Mortal Sin Question

[With_Questions]

To prevent another thread from veering off topic, I start this one.

Let’s say I am a good Catholic. I do all of the stuff that Good Catholics do. I love God and Jesus and have put my confidence in him.

But I am also a human good Catholic, prone to the lusts, passions, and failures of normal humans. One of my lusts and passions is that I really, really love hunting.

So this November I decide to take a week off to my hunting camp with my hunting buds to shoot Bambi. I know that I will be missing mass and that this is a mortal sin. But I really, really want to shoot Bambi.

So off to the woods my buds and I go.

I am really, really enjoying hunting. Yes I know there is a Catholic church 15 miles from my camp that I could go to to get my obligation in, but hey that is a pain and interrupts my pleasure. So hunting it will be. Not a minute of remorse here.

Until one of my friends gets careless and mistakes me for a deer and shoots me dead cold. I die in a tragic hunting accident.

Now maybe had I not died, I probably would have realized the error of my ways once I got home and started to feel guilty about this act. So as a good Catholic, I probably would have gone to confession the next time the doors were open. But, unfortunately that is a matter of speculation and in this case the opportunity did not happen anyway.

Now my understanding of Catholicism is that I go straight to hell because of mortal sin.

• Missing mass is a grave matter because the Catholic church says so.
• This is done with full knowledge and consent. I know that the Catholic church teaches this is a mortal sin. But because I really, really love hunting, I made a choice that for this weekend I will put my love for hunting ahead of my love for God.

Is this correct?

Note that in real life I really dislike hunting and like Norman Bates in Psycho I wouldn’t hurt a flea.

 

[ralphinal]

To prevent another thread from veering off topic, I start this one.

Let’s say I am a good Catholic. I do all of the stuff that Good Catholics do. I love God and Jesus and have put my confidence in him.

But I am also a human good Catholic, prone to the lusts, passions, and failures of normal humans. One of my lusts and passions is that I really, really love hunting.

So this November I decide to take a week off to my hunting camp with my hunting buds to shoot Bambi. I know that I will be missing mass and that this is a mortal sin. But I really, really want to shoot Bambi.

So off to the woods my buds and I go.

I am really, really enjoying hunting. Yes I know there is a Catholic church 15 miles from my camp that I could go to to get my obligation in, but hey that is a pain and interrupts my pleasure. So hunting it will be. Not a minute of remorse here.

Until one of my friends gets careless and mistakes me for a deer and shoots me dead cold. I die in a tragic hunting accident.

Now maybe had I not died, I probably would have realized the error of my ways once I got home and started to feel guilty about this act. So as a good Catholic, I probably would have gone to confession the next time the doors were open. But, unfortunately that is a matter of speculation and in this case the opportunity did not happen anyway.

Now my understanding of Catholicism is that I go straight to hell because of mortal sin.

• Missing mass is a grave matter because the Catholic church says so.
• This is done with full knowledge and consent. I know that the Catholic church teaches this is a mortal sin. But because I really, really love hunting, I made a choice that for this weekend I will put my love for hunting ahead of my love for God.

Is this correct?

Note that in real life I really dislike hunting and like Norman Bates in Psycho I wouldn’t hurt a flea.

Wait, Norman bates was the Killer!!!

This is a difficult question to answer because you put the possibilty of remorse in there, but let us take that out for a second.

What you asked is correct. By choosing hunting over God, you have committed a mortal sin. It is just that simple. You had full knowledge, full consent, and it was very grave matter.

Now, the issue of remorse. Just to give you the benifit of the doubt, let’s say you were sorry for it as you began to leave the woods. In fact, you were on the verge of finding the priest in town that night. You then get killed. God MAY grant you mercy on this. Had you lived, he knows if you would or would not have actually repented.

Let’s go the other way. You were not in any way, shape or form sorry when you died. In this case, God MAY NOT grant you mercy, as you were in a state of sin but not in a state of remorse for it.

You should note that the Catholic Church does not say who is in hell. We say who is in heaven. We cannot know the content of a man’s soul or heart.

The key that you put in was about it being a bit of pain interrupting your pleasure. Lots of Catholics see it that way. They do not know pain yet.

 

[With_Questions]

Wait, Norman bates was the Killer!!!

The quote comes from the end of Psycho when Norman Bates is finally overcome by the Mother personality.

I’m a huge Hitchcock fan and Psycho is one of my faves.

This is a difficult question to answer because you put the possibilty of remorse in there, but let us take that out for a second.

What you asked is correct. By choosing hunting over God, you have committed a mortal sin. It is just that simple. You had full knowledge, full consent, and it was very grave matter.

Now, the issue of remorse. Just to give you the benifit of the doubt, let’s say you were sorry for it as you began to leave the woods. In fact, you were on the verge of finding the priest in town that night. You then get killed. God MAY grant you mercy on this. Had you lived, he knows if you would or would not have actually repented.

Let’s go the other way. You were not in any way, shape or form sorry when you died. In this case, God MAY NOT grant you mercy, as you were in a state of sin but not in a state of remorse for it.

You should note that the Catholic Church does not say who is in hell. We say who is in heaven. We cannot know the content of a man’s soul or heart.

The key that you put in was about it being a bit of pain interrupting your pleasure. Lots of Catholics see it that way. They do not know pain yet.

Just to remove any ambiguity, I am not remorseful at the time of the accident. At this point in time my love for shooting Bambi has overtaken my love for God.

Perhaps…may I even say probably…had I lived…I would have felt guilty at home thinking about my accident and would have gone to confession. But that is unfortunately not an option to me.

So you say assuming my scenario is reality, that I go straight to hell.

That is the way that I read it too, according to Catholicism.

 

[ralphinal]

The quote comes from the end of Psycho when Norman Bates is finally overcome by the Mother personality.

I’m a huge Hitchcock fan and Psycho is one of my faves.

Just to remove any ambiguity, I am not remorseful at the time of the accident. At this point in time my love for shooting Bambi has overtaken my love for God.

Perhaps…may I even say probably…had I lived…I would have felt guilty at home thinking about my accident and would have gone to confession. But that is unfortunately not an option to me.

So you say assuming my scenario is reality, that I go straight to hell.

That is the way that I read it too, according to Catholicism.

Hitchcock was a great one.

The perhaps in this case does not matter. I cannot say for sure, as I am not God, but I am more certain than doubtful that you are in trouble. God knows what "might have been.’ And, do not forget as Augustine said, Redemption can be found between the bridge and the water.

You are not far off.

 

[PerryJ]

A couple of thoughts. If one is on vacation one does not have to go to Church. They should if it is available; however, I am not sure the Church would state that this by itself was an act of grave matter.

With that said though we have a refutation of God. That is the core to all mortal sin. It would appear from the post that we have more than just missing mass. We have a refutation of God. I would think this would be an act of grave matter.

 

[Thing]

Hi,
Mortal sin would appear to be a deliberate act of rejection of God.
How the hunter can deliberately reject God without rejecting God, I don’t know.
If one dies rejecting God one does not really expect to go to God.
Unless the hunter wants to go to God as he is dying, it is a possibility.
The Catholic Church is simply pointing out the obvious, I suppose.
It does not however expect the impossible; I think if this hunter was a Catholic he would go to mass first

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

A couple of thoughts. If one is on vacation one does not have to go to Church. They should if it is available; however, I am not sure the Church would state that this by itself was an act of grave matter.

Do you have a cite for that from the Catechism or some other source? Because I’ve never heard of a vacation exemption.

Here’s what the Catechism says:

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120

One can, of course, request a dispensation from one’s pastor in advance. And if attendance is impossible then there is no obligation. But if you’re away on vacation and Mass attendance is possible then my understanding is that the obligation remains.

 

[MarcoPolo]

The perhaps in this case does not matter. I cannot say for sure, as I am not God, but I am more certain than doubtful that you are in trouble.

I agree with this comment. (FYI, the Church certainly does not declare someone to hell.) But if as the OP has asserted, someone with full consent of the will commits a mortal sin and is “not remorseful” even through death, then yes, the person goes to hell. They have rejected God.

 

[MarcoPolo]

But if you’re away on vacation and Mass attendance is possible then my understanding is that the obligation remains.

Correct!

 

[PerryJ]

Do you have a cite for that from the Catechism or some other source? Because I’ve never heard of a vacation exemption.

Here’s what the Catechism says:

2180 The precept of the Church specifies the law of the Lord more precisely: "On Sundays and other holy days of obligation the faithful are bound to participate in the Mass."117 "The precept of participating in the Mass is satisfied by assistance at a Mass which is celebrated anywhere in a Catholic rite either on the holy day or on the evening of the preceding day."118

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor.119 Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin.

2182 Participation in the communal celebration of the Sunday Eucharist is a testimony of belonging and of being faithful to Christ and to his Church. The faithful give witness by this to their communion in faith and charity. Together they testify to God’s holiness and their hope of salvation. They strengthen one another under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

2183 "If because of lack of a sacred minister or for other grave cause participation in the celebration of the Eucharist is impossible, it is specially recommended that the faithful take part in the Liturgy of the Word if it is celebrated in the parish church or in another sacred place according to the prescriptions of the diocesan bishop, or engage in prayer for an appropriate amount of time personally or in a family or, as occasion offers, in groups of families."120

One can, of course, request a dispensation from one’s pastor in advance. And if attendance is impossible then there is no obligation. But if you’re away on vacation and Mass attendance is possible then my understanding is that the obligation remains.

I do not. I have just heard it discussed on Catholic radio and such. I go to Mass when on vacation so I haven’t personally researched it.

 

[PerryJ]

Originally Posted by SuscipeMeDomine
But if you’re away on vacation and Mass attendance is possible then my understanding is that the obligation remains.

Correct!

This is within reason correct?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I do not. I have just heard it discussed on Catholic radio and such. I go to Mass when on vacation so I haven’t personally researched it.

OK…I brought it up only because I would hate to see someone else rely on a statement that may be to their detriment.

As an aside, I think many Catholics do, in fact, go to Mass when they’re traveling. If you ask in a hotel the staff always knows where the local Catholic church is and that has to be because people are asking about it. Perhaps that would also be true for the local Protestant churches, but I haven’t had occasion to find out.

 

[PerryJ]

OK…I brought it up only because I would hate to see someone else rely on a statement that may be to their detriment.

As an aside, I think many Catholics do, in fact, go to Mass when they’re traveling. If you ask in a hotel the staff always knows where the local Catholic church is and that has to be because people are asking about it. Perhaps that would also be true for the local Protestant churches, but I haven’t had occasion to find out.

One time I found myself in a Maronite Rite. I didn’t know what was going on. It was a small congregation so the Priest could tell my family was confused and explained eveything after the Mass.

My family has gone to mass all over the country. It is amazing how much the mass is alike; yet, with some nuances. In Hawaii Christ on the cross was a big strong man that looked like he could rip the cross down with his hand if he wanted to.

I would recommend that Catholics go to mass where ever they are as it is a great expereince. In addition to being required as it seems.

 

[MarcoPolo]

This is within reason correct?

The Catechism describes serious reason…so a Church a few miles away would not be seriously far away. I think I may remember the episode of Catholic Answers you may have heard when Karl Keating talked about a week’s vacation down in the Grand Canyon when it would take over a day just to get out of the canyon…that would be an extenuating circumstance in which getting to mass would prove extremely difficult if not impossible. How many hours away constitutes reasonable opportunity is unclear, so in that light, you are correct, within reason should be a benchmark.

 

[With_Questions]

Another question or two
(1) Of course the Catholic church has a list of mortal sins. Is this list infallible? Or could it be incorrect. In other words, is it infallible teaching that missing mass is a mortal sin?
(2) It is my understanding that the list changes in time. Is it therefore possible that at time A one can go to hell for a mortal sin that at time B one gets a pass for.
(3) I seem to recall reading somewhere that theft of a lot of money was a mortal sin while a petty theft was venial. Is that correct?
If so, do you know what the cutoff point is between theft of a little and theft of a whole lot? Also if so is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of theft while at the same time somebody that steals just a little bit less money gets a pass for?
(4) Actually I can ask this same question for what is discussed here, missing mass if a church is reasonably within distance. Is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of missing mass during vacation because a church was reasonably within distance while at the same time someone else gets a pass because their church was unreasonably far away while in reality there was only a couple of miles difference between the distance of the two churches?

 

[Thing]

Can you get to mass from where you are before it begins, is that reasonable?

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Another question or two
(1) Of course the Catholic church has a list of mortal sins. Is this list infallible? Or could it be incorrect. In other words, is it infallible teaching that missing mass is a mortal sin?
(2) It is my understanding that the list changes in time. Is it therefore possible that at time A one can go to hell for a mortal sin that at time B one gets a pass for.
(3) I seem to recall reading somewhere that theft of a lot of money was a mortal sin while a petty theft was venial. Is that correct?
If so, do you know what the cutoff point is between theft of a little and theft of a whole lot? Also if so is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of theft while at the same time somebody that steals just a little bit less money gets a pass for?
(4) Actually I can ask this same question for what is discussed here, missing mass if a church is reasonably within distance. Is it possible that somebody can be in hell for the mortal sin of missing mass during vacation because a church was reasonably within distance while at the same time someone else gets a pass because their church was unreasonably far away while in reality there was only a couple of miles difference between the distance of the two churches?

You seem to want exact answers where I don’t think they exist.

First there’s a matter of being reasonable. If you are at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on a Sunday is it reasonable to attend Mass? Probably not. If you’re visiting New York City on a Sunday is it reasonable to attend Mass? Probably so.

But more than that, it’s about your relationship with God. In your original example the hunter basically said “who cares” and continued hunting. That says something about the hunter’s relationship with God, his priorities, and his values. It wouldn’t be any different if he did that to his wife or to a friend – if you tell someone you don’t care about them, you’re breaking the relationship.

And that’s what mortal sin is about – breaking the relationship with God. And most likely, it’s not a one-time thing. Missing Mass is probably one example that fits into an overall pattern.

 

[With_Questions]

You seem to want exact answers where I don’t think they exist.

First there’s a matter of being reasonable. If you are at the bottom of the Grand Canyon on a Sunday is it reasonable to attend Mass? Probably not. If you’re visiting New York City on a Sunday is it reasonable to attend Mass? Probably so.

Well, I ask because measures like “within reasonable distance” or
“theft of a little” versus “theft of a lot” presents a cutoff point problem. Somewhere there is a line between “a little” and “a lot” or between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” even if this line really is a function between multiple variables.

And with this problem you will have the scenario of somebody just over the edge versus just up to the edge. And the difference between this really small distance is eternity.

For example the missing mass problem.
Lets say I am on a two month long vacation. The first Sunday there is a Catholic church within 10 miles. This might be reasonable so I go.

The next Sunday you might be in the boonies of Maine where the nearest is 100 miles, This is unreasonable so you don’t go.

But the next Sunday the nearest church might be 50 miles. We will call this unreasonable.

So the next Sunday the nearest church might be 20 miles. We will call this reasonable.

Do you see that the distance between unreasonable and reasonable is getting closer.

I would also have to ask the question what if I guess wrong. What if I think that 40 miles is unreasonable but God begs to differ. Do I go to hell for this infraction? What if I think 10 miles is unreasonable?

But then if eternity is on the line, probably to be safe I had better go to mass when it is 100 miles away. I would hate to guess wrong you know when the consequences are eternal.

But more than that, it’s about your relationship with God. In your original example the hunter basically said “who cares” and continued hunting. That says something about the hunter’s relationship with God, his priorities, and his values. It wouldn’t be any different if he did that to his wife or to a friend – if you tell someone you don’t care about them, you’re breaking the relationship.

And that’s what mortal sin is about – breaking the relationship with God. And most likely, it’s not a one-time thing. Missing Mass is probably one example that fits into an overall pattern.

Well in my scenario it was a one time thing.

But you actually make an interesting point. We disagree about what constitutes rejecting God and breaking relationship with Him.

But for now I don’t want to argue this point. I want to make sure I understand what your denomination teaches and then to analyze this to see if it is consistent and makes logical sense.

BTW cutoff point problems are not limited to Catholic theology. I could point you to a few problems of this nature I have seen in Protestant stuff.

 

[Thing]

Well, I ask because measures like “within reasonable distance” or
“theft of a little” versus “theft of a lot” presents a cutoff point problem. Somewhere there is a line between “a little” and “a lot” or between “reasonable” and “unreasonable” even if this line really is a function between multiple variables.

And with this problem you will have the scenario of somebody just over the edge versus just up to the edge. And the difference between this really small distance is eternity.

For example the missing mass problem.
Lets say I am on a two month long vacation. The first Sunday there is a Catholic church within 10 miles. This might be reasonable so I go.

The next Sunday you might be in the boonies of Maine where the nearest is 100 miles, This is unreasonable so you don’t go.

But the next Sunday the nearest church might be 50 miles. We will call this unreasonable.

So the next Sunday the nearest church might be 20 miles. We will call this reasonable.

Do you see that the distance between unreasonable and reasonable is getting closer.

I would also have to ask the question what if I guess wrong. What if I think that 40 miles is unreasonable but God begs to differ. Do I go to hell for this infraction? What if I think 10 miles is unreasonable?

But then if eternity is on the line, probably to be safe I had better go to mass when it is 100 miles away. I would hate to guess wrong you know when the consequences are eternal.

Well in my scenario it was a one time thing.

But you actually make an interesting point. We disagree about what constitutes rejecting God and breaking relationship with Him.

But for now I don’t want to argue this point. I want to make sure I understand what your denomination teaches and then to analyze this to see if it is consistent and makes logical sense.

BTW cutoff point problems are not limited to Catholic theology. I could point you to a few problems of this nature I have seen in Protestant stuff.

I don’t think a hundred miles is unreasonable, maybe a two hour drive or so, no problem. But if you just want to know when you can skip mass then maybe the answer for you is, never. You are looking at the question from the viewpoint of ‘how do I get away with it’, instead of, how do I get to it, have I enough time to get there etc., and not worrying if it is just impossible.

 

[With_Questions]

I don’t think a hundred miles is unreasonable, maybe a two hour drive or so, no problem. But if you just want to know when you can skip mass then maybe the answer for you is, never. You are looking at the question from the viewpoint of ‘how do I get away with it’, instead of, how do I get to it, have I enough time to get there etc., and not worrying if it is just impossible.

But somebody else may think 100 miles is unreasonable and decide to forego mass. But what if they guess wrong and you are right?

But anyway, I am not looking at it from the perspective of “how do I get away with it”. How can I look at it from this perspective when I don’t believe in this anyway.

I am just trying to analyze the belief system and and ask some tough questions concerning it. I have observed that it seems to have a cutoff point problem as big as the Protestant “age of accountability” or “metal capacity culpability” teachings.