “unreasonably held” the bread, that does not mitigate the thief’s sin. It is the holder’s own sin, and has nothing to do with our thief.

I’m sure you overlooked it; your argument sounds like a rationalization for shoplifting. I’m amazed by the number of people who shoplift because “the stores are ripping us off!”

God bless you, Ruthie

 

[baltobetsy]

Reasonable or unreasonable, if one doesn’t own it but takes it anyway, that is stealing.
Disobeying a Commandment is grave sin. Doing so with full knowledge and consent makes it mortal.

The gravity of the sin can be mitigated, as it is with the man who stole to feed his family. I was wrong earlier; what mitigates it is the effect the thief’s desperation has on knowledge and consent.

If the person from whom the bread is stolen has “unreasonably held” the bread, that does not mitigate the thief’s sin. It is the holder’s own sin, and has nothing to do with our thief.

I’m sure you overlooked it; your argument sounds like a rationalization for shoplifting. I’m amazed by the number of people who shoplift because “the stores are ripping us off!”

God bless you, Ruthie

Check your Catechism, Ruthie!

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

Betsy

 

[Bookcat]

Bookcat said

Reasonable or unreasonable, if one doesn’t own it but takes it anyway, that is stealing.
Disobeying a Commandment is grave sin. Doing so with full knowledge and consent makes it mortal.

The gravity of the sin can be mitigated, as it is with the man who stole to feed his family. I was wrong earlier; what mitigates it is the effect the thief’s desperation has on knowledge and consent.

If the person from whom the bread is stolen has “unreasonably held” the bread, that does not mitigate the thief’s sin. It is the holder’s own sin, and has nothing to do with our thief.

I’m sure you overlooked it; your argument sounds like a rationalization for shoplifting. I’m amazed by the number of people who shoplift because “the stores are ripping us off!”

God bless you, Ruthie

I understand what you are getting at --and and what you say is the case in many things.

but what you say is not the case here.

it i not stealing (theft) by definition.

and what i said is actually what the Churches teaches.

it is not that theft becomes ok – but rather that what we are talking about is NOT theft by definition. for when one is starving and one does not have another way to get help he need right then…and another has enough food …the person can perhaps partake of the persons food…for actually while there is private property --it also in a way for the common use.

this is not as applying to ‘shop lifting’ of movies or such but things like food and clothing…

and it is when the person is in real need and has not another avenue and what is being refused to him is being refused unreasonably. This involves the universal destination of goods…

here is what the Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2452 The goods of creation are destined for the entire human race. The right to private property does not abolish the universal destination of goods.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

here is how theft is defined by the Church in the Catechism…

2453 The seventh commandment forbids theft. Theft is the usurpation of another’s goods against the reasonable will of the owner.

and here is the clincher for you from the Catechism

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.

the above quotes from the Catechism say it much better than i of course

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a7.htm

 

[Neithan]

A mortal sin is when you realize “this is a mortal sin,” and are not forced, but totally do it anyway.

So afterwards, you couldn’t honestly ask “was it a mortal sin?”
You know it was.

 

[Ron_Conte]

A mortal sin is when you realize “this is a mortal sin,” and are not forced, but totally do it anyway.

So afterwards, you couldn’t honestly ask “was it a mortal sin?”
You know it was.

Not necessarily. For example, a non-Catholic might not even understand the terminology or distinction of venial versus mortal sin. But if he realizes that an act is very immoral, or very harmful to his neighbor, or if he acts with no concern for whether or not his acts do grave harm, he sins mortally. The same type of mortal sin can occur with a minimally-practicing Catholic who does not think of acts in terms of venial and mortal; he might still sin mortally and not have explicitly realized at the time that it was ‘a mortal sin’.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Second Vatican Council:
By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods… Whenever, nevertheless, the common good requires expropriation, compensation must be reckoned in equity after all the circumstances have been weighed.
Vatican II, Gaudium et Spes, n. 71.

St. Thomas Aquinas:
Article 7. Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?

In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.

Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’sproperty
newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article7

 

[Ruthie_again]

Black cat, I see you’re correct about the Catechism. I was wrong.

It seems the distinction lies here: “There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.” (2408)

One would have to keep a tight rein on one’s conscience. There’s plenty of material in that sentence for denial and rationalization. And for Socialism and Communism.

Ruthie

 

[Bookcat]

Black cat, I see you’re correct about the Catechism. I was wrong.

It seems the distinction lies here: “There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.” (2408)

One would have to keep a tight rein on one’s conscience. There’s plenty of material in that sentence for denial and rationalization. And for Socialism and Communism.

Ruthie

Wrong again!

on the name that is

it is Book Cat …

what you say points out that one should not take ANY line out of context…that one needs to understand it within the whole …this is the case with Scripture as well…

so pick pockets and communists do not rejoice!

 

[okiegal]

It seems pretty simple to me: if in doubt, confess! And ask the priest for help in discerning mortal sin.

Regular confession of even venial sins not only is harmless, it’s to be encouraged, and can do a great deal of healing.

That’s what I was thinking. The Sacrament of Reconciliation confers a multitude of graces, apart from confirming Christ’s forgiveness. For one thing, if one is in the habit of regular Confession, we’re not as likely to avoid it if we really mess up.

For several years, I was able to confess once a week. It bore spiritual fruit, even though as far as I know all the sins were “venial.” That’s the point. We don’t HAVE to categorize our sins if we always confess them.

 

[antonabe]

Sometimes your mind strays and as a result of your past incidents or maybe even past Sins certain thoughts flash through your mind particularly in the Sins of the Flesh if one persists in these thoughts and derive pleasure and satisfy 2) and 3),knowledge and consent, it will be a mortal Sin and I suppose we could call this succumbing to Temptation.On the other hand if these thoughts are shunned from your mind and you pray to the Holy Spirit to assist you then you are the victor and sin has been cast out.Regarding grave sins Blasphemy,against the three persons of the Holy Trinity is considered deadly sins ard are grave in nature and more serious than other mortal Sins

 

[Clevelander]

These quotes are from a good little booklet called “A Catechism for Making a Good Confession” by Fr. James Buckley FSSP, published in 1998:

“Q. What if the offense is not serious, but you think it is?
A. If you give full consent of your will to committing this offense, you are guilty of mortal sin. The same is true if you act while you are in doubt that the action you are about to perform is good or bad, mortally or venially sinful. By acting in any of these ways, you are willing to offend God gravely.”

“Q. How can I find out what are the serious offenses against God and my neighbor?
A. A good catechism such as The Catholic Catechism by Fr. John Hardon or the St. Joseph Baltimore Catechism will help you…”

I say, when in serious doubt, go to Confession. Your conscience may be trying to talk to you, so don’t blow it off. The worst that can happen is that you are being scrupulous, and if that’s true, then the grace of the Sacrament will help you overcome that, and that’s a good thing. If it’s not true, then you really should have gone, and you did, and that’s even better. So you can’t lose.

 

[Bookcat]

These quotes are from a good little booklet called “A Catechism for Making a Good Confession” by Fr. James Buckley FSSP, published in 1998:

“Q. What if the offense is not serious, but you think it is?
A. If you give full consent of your will to committing this offense, you are guilty of mortal sin. The same is true if you act while you are in doubt that the action you are about to perform is good or bad, mortally or venially sinful. By acting in any of these ways, you are willing to offend God gravely.”

I say, when in serious doubt, go to Confession. Your conscience may be trying to talk to you, so don’t blow it off. The worst that can happen is that you are being scrupulous, and if that’s true, then the grace of the Sacrament will help you overcome that, and that’s a good thing. If it’s not true, then you really should have gone, and you did, and that’s even better. So you can’t lose.

Yes…that can be good advice. depends on the person. if they are lax or need formation etc…and do not have problems with scruples. but scruples are not so easy to overcome in many cases…so you can loose and those with scruples should be resisting their scruples --acting against them–making them worses…

So yes…

A person who thinks something is a grave matter …in other words their conscience …their reason thinks… that something is a grave matter…and they do this with full knowledge and full consent – it is mortal sin for one is thus willing to commit a mortal sin --the grave matter here is in a way is this ‘willing to sin gravely’.

And yes if a person has positive doubt (things like evidence…from reason etc not negative doubts …ie slight reasons or unreasonable fears ) that the action may be a grave matter and they are not able to make a judgment due to this-- that person needs to resolve that doubt by reasoning, advice, seeking the light of God in prayer, etc or even at times by a reflex principle --before they act. Otherwise they can commit a mortal sin…ie the grave matter here would be ‘acting in positive doubt knowing the matter can be grave and thus willing to sin mortally’.

An example: a pregnant woman is prescribed by her doctor a medicine. when she gets home and has it filled --she looks at the name and realizes – hey i think that this is the drug that i read about at prolife news that it often causes abortion …but she also thinks i do not think my doctor would prescribe that …but then again i do not know if this is widely known and there are a lot of drugs out there… i had better not take it until i get this resolved.

hence she did right. and did not act in positive doubt.

or another: a man is out hunting and sees something up ahead moving and thinks it is a deer …but can not really see if it is or if it is another hunter. he can not shoot until he sees it is a deer.

However --in both the above – one still needs the full knowledge and full consent that one is in that situation and that one needs to stop and figure things out first. which is pretty clear in both examples.

NOW that being said. what I said about not having to confess doubtful mortal sins still holds. The Church only requires that we confess mortal sins. doubtful mortal sins by definition do not fall into this.

so if one doubts after the fact the in this sort of thing --that they had full knowledge or full consent…they need not confess it. (keep reading continued in next post)
​

​

 

[Bookcat]

Continued from last post…

Doubtful ‘mortal’ sins DO NOT HAVE to be confessed.

Lets not get ourselves tied up in knots… for either i will judge -yes i had grave matter here for i did not see if what was moving was really a deer or my friend --and knowing this i went ahead anyway and decided shoot…well I would not doubt that i had grave matter and full knowledge and full consent. that i risked my a persons life and pulled the trigger. (I am not a hunter --it is the classic example).

So one would still have the three criteria that must be present to commit a mortal sin.

A grave matter: (acting in a state of positive doubt that something is grave matter)
Full knowledge
and Full Consent

so what i said in other posts still applies taking into account that what you refer too is one way to have grave matter…but hopefully not one that happens too often

of course a person may confess such as doubtful (saying it is doubtful) …and those who are lax it is a good idea…and it can be good for formation of conscience a well… etc. a person with difficulty with scruples is advised not to …though they can ask questions…and decide if to confess it with the confessor if need be…

AGAIN a person with scruples – will often confuse their fears…their scuples with real doubts…and so should not get tied up in knots about this but follow their confessor and the principles. Otherwise they will never act! for they will take their negative doubts (their scruples) to be positive doubts.

of course they may be quite certain --like in the two examples above --and thus they will know they should not act and i imagine will not act! they will not doubt that they should stop i would think.

but they can also scruple over things…the person is out hunting and sees a deer and knows he sees a deer and shoots–but just as he pulls the trigger --a fear goes through his mind in the same instant – what if that it just a very good camoflauge of another hunter to look like a deer…and then will spend the next week fearing the he risked a persons life by acting doubtfully…

or with the example of the woman – she is about to take a vitamin that her prolife doctor assures here is safe for her child…but she fears ‘what if the doc is wrong’ --for no real reason …a person with scruples can then fear she sinned seriously here… which would be a scruple…

(see my other posts on this)

But when they act according to their confessor or the principles that they may follow or if they form their conscience in some other good way --they are not considered to be acting doubtfully.

So those with scruples – follow your confessor etc.

 

[Bookcat]

PS: as St. Thomas said: since the matter of prudence is the contingent singulars about which are human actions, the certainty of prudence cannot be so great as to be devoid of all solicitude …II II Q 47 a 9 r 2

so it is moral certitude we are after in making judgments and mortal certitude can be compatible with what S. Thomas mentions above…

 

[o_mlly]

These quotes are from a good little booklet called “A Catechism for Making a Good Confession” by Fr. James Buckley FSSP, published in 1998:

“Q. What if the offense is not serious, but you think it is?
A. If you give full consent of your will to committing this offense, you are guilty of mortal sin. The same is true if you act while you are in doubt that the action you are about to perform is good or bad, mortally or venially sinful. By acting in any of these ways, you are willing to offend God gravely.”…

With all due respect to the good Father, I believe the Catechism requires that the gravity of the matter be ontologically grave, not simply believed grave for the sin to be mortal. Do children who wrongly think they have committed mortal sins, commit mortal sins? I think not. If anyone has a Magisterial reference confirming Father Buckley’s claim that mistaken gravity coupled with full consent equates to a mortal sin, I would appreciate a link.
​

​