M
mumto5
Guest
sin, but I don’t believe it is, could it be a mortal sin? It would seem from the conditions that if I don’t believe something is a mortal sin, it’s not.
- Status
D
Dmitri451
Guest
We’re in the middle of exactly this discussion on another thread:
Is it possible to commit mortal sin?
Is it possible to commit mortal sin?
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
Are you talking about someone that ignores that it is grave matter, or are you talking about someone that disagrees that it is grave matter?
M
mumto5
Guest
Someone who can’t agree that it is grave matter but not for lack of investigating the teaching and the reasons behind it. One could call it ‘invincible ignorance’.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
So they think that their opinion is more valid that the Church’s teaching?
If they know the Church is the Truth, then on top of their mortal sin, they would have to add pride for thinking they know more than a teaching of the Church.
M
mumto5
Guest
Say, for example, in the case of birth control. If someone just can’t understand/accept the churches teaching. If, in spite of studying it and trying to get to grips with it, they just can’t and they use birth control, could the conditions for mortal sin possibly be met? Or is the sin one of disobedience instead? It seems if someone doesn’t accept that something is a mortal sin the conditions for it can’t be met.
L
lifeisbeautiful
Guest
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.
We are not required to completely understand all of the Church’s teachings, but we are required to follow them. If a person knows contraception is a mortal sin and decides to do it anyways, it is a mortal sin. In fact, that is an act that is intrinsically evil. Just because they think it should not be does not change the fact that it is. There is a difference between ignorance and hardness of heart or not willing to conform to the teachings of the Church.
Here is an excerpt from a document referenced in the Catechism:
“…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.”
M
mumto5
Guest
lifeisbeautiful said:
But all that pre-supposes that one believes it is a mortal sin. If one, by reason of not understanding, can’t agree with a teaching, then I’m not sure it can be a mortal sin.
It may not be that the person is unwilling to believe but that they are unable to believe no matter how hard they have tried to see things the churches way. That is the circumstance to what I am refering, not a rejection.
T
thistle
Guest
I would disagree with that. Whether you can fully understand every teaching or not all Catholics must accept them and if a teaching says something is a mortal sin then it remains a mortal sin if you commit it. Fully undersatnding is not part of the three requirements for a mortal sin.
- Serious matter
- Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act.
- Full consent of the will.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I’m not sure. It seems to me that if you’ve looked into and thought about an issue a lot, then
2a. Knowledge that the Church says that an act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act
is quite a weaker condition than the ‘2’ that we do have.
Obviously saying ‘well, the Church is wrong because I don’t like that’ won’t wash, but at the other extreme ‘well, I respectfully think the Church is wrong and here is a fully-researched 200-page thesis as to why I truly believe this after many years of research’ seems to be a reasonable candidate for negating ‘knowledge or firm belief’ that the thing is wrong.
Hmm. It’s an interesting question…
Mike
J
Joysong
Guest
I have just purchased a train ticket that says “New York”. However, I fully believe in my heart that the ticket is a misprint and I will arrive in “New Jersey”. Any bets where I’m going?
W
wcknight
Guest
The danger here is reducing the teachings of the Church down to a laundry list of things that folks choose to accept or choose to ignore.
You are either a member of this Church or you are NOT, if you only believe some of the things that it teaches then you need to find a Church that you wholely agree with. Martin Luther chose not to believe and he left as have a few others. Doctrines are researched and studied in depth before they are decided on.
For us to pick and choose what suits us is exactly what the Protestants do. IF you wnat to be a Protestant there are plenty of those around to join.
wc
You are either a member of this Church or you are NOT, if you only believe some of the things that it teaches then you need to find a Church that you wholely agree with. Martin Luther chose not to believe and he left as have a few others. Doctrines are researched and studied in depth before they are decided on.
For us to pick and choose what suits us is exactly what the Protestants do. IF you wnat to be a Protestant there are plenty of those around to join.
wc
B
Brendan
Guest
Mumto,
Your line of though would entirely remove the sinful nature of most acts and open your self up to some pretty interesting arguments.
For example, was the Holocaust a mortal sin for those who participated in it.
Contrary to what the Church instructed, they certainly did not believe what they were doing was sinful; so were they sin free in this matter?
Or perhaps it was just venial, not mortal?
Your line of though would entirely remove the sinful nature of most acts and open your self up to some pretty interesting arguments.
For example, was the Holocaust a mortal sin for those who participated in it.
Contrary to what the Church instructed, they certainly did not believe what they were doing was sinful; so were they sin free in this matter?
Or perhaps it was just venial, not mortal?
F
fix
Guest
But it is a rejection. It is a rejection of the authority of the Church.
If one “thinks” a sin is not mortal while they know the Church teaches it is mortal then they are culpable.
This goes back to the conditions of a mortal sin. One of those conditions is full knowledge. If one knows the Church teaches some act is a sin then the person has full knowledge.
It also goes to formation of conscience. One’s conscience must be properly formed.
V
vluvski
Guest
While the Church does allow some leeway for respectful dissent, we are to defer to Church teaching when an act is in question. Doubt is a temptation, and thus in and of itself is not a sin. However, it is sinful to presume your doubt indicates that Church teaching is incorrect.
I think your notion of “invincible ignorance” could be called hardness of heart. As such, the sin committed would indeed be mortal with added gravity due to this hardness of heart.
Let’s assume, on the other hand, there is no hardness of heart. This would mean the person earnestly desires to understand and agree with Church teaching, a noble sacrifice and an act of genuine humility. If there is no hardness of heart, they will probably defer to the Church’s teaching and not commit the sin in the first place.
I see no way “invincible ignorance” could dissatisfy condition 2 of full knowledge.
I think your notion of “invincible ignorance” could be called hardness of heart. As such, the sin committed would indeed be mortal with added gravity due to this hardness of heart.
Let’s assume, on the other hand, there is no hardness of heart. This would mean the person earnestly desires to understand and agree with Church teaching, a noble sacrifice and an act of genuine humility. If there is no hardness of heart, they will probably defer to the Church’s teaching and not commit the sin in the first place.
I see no way “invincible ignorance” could dissatisfy condition 2 of full knowledge.
V
vluvski
Guest
To put it more simply, there’s a huge difference between saying, “I know what the Church teaches, and I’m going to follow Church teaching even though I don’t understand,” and “I know what the Church teaches, but I’m going to do things my way because the teaching just doesn’t make sense to me.”
No matter how you turn it, the problem is hardness of heart. Someone who didn’t have a hardened heart would refrain from the supposed sinful act out of respect for the authority of the church.
No matter how you turn it, the problem is hardness of heart. Someone who didn’t have a hardened heart would refrain from the supposed sinful act out of respect for the authority of the church.
J
JimG
Guest
Say, for example, that you give your teenagers a strict curfew. But in spite of all your explanations, they simply cannot understand or accept your reasons for this restriction on their freedom, so they decide to ignore it.
Have they disobeyed or not? Are they still subject to punishment or to the bad effects of ignoring the curfew even though they honestly don’t understand it?
Have they disobeyed or not? Are they still subject to punishment or to the bad effects of ignoring the curfew even though they honestly don’t understand it?
F
fix
Guest
Right, so full knowledge does not imply having a doctorate in moral theology it means accepting that the Church is teaching a certain act is wrong.
G
gardenswithkids
Guest
lifeisbeautiful said:
Thank you for posting the catechism reference with your comments. I have also wondered a variation on question which the original poster raised. I think this Catechism reference points to what is in a person’s heart. That may be hardness and feigned ignorance, but it also might be true ignorance. I guess this comes down to knowing what’s in a person’s heart. I will gladly let God be the One to read hearts.
I know a loyal Catholic priest who seems afraid to preach about contraception being a mortal sin. I understand he fears that the others will contracept anyway, except now with full knowledge that it is a mortal sin. Not wanting people to commit mortal sin with full knowledge, some are left uninformed. I don’t like his approach. Just because people hear once, twice or even ten times what the Church teaches, they may still be truly ignorant. When someone hears information that conflicts with everything else in our culture, (and that may conflict with what some Church “authorities” who don’t teach in accordance with the Magesterium have already told them), the real Church teachings can be very difficult for some people to understand–thus they remain ignorant.
F
fix
Guest
You should not like it because it is the opposite of the Gospel message and there is no certainty such logic leads any to invincible ignorance and less culpability.
Again, I must disagree. We live in an age where many were given many talents. We have unbelievable access to information and great education. One can pick up a copy of the CCC as one example and find the truth. The issue is not so much accuarate info, but how we take the time and energy to find out what is true.
- Status