Mortal sin =Serious sin =Grave sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bookcat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

Bookcat

Guest
Sometimes there is some confusion here on terms.

Mortal sin = Serious sin = Grave sin

The Church uses these terms in two senses (and an objective if you will and a subjective sense). And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:
  1. Objective sense
Murder is a grave sin.
Murder is a serious sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.

(all three mean the same)

this is one way the Church use the term. Talking about the ‘moral object’ of the act or the ‘objective kind of sin’. Referring to the object itself. Like if I said…do not commit murder for that is a mortal sin.

Then there is this way…
  1. Subjective sense…
I committed the grave sin of Murder
I committed the serious sin of Murder
I committed the mortal sin of Murder

(all three mean the same)

This is speaking of when the thing I committed is grave matter …done with full knowledge and deliberate (complete) consent.

Both are true. Both are ways the terms get used in Church documents
Ordinarily I tell people “such and such is a grave matter” for mortal sin and if one does it with full knowledge and complete consent…then one commits a mortal sin.

But sometimes I will say “yes murder is a mortal sin”…etc
 
A Few Examples of the Church interchanging the terms:

CCC1385: “Anyone conscious of a grave sin must receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before coming to communion.”

(we all know of course that the only sins that we are obliged to confess are “mortal sins” yet note that the Church often uses the term “grave sin” to mean mortal sin. Grave sin can not ever mean “venial sin” but only mortal sin. Though of course there can be a “grave matter” involved but lack of full knowledge or complete consent --hence no mortal sin/grave sin/serious sin is committed --this is where the confusion enters in often)

From: The Compendium of the Catechism issued by Pope Benedict XVI

"304. Which sins must be confessed?

1456

All **grave sins **not yet confessed, which a careful examination of conscience brings to mind, must be brought to the sacrament of Penance. The confession of serious sins is the only ordinary way to obtain forgiveness." (see also Canon Law …the term is used there too).
  1. What is required to receive Holy Communion?
1385-1389
1415

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in** mortal sin**. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion.

(note that one used BOTH to mean the same thing in the same paragraph… for variety in use of language in writing.)
“However, it must be remembered that the church, guided by faith in this great sacrament, teaches that no Christian who is conscious of** grave sin** can receive the eucharist before having obtained God’s forgiveness.”

Pope John Paul II Reconciliatio et Paenitentia 17
In MISERICORDIA DEI he also noted:

“Individual and integral confession and absolution are the sole ordinary means by which the faithful, conscious of grave sin, are reconciled with God and the Church; only physical or moral impossibility excuses from such confession, in which case reconciliation can be obtained in other ways”

and

Since “the faithful are obliged to confess, according to kind and number, **all grave sins **committed after Baptism of which they are conscious after careful examination and which have not yet been directly remitted by the Church’s power of the keys
And in a speech from Pope John Paul II

“The sacrament of Penance is meant to take away personal sins committed after Baptism: first of all mortal sins, then venial. If the penitent has committed more than one mortal sin, they can only be remitted all at once. In fact, the remission of serious sin consists in the infusion of the sanctifying grace which has been lost, and grace is incompatible with any and every** serious sin**. Venial sins are to be regarded differently…”

and in ECCLESIA DE EUCHARISTIA

“If a Christian’s conscience is burdened by serious sin, then the path of penance through the sacrament of Reconciliation becomes necessary for full participation in the Eucharistic Sacrifice.”
And Pope Benedict XVI in his Catecheses with Children said:

"Only in that case, when you are in a state of “mortal” sin, in other words, grave (sin), is it necessary to go to confession before Communion. This is my first point. " vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2005/october/documents/hf_ben_xvi_spe_20051015_meeting-children_en.html

In another place he said:

“The faithful, in their turn, must seek to receive and to venerate the Most Holy Sacrament with piety and devotion, eager to welcome the Lord Jesus with faith, and having recourse, whenever necessary, to the sacrament of reconciliation so as to purify the soul from every grave sin.” vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/homilies/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_hom_20070511_canonization-brazil_en.html
 
Bookcat said:
  1. What is required to receive Holy Communion?
1385-1389
1415

To receive Holy Communion one must be fully incorporated into the Catholic Church and be in the state of grace, that is, not conscious of being in** mortal sin**. Anyone who is conscious of having committed a grave sin must first receive the sacrament of Reconciliation before going to Communion.
Click to expand...
 
"Presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion should be a conscious decision, based on a reasoned judgment regarding one’s worthiness to do so, according to the Church’s objective criteria, asking such questions as: “Am I in full communion with the Catholic Church? **Am I guilty of grave sin? **Have I incurred a penalty (e.g. excommunication, interdict) that forbids me to receive Holy Communion? Have I prepared myself by fasting for at least an hour?” The practice of indiscriminately presenting oneself to receive Holy Communion, merely as a consequence of being present at Mass, is an abuse that must be corrected (cf. Instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum,” nos. 81, 83). " ewtn.com/library/CURIA/cdfworthycom.HTM
 
Okay, this is a topic that trips me up often…though I thought I had it nailed down.
So, tell me if I have this right or not (in simplest of terms):

The objective sense tells me the gravity of sin that a particular act carries. It tells me the seriousness of something, objectively, but does not place guilt on anyone…it’s just describing the act/object.

The subjective sense tells me the gravity of sin I have incurred by committing that act. Because I did this act, which was objectively grave, I have incurred that grvity of sin…comitted a mortal sin.
 
ahs said:
Okay, this is a topic that trips me up often…though I thought I had it nailed down.
So, tell me if I have this right or not (in simplest of terms):

The objective sense tells me the gravity of sin that a particular act carries. It tells me the seriousness of something, objectively, but does not place guilt on anyone…it’s just describing the act/object.

The subjective sense tells me the gravity of sin I have incurred by committing that act. Because I did this act, which was objectively grave, I have incurred that grvity of sin…comitted a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
  1. Correct.
  2. Correct (if one has done it with the needed knowledge and consent to commit the grave sin/mortal sin/serious sin (all mean same)
 
I don’t see any examples where the church is using your ‘objective sense’.

Usually when I see the ‘objective’ it is referring to grave matter or serious matter. When the adjective precedes ‘sin’ it seems to be using your subjective sense.
 
  1. The Catechism was written in LATIN not English. You are reading a translation!
  2. Even we were talking about the bible which is without error, things are always lost in translation. Different translations are valuable for different things. A dynamic translation may be good for teaching children. It may even be valuable enough for lectio divina. A dynamic translation is not however good for intensive study. And if you want to be a bible scholar, well then you need to learn biblical Greek and Latin real well you’re not working through the limitations of translation. And that’s my point. You’re not a Catechism scholar reading the Catechism in the language it was written in. You’re some layperson using the Engllish translation of the Catechism as a proof text to win some point you want to win.
  3. The Catechism was not designed for what you are doing. It was designed to be a foundational tool for Catechetists. Its there to make sure you’re teaching the Gospel according to the Church, not according to yourself. In fact, you could say that the Catechism is like a children’s picture bible that covers basic stories and paraphrases the stories so that its not even a translation. If you want to get a more complete idea about what the Church teaches on these various topics, than you should be looking up the documents the Catechism cites and study those. And I mean study rather than acting like a Protestant proof-texter.
  4. Even if we can say that it is common to call grave sins mortal, there still is a valid reason for distinquishing between grave and mortal sins just as the word spirt can have multiple meanings that can confuse people. Sometimes its important to call the soul the soul rather than the soul the spirit, even though we will call it the spirit.
So here’s the thing with mortal sin. The Church teaches us that a moral sin is a sin that sends a person to Hell. Its a total rejection of God. It requires full consent of the will. That is what a mortal sin is in theory. Unforunately people often become overscruplous and start fearing that they’re about to go to Hell at any minute. They’re primarily concerned about committing grave offenses. The reality full consent of the will is NOT the difference between being held down and forcibly raped by another person or not. There can be varying degrees of consent (as the Catechism mentions when it talks about habitual masturbation).

This is the distinction I make. Mortal sin is a real possibility. It is possible to reject salvation and to turn completely away from God. Knowing if I am in mortal sin or is not as easy as it may seem to some. In fact, I’d say a great deal of people think they’re in mortal sin when they’re not. Of course, if that means that they’ll fail to go to confession or reform their lives, well then they’re lukewarm and depriving themselves of the grace they need. They’re still stuck at a level, as CS Lewis says, of just trying to be decent people rather than answering the call to be made “perfect as your heavily father is perfect”, our universal call to holiness. As such, since I sometimes wonder about my consent with grave sins, I throw out the whole question. I simplify it to not “Am I going to Heaven or Hell?” but “Should I go up to Communion and should I go to confession sooner than later?” If I’m in a grave sin, I go to confession sooner and I may refrain from communion until I’ve gone to confession. I don’t agonize about where my soul is going because it is no longer about me but about Christ. I then reflect on this. If I am to the point where my motivation to avoid sin and to confess and refrain from the Eucharist has little to do with fretting about the possibility of going to Hell, how can I say I’m turning away from God? I’m turning toward Him. That’s probably why I’ve seen even in times where I’ve committed grave sins, radical spiritual changes in myself, more full hearted conversion and deeper insights. I’ve recognized things about what drives me to sin. All this I see as evidence of the Holy Spirit working within my soul. Well, if I were in mortal sin, the Holy Spirit wouldn’t be there.

In the end, Christ will judge us. We will not judge ourselves and we should not ever judge others. We should have hope about everyone. In fact, I know (and I’m not going to be silly and cite them), that the Catechism talks about this.
 
twoangels said:
  1. The Catechism was written in LATIN not English. You are reading a translation!
Click to expand...
The Latin will reflect what I have noted for it is how the Church and Catholic Moral theology uses the terms. See also the dictionary of John Hardon, various works of moral theology, comments by Jimmy Akin etc… And of course those quotes were from a variety of Church documents…

The Church uses the terms Mortal sin, serious sin and grave sin interchangably.
 
twoangels said:
  1. If you want to get a more complete idea about what the Church teaches on these various topics, than you should be looking up the documents the Catechism cites and study those. And I mean study rather than acting like a Protestant proof-texter.
Click to expand...
I would suggest you are drawing a bit too much on your experience in apologetics with some Protestants who “proof -text”. I am not approaching this as such. I quoted actually from various kinds of documents. I would note too that I do have a degree in theology from Franciscan University of Stuebenville–I have a very good (one can always of course go deeper and deeper etc) grasp of Catholic Theology.
 
twoangels said:
  1. Even if we can say that it is common to call grave sins mortal, there still is a valid reason for distinquishing between grave and mortal sins
Click to expand...
“Grave sin” is ONLY mortal sin (serious sin). (hence the requirement in Canon Law et al to confess all “grave sins” in number and kind. There is no “distinguishing” between mortal sin and grave sin. (This is the confusion I am seeking to clarify in this thread). They are the same. There is only the question of is such a grave sin if I do it? and did I in fact commit the grave sin?

Can. 988 §1. A member of the Christian faithful is obliged to confess in kind and number all **grave sins **committed after baptism and not yet remitted directly through the keys of the Church nor acknowledged in individual confession, of which the person has knowledge after diligent examination of conscience.

Can. 988 — § 1. Christifidelis obligatione tenetur in specie et numero confitendi omnia peccata gravia post baptismum perpetrata et nondum per claves Ecclesiae directe remissa neque in confessione individuali accusata, quorum post diligentem sui discussionem conscientiam habeat.

What your getting at here is that one can say that such and such is a “grave matter” (which I got into in my posts).
 
One commits a grave sin (mortal sin/serious sin) if one there was grave matter, full knowledge and deliberate consent. Such is what we are required to confess and to confess prior to Holy Communion.

Can a person do something that is a grave matter --and yet not commit a grave sin (mortal sin/serious sin)?? Yes. It can happen. For one needs that full knowledge and complete consent.

The Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI gives a great little summary:
  1. When does one commit a mortal sin?
1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.
  1. When does one commit a venial sin?
1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.
 
Evan said:
I don’t see any examples where the church is using your ‘objective sense’.

Usually when I see the ‘objective’ it is referring to grave matter or serious matter. When the adjective precedes ‘sin’ it seems to be using your subjective sense.
Click to expand...
Here are a few for ya:

2120 Sacrilege consists in profaning or treating unworthily the sacraments and other liturgical actions, as well as persons, things, or places consecrated to God. Sacrilege is a grave sin…

2390…The sexual act must take place exclusively within marriage. Outside of marriage it always constitutes** a grave sin **and excludes one from sacramental communion.

2303…Hatred of the neighbor is a grave sin when one deliberately desires him grave harm.
 
Bookcat said:
I would suggest you are drawing a bit too much on your experience in apologetics with some Protestants who “proof -text”. I am not approaching this as such. I quoted actually from various kinds of documents. (I would note too that I do have a degree in theology from Franciscan University of Stuebenville)
Click to expand...
 
The confusion enters in when some have sort of (honestly) transposed the term “grave sin” for “grave matter”.

One can say certainty that such and such is a “grave matter” and that one does not commit a mortal sin (grave sin/serious sin) unless one does it with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Such is a very good way to approach explaining things to another.

One could also say that such and such “is a mortal sin” (or “grave sin” or “serious sin”) but that one also needs full knowledge and complete consent.

Or…

Sally: “Is abortion a mortal sin?”

Joe: Yes it is --one of the worst ones.

Or Joe could say “yes if one does it with the needed knowledge and consent”

et al
 
Hi Bookcat,

I have no argument with what you have shown.

However, I see a problem, that seems to arise a bit, because the terms that are defined in a particular way here are also common use terms, which people use as everyday language to mean, perhaps, something different.

To be more specific, I may want to say something like “I have committed a serious sin”. But, I don’t mean I have committed a mortal sin, and I don’t even mean that I have committed a sin involving grave matter. Merely, I want to express that I committed a sin, and I feel it is serious in nature, but not to the level of grave matter. Definition and language clash here.

Or to put it more bluntly, we may say that all sins are serious to some degree, which is in fact implied by this: “One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious…”

Perhaps with a thesaurus I can overcome this problem, but there really isn’t a better term than “serious” to use here. Moreover, the fact that this issue needs to be addressed yet again shows that there is a good degree of confusion.
 
underacloud said:
Hi Bookcat,

I have no argument with what you have shown.

However, I see a problem, that seems to arise a bit, because the terms that are defined in a particular way here are also common use terms, which people use as everyday language to mean, perhaps, something different.

To be more specific, I may want to say something like “I have committed a serious sin”. But, I don’t mean I have committed a mortal sin, and I don’t even mean that I have committed a sin involving grave matter. Merely, I want to express that I committed a sin, and I feel it is serious in nature, but not to the level of grave matter. Definition and language clash here.

Or to put it more bluntly, we may say that all sins are serious to some degree, which is in fact implied by this: “One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious…”

Perhaps with a thesaurus I can overcome this problem, but there really isn’t a better term than “serious” to use here. Moreover, the fact that this issue needs to be addressed yet again shows that there is a good degree of confusion.
Click to expand...
Well simply put there are only two kinds of sins that we commit – in general:

Mortal (grave/serious).

And

Venial

(Granted one could further distinguish within each…)

So I would not say “I committed a serious sin” unless well I committed a serious sin.

Yes there are some issues that need to be addressed over and over again…due to recurring confusion.

(heck I have a number of posts of mine on various topics that I have copied and saved so that I do not have to type everything again!..but can salvage or even post again. Such as on “thoughts”…or confession…or this…or faith etc etc 🙂 )
 
You haven’t given me another option, but merely said that I can’t use the term “serious” unless I mean “mortal”. But the catechism itself seems contradictory on this point, saying that venial sins are “less serious”…that is, serious to some degree, but not to the degree of grave matter.

Moreover, “serious” is not merely a binary term. Although it can be used in such a manner, it can also be used as a gradation, as the Church implicitly understands by talking of “less serious” sins.

Interestingly, the quotes you provide generally focus on the terms “mortal” and “grave”, especially in the catechism. If we look at the relevant section in the catechism, we see these two terms used liberally, but not the term serious, expect, again, in a different sense:

“1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

Perhaps the issued associated with defining a word like “serious”, which has a common use meaning otherwise, is why the catechism does not use it, but prefers the more precise terms mortal and grave.
 
underacloud said:
You haven’t given me another option, but merely said that I can’t use the term “serious” unless I mean “mortal”. But the catechism itself seems contradictory on this point, saying that venial sins are “less serious”…that is, serious to some degree, but not to the degree of grave matter.
Click to expand...
Oh I did not realize what you meant there.

When the Catechism says “less serious” it means in comparison to grave sin/serious sin/mortal sin…or better yet in comparison to grave/serious --matter.

Similar to say if one would say --make sure you do XYZ – “when one has a deadly illness or even something “less serious”…”

When the CCC states:

“1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.”

“less serious matter” means matter that is not serious matter or as it is usually said matter that is not grave. One can commit a venial sin via the matter being venial matter (thus less serious matter) or grave matter but committed without the needed knowledge and/or consent.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top