People who say "_____ is a Mortal Sin."

[maryjk]

In Nelka’s defense, where a woman is raped, certainly the RAPIST is engaging in mortal sin, don’t you agree? The rape is grave matter and is grossly wrong. The ACT of the rape is wrong. The rapist is wrong. The person being raped is a victim of a person committing a gravely wrong action, which happens to be a sexual action outside of marriage. And FWIW, if the person is being raped by her spouse --in the marriage- that is a grave wrong as well.

So all sexual intercourse inside a marriage is not necessarily always good. . . but the exception involves not the sexual act itself, but the intent. The intent to rape, even if between a lawfully married couple, is WRONG. It perverts a good thing (sexual action which by God’s intent is to be a LOVING uniative and procreative action between a husband and wife).

Rape is a grave evil, but not because it is ‘sex’ (as though ‘sex’ in itself were evil). Any misuse of sexual relations, in or out of marriage, is wrong.

It is simply far more common for sexual actions outside of marriage to be gravely wrong, at least for ONE party (the rapist, if the sex is through rape), and often for BOTH parties (if both parties are consenting to the sex but are not married, or not married to each other.)

The problem with what Nelka is saying is that some act is a mortal sin. No one can say that. The definition of a mortal sin requires more than simply the act.

The example was “are sexual relations outside of marriage always a mortal sin.” No one can answer that without knowing the intent and the situation. Thus in the case of rape, there is no sin on the part of the victim. Yet, Nelka answered yes, sexual relations outside of marriage is ALWAYS a mortal sin. The same with the case of an annulment. There is no marriage, but of course sexual relations (and children) occurring during what someone believes to be a sacramental marriage is not a sin. So there are at least two examples of sexual relations outside of marriage NOT being a mortal sin.

 

[bobballen_18]

As was said in Bookcat’s post (#8), some sins are objectively mortal. I think that’s where the OP might be going wrong. It is fine to call a sin that is objectively mortal a “mortal sin.” Again, I think I said this earlier, no you don’t want to go around calling people “mortal sinners” because subjectively it might not have been a mortal sin for them personally, but it would be okay to tell a person that a sin they have committed is objectively mortal. Anyone who believes Nelka’s or whoever else’s idea is incorrect should refer to Bookcat’s post, #8.

I suppose to get rid of any possible ambiguity, “grave matter” may work better. But it is not incorrect to call the act itself a mortal sin when, objectively, it is.

May as well get the point across to people, right?

 

[twoangels]

I often see/hear people going and saying things like “sex before marriage is a mortal sin” or “masturbation is a mortal sin” or something similar to that.

And then we have the people going around saying “For it to be a mortal sin it must meet 1. 2. and 3.” (one of those being grave matter).

Many of the times people commit x “mortal sin” they are lacking in the full knowledge aspect. Some might have been brought up thinking the two things I mentioned above are normal.

This leaves the action as a grave matter, and a venial sin. So it would be more accurate to say “___ is a grave matter”, would it not?

This is in no way meaning to diminish the immorality of an action. I just don’t think it’s correct for some Catholics to call people mortal sinners when they aren’t meeting all 3 requirements. I do not see people doing this as much here, but more so in real life.

Completely true. There is no such thing as an objectively mortal sin. There is objectively grave sins, but since the the criteria for whether a sin is mortal is dependant on the subjective (the will of the individual), it can lead people to be terribly overscruplous and anxious to just say “This is a mortal sin.”

However even I end up saying “mortal” rather than “grave” from time to time. I think because its spoken that way so often by people, its hard to get away from it.

 

[twoangels]

There is nothing wrong with sex inside a marriage.

But when a marriage is annulled, the couple was in fact never validly married. That’s what it means to have an annullment. It doesn’t end the marriage. It recognizes that the marriage never was formed. The reason the sexual activity is not a mortal sin is because the couple and the Church were under the impression that the couple was married.

Sin occurs in the hearts of men. It expresses itself externally through our actions. A mortal sin speaks of what is going on in the heart of the person. A grave offense refers to the outward actions. It is a grave offense to fornicate, it is a mortal sin to deliberately fornicate. (all full consent of the will and full knowledge means is that the action was deliberate).

Moreover interestingly enough what isn’t address is that consent of the will can be partial. If a niave girl finds herself at a party with some friends who bring out alcohol, surcombs to peer pressure to drink some beer underage, in ignorance drinks more than she can handle and while drunk has commits fornication, she may not be in a state of mortal sin. If she doesn’t care that those things happened, she may be in a state of mortal sin. Typically though a person who is going to confession regularly and making valid confessions each time is probably not a person who is actually committing mortal sin. The very fact that the person is continually repenting displays that the individual is struggling with their will and striving to be with God. Since they’re struggling, there is no full consent of the will, but partial consent of the will.

Its important to remember that a mortal sin is a complete rejection of God.

 

[AHapka]

The act of sexual intercourse outside of marriage is always a mortal sin.

If somebody doesn’t know this, it doesn’t change the mortality of the sin, it just changes the soul’s condemnation to Hell.

The act is grave matter. It only becomes mortal if all three conditions of a mortal sin are met.

The Catechism says so:
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Then, further, to tell us if it is mortal or not:
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.

I’m sure we could find a case where sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sinful. Perhaps two young children (it’s been known to happen)?

 

[markomalley]

“Bless me Father for I have sinned…I was raped, and sexual intercourse outside of marriage is always a mortal sin.”

Try again.

You beat me to it

Religious figures calling for the stoning the victim of rape is something we’d expect to see in Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, not something that we’d expect to see here.

While inserting tab a into slot b is grave matter, it requires full consent prior to it being a deadly (mortal) sin.

 

[vz71]

You don’t understand a decree of nullity. There was a legal marriage, there was even, usually at least from one party, the intent to engage in a valid marriage.

Are you going to tell us that children born during a marriage which the parents later receive a decree of nullity for are, thus, 'bastards?" I don’t think so. . .

Either the marriage was, or the marriage was not.
The church is not in the practice of dissolving marriages, the church only discerns the validity of the marriage.
The decree of nullity tells us it was not.

Your claim that all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin does not stand scrutiny.

 

[vz71]

The definition of a mortal sin requires more than simply the act.

Agreed.
Other then God, and a few Saints that have been provided a gift of discernment, it is simply not possible for a third party to make a claim that any other individual is partaking in mortal sin.

You also have to know fully, and you must freely act.
Other then those I listed above, only the individual himself knows the mortal sin.

The most any other party can say is that the sin is of a serious nature.

 

[Bookcat]

The act is grave matter. It only becomes mortal if all three conditions of a mortal sin are met.

The Catechism says so:
1858 Grave matter is specified by the Ten Commandments, corresponding to the answer of Jesus to the rich young man: "Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and your mother."132 The gravity of sins is more or less great: murder is graver than theft. One must also take into account who is wronged: violence against parents is in itself graver than violence against a stranger.

Then, further, to tell us if it is mortal or not:
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.

I’m sure we could find a case where sexual intercourse outside of marriage is not sinful. Perhaps two young children (it’s been known to happen)?

Either the marriage was, or the marriage was not.
The church is not in the practice of dissolving marriages, the church only discerns the validity of the marriage.
The decree of nullity tells us it was not.

Your claim that all sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin does not stand scrutiny.

In ordinary parlance yes one can say “sex outside marriage is a mortal sin” (objectively forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8687570&postcount=8.)

“Sex outside marriage” is yes objectively a mortal sin. Theologically and morally of course we use certain “terms” which state the kind of mortal sin. If the couple is unmarried it is called “fornication” if one or both them are married (to someone else) it is called “adultery” etc.

The couple who thought themselves married in good faith (via invincible ignorance) were subjectively of course not committing mortal sin …they were not acting consciously outside of marriage…they thought they were married…

they were in what is called a “putative marriage” (catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=35926).

Had they realized things …or one of them realized it …then they (or one) could have been “committing” a mortal sin…(if the three aspects were present).

 

[vz71]

In ordinary parlance yes one can say “sex outside marriage is a mortal sin”

I agree.

In general, sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin.

But I have serious objections when someone wishes to claim ‘all’ of anything to be a mortal sin.

It ignores the nuance the church has built into the very definition of mortal sin.
And there are very good reasons the church has built in this nuance.

 

[Bookcat]

I agree.

In general, sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin.

But I have serious objections when someone wishes to claim ‘all’ of anything to be a mortal sin.

It ignores the nuance the church has built into the very definition of mortal sin.
And there are very good reasons the church has built in this nuance.

The long post I wrote above will be helpful. Speaking about the “objective” nature of things is different than speaking as to if someone “committed” a mortal sin.

 

[vz71]

The long post I wrote above will be helpful. Speaking about the “objective” nature of things is different than speaking as to if someone “committed” a mortal sin.

Perhaps.
But it does not cover the instance of an annulled marriage.

That sex outside of marriage occurred is a given (particularly if there are children born of this invalid marriage).

But I doubt anyone is going to attempt to lay claim that it was sinful…objectively or not.

It would open the door to people never knowing if they have sinned or not since an investigation into the marriage may change things.

In such matters, there is absolutely no knowledge of sinful behavior, it is not sinful…or rather, it is a sin that will not be held against them.

 

[Bookcat]

Perhaps.
But it does not cover the instance of an annulled marriage.

That sex outside of marriage occurred is a given (particularly if there are children born of this invalid marriage).

But I doubt anyone is going to attempt to lay claim that it was sinful…objectively or not.

It would open the door to people never knowing if they have sinned or not since an investigation into the marriage may change things.

In such matters, there is absolutely no knowledge of sinful behavior, it is not sinful…or rather, it is a sin that will not be held against them.

Yes objectively it is an act of fornication.

Objectively it was an act of a “gravely sinful nature”.

Had they known --they could have thereby “committed a mortal sin”…

But rather they are in a “punitive marriage”.

Acting in good faith.

Thus they were not sinning…“not committing fornication”

(see above)

Similar to say a person who was separated from their sister at birth and later meets and “marries” her. Objectively they are involved in incest. But they do not know at all and therefore are in “good faith” and not “committing” incest.

Or a person who is not a Catholic and who is in a State of Mortal sin …who receives Holy Communion. Objectively such is gravely sinful…it is a sacrilege. But they did so totally in “good faith” …totally ignorant of such. So they have not “committed sacrilege”…

 

[OraLabora]

People are getting hung up on terminology. Since I’m a software analyst, exact terminology is important otherwise the specs I write risk mis-interpretation, so I tend to be a stickler for accurate terminology.

I suspect the Church is too, which is why in the Catechism, “mortal” is not an attribute of the sin, but a state of the sinner. “Grave matter” is the attribute indicating the seriousness of the sin, and is an objective assessment of the seriousness of the matter. A sin cannot, by itself, be mortal. Any sin that is grave matter has the potential to be mortal depending on the circumstances in which it happened, which can include things like taking into consideration the maturity and formation of the sinner. As such it is very subjective.

Most tend to use the two terms interchangeably but that just confuses the issue and can lead to misinterpretation, hurt feelings, and inadvertent condemnation. I think debate on this forum would be altogether less acrimonious if people stuck to the “official” terminology in the Catechism, notwithstanding what earlier Church documents might have used.

Since none of us here can rightly determine if someone is in a state of mortal sin or not, then we should avoid the use of that term unless applying it to ourselves.

It is of course right to say that a particular sin is grave matter, and to warn someone that persisting in it puts their soul at risk, but we should refrain from making the judgement call as to whether that person is in a state of mortal sin or not. That’s the realm of the priest hearing the confession.

 

[nickybr38]

That’s a good point. Perhaps people could amend the way you stated or amend by saying: That has the potential to BE a mortal sin, especially after you read this post…

 

[Bookcat]

People are getting hung up on terminology. Since I’m a software analyst, exact terminology is important otherwise the specs I write risk mis-interpretation, so I tend to be a stickler for accurate terminology.

I suspect the Church is too, which is why in the Catechism, “mortal” is not an attribute of the sin, but a state of the sinner. “Grave matter” is the attribute indicating the seriousness of the sin, and is an objective assessment of the seriousness of the matter. A sin cannot, by itself, be mortal. Any sin that is grave matter has the potential to be mortal depending on the circumstances in which it happened, which can include things like taking into consideration the maturity and formation of the sinner. As such it is very subjective.

Most tend to use the two terms interchangeably but that just confuses the issue and can lead to misinterpretation, hurt feelings, and inadvertent condemnation. I think debate on this forum would be altogether less acrimonious if people stuck to the “official” terminology in the Catechism, notwithstanding what earlier Church documents might have used.

Since none of us here can rightly determine if someone is in a state of mortal sin or not, then we should avoid the use of that term unless applying it to ourselves.

It is of course right to say that a particular sin is grave matter, and to warn someone that persisting in it puts their soul at risk, but we should refrain from making the judgement call as to whether that person is in a state of mortal sin or not. That’s the realm of the priest hearing the confession.

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Moral Theology uses the terms in the various ways.

One may say simply “murder is mortal sin” or “murder is a grave sin” etc. Speaking to the nature of the thing. One may also say for example “murder is grave matter for mortal sin” but of course that takes more time

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8687570&postcount=8

But yes it is very important to distinguish.

I someone asks “Is fornication a mortal sin?” or “Is fornication a grave sin?”

One can simply answer --yes.

If they ask start wondering “Did I commit a mortal sin (grave sin) when I did such and such” one then gets into all the three aspects.

 

[OraLabora]

But rather they are in a “punitive marriage”.

I think you meant a “putative” marriage, although I suppose to some in such a situation it might have seemed like punishment, otherwise they would not have sought an annulment

The Magisterium of the Catholic Church and Moral Theology uses the terms in the various ways.

One may say simply “murder is mortal sin” or “murder is a grave sin” etc. Speaking to the nature of the thing. One may also say for example “murder is grave matter for mortal sin” but of course that takes more time

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=8687570&postcount=8

It is of course simplest to call it exactly what it is… “grave matter” or a “grave sin”. The Catechism is meant as the plain-language teaching document for the laity. The magisterial documents are aimed more at theologians, bishops and other clergy, who are more likely to pick up on the nuances; they were also translated from the Latin, and the language may have evolved since they were written. They may also have been subjected to poor translations.

So as laymen we should use the Catechism so that there is no risk of confusion. If we use the terminology loosely, we risk sowing confusion, particularly among newcomers to the faith, and the scrupulous.

Seems to me a simple matter to follow the Catechism’s language. Don’t know why people have trouble with it.

 

[Bookcat]

The Catechism is meant as the plain-language teaching document for the laity.

It is actually not meant to be such.

 

[Bookcat]

So as laymen we should use the Catechism so that there is no risk of confusion. .

Hence I distinguished…

 

[nickybr38]

Originally Posted by OraLabora View Post
The Catechism is meant as the plain-language teaching document for the laity.

Really? Because when I took RCIA our team leader kept encouraging us not to read it because it was ‘too difficult to read’ and full of ‘complicated terminology’. She certainly didn’t think it was plain-language! Haha.