Is It a Mortal Sin If You Don't Know it's Serious?

[Neil_Anthony]

The catechism says:

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.

but it also says:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

Is this a contradiction? Can you commit mortal sin if you don’t know that it’s a serious sin, or not?

 

[bilop]

Is this a contradiction? Can you commit mortal sin if you don’t know that it’s a serious sin, or not?

As long as you know it’s a sin, or that the Church teaches a sin, yes.

From your quote of the Cathechism:

“It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act”

It says nothing of knowing whether it is grave sin or not.

God Bless

 

[StCsDavid]

For a sin to be mortal one needs full knowledge, full consent, and be dealing with a grave matter. Culpability doesn’t always equal loss of sanctifying grace. If it did, there would be little use for purgatory. If you committed what would be considered a mortal sin, but didn’t have full knowledge at the time you committed it that it was a mortal sin, then God in his mercy does not throw you out of His communion. You’re still responsible for that action and upon learning it’s gravity you should confess it. You might experience temporal punishment for that sin in purgatory, but that’s way better than eternal damnation, right?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

All this time I thought ‘culpability’ was a reference to whether the sin could be serious enough to be mortal. Do you have a reference for this, where cupability for a mortal sin doesn’t always mean loss of sanctifying grace?

Thx
Neil

For a sin to be mortal one needs full knowledge, full consent, and be dealing with a grave matter. Culpability doesn’t always equal loss of sanctifying grace. If it did, there would be little use for purgatory. If you committed what would be considered a mortal sin, but didn’t have full knowledge at the time you committed it that it was a mortal sin, then God in his mercy does not throw you out of His communion. You’re still responsible for that action and upon learning it’s gravity you should confess it. You might experience temporal punishment for that sin in purgatory, but that’s way better than eternal damnation, right?

 

[StCsDavid]

It’s not exactly an A + B = C equation. For example, using contraception is a moral evil and therefor a grave matter. Using it is a sin. The degree of culpability would depend upon one’s knowledge of the matter. Some folks, (i.e. most Protestants and far too many Catholics) have been incorrectly instructed so they can’t be expected to have full knowledge of the wrong and thus are less likely to have lost their sanctifying grace. The sin is no less evil, but he perpetrator is less culpable due to ignorance. On the other hand, if I were to commit the very same sin, I have full knowledge and thus I am in essence saying “to heck with God…I’m doing it my way.” God gives me free will to do this. I’m completely culpable and I lose my sanctifying grace until I repent and go to confession.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

It’s not exactly an A + B = C equation. For example, using contraception is a moral evil and therefor a grave matter. Using it is a sin. The degree of culpability would depend upon one’s knowledge of the matter. …

But the contradiction to that is that the catechism says that ignorance due to lack of effort to learn does not remove culpability:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Sir_Knight]

The way that I understand it is that once we reach the age of reason (normally around the time we start going to confession and receiving communion), we had a duty to know, understand and believe the teachings of the church. Obviously, we this has to be done within reason because we are not expected to know every minor point but we can not remain completely ignorant because ignorance is not an excuse.

CCC1791 teaches this. The bible teaches this in Leviticus 5:17 …

If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

… and previous Popes have taught it …

In the encyclical, Acerbo Nimis, Pope Saint Pius X quoted his predecessor, Pope Benedict XIV as saying that ignorance was the reason for the damnation of the greater number of those who are lost:

“And so, Our Predecessor, Benedict XIV had just cause to write: ‘we declare that a great number of those who are condemned to eternal punishment suffer that everlasting calamity because of ignorance of those mysteries of faith which must

be known and believed in order to be numbered among the elect’." (Acerbo Nimis, April 15, 1905)

 

[StCsDavid]

But the contradiction to that is that the catechism says that ignorance due to lack of effort to learn does not remove culpability:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

Keep reading on down in the catechism…

1793 If—on the contrary—the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

This would seem to address the contraction. It seems that we are called to continuously form our conscience. A well formed conscience would appear to be more culpable than one in a state of invincible ignorance, yes?

 

[VociMike]

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

Is this a contradiction? Can you commit mortal sin if you don’t know that it’s a serious sin, or not?

No contradiction at all. We are responsible for seeing to it that we have a well-formed conscience, and that we live by that well-formed conscience. To the extent that we do not live up to that responsibility, we will be held accountable. So if one commits a grave act, the more serious sin may not be the grave act but rather the rejection of the duty to develop a well-formed conscience and to abide by it. That is to say, if e.g. a person with a well-formed conscience commits a murder, the serious sin is the murder, but if a person without a well-formed conscience commits a murder, the more serious sin may not be the murder but the refusal to develop that conscience.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No contradiction at all. We are responsible for seeing to it that we have a well-formed conscience, and that we live by that well-formed conscience. To the extent that we do not live up to that responsibility, we will be held accountable. So if one commits a grave act, the more serious sin may not be the grave act but rather the rejection of the duty to develop a well-formed conscience and to abide by it. That is to say, if e.g. a person with a well-formed conscience commits a murder, the serious sin is the murder, but if a person without a well-formed conscience commits a murder, the more serious sin may not be the murder but the refusal to develop that conscience.

This sounds very reasonable but 1791 specifically says "In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. ". You’re saying that the person is culpable for failing to form his conscience. But CCC 1791 says that he is culpable for ‘the evil he commits’, referring to the serious sin he committed without knowing it was a serious sin.

 

[VociMike]

This sounds very reasonable but 1791 specifically says "In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. ". You’re saying that the person is culpable for failing to form his conscience. But CCC 1791 says that he is culpable for ‘the evil he commits’, referring to the serious sin he committed without knowing it was a serious sin.

He is culpable for the evil he committed because he ignored the duty to form his conscience, not because he knew the act was a grave act. And he is also culpable for the fact of not forming his conscience. That is a separate sin. Since there are always degrees of culpability, that’s probably the most one can say about the situation. That is, he probably knew to some extent that it was a grave act, and he probably had made some effort in his life to form his conscience, so neither is an all-or-nothing contributing factor.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

He is culpable for the evil he committed because he ignored the duty to form his conscience, not because he knew the act was a grave act. And he is also culpable for the fact of not forming his conscience. That is a separate sin. Since there are always degrees of culpability, that’s probably the most one can say about the situation. That is, he probably knew to some extent that it was a grave act, and he probably had made some effort in his life to form his conscience, so neither is an all-or-nothing contributing factor.

But if he’s culpable for the evil he committed (a serious sin), doesn’t that mean he is no longer in a state of grace, and will go to hell if he dies before repenting? And if that is the case, doesn’t that contradict CCC 1859?

 

[VociMike]

But if he’s culpable for the evil he committed (a serious sin), doesn’t that mean he is no longer in a state of grace, and will go to hell if he dies before repenting? And if that is the case, doesn’t that contradict CCC 1859?

A grave act (or grave evil, as you say) is not automatically a serious sin, because the notion of serious sin (I assume we mean mortal sin here) includes not only the act but also knowledge and consent. And I don’t think culpability is only measured in terms of 0% or 100%, because neither knowledge nor consent are only measured in terms of 0% or 100%.

In the end we can’t judge others and we can barely, if at all, judge ourselves. So we must rely on the judgement of God, and also that God will provide each person before they die the grace to comprehend what they have done and what they must repent of. We must trust that God doesn’t let anybody “slip through the cracks” without the chance to repent and be saved.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Are you saying that it’s possible to be fully **culpable **for a serious sin, as per 1791, but for it to still not be a mortal sin?

That would explain the ‘contradiction’ but it seems to me that the word culpable is always used in the catechism in reference to whether a sin is mortal or not, and that to be fully culpable by definition of the word means that its a mortal sin.

**A grave act (or grave evil, as you say) is not automatically a serious sin, because the notion of serious sin (I assume we mean mortal sin here) includes not only the act but also knowledge and consent. ** And I don’t think culpability is only measured in terms of 0% or 100%, because neither knowledge nor consent are only measured in terms of 0% or 100%.

In the end we can’t judge others and we can barely, if at all, judge ourselves. So we must rely on the judgement of God, and also that God will provide each person before they die the grace to comprehend what they have done and what they must repent of. We must trust that God doesn’t let anybody “slip through the cracks” without the chance to repent and be saved.

 

[VociMike]

Are you saying that it’s possible to be fully **culpable **for a serious sin, as per 1791, but for it to still not be a mortal sin?

That would explain the ‘contradiction’ but it seems to me that the word culpable is always used in the catechism in reference to whether a sin is mortal or not, and that to be fully culpable by definition of the word means that its a mortal sin.

No, I would say that to be fully culpable for a grave act would mean you had committed a mortal sin. I don’t know in what context you’re using the term “serious sin”, since I don’t think it’s a normal expression.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

No, I would say that to be fully culpable for a grave act would mean you had committed a mortal sin. I don’t know in what context you’re using the term “serious sin”, since I don’t think it’s a normal expression.

‘serious sin’ means ‘grave sin’ or objective mortal sin, or a sin whose object is grave matter. But I’ll use the term ‘grave sin’ instead to be more clear.

Consider a person who has committed a grave sin, but is not aware that the object of his sin is grave matter (he isn’t aware that it’s a grave sin) because he hasn’t taken much trouble to inform his conscience. According to 1857, it isn’t a mortal sin, because he does not have full knowledge. But according to 1791, he is ‘culpable for the evil he commits’. 1791 sounds to me like the sin was mortal (he’s going to hell if he dies right now) but 1857 sounds to me like the sin isn’t mortal (he wont go to hell if he dies right now) because he doesn’t have full knowledge. It’s a contradiction between 1857 and 1791.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

I know there are shades of grey, but for purposes of this example, lets say that the object of the sin is definitely grave, that he has made zero effort to inform his conscience, and that he has absolutely zero knowledge that it is a grave sin.

 

[Yerusalyim]

Unless the question is purely hypothetical the best place to find an answer is with a competent orthodox Catholic priest. All we give here are our guesses and opinions. Having said that, my opinion is that for a sin to be mortal it has to meet all the requirements mentioned in the Cathecism, and not realizing the full grave nature of a sin MIGHT mitigate some culpability, and therefore grace might only be tarnished. Again, a competent orthodox Catholic priest is the best source for an answer.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Unless the question is purely hypothetical the best place to find an answer is with a competent orthodox Catholic priest. All we give here are our guesses and opinions. Having said that, my opinion is that for a sin to be mortal it has to meet all the requirements mentioned in the Cathecism, and not realizing the full grave nature of a sin MIGHT mitigate some culpability, and therefore grace might only be tarnished. Again, a competent orthodox Catholic priest is the best source for an answer.

Yes, the question is purely hypothetical and philosophical. It’s about whether there exists any hypothetical situation where CCC 1857 and CCC 1971 contradict each other. I find it interesting because a formal contradiction like that is a logical fallacy, and I don’t think the Catechism has any fallacies, but this has me wondering.

 

[fix]

The catechism says:

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.

but it also says:

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 **In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits. **

Is this a contradiction? Can you commit mortal sin if you don’t know that it’s a serious sin, or not?

I do not see a contradcition, but they complement each other. If one neglects their duty to inform their conscience then they cannot really claim non culpable ignorance.

 

[tvdxer]

What the catechism is referring to is something called “vincible ignorance”. This is ignorance one is responsible for. A good example would be a man who avoids listening to what the church teaches on a certain issue so he doesn’t have to feel guilty about what he does.