Mortal Sin: First Condition

[hcruz402]

I have a question about the Church’s teaching of mortal sin.

First of all, I am keenly aware of the three conditions, that must be met, together, in order for a sin to be considered a mortal sin (i.e., grave matter (a serious sin), full knowledge (the person knows that it’s a serious sin), and deliberate consent (they freely choose to do it, anyway)).

My question, though, is about the first condition: grave matter. Is the condition of grave matter limited to the Ten Commandments, or does it branch out further than that? Please understand that I am not looking for an exhaustive list of mortal sins. What I am looking for is clarification on what constitutes grave matter.

 

[stpurl]

Well, the 10 commandments are really kind of like 14 or so, but I’ve been trying to run through my head any kind of mortal sin that CANNOT be referred back to the 10, and so far, I just can’t. I mean really. Internet porn? Sixth commandment. Insider trading? Seventh. Abortion? Fifth. Can anybody give me a mortal sin that can’t be considered to fall under any of the '10" as we know them?

 

[BlackFriar]

My college teacher (a priest) related all sin back to the 10 Cs.
Whether they are all that grave is another matter and I was dubious even at age 15.

In the end it doesnt matter surely. Serious sin can be committed even with objectively light matter if our malice is great. So there is much grayness at the borders and sometimes either side despite the so called objective matter.

The important thing is regular time for prayer and self examination. Your conscience will tell you if you allow it to speak which of your personal sins were grave and which were not regardless of objective matter.
If the two regularly get too far out of whack see a priest, you may suffer from scruples…or indifference.

 

[BornInMarch]

Yeah, I’ve always wondered what makes something a grave matter.

 

[St.Martin_de_Porres]

Lying is a Sin.

a small white lie is a venial sin. Like telling your spouse you got off of work @ 5:00 when you really got off at 5:30 or some other little thing.

Now, lying under oath,falsely accusing someone of a crime or falsifying official documents like a tax return or mortgage application, those lies would be grave matter.

 

[Gorgias]

Lying is a Sin.

a small white lie is a venial sin. Like telling your spouse you got off of work @ 5:00 when you really got off at 5:30 or some other little thing.

Now, lying under oath,falsely accusing someone of a crime or falsifying official documents like a tax return or mortgage application, those lies would be grave matter.

I would disagree with your analysis. (Sorry.)

Grave matter is grave matter… period.

The analysis of ‘grave matter’ is an objective consideration. If it’s grave, it’s grave. If it’s not, it’s not. Circumstances do not come into play in the objective situation. (They might come into play as we think about the extent to which the lie is evil, or the extent to which a person is culpable for the sin… but we wouldn’t say “this lie is grave matter, but that one is not.”)

That being said, if “false witness” is in the Ten Commandments, then it’s a grave sin, wouldn’t you say?

Whether or not it rises to the level of ‘mortal sin’ is a different consideration; but, objectively: bearing false witness is a grave sin.

 

[drz888]

From the Catholic Catechism:

"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.

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 heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin."

 

[BlackFriar]

St.Martin_de_Porres:

Lying is a Sin.

a small white lie is a venial sin. Like telling your spouse you got off of work @ 5:00 when you really got off at 5:30 or some other little thing.

Now, lying under oath,falsely accusing someone of a crime or falsifying official documents like a tax return or mortgage application, those lies would be grave matter.

I would disagree with your analysis. (Sorry.)

Grave matter is grave matter… period.

The analysis of ‘grave matter’ is an objective consideration. If it’s grave, it’s grave. If it’s not, it’s not. Circumstances do not come into play in the objective situation. (They might come into play as we think about the extent to which the lie is evil, or the extent to which a person is culpable for the sin… but we wouldn’t say “this lie is grave matter, but that one is not.”)

That being said, if “false witness” is in the Ten Commandments, then it’s a grave sin, wouldn’t you say?

Whether or not it rises to the level of ‘mortal sin’ is a different consideration; but, objectively: bearing false witness is a grave sin.

I would disagree with your analysis. (Sorry.)
Some sins allow what is called “parvity of matter”.
Depending on circumstances the matter may be either grave or light (Latin Parvus).

Theft is a classic example.
Lying also seems to be similar.

 

[Gorgias]

I would disagree with your analysis. (Sorry.)

That’s ok. You seem to have some interesting perspectives – I might expect you to disagree.

Some sins allow what is called “parvity of matter”.
Depending on circumstances the matter may be either grave or light (Latin Parvus).

Theft is a classic example.
Lying also seems to be similar.

The whole point of the ‘parvity of matter’ discussion is the imputation of guilt. This is a subjective, not objective consideration. Gravity is a consideration that’s objective in nature. So, if you want to claim that there’s ‘parvity’ in a particular lie, then have at it. But, really, you’re just arguing for the case to be considered venial.

 

[1ke]

The analysis of ‘grave matter’ is an objective consideration. If it’s grave, it’s grave. If it’s not, it’s not. Circumstances do not come into play in the objective situation. (They might come into play as we think about the extent to which the lie is evil, or the extent to which a person is culpable for the sin… but we wouldn’t say “this lie is grave matter, but that one is not.”)

Yes, lying can be either mortal or venial, as can other sins against the ten commandments. Therefore, not always grave matter. From the Catechism:

2484 The gravity of a lie is measured against the nature of the truth it deforms, the circumstances, the intentions of the one who lies, and the harm suffered by its victims. If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

 

[BlackFriar]

The whole point of the ‘parvity of matter’ discussion is the imputation of guilt. This is a subjective, not objective consideration.

Not quite sure what you are saying here.
Parvity is decided by objective considerations, as matter by definition is objective. By “circumstances” here we refer to the objective details of a situation that make up the objective font. The details that make up the “circumstances font” are something else.

 

[Gorgias]

If a lie in itself only constitutes a venial sin, it becomes mortal when it does grave injury to the virtues of justice and charity.

If a lie is can go from ‘venial sin’ to ‘mortal sin’, doesn’t that already presume that it was objectively grave…?

 

[joeybaggz]

Grave matter is grave matter… period.

Interesting point! Grave matter to some degree has to be subjective. For instance:
One is watching a movie, it is a love story and contains a graphic scene of lovemaking between a man and woman, not married.
One watches the scene with interest as it is integral to the plot.
Now there are those who will say that the viewing of human sexual activity outside of marriage is pornographic, hence grave matter. Others would say that objectively, human sexuality is a good given to man by God. Is the person who says it is pornographic, hence grave matter, more correct than the person who sees the scene as portraying a normal human activity that is objectively good in itself? And does that determination change if the couple is married rather than unmarried. Granted, if either viewer objectifies the participants and proceeds to infuse his/her viewing with either malice or intent, or both, grave matter comes into play. but objectively, isn’t a scene involving human sexual expression, simply objective and the gravity is dependent on the intentions of the viewer?

 

[1ke]

If a lie is can go from ‘venial sin’ to ‘mortal sin’, doesn’t that already presume that it was objectively grave…?

No, by definition a venial sin is not grave matter.

 

[joeybaggz]

No, by definition a venial sin is not grave matter.

1ke - Haven’t you put the cart before the horse here? I think Gorgias was referring to the lie itself being grave and the other two conditions being in flux/variable.

Killing another human being is grave matter. Hovever if I shoot someone by accident while cleaning a gun that would be venial. If I decide with malice and forethought to shoot my neighbor to steal his money, that is mortal. In either case, the killing itself is objectively grave, the fact that accidental means venial doesn’t change the grave nature of the act itself.???

 

[1ke]

1ke - Haven’t you put the cart before the horse here? I think Gorgias was referring to the lie itself being grave and the other two conditions being in flux/variable.

I didn’t interpret his response that way. Perhaps you are correct.

 

[BlackFriar]

Gorgias:
No, by definition a venial sin is not grave matter.If a lie is can go from ‘venial sin’ to ‘mortal sin’, doesn’t that already presume that it was objectively grave…?

No, by definition a venial sin is not grave matter.

This isn’t quite right.
Its rather a sin of light matter than can never be mortal (unless it is a means to another very malicious end).

But it would seem some lies can objectively be determined to involve a involve light matter (saving no Jews are here when the Nazi soldier knocks) and giving false witness at a murder trial. A fully intended light lie would not be mortally sinful on this basis.

If a lie is can go from ‘venial sin’ to ‘mortal sin’, doesn’t that already presume that it was objectively grave?

Nobody is saying this re parvity of matter.
We speak of different lies.
To intend something in a light matter situation may well be different in a grave matter situation.

And if we did not know the situation was grave matter the lie will always be venial. We judge the culpability from the fonts from the perspective of the actor not an all seeing bird in the sky.
Its what the actor objectively knows that forms the material font when we judge his sinfulness.
Objectivity can be a very subjective thing!

 

[Gorgias]

But it would seem some lies can objectively be determined to involve a involve light matter (saving no Jews are here when the Nazi soldier knocks) and giving false witness at a murder trial. A fully intended light lie would not be mortally sinful on this basis.

It’s always been my understanding that one is not permitted to lie to the Nazi at the door. (However, the Nazi is not entitled to the truth, since he would use that truth to commit sinful acts. Therefore, it is possible to refuse to lie, but in not lying, not giving him the info he wishes to receive.)

And if we did not know the situation was grave matter the lie will always be venial.

Wait – you’re claiming that the objective gravity of a sin depends on an individual’s knowledge?

You seem to be confusing ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’… unless I’m misunderstanding you.

Objectivity can be a very subjective thing!

Yep, that explains it, then. You define ‘objective’ as ‘subjective’. Oy.

 

[BlackFriar]

It’s always been my understanding that one is not permitted to lie to the Nazi at the door.

You are making heavy weather of this when what I said here was fairly simple and the opposite of what you have stated here. Lets repeat:

A fully intended light lie would not be mortally sinful on this basis.

In other words it would be venially sinful. Where did I say lying was permitted?

Wait – you’re claiming that the objective gravity of a sin depends on an individual’s knowledge?

No I didn’t say that…at least not the way you seem to have taken it.

I said their personal culpability (always a subjective thing) was determined by how they objectively viewed the situation, even if they were objectively mistaken. Just as Aquinas and JPII always used to say.

Isn’t this fairly self-evident? Odeipus was surely not guilty of incest or any culpable personal sin venial or mortal for sleeping with his mother. The objective situation from his point of view was that the woman was his wife, and reasonably so given the details. That is the primary reason he commits no sin even though it clearly is an objective case of incest. The grave matter is incest, but he didn’t know it.

Maybe its just sloppy use of words re a specialised discipline.
e.g. “Odeipus was surely not guilty of incest” does not mean that what he did was not incest.
The objective grave matter clearly is incest regardless of his intention or knowledge.
But it is not imputable to him in any way as a personal sin. He committed no sin. He did not commit incest.

Yes he did engage in incest. But he did not commit incest because in Catholic Moral Theology the verb “commit” always means with full intent and knowledge. This was not present, despite the grave objective matter.

Do you see it differently?