J
Julius_Caesar
Guest
Is it safe to say that many people go though life without seldom commiting moral sin and that even in grave matter sinners don’t know what they are doing?
- Status
S
stpurl
Guest
No, not really. I think people confuse the idea of ‘full knowledge’ to an Einsteinian or college degreed ‘understanding’ and thus are certain that most people, being at the mercy of their passions, ‘influenced’ by society, etc. Don’t ‘fully think things through’ and thus don’t fully meet the criteria for mortal sin.
But compare this to a jury setting where the jurors are cross sections of ‘ordinary people’, not people with a huge monolithic understanding of law, and how they judge and determine based not on what scholars and lawyers and college professors know, but on what ‘ordinary’ people know. Negligence doesn’t mean, for example, that a person is hugely ‘careless’, negligence means that a person is careless beyond what the ‘ordinary person’ would be. It doesn’t have to be a hugely glaring ‘lack’, it could be a little ‘extra’ carelessness, just enough to go ‘over the line’, but it means the person will be judged as negligent.
We all of us are more culpable in a sense than we would like to think. After all, the Law itself is written on the person’s heart. There is that ‘still small voice’ that we like to rationalise away as ‘a vestige of our cultural Catholic guilt’ for example when we engage in something which is objective mortal sin. That little voice is often enough that, had we not deliberately tried to reject it, would have led us NOT to commit the sin. So we can’t really complain we ‘didn’t really know’, IMO.
But compare this to a jury setting where the jurors are cross sections of ‘ordinary people’, not people with a huge monolithic understanding of law, and how they judge and determine based not on what scholars and lawyers and college professors know, but on what ‘ordinary’ people know. Negligence doesn’t mean, for example, that a person is hugely ‘careless’, negligence means that a person is careless beyond what the ‘ordinary person’ would be. It doesn’t have to be a hugely glaring ‘lack’, it could be a little ‘extra’ carelessness, just enough to go ‘over the line’, but it means the person will be judged as negligent.
We all of us are more culpable in a sense than we would like to think. After all, the Law itself is written on the person’s heart. There is that ‘still small voice’ that we like to rationalise away as ‘a vestige of our cultural Catholic guilt’ for example when we engage in something which is objective mortal sin. That little voice is often enough that, had we not deliberately tried to reject it, would have led us NOT to commit the sin. So we can’t really complain we ‘didn’t really know’, IMO.
G
Genesis315
Guest
As the Catechism says, “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.” (CCC 1860)
V
Vico
Guest
Catechism on full knowledge in mortal sin (CCC 1859): “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”
K
kapp19
Guest
Yes - but there is also such a thing as culpable ignorance. Vices blind us over time… Romans 1… never forget this chapter!
V
Vico
Guest
Called vincible ignorance also.Vico:
Yes - but there is also such a thing as culpable ignorance. Vices blind us over time… Romans 1… never forget this chapter!
Catechism
Modern Catholic Dictionary
Last edited:
A
AloysiusBologna
Guest
What does one do when they find themselves in boat headed for a waterfall…do they jump out and make a swim for it…or stay with everyone else and take their chances??
R
rosejmj
Guest
I’m sure some “sins” are obvious to non Catholics or Christians. Everyone knows it’s wrong to murder or steal etc. But when it comes to “sins” such as missing Church or consensual sex acts or birth control- well it’s really not so obvious. I know from my own experiences, there is no guilt whatsoever for any of those “sins” on my part and no little voice telling me it’s wrong. I have heard the same from others who weren’t raised in Christianity. It’s just normal and not seen as bad at all even though they know some find it immoral
S
stpurl
Guest
Are you Catholic?
Nobody said that a Protestant who missed Sunday service was committing mortal sin.
If you are a Catholic, and you deliberately missed Mass, and you obviously know it’s a sin based on your use of quotes on ‘sins’, then despite whether you ‘personally believe’ it was a sin or not, you choose to disregard the teaching of the faith that you profess to be a member of. And yes, that’s sinful.
So if you were a member of a local Food bank, and you knew that members of the food bank were supposed to work once a week at the facility, but you decided you didn’t want to bother because it seemed like there were plenty of other people, and hey, you were interested in the group when you signed up and it looks good on your profile, would you be very surprised if the other members gathered round and said, “Hey Rose, you agreed to work when you signed on. If you don’t want to work, then you’ll need to resign”? Would you insist, “Hey, just because I don’t come to work doesn’t mean I’m not still a member here. I don’t think it’s such a big deal.”
If you were honest with yourself in the above situation, you would know that not living up to what you had promised, as a member of a group, was a shoddy way to treat that group. It is true that you can’t ‘back out of’ being a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that you get a free pass out of shirking your duties and pretending that instead of you not doing your part, it’s the CHURCH (the ‘organisation’) that is wrong for asking you to do something like showing up at Mass each week.
Nobody said that a Protestant who missed Sunday service was committing mortal sin.
If you are a Catholic, and you deliberately missed Mass, and you obviously know it’s a sin based on your use of quotes on ‘sins’, then despite whether you ‘personally believe’ it was a sin or not, you choose to disregard the teaching of the faith that you profess to be a member of. And yes, that’s sinful.
So if you were a member of a local Food bank, and you knew that members of the food bank were supposed to work once a week at the facility, but you decided you didn’t want to bother because it seemed like there were plenty of other people, and hey, you were interested in the group when you signed up and it looks good on your profile, would you be very surprised if the other members gathered round and said, “Hey Rose, you agreed to work when you signed on. If you don’t want to work, then you’ll need to resign”? Would you insist, “Hey, just because I don’t come to work doesn’t mean I’m not still a member here. I don’t think it’s such a big deal.”
If you were honest with yourself in the above situation, you would know that not living up to what you had promised, as a member of a group, was a shoddy way to treat that group. It is true that you can’t ‘back out of’ being a Catholic, but that doesn’t mean that you get a free pass out of shirking your duties and pretending that instead of you not doing your part, it’s the CHURCH (the ‘organisation’) that is wrong for asking you to do something like showing up at Mass each week.
R
rosejmj
Guest
I was addressing your point that everyone regardless of religious affiliation knows why sins are grave due to a little voice inside of them and therefore can be guilty of mortal sin
S
stpurl
Guest
And yes, everybody does know. Your point about “Missing Mass’ only pertains to Catholics, who do know. That is why I said that PROTESTANTS are not in mortal sin if they miss Sunday service.
You seem to believe that if something is a mortal sin for a Catholic it must be a mortal sin for everybody, and that is true with regard to dogma and doctrine but not to discipline. That’s why Protestants can eat meat on Fridays in Lent. However, Jews, Muslims, and nonCatholic Christians have their own ‘mortal sins’ , do they not? Observant Jewish people do not eat pork/ham/bacon, nor do Muslims. We do. Muslims fast the entire month of Ramadan; we do not. Some Buddhists are complete vegetarians; we are not compelled to be so.
But with regard to fornication: In this world where 99.99% of people have access to the Internet, fornication is known to be wrong. Adultery is known to be wrong. That’s why there is so much need for justification, “But I LOVE him/her”, “If it were wrong I would FEEL BAD but I don’t”, “It’s a natural function”, “I couldn’t help myself” blah blah blah. Even in the schools with teachers peddling condoms there is a hush-hush, “No Mom and Dad don’t need to know this, all we care about is not punishing you with a baby”, etc. The ‘dogmatic’ teachings of do not kill etc are out there for all to see.
You seem to believe that if something is a mortal sin for a Catholic it must be a mortal sin for everybody, and that is true with regard to dogma and doctrine but not to discipline. That’s why Protestants can eat meat on Fridays in Lent. However, Jews, Muslims, and nonCatholic Christians have their own ‘mortal sins’ , do they not? Observant Jewish people do not eat pork/ham/bacon, nor do Muslims. We do. Muslims fast the entire month of Ramadan; we do not. Some Buddhists are complete vegetarians; we are not compelled to be so.
But with regard to fornication: In this world where 99.99% of people have access to the Internet, fornication is known to be wrong. Adultery is known to be wrong. That’s why there is so much need for justification, “But I LOVE him/her”, “If it were wrong I would FEEL BAD but I don’t”, “It’s a natural function”, “I couldn’t help myself” blah blah blah. Even in the schools with teachers peddling condoms there is a hush-hush, “No Mom and Dad don’t need to know this, all we care about is not punishing you with a baby”, etc. The ‘dogmatic’ teachings of do not kill etc are out there for all to see.
- Status