Shouldn't this be a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Inquiringperson
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
There can be venial sin…in looking at someone immodestly dressed…

but yes you are right that there can be mortal sin (for example…lusting after them etc).

That particular “examine” is *not *one that I would recommend…

(there are various things that can be moral but are listed as venial…and there is the mixing of venial things with imperfections which can cause difficulties for some --for there a number of person out there who struggle with scruples)
 
I was thinking the same thing…:confused: Last time I checked seeking that kind of stuff is a mortal sin because…

The Bible says:

[BIBLEDRB]Matthew 5:28[/BIBLEDRB]

And the Catechism condemns it too (CCC #2354). In fact, I think all sins of that nature is considered a mortal sin.
 
half those venial sins on that list looked like mortal sins too me
 
Inquiringperson said:
In my examination of conscience, it says that seeking pictures of immodest women is a venial sin. Shouldn’t it be a mortal sin? Here’s the link to my examination of conscience.

catholicparents.org/oxcart/Examination%20of%20Conscience.pdf
Click to expand...
*I might be wrong, but having pictures of immodestly dressed woman would tempt you to look at them and looking at them could cause you to have impure thoughts and maybe lust in your heart. In that case it would for sure be a mortal sin. I can’t really think of a good reason to posess them. *
 
It seems that everything is a “Mortal Sin”. Doesn’t that sort of cheapen the words “Mortal Sin?” Shouldn’t we take a deep breath, and tell him to ask his confessor instead of people on the internet?

OP-Ask your confessor.
 
There seems to be some confusion here. I believe the sin to be grave, but not all grave sins are mortal sins. Mortal sin has three criteria: the sin must be grave, it must be done with full knowledge and complete consent. So, for the moment let’s assume this is a grave sin. Complete consent seems to be met because the person is seeking the image out and no one is forcing them to do it. Two of the criteria are met for mortal sin. However, knowledge is another matter. If one does not have a developed conscience, in other words, they don’t really know what they are doing is a grave sin, then the sin IS NOT mortal. This is the teaching of the Church (see CCC 1854-1864 for more details).
 
catholicparents.org/oxcar…Conscience.pdf
Click to expand...
On page 9;

2001 Fr. Robert Altier C.P.O. Spiritual Director

(The examination was produced 10 years ago - well ahead of the grand depths that pornography has sunken to on the internet).

“Immodest” photos of women in 2001 are tame in comparison to the 2011’s “immodest” photos of women freely available on the internet.
 
Prayer_Warrior said:
There seems to be some confusion here. I believe the sin to be grave, but not all grave sins are mortal sins.
Click to expand...
and
Prayer_Warrior said:
If one does not have a developed conscience, in other words, they don’t really know what they are doing is a grave sin, then the sin IS NOT mortal. This is the teaching of the Church
Click to expand...
All grave sins are mortal sins…

Grave sin = mortal sin = serious sin

The Church uses these terms interchangably.

What your seeking to get at is that fact that some things are grave matter for mortal sin and if one does not say give complete consent…one does not commit a mortal or grave sin…even though “objectively” it was grave matter (or a mortal sin or grave sin or serious sin).

An examination is to note what is grave matter or venial matter…

and this one is like I noted above not one I recommend…
 
I was actually just looking at this examination of conscience. Is it any good?
 
Bookcat said:
and

All grave sins are mortal sins…

Grave sin = mortal sin = serious sin

The Church uses these terms interchangably.

What your seeking to get at is that fact that some things are grave matter for mortal sin and if one does not say give complete consent…one does not commit a mortal or grave sin…even though “objectively” it was grave matter (or a mortal sin or grave sin or serious sin).

An examination is to note what is grave matter or venial matter…

and this one is like I noted above not one I recommend…
Click to expand...
Yes, I meant grave matter rather than grave sin. sorry
 
Prayer_Warrior said:
Yes, I meant grave matter. sorry
Click to expand...
It can be easy to mix “grave sin” and “grave matter” up …especially when your typing them out 🙂

This is one way I explain things:

Mortal sin, Serious sin, Grave sin

The Church uses these terms in two senses (and objective if you will and a subjective). And in both senses the terms grave sin, mortal sin, and serious sin are interchangeable.

Here are the two senses:
  1. Objective sense
Murder is a grave sin.
Murder is a serious sin.
Murder is a mortal sin.

(all three mean the same)

this is one way the Church use the term. Talking about the ‘moral object’ of the act or the ‘objective kind of sin’. Referring to the object itself. Like if I said…do not commit murder for that is a mortal sin.

Then there is this way…
  1. Subjective sense…
I *committed *the grave sin of Murder
I committed the serious sin of Murder
I *committed *the mortal sin of Murder

(all three mean the same)

This is speaking of when the thing I committed is grave matter …done with full knowledge and deliberate (complete) consent.

Both are true. Both are ways the terms get used in Church documents
When speaking with someone as to what a mortal (etc) sin is…that is when it is committed. I prefer to use the language of “grave matter”. But it is still true that the thing itself can be said to be “a mortal sin” in the sense that murder is a mortal sin in itself…objectively.

Ordinarily I tell people “such and such is a grave matter” for mortal sin and if one does it with full knowledge and complete consent…then one commits a mortal sin.
 
Thanks for the responses guys. Now I will seek for a different examination of conscience.
 
Barbkw said:
“Immodest” photos of women in 2001 are tame in comparison to the 2011’s “immodest” photos of women freely available on the internet.
Click to expand...
So I’m guessing that immodest photos of women in 2001 were just girls in dress. Today, it’s girls in undergarments. What a huge change in just one decade!
 
…I thought that was a good examination of conscience. In fact, I use that as my examination of conscience.

But, I do think that looking at immodest pictures aren’t mortally sinful. Here’s why:

an immodest photo isn’t pornographic, but isn’t something you’d want people to see -like those commercials with underwear models.

There can be a different motive for seeking them out besides lust (say, hestitating and glancing back and curiosity). But if it’s done out of lust, well, it falls under lust.

I think, on its own, it’s just a venial matter.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top