If you commit a grave sin, realize it's grave, and stop is it mortal?

[WoundedIcon]

To tell the truth, I wished Hell upon someone. Baptist, trying to reconvert me, insert stereotypes here, blah blah blah. Basically it was something along the lines of wanting to tell Him something was a mortal sin so he’d commit it I get fed up pretty easily with Evangelicals, but anyways I was thinking these thoughts quite deliberately and then I remembered it’s a mortal sin and stopped… but now I’m confused because I either committed a grave but venial sin or a mortal sin and I can’t tell which. I think the full knowledge clause basically indicates premeditation, doesn’t it? Like “Grr, I’m angry I wish… wait, that’s mortal… who cares…” and so on. Right? or no?

 

[Bookcat]

By the way…Grave sin =mortal sin= serious sin (the terms are interchangable)

The question is – if one had the full knowledge at the time and the deliberate consent.

It can happen that one starts to do something that is a “grave matter” and then realizes it is so…and stops as soon as they realize what they are doing/thinking.

The three need to all be present. Grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate/ complete consent.

You will need to judge. One can also speak of course with a confessor in confession…confessing what was sinful in it at the same time.

See Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.

1. When does one commit a venial sin?

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

 

[x1980x]

To tell the truth, I wished Hell upon someone. Baptist, trying to reconvert me, insert stereotypes here, blah blah blah. Basically it was something along the lines of wanting to tell Him something was a mortal sin so he’d commit it I get fed up pretty easily with Evangelicals, but anyways I was thinking these thoughts quite deliberately and then I remembered it’s a mortal sin and stopped… but now I’m confused because I either committed a grave but venial sin or a mortal sin and I can’t tell which. I think the full knowledge clause basically indicates premeditation, doesn’t it? Like “Grr, I’m angry I wish… wait, that’s mortal… who cares…” and so on. Right? or no?

I believe that there may be an analogy in secular criminal law. E.g. if you accidentally take someone else’s wallet believing it was yours (objectively, you are taking something that doesn’t belong to you, but you have no intent to steal), then you realize that the wallet is yours and you make a good faith effort to return the wallet, you have probably not committed the crime of “theft” unless you, at the time of realizing what you are doing, decide to go ahead and steal it and just continue on with the object, at that point forming the criminal “intent” which is an essential element of the crime. (not legal advice, call an attorney).

Of course, secular criminal laws don’t normally contain an element of “knows that what they are doing constitutes a crime” so it isn’t a perfect analogy.

 

[3DOCTORS]

There is a larger question here, IMO. Is there a general pattern of picking a fight and then being tempted to be uncharitable? Not to pick on you - I have done the same thing at times - but maybe it’d be more helpful, rather than focusing on one instance, to look at the big picture.

There’s a good book by Patrick Madrid, called Search and Rescue, that is helpful in learning how to evangelize in a spirit of charity. And I’m sure others like it, or classes, or maybe a chat with your priest for some helpful tips. In other words, emphasize the positive and the negative might not be such an issue.

Peace to you!

 

[Myqyl]

Ask your confessor. That way you will find out if it was venial or mortal at the same time that it will be a forgiven sin, which is by far the best kind.

By the way, I use to have the same issue with non-Catholic folks trying to “save” me… Until I thought about it. What were they (from their point of view) trying to do? They wanted to save me from eternal damnation. Why? Only one possible reason… They loved me enough to care about my soul. Even if they didn’t know me…

Now when they try to save me, before I tell them why they are wrong, I thank them, very much, for caring about my soul enough to do this… Then i tell them I care about them too, and start in with the debate of the day. It actually leads to much more calm, reflective and productive discussions… I’ll usually say “Before we start our argument about this, would you pray with me for the Lord’s guidance?” It’s amazing how civil these debates become after that.

God bless

 

[Aelred_Minor]

As a general rule (note: general, not universal) I think if you didn’t actually commit the sin and were not merely prevented from committing it by lack of opportunity (that is, it’s not just like you decide to rob a store but can’t do it right away, you have to go to the store first and by the time you get there you’ve changed your mind), then you presumably did not give your complete consent to the idea of committing the act, or else you would have done it.

 

[WoundedIcon]

There is a larger question here, IMO. Is there a general pattern of picking a fight and then being tempted to be uncharitable? Not to pick on you - I have done the same thing at times - but maybe it’d be more helpful, rather than focusing on one instance, to look at the big picture.

There’s a good book by Patrick Madrid, called Search and Rescue, that is helpful in learning how to evangelize in a spirit of charity. And I’m sure others like it, or classes, or maybe a chat with your priest for some helpful tips. In other words, emphasize the positive and the negative might not be such an issue.

Peace to you!

No, not at all LOL. I try to avoid this stuff as I feel horribly inadequate when it comes to evangelization, at least with Evangelicals. I know a lot of Bible and theology, some history, but with folks like this - I know he cares - but he’s actually one of those aggressive types. Not a jerk, but just kind of oblivious about how he comes off because he lives by the evangelical standard of behavior and not the normal one (break em down and convert em and so on.) I said I was feeling horrible because I was moving to fast in making changes and he launched into comments about faith alone/Mariolatry/Perpiscuity/Witchcraft/Masons/Councils inventing dogma/Sola Scriptura and I’m just like well I could explain this to you but you don’t think any of my sources have any authority and you’re clearly anti-intellectual so screw it. For example, he mentioned how the councils just “made up” doctrine and I told him those beliefs go way back and are attested to by the Church Fathers, but he just blew it off by saying the Church Fathers have no authority and were just men. I like the guy but he was firing off myth after blasphemy and I knew I couldn’t change his mind. It was when I was ruing over it later that the thought of wishing him harm came. Wasn’t a serious consideration, I’m not the type to act on those things.

 

[3DOCTORS]

I get what you’re saying - not someone you can really have a reasoned discussion with, in which case it is more that question of when our human emotion of frustration crosses the line into sin.

Which is sometimes hard to determine when discussions get heated, I know!

 

[fred_conty]

No, not at all LOL. I try to avoid this stuff as I feel horribly inadequate when it comes to evangelization, at least with Evangelicals. I know a lot of Bible and theology, some history, but with folks like this - I know he cares - but he’s actually one of those aggressive types. Not a jerk, but just kind of oblivious about how he comes off because he lives by the evangelical standard of behavior and not the normal one (break em down and convert em and so on.) I said I was feeling horrible because I was moving to fast in making changes and he launched into comments about faith alone/Mariolatry/Perpiscuity/Witchcraft/Masons/Councils inventing dogma/Sola Scriptura and I’m just like well I could explain this to you but you don’t think any of my sources have any authority and you’re clearly anti-intellectual so screw it. For example, he mentioned how the councils just “made up” doctrine and I told him those beliefs go way back and are attested to by the Church Fathers, but he just blew it off by saying the Church Fathers have no authority and were just men. I like the guy but he was firing off myth after blasphemy and I knew I couldn’t change his mind. It was when I was ruing over it later that the thought of wishing him harm came. Wasn’t a serious consideration, I’m not the type to act on those things.

I think I know what you mean. They hit you with so many questions at once without coming up for air that it is impossible to know even where to start the answers. And before you can begin, they are firing more questions.

My grandfather had his own way of handling that. One day a couple of them did that to him. He said wait. Then he took out his wallet and showed them a dollar bill and said,
“this is what I believe in.” They just walked off. He knew they would never quit and he
had work to do.