Does one commit a mortal sin if he or she does not think the action is sinful?

[Jessi_Thomist]

" To whom more is given, more is required", but those who are not “given much” will also be held accountable and God gives everyone a little of Himself…even if the person is raised with no religion… so man (As per Romans 1 and 2 ) is without excuse…

that’s why i don’t buy it when people who have heard Jesus’ words say they do not believe them ( Him)… They are being dishonest…

Christ’s words are difficult to believe: Jesus told Peter that it is not he but God within him that allows him to understand who He really is.
In Romans, he is saying that God has made the world such that men know what is right and wrong—from natural law—and thus will be held accountable for their sins.
Faith and being a good person according to natural law are two different (though certainly not mutually exclusive) things. Of course it is only with charity and faith that a person is able to be perfect, even with natural law, but it isn’t easy to believe the words Christ has for us; in fact it is impossible, without God’s help.

 

[AdriannaJean]

There is a verse somwhere in the New Testament, I can’t remembe if its in the Gospels or Epistles, stating that if you don’t know something is a sin, than you actually have not comitted a sin when you do it.

Can anyone find it?

This might be a little off-topic. But for it to be a sin, the person must have full-knowledge that it is a sin.

 

[Don9of11]

There is a verse somwhere in the New Testament, I can’t remembe if its in the Gospels or Epistles, stating that if you don’t know something is a sin, than you actually have not comitted a sin when you do it.

Can anyone find it?

Is this what is meant when saying “ignorance is bliss”? I did a search of The Faith Database and I couldn’t find any new testament verse similar or like what you suggest.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

This might be a little off-topic. But for it to be a sin, the person must have full-knowledge that it is a sin.

No. You do not-- especially not “full-knowledge”. You can be at fault for your ignorance if you choose to be ignorant-- or you had the ability not to be ignorant.

 

[Sir_Knight]

you may be talking about I Tim 1:13 “Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief.”

Not ALL ignorance is sin. This is St. Thomas
*"I answer that, Ignorance, by its very nature, renders the act which it causes involuntary… ignorance is said to cause the act which the contrary knowledge would have prevented; so that this act, if knowledge were to hand, would be contrary to the will, which is the meaning of the word involuntary. If, however, the knowledge, which is removed by ignorance, would not have prevented the act, on account of the inclination of the will thereto, the lack of this knowledge does not make that man unwilling, but not willing… and such like ignorance which is not the cause of the sinful act, as already stated, since it does not make the act to be involuntary, does not excuse from sin. The same applies to any ignorance that does not cause, but follows or accompanies the sinful act.

On the other hand, ignorance which is the cause of the act, since it makes it to be involuntary, of its very nature excuses from sin, because voluntariness is essential to sin. But it may fail to excuse altogether from sin, and this for two reasons. First, on the part of the thing itself which is not known. For ignorance excuses from sin, in so far as something is not known to be a sin. Now it may happen that a person ignores some circumstance of a sin, the knowledge of which circumstance would prevent him from sinning, whether it belong to the substance of the sin, or not; and nevertheless his knowledge is sufficient for him to be aware that the act is sinful; for instance, if a man strike someone, knowing that it is a man (which suffices for it to be sinful) and yet be ignorant of the fact that it is his father, (which is a circumstance constituting another species of sin); or, suppose that he is unaware that this man will defend himself and strike him back, and that if he had known this, he would not have struck him (which does not affect the sinfulness of the act). Wherefore, though this man sins through ignorance, yet he is not altogether excused, because, not withstanding, he has knowledge of the sin. Secondly, this may happen on the part of the ignorance itself, because, to wit, this ignorance is voluntary, either directly, as when a man wishes of set purpose to be ignorant of certain things that he may sin the more freely; or indirectly, as when a man, through stress of work or other occupations, neglects to acquire the knowledge which would restrain him from sin. For such like negligence renders the ignorance itself voluntary and sinful, provided it be about matters one is bound and able to know. Consequently this ignorance does not altogether excuse from sin. If, however, the ignorance be such as to be entirely involuntary, either through being invincible, or through being of matters one is not bound to know, then such like ignorance excuses from sin altogether.

Not every ignorance causes involuntariness, as stated above Hence not every ignorance excuses from sin altogether."*
You must be invincibly ignorant in order not to be at fault for your error. That means you could not have known that what you have done is wrong. (this is not to be confused with unbelief, which is a different matter: faith is a grace, with sin we are talking about failing in natural law or turning from grace already had)

Is this what is meant when saying “ignorance is bliss”? I did a search of The Faith Database and I couldn’t find any new testament verse similar or like what you suggest.

Ignorance is far from “bliss” and is NOT a excuse from sin. In fact, ignorance IS a sin in and of itself because the bible tells us that nothing but sin deserves punishment and 1 Corinthians 14:38 tells us that ignorance deserves punishment. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that ignorance is also a sin.

 

[rpp]

Ignorance of the sin is not an excuse. In fact, ignorance IS a sin in and of itself because the bible tells us that nothing but sin deserves punishment and 1 Corinthians 14:38 tells us that ignorance deserves punishment. Therefore, the logical conclusion is that ignorance is also a sin.

I think this is the point he was trying to make.

 

[Sir_Knight]

I think this is the point he was trying to make.

Okay. Sorry. I misunderstood.

 

[Sir_Knight]

for it to be a sin, the person must have full-knowledge that it is a sin.

For it to be a MORTAL sin, a person must have full knowledge. See my quote above from Leviticus 5:17.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

Ugh. You are both right and you are both wrong. Some ignorance is sinful ignorance, and some ignorance is invincible. This is why the bible needs an interpreter, it doesn’t contradict itself only people who read it and quote it out of context contradict each other. Some ignorance is mortal sin, because YOU COULD HAVE KNOWN BETTER. Some ignorance is wholly involuntary-- and thus you are not at fault for what you do. The latter is probably rare. Some ignorance merely mitigates the gravity of the sin.

I am just giving the interpretation of the Catholic Church following the Fathers.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Some ignorance is wholly involuntary-- and thus you are not at fault for what you do.

Do you have a reference for that? Either biblical or from official church teaching via the CCC. The bible tells us that some ignorance mitigates the gravity of the sin but I am unfamiliar where our faith teaches that it removes ALL guilt.

 

[Francis_Howard]

Following Newman’s own *dicta *concerning conscience, there were times in history when it would have been sinful to have followed the Church - for example when it was silent in the matter of slavery, when it persecuted ‘heretics’, when it commited sins of anti-semitism or when, as in Germany, it ‘complied’ for a time with fascism. Once this principle is accepted then the *sensus fidei *comes into its own. Artificial contraception shook the church and has not been received by the faithful certainly in the West, nor by many clergy. Is the difference between Anglican theology on this subject and the Magisterium actually a mortal sin? The *sensus fidelium *speaks for the church and is guided, so we are told, by the Holy Spirit. Humanae Vitae was a code for the saints. It was beautiful in so many ways but ignored the rights of children that at birth they should be wanted and not considered to be some sort of ‘mistake’. What a way to start out in life. The term 'mortal 'sin, that for example equates contraception with abortion, or murder with missing Mass, needs to be used with a more intelligent touch. Honest dissent has not infrequently saved the Church in her history, and we have the right and duty to speak out where we feel the good of the Church is being compromised - for example Catherine of Siena at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Thank you.

 

[rpp]

Following Newman’s own *dicta *concerning conscience, there were times in history when it would have been sinful to have followed the Church - for example when it was silent in the matter of slavery, when it persecuted ‘heretics’, when it commited sins of anti-semitism or when, as in Germany, it ‘complied’ for a time with fascism. Once this principle is accepted then the *sensus fidei *comes into its own. Artificial contraception shook the church and has not been received by the faithful certainly in the West, nor by many clergy. Is the difference between Anglican theology on this subject and the Magisterium actually a mortal sin? The *sensus fidelium *speaks for the church and is guided, so we are told, by the Holy Spirit. Humanae Vitae was a code for the saints. It was beautiful in so many ways but ignored the rights of children that at birth they should be wanted and not considered to be some sort of ‘mistake’. What a way to start out in life. The term 'mortal 'sin, that for example equates contraception with abortion, or murder with missing Mass, needs to be used with a more intelligent touch. Honest dissent has not infrequently saved the Church in her history, and we have the right and duty to speak out where we feel the good of the Church is being compromised - for example Catherine of Siena at the time of the Babylonian Captivity. Thank you.

The Church never did the things you accuse Her of. There were misguided individuals who did bad things falsely believing they are acting in the name of the church.

As for your claim about contraception, the first time the Church taught against contraception was in the 1st century AD and is found in the Didache. Abortion was also condemned. That contraception may be widely used by Catholics does make the sin any less grave.

Finally, your attempt to claim that the Church teaches that the gravity of grave sins is somehow equal is also quite incorrect.

As for honest dissent, you are correct, but only in areas where dissent regards a matter that is not part of the deposit of faith or the declared doctrines of the Church. Abortion, contraception, male priesthood and so on are not matters open for legitimate dissent.

In short, your application of Cardinal Newmann’s dicta is wrong because it is based on a number of false premises and assumptions.

Finally, your post is a bit off topic. Let’s return to the topic.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

Do you have a reference for that? Either biblical or from official church teaching via the CCC. The bible tells us that some ignorance mitigates the gravity of the sin but I am unfamiliar where our faith teaches that it removes ALL guilt.

Yeah, no problem. If you check my post that you quoted there is a selection from the Summa Theologiae–which is online if you would like the reference-- St. Thomas Aquinas, is where much of moral theology from the CCC comes from, either directly (as in this case) or indirectly. It is called invincible ignorance.

If you don’t buy that-- the CCC says
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

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

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.*

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

These concepts can also be seen in the following Scriptures:

John 15:22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.

John 9
35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.
39 And Jesus said, For judgment I am come into this world, that they which see not might see; and that they which see might be made blind.
40 And some of the Pharisees which were with him heard these words, and said unto him, Are we blind also?
41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth.

Romans 2
7 To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life:
8 But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
9 Tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil, of the Jew first, and also of the Gentile;
10 But glory, honour, and peace, to every man that worketh good, to the Jew first, and also to the Gentile:
11 For there is no respect of persons with God.
12 For as many as have sinned without law shall also perish without law: and as many as have sinned in the law shall be judged by the law;
13 (For not the hearers of the law are just before God, but the doers of the law shall be justified.
14 For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves:
15 Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another
16 In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ according to my gospel.

Ergo: sometimes it is your own fault in which cases you are held responsible; because the natural law could be found out by the person if they considered the matter (as I tried to make clear before that ‘they could have known’) they would have known that it was evil and indeed in these matters it is that person’s duty to find out what is to be done.

Sometimes, however, it is not your fault that you do not know what you are doing is wrong and you are not culpable. When there is a certain amount of separation between natural law principles and the particular sin itself then the person might remit his guilt. Fornication is opposed to natural law, people choose to fornicate even though they know -or-could-know- that it is wrong. People often contracept not knowing that it is wrong- I am sure that there are many non-Catholics and non-Christians in this predicament. This does not make contracepting to be okay, no. Right and wrong are not relative. But culpability for doing what is wrong CAN be relative to the person who is committing the act. This can diminish the sin such that it is a venial sin (which while it disposes one to mortal sin does not separate him from the love/grace of God) or it so that it is not a sin.

Once a person has been told, or had the opportunity to have been told, that what he is doing is wrong then his ignorance is no longer invincible and he is culpable for his sin in varying degrees.

 

[rpp]

Jessi, this is a bit off-topic, but your posts ands responses lead me to ask this question. Are you a trained theologian? If so, have you published any books? I am very impressed by your grasp and ability to answer questions with significant resources, not to mention your charitable responses.

 

[rpp]

The Church never did the things you accuse Her of. There were misguided individuals who did bad things falsely believing they are acting in the name of the church.

As for your claim about contraception, the first time the Church taught against contraception was in the 1st century AD and is found in the Didache. Abortion was also condemned. That contraception may be widely used by Catholics does not make the sin any less grave.

Finally, your attempt to claim that the Church teaches that the gravity of grave sins is somehow equal is also quite incorrect.

As for honest dissent, you are correct, but only in areas where dissent regards a matter that is not part of the deposit of faith or the declared doctrines of the Church. Abortion, contraception, male priesthood and so on are not matters open for legitimate dissent.

In short, your application of Cardinal Newmann’s dicta is wrong because it is based on a number of false premises and assumptions.

Finally, your post is a bit off topic. Let’s return to the topic.

I made a very serious typo in this response. I left out a word. Please look at the post above the corrected word is in bold, underline and italics.

 

[Jessi_Thomist]

Jessi, this is a bit off-topic, but your posts ands responses lead me to ask this question. Are you a trained theologian? If so, have you published any books? I am very impressed by your grasp and ability to answer questions with significant resources, not to mention your charitable responses.

Thank you, that is very kind-- but I must admit that I only answer the questions in the way that I read St. Thomas and the Fathers to answer them.

I am not sure if I am a trained theologian; perhaps a theologian in training… I do have a BA in Theology and also in Philosophy and I am half-way through my master’s in Thomistic philosophy, and would like to pursue my PhD in either moral philosophy or moral theology of St. Thomas.

I am not published yet, but that is something that I might like to do in the future.

Pax Christi.