Do you have to know a sin is mortal to commit a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hawkeye916
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The example you gave - a native deep in the jungle has invincible ignorance because it is through no fault of their own that they have not heard of Christ or His Gospel.

A big difference compared to those who have heard - but refuse to exercise due diligence in correctly forming their conscience.

There is objective mortal sin - which we can identify and then there is subjective mortal sin - the necessity of full knowledge and full consent.
 
CRV said:
The example you gave - a native deep in the jungle has invincible ignorance because it is through no fault of their own that they have not heard of Christ or His Gospel.

A big difference compared to those who have heard - but refuse to exercise due diligence in correctly forming their conscience.

There is objective mortal sin - which we can identify and then there is subjective mortal sin - the necessity of full knowledge and full consent.
Click to expand...
From what I have been told on this forum when I used this turn of phrase, “objective mortal sin” is a disliked term. I have been a Catholic for over 40 years, and I always used it to describe acts that cannot ever be venial sins, provided they are committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will — murder, adultery, fornication, profaning the Blessed Sacrament, and so on. I caught a lot of flak over this and was told these are objectively grave sins, not objectively mortal sins.

I remain convinced this is sound terminology, but many on this forum would disagree with me.
po18guy said:
As to sin, when in doubt, don’t . As to confession, when in doubt, do .
Click to expand...
A scrupulous person needs to ignore this comment. Scrupulous people go around miserable in their daily lives, constantly wracked by doubt that this act, or that one, is a sin, and they tear themselves all to pieces over what to confess and what not to confess.

On the other hand, there are many hardened sinners who need to do precisely what you describe. Part of their conversion may consist of becoming sensitized to the sin in their own lives, possibly for the very first time ever.
 
Conversely, one would live in a constant state of fear, such as the primary reformer. Scripture and tradition both reveal the two categories of sin. Have a better idea?
 
  1. Are you a certified counselor, psychotherapist or psychiatrist?
  2. I was addressing the OP. Are you the OP?
  3. No? Then it is good to ponder your own comments.
 
Im not saying that there aren’t two categories of sin. All I’m saying is that someone doesn’t have to have the Catholic knowledge that a certain act is grievous to know that an act is grievous.
 
po18guy said:
  • Are you a certified counselor, psychotherapist or psychiatrist?
  • I was addressing the OP. Are you the OP?
  • No? Then it is good to ponder your own comments.
Click to expand...
I am none of the three, neither am I the OP. It was not clear that your comment was directed to the OP and the OP alone. I know you didn’t intend this, but I just read the comment, and realized how horrible it would be, for a scrupulous person to read this and think that is what they have to do. We have a disproportionate number of scrupulous people on this forum — it only stands to reason, when a person truly loves God, they are going to fear offending Him in any way, fear His just punishments, and let their imagination run away with them. The only remedy for this, aside from possibly OCD medication, is absolute obedience to a confessor who is faithful to the magisterium. (I would go so far as to say, that a very scrupulous person needs not to be reading CAF.)
 
HomeschoolDad said:
From what I have been told on this forum when I used this turn of phrase, “objective mortal sin” is a disliked term. I have been a Catholic for over 40 years, and I always used it to describe acts that cannot ever be venial sins, provided they are committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will — murder, adultery, fornication, profaning the Blessed Sacrament, and so on. I caught a lot of flak over this and was told these are objectively grave sins, not objectively mortal sins.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know - I’ve read the comments. But considering various list of examination of conscience lists mortal sins and venial sins, and we know these are listed as objective because the two other elements ie knowledge and consent is for the individual to discern when examining their consciences - well …

I guess maybe since the catechism was published things changed and thus “grave” was stated instead of mortal - again due to the other two necessary components. Trouble was, everyone back then knew they were mortal sins due to the three factors which didn’t need constantly being stated, as they do now. The terms objective and subjective has fallen out of use too as has formal sins and material sins.

🤷‍♀️
 
http://www.catholictradition.org/Christ/bogeys.htm

From Pardon & Peace by Fr Alfred Wilson
"There is no obligation to confess doubtful sins. The catechism for the Diocese of Rome, approved by Pope Pius X, has this question: “If a person is not sure of having committed a sin, must he confess it?”

And the answer is: “If a person is not sure of having committed a sin, he is not obliged to confess it; but if he wishes to, he must add that he is not sure of having committed it.”

The Council of Trent tells us that we are bound to confess all mortal sins of which we are conscious. In this case you are conscious, not of sin, but of a doubt about sin; and you cannot simultaneously be conscious of doubt about sin and of sin, any more than you can be conscious simultaneously of certainty and uncertainty in the same matter.

Common sense tells us that a doubt cannot create a certain obligation, any more than uncertainty can, of itself, produce certainty. If there were an obligation to confess every sin of which we are not quite certain, Confession would become a bugbear, especially to people with a bad memory. Doubts are, therefore, matter for solution rather than absolution, and are to be solved not absolved.

Many people will be inclined to object to this: “Yes, that’s all very well in theory, but in practice, is it not far better to tell doubtful sins? In fact, would it not be unwise to omit them?”

It all depends. If very occasionally you remember such sins and do not make a habit of it, nor “get in a state” about it, then it is better to confess them just as they are, and have done with them. But if, on the other hand, you do make a habit of it and are constantly afraid of having omitted sins, then it is far better not to confess. "

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Michael Sheehan
“( C ) A doubtful sin is one as to which there is uncertainty in regard to its commission or its gravity or whether it was previously confessed. If the doubt is supported by good reason, confession is not obligatory, though for the penitent’s peace of conscience it is usually advisable.”
 
HomeschoolDad said:
40.png
HomeschoolDad:
From what I have been told on this forum when I used this turn of phrase, “objective mortal sin” is a disliked term. I have been a Catholic for over 40 years, and I always used it to describe acts that cannot ever be venial sins, provided they are committed with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will — murder, adultery, fornication, profaning the Blessed Sacrament, and so on. I caught a lot of flak over this and was told these are objectively grave sins, not objectively mortal sins.
Click to expand...
Yes, I know - I’ve read the comments. But considering various list of examination of conscience lists mortal sins and venial sins, and we know these are listed as objective because the two other elements ie knowledge and consent is for the individual to discern when examining their consciences - well …

I guess maybe since the catechism was published things changed and thus “grave” was stated instead of mortal - again due to the other two necessary components. Trouble was, everyone back then knew they were mortal sins due to the three factors which didn’t need constantly being stated, as they do now. The terms objective and subjective has fallen out of use too as has formal sins and material sins.
Click to expand...
Well, I’m just going to say it, many people nowadays are uncomfortable with the concept of a sin being bad enough to go to hell for committing it. Modern people are indignant at the idea of “being judged”, and I just have to say this as well, in some cases because they are engaging in sinful behavior but don’t want to have that behavior “called out” for what it is. In the midst of all this, the words “mortal sin” are scary, and somehow, the euphemisms “serious” and “grave” have entered common usage, with “mortal” being more and more rarely heard. I noticed this 40 years ago with the publication of more modern catechisms and examinations of conscience. I asked my priest what the difference was between “serious” and “mortal” sin, and he said “well, all sin is ‘serious’”. I love that answer! The old catechisms and EofC’s minced no words — there are two types of sins, mortal and venial — nothing in between — and if you commit a mortally sinful act with sufficient reflection and full consent of the will, no wiggle room, no parsing of “serious”, “grave”, or what have you, this is what will happen to your soul, so don’t do it.

Ask yourself — to whose benefit has it been, to muddy the waters of mortal sin? Anyone want to hazard a guess?
 
CRV said:
PARDON AND PEACE: BOGEYS

From Pardon & Peace by Fr Alfred Wilson
"There is no obligation to confess doubtful sins. The catechism for the Diocese of Rome, approved by Pope Pius X, has this question: “If a person is not sure of having committed a sin, must he confess it?”

And the answer is: “If a person is not sure of having committed a sin, he is not obliged to confess it; but if he wishes to, he must add that he is not sure of having committed it.”

The Council of Trent tells us that we are bound to confess all mortal sins of which we are conscious. In this case you are conscious, not of sin, but of a doubt about sin; and you cannot simultaneously be conscious of doubt about sin and of sin, any more than you can be conscious simultaneously of certainty and uncertainty in the same matter.

Common sense tells us that a doubt cannot create a certain obligation, any more than uncertainty can, of itself, produce certainty. If there were an obligation to confess every sin of which we are not quite certain, Confession would become a bugbear, especially to people with a bad memory. Doubts are, therefore, matter for solution rather than absolution, and are to be solved not absolved.

Many people will be inclined to object to this: “Yes, that’s all very well in theory, but in practice, is it not far better to tell doubtful sins? In fact, would it not be unwise to omit them?”

It all depends. If very occasionally you remember such sins and do not make a habit of it, nor “get in a state” about it, then it is better to confess them just as they are, and have done with them. But if, on the other hand, you do make a habit of it and are constantly afraid of having omitted sins, then it is far better not to confess. "

Apologetics and Catholic Doctrine by Archbishop Michael Sheehan
“( C ) A doubtful sin is one as to which there is uncertainty in regard to its commission or its gravity or whether it was previously confessed. If the doubt is supported by good reason, confession is not obligatory, though for the penitent’s peace of conscience it is usually advisable.”
Click to expand...
It is simply not possible to provide any better advice, than what you have cited.

The good old Council of Trent, to the rescue once again.
 
Well all sin is serious as it all offends God. I think there is a temptation to dismiss venial sins as not so bad … sort of like “oh well …”, instead of trying to overcome sin with God’s grace - “My grace is sufficient for you”.

But I get what you mean. I also think there is too much wiggle room as to what may be “serious” or “grave” matter to one may not be to another. And we are all tempted to self-justify our actions …

At least the catechism does mention things which are always gravely evil/illicit ( #1756 for example) or intrinsically evil (offenses against chastity).
 
Yes, if you don’t know it’s mortal then it isn’t mortal. 🙂
 
as I understand it, they are culpuable due to their wilful ignorance.

CCC #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.

VINCIBLE IGNORANCE

Catholic Encyclopedia - Ignorance
 
LovelyLadybug said:
Yes, if you don’t know it’s mortal then it isn’t mortal.
Click to expand...
Just to throw it out there, what if someone doesn’t believe that any sin is bad enough to go to hell for, that is, there is no such thing as mortal sin? Unitarian Universalists would fall into that category, for if I’m understanding their religion correctly, they believe all people are saved. They might acknowledge such a thing as sin, but not mortal sin. Do they get a free pass?
 
Gaudium et spes #16
“16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged.(9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths.(10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor.(11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”
 
What if you completely space out about the fact that it is Friday during lent and eat a few pieces of bacon before remembering?

Asking for a friend…
 
Welshrabbit said:
What if you completely space out about the fact that it is Friday during lent and eat a few pieces of bacon before remembering?

Asking for a friend…
Click to expand...
If your friend does this, your friend has not sinned in any way whatsoever. It is very easy to forget what day it is.

I never cease to be perplexed, and quite frankly, just a little discouraged, that people stress out so much about Church laws, which are not moral absolutes and which admit of any number of common-sense exceptions. “I had a fever of 103 and I live 50 miles away from the nearest parish church, my car broke down and if I had paid an Uber driver to come and take me, and then pick me up, I wouldn’t have had enough money to buy groceries until the end of the month, and we had freezing rain overnight, I didn’t go to Mass, did I commit a mortal sin?” Exaggeration for literary effect, to be sure, but not by as much as you might think.

It would be refreshing to see people tie themselves in knots over divine positive law absolutes — the end does not justify the means — to this extent, and in charity, I am willing to assume that people who are tender of conscience about Sunday Mass or Friday abstinence are also equally tender of conscience about moral issues that do not admit of exception or change.
 
We have a responsibility to try to form a proper conscience. Invincible ignorance is not present if we deliberately cover our ears in order to avoid hearing the truth.
 
I know, it was a joke. My friend (and when I say my friend I onviously mean me) just felt like a bonehead for forgetting what day it was.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top