Does anyone commit a mortal sin, knowingly?

[LittleSoldier]

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

If you are going to change the colors and such in my quotes, please note that you have done so - outside of the quote. Otherwise you are changing the emphasis of my words, perhaps taking them out of context, and making it appear that I may have changed the context myself. Thank you.

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.

1. 
   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

   I am trying to be charitable (really). Please don’t tell me what to do. You are not the moderator or my parents or God. If you feel that I have broken any forums rules you can easily contact the moderator.
   
   I stand by my words regarding Paul. Of course he wrote while under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But the words he wrote are about Jesus - the subject is Jesus and His teachings and IMHO that is where the emphasis should lie.
   

   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.

   What about the people who have never seen the bible, who have never heard of Paul, who have never heard of Jesus? Are they supposed to have full knowledge of what Paul wrote about Jesus? What about atheists who try to live a good life but who don’t believe in God? Are they supposed to accept that what Paul wrote about Jesus is correct? What about all the people who interpret Scripture, fully believing they are being guided by the Holy Spirit? What if their interpretations differ and in some cases absolutely contradict each other? Whose interpretation is correct? Is anyone’s interpretation correct? Why have people discussed and argued and fought over the meaning of Scripture for so long and who continue to do so? If it’s as easy as you seem to indicate it is, why is there so much disagreement?
   
   Also, it is about being omniscient. We cannot say “John committed a mortal sin.” We can say that fornication is a grievous act. But without knowing every single little thing about John we cannot jmake a judgment as to whether he committed a mortal sin. He may not have understood that it is a mortal sin (perhaps he hasn’t read the bible - not everyone has, you know), and he may not be committing the act with full consent. God knows and can judge fairly - we can’t.
   

   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.

   Rocket science would be a much easier subject to discuss than sin. And I’m sorry but we are also discussing obedience to the information received (which specifically relates to criterion #3 of mortal sin). You seem to think that because there is a passage in the bible, translated from a very old language into 20th or 21st century English, that it is still clear. It is not clear. If it is so clear, why does the Church provide the CCC? Why all the different denominations? Why do some denominations teach that contraception is morally licit? Why do some Catholics subscribe to the idea espoused by “Catholics for Choice” which promotes the use of condoms? If what is sin is so crystal-clear why is there so much disagreement?
   

   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.

   -----continued in next post-----

 

[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?

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.

Of course I do not think any such thing, it is absurd and I didn’t suggest anything to that effect.

Because I suggest it is better to err on the side of scrupulosity (therefore treating a sin as serious, confessing that sin and seeking spiritual counseling) rather than err on the side of acedia (and languish in a state of mortal sin damning ourselves to hell) in no way, shape or form would translate into me thinking that people should mutilate themselves.

So no I don’t take that question seriously.

Severe cases of scrupulosity, on the other hand, are of course very serious. The good news is a good Priest and spiritual director can frequently avert such a tragedy. Not much they can do to help out with acedia on the other hand (cause well they are not very likely to get a chance to speak with the person.)

Chuck

 

[LittleSoldier]

-----continuation of last post-----

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…

I beg to differ. We know a little bit about some sins and if we are Catholic we are blessed because the Magisterium provides us with Church teaching. But not everyone in the world is Catholic. Take “envy.” Someone doesn’t know if he has been envious. He knows the definition of envy and how it differs from jealousy. But has he been envious? Did he *really *want something bad to happen to the person of whom he is allegedly envious? Or was that just a fleeting thought that popped into his mind and was immediately disregarded? What if it took 20 seconds to disregard it? Take “witchcraft.” If someone reads the *Harry Potter *series or plays with a Ouija board during a party when he’s 14-years-old, not understanding the danger of Ouija boards, is he guilty of witchcraft? Take “immodestly.” Who decides what that even is? There are people who believe that if a woman shows her knee or part of her neck or an elbow or her face she is being immodest. If a woman shows her neck has she sinned? And is it a mortal sin? How would she know?

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

" 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.

But I am saying that some people take all the trouble they can to find out what is true and good! I am saying that some people use all the faculties God blessed them with to find out His truth! And they FAIL. I’m not talking about people who, through laziness, don’t bother to try to discover what sin is.

#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.

Ohhhh…Paul said so and therefore everyone in the world is now clear on mortal sin. Paul said so and there’s no such thing as culpability or extenuating circumstances or misunderstanding or not being exposed to what Paul said.

---

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!” (Puck, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare)

 

[LittleSoldier]

Of course I do not think any such thing, it is absurd and I didn’t suggest anything to that effect.

Because I suggest it is better to err on the side of scrupulosity (therefore treating a sin as serious, confessing that sin and seeking spiritual counseling) rather than err on the side of acedia (and languish in a state of mortal sin damning ourselves to hell) in no way, shape or form would translate into me thinking that people should mutilate themselves.

So no I don’t take that question seriously.

Severe cases of scrupulosity, on the other hand, are of course very serious. The good news is a good Priest and spiritual director can frequently avert such a tragedy. Not much they can do to help out with acedia on the other hand (cause well they are not very likely to get a chance to speak with the person.)

Chuck

I agree.

 

[steve_b]

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?

Maybe it’s best to say we know a sin is mortal by the consequences.

• Titus 3: 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• Matthew 15: 19 - 20 murder, adultery, false witness, slander…defile a man

one can be sure these aren’t venial sins.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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?

I like your scenario and think that it can be very useful. Without knowing everything about the head-hunter I can’t say that he has committed a mortal sin. If he is really ignorant of God’s Law then he didn’t fulfill criterion #2, but I don’t know if he knows it or not. Perhaps deep down inside he does know, as God’s Law is written on our hearts (but whether one can access that law is another thing altogether).

If killing one’s enemy is considered good and he has been raised with this mentality, then I question his culpability. There’s a question of whether he is murdering (are the enemies innocent?) or simply killing (I don’t mean that killing is good). Are the enemies also head-hunters? Will they come and kill him and his family and other members of his tribe if he does not kill them first? If so, a case might be made for self-defense and defense of family but without more information it can’t be known for certain. He has never seen the CCC; I’m going to throw in the fact that he has never seen the bible. It would also need to be known *why *killing one’s enemies is considered “good” (which can bring us back to whether his killing is done in self-defense).

There are just so many questions and the answers are unknown.

 

[nickybr38]

Yes, people choose to commit mortal sin, even knowing that it IS mortal sin.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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?

I don’t think you think that.

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?

How can one, indeed? I agree with your entire point. One cannot unwittingly commit mortal sin - unless one lives in Jack Chick’s world.

 

[steve_b]

If you are going to change the colors and such in my quotes, please note that you have done so - outside of the quote. Otherwise you are changing the emphasis of my words, perhaps taking them out of context, and making it appear that I may have changed the context myself. Thank you.

The reason I highlighted your words with a different color is so you can see what part of your response I’m responding to.
LS:

I am trying to be charitable (really). Please don’t tell me what to do. You are not the moderator or my parents or God. If you feel that I have broken any forums rules you can easily contact the moderator.

I stand by my words regarding Paul. Of course he wrote while under the influence of the Holy Spirit. But the words he wrote are about Jesus - the subject is Jesus and His teachings and IMHO that is where the emphasis should lie.

Jn 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

in all charity, Jesus just answered you. When I quoted Paul, don’t discount Paul as you did, as if he wasn’t teaching what Jesus taught.
LS:

What about the people who have never seen the bible, who have never heard of Paul, who have never heard of Jesus? Are they supposed to have full knowledge of what Paul wrote about Jesus? What about atheists who try to live a good life but who don’t believe in God? Are they supposed to accept that what Paul wrote about Jesus is correct? What about all the people who interpret Scripture, fully believing they are being guided by the Holy Spirit? What if their interpretations differ and in some cases absolutely contradict each other? Whose interpretation is correct? Is anyone’s interpretation correct? Why have people discussed and argued and fought over the meaning of Scripture for so long and who continue to do so? If it’s as easy as you seem to indicate it is, why is there so much disagreement?

It seems you’re the one who is conflicted
LS:

Also, it is about being omniscient. We cannot say “John committed a mortal sin.” We can say that fornication is a grievous act. But without knowing every single little thing about John we cannot jmake a judgment as to whether he committed a mortal sin. He may not have understood that it is a mortal sin (perhaps he hasn’t read the bible - not everyone has, you know), and he may not be committing the act with full consent. God knows and can judge fairly - we can’t.

**1868 **Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

Therefore, we have a responsibility to teach people about the consequences of sin. That’s showing love for neighbor. What they do with the information after that is up to them. They are no longer ignorant of sin and its consequences.
LS:

Rocket science would be a much easier subject to discuss than sin. And I’m sorry but we are also discussing obedience to the information received (which specifically relates to criterion #3 of mortal sin). You seem to think that because there is a passage in the bible, translated from a very old language into 20th or 21st century English, that it is still clear. It is not clear. If it is so clear, why does the Church provide the CCC? Why all the different denominations? Why do some denominations teach that contraception is morally licit? Why do some Catholics subscribe to the idea espoused by “Catholics for Choice” which promotes the use of condoms? If what is sin is so crystal-clear why is there so much disagreement?

Free will is what makes every human culpable for what we do. What you’re doing is drawing attention to the disordered will and disobedience that comes through sin. Jesus already set the terms and conditions in place that He expects us to follow. There are no other terms and conditions coming. Those who don’t follow his plan, will have consequences for their actions.

 

[steve_b]

-----continuation of last post-----

I beg to differ. We know a little bit about some sins and if we are Catholic we are blessed because the Magisterium provides us with Church teaching. But not everyone in the world is Catholic. Take “envy.” Someone doesn’t know if he has been envious. He knows the definition of envy and how it differs from jealousy. But has he been envious? Did he *really *want something bad to happen to the person of whom he is allegedly envious? Or was that just a fleeting thought that popped into his mind and was immediately disregarded? What if it took 20 seconds to disregard it? Take “witchcraft.” If someone reads the *Harry Potter *series or plays with a Ouija board during a party when he’s 14-years-old, not understanding the danger of Ouija boards, is he guilty of witchcraft? Take “immodestly.” Who decides what that even is? There are people who believe that if a woman shows her knee or part of her neck or an elbow or her face she is being immodest. If a woman shows her neck has she sinned? And is it a mortal sin? How would she know?But I am saying that some people take all the trouble they can to find out what is true and good! I am saying that some people use all the faculties God blessed them with to find out His truth! And they FAIL. I’m not talking about people who, through laziness, don’t bother to try to discover what sin is.
Ohhhh…Paul said so and therefore everyone in the world is now clear on mortal sin. Paul said so and there’s no such thing as culpability or extenuating circumstances or misunderstanding or not being exposed to what Paul said.

---

“Lord, what fools these mortals be!” (Puck, A Midsummer Night’s Dream, Shakespeare)

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

**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.
**
It’s that part about blinded by sin, that keeps some from accepting and understanding the subject in discussion.

 

[LittleSoldier]

The reason I highlighted your words with a different color is so you can see what part of your response I’m responding to.

The proper way is to quote the part you are going to respond to, respond to it, and then quote the next part. You are now added underlining to my words. You are changing the context of my words. You are not the only person who reads my words. Please stop changing my quotes.

Jn 14:26
But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

in all charity, Jesus just answered you. When I quoted Paul, don’t discount Paul as you did, as if he wasn’t teaching what Jesus taught.

Do you always tell people what to do? It’s not very charitable. I am asking you to stop. Please. I have no problem with Paul. My problem is with you.

It seems you’re the one who is conflicted.

It seems as if you believe that you can take a list of sins, hold it up to someone’s face and say “OK - now you know these are grave acts because Paul said so and he was guided by the Holy Spirit and you have no defense. Now that you know (even if you aren’t Catholic or non-Catholic Christian) you have fulfilled criteria #1 and #2. And criteria #3, too. You just have. It’s not rocket science.”

And the person who has now seen this list of sins walks away wondering “well, gee, I did see that really pretty girl and I didn’t want to think of having sex with her but that thought just popped into my head and I tried to get rid of it and finally succeeded by taking a cold shower but I guess maybe I committed a mortal sin. I did have that thought about my mean boss having a gargoyle fall on him and I admit I smiled at the thought because he makes so much more money than I do and I have so many financial obligations so that must mean I am envious. I think. And instead of mowing the lawn yesterday I laid down on the sofa and watched the Ducks-Beavers football game. I think I’m guilty of sloth but I’m not sure. I think I’m going to camp out in front of the church and accost the priest every morning, noon, and evening, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.”

**1868 **Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:

• by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
• by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
• by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
• by protecting evil-doers.

Therefore, we have a responsibility to teach people about the consequences of sin. That’s showing love for neighbor. What they do with the information after that is up to them. They are no longer ignorant of sin and its consequences.

But what you are doing is judging people without knowing what you need to know about them! Yes - it is good to help people understand sin. But you don’t understand it yourself! So how can you explain it to others?

Free will is what makes every human culpable for what we do. What you’re doing is drawing attention to the disordered will and disobedience that comes through sin. Jesus already set the terms and conditions in place that He expects us to follow. There are no other terms and conditions coming. Those who don’t follow his plan, will have consequences for their actions.

Excuse me? I have no idea what you are saying here. Will you please clarify? Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

**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.
**
It’s that part about blinded by sin, that keeps some from accepting and understanding the subject in discussion.

What does this have to do with what I have written?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Maybe it’s best to say we know a sin is mortal by the consequences.

• Titus 3: 10 Reject a factious man after a first and second warning, 11knowing that such a man is )perverted and is sinning, being self-condemned.
• Ephesians 5: 3-5 fornication, covetousness……5 Be sure of this, that no fornicator or impure man, or one who is covetous (that is, an idolater), has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God.
• Hebrews 10:25-26 missing mass deliberately, no sacrifice for sin for THEM but a fiery judgement that consumes the adversaries of God.
• Hebrews 12: 16 - 17 immoraliy, is selling your inheritance
• Galatians 5: 19 - 21 sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21and envy; drunkenness, orgies, will not inherit heaven
• Romans 16:17… dividers don’t serve our Lord but themselves. Stay away from them. Satan will soon be crushed under your feet
• Colossians 3: 5-6 immorality, impurity, lust, evil desires and greed, which is idolatry, …rath of God is coming
• 1 Corinthians 6: 9 - 10 no sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual offenders, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers, will not inherit the kingdom of God.
• Matthew 15: 19 - 20 murder, adultery, false witness, slander…defile a man

one can be sure these aren’t venial sins.

So now is it that only those who know the Sacred Scriptures can commit mortal sin?

 

[steve_b]

So now is it that only those who know the Sacred Scriptures can commit mortal sin?

If someone asks you to define mortal sin, what reference are YOU going to show them?

 

[steve_b]

The proper way is to quote the part you are going to respond to, respond to it, and then quote the next part. You are now added underlining to my words. You are changing the context of my words. You are not the only person who reads my words. Please stop changing my quotes.

I prefer to give the context also, when responding .
LS:

Do you always tell people what to do? It’s not very charitable.

Excuse me? Read your opening remarks. Now, what is it you want to say about telling people what to do?
LS:

I am asking you to stop. Please. I have no problem with Paul. My problem is with you.
It seems as if you believe that you can take a list of sins, hold it up to someone’s face and say "OK - now you know these are grave acts because Paul said so and he was guided by the Holy Spirit and you have no defense.

So you DO have a problem with Paul
LS:

Now that you know (even if you aren’t Catholic or non-Catholic Christian) you have fulfilled criteria #1 and #2. And criteria #3, too. You just have. It’s not rocket science."

So what the problem?
LS:

And the person who has now seen this list of sins walks away wondering “well, gee, I did see that really pretty girl and I didn’t want to think of having sex with her but that thought just popped into my head and I tried to get rid of it and finally succeeded by taking a cold shower but I guess maybe I committed a mortal sin. I did have that thought about my mean boss having a gargoyle fall on him and I admit I smiled at the thought because he makes so much more money than I do and I have so many financial obligations so that must mean I am envious. I think. And instead of mowing the lawn yesterday I laid down on the sofa and watched the Ducks-Beavers football game. I think I’m guilty of sloth but I’m not sure. I think I’m going to camp out in front of the church and accost the priest every morning, noon, and evening, for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.”
But what you are doing is judging people without knowing what you need to know about them! Yes - it is good to help people understand sin. But you don’t understand it yourself! So how can you explain it to others?

We make judgements all the time. It’s part of decision making.

 

[LittleSoldier]

I prefer to give the context also, when responding.

That’s fine. But please do not change my quotes.

Excuse me? Read your opening remarks. Now, what is it you want to say about telling people what to do?

I used the word “please.” That means it is a request - not a demand. You have not used the word “please” but have simply told me what to do - twice. Please do not tell me what to do!

So you DO have a problem with Paul

Um, I believe I stated that I do not have a problem with Paul. Are you saying I am lying? Please let me repeat: I do not have a problem with Paul. And I will even expand a bit: Paul wrote what was placed in the NT under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. He is a saint. I love him as I love all saints and I pray to him. I have no problem with Paul. I have a problem with you (although I love you as I love all people). I doubt you are under the delusion that you are Saint Paul, so please pay attention to my words - what I have written. I’m not lying. I don’t lie.

So what the problem?

OK. The problem is that you seem to think that you are an expert on sin - even mortal sin. And so you appear to be judging people as to whether they have sinned when you are not an expert on sin at all. We are not supposed to decide whether people have sinned - we are not God. If one believes that it is his place to decide whether people have sinned he is putting himself in the place of God. God is omniscient. That makes Him the only perfect judge. He is also omnibenevolent and perfectly merciful. You and I are simple, fallible human beings. It is not our place. It might be a priest’s place during the Sacrament of Reconciliation. But it is not your place and it is not my place. If you can’t understand this I can’t help you.

We make judgements all the time. It’s part of decision making.

No. It is part of human nature to try to make sense of what goes on around us. Without judging we cannot interact with other people and live in society. But it is still not up to us to judge whether what another person has done is a sin - especially when it comes to something as serious as mortal sin. Are you God? If not, it is not your place. Why not let God (and a priest during the Sacrament of Reconciliation) judge? They can do it. It simply is not our place. We cannot know the immense plethora of factors that are necessary to know in order to determine if another person has sinned.

Telling people that envy, fornication, and all those other sins you listed, on its own, does not help because it is just way too complicated for that. What is envy? What is fornication? What factors influence culpability? What factors influence knowledge? Why should someone believe you about sin? Why should someone believe what the bible states? People are extremely complicated beings who deal with cognitive dissonance, misunderstanding, failure to communicate, differing amounts of intelligence based on innate processes, health (both physical and mental), age, experience, everything that goes on with what their parents have told them as they mature, the use of defense mechanisms which may not even be conscious and yet you think you can make the determination that someone has sinned?

---

On the third day He arose again from the dead. He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of the Father; from thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead.

[Apostles’ Creed, bolding and underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

---

And early in the morning he came again into the temple: and all the people came to him. And sitting down he taught them. And the scribes and Pharisees bring unto him a woman taken in adultery: and they set her in the midst, And said to him: Master, this woman was even now taken in adultery. Now Moses in the law commanded us to stone such a one. But what sayest thou? And this they said tempting him, that they might accuse him. But Jesus bowing himself down, wrote with his finger on the ground. When therefore they continued asking him, he lifted up himself and said to them:** He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.** And again stooping down, he wrote on the ground. But they hearing this, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest. And Jesus alone remained, and the woman standing in the midst. Then Jesus lifting up himself, said to her: Woman, where are they that accused thee? Hath no man condemned thee? Who said: No man, Lord. And Jesus said: Neither will I condemn thee. Go, and now sin no more.

[John 8:2-11, Douay-Rheims, bolding and underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

---

Judge not, that you may not be judged, for with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again. And why seest thou the mote that is in thy brother’s eye; and seest not the beam that is in thy own eye? Or how sayest thou to thy brother: Let me cast the mote out of thy eye; and behold a beam is in thy own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam in thy own eye, and then shalt thou see to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

[Matthew 7:1-5, Douay-Rheims,bolding and underlining added by this poster for emphasis]

 

[LittleSoldier]

Addendum to above post:

I have noticed that you did not answer the last question I asked of you. I am still waiting for clarification of the following:

Free will is what makes every human culpable for what we do. What you’re doing is drawing attention to the disordered will and disobedience that comes through sin. Jesus already set the terms and conditions in place that He expects us to follow. There are no other terms and conditions coming. Those who don’t follow his plan, will have consequences for their actions.

Thank you.

 

[LittleSoldier]

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

**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.
**
It’s that part about blinded by sin, that keeps some from accepting and understanding the subject in discussion.

It appears that someone may be cherry-picking. Let’s see the whole section:

IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

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.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

---

[CCC 1790-1794, bolding, underlining, and italics added by this poster for emphasis]

Every single word written here that is taken from the CCC is true.

*often - this means much of the time but not always!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

If someone asks you to define mortal sin, what reference are YOU going to show them?

So, again, only those who know what mortal sin are can commit it?

 

[nickybr38]

So, again, only those who know what mortal sin are can commit it?

I struggle with comprehending this.

As a Protestant I TRULY believe I committed two mortal sins. I know I committed them because I swear to you I could feel the moment when God’s grace was removed from me because of my decision to cut the tie.

As a Protestant I had NO CONCEPT of what mortal sin was. I knew what SIN was and I knew in my very core that what I was about to do was wrong but I pushed my conscience aside and did it anyway. That was about as close to spiritual death as I’ve ever been and those sins ate away at me for YEARS until I went to confession.

So now when people say: It’s not mortal unless you KNEW it was mortal…? That confuses me a lot because I know the effect those two ‘big’ sins had on my life and I cannot see how they could just be venial or ‘grave’ matter simply because I didn’t understand the distinction.

The Holy Spirit was at work in me before I committed those sins and I rejected His guidance.

I’m a new Catholic so yeah… I really struggle with comprehending this.