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

[Bookcat]

If you get a craving for chocolate and “decide” to cheat on your diet, but then when mealtime comes, by the force of habit, and lack of any chocolate in the house, you make a healthy meal, you are still a glutton, and still in the state of mortal sin for gluttony, by your rules, are you not?

who says such is a mortal sin??? not the Church or me. Overeating(if this is even that) is ordinarily venial matter…not grave

And again, if you think of passing on some news about your friend, but then later you change your mind because it’s nobody else’s business, really, you are still guilty of the mortal sin of gossip, because you thought of passing on the news, and the thought is the same thing as actually doing it, by your rules.

Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent!

Such would be a moral sin if I say …decided to detract seriously about someone with full knowledge and complete consent…

again and again we are not talking about temptations…or ANYTHING less than when one has full knowledge and deliberate consent…(in so far as Mortal sin is concerned)

Which apparently don’t apply to you, yourself - only to other people.

I apply it to myself…of course!! You mistook what I wrote

 

[Bookcat]

If you can lose all grace merely by thinking of sin, then surely you must be able to gain all grace, merely by thinking of virtue?

One is not loosing all grace “by merely thinking of sin”

I have said this over and over again.

For mortal sin one needs more than temptation…etc

one needs full knowledge and deliberate consent!!!

and it has to be grave matter…not just any thinking.

I can think all sorts of things without any sin. Like I can think about Knights killing each other with swords…this is not the same as my willing to kill someone or choosing to kill someone with my sword.

 

[jmcrae]

One is not loosing all grace “by merely thinking of sin”

Mortal sin is, by definition, the loss of all grace.

You have said that to think of missing Mass is the same mortal sin as to actually miss Mass - the loss of all grace, and the certainty of Hell, if a good Confession isn’t made, in specific kind and number, prior to death.

one needs full knowledge and deliberate consent!!!

You have said that the thought alone is, itself, the full and deliberate consent - no action is required. If you have a craving for chocolate, you are already a glutton, and already in the state of mortal sin, even if you never go out and buy any chocolate.

and it has to be grave matter…not just any thinking.

Gluttony and gossip are both extremely grave sins.

I can think all sorts of things without any sin. Like I can think about Knights killing each other with swords…this is not the same as my willing to kill someone or choosing to kill someone with my sword.

Not even if, in your daydream, you play the role of a knight?

 

[Shin]

‘A person sins by complacency, when he does not desire to commit the sinful act, but delights in it as if he had committed it. This complacency is called morose delectation. It is called morose, not because the complacency in the thought of the unchaste acts lasts for a considerable time, but because the will dwells with delight on the thought. Hence the sin of complacency may, as St. Thomas teaches, be committed in a moment. “It is called morose,” says the holy Doctor, “not be cause one fakes pleasure for some time in the impure act, but because the will is resolved to dwell on the thought which it should reject at once.” he says “libenter” (" with pleasure") to remove scruples from persons of timorous conscience, who suffer against their will certain carnal motions and delights, although they do all in their power to banish them. Though the inferior part should feel a certain delight, as long as the will does not consent, there is no sin, at least no mortal sin.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

‘Blessed the one who stands in the assembly and prays like an Angel from heaven, keeping his thoughts pure day by day, and has given no entrance to the Evil One to make his soul a prisoner, far from God his Saviour.’

St. Ephrem of Syria, Father and Doctor of the Church

‘When the delectation which attends temptation** might have been avoided**, but has not been avoided, there is **always **a certain amount of sin according to the degree to which we **have lingered **over it, and the kind of pleasure we have taken in it. If a woman who has not wilfully attracted unlawful admiration, nevertheless takes pleasure in such admiration, she is doing wrong, always supposing that what pleases her is the admiration. But if the person who courts her plays exquisitely on the lute, and she took pleasure, not in the personal attentions paid to herself, but in the sweetness and harmony of the music, there would be no sin in that, although it would be wrong to give way to any extent to her pleasure, for fear of its leading on to pleasure in the pursuit of herself. So again, if some clever stratagem whereby to avenge me of an enemy is suggested, and I take no satisfaction and give no consent to the vengeance, but am only pleased at the cleverness of the invention, I am not sinning; although it were very inexpedient to dwell long upon it, lest little by little I should go on to take pleasure in the thought of revenge.’

St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church

 

[Shin]

God requires us to be pure, not only in exterior actions but interiorly.

 

[Bookcat]

Mortal sin is, by definition, the loss of all grace.

You have said that to think of missing Mass is the same mortal sin as to actually miss Mass - the loss of all grace, and the certainty of Hell, if a good Confession isn’t made, in specific kind and number, prior to death.

I did not say “to think of missing Mass is the same mortal sin as to actually miss Mass” Never. I carefully said it is a mortal sin for example to decide to not go to Mass (without excusing reason)(though one can commit a mortal sin in other ways) if such is done with full knowledge and complete consent. Yes of course. This is how this is understood in the Catholic Church. But It is not the “same mortal sin” as missing Mass…actually missing Mass (without excusing reason) would make the sin worse. And yes the person is in danger of hell …for they may not make it to confession or have a perfect act of Contrition etc…before death.

You have said that the thought alone is, itself, the full and deliberate consent - no action is required. If you have a craving for chocolate, you are already a glutton, and already in the state of mortal sin, even if you never go out and buy any chocolate.

Yes one can commit a mortal sin “in ones thoughts” in various ways. Mortal sin in thought or action or omission or desire…still needs the three things…grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent. and one needs to understand what is meant by thoughts here…and also what is temptation and what is sin.

The example you give here is “objectively” more in the order of “maybe a venial sin” if eating the Chocolate would be contrary to reason. Over eating…is ordinarily objectively VENIAL MATTER not grave matter…so one would not want to use such as an example of mortal sin (objectively)…If I was to crave chocolate and was on a diet…and was to consent to such a desire…there can be no sin at all for me…or perhaps a wee venial sin…but certainly not mortal…for I am very aware that such is not grave matter…It is not going to cause some grave injury to my health in the short term.

Gluttony and gossip are both extremely grave sins.

Gluttony and gossip (or detraction) can be grave matters. Gluttony for example in if one were to choose to get drunk and thus loose ones reason…and detraction if what one reveals without objective reason is a grave thing…or would do grave damage to them etc…

Not even if, in your daydream, you play the role of a knight?

If I day dream that I am a knight…I would of course only daydream of acting as t just knight …but no…just like watching a movie I enjoy the trill of the bank robbery…such is not willing to rob banks…such is not sinful…it does not led me to sin. This is fiction.

Though of course sexual matters in this sort of thing is a different case…

 

[Pug]

Gluttony and gossip are both extremely grave sins.

I have not been taught that gluttony is categorized as extremely grave. It is a capital sin, and the list of capital sins is easily confused as being a list of the most grave sins. That is not why they are in that list. They are listed because they are important sources of actual sin. They lead to the commission of more actual sins. They are also classed as vices. A particular instance of gluttony is often venial matter. So, buying and eating a small bar of chocolate is not a mortal sin. Neither is deciding to buy a bar of chocolate, even if you never make it to the store for some reason.

 

[Bookcat]

Hello all,

I was in contact with a very good Priest whom I know…and related the substance of the debate to him. He too noted that what I have stated is correct…

“For a mortal sin to be committed, there must be full knowledge and complete consent…and this can apply either to a sinful decision which is internal only (such as to miss Mass without sufficient cause), or to the actual physical missing of the Mass.”

In trying to find other sources to better explain what I have been trying to get across I also was able to get a hold of Jimmy Akin (senior Apologist of Catholic Answers) who kindly replied (he is very busy…so my thanks to him)

I related the substance of the debate and stated regarding the person who made the internal decision to miss Mass…(my “example”):

"…that they have committed a mortal sin though internally at the moment that they decided to not go to Mass without an excusing reason–if this is done with full knowledge and complete consent. This would be a mortal sin that was internal. It is not the mortal sin of “missing Mass yet”. But a mortal sin non-the- less.

For a mortal sin one needs grave matter (making the choice not to go to Mass) and full knowledge and complete consent. In the case described the person had all three aspects. Just as a person who decides to murder someone and makes that decision with full knowledge and complete consent has already committed a mortal sin internally. He has not committed the sin of murder in action yet…but if he repents and later does not do the murder in action…he still needs to confess the mortal sin of deciding to do so."

His reply which he has given me permission to post is as follows:

"You are correct. The knowing, deliberate choice to commit a gravely sinful action is itself a mortal sin even if the external act is not performed. Cf. Jesus’ comments regarding lusting after a woman in your heart; also the ninth and tenth commandments, which internalize earlier commandments.

That said, there is often a pastoral question of whether one has made a deliberate choice if an act is not followed through on. If someone has a defiant thought of, “I’m just not going to Mass today!” and then repents a second later then it is likely that this was not a fully deliberate thought but some kind of partially deliberate thought or nondeliberate impulse.

“Did you follow through?” is often a helpful question in pastoral circumstances to determine just how serious a person was about a choice. In cases of dealing with the scrupulous and those with OCD, “Did you follow through?” is often used as a test of whether the choice was deliberate since most of the bad thoughts these people have are non- or only partially deliberate. In such cases, “If you didn’t follow through then assume it was not mortal, put it out of your mind, and don’t confess it,” becomes sound pastoral advice. The existence of scruples or OCD excuses from a materially integral confession in such cases because trying to sort out which thoughts were fully deliberate and which weren’t will send the penitent into an endless and spiritually harmful spiral.

Hope this helps.

–Jimmy Akin"

---

As usual…his explanation covers a good number of things…bringing a good amount of light.

 

[steve_b]

‘A person sins by complacency, when he does not desire to commit the sinful act, but delights in it as if he had committed it. This complacency is called morose delectation. It is called morose, not because the complacency in the thought of the unchaste acts lasts for a considerable time, but because the will dwells with delight on the thought. Hence the sin of complacency may, as St. Thomas teaches, be committed in a moment. “It is called morose,” says the holy Doctor, “not be cause one fakes pleasure for some time in the impure act, but **because the will is resolved to dwell **on the thought which it should reject at once.” he says “libenter” (" with pleasure") to remove scruples from persons of timorous conscience, who suffer against their will certain carnal motions and delights, although they do all in their power to banish them. Though the inferior part should feel a certain delight, as long as the will does not consent, there is no sin, at least no mortal sin.’

St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori, Doctor of the Church

‘Blessed the one who stands in the assembly and prays like an Angel from heaven, keeping his thoughts pure day by day, and has given no entrance to the Evil One to make his soul a prisoner, far from God his Saviour.’

St. Ephrem of Syria, Father and Doctor of the Church

‘When the delectation which attends temptation** might have been avoided**, but has not been avoided, there is **always **a certain amount of sin according to the degree to which we **have lingered **over it, and the kind of pleasure we have taken in it. If a woman who has not wilfully attracted unlawful admiration, nevertheless takes pleasure in such admiration, she is doing wrong, always supposing that what pleases her is the admiration. But if the person who courts her plays exquisitely on the lute, and she took pleasure, not in the personal attentions paid to herself, but in the sweetness and harmony of the music, there would be no sin in that, although it would be wrong to give way to any extent to her pleasure, for fear of its leading on to pleasure in the pursuit of herself. So again, if some clever stratagem whereby to avenge me of an enemy is suggested, and I take no satisfaction and give no consent to the vengeance, but am only pleased at the cleverness of the invention, I am not sinning; although it were very inexpedient to dwell long upon it, lest little by little I should go on to take pleasure in the thought of revenge.’

St. Francis de Sales, Doctor of the Church

The doctors give excellent counsel. In particular, your selection from St Francis

 

[Bookcat]

Hello all,

I was in contact with a very good Priest whom I know…and related the substance of the debate to him. He too noted that what I have stated is correct…

“For a mortal sin to be committed, there must be full knowledge and complete consent…and this can apply either to a sinful decision which is internal only (such as to miss Mass without sufficient cause), or to the actual physical missing of the Mass.”

---

In trying to find other sources to better explain what I have been trying to get across I also was able to get a hold of Jimmy Akin (senior Apologist of Catholic Answers) who kindly replied (he is very busy…so my thanks to him)

I related the substance of the debate and stated regarding the person who made the internal decision to miss Mass…(my “example”):

"…that they have committed a mortal sin though internally at the moment that they decided to not go to Mass without an excusing reason–if this is done with full knowledge and complete consent. This would be a mortal sin that was internal. It is not the mortal sin of “missing Mass yet”. But a mortal sin non-the- less.

For a mortal sin one needs grave matter (making the choice not to go to Mass) and full knowledge and complete consent. In the case described the person had all three aspects. Just as a person who decides to murder someone and makes that decision with full knowledge and complete consent has already committed a mortal sin internally. He has not committed the sin of murder in action yet…but if he repents and later does not do the murder in action…he still needs to confess the mortal sin of deciding to do so."

His reply which he has given me permission to post is as follows:

---

"You are correct. The knowing, deliberate choice to commit a gravely sinful action is itself a mortal sin even if the external act is not performed. Cf. Jesus’ comments regarding lusting after a woman in your heart; also the ninth and tenth commandments, which internalize earlier commandments.

That said, there is often a pastoral question of whether one has made a deliberate choice if an act is not followed through on. If someone has a defiant thought of, “I’m just not going to Mass today!” and then repents a second later then it is likely that this was not a fully deliberate thought but some kind of partially deliberate thought or nondeliberate impulse.

“Did you follow through?” is often a helpful question in pastoral circumstances to determine just how serious a person was about a choice. In cases of dealing with the scrupulous and those with OCD, “Did you follow through?” is often used as a test of whether the choice was deliberate since most of the bad thoughts these people have are non- or only partially deliberate. In such cases, “If you didn’t follow through then assume it was not mortal, put it out of your mind, and don’t confess it,” becomes sound pastoral advice. The existence of scruples or OCD excuses from a materially integral confession in such cases because trying to sort out which thoughts were fully deliberate and which weren’t will send the penitent into an endless and spiritually harmful spiral.

Hope this helps.

–Jimmy Akin"

---

As usual…his explanation covers a good number of things…bringing a good amount of light!

 

[jmcrae]

Well then, it needs to be on the Examen, because there are probably thousands of Catholics who have had sinful thoughts not related to lust or anger, but didn’t Confess them in kind and number, because they aren’t listed on the Examen. Only lust, envy and anger are listed - nothing about thinking of missing Mass and then not missing Mass, or anything else like that.

This would also make invalid every Confession they have ever made since thinking of but not doing whatever sins they may have thought of - which means that they will be found guilty at the Judgement Day of not only the thought of missing Mass (or whatever), but every other sin that they thought they had Confessed in a good Confession - since it is not possible to make a good Confession, if you have even one unconfessed mortal sin from the past.

 

[Pug]

since it is not possible to make a good Confession, if you have even one unconfessed mortal sin from the past.

You are only obliged to tell the mortal sins that you remember and know about. Then, if you refuse to tell one of those, you have a bad confession. The requirement of integral confession does not require super powers of remembrance and divination. Just do the best you can, skipping nothing you remember since your last good confession, and it is fine!

At your last confession, anything that was a mortal sin of thought that you didn’t remember to list was forgiven. If sometime later you happen to remember a mortal sin of some kind that you didn’t list, just say it at your next confession. And don’t stress if you forget to mention it in the future. Just mention it if it comes back to mind at your examination of conscience. You don’t need to list what you don’t remember. Anyway, the guilt was already forgiven for accidentally unlisted sins.

So, these unremembered sins are not invalidating confessions everywhere. Truly it is okay. Ask a priest about unremembered sins and he will tell you this.:hug3:

Also, remember that if you sincerely didn’t know it was any kind of sin when you did the action or thought, then it isn’t mortal for that reason alone. Knowledge gained after the fact doesn’t travel back in time and turn venial sins into mortal sins.

 

[jmcrae]

You are only obliged to tell the mortal sins that you remember and know about. Then, if you refuse to tell one of those, you have a bad confession. The requirement of integral confession does not require super powers of remembrance and divination. Just do the best you can, skipping nothing you remember since your last good confession, and it is fine!

At your last confession, anything that was a mortal sin of thought that you didn’t remember to list was forgiven. If sometime later you happen to remember a mortal sin of some kind that you didn’t list, just say it at your next confession. And don’t stress if you forget to mention it in the future. Just mention it if it comes back to mind at your examination of conscience. You don’t need to list what you don’t remember. Anyway, the guilt was already forgiven for accidentally unlisted sins.

So, these unremembered sins are not invalidating confessions everywhere. Truly it is okay. Ask a priest about unremembered sins and he will tell you this.:hug3:

Also, remember that if you sincerely didn’t know it was any kind of sin when you did the action or thought, then it isn’t mortal for that reason alone. Knowledge gained after the fact doesn’t travel back in time and turn venial sins into mortal sins.

Well, the person in the OP didn’t know that thinking of missing Mass was a mortal sin, but Bookcat has been telling her that she committed sacrilege when she did go to Mass, later in the day, and needs to confess both sins - even though the OP had no idea that she had sinned at all.

 

[Shin]

Well then, it needs to be on the Examen, because there are probably thousands of Catholics who have had sinful thoughts not related to lust or anger, but didn’t Confess them in kind and number, because they aren’t listed on the Examen. Only lust, envy and anger are listed - nothing about thinking of missing Mass and then not missing Mass, or anything else like that.

This would also make invalid every Confession they have ever made since thinking of but not doing whatever sins they may have thought of - which means that they will be found guilty at the Judgement Day of not only the thought of missing Mass (or whatever), but every other sin that they thought they had Confessed in a good Confession - since it is not possible to make a good Confession, if you have even one unconfessed mortal sin from the past.

FWIF

The quote earlier said:

‘In order to make a good examination of conscience the penitent should adopt some system; the simplest and easiest method is to go through the commandments of God and of the Church, the various kinds of sins (especially the Seven Capital Sins), and the nine ways of participating in sin; it is also recommended to call to mind particular hours and days. Theologians give many other methods besides for this examination. Reuter recommends the penitent to recall where he was each day, what was done, and what sins were committed by thoughts, wishes, and desires, words, and works ; how he has conducted himself at home, in church, with his neighbors; the author considers that by this means repetition will be avoided.’

• Theory and Practice of the Confessional

Included as you see in the examination of conscience. If at your local parish you’ve not gotten catechized fully, that’s an issue to take up there.

It’s also included in acts of contrition, ‘in thought, word, or deed’, it is as has been noted basic and referenced everywhere.

Failure to make a good examination of conscience – the degree of effect that has depends partly on the individual’s culpability. Was the lack of knowledge of how to confess due to a gravely culpable sin of negligence or carelessless, or not?

If it was not gravely negligent, I read in Theory and Practice, it can be excused (one should confess everything about the matter with a good Confessor), and then the usual conditions about confessing mortal sins already absolved apply.

 

[Bookcat]

Well, the person in the OP didn’t know that thinking of missing Mass was a mortal sin, but Bookcat has been telling her that she committed sacrilege when she did go to Mass, later in the day, and needs to confess both sins - even though the OP had no idea that she had sinned at all.

I HAVE NOT been telling anyone they have committed sacrilege or mortal sin of any kind!!!

I have used a “non person”… a person that does not exist as an example…or myself in some hypothetical situation

I have ONLY discussed the moral principles involved (and how one can also not be sinning!!..)

I have no window into some other persons conscience whom I do not even know…into what they knew at the time…or if they gave deliberate consent…

I have never ever said any of this. You must have misread something too quickly.

 

[Bookcat]

Well then, it needs to be on the Examen, because there are probably thousands of Catholics who have had sinful thoughts not related to lust or anger, but didn’t Confess them in kind and number, because they aren’t listed on the Examen. Only lust, envy and anger are listed - nothing about thinking of missing Mass and then not missing Mass, or anything else like that.

I would not word it that way…it not “nothing but thinking” there can be all sorts of non-sinful thoughts that can occur…as I have noted. And examens are not meant as exhaustive things…they are as the author writes…and only that. Sins of thought are general catagories…

This would also make invalid every Confession they have ever made since thinking of but not doing whatever sins they may have thought of - which means that they will be found guilty at the Judgement Day of not only the thought of missing Mass (or whatever), but every other sin that they thought they had Confessed in a good Confession - since it is not possible to make a good Confession, if you have even one unconfessed mortal sin from the past.

NO! If a person did not honestly know…did not even know he should know …such a person did not commit a mortal sin! (all three things are required) And also one has to knowingly withhold something that is mortal …in order to make a “bad confession”…not some accidental forgetting etc…

of course when one remembers something that is MORTAL then one needs to confess it in the next confession…not that it was has not already been absolved indirectly when they forgot but was trying to confess their mortal sins…and were sorry for them…

 

[jmcrae]

I HAVE NOT been telling anyone they have committed sacrilege or mortal sin of any kind!!!

I have used a “non person”… a person that does not exist as an example…or myself in some hypothetical situation

A “hypothetical situation” that happens to be the exact situation of the OP.* She* understood you to be speaking directly to her, and accusing her, which is why she started this thread, in the first place.

 

[Bookcat]

A “hypothetical situation” that happens to be the exact situation of the OP.* She* understood you to be speaking directly to her, and accusing her, which is why she started this thread, in the first place.

She did not start this thread…

Nor did she start the other one…it was someone elses question about Mass. I was answering him…

And again I did not “accuse” anyone. I explained that one could commit a mortal sin and when not. Lots of examples where given over time… many of them involving my deciding to murder my wife ( poor thing…hope she is not worried by now…) in both this thread and in the other

…she responded to my answer to another poster…and so I responded theologically to her questions or comments…but never did I “accuse” anyone of mortal sin.

Of course the thread is there for all to see.

As to speaking directly to her…sure if someone says “so if i take a gun and shoot my husband knowing that it is grave matter and do this with complete consent --would that be mortal sin?” I can say yes…all things being equal. Such is not to accuse. Not that she gave this example…I am here just saying that of course in a dialogue one answers questions etc…but no I did not accuse anyone of mortal sin etc …so something was misread somewhere.

 

[Pug]

Well, the person in the OP didn’t know that thinking of missing Mass was a mortal sin, but Bookcat has been telling her that she committed sacrilege when she did go to Mass, later in the day, and needs to confess both sins - even though the OP had no idea that she had sinned at all.

Unless I’ve been dozing too much, Bookcat has been talking about ideas that could be applicable to the general case of a general person and general sins of thought, and not assessing the actual decisions that Thoughtfulone made on a particular Sunday. I agree hypothetical thinking must be done carefully if there is an audience. :yup:

If a generic person assesses themselves before communion and is aware of no mortal sin and they fasted, etc., then they may go to communion. If the assessment turns up a mortal sin, they still must go to mass anyway on a day of obligation/Sunday. Just not communion until confession.

So, pretend I am a person who decided not to go to mass, but changed my mind when my mother-in-law showed up after breakfast. Also pretend I sincerely had no idea this was sinful, so long as I showed up in time. Then I would go to communion, and never end up confessing it as “unworthy communion”. There is no cause for alarm. It would be good if I (the hypothetical person) came to understand more about sins of thought, and never made decisions to skip mass anymore.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

"You are correct. The knowing, deliberate choice to commit a gravely sinful action is itself a mortal sin even if the external act is not performed. Cf. Jesus’ comments regarding lusting after a woman in your heart; also the ninth and tenth commandments, which internalize earlier commandments.

That said, there is often a pastoral question of whether one has made a deliberate choice if an act is not followed through on. If someone has a defiant thought of, “I’m just not going to Mass today!” and then repents a second later then it is likely that this was not a fully deliberate thought but some kind of partially deliberate thought or nondeliberate impulse.

“Did you follow through?” is often a helpful question in pastoral circumstances to determine just how serious a person was about a choice. In cases of dealing with the scrupulous and those with OCD, “Did you follow through?” is often used as a test of whether the choice was deliberate since most of the bad thoughts these people have are non- or only partially deliberate. In such cases, “If you didn’t follow through then assume it was not mortal, put it out of your mind, and don’t confess it,” becomes sound pastoral advice. The existence of scruples or OCD excuses from a materially integral confession in such cases because trying to sort out which thoughts were fully deliberate and which weren’t will send the penitent into an endless and spiritually harmful spiral.

Hope this helps.

–Jimmy Akin"

In other words: in some cases, the decision to not go to Mass can be a mortal sin. But generally speaking, the failure to follow through indicates that the decision was non- or only partially deliberate, and there is no need to confess it. Happily, everyone is right. Bookcat is right that such a decision can sometimes be mortal. jmcrae is right that such things generally don’t have to be confessed. Thoughtfulone’s conscience should be perfectly clear.

Group hug?