Not Recycling - Mortal or Venial Sin?

[Sir_Knight]

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?

We’re arguing that a person who has reached the age of reason has a duty to know, understand and believe what the church teaches – making ignorance not an excuse.

 

[Luke_S]

We’re arguing that a person who has reached the age of reason has a duty to know, understand and believe what the church teaches – making ignorance not an excuse.

you are changing your position. I have no contention with this. This is what you originally posted that I dispute:

Those who reach the age of reason are expected to have a properly developed conscious so ignorance is no excuse and missing Sunday mass without a valid reason IS a mortal sin.

emphasis added

I have shown you in the Catechism where grave sin can be venial, if you do not have full knowledge of the sin, so are you ready to admit you are wrong about missing mass necessarily being a mortal sin?

 

[Sir_Knight]

you are changing your position. I have no contention with this.

No I’m not.

This is what you originally posted that I dispute:

Originally Posted by Sir Knight

I see the conclusion of both statements being the same.

I have shown you in the Catechism where grave sin can be venial, if you do not have full knowledge of the sin, so are you ready to admit you are wrong about missing mass necessarily being a mortal sin?

And I have shown you where ignorance is not an excuse; thereby making a grave sin a mortal sin.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

And I have shown you where ignorance is not an excuse; thereby making a grave sin a mortal sin.

The catechism says that you can’t commit a mortal sin if without full knowledge that you’re commiting a mortal sin. It doesn’t qualify that with exceptions for when you should have known but didn’t.

 

[Sir_Knight]

From the CCC …

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. **This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, **the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Neil_Anthony]

From the CCC …

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. **This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, **the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

That’s interesting… it seems like a contradiction with 1857 which requires full knowledge. Unless “full knowledge” in 1857 refers to knowledge of what they were actually doing, rather than knowledge of the seriousness of the sin.

For example, if you got mixed up on what day it was and didn’t go to mass becuase you thought it was Saturday, you wouldn’t have full knowledge of what you had done. Is that how it’s meant?

 

[Sir_Knight]

That’s interesting… it seems like a contradiction with 1857 which requires full knowledge. Unless “full knowledge” in 1857 refers to knowledge of what they were actually doing, rather than knowledge of the seriousness of the sin.

For example, if you got mixed up on what day it was and didn’t go to mass becuase you thought it was Saturday, you wouldn’t have full knowledge of what you had done. Is that how it’s meant?

Exactly! In the example that you described, it would NOT be a mortal sin.

This is what I’ve been saying all along.

 

[Al_Masetti]

For an action to be a mortal sin, it must meet all three tests:

1. serious matter
2. you must know it’s serious
3. done deliberately with full consent of the will

You may get fined by your town if they find a soda can in your garbage, when you should have put it in the recycling bin. HOWEVER, the one tenth of a cent value of the aluminum does not make it a serious matter.

Since the can belonged to you; it was YOUR property and you threw it in the garbage, then it was not stealing at all. Didn’t degrade the environment. Didn’t slow down the earth’s rotation. Or cause the oceans to boil. Not a sin.

It is possible to spend all day splitting hairs and arguing, … well, the fine … breaking the LAW … and all the rest. Not a sin.

Not every lapse of judgement or silly or stupid act is a sin. Sometimes it’s a life lesson and sometimes it’s just a nothing. If some of these issues are consistently bothersome, then perhaps an exploration of the subject of “scrupulosity” may be in order.

 

[Sir_Knight]

What about church teaching which tells us that ignorance of church teaching that a person should know does not excuse that person’s culpability? (CCC1791)

 

[Al_Masetti]

What about church teaching which tells us that ignorance of church teaching that a person should know does not excuse that person’s culpability? (CCC1791)

Are you referring to vincible ignorance versus invincible ignorance?

Here’s what Wikipedia offers:

Vincible ignorance is, in Catholic ethics, ignorance in a moral or doctrinal matter that could have been removed by diligence reasonable to the circumstances. It contrasts with invincible ignorance, which can not be removed at all, or only by supererogatory efforts (eg. exceptionally remote location).

While invincible ignorance prevents a sinful action from being a sin, vincible ignorance at most mitigates it. It may even aggravate guilt. The guilt of an act performed or omitted in vincible ignorance is not to be measured by the intrinsic malice of the thing done or omitted so much as by the degree of negligence discernible in the act.

Ignorance stemming from making little or no effort is termed crass or supine; it removes little or no guilt. Deliberately fostered ignorance is affected or studied; it can increase guilt.

Of law, when one is unaware of the existence of the law itself, or at least that a particular case is comprised under its provisions.

Of fact, when not the relation of something to the law but the thing itself or some circumstance is unknown.

Of penalty, when a person is not cognizant that a sanction has been attached to a particular crime. This is especially to be considered when there is question of more serious punishment.
Vincible ignorance can also refer to the intentional refusal to understand or consider a particular point of doctrine. (eg. “Purgatory is just wrong, no matter what you say.”)

This article incorporates text from the public-domain Catholic Encyclopedia of 1913.

 

[Julian_Peters]

Thank you to all who have participated. This thread is now closed.