Does anyone commit a mortal sin, knowingly?

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself…

 

[clmowry]

“I’m starting to think that “Invincible Ignorance” has become the Catholic equivalent to the much abused “Faith Alone”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Faith”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Invincible Ignorance”.

Frankly I think of the two very weak cases, the non-Catholic position is the stronger.

The fact that one can even make the argument for their own “Invincible Ignorance” seems to me to invalidate the claim.

I really fear many a soul are going to “Invincible Ignorance” and “Faith Alone” themselves right into hell.

I pretty sure if we are to err, it should be on the side of scrupulosity rather than acedia.

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Chuck

 

[steve_b]

“I’m starting to think that “Invincible Ignorance” has become the Catholic equivalent to the much abused “Faith Alone”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Faith”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Invincible Ignorance”.

Frankly I think of the two very weak cases, the non-Catholic position is the stronger.

The fact that one can even make the argument for their own “Invincible Ignorance” seems to me to invalidate the claim.

It’s why I think it applies mostly to the mentally challenged. No matter how hard they try, they just can’t grasp the concepts we’re talking about.
c:

I really fear many a soul are going to “Invincible Ignorance” and “Faith Alone” themselves right into hell.

I pretty sure *if we are to err, it should be on the side of scrupulosity rather than *acedia.

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Chuck

It’s good to be safe.

 

[bcuster]

Yes, we do. We rationalize our behavior in many ways, but the fact the we rationalize it tells us that we really do know it is wrong.

 

[LittleSoldier]

“I’m starting to think that “Invincible Ignorance” has become the Catholic equivalent to the much abused “Faith Alone”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Faith”.

I can’t really commit a mortal sin because I have “Invincible Ignorance”.

Frankly I think of the two very weak cases, the non-Catholic position is the stronger.

The fact that one can even make the argument for their own “Invincible Ignorance” seems to me to invalidate the claim.

I really fear many a soul are going to “Invincible Ignorance” and “Faith Alone” themselves right into hell.

I pretty sure if we are to err, it should be on the side of scrupulosity rather than acedia.

“So be perfect, just as your heavenly Father is perfect.”

Chuck

Who was it that had himself castrated because he couldn’t stop masturbating? Do you think people should feel so much guilt that they resort to something like that?

 

[MacBP]

Well, I can say people do because I have. For example, with masturbation I knew that it was gravely sinful and yet I chose to do so anyways. Even if we don’t know enough to know that an action itself is bad it is enough to know that God has deemed it bad. Failure to abstain from an action in this instance would be a rejection of God which is itself a morally sinful action. I do not believe there are any loopholes for sin.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I think if you look around and assess the condition of society, scrupulosity isn’t the problem in society.

I think that I have already looked around and have come to my conclusions as is my right.

Which is?

No. I will not post it.

There are different forms of ignorance, agreed? And invincible ignorance is a theological context.

For example, everybody is ignorant of many things.

Oh? I didn’t know that everybody is ignorant of many things. C’mon; please don’t talk down to me.

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.

Well, not exactly. There certainly are things of which we are not aware but we don’t have full knowledge of many things of which we are aware. If we do not understand the latter we are ignorant of their characteristics or some part of them. We certainly do not understand them completely. I know I am using a computer right now but I have very little knowledge of how computers work. And I may think I am sinning when I am not. And I may do my best to understand a particular Church teaching and be unsuccessful - not because I am unaware that the teaching is there but because I cannot accept that God would act in a particular, specific way. I can try and try until the cows come home but still may not be able to accept that teaching.

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.

I am aware of the topic of this thread and I know about invincible ignorance. But I think there’s something wrong with your sentence there. Perhaps you left out a word or some punctuation or something?

Here’s one example we can use to discuss this term in specifics.

Q’s:

1. 
   *]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?

1. 
   Given the CC definition of Mortal sin, Paul described in that passage from Galatians, all the ingrediens of a mortal sin.
   1. 
      

      *]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?.

      Sorry but I had to cut out some of your post because of space constraints. Are you asking me to take a quiz? OK. I’m game.
      
      (1) I can’t determine that as I am not omniscient and your question is very strangely worded. If you re-word it I will be happy to try to answer again.
      (2) Maybe. What do you mean by “reasonably intelligent?”
      (3) Maybe. It depends on whether they have a well-formed conscience and have studied and researched the teaching to the best of their capability, and also if they have taken the teaching of the Magisterium into account.
      (4) It could be a venial sin, a mortal sin, or no sin at all. And BTW, I’m concerned because you keep using Paul as an example when really you should be using Jesus. Just sayin’.
      
      How should I know if someone is invincibly ignorant? You make it sound so very simple. Paul said such and such and I should be able to determine if someone is invincibly ignorant based on the minuscule amount of information provided to me? It does not work like that. First, the emphasis should be on the love and mercy of God and not about Paul. Second, it is not up to us to determine if an individual has committed a mortal sin. That is not our place as we are not omniscient. Third, invincible ignorance is much, much, much more complicated. It means that one must study and research and try his best to determine if he can accept a particular teaching of the Church. Nobody can fake invincible ignorance just as nobody can fake not committing a grave act with full consent. God knows.
      
      Also, some people have not been presented with the bible and hence, do not know what Paul stated. And some people have diminished mental capacity - they may be of what you term “reasonable intelligence” but they cannot understand. And some people have been raised in households where they learn that fornication is perfectly acceptable.
      
      A person can want to know, love, and serve God and yet, out of ignorance, do something the Church says is offensive to God - such as fornication.
      
      Is fornication a grave act? Yes. Always. That is criterion #1. But there are two other criteria. All three have to be met for the sin to be mortal.

 

[CapitalT]

Kay Cee,

Once again, the Catechism says what it means: “sinful character of the act”=“its opposition to God’s law” (1859), not its objective gravity.

I maintain that in your schema Protestants who recognize no variation in gravity of sin can commit no mortal sin because they do not have “full knowledge” of its gravity as defined by the Catholic Church. Catholics who do not know contraception is called a “mortal sin,” though they know the Church opposes it, cannot thus commit mortal sin by using contraception. If what you say is true, that we must have full knowledge of the gravity of the sin: I can commit sexual sin unsure of the gravity of the sin I am committing and because of that very doubt about whether the sin I am committing is ‘grave’ or ‘venial’ I am unable to commit a mortal sin.

**It is not necessary to know a sin is called ‘grave,’ that the Catholic Church has defined it as grave, or that there are varying levels of sin, to commit a mortal sin. ** An example of a lack of full knowledge might be a Protestant who genuinely has never heard contraception is a sin, or a Catholic who doesn’t know it is a sin not to go to mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception because he/she has never heard of holy days of obligation.

Knowledge of gravity of sins and knowing which sins are objectively grave does not enable me to commit more mortal sins by more “increased knowledge of the character of individual sinful acts.” Instead, knowledge of the gravity of certain sins encourages me NOT to commit mortal sin unwittingly–i.e. by sinning and not knowing whether it was mortal or venial. Note that in that last statement I knew I had sinned, but I was not sure of the gravity of my sin (and thus might still have committed mortal sin.)

 

[clmowry]

Who was it that had himself castrated because he couldn’t stop masturbating? Do you think people should feel so much guilt that they resort to something like that?

You don’t expect me to take this question seriously do you?

Chuck

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

[BIBLEDRB]Psalm 35:2-5[/BIBLEDRB]

 

[GaryTaylor]

You don’t expect me to take this question seriously do you?

Chuck

Yup says it right in the Bible

Matthew 5:29 So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Anyway…One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance. That person is grossly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but rather due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

 

[Kay_Cee]

Kay Cee,

Once again, the Catechism says what it means: “sinful character of the act”=“its opposition to God’s law” (1859), not its objective gravity.

I maintain that in your schema Protestants who recognize no variation in gravity of sin can commit no mortal sin because they do not have “full knowledge” of its gravity as defined by the Catholic Church. Catholics who do not know contraception is called a “mortal sin,” though they know the Church opposes it, cannot thus commit mortal sin by using contraception. If what you say is true, that we must have full knowledge of the gravity of the sin: I can commit sexual sin unsure of the gravity of the sin I am committing and because of that very doubt about whether the sin I am committing is ‘grave’ or ‘venial’ I am unable to commit a mortal sin.

**It is not necessary to know a sin is called ‘grave,’ that the Catholic Church has defined it as grave, or that there are varying levels of sin, to commit a mortal sin. **An example of a lack of full knowledge might be a Protestant who genuinely has never heard contraception is a sin, or a Catholic who doesn’t know it is a sin not to go to mass on the Feast of the Immaculate Conception because he/she has never heard of holy days of obligation.

This is a straw man argument. I have never claimed one must know the Catholic Church has defined a sin as grave in order to commit a mortal sin. Will everybody please quit thinking I think that?

Knowledge of gravity of sins and knowing which sins are objectively grave does not enable me to commit more mortal sins by more “increased knowledge of the character of individual sinful acts.” Instead, knowledge of the gravity of certain sins encourages me NOT to commit mortal sin unwittingly–i.e. by sinning and not knowing whether it was mortal or venial. Note that in that last statement I knew I had sinned, but I was not sure of the gravity of my sin (and thus might still have committed mortal sin.)

Sorry, but you have contradicted yourself. One cannot unwittingly commit mortal sin. (That, BTW, is my entire point.) One of the criteria for a sin to be mortal is full knowledge of the sinful character of the act.

Unwitting (adj.) 1. inadvertant; unintentional; accidental. 2. not knowing; unaware

How can one have full knowledge while at the same time not knowing and being unaware?

 

[PJM]

=ByzCath;9112065]So those who are not Catholic can not commit mortal sins?

Where do you get your #2 as that is not what the Catechism says.

of course THEY CAN! At least within the framwork of Intrinsic Evils… outside of this framework; it is bettween them and God’s Just Judgment.

God Bless,
Pat

 

[Jerry-Jet]

The only one that wants all of mankind to believe that no one commits mortal sin is the devil!

Catholic and non Catholic–for that matter even non christian is capable of committing mortal sin.

That’s why there is a Hell!

And it doesn’t matter if you want to believe it or like to believe it–IT IS!

 

[steve_b]

(1) I can’t determine that as I am not omniscient and your question is very strangely worded. If you re-word it I will be happy to try to answer again.
(2) Maybe. What do you mean by “reasonably intelligent?”
(3) Maybe. It depends on whether they have a well-formed conscience and have studied and researched the teaching to the best of their capability, and also if they have taken the teaching of the Magisterium into account.
(4) It could be a venial sin, a mortal sin, or no sin at all. And BTW, I’m concerned because you keep using Paul as an example when really you should be using Jesus. Just sayin’.

How should I know if someone is invincibly ignorant? You make it sound so very simple. Paul said such and such and I should be able to determine if someone is invincibly ignorant based on the minuscule amount of information provided to me? *It does not work like that. First, the emphasis should be on the love *and mercy of God and not about P.aul

God’s love is already established. The question is, how do we love God

1. 
   *]Jesus said, if you love me, keep my commandments.
   *]Paul wrote “ignorance of God” is the principle and explanation of all moral deviations. That’s why St Jerome said, ignorance of scripture is ignorance of God.
   
   One can’t do the 1st, unless one know’s the 2nd. That’s why I quoted Paul.
   
   btw, don’t discount Paul like you did. He wrote under the influence of the HS
   LS:
   

   *Second, it is not up to us to determine if an individual has committed a mortal sin. That is not our place as we are not omniscient. *

   It’s not about being omniscient. Paul wrote [Gal 5:19…] because the HS inspired him to teach that. Therefore, God wants us to know this so there is no argument, and no mistake in anyone’s mind about that sin and it’s grave consequences as God sees it. .
   LS:
   

   Third, invincible ignorance is much, much, much more complicated. It means that one must study and research and try his best to determine if he can accept a particular teaching of the Church

   we’re not talking about rocket science here. We’re talking about sin. A straight forward condemnation of specific activities. If anything, we’re talking about receiving information then obedience to that information received.
   
   Gal 5: [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.
   
   the definition of Ignorance = lack of knowledge, education, or awareness.
   
   Paul solved the issue of ignorance about fornication…as well as a whole bunch of other sinsl. We know what God wants us to know regarding fornication because of what Paul wrote here…
   LS:
   

   And some people have been raised in households where they learn that fornication is perfectly acceptable.

   remedied, as soon as one has been shown their error, then objectively from that time forward, they know right from wrong and the consequences.
   LS:
   

   A person can want to know, love, and serve God and yet, out of ignorance, do something the Church says is offensive to God - such as fornication.

   " If" one wants to know love and serve God, and isn’t just saying that, they won’t be clueless for long of what scripture and the Church condemns.
   
   The reason I say that (from the CCC)
   
   **1791 **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.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.
   LS:
   

   Is fornication a grave act? Yes. Always. That is criterion #1. But there are two other criteria. All three have to be met for the sin to be mortal.

   #2 is solved by Showing a person that the sin is mortal. By Paul giving that teaching, he covered #'s 1&2. #3 is to commit the sin.

 

[fhansen]

I’ll play the devils advocate here. Say a person is born into a tribal head-hunters society, where killing ones enemy is considered a moral good. The person goes out and does his cvic duty by taking as many heads as he can. Is his culpability reduced or mitigated? He’s breached Gods eternal Law, and yet it can be said that he was ignorant of such a law, unlike those of us who‘ve heard and understood it. He committed a mortal sin in regards to the Law, and yet the Catechism teaches that for a sin to be mortal three conditions must be met, including full “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.“ Did the person commit mortal sin?

 

[clmowry]

Yup says it right in the Bible

Matthew 5:29 So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Perhaps the best reason I’ve seen yet to reject the ability of individuals to correctly interpret the bible for themselves.

Anyway…One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance. That person is grossly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but rather due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

Yep. Somewhat lessened with regard to the “other sin” while all in for Sloth.

Chuck

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Just have to add this comment.

The Church in no way teaches that only those who are somehow mentally deficient are the only ones capable of having invincible ignorance.

 

[LittleSoldier]

You don’t expect me to take this question seriously do you?

Chuck

It is a very serious question but you don’t need to provide an answer. But everyone should know about it because it did happen, although the reason(s) he did what he did have been argued about for centuries. If he castrated himself because he was so overly scrupulous that he cut off part of his own body - a body that God created for his use - well, it seems to me that he was very confused and absolutely riddled with guilt and fear of sinning. He should not have done what he did. If our eyes offend us are we supposed to pull them out? There are people who actually believe this.

But you don’t have to name the person who did this. I will. It was Origen, who is now considered by some to be one of the ECFs and who was a prolific writer. I’m sure others have done it, too, but Origen is certainly the most well-known.

And the point I am trying to make is that some people are so full of guilt and fear of sin that they end up mutiliating the body whose use was given to them by God.

 

[LittleSoldier]

Yup says it right in the Bible

Matthew 5:29 So if your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one of your body parts than to have your whole body thrown into hell.

Matthew 5:30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.

Matthew 18:8 If your hand or your foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life maimed or crippled than to have two hands or two feet and be thrown into eternal fire.

Mark 9:43 If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.

Anyway…One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance. That person is grossly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but rather due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

Thank you. You went into more detail than I did. Some people take those passages literally. I considered it myself.

And you are correct in that one who is really ignorant has made enough effort to learn what should be known. It’s impossible to fool God.