Basically none of us have full knowledge of anything. So there must be a concept of full knowledge that does not mean having an exhaustive theological comprehension of the sin it’s history, future, and eternal consequences. Is it enough to say I should have known better and simply chose not to avail myself of accessible revelation? In other words, is willful or lazy ignorance essentially full knowledge?
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.
My understanding is that full knowledge means that you know it’s a sinful act (or thought, word etc.), even if you’re not consciously thinking about the sinful nature of the act at the time. I don’t mean like a hindsight thing, where you learn it was a mistake due to the result. I’d say that wilful and lazy ignorance must take some responsibility.
If a Christian living within access of the greater Christian community ignores traditional Christian morality, are they sinning in full knowledge when they violate it?
Is feeling conflicted about sin still full consent to it when one sins?
I am curious about the interpretation of this because I am concerned that full knowledge could be stretched to excuse almost anything in any circumstance but I can’t imagine that would be the intent. So what does it really mean?
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.
We don’t have to understand the full ins and outs of why something is wrong to understand that it is wrong. If one chooses to behave in a way that is sinful, for example… they may not ‘feel’ that it’s wrong despite knowing it is wrong, and that doesn’t mean that they aren’t guilty of that wrong. The Catechism states that certain things can diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.
All in all, it can be difficult to say, really. In this day and age, people are encouraged to sin …like it’s not sin at all, but a benefit, and experiencing full freedom. At the end of the day though, God is the just judge, and we have been given a conscience which we’re meant to use. This conscience can become desensitized over the years due to repeated sin, though the conscience would have initially guided a person correctly.
