Intention of sin

[KelseyBelsey]

Say, if I committed a sin, although I thought it was a sin, and it turned out not to be, then would it be a sin just because of the intent?

 

[JRKH]

Say, if I committed a sin, although I thought it was a sin, and it turned out not to be, then would it be a sin just because of the intent?

If you thought it was a sin, then why did you intentionally do it? Why did you intentionally go against (what you believed to be) the Will of God?

These are critical questions because - even if the particular item is not a sin - there may be a different sin - the sin of rejecting God’s Lordship in your life.

Something to consider…

Peace
James

 

[Lancer]

Say, if I committed a sin, although I thought it was a sin, and it turned out not to be, then** would it be a sin just because of the intent?**

**Yes…according to Saint Thomas Aquinas…sin can be committed by inner activity…not just the external action…so the external act is not your sin…but the inner desire and acquiescence to that desire to commit a “sin”…is a sin.

Pax Christi
**

**THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA **

Internal sins

That** sin may be committed** not only by outward deeds but also** by the inner activity of the mind apart from any external manifestation**, is plain from the precept of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not covet”, and from Christ’s rebuke of the scribes and pharisees whom he likens to “whited sepulchres… full of all filthiness” (Matthew 23:27). Hence the Council of Trent (Sess. XIV, c. v), in declaring that all mortal sins must be confessed, makes special mention of those that are most secret and that violate only the last two precepts of the Decalogue, adding that they “sometimes more grievously wound the soul and are more dangerous than sins which are openly committed”.** Three kinds of internal sin are usually distinguished:**

delectatio morosa, i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination even without desiring it;
gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed; and
desiderium, i.e. **the desire for what is sinful.**

An efficacious desire, i.e. one that includes the deliberate intention to realize or gratify the desire, has the same malice, mortal or venial, as the action which it has in view. An inefficacious desire is one that carries a condition, in such a way that the will is prepared to perform the action in case the condition were verified. When the condition is such as to eliminate all sinfulness from the action, the desire involves no sin: e.g. I would gladly eat meat on Friday, if I had a dispensation; and in general this is the case whenever the action is forbidden by positive law only. When the action is contrary to natural law and yet is permissible in given circumstances or in a particular state of life, the desire, if it include those circumstances or that state as conditions, is not in itself sinful: e.g. I would kill so-and-so if I had to do it in self-defence. Usually, however, such desires are dangerous and therefore to be repressed. If, on the other hand, the condition does not remove the sinfulness of the action, the desire is also sinful. This is clearly the case where the action is intrinsically and absolutely evil, e.g. blasphemy: one cannot without committing sin, have the desire — I would blaspheme God if it were not wrong; the condition is an impossible one and therefore does not affect the desire itself. **The pleasure taken in a sinful thought (delectatio, gaudium) is, generally speaking, a sin of the same kind and gravity as the action which is thought of. **Much, however, depends on the motive for which one thinks of sinful actions. The pleasure, e.g. which one may experience in studying the nature of murder or any other crime, in getting clear ideas on the subject, tracing its causes, determining the guilt etc., is not a sin; on the contrary, it is often both necessary and useful. The case is different of course where the pleasure means gratification in the sinful object or action itself. And it is evidently a sin when one boasts of his evil deeds, the more so because of the scandal that is given.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

 

[MtnDwellar]

Lancer - great response.

We are accustomed to our human justice system. We tend to apply the same criteria to God’s judgment. Intent sometimes mitigates a persons responsibility in our courts, but, the action is always the offense.

Christ taught us that our intention, or what is in our hearts, is as important as our actions.

 

[losh14]

Say, if I committed a sin, although I thought it was a sin, and it turned out not to be, then would it be a sin just because of the intent?

If you intentionally disobeyed what you thought was a command but it wasn’t really, the sin was disobedience. I don’t know if it’s venial or mortal but confess it, have confidence in the Confession (the Cross carries weight that we can’t possibly carry), and move on.

KelseyBelsey, it may be a good idea to talk with a deacon or spiritual director to help you work through the nature of Grace in the Sacraments and in your life. God desires our salvation, not our demise, so have confidence in His Mercy and trust that when you do what you ought to, He’ll fulfill His part of the Covenant.