Disobeying parents mortal sin?

[Handsome_Danger]

Disobedience is dishonor through disrespect. You cannot disrespect your parents and honor them simultaneously. As long as someone is dependent on thier parents for support, disobedience is a violation of the 4th commandment. If the child is no longer dependent on support, then the parent/child relationship tkaes on a different tenor.

Agreed. One cannot disobey a just authority and at the same time honor them. The act of disobedience to the authority (who deserves obedience) is an act of dishonor to the authority and is a sin.

As far as section 1855 is concerned it would only apply if the child broke the 4th commandment (through his actions of eating the junk food when expressly forbidden by a rightful authority) AND he did so with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin AND had done it with his complete consent. Otherwise, as said before, it would only be a venial sin.

HD

 

[Handsome_Danger]

CWBetts, the quote in your sig is perfect here…

If you think your sin “isn’t that bad”, remember, all Adam and Eve did was eat a piece of fruit.

It’s not the eating of the fruit that got them in trouble. It was disobeying God, the authority. God has given parents authority over children and expects obedience from them. It’s transitive, in a way…if God has given authority to your parents, He is saying, “Obey them” (or “honor” if you want to use that word…though its been pointed out that you cannot honor and disobey just authority at the same time). So in disobeying them, you are also disobeying God, who told you to obey authority…which leads right back to your quote. So, thanks for that!

HD

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I think that it is probably difficult for a little kid to commit a mortal sin.

When I was a little kid, I stole a penny bubblegum from a drug store, and agonized over it for weeks, stayed away from communion, finally confessed it, and made restitution by sneaking a like bubblegum back into the store.

Probably, they laughed uproariously at me in Heaven as I dealt with my “mortal sin.”

But here is the harder question for me: How deep is God’s thinking on this subject?

Some here may have seen some “twin studies,” where scientists express astonishment at how alike twins separated at birth are, 40 years later.

Well, here’s a “moral twin study thought experiment.” Let’s say that we have two identical twins, Tommy and Timmy. They are separated at birth. One is raised in Virginia, the other is raised in California. Assume that their lives and their “wiring” are perfectly identical in all respects. On December 15, 1983, each of the boys, at 7 years of age, one on the East Coast, the other on the West Coast, steals a bubblegum from a neighborhood store, and agonizes over his great “sin,” while God above laughs.

Then, things change. A meteorite zooms into the atmosphere out of space, and when it is about the size of a nickle, it slams into the California brother’s heart, killing him instantly.

The Virginia brother is still alive.

He grows up. He slips into pornography. He becomes one of the great porn marketers of the world. He kills a girl who does not cooperate with one of his studios. He’s in the middle of a drug-charged sex orgy one day when he has a drug-induced heart attack, he curses God as he dies, and then he dies.

Okay, it’s Judgment Day. God has the two twins in front of Him, in their glorified body form. Stealing the bubblegum is the worst sin the one twin committed. The grave sins of the other twin who died as a murderous adult pornographer cursing God fill volumes.

God, being deeply clever, knows that the younger twin *would have *committed exactly the same sins as the other twin, had the meteorite not slammed into him, so that he had a chance to grow up.

How does God judge them? Does one go to Heaven because he was lucky enough to be killed as a child, while the other goes to Hell?

Peter

 

[LtPaint]

I’m pretty sure God is not going to judge the twin who died as child based on sins that he never committed, but instead on the sins he did commit.

 

[CWBetts]

I think that it is probably difficult for a little kid to commit a mortal sin.

When I was a little kid, I stole a penny bubblegum from a drug store, and agonized over it for weeks, stayed away from communion, finally confessed it, and made restitution by sneaking a like bubblegum back into the store.

Probably, they laughed uproariously at me in Heaven as I dealt with my “mortal sin.”

But here is the harder question for me: How deep is God’s thinking on this subject?

Some here may have seen some “twin studies,” where scientists express astonishment at how alike twins separated at birth are, 40 years later.

Well, here’s a “moral twin study thought experiment.” Let’s say that we have two identical twins, Tommy and Timmy. They are separated at birth. One is raised in Virginia, the other is raised in California. Assume that their lives and their “wiring” are perfectly identical in all respects. On December 15, 1983, each of the boys, at 7 years of age, one on the East Coast, the other on the West Coast, steals a bubblegum from a neighborhood store, and agonizes over his great “sin,” while God above laughs.

Then, things change. A meteorite zooms into the atmosphere out of space, and when it is about the size of a nickle, it slams into the California brother’s heart, killing him instantly.

The Virginia brother is still alive.

He grows up. He slips into pornography. He becomes one of the great porn marketers of the world. He kills a girl who does not cooperate with one of his studios. He’s in the middle of a drug-charged sex orgy one day when he has a drug-induced heart attack, he curses God as he dies, and then he dies.

Okay, it’s Judgment Day. God has the two twins in front of Him, in their glorified body form. Stealing the bubblegum is the worst sin the one twin committed. The grave sins of the other twin who died as a murderous adult pornographer cursing God fill volumes.

God, being deeply clever, knows that the younger twin *would have *committed exactly the same sins as the other twin, had the meteorite not slammed into him, so that he had a chance to grow up.

How does God judge them? Does one go to Heaven because he was lucky enough to be killed as a child, while the other goes to Hell?

Peter

Problem with your story. Our sins are not predetermined by our “wiring”

 

[LtPaint]

I think what interest me is how long must a person be obligated to obey their parents. For example, in college, a person is an adult, but they are also usually relient on their parents for money. If this person’s parents tell them not to drink soda ever, is the person old enough or in the position to make his own choices and drink a soda, or is he still committing a sin?

 

[Handsome_Danger]

I think what interest me is how long must a person be obligated to obey their parents. For example, in college, a person is an adult, but they are also usually relient on their parents for money. If this person’s parents tell them not to drink soda ever, is the person old enough or in the position to make his own choices and drink a soda, or is he still committing a sin?

Well, I think if a person is still living with their parent, and relying on them for financial support, and the parent says, “Listen, we don’t drink soda in this house…and as a requrement for living here and receiving money, then you won’t either.” For whatever reason, that parent has SOME reason that they don’t want their kid drinking soda. Since the parent is providing for the child based on the belief that they are following the rules the parents are setting, I would think that the child would be oblidged to obey the parents order. If they go and break it, and continue receiving the support, they are lying to their parent, which is not honoring. If they were to say, “I think this is an arbitrary rule, and I am an adult…I’m going to drink soda” then the parent can decide whether or not they will revoke their support.

That’s just my take on it. It’s tough, because again, the infringement seems so simple and rather unjust…telling an adult that they must not do something that they are freely able to do. But what it comes down to, I think, in this case is that if you break the rule, and let them believe that you are still obeying it, you are lying, which again breaks the 4th commandment by not honoring.

HD

 

[gardenswithkids]

Agreed. One cannot disobey a just authority and at the same time honor them. The act of disobedience to the authority (who deserves obedience) is an act of dishonor to the authority and is a sin…

By this argument, failing to stop completely at a stop sign might fall into the catagory of “mortal sin.” The government has the authority to set traffic laws, (just as parents have the authority to set snack rules.)

Traffic laws say to come to a complete stop, (not a rolling slow-down, almost-stop where one looks both ways and determines there are no cars coming.) Police often give tickets for such traffic violations, yet they also frequently let people off with just a warning. The tickets usually just involve paying a fine. Rarely (if ever) would such a traffic violation result in jail time, and never would it result in the death sentence. Apparently, some of you think God is less merciful than our government.

 

[Handsome_Danger]

By this argument, failing to stop completely at a stop sign might fall into the catagory of “mortal sin.” The government has the authority to set traffic laws, (just as parents have the authority to set snack rules.)

Traffic laws say to come to a complete stop, (not a rolling slow-down, almost-stop where one looks both ways and determines there are no cars coming.) Police often give tickets for such traffic violations, yet they also frequently let people off with just a warning. The tickets usually just involve paying a fine. Rarely (if ever) would such a traffic violation result in jail time, and never would it result in the death sentence. Apparently, some of you think God is less merciful than our government.

That sounds like a bit of a straw man argument. What you quoted was a logical argument to show that one dishonors an authority when they disobey them. What you then argued against was that not stopping completely at a stop sign (and disobeying the state) could be a mortal sin. That’s not what we are arguing though.

The situation in question is specifically disobeying (and therefore dishonoring) parents, who are an authority…which breaks the 4th commandment and is therefore a grave matter and could be a mortal sin.

HD

 

[gardenswithkids]

…What you quoted was a logical argument to show that one dishonors an authority when they disobey them. …

The situation in question is specifically disobeying (and therefore dishonoring) parents, who are an authority…which breaks the 4th commandment and is therefore a grave matter and could be a mortal sin.

HD

You see dishonor where I don’t see it. Not all disobedience equals dishonor; we are really debating the meaning of he word “honor” and “dishonor”. You wrote the 4th commandment deals with anyone who is in a position of just authority and claim disobedience to any just authority could be a mortal sin because it dishonors the authority in violation of the fourth commandment. I wrote an example that (by your understanding of the fourth commandment) violating traffic rules might be mortal sins. I did not write that with the intention of creating a strawman argument–I wrote that to demonstrate how absolutely absurd it is to think that violating one’s parents’ snack rules could be mortal sins.

Again, in His commandments God choose to use the word “honor” not “obey”. While those words are somewhat related, they are two different words that mean different things.**

If some of you are correct, I need to either change my snack rules or lockdown my kitchen and all food supplies. My poor children! Having a mother concerned about their nutritional health and the tidiness of the family’s kitchen may lead to their eternal damnation.

 

[Handsome_Danger]

You see dishonor where I don’t see it. Not all disobedience equals dishonor; we are really debating the meaning of he word “honor” and “dishonor”.

As Jim Blackburn explains here, St. Paul clarifies the 4th commandment by saying “Childeren, obey your parents in The Lord, for this is right.”

Additionally, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in part three, section two, chapter two, article four (the 4th commandment) teaches the following
CCC 2217: As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or that of the family.
The Church teaches that dependent children who do not obey their parents when there is no just reason to do so are not keeping with the 4th commandment.

You wrote the 4th commandment deals with anyone who is in a position of just authority and claim disobedience to any just authority could be a mortal sin because it dishonors the authority in violation of the fourth commandment.

No, I didn’t. I wrote that the 4th commandment deals with parents’ authority over children and claim disobedience to any just COMMAND by the parent could be a mortal sin because it dishonors the parent and breaks the fourth commandment…Which is a very different scenerio.

I wrote an example that (by your understanding of the fourth commandment) violating traffic rules might be mortal sins. I did not write that with the intention of creating a strawman argument–I wrote that to demonstrate how absolutely absurd it is to think that violating one’s parents’ snack rules could be mortal sins.

Again, the 4th commandment deals with parents’ authority, and as such violating a traffic rule doesn’t come into play in my argument. You are arguing against a point that I have not made, and so your example does not show where MY argument is invalid.

Again, in His commandments God choose to use the word “honor” not** “obey”. While those words are somewhat related, they are two different words that mean different things.

Please see Jim Blackburn’s explanation above.

HD

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Problem with your story. Our sins are not predetermined by our “wiring”

I didn’t say that. Please address the hypo.

 

[baltobetsy]

Might it be helpful to make a distinction between sins of malice and sins of weakness?

Betsy

 

[CWBetts]

I didn’t say that. Please address the hypo.

Oh, but you did! You said that they would have committed exactly the same sins! This is why “Thaught expiriments” are pointless. The designer always puts some cind of assumption in that is absolutely inane. By saying they would have had exactly the same life is to say that people are destined to behave at by the dictates of their genetic makeup. This supposition makes free will a lie. Therefore adressing this hypotheical situation is worth no one’s time because it built upon a false premise. For hypotheticals to be of any use, the underlying premise must have value. Furthermore, any hypothetical that puts you in the place of God plays into man’s natural inclination to arrogance.

 

[Handsome_Danger]

Might it be helpful to make a distinction between sins of malice and sins of weakness?

Betsy

Well, I don’t know that it would really add anything. The original post asked if disobeying parents was a mortal or venial sin. I and others have argued that it can be, if all three components of a mortal sin is present, which is possible, as breaking the 4th commandment (which disobedience of children towards parents is) is a grave matter.

The fact that there exists sins done of sheer malice and others done out of weakness only comes into play because sins done out of weakness adds a level of mitigation and may be a reason why the sin would be venial rather than mortal…which I think has already been covered in one way or another.

However, if I’m missing something, please let me know.

HD

 

[gardenswithkids]

As Jim Blackburn explains here, St. Paul clarifies the 4th commandment by saying “Childeren, obey your parents in The Lord, for this is right.”

Additionally, The Catechism of the Catholic Church, in part three, section two, chapter two, article four (the 4th commandment) teaches the following
CCC 2217: As long as a child lives at home with his parents, the child should obey his parents in all that they ask of him when it is for his good or that of the family.
The Church teaches that dependent children who do not obey their parents when there is no just reason to do so are not keeping with the 4th commandment…

I agree that children should obey their parents. You have argued that children not obeying their parents constitutes grave matter because (you claim) anything that violates the ten commandments (even in small matters) is potentially a mortal sin. I have not argued my point well, and you have done an admirable job finding various sources to support your argument. However, I remain unconvinced that breaking a parent’s small snacktime rules is a mortal sin.

I am concerned with this thread topic because I realize that my parenting rules are stricter than most parent’s rules these days. I think my rules are reasonable in light of having 9 people living in our home. A larger household requires greater discipline to run smoothly. Yet when my children violate some of these strict rules about minor things, I simply remind them of what the rules are. Should I lower my standards or step up the punishment when they violate minor rules?

 

[CWBetts]

I agree that children should obey their parents. You have argued that children not obeying their parents constitutes grave matter because (you claim) anything that violates the ten commandments (even in small matters) is potentially a mortal sin. I have not argued my point well, and you have done an admirable job finding various sources to support your argument. However, I remain unconvinced that breaking a parent’s small snacktime rules is a mortal sin.

I am concerned with this thread topic because I realize that my parenting rules are stricter than most parent’s rules these days. I think my rules are reasonable in light of having 9 people living in our home. A larger household requires greater discipline to run smoothly. Yet when my children violate some of these strict rules about minor things, I simply remind them of what the rules are. Should I lower my standards or step up the punishment when they violate minor rules?

This is not abput punishing your children. This is about the state of thier souls after disobedience. Snacking is rather minor in the material world, but the act of willfully disobeying legitimate authority is serious in the eyes of God. If they think its minor to violate your rules, then why should they obey society’s laws. ("it’s only a speeding ticket) Do you get my point?

 

[gardenswithkids]

This is not abput punishing your children. This is about the state of thier souls after disobedience. Snacking is rather minor in the material world, but the act of willfully disobeying legitimate authority is serious in the eyes of God. If they think its minor to violate your rules, then why should they obey society’s laws. ("it’s only a speeding ticket) Do you get my point?

Yes, I get your point–especially the point about the state of their souls–which is why this discussion leads me to think parents (like me) with rules about snacking might be inclined to either a) loosen their rules or b) get stricter on reinforcing the rules. I wasn’t talking punishment for the sake of punishment, but punishment for the sake of correction to help children learn and remember to follow rules. Up until now I was satisfied with just reminded them of the rules and I was satisfied with less that 100% compliance, but perhaps I need to either inforce my rules more strictly or loosen them completely. So what do you think? Lower standards or increased punishment?

 

[CWBetts]

Yes, I get your point–especially the point about the state of their souls–which is why this discussion leads me to think parents (like me) with rules about snacking might be inclined to either a) loosen their rules or b) get stricter on reinforcing the rules. I wasn’t talking punishment for the sake of punishment, but punishment for the sake of correction to help children learn and remember to follow rules. Up until now I was satisfied with just reminded them of the rules and I was satisfied with less that 100% compliance, but perhaps I need to either inforce my rules more strictly or loosen them completely. So what do you think? Lower standards or increased punishment?

I am not a parent. I have no point of reference for advice, especially since I do not know your kids or how they behave.

 

[Handsome_Danger]

You have argued that children not obeying their parents constitutes grave matter because (you claim) anything that violates the ten commandments (even in small matters) is potentially a mortal sin.

This isn’t true. I did indeed say is that children not obeying their parents is a grave matter. However, it is grave merely because it breaks the one of the Ten Commandments, and therefore potentially a mortal sin, not the other way around. It’s an important distinction.

I have not argued my point well, and you have done an admirable job finding various sources to support your argument. However, I remain unconvinced that breaking a parent’s small snacktime rules is a mortal sin.

I am concerned with this thread topic because I realize that my parenting rules are stricter than most parent’s rules these days. I think my rules are reasonable in light of having 9 people living in our home. A larger household requires greater discipline to run smoothly. Yet when my children violate some of these strict rules about minor things, I simply remind them of what the rules are. Should I lower my standards or step up the punishment when they violate minor rules?

I do understand that the fact that a child sneaking a snack when his parents tell him not to is considered a small violation, truly. I don’t want to seem like i’m ignoring that fact.

It might help me explain my argument better if I lay it out in one post so that it isn’t spread around so much. I am arguing that a dependent child, who has been given a just command (ANY just command) by their parent could possibly be guilty of a mortal sin (considering all the requirements for mortal sin are met). Here is my argument.

1. 
   *]CCC 1858 teaches that The Church’s definition of “grave matter” comes from violation of the ten commandments. Sins of this nature can be more or less grave, but all still fall under the cattegory of “grave”. This is Church teaching. It should be noted that a grave matter is not automatically a mortal sin.
   *]CCC 2217, which specifically the 4th commandment teaches that lack of obedience of a child toward their parent constitutes breaking one of the commandments. This is also Church teaching.
   *]From 1 and 2, it follows that disobedience in the case of a child and parent is a grave matter.
   *]CCC 1857 teaches that in order for a sin to be considered mortal, it must be a grave matter, it must be committed with full knowledge, and it must be committed with deliberate consent.
   *] From 3 and 4, it follows that, because the sin is grave, it has the potential to be a mortal sin.
   *]Thus, it can be concluded that in the case where disobedience of a dependent child towards a parent for no just reason, in which the child acts with full knowledge of the gravity of the sin and with deliberate consent, it would be mortal.
   
   If there is something wrong with this argument, please let me know what it is. I truly don’t want to be telling people the wrong thing. However, it is unfortunately not enough to just say that it doesn’t seem like a big violation. That amounts to moral relativism and I point out, again, CWBetts signature quote: “If you think your sin “isn’t that bad”, remember, all Adam and Eve did was eat a piece of fruit.”
   
   But here’s the thing, what child, even an older child, do you think would actually go the the thought process, “Ok, I understand what grave matter is, I understand that action X is grave as well. I’m not really hungry, my intellect is so great that my youth does not provide any impediment to giving my full consent to this sin, nor is there anything else keeping me from fully understanding what I’m about to do. So I’m going to do it, because I want to do it, and I don’t really care what my parents say or what God says. I want it, and that is all that matters to me” and then does it?? I would hope it would be pretty difficult (and of course it is!..almost no child would go through that thought process and even if they did, it doesn’t matter if they THINK there is nothing stopping them from giving full consent, if there REALLY is, then it lacks what is necessary to be mortal), but if the slight chance exists that the kid does that, then yeah, he’s totally turned inward on himself and placed himself above everything…including God, which is exactly what Adam and Eve did when they “just ate a piece of fruit”.
   
   So no, to not have rules would be silly. Having rules is what helps your child understand how not to sin! But we are all called to obey God and the order He set up for us. God isn’t out to try and “get us” by making everything we do a mortal sin, but if someone goes through the thought process I outlined above, then they are purposefully separating themselves from God. And if you agree that, even just HYPOTHETICALLY, the situation above could happen, it means that it is logically possible for a child disobeying their parents to be a mortal sin…regardless of how unlikely it is in the snack-time scenario. And that is what the original post asked. Is it mortal or venial? Most times venial, but it CAN be mortal.
   
   HD