I’m not sure I agree with your analysis. I think the character of an act is whether it is good or bad, not necessarily the degree to which it is good or bad. I would argue that one could know that the character of an act is sinful in general, without knowing or believing it to be grave, and that that would “count” as knowledge.Here’s the wording in the catechism:
“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 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” (CCC 1859, emphasis in the original)
Since the catechism says “sinful character” I assume that means one must have full knowledge the act is grave, since that would be its character. In the example of adultery you gave above, that would seem to be a case of feigned ignorance, unless of couse the person in question was of diminished mental capacity.
Easy. If they claim to be a Catholic yet are engaging in activities that the Catholic Church teaches are sins then they are either feigning ignorance or have a hard heart.I was not judging them and I was aware they were sleeping with others as they would state they were and, yes, they acted voluntarily. I used it as an example, only, and likewise how can we judge that people that sin, are feigning innocence or have a hard heart.
I took it from an earlier poster’s response quote in relation to mortal sin:Easy. If they claim to be a Catholic yet are engaging in activities that the Catholic Church teaches are sins then they are either feigning ignorance or have a hard heart.
The catechism, nor I, said anything about “feigning innocence”.
Your last paragraph, relates to what I was trying to discern, although the fact that a mortal sin must be ‘known’ to be a grave matter, intially weights the graveness of the sin committed. It is still a little bit confusing, your other statement below, are you saying here that only properly catechised catholic’s can go to hell, which again was part of my original query?“Full knowledge” does not mean “full knowledge that an act is defined as mortal sin.” I’ve had someone tell me they never committed a mortal sin before they were in RCIA because for a sin to be mortal one had to have “full knowledge of its gravity” (not in the Catechism–we must know it is against God’s law, not necessarily know the Church defines it as mortal) and, since she was an atheist, she recognized no venial/grave sin distinction. If that is true, only Catholics (and only Catholics properly catechized) can go to hell. And in that schema, salvation becomes about technicalities and terminology.
If I commit a sin I think is venial, but willingly commit it knowing it is against God’s law, I might still commit a mortal sin. Whether or not I recognize its mortality is irrelevant and a matter of terminology. Just because I don’t think my severe anger towards a friend (willed by me with knowledge that it is against God’s law) is mortal does not mean that I have not murdered him in my heart.
Pope Benedict has a statement on this somewhere in which he says moral theologians must not be allowed to reduce mortal sin to a willful, deliberate rejection of God Himself (in all cases). Ex. the idea that you can’t commit a mortal sin unless you do it out of conscious hatred of God. Apostasy is one specific grave sin. It is not necessary for one to consciously hate God to commit a mortal sin–not at all.
No, I think he’s saying that you *don’t *need to know that a sin is grave in order to have full knowledge. You just have to know that it’s sinful. Non-Catholics, who might not know or understand the mortal/venial sin distinction, can indeed damn themselves to hell.Your last paragraph, relates to what I was trying to discern, although the fact that a mortal sin must be ‘known’ to be a grave matter, intially weights the graveness of the sin committed. It is still a little bit confusing, your other statement below, are you saying here that only properly catechised catholic’s can go to hell, which again was part of my original query?
*If that is true, only Catholics (and only Catholics properly catechized) can go to hell. And in that schema, salvation becomes about technicalities and terminology. *
Yes and what you have cut and pasted to this reply and underlined is what I said, “feigned ignorance” not “feigned innocence”, those are two widely different concepts.I took it from an earlier poster’s response quote in relation to mortal sin:
“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 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.” (CCC 1859, emphasis in the original)
I believe you got it!No, I think he’s saying that you *don’t *need to know that a sin is grave in order to have full knowledge. You just have to know that it’s sinful. Non-Catholics, who might not know or understand the mortal/venial sin distinction, can indeed damn themselves to hell.
I think you misunderstood me. I agree that an act is objectively sinful. However, there are degrees of culpability, which is where full knowledge and complete consent come in.I’m not sure I agree with your analysis. I think the character of an act is whether it is good or bad, not necessarily the degree to which it is good or bad. I would argue that one could know that the character of an act is sinful in general, without knowing or believing it to be grave, and that that would “count” as knowledge.
Yes and what you have cut and pasted to this reply and underlined is what I said, “feigned ignorance” not “feigned innocence”, those are two widely different concepts.
I ‘peaked’ too early this morning and did not read your post properly, my apologies. However, although I am in the process of reading more about the above terms, in relation to mortal sin, I really do not know how it would be determined (apart from God), that someone was feigning ignorance or had hardened their hearts. One poster mentioned that an atheist had been told he/she had not committed mortal sin prior to being baptised catholic.
However, improperly catechised catholics could hold the same argument (if it is correct that an atheist could not commit a mortal sin)? Some children get baptised, receive communion and confirmation, usually organised by their schools, and their parents bring them to mass maybe, once or twice a year at say Easter and Christmas Day, thereafter. Hence it could be assumed that they too would be ‘ignorant’ to the gravity of their sins, even though baptised as catholics, as their continued practice of the faith would be lacking and their communion and confirmation would have been made before the age of 11yr old.
In view of the above would it not be more beneficial at mass, for priests to give much more ‘hard-hittng’ sermons, so as to ensure their congregations get their place in heaven? There does not seem to be enough emphasis on hell, and from reading answers on this thread it would indicate that a large majority may be going to hell through feigned ignorance and hardness of their hearts that some people may/will not be aware off.
And I contend that “full knowledge” is *not *“full knowledge that an act is objectively grave matter according to the Catholic Church.” If this is the case, only Catholics, and only Catholics properly catechized, can go to hell because they alone recognize proper venial/grave distinctions.“However, if one knows that the character of any act “is sinful in general, without knowing or believing it to be grave, and that that would ‘count’ as knowledge” then one might mistakenly believe a venial sin is actually mortal. Please note that the catechism says “full knowledge,” not partial knowledge, is one of the criteria for a sin to be mortal.”
I think you are right on here.And I contend that “full knowledge” is *not *“full knowledge that an act is objectively grave matter according to the Catholic Church.” If this is the case, only Catholics, and only Catholics properly catechized, can go to hell because they alone recognize proper venial/grave distinctions.
I am willing to be shown wrong, because this issue is important. It is equally important, however, not to make mortal sins so unattainable that we need not worry. Do you see my point? Just because I don’t *think *my severe anger towards my family (deliberately willed by me) is yet mortal does not mean that I have not murdered them in my heart. And just because my Protestant friend does not recognize “mortal sin” does not mean his premarital sex is not mortal sin.
True ignorance would mean that full knowledge is not present. So that would mean that is can not be a mortal sin. It is still sinful though, just not mortal.Just so I understand this:
Feigned ignorance of the law is no excuse.
But true ignorance of the law is, indeed, an excuse?
Yet they are explicitly called “cafeteria catholics” because they know that the Church teaches something is sinful but they refuse to agree with it, that is they believe other than the Church teaches. That is feigned ignorance.Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish…
Would a person not have to know they were ‘feigning’ i.e. ‘pretending’ in the first place? Hence that would insinuate a person knew they were ‘pretending’ to be ignorant of the sin, and that is not always the case, the person just may not know for whatever reason, their mother committed the same sin, or a person they looked up to and admired/respected, their friends do, who knows and they feel if it’s ok for them then it’s ok for me too. (I am not using an example of a ‘committed’ catholic, but a cafeteria one).
I think I covered this above. If one thinks they know better than what the Church teaches then this is a hardness of heart.Likewise, I can only assume hardness of heart is an act of will - that you toughen your heart against God’s word. Both these actions, ‘feigning’ and ‘hardening’, have to be acts of will and hence the person that carries out these actions, must know they’ve pretended to be ignorant and hardened their hearts aganist the particular sin they’ve committed?
I completely disagree. Just because the church teaches it doesn’t mean everyone got that teaching. And if everyone around them is doing it and they’ve even been told it is the right thing to do, then how could they know it was a sin when they did it? And how could God hold them responsible for what they did not know?I challenge anyone to show that there are people who think that the Church does not teach that pre-marital sex is sinful or that contraception use is sinful. They may be able to say that they do not believe it to be so but they know that the Church teaches otherwise.
Again (I do not know how many times I can say it or how I can say it differently) they know that the Church teaches things are sinful just because they believe otherwise for whatever reason (they were taught it, they see every one doing it) does not mean that they do not know that the Church teaches it is a sin.I completely disagree. Just because the church teaches it doesn’t mean everyone got that teaching. And if everyone around them is doing it and they’ve even been told it is the right thing to do, then how could they know it was a sin when they did it? And how could God hold them responsible for what they did not know?
Well, I’m one so now you’ve met one. Maybe you only know people who were well catechized? Don’t you know anyone who grew up outside the church? Surely many of them do not know.Again (I do not know how many times I can say it or how I can say it differently) they know that the Church teaches things are sinful just because they believe otherwise for whatever reason (they were taught it, they see every one doing it) does not mean that they do not know that the Church teaches it is a sin.
I have yet to find any one who claims the title Catholic who does not know that the Church teaches that things such as pre-marital sex and contraception are sins. I have met many who do not believe they are sins but they believe that the Church is teaching wrongly on this matter, that is they know what the Church teaches they just do not agree with it.
You were raised Catholic and did not know that the Church teaches pre-marital sex and the use of artificial contraception within marriage are sinful???Well, I’m one so now you’ve met one. Maybe you only know people who were well catechized? Don’t you know anyone who grew up outside the church? Surely many of them do not know.