question about mortal sin...

[Monica4316]

I’m going to make up an example to explain this question… let’s say a person robs a bank. In order for this to be a mortal sin, do they have to think: “I know that robbing a bank would take me away from God, but I’ll do that anyway”. Or, in order for it to be a mortal sin, is it enough for them to recognize that robbing a bank is a “bad thing to do” but still choose to do it. For example, if they’re not a Christian and wouldn’t even think of God in their decision making process.

I’m asking because i said in another thread (not at all related to bank robbing or anything I’m talking about here, except the question of what is a mortal/venial sin) - that a person doesn’t necessarily need to think of God during this in order for it to be walking away from Him - in order to be a mortal sin, it’s enough that they knew it’s wrong, and still chose to do it. Of course for a Christian, they’d be more likely to think of God, so if they don’t want to offend Him, they’d probably choose not to do the action in the first place! (and if they choose to do the action knowing it’s wrong but thinking they don’t want to offend God, that’s sort of like presumption, cause sin does offend Him. I’m talking generally, not in any specific cases).

Am I correct? or not? thanks Just wanted to check my understanding!

 

[aspirant]

let’s say a person robs a bank. In order for this to be a mortal sin, do they have to think: “I know that robbing a bank would take me away from God, but I’ll do that anyway”.

A little more like “I know this is wrong, very very wrong, but I want to do it anyway.”

is it enough for them to recognize that robbing a bank is a “bad thing to do” but still choose to do it. For example, if they’re not a Christian and wouldn’t even think of God in their decision making process.

This.

 

[Julia_Mae]

I would suggest checking the Catechism first when these questions come up, this way you have a firm reference for Church teaching.

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."131

Here’s another graph from the same section:

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. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

IMO, only God knows when someone is in mortal sin. So we need to focus on our own understanding and be vigilant with ourselves and our behavior.

 

[Monica4316]

Thanks!

 

[sirach2v4]

1860 seems to be derived or otherwise closely related to paragraph 1735 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors

It might be most appropriate to say that robbing banks is objectively grave matter, but there are circumstances that lessen the sinfulness for an individual.

Although not well covered in the Catechism, I’ve run across scripture that is supportive of 1735 and some that contradicts it, especially that ignorance nullifies responsibility. Scripture says otherwise, in a couple of places.

But, notably, the first words of Jesus on the cross were a prayer for forgiveness of those who crucified him, because they didn’t know what they were doing, i.e. ignorance.

sychological and social factors" are broad and vague. 1735 is vague on practical details, such as, whether one can receive communion without confession, under its conditions. I would presume confession is not required, otherwise there would have been no practical reason to print the explanation in the Catechism.

1735 puts a person in a awkward condition, where they know they are sinning, but may be unable to avoid it, and go ahead consciously to do it, as in a habit. Someone has mentioned that one still has an obligation to try to overcome the habit, in the long run. I don’t know if somebody can overcome every type of psychological issue.

 

[Julia_Mae]

1860 seems to be derived or otherwise closely related to paragraph 1735 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

I loved your post.

 

[Thomas_Casey]

Good for moral theology forum