S
Swiss_Guy
Guest
How else do you commit a mortal sin?
- Status
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
If one does not have knowledge that the sin is objectively grave, then one has only partial knowledge, not full knowledge.
Full (adj.) 1.completely filled; containing all that can be held. 2. complete; entire; maximum. 3. of the maximum size, amount, extent, volume. (Webster’s Universal College Dictionary)
You can’t have it both ways. Either you have full knowledge or you don’t.
M
Michael_Francis
Guest
And God is the only one who would really be able to know that, so I think this discussion pretty much moot.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
How true!
And the only way to answer the question posed in the title “Does anyone commit a mortal sin knowingly?”
Is to say yes. As knowledge is one of the requirements to commit a mortal sin.
But we would be out of place to say that no one commits mortal sin because by doing so we would be saying that Hell is empty and while that is something that should be hoped for it is not something that we can say.
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
You can not always (or even most of the time) use standard dictionaries to define terms when in a philosophical and/or theological discussion.
If you look at the Catechism, paragraph 1859 talks about this and states that full knowledge is but then in the next sentence it gives a definition of what full knowledge is.
Once again, it says, “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”.
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, by definition it can’t be a mortal sin, for the person committing it, unless it’s done knowingly.
C
CapitalT
Guest
Kay Cee,
As several posts have pointed you towards, the Catechism defines what it means by full knowledge, paragraph 1859. Full knowledge does not mean full knowledge that a sin is objectively grave, but that a sin is indeed a sin. And as others have pointed out, to say otherwise is to say only properly catechized Catholics are in hell.
As several posts have pointed you towards, the Catechism defines what it means by full knowledge, paragraph 1859. Full knowledge does not mean full knowledge that a sin is objectively grave, but that a sin is indeed a sin. And as others have pointed out, to say otherwise is to say only properly catechized Catholics are in hell.
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
And what does it mean by “character”? Does it mean all that is necessary is to know the act is a sin, or does it mean that one knows the act is a grave sin? If the former, then the knowledge of the act’s character would be incomplete, for there would be an aspect about it one does not know. And, therefore, one’s knowledge would be incomplete and thus not full knowledge.
Surely you can understand my confusion. On the one hand, you claim the person in question is at least somewhat ignorant. On the other hand, you claim the person has full knowledge. How can one be both ignorant while having full knowledge?
K
Kay_Cee
Guest
I assume you mean the following line: “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” But that doesn’t say “It presupposes knowledge that the act is a sin,” which seems to be what you are implying. It says “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful *character *of the act.”
Well, the gravity of a sin is part of its character.
Character (adj.) 1. the aggregate of features and traits that form the individual nature of a person or thing. 2. one such feature or trait; characteristic. 3. moral or ethical quality
(Webster’s Universal College Dictionary)
And that doesn’t mean only properly catechized Catholics are in hell. As St. Paul points out, the law is written on our hearts. Or do you want to argue that only properly catechized Catholics know that rape and murder are objectively grave?
R
rowsofvoices9
Guest
Here’s how an old manual on moral theology defines invincible ignorance.
archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1/MN5034ucmf_1_djvu.txt
SECTION I
On Ignorance
Invincible ignorance cannot be dispelled by the use of
ordinary diligence. This may arise in my mind either because
no thought of my want of knowledge occurs to me, and so the
idea of making inquiries never enters into my head, or because
I have failed to acquire knowledge on the point, though I made
all reasonable efforts to do so. What efforts should be made
in any given case depends on the character and circumstances
of the person and the matter on which he is ignorant. If the
matter is of great importance, if it affects the salvation of souls
or the spiritual and temporal welfare of large numbers, great
efforts must be made to dissipate ignorance ; the efforts which
would be sufficient in the case of one poorly instructed, or
very much occupied with other weighty affairs, would not be
sufficient in other cases where these suppositions are not
verified. In general, where knowledge is of obligation those
efforts must be made to acquire it which ordinarily prudent
and good men would exert in the circumstances.
After reading some of the responses I’m thoroughly confused about what constitutes full knowledge as regards mortal sin. I was under the impression that full knowledge entails complete advertence on the part of the intellect as to the grievous nature of the sin at the time of its commission. Mortal sin always involves grave matter no? There can be cases in in which objectively the sin is mortal but if all three conditions are not present, it renders the sin venial right? Of course there can be exceptions such as a person with doubtful or erroneous conscience. I’m thinking in cases in which the person through no fault of their own never received proper catechesis or perhaps the person is a pagan. Now what if the poorly instructed or pagan commits what is clearly a venial sin but in his conscience he knows what he did was wrong and feels guilty. Does that mean just because his conscience convicts him, he has in fact committed a mortal sin? Is conscience the ultimate arbiter?
There is a reason why scripture and Holy Mother Church make a distinction between mortal and venial sin. A person can be guilty of what is objectivey mortal sin but, if through no fault of their own they do not have full knowledge of the grave nature of the sin, how can they be guilty of mortal sin? Mortal sin cannot always be spelled out in clear black and white terms or be identified as easily identified murder or fornication.
Just askin.
archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1/MN5034ucmf_1_djvu.txt
SECTION I
On Ignorance
Invincible ignorance cannot be dispelled by the use of
ordinary diligence. This may arise in my mind either because
no thought of my want of knowledge occurs to me, and so the
idea of making inquiries never enters into my head, or because
I have failed to acquire knowledge on the point, though I made
all reasonable efforts to do so. What efforts should be made
in any given case depends on the character and circumstances
of the person and the matter on which he is ignorant. If the
matter is of great importance, if it affects the salvation of souls
or the spiritual and temporal welfare of large numbers, great
efforts must be made to dissipate ignorance ; the efforts which
would be sufficient in the case of one poorly instructed, or
very much occupied with other weighty affairs, would not be
sufficient in other cases where these suppositions are not
verified. In general, where knowledge is of obligation those
efforts must be made to acquire it which ordinarily prudent
and good men would exert in the circumstances.
After reading some of the responses I’m thoroughly confused about what constitutes full knowledge as regards mortal sin. I was under the impression that full knowledge entails complete advertence on the part of the intellect as to the grievous nature of the sin at the time of its commission. Mortal sin always involves grave matter no? There can be cases in in which objectively the sin is mortal but if all three conditions are not present, it renders the sin venial right? Of course there can be exceptions such as a person with doubtful or erroneous conscience. I’m thinking in cases in which the person through no fault of their own never received proper catechesis or perhaps the person is a pagan. Now what if the poorly instructed or pagan commits what is clearly a venial sin but in his conscience he knows what he did was wrong and feels guilty. Does that mean just because his conscience convicts him, he has in fact committed a mortal sin? Is conscience the ultimate arbiter?
There is a reason why scripture and Holy Mother Church make a distinction between mortal and venial sin. A person can be guilty of what is objectivey mortal sin but, if through no fault of their own they do not have full knowledge of the grave nature of the sin, how can they be guilty of mortal sin? Mortal sin cannot always be spelled out in clear black and white terms or be identified as easily identified murder or fornication.
Just askin.
R
rowsofvoices9
Guest
From the same old manual on moral theology:
a) KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PRECEPT TRANSGRESSED. If the precept is of
great importance for the moral and social order
(materia gravis), and its transgression is likely
to entail serious consequences, the sin is grievous
(peccatum grave). If, on the other hand, the
precept is unimportant (materia parva), and the
matter divisible, the sin is light.
Note, however, (i) that this objective distinc
tion between serious and light sin is not identical
with the distinction between mortal and venial sin,
for subjectively or individually a grievous sin may
be venial and a venial sin mortal, whereas a
grievous sin per se can never be light nor a mortal
sin venial. (2) Some precepts and some sins,
e. g., simony, blasphemy, murder, fornication, vio
lation of the seal of confession, are essentially in
divisible and therefore do not admit of parvitas
materiae. (3) The decision regarding the ces
sation of parvitas materiae or the beginning of a
grievous sin is always more or less arbitrary. (4)
When a sin is materially grievous, the presump
tion is that it is a mortal sin, and vice versa.
b) THE DEGREE OF ADVERTENCE REQUIRED
FOR A MORTAL SIN. No one who is unconscious
can sin, and one who is half asleep, or partly in
toxicated, or feeble-minded, cannot sufficiently ap
preciate the malice of mortal sin to be guilty of
it 1
However, to be guilty of mortal sin, a man need
not reflect explicitly on the malice of the contem
plated act or be fully aware of the importance
of the law transgressed. It is sufficient for him
to know that the act is sinful. Culpable igno
rance, therefore, when it results in the commis
sion of a grievous sin, does not excuse from
guilt. Still less is it necessary to commit the
sinful act with the full consciousness of offend
ing God. Some writers have construed a dis
tinction between philosophical and theological sin.
They define the former as an act contrary to rea-
iCfr. Matth. XXV, 26; Jas. IV, 17; cfr. Gen. XIX, 33-35; XX, 4-6.
MORTAL AND VENIAL SINS 31
son and the natural law, but involving no con
scious violation of a divine precept, and hold that
it may be grievous, but never mortal. This the
ory has been formally condemned by the Church. 2
c) THE FREE CONSENT OF THE WILL. To
make an act mortally sinful, the will must give
its full and free consent. This consent need not,
however, involve the actual and direct intention of
transgressing the moral law. All that is re
quired is that it be full and free. 3
Mortal sin, as we have seen, is a complete turning away
from God to the creature. No act is mortally sinful un
less the agent clearly perceives its true character and
gives full consent. By committing a mortal sin man
renders himself guilty of eternal damnation. Now it
would be contrary to the goodness and mercy of God
to condemn a man to eternal punishment on account of a
slight transgression or for an act which was not entirely
free or wilful. 4
3 2 SIN
Some sins are mortal by their very nature or species
(peccata mortalia ex genere suo). They are those whose
object is important in itself, regardless of conditions or
circumstances, e. g., the theft of a large sum of money.
Others {peccata mortalia per accident) are rendered mor
tal by the attending circumstances, e. g., grave scandal.
Those sins which are mortal by their nature or species
are subdivided into peccata mortalia ex toto genere suo
and peccata mortalia ex genere suo non toto. Sins of the
former class embody some grievous disorder, such as un
belief, despair, etc. Those of the latter class have an ob
ject that, though binding under pain of grievous sin,
admits of degrees because of the smallness of the matter
involved (parvitas materiae), e. g., theft, slander.
There is an analogous distinction between venial sins
ex genere suo and per accidens. The former involve an
unimportant object, whereas the latter have an important
object, but are rendered venial by circumstances. 5
a) KNOWLEDGE OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE
PRECEPT TRANSGRESSED. If the precept is of
great importance for the moral and social order
(materia gravis), and its transgression is likely
to entail serious consequences, the sin is grievous
(peccatum grave). If, on the other hand, the
precept is unimportant (materia parva), and the
matter divisible, the sin is light.
Note, however, (i) that this objective distinc
tion between serious and light sin is not identical
with the distinction between mortal and venial sin,
for subjectively or individually a grievous sin may
be venial and a venial sin mortal, whereas a
grievous sin per se can never be light nor a mortal
sin venial. (2) Some precepts and some sins,
e. g., simony, blasphemy, murder, fornication, vio
lation of the seal of confession, are essentially in
divisible and therefore do not admit of parvitas
materiae. (3) The decision regarding the ces
sation of parvitas materiae or the beginning of a
grievous sin is always more or less arbitrary. (4)
When a sin is materially grievous, the presump
tion is that it is a mortal sin, and vice versa.
b) THE DEGREE OF ADVERTENCE REQUIRED
FOR A MORTAL SIN. No one who is unconscious
can sin, and one who is half asleep, or partly in
toxicated, or feeble-minded, cannot sufficiently ap
preciate the malice of mortal sin to be guilty of
it 1
However, to be guilty of mortal sin, a man need
not reflect explicitly on the malice of the contem
plated act or be fully aware of the importance
of the law transgressed. It is sufficient for him
to know that the act is sinful. Culpable igno
rance, therefore, when it results in the commis
sion of a grievous sin, does not excuse from
guilt. Still less is it necessary to commit the
sinful act with the full consciousness of offend
ing God. Some writers have construed a dis
tinction between philosophical and theological sin.
They define the former as an act contrary to rea-
iCfr. Matth. XXV, 26; Jas. IV, 17; cfr. Gen. XIX, 33-35; XX, 4-6.
MORTAL AND VENIAL SINS 31
son and the natural law, but involving no con
scious violation of a divine precept, and hold that
it may be grievous, but never mortal. This the
ory has been formally condemned by the Church. 2
c) THE FREE CONSENT OF THE WILL. To
make an act mortally sinful, the will must give
its full and free consent. This consent need not,
however, involve the actual and direct intention of
transgressing the moral law. All that is re
quired is that it be full and free. 3
Mortal sin, as we have seen, is a complete turning away
from God to the creature. No act is mortally sinful un
less the agent clearly perceives its true character and
gives full consent. By committing a mortal sin man
renders himself guilty of eternal damnation. Now it
would be contrary to the goodness and mercy of God
to condemn a man to eternal punishment on account of a
slight transgression or for an act which was not entirely
free or wilful. 4
3 2 SIN
Some sins are mortal by their very nature or species
(peccata mortalia ex genere suo). They are those whose
object is important in itself, regardless of conditions or
circumstances, e. g., the theft of a large sum of money.
Others {peccata mortalia per accident) are rendered mor
tal by the attending circumstances, e. g., grave scandal.
Those sins which are mortal by their nature or species
are subdivided into peccata mortalia ex toto genere suo
and peccata mortalia ex genere suo non toto. Sins of the
former class embody some grievous disorder, such as un
belief, despair, etc. Those of the latter class have an ob
ject that, though binding under pain of grievous sin,
admits of degrees because of the smallness of the matter
involved (parvitas materiae), e. g., theft, slander.
There is an analogous distinction between venial sins
ex genere suo and per accidens. The former involve an
unimportant object, whereas the latter have an important
object, but are rendered venial by circumstances. 5
S
steve_b
Guest
conscience is not always guilt free of ignorance scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1801.htm it is culpable when scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1791.htm
iow, people try and convince themselves they aren’t culpable for what they’ve done because they really didn’t know what they were doing was a mortal sin. Or they try and find reasons to make a mortal offense against God a misdemeanor or no fault at all on their part. When all they really do by doing this, is to increase their offense by their game playing.
For example, they play games with the definition of what makes a sin mortal
*]a sin must be mortal in itself
*]one must know it is mortal
*]one must give voluntary consent to doing it
They want to deny #'s 1 & 2. The 1st 2 links above cut through the baloney one might try to pass off as an excuse for not knowing.
Another favorite is claiming invincible ignorance
Invincible ignorance often times describes a person with very low intelligence. They are the ones who try to understand but don’t have the capacity to really grasp what is being taught no matter how hard they try. For the most part that’s talking about a very few people percentage wise on the planet.
S
steve_b
Guest
adding an extra element
Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart, only increases the voluntary aspect of the offense
scborromeo.org/ccc/para/1859.htm
F
Friar_David_O.Carm
Guest
So, if I understand what you are saying you are of the opinion that full knowledge is knowing that the sin is a mortal sin?
P
PJM
Guest
There are BUT a LIMITED number of sins that the Church /God consider to be 'Intrinsic Evils"…MEANING
That because of there serious nature everyone; even then non-christian OUGHT to recogonize the seriousness of the ACT.
For example: Abortions ans supporting abortion candidates; pre-mediated murder [same thing], divorice in MANY cases; infendiality in marriage, Gross slander are but some of them
The NORM for mortal sisns is of course: 1. Serious matter 2. Pre-knowledge that the act IF committed* will be a Mortal sin * desire to commit is the same as actually committing ot] 3. FREELY and willingly committting or desoring to commit it anyway.
BUT those acts considered and defined as 'Intrinsic Evils" ARE ALWAYS AND EVERYTIME A MORTAL SIN. AMEN!
God Bless,
Pat
L
LittleSoldier
Guest
This is weird because I think exactly the opposite happens with a lot of people. I’ve read numerous posts from people who are so scrupulous that they are almost to the point of becoming clinical and requiring professional help. I’ve fallen into that trap myself and it’s difficult to get out. Instead of rationalizing my behavior as being “good” or at least “not a sin” I tend to insist to myself that I have sinned horribly, will always sin horribly, and will be spending aeons in Purgatory if I am lucky enough to squeeze through the gate.
As for invincible ignorance, I have recently read something on New Advent, a highly recommended website (I know because I started a thread on it years ago) that, if true, will cause me to have serious misgivings about the Church. I absolutely cannot accept this teaching with my current understanding of it. So I am trying to accept all Church teaching while at the same time having this alleged teaching (with a *nihil obstat *and imprimatur) always present in my mind and I wonder and wonder if it is true. I am terrified to even post it because I’m afraid it will cause people to leave the Church. I don’t want to leave the Church but I can’t believe that an omnibenevolent God would be so heartless and cruel as this alleged teaching indicates.
I don’t know where you got your information about invincible ignorance often describing a person with “very low intelligence” but I don’t think that is correct so I am requesting back-up and a definition of “very low intelligence.” There are people, like me (college educated, Masters level), who are trying to accept something that is presented as Church teaching and cannot accept it. We research it, we struggle with it, and we suffer while we do so.
I think that the emphasis on invincible ignorance should be that it shows God’s love and mercy. He will love me even if I absolutely cannot accept a Church teaching as long as I do my very best, using the faculties he has given me, to understand. In the meantime I try to put my trust in Him. It’s not a rationalization or any type of game. Even a fool knows he cannot fool God.
S
steve_b
Guest
I think if you look around and assess the condition of society, scrupulosity isn’t the problem in society.
LS:
Which is?
LS:
There are different forms of ignorance, agreed? And invincible ignorance is a theological context.
For example, everybody is ignorant of many things. That’s because there’s lots of things in the world we don’t know, not because we don’t understand them, but because we aren’t aware of them. Invincible ignorance In the theological context we’re using it, applies to sin, particularly mortal sin, and what is “known”, i.e the topic of the thread.
Here’s one example we can use to discuss this term in specifics.
Gal 5: (Douay translation emphasis mine)
[19] Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are fornication, uncleanness, immodesty, luxury, [20] Idolatry, witchcrafts, enmities, contentions, emulations, wraths, quarrels, dissensions, sects,
[21] Envies, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like. Of the which I foretell you, as I have foretold to you, that they who do such things shall not obtain the kingdom of God.
Q’s:
*]If one knows the definition of fornication, then one knows if they are a fornicator, then is Paul giving a clear enough warning for anyone of reasonable intelligence, that fornication will prevent one from going to heaven, i.e one will land in hell? Y / N
*]If one of reasonable intellegence didn’t know this consequence was attached to this sin, then until they do know this, they are ignorant of that consequence. But once they are aware of the consequence, they are no longer ignorant of that fact, agreed?
*]If one of reasonable intellegence, disagrees and argues with Paul over this consequence for that sin, are they still deemed ignorant of the consequence?. Y / N
*]If one sees this warning and commits this sin, do you think given the conclusion/consequence for commiting this sin, is this sin a venial sin or a mortal sin?
Given the CC definition of Mortal sin, Paul described in that passage from Galatians, all the ingrediens of a mortal sin.
*]Paul identified that fornication was grave wrong
*]By telling us this, we now have knowledge it is grave wrong and what the consequences are for commiting that sin. And the Galatians were already warned about this. Paul is warning them again.
*]therefore, by commiting this wrong, the consequence is hell if one dies in this sin.
So
Given all the above, describe how an individual of reasonable intellegence or above, would qualify as invincibly ignorant in commiting this sin of fornication?.
- Status