mortal sins

[angell1]

can someone help to explain what full knowledge means? in some cases, it’s more obvious than others, such as murder, theft, etC… bout what about contraception? what if you didn’t know that the church taught it was wrong, or didn’t understand why?

and is it easy for catholics who are committed to god and wanting to be holy to commit mortal sins? or it is more difficult?

based on examination of consciences, I think most of my sins nowadays are mainly venial (even though they feel mortal due to scrupulosity but that’s another story) but I’m not entirely sure.

but then I feel it may be too presumptuous to think I’m not committing mortal sins all the time. so is it normal to have periods of time where we are not in mortal sin?

most of them are pretty serious things, that normally people are unlikely to do, such as murder, theft, serioud fraud, adultery eTC…

are their particular mortal sins that serious catholics should be cautious of committing?

 

[Bookcat]

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
395. When does one commit a mortal sin?**

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.

and

**396. When does one commit a venial sin?
**
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.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[Bookcat]

I will re-post another older post of mine (general information regarding scrupulosity)

A person struggles with scruples - what ought they do?

A person with scrupulosity --ought to have a “regular confessor” who can direct them --and even give them some general principles to follow -to apply (principles for them due to their particular scruples -they are usually not for those with a normal conscience).

Thus with their direction they can “dismiss scruples” (in the older language despise them) - “act against them” (agere contra).

For example he might direct a particular penitent with scruples: “unless your certain of having committed mortal sin - make an act of contrition and go to Holy Communion.”

The Confessor will know his particular penitent and his scruples and can direct him.

Scruples are to be dismissed ~ not argued with.

To borrow and image from a Carthusian from centuries ago: Scruples are like a barking dog or a hissing goose -one does not stop to argue with a barking dog or a hissing goose does one? No one keeps walking.

Such ‘obedience’ to a regular confessor who knows of ones scruples (except in what is manifest sin - such as if he told them it was ok to murder someone or something certain like that) is key. Such is the age old practice.

 

[Disciple_Leader]

Hi Angel1
To be considered mortal a sin must be:
A grave matter
Must be committed with full knowledge , both of the sin and the gravity of the offense
Must be committed deliberately and with complete consent, or basically you know it was wrong and you did it anyway
I find it a challenge in today’s society , to stay pure and free from grave sin. Frequent confession , prayer and with God’s grace I battle it! Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me a sinner…

 

[e_c]

“Full knowledge” and “full freedom” (or “full consent”) should really be rendered “sufficient knowledge” and “sufficient consent.” Check St. Paul’s blasting of the Romans. “For they are without excuse…” etc.

Usually that sufficiency is pretty high, but in some matters (like murder, sexual acts “against nature”) it is less.

 

[Bookcat]

From the Compendium issued by Pope Benedict XVI
**
395. When does one commit a mortal sin?**

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.

and

**396. When does one commit a venial sin?
**
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.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

 

[e_c]

I think Benedict would be more than open to discussing the subtleties of moral knowledge. For catechetical purposes, “full knowledge” works. It gets the point across well enough, but it is a shorthand for a much larger concept.

 

[Bookcat]

I think Benedict would be more than open to discussing the subtleties of moral knowledge. For catechetical purposes, “full knowledge” works. It gets the point across well enough, but it is a shorthand for a much larger concept.

Sure.

And in terms of moral theology that term you suggest has also been used in the past or currently. No one is saying otherwise.

The Church makes use of the term “full knowledge” in both the Compendium (worked on by) and later issued by Pope Benedict XVI and the Catechism and in other documents in the past even.

Catechism: 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 heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

The post above was emphasing to the OP that the full knowledge must be there for mortal sin - and that short of that there is venial sin (or no sin…).

Of course some knowledge is rather known even if the person does not have the term “grave sin” - such as via natural moral law – a good example of which is Murder…but yes some may be quite clueless (invincible ignorance) that such things a contraception is gravely wrong…

 

[e_c]

Okay, but the OP was not asking what needs to be present for mortal sin in a general sense. He was asking what “full knowledge” is/means. I provided a beginning to breaking open that idea with “sufficiency” of knowledge. It is odd to speak of any human knowledge outside of tautologies as “full.”

Of course some knowledge is rather known even if the person does not have the term “grave sin” - such as via natural moral law – a good example of which is Murder…but yes some may be quite clueless (invincible ignorance) that such things a contraception is gravely wrong…

And that’s where these subtleties become very important, and I am claiming St. Paul would say “no excuse!” Unless, that is, one didn’t know what those organs were for. See what I mean?

 

[Disciple_Leader]

Wow…getting a little deep for a pretty simple question! Watch Fr. Larry Richards YouTube video on Confession. Very easy to understand

 

[angell1]

Okay, but the OP was not asking what needs to be present for mortal sin in a general sense. He was asking what “full knowledge” is/means. I provided a beginning to breaking open that idea with “sufficiency” of knowledge. It is odd to speak of any human knowledge outside of tautologies as “full.”

And that’s where these subtleties become very important, and I am claiming St. Paul would say “no excuse!” Unless, that is, one didn’t know what those organs were for. See what I mean?

I don’t know if it’s part of natural moral law to automatically know that cohabitation is wrong, or contraception…

I just know that for a long time, I didn’t know, and even when I knew, I really didn’t understand why it was wrong

 

[Bookcat]

Okay, but the OP was not asking what needs to be present for mortal sin in a general sense. He was asking what “full knowledge” is/means. I provided a beginning to breaking open that idea with “sufficiency” of knowledge. It is odd to speak of any human knowledge outside of tautologies as “full.”

Sufficiency of knowledge too can be not so clearly understood.

I prefer the language the Church uses in the Catechism and Compendium et al. I think it is clearer than that used by some Moral Theologians at times. It is not odd to speak of human knowledge as full here. There is not need to try to go off and parse things out according to a particular philosophical school or approach. One has full knowledge - not some exhaustively full knowledge …but yes “full knowledge”.

CCC 1859 “Mortal sin requires full knowledge … It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act…”

Not that one -say honestly believes it is Saturday when it is actually Sunday and so does not go to Mass but plans to go in the morning…or perhaps is honestly ignorant - has no clue that contraception is seriously wrong - but honestly thinks it is good for the marriage etc Is innocently mistaken. And thus makes use of such in their marriage.

 

[Bookcat]

I don’t know if it’s part of natural moral law to automatically know that cohabitation is wrong, or contraception…

I just know that for a long time, I didn’t know, and even when I knew, I really didn’t understand why it was wrong

Even in the case of what is “of natural law” - that does not mean that one will easily know it or know automatically…

As the Compendium notes in 417:

“natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.”

 

[Bookcat]

Even in the case of what is “of natural law” - that does not mean that one will easily know it or know automatically…

As the Compendium notes in 417:

“natural law is not always perceived nor is it recognized by everyone with equal clarity and immediacy.”

Most will knows thing like murder is seriously evil…other things may be not as immediately clear. Such is due to the fallen nature of man and sins and even the sins of society around them…etc

 

[St_Francis]

can someone help to explain what full knowledge means? in some cases, it’s more obvious than others, such as murder, theft, etC… bout what about contraception? what if you didn’t know that the church taught it was wrong, or didn’t understand why?

and is it easy for catholics who are committed to god and wanting to be holy to commit mortal sins? or it is more difficult?

based on examination of consciences, I think most of my sins nowadays are mainly venial (even though they feel mortal due to scrupulosity but that’s another story) but I’m not entirely sure.

but then I feel it may be too presumptuous to think I’m not committing mortal sins all the time. so is it normal to have periods of time where we are not in mortal sin?

most of them are pretty serious things, that normally people are unlikely to do, such as murder, theft, serioud fraud, adultery eTC…

are their particular mortal sins that serious catholics should be cautious of committing?

You know contraception is gravely wrong, and you are trying to love God, so it’s unlikely you would use it, right? As for your neighbor’s, God will sort out the degrees of guilt, etc., so all you need to worry about is praying for them from time to time.

As to those who are trying to please God, well, the closer we are to God, the more sin repels us. The Church teaches us a lot of things to help keep us away from sin, like a *brief *examination of conscience ( like 5 minutes max) each night before our Act of Contrition. The point of all these teachings is to help us avoid committing mortal sins, so naturally it is part of spiritual growth to get away from mortal sin.

 

[Convert_in_99]

can someone help to explain what full knowledge means? in some cases, it’s more obvious than others, such as murder, theft, etC… bout what about contraception? what if you didn’t know that the church taught it was wrong, or didn’t understand why?

and is it easy for catholics who are committed to god and wanting to be holy to commit mortal sins? or it is more difficult?

based on examination of consciences, I think most of my sins nowadays are mainly venial (even though they feel mortal due to scrupulosity but that’s another story) but I’m not entirely sure.

but then I feel it may be too presumptuous to think I’m not committing mortal sins all the time. so is it normal to have periods of time where we are not in mortal sin?

most of them are pretty serious things, that normally people are unlikely to do, such as murder, theft, serioud fraud, adultery eTC…

are their particular mortal sins that serious catholics should be cautious of committing?

I think your scruples are at it again. You are not being presumptuous, you are fighting scruples. If you don’t CLEARLY have a sin that is mortal on your conscience, you can assume that you are not in mortal sin. It will stand out, it’s hard to hide a mortal sin from your awareness.

In addition to seeing a priest outside of confession for regular spiritual advice regarding your scruples, I suggest you visit the Scrupulous Annoymous website. It is chock full of good advice to help fight scruples.

scrupulousanonymous.org/

 

[thistle]

can someone help to explain what full knowledge means? in some cases, it’s more obvious than others, such as murder, theft, etC… bout what about contraception? what if you didn’t know that the church taught it was wrong, or didn’t understand why?

and is it easy for catholics who are committed to god and wanting to be holy to commit mortal sins? or it is more difficult?

based on examination of consciences, I think most of my sins nowadays are mainly venial (even though they feel mortal due to scrupulosity but that’s another story) but I’m not entirely sure.

but then I feel it may be too presumptuous to think I’m not committing mortal sins all the time. so is it normal to have periods of time where we are not in mortal sin?

most of them are pretty serious things, that normally people are unlikely to do, such as murder, theft, serioud fraud, adultery eTC…

are their particular mortal sins that serious catholics should be cautious of committing?

If a Catholic does not know the Church teaches a particular act is a sin of grave matter that is vincible ignorance and committing the act would not be a mortal sin.
However, it is encumbent on all Catholics to learn what the Church teaches. If a Catholic does not try to learn what the Church teaches either because they are too lazy or they simply refuse to do so they will be held accountable when they die.

My personal view is that many Catholics use the “I don’t have full knowledge” card to justify continuing to sin because they will say it is actually impossible to have FULL knowledge about anything.
I take the simple approach. If a Catholic knows the Church teaches an act is a sin of grave matter then that satisfies the full knowledge condition. If they don’t understand a particular teaching then they should try to get an understanding of it but the lack of understanding the teaching does not negate the full knowledge condition.

If we take the view that to satisfy this condition you must have 100% knowledge and understanding then we can kiss goodbye to the Sacrament of Reconciliation as committing a mortal sin under those circumstances would be almost impossible.

 

[Bookcat]

My personal view is that many Catholics use the “I don’t have full knowledge” card to justify continuing to sin because they will say it is actually impossible to have FULL knowledge about anything.
I take the simple approach. If a Catholic knows the Church teaches an act is a sin of grave matter then that satisfies the full knowledge condition. .

1. Yes that would be a very incorrect understanding of “full knowledge” - it is very possible to have ‘full knowledge’. You are correct.
2. I would note regarding the second part it is not simply that the person knows that the Church teaches that the sin is grave matter - ie. a person can not have full knowledge in the sense of “full advertence” -while they knew that such was grave matter - they do not have full advertence then - say lustful thoughts that start to happen…and after a few moments the person realizes -hey those are lustful - and turns away from them as soon as they realize what is happening.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Angell1: given the intensity of your scrupulosity, asking questions such as these in a forum like this one is very counter-productive. The people responding thus far are not confessors and certainly they are not your confessor, who is properly the person to deal with questions such as these. It is a priest who needs to work with you to help in this matter, in both the internal and external forum; he can help you to properly assess what constitutes serious sin and what does not.

The insights people bring to respond to questions like “full knowledge” will not take into account the insidiousness of scrupulosity and their answers can actually be harmful to one who is battling scrupulosity.