Mortal Sins

[PeteZaHut]

I know that for something to be a mortal sin, it has to be a grave matter. What if you think that something is a mortal sin, but it’s not, and you do it anyway? Like if I believe that stealing a paper clip is a mortal sin, and I do it, is that actually a mortal sin? I have had 2 theology teachers tell me that it is,

 

[baltobetsy]

You’ll get a range of answers on this one, including that stealing a paper clip is indeed a mortal sin, because it breaks the 7th Commandment. (I disagree with that, BTW)

Here’s how I think about it. In a human relationship, if one person seeks to do the other harm, but ultimately fails in that effort, the person who would have suffered the harm would still be greatly offended if he found out about it. It could sever the friendship. God knows everything about us, including our secret motivations for all that we do. If He sees that we are willing to do what we believe would sever our relationship with Him, and that we carry out that deed, even though it is less serious than we think, won’t He still be offended enough to let us sever that relationship with Him?

I read in a book (if only I could remember where!!) that a sin is mortal if the action is seriously wrong or thought to be, as the first condition. If I could provide a citation, I would, but I’m old and forgetful…

So, in my opinion, yes, it would be mortally sinful to do an action which, while not mortally sinful in itself, we thought to be so. I promise you, others will disagree.

Betsy

 

[Markstorm]

So, in my opinion, yes, it would be mortally sinful to do an action which, while not mortally sinful in itself, we thought to be so. I promise you, others will disagree.

Betsy

I’m sorry, but that is incorrect. “Mortal sin is win whose object is grave matter…” (CCC 1857)

If an action is not mortally sinful in itself, then the object of the action is not grave matter, and so it fails the test for mortal sin.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

I know that for something to be a mortal sin, it has to be a grave matter. What if you think that something is a mortal sin, but it’s not, and you do it anyway? Like if I believe that stealing a paper clip is a mortal sin, and I do it, is that actually a mortal sin? I have had 2 theology teachers tell me that it is,

If you steal the paperclip for the purpose of expressing your rejection of the moral law, then it is indeed a mortal sin. However this is extremely rare. Simply allowing a desire to possess the object overcome an imperfect understanding of Catholic moral teaching wouldn’t raise it to the status of a serious sin.

 

[rwoehmke]

I read in a book (if only I could remember where!!) that a sin is mortal if the action is seriously wrong or thought to be, as the first condition. If I could provide a citation, I would, but I’m old and forgetful…
Betsy

That is what I was taught in grade school and high school back in the 50"s. It may be in the Baltimore Catechism.

 

[Kathrin]

Very interesting question.

I remember reading something about this, but I don’t remember exactly what it said…

One thing I am thinking is that if I think something is a mortal sin and do it anyway, that might say something about how important God’s laws are to me… BUT!!! Then, sometimes it is just a momentary weak moment… So I am really not sure.

Kathrin

 

[Neil_Anthony]

If He sees that we are willing to do what we believe would sever our relationship with Him, and that we carry out that deed, even though it is less serious than we think, won’t He still be offended enough to let us sever that relationship with Him?

So what if we would be willing to steal a paper clip under some situation (like if we really needed it badly to hold together an application to apply for a job we really needed) but that situation never comes up. Will we be judged for that even though we never got to do the act?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So what if we would be willing to steal . . . .but that situation never comes up. Will we be judged for that even though we never got to do the act?

Neil,

Yes. The desire to commit an evil act is an evil act in itself. It is often known as a “sin by desire.”

See the Catechism:

1871 Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law. . .

VC

 

[rwoehmke]

I don’t see being willing to as the same as desiring to. The one may be a defect in character or upbringing, but until one wants to do something it hardly seems to have become a true act of the will necessary for sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

I don’t see being willing to as the same as desiring to. The one may be a defect in character or upbringing, but until one wants to do something it hardly seems to have become a true act of the will necessary for sin.

Yes, also why would we pray “lead us not into temptation” if we would be punished whether we were ever actually tempted into the sin or not. And why would Jesus promise us that he would not send us more than we could handle?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

PeteZa,

I agree with baltobetsy and rwoehmke and I disagree with **Markstorm **(welcome to the forums by the way!).

It is true that a mortal sin requires grave matter, sufficient knowledge, and full consent – however the first prong “grave matter” is not determined solely by the mechanics of the act.

The three sources of morality of human act (by which one would determine the moral goodness or badness of the act, along with its gravity) are: 1) the object of the act, 2) the intention of the actor, and 3) the circumstances.

In your example, doing something you think is seriously wrong could rise to the level of “grave matter” in two ways: A) A mistake of fact which changes the moral object of the act.

Let’s say you are out at dinner with your family and friends and you excuse yourself to go outside for a breath of fresh air. While outside you see a car that captures your fancy and, after wrestling with your conscience, you decide to steal it. Only later you find out (thank goodness) that it was in fact YOUR new car that your father had bought you and was intending to give you at the conclusion of your birthday dinner. No legal ramifications here, but there a certainly moral ones. You did what you believed to be morally evil, although the mechanics of the act in themselves (taking your own car) are not.
B) A defect of intention.

Assuming that the action in itself is not gravely evil, it can rise to the level of grave evil if your intention for performing the (erroneously supposed evil) action is because it is (erroneously believed to be) evil. So, if you (erroneously) believe that stealing a paper clip if contrary to a divine command and you do so in order to flout God’s supreme authority, you have committed a gravely evil act.

Hence the Catholic Encyclopedia under Moral Theology sates:

. . .the result of a subjectively erroneous conscience may be that an action which is in itself only venial, becomes a mortal sin, and vice versa, that an action which is in itself mortally sinful, that is, constitutes a grave violation of the moral law, may be only a venial sin.

Anyone have any thoughts, clarifications, or corrections to the way I laid this out? Comments appreciated!

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I don’t see being willing to as the same as desiring to.

rwoehmke and Neil,

Excellent points. I read Neil’s hypothetical too loosely. My point was concerning someone who desired to do something if the opportunity to presented itself, and who did not do so because of intervening circumstances or lack of opportunity.

In rereading Neil’s hypothetical and taking into account both of your points, I would clarify my statement and say that the moral determination might rest on the proximity of the opportunity – in other words idle speculation about what you might will to do in some non-proximate future situation is different from contemplating that you would do something in a more proximate situation.

The former speculation might be virtuous in fact, if it leads you to pray for grace and strength, and helps you recognize your own weakness.

What do you think?
VC

 

[TMC]

PeteZa,

I agree with baltobetsy and rwoehmke and I disagree with **Markstorm **(welcome to the forums by the way!).

It is true that a mortal sin requires grave matter, sufficient knowledge, and full consent – however the first prong “grave matter” is not determined solely by the mechanics of the act.

The three sources of morality of human act (by which one would determine the moral goodness or badness of the act, along with its gravity) are: 1) the object of the act, 2) the intention of the actor, and 3) the circumstances.

In your example, doing something you think is seriously wrong could rise to the level of “grave matter” in two ways: A) A mistake of fact which changes the moral object of the act.

Let’s say you are out at dinner with your family and friends and you excuse yourself to go outside for a breath of fresh air. While outside you see a car that captures your fancy and, after wrestling with your conscience, you decide to steal it. Only later you find out (thank goodness) that it was in fact YOUR new car that your father had bought you and was intending to give you at the conclusion of your birthday dinner. No legal ramifications here, but there a certainly moral ones. You did what you believed to be morally evil, although the mechanics of the act in themselves (taking your own car) are not.
B) A defect of intention.

Assuming that the action in itself is not gravely evil, it can rise to the level of grave evil if your intention for performing the (erroneously supposed evil) action is because it is (erroneously believed to be) evil. So, if you (erroneously) believe that stealing a paper clip if contrary to a divine command and you do so in order to flout God’s supreme authority, you have committed a gravely evil act.

Hence the Catholic Encyclopedia under Moral Theology sates:
Anyone have any thoughts, clarifications, or corrections to the way I laid this out? Comments appreciated!

VC

I agree with all of this. Here is another way to look at it. I have always found the labels mortal and venial to be too limiting and over simplify the complex relationship between man and God and the complex way that our choices effect us. There are not only two “flavors” of sin. Each sin is different and effects the sinner differently. Because we need/want to know which sins are sufficiently grave that they must be forgiven to restore grace, the Church has come up with these two categories. They are the best we have, but they are not great.

The problem is that mortal and venial are really defined by the effect the sin has, not by the action. A sin which results in the death of charity and a rejection of God’s Grace is mortal. A sin that damages the relationship with God but does not by itself sever it or does not represent a rejection of God is venial. Enough venial sins can also destroy charity and reject Grace, however. As Verbum Caro points out, when we look at an individual sin, the best way to determine the effect it is likely to have is to look at knowledge and intent.

Here is a different example that may be familiar If you have a child (or have been one recently). Little children (say terrible twos) will sometimes throw their food on the floor. Let’s assume that the child is old enough to know better, but is not really thinking about that. He is just having a good ol’ time throwing those green beans around, they are on the wall, on the table, on the dog. As a parent, you want and need to correct this behavior, but it doesn’t really upset you. You understand that he needs to corrected, though. Then Mom corrects the child and tells him not to throw the beans. He looks her dead in the eye and very deliberately picks up one bean and drops it over the side. Now he is in real trouble.

The earlier bean throwing was objectively worse, but really pretty innocent. The deliberate drop was an act of defiance that says “You are not the boss of Me.” When we act poorly out of ordinary selfishness and weakness, we may or may not be breaking with God. When we act to tell God that He is not in charge, we have entered mortal territory. It is not usually possible for an outside observer to tell the difference, because the difference is in the heart (intent) and the head (knowledge), not the act.

Before anyone jumps me, there are some acts that are so inherently adverse to God’s Grace and Christian Charity that even if they are not meant to destroy Grace, they probably will. These are biggies like Murder, Rape, and so forth. But for most sins, you cannot list out what is mortal and venial without knowing more about the person’s disposition.