S
shawn_robertson
Guest
i need a good definition of full and partial knowledge.
please help
please help
Don’t over-complicate it.i need a good definition of full and partial knowledge.
please help
Since you’re using “atheists go to hell” as a taken-for-granted premise , I would appreciate if you would support that. I don’t think it’s so clearcut.Don’t over-complicate it.
Remember, atheists go to Hell, which tells us that there is no need to believe in God, nor to know that God disapproves of an action, in order to be able to commit a mortal sin.
All the person would have to know is that the action will damage his relationship with someone he loves (like, causing his wife to yell at him, for example) , if they find out that he did it, and, that he did it of his own free will.
Not to side track this thread but just wanted to point out that the reasons you suggested for watching pornography is not really moral in any sense. You might be forgetting the idea of concupiscence. Deliberately putting one-self in a position of temptation can be sinful while the temptation it-self is not.Concerning pornography, if you believe (auto-suggestion or even auto-deception for what else?) you’re only looking on girls for their beauty and the artistic values of the pictures, while downright reject any sort of movies, couple photos, and generally any “action”, and you end up doubting your intentions in the end or discovering you are feeling something vaguely close to physical excitement? It’s still a matter in which a (-n objectively) mortal sin can be committed, but does this suffice for a personal mortal sin or not?
My point is that knowledge of God is not necessary, for sin to take place.Since you’re using “atheists go to hell” as a taken-for-granted premise , I would appreciate if you would support that. I don’t think it’s so clearcut.
If someone views something known to be “pornography”, it will be a mortal sin. It is possible that the moral responsibility for it is reduced because the person might be immature.CCC 1857 says
What does the term “full knowledge” mean? Also, for example, since pornography is said to be a “grave sin”, how could the viewer of pornography not commit a mortal sin? Is there some way that he might not have “full knowledge”?
Yes, as the Catechism statesMy point is that knowledge of God is not necessary, for sin to take place.
I hope you do not think that atheists get to go to Heaven because they don’t know that they are offending God. Such a thing would be contrary to God’s justice.
God Bless1860 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.
True, but full knowledge is required for the sin to be mortal. I have not been able to find a clear official definition of “full knowledge”. It seems to me that “full knowledge” implies much more than “read it in passing on an internet forum.” If you know of an official definition of full knowledge in this context, I would love to see it.My point is that knowledge of God is not necessary, for sin to take place.
They certainly can - see invincible ignorance. Condemnation for what amounts to honest mistakes is what would be contrary to God’s justice.I hope you do not think that atheists get to go to Heaven because they don’t know that they are offending God. Such a thing would be contrary to God’s justice.
It means you know that it’s wrong, and you do it anyway. It’s not complicated. A seven year old can commit sin.True, but full knowledge is required for the sin to be mortal. I have not been able to find a clear official definition of “full knowledge”.
And where did you find this definition? If it is just your opinion, why is it any better than mine?It means you know that it’s wrong, and you do it anyway. It’s not complicated. A seven year old can commit sin.
You do not require a degree in theology, nor the knowledge of God’s existence.
It’s not “just my opinion” - it’s what I was taught in my Catechism classes, and what I was told to teach in the classes that I teach. Sin is not this big complicated theological problem -all it is, is to do something that you know is wrong. We prepare children to go to First Confession when they are seven, because that’s the age at which they can know right from wrong - which is how it is that they have the ability to commit sin.And where did you find this definition? If it is just your opinion, why is it any better than mine?
OK, cool. But I’m trying to find an official source. The Catechism doesn’t explain it. Gaudium et Spes seems to say that atheists may or may not be culpable for their unbelief, but doesn’t really go beyond that.It’s not “just my opinion” - it’s what I was taught in my Catechism classes, and what I was told to teach in the classes that I teach.
Theologians seem to disagree.Sin is not this big complicated theological problem
-all it is, is to do something that you know is wrong. We prepare children to go to First Confession when they are seven, because that’s the age at which they can know right from wrong - which is how it is that they have the ability to commit sin.
But there must be a difference between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”, otherwise why would the criteria for mortal sin consistently include the word full?More later, gotta go.![]()
This thread is ancient, so I don’t remember what all was said all those years ago, but I can give you a theologian quote, which is now available online. This question is one that has bothered me over time, which is why I know that it is hard to find the answer detailed out, except by a theologian. I will quote Germain Grisez, who is considered orthodox. You’d think if there were solid support for the definitions in official documents that he would footnote them (note, I think he published this text in the 1980’s). Instead, he refers you to what sound like various compilations and manuals in the notes. He seems to imply that it is a consensus of theologians type answer, if you read his footnotes.Theologians seem to disagree.
But there must be a difference between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”, otherwise why would the criteria for mortal sin consistently include the word full?
The Way of the Lord Jesus Volume One said:5. For a sin to be mortal, it is enough that a person who is willing to sin believe the matter to be grave. One willing to violate conscience in what he or she thinks a grave matter is guilty of the degree of moral evil willingly accepted. Similarly, a person who suspects that the matter might be grave and acts without taking reasonable care to eliminate doubt is guilty of the grave moral evil he or she suspects.
6. Sufficient reflection requires more than just awareness of what one is doing. Without this there is no human act at all. Sufficient reflection also requires awareness that the act is gravely wrong. In other words, reflection sufficient for mortal sin exists only if two conditions are met: (1) one acts in violation of one’s conscience, and (2) one’s conscience is that the matter either is grave or might be grave.
7. At the relevant time, one must actually be aware of the act’s wrongness. It is not sufficient simply that one could and should be aware, for in such a case one is primarily responsible for the failure to form conscience but is not gravely responsible for each unrecognized evil consequent upon this failure.
If an atheist has a basic sense of right and wrong, and does something that he knows to be wrong, he is guilty of sin. He doesn’t have to be aware of all the theological nuances, nor does he have to believe that he has offended God.OK, cool. But I’m trying to find an official source. The Catechism doesn’t explain it. Gaudium et Spes seems to say that atheists may or may not be culpable for their unbelief, but doesn’t really go beyond that.
Theologians get paid to complicate these kinds of things.Theologians seem to disagree.![]()
Right, and I think that’s where we get back to your example of someone glancing at something on the internet, versus being consistently taught it at home and at Church.But there must be a difference between “knowledge” and “full knowledge”, otherwise why would the criteria for mortal sin consistently include the word full?
No, I don’t think most mortal sins happen by the person setting out to offend God. They have something else on their mind as a goal, typically. God may not be on their radar at all.I have a huge problem with full knowledge. I may KNOW that the CC teaches that something is wrong, but if I’m being honest, I may not agree, or if I do, I may not agree that it is wrong to the DEGREE that the CC teaches. Let’s take masturbation, for example. I truly do not believe that it is grave matter. I suppose my faith is a bit weak here and I am questioning the logic of masturbation being a complete rejection of God along the lines of murder or adultery. I have read what the CC has to say on the matter, and while I agree that masturbation is certainly not good, I don’t think it warrants eternal separation from God. I feel the same way about a few other issues as well. I feel the same way about ABC (non-abortive and with serious reasons for practicing).
So I guess my question is this: if I know what the CC teaches and her reasoning behind it, but I disagree and doing so does not violate my conscience, is that full knowledge? Don’t I have to KNOW that something IS gravely wrong and choose to do it anyway (not just know that this is how the CC teaches it)?
I know I am supposed to form my conscience in accordance with church teaching, but that is a slow process and on some issues, I feel like I’m not getting there.
And please do not tell me that I just have to blindly do what the church says either. I have heard that before. My question is about full knowledge specifically.
Don’t you have to set out to offend God in a serious way and just not care?
Thanks for the response! I wish the Church would be clearer on this issue. Sometimes I feel that the CC is just wrong about certain things…let’s face it, it has happened a time or 2, and I’m not yet at the point of complete submission to every single thing it has to say. I think this is going to be a journey for me and one I may never complete. That is where I struggle. If I honestly believe the church to be wrong, how can I be mortally sinning if I do what I think is right? I’m not deliberately going against God’s law, it’s just that my understanding of God’s law is different than that of the Church. I am still doing my best to be informed and to be obedient to God. I get very frustrated with the legalism of it all.No, I don’t think most mortal sins happen by the person setting out to offend God. They have something else on their mind as a goal, typically. God may not be on their radar at all.
I think if a non-Catholic knows that the Catholic Church teaches something is gravely wrong, then this knowledge alone is not enough to clinch that the person has full knowledge. It would be as if I knew the Reverend Moon teaches that X is very wrong. That is a big “So what?” in my book. What he says has no bearing on what is true, from my perspective.
A well-informed Catholic is likely to know both that there is such a thing as moral authority and that the existence of such authority means that submission/obedience is required. They are also likely to know that the Church teaches with authority. It is not required that they understand the “reasoning” behind a particular moral norm for the norm to have force upon them. I think in that case, though, their emotions aren’t going to be on the ball, and they may fail to help them with a clamor of, “This is a sin!Flee!” Just because you don’t experience it as a clamor doesn’t mean you don’t know better.
I can’t answer about you yourself, though. You do mention that you know you should form your conscience by Church teaching. This suggests to me that you may know some of the things in my previous paragraph. You may be on the hook.
Just in case it is relevant I’ll mention you ought to beware of our fallen nature’s tendency to rationalize something to the point where we can convince ourselves that we can do a particular action that in fact we really do know is wrong. You say you recognize it is wrong (on a venial level at least). That still means to turn tail and Flee!![]()
You do not have to “set out to offend God in a serious way and just not care”…one does not need the “intention to offend God in a serious way”…one does this whenever one “for whatever reason” chooses to do something that is a grave matter with full knowledge and complete consent.I have a huge problem with full knowledge. I may KNOW that the CC teaches that something is wrong, but if I’m being honest, I may not agree, or if I do, I may not agree that it is wrong to the DEGREE that the CC teaches. Let’s take masturbation, for example. I truly do not believe that it is grave matter. I suppose my faith is a bit weak here and I am questioning the logic of masturbation being a complete rejection of God along the lines of murder or adultery. I have read what the CC has to say on the matter, and while I agree that masturbation is certainly not good, I don’t think it warrants eternal separation from God. I feel the same way about a few other issues as well. I feel the same way about ABC (non-abortive and with serious reasons for practicing).
So I guess my question is this: if I know what the CC teaches and her reasoning behind it, but I disagree and doing so does not violate my conscience, is that full knowledge? Don’t I have to KNOW that something IS gravely wrong and choose to do it anyway (not just know that this is how the CC teaches it)?
I know I am supposed to form my conscience in accordance with church teaching, but that is a slow process and on some issues, I feel like I’m not getting there.
And please do not tell me that I just have to blindly do what the church says either. I have heard that before. My question is about full knowledge specifically.
Don’t you have to set out to offend God in a serious way and just not care?
That’s the end result of a habit of mortal sin, but it’s not the starting place. Most people start out in mortal sin by saying to themselves, “Could God have really meant this?” and then going against the teaching, not to deliberately offend God, but because in their personal opinion, they don’t think God could possibly be offended by it (or they decide that there would be something wrong with a God who is offended by these things).Don’t you have to set out to offend God in a serious way and just not care?