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

[FChichizola]

I agree with your comment about what you call “Church laws”. Since all of us are capable to be Saints, I think these rules are guidance to aspire and achieve this life goal. However, Your example meant to be a little extreme, perhaps looses the fact the God (creator and sustainer of all) reduced himself to being a man, dying for us in the cross and rising again so that we can make that choice of going to Mass with “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” so we can get communion that will help us with our destiny of being Saints.

May God Bless you,

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I agree with your comment about what you call “Church laws”. Since all of us are capable to be Saints, I think these rules are guidance to aspire and achieve this life goal. However, Your example meant to be a little extreme, perhaps looses the fact the God (creator and sustainer of all) reduced himself to being a man, dying for us in the cross and rising again so that we can make that choice of going to Mass with “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” so we can get communion that will help us with our destiny of being Saints.

May God Bless you,

Quite right, and I am happy that you, and I hope others, are able to see an extreme, never-would-happen example for what it is — I wondered if my scenario might be a little tart, but I think CAF readers are intelligent enough to see that it is a wild exaggeration for dramatic effect.

Jone’s Moral Theology lists many legitimate reasons for missing Mass:

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

All of this said, though, I realize that many faithful Catholics, for reasons of piety, go over and above the bare minimum of what is required — both in ecclesiastical law and divine law — and that is very inspiring. I just want everyone to be aware of what are legitimate reasons, and what are not legitimate reasons, and to realize that the Church is, in actual practice, pretty liberal in matters such as this. Actually, aside from about a half-dozen matters surrounding marriage, reproduction, and sexuality, the Catholic Church is really a very liberal church in general. I noted this in another thread a few days ago, but there are many churches that profess to be Christian, that make their adherents give up such things as alcohol, dancing, makeup, fashions that emerged anytime after the first three or four decades of the 20th century, contemporary music, coffee, blood transfusions, and more. Orthodox Judaism has a mind-numbingly complicated welter of religious laws. Many churches demand a minimum of ten percent of one’s earnings (some say gross earnings) and actually audit their members for proof of compliance. Again, in all but a few matters surrounding marriage and family issues, Catholics get by very, very easily.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I also have to note that the typical Catholic in the pew has only a hazy concept, if that, of the difference between ecclesiastical and divine law. In times past, it was a case of “nothing ever changes, and in the rare event that the Church changes one of its disciplinary laws, your pastors will let you know, because the Church has the right to do this”. Then various events took place in recent Church history, of which we are all aware (no, young people, the Church has not always been like it is now), and the template became “it’s all up for grabs, and anything can change, so Church teaching and discipline is kind of like the weather — if you don’t like it, just wait awhile, and it’ll be different”.

No wonder people are confused!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

I have forgotten about bacon bits, and then I confessed it.

You didn’t have to do that. You forgot. No sin. As the saying goes, nothing to see here.

But do avoid the bacon bits on Fridays (at least Fridays of Lent). I made a pot of pinto beans today — I had not made this meal in many years and basically had to relearn the whole thing — and I put in a slice of bacon. I thought I could merely pull the bacon out when they were done cooking, capturing the flavor without actually eating meat. It didn’t work quite like I expected. The bacon disintegrated into scores of small fragments and it would be impossible to eat the beans without some meat in them. I put the beans in the refrigerator until tomorrow. They’re better the next day anyway.

 

[Vico]

Must you be aware that something is a mortal sin in order to commit a mortal sin? …

Sin with grave matter can occur internally in thought and externally by act or omission. Indifference is a factor when there is ignorance.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

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

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 heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Baltimore Catechism

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.

Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:
(1) The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
(2) You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
(3) You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.

 

[FChichizola]

Agree, As is now during lent, people over 59 are not required to fast on Ash Wednesday or Fridays, but if one is in good health… After all is for our own benefit.

Most of us need to loose a few pounds anyway

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Hawkeye916:

Must one KNOW the action itself would be a MORTAL sin and commit it anyway?

No, one does not have to explicitly know that the act he is about to commit is a mortal sin in order to be capable of committing mortal sin, because the natural law is written upon the heart of every man, even those who are invincibly ignorant. An invincibly ignorant pagan living on a remote island who has never heard of the concepts of mortal and venial sin is still capable of committing a mortal sin. If, for example, he commits a murder—which is contrary to the natural law—he could still very well be committing a subjective mortal sin, if he has engaged in sufficient reflection beforehand and then deliberately consented to the murder anyway.

Does this apply to the North Sentinel Island inhabitants who murdered the missionary a few years back?

In their defense, though, their contact with the outside world hasn’t been the best experience for them, and they may perceive it as self-defense. In the 1800s, several of them were taken to Port Blair, and two of them didn’t come back. I would say they have a deep aversion to anyone who is not from their island, and that the legend has been passed down, as is typical of such pre-modern societies.

In a Catholic social order, these people would have been visited and evangelized, regardless of any “respect” for their indigenous culture. Salvation of souls is more important than keeping a small isolated people with their native culture intact, and Our Lord did not say to exclude anyone from the Great Commission.

 

[o_mlly]

Must you be aware that something is a mortal sin in order to commit a mortal sin?

Sin is in the intellect and will. The grave evil in the act must be known and freely committed.

What if one incorrectly believes an act to be gravely evil and freely commits the act? If sin is in the intellect and will then it follows that such a person is guilty of mortal sin. Just as ignorance may eliminate one’s culpability, so also does being misinformed, it seems to me, charge one with culpability.

 

[Hawkeye916]

What if one incorrectly believes an act to be gravely evil and freely commits the act? If sin is in the intellect and will then it follows that such a person is guilty of mortal sin. Just as ignorance may eliminate one’s culpability, so also does being misinformed, it seems to me, charge one with culpability.

I see what you’re saying but I don’t believe that you’re correct. If a scrupulous person thinks that he must attend mass everyday, lest he commits the sin of sloth, and he knowingly misses a day (assuming it’s not an obligatory day) , that does NOT make him culpable for sin. A sin must be a grave matter, and attending mass is not required daily, thus, not a grave matter to miss weekday mass. Doesn’t matter if you think something is a grave sin or not, the matter itself must be grave or it’s not a mortal sin.

 

[o_mlly]

A sin must be a grave matter, and attending mass is not required daily, thus, not a grave matter to miss weekday mass. Doesn’t matter if you think something is a grave sin or not, the matter itself must be grave or it’s not a mortal sin.

Do you have a reference in support of that position? In his Summa, St. Thomas taught differently:

http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm#article4

Secondly, this may be taken to mean that a sin generically venial, becomes mortal. This is possible, in so far as one may fix one’s end in that venial sin, or direct it to some mortal sin as end, as stated above (Article 2).

Nevertheless, since moral acts derive their character of goodness and malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition of the agent, as stated above (Question 18, Articles 4 and 6), it happens sometimes that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object, becomes mortal on the part of the agent …

Nothing hinders an action that is good in one of the way mentioned above, from lacking goodness in another way. And thus it may happen that an action which is good in its species or in its circumstances is ordained to an evil end, or vice versa.

Now, in a voluntary action, there is a twofold action, viz. the interior action of the will, and the external action: and each of these actions has its object. The end is properly the object of the interior act of the [will](http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15624a.htm): while the object of the external action, is that on which the action is brought to bear. Therefore just as the external action takes its species from the object on which it bears; so the interior act of the will takes its species from the end, as from its own proper object.

 

[Hawkeye916]

@o_mlly

To be a mortal sin, the act committed must be grave.

So a person, struggling with scrupulously, thinking and feeling in his heart that many of the normal things he does are grave when in reality are not, but goes against his fears and relies on the truth ofChurch teaching, lives piously and receives the blessed sacrament, is now awashed in mortal sin because he erroneously thinks he is constantly lacking in grace?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Very possibly not. Try to look at it from their point of view. They have invaders, as they see it, from an outside world about which they know nothing. They have a legend, which I am very sure everyone on that island is taught from infancy, about “the two who were taken away and never came back”. They have no understanding that there even is an “outside world”, aside from those magical strangers from whom they have scavenged metal tools and assorted implements maybe a dozen times in their history, and those bad men who, as I said, took away two of their kinsmen never to return. Through their eyes, these strange items might as well come from unknown gods. Maybe that’s what they think. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever even been able to talk to them, and to get any idea whatsoever of what they think about anything. They might as well be from another planet.

In that case, there is one thing, and only one thing, they have to do — make sure that director or confessor is loyal to the magisterium in all things.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Very possibly not. Try to look at it from their point of view. They have invaders, as they see it, from an outside world about which they know nothing. They have a legend, which I am very sure everyone on that island is taught from infancy, about “the two who were taken away and never came back”. They have no understanding that there even is an “outside world”, aside from those magical strangers from whom they have scavenged metal tools and assorted implements maybe a dozen times in their history, and those bad men who, as I said, took away two of their kinsmen never to return. Through their eyes, these strange items might as well come from unknown gods. Maybe that’s what they think. As far as I am aware, nobody has ever even been able to talk to them, and to get any idea whatsoever of what they think about anything . They might as well be from another planet.

None of this has anything to do with my point, which is simply an answer to the original poster’s question of whether a person needs to have explicit knowledge of the concept of mortal sin in order to be capable of committing a mortal sin. We might have very little knowledge of the cultures of these isolated peoples, but what we do know is that they are people, so the same objective principles of moral theology apply to them. Beyond that, I see little point in discussing the subjective subtleties of their perspectives, since neither of us really understands their situations anyway—as you pointed out.

So what exactly are you disagreeing with me on anyway?

I wasn’t disagreeing with you about anything. I was agreeing with you. My second sentence might better have been phrased as “I invite the reader to look at it from the natives’ point of view”. My explanation was merely meant to flesh out the idea of how they might not be culpable of murder. They are human beings. They have rationality. True, for them, the whole world consists of their little island and the people they know — they’re probably all related. They don’t have a real frame of reference for a world existing outside their island — no living member of their tribe has ever been off the island. They do know that there are people out there who are not “them”. They know, through orally transmitted legend, that bad things happened one time when these people came and got a few of them to take them away. The children came back. Two older people didn’t. It would be as though an alien spaceship came down and kidnapped a small group of earthlings, then brought them back to earth minus two members of the party. This would make aliens in spaceships something to be feared. If they came back, we would blast their spaceships out of the air. We might even use low-level nuclear devices, if needed, to annihilate the ships. We would fight back. And that’s precisely what the North Sentinelese did.

 

[Hawkeye916]

In that case, there is one thing, and only one thing, they have to do —

I’ve struggled with scrupulous in the past, and in many ways still do. A lot of times when I struggle with “what if” or going over a situation again and again in my mind, I seek comfort and guidance in church teaching. I also had therapy as a kid when I struggled with OCD, so it’s a matter of falling back on skills acquired to “rewire” your mind. Anyhow, scrupulously very often has its roots in OCD, which is much more of a mental struggle than a spiritual struggle. Obsessive - worrying about a sin, or something they did, over thinking it. Compulsive- constantly going to confession after small sins thinking they are grave. Disorder- the mental disorder, chemical imbalance. So while a priest or spiritual director can be immensely helpful to someone struggling with scruples, a therapist (with a Catholic respect in mind) can also be a option.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

In that case, there is one thing, and only one thing, they have to do —

I’ve struggled with scrupulous in the past, and in many ways still do. A lot of times when I struggle with “what if” or going over a situation again and again in my mind, I seek comfort and guidance in church teaching. I also had therapy as a kid when I struggled with OCD, so it’s a matter of falling back on skills acquired to “rewire” your mind. Anyhow, scrupulously very often has its roots in OCD, which is much more of a mental struggle than a spiritual struggle. Obsessive - worrying about a sin, or something they did, over thinking it. Compulsive- constantly going to confession after small sins thinking they are grave. Disorder- the mental disorder, chemical imbalance. So while a priest or spiritual director can be immensely helpful to someone struggling with scruples, a therapist (with a Catholic respect in mind) can also be a option.

Indeed a therapist and/or medication can be helpful.

But I would just add, that going over situations in one’s mind, thinking things through from all angles, and being willing to accept new information and reconsider whether one is right, is by itself a sign of intelligence. An intelligent person realizes that things are not always black and white, there are shades of gray, and very seldom has the “last word” on a subject been said. Some people boast that they never change their minds, that they make a decision and stick with it regardless. Pardon me, but I think that can be a sign of a weak intellect (as well as an inflated ego). Nobody is right all the time, and there is always information we haven’t considered, either because we didn’t know it, or we failed to consider it sufficiently the first time around.

Scrupulosity occurs when this “reviewing process” goes haywire.

 

[Hawkeye916]

that going over situations in one’s mind,

For a normal person, yes. But for one with OCD/Scrupulously, this will only worsen their symptoms. Trust me lol I’ve been there…:woman_facepalming:t3:

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

that going over situations in one’s mind,

For a normal person, yes. But for one with OCD/Scrupulously, this will only worsen their symptoms. Trust me lol I’ve been there…

As I said in my last sentence, the reviewing process goes haywire.

 

[o_mlly]

So a person, struggling with scrupulously, thinking and feeling in his heart that many of the normal things he does are grave when in reality are not, but goes against his fears and relies on the truth ofChurch teaching, lives piously and receives the blessed sacrament, is now awashed in mortal sin because he erroneously thinks he is constantly lacking in grace?

One would trust that such a scrupulous person as you present who thinks venial matter is grave but does not act remains in God’s grace. In your case, scrupulosity protects from any sin by inhibiting the act(s) contemplated – “lives piously and receives the blessed sacrament”.

But that is not the case St. Thomas presented. St. Thomas agrees with my assessment that the disposition of the agent’s intellect and will may change a venial into a mortal sin. In the commission of sin, the will is primary and intellect secondary. The intellect informs the will. If one’s intellect informs the will that the act contemplated will sever one’s friendship with God and the one then acts the friendship is severed. Thinking so makes it so. In Catholicism, interiority – an agent’s knowledge and intent – are important in determining one’s culpability.

Do you have an authoritative reference that teaches as you claim, that the objectivity of the matter in the act solely determines the gravity of the sin?