(MERGED) Grave sins or Serious Matter

[DavidFilmer]

And I read the quote and linked it to the context. I didn’t see what you saw in that quote

It says we cannot know for sure if we are in a state of grace. I suppose that’s not exactly the same as concluding that we cannot know otherwise. But I still maintain that we cannot know (the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error) if any particular sin is mortal. That would make us individually infallible about a matter of faith and morals (because that’s what “not subject to error” means).

I didn’t see plural here, so does that mean you only go to confession to this one priest?

My Parish is attached to a Dominican Priory which, at any given time, is staffed by a half dozen or so priests. They rotate around every four years or so. I’ve been going there for 20 years, so I’ve seen a lot of different priests. I use “confessor” in the singular because I only confess to one priest at a time, not because I always go to the same priest. They have daily confession with two traditional-style confessionals, and you stand in line and never know which priests are there that day or which you will go to.

After this confession, If you go about thinking based on what that priest told you, that mortal sin is virtually impossible to commit

I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE KIND and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth (or my priest’s mouth, especially when I made it quite clear that these priests are NOT liberal wack-jobs). I said that, on occasion, I have accused myself of mortal sin when my Confessor “expressed reservations” (my actual words). After questioning me about the incident, he suggested that there might be mitigating circumstances in either knowledge or intent which could reduce the culpability of the sin, and his council is fully supported in actual Church teaching.

If a person believes himself culpable of mortal sin and the priest disagrees, it is the duty of the priest to say so. If we accuse ourselves of mortal sin too readily then we call into question the mercy of God (this is the root of the sin of scrupulosity), and some believe that this is the “unforgivable sin” mentioned in the Bible (refusing to accept the mercy of God).

And that’s NOT irrelevant either.

 

[steve_b]

I said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING OF THE KIND and I don’t appreciate you putting words in my mouth (or my priest’s mouth, especially when I made it quite clear that these priests are NOT liberal wack-jobs).

All I’m trying to do is understand what you’re saying. I’m not putting words in anybody’s mouth. When you previously said the following #14 Based on sins I listed in this post #7 you suggested those sins are just maybe mortally sinful. So I wanted to be sure that’s what you meant…

your response was

David:

“Yup. There is absolutely no such thing as an act which is always mortally sinful, because the act itself is only a third of the equation. For a sin to be mortally culpable we must also take into account the person’s knowledge (of the sinful nature of the act) and intent (to willfully commit the act). If either knowledge or intent is imperfectly formed, the sin is not mortal no matter what it is. God alone knows our hearts (even more than we do) and he alone knows if our knowledge and intent are perfectly formed.”

I’m thinking why did Paul go to all the effort and trouble of saying what he did in those passages #7 if the sins and the consequences are just maybe what he says they are. If that’s the case, then why pay any attention to them? And why did he get so upset with the Galatians by saying to them “ I warned you as I warned you before, those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” if it’s just maybe?

Isn’t THAT a pretty stiff judgement to make if the sins are just maybe what he says they are?

all scripture is inspired by God. And we know the HS gets what He teaches from Jesus John 14:25-26 , John 16:12-15 So Jesus is the one who’s really behind Paul’s teaching on that list of sins. So I’m concerned then when anyone says about those sins, it’s just maybe the case.

I’m also thinking, how is that thinking any different from the 1st sin recorded?

Genesis 2:17 God said don’t eat from that tree or you will die. is that a maybe or actual?
Genesis 3:4 the serpent said surely you will not die .is that a maybe then, or actual

What really hppened?

Genesis 5:5
Genesis 5:8
Genesis 5:11
Genesis 5:14
Genesis 5:17
Genesis 5:20
Genesis 5:27
Genesis 5:31
Genesis 6:17
Genesis 7:21
Genesis 7:22
Genesis 9:29
Genesis 11:28
Genesis 11:32

etc etc etc

there’s no maybe
DF:

If we accuse ourselves of mortal sin too readily then we call into question the mercy of God

How
DF:

(this is the root of the sin of scrupulosity), and some believe that this is the “unforgivable sin” mentioned in the Bible (refusing to accept the mercy of God).

said another way, it’s the sin one goes to the grave not sorry for.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I’m thinking why did Paul go to all the effort and trouble of saying what he did in those passages #7 if the sins and the consequences are just maybe what he says they are. If that’s the case, then why pay any attention to them? And why did he get so upset with the Galatians by saying to them “ I warned you as I warned you before, those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God” if it’s just maybe?

OK, let’s stop at this. I want to know if I am dealing with either a non-Catholic or a Catholic heretic. Are you ACTUALLY SAYING that certain acts are ALWAYS culpable of mortal sin, REGARDLESS of knowledge or intent?

Yes or no.

 

[CatholicSooner]

If you knew the Church frowned on what you were doing, why then didn’t you seek to find out why ?

I have not idea why

Look at these 2 passages from the CCC. 1791 , & 1859

thanks. Never seen those definitons before

 

[steve_b]

OK, let’s stop at this. I want to know if I am dealing with either a non-Catholic or a Catholic heretic.

Oh please.

Are you ACTUALLY SAYING that certain acts are ALWAYS culpable of mortal sin, REGARDLESS of knowledge or intent?

Yes or no.

Did I ever say what I highlighted in red? No.

You’re playing games with knowledge and intent / consent

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 heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Full knowledge was answered when I gave the list of grave sins #7
Complete Consent is answered when a person does the sin. It implies consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

In previous posts I already gave the caveots to Complete Consent being absent or greatly reduced when I used the examples of Gun to the head (taking it to the extreme in one direction) or one who is mentally challenged (taking it to the extreme in the other direction).

I mentioned all of this including feigned ignorance in previous posts.

So where’s this HUGE mystery on committing mortal sin?

 

[CatholicSooner]

So where’s this HUGE mystery on committing mortal sin?

I think the hang up is that I don’t think one can say for certain if another has committed a mortal sin b/c we don’t necessarily know their heart. ei their consent or knowledge

 

[Bookcat]

When I say “for sure” I mean an absolute certantity. Or in the words of Trent (which I quoted), “the certainty of faith, which cannot be subject to error.”

I don’t know what “mortal certainty” is (I might hazard a guess at the meaning of “moral certainty,” but not “mortal certainty”).

*moral certainty *

Not mortal. Typo oops. I am deadly certain I did meant moral certainty.

At least I did not say “immoral certainty”

 

[steve_b]

I think the hang up is that I don’t think one can say for certain if another has committed a mortal sin b/c we don’t necessarily know their heart. ei their consent or knowledge

Then I ask you, how is one to respond to the following?

1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin, he will ask, and God**(“1jn 5 RSVCE - Faith Conquers the World - Every one - Bible Gateway”)] will give him life for those whose sin is not mortal. There is sin which is mortal; I do not say that one is to pray for that. 17 All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin which is not mortal.

John presumes mortal and non mortal sin is NOT some HUGE mystery. Unless something else is going on with the individual that keeps them from admitting their wrongdoing 1791

That’s why I said previously

While

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 heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Full knowledge was answered when I gave the list of grave sins #7
Complete Consent is answered when a person does the sin. It implies consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.

Unless

In previous posts I already gave the caveots to Complete Consent being absent or greatly reduced, when I used the examples of Gun to the head (taking it to the extreme in one direction) or one who is mentally challenged (taking it to the extreme in the other direction).

I mentioned all of this including feigned ignorance in previous posts.

I need to make one point clear, NONE of this comes from me. I quoted scripture, and the CCC copiously to make all points. One only has to go back and look at all the links provided

 

[DavidFilmer]

DavidFilmer;12128270:

Are you ACTUALLY SAYING that certain acts are ALWAYS culpable of mortal sin, REGARDLESS of knowledge or intent?

You’re playing games with knowledge and intent / consent

You are like a weird puzzle, always moving the finish line. You questioned my assessment of “maybe” by citing your post #7 (which you seemed to feel contained absolute standards of conduct). I cited Church Doctrine to the contrary, which you then cited for me (thanks).

Just because you can cite the Catechism does NOT mean that anything you have posted conforms to its teaching. You have been sufficiently evasive that I cannot discern even what you are talking about.

So, let me ask you a very plain question: Is there an act (any act) which a person can do which is always mortally sinful? The field is wide open - kill the Pope, bomb the Vatican, annihilate 99% of the population of the earth.

I’m not “playing games.” This is a serious question. I maintain that NONE of these acts are inherently mortally sinful, because I maintain that there is no such thing as an inherently mortally sinful act.

 

[steve_b]

You are like a weird puzzle, always moving the finish line.

#41 shows the actual sequence of comment and response. Not what you caracterzed. What you did with that above, shows that you are the one always moving the finish line.
DF:

You questioned my assessment of “maybe” by citing your post #7 (which you seemed to feel contained absolute standards of conduct).

It’s meant to identify grave matter and in extension grave sin #7 . YOU attach “maybe” to all that.
DF:

I cited Church Doctrine to the contrary, which you then cited for me (thanks).

I quoted the entire document. You did NOT quote Church doctrine to the contrary. Your understanding didn’t come close to what the document said.
DF:

Just because you can cite the Catechism does NOT mean that anything you have posted conforms to its teaching. You have been sufficiently evasive that I cannot discern even what you are talking about.

What I said is clear.
DF:

So, let me ask you a very plain question: Is there an act (any act) which a person can do which is always mortally sinful? The field is wide open - kill the Pope, bomb the Vatican, annihilate 99% of the population of the earth.

1856 Mortal sin, by attacking the vital principle within us - that is, charity - necessitates a new initiative of God’s mercy and a conversion of heart which is normally accomplished within the setting of the sacrament of reconciliation:
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. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial.130

2302 By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

*Anger *is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”
DF:

I’m not “playing games.” This is a serious question. I maintain that NONE of these acts are inherently mortally sinful, because I maintain that there is no such thing as an inherently mortally sinful act.

Who told you that?

 

[DavidFilmer]

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 . . .

Oh, c’mon seriously? You cite it without even reading it. It says it right there: When the will sets itself…

That’s “the will.” That’s intent. And it implies knowledge (because we cannot intend to do something that we don’t even know about).

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACT (ANY ACT) WHICH IS ALWAYS MORTALLY SINFUL. No act (no matter what) can be mortally sinful without perfectly formed knowledge and intent.

You just keep proving my point without even knowing it.

You are a strange puzzle.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I have opened a new thread to explore the idea of an act which is always mortally sinful.

 

[Bookcat]

The act itself can yes be called “mortal sin” (grave sin/serious sin-they are synonyms) -objectively.

It can be better to say “grave matter” but one can legitimately say “murder is a mortal sin” or “rape is a mortal sin” etc. Depending on ones conversation - one might though still want to emphasize that yes Y is a mortal sin -do not do it!

But in order to commit a mortal sin one yes also needs full knowledge and deliberate consent (there are other ways one can phrase it but that is the jist).

Such knowledge need not be even the term “mortal sin” or the theology around such - but the knowledge needs to be there - as can be the case via natural moral law (though that too can clouded in the person perhaps - for sin and culture etc can cloud things etc).

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

395. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
**
396. When does one commit a venial sin?**

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[steve_b]

Oh, c’mon seriously? You cite it without even reading it. It says it right there: When the will sets itself…

I quoted it, of course I read it.

You cut away the part that gave you the answer.

"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. . . . But when the sinner’s will is set upon something that of its nature involves a disorder, but is not opposed to the love of God and neighbor, such as thoughtless chatter or immoderate laughter and the like, such sins are venial" [1856 (http://javascript%3cb%3e%3c/b%3EpenWindow(‘cr/1856.htm’)

Do you understand that which you cut away?

Here’s the other quote I gave you

" If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity;** it is a mortal sin**. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.” [2302 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 2302)

you asked for proof, there it is.
DF:

That’s “the will.” That’s intent. And it implies knowledge (because we cannot intend to do something that we don’t even know about).

consent , intent, and will, are pretty much synonomous here

I’ve also provided for you the following

[1859 (Catechism of the Catholic Church - Paragraph # 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 heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

I started with #[7 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12112296&postcount=7) to remove doubt

• of the sinful character of certain acts
• and certain acts are gravely opposed to God’s law. We know they are grave by the consequences described

As the CCC says, consent only has to be sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. No mystery there about choice, or an act of the will, however you want to say it. When one does an act, (and we are talking about sins) it presupposes they chose to do it or they wouldn’t have done it in the first place…

And we’ve been over all the caveots so there is no need to bring them up each and every time.
DF:

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ACT (ANY ACT) WHICH IS ALWAYS MORTALLY SINFUL. No act (no matter what) can be mortally sinful without perfectly formed knowledge and intent.

And I’ve asked you before, did you come up wih that on your own or did someone tell you that?

God wrote the ( natural laws / moral laws) on everyperson’s heart 1954 , 1955 . That’s why the CCC says NO ONE is presumed ignorant of those laws.

 

[Bookcat]

The act itself can yes be called “mortal sin” (grave sin/serious sin-they are synonyms) -objectively.

It can be better to say “grave matter” but one can legitimately say “murder is a mortal sin” or “rape is a mortal sin” etc. Depending on ones conversation - one might though still want to emphasize that yes Y is a mortal sin -do not do it!

But in order to commit a mortal sin one yes also needs full knowledge and deliberate consent (there are other ways one can phrase it but that is the jist).

Such knowledge need not be even the term “mortal sin” or the theology around such - but the knowledge needs to be there - as can be the case via natural moral law (though that too can clouded in the person perhaps - for sin and culture etc can cloud things etc).

Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI

395. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
**
396. When does one commit a venial sin?**

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Roger12345]

“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."131
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."132 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. “
I’m having some difficulty coming to an objective understanding of the term “grave or serious matter”. Full knowledge and deliberate consent is easy enough. In my mind grave matter would be a literal violation on God’s law: Murder, adultery, formication, theft. However, based on the sermons of Jesus about committing adultery or murder in your heart, hatred or masturbation could easily be a grave matter. Unfortunately this creates a situation where “grave matter” becomes subjective and is open to interpretation. If I take a paperclip from work that’s stealing, it’s small, but it is literal as far as the definition goes. On the other hand, if I read the news and find myself having hateful thoughts towards certain groups of people (which I frequently do) that’s subjective, but depending on how you look at it it could be thought of as a grave matter.
Can anyone give me any guidance on this issue?
Thank you for your time

 

[SoulSolace]

Hope you don’t mind if I watch this thread as it is confusing to me as well.
Especially since there seems to be no concise answers, but many varying opinions.
Really makes it tough to determine.



God bless.

 

[CatholicSooner]

I think that maybe it is time to let this thread die and close it

 

[Bookcat]

“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."131
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."132 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. “
I’m having some difficulty coming to an objective understanding of the term “grave or serious matter”. Full knowledge and deliberate consent is easy enough. In my mind grave matter would be a literal violation on God’s law: Murder, adultery, formication, theft. However, based on the sermons of Jesus about committing adultery or murder in your heart, hatred or masturbation could easily be a grave matter. Unfortunately this creates a situation where “grave matter” becomes subjective and is open to interpretation. If I take a paperclip from work that’s stealing, it’s small, but it is literal as far as the definition goes. On the other hand, if I read the news and find myself having hateful thoughts towards certain groups of people (which I frequently do) that’s subjective, but depending on how you look at it it could be thought of as a grave matter.
Can anyone give me any guidance on this issue?
Thank you for your time

Various grave matters will be seen in Sacred Scripture.

Yes your correct that the Ten Commandment teach regarding matters that are “grave matters” though lighter matters too fall under such.

In life - many many things that are “grave matter” (serious matter means the same) - which is taught to be such by the Church. Such as yes murder, adultery, fornication, lust, masturbation, abortion, missing Sunday or Holy Day Mass without dispensation or justifying reason, hatred (such as when one deliberately desires a person grave harm) etc.

Other matters are discussed by Orthodox Moral Theologians etc - getting into various matters that are new etc.

One can go to sources such as the Catechism, Compendium, Moral Theology works, etc both for continued personal formation of conscience according to the Teachings of the Church and sound Moral Theology etc

Ones confessor can assist one with questions.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

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."132 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.

The obligation of the Decalogue

2072 Since they express man’s fundamental duties towards God and towards his neighbor, the Ten Commandments reveal, in their primordial content, grave obligations. They are fundamentally immutable, and they oblige always and everywhere. No one can dispense from them. The Ten Commandments are engraved by God in the human heart.

2073 Obedience to the Commandments also implies obligations in matter which is, in itself, light. Thus abusive language is forbidden by the fifth commandment, but would be a grave offense only as a result of circumstances or the offender’s intention.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

So the theft of a paperclip - unless say it is known to be the famous paperclip that held some famous historical document or something like that. Or it is very important to the person (it was his great great grandfathers) etc is usually going to be light matter.