Full Knowledge at Time of Sin

[YoungCatholic86]

Let’s make the assumption that I have full knowledge that action “A” is morally evil.

If I commit action “A” but, at the time of committing it, forget that it is morally evil, does it meet the requirements of full knowledge? If it does not, then does it if I remember afterwards?

I have pondered this for quite some time but am not sure what actual Church teaching is on this.

Thanks!

 

[1ke]

I think you need to ponder the erroneous idea that you can “forget” something is a grave evil.

 

[TomD123]

Let’s make the assumption that I have full knowledge that action “A” is morally evil.

If I commit action “A” but, at the time of committing it, forget that it is morally evil, does it meet the requirements of full knowledge? If it does not, then does it if I remember afterwards?

I have pondered this for quite some time but am not sure what actual Church teaching is on this.

Thanks!

You must have full knowledge at the time you chose to commit the sin. Not necessarily the time you carry it out. If at the time you chose to commit the sin you lack sufficient knowledge/reflection, mortal sin is impossible

 

[1ke]

You must have full knowledge at the time you chose to commit the sin. Not necessarily the time you carry it out. If at the time you chose to commit the sin you lack sufficient knowledge/reflection, mortal sin is impossible

however, there seems to be a common misunderstanding regarding “full knowledge”. The idea that this is a very high hurdle floats around, but that is not true. Like somehow “full” means having studied every aspect of it at a PhD level. No, this is not the case.

Full knowledge simply means “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859) And, “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.” (CCC 1860).

One cannot “forget” that something is grave matter. Those with some trauma to the head causing brain damage or the onset of dementia being an exception, as one no longer has the faculties to form intent. That is not what the OP is talking about.

 

[TomD123]

however, there seems to be a common misunderstanding regarding “full knowledge”. The idea that this is a very high hurdle floats around, but that is not true. Like somehow “full” means having studied every aspect of it at a PhD level. No, this is not the case.

Full knowledge simply means “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859) And, “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.” (CCC 1860).

One cannot “forget” that something is grave matter. Those with some trauma to the head causing brain damage or the onset of dementia being an exception, as one no longer has the faculties to form intent. That is not what the OP is talking about.

I agree with what you said…except on the last point (I bolded it) I have to add:

Sometimes one does not “forget” but one does fail to reflect. Hence in the past sufficient reflection was considered a requirement for mortal sin (same idea as full knowledge).

So right at this moment I may realize that contemptuous speech has the potential to be mortally sinful in certain situations. I am fully 100% aware and have full knowledge.
BUT, say I get into an argument and am hurt by someone. As I’m fuming I say something really contemptuous …deliberately…without even reflecting on the fact that its sinful. No I didn’t forget that it was sinful, but at the same time I think I can’t be guilty of mortal sin (unless I allowed myself to lose reason through unjust anger or I put myself in an unnecesary occasion of sin or I had been in the habit of saying hateful things and made no attempt to correct myself, etc. but those are really besides the point)

 

[Tyrion]

Full knowledge simply means “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859) And, “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.” (CCC 1860).

Let me ask you: “does that mean that atheists, Musilms, Hindus, etc… ‘know’ that action X is a mortal sin - IF they heard of this catholic teaching, but do not accept it as valid?”.

 

[Bookcat]

Let me ask you: “does that mean that atheists, Musilms, Hindus, etc… ‘know’ that action X is a mortal sin - IF they heard of this catholic teaching, but do not accept it as valid?”.

They “can” know such via reason via the natural moral law…

Like murdering your Mother is a very seriously wrong thing.

However not every thing that is grave matter may be readily known in an easy manner…

 

[Bookcat]

1. In what does the natural moral law consist?

1954-1960
1978-1979

The natural law which is inscribed by the Creator on the heart of every person consists in a participation in the wisdom and the goodness of God. It expresses that original moral sense which enables one to discern by reason the good and the bad. It is universal and immutable and determines the basis of the duties and fundamental rights of the person as well as those of the human community and civil law.

1. Is such a law perceived by everyone?

1960

Because of sin the natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.

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

 

[Tyrion]

They “can” know such via reason via the natural moral law…

What if they do not accept the existence of “natural moral law”? (As a side question, it would be interesting to see the list of the actions which are supposedly covered by this natural moral law. We know that the devil is in the details… but this problem should be investigated somewhere else).

Like murdering your Mother is a very seriously wrong thing.

How is “murder” defined? I would define it as an intentional and illegal homicide (with malice aforethought).

However not every thing that is grave matter may be readily known in an easy manner…

How can it be known then? Don’t forget that for the people mentioned in my question the church is not a valid authority.

 

[Bookcat]

What if

Not desiring to continue down a what if path…

My quote there from the Compendium will be a good stepping off point toward understanding what I was getting at.

And God knows a person entirely. I do not.

 

[SurprizdbyLewis]

Let me ask you: “does that mean that atheists, Musilms, Hindus, etc… ‘know’ that action X is a mortal sin - IF they heard of this catholic teaching, but do not accept it as valid?”.

But how can I judge them? By what means could I POSSIBLY determine that their ignorance was in fact culpable ignorance? I COULDN’T determine any such thing. I did not create those people, I cannot get inside their minds and hearts, and I most certainly will not be their Final Judge.

I bet you were hoping someone would answer this in an absurd fashion.