Latin help please - Catechism translation question

[JRKH]

In the Catechism, (1857 and 1859) the term “full knowledge” is used as one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal. This seems to cause confusion for some people, even though para 1859 specifies that “full knowledge” basically means that you know it is a sin…that it violates God’s Law.

Basically what I would like to know is what is the “Latin” term used here and does it mean “full knowledge” in the sense that we would understand that term today.

To me - If I were writing this instruction - this “standard”, based on my understandings of what is intended, I would probably have chosen to use the word “sufficient”, instead of “full” knowledge.

So - since we know that there are not always direct translations form Latin to English, what are the Latin terms and their specific definitions…

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace
James

 

[maltmom]

I went to bing.com and translated from English to Latin…plenus scientia. Then I tried a bing search of the Latin. All I came up with was more Latin and a few references to a Harry Potter incantation. Sorry, I wish I could have come up with more for you.

 

[Skeptic92]

1859 Peccatum mortale plenam cognitionem requirit plenumque consensum. Cognitionem praesupponit indolis peccatoriae actus, eius oppositionis ad Legem Dei. Consensum etiam implicat sufficienter deliberatum ut electio sit personalis. Ignorantia affectata et cordis induratio 117 indolem voluntariam peccati non minuunt, sed augent.

“plenam cognitionem”

is what your looking for however all I can tell you is that is does literally mean ‘full/satisfied knowledge’ there is probably some nuance I’m missing however my Latin is fairly basic and this was only done quickly.

 

[maltmom]

I deleted my comment b/c Skeptic92’s answer was much better.

 

[JerryZ]

In the Catechism, (1857 and 1859) the term “full knowledge” is used as one of the requirements for a sin to be mortal. This seems to cause confusion for some people, even though para 1859 specifies that “full knowledge” basically means that you know it is a sin…that it violates God’s Law.

Basically what I would like to know is what is the “Latin” term used here and does it mean “full knowledge” in the sense that we would understand that term today.

To me - If I were writing this instruction - this “standard”, based on my understandings of what is intended, I would probably have chosen to use the word “sufficient”, instead of “full” knowledge.

So - since we know that there are not always direct translations form Latin to English, what are the Latin terms and their specific definitions…

Thanks for any (name removed by moderator)ut.

Peace
James

From the Latin Chatechism:

1857 Ut peccatum sit mortale tres condiciones simul requiruntur: est peccatum mortale quodvis peccatum « cuius obiectum est materia gravis et, insuper, quod plena conscientia et deliberato consensu admittitur ».

The translation from Latin to English is: with full knowledge

Conscientia in Spanish and Italian translate to Conscience but not the moralistic idea of it but rather the intellectual and phylosophical understanding,
You are aware at the conscious level the the particular act, thought is morally objectable and cannot therefore plead ignorance as an excuse.
An example is: you know that to commit murder is a mortal sin

1874 To choose deliberately - that is, both knowing it and willing it - something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death.

Hope this helps you

 

[revert_jen]

“plenam cognitionem”

is what your looking for however all I can tell you is that is does literally mean ‘full/satisfied knowledge’ there is probably some nuance I’m missing however my Latin is fairly basic and this was only done quickly.

Yes, not an expert, but my understanding of “plenus” is that it means something like “full up” or replete. It is the same word as used in “full of grace” in the Hail Mary, of course. I’m not entirely sure what that means with respect to knowledge (as opposed to grace, or more mundanely, turkey).

–Jen

 

[vames]

1857 Ut peccatum sit mortale tres condiciones simul requiruntur: est peccatum mortale quodvis peccatum « cuius obiectum est materia gravis et, insuper, quod plena conscientia et deliberato consensu admittitur ». 116*

1859 Peccatum mortale plenam cognitionem requirit plenumque consensum. Cognitionem praesupponit indolis peccatoriae actus, eius oppositionis ad Legem Dei. Consensum etiam implicat sufficienter deliberatum ut electio sit personalis. Ignorantia affectata et cordis induratio 117 indolem voluntariam peccati non minuunt, sed augent.

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#I.%20Misericordia%20et%20peccatum

Plena conscientia:
newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

Using “sufficient knowledge” can be tricky. One can have “sufficient” knowledge about a sin, but not “full” knowledge, if he/she has a certain mental illness, is badly catechized (like someone who is told that a certain sin is “not that serious”) or does not fully understand “the sinful character of the act - its opposition to God’s law”. As the CCC says:

1783 Conscience must be informed and moral judgment enlightened. A well-formed conscience is upright and truthful. It formulates its judgments according to reason, in conformity with the true good willed by the wisdom of the Creator. The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

So the term “sufficient” is mentioned only in “consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”, as “sufficient deliberation” when we commit any act (sinful or not) is way easier to determine than “sufficient conscience” about the mortally sinful character of a particular act. Therefore we have this:

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.

---

• (116) Ioannes Paulus II, Adh. ap. Reconciliatio et paenitentia, 17: AAS 77 (1985) 221

 

[JRKH]

Thanks to everybody for the ecxellent answers…it appears that given the Latin used, “full” seems to be the most literal of translations.

vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#I.%20Misericordia%20et%20peccatum

Plena conscientia:
newadvent.org/cathen/04268a.htm

Using “sufficient knowledge” can be tricky. One can have “sufficient” knowledge about a sin, but not “full” knowledge, if he/she has a certain mental illness, is badly catechized (like someone who is told that a certain sin is “not that serious”) or does not fully understand “the sinful character of the act - its opposition to God’s law”. As the CCC says:

I understand what you are saying here, but it seems to be that using the term “full knowledge” can be just as tricky. As someone just recently asked me, "can we ever have ‘full’ knowledge of something?

That said, each of the caveats you mention above can just as easily be seen as lacking “sufficient” knowledge as they would be “full” knowledge.

So the term “sufficient” is mentioned only in “consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”, as “sufficient deliberation” when we commit any act (sinful or not) is way easier to determine than “sufficient conscience” about the mortally sinful character of a particular act.

Not sure that I agree this is true…But the bottom line is that the translation “full” seems to be clear and proper…So that is what I shall work with.

As an aside…I have read through this portion of the catechism a number of times and can’t shake the notion that, while the underlying teaching is (of course) good and correct, the manner of expressing it leaves much to be desired…this view seems backed up by the number of threads we see here asking about various aspects of sin…

As a person who has read, digested and written a number of standards, processes and procedures over the years, I guess my “QA” mind kicks in when I see things that seem unclear, especially when I see others struggling in the same way…

Thank God for CAF where I can ask these kinds of questions.

Peace
James

 

[vames]

I understand what you are saying here, but it seems to be that using the term “full knowledge” can be just as tricky. As someone just recently asked me, "can we ever have ‘full’ knowledge of something?

That said, each of the caveats you mention above can just as easily be seen as lacking “sufficient” knowledge as they would be “full” knowledge.

My understanding is that “sufficient knowledge” is the elementary information “the Church teaching is that doing X is a mortal sin”, while “full knowledge” is when a person comes to understand exactly why X is a mortal sin, what grave implications it has for the sinner and for others (not the same thing as “I’m told that I’ll go to hell, period”), in what way X is “grave matter” in the eyes of God and how painful it is to be separated from God.
A newly catechized child knows that X is a mortal sin, so his mind has “sufficient knowledge”, but he doesn’t really understand why. Real and deep penitence, after all, is to feel remorse for all the evil brought by the act X, not merely for disobeying the Church without understanding why. And I guess this is the real goal of the Church in asking sinners to repent and calling them to sin no more. Even if “full knowledge” is indeed impossible, as long as perfection is not an attribute of the human mind, we usually know when we really know something. Any sinner can cite examples when his/her understanding about a particular mortal sin has improved after various experiences, readings etc - and therefore the sincerity and depth of their repentance has improved too.

“Reconciliation and Penance”, quoted above, says this:

For man also knows, through painful experience, that by a conscious and free act of his will he can change course and go in a direction opposed to God’s will, separating himself from God (aversio a Deo), rejecting loving communion with him, detaching himself from the life principle which God is and consequently choosing death.
With the whole tradition of the church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter. Man perceives that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites him with his life principle: It is a mortal sin, that is, an act which gravely offends God and ends in turning against man himself with a dark and powerful force of destruction.

My point - I doubt this is really accessible to newly catechized children or to very poorly catechized adults, even if they have the “sufficient knowledge” (“I know that X is a mortal sin”).

You are right that the manner of expressing the teaching leaves much to be desired. For example, there’s the much discussed distinction (or lack of distinction) grave/serious/mortal, or the discussions about explicitly choosing separation from God vs. simply commiting a mortal sin. Perhaps there was a degree of indecisiveness and confusion when the teaching was defined, and it still shows. The same “Reconciliation and Penance” says:

During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.

Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of " fundamental option"-as is commonly said today-against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. 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. 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.

 

[JRKH]

My understanding is that “sufficient knowledge” is the elementary information “the Church teaching is that doing X is a mortal sin”, while “full knowledge” is when a person comes to understand exactly why X is a mortal sin, what grave implications it has for the sinner and for others (not the same thing as “I’m told that I’ll go to hell, period”) in what way X is “grave matter” in the eyes of God and how painful it is to be separated from God. A newly catechized child knows that X is a mortal sin, so his mind has “sufficient knowledge”, but he doesn’t really understand why. Real and deep penitence, after all, is to feel remorse for all the evil brought by the act X, not merely for disobeying the Church without understanding why. And I guess this is the real goal of the Church in asking sinners to repent and calling them to sin no more. Even if “full knowledge” is indeed impossible, as long as perfection is not an attribute of the human mind, we usually know when we really know something. Any sinner can cite examples when his/her understanding about a particular mortal sin has improved after various experiences - and therefore the sincerity and depth of their repentance has improved too.

Thank you for the above…Very nice…
Of course the Catechism actually defines “full knowledge” as, “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859)
This definition hardly takes into account the issues you mention above…

You are right that the manner of expressing the teaching leaves much to be desired. For example, there’s the much discussed distinction (or lack of distinction) grave/serious/mortal, or the discussions about explicitly choosing separation from God vs. simply commiting a mortal sin. Perhaps there was a degree of indecisiveness and confusion when the teaching was defined, and it still shows.
Thanks…I’m glad someone else sees this as well.
To me, I don’t sense that there was an “indecisiveness” in the teaching…after all, the idea of Mortal sin has been around a LONG time…To me it seems that they tried to take a “legal” approach to the matter…and kind of missed - (but I’ll be darned if I know how it might have been done better…)…

Peace
James

 

[thistle]

In my opinion too many people are looking for loopholes. In this case some will say we can never have “full” knowledge therefore they cannot commit a mortal sin.
We should keep it simple. If someone know the Church teaches an act is of grave matter then that satisfies the condition for full knowledge.

 

[JRKH]

In my opinion too many people are looking for loopholes. In this case some will say we can never have “full” knowledge therefore they cannot commit a mortal sin.
We should keep it simple. If someone know the Church teaches an act is of grave matter then that satisfies the condition for full knowledge.

Yes - I agree with this. However, the Church also teaches that “grave matter” is embodied in the ten commandments
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: “Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother.”
But then the Catechism tosses in the following which in many cases - serves to confuse…

The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Now if the requirements of Mortal is is that you know it is sin…that you freely consent to doing it and it violates one of the ten commandments…then the theft of a pencil is just as mortal as the theft of a fortune. It’s just a matter of “how mortal is it”…

Of course we don’t look at it this way. Matter that is “less grave” we consider “venial sin” - not mortal. But a strict reading of the Catechism does not bear this out…

Likewise - since it is specified that one have “full knowledge” and free consent…for a sin to be mortal…then what is required for a sin to be venial? We tell people regularly here that one cannot “accidentally sin”, but again…can that be true by a “strict reading” of the Catechism.
On venial sin, the venial sin, the Catechism states:
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.
Now if the ten commandments constitute “grave matter”, what constitutes “less serious matter”? is “moral law” defined in as clear a manner as “grave matter” is defined? It does not seem to be. An entire section of the Catechism is devoted to it - Paragraphs 1950 to 1974 and yet a real definition applicable to “venial sin” seems to be elusive.

It can get quite frustrating…

Sorry for the rant…

Peace
James

 

[vames]

Of course the Catechism actually defines “full knowledge” as, “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.” (CCC 1859)
This definition hardly takes into account the issues you mention above…

Sure it doesn’t - otherwise everyone will invoke them as an excuse
The “legal” approach, as you say, is useful from a normative, practical perspective - as if knowledge of God’s law were always and completely accessible to human reason, right from the moment when a person reaches the age of reason and therefore is considered capable of sin. So it would be useless or even dangerous to admit in a normative document that acquiring full knowledge is a process, sometimes very lengthy.

Aquinas, otherwise quoted everywhere in the CCC, taught the Church not only about the ignorance that lessens the gravity of sin, but also about “spiritual blindness” when “the mind is not enlightened by God to see aright”, “in so far as God permits some to fall into sin, that by acknowledging their sin, they may be humbled and converted”. And about God’s grace as and aid to human reason, as “the eternal law is unknown to us according as it is in the Divine Mind: nevertheless, it becomes known to us somewhat, either by natural reason which is derived therefrom as its proper image; or by some sort of additional revelation”. I don’t imagine any Catechism containing such things. Instead, it offers some practical guidelines and then leaves the readers to wander through endnotes, footnotes and references if they want to find out more.

On venial sin, the Catechism is indeed as vague as it can be. So we are left to discover the ultimate reference on this topic, which says the following (next post):

 

[vames]

Venial sin is so called from “venia” [pardon]. Consequently a sin may be called venial, first of all, because it has been pardoned: thus Ambrose says that “penance makes every sin venial”: and this is called venial “from the result.” Secondly, a sin is called venial because it does not contain anything either partially or totally, to prevent its being pardoned: partially, as when a sin contains something diminishing its guilt, e.g. a sin committed through weakness or ignorance: and this is called venial “from the cause”: totally, through not destroying the order to the last end, wherefore it deserves temporal, but not everlasting punishment. It is of this venial sin that we wish to speak now.

For as regards the first two, it is evident that they have no determinate genus: whereas venial sin, taken in the third sense, can have a determinate genus, so that one sin may be venial generically, and another generically mortal, according as the genus or species of an act is determined by its object. For, when the will is directed to a thing that is in itself contrary to charity, whereby man is directed to his last end, the sin is mortal by reason of its object. Consequently it is a mortal sin generically, whether it be contrary to the love of God, e.g. blasphemy, perjury, and the like, or against the love of one’s neighbor, e.g. murder, adultery, and such like: wherefore such sins are mortal by reason of their genus. Sometimes, however, the sinner’s will is directed to a thing containing a certain inordinateness, but which is not contrary to the love of God and one’s neighbor, e.g. an idle word, excessive laughter, and so forth: and such sins are venial by reason of their genus.

Nevertheless, since moral acts derive their character of goodness and malice, not only from their objects, but also from some disposition of the agent, as stated above (Q[18], AA[4],6), it happens sometimes that a sin which is venial generically by reason of its object, becomes mortal on the part of the agent, either because he fixes his last end therein, or because he directs it to something that is a mortal sin in its own genus; for example, if a man direct an idle word to the commission of adultery. In like manner it may happen, on the part of the agent, that a sin generically mortal because venial, by reason of the act being imperfect, i.e. not deliberated by reason, which is the proper principle of an evil act, as we have said above in reference to sudden movements of unbelief.

sacred-texts.com/chr/aquinas/summa/sum225.htm

And elsewhere in Summa:

• The perfect notion of sin, which Augustine gives “Sin is a word, deed or desire contrary to the eternal law”], applies to mortal sin. On the other hand, venial sin is called a sin, in reference to an imperfect notion of sin, and in relation to mortal sin: even as an accident is called a being, in relation to substance, in reference to the imperfect notion of being. For it is not “against” the law, since he who sins venially neither does what the law forbids, nor omits what the law prescribes to be done; but he acts “beside” the law, through not observing the mode of reason, which the law intends.

• A sin incurs a debt of eternal punishment, in so far as it causes an irreparable disorder in the order of Divine justice, through being contrary to the very principle of that order, viz. the last end. Now it is evident that in some sins there is disorder indeed, but such as not to involve contrariety in respect of the last end, but only in respect of things referable to the end, in so far as one is too much or too little intent on them without prejudicing the order to the last end: as, for instance, when a man is too fond of some temporal thing, yet would not offend God for its sake, by breaking one of His commandments. Consequently such sins do not incur everlasting, but only temporal punishment.

• When the soul is so disordered by sin as to turn away from its last end, viz. God, to Whom it is united by charity, there is mortal sin; but when it is disordered without turning away from God, there is venial sin.

• Mortal and venial sins are infinitely apart as regards what they “turn away from,” not as regards what they “turn to,” viz. the object which specifies them. Hence nothing hinders the same species from including mortal and venial sins; for instance, in the species “adultery” the first movement is a venial sin; while an idle word, which is, generally speaking, venial, may even be a mortal sin.

• A sin which is against the eternal law, though it be mortal in its genus, may nevertheless be venial, on account of the incompleteness of a sudden action. Although unbelief, in its genus, is a mortal sin, yet a sudden movement of unbelief is a venial sin, because there is no mortal sin unless it be contrary to the law of God. As, for instance, when a man suddenly apprehends the resurrection of the dead as impossible naturally, and rejects it, as soon as he had thus apprehended it, before he has had time to deliberate and consider that this is proposed to our belief in accordance with the Divine law. If, however, the movement of unbelief remains after this deliberation, it is a mortal sin.

I really wonder if is there any other theological text with clearer distinctions.

 

[Sirach2]

translate.google.com/?sl=it&tl=en#la/en/plenam%20cognitionem

No doubt, it means “full knowledge.”

 

[JRKH]

vames
Thanks for your very kind and thorough replies…I have not had time to really look into the quotes and links yet. Glancing through them makes me think that they will require some time to digest.
The last quote you provide from the Summa does, sound similar to certain thoughts I had as well but like I say - I’ll need to read it again more carefully…

Thanks again…

Peace
James