"Full Knowledge" Element for Mortal Sin?

[Blue_Horizon]

Yes the words of Jesus are the words of Jesus.

That’s a naiive position that no Scriptural scholar of standing would unconditionally accept.

sunestauromai.wordpress.com/2010/01/08/on-the-ipsissima-verba-the-very-words-of-jesus/

This quickly found link may assist your ignorance which I hope is vincible otherwise Thistle will consider you in mortal sin.

 

[Bookcat]

That’s a naiive position that no Scriptural scholar of standing would unconditionally accept.

No it is not. They are the words of Jesus.

Yes the words of Jesus are the words of Jesus -to say that does not mean that they are quoted exactly as if one had tape-recorded him!.. I am very aware of the* ipsissima verba and the ipsissima vox* …

They remain the words of Jesus - written down by the human author in the manner of such (see the various Church documents on such…Pope Benedict XVI etc for more fleshing out.). And of course being the Sacred Scriptures - God is the primary author -they are inspired by the Holy Spirit…

I cannot really get into this or go any further -no time sorry. Leaving for a very long trip and will not be back for some time… (I do not have time to read that protestant blog…I am not dissing the protestant writers …they can be good…just not time right now…to get into this…and it really off topic at this point for us to go any further anyhow)).

Again no time to go on I am leaving for a long trip today.

Have a blessed day.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

No it is not. They are the words of Jesus.

Yes the words of Jesus are the words of Jesus…

They remain the words of Jesus - written down by the human author in the manner of such.

This is silly.
Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The words you quoted are an English translation of Greek writings whose original no longer exists, which original was written by someone other than Jesus who wrote around 40 years after Jesus died on the basis of oral remembrances.

Therefore we simply do not have the actual words that Jesus spoke. We do have nominal texts from which we can mine his spirit and teaching…but the ambiguities introduced by the above mediations and distances of time and culture necessitate the guidance of an authoritative interpreter. We call that the Magisterium.

Your naiive approach below suggests the laity can directly and with personal certainty understand Jesus’s full teaching on the basis of a literal reading in English of one or two extreme quotes is both Protestant and ludicrous. All the more so when such personal conlusions arrive at an extreme position at odds with a more balanced contemporary teaching easily found in authoritative Magisterial sources of our own time such as the Catechism and standard Moral Theology.

Sure the Gospels are the Word of God…that is very different from being the words of Jesus.

 

[Rau]

This is silly.
Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The words you quoted are an English translation of Greek writings whose original no longer exists, which original was written by someone other than Jesus who wrote around 40 years after Jesus died on the basis of oral remembrances.

Therefore we simply do not have the actual words that Jesus spoke. We do have nominal texts from which we can mine his spirit and teaching…but the ambiguities introduced by the above mediations and distances of time and culture necessitate the guidance of an authoritative interpreter. We call that the Magisterium.

Your naiive approach below suggests the laity can directly and with personal certainty understand Jesus’s full teaching on the basis of a literal reading in English of one or two extreme quotes is both Protestant and ludicrous. All the more so when such personal conlusions arrive at an extreme position at odds with a more balanced contemporary teaching easily found in authoritative Magisterial sources of our own time such as the Catechism and standard Moral Theology.

Sure the Gospels are the Word of God…that is very different from being the words of Jesus.

Certainly calls into question the wisdom of those who went to the trouble of placing bibles in every hotel room. Of course the Gideons are Protestant, so an understandable error.

I have often wondered why a magisterially authorized edition of the bible with accompanying interpretation guidance is not easily available and promoted.

 

[Rau]

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.

A Catholic upbringing likely contributes to a reduction in ignorance than otherwise would be the case. But it is not so easy to judge that for any individual, on a given issue. These quotes are instructive, but I suggest “to know” the master’s will is a higher threshold than one might think. “Full knowledge” means more than “yes, I read that, and can tell you what it said”.

 

[thistle]

A Catholic upbringing likely contributes to a reduction in ignorance than otherwise would be the case. But it is not so easy to judge that for any individual, on a given issue. These quotes are instructive, but I suggest “to know” the master’s will is a higher threshold than one might think. “Full knowledge” means more than “yes, I read that, and can tell you what it said”.

Knowing that the Church teaches an act is of grave matter satisfies the full knowledge condition.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Knowing that the Church teaches an act is of grave matter satisfies the full knowledge condition.

An extreme personal position that you are unable to backup with explicit Magisterial support despite being asked many times in the past Thistle.
Give it up, your credibility suffers body blows the more you attempt to bluster this false lay Catholic assertion.

 

[thistle]

An extreme personal position that you are unable to backup with explicit Magisterial support despite being asked many times in the past Thistle.
Give it up, your credibility suffers body blows the more you attempt to bluster this false lay Catholic assertion.

You keep saying that but you have failed to produce anything to support your assertions on this matter.

I talked to two priest friends of mine and they said that it is sufficient to satisfy the full knowledge condition if a person indeed knows the Church teaches a specific act is of grave matter, even if they do not understand the teaching.

Your position is the extreme one implying that full knowledge requires 100% understanding of the Church teaching an act is of grave matter. This is the ploy for people to continue justifying sinning as they claim it is not possible to have 100% understanding and therefore they are not committing mortal sins.

I don’t care how much you continue to insult me. I hope you have respect for the priests I spoke to though.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

You keep saying that but you have failed to produce anything to support your assertions on this matter.

Plain evasion for the fact you cannot produce Magisterial support to back your extreme personal view which you publicly vaunt here as Church Teaching.
You are the one on the soap box - take the challenge or step down from your dais.

I talked to two priest friends of mine and they said that it is sufficient to satisfy the full knowledge condition if a person indeed knows the Church teaches a specific act is of grave matter, even if they do not understand the teaching.

Give us a break and talk to moral theologian priests, or why not read some moral theology. Strane how the Magisterium has never come close to saying what you opine.
In fact Pope Francis and the CCC indicate the opposite when it comes to masturbation.

I don’t care how much you continue to insult me. I hope you have respect for the priests I spoke to though.

I am not insulting you, I am providing you objective evidence to show you that you are in error and your need to do your homework - asking “two priests” is not doing your homework.

 

[Vico]

So, what about where Amoris Laetitia teaches that my unwillingness to accept Church teaching, even when I “know full well the rule”, may excuse me from mortal sin due to lack of “full knowledge”? See, AL. par. 301: “Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values"…"

In article “defending” Amoris Laetitia in *L’Osservatore Romano *(the Vatican’s official newspaper) on July 19, the following statement was made: “For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.”
Is my saying; “I know full well the rule, but I don’t understand it or don’t believe it; therefore, I reject it” really enough to excuse me?

Understanding is not required to sin mortally. We give assent to the teachings on faith and morals, even though we do not understand it.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1781 Conscience enables one to assume responsibility for the acts performed. If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice. The verdict of the judgment of conscience remains a pledge of hope and mercy. In attesting to the fault committed, it calls to mind the forgiveness that must be asked, the good that must still be practiced, and the virtue that must be constantly cultivated with the grace of God:

We shall . . . reassure our hearts before him whenever our hearts condemn us; for God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything.52

**1790 **A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

**1791 **This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case 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."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

**1792 **Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.​

**2089 **Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

So, what about where Amoris Laetitia teaches that my unwillingness to accept Church teaching, even when I “know full well the rule”, may excuse me from mortal sin due to lack of “full knowledge”? See, AL. par. 301: “Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values"…"

In article “defending” Amoris Laetitia in *L’Osservatore Romano *(the Vatican’s official newspaper) on July 19, the following statement was made: “For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.”
Is my saying; “I know full well the rule, but I don’t understand it or don’t believe it; therefore, I reject it” really enough to excuse me?

Probably not fully.
You will only be fully excused if the voice of coscience speaks firmly and loudly and you have done your best to inform yourself of the reasons for the rule. And you must keep doing this for so long as you persist in contrary moral practice.

 

[BornInMarch]

CCC 1857 says: 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.”

What constitutes “full knowledge”?

Hypothetical:

1. Assume that I am a baptized Catholic.
2. Assume that I know that the Church teaches that fornication is gravely sinful.
3. Assume further that I simply do not believe that the Church’s teaching is true.
4. Assume also my lack of belief is sincere, even if misguided.
5. Finally, assume that, following my conscience, I with deliberate consent engage in acts that I know the Church says are gravely sinful.

Does my lack of belief, or failure to appreciate the reasons for the prohibition against fornication, equate to lack of “full knowledge” so that I remain in a state of grace and have not committed a mortal sin?

Full knowledge, in my opinion at least, is when you know something is wrong and why it is wrong and decide “I’m doing it anyway and damn the consequences!”

I don’t think it counts as full knowledge if you just don’t fully understand the WHY behind a rule.

 

[Vico]

Full knowledge, in my opinion at least, is when you know something is wrong and why it is wrong and decide “I’m doing it anyway and damn the consequences!”

I don’t think it counts as full knowledge if you just don’t fully understand the WHY behind a rule.

Note that in the Catechism, ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility, and rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, is a source of error, as is neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

It is not necessary to understand the revealed truth, for in fact, it may be a mystery, but to be able to identify it. It is necessary to not go against the properly formed conscience, and to assent to revealed truths (faith and morals) given by the Church.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Ron,

You posted this a way back, but I am compelled to respond.

Unfortunately, many persons commit actual mortal sin. They realize that a particular act is gravely immoral, according to their own conscience, and yet they choose the act with full consent.

I cannot see how this could happen, Ron. Except for this: People choose to do what they think is best. When the person’s choices are limited, sometimes the “best” is picking from two wrongs which one has the least impact, .

Can a person know about the Catholic Church, then outwardly reject Her, and yet still be saved? Yes, if the rejection is not an actual mortal sin, due to a lack of full knowledge. The person knows what the Church teaches, but his conscience errs by deciding that the Catholic faith is not the truest form of religion. This dispute about actual mortal sin and full knowledge is really about salvation. Who is saved? And are we judged by conscience, or simply by our compliance to objective moral norms?

Are we judged at all? Or, are we always forgiven? Our own consciences judge us and withhold forgiveness, right?

 

[Vico]

Unfortunately, many persons commit actual mortal sin. They realize that a particular act is gravely immoral, according to their own conscience, and yet they choose the act with full consent.

Can a person know about the Catholic Church, then outwardly reject Her, and yet still be saved? Yes, if the rejection is not an actual mortal sin, due to a lack of full knowledge. The person knows what the Church teaches, but his conscience errs by deciding that the Catholic faith is not the truest form of religion. This dispute about actual mortal sin and full knowledge is really about salvation. Who is saved? And are we judged by conscience, or simply by our compliance to objective moral norms?

Certainly supported in the Catholic teachings, tradition, and scripture:

Matthew 26

22 And they being very much troubled, began every one to say: Is it I, Lord?
23 But he answering, said: He that dippeth his hand with me in the dish, he shall betray me.
24 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man shall be betrayed: it were better for him, if that man had not been born.
25 And Judas that betrayed him, answering, said: Is it I, Rabbi? He saith to him: Thou hast said it.
Matthew 5

17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill. 18 For amen I say unto you, till heaven and earth pass, one jot, or one tittle shall not pass of the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 He therefore that shall break one of these least commandments, and shall so teach men, shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven. But he that shall do and teach, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20 For I tell you, that unless your justice abound more than that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
**
John 8**
31 Then Jesus said to those Jews, who believed him: If you continue in my word, you shall be my disciples indeed.
32 And you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. …

34 Jesus answered them: Amen, amen I say unto you: that whosoever committeth sin, is the servant of sin…

39 They answered, and said to him: Abraham is our father. Jesus saith to them: If you be the children of Abraham, do the works of Abraham.
40 But now you seek to kill me, a man who have spoken the truth to you, which I have heard of God. This Abraham did not.
41 You do the works of your father. They said therefore to him: We are not born of fornication: we have one Father, even God.
42 Jesus therefore said to them: If God were your Father, you would indeed love me. For from God I proceeded, and came; for I came not of myself, but he sent me:
43 Why do you not know my speech? Because you cannot hear my word.
44 You are of your father the devil, and the desires of your father you will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and he stood not in the truth; because truth is not in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father thereof.
45 But if I say the truth, you believe me not.
46 Which of you shall convince me of sin? If I say the truth to you, why do you not believe me?
47 He that is of God, heareth the words of God. Therefore you hear them not, because you are not of God.

Matthew 23
13 But woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men, for you yourselves do not enter in; and those that are going in, you suffer not to enter.
14 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites: because you devour the houses of widows, praying long prayers. For this you shall receive the greater judgment.
15 Woe to you scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites; because you go round about the sea and the land to make one proselyte; and when he is made, you make him the child of hell twofold more than yourselves.
16 Woe to you blind guides, that say, Whosoever shall swear by the temple, it is nothing; but he that shall swear by the gold of the temple, is a debtor.​

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning,

Interesting thread here 2PT3!

In addition to that, we have the problem that obstinate post-baptismal refusal to accept the Church’s doctrine is itself a sin. It seems that voluntary doubt, incredulity, and heresy may come into play here. Surely, one of these sins cannot form the basis for my exculpation from another mortal sin for “lack of knowledge”?

2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith.

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

Doubt when “chosen” is a manifestation of some lack of knowledge, right? Doubt of any kind demonstrates a lack of knowing something relevant. A person who chooses doubt is doing so with a mind that is lacking some relevant information.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; **apostasy **is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Does anyone ever engage in these while actually knowing what they are doing?

What is important is that there is a curve. The more a person knows about a sin and its consequences, the less likely they are to commit the sin, generally speaking. So when we talk about “sufficient” or “full” knowledge, we at least need to be referring to everything relevant, such that “if they knew this, they would not have committed the sin”.

Next, a person with all the relevant knowledge in the actual content of their mind is still subject to temporary blindness due to resentment or strong desire. People’s empathy is blocked in certain circumstances. We can come to understand that people do not always have all that they “should” know within access when they make important choices. Now if in case these notes are viewed as “making excuses” for people, no excuses are called for. Natural consequences always apply.

The question to start with is “Why did this person do this bad behavior?”. It can be shown that ignorance and/or involuntary blindness is always a factor.

 

[Wesrock]

So, what about where Amoris Laetitia teaches that my unwillingness to accept Church teaching, even when I “know full well the rule”, may excuse me from mortal sin due to lack of “full knowledge”? See, AL. par. 301: “Hence it can no longer simply be said that all those in any ‘irregular’ situation are living in a state of mortal sin and are deprived of sanctifying grace. More is involved here than mere ignorance of the rule. A subject may know full well the rule, yet have great difficulty in understanding ‘its inherent values"…"

In article “defending” Amoris Laetitia in *L’Osservatore Romano *(the Vatican’s official newspaper) on July 19, the following statement was made: “For a sin to be mortal, two other conditions are necessary beyond grave matter. It is also necessary that there be full knowledge of the evil of the act committed. If one is convinced in conscience that the act is not (gravely) evil, the action will be materially evil but not imputed to the person as a mortal sin.”
Is my saying; “I know full well the rule, but I don’t understand it or don’t believe it; therefore, I reject it” really enough to excuse me?

This is for the priest to discern in how to approach irregular situations. It’s not yours.

And once we get to the point of doing research to look for loopholes to justify our lack of understanding . . . Well, that’s just absurd.

 

[Bookcat]

This is silly.
Jesus spoke Aramaic.
The words you quoted are an English translation of Greek writings whose original no longer exists, which original was written by someone other than Jesus who wrote around 40 years after Jesus died on the basis of oral remembrances.

Therefore we simply do not have the actual words that Jesus spoke. We do have nominal texts from which we can mine his spirit and teaching…but the ambiguities introduced by the above mediations and distances of time and culture necessitate the guidance of an authoritative interpreter. We call that the Magisterium.

Your naiive approach below suggests the laity can directly and with personal certainty understand Jesus’s full teaching on the basis of a literal reading in English of one or two extreme quotes is both Protestant and ludicrous. All the more so when such personal conlusions arrive at an extreme position at odds with a more balanced contemporary teaching easily found in authoritative Magisterial sources of our own time such as the Catechism and standard Moral Theology.

Sure the Gospels are the Word of God…that is very different from being the words of Jesus.

No my approach is not naiive…and yes we can have the words of Jesus in Sacred Scripture…

and nor it is Protestant …as always I think with the Church and live her teachings…and yes read Scripture in the Church and in the light of the teaching office given by Jesus to the Church. And the works and words of Pope Benedict XVI will be good sources for readers in approaching these matters.

As I noted before I left on vacation: Yes they are the words of Jesus.

Yes the words of Jesus are the words of Jesus -to say that does not mean that they are quoted exactly as if one had tape-recorded him!.. I am very aware of the ipsissima verba and the ipsissima vox …

They remain the words of Jesus - written down by the human author in the manner of such (see the various Church documents on such…Pope Benedict XVI etc for more fleshing out.). And of course being the Sacred Scriptures - God is the primary author -they are inspired by the Holy Spirit…

I just returned from my long vacation…so too much time as gone on since this discussion…and it is off topic mostly anyhow so no need for us to continue down this path…I am too tired anyhow from my travels…

I bid you a splendid day.

 

[goout]

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.

It’s interesting that in the same breath the Church speaks of unintentional ignorance, it admits the universal availability of the moral law to every conscience, and observes that everyone is assumed to be aware of it.

So then, what is the ignorance the Church is speaking of, if not the rules of moral law?
Ignorance/knowledge goes deeper than knowing the rules.

 

[Vico]

It’s interesting that in the same breath the Church speaks of unintentional ignorance, it admits the universal availability of the moral law to every conscience, and observes that everyone is assumed to be aware of it.

So then, what is the ignorance the Church is speaking of, if not the rules of moral law?
Ignorance/knowledge goes deeper than knowing the rules.

Catechism. The conscience must be formed throughout life. To consider doing what one thinks is* best * when it is against the teachings of the Church, is a temptation.

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.