Intention to sin as bad as sinning?

  • Thread starter Thread starter AdriannaJean
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Well, I’m pretty sure God understands the need for people to feed and educate their children, to try to get out of suffocating debt, to pay crushing medical bills, etc.

I don’t buy this idea that by choosing to miss mass one is choosing money over God or rejecting God in some way. If you had a son who was supposed to meet you for dinner and he called and said, “Sorry Dad, but my job just offered me a 1,000,000 promotion and today is the only day I can sign the contract, so can we have dinner next week?”, would you hold it against him? What about God, who loves us infinitely more and is infinitely merciful?
On the one hand one can NEVER COMMIT A MORTAL SIN for financial security.

The proposal was more alone the lines of “if you miss Sunday Mass–thus commit a mortal sin–I will give you $$$$$” (the person wants you to commit a mortal sin in exchange for the $$ basicly)

That can not be done.

BUT if the it was NOT if you “Miss Mass and commit a mortal sin” but rather …if you need to miss Mass on a Sunday do provide for your family …or some such necessity…such can be simply “not a mortal sin” for if one has some real necessity…say ones infant is sick and one can not leave them…or other really excusing reason…then one is not bound basically to go to Mass that Sunday…

This is a different thing.

(so it seems on this point we were reading the same posts but understanding two different senses…I took it to be the first here…you took it be the second :)…my applogies for not understanding and therefore being “blunt” etc)
 
CCC

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.
 
Yes…(but by “deadly sins” they do not mean that they are per se mortal sins…for one can of often commit anger or pride etc in venial ways…they are referred to rather as the “seven capital sins” meaning they are the “heads” from which spring so many other sins…")

But you have not addressed what I wrote here or other places…the fact is the Catechism states very clearly that internal sins can be mortal sins without any action at all…as does Sacred Scripture.

And that this is simply Catholic Moral Theology.

And this is not just restricted to things like lust (as you thought).

But yes if I decide to murder someone with full knowledge and complete consent…it is right there and then a mortal sin.

Period. This is Catholic Theology…not some single persons…“opinion”

It is not a matter of “opinion”.
If I decided to murder someone, they would be dead. That is what a decision is. If I thought about and planned a murder and then was overwhelmed with the wrongness of it all and DECIDED not to murder someone, then that is where the decision-making process can be said to have happened, where my WILL, with full consent, truly lies. Now, if I was thwarted somehow after truly deciding to commit the murder by the police or something, then yes, you could say that because I would have murdered the person otherwise, I have committed a grave sin.

With such stringent criteria, I should just go to confession right now and then have myself put into a medically-induced coma for the rest of my life to avoid even thinking about these things, because frankly, now I can’t stop. Jesus knows our hearts and I’m frankly getting sick of all this legalistic baloney.
 
On the one hand one can NEVER COMMIT A MORTAL SIN for financial security.

The proposal was more alone the lines of “if you miss Sunday Mass–thus commit a mortal sin–I will give you $$$$$” (the person wants you to commit a mortal sin in exchange for the $$ basicly)

That can not be done.

BUT if the it was NOT if you “Miss Mass and commit a mortal sin” but rather …if you need to miss Mass on a Sunday do provide for your family …or some such necessity…such can be simply “not a mortal sin” for if one has some real necessity…say ones infant is sick and one can not leave them…or other really excusing reason…then one is not bound basically to go to Mass that Sunday…

This is a different thing.

(so it seems on this point we were reading the same posts but understanding two different senses…I took it to be the first here…you took it be the second :)…my applogies for not understanding and therefore being “blunt” etc)
No problem 🙂 Frankly, I still don’t think God would count it against you, because being offered that kind of money is almost tantamount to coercion, but you probably disagree.
 
As would the Martyrs.
Well, that’s why the martyrs are saints. If everyone was that sinless, we would be saying “Joan of Who-to-the-What-Now?”

Just because someone isn’t as pure and wholesome as a martyr doesn’t mean they will burn in hell.
 
If I decided to murder someone, they would be dead. That is what a decision is. If I thought about and planned a murder and then was overwhelmed with the wrongness of it all and DECIDED not to murder someone, then that is where the decision-making process can be said to have happened, where my WILL, with full consent, truly lies.
Hi Thoughtfulone,

I’ve been following this conversation and I was wondering if you could clarify your position.

Question #1:

If you thought about and planned a murder, and then began preparing for it (firearm training, applying for a passport, surveillance of the intended victim, planning a get-away-route, moving funds into off-shore accounts) and this took a year, and then the day before you committed the crime you decided not to murder the person does this mean you never decided to commit murder in the first place?

What if the preparation process was only a month long procedure? A day? An hour?

Question #2:

You mentioned deciding later on not to murder someone, and that this is where the decision making process happened. When you DON’T decide not to murder someone (i.e. you continue your thinking and planning to the point of execution) where did the decision making process happen?

To make this question clear, here are two timelines:

T1 ---- > T2 ----> T3

T1 ---->(T2) ----> T3

In the first you think and plan to kill someone at T1. Sometime later, T2, you decide not to kill them. At T3 the person is alive.

In the second you think and plan to kill someone at T1. At T2 nothing happens. At T3 the person is dead.

In the first you say the point of decision is at T2 (a decision not to kill). What about in the second timeline? Where is the point of decision (a decision to kill) located at?

Thanks,

VC
 
If I decided to murder someone, they would be dead. That is what a decision is.

Not according the the Catholic Church. Nor Catholic Moral Theology.

Fine…you may have such an iron clad will …that you would always carry it into action…or perhaps your a hit-woman for the Mob…(in which case I will see ya later…:))

If I thought about and planned a murder and then was overwhelmed with the wrongness of it all and DECIDED not to murder someone, then that is where the decision-making process can be said to have happened, where my WILL, with full consent, truly lies.

Not as the Church and Moral theology sees it…or Scripture or the Saints…etc etc

Now, if I was thwarted somehow after truly deciding to commit the murder by the police or something, then yes, you could say that because I would have murdered the person otherwise, I have committed a grave sin.

You contradict yourself here 🙂

With such stringent criteria, I should just go to confession right now and then have myself put into a medically-induced coma for the rest of my life to avoid even thinking about these things, because frankly, now I can’t stop. Jesus knows our hearts and I’m frankly getting sick of all this legalistic baloney.

Ok …I will call and make the appointments for ya :D

…so you are deciding to kill people everyday with full knowledge and complete consent??? wow…

again I think your not quite getting what the Church and Moral Theology is saying here…there is a difference between me now thinking “I am going to kill my wife”…There I just thought it. This is was not a mortal sin. Or any sin. Now if I made the decision…and actual act of the will…with full knowledge and complete consent that “I WILL kill my wife” …in other words…meaning it with deliberation …with intent…then that would be a mortal sin.

Mere thoughts occurring or even my intentional “thought exercise here” or with persons who suffer from various thought disorders etc as Jimmy notes above…(and indeed other forms of deliberation prior to full consent and temptation ) are a different matter /QUOTE]
 
Well, that’s why the martyrs are saints. If everyone was that sinless, we would be saying “Joan of Who-to-the-What-Now?”

Just because someone isn’t as pure and wholesome as a martyr doesn’t mean they will burn in hell.
We must all say no to mortal sin and yes to Christ. Such is the very nature of Baptism.

You have not studied the early Christian Martyrs it seems…

The Early Christian Martyrs were often just ordinary Christians …no special or extraordinary holiness.

We are all to do this.
 
Hi Thoughtfulone,

I’ve been following this conversation and I was wondering if you could clarify your position.

Question #1:

If you thought about and planned a murder, and then began preparing for it (firearm training, applying for a passport, surveillance of the intended victim, planning a get-away-route, moving funds into off-shore accounts) and this took a year, and then the day before you committed the crime you decided not to murder the person does this mean you never decided to commit murder in the first place?

What if the preparation process was only a month long procedure? A day? An hour?

Question #2:

You mentioned deciding later on not to murder someone, and that this is where the decision making process happened. When you DON’T decide not to murder someone (i.e. you continue your thinking and planning to the point of execution) where did the decision making process happen?

To make this question clear, here are two timelines:

T1 ---- > T2 ----> T3

T1 ---->(T2) ----> T3

In the first you think and plan to kill someone at T1. Sometime later, T2, you decide not to kill them. At T3 the person is alive.

In the second you think and plan to kill someone at T1. At T2 nothing happens. At T3 the person is dead.

In the first you say the point of decision is at T2 (a decision not to kill). What about in the second timeline? Where is the point of decision (a decision to kill) located at?

Thanks,

VC
Well, it’s kind of a gray area, but essentially, I believe that once you start taking PHYSICAL action to kill/prepare to kill, you are clearly dancing with the devil. So taking shooting classes, buying a gun, spending an inordinate amount of time in the planning phase, etc. is not good. What I’m talking about here is thinking about the murder, planning it in the mind (i.e., thinking about how one will do it, get away with it, etc.) and then feeling guilty and having a change of heart and going, “What the hell was I thinking?”

Don’t get me wrong…this is obviously very bad, but this person is not, nor were they ever a murderer.

To answer your question, in the 2nd timeline, I suppose the decision to kill took place once that person psychologically reached the point of no return, whenever that was. Only God knows when that was. The bottom line is that they are 2 vastly different scenarios because person 1 is not in any way capable of murder, whereas person 2 is. Person 1 remains innocent because he/she never truly had the will to commit murder in the first place…God knows that this person is not a murderer, which is really the point isn’t it?

The 2 timelines really look more like this:

T1------->T2(decision not to kill, no further action taken, no further thoughts of killing)------->T3(person lives to see his kids grow up)

T1-------->T2(chop, chop, chop, hide the body)-------->T3(person is dead)

T2 is the pivotal moment in both scenarios. It’s what makes the person a murderer or not.
 
Pope Benedict XVI:

…Baptism inserts us into communion with Christ and therefore gives life, life itself. We have thus interpreted the first dialogue we had with him here at the entrance to the Sistine Chapel.

Now, after the blessing of the water, a second dialogue of great importance will follow. This is its content: Baptism, as we have seen, is a gift; the gift of life. But a gift must be accepted, it must be lived.

A gift of friendship implies a “yes” to the friend and a “no” to all that is incompatible with this friendship, to all that is incompatible with the life of God’s family, with true life in Christ.

Consequently, in this second dialogue, three “noes” and three “yeses” are spoken. We say “no” and renounce temptation, sin and the devil. We know these things well but perhaps, precisely because we have heard them too often, the words may not mean much to us.

If this is the case, we must think a little more deeply about the content of these “noes”. What are we saying “no” to? This is the only way to understand what we want to say “yes” to.

In the ancient Church these “noes” were summed up in a phrase that was easy to understand for the people of that time: they renounced, they said, the “pompa diabuli”, that is, the promise of life in abundance, of that apparent life that seemed to come from the pagan world, from its permissiveness, from its way of living as one pleased.

It was therefore “no” to a culture of what seemed to be an abundance of life, to what in fact was an “anticulture” of death. It was “no” to those spectacles in which death, cruelty and violence had become an entertainment.

Let us remember what was organized at the Colosseum or here, in Nero’s gardens, where people were set on fire like living torches. Cruelty and violence had become a form of amusement, a true perversion of joy, of the true meaning of life.

This “pompa diabuli”, this “anticulture” of death was a corruption of joy, it was love of deceit and fraud and the abuse of the body as a commodity and a trade.

And if we think about it now, we can say that also in our time we need to say “no” to the widely prevalent culture of death.

It is an “anticulture” manifested, for example, in drugs, in the flight from reality to what is illusory, to a false happiness expressed in deceit, fraud, injustice and contempt for others, for solidarity, and for responsibility for the poor and the suffering; it is expressed in a sexuality that becomes sheer irresponsible enjoyment, that makes the human person into a “thing”, so to speak, no longer considered a person who deserves personal love which requires fidelity, but who becomes a commodity, a mere object.

Let us say “no” to this promise of apparent happiness, to this “pompa” of what may seem to be life but is in fact merely an instrument of death, and to this “anticulture”, in order to cultivate instead the culture of life. For this reason, the Christian “yes”, from ancient times to our day, is a great “yes” to life. It is our “yes” to Christ, our “yes” to the Conqueror of death and the “yes” to life in time and in eternity.

Just as in this baptismal dialogue the “no” is expressed in three renunciations, so too the “yes” is expressed in three expressions of loyalty: “yes” to the living God, that is, a God Creator and a creating reason who gives meaning to the cosmos and to our lives; “yes” to Christ, that is, to a God who did not stay hidden but has a name, words, a body and blood; to a concrete God who gives us life and shows us the path of life; “yes” to the communion of the Church, in which Christ is the living God who enters our time, enters our profession, enters daily life.

We might also say that the Face of God, the content of this culture of life, the content of our great “yes”, is expressed in the Ten Commandments, which are not a pack of prohibitions, of “noes”, but actually present a great vision of life.

They are a “yes” to a God who gives meaning to life (the first three Commandments); a “yes” to the family (Fourth Commandment); a “yes” to life (Fifth Commandment); a “yes” to responsible love (Sixth Commandment); a “yes” to solidarity, to social responsibility, to justice (Seventh Commandment); a “yes” to the truth (Eighth Commandment); a “yes” to respect for others and for their belongings (Ninth and 10th Commandments).

This is the philosophy of life, the culture of life that becomes concrete and practical and beautiful in communion with Christ, the living God, who walks with us in the companionship of his friends, in the great family of the Church. Baptism is a gift of life.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2006/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20060108_battesimo_en.html
 
Thoughtfulone;7283598:
If I decided to murder someone, they would be dead. That is what a decision is.

Not according the the Catholic Church. Nor Catholic Moral Theology.

Fine…you may have such an iron clad will …that you would always carry it into action…or perhaps your a hit-woman for the Mob…(in which case I will see ya later…:))
If I thought about and planned a murder and then was overwhelmed with the wrongness of it all and DECIDED not to murder someone, then that is where the decision-making process can be said to have happened, where my WILL, with full consent, truly lies.

Not as the Church and Moral theology sees it…or Scripture or the Saints…etc etc

Now, if I was thwarted somehow after truly deciding to commit the murder by the police or something, then yes, you could say that because I would have murdered the person otherwise, I have committed a grave sin.

You contradict yourself here 🙂

With such stringent criteria, I should just go to confession right now and then have myself put into a medically-induced coma for the rest of my life to avoid even thinking about these things, because frankly, now I can’t stop. Jesus knows our hearts and I’m frankly getting sick of all this legalistic baloney.

Ok …I will call and make the appointments for ya :D

…so you are deciding to kill people everyday with full knowledge and complete consent??? wow…

again I think your not quite getting what the Church and Moral Theology is saying here…there is a difference between me now thinking “I am going to kill my wife”…There I just thought it. This is was not a mortal sin. Or any sin. Now if I made the decision…and actual act of the will…with full knowledge and complete consent that “I WILL kill my wife” …in other words…meaning it with deliberation …with intent…then that would be a mortal sin.

Mere thoughts occurring or even my intentional “thought exercise here” or with persons who suffer from various thought disorders etc as Jimmy notes above…(and indeed other forms of deliberation prior to full consent and temptation ) are a different matter /QUOTE]

I’m not sure how I was being contradictory. If I am thwarted from committing a murder because of something external, then I still would have gone through with it otherwise. If I personally decide NOT to murder someone because of my own conscience, then I would argue that full consent was never present in the first place, but that I was merely struggling with a temptation. In the first scenario, I am in a lot more trouble (how much, I honestly don’t know…maybe God intervened to save that person and give me the chance not to take a human life before it was too late for me.

I’ve never decided to kill anyone…but again, I can think of a hypothetical scenario in which I almost certainly would. And I have fantasized about killing someone a time or 2. If I am not mistaken, both of these are mortal sins according to your interpretation of Catholic theology?
 
Bookcat;7283739:
I’m not sure how I was being contradictory. If I am thwarted from committing a murder because of something external, then I still would have gone through with it otherwise.

According to you one does not decide until one does it…but then you say …if they are prevented from action…they still sinned–this is contradictory)
If I personally decide NOT to murder someone because of my own conscience, then I would argue that full consent was never present in the first place, but that I was merely struggling with a temptation.

Again YES is it CAN be the case that one is just stuggling with temptation and does finally ends it by deciding not to carry out what one is tempted. But this is very different from my choosing to murder my wife last night with full knowledge and complete consent (a mortal sin …as the Church teaches) and then the later…say the next day (today Friday) I decide not to. I still committed a mortal sin last night…

I’ve never decided to kill anyone…but again, I can think of a hypothetical scenario in which I almost certainly would. And I have fantasized about killing someone a time or 2. If I am not mistaken, both of these are mortal sins according to your interpretation of Catholic theology?..they COULD be…BUT also COULD NOT be…it all depends on what what is meant…and if the person had full knowledge and deliberate consent…(again read Jimmy Akin)…and it is not my interpretation of Catholic Theology…it IS Catholic Theology…
 
Well, it’s kind of a gray area, but essentially, I believe that once you start taking PHYSICAL action to kill/prepare to kill, you are clearly dancing with the devil.
. . .

I suppose the decision to kill took place once that person psychologically reached the point of no return, whenever that was. Only God knows when that was. .
Thanks. I’m not sure I grasp your view completely yet.

In your position, does it ever make sense to speak about someone changing their mind?

For instance, take two individuals. P1 sits in his armchair and thinks about killing someone. Later he decides (to use your language) not to kill that person, without ever leaving his armchair.

P2 also sits in his armchair. He thinks about killing someone. Later he decides (again, your language) to not kill that person, all this takes place without leaving his armchair.

When questioned about their evening, P1 says “I decided to kill someone, then I changed my mind and decided not to kill him.” P2 says “I thought about killing someone one, but decided not to.”

Are those meaningful distinctions? Neither moved from their armchair. Both thought about killing someone. But, P1 claims to have changed his mind, and states that yes, he decided to kill the person.

Would you say that P1 never decided to kill the person because he didn’t go through with it?

Thanks,
VC
 
Thanks. I’m not sure I grasp your view completely yet.

In your position, does it ever make sense to speak about someone changing their mind?

For instance, take two individuals. P1 sits in his armchair and thinks about killing someone. Later he decides (to use your language) not to kill that person, without ever leaving his armchair.

P2 also sits in his armchair. He thinks about killing someone. Later he decides (again, your language) to not kill that person, all this takes place without leaving his armchair.

When questioned about their evening, P1 says “I decided to kill someone, then I changed my mind and decided not to kill him.” P2 says “I thought about killing someone one, but decided not to.”

Are those meaningful distinctions? Neither moved from their armchair. Both thought about killing someone. But, P1 claims to have changed his mind, and states that yes, he decided to kill the person.

Would you say that P1 never decided to kill the person because he didn’t go through with it?

Thanks,
VC
Yes, I think I would say that the true decision to kill was never made.

For a more mundane example, let’s say I’m sitting at home thinking “I’m going to go to the grocery store later because I need food.” I think about everything I’m going to get and make a mental list. Then, 20 minutes later, I say, “Screw it, I’ll just order pizza”. I wouldn’t say that I “decided” to go to the store but changed my mind. I would say I was thinking about it, leaning in that direction perhaps, but decided not to go. The decision happens when I make the deliberate choice that leads to the actual final outcome.
 
Yes, I think I would say that the true decision to kill was never made.

For a more mundane example, let’s say I’m sitting at home thinking “I’m going to go to the grocery store later because I need food.” I think about everything I’m going to get and make a mental list. Then, 20 minutes later, I say, “Screw it, I’ll just order pizza”. I wouldn’t say that I “decided” to go to the store but changed my mind. I would say I was thinking about it, leaning in that direction perhaps, but decided not to go. The decision happens when I make the deliberate choice that leads to the actual final outcome.
Yes it can happen that all sorts of thoughts or proposals come to the mind…and attractions etc to commit a mortal sin…but one does NOT decide or consent fully to them. Such can even in the end be an act of virtue.

This is very different from:

My deciding to commit murder with full knowledge and deliberate Consent.
and then later…changing my mind…changing my decision…thus making a new decision to not to actually murder the person with my sword.

In this later case I already committed a mortal sin …which still needs to be confessed.
 
Thoughtfulone;7283799:
Yes, they still sinned…mortally? I couldn’t say. If I’m standing outside someone’s window with a gun and the cops bust me, well, that’s really up to God whether or not I have committed a mortal sin. Maybe God just saved me from doing so. This is the point where it becomes very, very gray. I wouldn’t want to risk it.

Again, what is full knowledge and deliberate consent anyway? Is it picturing someone I really don’t like and picturing how I would get away with killing them…sort of a “What if?”, trying to “plan” the perfect murder just for fun with a specific person in mind and no intention of carrying it out? Is it knowing that if someone killed my family and I was given a gun and 20 minutes alone with them and no chance of ever being caught that I would kill that person? Why is that a mortal sin? I’m just being honest with myself given a hypothetical situation that will probably never occur. I’m just examining myself and my mind and my limitations and what I would do if I lost my family and had a chance to take revenge and for that, I’m going to Hell? No way. God knows me better than that.
 
Bookcat;7283839:
Yes, they still sinned…mortally? I couldn’t say. If I’m standing outside someone’s window with a gun and the cops bust me, well, that’s really up to God whether or not I have committed a mortal sin. Maybe God just saved me from doing so. This is the point where it becomes very, very gray. I wouldn’t want to risk it.

Nope no gray area here at all…The Church is very clear here…if one chooses a grave matter…with full knowledge and compete consent it is a mortal sin…even if you are stopped by the cops before you pull the trigger.
Again, what is full knowledge and deliberate consent anyway? Is it picturing someone I really don’t like and picturing how I would get away with killing them…sort of a “What if?”, trying to “plan” the perfect murder just for fun with a specific person in mind and no intention of carrying it out? Is it knowing that if someone killed my family and I was given a gun and 20 minutes alone with them and no chance of ever being caught that I would kill that person? Why is that a mortal sin? I’m just being honest with myself given a hypothetical situation that will probably never occur. I’m just examining myself and my mind and my limitations and what I would do if I lost my family and had a chance to take revenge and for that, I’m going to Hell? No way. God knows me better than that.

these sorts of things have really been I think explained…in the posts above…as has why we should not sit around thinking like this (and when such thinking is sinful and when it is not)

do not skip this one forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7283921&postcount=97
 
Again, what is full knowledge and deliberate consent anyway?
Summary from 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.

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm#IV
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top