Opinions? Is sin a sin if one doesn't think it is a sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter BrooklynBoy200
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BrooklynBoy200

Guest
I was wondering, what if a catholic didn’t consider the sin he commited to be a sin, even though it clearly is?

I’ll give you some examples of what i’m saying: I was reading a book on Carlo Gambino( i think it was him, i’m not sure), who was a mobster. When his wife, who was a devout catholic, like him, brought up how murder was a sin, he said that he didn’t consider it to be murder it was just “business”.

Or someone who supports abortion. I’ll say it’s wrong because it is murder and the person will say that they don’t consider it to be murder.

Would these people be able to take communion with these excuses?

Just confused me…
 
I didn’t think it would meet the 3 requirments…
but then deep down maybe they know it is wrong?
 
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.

1790–1791: … it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

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.
 
I do not think a sin is a sin because we think it is.

I believe it is a sin because God said it is.

If a person wants to argue the point with God at the Judgement, I suppose they could, but I am fairly certain they would loose.

But on a the real subject, what abput an improperly formed conscience? I suppose it would depend on why a person’s conscience is not in line with Church teachings.

Is it because of mental illness? Are they simply not very bright? In those cases, it is probably not the fault of the individual because they are impaired.

Could it be deception, that is was the person deceived really believes somethng is okay? This is far more rare that many people will admit. But if they have been lied to and they believe the lies, I think culpability is lessened, but certainly not eliminated. Adter all, did they try to find the truth?

Is it because they do not want to know? Willful ignorance is not a good thing. It is a form of denying the truth.

Maybe they are just lying to themselves. Self-deception is a very popular pastime among humans, few are completely immune. Myself in particular! :(.

Or perhaps they are looking for a loophole, a opportunity to justify a wrong they know they have done. This is either relativism or legalism. Neither one is particularly useful in developing a good conscience.

(By the way, my definition of a “good conscience” is one that is in line with Church teachings. But more than this, as the person learns more about their faith, their conscience is adjusted. They are not perfect, but at least they know when they have done something wrong.)
 
rpp said:
I do not think a sin is a sin because we think it is.

I believe it is a sin because God said it is.

If a person wants to argue the point with God at the Judgement, I suppose they could, but I am fairly certain they would loose.

But on a the real subject, what abput an improperly formed conscience? I suppose it would depend on why a person’s conscience is not in line with Church teachings.

Is it because of mental illness? Are they simply not very bright? In those cases, it is probably not the fault of the individual because they are impaired.

Could it be deception, that is was the person deceived really believes somethng is okay? This is far more rare that many people will admit. But if they have been lied to and they believe the lies, I think culpability is lessened, but certainly not eliminated. Adter all, did they try to find the truth?

Is it because they do not want to know? Willful ignorance is not a good thing. It is a form of denying the truth.

Maybe they are just lying to themselves. Self-deception is a very popular pastime among humans, few are completely immune. Myself in particular! :(.

Or perhaps they are looking for a loophole, a opportunity to justify a wrong they know they have done. This is either relativism or legalism. Neither one is particularly useful in developing a good conscience.

(By the way, my definition of a “good conscience” is one that is in line with Church teachings. But more than this, as the person learns more about their faith, their conscience is adjusted. They are not perfect, but at least they know when they have done something wrong.)
Click to expand...
Well, in Gambino’s case, he just didn’t define the murders he committed as murder.
A soldier doesn’t define the murder he commits as murder.
Same thing?
 
rpp said:
I do not think a sin is a sin because we think it is.

I believe it is a sin because God said it is.
Click to expand...
Grave matter and what constitutes sin are two different things. Grave matter is what is intrinsically evil and offensive to God. It becomes a sin when we know and still give our consent to commit this act, whether in word, thought or deed. Non-serious matter is still offensive to God and is contrary to His will but this will not cause eternal separation from God.

I may not realize that my slapping you in the face is painful but it hurts none the less. If it is intentional then you are accountable. If you were waving and I got in the way then, while it still hurts, your accountablilty is diminished.

You can never sin by accident…God Bless 🙂
 
BrooklynBoy200 said:
Well, in Gambino’s case, he just didn’t define the murders he committed as murder.
A soldier doesn’t define the murder he commits as murder.
Same thing?
Click to expand...
Are you saying that a soldier who kills the enemy in combat is committing murder? If so, I do not believe that is consistent with Church teaching.

If you do, they you would have to say the Moses, and many prophets in the Old Testament are responsible for murdering in the name of God. (Of course, Moses did kill a man in his youth, whether it was murder is not clear to me. Though it certainly did cause him to flee Egypt.)
 
rpp said:
Are you saying that a soldier who kills the enemy in combat is committing murder? If so, I do not believe that is consistent with Church teaching.

If you do, they you would have to say the Moses, and many prophets in the Old Testament are responsible for murdering in the name of God. (Of course, Moses did kill a man in his youth, whether it was murder is not clear to me. Though it certainly did cause him to flee Egypt.)
Click to expand...
I’m not saying that they commit murder. The same way Gambino was saying mobsters don’t commit murder.

I don’t see a difference between mobsters and soldiers. Soldiers kill the enemy. Mobsters kill the enemy. Soldiers say they don’t murder when they kill. Mobsters say they don’t murder when they kill.
 
teachccd said:
Grave matter and what constitutes sin are two different things. Grave matter is what is intrinsically evil and offensive to God. It becomes a sin when we know and still give our consent to commit this act, whether in word, thought or deed. Non-serious matter is still offensive to God and is contrary to His will but this will not cause eternal separation from God.

I may not realize that my slapping you in the face is painful but it hurts none the less. If it is intentional then you are accountable. If you were waving and I got in the way then, while it still hurts, your accountablilty is diminished.

** You can never sin by accident**…God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Hmmm. While do agree completely with your closing statement, I am not sure about the sentence I bolded in your first paragraph. Not disagreeing, just certain of the reasoning. I am curious about the logical and theological reasoning there.

As for your closing statement, while agree with it, I would amplify by saying that we may either refuse to acknowledge it or the awareness of the sinful aspect of an action may be faint.

I think it is possible to sin while simultaneously refusing to admit, to ourselves, what we are doing may be wrong. The alternative is frightening. It says seems to say the best way to keep someone from sinning is to never teach them right from wrong.

Or have I completely missed the point (which is probalby the case).
 
These people are being deceived by satan, and first and foremost need prayer. We are never able, when talking about individuals, to truly know what is on their heart-so we can never definitively judge whether they are or have committed a mortal sin. Objectively, these are grave and mortal sins, but I don’t think we can certainly say whether or not they are committing a mortal sin, no matter how much it appears they are.

That being said, they certainly are a cause of scandal, and if they realize this is a sin, they could certainly be committing a sin in that way.
 
Scripture specifies the prohibition contained in the fifth commandment: “Do not slay the innocent and the righteous.” The deliberate murder of an innocent person is gravely contrary to the dignity of the human being, to the golden rule, and to the holiness of the Creator. The law forbidding it is universally valid: it obliges each and everyone, always and everywhere.
Click to expand...
…
Click to expand...
The **fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.
**
Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority.
Click to expand...
2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.
Click to expand...
**The acceptance by human society of murderous famines, without efforts to remedy them, is a scandalous injustice and a grave offense. Those whose usurious and avaricious dealings lead to the hunger and death of their brethren in the human family indirectly commit homicide, which is imputable to them.**70
Click to expand...
That’s quoted from the Catechism. You can read more, including what can be classified as legitimate defense at the site below:

vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a5.htm
 
Whether some act or omission is sinful or not is an objective truth–my opinion does not affect its inherent sinfulness. My subjective state depends on whether or not I knew the matter was sinful and whether or not I did it willfully with intent to sin. If I have failed to properly inform my conscience I may not use my conscience as an excuse. I cannot use my opinion in any case.
 
Would you define mobsters “murdering” mobsters as guilty man murdering innocent man? I’m sorry but i can’t see how they would differ from ordinary soldiers in that aspect.
 
What we really have here is the difference between material and formal sin.

Let’s first define sin as a bad act, or an act against the law of God. Some acts are so bad that they constitute grave matter.

Any time a person commits one of these bad acts, he commits a material sin, just by having done the act. All that means is that the act was done.

When the person commits the act, the material sin, with knowledge and consent, it becomes a formal sin. If it is grave matter, it is a mortal sin.

We are not held responsible for sins that are only material. Material sins can be committed in ignorance, or without freedom. The sins for which we are held responsible are the formal sins.

So the question here is whether the material sin of murder committed by mobsters is for them a formal sin. One cannot fool God by claiming that murder is simply business if he knows (by way of the natural law written on our hearts) that murder is indeed wrong. A person would have to be seriously deranged to honestly believe that such killing is not sinful, but I suppose it’s remotely possible. God will judge each heart.

Betsy
 
Thank you Betsy for the explanation!😃

Also, what makes me wonder about this more is what he said, “When his wife, who was a devout catholic, like him, brought up how murder was a sin, he said that he didn’t consider it to be murder it was just “business”.” This would imply he recognizes murder as a sin. I think this means that he is just trying to deceive himself into thinking that he is not sinning, when he knows in his hear that he is. Mobsters are not justified in taking lives. They are an unlawful group of people, where as the military and soldiers are law abiding, and only defend the good of others. I would recommend against comparing the two, because they are nowhere close to being alike.
 
For the purposes of clarity, I keep with those theologians who define sin as the knowing and free choice to do evil.
Some theologians/church fathers will define sin as simply doing evil, and this can be confusing.
However, all agree that to do evil in ignorance, or by compulsion, does not impute moral responsibility.
The is Universal agreement amongst theologians that even a mistaken conscience must be followed.

However, you would do well to read more on conscience. It is a complex matter, which is still today being debated by the Church at the highest levels.

In short, conscience has syndesis, and synderesis. These are the inate knowledge of evil, and the logical application of reasoned conscience, respectively.

For a matter such as murder, this is such an offense to human nature and God, that we believe that humans have an inate realisation it is gravely evil, so when freely chosen, is sinful.(cf.Rom 2:14-15).

As for the whole conscience issue? It is complex. May I suggest (As someone who is following this debate in the Church), that you start off with the Vatican II document Gaudium et Spes, n.16.

vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_cons_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

After reading that, you may wish to read Card. Ratzingers contribution…

ewtn.com/library/CURIA/RATZCONS.HTM

May I also suggest Bishop Anthony Fisher (a compatriot of mine)…

zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=103903

But may I say this…
The reason that this is Cardinal Ratzinger, and not the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith not putting out this document is because this is a discussion we are having as a Church. Avoid, and flee from people who want to call each other liberals/traditionalists/left-wing/right-wing etc because of this or any other issue.

For such people do not join in the discernment the Church is doing, but rush to a position they have not considered, and criticise those who do consider them.

God Bless
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top