Reduced culpability = not a mortal sin?

[Flopfoot]

You know how you can have reduced culpability for a sin, ie, the blame is partly taken off your shoulders because of factors hard for you to have controlled… if the culpability for what would normally be a mortal sin is reduced even in the slightest, would that then automatically make it a venial sin? Because I was thinking, what’s the point of having reduced culpability if it’s still a mortal sin? Who cares how grave a mortal sin is, regardless of the gravity it will still get you sent to hell if it’s unrepented… so there’s no comfort in knowing that your culpability is reduced… does this make sense? That’s why I thought that any amount of reduced culpability makes a sin venial at most. Is this right?

 

[thistle]

Flopfoot:

You know how you can have reduced culpability for a sin, ie, the blame is partly taken off your shoulders because of factors hard for you to have controlled… if the culpability for what would normally be a mortal sin is reduced even in the slightest, would that then automatically make it a venial sin? Because I was thinking, what’s the point of having reduced culpability if it’s still a mortal sin? Who cares how grave a mortal sin is, regardless of the gravity it will still get you sent to hell if it’s unrepented… so there’s no comfort in knowing that your culpability is reduced… does this make sense? That’s why I thought that any amount of reduced culpability makes a sin venial at most. Is this right?

Can you give an example we can look at?

 

[baltobetsy]

Yes, Flopfoot, you are right.

Grave matter is always grave matter, regardless of one’s degree of understanding of it.

The other two necessary conditions for mortal sin are the ones that can vary in degree and mitigate one’s guilt.

Full knowledge: If you don’t know something is a sin at all, then you do not commit a sin at all by doing the act. If you know it is sinful but are not aware that it is mortally sinful, then you commit a venial sin by doing the act. If you find out later that an act is sinful (or mortally sinful), that does not change your culpability. What matters is what you knew at the time you did the act.

Full consent of the will: Consent can be diminished by various factors that limit our freedom to decide how to act. These include fear, habit, and coercion.

It sometimes appears to me that we think of these things in terms of the rules of a game. This is helpful for our general understanding, but we must realize that it is the all-knowing, all-loving God Who will judge us on our actions. We can never “win the game,” i.e., get away with a sin, by applying the rules dishonestly. God knows us better than we know ourselves and will judge us fully in the truth. He also loves us more than we love ourselves, and will judge us with mercy.

Betsy

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

Flopfoot:

You know how you can have reduced culpability for a sin, ie, the blame is partly taken off your shoulders because of factors hard for you to have controlled… if the culpability for what would normally be a mortal sin is reduced even in the slightest, would that then automatically make it a venial sin? Because I was thinking, what’s the point of having reduced culpability if it’s still a mortal sin? Who cares how grave a mortal sin is, regardless of the gravity it will still get you sent to hell if it’s unrepented… so there’s no comfort in knowing that your culpability is reduced… does this make sense? That’s why I thought that any amount of reduced culpability makes a sin venial at most. Is this right?

Be careful with this. If the three conditions for a mortal sin are present, it is a mortal sin, period. I am not sure about what you mean by “culpability reduced even in the slightest”.

You addressed the requirement of deliberate consent. Lets address the gravity of the sin, since we can use the same argument (what comfort is there is knowing the gravity is reduced). If you are asking whether there are sins that seem graver than others, then the answer is yes. From the catechism: “Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.”
“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.” Following this, killing your parents is graver than killing a stranger, right? Are they both mortal sins? Yes. Is the purpose of stating that violence against parents is worse than violence against strangers supposed to comfort anyone who kills a stranger? No. It is just a fact that we are being told. The fact that both sins will lead us to hell does not change the fact that one is graver than the other, and the latter information is not meant to comfort, it is just reality.

 

[mosher]

lifeisbeautiful:

Be careful with this. If the three conditions for a mortal sin are present, it is a mortal sin, period. I am not sure about what you mean by “culpability reduced even in the slightest”.

You addressed the requirement of deliberate consent. Lets address the gravity of the sin, since we can use the same argument (what comfort is there is knowing the gravity is reduced). If you are asking whether there are sins that seem graver than others, then the answer is yes. From the catechism: “Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.”
“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.” Following this, killing your parents is graver than killing a stranger, right? Are they both mortal sins? Yes. Is the purpose of stating that violence against parents is worse than violence against strangers supposed to comfort anyone who kills a stranger? No. It is just a fact that we are being told. The fact that both sins will lead us to hell does not change the fact that one is graver than the other, and the latter information is not meant to comfort, it is just reality.

What he is asking has to do with culpability and not matter. Culpability is in a sense the level of responsibility that one has for a particular fault or sin. The problem is that two of the three conditions for an act to me a mortal sin could be affected by some internal or external force in such a way as to mitigate culpability and thus reducing the objective mortal sin to something less serious even down to an imperfection (which is not a sin at all). One must always remember that in ethics there is the objective truth and the subjective application which helps determine culpability.

 

[lifeisbeautiful]

mosher:

What he is asking has to do with culpability and not matter. Culpability is in a sense the level of responsibility that one has for a particular fault or sin. The problem is that two of the three conditions for an act to me a mortal sin could be affected by some internal or external force in such a way as to mitigate culpability and thus reducing the objective mortal sin to something less serious even down to an imperfection (which is not a sin at all). One must always remember that in ethics there is the objective truth and the subjective application which helps determine culpability.

I understand he is asking about culpability. That is why asked the OP to explain “culpability reduced even in the slightest”. My purpose was to show that the argument from which the poster parts (ie no comfort, makes no difference):
“Who cares how grave a mortal sin is, regardless of the gravity it will still get you sent to hell if it’s unrepented… so there’s no comfort in knowing that your culpability is reduced… does this make sense? That’s why I thought that any amount of reduced culpability makes a sin venial at most.”
is not enough to reach this conclusion, and I apply it to the other requirement (grave matter) to demonstrate this.
BTW, the Catechism says: 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. It also says: 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.

This is why I said to be careful. God can see right through us and knows whether we honestly did not have sufficient control over the situation to make a deliberate choice or if we are leaning on an excuse to be able to do whatever we want to do.

 

[Joysong]

We might reflect on Jesus’s words in Lk. 12:47-48:

That servant who knew his master’s will and did not act according to his will, will be beaten with many stripes. Whereas, he who did not know it, but did things deserving of stripes, will be beaten with few.

The second verse seems to apply, Flopfoot, to what you asked - that if we commit a serious wrong (deserving of stripes) yet did not know Our Master’s will, it is less culpable. Before acting on a matter so serious, though, I think we may be culpable if we do not reasonably try to learn the truth beforehand.

In our world of instant information technology, we would have far less of an excuse than someone in other centuries that had no telephone, TV, internet, travel, etc., to find out.

 

[mosher]

lifeisbeautiful:

I understand he is asking about culpability. That is why asked the OP to explain “culpability reduced even in the slightest”. My purpose was to show that the argument from which the poster parts (ie no comfort, makes no difference):
“Who cares how grave a mortal sin is, regardless of the gravity it will still get you sent to hell if it’s unrepented… so there’s no comfort in knowing that your culpability is reduced… does this make sense? That’s why I thought that any amount of reduced culpability makes a sin venial at most.”
is not enough to reach this conclusion, and I apply it to the other requirement (grave matter) to demonstrate this.
BTW, the Catechism says: 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. It also says: 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.

This is why I said to be careful. God can see right through us and knows whether we honestly did not have sufficient control over the situation to make a deliberate choice or if we are leaning on an excuse to be able to do whatever we want to do.

I understand what you are saying. It seems as if it is a discussion that deals with perspective. You are taking a top down approach which is objectivelly correct. However, I am taking a bottom up approach of explination simply for the sake of teaching because most think of sin from the perspective of mortal sin. Starting from that reference point mitigation of culpability tends to be explained a little bit easier to the average person. But you are correct in what you say.