Is it a sin if the person believes it is moral and just?

[AnonymousPrayer]

Here’s a hypothetical and perhaps debatable question:

If a man thinks that it is just and honorable for him to take vengeance upon a man who killed his father, and kills that person (but is not aware, or strongly believes that vengeance is not a sin), would that man be held responsible for his action which he believed to be just, and punished for it in purgatory or perhaps even hell?

that being said, are people held responsible for sins they commit that they do not know are sins at all?

 

[Aquinas326]

Here’s a hypothetical and perhaps debatable question:

If a man thinks that it is just and honorable for him to take vengeance upon a man who killed his father, and kills that person (but is not aware, or strongly believes that vengeance is not a sin), would that man be held responsible for his action which he believed to be just, and punished for it in purgatory or perhaps even hell?

that being said, are people held responsible for sins they commit that they do not know are sins at all?

I would say (based off of the wonderfully thorough explanation of Mortal and Venial sin in the Baltimore Catachism) that they are still guilty, but they have only commited a venial sin. Why? Well ,teh conditions for mortal sin are as follows:
-Grave Matter (IE: the sin must be serious matter)
-Sufficent Understanding (the sinner must know or consider the sin to very serious)
-Consent (The sinner must give full consent to the sin).
Anything that dosn’t fulfill all these is a venial sin. Since it would seem to me that the second requirement isn’t fulfilled, I would say that the sin commited would be only venial. I hope this helps…

 

[LilyM]

I would say (based off of the wonderfully thorough explanation of Mortal and Venial sin in the Baltimore Catachism) that they are still guilty, but they have only commited a venial sin. Why? Well ,teh conditions for mortal sin are as follows:
-Grave Matter (IE: the sin must be serious matter)
-Sufficent Understanding (the sinner must know or consider the sin to very serious)
-Consent (The sinner must give full consent to the sin).
Anything that dosn’t fulfill all these is a venial sin. Since it would seem to me that the second requirement isn’t fulfilled, I would say that the sin commited would be only venial. I hope this helps…

Ah, but murder is one of those ‘moral law’ things. Even without the benefit of the Catechism or church teaching, most people know (and all should know) that vengeance killings are very wrong. It is very doubtful that, for example, the majority of people around him would’ve taught him that it was fine to kill in revenge or anything. In other words he’s more likely to be wilfully going against his better judgement.

 

[Aquinas326]

Ah, but murder is one of those ‘moral law’ things. Even without the benefit of the Catechism or church teaching, most people know (and all should know) that vengeance killings are very wrong. It is very doubtful that, for example, the majority of people around him would’ve taught him that it was fine to kill in revenge or anything. In other words he’s more likely to be wilfully going against his better judgement.

In the hypothetical situation, the man believes it is honorable to seek veangance. Is this absolutely impossible? I stand by what I orginally said. What people should know is often very different from what they do know.

 

[LilyM]

In the hypothetical situation, the man believes it is honorable to seek veangance. Is this absolutely impossible? I stand by what I orginally said. What people should know is often very different from what they do know.

Not absolutely impossible, but rare indeed.

By your logic it would seem that no-one, or almost no-one, is capable of mortal sin - after all, Luther doubtless knew that it was OK to adhere to each one of his heretical doctrines, the prophets of Baal who were slain by Elijah to worship their false god, Hitler and Stalin to kill all the people they killed, and so on.

We cannot pronounce these individuals to be in Hell, but as a general rule we know that mortal sin isn’t as difficult as you seem to be making it. On the contrary Jesus told us that MANY would follow the ‘broad and easy’ path that leads away from eternal life - ie the path of mortal sin.

Only properly-formed consciences are accurate guides, and we all have a duty to PROPERLY form our conscience. Someone who thinks it’s OK, let alone honourable, to kill for revenge would seem to have done a very poor job of this.

Unless there’s some other factor - psychological stress or insanity, or growing up in some remote tribe that have never heard of Christ and where revenge killings are a universal practice - it’s a tough argument to make.

 

[thistle]

In the hypothetical situation, the man believes it is honorable to seek veangance. Is this absolutely impossible? I stand by what I orginally said. What people should know is often very different from what they do know.

There can be no Catholics who could possibly consider that a revenge killing is honourable.

 

[Aquinas326]

I conceed. My reasoning dosn’t work outside of pure speculation, and even then…

 

[rpp]

There can be no Catholics who could possibly consider that a revenge killing is honourable.

I would disagree with you, but only one word. Change the word “Catholics” to the phrase “normal human” and I would agree.

 

[Jermosh]

Here’s a hypothetical and perhaps debatable question:

If a man thinks that it is just and honorable for him to take vengeance upon a man who killed his father, and kills that person (but is not aware, or strongly believes that vengeance is not a sin), would that man be held responsible for his action which he believed to be just, and punished for it in purgatory or perhaps even hell?

that being said, are people held responsible for sins they commit that they do not know are sins at all?

Depends on the mental state of the person and their ignorance. In your case they would surely be under mental stress and could be commiting a crime of passion or not.

The CC talks about this as well:

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.

 

[Ender]

**1860 **Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.

This is a key point. Ignorance does not diminish the graveness of the sin; what it does is reduce our responsibility for having committed it. The sin being discussed is mortal and while we may not be held fully culpable, I wouldn’t bet on it.

‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’ (Augustine, City of God)

Ender

 

[Sir_Knight]

I leave you with the following quote from 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.

… to draw your own conclusions. And before somebody points out that this is from the OT and no longer applies, I draw your attention to the words of the Son of God Himself as recorded in Matthew 5:17 …

“Think not that I have come to abolish the old law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.”

… and if there should still be any doubt, I end with CCC 1791 …

• … 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.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits … *