Mortal sins

  • Thread starter Thread starter water
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

water

Guest
I have a question. If one knew that it is a sin but somehow let it happen and later find out it was a mortal sin to do that (but he/she did not know it was a mortal sin at the time the sin was committed), had he/she committed a mortal sin?

Thanks!
 
I have a question. If one knew that it is a sin but somehow let it happen and later find out it was a mortal sin to do that (but he/she did not know it was a mortal sin at the time the sin was committed), had he/she committed a mortal sin?

Thanks!
In order to commit a mortal sin, one must have full knowledge that the sin is objectively a mortal sin, as well as full consent.

In the situation above, if someone just “let it happen” they probably did not have full consent. I say “probably” because I don’t know what you mean by “let it happen.” Sometimes we use words like that to rationalize our sins and eschew responsibility.

Now, if the person knew that it was a sin, whether mortal or venial, and said “This sin is just a little sin, it’s not that bad” I’d say they are guilty of presumption, which is a mortal sin. But it’s hard to judge with little knowledge. That’s what the examination of conscience and the priest is for.
 
In order to commit a mortal sin, one must have full knowledge that the sin is objectively a mortal sin, as well as full consent.

.
Not true. One only needs to know the Matter is grave… Knowing it is a “mortal” sin is not one of the criteria.

Three criteria for mortal sin are
1)Full Knowledge (knowing it is wrong)
2)deliberate intent (doing it anyway)
3)Grave Matter

A person who has never even heard the words Mortal Sin can easily comit one.

Another not to the OP we do not LET sin happen we comit sin.

Knowing somthing is gravely wrong…does not get one off the hook because they didn’t know it was a “mortal” sin.

The third criteria is not dependent on the persons knowledge. grave matter is in itself not dependent on the other two criteria.
 
Not true.

Three criteria for mortal sin are
1)Full Knowledge (knowing it is wrong)
2)deliberate intent (doing it anyway)
3)Grave Matter

A person who has never even heard the words Mortal Sin can easily comit one.

Another not to the OP we do not LET sin happen we comit sin.

Knowing somthing is gravely wrong…does not get one off the hook because they didn’t know it was a “mortal” sin.

The third criteria is not dependent on the persons knowledge. grave matter is in itself not dependent on the other two criteria.
Are you saying my mistake is in saying that one must have full knowledge that it is a mortal sin rather than a sin per se?
 
Are you saying my mistake is in saying that one must have full knowledge that it is a mortal sin rather than a sin per se?
Not knowing what a mortal sin is…does not get an individual off the hook

The full knowledge issue is a highly debated issue. Some theolgians say full knowledge means the individual knows its wrong…other theologians say the individual need to know the matter is gravely wrong.

EIther way an individual with a poorly formed conscience can be jaded enough to not realize grave matter is indeed grave. Remember the Matter itself does not rely on other criteria. Example is Murder…Murder is plain and simple…Murder.

We can be held responsible for hardness of heart…
 
Not knowing what a mortal sin is…does not get an individual off the hook

The full knowledge issue is a highly debated issue. Some theolgians say full knowledge means the individual knows its wrong…other theologians say the individual need to know the matter is gravely wrong.

EIther way an individual with a poorly formed conscience can be jaded enough to not realize grave matter is indeed grave. Remember the Matter itself does not rely on other criteria. Example is Murder…Murder is plain and simple…Murder.

We can be held responsible for hardness of heart…
Okay, the debate on knowledge aside (since we each stated different sides of the debate), I don’t see where you’re saying that I said something wrong.

I said:
“In order to commit a mortal sin, one must have full knowledge that the sin is objectively a mortal sin, as well as full consent.”
So:
  1. Knowledge that is [gravely] wrong
  2. Full consent
  3. [implied] It must be gravely wrong
You said:
1)Full Knowledge (knowing it is wrong)
2)deliberate intent (doing it anyway)
3)Grave Matter
Likewise the Catechism says:
Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
Is that the only place you disagreed with me?
 
In order to commit a mortal sin, one must have full knowledge that the sin is objectively a mortal sin, as well as full consent.

.
This is the crux of my clarification. Your wording implies that one must know there is such a thing as mortal sin…to be held guilty of committing one.

Whether you meant that is another matter. Grave matter and mortal sin are not the same thing. Grave matter is PART of a mortal sin.

One doesn not have to know the sin is objectively a mortal sin simple because knowledge of mortal sin is not the criteria. The presence of gravity is…this explaination rightly leaves the door open to a soul committing a mortal sin while have never even hearing of the term “mortal sin”
 
Sin is defined by St. Augustine as “Factum vel dictum vel conception aliquid contra legem aeternam” ~ Any Thought, Word, or Deed against the eternal Law of God.

Or to be more concise: Anything not the Will of God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
Or in other words:
  1. The Sin must be grave in matter. The Ten Commandments are all grave in matter. Also the six precepts of the Church.
  2. The person must have full knowledge that they are committing the act. They don’t have to know that the matter is grave, only that they are committing it.
  3. The person must be willing to commit the act. The person can not be forced to act and it still be considered neither willing, nor can the person be considered willing if they are not in there normal frame of mind.
If these three conditions aren’t met then the Sin is Venal.

An exercise I use to give RCIA candidates when I instructed and always lend itself to an evening long discussion was this:

A man is traveling down a street when a child darts out in front of his vehicle and is run over and dies. Was mortal or venal sin committed here?

First of all the class would try and show where this was an accident and not a sin at all. And I would have to point out that from St. Augustine definition of sin that if this wasn’t sin then God would have to have willed that child to die. And there would be those that had a hard time with seeing that there were only two choices; either it was Gods will or it wasn’t. There is no third alternative.

Once the class accepted that a sin was committed then we could move on with whether it was a venal sin or mortal. Then we had to discern if One; it was a grave matter. All of us would ready agree that the killing of a child was grave. Two; For the sake of argument I said that the man saw the child dart out in front of his vehicle. So yes, he knew he was running over the child. Three; Did the man willing run the child over? If the child darted out and the man could see what was happening but had no time to react then, no; the man wasn’t willing and only venal sin had been committed. If all three conditions aren’t met then the sin is venal in nature and not mortal. One of the conditions have to be true for it to be mortal, if one condition is false then the sin is venal.
1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
This paragraph from the Catechism is confusing because it seems to imply that the person needs to know that they are committing a sin which is not the case. A murderer only has to know that they are taking another’s life and be willing to do it for that person to be in mortal sin.
 
Is it a mortal sin to go to Mass and not receive the eucharist on holy days of obligation?
 
An exercise I use to give RCIA candidates when I instructed and always lend itself to an evening long discussion was this:

A man is traveling down a street when a child darts out in front of his vehicle and is run over and dies. Was mortal or venal sin committed here?

First of all the class would try and show where this was an accident and not a sin at all. And I would have to point out that from St. Augustine definition of sin that if this wasn’t sin then God would have to have willed that child to die. And there would be those that had a hard time with seeing that there were only two choices; either it was Gods will or it wasn’t. There is no third alternative.
Please tell me this is a bad joke.

Please point to a place either in Catechism or elsewhere* that an accidental death imparts a state of sin. What if a tree falls over and kills a child - to whom does the sin accrue? If I run out into traffic and get run over by a car - does the driver suffer sin? Or me, by my carelessness?

Or are we getting into uber-scruples here?

*i.e. is there anyone besides Augustine who finds sin in these situations?
 
Is it a mortal sin to go to Mass and not receive the eucharist on holy days of obligation?
No, but why would you go to Mass and not receive communion, unless you knew you were in mortal sin?

Jim
 
A man is traveling down a street when a child darts out in front of his vehicle and is run over and dies. Was mortal or venal sin committed here?
Neither …

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as "an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law."121

In your example the man does not do anything against reason, truth or right conscience. It is not an utterance, deed or desire contrary to the ‘eternal law’.

1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131

There must first be a sin before you try discerning whether it’s mortal or venial.
And I would have to point out that from St. Augustine definition of sin that if this wasn’t sin then God would have to have willed that child to die.
Surely St. Augustine also addressed the repercussions of original sin as well? Free will? (I don’t know to be honest)

From a Catholic perspective, Man as the summit of Creation choose to disobey God, correct? As a result he was wounded, and as the summit of creation it effected everything. Paradise was lost, death can happen, natural disasters can occur, etc.

Not to mention your example doesn’t address the reality that it may have been ‘allowed’ to achieve some greater good.

The Book of Job comes to mind
Once the class accepted that a sin was committed then we could move on with whether it was a venal sin or mortal.
My goodness and people wonder why scrupulosity is abound.

Totally off topic I know… and I may be wrong, but I doubt it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top