So would it be fair to reword 1857 fromWhat 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.
to "For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and full knowledge exists or is required, -]which is also committed with full knowledge/-] and deliberate consent.”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.”
So would you say that this wording would reflect what they meant:The “full knowledge” applies to the act and not to the sinfulness of it.
If one was raised in the Catholic faith, there are certain things one SHOULD know and not knowing them does not excuse one of the sin.
If I don’t go to Mass on Sunday because I didn’t know that it was a mortal sin not to go – that is something I should have know and ignorance is not an excuse. If I don’t go to Mass because I got the times mixed up or the days mixed up, then it is not a mortal sin because I lacked full knowledge and it wasn’t my intent to miss mass.
Even considering 1860 (which only requires us to know principles of the moral law) there is still the question of knowledge of church law. For example, the rule that requires us to go to mass on Sunday. Knowledge of natural law or the moral law does not necessarily inform someone that they must attend Sunday mass.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 heart133 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.
I cannot see any contradiction here. It seems clear.
For a Catholic the standard means educating oneself about the faith. I do not think it means one needs a doctorate in moral theology. I do think it means knowing the basics and being open to learning more.Even considering 1860 (which only requires us to know principles of the moral law) there is still the question of knowledge of church law. For example, the rule that requires us to go to mass on Sunday. Knowledge of natural law or the moral law does not necessarily inform someone that they must attend Sunday mass.
However, 1791 still requires us to inform our consciences about rules like Sunday Obligation. So there is an area of contraditiction for grave sins which are not part of the natural law (IMO)