Is it possible to commit mortal sin?

[YinYangMom]

TOME:

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.

It’s my understanding that the sin is the sin regardless of the intent. We’re talking about an action taken.

The intent may have an effect on the consequences due to committing the sin, as you noted about mitigation.

Mortal sins are actions which go against the commandments and therefore distance us furthest from God. It’s not so much that one knowingly and willingly sets out to distance themselves from God - that’s focusing on intent, not action. The sin is the action by which one distances themselves from God whether intending to do so or not.

One has to know what the commandment is and that the church deems certain actions fall under offense of certain commandments. They don’t have to understand why committing these actions are considered grave matter, they just have to know that the Church deems them as such and then obey the Church.

The Church tells us that if we die with mortal sin on our souls we are denied entrance to heaven. Period.

So once we Catholics know the Church’s official teaching on particular behaviors/practices we have to trust that and obey. This is one of the primary reasons Jesus left the Church to us and the sacraments - to help us stay on the straight and narrow because He knew we would not be able to understand all that He had revealed.

When we choose to disregard what we know with our actions, good intention or not, we commit a mortal sin - because the matter of the action was **grave **(against a commandment), we **knew **the Church teaching that this particular behavior/practice would be considered grave in a confessional, we **chose **to engage in the behavior/practice anyway.

Now we have two choices: confess the sin or rely on our own personal interpretation of our action that the act really won’t be considered mortal should we die that afternoon.

Since we know the Church would consider our act mortal should we confess it, then that’s one heck of a gamble a person takes to not avail themselves of the sacrament of reconciliation, don’t you think?

If we really believe our action would not be considered mortal, isn’t it best to have the assurance of a priest in that? If we are right, then the priest would be able to give us peace of mind and heart by assuring us of that. If we are wrong, then the priest can absolve us of our sin and explain why it was mortal even though we thought otherwise so we’d know better next time. He is the one who can tell us yes, it was a mortal sin, but because of your intention the consequences are such that your penance is this instead of that.

My biggest worry would be that I die before making it to confession in order to get that reassurance or forgiveness I need. Think about it, if I was wrong then I’m damned to hell with no recourse of action available to me - my loved ones’ prayers and indulgences for my soul would go to the next worthy soul, not me. I also will not be able to help my loved ones ever again. If I was right, then I’ll be in purgatory and my loved ones’ prayers will help me and I can help them, but wow, what a chance I’d be taking. I don’t have that much faith and confidence in my own judgement to risk everything for eternity on it.

 

[Dmitri451]

YinYangMom:

When we choose to disregard what we know with our actions, good intention or not, we commit a mortal sin - because the matter of the action was **grave **(against a commandment), we **knew **the Church teaching that this particular behavior/practice would be considered grave in a confessional, we **chose **to engage in the behavior/practice anyway.

. . .

If we really believe our action would not be considered mortal, isn’t it best to have the assurance of a priest in that? If we are right, then the priest would be able to give us peace of mind and heart by assuring us of that. If we are wrong, then the priest can absolve us of our sin and explain why it was mortal even though we thought otherwise so we’d know better next time. He is the one who can tell us yes, it was a mortal sin, but because of your intention the consequences are such that your penance is this instead of that.

Aren’t you describing two different scenarios here? In the first, you emphasize that we have to know that what we’re doing is a mortal sin. This is the “full knowledge” requriement. Then you say “If we really believe our action would not be considered mortal…” and go on to describe what would happen if you die without confessing this sin which you did not believe to be mortal.

Isn’t it true that to commit a mortal sin you must know that you are doing so? I don’t believe it’s possible to commit a mortal sin by accident, or unwittingly. It seems to me that it is necessary to know the true gravity of your actions in order to give full consent.

The way it’s been explained to me is that there must be at least the implicit willingness to say “I know that by doing this action I am committing a mortal sin, and that I will go to hell if I die before I confess it with true sorrow.”

Are there any apologists out there who can shed some light on this?

 

[thistle]

Dmitri451:

Aren’t you describing two different scenarios here? In the first, you emphasize that we have to know that what we’re doing is a mortal sin. This is the “full knowledge” requriement. Then you say “If we really believe our action would not be considered mortal…” and go on to describe what would happen if you die without confessing this sin which you did not believe to be mortal.

Isn’t it true that to commit a mortal sin you must know that you are doing so? I don’t believe it’s possible to commit a mortal sin by accident, or unwittingly. It seems to me that it is necessary to know the true gravity of your actions in order to give full consent.

The way it’s been explained to me is that there must be at least the implicit willingness to say “I know that by doing this action I am committing a mortal sin, and that I will go to hell if I die before I confess it with true sorrow.”

Are there any apologists out there who can shed some light on this?

Necessary for a sin to be mortal:

1. Serious matter
2. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act
3. Full consent of the will

 

[YinYangMom]

Dmitri451:

Aren’t you describing two different scenarios here? In the first, you emphasize that we have to know that what we’re doing is a mortal sin. This is the “full knowledge” requriement. Then you say “If we really believe our action would not be considered mortal…” and go on to describe what would happen if you die without confessing this sin which you did not believe to be mortal.

This whole thread is trying to determine if a mortal sin really is mortal if the intent behind the action is good.

The person was suggesting that a person could know an action would be considered a mortal sin but believes since the intent was good maybe it really wouldn’t be a mortal sin. So that person would be believing the action they took was not mortal…and I’m saying I wouldn’t trust my own intellect to risk eternity on making that distinction for myself, that I’d rather want to know for certain by availing myself of confession with a priest.

 

[Dmitri451]

YinYangMom, thanks for the clarification.

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

The way it’s been explained to me is that there must be at least the implicit willingness to say “I know that by doing this action I am committing a mortal sin, and that I will go to hell if I die before I confess it with true sorrow.”

Here is the quote from JPII I posted before:

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

The quote explains by choosing some act that is contray to divine law, with knowledge and consent, one is guilty.

How about an example. A man commits adultery. He does so without expliciting thinking about hell and offending Christ. Does that mean it is not mortal?

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

Here is the quote from JPII I posted before:

I so love that man!

And I miss him terribly :crying:

He is **so RIGHT ON! :clapping: **

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

I so love that man!

And I miss him terribly :crying:

He is **so RIGHT ON! :clapping: **

The full piece is worth reading:

Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.

While every sincere and prudent attempt to clarify the psychological and theological mystery of sin is to be valued, the church nevertheless has a duty to remind all scholars in this field of the need to be faithful to the word of God that teaches us also about sin. She likewise has to remind them of the risk of contributing to a further weakening of the sense of sin in the modern world.catholic-pages.com/morality/sin.asp

I am not blaming anyone here, but I have read some who try to claim mortal sin is rare and hard to do. This is done by claiming “fundamental option”, or by saying the criteria are very difficult to meet. The Pope said differently.

 

[Dmitri451]

fix:

How about an example. A man commits adultery. He does so without expliciting thinking about hell and offending Christ. Does that mean it is not mortal?

fix, of course it’s a mortal sin. In my post I highlighted the word implicitly, not explicitly.

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

fix, of course it’s a mortal sin. In my post I highlighted the word implicitly, not explicitly.

What do you mean by implicit? Please give us an example.

 

[Dmitri451]

fix:

What do you mean by implicit? Please give us an example.

The definition of “implicit”, from Dictionary.com:

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning:* implicit trust.*

By specifying “implicitly”, I meant that someone does **not **need to actually make the explicit statement "I know I’m gonna go to hell for this, but I’m gonna do it anyway.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

How about an example. A man commits adultery. He does so without expliciting thinking about hell and offending Christ. Does that mean it is not mortal?

And the answer would be NO - if at any time prior to said act the man knew that the act and giving into the temptation of commiting the act is a mortal sin.

Just because we don’t recall, remember, remind ourselves or think about the action in the context of sin prior to engaging in the act doesn’t make the act itself not mortal anymore.

When the person goes to confession, though, he would confess that he engaged in adultery on XX number of occasions though at the time he wasn’t thinking about the adultery being a sin, offensive to God and would result in his soul being damned to hell. It would be up to the priest to then come up with the appropriate penance for the sin. But the sin itself still occurred and would require absolution.

Hey, Fix, do I win a prize? :dancing:

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

The definition of “implicit”, from Dictionary.com:

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning:* implicit trust.*

By specifying “implicitly”, I meant that someone does **not **need to actually make the explicit statement "I know I’m gonna go to hell for this, but I’m gonna do it anyway.

That was my intent in the other post. I worded it in a sloppy manner. My position is the person does not have to implicitly think they are offending God or going to hell to commit a mortal sin.

 

[fix]

YinYangMom:

And the answer would be NO - if at any time prior to said act the man knew that the act and giving into the temptation of commiting the act is a mortal sin.

Just because we don’t recall, remember, remind ourselves or think about the action in the context of sin prior to engaging in the act doesn’t make the act itself not mortal anymore.

When the person goes to confession, though, he would confess that he engaged in adultery on XX number of occasions though at the time he wasn’t thinking about the adultery being a sin, offensive to God and would result in his soul being damned to hell. It would be up to the priest to then come up with the appropriate penance for the sin. But the sin itself still occurred and would require absolution.

Hey, Fix, do I win a prize? :dancing:

That is what I was trying to get across from the JPII quote. I think he was saying if we choose to act against the divine law, for any reason, we are guilty. Yes, consent and knowledge are needed, but we do not have to be thinking I am going against Christ as we engage in the act.

Can someone show me where I am wrong, please?

 

[Dmitri451]

fix:

That was my intent in the other post. I worded it in a sloppy manner. My position is the person does not have to implicitly think they are offending God or going to hell to commit a mortal sin.

fix, are you sure you got your “implictly” and “explicitly” correct here?

What I’m saying is that to commit a mortal sin, an implicit decision IS required, but an explicit decision IS NOT required.

 

[YinYangMom]

fix:

I am not blaming anyone here, but I have read some who try to claim mortal sin is rare and hard to do. This is done by claiming “fundamental option”, or by saying the criteria are very difficult to meet. The Pope said differently.

I can see how so many are uncomfortable with all JPII revealed.
It’s a double edged sword, really, a blessing in that he was able to present Christs’ teachings in ways we commoners could finally understand without having to have a PhD in theology…

but by doing so we no longer have any excuses to wiggle out of our culpability for offending God, and that is certainly most uncomfortable.

It would be so tempting to claim JPIIs interpretations are wrong or he’s just overreached his boundaries by implying more to what the Church fathers, traditions and teachings have already written - especially with regard to his Gospel of Life - but we can’t justifiably write him off like that.

Knowing he was elected Pope, that he was protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error on matters of faith and morals, that he was blessed with a long papacy, that he survived the attempt on his life - all that speaks of God’s will for us to listen to what this man had to say.

He truly was a godsend. His teachings are hard to accept but so were Jesus’ in his day, and that’s because they both cut to the wick on matters which traditionally were kept complicated. That God sent us a leader to reach us on such a personal level for so many years tells me He really wanted His message to be heard this time. God certainly has my full attention now!

 

[fix]

Dmitri451:

fix, are you sure you got your “implictly” and “explicitly” correct here?

What I’m saying is that to commit a mortal sin, an implicit decision IS required, but an explicit decision IS NOT required.

Again, can you give an example to help clarify? Let us say a man gets a woman pregnant. They decide an abortion is best because they can’t support the child. They get an abortion. Both parents did not implicitly, or explicitly, think or say they wanted to offend God. They were only thinking it would be best for all involved to get the abortion.

Is this a mortal sin?

 

[Dmitri451]

fix:

Again, can you give an example to help clarify? Let us say a man gets a woman pregnant. They decide an abortion is best because they can’t support the child. They get an abortion. Both parents did not implicitly, or explicitly, think or say they wanted to offend God. They were only thinking it would be best for all involved to get the abortion.

Is this a mortal sin?

If they knew that abortion is a mortal sin, and what “mortal sin” means, then they would, in fact, have implicitly decided to offend God in a mortal way. That is what “implicit” means. So yes, it is a mortal sin.

 

[YinYangMom]

Dmitri451:

If they knew that abortion is a mortal sin, and what “mortal sin” means, then they would, in fact, have implicitly decided to offend God in a mortal way. That is what “implicit” means. So yes, it is a mortal sin.

IF this couple was Catholic, knew the three conditions for a sin to be mortal, knew the Church teaching was that abortion was intrinsically evil, then yup. :yup:

The definition of “implicit”, from Dictionary.com:

1. Implied or understood though not directly expressed: an implicit agreement not to raise the touchy subject.
   They certainly understood having an abortion would be considered a mortal sin by God.
2. Contained in the nature of something though not readily apparent: “Frustration is implicit in any attempt to express the deepest self” (Patricia Hampl).
   not applicable here
3. Having no doubts or reservations; unquestioning:* implicit trust.*
   they wouldn’t have doubts or reservations about going ahead with the abortion once they made their final decision.

 

[Dmitri451]

YinYangMom:

They certainly understood having an abortion would be considered a mortal sin by God.

That’s the point I was trying to make. You just did a much better job. Thanks.