Not Recycling - Mortal or Venial Sin?

[fix]

I’d rather believe the Catechism of the Catholic church than you; thanks though:

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.”

True, but the CCC is not a moral theology text. The Church has always taught there is an objective and subjective component to sins.

Intentionally missing mass is an objective mortal sin or a grave sin. It may or may not be a subjective mortal sin. Do you see? It is a mortal sin “on the books” so to speak. Whether one is fully culpable is another matter.

This does not contradict the CCC, it simply a matter of greater detail.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

A grave sin is a mortal sin. Two words that mean the same thing.

Missing mass on Sunday without a good reason is an objective mortal sins. It is probably also a subjective mortal sin since Catholics should know that missing Mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. We have an obligation to know the basics of our faith; and missing Mass on Sunday is very baisc. ** I doubt their ignorance over such a basic teaching of the faith would be excusable through invincible** ignorance.
The only way I can think of that missing Mass on Sunday would not be a subjective mortal sin is if the person truly forgot it was Sunday. That would probably be excusable.

Lets say that someone is guilty of not taking the effort to inform themselves that missing mass is a grave sin. In that case, would their sin be missing mass, or would it be ‘not taking the effort to inform’ their conscience? And which is a worse sin?

 

[Neil_Anthony]

Even my daughter’s second grade religion book cleary states that missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. And, it has a bishop’s imprint which states that there is nothing in it that is contrary to church teaching.

To be fair, kids in second grade don’t typically go off and read the text book on their own. They may get assigned reading of parts of the book, but mostly the teacher picks and chooses what to talk about from the text. Also it sounds like your daughter must go to some very orthodox catholic school.

People learn from a lot of sources, and reading the text is one of the least. They hear the priest’s sermon on christmas and easter sunday when all those skip-mass-all-year catholics show up for mass, and the priest doesn’t tell them they’re going to hell. Most of their friends at catholic school don’t go to mass, and the priest and teachers at school aren’t frantic about them going to hell for ever. Those are much stronger statements to them than a paragraph in a text book they probably didn’t read.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

True, but the CCC is not a moral theology text. The Church has always taught there is an objective and subjective component to sins.

Intentionally missing mass is an objective mortal sin or a grave sin. It may or may not be a subjective mortal sin. Do you see? It is a mortal sin “on the books” so to speak. Whether one is fully culpable is another matter.

This does not contradict the CCC, it simply a matter of greater detail.

May I put in my two cents? I’m not a theologian or anything like that but I thnk I can help a bit

It’s just a difference in terminology. Instead of “objective mortal sin” and “subjective mortal sin” the terminology in the catechism is “serious sin / grave sin” and “mortal sin”.

 

[fix]

May I put in my two cents? I’m not a theologian or anything like that but I thnk I can help a bit

It’s just a difference in terminology. Instead of “objective mortal sin” and “subjective mortal sin” the terminology in the catechism is “serious sin / grave sin” and “mortal sin”.

I am no expert. Someone can correct me if I am wrong, but it seems the common use of the term mortal sin refers to* subjective* mortal sin. That is one who is culpable.

The term grave sin is equal to objective mortal sin.

When some person says intentionally missing mass is a mortal sin I assume they mean it is a grave sin. It is an objective mortal sin. No one is capable of knowing who is in subjective mortal sin under any circumstance.

 

[Genesis315]

Wrong again. According to the catechism, ignorance is an excuse in determining whether a particular sin is mortal or not:

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.”

Ignorance is not having full knowledge about something, thus ignorance excuses you from mortal sin.

The mortal sin involved would be the neglect of truth’s necessary for salvation. If the ignorance is gross, it is not excusing, but if it is inculpable, then it is excusing.

 

[Genesis315]

Man was created and given the task of being the steward of Creation, even before the fall. It is a primal duty. That is why neglecting that duty is a grave sin. As to what specifically amounts to neglecting this duty at this point is a decision we have to make after informing our conscience as best we can. I think we can all agree that repeatedly dumping toxic waste into a river would amount to this.

 

[Sir_Knight]

To be fair, kids in second grade don’t typically go off and read the text book on their own.

No, they are taught by those preparing them for two very important sacraments.

They may get assigned reading of parts of the book, but mostly the teacher picks and chooses what to talk about from the text.

A qualified teacher would not overlook pointing out such an important part of church teaching.

Also it sounds like your daughter must go to some very orthodox catholic school.

I don’t know about it being “very orthodox”, but it is a good Catholic school.

People learn from a lot of sources, and reading the text is one of the least. They hear the priest’s sermon on christmas and easter sunday when all those skip-mass-all-year catholics show up for mass,

And if they learned their lesson well in theior youth, they wouldn’t be missing mass.

and the priest doesn’t tell them they’re going to hell.

I’m not going to judge those that stand in the place of Christ and be a back-seat driver with regards to what they should or should not be preaching. But I stand by what I said earlier – those who fail to properly shepard the flock assigned to their care will be held account for it.

Most of their friends at catholic school don’t go to mass, and the priest and teachers at school aren’t frantic about them going to hell for ever.

Most of their friends DO go to mass. The children are asked to take the church bulletin and approach the priest after mass as he greets the people for him to initial the bulletin and then they are to turn that bulletin in on Monday.

Once a month the Pastor devotes a portion of his homily at every mass to remind the parents of the importance of attending mass with their children and even gives the percentage of how many children attended mass during the previous month as calculated by handed-in initialed bulletins.

 

[Pax_et_Caritas]

I’d rather believe the Catechism of the Catholic church than you; thanks though:

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.”

No one is disagreeing with the Catechism.

When I read your post this morning and it took me a while to figure out why you thought I was disagreeing with the Catechism. I just figured it out and when I came back to post this I noticed that “fix” had put his finger on in.

I think you are considering the term mortal sin to refer specifically to a subjective mortal sin. In other words, when you hear the word “mortal sin” used, you think it means that the person who committed the act is guilty of a mortal sin. If they are not guilty, for what ever reason, then it is not correct to call it a mortal sin. Therefore, you conclude that it is wrong to call this or that action a mortal sin because three things are required for a person to be guilty of a mortal sin.

But the term “mortal sin” is understood in two ways: Objective and subjective. An objective mortal sin is the act itself (the grave matter); a subjective mortal sin is when a person commits the act (the objective mortal sin) with knowledge and consent.

I think the lack of distinction between an objective and subjective mortal sin is where the confusion came from.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Where we live they gave us bins to separate items into. We did till we saw the drivers dump everything into the same dump truck. Nope no separation there LOL. We do what we can because this earth is what we live on and does not deserve to be abused.

 

[Al_Masetti]

Not a sin at all.

The only commodity worth recycling is aluminum.

Newspaper is expensive to recycle because it needs to be bleached to get rid of the inks. Then they need to get rid of the metallic bits (staples) as well as bits of plastic and etc.

Cardboard gets chopped up, but because the fibers get reduced in length, the recycled products are of very low quality.

Glass recycling is problematic, because the colored and clear glasses need to be separated. AND different kinds of glass melt at different temperatures, thereby reducing the ability of the glass to be properly recycled.

There are all different kinds of plastic. Ditto ferrous metals. Very expensive to properly separate, sort, and melt this stuff down and reuse it.

So the whole issue is really very problematic at best.

In some cases, if the material is kept out of landfills, there may be some benefit in reduced tipping costs. But basically recycling is a waste of money. Most of it probably ends up in the dump anyway.

 

[Luke_S]

No one is disagreeing with the Catechism.

When I read your post this morning and it took me a while to figure out why you thought I was disagreeing with the Catechism. I just figured it out and when I came back to post this I noticed that “fix” had put his finger on in.

I think you are considering the term mortal sin to refer specifically to a subjective mortal sin. In other words, when you hear the word “mortal sin” used, you think it means that the person who committed the act is guilty of a mortal sin. If they are not guilty, for what ever reason, then it is not correct to call it a mortal sin. Therefore, you conclude that it is wrong to call this or that action a mortal sin because three things are required for a person to be guilty of a mortal sin.

But the term “mortal sin” is understood in two ways: Objective and subjective. An objective mortal sin is the act itself (the grave matter); a subjective mortal sin is when a person commits the act (the objective mortal sin) with knowledge and consent.

I think the lack of distinction between an objective and subjective mortal sin is where the confusion came from.

You indeed have an appropriate understanding of the Catechism. I see what you are saying now. However, I believe you are mis-speaking by stating that there are subjective and objective mortal sins. The catechism clearly defines “mortal sin” as sin in which three conditions need to be met. The three conditions are not always going to be met in every circumstance, so this type of sin depends on circumstances. A grave sin is always the same in every circumstance, whether you know fully and/or give consent does not change the nature of a sin’s seriousness. But you are confusing terms, which leads others to be confused. The way the catechism words things are “grave” sins (the serious kind) and “mortal” sin (the kind in which three conditions must be met). The Catechism does not use the wording “subjective mortal” and “objective mortal” sins, so others are not going to understand you, when you say of a particular sin that it is mortal in every circumstance.

 

[Luke_S]

Anyone who has been taught to make their first communion (if that teaching was accurate) has been taught that missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin.

I wasn’t taught that, I was given the teaching about Sunday obligations and mortal sin as written in the Catechism.

You are begging the question here. You can’t say “if that teaching was accurate” because the accurate teaching has already been demonstrated in the Catechism and it does not support what you are saying here. Mortal sin is dependent on three factors 1) seriousness (graveness) 2) full knowledge and 3) deliberate consent. Not everyone who misses mass meets all three of these qualifications for mortal sin (probably very few do).

You are basicly arguing that if somebody doesn’t believe a teaching of the church, they are not guilty of mortal sin if they break that teaching. Church history proves you wrong. The protestants that broke from the Catholic faith did so because they did not believe church teaching. Did the church declare them to be free of sin? No! Many of them were excommunicated.

This is another straw man fallacy. I am not arguing this at all. I am arguing that missing mass is not necessarily a mortal sin. Your counter argument is not relevant to the point of the discussion.

I wasn’t given a flock to shepard and I am not misrepresenting any church teaching. Even my daughter’s second grade religion book cleary states that missing mass on Sunday is a mortal sin. And, it has a bishop’s imprint which states that there is nothing in it that is contrary to church teaching.

Present your evidence. What is the name of the book, who is the author, what bishop signed it, what were the exact words written by the bishop, and what is the direct quote you are referring to, in regards to missing mass being a mortal sin.

"ignorance does not excuse from guilt, but seems, rather, to aggravate it: for it shows that a man is so strongly attached to sin that he wishes to incur ignorance lest he avoid sinning" … one is REQUIRED to know and BELIEVE what their faith teaches.

These assertions are again a strawman fallacy. I’m not arguing that people shouldn’t know what the Catholic church teaches. This is all irrelevant to the question “Is missing mass on Sunday necessarily a mortal sin?”

While we’re at it, notice the the CCC does not even call abortion a “mortal” sin but a “grave” offense. Are you going to argue that abortion is not a MORTAL sin because the CCC does not specifically call it a “mortal” sin?

Yes, our Catechism doesn’t call abortion a mortal sin, because this type of sin depends on three factors, which are not always going to be met, even in cases of abortion! Of course, abortion, birth control, euthanasia, rape, incest, etc, etc, etc are all terrible sins that drive anyone who commits them away from God, as all sin does. But you cannot say of any one sin that it is necessarily a mortal sin, because you don’t know the circumstance. I will say this much, certain sins, like murder, are likely to be mortal sins in most circumstances, because they go so far against the nature of God, of whom we are in the image and likeness of that it would seem unlikely to not have full knowledge of the sin. Are you willing to concede that you are wrong in asserting that certain sins are necessarily mortal, like missing mass on Sunday? You apparently recognize that the Catechism does not even do this, since you pointed it out in your abortion example.

 

[Sir_Knight]

This topic has been discussed on these forums before. Everybody except for you understands that a “grave sin” IS a “mortal sin” (catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0648.html).

If you wish to look for loopholes in it not being a mortal sin, be my guest. Just remember that “God is not mocked” (Galatians 6:7). Ignorance or failing to believe what a person is SUPPOSE to know or believe will not be an excuse on judgment day.

If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

-- Leviticus 5:17​

 

[Luke_S]

This topic has been discussed on these forums before. Everybody except for you understands that a “grave sin” IS a “mortal sin” (catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0648.html).

These references are not proper authorities, they are an appeal to the masses. I don’t care what other individual Catholics may believe, even if you are in the majority, you are still wrong if you disagree with the Catechism’s definition of mortal sin. Catholicism is not a democracy.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Let’s try it another way

Catholic church teaching defines two kinds of sins – venial & mortal. Is a “grave sin” a venial sin or a mortal sin?

And what about the quote from Leviticus 5:17 which clearly shows that ignorance does not excuse one from guilt & punishment?

 

[Al_Masetti]

In my opinion (and this is just me talking), when the words “mortal sin” were downplayed (actually the words “mortal sin” disappeared) and replaced by “grave sin”, the impact was lost.

Mortal sin is unequivocal … “you are going to Hell”.

Grave sin is something that, in my Catholic education … which was K-12 with rigorous French Christian Brothers for six years, simply didn’t exist. No explanation from the pulpit. Mortal sin simply vanished.

And grave sin seemed, somehow, “watered down” … not explained or emphasized … as mortal sin was explicated over and over until everyone clearly and fully understood what it was.

There was not doubt in anyone’s mind what mortal sin implied … eternal damnation in Hell … unless one confessed to a priest and got absolution.

Maybe it was a simple one syllable word … grave. Versus a two-syllable word: “mortal” … that could be given great verbal emphasis.

But no priest has ever given a fire and brimstone sermon about “grave sin”… at least not in my 65 years of attendance at Mass, including daily Mass for many years.

This topic has been discussed on these forums before. Everybody except for you understands that a “grave sin” IS a “mortal sin” (catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0648.html).

If you wish to look for loopholes in it not being a mortal sin, be my guest. Just remember that “God is not mocked” (Galatians 6:7). Ignorance or failing to believe what a person is SUPPOSE to know or believe will not be an excuse on judgment day.

If any one sin, and do any of the things which Jehovah hath commanded not to be done, though he knew it not, yet is he guilty, and shall bear his iniquity.

-- Leviticus 5:17​

 

[Luke_S]

:Catholic church teaching defines two kinds of sins – venial & mortal. Is a “grave sin” a venial sin or a mortal sin?

Hmm… let’s see what the Catechism teaches:

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or **when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. ** (emphasis added)

So yes, grave sins can be venial, if they are done without full knowledge and/or complete consent according to Catholic teaching. Are you ready to admit you are wrong about missing mass necessarily being a mortal sin?

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. (emphasis added)

And what about the quote from Leviticus 5:17 which clearly shows that ignorance does not excuse one from guilt & punishment?

This is another strawman, guilt and punishment don’t necessarily imply mortal sin. Ignorance is not an excuse to sin, in and of itself, but unless the ignorance be feigned (pretended or not real), then it is sufficient to excuse someone from mortal sin:

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.”

Answer this for me: does someone who is genuinely ignorant of something have full knowledge of the thing they are ignorant about? Is that really what you want to argue?

 

[Sir_Knight]

This is another strawman, guilt and punishment don’t necessarily imply mortal sin. Ignorance is not an excuse to sin, in and of itself, but unless the ignorance be feigned (pretended or not real), then it is sufficient to excuse someone from mortal sin

Hardly a strawman arguement. Scripture is very clear – even if a person is unaware of sin, they will still be held accountable. If it concerns a GRAVE matter, then they will be held GRAVEly accountable. A grave sin IS a mortal sin. Two pasts popes have publicly declared that ignorance is not an excuse.

So yes, grave sins can be venial, if they are done without full knowledge and/or complete consent according to Catholic teaching. Are you ready to admit you are wrong about missing mass necessarily being a mortal sin?

No. Because scripture and two past Popes disagree with you – ignorance is NOT an excuse. The church calls it a GRAVE sin and since ignornce is not an excuse, that makes it a MORTAL sin.

Are you saying that you have a better understanding of Church teaching than two previous Popes?

 

[Al_Masetti]

So, by introducing the word “grave”, we have now taken an easily understandable concept mortal / venial ] and made it very complex. Some grave sins may be venial. There is grave matter and matter which is not grave.

I would now normally make some sarcastic comment, but this is too important.

Hmm… let’s see what the Catechism teaches:

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or **when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. ** (emphasis added)

So yes, grave sins can be venial, if they are done without full knowledge and/or complete consent according to Catholic teaching. Are you ready to admit you are wrong about missing mass necessarily being a mortal sin?

2181 The Sunday Eucharist is the foundation and confirmation of all Christian practice. For this reason the faithful are obliged to participate in the Eucharist on days of obligation, unless excused for a serious reason (for example, illness, the care of infants) or dispensed by their own pastor. Those who deliberately fail in this obligation commit a grave sin. (emphasis added)

This is another strawman, guilt and punishment don’t necessarily imply mortal sin. Ignorance is not an excuse to sin, in and of itself, but unless the ignorance be feigned (pretended or not real), then it is sufficient to excuse someone from mortal sin:

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.”

Answer this for me: does someone who is genuinely ignorant of something have full knowledge of the thing they are ignorant about? Is that really what you want to argue?