Mortal Sin Question

[Thing]

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.

Actually I am not looking at it from that perspective.

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

You are looking at it from that perspective, you want to know if someone can get away with it at thirty miles distant but commit mortal sin and go to hell at twenty miles distant.

Like the imaginary situations posed to schoolchildren, they do not happen in reality. You either can get to a mass or you cannot, you cannot both get to mass and not get to mass.

 

[With_Questions]

You are looking at it from that perspective, you want to know if someone can get away with it at thirty miles distant but commit mortal sin and go to hell at twenty miles distant.

No, I am not looking at it from a “how much can I get away with” perspective. I don’t believe this anyway.

However, when metrics such as reasonable/unreasonable or theft of a little versus theft of a lot are used, somewhere there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable and a little versus a lot. This is simple logic.

I don’t really care where that line is since I don’t believe this. I am just observing that logically speaking there is a line. Even if in fact this line is a function in many variables.

Furthermore, whenever there is a line or function that serves as a cutoff point, there will be people just over the line and people under the line. This also is simple logic.

The problem is that the consequences of being just over the line as opposed to just under the line are eternity in heaven (with purgatory of course) versus eternity in hell. This is pretty severe difference in consequences when the difference between the two is minute.

Again, this is just simple logic.

Like the imaginary situations posed to schoolchildren, they do not happen in reality. You either can get to a mass or you cannot, you cannot both get to mass and not get to mass.

OK. Under your logic you can always get to mass. If you are vacationing in the Grand Canyon you can always leave at 3:00 am to get to the 11:00 mass.

Now somebody might think this is unreasonable. But maybe this in fact is reasonable. I would hate to guess wrong in this regards.
What if one thinks attending mass when in the grand canyon is unreasonable and God disagrees?

This is another problem with these metrics. The word “reasonable” is subjective. What if my understanding of what is “reasonable” is wrong?

 

[PerryJ]

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.

It is what is in your heart. 100 or 50 miles is not the important point. If you truly love Christ you will attend if possible. If you can not make it will you devote an hour to prayer. God knows what is in your heart and if you truly love him.

 

[prodigal-sun]

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.

Hypothetical questions like these are always so unrealistic because they are vaque and one dimensional only allowing for a yes or no answer, where reality just isn’t like that.

You could basically replace the mortal sin of missing church with adultery and get the same basic answer of yes/no because the varibles are to limited for real life. When we choose to leave God by not loving him and choose love love something other than him (SIN) we place our souls in jeopardy every time.

You give the example of this hunter not having any remorse but even for a nominal Christian (this hunter being stronger in faith than that) He knows when he sins and is remorseful even though he continues to sin. It will sit in the back of his mind as quilt even though he pushes it aside. Place yourself in a situation where you sin does this not hold true! It certainly does for me and I would not consider myself far from Nominal.

This Hypothetical hunter who is a strong Catholic cannot be completley unremorseful because our intellects do not allow us this comfort. We can push back the quilt if we so choose while at the same time pushing away our Eternal Father. Are we not to be judged for this. As Jesus is our Just Judge is he not also a merciful one that knows every hair upon our head.

We can not know how this hunter will be judged and I would submit it is good that we don’t. Because we should love God out of Love and not just out of Fear!

Peace!

 

[With_Questions]

It is what is in your heart. 100 or 50 miles is not the important point. If you truly love Christ you will attend if possible. If you can not make it will you devote an hour to prayer. God knows what is in your heart and if you truly love him.

Then why make the distinction between mortal and not mortal a function of “reasonable distance” when really the distinction is your heart attitude?.

But even heart attitude has a randomness problem.

I wish I as a Christian could say that I am always loving God 100 percent of the time. But alas, that is not the case.

There are some days I can be just as mean of a selfish brat as the next person. There are some days I am so caught up in myself (even if it is through being busy) that I totally forget about God.

If you are right, I hope I don’t croak on one of these days.

 

[prodigal-sun]

No, I am not looking at it from a “how much can I get away with” perspective. I don’t believe this anyway.

However, when metrics such as reasonable/unreasonable or theft of a little versus theft of a lot are used, somewhere there is a line between reasonable and unreasonable and a little versus a lot. This is simple logic.

I don’t really care where that line is since I don’t believe this. I am just observing that logically speaking there is a line. Even if in fact this line is a function in many variables.

Furthermore, whenever there is a line or function that serves as a cutoff point, there will be people just over the line and people under the line. This also is simple logic.

The problem is that the consequences of being just over the line as opposed to just under the line are eternity in heaven (with purgatory of course) versus eternity in hell. This is pretty severe difference in consequences when the difference between the two is minute.

Again, this is just simple logic.

OK. Under your logic you can always get to mass. If you are vacationing in the Grand Canyon you can always leave at 3:00 am to get to the 11:00 mass.

Now somebody might think this is unreasonable. But maybe this in fact is reasonable. I would hate to guess wrong in this regards.
What if one thinks attending mass when in the grand canyon is unreasonable and God disagrees?

This is another problem with these metrics. The word “reasonable” is subjective. **What if my understanding of what is “reasonable” is wrong?/**QUOTE]

If this is the case then don’t you think our Just Judge knows this and will judge accordingly. Ignorance of the law does not work on earth because as humans we have no way of knowing your true ignorance, but God does.

 

[PerryJ]

Then why make the distinction between mortal and not mortal a function of “reasonable distance” when really the distinction is your heart attitude?.

But even heart attitude has a randomness problem.

I wish I as a Christian could say that I am always loving God 100 percent of the time. But alas, that is not the case.

There are some days I can be just as mean of a selfish brat as the next person. There are some days I am so caught up in myself (even if it is through being busy) that I totally forget about God.

If you are right, I hope I don’t croak on one of these days.

God is all knowing. He knows your heart.

The distinction of mortal versus venial sin is intent. One of the precepts of mortal sin is an intentional rejection of God.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

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.

You make it sound like God is trying to trick us into sinning and I don’t think that’s the case. I say to myself “it’s 20 miles to the closest church and I think that’s too far so I’m going to skip Mass today.” And in your scenario, God is essentially saying “25 miles is reasonable. Zap! You guessed wrong and now you’re going straight to hell.”

That’s not the loving Father that Jesus told us about.

We have minds and we have consciences that (hopefully) are well formed. I think that if we’re doing our best to use our consciences well we’re on the right track. Think about a child preparing a meal for his mother. He may leave the kitchen an absolute mess, but the mother is focusing on his love for her in preparing the meal. If a human parent would notice the love, don’t you think God would equally notice the love we express for him? I think about going to Mass and make the best decision I can. Even if I have figuratively left a mess in the kitchen, I think God knows whether I’m acting with love toward him or not. And I know whether my actions were out of love or out of trying to see what I could get away with.

 

[With_Questions]

Hypothetical questions like these are always so unrealistic because they are vaque and one dimensional only allowing for a yes or no answer, where reality just isn’t like that.

You could basically replace the mortal sin of missing church with adultery and get the same basic answer of yes/no because the varibles are to limited for real life. When we choose to leave God by not loving him and choose love love something other than him (SIN) we place our souls in jeopardy every time.

You give the example of this hunter not having any remorse but even for a nominal Christian (this hunter being stronger in faith than that) He knows when he sins and is remorseful even though he continues to sin. It will sit in the back of his mind as quilt even though he pushes it aside. Place yourself in a situation where you sin does this not hold true! It certainly does for me and I would not consider myself far from Nominal.

This Hypothetical hunter who is a strong Catholic cannot be completley unremorseful because our intellects do not allow us this comfort. We can push back the quilt if we so choose while at the same time pushing away our Eternal Father. Are we not to be judged for this. As Jesus is our Just Judge is he not also a merciful one that knows every hair upon our head.

We can not know how this hunter will be judged and I would submit it is good that we don’t. Because we should love God out of Love and not just out of Fear!

Peace!

Now you seem to be giving a totally different answer than what I have received so far. So let me think of the correct question to ask here to see if this is the case. I am interested whether your scenario still suffers from the randomness problem.

Let us say immediately after missing mass this hunter does feel guilt about what he had done (as is the norm when one sins). But he does not deal with this guilt immediately.

Now had he lived, undoubtably he would have eventually dealt with the guilt he had, but unfortunately he was killed prior to this point in time.

Are you saying that the fact that he had guilt right after missing mass indicative that this was done without full “knowledge and consent”? If so you seem to have a different understanding of this phrase than other Catholics.

 

[With_Questions]

God is all knowing. He knows your heart.

The distinction of mortal versus venial sin is intent. One of the precepts of mortal sin is an intentional rejection of God.

What do you mean “intentional rejection of God”?

For example, when Peter denied Christ, was he “intentionally rejecting God”? Or was he sinning out of his mortal weakness and from being in the wrong place at the wrong time?

I seem to be getting totally different answers now than when I did earlier.

 

[MarcoPolo]

No, I am not looking at it from a “how much can I get away with” perspective. I don’t believe this anyway.

The whole attitude of this is then tantamount to going up to St. Paul and saying, “So, Paul…when you say we shouldn’t lust, how much is lust. What is the cutoff point. Can I look at her hair. How about down a little further. What if my mind wanders for 1 second…then 2…when does it become a sin…what is the cutoff point…how much do I have to take care of my neighbor…how many minutes per day in service. What if I’m 5 seconds short.”

God’s revelation does not also work that way in scientific rules.

 

[With_Questions]

You make it sound like God is trying to trick us into sinning and I don’t think that’s the case. I say to myself “it’s 20 miles to the closest church and I think that’s too far so I’m going to skip Mass today.” And in your scenario, God is essentially saying “25 miles is reasonable. Zap! You guessed wrong and now you’re going straight to hell.”

Well yes. That is what I am saying. That is what the word reasonable implies.

That’s not the loving Father that Jesus told us about.

Well I don’t think the loving Father that Jesus told us about would condemn this hunter in my scenario to hell. But you all seem to disagree.

We have minds and we have consciences that (hopefully) are well formed. I think that if we’re doing our best to use our consciences well we’re on the right track. Think about a child preparing a meal for his mother. He may leave the kitchen an absolute mess, but the mother is focusing on his love for her in preparing the meal. If a human parent would notice the love, don’t you think God would equally notice the love we express for him? I think about going to Mass and make the best decision I can. Even if I have figuratively left a mess in the kitchen, I think God knows whether I’m acting with love toward him or not. And I know whether my actions were out of love or out of trying to see what I could get away with.

This same child might have days when he is absolutely a brat, totally in rebellion, and acting as though he hates his mother. Now underneath in his heart, he really loves his mother, but he is having one of those days.

If I am understanding you correctly, to use the child / mother analogy, on these days the child is totally cut off from the mother and if the mother could, she would condemn the child to hell.

 

[Thing]

OK. Under your logic you can always get to mass. If you are vacationing in the Grand Canyon you can always leave at 3:00 am to get to the 11:00 mass.

Now somebody might think this is unreasonable. But maybe this in fact is reasonable. I would hate to guess wrong in this regards.
What if one thinks attending mass when in the grand canyon is unreasonable and God disagrees?

This is another problem with these metrics. The word “reasonable” is subjective. What if my understanding of what is “reasonable” is wrong?

‘Reasonable’ in Catholicism means ‘if-you-are-fit-to-walk’ then you are fit to go to mass. If you can arrive at mass on time from your location then that is reasonable too.
If neither applies to your state then you may consider that being expected at mass is being unreasonable.
It is not accountancy, it is heroics…

 

[ralphinal]

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?

All that the Church can tell you is what is grave matter. Is it serious? If Yes, and you know it is and choose it anyway, mortal sin. Missing mass falls into the grave matter category. Yes, that is infallible.

(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.

NOt exactly. Time may create new grave matter, or reduce others, but it is not that easy. For example, it may be grave matter for an emperor not to pay his servents enough to live. Well, now we do not have emperors, and what royalty we do have have their incomes fixed by the state. Likewise, 100 years ago, there was no stem cell research.

(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?

Circumstances dictate this. If I steal $100.00 from Bill Gates it is not the same as if I steal it from an elderly person on fixed income. It has more to do with the hardship I create. Now, let me say this, intentionally choosing to commit a venial sin (not grave matter) BECAUSE it is only venial may elevate the nature of it beyond venial to mortal. God will not be mocked.

(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?

It is all how God judges the heart. To you, resonable may be 30 miles or less, to me it may be 15. Either way, God knows why and how.

You are not really getting different answers, just different understandings. TO choose to commit an act that is serious and evil with full concent and knowledge of the nature of the act is a mortal sin.

 

[With_Questions]

The whole attitude of this is then tantamount to going up to St. Paul and saying, “So, Paul…when you say we shouldn’t lust, how much is lust. What is the cutoff point. Can I look at her hair. How about down a little further. What if my mind wanders for 1 second…then 2…when does it become a sin…what is the cutoff point…how much do I have to take care of my neighbor…how many minutes per day in service. What if I’m 5 seconds short.”

God’s revelation does not also work that way in scientific rules.

As I said, on a personal level I could care less because I don’t think what you are saying is correct. At least what I have received so far for answers on this thread.

I am just asking these questions to point out the logical inconsistencies in what I am receiving for answers. The cutoff point problem is logically big and real when the consequences for missing cutoff are heaven and hell.

I would hope that you rethink your answers here.

 

[PerryJ]

Now you seem to be giving a totally different answer than what I have received so far. So let me think of the correct question to ask here to see if this is the case. I am interested whether your scenario still suffers from the randomness problem.

Let us say immediately after missing mass this hunter does feel guilt about what he had done (as is the norm when one sins). But he does not deal with this guilt immediately.

Now had he lived, undoubtably he would have eventually dealt with the guilt he had, but unfortunately he was killed prior to this point in time.

Are you saying that the fact that he had guilt right after missing mass indicative that this was done without full “knowledge and consent”? If so you seem to have a different understanding of this phrase than other Catholics.

If he was truly contrite and at the first opportunity confessed his sin to a Priest he would be forgiven by Christ.

If he was fully contrite and had every intention to confess his sins at the first opportunity; but, did not have a chance to then he would be forgiven. He may have to go to purgatory for cleansing.

 

[PerryJ]

To define this a bit, here are three areas that have to be present for one to commit mortal sin.

1. its subject must be a grave (or serious) matter;
2. it must be committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the consciences of every human being);
3. it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin. (it wasn’t an accident)

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

If I am understanding you correctly, to use the child / mother analogy, on these days the child is totally cut off from the mother and if the mother could, she would condemn the child to hell.

It’s not so much the mother condemning the child, it’s the child choosing not to have a relationship with the mother.

Let’s say the child is somewhat older, has grown up and moved out on his own. He ignores his mother, doesn’t call or visit, basically has cut himself off from his mother. His mother invites him to come for Thanksgiving dinner and the child says “who cares…I’d rather go hunting.”

The relationship is seriously damaged. It’s not because the child skipped a single dinner with his mother, but skipping that dinner is indicative of an overall pattern of behavior.

And that’s where your first question about the hunter falls apart. Someone who has a loving relationship with God is very unlikely to say “I’m not going to Mass and I don’t care.”

I feel like we’re going in circles here and I’m not sure what the point is.

 

[With_Questions]

All that the Church can tell you is what is grave matter. Is it serious? If Yes, and you know it is and choose it anyway, mortal sin. Missing mass falls into the grave matter category. Yes, that is infallible.

So the church definitions of mortal sin are infallible?

Perhaps maybe I am wrong here, but I seem to recall reading that the requirements for the fast before mass over time have changed. At one time it was many hours, but now it is only an hour. Is my understanding here correct?

I also recall reading this year that the church has added new mortal sins. I forget what they were, but I am sure I am correct. Does that mean that someone who commits this sin before the church defines it gets a pass while someone who commits this sin today goes to hell?

I thought infallible teachings could not change.

NOt exactly. Time may create new grave matter, or reduce others, but it is not that easy. For example, it may be grave matter for an emperor not to pay his servents enough to live. Well, now we do not have emperors, and what royalty we do have have their incomes fixed by the state. Likewise, 100 years ago, there was no stem cell research.

I am quite sure that the mortal sins the church recently added were still possible to commit on the day before the church added these.

Circumstances dictate this. If I steal $100.00 from Bill Gates it is not the same as if I steal it from an elderly person on fixed income. It has more to do with the hardship I create. Now, let me say this, intentionally choosing to commit a venial sin (not grave matter) BECAUSE it is only venial may elevate the nature of it beyond venial to mortal. God will not be mocked.

That is why I included the word function in many variables. In the case of theft, there are at least two variables and possibly more (amount stolen and net worth of victim).

Even though functions in many variables look different than functions in one variable, they still logically suffer from the cutoff point problem.

It is all how God judges the heart. To you, resonable may be 30 miles or less, to me it may be 15. Either way, God knows why and how.

You are not really getting different answers, just different understandings. TO choose to commit an act that is serious and evil with full concent and knowledge of the nature of the act is a mortal sin.

Well when you get to the heart, this leads to a separate set of questions.

I could take some answers I have received so far and interpret them as being that "mortal sin is a hypothetical possiblity but rare to non-existent in real life because a Christian rarely if ever really sins out of rejecting God.

Under this scenario, the hunter (with a 99.99 percent confidence factor) did not commit a mortal sin because he was not rejecting God.

But that is not the answer I received to my question.

 

[With_Questions]

Someone who has a loving relationship with God is very unlikely to say “I’m not going to Mass and I don’t care.”

I feel like we’re going in circles here and I’m not sure what the point is.

Well maybe I am in the presence of super Spiritual people here, but I for one am not like that. Maybe I am just a bad Christian or something like that.

Even though in my heart I do love God, I have my days when I do not. I have my days when my priorities get out of whack and I love my job, my hobbies, and my interests while God takes a back seat. Just like the spoiled 2 year old in my example. Or for that matter just like my hunter hypothetical.

Maybe nobody else here is like that, but I am.

Under your theology, I would hate to imagine what would happen if I croaked when I was having one of these days.