Is grave matter really necessary for a mortal sin?

[MilesVitae]

The traditional, three-part formula for mortal sin is, of course, grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent.

In regards to the first, I find myself somewhat confused. I remember learning in the Baltimore Catechism that if one performs an act thinking it to be grave matter, then (assuming the other two conditions are present) it is a mortal sin, even if they were incorrect and the matter was, in fact, not grave.

This has always made sense to me, for it seems that if one performs an act thinking they are doing something which gravely violates the moral law, they are turning themselves from God (If you wish to maintain the need for grave matter, one could say the grave matter is in being willing to commit mortal sin).

However, most priests I have asked have told me that this is not correct and that the act must, in fact, be grave matter. They have, frustratingly, never been able to give me a satisfactory explanation as to why this is the case and where my thinking (and the thinking of the writers of the BC) is wrong.

So, is an act of grave matter truly necessary for mortal sin (AND if so, WHY), OR is one guilty of mortal sin if they consciously and freely commit an act which they incorrectly think to be gravely wrong (or WHY NOT)?

 

[Mary_Gail_36]

I would agree with the priests.

Some people suffer from scrupulosity, so they see mortal sin where none exists.

 

[MilesVitae]

I would agree with the priests.

A person considers whether or not to perform a particular act. Having thought about it, he comes to the (erroneous) conclusion that it would be grave matter. That is to say, he believes that by performing this action, he will be removing himself from the state of grace, meriting hell, destroying charity in his own soul, and seperating himsel from God. But, he decides that he will do it anyway and enter the state of mortal sin…

But, he hasn’t actually committed a mortal sin?

Why?

 

[Bookcat]

The traditional, three-part formula for mortal sin is, of course, grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent.

correct

In regards to the first, I find myself somewhat confused. I remember learning in the Baltimore Catechism that if one performs an act thinking it to be grave matter, then (assuming the other two conditions are present) it is a mortal sin, even if they were incorrect and the matter was, in fact, not grave.

correct all things being equal…and correct

This has always made sense to me, for it seems that if one performs an act thinking they are doing something which gravely violates the moral law, they are turning themselves from God (If you wish to maintain the need for grave matter, one could say the grave matter is in being willing to commit mortal sin).

correct…and again correct

However, most priests I have asked have told me that this is not correct and that the act must, in fact, be grave matter. They have, frustratingly, never been able to give me a satisfactory explanation as to why this is the case and where my thinking (and the thinking of the writers of the BC) is wrong.

you are in fact correct…(not on the “most priests” part …for I can imagine that you have not talked to “most priests” …but only a certain number in your life …)…and in reality there IS grave matter there (as you clearly explained above) one can say it is in this case the grave matter of doing what you hold to be grave…(your conscience can be in error here of course…but if your conscience judges that such and such is a grave matter …then yes if one did it with full knowledge and deliberate/complete consent…then it can be a mortal sin all things being equal)

(often the priests may perhaps answer simply here…not going into all the things we discussed…teaching in general “one needs grave matter” for mortal sin…which is true)

To give an example…I believe today is a Holy Day of Obligation. But I without excusing reason do not go to Mass. This is done by me with the full knowledge and deliberate consent. I commit a mortal sin (all things being equal). Even though tomorrow I find out that it was dispensed by the Bishop.

Or another one…my conscience (practical judgment of reason) judges that if I steal this thing here …it will be a mortal sin…and I do it with full knowledge and deliberate consent…even if later upon reflection I realize that it was not really a grave matter…

These examples are given with those with a normal conscience etc in mind

The problem comes in here with scrupulosity or with those troubled by scruples to various degrees…

One who is in that boat will often mistake their fears …and scruples etc for a judgment of conscience…(they are in often a very different boat than others here)

They should have a regular confessor and obey him…(unless of course he clearly says something contrary to Church teaching…like “it is ok to murder your boss”) acting with his counsel* against* their scruples…and thus work to conquer their scruples…their unfounded worries and doubts etc…with a firm foot…

They can “fear” mortal sin in all sorts of things …etc…and thus in their case…they form their* actual conscience* by the direction of their confessor (and other good ways) and then they are acting on that direction (etc) …and act on that…learning to ignore what needs to be ignored…

They need to with the help of their confessor to set aside the scruples…

To this end too they are often given various principles to steer by…

For example:

Penitent B is given told by their confessor (to deal with their scruples)…in their particular case they should only consider something to be a grave matter for mortal sin if they are *clearly certain *that such is the case…

(perhaps they are told this cause they see mortal sin everywhere…or are in often mistaking venial matters for grave matters…etc…)

(such* would be not good for another penitent*…like one with a normal conscience or a lax conscience…those with scruples can be in as I noted “a different boat” than others…due to their particular difficulties…they should seek out a regular confessor)

So if anyone out there reading this suffers from such… do not scruple here…but follow your confessor and the principles that one perhaps has…take your concern to him…he can guide you

Scruples are to be treated like a hissing goose or barking dog…one does not stop to argue with either one of those…one keeps walking.

Scruples can be a real bother in the spiritual life…they attack ones peace…they need to be resisted so that one may walk more and more in the joy of Christian life

 

[Mumbles140]

How would you treat a child who hears a word he doesn’t know used angrily, assumes it is bad, and wants to use it to rebel? Say the word was ‘rascal’ or ‘dagnabbit’. As a parent, would you discipline the child the same way as if they said an actual swear word? Now, there can still be some sort of corrective action for the angry words, but would your child get the same punishment if he described female dogs or bodily functions?

 

[nodito]

How would you treat a child who hears a word he doesn’t know used angrily, assumes it is bad, and wants to use it to rebel? Say the word was ‘rascal’ or ‘dagnabbit’. As a parent, would you discipline the child the same way as if they said an actual swear word? Now, there can still be some sort of corrective action for the angry words, but would your child get the same punishment if he described female dogs or bodily functions?

I would think there should be similar punishments. If a child says a word in anger, deliberately meant to hurt or offend someone, even if the word itself is harmless, the child should be punished and reminded: “We don’t use bad language in this house.” This is the same apporach I would take with a young child who used a word that the rest of us would recognize as bad.

 

[aball1035]

The traditional, three-part formula for mortal sin is, of course, grave matter, full knowledge, and full consent.

In regards to the first, I find myself somewhat confused. I remember learning in the Baltimore Catechism that if one performs an act thinking it to be grave matter, then (assuming the other two conditions are present) it is a mortal sin, even if they were incorrect and the matter was, in fact, not grave.

This has always made sense to me, for it seems that if one performs an act thinking they are doing something which gravely violates the moral law, they are turning themselves from God (If you wish to maintain the need for grave matter, one could say the grave matter is in being willing to commit mortal sin).

However, most priests I have asked have told me that this is not correct and that the act must, in fact, be grave matter. They have, frustratingly, never been able to give me a satisfactory explanation as to why this is the case and where my thinking (and the thinking of the writers of the BC) is wrong.

So, is an act of grave matter truly necessary for mortal sin (AND if so, WHY), OR is one guilty of mortal sin if they consciously and freely commit an act which they incorrectly think to be gravely wrong (or WHY NOT)?

Good question. If one thinks it’s truly a grave sin and still commits it (even if it’s not a grave sin), it’s still as if he committed a mortal sin.

For example, if a Catholic incorrectly thought that all lies were a mortal sin, and then still told a white lie with full consent thinking it was a mortal sin all along, could he still be OK with God? What if he thought he committed a mortal sin (that really wasn’t) and felt fine about doing it, and then died a second later? Would God say “You found a loophole! You thought you committed a mortal sin, and did it with all your knowledge and consent, but-surprise! It really wasn’t a sin after all-so you’re saved!”

No, this is absurd!

 

[Mumbles140]

I would think there should be similar punishments. If a child says a word in anger, deliberately meant to hurt or offend someone, even if the word itself is harmless, the child should be punished and reminded: “We don’t use bad language in this house.” This is the same apporach I would take with a young child who used a word that the rest of us would recognize as bad.

So what about people who say ‘Gosh darnit’ or ‘Oh Jeez’ or other expressions intended to be a certain Commandment-breaking phrase but actually aren’t? Is the intent not there? However, one actually refrains from taking the Lord’s name in vain, right?

Furthermore, I guess we differ then on child language. If I heard my niece or nephew saying ‘rascal’ when one takes a toy from the other, I’d talk to them about sharing, but there wouldn’t be any discipline. However, if one called the other a PG-13 or R-rated cuss word, you can bet someone is going on timeout!

 

[Mumbles140]

Good question. If one thinks it’s truly a grave sin and still commits it (even if it’s not a grave sin), it’s still as if he committed a mortal sin.

For example, if a Catholic incorrectly thought that all lies were a mortal sin, and then still told a white lie with full consent thinking it was a mortal sin all along, could he still be OK with God? What if he thought he committed a mortal sin (that really wasn’t) and felt fine about doing it, and then died a second later? Would God say “You found a loophole! You thought you committed a mortal sin, and did it with all your knowledge and consent, but-surprise! It really wasn’t a sin after all-so you’re saved!”

No, this is absurd!

But knowledge of what is a mortal sin is required. I would think assuming something is a mortal sin and being wrong would equate to not knowing whether it was or wasn’t. There is no certainty of knowledge, even if the sinner presumes it.

 

[aball1035]

But knowledge of what is a mortal sin is required. I would think assuming something is a mortal sin and being wrong would equate to not knowing whether it was or wasn’t. There is no certainty of knowledge, even if the sinner presumes it.

I’k talking about how the person knew what a mortal this was, but was wrong on that particular sin’s weight.

I fail to see how somebody can willingly and knowingly commit a mortal sin against God (even if the sin isn’t necessarily mortal) and still be accepted in to Heaven.

 

[Mumbles140]

I’k talking about how the person knew what a mortal this was, but was wrong on that particular sin’s weight.

I fail to see how somebody can willingly and knowingly commit a mortal sin against God (even if the sin isn’t necessarily mortal) and still be accepted in to Heaven.

First, in my example, the person knows what a mortal sin is, and he/she believes the current act is a mortal sin, but is wrong. I believe this equates to someone not knowing whether a certain act is a mortal sin or not, which takes away ‘Full Knowledge’, and without that, there can be no mortal sin.

Well, I assume you mean unrepentant and still be accepted. But isn’t that the great thing about God’s mercy? Yes, a sin was still committed, and willfully done so with consideration, which requires forgiveness (be it through the Sacrament of Reconciliation for mortal sins or other actions/penances/sacraments for venial sins) to repair that relationship with God. However, no grave matter was performed in the eyes of God, only rebellion, which is at the root of every sin, mortal or venial.

 

[Bookcat]

So what about people who say ‘Gosh darnit’ or ‘Oh Jeez’ or other expressions intended to be a certain Commandment-breaking phrase but actually aren’t? Is the intent not there? However, one actually refrains from taking the Lord’s name in vain, right?

In the first case …they are choosing actually words meant to “avoid” the misuse of the Lords Name etc …perhaps substituting for a habit…or even picked up from others who where doing that…(though I would not even say such…if one can avoid it)

Though it should be noted that while it is sinful to misuse the Lords Name (and please please no one do this!) there can be a real distinction here…where it is a profanity…which can often be venial …

Let us always only use the holy name in love and praise etc!

But this is getting off the topic.

 

[Bookcat]

But knowledge of what is a mortal sin is required. I would think assuming something is a mortal sin and being wrong would equate to not knowing whether it was or wasn’t. There is no certainty of knowledge, even if the sinner presumes it.

I have explained this in detail above. Please see post toward the top above (not last one).

 

[Spirithound]

newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5

St. Thomas Aquinas says that an erring conscience binds, but he does not say whether it binds according to mortal sin.

However, it seems to me that there is a mortal sin in this scenario, but it’s not the originally-intended object. For example, if someone believes that all lies are mortal sins, and he deliberately lies, he commits a mortal sin, not by lying, but by intending to break communion with God.

 

[Bookcat]

newadvent.org/summa/2019.htm#article5

St. Thomas Aquinas says that an erring conscience binds, but he does not say whether it binds according to mortal sin.

However, it seems to me that there is a mortal sin in this scenario, but it’s not the originally-intended object. For example, if someone believes that all lies are mortal sins, and he deliberately lies, he commits a mortal sin, not by lying, but by intending to break communion with God.

Not just by “intending to break communion with God” but by “choosing something that he holds in this case to be grave with full knowledge and complete consent” for what ever reason…for whatever intention…one does not need here to “intend” to break communion with God.

I imagine this is actually what you “intended” here

 

[Bookcat]

Again I note for those with scruples…(and others…for it goes into detail) to read the bottom part of my post at the top of the thread…and avoid scrupling here…(or simply refer to your confessor…)

 

[Elizabeth502]

Scrupulosity is an unhealthy and unhelpful state of mind, but sensitivity is an excellent state of mind. Without more context to the OP’s concern (which sounds a little like scrupulosity), it’s hard to know where he’s going with his question.

In the second post he speaks of “deciding” to commit the act, but then not actually committing it. In which case, he did not decide to commit it, because he did not carry through with it. He was severely tempted, perhaps, to the point of consenting to the attractiveness of the sin (saying interiorly, “Boy, I’d like to do this; yes I think I will”), but his will stopped him from doing it. Thus, he did not engage his will to completion.

In any case, the short answer to his question is that there remain all 3 elements of mortal sin necessary to be categorized as mortal sin: grave content (“matter”) of the behavior, PLUS knowledge of that gravity, PLUS freely choosing to do it. (Not just freely choosing to think about how delightful it would be to do it.) All three elements must be present, relative to the particular act.

One should not beat oneself up for being tempted to the brink of almost doing something evil. If one’s will is strong enough to resist a very enticing temptation (momentarily assenting to it, but not actually doing it), one should thank and bless God, and congratulate oneself. (“Wow, I almost did that; thank you God, for your grace! I’m going to keep relying on you and invoking you to give me strength at these moments, trusting that you are supporting my efforts.”) Whenever we resist strong temptation we reaffirm our relationship with God as his obedient children, and we also gain greater confidence that we can do so again, because the triumph is a powerful reinforcer.

A very different state of mind than scrupulosity is heightened sensitivity to sin, which is not a distortion of the reality of sin, but a true reflection of it. In other words, a sign of a highly attuned conscience is one which is alert to the harm caused by all completed (not just ‘thought about’) sin, whether the “matter” was serious or not, but especially if it was truly serious. A well-developed conscience seeks promptly to confess a truly serious sin, because it immediately responds to the true gravity of it and the accurate awareness that a mortal sin was indeed committed. A well-developed conscience is also one that similarly becomes aware of venial sin soon after it is committed, and uses that awareness constructively at the next confession, but does not exaggerate the matter artificially.

So, just to reinforce:
A temptation is not a sin.
A near occasion of sin which does evolve into an act, is also not a sin.

Neither of the above is required matter for the confessional.
However, if one is “playing with fire” – that is, deliberating placing oneself in near occasions of sin, and doing so habitually (even if never acting on that), one should bring that tendency to the confessional, to get some practical spiritual guidance from the priest.

There are a few situations in which thoughts are indeed sins, and can be gravely so: such as a deliberately consented to sexual thought which rises to the level of extended fantasy about it, even if no physical action is taken about the relished fantasy. That is not a fleeting moment of an intruding sexual thought – to which virtually the entire human race is vulnerable, being that we are all sexual creatures.

Similarly, truly harboring vengeful thoughts about someone we dislike or has wronged us (wishing evil upon them, etc.) is sinful, as is rash judgment of an individual (assuming his state of soul, assuming sinful motives, etc.) But again, all 3 examples of thought I just referred to involve consenting, deliberately, to the evil thought, to its completion: 'I want to do this; I will do this; and now I have just done it, and didn’t that feel good!"

If you’re unsure if a thought is a sin, you should take it to Confession the next time you happen to go, but rest assured that temptation to commit a sinful act is not a sin. And being aware of how attractive a temptation is, is not itself a sin.

 

[Bookcat]

It is important to note a few things…such as that a person can commit a mortal sin internally…from “deciding” without doing anything external at all…one does not need to carry it through into external action… to commit a mortal sin (though in certain cases the fact that a person did not do something that could be easily done…may indicate that indeed they did not give complete consent to the strong temptation…)

Also regarding the near occasions of mortal sin…they can be without any sin on our part…or they can be sinful such for example as willingly without some really good reason going to some place where one knows one will commit mortal sins…(a good reason like a policeman can have reason to go into a bad place …due to crime there…) etc

As to thoughts I refer readers to my long post on that (search bookcat here and thoughts…) …one can internally commit mortal sins in the various kinds of sins…deciding to not go to Sunday Mass without excusing reason…deciding to rob a bank, lustful thoughts etc…but just cause thoughts occur to one does not mean one has sinned at all…one always needs full knowledge and deliberate consent (as for the answer to the original question…I refer readers to my long post above at the top…)

 

[Elizabeth502]

It is important to note a few things…such as that a person can commit a mortal sin internally…from “deciding” without doing anything external at all…one does not need to carry it through into external action… to commit a mortal sin (though in certain cases the fact that a person did not do something that could be easily done…may indicate that indeed they did not give complete consent to the strong temptation…)

He said that he did not give in to the strong temptation. If it was not carried through --and the thought itself did not fall into the category of sin that the Church calls a mortally sinful thought – then the thought about the sin is not grave matter. That’s what the OP was discussing in his second post. Please do not confuse him, as in context he could be suffering from scrupulosity.

Also regarding the near occasions of mortal sin…they can be without any sin on our part…or they can be sinful such for example as willingly without some really good reason going to some place where one knows one will commit mortal sins

One should bring to confession the deliberate placing of oneself in an occasion of sin. (A point I already raised and needs no repeating.) However, the resistance to sin while in the occasion, does not convert the occasion itself to mortal sin. An occasion remains an occasion unless acted upon while in that occasion.

As to thoughts I refer readers to my long post on that (search bookcat here and thoughts…) …one can internally commit mortal sins in the various kinds of sins…deciding to not go to Sunday Mass without excusing reason…

And I refer readers to Catholic theology about sin, which is contained in the Catechism.

In the case just described, the thought about not going to Sunday Mass is not the sin. It is the deliberate, unexcused absence (the activity) that is the mortal sin, not the thought about it or temptation to it. Thoughts can be pathways to sin, but unless the thought itself is a sin (such as a relished, extended sexual thought, such as a grievously uncharitable thought, etc.), then contemplating a sin (i.e., thinking about doing it) is not the sin. The acting on the thought is the sin.

deciding to rob a bank

If the bank was not robbed, the mortal sin was not committed, no matter how much thinking about it was done. The temptation was harbored or encountered, and then eventually refused. When the Church refers to decision in such a case, the decision has to be enacted for the decision to be called sinful. Decision is a stage in the sin, a necessary stage, but unless the decision is carried out, there is no decision. What is being called “decision” in such a case is preliminary or potential, and not yet realized. The proof that the decision has been fully consented to (i.e, element of mortal sin) is that the physical robbery (or attempted physical robbery) was engaged in actually, not just conceptually. At that point, one can say retroactively that a commitment (consummated decision) was made.

lustful thoughts etc

Lustful thoughts were already covered, and thoroughly.

 

[Bookcat]

He said that he did not give in to the strong temptation. If it was not carried through --and the thought itself did not fall into the category of sin that the Church calls a mortally sinful thought – then the thought about the sin is not grave matter. That’s what the OP was discussing in his second post. Please do not confuse him, as in context he could be suffering from scrupulosity.

I addressed his question already…and scrupulosity

in the last post I was simply stating what I did …since the matter came up…

One should bring to confession the deliberate placing of oneself in an occasion of sin. (A point I already raised and needs no repeating.) However, the resistance to sin while in the occasion, does not convert the occasion itself to mortal sin. An occasion remains an occasion unless acted upon while in that occasion.

It seemed that some could perhaps think that one could not sin via being in near occasion of sin…I added my comment to bring that out

And I refer readers to Catholic theology about sin, which is contained in the Catechism.

Yes I do so all the time…such is very good to do…amen! I have a degree in Catholic Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville and I love Catholic Theology and the Catechism!! AMEN! .

In the case just described, the thought about not going to Sunday Mass is not the sin.

actually as I described it…it is.

It is the deliberate, unexcused absence (the activity) that is the mortal sin, not the thought about it or temptation to it.

I did not describe a temptation…I described a mortal sin…a choose not to go with full knowledge and deliberate consent…yes of course a temptation and sin are different things…

Thoughts can be pathways to sin, but unless the thought itself is a sin (such as a relished, extended sexual thought, such as a grievously uncharitable thought, etc.), then contemplating a sin (i.e., thinking about doing it) is not the sin. The acting on the thought is the sin. one need not “act” on the thought…one can commit the sin internally without any external action…one can do so by interior choice

If the bank was not robbed, the mortal sin was not committed, no matter how much thinking about it was done.

Not so. What I described is a mortal sin. One need not carry it into act.

The temptation was harbored or encountered, and then eventually refused.

It is my story here…not yours… my character here did commit the mortal sinWhen the Church refers to decision in such a case, the decision has to be enacted for the decision to be called sinful.

…the moral sin begins with the internal choice…yes if he repents and changes his mind not to rob the bank …yes he would not commit the the sin of “robing the bank” but internally he already committed the mortal sin of the choice to do so…and would need to repent and confess such as such. (What your talking about is when one is tempted with thoughts…and such can be even for a very long time with out any sin…not consenting to them)

Decision is a stage in the sin, a necessary stage, but unless the decision is carried out, there is no decision. What is being called “decision” in such a case is preliminary or potential, and not yet realized. The proof that the decision has been fully consented to (i.e, element of mortal sin) is that the physical robbery (or attempted physical robbery) was engaged in actually, not just conceptually. At that point, one can say retroactively that a commitment (consummated decision) was made.

He already commits a mortal sin by deciding to do this…it would be a much worse sin if he carries it out…if he does not carry it out…he needs to confess that he choose to do this but did not do so…