"Full Knowledge" and Mortal Sin

[Neil_Anthony]

Isn’t the prudent thing to do; is to hope for the best but prepare for the worst? And shouldn’t we make others aware of that so that they, too, can take a similar course of action in preparing for the worst while hoping for the best?

But what if that outlook is in itself a sin; despairing on the mercy of God?

(Just buggin’ ya, I appreciate your warnings. So many people are afraid to tell you that you might be doing something wrong!)

 

[Pug]

I do not think Fr. Hardon’s words are inconsistent with the CCC. They seem to expalin the issue more deeply.

I agree Fr. Hardon is talking about a similar topic, but he does not seem to say anything similar to the “no one is deemed ignorant” phrase from the CCC 1860. I’m sorry, I know I’m confused here, but could you answer a question? Do you think it is possible for a person at a particular moment in their life to be unintentionally/invincibly ignorant that, say, self-abuse (M), is wrong? (Or choose any sin that is against the natural law.) I don’t mean for their whole life while supposedly living as a well-instructed Catholic. I just mean like Fr. Hardon says here, at a particular moment or time of choice,

Ignorance is invincible (from the Latin which means “unconquerable”) when it is present all right but there is no reasonable way, here and now, of dispelling it so that the person cannot be held responsible for doing what he does not know is wrong. He may not even suspect his ignorance

If you answer my question “yes”, then what does it mean that “no one is deemed ignorant of the principles of the moral law”? What is an example of a principle that you cannot ever be invincibly ignorant of?

 

[Pug]

I have a “too hard file” like you would not believe!!! You sure you did not mean “lights on, but no one home”?http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/28/28_1_5.gif

I love that graphic. It looks so peaceful, but I can imagine a huge pile of stuff right outside of the frame, looming over the hammock. That’s my “to do” pile.

 

[Pug]

The bible tells us that ignorance is no excuse and those who sin, even if they didn’t know it, will still be held accountable. The bible also says that if we confess our sins, they will be forgiven.

This brings to mind one of the sayings of Jesus:

Luke 12:47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; 48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

Sir Knight:

But if we do not recognize our sins due to ignorance, we will not confess them and having not confessed them, they will not be forgiven – thus, the words of our Lord that MANY will be lost and FEW will be saved.

I want to add for clarity that if you go to confession and honestly confess whatever mortal things you can recall doing, you are forgiven, even for those mortal sins that you did not confess. (I am not talking about deliberate concealment here, but a sincere, good confession).

 

[Bishopite]

Hello all,

I was wondering…what exactly does “Full Knowledge” MEAN? It seems simple but I don’t think it is, at least not in my case! (I struggle with scrupulosity…I’m working on it though, and I AM making progress.)

For instance, does someone commit mortal sin if they know something is wrong, and maybe even significantly so, and they wonder if maybe it might be a mortal sin, but they don’t think with any certainty that it’s a “grave” sin and they have not ever seen it on a list of “possible mortal sins” or been told that it is one?

I’m just starting out on my journey as a Catholic, and I often make choices where beforehand I think to myself “Well, this isn’t good…I’d even call this immoral/unethical. I know it’s a sin, but I don’t think it’s a mortal sin…” and then I do it. And later I’ll feel horrible and panicky wondering if I committed a mortal sin and wanting to go to confession even if I already did once that week.

I know I just shouldn’t do things that I know are wrong in the first place, and I’m working on that, but since I sometimes do and later find myself in this awful situation, I would really appreciate anyone’s advice on whether the situation I mentioned would meet the qualification of “full knowledge” as far as mortal sin is concerned.

Thanks in advance.

Many new Catholics go through this, as I did.
It is difficult at first because you don’t yet know if something is “grave” in matter. The odds are likely you have not committed a mortal sin, if you are so worried about commiting one, but if you can’t call a Priest,or go to confession perhaps calling a good orthodox faithful Catholic friend who is knowledgable about Catholic moral theology and that friend could help you discern if your sin was grave or not. A mortal sin has to be something of grave nature that is freely chosen and adequate consent that essentially says the heck with you God, I’m going to do it anyway.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This brings to mind one of the sayings of Jesus:

Luke 12:47 That servant who knew his master’s will but did not make preparations nor act in accord with his will shall be beaten severely; 48 and the servant who was ignorant of his master’s will but acted in a way deserving of a severe beating shall be beaten only lightly. Much will be required of the person entrusted with much, and still more will be demanded of the person entrusted with more.

And how do you reconcile that with Leviticus 5:17 …

If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

I want to add for clarity that if you go to confession and honestly confess whatever mortal things you can recall doing, you are forgiven, even for those mortal sins that you did not confess. (I am not talking about deliberate concealment here, but a sincere, good confession).

So let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that if I commit a sin which I do not realize is a sin and therefore I am not sorry for it because I do not consider it to be a sin, I will still be forgive for it?

That would mean that ignorance would excuse my sin but as we have seen via earlier posts in this thread, the CCC tells us that ignorance does NOT excuse our sin.

 

[fix]

I agree Fr. Hardon is talking about a similar topic, but he does not seem to say anything similar to the “no one is deemed ignorant” phrase from the CCC 1860. I’m sorry, I know I’m confused here, but could you answer a question? Do you think it is possible for a person at a particular moment in their life to be unintentionally/invincibly ignorant that, say, self-abuse (M), is wrong? (Or choose any sin that is against the natural law.) I don’t mean for their whole life while supposedly living as a well-instructed Catholic. I just mean like Fr. Hardon says here, at a particular moment or time of choice,

If you answer my question “yes”, then what does it mean that “no one is deemed ignorant of the principles of the moral law”? What is an example of a principle that you cannot ever be invincibly ignorant of?

I found this in the old CE:

… It is undeniable that a man cannot be invincibly ignorant of the natural law, so far as its first principles are concerned, and the inferences easily drawn therefrom. This, however, according to the teaching ofSt. Thomas, is not true of those remoter conclusions, which are deducible only by a process of laborious and sometimes intricate reasoning. Of these a person may be invincibly ignorant. Even when the invincible ignorance is concomitant, it prevents the act which it accompanies from being regarded as sinful. The perverse temper of soul, which in this case is supposed, retains, of course, such malice as it had. Vincible ignorance, being in some way voluntary, does not permit a man to escape responsibility for the moral deformity of his deeds; he is held to be guilty and in general the more guilty in proportion as his ignorance is more voluntary. Hence, the essential thing to remember is that the guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

 

[Pug]

And how do you reconcile that with Leviticus 5:17

Reconcile? Sacred Scripture is not in disagreement with itself. Perhaps it would be in order to describe what I think Lev 5:17 is discussing.

The sacrificial system in the OT is a complex topic. I don’t fully understand why they sacrificed which animals and what all triggered the behavior. It is quite true that they sacrificed animals as a result of inadvertent trespasses, like touching an unclean carcass without realizing it. Your verse and its context bear a passing resemblance to other passages about inadvertence. For example, it mandates an animal sacrifice for the situation. So, for me to feel comfortable that I understand it, I would need to understand those other verses and how it relates (or doesn’t relate).

Lev 5:2 Or if any one touch any unclean thing, whether it be the carcass of an unclean beast, or the carcass of unclean cattle, or the carcass of unclean creeping things, and it be hidden from him, and he be unclean, then he shall be guilty. 3 Or if he touch the uncleanness of man, whatsoever his uncleanness be wherewith he is unclean, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty. 4 Or if any one swear rashly with his lips to do evil, or to do good, whatsoever it be that a man shall utter rashly with an oath, and it be hid from him; when he knoweth of it, then he shall be guilty in one of these things . 5 And it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things , that he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned: 6 and he shall bring his trespass-offering unto Jehovah for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.

In this lengthy cut, possibly we can see guilt incurred at two separate times. In the verse 2 case it is uncleanness and it happens when unintentional carcass contact happens, and it doesn’t seem to mention about when the man later figures out that it happened. In verse 3 and 4 we see the uncleanness or guilt being incurred not when the thing happens, but instead it is later, when the man finds out about it. In verses 5 and 6 he is told that when he does find out about it (is guilty of it), he is to confess it and make an animal sacrifice for his sin.

Does this mean that some things cause guilt right away and other things cause guilt only when we find out later on that it happened? I don’t know. Perhaps it is just assumed throughout that an individual’s obligation to seek a sacrifice happens only once he finds out about it. With the way holiness and cleanness work, I think it might be somewhat different for the community as a whole or the temple.

Also, they could be talking about two different types of not knowing. A person could not know that it is wrong to touch an unclean carcass and then later on find out that it is wrong. Or, a person could know it is wrong, but nevertheless touch an unclean carcass without realizing that they have done so. Perhaps you trip and fall onto a pile of leaves, but there was really a dead animal under the pile, but you just get up and dust yourself off without ever noticing the dead animal was there. If I understand the OT properly, either one would make you unclean.

Lev 5:17 And if any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done; though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity. 18 And he shall bring a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy estimation, for a trespass-offering, unto the priest; and the priest shall make atonement for him concerning the thing wherein he erred unwittingly and knew it not, and he shall be forgiven.

I think the Hebrew is unclear here if the person in verse 18 still remains in ignorance or not. It doesn’t say that the guy comes to remember or realize what he did, unlike in verse 4. For example, some kitchen accident could arise so that the man ends up eating the portion of the fat that he is not supposed to eat (the portion given to the priest and burned on the altar). The man has no way of ever knowing if this has happened to him during his life. Books I have read indicate that during history, men worried about this sort of thing happening - an unknown trespass against the sacred. Perhaps this passage is offering a way to remedy this. Make an offering to cover yourself in case such a thing has happened. Also, use an expensive enough animal for the sacrifice so that all types of offerings are covered for.

This reminds me of Oedipus. Oedipus has the concept that you can be suffering or perhaps punished even though you have no idea that you are sleeping with your mother.

At this time, I plan on another post for the remainder of your post.

 

[Pug]

So let me see if I have this straight. You are saying that if I commit a sin which I do not realize is a sin and therefore I am not sorry for it because I do not consider it to be a sin, I will still be forgive for it?

That would mean that ignorance would excuse my sin but as we have seen via earlier posts in this thread, the CCC tells us that ignorance does NOT excuse our sin.

I think you are suggesting a scenario which I haven’t thought about much before in the context of “invincible ignorance”. I was thinking of this canon:

Can. 988 §1 The faithful are bound to confess, in kind and in number, all grave sins committed after baptism, of which after careful examination of conscience they are aware, which have not yet been directly pardoned by the keys of the Church, and which have not been confessed in an individual confession.

They are bound to confess grave sins of which they are aware, after carefully examining their conscience. They are not bound to confess grave sins of which they are not aware after examining their conscience. What a horrid trap that would be for the poor person if it were impossible to make a good confession no matter how sincere. I specifically mentioned the sincere person in my other post.

I think you may have in mind a case where somehow one of the sins of which the person is unaware is a type of sin that if they were aware of it after an examen, they would not be willing to repent of it. So when they go and say to the priest that they are sorry for these and all the other sins they might have done, they are holding an exception card in their head, sort of like saying that they are only contrite if it doesn’t end up being one of the things on some personal list of theirs.

This is a problem with the person’s sincerity or purpose of amendment. I don’t think this is a problem of ignorance, per se. Suddenly giving the person knowledge would not fix the state of affairs. In other words, I think you are describing a person who does not intend wholeheartedly to amend their life. They are precisely unwilling to do what it takes, unwilling to give up sin.

Or, maybe you mean a different scenario. But I’m guessing you do mean this one, because this person could be accused of using ignorance as some cheap way to bypass guilt.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I love that graphic. It looks so peaceful, but I can imagine a huge pile of stuff right outside of the frame, looming over the hammock. That’s my “to do” pile.

I know what you mean about the “to do file”…I also have a “too hard file”!!! …both looming just outside the frame …I fear that this thread is heading for my “too hard file” and so I glanced up and saw “Moral Theology” forum. What on earth am I doing in a MT Forum???http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_39.gif
Barb

 

[Pug]

I found this in the old CE:

Cool! Thank you, fix. This is exactly the sort of thing I was wondering about. :nerd:I might toddle off to check out St. Thomas on this issue, as the article mentions he talks about it. But then again, I might not, as the article really does seem to answer my question.

BarbaraTherese:

What on earth am I doing in a MT Forum???

I just noticed they have a new philosophy forum as well.

 

[Pug]

I might toddle off to check out St. Thomas on this issue

Too late to edit my post. Thomas addresses these topics here:

Question 76. The causes of sin, in particular

1. 
   *]Is ignorance a cause of sin?
   *]Is ignorance a sin?
   *]Does it excuse from sin altogether?
   *]Does it diminish sin?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting Pug:

I just noticed they have a new philosophy forum as well.

A what!!??!!? Oh my goodness , thank you for the warning! May I be prevented from doing anything not only truly stupid, but really truly stupid! I better get out of this Forum, I am so far off topic it aint funny - sorry all!..Thanks heaps for the warning again: Barb:thumbsup:

 

[Sir_Knight]

Too late to edit my post. Thomas addresses these topics here:

Question 76. The causes of sin, in particular

1. 
   *]Is ignorance a cause of sin?
   *]Is ignorance a sin?
   *]Does it excuse from sin altogether?
   *]Does it diminish sin?

1. 
   That pretty much covers it …
   
   Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38. Therefore ignorance is a sin. – SOURCE: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2076.htm

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Cool! Thank you, fix. This is exactly the sort of thing I was wondering about. :nerd:I might toddle off to check out St. Thomas on this issue, as the article mentions he talks about it. But then again, I might not, as the article really does seem to answer my question.

I just noticed they have a new philosophy forum as well.

Thanks for this altert, Pug…I try to avoid Apologetics, Moral Theology and oh my certainly Philosophy! …I’m somewhat out of depth in these.

Blessings …Barb