Fornication, Mortal or grave sin?

[LilyM]

I have a twist on this with an example:

Lets say a couple - engaged - falls due to weakness of flesh and or failing to take proper precautions against being over taken by their passions and love for each other though didn’t realize they weren’t taking strong enough precautions.

Though they never meant or intended to fall and have done well to remain chaste for over a year, they did so fall of human weakness and regret it because they know of the spiritual, emotional and physical dangers but feelings were so strong they just couldn’t stop themselves in the heat of the moment.

They never intended to get this far out of control. It sort of snuck up on them over time.

Here is the twist;

There is no scandal to the young. One is physically sterile and cannot conceive and even if this wasn’t the case their disposition is completely open to life.

This fall happens on a Saturday night and they intend to make it right and do better in the future.

Q’s:

1.) Have all three requirements for this fall to be a mortal sin been met?

2.) Are they omitted from communion on the next day - Sunday - until they can receive absolution?

I look forward to your opinions.

Thanks.

There’s really no such thing as having sex without intending to have sex - without it being a situation such as rape where actual force was used and therefore consent was lacking.

As for ‘they just couldn’t stop themselves’ - utter baloney. If their parents or the postman walked in on them they would stop DEAD COLD. OF course they could stop, they didn’t want to. And sex isn’t just a single act - there’s leadup. You start kissing, you start caressing, you take each other’s clothes off. Certanly people can and should stop at that point - I mean what ELSE do they think taking each other’s clothes off is going to lead to? And certainly people are CAPABLE of stopping at that point!

By the way, what were they doing when they put themselves in a position where they could be alone together anyway? Did anyone force themselves to be in that situation? Altogether it’s called a ‘near occasion of sin’ and they waltzed straight into it.

 

[Joab_Anias]

As for ‘they just couldn’t stop themselves’ - utter baloney.

Good point. The word couldn’t should be changed to wouldn’t. I can’t make the edit now, its been to long.

The questions remain unanswered though:

1.) Have all three requirements for this fall to be a mortal sin been met?

2.) Are they omitted from communion on the next day - Sunday - until they can receive absolution?

Here is a third:

3.) Since there is no chance of conception what else would be the grave matter? (I ask because I am unsure).

 

[carlitos]

As for ‘they just couldn’t stop themselves’ - utter baloney.

It is hard for me to believe that YOU honestly believe this in the 21st century… and here is why…

By the way, what were they doing when they put themselves in a position where they could be alone together anyway?

It pains me to see you type this but unless you live in a traditional 19th century european community still in existance… this situation is going to be occurring quite often. During the setting of the bible, dating… or courting was a very formal matter, in most cases there was no courting just a matching by parents. Today we are very specific with our partners and take many years spending lots of time with a person we care about to be sure of that very special wedding day. We do not spend these bonding sessions with our parents nearby. It could involve watching a movie or going for a walk. In these situations the passion and love for the person CAN take over and it IS extremely difficult to pull away when love makes everything feel right.

Did anyone force themselves to be in that situation?

During the time of jesus pre-married couples were forced to NOT be in those situations; today it is as common as a blue sky.

Altogether it’s called a ‘near occasion of sin’ and they waltzed straight into it.

Your arguments are what we would expect from a person teleporting here from the past. I do not blame you specifically though, our faith is real, definitely is real, the problem is it also asks us to be blind. We simply can not be expected to follow rules that were written as long ago as they were. All rules need to be updates over time. That is definitely one of the issues with the current state of the church. As the world keeps changing the church will eventually (eventually being a very loose time period) will follow. Though it worries me because of the power of the bible, but just like we cringe and struggle to watch old movies, it seems amazing that we do not act the same towards the bible, when it was not specifically written to last all the ages especially the future changes in social behavior that no-one before Christ could have imagined.

 

[OraLabora]

Grave matter and a mortal sin are not the same thing. But a grave SIN and a mortal **SIN **are exactly the same thing. Grave =deadly sin and mortal=deadly sin. So, yes a grave OR mortal SIN are the same thing but grave MATTER and mortal SIN are NOT the same thing. hope that this clears things up…God Bless…teachccd

This makes absolutely no sense.

A act which is sinful is an act called sin; this act can have two attributes: it is grave, or not grave. A state of mortal sin is not an act, it is a state conferred on another entity called a person by the act of sinning. The person can exist in one of two moral states: a state of grace or a state of mortal sin. In other words it is a changeable attribute for that person.

The state of mortal sin is arrived at by the act of sinning on a grave matter, with full knowledge and consent. The state of grace is arrived at by penance and reconciliation.

It is logical nonsense to say that grave sin and mortal sin are the same. They are not. One is an act, one is a state.

What is logical to say is this: a state of mortal sin always involves grave matter, but grave matter does not always imply a state of mortal sin. The gravity of the sin alone cannot confer a mortal status upon a person’s soul.

 

[crazzeto]

It’s grave matter, if you commit a sin which is grave matter in full knowlege that it is in fact grave matter, not under any kind of diress then it is a mortal sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Fornication is an objective mortal sin. When any objective mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the grave immorality of the act, and with full consent, then it is an actual mortal sin. Only actual mortal sin is deserving of eternal punishment (that is, if the person does not repent).

 

[AndyF]

Jesus N Cherie:

A good explanation can be found here:

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Andy

 

[OraLabora]

Fornication is an objective mortal sin. When any objective mortal sin is committed with full knowledge of the grave immorality of the act, and with full consent, then it is an actual mortal sin. Only actual mortal sin is deserving of eternal punishment (that is, if the person does not repent).

No, it’s an objective grave sin. When any objective grave sin is committed with full knowledge of the grave immorality of the act, and with full consent, then it is an actual mortal sin. All grave sin can put a person in a state of mortal sin, with full knowledge and consent.

 

[Bookcat]

It is a grave MATTER and if done with the right knowledge and consent it is a mortal sin.

In the same way killing an innocent person is a grave matter…etc

Or robbing a bank…

all these things are grave matters. if done with full knowledge and full consent they are mortal sins.

 

[Ron_Conte]

No, it’s an objective grave sin. When any objective grave sin is committed with full knowledge of the grave immorality of the act, and with full consent, then it is an actual mortal sin. All grave sin can put a person in a state of mortal sin, with full knowledge and consent.

Terminology is not doctrine.
You are using different terminology to describe the same doctrine.
Your terminology is not wrong, but it is not the only way to express that doctrine.
In magisterial documents, from one document to another, and even within the same document, different terminology may be used to describe the same doctrine.

 

[OraLabora]

Terminology is not doctrine.
You are using different terminology to describe the same doctrine.
Your terminology is not wrong, but it is not the only way to express that doctrine.
In magisterial documents, from one document to another, and even within the same document, different terminology may be used to describe the same doctrine.

Precise terminology is important to get one’s message across. The primary teaching document of the Church, the CCC, makes a clear distinction between the state of mortal sin, and the gravity of the matter, in both English and in the French CCC that I normally use.

One is a state in which the person can find him/herself, the other, an attribute of the act.

It may just be the programmer/analyst in me, but failure to clearly define attributes, states and entities can cause serious problems; when I start a project I define the classes (objects) and attributes they may have, and I design a state chart for those whose properties change in a process; the state chart shows the pathways by which the entity can change state.

In this case, mixing up the terminology can make people fear that they are in a state of mortal sin when they may not be. Mind you if you’re the fire-and-brimstone type that may be your goal.

In this situation we’d have Class defined as a Catholic Person, with attributes such as male/female, height, race, hair colour, height, etc, and a particular property that we can call “Grace” which can shift from State of Grace to State of Mortal Sin via acts: Sin (att: grave), and receiving Absolution.

It’s all very clear to me, a very simple example of object-oriented analysis!

It would actually be a very good example to teach someone object-oriented analysis!

 

[Ron_Conte]

Precise terminology is important to get one’s message across. The primary teaching document of the Church, the CCC, makes a clear distinction between the state of mortal sin, and the gravity of the matter, in both English and in the French CCC that I normally use.

The teaching of the Church is found in the Sacred Deposit of Faith (Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture). The Magisterium teaches from the Deposit of Faith (as well as from natural law). The Magisterium teaches infallibly through solemn definitions of the Pope, solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils, and the Universal Magisterium. The Magisterium also teaches non-infallibly in many ways.

The Catechism is not ‘the primary teaching document of the Church’. It is a useful resource, but it must be understood in the light of the teachings of Popes and Councils, and of the body of Bishops dispersed through the world.

When some persons attempt to understand the Catholic Faith solely or mainly from the Catechism, they fall into various errors. Sometimes they misunderstand what the Catechism means, because they are not aware of the many teaching documents of the Magisterium that are related to any point that the Catechism makes. Other times they confuse the particular mode of expression used by the Catechism to teach a doctrine; they confuse terminology with teaching.

The idea that the Catechism establishes definitive terminology, such that no other terminology may be used, is absurd.

When an act has gravely immoral matter, that act is objectively a mortal sin. Various terminology may be used. The act is gravely immoral. The matter of the act is grave. The act is an objective mortal sin. The act is an objective mortal sin.

Several important magisterial documents use the term ‘actual mortal sin’ (as I already quoted and cited). This term implies that some sins are mortal sins but are not actual mortal sins. Only actual mortal sin deprives the person of the state of grace.

Also, actual mortal sin is not a state, it is an act. A person who commits an actual mortal sin and does not repent is said to be in a state of actual mortal sin, because he has lost the state of grace by an act of actual mortal sin. But this state is distinct from the actual mortal sin itself, which is a type of sinful act, one in which all three conditions mentioned previously are met.

An example of variation in terminology: The term dogma was used by the early Church Fathers to refer to any authoritative decree, whether by the Church or by secular authority. Later, the term developed to be used only to any decree of the Church, including decrees of the temporal authority. Next, the term was narrowed to refer to only teachings of the Magisterium. Currently the term dogma is used to refer only to infallible teachings of the Magisterium. And while some theologians use the term dogma to refer to any infallible teaching of the Magisterium, other theologians narrow the term dogma to refer only to solemn definitions, and not also to teachings of the Universal Magisterium.

 

[MaryBitoni]

I am a freshman at a majority university in Southern California. I am a practicing Catholic and I am appalled what I see going on in the dorms. Casual sex is rampant. Coed parties where hardcore porn is watched is the norm and having private sex tapes is something that is bragged about.

Also, a number of the girls in the dorm have come into money. It turns out that they involved with hardcore pornography and escorting.

What is very disturbing is many of these girls are Catholic. And the reason I know this is because, I go to mass every Sunday and I see many of this girls at Sunday Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

They have no problems committing mortal sins and have no fear of going to hell.

I don’t know what to do. I am being pressured to have sex and I am concerned about the corrosive environment in the dorms and that I may fall into the sin of fornication.

Mary

 

[Bookcat]

I have been in a discussion with a Catholic friend who many times seems very wise.

He has told me that fornication is NOT a mortal sin, but only a grave sin. He has backed this up with the Catechism.

Can anyone help me to understand how it is not a mortal sin? He says that it is because it isn’t specifically mentioned in the 10 commandments…unless I am totally misunderstanding his reasoning…and there is a chance of that.

There is also the problem that the 10 Commandments state: Thou shall not kill. Yet, for self defense of yourself or another, or in war…killing is not a mortal sin.

Thou shall not steal is also a Commandment of the 10, but if a person is starving, and has no other recourse to food except stealing, that makes it not a mortal sin.

So, what is the deal with fornication…which seems that it would be much worse than stealing…even if you planned to get married but were called off to war before your wedding day.

Mortal sin = Serious sin = Grave sin

The Church uses these terms in two senses. And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:
Fornication is a grave sin.
Fornication is a serious sin.
Fornication 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…
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 use in Church documents

---

When speaking with someone as to what a mortal (etc) sin is…that is when it is “committed”. I prefer to use the language that the Catechism and the Compendium uses…“grave matter”.

So I tell people “fornication is a grave matter” and if you do it with full knowledge and complete consent…then one commits a mortal sin.

(though again one could say …then one commits a grave sin)

 

[JimG]

I am a freshman at a majority university in Southern California. I am a practicing Catholic and I am appalled what I see going on in the dorms. Casual sex is rampant. Coed parties where hardcore porn is watched is the norm and having private sex tapes is something that is bragged about.

Also, a number of the girls in the dorm have come into money. It turns out that they involved with hardcore pornography and escorting.

What is very disturbing is many of these girls are Catholic. And the reason I know this is because, I go to mass every Sunday and I see many of this girls at Sunday Mass and receiving Holy Communion.

They have no problems committing mortal sins and have no fear of going to hell.

I don’t know what to do. I am being pressured to have sex and I am concerned about the corrosive environment in the dorms and that I may fall into the sin of fornication.

Mary

This is a very old thread which has been resurrected. But Mary Bitoni’s observations probably deserve a new thread.