More knowledge, more sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SavedByHim
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SavedByHim

Guest
loosely defined, a sin is when you do something that you’re not supposed to do, (or fail to do something you should do) but you do it anyway, yes? (or is that just for mortal sin?) in other words, if a person does something that they do not know is a sin, is it still a sin? (if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it… ha ha ha! 😃 )

by learning more about what are considered sins, then a person inevitably sets themselves up for more of a need to “behave” and repent, etc.

would someone not be better off claiming ignorance and just following their heart to be a “good person”?

just throwing it out there…
 
Jesus said, “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
 
This is an old problem. A person can not sin, if they do not realize that they are sinning. But!!! here comes the kicker- Every Catholic has an obligation to develop a well informed conscience. If you say that you don’t want to know too much, so that you can continue in sin, sorry it does not work that way.

God bless,
Deacon Tony
 
40.png
SavedByHim:
loosely defined, a sin is when you do something that you’re not supposed to do, (or fail to do something you should do) but you do it anyway, yes? (or is that just for mortal sin?) in other words, if a person does something that they do not know is a sin, is it still a sin? (if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it… ha ha ha! 😃 )

by learning more about what are considered sins, then a person inevitably sets themselves up for more of a need to “behave” and repent, etc.

would someone not be better off claiming ignorance and just following their heart to be a “good person”?

just throwing it out there…
Click to expand...
First of all, a sin is a sin no matter what someone does or doesn’t know, the question is whether or not that person is culpable or guilty. A person would not be culpable for commiting an act that they sincerly did not know was sinful. The solution to the problem is not to remain ingnorant of sin but to stop sinning! A person who intentionally remains ignorant in an attempt to manipulate God’s mercy will not be protected by “invincible ignorance.” Invincible ignorance is when a person is ignorant by “no fault of their own”, which is to say, they had no access to the truth.

Most of us in this day and age, especially in this country will not have recourse to the “invincible ignorance” defense because the information is readily available. We also have an obligation to correct those that we know to be in error. If they were to remain ignorant and live in sin they would be in danger of losing their salvation; since the information is available they have no excuse to be ignorant. The problem is that most people are not concerned about salvation, we all take it for granted. We presume on God’s mercy and that is not just ignorant that is plain stupid.
 
More knowlegde, more sin…more grace from God to deal with this problem;) .
It is not an easy task to avoid sin, but fear not, God has got your back soldier:thumbsup: .
 
Ignorance of the sin only helps you if your ignorance is true and not self-inflicted. To deliberately remain ignorant of what is sin is also a sin. The search for truth is part of the natural law; a law which binds everyone because God has inscribed it on each of our hearts. We know that stealing is wrong because we object when people steal our things. We know that deliberately hurting others is wrong because we object when others deliberately hurt us. We know that we are to actively seek the truth because we have an innate drive to learn.
 
I hope this isn’t too much off the original topic, but I ask a very similar question to the apologists that wasn’t selected for an answer.

If committing a mortal sin requires “full knowledge” of the seriousness of the sin, then if I don’t believe a sin is truly mortal, it isn’t for me, because I don’t really believe it to be.

Somewhat circular logic, I know (which is why I’m asking), but how it is really incorrect?

Say for instance, a Catholic doesn’t truly believe that missing a single Mass on Sunday is mortally sinful, and does indeed miss a Mass (kids are sick, maybe). Or there is a former Catholic Protestant who does not attend Mass any more, not believing it to be sinful at all, let alone mortally sinful. In these cases, are the individuals still committing mortal sin? (I agree that it is still sin, even if they don’t believe it. The question is *is it MORTAL sin.) *Or specifically, are they, by virtue of their missing Mass, bereft of Sanctifying Grace until they receive the sacrament of Reconciliation?

God Bless,
javelin
 
40.png
javelin:
If committing a mortal sin requires “full knowledge” of the seriousness of the sin, then if I don’t believe a sin is truly mortal, it isn’t for me, because I don’t really believe it to be.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that for a sin to mortal, one of the requirements is “sufficient reflection”. If you have no clue that it is grave matter, that is one thing. If you suspect or know it is grave, that is another. You don’t have sufficient reflection if you innocently don’t know it is grave matter. So if you truly do not know and do not suspect the sin is grave, then it is not a mortal sin for you. You do not lose sanctifying grace.

However, the Catholic you cite makes me think of two things. It is fine to miss mass if you must stay home to care for a sick child. Also, the Catholic should have a clue that it is grave matter to simply skip mass. So they might well not fall in the innocent category if there were no sick child. Just because a person thinks a law of the Church is stupid or irrational, that doesn’t let them freely say it isn’t grave matter. Complete understanding of why something is grave matter is not required for you to know or suspect it is grave matter.

For a sin to be mortal, it must be a grave sin (big material not small time), you must have full consent (you weren’t half asleep or terrified, etc), and you must have sufficient reflection.

As another poster mentioned, you cannot get off the hook by failing to educate yourself about serious sins. You are obliged to try to form your conscience properly.
 
So is it actually possible that these muslim fanatics who caused such chaos in 9/11 to have commited these acts through invincible ignorance. I mean, they consciencely believed they were doing God’s Will.
 
Thinking it is God’s will does not get you off the hook. You would have to arrive at thinking it is God’s will through a series of steps, perhaps including turning over all reason and thought to some leadership figure. It would be tough to do this completely innocently.
 
40.png
SavedByHim:
loosely defined, a sin is when you do something that you’re not supposed to do, (or fail to do something you should do) but you do it anyway, yes? (or is that just for mortal sin?) in other words, if a person does something that they do not know is a sin, is it still a sin? (if a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it… ha ha ha! 😃 )

by learning more about what are considered sins, then a person inevitably sets themselves up for more of a need to “behave” and repent, etc.

would someone not be better off claiming ignorance and just following their heart to be a “good person”?

just throwing it out there…
Click to expand...
A five-year-old who steals from a store is less culpable than you… but is that any reason to remain a five-year-old? A fifteen-year-old thinks he understands how to fix the whole world, while the fifty-year-old has more questions than ever… but is that any reason to get stuck at 15?

Dogging your education and avoiding proper formation of your conscience is not the route to being a “good person”, nor is stubbornly remaining in the security of having all the answers. But we’ve all known that deep down since before we were five!
 
40.png
Pug:
My understanding is that for a sin to mortal, one of the requirements is “sufficient reflection”. If you have no clue that it is grave matter, that is one thing. If you suspect or know it is grave, that is another. You don’t have sufficient reflection if you innocently don’t know it is grave matter. So if you truly do not know and do not suspect the sin is grave, then it is not a mortal sin for you. You do not lose sanctifying grace.
Click to expand...
Excellent points, Pug. I would only add that Catholics also believe in the natural law and that any reasonable person cannot claim ignorance of that law because it is inscribed on the hearts of each individual. We know that killing, stealing and lying are wrong because we protect our lives and we feel that we have been wronged if someone steals from us or lies to us. It is irrational to claim that it is only wrong for others to do these things so no one who is rational can rightly claim invincible ignorance about such things.
 
Todd Easton:
Jesus said, “And that servant who knew his master’s will, but did not make ready or act according to his will, shall receive a severe beating. But he who did not know, and did what deserved a beating, shall receive a light beating. Every one to whom much is given, of him will much be required; and of him to whom men commit much they will demand the more.” (Luke 12:47-48)
Click to expand...
Wow - that is interesting to me, as I’ve never really read that passage before the well known one of course. I think that says a lot about the nature of sin - ignorance cannot be an excuse according to this scripture, including for those reasons given in the thread. 👍
 
40.png
javelin:
Say for instance, a Catholic doesn’t truly believe that missing a single Mass on Sunday is mortally sinful, and does indeed miss a Mass (kids are sick, maybe). Or there is a former Catholic Protestant who does not attend Mass any more, not believing it to be sinful at all, let alone mortally sinful. In these cases, are the individuals still committing mortal sin?
Click to expand...
It doesn’t matter what the individual believes if the Church has given sufficient reasons for the existence of mortal sin. One can miss Mass for certain reasons and it wouldn’t be sinful at all, the sick kids as one example. But missing Mass for reasons known and possibly unknown (minus the valid exceptions) is sinful, ranging from mortal to venial sin.
 
thanks for replies everybody!

just for the record, i am continuing to shape my conscience and learn more about our faith or i wouldn’t be here at this forum. i was just asking because it was something that popped into my head, like, “wait! as you’re learning more, you’re finding out how big of a sinner you areally are! why are you doing this to yourself?”

i am a cradle catholic, but i think all of the years of catholic education went in one ear and out the other. it’s just been in the last couple years that i’ve really been back participating in the church. so now as i’m learning (re-learning?) all this stuff, i’m able to process it with an adult frame of mind, which brings up all of these questions.

so, there. your responses were very helpful and i guess i have to start going to reconcilliation soon, huh? 😃
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top