"Full Knowledge" Element for Mortal Sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2PT3
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Bookcat said:
It could yes perhaps in certain ways - but also there is more too it with Catholics - hence my example deliberately chose an easier- clearer case.
Click to expand...
The thread is presumably re Catholics.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
The thread is presumably re Catholics.
Click to expand...
Thus I noted that it could yes perhaps in certain ways - but also there is more too it with Catholics. They are not in the same boat per se as my example. They can be rather responsible here.
 
Catechism:

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1855
 
As to the Original Persons question - God will know and judge the particular person with truth, mercy and justice. Can be rather difficult for someone else to know exactly what is transpiring in a particular case (hence Jesus saying not to judge…which does not mean not to judge the objective nature of the action of course -but we do not see all that is to be seen in terms of the person - God does).
 
Bookcat said:
Thus I noted that it could yes perhaps in certain ways - but also there is more too it with Catholics. They are not in the same boat per se as my example. They can be rather responsible here.
Click to expand...
Non culpable Ignorance is non culpable ignorance.
If it weren’t all the world would be signed up members of the one true faith.
They aren’t.
We have moved beyond thinking they are all damned.
And the divorces, abortions, killings, prostitution, contraceptives, remarriage, child abuse rates of US Catholic appears little different from our secular counterparts.
So are such Catholics any more damned than the rates of atheists destined for hell…probably not.
So I personally don’t see Catholic upbringing as contributing as greatly to the reduction of ignorance as we have past been led to believe.
 
Bookcat said:
Catechism:

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.

scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1855
Click to expand...
I always fail to see the relevance of this highly over quoted article.
Sure, we all no there is something called culpable ignorance.
Who doesn’t know that?
But I find people try to use this quote to suggest non culpable ignorance is somehow rare once you’ve “been told”. That is ridiculous.
 
Technically if you are “catholic” and firmly disbelieve in a teaching, you have created a new religion.

Now if you are confused that is different.

Most people Ii know who are okay with fornication still have that “well i get it but it isnt really bad NOW because the way things are”
 
LethalMouse said:
Technically if you are “catholic” and firmly disbelieve in a teaching, you have created a new religion."
Click to expand...
I dont think so.
One is certainly a poorly formed Catholic or even a bad Catholic.
One cannot even be properly called a heretic unless one publicly and stubbornly airs ones disagreement over a serious teaching.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I dont think so.
One is certainly a poorly formed Catholic or even a bad Catholic.
One cannot even be properly called a heretic unless one publicly and stubbornly airs ones disagreement over a serious teaching.
Click to expand...
Okay, so let me make it more evident.

You are told by your parents you are catholic, years later you read all the CCC and the Bible etc.

You have no interest in power or becoming a leader so you never go out in public with your “religion”

You believe firmly that God is not a Trinity and the CC has no given Apostolic authority, simply is a convenient organization that you like the décor and general Mass process.

You consider it mostly irrelevant whether one goes to CC or any number of Prot churches because none are “right” and it doesn’t matter where you go to get your general quasi correct worship on.

You are not any more Catholic than Martin Luther was, only that no one knows.

So what I am saying is no one is coming on the internet because they “know” fornication is okay. IF they “knew it” they would either not be concerned or they would be preaching their ways if they discussed it at all so as to enlighten others.

NO when you are concerned with it you do not “know” it is not a sin, you are fooling yourself into thinking so to dispel guilt

IF you KNOW it is not a sin, again you are either unconcerned with the CC teaching or you are preaching. Both of which would make you not a Catholic.

So you are either not Catholic or you are confused and most likely using denial to do whatever you feel like and not answer for it.

I will give a caveat if someone through mental disorder, demons, or true revelation was told something mildly contradictory unto themselves in a sense. Whatever the case may be, that is the rare circumstance in which one could “know” something and otherwise still be in a sense a real catholic.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
Non culpable Ignorance is non culpable ignorance.
If it weren’t all the world would be signed up members of the one true faith.
They aren’t.
We have moved beyond thinking they are all damned.
And the divorces, abortions, killings, prostitution, contraceptives, remarriage, child abuse rates of US Catholic appears little different from our secular counterparts.
So are such Catholics any more damned than the rates of atheists destined for hell…probably not.
So I personally don’t see Catholic upbringing as contributing as greatly to the reduction of ignorance as we have past been led to believe.
Click to expand...
I would say yes.

Luke 12:47- 48

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.
 
As someone who was basically born knowing all the rules… (Cradle Catholic, homeschooled, well-formed, etc)

Absolutely everything of grave matter, provided I wasn’t drugged or frightened out of my mind, would automatically bear the other two marks.

I have zero excuses and zero wiggle room. Saying ‘God will forgive me afterward’ adds extreme presumption to the crimes.

Knowledge is a burden - but sin is the greater one. At least, so I am told, because to my knowledge, I have not committed a mortal sin. (I’ve only had one real ‘opportunity’, and that wasn’t even typical.)

I don’t have even vincible ignorance, let alone invincible. So in a sense I’m extra mindful.

Regarding fornication in particular, I just recently arrived in a position to evaluate that one from a unique perspective. Just recently got serious with a boyfriend, and we’re in the wild-for-each-other phase. I’m a fully informed, fully committed Catholic; I don’t even have force of habit to claim in my defense.

There
Is
Literally
No
Out

Zero. I wouldn’t even forgive myself. Maybe that’s actually helpful, because the line is super clear and non-negotiable.

He, on the other hand, is coming from a different place. (Born Catholic, strayed, came back.) So if there were a slip, his culpability would be up for debate. Mine would not. Makes one wonder, does it not? 🤷
 
thistle said:
I would say yes.

Luke 12:47- 48

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.
Click to expand...
And yet the Magisterium, who alone validly interprets the full meaning of Holy Scripture, accepts non culpable ignorance is entirely possible for Catholics.
The rogorism you propose was eventually overturned in the Early Church.
 
SilverShadow22 said:
As someone who was basically born knowing all the rules… (Cradle Catholic, homeschooled, well-formed, etc)

Absolutely everything of grave matter, provided I wasn’t drugged or frightened out of my mind, would automatically bear the other two marks.

I have zero excuses and zero wiggle room. Saying ‘God will forgive me afterward’ adds extreme presumption to the crimes.

Knowledge is a burden - but sin is the greater one. At least, so I am told, because to my knowledge, I have not committed a mortal sin. (I’ve only had one real ‘opportunity’, and that wasn’t even typical.)

I don’t have even vincible ignorance, let alone invincible. So in a sense I’m extra mindful.

Regarding fornication in particular, I just recently arrived in a position to evaluate that one from a unique perspective. Just recently got serious with a boyfriend, and we’re in the wild-for-each-other phase. I’m a fully informed, fully committed Catholic; I don’t even have force of habit to claim in my defense.

There
Is
Literally
No
Out

Zero. I wouldn’t even forgive myself. Maybe that’s actually helpful, because the line is super clear and non-negotiable.

He, on the other hand, is coming from a different place. (Born Catholic, strayed, came back.) So if there were a slip, his culpability would be up for debate. Mine would not. Makes one wonder, does it not? 🤷
Click to expand...
I think we have to be careful not to assume that what holds true for oneself must hold true for others who appear to have the same background as ourselves.
 
LethalMouse said:
Okay, so let me make it more evident.

You are told by your parents you are catholic, years later you read all the CCC and the Bible etc.

You have no interest in power or becoming a leader so you never go out in public with your “religion”

You believe firmly that God is not a Trinity and the CC has no given Apostolic authority, simply is a convenient organization that you like the décor and general Mass process.

You consider it mostly irrelevant whether one goes to CC or any number of Prot churches because none are “right” and it doesn’t matter where you go to get your general quasi correct worship on.

You are not any more Catholic than Martin Luther was, only that no one knows.

So what I am saying is no one is coming on the internet because they “know” fornication is okay. IF they “knew it” they would either not be concerned or they would be preaching their ways if they discussed it at all so as to enlighten others.

NO when you are concerned with it you do not “know” it is not a sin, you are fooling yourself into thinking so to dispel guilt

IF you KNOW it is not a sin, again you are either unconcerned with the CC teaching or you are preaching. Both of which would make you not a Catholic.

So you are either not Catholic or you are confused and most likely using denial to do whatever you feel like and not answer for it.

I will give a caveat if someone through mental disorder, demons, or true revelation was told something mildly contradictory unto themselves in a sense. Whatever the case may be, that is the rare circumstance in which one could “know” something and otherwise still be in a sense a real catholic.
Click to expand...
Maybe you are over thinking this so your “example” comes across as a little contrived.
A typical and very common case is that of using contraceptives or being in an irregular marriage.
Do they automatically incurr excommunication?
Are they still Catholics.

Black and white all or nothing approaches to such issues goes nowhere useful or helpful.
Accompanyment and discernment are helpful strategies, just as Pope Francis was at pains to tell us.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
And yet the Magisterium, who alone validly interprets the full meaning of Holy Scripture, accepts non culpable ignorance is entirely possible for Catholics.
The rogorism you propose was eventually overturned in the Early Church.
Click to expand...
If by non-culpable ignorance you mean invincible ignorance it is almost impossible for a Catholic to be invincibly ignorant.
I could think of the possibility that it might apply if you had a rogue priest bring up a child and totally taught him things completely contrary to Church doctrine.
As for every day Catholics it will not apply. This is the typical ploy to have a get of of jail free card. Catholics who claim they do not know what the Church teaches are not invincibly ignorant. They are vincibly ignorant.
 
Blue_Horizon said:
I think we have to be careful not to assume that what holds true for oneself must hold true for others who appear to have the same background as ourselves.
Click to expand...
Where did I ever say that? 🤷

He has full knowledge but a different background - the entire post was an exercise in extenuating circumstances.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top