Eucharist and Mortal Sin

[RyanBlack]

I’m not sure that the sin would be a Mortal sin if one didn’t realize it. From the CCC: 1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

Here’s the misunderstanding that is sometimes created in these discussions. There are some who always refer to sins of grave matter as mortal sins, without regard to whether the sin was committed with knowledge and consent of the will. On the other hand, some refer to sins as mortal sins only when they believe that a sin of grave matter was committed with knowledge and consent of the will. It seems to me that there’s nothing wrong with always calling fornication, for example, mortal sin, since it is certainly always grave matter, so long as it is understood that there are conditions under which culpability could be lessened to the extent that the person who committed the sin may not actually be in a state of mortal sin.

 

[Bookcat]

Here’s the misunderstanding that is sometimes created in these discussions. There are some who always refer to sins of grave matter as mortal sins, without regard to whether the sin was committed with knowledge and consent of the will. On the other hand, some refer to sins as mortal sins only when they believe that a sin of grave matter was committed with knowledge and consent of the will. It seems to me that there’s nothing wrong with always calling fornication, for example, mortal sin, since it is certainly always grave matter, so long as it is understood that there are conditions under which culpability could be lessened to the extent that the person who committed the sin may not actually be in a state of mortal sin.

Here is a little outline I did in the past:

Mortal sin = Serious sin = Grave sin

*The Church *uses these terms in two senses (and an objective if you will and a subjective sense). And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:

1. Objective sense

Murder is a grave sin.
Murder is a serious sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.

(all three mean the same)

this is one way the Church use the term. Talking about the ‘moral object’ of the act or the ‘objective kind of sin’. Referring to the object itself. Like if I said…do not commit murder for that is a mortal sin.

Then there is this way…

1. Subjective sense…

I committed the grave sin of Murder
I committed the serious sin of Murder
I committed the mortal sin of Murder

(all three mean the same)

This is speaking of when the thing I committed is grave matter …done with full knowledge and deliberate (complete) consent.

Both are true. Both are ways the terms get used in Church documents

---

Ordinarily I tell people “such and such is a grave matter” for mortal sin and if one does it with full knowledge and complete consent…then one commits a mortal sin.

But sometimes I will say “yes murder is a mortal sin”…etc

 

[ProVobis]

It seems to me that there’s nothing wrong with always calling fornication, for example, mortal sin, since it is certainly always grave matter, so long as it is understood that there are conditions under which culpability could be lessened to the extent that the person who committed the sin may not actually be in a state of mortal sin.

When more than one person is involved, things can get quite tricky with respect to full consent. I think sufficient consent is more the rule here. If they plan to do it, that should be grave enough. That one or the other party opts out at the last minute doesn’t negate the sin, though civil punishment may be lessened. But that’s my opinion.

 

[Vico]

When more than one person is involved, things can get quite tricky with respect to full consent. I think sufficient consent is more the rule here. If they plan to do it, that should be grave enough. That one or the other party opts out at the last minute doesn’t negate the sin, though civil punishment may be lessened. But that’s my opinion.

Sin in thought is called interior sin, which occurs at the first moment that the will has formed to do the sin.

 

[Brendan_64]

Sin in thought is called interior sin, which occurs at the first moment that the will has formed to do the sin.

Where do you draw the line then between temptation and sin?

Does the person have to make a firm mental resolution to commit the sin, or is it a sin consider it in a, “Perhaps I will, perhaps I won’t, Yes I think I’ll do that, no I don’t think I will. Perhaps I’m not sure whether I will do that or not. i think I might do that. Maybe I won’t.”

At what point is the line crossed?

 

[Bookcat]

Where do you draw the line then between temptation and sin?

At what point is the line crossed?

Consent.

For mortal sin: deliberate consent …complete consent.

There can be less than complete consent and still be sin (venial) or there can be only temptation - such as what one flees without any sin -but perhaps virtue.

 

[ProVobis]

Where do you draw the line then between temptation and sin?

Does the person have to make a firm mental resolution to commit the sin, or is it a sin consider it in a, “Perhaps I will, perhaps I won’t, Yes I think I’ll do that, no I don’t think I will. Perhaps I’m not sure whether I will do that or not. i think I might do that. Maybe I won’t.”

At what point is the line crossed?

Exactly.

As George Carlin once joked (or did he?): “If you say ‘I’m going down to 42nd street and commit a mortal sin!’ Save your car fare; you did it, man! Absolutely!” - The Confessional

 

[Bookcat]

If say lustful thoughts happen - do not consent -turn to something else right away - and thus act in virtue (flee in such cases). If thoughts of against Faith happen -flight too is the best course. Such is indirect resistance. Temptations against chastity and faith are best resisted -indirectly. Flight more than fight. Do not consent and flee.

Other kinds of tempting thoughts can call for “direct resistance”. And acts of the contrary virtue.

 

[Bookcat]

Consent.

For mortal sin: deliberate consent …complete consent.

There can be less than complete consent and still be sin (venial) or there can be only temptation - such as what one flees without any sin -but perhaps virtue.

(Nota Lector: I was of course presupposing knowledge (and for mortal sin full knowledge -which by the way does not need to be some “complete theological knowledge” or something…one need not be a professor of theology to commit a mortal sin…) (and grave matter…but that is seen above in the description of mortal sin from the Compendium)

 

[ProVobis]

(Nota Lector: I was of course presupposing knowledge (and for mortal sin full knowledge -which by the way does not need to be some “complete theological knowledge” or something…one need not be a professor of theology to commit a mortal sin…) (and grave matter…but that is seen above in the description of mortal sin from the Compendium)

But does this imply that the more ignorant you are, the less likely it is that you will commit mortal sin?

 

[Bookcat]

But does this imply that the more ignorant you are, the less likely it is that you will commit mortal sin?

Catechism:

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 heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

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.

and from another section (see full context in links below)

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.

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.

Those sections and more:

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#III

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm#IV

 

[ProVobis]

So I’ll take that as a yes.

It’s hard for me to fathom intentional ignorance. Isn’t that more denial of the gravity of the sin?

 

[Vico]

Where do you draw the line then between temptation and sin?

Does the person have to make a firm mental resolution to commit the sin, or is it a sin consider it in a, “Perhaps I will, perhaps I won’t, Yes I think I’ll do that, no I don’t think I will. Perhaps I’m not sure whether I will do that or not. i think I might do that. Maybe I won’t.”

At what point is the line crossed?

That is the harder element to determine. There may be a mental struggle, which is normal, and one should persist in the struggle to overcome the temptation. These are some factors that may reduce our culpability:

• Emotional wounds
• Established habits
• Strong coercion
• Great fear
• Great fatigue

But, if care is not taken to avoid the near occasion of sin, it demonstrates willful neglect. Also willfully remaining ignorant increase our culpability. Near occasions are “all the persons, places and things that may easily lead us into sin”. (Baltimore Cat. A 771)

CCC1790 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.
Baltimore Catechism No. 3 has this:Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

Q. 285. What are sins committed without reflection or consent called?
A. Sins committed without reflection or consent are called material sins; that is, they would be formal or real sins if we knew their sinfulness at the time we committed them. Thus to eat flesh meat on a day of abstinence without knowing it to be a day of abstinence or without thinking of the prohibition, would be a material sin.
**Q. 772. Why are we bound to avoid occasions of sin?
**A. We are bound to avoid occasions of sin because Our Lord has said: “He who loves the danger will perish in it”; and as we are bound to avoid the loss of our souls, so we are bound to avoid the danger of their loss. The occasion is the cause of sin, and you cannot take away the evil without removing its cause.

Q. 773. Is a person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, rightly disposed for confession?
A. A person who is determined to avoid the sin, but who is unwilling to give up its near occasion when it is possible to do so, is not rightly disposed for confession, and he will not be absolved if he makes known to the priest the true state of his conscience.

Q. 774. How many kinds of occasions of sin are there?
A. There are four kinds of occasions of sin:

1. • Near occasions, through which we always fall;
   • Remote occasions, through which we sometimes fall;
   • Voluntary occasions or those we can avoid; and
   • Involuntary occasions or those we cannot avoid. A person who lives in a near and voluntary occasion of sin need not expect forgiveness while he continues in that state.

 

[ProVobis]

*]Emotional wounds
*]Established habits
*]Strong coercion
*] Great fear
*] Great fatigue

Yes, these are mitigating circumstances but at least two priests have told me they should be confessed anyway. God decides whether they are mitigating and to what degree. I would say most who don’t know any better would probably rationalize (i.e.,must be venial) instead of taking responsibility for the act.

 

[Bookcat]

So I’ll take that as a yes.

Tis not a simple yes or no.

Take each word --each sentence --of the CCC that I quoted above (and one can read too the surrounding context on the CCC that I linked). Lots packed in there.

 

[Vico]

Yes, these are mitigating circumstances but at least two priests have told me they should be confessed anyway. God decides whether they are mitigating and to what degree. I would say most who don’t know any better would probably rationalize (i.e.,must be venial) instead of taking responsibility for the act.

That is very good advice.

 

[Bookcat]

If one confesses something where there doubt though that such a mortal sin was committed- one would note such.

 

[ProVobis]

If one confesses something where there doubt though that such a mortal sin was committed- one would note such.

Where in the CCC does it say that? Taking responsibility for committing the deed, omission, etc. is what confession is about. Leave the excuses and doubts for civil court lawyers and juries.

 

[ProVobis]

I couldn’t find that in the CCC. Seems to me that taking responsibility for committing the deed, omission, etc. is what confession is about. If the priest needs to know more, he’ll ask you.

 

[Bookcat]

I couldn’t find that in the CCC. Seems to me that taking responsibility for committing the deed, omission, etc. is what confession is about. If the priest needs to know more, he’ll ask you.

Could not find what?

In any case we have to always keep in mind the Catechism is not meant to be some exhaustive source though a splendid source it is!

Yes confession is about confessing sins (if mortal they must be confessed…and mortal are to be confessed in number and kind and that which changes the kind–such as the building you burned down was a Church).

One takes responsibility for well what one has responsibility for. If say a thought goes through my mind that I should steal from my boss -but I do not consent to such an evil thought - there is no sin and I should not mention it. If I see there was some consent -but I am rather doubtful that I gave complete consent - I note that if it is confessed.

A good rule of thumb for those who do not struggle with scruples is to mention something that they are doubtful about in terms of mortal sin (though noting there is doubt).

Those who struggle with scruples are often advised not to mention doubtful things (their regular confessor can guide them-and I will note too that it is important for them to have a regular confessor)