Mortal sin definition?

[Ahimsa]

Three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal:

1. Serious matter (things listed in this examination);
2. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act;
3. Full consent of the will.
   

        *All three of these conditions must be present simultaneously for a sin   to be mortal*. This means that if you did not know the act was seriously wrong, then you are not guilty of having committed a mortal sin. If you did not will the act, e.g., if you were forced or if it was in a dream, if you were impaired or emotionally distraught or terrified, etc., you are * not guilty* of the act committed.

So this definition seems to be saying that, for instance, if I kill somebody, but if I didn’t know killling was seriously wrong, then my killing wouldn’t be a mortal sin.

 

[stbruno]

If you are killing and do not believe this to be wrong then you are sociopath. Amoral. People world wide know that killing is wrong. One cannot rationalize this at all.

 

[Mt19_26]

Ahimsa:

So this definition seems to be saying that, for instance, if I kill somebody, but if I didn’t know killling was seriously wrong, then my killing wouldn’t be a mortal sin.

If someone didn’t know that killing was seriously wrong I’d say something is seriously wrong with them.

 

[demolitionman65]

Yeah, there are some sins that are -shall we say- unbelievably self-evident?

 

[Pace]

Ahimsa:

Three things are necessary for a sin to be mortal:

1. Serious matter (things listed in this examination);
2. Knowledge or firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to committing the act;
3. Full consent of the will.

A question that keeps coming to me is this: If we’ve done something serious (1. above) then to what extent does this serious thing remain in our memory so that we might have the opportunity at any time to add on the other two options, and thereby make it a mortal sin?

And another question I have is isn’t it the precise thing about heaven that it has no gates whatsoever?

 

[demolitionman65]

A question that keeps coming to me is this: If we’ve done something serious (1. above) then to what extent does this serious thing remain in our memory so that we might have the opportunity at any time to add on the other two options, and thereby make it a mortal sin?

If I am parsing your question correctly, you are asking if a sin could have been mortal at the time of commission, but lack of knowledge kept it from being so. Then, with education, does the action (having already occured in the past) then become a mortal sin based solely on the newly acquired knowledge that it was mortal?

My answer, if one of my students were to pose it to me, is NO. The action, performed with full knowledge.of its seriousness must be freely chosen at the time. If you did not have full knowledge at the time, you are at worst guilty of a venial sin that should still be confessed.

Now, if you commit the sin NOW, knowing it is serious and choosing it anyway. . .now you’re wandering into mortal sin territory.

 

[Mt19_26]

demolitionman65:

The action, performed with full knowledge.of its seriousness must be freely chosen at the time. If you did not have full knowledge at the time, you are at worst guilty of a venial sin that should still be confessed.

This is exactly how I understand it. Becoming aware of the gravity of something you did in the past does not turn what you did into a mortal sin. This is because it doesn’t satisfy condition #2.

But at the same time you can’t kid yourself about something you did and claim that you didn’t know it was wrong at the time. Some things you just know are very wrong. If you have any doubt just confess it.

 

[Timidity]

stbruno:

People world wide know that killing is wrong. One cannot rationalize this at all.

That doesn’t seem to stop the “pro-choice” and “pro-euthanasia” crowds from trying.

 

[Pace]

demolitionman65:

If I am parsing your question correctly, you are asking if a sin could have been mortal at the time of commission, but lack of knowledge kept it from being so. Then, with education, does the action (having already occured in the past) then become a mortal sin based solely on the newly acquired knowledge that it was mortal?

My answer, if one of my students were to pose it to me, is NO. The action, performed with full knowledge.of its seriousness must be freely chosen at the time. If you did not have full knowledge at the time, you are at worst guilty of a venial sin that should still be confessed.

Now, if you commit the sin NOW, knowing it is serious and choosing it anyway. . .now you’re wandering into mortal sin territory.

I’m sorry for the lack of succinctness. What I meant to ask was, basically, don’t we have the ability to re-visit our memories (even those that were of venially committed ‘serious matter’ sins) and even re-enter them and fantasize over them? So this would mean that heaven isn’t the absence of mortal sins (i.e. the memory of them) but the continuous living with them, as playthings, so to speak. I got the idea for this idea from reading Peter Kreeft.

This is why I asked if the precise thing about heaven is that it has no gates.

 

[Scott_Waddell]

From the CCC (my bolding):

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.

Scott