Do regular Catholics (like me) really commit so many mortal sins? Really?!

[Vico]

mortal and grave are synonymous

thesaurus.com/browse/mortal

The qualification that has been constantly referenced to is, one who intentionally misses mass. If it is out of one’s control then that’s a different story

Here is a Church source for you supporting that, mortal and grave are synonymous, from Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation and Penance of St. Pope John Paul II:… all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

 

[Wampa]

Agreed. However, it should be noted that that line is in response to this:

“During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal.”

I of course would not disagree with your quote in any way, given the context within which it is was made.

The observation I was trying (and failing) to make was different. I’m not really expressing my point clearly (perhaps I haven’t fully flesh it out myself), so I’ll drop the issue.

 

[steve_b]

Here is a Church source for you supporting that, mortal and grave are synonymous, from Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliation and Penance of St. Pope John Paul II:
… all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.
w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia.html

:tiphat:nice touch

 

[pnewton]

…all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin’s objective content. Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

Please note that this statement does not say they are synonymous. The first part states only that** all **ways of defining mortal sin is linked with the gravity of the objective content, just another way of saying that grave matter is a requirement for mortal sin. The second says it is identified with mortal sin.

Furthermore, the two are joined by a conjunction in:

It must be added-as was likewise done at the synod-that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter.

He also sets them with a nuanced difference in:

Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

I would say rather than say they are synonyms, the document shows they are not synonyms, but when used to describe sin, are inseparable. This is a limitation of language. The point being made though is not conflating these two words, but rather we need to make a distinction between the objective and the subjective, and between the matter and the sin. When we fail to do this, we cross from doctrine into judgementalism.

 

[Vico]

Please note that this statement does not say they are synonymous. The first part states only that** all **ways of defining mortal sin is linked with the gravity of the objective content, just another way of saying that grave matter is a requirement for mortal sin. The second says it is identified with mortal sin.

Furthermore, the two are joined by a conjunction in:

It must be added-as was likewise done at the synod-that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter.

He also sets them with a nuanced difference in:

Hence, in the church’s doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.

I would say rather than say they are synonyms, the document shows they are not synonyms, but when used to describe sin, are inseparable. This is a limitation of language. The point being made though is not conflating these two words, but rather we need to make a distinction between the objective and the subjective, and between the matter and the sin. When we fail to do this, we cross from doctrine into judgementalism.

That sounds reasonable. “Synonymous” does have more meanings than equivalent however. The quote used in the original document regards only two categories of sin. In canon law there is only venial and grave referred to:

• Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
• Can. 916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.
• Can. 960 Individual and integral confession and absolution constitute the sole ordinary means by which a member of the faithful who is conscious of grave sin is reconciled with God and with the Church. Physical or moral impossibility alone excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation may be attained by other means also.
• Can. 988 §1 The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession. §2 The faithful are recommended to confess also venial sins.

In contrast, the latest Catechism and Baltimore Catechism has venial and mortal:

**CCC:

IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN**

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."131
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

Baltimore:

Q. 274. How is sin divided?
A. (1) Sin is divided into the sin we inherit called original sin, and the sin we commit ourselves, called actual sin. (2) Actual sin is sub-divided into greater sins, called mortal, and lesser sins, called venial.

 

[ProVobis]

I would say rather than say they are synonyms, the document shows they are not synonyms, but when used to describe sin, are inseparable. This is a limitation of language. The point being made though is not conflating these two words, but rather we need to make a distinction between the objective and the subjective, and between the matter and the sin. When we fail to do this, we cross from doctrine into judgementalism.

I agree. Mortal is mortal. And grave is a matter of degree.

And grave matter is not the same as grave sin.

 

[pnewton]

That sounds reasonable. “Synonymous” does have more meanings than equivalent however. The quote used in the original document regards only two categories of sin. In canon law there is only venial and grave referred to:

I will admit to being picky about language but that is only because I see so many arguments that only exist or continue because terms are not defined. It is interesting that you point out the two categories. In the letter from St. John Paul linked above, I read that some in the Church wanted three categories; venial, grave and mortal. He refuted that line of reasoning in the document. I do not see this ever changing. For one thing, it misses the whole point of defining the difference between the gravity of the matter, and the actual imputed guilt to the sinner that only God, and sometimes the sinner, knows.

 

[steve_b]

I will admit to being picky about language but that is only because I see so many arguments that only exist or continue because terms are not defined. It is interesting that you point out the two categories. In the letter from St. John Paul linked above, I read that some in the Church wanted three categories; venial, grave and mortal. He refuted that line of reasoning in the document. I do not see this ever changing. For one thing, it misses the whole point of defining the difference between the gravity of the matter, and the actual imputed guilt to the sinner that only God, and sometimes the sinner, knows.

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God**(“1 jn 5 RSVCE - Faith Conquers the World - Every one - Bible Gateway”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

If John says any one can see it, (mortal & venial sin) then I don’t see where the mystery is here, when it comes to identifying mortal (grave) and venial sin.

I’m thinking, when did everyone all of a sudden become lawyers … arguing over everything, and especially, like a former president, when caught… he argued even over the meaning of “is”.

This kinda stuff goes back to the garden with our first parents. Eve blames the snake, Adam blames God, neither one took responsibility for their own action and there was no lawyer there to argue, well God, what did you really mean by don’t do that over there or you will die? Good grief

But there WAS someone there wispering in their ears, oh you won’t really die, you’ll be liberated from that shackle. You’ll be as smart as God. Don’t listen to HIM. And we see where that got THEM and in extension, where we got this downward pull to lie and sin and look for every excuse in the book to shift the blame away from us or argue down mortal sin to a misdemeanor or no fault at all…

Bottomline, who has the agenda of speaking down to people as if we have the IQ of potted plants? It’s Satan. We’re not fighting against flesh and blood, Ephesians 6:12

 

[pnewton]

I’m thinking, when did everyone all of a sudden become lawyers …

For me, it was when the internet became full of judges.

Bottomline, who has the agenda of speaking down to people as if we have the IQ of potted plants? It’s Satan. We’re not fighting against flesh and blood, Ephesians 6:12

I do not think anyone is speaking down to anyone. I do not remember where Satan “spoke down to people” though I do know he is call the Accuser of the Brethren in Revelation. If you think what I said was anything like the Garden of Eden, then I fail to see the connection. Can you explain what the temptation in the Garden has to do with clarifying terms, or is this a comparison of all lawyers to the archetype devil.

 

[Pug]

If mortal sin culpability wasn’t complicated, we would have nothing to discuss here on Catholic Answers. Just to be clear. I still teach that missing Mass is a grave matter. Then I explain the three conditions needed for a sin to be mortal. I stop just short of saying that missing Mass intentionally is a mortal sin.
Not to be snippy but, why don’t you ask Father Serpa if we are all held to the exact same standards for a sin to be Mortal. I stand by my understand that what might be a mortal sin for me might not be for you.
If push comes to shove, I say that I believe missing Mass unjustly for me is a Mortal sin because I believe it fits the requirement/conditions.

Can’t someone help me out? I really struggled with this last year but I have come to terms with what my pastor said. I only want to do what is best for the kids. (I teach 6th and 10th grades).

I’m not really sure what your pastor meant to convey to you. It can be hard to know exactly what a priest meant, especially when he is rushed. Perhaps he meant if a child asks you if he/she (or his parent) committed a mortal sin last week when they missed mass, then you ought to avoid saying that he or she did, since you can’t know the child’s heart (or what the situation is with their parents and driving them there). There is the teaching about missing mass, and there is the actual culpability of a person in a particular moment. Perhaps your priest was referring to the latter, not the former.

However, perhaps a priest might be trying to discourage any dwelling on talking about missing mass as a sin beyond being sure to provide the information that it is if the conditions are met. I know we had a situation once in our RCIA class of a team member providing pamphlets and a lecture about contraception during our class time for a different topic, which sort of had the tone of I’ve got to tell you this because no one else will (which was false). This resulted in a sort of general crackdown on unapproved outside materials and being off topic. In this case I agreed with the pastor.

 

[steve_b]

For me, it was when the internet became full of judges.

I see it the other way around. When did everyone become lawyers arguing over everything?

Re: Judging, Is Paul or John or Peter judging here?

• Titus 3:10-11 Reject a heretical (αἱρετικὸν )man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5:3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:23-27 missing Eucharist deliberately on Sunday, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12:16-17 immoraliy,(πόρνος ) is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ), factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers ( διχοστασίαι )don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no sexually immoral (πόρνοι ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ( ἀρσενοκοῖται ), 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
• 2 Peter 2:4-22
• 2 Thes 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

If person A sees person B committing one of those sins mentioned, and quotes one of those scriptures to person B, is person A, guilty of judging person B?

NOT according to John

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and Godb] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

AND

If John says any one can see it, (mortal & venial sin) then I don’t see where the mystery is here, when it comes to identifying mortal (grave) and venial sin.

Therefore, I see A, doing B, a HUGE favor
p:

I do not think anyone is speaking down to anyone. I do not remember where Satan “spoke down to people” though I do know he is call the Accuser of the Brethren in Revelation. If you think what I said was anything like the Garden of Eden, then I fail to see the connection. Can you explain what the temptation in the Garden has to do with clarifying terms, or is this a comparison of all lawyers to the archetype devil.

“Grave” and “Mortal” are synonymous terms. thesaurus.com/browse/mortal . That’s not my opinion. It’s definitional.

Said another way, If one is in the grave, they better be dead. If one is said to have suffered a mortal wound, that’s a delicate way of saying one died from their wound.

The purpose of bringing up the garden example, Satan is the one who dumbs down fault. Who dumbs down mortal / grave to a misdemeanor or no fault at all. God does NOT do that…

Satan is always lowering the bar. That’s what he does.

 

[SHoJjhmou]

I see it the other way around. When did everyone become lawyers arguing over everything?

Re: Judging, Is Paul or John or Peter judging here?

• Titus 3:10-11 Reject a heretical (αἱρετικὸν )man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5:3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:23-27 missing Eucharist deliberately on Sunday, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12:16-17 immoraliy,(πόρνος ) is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions (διχοστασίαι ), factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers ( διχοστασίαι )don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 no sexually immoral (πόρνοι ), nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders ( ἀρσενοκοῖται ), 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.
• Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”
• 2 Peter 2:4-22
• 2 Thes 1: 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power

If person A sees person B committing one of those sins mentioned, and quotes one of those scriptures to person B, is person A, guilty of judging person B?

NOT according to John

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and Godb] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

AND

If John says any one can see it, (mortal & venial sin) then I don’t see where the mystery is here, when it comes to identifying mortal (grave) and venial sin.

Therefore, I see A, doing B, a HUGE favor

“Grave” and “Mortal” are synonymous terms. thesaurus.com/browse/mortal . That’s not my opinion. It’s definitional.

Said another way, If one is in the grave, they better be dead. If one is said to have suffered a mortal wound, that’s a delicate way of saying one died from their wound.

The purpose of bringing up the garden example, Satan is the one who dumbs down fault. Who dumbs down mortal / grave to a misdemeanor or no fault at all. God does NOT do that…

Satan is always lowering the bar. That’s what he does.

In order for a sin to be mortal, you need grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Grave sin can be used in place of mortal sin, but i don’t think i’ve ever seen mortal sin be used in place of grave sin…

There is a STARK difference between commiting a venial sin by doing something of grave matter without reflection/full consent, and committing formal mortal sin.

Also, in general, we shouldn’t automatically asuume any Catholics are commiting any mortal sins. For all we know, Hitler or even Judas could be in Purgatory, or even Heaven, right now b/c they didn’t fufill the requirements of sufficient reflection or full consent.

We do have an obligation to fraternally correct btw, but there are conditions… if one would google Fraternal Correction and click on New Advent’s website, he would find them…

Hope I was able to help anybody who might have misunderstood this thread, just in case.

 

[Brendan_64]

In order for a sin to be mortal, you need grave matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Grave sin can be used in place of mortal sin, but i don’t think i’ve ever seen mortal sin be used in place of grave sin…

There is a STARK difference between commiting a venial sin by doing something of grave matter without reflection/full consent, and committing formal mortal sin.

Also, in general, we shouldn’t automatically asuume any Catholics are commiting any mortal sins. For all we know, Hitler or even Judas could be in Purgatory, or even Heaven, right now b/c they didn’t fufill the requirements of sufficient reflection or full consent.

We do have an obligation to fraternally correct btw, but there are conditions… if one would google Fraternal Correction and click on New Advent’s website, he would find them…

Hope I was able to help anybody who might have misunderstood this thread, just in case.

Where has ‘sufficient reflection’ come from? The requirement is ‘full knowledge’ NOT ‘sufficient reflection’. The Catechism makes no reference to ‘sufficient reflection’ as an alternative condition to ‘full knowledge’

We need to be careful to use the definitions according to what our Church actually teaches, not adapt them, because once we start to adapt them we subtly change the meaning of these teachings, and that is something that we have no authority to do.

CCC 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.”

No mention of ‘sufficient reflection’ there.

And as for what ‘full knowledge is’

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.** It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.** It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Once we start throwing in our own conditions to replace those actually stated in Church teaching, then we are walking on very dangerous ground indeed.

 

[Vico]

Where has ‘sufficient reflection’ come from? The requirement is ‘full knowledge’ NOT ‘sufficient reflection’. The Catechism makes no reference to ‘sufficient reflection’ as an alternative condition to ‘full knowledge’

We need to be careful to use the definitions according to what our Church actually teaches, not adapt them, because once we start to adapt them we subtly change the meaning of these teachings, and that is something that we have no authority to do.

CCC 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.”

No mention of ‘sufficient reflection’ there.

And as for what ‘full knowledge is’

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.** It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.** It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Once we start throwing in our own conditions to replace those actually stated in Church teaching, then we are walking on very dangerous ground indeed.

I was taught with the Baltimore Catechism. Compare full knowledge in the CCC to sufficient reflection in the BC:

Baltimore Catechism No. 3Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 283. What do we mean by “grievous matter” with regard to sin?
A. By “grievous matter” with regard to sin we mean that the thought, word or deed by which mortal sin is committed must be either very bad in itself or severely prohibited, and therefore sufficient to make a mortal sin if we deliberately yield to it.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.

 

[Brendan_64]

I was taught with the Baltimore Catechism. Compare full knowledge in the CCC to sufficient reflection in the BC:

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

OK fair enough, I wasn’t aware that the Baltimore Catechism worded the requirement as ‘sufficient reflection’ as opposed to ‘full knowledge’.

The definition would appear to be the same, i.e. that the person knows that the deed is sinful.

Personally I think that ‘full knowledge’ is a better wording, as 'sufficient reflection could (if a person was unaware of what the Baltimore Catechism meant by the term) mistakenly think that it meant that, unless a person stopped to reflect sufficiently before committing an act, the act would not meet the requirement of ‘sufficient reflection’. Perhaps that is why the exact wording of the requirement was changed?

 

[backtocatholic]

This is something I would love to know the answer to.

I came back to the faith over a year ago, and was in a state of mortal sin but have repented.
However, I do feel that many people on this forum (myself included) are scrupulous. I have committed most of the typical mortal sins mentioned in earlier post but changed my life entirely when I came back to the church.

However, on this forum people talk frequently about confessing mortal sins which has led me to (incorrectly) believe that most devout catholics are frequently in a state of mortal sin.
This is something I am currently trying to address but I would urge others not to fall into the same trap - and to speak to a priest rather than making out of context judgements.

On the positive side, throughout all of this I have begun to understand genuine sins e.g. judging others, spiritual pride etc. that I am now struggling with.

I feel as though I am on a journey and while you may give up some sins - others may replace them and need to be addressed.

 

[Brendan_64]

However, on this forum people talk frequently about confessing mortal sins which has led me to (incorrectly) believe that most devout catholics are frequently in a state of mortal

Do you really think that the Ten Commandments are so difficult to break then? Because that is grave matter.

Grave matter is not just the things that secular society views as grave (murder, rape etc) or sexual sins. Breaking the Ten Commandments constitutes grave matter.

Perhaps people should open their Catechisms and read the relevant sections as it is all in there and written in quite straightforward language.

 

[Vico]

OK fair enough, I wasn’t aware that the Baltimore Catechism worded the requirement as ‘sufficient reflection’ as opposed to ‘full knowledge’.

The definition would appear to be the same, i.e. that the person knows that the deed is sinful.

Personally I think that ‘full knowledge’ is a better wording, as 'sufficient reflection could (if a person was unaware of what the Baltimore Catechism meant by the term) mistakenly think that it meant that, unless a person stopped to reflect sufficiently before committing an act, the act would not meet the requirement of ‘sufficient reflection’. Perhaps that is why the exact wording of the requirement was changed?

Here is more detail from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (the teachers guide to No.2 edition):56 Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal? A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.”

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

“Full consent.” Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

 

[Brendan_64]

Here is more detail from Baltimore Catechism No. 4 (the teachers guide to No.2 edition):56 Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal? A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.”

Grievious matter is surely not determined by monetary value, but by the action itself. Even stealing a pin is a breach of the decalogue, and that is what constitutes grievious matter, not the value of the item stolen.

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

No, the definition earlier from the Baltimore Catechism simply states that ‘Sufficient reflection’ means that “we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it”. That has got nothing to do with the value of the item you wish to steal. Stealing, regardless of what you are stealing, is sinful. Stealing is always grave matter as it is a breach of the Ten Commandments. There is no ‘get out clause’ for stealing items of low monetary value.

The Ten Commandments did not say “Thou shalt not steal things of great value, but it’s OK to steal little things”.

“Full consent.” Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

That is quite different. In that case you had not intended to kill.

 

[Pug]

Grievious matter is surely not determined by monetary value, but by the action itself. Even stealing a pin is a breach of the decalogue, and that is what constitutes grievious matter, not the value of the item stolen.

No, the definition earlier from the Baltimore Catechism simply states that ‘Sufficient reflection’ means that “we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it”. That has got nothing to do with the value of the item you wish to steal. Stealing, regardless of what you are stealing, is sinful. Stealing is always grave matter as it is a breach of the Ten Commandments. There is no ‘get out clause’ for stealing items of low monetary value.

The Ten Commandments did not say “Thou shalt not steal things of great value, but it’s OK to steal little things”.

The Baltimore Catechism addresses this (I made the red marking):
Q. 1290. What is the seventh Commandment?
A. The seventh Commandment is: Thou shalt not steal.

Q. 1291. What sin is it to steal?
A. To steal is a mortal or venial sin, according to the amount stolen either at once or at different times. Circumstances may make the sin greater or less, and they should be explained in confession.

You are right, it is not okay to steal smaller things. Venial sin is still wrong.