Sin and Full Conscience

  • Thread starter Thread starter La-Petite-Fleur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
In short, I suppose what I’m understanding now is:

For one to be in a state of mortal sin, they will have had to:
  1. Committed a grave sin (grave=mortal,mortal=grave?)x
  2. Committed it even while fully knowing that it was mortal*
  3. Do it with deliberate consent+
x,*But even still, even if they didn’t know it was mortal/it wasn’t mortal anyway, they just were concerned or feared that maybe it might be, they are still then guilty of the mortal sin of gambling with the risk of committing a mortal sin against God (+.Even if it wasn’t their deliberate consent to commit any kind of mortal sin in the first place, not even to gamble to offend God?)

----ok lets try to clear things up:

For one to commit a mortal sin, they will have had to:
  1. Done something that is a grave matter (grave=mortal,mortal=grave?)x
  2. Committed it even while fully knowing that it was GRAVE*
  3. Do it with deliberate Full consent+
if three are not together present they did not commit a mortal sin.

A person with scruples or basically slight fears --not good reasons to believe it is serious matter – would be advised to dismiss those scruples…

But if another person has good reasons to think that something may actually be grave – ie their conscience -not scruples-- says ‘stop this may be grave’ --then they should stop and figure things out first before acting. If they do not stop to figure things out one way or another – they may commit a mortal sin for their conscience has recognized that they should stop due to the good or serious reasons to think it may be a grave matter…
and that would be thus a grave matter itself.

thus if this is the case and is done with full knowledge and full consent – they commit a mortal sin. the three are there together.

But a person with scruples or a difficulty with them – has to ignore their fears for he has judged them --or has been told by a confessor – to be scruples and should there for dismiss them…act against them. they have to conquer their scruples for they will confuse their fearful scruples with the above --which is NOT the same. thus they are told to that in acting such they do not sin.
 
La-Petite-Fleur said:
In short, I suppose what I’m understanding now is:

For one to be in a state of mortal sin, they will have had to:


  1. ]Committed a grave sin (grave=mortal,mortal=grave?)x
    ]Committed it even while fully knowing that it was mortal    ***
    ]Do it with deliberate consent*+**

    x,*But even still, even if they didn’t know it was mortal/or it wasn’t mortal anyway, they just were concerned or feared that maybe it might be, they are still then guilty of the mortal sin of gambling with the risk of committing a mortal sin against God (+.Even if it wasn’t their deliberate consent to commit any kind of mortal sin in the first place, not even to gamble to offend God?)
Click to expand...

  1. I would say you would need to look to the reason for the doubt as to whether it is mortal or not. If the reason is sufficient, that is one thing, if it is not, that is another.

    Some people merely have delicate consciences, others are scrupulous… it can be hard to tell which is which. It is actually quite good to have a delicate conscience because it can lead you to a life of great purity. 🙂
 
Thank you :hug1:. I appreciate your answers (and everyone’s). I’m just trying to understand. Right when I thought that for a person to be in a state of mortal sin they had to know it was mortal, I have now learned that even if they are concerned without knowledge, and still continue ahead, then they are in a state of mortal sin for another reason all together (gambling with mortal sin).My epiphany is broken :newidea::knight2: :sad_bye:.

It’ll be a while before I can ever begin to discuss this with a priest, as I don’t yet belong to a parish. In the meantime, my only guess to a solution is that I can pray for confidence that I can never be mistaken in judgement ;).
Shin said:
La-Petite-Fleur…

I know not as much about scrupulosity as I should like, and tend to speak in general towards what is the standard approach. But speaking specifically to you – The impression I am getting about you is that you are at least very sensitive.

It seems you are equating things generally at least, as mortal sins that aren’t without aggravating circumstances: gossip, judging, etc. i.e. normally they aren’t at all mortal.

For people with disordered approaches, corrective measures call for different approaches because of the disorder.

You can be aware of the general standards, and work towards being able to work that way in time. But – If you’re scrupulous there are people here who can point towards references for self-help that way, and you have to make allowances for yourself, treat yourself gently.

Normally for a person confused about what is mortal or not, I’d recommend reading a book like ‘The Theory and Practice of the Confessional’ But for you, if you are scrupulous that might give you just more material to confuse yourself with and debate when if you judged rightly, you would make the call immediately and interior debate would cease.

I think for you, finding a person who is a reliable and trustworthy confessor is best. So I recommend finding a gentle and more traditional priest if at all possible. 🙂

If you approach these things with a peaceful approach, and keep yourself recollected in peace as you work in your daily life, you will be more easily able to soundly judge what you are actually doing. The more distracted you are, of course the harder it is to judge in retrospect.
Click to expand...
 
I am going to quote you something from the “10 Commandments for the Scrupulous” on the Liguori website- I strongly urge you to go read the rest as well:
  1. If, before you perform or omit an act, you are doubtful whether or not it is sinful for you, you shall assume as certain that it is not sinful and shall proceed to act without any dread of sin whatever.
Click to expand...
This commandment is also supported by Saint Alphonsus. In his advice to confessors he says, “Scrupulous persons tend to fear that everything they do is sinful. The confessor should command them to act without restraint and overcome their anxiety. He should tell them that their first obligation is to conquer their scruples. They should act against their groundless fears. The confessor may command the scrupulous to conquer their anxiety and disregard it by freely doing whatever it tells them not to do. The confessor may assure the penitent the he or she need never confess such a thing.”
Click to expand...
What you must try to make yourself understand is that a scrupulous conscience must be dealt with differently than a healthy one. A person with a healthy conscience is obligated to resolve their doubts before acting, or they sin through their willingness to commit a mortal sin even if the action did not turn out to be one; a person with a scrupulous conscience who fears that all that they do is mortally sinful is obligated to “conquer their scruples,” which means acting against their fears. It is not that they are willing to gravely offend God by “risking” this action or that, they are simply unable to judge between what actually potentially offends God and what is their own fear, unlike the person with the healthy conscience who can tell the difference. When your scruples are firmly in hand, you will have no trouble discerning this for yourself. When your scruples are very active and being given free rein, it is impossible for you to judge, and God does not demand of us what is impossible. He is both just and merciful.
 
La-Petite-Fleur said:
It’ll be a while before I can ever begin to discuss this with a priest, as I don’t yet belong to a parish.
Click to expand...
You certainly can discuss this with any priest you want. Call the parish where you go to Mass (or any other parish) and ask for an appointment for confession. One of the most important things any priest does is to administer the sacraments to anyone who asks, not only his parishioners. Confession is a particularly appropriate venue for these questions, because you are able to receive absolution for the things that are determined to be sins.

Another option would be to visit a monastery and ask to speak to a priest. Religious order priests are very often experts at spiritual direction.

God wants you to be helped with this. Please don’t think you can’t get the help you need.

Betsy
 
Betsy, Pray4Life, and everyone, thank you :hug1:. You have all been so helpful, and I am very, very thankful. God bless you all, and again, thank you!
 
La-Petite-Fleur said:
Hmmm… I feel like I’m getting two answers :hmmm:. From Bookcat I’m understanding that it isn’t enough to “worry” that what one is doing is mortal, one has to actually “know”. This sounds in line with the three conditions. But from Shin I’m understanding that even if one is worried (doesn’t “know”, but just has concern) that something could be mortal, that if they go ahead and do it, they’re even still guilty of mortal sin -because they took the risk of mortally sinning against God. But everything is a risk isn’t it…?

I also understand from both that we must educate ourselves to know whether certain things are mortal, and when it is practical to do so I understand. But I’m concerned that I rarely ever know well beforehand what I’m about to do. Does anyone know what they’re going to be doing, thinking, saying, 17 minutes from now? How can I research what I’m about to say/do if I’m right on the verge? Sometimes I know a few minutes or seconds before I say something what I’m going to say (and it is during that time that I wonder if it could be a mortal sin, or if it is nothing at all). Sometimes for some things, I have no way of finding out if what I’m about to do or say falls under the category of a particular mortal sin (For instance, I could worry that I’m gossiping when I mention something mundane about someone. I would worry that I had committed a mortal sin of gossip, and because I went ahead and said the statement, I would still be guilty of mortal sin because I took the risk of offending God?).

If I analyze everything enough, I could present cases for why so many things could be mortal on one hand, and sinless on the other. I would become an unmoving, mute statue, so as not to risk saying/doing anything… because I could possibly see how everything in some way may possibly fall under the category of one mortal sin or another, and so as to not even fall under the mortal sin of gambling the risk of offense to God, how could I even move or make a sound, except to immediately do research before each and every thing?

That’s why I’m thinking that I’m missing something in my understanding… that yes, one must absolutely inform one’s conscience, but how much time do you have… and then is it never, ever okay to act/speak without informing one’s conscience (no matter how little time one has to do so- seconds or minutes, even)?

That’s where the second condition, I would hope, applies. That one has to KNOW with an already informed conscience. Maybe one can drop everything, at every turn, at every word, to try to check, somehow, if something is mortal. Because if they speak the sentence they were concerned may be mortal (even if it’s not mortal), if they do whatever it is they worry might be mortal in some way, then even if it is not mortal, if they did not use the time they had (minutes, moments, hours, etc) to check, then they would be guilty of a mortal sin anyway… the sin of risking that they took a gamble at offending God (even if offending God wasn’t their intent)?
Click to expand...
This is why the rule regarding not acting doubtfully does not apply to one who is having scruples 🙂 for what you describe sounds like scruples …which are to be ignored and acted against.

On a side note --is it only in the areas of speech that you are having this difficulty?

ok back to the response…

Scruple does not = acting doubtfully for a scruple is a scruple and not a real doubt.

A real positive doubt is when ones conscience (not feelings…reason) tell you that you there is good reason to see that something is a sin or in the case of serious matter --that something may be serious. And thus one should not act.

But with a person with scruples (and what you describe sounds like scruples!) they will be stuck and never be able to act for the FEAR that so many things are sins or even grave matter …not that they have good solid evidence but just fears … and thus they are told usually to act against such and in doing so THEY ARE NOT ACTING DOUBTFULLY – for their true conscience or a confessor has told them this is the way to go…
 
Shin said:
I would say you would need to look to the reason for the doubt as to whether it is mortal or not. If the reason is sufficient, that is one thing, if it is not, that is another.
Click to expand...
a person with scruples is often unable to do this --especially in the midst of action …hence they are to ignore in most cases this principle of not acting in doubts for they know their doubts are often --not doubts but scruples.
 
So… for a person with a confident (normal/non-anxious/non-scrupulous) conscience, if they have a concern that something is a sin, it would be because their consciences have at some time been presupposed to the knowledge beforehand. Therefore with their well informed “hunch” they go ahead and “do it anyway”, then they are guilty of mortal sin, even if they are mistaken, because they have gambled with mortal sin at risk of offending God.

But, for a person who often worries that the little things somehow fall under a big category of one mortal sin or another, without full knowledge presupposed beforehand (just the fear of “maybe/what if/might be” backing up their rational -thus not a real doubt) then they are scrupulous, and therefore should ignore their fears and not feel bad when they “do it anyway” because they should suppose that their conscience is being hyper & wrong. They would not then be guilty of mortal sin, because they won’t have gambled with mortal sin at the risk of offending God… they would have just been “conquering their scruples, which means acting against their fears. It is not that they are willing to gravely offend God by risking this action or that [unlike those with normal conscience], they are simply unable to judge between what actually potentially offends God and what is their own fear, unlike the person with the healthy conscience who can tell the difference” as Pray4Life mentioned. Am I getting it?

Another thing though… what if I actually don’t have scruples, just a delicate conscience? Actually, what if I don’t know which one I have? Which rule does one go by?

So, let’s say for me… I often worry about words (not actions as much as words, although sometimes both). I worry that things I say, even while saying them (or even a moment before), fall under the catagory of judgement or pride or some catagory of mortal sin. I don’t know for a fact that I’m scrupulous, or just have a delicate conscience. How should I go forth? Should I treat my concerns as scrupulous and continue on, or should I treat my concerns as legitimate, and stop for fear of offending God with gambling with mortal sin?

For me, my concerns seem to me to be sudden worries of “what if what I’m about to say falls under the category of this-or-that-mortal-sin”,* instead of* legitimate concerns that are brought to mind because of previous study or knowledge. I would say my concerns are fears, cautioning me… and not knowledge nor full knowledge (especially as I wouldn’t bet on it!).


  1. *]So would I be safe (as in, safe from Hell) if I just treated my conscience as though it has a tendency toward scrupulous fears, rather than true concerns? If I went ahead and “carried on” in word or action then, would I be committing the sin of gambling with mortal sin & offending God? Or would I be exempt from that in my case?
    *]And also- what would happen to me if I supposed I were scrupulous, but was wrong? Would God have mercy?
    Bookcat said:
    This is why the rule regarding not acting doubtfully does not apply to one who is having scruples 🙂 for what you describe sounds like scruples …which are to be ignored and acted against.

    On a side note --is it only in the areas of speech that you are having this difficulty?

    ok back to the response…

    Scruple does not = acting doubtfully for a scruple is a scruple and not a real doubt.

    A real positive doubt is when ones conscience (not feelings…reason) tell you that you there is good reason to see that something is a sin or in the case of serious matter --that something may be serious. And thus one should not act.

    But with a person with scruples (and what you describe sounds like scruples!) they will be stuck and never be able to act for the FEAR that so many things are sins or even grave matter …not that they have good solid evidence but just fears … and thus they are told usually to act against such and in doing so THEY ARE NOT ACTING DOUBTFULLY – for their true conscience or a confessor has told them this is the way to go…
    Click to expand...
 
From the Catholic Encylopedia of 1912 with my modernized edit;

"The scrupulous may, and ought to, act in defiance of their misgivings, i.e. against their so-called conscience. Nor can they, therefore, be impeached as acting in a state of practical doubt. The unreal (fears), or the unsubstantial consideration that offers itself to … has no validity against the conscience once formed upon the pronouncement of the confessor or in some other equally trustworthy fashion. "

From a Handbook of Moral Theology from 1918 by Preuss with modernized edit:

“The rule bidding a man to abstain from acting as long as their conscience is in a state of doubt, does not apply to (persons with scruples). If it did, they would never act at all, as they are never free of doubt.”

For mostly the doubts they experience are not true doubts but unreasonable fears and scruples.
 
Bookcat said:
From the Catholic Encylopedia of 1912 with my modernized edit;

"The scrupulous may, and ought to, act in defiance of their misgivings, i.e. against their so-called conscience. Nor can they, therefore, be impeached as acting in a state of practical doubt. The unreal (fears), or the unsubstantial consideration that offers itself to … has no validity against the conscience once formed upon the pronouncement of the confessor or in some other equally trustworthy fashion. "

From a Handbook of Moral Theology from 1918 by Preuss with modernized edit:

“The rule bidding a man to abstain from acting as long as their conscience is in a state of doubt, does not apply to (persons with scruples). If it did, they would never act at all, as they are never free of doubt.”

For mostly the doubts they experience are not true doubts but unreasonable fears and scruples.
Click to expand...
Oh, that’s a gem! Are those 1912 & 1918 still valid today, or has something since Vatican II come about that overrides them?

So, does that mean that if I fight against my fears (ignore the fear that I may be sinning, and continue on), that it won’t be as though I gambled with mortal sin & offended God… I’ll still be in a state of grace?
 
I think it would be more than a “hunch” for a person with a normal conscience…

…
As to your question:

A person has a delicate conscience when she is very sensitive to sin and very much does not want to offend God and knows how to distinguish normally between what is mortal sin and venial sin.

A person has scruples – when they for example have unreasonable fears --all those “what ifs” and they fear venial sins are mortal or non sins are sins.

There can be various degrees of scruples.

A person can have scruple also only in certain areas or in all areas.

A person can have a very good conscience and even a delicate conscience in many things but still be subject to scruples or a tendency to them in certain areas.

A good confessor over time can be a good judge.

Often a person with scruples has trouble accepting them as scruples for ‘doubt’ is part and partial to scruples! The French call scrupulosity “the doubting disease” (though it is not a disease).

From all the examples you gave here – it sounds like you at least have some scruples in this area of speech.

So inform yourself as to what is really a sin in this area (with the Catechism etc …good confessor) and find a good confessor. Then if he confirms you have scruples in this area you will already know alot about them and what to do 🙂

And keep in mind that in order to commit a mortal sin one needs the grave matter, full knowledge and full consent. Period.

EVEN if you did not have scruples in this area – in order to have grave matter in the matter of “acting doubtfully” you would still need to have full knowledge that the particular thing would really be “acting doubtfully” (I would say you would have to be CERTAIN in your case) and then go ahead and do it knowing this.

So i would keep the three aspect needed in mind and go with this.

And then seek to avoid real sin --meaning venial sins too of course…and to keep your attention of following Christ.

Also remember that while we can avoid mortal sins and individual deliberate sins by the grace of God …the Church teaches that apart from a special grace of God we can not avoid all venial sins…

So we must use these times we do sin to humble ourselves and turn to God …

Another important thing is keep ones focus not so much on avoiding sin (though one does that as is reasonable) but on following Jesus of Nazareth the Christ as his disciple. As a Christian. Focus more on loving him, on the Gospels and the Letters of the New Testament, on prayer, on virtue…on walking in the Spirit and in love…
 
Bookcat said:
I think it would be more than a “hunch” for a person with a normal conscience…
But it would depend on how such was defined…they may or may not need to check further into things…
Click to expand...
 
While I’m online for just a little while, I wanted to drop by and ask about one of the main things that I find concerning:

It’s about how one can put themselves in a state of mortal sin by a situation where they don’t know for a fact that something is a mortal sin, but they decide to do it anyway. The mortal sin, being then, ‘the willingness to risk committing a mortal sin’. (“Offending God by way of gambling with mortal sin” as mentioned before.)

My question about that (to see if I understand, and I’m sorry if I state this several times):

For the “normal” person of average conscience: if they do what they are concerned may be a mortal sin, then they do become guilty of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”. They become guilty of this because their concerns would supposedly have been based on prior knowledge. Correct?

But for the scrupulous: if they do what they are concerned may be a mortal sin, then they would not be guilty of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”. They are spared from being guilty because their doubts are not based on “prior knowledge”, they are based on “what if’s”, and as such,* their doubts are not real doubts based on prior knowledge, but fears with lack of knowledge*. Correct?
  • People with normal consciences have legitimate concern that something may be a mortal sin, because their concern is based on prior knowledge. And that is what makes them guilty of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”
  • People who are scrupulous don’t have legitimate concern that something may be a mortal sin, because their concern is based on worry (worry that something may fall under a particular category of mortal sin), but not by prior knowledge. And that is what makes them innocent of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”
Am I understanding correctly?
I have to go for now, I’ll return :).
 
My answers will be with *** next to them
For the “normal” person of average conscience: if they do what they are concerned may be a mortal sin, then they do become guilty of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”. They become guilty of this because their concerns would supposedly have been based on prior knowledge. Correct?

***It is not because their concerns are based on prior knowledge per se it is for the reasons below:

It is because it is a grave matter to be willing to thus commit a mortal sin…

“One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate (full) consent” (Compendium of the Catechism with added word). This applies to everyone. So a person must have a grave matter (say murder) and full knowledge (know murder is a serious sin and that what they are going to do is murder) and then give full consent (choose to murder someone freely and completely in their will …even perhaps carry it out)

It can happen that a person can commit mortal sin when they are in real doubt as to if the thing they are thinking of doing is a serious matter (they have good reasons that it may be and perhaps even good reasons why it may not be grave matter --but they are unable to make a judgment either way --that it is grave or not). So they then have a circumstance where if they act without settleing the doubt that it is not grave matter --this would be itself a grave matter. Then if they do it with full knowledge (knowing it is a grave matter to act like this here and now) and they have full consent.

This is only in regards to positive doubts. Where there seems to be equal reasons for and against its being sin and the mind cannot arrive at a judgment one way or the other.

(a negitive doubt -meaning very slight reasons on either side–and such doubts with calm consideration are to be regarded as temptations and dismissed–for example scruples and unfounded fears and unfounded worries)

So in the case of a mortal sin he would thus have:
  1. The grave matter “acting doubtfully gravely”: of having good (or at least serious) reasons (positive practical doubt) that something is a grave matter but not taking the needed steps of finding out and going ahead and acting.
  2. He knows this is the case with full knowledge.
  3. He gives his full consent.
So what must he do to avoid mortal sin? He needs to solve his doubt. (we should of course avoid venial sin as well.)

How?

By reasoning. seeking advice. research. prayer for light and perhaps observing the conduct of other good people in similar circumstances. reading the CCC etc.

(or he may solve it indirectly at times with what are called reflex principles.)

But for the scrupulous: if they do what they are concerned may be a mortal sin, then they would not be guilty of the mortal sin of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”. They are spared from being guilty …

*** It is because Scruples are not real doubts. They would be more in the field of negative doubts or fears. So it is said that this rule does not apply to those with scruples. For they would confuse real doubt with scruples and never act! They must dismiss their doubts and go with certainty. If they are not certain it is a mortal sin --they do not commit a mortal sin.(for they have their rules for their scruples or other instructions from their confessor etc) This is again due to the fact they are filled with ‘doubts’ due to their scruples (unreasonable feelings and fears or ideas). But these are NOT the doubts that is in question here. But it is often too much to ask them to try to figure out what are real doubts so the works on scruples say they may dismiss all their doubts. That they may act against them. (It is also said that due to their hightened sensitivity they will know quite often if they know when a real grave matter is involved…) (It can happen of course that those with scruples are certain they should not act in a real way as well–but they would be certain they it should not be done and it would not be a problem for them scruplewise–but do not let this confuse those with scruples out there – stick with your confessor etc)
Code: 
* People with normal consciences have legitimate concern that something may be a mortal sin, because their concern is based on prior knowledge. And that is what makes them guilty of the mortal sin of "offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin"
***rather If a person with a normal conscience or a lax one finds that he is unable to judge that an act is good or evil he will suspend his judgment. And thus not act until he figures it out. If he acts without one way or another settling it …he can sin because he knew he should find out first and thus was willing to do something evil. in this case if he has good reason to think it is serious …it can be mortal. (there are other things to consider here too…for example when he cannot figure it out but must act …there are princples for this too in moral theology)
Code: 
* People who are scrupulous don't have legitimate concern ....(had to cut to post answer)
***They are not guilty BECAUSE they follow the rules or principles for those with scruples (the prior knowledge that helps them is that they know they have scruples and they know the principles they are to follow) — on the authority of their confessor or their actual conscience etc. And yes because the are acting mostly against scruples not with real positive doubt.

BUT REGARDING ORDINARY CONSCIENCES – THIS IS NOT NORMALLY A FREQUENT EXPERIENCE!!!
 

  1. *]What if someone is mistaken that they have scruples, and follows the rules meant for the scrupulous? When they go ahead and act according to the rules meant for the scrupulous, are their souls out of the state of grace because of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”? Someone could be mistaken that they’re scrupulous. Will God still hold them accountable as one with a normal conscience if they mistakenly thought they might be scrupuous and thus followed the guidelines meant for the scrupulous?
    *]Is a person required, under the pain of mortal sin, to be judged by a priest regarding whether or not they are scrupulous?
 
La-Petite-Fleur said:

  1. *]What if someone is mistaken that they have scruples, and follows the rules meant for the scrupulous? When they go ahead and act according to the rules meant for the scrupulous, are their souls out of the state of grace because of “offending God by risking the possibility of committing mortal sin”? Someone could be mistaken that they’re scrupulous. Will God still hold them accountable as one with a normal conscience if they mistakenly thought they might be scrupuous and thus followed the guidelines meant for the scrupulous?
    *]Is a person required, under the pain of mortal sin, to be judged by a priest regarding whether or not they are scrupulous?
Click to expand...

  1. It is good to ask ones confessor if one can follow those principles as one dealing with scruples…(but if the person can inform himself in some other way --and thus make a judgment of conscience that he can follow them …then he is in good faith…)

    And a person with scruples–will by definition be a person who will often even doubt if he has scruples…so they can goto to their confessor and go with his judgment and all is well! They can even doubt if the confessor tells them directly!

    And again a person may have a very fine conscience but have trouble with scruples in certain areas…and so they should work to rid themselves of those scruples and thus should see a good confessor and have him help with what to do or ask if a particular rule can apply to him…

    But as the saints have said and as has been the constant understanding in moral theology – they are safe if they follow their confessors direction. (unless he tells them to do something manifestly mortal like --i want you to kill so and so…)

    It is always important anyhow for a person with scruples to have a regular confessor anyhow–and in which case they can say to him --can I follow the principles for those with scruples --or can you actually tell me to go ahead and follow them. or even run them by him…then on his authority they are VERY safe.
 
Bookcat said:
It is always important anyhow for a person with scruples to have a regular confessor anyhow–and in which case they can say to him --can I follow the principles for those with scruples --or can you actually tell me to go ahead and follow them. or even run them by him…then on his authority they are VERY safe.
Click to expand...
Good. What about in the meantime… I don’t know how long it’ll be before I have a confessor. If I feel like I have scruples, and follow the rules for those with scruples, but I’m wrong about that, or at least wrong in some situation that I’m being scrupulous when I’m really not, then will God still hold me accountable for the sin of “offending God by taking the risk of committing a mortal sin” when I was mistaken without a priest?
 
La-Petite-Fleur said:
Good. What about in the meantime… I don’t know how long it’ll be before I have a confessor. If I feel like I have scruples, and follow the rules for those with scruples, but I’m wrong about that, or at least wrong in some situation that I’m being scrupulous when I’m really not, then will God still hold me accountable for the sin of “offending God by taking the risk of committing a mortal sin” when I was mistaken without a priest?
Click to expand...
You can start with any good priest you know. Later you can find another if you find one you work with better etc. just mention that you think you have a difficulty with scruples and ask him if he can tell you that you can or should (not under pain of sin mind you) follow the principles for scruples.

often the principles were given to apply to all experienced doubts…for those with scruples often could not tell what was a scruple and what was a real doubt…
 
It can happen that a person can commit mortal sin when they are in real doubt as to if the thing they are thinking of doing is a serious matter (they have good reasons that it may be and perhaps even good reasons why it may not be grave matter --but they are unable to make a judgment either way --that it is grave or not). So they then have a circumstance where if they act without settleing the doubt that it is not grave matter --this would be itself a grave matter. Then if they do it with full knowledge (knowing it is a grave matter to act like this here and now) and they have full consent.
Click to expand...
This is only in regards to positive doubts. Where there seems to be equal reasons for and against its being sin and the mind cannot arrive at a judgment one way or the other.
Click to expand...
(a negitive doubt -meaning very slight reasons on either side–and such doubts with calm consideration are to be regarded as temptations and dismissed–for example scruples and unfounded fears and unfounded worries)
Click to expand...
I hope I don’t shift the attention of this discussion solely on me…
Hours after confession, I committed something which was likely wrong. I saw a shopping cart sitting close to some cars in a parking lot. I could have moved it but laziness overtook me. At first I wasn’t sure how serious my inaction was, but then I thought to myself that “the worst that could happen is that a car could get a little scratch”. I regret not doing anything because now I am agonizing over this.

Does this fall under positive doubt?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top