Discerning if a Sin is Mortal

[Bookcat]

But yes – It can also be said that:

If you think you may have committed a mortal sin and are not scrupulous or have scruples or tendency to them …it can be recommended that you go ahead and confess it (saying it is not certain etc) especially of one is more on the lax side …

A person who is scrupulous however the principle they would go with is that they should avoid confessing doubtful things…so unless it is sure…do not confess it (at least directly)

of course they can intend all their actual sins in the statement at the end of confession '‘and all my sins’…

---

and one should make a nice act of contrition out of love for God and not wait for confession…

 

[vgrandja]

I think a lot of things can be termed as sin but the grave ones are listed in the ten commandments.

About not being aware of sinning…I think, and this my opinion only, depends on how you’re not aware, but once you are then don’t do it anymore!

The point about sin is to stop sinning (the big and small sins). God forgives our sins and the only ones that can’t be forgiven are murder and saying something “bad” about the Holy Spirit.

 

[Bookcat]

If a person is conscious of grave sin (actual mortal sin), he may not receive Communion unless there is a grave reason and no opportunity to confess. In which case he should make an act of perfect contrition, receive Communion, and then go to confession at the next opportunity.

This does not mean that just cause there is no confession before Mass of course…but situations like when a person lives where no priest is available for very long periods of time …say months

that sort of thing. this is but an example.

 

[Clevelander]

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.

Perhaps what Father means is that if one is subjectively convinced that it would be a mortal sin to steal five cents from the Chase Manhattan Bank, but goes ahead and does it anyway, then he is not guilty of the mortal sin of stealing five cents from the Chase Manhattan Bank (since there could be no such thing), but guilty, rather, of a different mortal sin. What could it be? Presumption, perhaps?

 

[Bookcat]

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.

What Father said is actually classic and constant.

Here is what Pope John Paul II wrote in his document on Moral Theology Veritatis Splender

“60. … the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality.”

(condemned here means judged as guilty) (we need moral certainty…and there are times when we need to stop…see my other posts…)

For there would be grave matter --in this case doing what one thinks is mortal sin (-little children are not the same a older persons–) and thus being willing to do a mortal sin,

and if …

full knowledge and full consent.

– mortal sin.

BUT again i caution to read my other posts on this to get a good understanding …and especially caution those with scruples for they often confuse these things …their feelings for instance for real doubts…or they try to have a kind of certainty one can not have …they do not understand one only needs moral certainty…etc and again with mortal sin --one still needs the full knowledge and full consent etc

they need to follow their confessor etc (read my posts on this)

 

[Bookcat]

ps it can also be the case that one does not think it is a grave matter …actually thinks no it is not grave…but thinks it really may still be a venial sin…

this of course would not be a mortal sin.

(again those with scruples…read the other posts and do not scruple about this)

 

[Candelora]

It is correct to explain mortal as needing to be of grave matter and that one needs to fully conscience that the act is grave and with full and complete consent of the will, DO IT!

However, there is something else to be considered here and not just “scrupulosity” which is the inability to accept the forgiveness of sin after being given absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation. But the calling to this powerful sacrament in order to receive the extraordinary grace that it gives.

Going to confession is a sacrament and thus an encounter with Our Lord and He wants to give us grace beyond measure. And the more one goes to confession the more one can examine their conscience and the more will excel in holiness.

So, if you think you have committed a mortal sin but your not quite sure go to confession and confess the sin with a contrite heart and do not be afraid to ask the priest for advice it is the greatest way to learn, especially of you find a good confessor that is available to on a weekly or monthly basis.

It is a win, win situation. Learn about scrupulosity and DO NOT BE THAT! That mind set is not healthy and will not increase you closeness to God. However, good confessions that are preceded by good examinations of conscience will always give you the grace to grow and the peace to help you endure many of life’s trails.

 

[Bookcat]

It is correct to explain mortal as needing to be of grave matter and that one needs to fully conscience that the act is grave and with full and complete consent of the will, DO IT!

However, there is something else to be considered here and not just “scrupulosity” which is the inability to accept the forgiveness of sin after being given absolution through the sacrament of reconciliation. But the calling to this powerful sacrament in order to receive the extraordinary grace that it gives.

Going to confession is a sacrament and thus an encounter with Our Lord and He wants to give us grace beyond measure. And the more one goes to confession the more one can examine their conscience and the more will excel in holiness.

So, if you think you have committed a mortal sin but your not quite sure go to confession and confess the sin with a contrite heart and do not be afraid to ask the priest for advice it is the greatest way to learn, especially of you find a good confessor that is available to on a weekly or monthly basis.

It is a win, win situation. Learn about scrupulosity and DO NOT BE THAT! That mind set is not healthy and will not increase you closeness to God. However, good confessions that are preceded by good examinations of conscience will always give you the grace to grow and the peace to help you endure many of life’s trails.

Scrupulosity is not just that of course…though that can be an aspect of it.

Yes Confession is a great gift! And it is very good to even confess some venial sins…
the grace one receives in this sacrament is particular to this sacrament…

Myself I love it!

And what is said about confession is recommended … it is great to go on a regular basis and even when one is not sure as was said…but if heads down the road to scruples it can be a difficult track back…so take care in this regards…(my other posts go into this)

one other little note

Scruples while they are to be avoided and while they tend to not leave one the peace…and can ‘not increase your closeness with God’ --can especially if short duration – purify the conscience and be used by God in this manner… but prolonged they cause alot of dis-rest. For God can bring good even out of scruples …as we see especially in the lives of the Saints…but one is still not to count them as something to stay with

 

[o_mlly]

What Father said is actually classic and constant.

Here is what Pope John Paul II wrote in his document on Moral Theology Veritatis Splender

“60. … the judgment of conscience also has an imperative character: man must act in accordance with it. If man acts against this judgment or, in a case where he lacks certainty about the rightness and goodness of a determined act, still performs that act, he stands condemned by his own conscience, the proximate norm of personal morality.”

In the above quote, His Holiness says, quite logically, that a man who acts against his conscience condems himself. How could anyone hold otherwise? I think the question is does one sin, that is does God condemn him, the remote and ultimate norm of morality. Here the Pope is silent.

I also do not think the good Father’s view is classic. For instance, Aquinas says, “Augustine says that sin is a word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God. Therefore, nothing binds under pain of sin except God’s law. But a false conscience is not in accordance with God’s law. Therefore, it does not bind under pain of sin.” And, “According to Ambrose, sin is ‘a transgression of the divine law and disobedience to the heavenly commands.’ Therefore, whoever disobeys the divine law sins. But a false conscience makes a man disobey the divine power when, for instance, his conscience tells him to do something which is forbidden by the divine law. Therefore, a false conscience leads one into sin if he follows it, rather than binds him under pain of sin if he does not follow it.”

If you read Aquinas’ Reply to “Does a false conscience bind?,” the saint admits, "There are different opinions on this matter … " and makes the distinction, “However, a correct conscience and a false conscience bind in different ways. The correct conscience binds absolutely and for an intrinsic reason; the false binds in a qualified way and for an extrinsic reason.”

For there would be grave matter --in this case doing what one thinks is mortal sin (-little children are not the same a older persons–) and thus being willing to do a mortal sin,…

When do the children of God change into the older people of God? The point is that we remain children in our understanding of the mystery of God’s grace and sin.

 

[Bookcat]

In the above quote, His Holiness says, quite logically, that a man who acts against his conscience condems himself. How could anyone hold otherwise? I think the question is does one sin, that is does God condemn him, the remote and ultimate norm of morality. Here the Pope is silent.

I also do not think the good Father’s view is classic. For instance, Aquinas says, “Augustine says that sin is a word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God. Therefore, nothing binds under pain of sin except God’s law. But a false conscience is not in accordance with God’s law. Therefore, it does not bind under pain of sin.” And, “According to Ambrose, sin is ‘a transgression of the divine law and disobedience to the heavenly commands.’ Therefore, whoever disobeys the divine law sins. But a false conscience makes a man disobey the divine power when, for instance, his conscience tells him to do something which is forbidden by the divine law. Therefore, a false conscience leads one into sin if he follows it, rather than binds him under pain of sin if he does not follow it.”

If you read Aquinas’ Reply to “Does a false conscience bind?,” the saint admits, "There are different opinions on this matter … " and makes the distinction, “However, a correct conscience and a false conscience bind in different ways. The correct conscience binds absolutely and for an intrinsic reason; the false binds in a qualified way and for an extrinsic reason.”

When do the children of God change into the older people of God? The point is that we remain children in our understanding of the mystery of God’s grace and sin.

What Pope John Paul wrote is actually very clear and is repeated through out mortal theology sources. You have to read all the whole document. going against conscience is going against God… see the CCC on Conscience.

St. Thomas would not be in disagreement here. The False conscience still binds…

(again those with scruples read the other posts i made…do not scruple about this )

We are NOT talking about the person not knowing. doing something without knowing he should not do it. We are talking about a person who knows the thing may be grave or not and is unable to make the judgment yet and thus they should not act. or a person who honestly thinks something is a grave matter (those with scruples – again read the other posts and see your confessor etc) and does it will full knowledge and full consent --then it will be mortal…

but they really have to have full knowledge that this is a serious to act this way…

Oh – and hopefully this is not the sort of thing that happens much

It is like one says – I think stealing this book is a grave sin --since all stealing is a grave sin (which is not the case objectively) and goes ahead and steels that book with full knowledge and full consent…it would be a mortal sin. and would need to confess this circumstance when they confess is (and return the book…or the like)

Or if a person thinks i think this drug may cause abortion cause i recall a drug with a name like this in the news that it may…if that pregnant woman goes ahead and takes it without finding out and judging that it is ok to take --and she does it with full knowledge and full consent…then mortal sin.

So the Church says if you have a grave matter…and do it with full knowledge and full consent --then one commits a mortal sin.

The grave matter can be many things…lust, stealing a big amount, murder, selling cocaine, lying in court…

as to Children… it depends if they have the three conditions too…but also on their capacity to have them…their maturity …for instance a 4 year old is not likely even at the age of reason (normally said to be around 7)…

 

[o_mlly]

What Pope John Paul wrote is actually very clear and is repeated through out mortal theology sources. You have to read all the whole document. going against conscience is going against God… see the CCC on Conscience.

…

I agree, Veritatis Splendor is quite clear but I think you misinterpret His Holiness.

As to the CCC, I’ll offer two citations:

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

1857 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.”

Note that the emphasized words. #1849 specifically modifies conscience to be ***right ***conscience, not false. It defines sin as contrary to the eternal law. In other words, in basketball parlance, “No harm, no foul.”

#1857 requires that the object is, not thought to be, grave matter.

Can you offer Magisterial or CCC citations that support your position?

 

[Bookcat]

I agree, Veritatis Splendor is quite clear but I think you misinterpret His Holiness.

As to the CCC, I’ll offer two citations:

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

1857 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.”

Note that the emphasized words. #1849 specifically modifies conscience to be ***right ***conscience, not false. It defines sin as contrary to the eternal law. In other words, in basketball parlance, “No harm, no foul.”

#1857 requires that the object is, not thought to be, grave matter.

Can you offer Magisterial or CCC citations that support your position?

The quote already give is indeed in reference to this very problem.

it has been with us for ages…and as I said those with scruples need to follow their confessor etc…

Here is a quote from the Doctor of the Church and Patron of Moral Theology

'Let us now proceed. We have spoken of the examination regarding mortal and venial sins. But were a person to do an action with a doubt whether it was a mortal or a venial sin, what kind of sin would he commit? He would be guilty of mortal sin, because he exposes himself to the danger of grievously offending God. Hence, before he acts he must lay aside the doubt; and if he has not hitherto done so, he must confess it, at least, as it is before God. "

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

but for those who are scrupulous…he says

But the scrupulous, who have doubts about everything, must follow another rule: they must obey their confessor. When he tells them to conquer their doubts, and to act against scruples, they should obey with exactness; otherwise they will render themselves unable and unfit to perform any spiritual exercise.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

and there are other things for those with scruples too…

this can be a real bugaboo for those with scruples …so i caution them again.

The CCC does not get into all the ins and outs of Moral Theology

 

[Bookcat]

I agree, Veritatis Splendor is quite clear but I think you misinterpret His Holiness.

As to the CCC, I’ll offer two citations:

II. THE DEFINITION OF SIN
1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.

1857 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.”

Note that the emphasized words. #1849 specifically modifies conscience to be ***right ***conscience, not false. It defines sin as contrary to the eternal law. In other words, in basketball parlance, “No harm, no foul.”

#1857 requires that the object is, not thought to be, grave matter.

Can you offer Magisterial or CCC citations that support your position?

This touches on it.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

…

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

 

[Bookcat]

Note that the emphasized words. #1849 specifically modifies conscience to be ***right ***conscience, not false. It defines sin as contrary to the eternal law. In other words, in basketball parlance, “No harm, no foul.”

#1857 requires that the object is, not thought to be, grave matter.

Can you offer Magisterial or CCC citations that support your position?

I think you are missing the point… it IS the grave matter in this case.

(again …all should read the other posts to understand what is meant here)

 

[Bookcat]

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

 

[Bookcat]

St. Paul actually touches on this to in 1 Corinthians chapter 8…when he talks about how for those who know an idol is not real – and eat the food that was offered to it (as much in the market was) – it is fine. (they have a correct understanding --right conscience)

but if a Christian due to his being formally a pagan --were to eat meat that had been offered to an idol --but “as offered to an idol” thinking it was real…that person would sin.
even though their conscience was in error --for they think it the idol is real. and they go ahead and eat…thinking of it as offered to the idol.

and thus he says he would even never eat meat --if he needed to --to keep them from sin…

 

[Bookcat]

Again those with scruples…follow your confessor etc…for those with scruples often think their scruples are real doubts etc…read the various posts on this.

and again for anyone …there is still the need of the three requirements of mortal sin all to be there…so one must have full knowledge and full consent too…

I know I repeat myself…for one can misunderstand this…

 

[o_mlly]

…St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori …

A great saint, however, like all saint-theologans who did not rise to the papacy, not infallible. Can you find a papal reference to Liguori’s teaching in an encyclical relating to this thread’s issue?

…The CCC does not get into all the ins and outs of Moral Theology

I beg to differ. From the Table of Contents:

 Paragraph 7. The Fall

      I. Where Sin Abounded, Grace Abounded All the More
     II. The Fall of the Angels
    III. Original Sin
     IV. "You Did Not Abandon Him to the Power of Death"
         IN BRIEF

PART THREE - LIFE IN CHRIST

SECTION ONE: MAN’S VOCATION: LIFE IN THE SPIRIT

CHAPTER ONE: THE DIGNITY OF THE HUMAN PERSON

ARTICLE 1: MAN: THE IMAGE OF GOD

         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 2: OUR VOCATION TO BEATITUDE

      I. The Beatitudes
     II. The Desire for Happiness
    III. Christian Beatitude
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 3: MAN'S FREEDOM

      I. Freedom and Responsibility
     II. Human Freedom in the Economy of Salvation
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 4: THE MORALITY OF HUMAN ACTS

      I. The Sources of Morality
     II. Good Acts and Evil Acts
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 5: THE MORALITY OF THE PASSIONS

      I. Passions
     II. Passions and Moral Life
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 6: MORAL CONSCIENCE

      I. The Judgement of Conscience
     II. The Formation of Conscience
    III. To Choose in Accord with Conscience
     IV. Erroneous Judgement
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 7: THE VIRTUES

      I. The Human Virtues
     II. The Theological Virtues
    III. The Gifts and Fruits of the Holy Spirit
         IN BRIEF

ARTICLE 8: SIN

      I. Mercy and Sin
     II. The Definition of Sin
    III. The Different Kinds of Sins
     IV. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin
      V. The Proliferation of Sin
         IN BRIEF

 

[Bookcat]

A great saint, however, like all saint-theologans who did not rise to the papacy, not infallible. Can you find a papal reference to Liguori’s teaching in an encyclical relating to this thread’s issue?

I beg to differ. From the Table of Contents:

Yes the CCC is WONDERFUL but and it is a sure norm …and it is what I go to quite often…love to read it!

but it is not a complete course in Moral Theology and does not cover all of authentic Catholic Moral Theology. I know not only from the study of various such works…but from courses in Moral Theology --one just on Medical and Sexual Morality alone…

and the CCC is not a catalog of all possible things that are grave matters…(and this can be a grave matter --which is the point)

and actually i have given you info from both the CCC that touch on it and from St. Paul which of course in the Word of God…

the Church does not set out to define as infallible all sorts of things …so that is not really an argument. it has be taught for centuries in moral theology and repeated by Pope John Paul II as I noted…

 

[o_mlly]

This touches on it.

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

…

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1790 is a restatement of JPII’s Vertitatis Splendor which we have already reviewed. I do not see in the other citations a confirmation of your claim, specifically – an act by one whose conscience falsely judges his indifferent act to be intrinsically evil commits a mortal sin.