Mortal Sin and Hell Question

  • Thread starter Thread starter AnnaDango
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, I suppose I should have read the entire piece, since the second half is more deserving of hope, and in line with Catholic teaching… sorry for all the posts.
 
I am confident that school educated you well enough to find the source for that.

confession of desire? Never heard that before…

Try looking up perfect contrition and the requirements for that…
Forget the source…the nuns & priests explained these concepts to us…I thought every Catholic knew these simple tenets of our faith! :eek:
 
My thoughts exactly. Glad to see I’m not the only one.

I’ve wondered that before, too. And I’m sure that these people aren’t going to Communion thinking, “Ha, I’m in mortal sin but I’m still gonna get Communion.” It’s probably more like they really don’t know they’re in mortal sin (but wait, if they don’t know it’s a mortal sin then isn’t it NOT a mortal sin:confused:?), or they don’t realize they’re not supposed to receive Communion. Either way, I think the church leaders could do a better job of teaching us about mortal sin and one’s proper behavior when in mortal sin.

For a moment there I thought maybe you went to my church, but then I saw you live in Tennessee. My parish is pretty horrible with Confession, too. I mean, Confession’s really a life-saver, literally, when you think about it, yet my parish only offers it at 6 PM on Wednesdays and at like 9 AM on Saturdays (and who’s gonna get up on a Saturday morning to go tell a priest about all the bad things they’ve done?). And I know not many people go to Confession during most parts of the year, at least where I am, but that doesn’t mean the church shouldn’t offer it more. Maybe more people would go if there were more options. At least a Friday evening time would be nice.
Sometimes if the priest doesn’t show I like to think he was giving someone the Last Rites or such.

Granted, during the Easter season we have a penance service with several priests hearing confession and it is PACKED. Lines all night. But the rest of the year? 3-4 people.
 
Pope Pius X said that “Holy Communion is the safest, shortest way to Heaven.”

That being said, if you have no mortal sin and receive Holy Communion, then he would be correct. But how many people are in mortal sin and receive Holy Communion?

The bigger thing for me is that our confession time is lousy to be quite honest. An hour on Saturdays when only 3-4 people come the entire hour? Or 30 mins before Mass on Sunday and the priest never shows. The rest of the times are by appointment. BTW I’m in a huge parish, one big enough to have a school on the Church grounds.
During the confession hour on Saturday I usually see 15 to 35 people. At Mass on Sunday, 400 to 500 people receive Communion…either they are all saints or they don’t believe in confessing their sins.
 
Mortal sin is one in which the sinner willingly and with full consent turns one’s will and soul away from God. Without God, we will never be complete, will never be satisfied, will never be “happy.” Furthermore, all the good in our lives and all of the good, valuable, and loving relationships we have in this life are from God. Without God, those bonds do not exist, and that love cannot be present. Thus when a person turns themselves away from God, whether it be towards themselves, towards a material item, towards another person, excluding God, they will never be satisfied. The conditions for mortal sin are very specific. Full knowledge, full consent of will, and a grave matter.

I wouldn’t worry yourself too much on the number of people who get into Heaven. If even one of God’s beloved children turns away from Him and refuses mercy and Heaven and communion with Him, then there are too few people in Heaven. There was a thread on a similar topic I participated in a while ago that said something to this effect.

From a sermon by St. Leonard:
Brothers, I want to send all of you away comforted today. So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be. And if it is true that few are saved, it is because there are few who live well. As for the rest, compare these two opinions: the first one states that the greater number of Catholics are condemned; the second one, on the contrary, pretends that the greater number of Catholics are saved. Imagine an Angel sent by God to confirm the first opinion, coming to tell you that not only are most Catholics damned, but that of all this assembly present here, one alone will be saved. If you obey the Commandments of God, if you detest the corruption of this world, if you embrace the Cross of Jesus Christ in a spirit of penance, you will be that one alone who is saved.
Whether there are all but two people in Heaven or only two people in Heaven is irrelevant (and we know for a fact there are more than two people there). The only thing that is relevant and that you can be accountable for is yourself. I imagine, like most people, you worry about whether the people you love will join you in Heaven when you die. Pray for them. Pray for their souls, offer sacrifices on their behalf, go to confession frequently, receive the Eucharist, and pray for the souls in Purgatory. Your prayers and your love will not go unnoticed by God, and your love will not go unnoticed by those you care about. God will not force anyone to choose to be with Him. Those who are in Hell are those who wanted to go there rather than spend eternity with God. Those who know God know that their fulfillment and joy lie with Him alone.

The people in your life who love you do so because God loves you. And certainly, you don’t think you love your friends and family more than God does? Do not despair when people tell you few will make it to Heaven. Let that inspire you to ensure that all of those you care about are included in that few. Heaven doesn’t have a maximum occupancy limit. If every single human being repented and accepted God’s mercy and love, every single human being would be in Heaven.
 
St. Leonard himself does NOT draw the conclusions that many people attribute to him.

His conclusions are as follows:
So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be.
And…
What is the use of knowing whether few or many are saved?
St. Leonard does NOT conclude that few are saved; he specifically avoids drawing that conclusion as shown above. The purpose of this sermon was to call each individual to examine their own sinfulness and to turn away from sin. Anyone quoting it as a proof that few are saved have missed the point.
 
St. Leonard himself does NOT draw the conclusions that many people attribute to him.

His conclusions are as follows:
So if you ask me my sentiment on the number of those who are saved, here it is: Whether there are many or few that are saved, I say that whoever wants to be saved, will be saved; and that no one can be damned if he does not want to be.
Thank you. So many people misinterpret the meaning of that sermon and try to use it to justify a conviction that there’s some kind of limit on how many people make it to Heaven.
 
Thanks guys. There have been a lot of good posts on here, but I’m too tired to go through and quote them all. I can barely write this. :sleep: But I will say I really appreciate what the person above me had to say…Kurisu, was it? And JoeFreedom, as well. And what I’ve been reading elsewhere on CAF is that a requirement for something to be a mortal sin is that the sinner has to know the gravity of the sin when committing it; and all these friends of mine and all the other people doin’ bad stuff don’t believe they’re sinning. So they aren’t really committing mortal sin, then, are they? Ah, anyway, it’s GOD’s job to determine who goes to Hell and who doesn’t. My job is to pray for my brothers and sisters–and go to bed.
 
Thanks guys. There have been a lot of good posts on here, but I’m too tired to go through and quote them all. I can barely write this. :sleep: But I will say I really appreciate what the person above me had to say…Kurisu, was it? And JoeFreedom, as well. And what I’ve been reading elsewhere on CAF is that a requirement for something to be a mortal sin is that the sinner has to know the gravity of the sin when committing it; and all these friends of mine and all the other people doin’ bad stuff don’t believe they’re sinning. So they aren’t really committing mortal sin, then, are they? Ah, anyway, it’s GOD’s job to determine who goes to Hell and who doesn’t. My job is to pray for my brothers and sisters–and go to bed.
So it’s only a mortal sin if I believe it? Sweet!
 
That is one of the requirements for a mortal sin :

It is a mortal sin
the person knows it’s a mortal sin
They want to commit the sin, anyway.
You don’t subscribe to the idea of sins against natural law? Some things are “written on the hearts of men” don’t you agree?
 
You don’t subscribe to the idea of sins against natural law? Some things are “written on the hearts of men” don’t you agree?
You’re reading things into these points that were not expressed. Mortal sin, as defined by the Catholic Church, requires three things to be present in order for it to be mortal. Full knowledge, full consent of will, and the fact that the sin is itself a grave matter.

Whether something is objectively a sin is not what is being debated here. No one has said adultery is not a sin if people don’t believe it to be. But it cannot be a mortal sin without full knowledge and full consent both being present as well. Adultery is a sin in any case, and those guilty of it will either accept God’s mercy or reject it, but whether they will be culpable for having committed a mortal sin is dependent upon the other two factors being present, a fact which we ourselves cannot determine for anyone’s lives but our own.
 
You’re reading things into these points that were not expressed. Mortal sin, as defined by the Catholic Church, requires three things to be present in order for it to be mortal. Full knowledge, full consent of will, and the fact that the sin is itself a grave matter.

Whether something is objectively a sin is not what is being debated here. No one has said adultery is not a sin if people don’t believe it to be. But it cannot be a mortal sin without full knowledge and full consent both being present as well. Adultery is a sin in any case, and those guilty of it will either accept God’s mercy or reject it, but whether they will be culpable for having committed a mortal sin is dependent upon the other two factors being present, a fact which we ourselves cannot determine for anyone’s lives but our own.
Just to be clear so that we are not talking past each other. In your example you are saying that one has to know the sin is mortal to commit it mortally? So while adultery may be a sin, it is only a mortal sin if one knows that it is a mortal sin?
 
You don’t subscribe to the idea of sins against natural law? Some things are “written on the hearts of men” don’t you agree?
Yes I agree but what does that have to do with this discussion about what makes a sin mortal & worthy of hell?
 
Yes I agree but what does that have to do with this discussion about what makes a sin mortal & worthy of hell?
I think I am stuck on what is being meant by “full knowledge” in this discussion.
 
Just to be clear so that we are not talking past each other. In your example you are saying that one has to know the sin is mortal to commit it mortally? So while adultery may be a sin, it is only a mortal sin if one knows that it is a mortal sin?
Not exactly, but more or less yes. More specifically, the person who has committed adultery cannot justly be held mortally culpable if the sin was not committed with full knowledge or full consent.

In most cases, I imagine adultery, for instance, would be a mortal sin, regardless of whether the person is Catholic. Supposing the person in question knows that it is gravely harmful to their relationship with their spouse, is “bad,” and does so anyway with full consent, I would imagine that they will be held mortally culpable should they refuse to repent before they die. However, I would also imagine that, as they do not have access to the sacrament of Confession, should they experience true contrition for their sin before their death, they would end up in Purgatory rather than Hell. I would think that a true sense of repentance would fulfill the requirements on their part of intending to go to Confession at the next available opportunity, with their death then rendering actually making it to Confession impossible.

I believe that God’s Mercy is sufficient to restore their souls to a state of grace, assuming their repentance is perfect contrition arrived at out of understanding of the gravity of their sins and a desire to be with God, rather than imperfect contrition. That being said, should they not repent before they die, their soul will have chosen Hell over God.

I’m just saying that, in the case of someone who was raised in an environment in which adultery, fornication, etc are their “norm” so to speak, not having the knowledge that such sins are in fact mortal would reduce their culpability. One doesn’t fail a 1st grader for being unable to do algebra or for failing to recognize the symbolism in Lord of the Flies. Likewise, I do not think God would consider a grave sin to be mortal, on their part, had the person not been brought up in an environment where such sins are explicitly bad or one in which such actions are normal. Similarly, someone who suffers from some form of addiction, despite their best efforts, may be unable to fully overcome whatever sin their addiction results in, and thus, as they would not have full consent of will to commit them, would have reduced culpability. That in no way excuses the person of their sin by default, and we should not stake our souls on the hope that an addiction will excuse us from mortal sin, but I do think it is appropriate to hope and trust in God’s Mercy towards those who may not be aware of theology regarding venial and mortal sins.
 
I think I am stuck on what is being meant by “full knowledge” in this discussion.
Full knowledge and full consent of will are the two stickiest parts about whether an individual sin is mortal or not. Someone who is addicted to crack for example is committing what would certainly be a mortal sin for most people. If I were to try crack right now, knowing that it’s an abuse of my body, a grave sin, and yet doing so of my own free will, I would have to go to Confession because I would have committed a mortal sin. Yet if they are addicted to crack, not being aware of the consequences, and perhaps have already been to Confession about it or now understand why it is wrong, are now no longer doing the drug out of their own free will, but out of chemical addiction and out of extreme force of habit. Thus their culpability, should they be trying to stop but keep falling back into it, would be reduced to the point that it may no longer be mortal sin on their part.

Full knowledge is a similar issue. I am aware that murder is a grave sin and that I have no right to intentionally (or accidentally) take the life of another human. I am not possessed or under the influence of any mind altering chemicals, so if I were to walk outside and stab someone walking down the street, I would be guilty of a very serious mortal sin. But if I were, for example, the child of a serial killer, who due to my upbringing would now be classified as a sociopath, and thus have no knowledge that murder is wrong or even perhaps the idea that murder is acceptable and just, would not necessarily be held accountable for the mortal sin of murder, despite the objective severity of the sin.

Similarly, as a Catholic, I know that sex outside of marriage is a grave matter, and if I were to do so, it would be a mortal sin on my part. I prefer to hope and trust in God’s Mercy that my friends, who are not Catholic, some of whom are not even Christian or religious at all, would not be held as immediately accountable as myself for the same actions. It’s also not like we can just go up to someone who doesn’t believe in Hell, much less God, that if they have sex they’ll go to Hell and expect that to be an effective argument, and can even be counterproductive. Their knowledge of the nature of sin is incomplete. That would not be a feasible excuse if they are aware of that fact and simply refuse to acknowledge it, but even then it could be argued that their knowledge is in fact, still incomplete.
 
40.png
Kurisu35712:
Thank you for your explanation. There are good and bad parts in it.
Full knowledge and full consent of will are the two stickiest parts about whether an individual sin is mortal or not.
Yes, but sometimes it is our own pride that makes it the “stickiest”
Someone who is addicted to crack for example is committing what would certainly be a mortal sin for most people…
OK. But there needs to be a distinction. With the exception of “Crack babies” most addictions stem from an original mortal sin. And while the pre- addiction sin may have been confessed I have a hard time buying the argument one can light up the old crack pipe before wandering up the communion line…

Also with the last line. I am so glad you put the “may” in there, because addiction or no, there MAY be mortal sin involved…
Full knowledge is a similar issue. I am aware that murder is a grave sin and that I have no right to intentionally (or accidentally) take the life of another human. I am not possessed or under the influence of any mind altering chemicals, so if I were to walk outside and stab someone walking down the street, I would be guilty of a very serious mortal sin. But if I were, for example, the child of a serial killer, who due to my upbringing would now be classified as a sociopath, and thus have no knowledge that murder is wrong or even perhaps the idea that murder is acceptable and just, would not necessarily be held accountable for the mortal sin of murder, despite the objective severity of the sin.
Now here is where I think we disagree. Certainly, a zulu tribesman may not know that missing mass on a sunday is a mortal sin, but murder, (your example) probably falls under this:
CCC
1954 Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie:
The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted.5
1955 The “divine and natural” law6 shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:
**Where then are these rules written, if not in the book of that light we call the truth? In it is written every just law; from it the law passes into the heart of the man who does justice, not that it migrates into it, but that it places its imprint on it, like a seal on a ring that passes onto wax, without leaving the ring.**7 The natural law is nothing other than the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.8
1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:
For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . To replace it with a contrary law is a sacrilege; failure to apply even one of its provisions is forbidden; no one can abrogate it entirely.9
Here we see, and I think adultery, murder, etc. Can be included in this, that there are indeed things that we all have “knowledge of”
Otherwise Original Sin and it’s subsequent punishment would have been an unjust act by God. God did not tell them that a serpent would lie to them, He did not tell them that there was a such thing as a lie, but rather gave them sufficient grace and knowledge to have free will. Such is the same with certain other mortal sins. And the threat of Hell is real and scary, it is not the purpose of hell to get us to behave, but rather the idea (which is hard for us to imagine) that God owes none of us anything. Not heaven or even immortality. He is all just and all merciful. And our modern understanding of these two concepts put them in opposition to each other. But in reality, God’s Justice is perfect as is his Mercy. So while to your limited human understanding of justice and mercy it may be hard to understand why a non Catholic friend must be held to justice for something such as adultery or any other sins that we can see should be written on the hearts of men, it is God who made the game so to speak. It is why our first mission as Christians is to preach the Gospel to everyone. Because it is through baptism, and confession that we can rid ourselves of the mortality of sin, and death and join the everlasting heaven. God does not owe that to anyone. We do not dictate to God, but He has indeed dictated to us.
 
Thank you for your explanation. There are good and bad parts in it.
Yes, but sometimes it is our own pride that makes it the “stickiest”
Very true. It’s important not to fall into the trap of believing ignorance is an excuse for bad decisions.
OK. But there needs to be a distinction. With the exception of “Crack babies” most addictions stem from an original mortal sin. And while the pre- addiction sin may have been confessed I have a hard time buying the argument one can light up the old crack pipe before wandering up the communion line…
Yes, but that was an extreme example. In any case, discussion with a regular confessor is a much better avenue than anonymous advice from people on the Internet. I would imagine someone bringing a habitual potentially mortal sin to confession frequently is also knowledgeable regarding whether it is appropriate for them to continue receiving communion. When in doubt, ask the priest.
Also with the last line. I am so glad you put the “may” in there, because addiction or no, there MAY be mortal sin involved…
Exactly why I included “may.” In any case, it is not our place to judge whether we are in a state of mortal sin when the situation is questionable. That’s a question best posed to one’s confessor, to whom someone in such a scenario should be obedient.
Now here is where I think we disagree. Certainly, a zulu tribesman may not know that missing mass on a Sunday is a mortal sin, but murder, (your example) probably falls under this:
CCC

Here we see, and I think adultery, murder, etc. Can be included in this, that there are indeed things that we all have “knowledge of”
Otherwise Original Sin and it’s subsequent punishment would have been an unjust act by God. God did not tell them that a serpent would lie to them, He did not tell them that there was a such thing as a lie, but rather gave them sufficient grace and knowledge to have free will. Such is the same with certain other mortal sins.
I’m not really seeing any disagreement at all. Many mortal sins are indeed mortal regardless of religion or its absence in a healthy mind and regularly formed conscience. If I worded anything to imply excuses for murder or adultery in any case but psychological trauma, I apologize. My point was not to despair one’s friends’ souls just because they sin, as their sins may, while serious, not necessarily turn their soul against God completely as a mortal sin would. I just pray for them and leave their souls in God’s care.
And the threat of Hell is real and scary, it is not the purpose of hell to get us to behave, but rather the idea (which is hard for us to imagine) that God owes none of us anything. Not heaven or even immortality.
It is not the purpose of Hell to get us to behave, yet at the same time it is not to reinforce the idea that God does not owe us anything either. Hell is nothing more than the natural result of an attempted eternity without God. It results in pain, torment, suffering, and an eternal lack of fulfillment, not because it is a punishment or a threat, but because it is the opposite of our entire nature as human beings. Trying to exist without God is its own punishment. We were never made to be without God, as being without God is also being without Love, Beauty, Peace, Hope, Joy and all of the other myriad qualities that fall under the category of Goodness. Hell is a soul spending eternity in ignorance, blindness, hatred, restlessness, pain, torment, shame, fear, selfishness and so on out of their own choice. God does not owe us anything, yet He desires to give us everything that is good for us, which is namely all of Himself. He asks in return that we give Him our love, our trust, and our all, which isn’t a lot to ask when you consider what He is providing in return.
 
(Continued, last post was too many characters)
He is all just and all merciful. And our modern understanding of these two concepts put them in opposition to each other. But in reality, God’s Justice is perfect as is his Mercy. So while to your limited human understanding of justice and mercy it may be hard to understand why a non Catholic friend must be held to justice for something such as adultery or any other sins that we can see should be written on the hearts of men, it is God who made the game so to speak. It is why our first mission as Christians is to preach the Gospel to everyone. Because it is through baptism, and confession that we can rid ourselves of the mortality of sin, and death and join the everlasting heaven. God does not owe that to anyone. We do not dictate to God, but He has indeed dictated to us.
It is not hard to understand why even my best friend should be held accountable for his actions. God owes Heaven to none of us, yet He desires it for all of us. It is not our place to judge the souls of any human other than ourselves, and even the Church does not presume any specific individual to be in Hell, as only God can know the state of each soul. If we were able to determine whether someone else is in a state of mortal sin, we would be presuming which soul will go to Hell. We do not have that capacity. It is a work of mercy to admonish the sinner, not to determine that they have undoubtedly committed mortal sin.

Perhaps all this talk of trusting in God’s mercy has given you the impression I believe God should go easy on those in a state of mortal sin and let them into Heaven anyway. No, I’m simply saying it is not our place to judge the souls of even our closest friends. I leave that to God alone. Whether they repent and place their trust in Him is on no one but them. I pray for their intentions and trust that God is able to provide for His own children better than I am. If, despite all my prayers, they still choose Hell over God, that is their decision. I’m simply aware that God will be even more hurt by that choice than I will.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top