Failure to Commit a Mortal Sin

[Solmyr]

But it is a crime nonetheless, a violation of the criminal law, just like intent to sin is a violation of God’s law.

Hold it. Merely contemplating a murder is not a crime. If you actually attempt to carry it out, and fail - due to some circumstances - THEN it is crime. That difference is substantial.

Quite unlike the quote: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) Looking at someone is not an attempt… Personally, I look at beautiful women “lustfully”, but I have absolutely no intention to act on that “lust” - even if I had the opportunity. It is idle fantasying.

 

[Bookcat]

Sorry, to say that “intent” is also a “sin”, even if it is not carried out - is the quintessential definition of “thought crime”.

No.

and

No.

And lets say it again: no.

---

If a person intends - such as makes the choice to commit adultery against his wife - he has already betrayed her by that choice. He has sinned against his wife - and against God.

Now if he repents before he carries it out - he has not yet committed the external action of adultery -but he has still committed the sin of the interior betrayal of his wife - the sin of choosing to engage in adultery.

“Thought crime” is about “crimes against the state” where it is not legal to think against the state or what the state does not want you to think about. Those thoughts can even objectively be very good - but to that state such is a crime.

Very different realities.

We as human persons are to be good in our actions and our desires and thoughts…to do good and avoid evil. All evil. Be it evil thoughts, desires or actions.

 

[davidv]

Hold it. Merely contemplating a murder is not a crime. If you actually attempt to carry it out, and fail - due to some circumstances - THEN it is crime. That difference is substantial.

Quite unlike the quote: “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.” (Matthew 5:28) Looking at someone is not an attempt… Personally, I look at beautiful women “lustfully”, but I have absolutely no intention to act on that “lust” - even if I had the opportunity. It is idle fantasying.

So you are going to argue semantics.

If so, a more parallel criminal example might be conspiring to commit murder.

 

[otjm]

The concept of “thought-crime” raises its ugly head again. How can the most horrible despotism combined with torture and brain-washing arrive at the same proposition as Christianity? Don’t you see that there is something wrong with this picture?

You really need to read the Gospels. Christ answered your question 2,000 years ago.

 

[Solmyr]

So you are going to argue semantics.

Words are supposed to have meanings, if one wishes to conduct an intelligent conversation.

If so, a more parallel criminal example might be conspiring to commit murder.

Conspiring to commit a murder is STILL not murder. Even if someone decides to commit a murder, and embarks on the road to actually commit a murder… it is STILL only an ATTEMPTED murder. It may be a crime, but it is a different crime. But as long as someone just contemplates an action (murder) but does not even attempt to carry it out… it would be a thought crime if it would be prosecuted.

You really need to read the Gospels. Christ answered your question 2,000 years ago.

Why do you think that the bible is meaningful in a secular question? Maybe you should read the book “1984”. (By the way I did read the bible… that is where the question is coming from.)

 

[Bookcat]

Why do you think that the bible is meaningful in a secular question?

Your in the wrong forum…this is the Moral Theology Forum of Catholic Answers. We discuss moral theology here…

We have answered you already.

Your posts derail this thread - a thread where a person has come to ask a particular moral theology question. So please cease this - thanks.

 

[davidv]

Words are supposed to have meanings, if one wishes to conduct an intelligent conversation.

Conspiring to commit a murder is STILL not murder.

When did I state that it was? The point is that it is a crime, even if is not ATTEMPTED.

Even if someone decides to commit a murder, and embarks on the road to actually commit a murder… it is STILL only an ATTEMPTED murder. It may be a crime, but it is a different crime. But as long as someone just contemplates an action (murder) but does not even attempt to carry it out… it would be a thought crime if it would be prosecuted.

Why do you think that the bible is meaningful in a secular question?

Secular question have divine answers.

Maybe you should read the book “1984”. (By the way I did read the bible… that is where the question is coming from.)

 

[Solmyr]

When did I state that it was? The point is that it is a crime, even if is not ATTEMPTED.

Don’t change the words. I did not talk about “conspiring” either. Just “contemplating”. It was YOU who used it as a parallel. According to the bible (Matthew 5:28): “But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.”. Even if it is NOT attempted at all. By the way… adultery implies a marriage status. Maybe Jesus meant “fornication”… but I would assume that Jesus would know the difference. Maybe it is yet another mistranslation.

Secular question have divine answers.

Do they? Then why doesn’t God share it with us? And don’t say that the church is the mouthpiece for God. No one speaks for God.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

If a person intends - such as makes the choice to commit adultery against his wife - he has already betrayed her by that choice. He has sinned against his wife - and against God.

Now if he repents before he carries it out - he has not yet committed the external action of adultery -but he has still committed the sin of the interior betrayal of his wife - the sin of choosing to engage in adultery.

It is difficult to determine intent if the act is not carried out.

For example, many people have the intention of trying skydiving. The get in a plane which takes off. But when the door opens and it is time to jump, they feel the wind rushing by, they change their minds and don’t jump. One could argue their intention was not very firm. They thought they wanted to skydive. But it turns out they didn’t.

Similarly, it could be that someone thought they wanted to rob a bank. They buy a mask and a fake gun, go to the bank, and then as the see the bank, the seriousness of the act finally hits home. Until they take some action that would have confirmed the intention to rob the bank, it is quite likely they don’t actually have that intention as much as they thought they did - just like the skydiver. Such a person has not committed a mortal sin because the intention was not confirmed.

Only God knows the truth of whether the intention was real or not. No one else could say on their behalf that they had sinned.

 

[mikekle]

I’m not sure I agree with some of the responses here.

The bank robber is certainly not in a good place spiritually or morally. Would the robber’s culpability still be the same if his car hadn’t started and he never left the driveway of his home or perhaps if he misplaced the weapon he intended on using.

For a sin to be mortal three things need to be present: 1) Object is grave matter; 2) committed with full knowledge; 3) and deliberate consent.

In this case since murder or bank robbing is not committed at least one of the three requirements is not met. I’m not sure that travelling to the bank is enough to say the sin has been committed.

I would never argue that this bank robber is blameless and off the hook. He has plenty of issues to work through though.

ChadS

Im not so sure about that, if there was really not much difference to thinking about a sin/crime and actually committing it, I tend to think many people who already think about these things, would just go ahead and fulfill their desires, after all, if they are already guilty of the sin for considering it, why not follow thru, there would be nothing more to loose…right?

Ive seen a handful of cases where someone goes into a place with the intention of robbing them, but they have second thoughts, usually the employee talks them out of it, in fact this happened recently around here, some guy went into a small store and attempted to hold them up, the old lady working there started talking to him calmly and eventually she got thru to him, he admitted to her he was only doing it to give his kids christmas gifts, he left without any problems, this was on the news. Ive seen a few other similar cases just like this over the years.

The police did respond to the store, but after realizing what had happened, the lady did not pursue the case and the police never went after him, so I think that was a good thing, he was shown the evil in what he was doing and he recognized it and stopped…what more could we ask of him?

 

[ChadS]

Im not so sure about that, if there was really not much difference to thinking about a sin/crime and actually committing it, I tend to think many people who already think about these things, would just go ahead and fulfill their desires, after all, if they are already guilty of the sin for considering it, why not follow thru, there would be nothing more to loose…right?

Ive seen a handful of cases where someone goes into a place with the intention of robbing them, but they have second thoughts, usually the employee talks them out of it, in fact this happened recently around here, some guy went into a small store and attempted to hold them up, the old lady working there started talking to him calmly and eventually she got thru to him, he admitted to her he was only doing it to give his kids christmas gifts, he left without any problems, this was on the news. Ive seen a few other similar cases just like this over the years.

The police did respond to the store, but after realizing what had happened, the lady did not pursue the case and the police never went after him, so I think that was a good thing, he was shown the evil in what he was doing and he recognized it and stopped…what more could we ask of him?

I suppose we differ in the fact that I believe there is some difference in thinking about a crime/sin and actually committing one. In this hypothetical situation the bank robber is still in some morally perilous water, however it’s not the same as if he’d actually robbed the bank.

ChadS

 

[Bookcat]

Im not so sure about that, if there was really not much difference to thinking about a sin/crime and actually committing it, I tend to think many people who already think about these things, would just go ahead and fulfill their desires, after all, if they are already guilty of the sin for considering it, why not follow thru, there would be nothing more to loose…right?

Yes there is a difference.

It is yes already a mortal sin to hate someone and want them to be murdered. It is a worse mortal sin to go and murder them.

 

[Bookcat]

It is difficult to determine intent if the act is not carried out.
.

Difficult? It can be at times - sure.

But one can yes rather quite know that one has with full knowledge given deliberate consent to some grave matter…even if not carried into external action.

 

[Bookcat]

For example, many people have the intention of trying skydiving. The get in a plane which takes off. But when the door opens and it is time to jump, they feel the wind rushing by, they change their minds and don’t jump. One could argue their intention was not very firm. They thought they wanted to skydive. But it turns out they didn’t.

Similarly, it could be that someone thought they wanted to rob a bank. They buy a mask and a fake gun, go to the bank, and then as the see the bank, the seriousness of the act finally hits home. Until they take some action that would have confirmed the intention to rob the bank, it is quite likely they don’t actually have that intention as much as they thought they did - just like the skydiver. Such a person has not committed a mortal sin because the intention was not confirmed.

.

I think rather the seriousness of the act is going to be quite clear from the get go - for most persons. So I would not agree with this example here. But yes some cases need a confessor to assist.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

1853 Sins can be distinguished according to their objects, as can every human act; or according to the virtues they oppose, by excess or defect; or according to the commandments they violate. They can also be classed according to whether they concern God, neighbor, or oneself; they can be divided into spiritual and carnal sins, or again as sins in thought, word, deed, or omission. The root of sin is in the heart of man, in his free will, according to the teaching of the Lord: "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murder, adultery, fornication, theft, false witness, slander. These are what defile a man."128 But in the heart also resides charity, the source of the good and pure works, which sin wounds.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1850

 

[Bookcat]

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
393. Is there a variety of sins?
**
1852-1853
1873

There are a great many kinds of sins. They can be distinguished according to their object or according to the virtues or commandments which they violate. They can directly concern God, neighbor, or ourselves. They can also be divided into sins of thought, of word, of deed, or of omission.

394. How are sins distinguished according to their gravity?

1854

A distinction is made between mortal and venial sin.

**395. When does one commit a mortal sin?
**
1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
**
396. When does one commit a venial sin?**

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Rau]

We must’ve been looking at two different sections of the Catechism, since where I found the three requirements for mortal sin, explicitly used the word “commit” (paragraph 1857 I believe). A few paragraphs before mention that sin can indeed be committed in one’s heart. However, I believe the Catechism is deep enough to answer most questions, as it seems to have now.

ChadS

Is it your contention that an assassin with a bad aim will not be guilty or mortal sin before God - because he missed? Or are you contemplating a different level of mortal sin - one for the assassin with the good aim, and a lesser one for the assassin with the bad aim?

 

[Rau]

Thanks for all the replies. I must admit I find them - scary.

To change the scenario: instead of finding the bank closed, the would be robber - approaching the bank - remembers a discussion on the Catholic Answers Forum that robbing a bank is a mortal sin. The would be robber then decides not to go through with the robbery and instead goes to St. Harold’s parish unemployment assistance program.

In this case the sin was not prevented but rather the would be sinner decided not to commit the sin. Is the would be robber still guilty of mortal sin?

Thanks again!

The free and deliberate choice to do something heinous is the done deal. The decision later to re-think is separate and good act for sure. But it does not undo what came before, if the prior choice was indeed deliberately made.

 

[Rau]

Hold it. Merely contemplating a murder is not a crime. If you actually attempt to carry it out, and fail - due to some circumstances - THEN it is crime. That difference is substantial.

Don’t think anyone is disputing those observations about the law of the land.

Conspiring (to murder) is also a crime. Nothing needs to be done but engage with another person about an act one intends - never even lifting a finger to actually execute the plan. A different crime for sure, but, as measured by the penalty, not VERY different. For example, in the first jurisdiction I checked, the penalty is up to 25 years in prison. The key difference (between say a conspiracy, or an attempt - versus “murder”) lies in the *consequences *of the crime for other persons - and this is a factor the secular law usually (but not always) takes into account in grading its penalty.

The secular law does not hold one’s thoughts against anyone (for obvious reasons). God sees more deeply and is quite able to do so should he please.

 

[mikekle]

Yes there is a difference.

It is yes already a mortal sin to hate someone and want them to be murdered. It is a worse mortal sin to go and murder them.

Jesus said anyone who lusted in their hearts (minds), were already guilty of the act/ sin, so naturally, another sin, killing, more than likely, if someone commits it in their in mind or heart (desires it), they are already guilty of the sin itself…these are his words, not mine, Im not sure how you could interpret that any different.

Since you are guilty of the actual sin if you only think about it or strongly desire it, Im not sure how actually following thru with the physical act would make a difference at that point, what would the additional sin be?