Is grave matter really necessary for a mortal sin?

[Bookcat]

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

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.

.

to continue the post…

One need not rob the bank to commit mortal sin. The choice to do so with full knowledge and complete consent is already a mortal sin…even if he later changes his mind and does not go through with it.

Just as the person who chooses (with full knowledge and complete consent) to accept the proposal of committing adultery with his secretary … has already committed a moral sin even though he later changes his mind cause he realizes his wife will find out and does not go through with it…he still needs repentance and confession.

 

[MilesVitae]

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.

I am actually not asking about any particular occasion, although I thank you for your concern and sensitivity to scrupulosity, which I have suffered and to some extent continue to suffer from. In this case, however, I am certain my conclusions are not the result of scrupulosity.

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.

Actually, I didn’t say that.

Also, you are incorrect. If one does, in fact, make the choice to commit a sin, he is guilty of sin. He has already turned in his will against the judgment of his conscience. In some cases the action he has chosen to commit might not be carried out, either because he is prevented in some way, or because he repents. But that the action is not ultimately carried out does not negate the fact that he has already made the choice to commit the act.

PLUS freely choosing to do it. (Not just freely choosing to think about how delightful it would be to do it.)

Are we talking about thinking about a sin, or choosing to do it? Why is the physical performance of the action necessary for sin? Again, I ask, if someone chooses to commit an action and, in the time between that choice and the actual commission of the act, is prevented, he is not free of sin simply because he was unable to commit it. Neither, then, if he repents before committing the action does that imply he was free of sin.

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

What is your basis for making this claim? To put oneself in a non-necessary, near occasion of mortal sin is gravely sinful. newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

Of course, those who are scrupulous tend to think almost anything is a near occasion of sin, or that they have the obligation to avoid anything which is an occasion of sin, even if it is not a near occasion. Furthermore, they might mistakenly think that, because they found themselves in a tempting situation, they had committed a sin of placing themselves in a near occasion of sin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Also, you are incorrect. If one does, in fact, make the choice to commit a sin, he is guilty of sin. He has already turned in his will against the judgment of his conscience. In some cases the action he has chosen to commit might not be carried out, either because he is prevented in some way, or because he repents. But that the action is not ultimately carried out does not negate the fact that he has already made the choice to commit the act.

Being prevented from doing it is not what I was talking about. Nor was I talking about repenting after the fact. I was talking about not carrying it through. See below.

…Are we talking about thinking about a sin, or choosing to do it? Why is the physical performance of the action necessary for sin? Again, I ask, if someone chooses to commit an action and, in the time between that choice and the actual commission of the act, is prevented, he is not free of sin simply because he was unable to commit it. Neither, then, if he repents before committing the action does that imply he was free of sin.

Because if he does not carry out the sin, he is deciding not to sin. He has tentatively “decided,” but has reversed his decision. You can sit there and say, “I have decided to murder so-and-so,” but then on second thought, one’s conscience changes that “decision” (which is really an intention-in-progress). A sin, however, in that person’s case, has undoubtedly been committed in that situation, but it wouldn’t be a “decision” to murder, because murder was decided against. (A decision has to be acted on to be called a decision. Not acting is to decide not to.) The sin in the case of the above would be undoubtedly to have been so angry as to even consider murder, would mean that the person had a level of unacceptable anger that Jesus condemned as being equivalent to murder. (The person may have also insulted his previously intended victim, etc.) Those could be mortal elements, for sure. Usually a person would not consider murdering someone he had not already been in mortal sin against. But he was tempted to murder, then decided against murder.

What is your basis for making this claim? To put oneself in a non-necessary, near occasion of mortal sin is gravely sinful. newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

My entire context for responding to you was your concern about grave matter vs. non-grave matter. If one puts oneself in an occasion of sin that is not even of grave matter to begin with, the occasion is also not grave.

Of course, those who are scrupulous tend to think almost anything is a near occasion of sin, or that they have the obligation to avoid anything which is an occasion of sin, even if it is not a near occasion. Furthermore, they might mistakenly think that, because they found themselves in a tempting situation, they had committed a sin of placing themselves in a near occasion of sin.

Everything you said earlier made me feel that you were being far too self-analytical and overly introspective about the whole thing. Obviously I misunderstood the nature of your remarks. They were enigmatic to me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Re-quoting portions of my earlier post, for clarity;

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.

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.

Notice that I spoke of deliberate decisions to place oneself in near occasions of sin, to be matter for the Confessional. And I said it twice. So you completely misunderstood me. Nevertheless, my context was still non-grave matter, since the title of your thread, OP, is “Is grave matter really necessary for a mortal sin?” And the answer is, Yes, grave matter is “really necessary.” according to the Magisterium. You will not find it to be No in any authoritative Catholic source. But if one is confused about whether something is grave or not grave, one should bring the question to the Confessional.

 

[Elizabeth502]

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?

Because the action he engaged in, which he thought was “mortal,” was not a grave offense to God. However, he may have committed a different grave offense if he had a contemptuous attitude toward God in entering into something which he thought/assumed was indeed mortal: such a deliberate disregard is a violation of the First Commandment, as well as a violation of the Great Commandment reiterated by Jesus (Mt 22:36). And a violation of the First Commandment, done deliberately, is definitely grave matter, and most certainly any believer should know that. (Meaning that the necessary element of “full knowledge” – of the sin against the First Commandment – is there, + there was full consent + the matter of choosing self over God regardless of consequences (and considering the consequences) is what classifies that as a mortal sin.

“Hatred of God” and “rejection of God” I have seen in Catholic Examinations of Conscience as being sins against the First Commandment. We tend not to make graven images in modern times , but we do idolize ourselves at times. Not putting God first is something we get into routine habits of doing.

As with everything else, if I still had doubts about that, I would bring it to Confession, describe what happened were I the person in question, and have the priest guide me.

 

[Elizabeth502]

A decision has to be acted on to be called a decision.

Or (clarifying again), attempted to be acted upon. (Even if one is prevented from fully carrying it out.) You made plans to do something, you began carrying out your plan in some fashion (even if just making phone calls or doing some other initiating activity) then yes, you have made a decision to engage your will into action. If you reverse course before engaging your will, you have activated your will in the reverse direction; you have cancelled your decision, and done so in time, as long as no steps were taken by you, nor no conspiracy was entered into with others – enabling them to act in your stead, for example.

But a “decision” which is actually a fantasy and not enacted, does not make the non-materialized action a mortal sin. (For example, a fantasy about murder.) Nevertheless, as I said earlier, an evil wish upon someone (“I wish he were dead, and I’d like to kill him, and I hope something bad happens to him”) is in itself a sin. It’s just not literally the sin of murder, though it violates the Fifth Commandment.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Further verifying my expose on fantasies vs. enacted decisions, and on the true Internal Sins of malice…

www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

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.

Thus, naturally thoughts can be sins, as I mentioned earlier. I have never disputed that. And I specifcally mentioned that a vicious thought (I’d like to see so-and-so dead) is a serious sin. But that is a different sin than the sin of murder, if you didn’t take any action in regard to your fantasy or sinful thought. It is the sin of malice, and as the Catholic Encyclopedia also confirms, it rises to a grave level if the fantasy action being relished is itself grave.

Similarly, fantasizing yourself as the murderer of someone, and plotting it as a possibility, is of course sinful. But if you didn’t take any steps to commit the murder, the sin is not murder; the sin is (or are) hatred and malice. Your decision was that it would remain in your fantasy, not your activity, but it is nevertheless matter for Confession.

On that same page is discussed malice, broadly, and also hatred of God. (A point I made a few pasts back, addressing your earlier post about deliberately turning away from God.)
If the matter is small, an action may nevetheless be grievous if it is done with malice. So if the matter is venial, but there is animosity directed toward God in commiting it, it is not that the venial sin becomes mortal, it is that the mortal sin is the hatred of God (or disregard, disrespect) that was your disposition surrounding the venial matter.

 

[Bookcat]

If one does, in fact, make the choice to commit a sin, he is guilty of sin. He has already turned in his will against the judgment of his conscience. In some cases the action he has chosen to commit might not be carried out, either because he is prevented in some way, or because he repents. But that the action is not ultimately carried out does not negate the fact that he has already made the choice to commit the act.

Again you are correct

Are we talking about thinking about a sin, or choosing to do it? Why is the physical performance of the action necessary for sin? Again, I ask, if someone chooses to commit an action and, in the time between that choice and the actual commission of the act, is prevented, he is not free of sin simply because he was unable to commit it. Neither, then, if he repents before committing the action does that imply he was free of sin.

Correct…and they may even “repent” by grace…without being just unable to commit it.

To put oneself in a non-necessary, near occasion of mortal sin is gravely sinful. newadvent.org/cathen/11196a.htm

I would add that there can be more here to consider here…but yes it can be grave matter…and if done with full knowledge and complete consent be thus mortal sin…

Of course, those who are scrupulous tend to think almost anything is a near occasion of sin, or that they have the obligation to avoid anything which is an occasion of sin, even if it is not a near occasion. Furthermore, they might mistakenly think that, because they found themselves in a tempting situation, they had committed a sin of placing themselves in a near occasion of sin.

Right those who are have any degree of scrupulosity or tendency to scruples…need to take real care here…have a regular confessor and not think everything is a near occasion etc…(as noted above…)

 

[Bookcat]

A person can be “tempted” to murder someone…and not choose this…but resist it…even if the thought comes again and again…or even perhaps he is giving in somewhat…does not reject the thought right away…maybe naturally his mind begins to consider it more…but then he realizes what is happening…and rejects it. That is one thing.

It is quite another for one to choose to do the sin. To deliberately consent. With full knowledge and complete consent. But then later change his mind …perhaps he is prevented…or perhaps he responds to grace…and does not carry the choice to action…no attempts etc…

There can be already thus mortal sin in the choice here…without any action. That needs to be repented and confessed.

Yes the person did not commit as I noted above “the sin of murder” but still it needs be confessed…

A person can decide something with full knowledge and complete consent…like the person choosing to commit adultery in my example above…and not carry it through…that still needs to be confessed…for the mortal sin it was…“I choose to commit adultery but did not for I repented” etc

 

[Bookcat]

The choice of the grave matter with full knowledge and complete consent is a mortal sin. One need not act externally in any way…

One of course can change ones mind…that then is a new choice…a good choice of course…but not one that removes the first. One still needs to repent of that first choice clearly for what it was.

 

[Bookcat]

again I would add…

There could also be for example a person who was strongly tempted …say to steal something…and it is easy to do…easy to steal and get away with it…there it is…no one will ever know…he struggles with the temptation…and but in the end walks away and goes to pray a rosary…that person may be then in a state of fear…of doubt…did I consent??? …one indication for him in his judging can be that not only is he not conscious of choosing to do the thing…but he also did not do it when it was so easy to do…such can be perhaps in his case…a “sign” that helps him judge that he did not give consent…at least not complete consent for mortal sin…

or say a person struggles with a temptation to buy pornography and look at it…and the same kind of event goes on as I describe for the other…it would be easy for the person to just go buy it…but he does not…he goes and prays or something…and then fears that he consented in midst of the struggle…he was strongly attracted…he knows he for sure had thoughts about it…it was a struggle…but is doubtful…not sure…did he consent?? …in addition to his not being conscious of any choice …of full consent in his temptation…the fact that he did not do it …did not carry it to action…when it was so easy to do it.…can be a it would seem in his case…a useful “sign” to help him judge that he in fact did not commit mortal sin…by the grace of God (though it certainly would have been best if he fled…for sexual temptations are best handled largely by flight)

 

[puzzleannie]

The
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.

)?

if these priests told you this in confession, that is all you need to know and all you need to act on. Whether or not the issue is grave matter it still requires diligence and prayer to overcome.

 

[Bookcat]

if these priests told you this in confession, that is all you need to know and all you need to act on. Whether or not the issue is grave matter it still requires diligence and prayer to overcome.

He is asking the theological questions here. And he is correct in what he noted. The priests may have been thinking he meant something else etc.