Mortal Sin---What is "Full Knowledge"?

[Bookcat]

What is the difference here??? In the example of the 2 sons, the son blatantly told his Father “I will NOT”. How is this different from saying )to our father in Heaven) “I will not” go to mass, but then to go in order to be obedient?

The Mass is for certain a grave obligation…so it can be a mortal sin.

If the going to the field would be a grave obligation…yes it can be mortal too.

In both cases if the person makes an a decision with full knowledge and with deliberate consent …such is already a mortal sin.

In the end if both go to do what they are suppose do to do…yes they have both done what they were to do…but both can still have mortal sin to deal with for their earlier choice

 

[Bookcat]

Well, then perhaps the Church is wrong, since the Bible seems to directly contradict it with an example that is practically the exact same scenario.

Nope it does not. give me a sec I will show how.

 

[Thoughtfulone]

The Mass is for certain a grave obligation…so it can be a mortal sin.

If the going to the field would be a grave obligation…yes it can be mortal too.

In both cases if the person makes an a decision with full knowledge and with deliberate consent …such is already a mortal sin.

In the end if both go to do what they are suppose do to do…yes they have both done what they were to do…but both can still have mortal sin to deal with for their earlier choice

Honoring one’s father and mother is a grave obligation, which this person would have been ignoring with full knowledge and consent of the will in his mind when he said “I will not.” Jesus doesn’t seem to think this is a concern at all here because the son ended up doing the right thing.

 

[jmcrae]

If I decide to kill my wife…with full knowledge and complete consent…but later in a new decision decide not to…say I fear I get caught or I repent…I have still committed a mortal sin. I have not murdered in action …but I have sinned mortally if I had full knowledge and complete consent.

If you changed your mind, then you did not commit murder. It doesn’t matter what you were thinking about, earlier. If the action did not follow the thought, then the will was not engaged, and no sin took place.

 

[Bookcat]

Jesus is teaching with a parable to teach certain things…not teaching a class in Moral Theology. That is important to note from the beginning.

Now…having said that. Lets look at the story.

If the son chooses to omit (not do) what his Father tells him to do…and such is a grave matter (not saying actually in this case that it was…) then if he does so with full knowledge and deliberate consent he will have committed a mortal sin. Now if he then “changes his mind” (one can not change ones mind unless actually one has made up ones mind already to do or not do something) and does what he was told to do then he has “done what his Father told him” but he has still committed a mortal sin earlier.

Same with the Mass obligation. But in this case…one certainly has a grave obligation.
So a person who with full knowledge and deliberated consent decides not to go to Mass on a Sunday…they have already committed a mortal sin. But if they later “change their mind” …they make a new choice to go and do go…then they have “done what the Church requires” and fulfilled their obligation. They will not need to confess missing Mass…but rather they will need to confess the interior mortal sin of choosing to Miss it.

Now actually in the parable of Jesus…it is not so much about a “grave matter” one can argue…but here it is about doing the will of God…of the Father…in all sorts of things…many of which would not be “sinful” to not choose…say for example in the matter of vocation…a person may find that God is calling them to the Religious Life…but not go…(not a sin)…but later change their mind and go…and thus “do the will of God” in that matter which was a matter of counsel not commandment etc…

 

[Bookcat]

If you changed your mind, then you did not commit murder. It doesn’t matter what you were thinking about, earlier. If the action did not follow the thought, then the will was not engaged, and no sin took place.

Murder no…but I still sinned mortally. Such is the case.

Your understanding of the will and sin is not how the Church looks at it.

One can commit a purely internal moral sin…in all kinds of areas.

 

[Bookcat]

Honoring one’s father and mother is a grave obligation, which this person would have been ignoring with full knowledge and consent of the will in his mind when he said “I will not.” Jesus doesn’t seem to think this is a concern at all here because the son ended up doing the right thing.

see post …answered this.

 

[jmcrae]

Jesus is teaching with a parable to teach certain things…not teaching a class in Moral Theology. That is important to note from the beginning.

Now…having said that. Lets look at the story.

If the son chooses to omit (not do) what his Father tells him to do…and such is a grave matter (not saying actually in this case that it was…) then if he does so with full knowledge and deliberate consent he will have committed a mortal sin. Now if he then “changes his mind” (one can not change ones mind unless actually one has made up ones mind already to do or not do something) and does what he was told to do then he has “done what his Father told him” but he has still committed a mortal sin earlier.

And yet, Jesus accounts him virtuous.

Now actually in the parable of Jesus…it is not so much about a “grave matter” one can argue…but here it is about doing the will of God…of the Father…in all sorts of things…many of which would not be “sinful” to not choose…say for example in the matter of vocation…a person may find that God is calling them to the Religious Life…but not go…(not a sin)…but later change their mind and go…and thus “do the will of God” in that matter which was a matter of counsel not commandment etc…

No, Jesus is talking about being obedient to the Commandments, here. He is telling them that it is the doing of the Commandments that makes us virtuous - not thinking about doing them, or talking about doing them. It was the son who thought he would not obey, but then later did obey, who was accounted virtuous - not the one who thought he would obey, but then did not obey. Jesus is telling us that our thoughts don’t enter into it - it is our actions that will be judged.

 

[Bookcat]

Honoring one’s father and mother is a grave obligation, which this person would have been ignoring with full knowledge and consent of the will in his mind when he said “I will not.” Jesus doesn’t seem to think this is a concern at all here because the son ended up doing the right thing.

Ok lets presume it was grave matter for the son. But even if not…still a sin is a sin.

Lets look again at the full story:

Jesus is addressing the Chief Priests and elders of the temple…after they have challenged him on what he was doing…

Matt: 21:23-32 RSV CE

28 “What do you think? A man had two sons; and he went to the first and said, Son, go and work in the vineyard today.' 29 And he answered, I will not’; but afterward he repented and went.
30 And he went to the second and said the same; and he answered, `I go, sir,’ but did not go.
31 Which of the two did the will of his father?” They said, “The first.” Jesus said to them, "Truly, I say to you, the tax collectors and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before you.
32 For John came to you in the way of righteousness, and you did not believe him, but the tax collectors and the harlots believed him; and even when you saw it, you did not afterward repent and believe him.

The parable is directed towards the chief priests and elders…

The grave sinners …were getting into the kingdom before them! Harlots (prostitutes)…how??? by repenting…

The son ‘repented’ and went and did what his Father wanted…he repented for what he had chosen…

Just as I must do if I choose not to go to Mass…but later change my mind.

Jesus is not saying “all was fine” with the son…that he did not need to repent…(that he did not sin in his choice) …but rather he did…just like the prostitutes…

he is using this story …as directed to the Priests etc of the Temple…pointing out to them…hey these guys sinned…the prostitutes etc…but now they heard the call to repent and the have…and are getting into the Kingdom !

 

[Bookcat]

And yet, Jesus accounts him virtuous.

No, Jesus is talking about being obedient to the Commandments, here. He is telling them that it is the doing of the Commandments that makes us virtuous - not thinking about doing them, or talking about doing them. It was the son who thought he would not obey, but then later did obey, who was accounted virtuous - not the one who thought he would obey, but then did not obey. Jesus is telling us that our thoughts don’t enter into it - it is our actions that will be judged.

Nope he did not account him “virtuous”…read last post.

 

[jmcrae]

Nope he did not account him “virtuous”…read last post.

The harlots and tax collectors have ceased to do the actions of prostitution and embezzlement. In their thoughts they think of themselves as those things, but in their actions - having become obedient to the Commandments, and having ceased to do those actions - they have become (by action, not by thoughts) Saints.

 

[Bookcat]

The harlots and tax collectors have ceased to do the actions of prostitution and embezzlement. In their thoughts they think of themselves as those things, but in their actions - having become obedient to the Commandments, and having ceased to do those actions - they have become (by action, not by thoughts) Saints.

Jesus is using the VERY EXAMPLE of the son who decided not to go…but then changed is mind and went to point out to the Priests etc that hey look these guys …these prostitutes etc are repenting…are changing their minds and repenting.

By the way…It is a Parable.

Not a class in moral theology.

What I have said is simply Catholic Teaching and Moral Theology.

 

[Bookcat]

The harlots and tax collectors have ceased to do the actions of prostitution and embezzlement. In their thoughts they think of themselves as those things, but in their actions - having become obedient to the Commandments, and having ceased to do those actions - they have become (by action, not by thoughts) Saints.

besides…God takes the heart very seriously. As Jesus took pains to point out.

 

[Bookcat]

If I say hate someone and desire that they be gravely harmed with full knowledge and complete consent…such is a mortal sin (grave sin). I do not have to actually kill him or do him actual grave harm. My hatred and desire is enough.

This is taking place just in my thoughts.

Again this is simply the case. A mortal sin does not have to be an exterior action.

 

[jmcrae]

If I say hate someone and desire that they be gravely harmed with full knowledge and complete consent…such is a mortal sin (grave sin).

It is the sin of anger; not the sin of murder.

What is the sin, if someone thinks they won’t go to Mass, but then they go anyway? It isn’t sloth, because they went anyway. Nor is it anger, or lust.

 

[Bookcat]

It is the sin of anger; not the sin of murder.

What is the sin, if someone thinks they won’t go to Mass, but then they go anyway? It isn’t sloth, because they went anyway. Nor is it anger, or lust.

Yes it is a sin of Hatred. And is mortal. (John of course does say…those who hates is a murderer…1 John 4:20…and Jesus linked anger up with murder…but yes when one means “the Act of murder” it is not murder …but to choose to desire to murder someone is the gravely sinful choice )

Is it a grave sin? without action? Is it not?
The principle holds for ALL grave matters.

If X is a grave matter.

If I choose to do X …and this is only interiorly …with full knowledge and complete consent…such is a mortal sin

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7298150&postcount=72

(one can sin in thought other ways too…as described above…desire …pleasure etc…)

Such is Catholic Teaching.

 

[Mijoy2]

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.

They certainly can - see invincible ignorance. Condemnation for what amounts to honest mistakes is what would be contrary to God’s justice.

Some (even priests in the confessional) would say that, “you cannot commit a mortal sin without knowing it”. This is an exact quote I received in the confessional.

I’m not sure what to make of this myself and do not profess to know. However what I can say is that catholics pride themselves on having an objective (as opposed to subjective) truth. yet when asked if a sin is mortal y ou get as many answers as you do cathoics you ask. What is and what is not a mortal sin will never be appropriately answered IMO. It will go round and round like a merry-go-round throughout eternity.

One argument (possibly the argument of the priest in the confessional) might be: If the matter is grave and was commited with FULL knowledge and FULL consent, the sin is mortal. The question becomes define “FULL”.

On FULL knowledge:

If a catholic is not aware of, of does not believe the catholic church to be infallible in it’s teching on faith and/or morals (which the vast majority of catholics do not), then they might believe that the catholic church says missing mass is a mortal sin, however they believe otherwise. Here thier FULL knowledged is compromised.

On FULL consent:

If one knows the catholic churches teaching on missing mass is a mortal sin AND they believe that what the church teaches is in fact infallible, yet miss mass because thier wife insisted they mow the lawn instead and he knows that if he disobeys her a fight will insue then here his FULL consent is compromised.

So in order for a sin to be truly mortal, the individual will have to say, “the church is infallible in it’s teaching and I have no excuse what-so-ever not to go, therefore if I do not go to mass I will put my soul in jepopardy of hell, yet I am not going”, then the sin is mortal.

Oyyy, I’ll have many people disagree with this perspective i am sure. but what else could the priest have meant? And, who would actually do such a thing?

I propose we (catholics) are as relative as the next guy.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes it is a sin of Hatred. And is mortal. (John of course does say…those who hates is a murderer…1 John 4:20…and Jesus linked anger up with murder…but yes when one means “the Act of murder” it is not murder …but to choose to desire to murder someone is the gravely sinful choice )

Is it a grave sin? without action? Is it not?
The principle holds for ALL grave matters.

If X is a grave matter.

If I choose to do X …and this is only interiorly …with full knowledge and complete consent…such is a mortal sin

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=7298150&postcount=72

(one can sin in thought other ways too…as described above…desire …pleasure etc…)

Such is Catholic Teaching.

There are interior sins and there are exterior sins, but you seem to be confusing them together. Thinking about doing an exterior sin is not the same thing as doing an interior sin.

 

[Bookcat]

There are interior sins and there are exterior sins, but you seem to be confusing them together. Thinking about doing an exterior sin is not the same thing as doing an interior sin.

I have never ever confused the two. I have always distinguished.

A person can commit an interior mortal sin.

A person can commit mortal sin in exterior action.

Of course they are different.

But both are mortal sins.

One can be the mortal sin of choosing hate someone…desiring grave harm to them (only interiorly) with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

and the other can be the mortal sin of inflicting grave harm on them with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Both are mortal sins.

The first commits a mortal sin only interiorly but it is still mortal.

The second commits a mortal sin that is also exterior.

A person can choose interiorly to not go to Sunday Mass (without excusing reason) with full knowledge and deliberate consent. (even though they later change their mind and go).

A Person can choose to not go to Sunday Mass (without excusing reason) with full knowledge and complete consent.

Both commit a mortal sin.

The first commits a mortal sin only interiorly but it is still mortal.

The second commits a mortal sin that is also exterior.

(of course again…one needs to not confuse temptation etc with consent…and those with scruples etc…read my post above …and of course all can read the post on signs of not giving full consent above)

This is Catholic Moral Theology

(I am not just “pulling this out of a hat” …I have a very sound background in Catholic Theology…a degree in Theology from Franciscan University of Steubenville…and can assure you this is what one will find too in the texts on Catholic Moral Theology)

 

[Thoughtfulone]

Some (even priests in the confessional) would say that, “you cannot commit a mortal sin without knowing it”. This is an exact quote I received in the confessional.

I’m not sure what to make of this myself and do not profess to know. However what I can say is that catholics pride themselves on having an objective (as opposed to subjective) truth. yet when asked if a sin is mortal y ou get as many answers as you do cathoics you ask. What is and what is not a mortal sin will never be appropriately answered IMO. It will go round and round like a merry-go-round throughout eternity.

One argument (possibly the argument of the priest in the confessional) might be: If the matter is grave and was commited with FULL knowledge and FULL consent, the sin is mortal. The question becomes define “FULL”.

On FULL knowledge:

If a catholic is not aware of, of does not believe the catholic church to be infallible in it’s teching on faith and/or morals (which the vast majority of catholics do not), then they might believe that the catholic church says missing mass is a mortal sin, however they believe otherwise. Here thier FULL knowledged is compromised.

On FULL consent:

If one knows the catholic churches teaching on missing mass is a mortal sin AND they believe that what the church teaches is in fact infallible, yet miss mass because thier wife insisted they mow the lawn instead and he knows that if he disobeys her a fight will insue then here his FULL consent is compromised.

So in order for a sin to be truly mortal, the individual will have to say, “the church is infallible in it’s teaching and I have no excuse what-so-ever not to go, therefore if I do not go to mass I will put my soul in jepopardy of hell, yet I am not going”, then the sin is mortal.

Oyyy, I’ll have many people disagree with this perspective i am sure. but what else could the priest have meant? And, who would actually do such a thing?

I propose we (catholics) are as relative as the next guy.

Yes! Thank you for this post!