Is it possible to commit mortal sin?

[Dmitri451]

This thread is an outgrowth of another thread where the conditions necessary to commit a mortal sin were discussed. In that thread, I wrote:

To understand the answers to these questions, you have to put it in the context of love. Nothing about Christian morality makes any sense outside the context of love.

I once heard someone put it this way: The difference between a venial sin and a mortal is that a venial sin simply harms your relationship with God, and a mortal sin breaks it. It is like the difference between snapping at your wife when you’re tired and committing adultery. Your wife can overlook and forgive the first one without you even explicitly asking for forgiveness because she knows you really love her and that you are sorry. But if you commit adultery, you have broken the relationship. It can be repaired, but you have to explicitly ask for forgiveness, and of course, there is still a good deal of lasting damage to your relationship that will take a lot of time and love to overcome.

. . .

There are three things that are required for a sin to be mortal. If any single one of these three are not present, the sin is not mortal:

1. The sin must be known (or believed by the person) to be a serious matter.
2. There must be sufficient reflection. That is to say, it can’t be a reflex action. There must be sufficient time and opportunity for the sinner to realize what they are doing before they choose to do it. [This example was not in the original post, but I’m thinking of using the Lord’s name in vain upon smashing your finger with a hammer.]
3. There must be FULL consent of the will. Not 95%. Not 99.999999%. There must be 100% consent of the will.

Clearly, by definition, a person with a compulsion, habit, or addiction to commit a particular sin [masturbation was the topic], is not in full posession of their will. And since you can’t give what you don’t have, they cannot give full consent.

An interesting question that I’m not qualified to answer is this: On a practical level, there are all sorts of things that one could argue would prevent a person from being able to give full consent to anything. Does that mean that it is practically impossible to commit a mortal sin?

I’m not qualified to give an answer that would hold up under the scrutiny of a moral theologian, but from my own experience I would say that it is quite possible to give full consent. I am convinced that I have done so myself.

I also want to ask if I have it correct that if the sin is believed by the sinner to be serious matter, then for that person it is.

So, I’m inviting (name removed by moderator)ut from the community at large about these questions…

 

[Della]

Clearly, by definition, a person with a compulsion, habit, or addiction to commit a particular sin [masturbation was the topic], is not in full posession of their will. And since you can’t give what you don’t have, they cannot give full consent.

If someone has an addiction they cannot write off their actions with the attitude that they can’t help themselves. They should be trying to stop their addiction by doing whatever is in their power to do, such as therapy or counseling, etc. Not pursuing a way out of one’s addiction would constitute persistence in sin, which is a mortal sin since the person knows he ought to be trying to change. Failures while trying are not mortal sins, though, as long as the person is truly endeavoring to work his way out of his addiction.

An interesting question that I’m not qualified to answer is this: On a practical level, there are all sorts of things that one could argue would prevent a person from being able to give full consent to anything. Does that mean that it is practically impossible to commit a mortal sin?

I suppose that’s true, but before dismissing any actions or words as not truly a mortal sin I would ask my confessor in all humility if I was kidding myself about not knowing or not being able to help myself.

I’m not qualified to give an answer that would hold up under the scrutiny of a moral theologian, but from my own experience I would say that it is quite possible to give full consent. I am convinced that I have done so myself.

I completely agree with you here. Me too, I’m ashamed to say!

I also want to ask if I have it correct that if the sin is believed by the sinner to be serious matter, then for that person it is.

Not necessarily. There are many people who are overly scrupulous who always think they have committed mortal sins. It’s best to talk to our confessor if we’re not sure.

 

[Dmitri451]

Della:

If someone has an addiction they cannot write off their actions with the attitude that they can’t help themselves. They should be trying to stop their addiction by doing whatever is in their power to do, such as therapy or counseling, etc. Not pursuing a way out of one’s addiction would constitute persistence in sin, which is a mortal sin since the person knows he ought to be trying to change. Failures while trying are not mortal sins, though, as long as the person is truly endeavoring to work his way out of his addiction.

I’m glad you made this clarification. It was made in several posts on the other thread, too, and I’m assuming for this discussion that the sinner is, in fact, sincerely and mightily struggling to overcome the sin.

 

[martino]

grave matter is grave matter despite what the sinner thinks! certain actions are objectively wrong and no amount of relativism can will ever change it.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

This is an excerpt of the document referenced by the Catechism:

“The Synod in fact not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins,[95] but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter ** and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.** It must be added as was likewise done at the Synod that some sins are intrinsically grave and mortal by reason of their matter. That is, there exist acts which, per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object. These acts, if carried out with sufficient awareness and freedom, are always gravely sinful.[96]”

God created us with the ability to make decisions and choose our actions thus it is very possible for us to have deliberate consent, it is part of our nature. We are not mere creatures without a soul that act upon instincts. We have the gift of reason and of will.

 

[Della]

martino:

grave matter is grave matter despite what the sinner thinks! certain actions are objectively wrong and no amount of relativism can will ever change it.

Yes, it is, but one’s culpability is another matter. Someone can have committed a mortal sin, such as missing Mass on Sunday, but if he never learned that it is a mortal sin, he would not be culpable of it. As soon as he does learn, though, he would be culpable if he continued to skip Sunday Mass.

And if someone is coerced into committing a sin, such as a spouse threatening divorce if the other doesn’t stay home with him/her on Sundays, the one coerced is not culpable, but still ought to find a way to correct the spouse’s understanding and allay his/her fears so they can be obedient to the Church.

 

[Dmitri451]

martino:

grave matter is grave matter despite what the sinner thinks! certain actions are objectively wrong and no amount of relativism can will ever change it.

Martino, Consider these examples:

1. If a person truly believes something is a serious matter that, objectively speaking, is not, would it be serious matter for him? For example, if someone truly believed that taking a candy bar from a colleague’s desk was serious matter (it is not, by the way), and took it anyway, would it meet the criterion of serious matter for that person?

I tend to think it would, because he was willing to do something believed to be seriously wrong.

1. And conversely, what about the situation where a person, by no fault of their own, truly believes something is not serious matter when in fact it is? For example, if a young boy follows his father’s example and views pornography, believing his father to be a model Christian (Certainly Dad wouldn’t look at this web site if it wasn’t OK!), would the criterion of serious matter present for that boy?

I tend to think not, because he did not form the intent or the will to do something he believed to be seriously wrong.

Perhaps the disagreement is due to variations in the formulations of the three criteria necessary for a mortal sin. I’ve heard both of these:

Formulation 1

1. Serious matter (or believed to be serious matter).
2. Sufficient reflection.
3. Full consent of the will.

Formulation 2

1. Serious matter.
2. Full knowledge.
3. Full consent of the will.

The first formulation would argue for my perspective. The second would argue for yours. In the second formulation the ambiguity I bring up would be covered by the requirement for “full knowledge”.

 

[martino]

Della:

Yes, it is, but one’s culpability is another matter. Someone can have committed a mortal sin, such as missing Mass on Sunday, but if he never learned that it is a mortal sin, he would not be culpable of it. As soon as he does learn, though, he would be culpable if he continued to skip Sunday Mass.

And if someone is coerced into committing a sin, such as a spouse threatening divorce if the other doesn’t stay home with him/her on Sundays, the one coerced is not culpable, but still ought to find a way to correct the spouse’s understanding and allay his/her fears so they can be obedient to the Church.

Della, thanks…yes i understand that. I was only commenting on grave matter and i want people to know that an act that is grave matter for one person is also grave matter for another person…it doesnt depend on what you knew or didnt know. however like you say, culpability is another story!!

 

[martino]

Dmitri451:

Martino, Consider these examples:

1. If a person truly believes something is a serious matter that, objectively speaking, is not, would it be serious matter for him? For example, if someone truly believed that taking a candy bar from a colleague’s desk was serious matter (it is not, by the way), and took it anyway, would it meet the criterion of serious matter for that person?

I tend to think it would, because he was willing to do something believed to be seriously wrong.

1. And conversely, what about the situation where a person, by no fault of their own, truly believes something is not serious matter when in fact it is? For example, if a young boy follows his father’s example and views pornography, believing his father to be a model Christian (Certainly Dad wouldn’t look at this web site if it wasn’t OK!

), would the criterion of serious matter present for that boy?

I tend to think not, because he did not form the intent or the will to do something he believed to be seriously wrong.

Perhaps the disagreement is due to variations in the formulations of the three criteria necessary for a mortal sin. I’ve heard both of these:

Formulation 1

1. Serious matter (or believed to be serious matter).
2. Sufficient reflection.
3. Full consent of the will.

Formulation 2

1. Serious matter.
2. Full knowledge.
3. Full consent of the will.

The first formulation would argue for my perspective. The second would argue for yours. In the second formulation the ambiguity I bring up would be covered by the requirement for “full knowledge”.

Thanks for the reply. I dont think we are talking about the same thing. You seem to be talking about “mortal sin” and i was only speaking about “grave matter”, which is only one of the 3 conditions for mortal sin.

In your first example, if the act was not objectively grave matter then how can it be grave matter “in this particular case”? If i somehow managed to convince you that wearing a blue shirt on friday was a serious sin; and lets say your forgot to do your laundry and when friday came around you had only a blue shirt to wear and so you wore it. would you be guilty of committing mortal sin, even though you didnt really commit a mortal sin. My thought is that for someone to be charged with a mortal sin they must have actually committed one! A person could never be charged with a mortal sin where there was no mortal sin present. The person in your example may be guilty of some other sin, pride perhaps.

 

[Dmitri451]

Martino,

What I’m concerned about is that someone who believes (to use your example) that wearing blue shirts on Friday is a mortal sin, and does it with sufficient reflection (i.e., not simply because he forgot it was Friday) and full consent of the will is clearly committing a mortal sin, isn’t he? After all, isn’t the essence of a mortal sin a deliberate willingness to disobey God in a serious matter? In this case the person would have demonstrated exactly that willingness.

So perhaps he didn’t commit a mortal sin of wearing a blue shirt on Friday (because there is no such sin), but didn’t he commit a mortal sin nevertheless?

It seems to me that he would have to go to confession before receiving communion and say “Bless me Father, I wore a blue shirt on Friday.” Father would then correct his understanding of the objective moral neutrality of wearing blue shirts on Friday and give him absolution.

I guess it’s the corollary to freedom of conscience. We are not only morally free to follow one’s conscience, but morally bound to do so as well.

 

[martino]

Dmitri451:

Martino,

What I’m concerned about is that someone who believes (to use your example) that wearing blue shirts on Friday is a mortal sin, and does it with sufficient reflection (i.e., not simply because he forgot it was Friday) and full consent of the will is clearly committing a mortal sin, isn’t he? After all, isn’t the essence of a mortal sin a deliberate willingness to disobey God in a serious matter? In this case the person would have demonstrated exactly that willingness.

there is a difference between having a williness to do something and actually doing it.

So perhaps he didn’t commit a mortal sin of wearing a blue shirt on Friday (because there is no such sin), but didn’t he commit a mortal sin nevertheless?

well i mentioned that he may be guilty of something, pride comes to mind; but it wont be that his shirt was blue. so i stick to my original statement, the act of “wearing a blue shirt on friday” is not and cannot ever be considered sinful. whatever sin may have been committed it is going to be an entirely different act or omission. maybe he failed to follow his conscience as you pointed out.

 

[Dmitri451]

martino:

there is a difference between having a williness to do something and actually doing it.

Not according to Jesus: “but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)

The general principle applies elsewhere, too…

 

[martino]

Dmitri451:

Not according to Jesus: “but I say unto you, that every one that looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” (Matt 5:28)

The general principle applies elsewhere, too…

I dont want to lead anyone astray, so i will only say that in my opinion that verse is not to be taken in its most literal sense. Certainly robbing a bank is much more serious than thinking about or even planning a bank robbery. then again i could be totally wrong. Jesus could simply be telling us that although the two acts are not exactly the same, they are, nevertheless, both mortal sins! that would seem to support your position, but i really dont think that it does because Jesus is talking about things that actually are serious sins and we are talking about things that are not.

We probably do not really disagree by much. A persons intent is essential in determining “culpability”, but my point all along as been that intent has nothing to do with “grave matter”. So if a person commits a grave sin, his intent or lack thereof could be a mitigating factor that could reduce culpability. Having the intention to commit serious sin may be, in itself, a mortal sin (im not really saying it is or not but am willing to assume so for the sake of this discussion). So if a person does not actually commit the sin which he intends to commit he cannot be guilty of committing that sin, but he could still be guilty of a different sin; having the intention to commit serious sin.

It doesnt seem like it is as clear cut as i first thought, but i am stubbornly sticking to my position!! So far anyway!

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Dmitri451:

This thread is an outgrowth of another thread where the conditions necessary to commit a mortal sin were discussed. In that thread, I wrote:

I also want to ask if I have it correct that if the sin is believed by the sinner to be serious matter, then for that person it is.

IM (v. inexpert) O, it can be; but needn’t be.​

So, I’m inviting (name removed by moderator)ut from the community at large about these questions…

About this:​

Clearly, by definition, a person with a compulsion, habit, or addiction to commit a particular sin [masturbation was the topic], is not in full posession of their will. And since you can’t give what you don’t have, they cannot give full consent.

I don’t agree. Acts may well be habitual, and may well be enslaving - that doesn’t prevent their being voluntary and deliberate. We are never entirely free of all influences, habits, dispositions, and so on: but we are free enough to sin, even though we have a bias to sin - we all come into the world damaged by it. Considered simply as an act, an act of charity may be made by the same person as is grieviously liable to outbursts of violent anger: the human subject from whom they come is the same. If one act is free enough to be morally significant, why not both ? If both acts are incapable of being significant for the activity of the person as a moral agent, he is reduced to a robot - a being radically incapable of responding to God at all. That reduces human persons to mere lumber. But if God can elicit an act of charity in one case - does not the same freedom which is actualised and made fruitful for that to happen, come into play when we sin by hating God (say) ?

1. The problem I sense in a denial that habitual sins can ever be mortal, is that it demeans us by denying that we are as capable of malice by our own rebellion, as we are of the most glorious holiness when transformed by God. The Saints show us the one, in its beauty, which is only a tiny hint of the Beauty of God - so ISTM that we can’t deny the possibility of the other in all its hideous deformity. Our freedom to act freely & to respond in freedom may be haemorrhaging away, but so long as there is something human left that can be converted, there will be something left that can find the very notion of conversion an abomination: IOW, something with enough liberty to commit mortal sin, freely, even after being enslaved by a habit of so doing. ISTM.
2. And, one can be enslaved to one’s sin, yet receive grace after engaging in the sinful act: so one is not exactly where one was while committing it - one can fall all over again
3. To deny that one can sin mortally even when one is enslaved by a habit which is mortally sinful sounds too wholesale. This wholesale, undetailed approach is what is wrong with the “fundamental option” theory - it takes life in big slices, & doesn’t remember that these slices are made up of lots of crumbs - the acts (mental, bodily, and all others) we engage in, and which occur in us. It’s the variety of events & acts - God’s, other men’s, ours - which results in what we are and how we act. ##

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

This thread is an outgrowth of another thread where the conditions necessary to commit a mortal sin were discussed. In that thread, I wrote:

I also want to ask if I have it correct that if the sin is believed by the sinner to be serious matter, then for that person it is.

So, I’m inviting (name removed by moderator)ut from the community at large about these questions…

One is obligated to have a properly formed conscience.

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

We are not only morally free to follow one’s conscience, but morally bound to do so as well.

\

That is true, but we are obligated to properly form our conscience.

 

[TOME]

First, I am glad to see this thread because I have been giving this some thought of late. No my reflections were part of a conscieous effort to retionalize any actions I may have done but rather it come from hearing the term “Mortal” sin used quite frequently both in post and on radio an I must admit that it has bothered me a little.

Is Mortal Sin possible? The answer is yes. If one wants to use the scriptures alone to prove that Mortal, then Satan’s rejection of God’s love proves the possibility of the existance of sin which is Mortal beyond the shaddow of any doubt. Also, The Church has always taught this rom Apostolic times even though She did not formulate the conditions of committing Mortal Sin until the development of Midevil philosophy.

So, I would like to return to the question asked an answer yes it is possible but highly improbrable. This doen not mean, in my opinion, that a particular action cannot have serious consequences even grave consequences but despite the seriousousness of the action and consequence, is the act itself mortal? For example, murder is a serious act with grave consequences, yet even our judicial system recognizes that there are different degrees in the competency of the person who committed the act.

I think, therefore, when talking about Mortal Sin our discussion should focus on whether or not a particular Act, and no other act, is Mortal in and of itslf. Are there all the necessary elements present in full to make that act Mortal as oppose to extremely serious.

Also in this discussion consider this. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, we always strive to the Good, even if the Good is a preceived good and not a necessary good. If this is true, then can the criteria of Will be met for most acts we tend to label Mortal?

 

[fix]

TOME:

So, I would like to return to the question asked an answer yes it is possible but highly improbrable. This doen not mean, in my opinion, that a particular action cannot have serious consequences even grave consequences but despite the seriousousness of the action and consequence, is the act itself mortal? For example, murder is a serious act with grave consequences, yet even our judicial system recognizes that there are different degrees in the competency of the person who committed the act.

How have you proven that it is unlikely that one may commit a mortal sin. I think the exact opposite that such things are committed frequently.

I think, therefore, when talking about Mortal Sin our discussion should focus on whether or not a particular Act, and no other act, is Mortal in and of itslf. Are there all the necessary elements present in full to make that act Mortal as oppose to extremely serious.

What is so uncommon to these conditions?

Also in this discussion consider this. According to Saint Thomas Aquinas, we always strive to the Good, even if the Good is a preceived good and not a necessary good. If this is true, then can the criteria of Will be met for most acts we tend to label Mortal?

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).39

T
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.

 

[TOME]

Fix, in the references your gave, would you please point out where it states that the lack of good intention makes and act automatically a mortal sin? I believe 1753 and 1757 refer to the morality of an act in the objective norms. An evil act cannot justify a good intention, however, does not the good intention mitigate the moral consequences of the act? Again, I am not talking about the serious conequence of the particular act, but even if the act is intrinisically evil yet the the intention was good how can there be a Mortal Sin because there wasn’t the will to do evil?

What I am saying, using 1759, yes the end cannot justify the means, however if the intention is to do go it the particular act, no matter how grave or serious the consequence, cannot be declared a Mortal sin because there was not the Will to do absolute evil.

Let’s put this in layman’s terms. Isn’t a Motral Sin an Act in which a person knowingly wnd willfully desires to cut himself off completely from the Love of God?

Again, I am not saying that it is impossible, the existence of the Devil is proof for that, hoever, in the normal course of human activity I think we are too quick to label a particular act of an individual as a Mortal Sin. What human in their right mind wants to cut them self off completely from God’s Love? This, however, does not mean that there are not Acts that are not intrinisiclly evil but the Act is only one of the three elements that differenciate a sin from the ultimate rejection of God namely a mortal sin.

 

[fix]

TOME:

Again, I am not talking about the serious conequence of the particular act, but even if the act is intrinisically evil yet the the intention was good how can there be a Mortal Sin because there wasn’t the will to do evil?

What I am saying, using 1759, yes the end cannot justify the means, however if the intention is to do go it the particular act, no matter how grave or serious the consequence, cannot be declared a Mortal sin because there was not the Will to do absolute evil.

What about this?:

For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity.
The Holy Father addressed this suggestion in his Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenetentia

Let’s put this in layman’s terms. Isn’t a Motral Sin an Act in which a person knowingly wnd willfully desires to cut himself off completely from the Love of God?

See above.

Again, I am not saying that it is impossible, the existence of the Devil is proof for that, hoever, in the normal course of human activity I think we are too quick to label a particular act of an individual as a Mortal Sin. What human in their right mind wants to cut them self off completely from God’s Love? This, however, does not mean that there are not Acts that are not intrinisiclly evil but the Act is only one of the three elements that differenciate a sin from the ultimate rejection of God namely a mortal sin.

When the will sets itself upon something that is of its nature incompatible with the charity that orients man toward his ultimate end, then the sin is mortal by its very object . . . whether it contradicts the love of God, such as blasphemy or perjury, or the love of neighbor, such as homicide or adultery. . .

CCC