O
o_mlly
Guest
Still not the “silver bullet.”
If the error is not always free of guilt then it necessarily is sometimes free of guilt. No?
- Status
If the error is not always free of guilt then it necessarily is sometimes free of guilt. No?
O
o_mlly
Guest
If by “it” you mean a false conscience, CCC #1858 defines grave matter and it does not include “false conscience.”
O
o_mlly
Guest
I’m sorry. I don’t follow your line of thought here.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Originally Posted by Bookcat View Post
This touches on it.
1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. …In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
again JPII’;s statement is right on mark. you have to read it from the point of view of moral theology and know what he is saying …
B
Bookcat
Guest
perhaps you will have to read the text in Paul.I’m sorry. I don’t follow your line of thought here.
O
o_mlly
Guest
BookCat,
I love you like a brother or sister but I gotta go with the Magisterium on this one. I’ve given you CCC#'s 1849 and 1857.
Give me a citation from the CCC, an Encyclical, a Dogmatic Constition, an Ecumenical Council or at least an Exhortation that supports your claim. I’m only asking you document from an authoritative source, i.e. Magisterial.
If the Church does not teach it, Catholics are not required to believe it.
B
Bookcat
Guest
NO not the it.
the grave matter is acting in a state of practical positive doubt at something can really be a grave matter
or acting believing the action to be grave matter.
and thus doing it anyhow …
This is the grave matter in question.
Thus with full knowledge and full consent = mortal sin.
(again those with scruples --do not scruple about this area…read posts in this regard and see your confessor)
A hunter who has doubts if the movement he is aiming at is a deer or a person --if he pulls the trigger --with the full knowledge and full consent – he commits a mortal sin --even if it was a deer.
A hunter who believes that it is a mortal sin to hunt in a particular place --and goes and hunts there --even if it is would not be objectively grave matter --commits mortal sin (if with the fk and fc).
B
Bookcat
Guest
already did -John Paul II taught it in the encyclical Vertitatis Spendor.
and it is repeated in moral theology all over the place.
and it is just reason.
but it has to be understood correctly …of course
B
Bookcat
Guest
OF COURSE – this is error that you DO NOT KNOW is error and do not know you should know!Still not the “silver bullet.”
B
Bookcat
Guest
If … 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–John Paul II SP 60
This is teaching the same principle.
the fact that one stands ‘condemned by his own conscience’ …has to be understood in light of the fact that he conscience according to the Catechism;
1777… It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. 49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law.
Note the fact of judging an action already done…or already completed…
This is teaching the same principle.
the fact that one stands ‘condemned by his own conscience’ …has to be understood in light of the fact that he conscience according to the Catechism;
1777… It also judges particular choices, approving those that are good and denouncing those that are evil. 49 It bears witness to the authority of truth in reference to the supreme Good to which the human person is drawn, and it welcomes the commandments. When he listens to his conscience, the prudent man can hear God speaking.
1778 Conscience is a judgment of reason whereby the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act that he is going to perform, is in the process of performing, or has already completed. In all he says and does, man is obliged to follow faithfully what he knows to be just and right. It is by the judgment of his conscience that man perceives and recognizes the prescriptions of the divine law.
Note the fact of judging an action already done…or already completed…
J
Juneboy
Guest
As I read through the many posts on this topic as well as other topics where one is trying to discern whether a particular action or the absence of an action is sinful, I believe that it is possible to spend too much time and energy pursuing this. What is or is not a sin has evolved throughiut the history of the Catholic Church. I would like to post the answer that Father John Dietzen gave in a recent column that was printed in our diocesan paper in answer to a question about mortal and venial sins.
". A bit of history about the church’s attitude toward sin should help you understand the answer to your question.
In the beginning of Christianity, apart from those based mainly on the natural law (the Ten Commandments, for example), one sin was particularly identified as the big one: abandoning one’s faith in Christ because of fear or pain or death.
That was the option often faced by Christians during the Roman persecutions of those days: Either be faithful to Christ and die, or deny Christ and live. Those who chose to live but who later wished to return to the Christian faith faced lengthy public penances conducted by the bishop. When these were completed, sinners could be reconciled with the church once, but only once.
As time went on, other moral offenses (murder, bestiality. adultery and abortion of unborn children .among them) also required extended public penance. Dying without ritual forgiveness of these sins resulted in, so it was believed, loss of eternal life.
Not much formal attention was given to lesser sins, which could be forgiven by acts of charity, prayer, celebration of the Eucharist and other spiritual works.
Hundreds of years later, in the- sixth century and after Irish monks began to introduce into the rest of Europe the kind of confession with which we are most familiar, individual private confession and absolution one on one with a priest.
Originally viewed suspiciously by church authorities, this form of penance was at first discouraged and forbidden, but later became the required way of sacramental forgiveness in the Roman Catholic Church.
To achieve some degree of consistency and clarity, monks prepared lists of sins and penances, called “penitentials,” for confessors to use.
By around the 13th century, the terms “mortal” and “venial” came to distinguish between more and less serious offenses.
Mortal sins were fatal to one’s relationship with God and neighbor. Venial sins, coming from the Latin word “venia” (pardon or forgiveness), were more easily forgiven.
Though varieties of expressions were used to describe them, three elements had to come together for a sin to be grave: The matter itself must be serrious, not trivial or inconsequential.
One must be aware of the consequences at the time the sin committed. And there must be fuIl, conscious desire to commit the sinful action.
Doubt about or lessening of any of these conditions renders the offense less than grave, making the action or omission a venial sin or no sin at all.
This may sound complicated, but generally the church relies on people to use good sense, enlightened by the teachings of Christ, to determine what is serious and what is not.
It’s clear that the conceivable ways one might offend against love of God and neighbor - by racism, greed and other social evils - are numerous and complex.
Fortunately, a more comprehensive and detailed list of sins has never been attempted.
It’s not healthy for us to try to do this either, except to attend to the leanings in our lives that could become more sinful, and seek ways to improve that part of our life, which is what a great part of the graces of sacramental penance are for.
Ultimately, we can still only do what our Catholic ancestors did: Put all our faults and sins trustingly into God’s hands for forgiveness and healing. "
". A bit of history about the church’s attitude toward sin should help you understand the answer to your question.
In the beginning of Christianity, apart from those based mainly on the natural law (the Ten Commandments, for example), one sin was particularly identified as the big one: abandoning one’s faith in Christ because of fear or pain or death.
That was the option often faced by Christians during the Roman persecutions of those days: Either be faithful to Christ and die, or deny Christ and live. Those who chose to live but who later wished to return to the Christian faith faced lengthy public penances conducted by the bishop. When these were completed, sinners could be reconciled with the church once, but only once.
As time went on, other moral offenses (murder, bestiality. adultery and abortion of unborn children .among them) also required extended public penance. Dying without ritual forgiveness of these sins resulted in, so it was believed, loss of eternal life.
Not much formal attention was given to lesser sins, which could be forgiven by acts of charity, prayer, celebration of the Eucharist and other spiritual works.
Hundreds of years later, in the- sixth century and after Irish monks began to introduce into the rest of Europe the kind of confession with which we are most familiar, individual private confession and absolution one on one with a priest.
Originally viewed suspiciously by church authorities, this form of penance was at first discouraged and forbidden, but later became the required way of sacramental forgiveness in the Roman Catholic Church.
To achieve some degree of consistency and clarity, monks prepared lists of sins and penances, called “penitentials,” for confessors to use.
By around the 13th century, the terms “mortal” and “venial” came to distinguish between more and less serious offenses.
Mortal sins were fatal to one’s relationship with God and neighbor. Venial sins, coming from the Latin word “venia” (pardon or forgiveness), were more easily forgiven.
Though varieties of expressions were used to describe them, three elements had to come together for a sin to be grave: The matter itself must be serrious, not trivial or inconsequential.
One must be aware of the consequences at the time the sin committed. And there must be fuIl, conscious desire to commit the sinful action.
Doubt about or lessening of any of these conditions renders the offense less than grave, making the action or omission a venial sin or no sin at all.
This may sound complicated, but generally the church relies on people to use good sense, enlightened by the teachings of Christ, to determine what is serious and what is not.
It’s clear that the conceivable ways one might offend against love of God and neighbor - by racism, greed and other social evils - are numerous and complex.
Fortunately, a more comprehensive and detailed list of sins has never been attempted.
It’s not healthy for us to try to do this either, except to attend to the leanings in our lives that could become more sinful, and seek ways to improve that part of our life, which is what a great part of the graces of sacramental penance are for.
Ultimately, we can still only do what our Catholic ancestors did: Put all our faults and sins trustingly into God’s hands for forgiveness and healing. "
B
Bookcat
Guest
a few things not quite right…or oversimplified here and some things are left out…but it is a newpaper answer column …some things basically do need more fleshing out…
for example – the ‘only once’ was in some places…
and the CCC says regarding the distinction " The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. "
anyhow it is certainly true that one needs not to go beyond reason in working these things out …
B
Bookcat
Guest
I have quoted JPII’s encyclical …and St. Paul …and the fact that his is just simply a teaching that is repeated in Catholic Theology.
I go with the Magisterium …amen!
B
Bookcat
Guest
Lets look again at the two you mention.
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.”
YES! Sin i is a an offense against all of those…and it is a failure love God etc…
that does not mean that if something is against a false conscience it can not be a sin!
but this does NOT mean that if one conscience is in error about something that if one does it is it not a sin! For it can be. For one actually does sin under the right conditions…or one may not know (see the end) and not sin at all…
If my wife had a twin – and I went to her house and climbed into bed with her…thinking that she was my wife’s twin – and with full knowledge and full consent – had sexual relations with her —and THEN I found out in the morning that she really was my WIFE not her sister – I still be committing a mortal sin! Even though she was really my wife.
I believed that she was my the my wife’s sister…but I was in error …that would not get me off the hook with God or my wife!
or if i had good reason to think that my wife’s twin had taken the place of my wife - cause she wanted to have relations with me by tricking me – and thus i doubt if the woman in my bed at home is my wife or her sister --i need to figure this out first --before I act ~!~~!
and
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.”
YES! this is what I have been saying – to act in this way IS a “grave matter” and if one does it will full knowledge and full consent – it is mortal sin.
on the other hand – if a person has an erronious conscience and judges something is honestly not a sin and does not have any reaon to think it is ( they are invincibly ignorant) …he can be not guilty of sin if he does the thing or at least not guilty of mortal sin. even if it is grave matter…(see ccc)
(again those with problems with scruples …read the other posts and do not scruple over this area…and it can lead some into scruples even if they do not have a problem with them …if they do not understand it right)
L
LoyalViews
Guest
You did it, it was not deliberate, so that means it wasn’t on purpose, so therefore it is not a Mortal Sin. You did not do it intentionally.If you commit a mortal sin, and you did not know that is was a mortal sin at the time of “comittal”.
B
Bookcat
Guest
With this example:
If my wife had a twin – and I went to her house and climbed into bed with her…thinking that she was my wife’s twin – and with full knowledge and full consent – had sexual relations with her —and THEN I found out in the morning that she really was my WIFE not her sister – I still be committing a mortal sin! Even though she was really my wife.
I believed that she was my the my wife’s sister…but I was in error …that would not get me off the hook with God or my wife!
I need to add of course you see – I would have had sexual relations with my wife --which of itself is a good thing --not a grave matter! but my belief that it was grave due to my belief that it was my wife’s twin – is the grave matter here. i did what i believed was a grave matter (even though in fact i was with my wife)…
anyhow …the deer examples are always the best… you can refer to them in the above posts
B
Bookcat
Guest
Here is how the Catechism says we should proceed…
III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
III. TO CHOOSE IN ACCORD WITH CONSCIENCE
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.
1787 Man is sometimes confronted by situations that make moral judgments less assured and decision difficult. But he must always seriously seek what is right and good and discern the will of God expressed in divine law.
1788 To this purpose, man strives to interpret the data of experience and the signs of the times assisted by the virtue of prudence, by the advice of competent people, and by the help of the Holy Spirit and his gifts.
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
- One may never do evil so that good may result from it;
- the Golden Rule: "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."56
- charity always proceeds by way of respect for one’s neighbor and his conscience: "Thus sinning against your brethren and wounding their conscience . . . you sin against Christ."57 Therefore "it is right not to . . . do anything that makes your brother stumble."58 vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm#III
O
o_mlly
Guest
Bookcat,
You’re posting replies to your own posts! I think that’s a clear sign we should wrap up our disputation within this thread. If you could find a Magisterial quote to suppport Father Buckley, your posts would be far fewer and more succint.
You’ve claimed that a false conscience (one which wrongly judges an indifferent act to be a gravely evil and acts) commits a mortal sin. You claim Buckley’s position is “classic” and I’ve quoted Augustine and Ambrose through Aquinas that the good Father’s claim is not only not classical but in fact negated by the early Church Fathers.
I’ll end my posts to this thread with my own example. Suppose a teenager has been taught by his parents and believes it is gravely evil to come to the dinner table without washing his hands but he does. Now read Matthew 15:18-20.
B
Bookcat
Guest
- Actually i am just posting further thoughts or clarifications…etc. I am trying to help you get what is being taught here in moral theology …and it can be a difficult subject…
- I have given that already in Verititas Spendor. Very much the Magisterium.
- You have not quoted anything from Augustine or S. Thomas that contradicts what is being taught here by Pope John Paul II and in Moral Theology … you are getting some things confused …
- St. Paul as I noted even teaches this and this is the inspired word of God…
- One has to understand all of this as a whole!
- as for the example – yes if a teenager is taught this and believes this – they can subjectively commit a mortal sin if done with full knowledge and full consent – for they thus act against their conscience (again scruples are a different story ) in what they believe is mortal. though this is a FAR fetched example …not something ANY teenager is likely to think…they do not think their parents are right many times anyway
A person (normal conscience not with scruples) believes X is a grave matter and does X will full knowledge and full consent…it can be mortal cause if one really believes X to be a grave matter – and one does it with the full knowledge and full consent – one is willing with that deliberate consent to commit a mortal sin.
such willing IS a grave matter.
and if one has a grave matter…and full knowledge and full consent --the Church teaches that these things together is what a mortal sin is.
in this case he would be acting against his conscience…and willing to sin mortally.
“An erroneous invincible conscience ought to be followed, lest one act against ones conscience.” (each term here is important)-- Our Moral Life in Christ " MTF and Scepter published in 1997 with imprimatur
But again this is not the normal way of life! Normally we are not in this sort of situation …and again those with scruples need to not scruple about this…they need to follow their confessor etc…
B
Bookcat
Guest
getting back to the original question of the post:
This is the section in the Catechism that everyone will do well to read and think about…it is a rich gold mine.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a2.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a5.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
and particularly about the importance of Prudence:
806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
This is the section in the Catechism that everyone will do well to read and think about…it is a rich gold mine.
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a1.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a2.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a3.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a5.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a6.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a7.htm
vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm
and particularly about the importance of Prudence:
806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
- Status