"Full Knowledge" and Mortal Sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter LuxDei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
First of all, I admitted at several points on this thread that I have issues with scrupulosity, and what you just posted is not at all helpful for someone like me…Do you know anything about scrupulosity? Suffice it to say that you probably just destroyed my peace until I’m allowed to go to confession again next weekend.

My confessor told me the sins in question weren’t grave anyway, but now I’m panicking thinking of all the others I’ve forced myself to shrug off because of various priests’ advice that if there was doubt, it couldn’t have been mortal.

Have a good evening, SirKnight, and rest assured that you have ensured that I won’t.
 
SirKnight, I just posted on another thread where you argued that. And while it is important that we know our faith, have fear of the Lord, and not fall into complacency or laxity morally speaking, I do not for one second believe that all grave sins are mortal. Your post looks nice and all, but it doesn’t stand up to (like I said on the other thread) the fact that the CCC and every reliable source that describes mortal sin don’t just say “grave matter and being older than 7.”

So, I’ve decided that rather than let a layperson destroy my peace, I’m going to assume that the CCC and every priest I’ve ever met (not to mention every other layperson I’ve ever met) are the ones who have it right here. Especially since my conscience is already more than scrupulous enough to keep me confessing anything that might actually be mortal.

Take care.
 
One last clarification. Since I know the other posts have been so long, I’ll simplify things into one question here which gets to the heart of the matter:

Can I safely assume that I have not committed a mortal sin if I KNOW with complete certainty that I would NOT have done it if I had seen it on a list of grave sins somewhere or been given some other clear indication that it was grave?

The answer to that question is key for me…I often WONDER before I do something, but if I don’t know with certainty, then act, and later repent, can I rest assured that it was venial since I had no certainty that it was grave?

Thanks SO much.
I have not read all responses.

Be assured that at the time of actually committing the sin, you need to realize that the sin is grave and mortal and commit it anyway. But from reading some of the responses here, I would urge you if ever in doubt to discuss it with Father in Confession. This is a part of Father’s role in the Confessional.
You said you are just starting out on your journey as a Catholic and probably there will be quite a few things you need to sort out and talking to Father either in Confession or by appointment is what Prudence and Wisdom would dictate. I’m 62 years into my journey and still need to talk things over with Father on some scores to sort myself out.🙂 I am really blest to have a priest as my director and confessor and his purpose where I am concerned is to hear my confessions (as my confessor) and help sort me out (as my director).
Your questions come under the heading of Moral Theology and that is whole subject and career of itself in The Church. We have priests who are moral theologians and have spent years studying it. So dont feel in any way inadequate because moral issues are muddy waters to you.🙂 Some 62 years into my own journey and at times I am still unsure and need to talk things out with Father.

May God grant you His Peace and His Blessings…Barb:)
 
First of all, I admitted at several points on this thread that I have issues with scrupulosity, and what you just posted is not at all helpful for someone like me…Do you know anything about scrupulosity?
Oh yeah!
Suffice it to say that you probably just destroyed my peace until I’m allowed to go to confession again next weekend.
I had a priest in the confessional tell me just this past Wednesday that it is better for me to be scrupulos than feel nothing and walk around in a state of mortal sin. Both are bad but one could find oneself on the other extreme and accourding to him that is worse.
My confessor told me the sins in question weren’t grave anyway,
And he has the AUTHORITY to make that decision.
but now I’m panicking thinking of all the others I’ve forced myself to shrug off because of various priests’ advice that if there was doubt, it couldn’t have been mortal.
Again, they HAVE the authority to do so.
Have a good evening, SirKnight, and rest assured that you have ensured that I won’t.
Well, I’m sorry for ruining your night but let me ask you this … if you were bittne by a snake that MIGHT be poisonous, would you want me error on the side of caution?
 
SirKnight, I just posted on another thread where you argued that. And while it is important that we know our faith, have fear of the Lord, and not fall into complacency or laxity morally speaking, I do not for one second believe that all grave sins are mortal. Your post looks nice and all, but it doesn’t stand up to (like I said on the other thread) the fact that the CCC and every reliable source that describes mortal sin don’t just say “grave matter and being older than 7.”
No, but before it even begins to define mortal sin, it tells us that ignorance is no excuse. That teaching is not suddenly void but has to be taken in conjunction.
So, I’ve decided that rather than let a layperson destroy my peace, I’m going to assume that the CCC and every priest I’ve ever met (not to mention every other layperson I’ve ever met) are the ones who have it right here.
If you’re going to assume the the CCC is correct, then how does ignorance not being an excuse fit it with the definition of mortal sin?

Maybe I’ve got it wrong. Please explain it to me.
 
Lack of one of the three conditions for a mortal sin does not mean that one does not sin, just that it is not a mortal sin.

It is a venial sin if one of those conditions is not met.
That is not correct. If someone commits a grave sin but does not know its a grave sin it is not a mortal sin. However, it does not become a venial sin. It remains a grave sin.
 
And exactly what is a GRAVE sin? If one does not repent of it, does it land one in hell. If so, it IS a mortal sin. If not, then it is a venial sin.
 
And exactly what is a GRAVE sin? If one does not repent of it, does it land one in hell. If so, it IS a mortal sin. If not, then it is a venial sin.
Not correct.
There are venial, grave and mortal sins. Mortal sins are grave sins with knowledge and consent. Grave sins without knowledge and/or consent remain grave sins but not mortal, i.e they do not land you in Hell. Its a matter of culpability.
If someone forces you to murder someone you are committing a grave sin but not a mortal sin. Murdering someone because you were forced does not make it a venial sin.
 
Not correct.
There are venial, grave and mortal sins. Mortal sins are grave sins with knowledge and consent. Grave sins without knowledge and/or consent remain grave sins but not mortal, i.e they do not land you in Hell. Its a matter of culpability.
If someone forces you to murder someone you are committing a grave sin but not a mortal sin. Murdering someone because you were forced does not make it a venial sin.
According to the Teachings of the Catholic Church there are only two types of sins, mortal (which need to be confessed) and venial. A “Grave” sin is just another name for Mortal sin.

Here is what the CCC has to say…
 
IV. THE GRAVITY OF SIN: MORTAL AND VENIAL SIN
**
1854** Sins are rightly evaluated according to their gravity. The distinction between mortal and venial sin, already evident in Scripture, became part of the tradition of the Church. It is corroborated by human experience.
**
1855** Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.

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.”
**
1858
Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.” The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger
.
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 heart 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. 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.
**
1861** Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.
**
1862** One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

http://javascript<b></b>:openWindow('cr/1863.htm');
 
During the 1984 Synod of Bishops, the Bishops suggested that sins should now be divided into venial, grave and mortal sins to indicate that there is a “sliding scale” of seriousness among sins. The Holy Father addressed this suggestion in his Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenetentia where he said (at no.17):
During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

Here we have the core of the church’s traditional teaching, which was reiterated frequently and vigorously during the recent synod. The synod in fact not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins, but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

It must be added - as was likewise done at the synod - that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, “per se” and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.
catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp
So, sins are either venial or mortal. Some acts are intrinsically evil and are always objectively wrong even if the person is not fully culpable due to a lack of consent or knowledge.
 
Not correct.
There are venial, grave and mortal sins. Mortal sins are grave sins with knowledge and consent. Grave sins without knowledge and/or consent remain grave sins but not mortal, i.e they do not land you in Hell. Its a matter of culpability.
If someone forces you to murder someone you are committing a grave sin but not a mortal sin. Murdering someone because you were forced does not make it a venial sin.
How can someone ‘force’ you to murder someone? If they physically overpower you and push your finger against the trigger, I could accept that you didn’t have free will. But if they use threats, you still have a choice to make, in my understanding of what it means to have ‘consent of the will’.

You could bring this to extreme. “Kill this person or I’ll kill you… or I’ll damage your property… or i’ll ruin your reputation… or I’ll fire you… or I’ll not give you a birthday present this year”. In each of those cases you have a choice and free will.
 
Grave sins without knowledge and/or consent remain grave sins but not mortal, i.e they do not land you in Hell. Its a matter of culpability.
If they do not land you in hell, then they are venial sins.

And, as fix’s link explains, sins are either venial or mortal.
 
So, sins are either venial or mortal. Some acts are intrinsically evil and are always objectively wrong even if the person is not fully culpable due to a lack of consent or knowledge.
I’ll have a try at responding!😃
Sin in the first place needs to be something we know is sinful (either mortal or venial) and we knowingly (that it is sinful) and willingly do it anyway. One cannot commit sin if one is not fully culpable due to lack of consent or knowledge - this constitutes no sin at all either mortal or venial.

Pax!..Barb:)
 
Sir_Knight said:
Barb, in light of what you said, can you please put that perspective with CCC 1791 (see my post above) …

**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.” In such cases, **the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

… Can you please provide an example or two of how a person is culpable for the evil if he takes little trouble to find out what is true and good?
Hi there Sir Knight:) …I absolutely agree that there is such a think as culpable ignorance and one has an obligation to educate one’s conscience and understnading of moral good and moral evil. And “culpable ignorance” again can be difficult to define with all sorts of qualifications applying.
The meaning in my post was that one is not fully culpable (at fault morally) if one is under some sort of outside force to commit sin or does not insight, and not due to cupable ignorance, that an act is sinful either mortally or venially.
This is what I meant about moral issues can become “murky waters”😃 and there are all sorts of qualifications that may apply and why it is always best to discuss things with a priest either in Confession or by appointment.
The dear person who opened this thread asked a relatively simple question I think and because it was on a moral matter it got rather complex as the thread unwinded. But that is only my view. This person is just starting out, they state, on their journey with Catholicsm…and I would be loathe to make things even more complex, though I fear I may well have done so.

Pax!..Barb:)
 
Barb, in light of what you said, can you please put that perspective with CCC 1791 (see my post above) …

**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.” In such cases, ****the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

**… Can you please provide an example or two of how a person is culpable for the evil if he takes little trouble to find out what is true and good?
 
I’ll have a try at responding!😃
Sin in the first place needs to be something we know is sinful (either mortal or venial) and we knowingly (that it is sinful) and willingly do it anyway. One cannot commit sin if one is not fully culpable due to lack of consent or knowledge - this constitutes no sin at all either mortal or venial.

Pax!..Barb:)
Yes, I think that is right. What I was trying to convey was that some acts are intrinsically evil. They are always wrong to do. That said it does not mean one who commits such an act is always culpable.
 
How can someone ‘force’ you to murder someone? If they physically overpower you and push your finger against the trigger, I could accept that you didn’t have free will. But if they use threats, you still have a choice to make, in my understanding of what it means to have ‘consent of the will’.

You could bring this to extreme. “Kill this person or I’ll kill you… or I’ll damage your property… or i’ll ruin your reputation… or I’ll fire you… or I’ll not give you a birthday present this year”. In each of those cases you have a choice and free will.
If someone holds a gun to your daughter’s head and says I will pull the trigger and kill her unless you kill this other person that is coercion. You are deluding yourself if you think you still have free will in such a scenario!!
 
If someone holds a gun to your daughter’s head and says I will pull the trigger and kill her unless you kill this other person that is coercion. You are deluding yourself if you think you still have free will in such a scenario!!
The definition of coercion is problematic, as I remember from philosophy classes. Any idea how the church defines it, and what is officially considered enough coercion to take away your free will?
 
Since some of you folks are talking about ignorance, perhaps we could discuss this portion of the CCC:
**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…
I’ve thought about this a little, but usually feel a bit stumped. What are some examples of unintentional ignorance that they might have in mind? For example, they could mean that you are ignorant that if you push that button over there that it will launch a warhead and kill thousands. Instead, you think it is the intercom button. So, when you push the button and kill thousands, that is not imputed to you as a grave sin because that outcome was completely unintentional?

Or, they could mean stuff like your parents never mention M, and at school you are actively taught that it is normal and healthy and that it is harmful not to do it now and again. So, you have no clue whatsoever that it is wrong, nor do you have any reason to investigate it. So you are ignorant, but it was not your intent to be ignorant. Thus, the sin is not imputed to you because the ignorance was not of your doing or of your lazy/stubborn refusal to learn. It was unintended ignorance on your part. You did not intend to be ignorant.

Or, it could mean something else.

Also, the phrase “principles of moral law” gets me. “Principles” to me implies stuff like “do unto others” and other overarching guiding concepts. OTOH, if it just said “ignorant of the moral law”, then I might figure it meant any of the natural law things, like don’t murder people. Since this thing about not assuming people are ignorant of the principles of moral law follows right upon the sentence about unintentional ignorance, it makes me figure that what I decide the “principles of moral law” are may impact what I decide “unintentional” means. It may be saying that it is not possible to be ignorant that M is wrong because M is wrong by the natural law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top