Sin and Full Conscience

[Bookcat]

I received your messages, thank you ! So just to check to make sure once more that I’m understanding clearly:

For someone to enter into mortal sin, in what they do they must know that the sin is mortal (not just worry/fear that it is), rather than just feeling it is a sin in general of some sort?

In other words, if a person doesn’t know for fact if a certain action or comment is mortal, venial, or sinless and they go ahead and do it (often before stopping everything to do research for their conscience), then they are not in a state of mortal sin? And the same for those who suspect that something is a sin, but to what degree they do not know for fact (just that it may be a sin somehow maybe) then they too are not in a state of mortal sin, because even though they may have feared it was a mortal sin, because they did not KNOW for fact, they are then not damned because they at that point didn’t have full knowledge?

Let me break it down a bit.

For ANYONE

To commit a mortal sin they there needs to be a grave matter, full knowledge and full consent.

If any of these are lacking the person did not commit a mortal sin.

if AFTER the action/omission the person who is seeking to follow Christ and trying to lead a good life – they would basically know if it they committed a mortal sin …so if there is doubt as to if one of those things were present they may judge that they did not in fact commit a mortal sin.

Doubtful ‘mortal’ sins need never be confessed.

For NORMAL CONSCIENCES OR LAX ONES

If before an action they have doubt – they think it there is good reasons to that something may be a grave matter (or any sin) they should not act in this state of doubt (good reasons for and against) until they are able to judge via prayer, thought, advice etc that it is not grave (or sin at all for that matter). A reflex principle can also be used at times.

(also there is a difference between a negitive doubt (an unfounded doubt or sight reasons) and a positive doubt)

For THOSE WITH SCRUPLES OR A TENDENCY FOR THEM

They can be told to ignore their doubts. (unless they are ‘certain’ perhaps that they should stop --like above --but then they will be certain in the conscience about it)

They would be able to follow fully with you said:

For someone with scruples to enter into mortal sin, in what they do they must know that the matter is grave (not just worry/fear that it is), rather than just feeling it is a sin in general of some sort.

In other words, if a person WITH SCRUPLES doesn’t know for fact (for certain) if a certain action or comment is mortal, venial, or sinless and they go ahead and do it (often before stopping everything to do research for their conscience), then they are not in a state of mortal sin? And the same for those who suspect that something is a sin, but to what degree they do not know for fact (just that it may be a sin somehow maybe) then they too are not in a state of mortal sin, because even though they may have feared it was a mortal sin, because they did not KNOW for fact, they THEN HAVE NOT COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN because they at that point didn’t have full knowledge. ( A PERSON WITH A NORMAL CONSCIENCE OR LAX CONSCIENCE WOULD NEED TO FIGURE THINGS OUT IF THEY HAVE REAL REASONS TO THINK SOMETHING IS SINFUL OR A GRAVE MATTER FOR MORTAL SIN ESPECIALLY(see above) – THOSE WITH SCRUPLES WOULD NOT FOR THEIR CONFESSOR HAS TOLD THEM OR AT LEAST THEY KNOW THEY CAN DISMISS DOUBTS AND STEER BY CERTAINTY --FOR OTHERWISE THEY WOULD TAKE THEIR SCRUPLES FOR REAL DOUBTS AND NEVER ACT OR GET ALOT OF PROBLEMS.)

For their confessor or their conscience judged that they have scruples and could thus follow those principles that are given those with scruples and not sin. (because the fears they have are scruples not real sins!!!)

They may act against the scruples based on their conscience or confessor …for they are not their conscience but only scruples. they can set aside doubts and stick with certainty.

 

[Bookcat]

I received your messages, thank you ! So just to check to make sure once more that I’m understanding clearly:

For someone to enter into mortal sin, in what they do they must know that the sin is mortal (not just worry/fear that it is), rather than just feeling it is a sin in general of some sort?

In other words, if a person doesn’t know for fact if a certain action or comment is mortal, venial, or sinless and they go ahead and do it (often before stopping everything to do research for their conscience), then they are not in a state of mortal sin? And the same for those who suspect that something is a sin, but to what degree they do not know for fact (just that it may be a sin somehow maybe) then they too are not in a state of mortal sin, because even though they may have feared it was a mortal sin, because they did not KNOW for fact, they are then not damned because they at that point didn’t have full knowledge?

If a person with a normal or lax conscience – knows they should find out if something is serious or even sinful before they do it – then they can sin. but a person with scruples is dealing with unfounded fears --scruples --not the verdict of a conscience that knows it should go look something it reasons may be serious sin or a venial sin…they are in a different boat…

 

[Shin]

I fully realize that everything in the Catholic faith isn’t in the Bible, but why wouldn’t mortal and venial sins be distinguished there? Jesus seemed to admonish many for various sins, and he didn’t distinguish by “types”, at least that I know of. Seriously curious, why does the Catholic Church feel it necessary? Do you only confess mortal sins? Thanks!

If anyone sees his brother sinning, if the sin is not deadly, he should pray to God and he will give him life. This is only for those whose sin is not deadly. There is such a thing as deadly sin, about which I do not say that you should pray.

All wrongdoing is sin, but there is sin that is not deadly.

1 John 5:16-17

The exegesis I have read on this would be that because deadly sin is so heart hardening, it takes saints and people of great sanctity, or great penance and sacrifice to pray efficaciously for them if they will convert, at all. So one may, but one is not obliged to pray for these.

Try looking up sins that cry out for vengeance, the seven deadly sins, etc. for further info. (There’s the Catholic Encyclopedia, and online works on Confession and Examinations of Conscience)

Some sin is venial, some sin is mortal.

 

[Shin]

A great line from Gerson if i recall right --but quoted by St. Alphonsius Ligori

“Contra scruplos agendum est, et fixo operis pede certandum”

(Act contrary to scruples and with a firm foot overcome them)

These are tough times for people with scruples!

I always love to see Latin!

 

[Pray4Life]

You’ve got some great info about scrupulosity on here, so although this is not exactly in reply to your initial questions, I’d like to offer a bit of advice as well, as someone who struggles/has struggled with a scrupulous conscience as well.

It is a VERY good idea to avoid reading posts here on CAF (or other sites, even) that deal with whatever subjects trouble you the most when it comes to your conscience. For instance, if sins of speech are particularly troubling to you, avoid reading threads about such things. Because you will see a very wide spectrum of opinions on here, both from Catholics in different parts of their walk with Christ, and non-Catholics who do not even hold to the same beliefs we do on the topics of sin and morality. It can easily become confusing or cause you to doubt yourself and your own actions (past or future) even more than you already do. My advice is that if you have specific questions or need more info about a topic of morality, to seek out your confessor (possibly, even preferably, in an appointment time aside from the scheduled confessional time, so you can talk out your concerns and take your time) and then TRUST what he tells you- i.e. do not seek out second, third, or fourth opinions, do not keep doing your own ‘research’ on the subject or give into the temptation to check out a thread with questions like yours to see what others would say. All these things can very much trouble your hard earned peace. It took me a while to learn this for myself so I thought I would pass it along.

And although you have indeed gotten some great advice in this thread, I would also recommend scrupulous persons not to ask questions about their doubts/fears on internet forums or of friends- reserve all such questions for your confessor, then heed his words with total confidence and NO fear, knowing he is responsible for his advice and that you CANNOT err in obeying him. Even if he were to be mistaken in something he told you, he would be held responsible by God for his counsel, you would not have sinned in your obedience to it. The same cannot be said of strangers on the internet, however well we mean- we are not your spiritual “father” or shepherd. This is a sure and fast and very safe way to a cure for what troubles you. We can all give you our best advice and try to help as best we can, but we will never be able to give you the same kind of security and peace of mind as obediently following your confessor will give you. Prayers for your healing and peace, please pray for me too

 

[Bookcat]

You’ve got some great info about scrupulosity on here, so although this is not exactly in reply to your initial questions, I’d like to offer a bit of advice as well, as someone who struggles/has struggled with a scrupulous conscience as well.

It is a VERY good idea to avoid reading posts here on CAF (or other sites, even) that deal with whatever subjects trouble you the most when it comes to your conscience. For instance, if sins of speech are particularly troubling to you, avoid reading threads about such things. Because you will see a very wide spectrum of opinions on here, both from Catholics in different parts of their walk with Christ, and non-Catholics who do not even hold to the same beliefs we do on the topics of sin and morality. It can easily become confusing or cause you to doubt yourself and your own actions (past or future) even more than you already do. My advice is that if you have specific questions or need more info about a topic of morality, to seek out your confessor (possibly, even preferably, in an appointment time aside from the scheduled confessional time, so you can talk out your concerns and take your time) and then TRUST what he tells you- i.e. do not seek out second, third, or fourth opinions, do not keep doing your own ‘research’ on the subject or give into the temptation to check out a thread with questions like yours to see what others would say. All these things can very much trouble your hard earned peace. It took me a while to learn this for myself so I thought I would pass it along.

And although you have indeed gotten some great advice in this thread, I would also recommend scrupulous persons not to ask questions about their doubts/fears on internet forums or of friends- reserve all such questions for your confessor, then heed his words with total confidence and NO fear, knowing he is responsible for his advice and that you CANNOT err in obeying him. Even if he were to be mistaken in something he told you, he would be held responsible by God for his counsel, you would not have sinned in your obedience to it. The same cannot be said of strangers on the internet, however well we mean- we are not your spiritual “father” or shepherd. This is a sure and fast and very safe way to a cure for what troubles you. We can all give you our best advice and try to help as best we can, but we will never be able to give you the same kind of security and peace of mind as obediently following your confessor will give you. Prayers for your healing and peace, please pray for me too

You have added some important information here. Especially if the person has a great trouble with scruples. It is very important to have a good confessor etc.

Though I would add that once one knows of other good sources --such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church or the apologist staff of CA (via phone) or other good sources (ones that do not increase the problems) – they can also seek to inform their consciences in these good ways.

Even for instance when they really have scruples the advice is often given that they should look to the example of other good informed Catholics – to see how they handle things and to model them… this is classic.

but it is also classic that he person should not normally be going to lots of different confessors …etc at least if this is a problem for them in their confusion. For practical judgment can vary. But this does not exclude other advice if the it is not a problem for the person…does not cause more confusion and scruples. For instance if a person seeks advice from a person more knowledgible in a particular field --say calls the nation Catholic bioethics center about a bioethics question…for some thing in particular need greater knowledge… especially certain tricky cases.

As well as the priest may not have much experience in this matter…so it is good for the person to understand the general and particular advice that has been given to those with scruples over the ages.

And of course – it may turn out that it does not work out with a particular priest due to good reasons (i mean good ones not scruple ones) --then one can change…

Each person is different of course. And it is true that one should try to stick with one confessor --especially if the scruples are high. But this does not exclude in every case the need and ability to inform oneself …regarding both scruples and the teachings of the Church.

but yes --still your caution stands and should be taken into consideration …especially one should know ones source and make sure it is in keeping with the Church etc

it CAN be a problem for many to be reading certain things or asking the wrong persons or many different ones…especially if the scruple are in high activity…

Your caution still stands as a caution. Let he who needs to hear …hear…

As St. Thomas More himself mentions a person with scruples should seek the advice of another virtuous man to help him…

…and especially in confession where there is special grace.

 

[Shin]

Yes a person who is scrupulous truly needs a good confessor. I would recommend F.S.S.P. or some other traditional parish if at all possible to go acquire one.

Interior peace, humility, self-abnegation… a sense of your own nothingness combined with worship and love of God and a true desire to do nothing to displease Him, I believe, can disperse scruples… because in this one has trust… and if one continually dwells with God in this peace and humility, how can one lose Him?

When one pursues only God, activities which are dangerous are not taken up, but spiritual activities instead of clear general virtue. And since that is what the mind is occupied with the assaults of devils are more clearly noticeable for what they are.

The basic traditional teachings about what is a near occasion of sin, and what is a sin, learning these combined with a proper humility should keep a person from sin and scruples, I think. It’s true tradition is extreme to the world, but Christ is extreme to the world, that is the Faith.

But I know very little about scruples, this is just what I think of it from what I have read.

‘Humble yourself before God; lose yourself in the very depths of that sacred desert of which I have, spoken to you; be absorbed by the Sovereign Good, consumed by the sacred fire of love. Believe me, this divine fire will dissipate all the dust and mist of scruples, and your soul will become purer and more beautiful in the eyes of your heavenly Spouse.’

‘Keep interior peace at every cost; pay no attention to fears or scruples. Experience will teach you that those vain fears of sin, etc., which I call veritable follies, ought to disappear in the fire of love.’

St. Paul of the Cross

'The first thing that hinders devotion are our sins, not only mortal sins but also venial sins. While little sins do not take away charity, they diminish its fervor, which is the same as devotion. So we should carefully avoid them, if not for the harm they do, at least for the great good that they prevent.

Excessive remorse of conscience that flows from our sins also impedes devotion. It makes the soul restless, depressed, faint and weak for every good practice.

Scruples obstruct devotion for the same reason. They are like thorns that prick the conscience and prevent it from resting in God and enjoying true peace.

Too many cares constitute another hindrance. They are those mosquitoes from Egypt that disturb the soul. They do not allow it to sleep the spiritual sleep that lulls the soul in prayer. What’s worse, they disturb the soul and divert it from its spiritual exercise.

Preoccupation with sensual comforts is another block to devotion because the person who indulges too much in worldly delights does not deserve those of the Holy Spirit.’

St. Peter of Alcantara

‘If those who are molested by scruples wish to know whether they have consented to a suggestion or not, especially in thoughts, they should see whether, during the temptation, they have always had a lively love to the virtue opposed to the vice in respect of which they were tempted, and hatred to that same vice, and this is mostly a good proof that they have not consented.’

‘The scrupulous should remit themselves always and in everything to the judgment of their confessor, and accustom themselves to have a contempt for their own scruples.’

‘Scruples are an infirmity which will make a truce with a man, but very rarely peace; humility alone comes off conqueror over them.’

St. Philip Neri

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I THINK I MAY UNDERSTAND:

Thank you all for the replies.

I was thinking about this last night, and this is where I’m at in understanding the topic at large:

Three conditions must be met for mortal sin (it must be mortal in itself, it must be done in full knowledge, it must be done in complete consent). If even one of those three are missing, the person is not in a state of mortal sin.

Just as a side note, I’m referring to people who in the present moment of their words/thoughts/actions right then have a check in their mind about the seriousness of the action in their situation/circumstance (for those with regular conscience they would know, for those who are scrupulous they would wonder/worry). Continuing on…

Persons with a regular conscience KNOW what mortal sins are, therefore they KNOW when they mortally sin. People with a hyper-analytical or scrupulous conscience WORRY that something is a mortal sin (even as they do it), therefore they WORRY that they have/are mortally sinned.

BUT, mere WORRY isn’t one of the three requirements for something to be a mortal sin. It is FULL KNOWLEDGE. Right?

If you were to put a person of regular conscience on the stand in court, question them with lie detectors, firmly asking “DO YOU KNOW IF WHAT YOU DID WAS A MORTAL SIN” they would reply yes, and pass the lie detector (let’s say they know because they had read about it being a sin, even in their personal situation). But if a scrupulous person was questioned in the same way, with lie detectors: “DO YOU KNOW IF WHAT YOU DID WAS A MORTAL SIN”, if they said yes, they would fail the lie detector, because they only WORRY without full knowledge that it was mortal. (Of course some may think they know, and some may in some circumstances truly know, but let’s leave them out of this, as I’m just talking about the worry-warts (like myself).

So then, again, for both normal consciences and scrupulous, both have to KNOW with FULL KNOWLEDGE, or else they aren’t guilty of mortal sin.

Here’s my latest: I just started a new thread elsewhere on the forum, asking a question in relation to a certain way of living (whether or not it was sinful). After posting it, I deleted it because I became afraid that I would have caused people to judge others in such situations as I described. I feared that I maybe sinned even in asking the question, because although I sought knowledge & answers pertaining to the question, I worried that I could be enabling people to cast judgment. Do I know for a fact that I mortally sinned? No, I don’t know for a fact. I don’t know with full knowledge that such a thing is mortal or even venial, especially when it wasn’t my intention to have people judge (just sought answers). Also, opinions, analyzing, discerning, and judging isn’t necessarily a sin.

So just because I “worry” that something I’m currently doing is a sin, that doesn’t cut it. I have to KNOW. If I knew, for a fact, with Full Knowledge (full knowledge meaning, that I both know such-and-such thing is a sin in itself, and also a sin in whatever particular situation I find myself in), then I would no longer be worried as I do it that I am committing a mortal sin, I would KNOW that I am committing a mortal sin. (I wrote in present tense, because I know if someone does something grave, then later realizes it was a mortal sin, then they are not guilty of mortal sin).

Let me put it one more way: Say I had to press a button when asked if I:

KNEW for a FACT, having informed my conscience beforehand so that I really did KNOW for a FACT, that the sin I committed was mortal and that I did it KNOWING so (not fearing so, but KNOWING so), and that I did it in full consent.

Would I press the button? Let’s say that If I KNEW without a shadow of a doubt that I committed a mortal sin, that when I pressed the button I would be blessed to go to confession right then and there. But if I said I KNEW, when I really only WORRIED (or worried that I knew, which is quite silly, you either know or you don’t), then I’d get an electric shock. How often would I press the button? Only when I really do know, for real, and not just mere worry.

And so is that it? …Worry isn’t a requirement for mortal sin, it is KNOWLEDGE… Knowledge that it is a sin in itself & a sin even in the circumstances that one is in.

If that’s true, if that’s how it works (for lack of a better word), then my life is about to become so much less stressed…

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Not to take away from my post right above this one (because it is important- I could be having a breakthrough up there :newidea, I just wanted to question this:

'Let us now proceed. We have spoken of the examination regarding mortal and venial sins. But were a person to do an action with a doubt whether it was a mortal or a venial sin, what kind of sin would he commit? He would be guilty of mortal sin…" -
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

God bless him, but that really does seem to contradict the second of the three requirements (that one must have full knowledge) which must be fulfilled to be guilty of mortal sin. Maybe as that was spoken before Vatican II, maybe things are now since definitively clarified (like in Catechism #1857). If so, I’ve never wanted to hug Vatican II as I do right now.

 

[Shin]

Not to take away from my post right above this one (because it is important- I could be having a breakthrough up there :newidea, I just wanted to question this:

'Let us now proceed. We have spoken of the examination regarding mortal and venial sins. But were a person to do an action with a doubt whether it was a mortal or a venial sin, what kind of sin would he commit? He would be guilty of mortal sin…" -
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

God bless him, but that really does seem to contradict the second of the three requirements (that one must have full knowledge) which must be fulfilled to be guilty of mortal sin. Maybe as that was spoken before Vatican II, maybe things are now since definitively clarified (like in Catechism #1857). If so, I’ve never wanted to hug Vatican II as I do right now.

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. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Not to throw you too much of a loop, but people commit mortal sin and go to Hell everyday without knowing that mortal sin exists.

What St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori is getting at (I think) is that if you doubt whether it is mortal or not, then proceed, it is mortal by default until you know it is not, because the doubt allows for that possibility and you are then willing to risk it – which means you are willing to commit a mortal sin, and so are certainly committing one because of that very decision to ‘take the gamble with gravely offending God’ regardless if it is naturally one or not.

 

[baltobetsy]

What St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori is getting at (I think) is that if you doubt whether it is mortal or not, then proceed, it is mortal by default until you know it is not, because the doubt allows for that possibility and you are then willing to risk it – which means you are willing to commit a mortal sin, and so are certainly committing one because of that very decision to ‘take the gamble with gravely offending God’ regardless if it is naturally one or not.

But THAT is one of the rules for people with normal or lax consciences that DOES NOT apply to those with scrupulous conscience.

Betsy

 

[Bookcat]

Ok bearing with you -response in caps in your text --I do not know fancy colors

I WILL HAVE TO DO THIS IN PARTS SINCE IT IS TOO LONG FOR THIS SITE …SO KEEP READING

PLEASE BEAR WITH ME, I THINK I MAY UNDERSTAND:

Thank you all for the replies.

I was thinking about this last night, and this is where I’m at in understanding the topic at large:

Three conditions must be met for mortal sin (it must be mortal in itself, it must be done in full knowledge, it must be done in complete consent). If even one of those three are missing, the person is not in a state of mortal sin.

*** NOT MORTAL IN ITSELF --THE TERM WOULD BE ‘GRAVE MATTER’ JUST LIKE A SWORD IS A GRAVE WEAPON BUT IS NOT IS NOT MORTAL TIL PUT IN SOMEONES HEART…OUCH

Just as a side note, I’m referring to people who in the present moment of their words/thoughts/ations right then have a check in their mind about the seriousness of the action in their situation/circumstance (for those with regular conscience they would know, for those who are scrupulous they would wonder/worry). Continuing on…

***NOT SURE I FOLLOW =='CHECK IN THEIR MIND…BUT ANYWAY ON WE GO

Persons with a regular conscience KNOW what mortal sins are, therefore they KNOW when they mortally sin. People with a hyper-analytical or scrupulous conscience WORRY that something is a mortal sin (even as they do it), therefore they WORRY that they have/are mortally sinned.

BUT, mere WORRY isn’t one of the three requirements for something to be a mortal sin. It is FULL KNOWLEDGE. Right?

*** CORRECT.

 

[Bookcat]

If you were to put a person of regular conscience on the stand in court, question them with lie detectors, firmly asking “DO YOU KNOW IF WHAT YOU DID WAS A MORTAL SIN” they would reply yes, and pass the lie detector (let’s say they know because they had read about it being a sin, even in their personal situation). But if a scrupulous person was questioned in the same way, with lie detectors: “DO YOU KNOW IF WHAT YOU DID WAS A MORTAL SIN”, if they said yes, they would fail the lie detector, because they only WORRY without full knowledge that it was mortal. (Of course some may think they know, and some may in some circumstances truly know, but let’s leave them out of this, as I’m just talking about the worry-warts (like myself).

ACTUALLY – IF THEY SAID YES THEY WOULD PASS -BECAUSE THEY WOULD GENERALLY KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY COMMITTED A MORTAL SIN. A PERSON WITH SCRUPLES WILL ‘DOUBT’ …MAYBE …PERHAPS…

THIS IS A MARK OF SCRUPLES --OFTEN THE PERSON THINKS – “THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A MORTAL SIN …OR WAIT NO I MAY NOT HAVE BEEN…OH --BUT PERHAPS IT WAS AND I SHOULD BE SURE…” .THIS IS WHY CONFESSORS OF OLD HAD A GREAT LITTLE PRINCIPLE THAT IF THE PERSON COULD NOT SWEAR ON THE BIBLE (NOT THAT THEY WOULD --F0R ONE SHOULD ONLY SWEAR IF IT IS A SERIOUS REASON) -THAT IT WAS MORTAL …THAT THEY HAD ALL THREE CONDITIONS —THEN THEY COULD DISMISS IT AS NOT BEING MORTAL. FOR THEY WOULD KNOW IF THEY ACTUALLY DID WITH THE STATE OF THEIR SENSITIVITY.

 

[Bookcat]

So then, again, for both normal consciences and scrupulous, both have to KNOW with FULL KNOWLEDGE, or else they aren’t guilty of mortal sin.

***YES THE THERE MUST NOT ONLY BE GRAVE MATTER BUT ANYONE --MUST KNOW IT IS GRAVE …AND DO IT ANYWAY.

BUT A PERSON MAY REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE SOME SOLID REASONS THAT SOMETHING MAY BE SINFUL OR EVEN SERIOUSLY SINFUL…THEN THE PERSON NEEDS TO CHECK IT OUT FIRST OR RESOLVE IT SOMEHOW AS I SAID IN OTHER POSTS ABOVE…

Here’s my latest: I just started a new thread elsewhere on the forum, asking a question in relation to a certain way of living (whether or not it was sinful). After posting it, I deleted it because I became afraid that I would have caused people to judge others in such situations as I described. I feared that I maybe sinned even in asking the question, because although I sought knowledge & answers pertaining to the question, I worried that I could be enabling people to cast judgment. Do I know for a fact that I mortally sinned? No, I don’t know for a fact. I don’t know with full knowledge that such a thing is mortal or even venial, especially when it wasn’t my intention to have people judge (just sought answers). Also, opinions, analyzing, discerning, and judging isn’t necessarily a sin.

*** SEE YOUR REASON AND SCRUPLES ARE BOTH IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH.
DISMISS THE SCRUPLES AND KEEP THE REASON ;0

YOU SEE FOR A PERSON WITH SCRUPLES – IT CAN HAPPEN THAT THEY CAN HAVE UNREASONABLE FEARS (SCRUPLES) RIGHT WHEN THEY ARE ACTING – --NOT REAL REASONS THAT SOME THIING IS A SIN BUT THE EMOTION OF FEAR WITH THE SCRUPLE THAT THEY MAY BE SINNING OR EVEN SINNING MORTAL…BUT WHAT THEY ARE ACTUALLY DOING MAY BE EVEN A GREAT GOOD WORK.

THEY ARE TOLD TO ACT AGAINST SUCH FEARS BY CONFESSORS. AND THUS STEER BY EVIDENCE …NOT FEARS/WORRIES WITHOUT SOLID REASONS!

So just because I “worry” that something I’m currently doing is a sin, that doesn’t cut it. I have to KNOW. If I knew, for a fact, with Full Knowledge (full knowledge meaning, that I both know such-and-such thing is a sin in itself, and also a sin in whatever particular situation I find myself in), then I would no longer be worried as I do it that I am committing a mortal sin, I would KNOW that I am committing a mortal sin. (I wrote in present tense, because I know if someone does something grave, then later realizes it was a mortal sin, then they are not guilty of mortal sin).

NOT SURE WHAT YOU MEAN BY ‘SIN IN WHATEVER PARTICULAR SITUATION I FIND MYSELF IN’ MEANS HERE – AVOID SO CALLED SITUATION ETHICS…

ANYHOW. YES A PERSON NEEDS TO KNOW SOMETHING IS GRAVE MATTER --THEY MAY KNOW THE TERM BUT THE GET THE IDEA- IN ORDER TO COMMIT A MORTAL SIN.

IN THE CASE WITH SOMEONE WITH SCRUPLES – ONE PRINCIPLE THAT IS OFTEN USED TO HELP THEM --IS THEY MUST BE CERTAIN THAT THE MATTER IS GRAVE…AND THEY ARE TO DISMISS ALL FEARS …AND ONLY KEEP THE REAL EVIDENCE. THUS IF THEY DO NOT KNOW WITH CERTAINTY --THAT SOMETHING IS SINFUL OR EVEN GRAVE IN THE CASE OF MORTAL SINS… THEY ARE TOLD TO ACT FREELY AND ACT AGAINST THEIR FEARS AND SCRUPLES AND THAT DOING SO THEY DO NOT SIN --USUALLY THIS IS FROM TALKING WITH A CONFESSOR WHO ASSURES HIM THAT IT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY. BUT ALSO IT HAS BEEN SAID IN GENERAL FOR THOSE WITH SCRUPLES.

FOR INSTANCE THE PUBLICATION OF SCRUP. ANON. HAS A LIST OF 10 COMMANDENTS FOR THOSE WITH SCRUPLES --THAT HAS THIS LINE

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. mission.liguori.org/newsletters/scrupulosity.htm

I WOULD TWIQUE A FEW THINGS IN THEM BUT THEY ARE PRETTY GOOD.

Let me put it one more way: Say I had to press a button when asked if I:

KNEW for a FACT, having informed my conscience beforehand so that I really did KNOW for a FACT, that the sin I committed was mortal and that I did it KNOWING so (not fearing so, but KNOWING so), and that I did it in full consent.

Would I press the button? Let’s say that If I KNEW without a shadow of a doubt that I committed a mortal sin, that when I pressed the button I would be blessed to go to confession right then and there. But if I said I KNEW, when I really only WORRIED (or worried that I knew, which is quite silly, you either know or you don’t), then I’d get an electric shock. How often would I press the button? Only when I really do know, for real, and not just mere worry.

And so is that it? …Worry isn’t a requirement for mortal sin, it is KNOWLEDGE… Knowledge that it is a sin in itself & a sin even in the circumstances that one is in.

BINGO!

BUT WITH SCRUPLES – IT CAN STILL BE A STRUGGLE BETWEEN KNOWING SOMETHING AND PUTTING IT INTO LIFE FULLY.

NOW I DO NEED TO ADD THAT – A PERSON WITH A NORMAL CONSCIENCE NEEDS TO CHECK OUT THE REAL DOUBTS BEFORE ACTING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER…

AND IT CAN HAPPEN TO FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS SCRUPLES THAT THEY REALIZE --WITH CERTAINTY THAT THEY NEED TO FIND OUT MORE-- THIS IS THEIR ACTUAL CONSCIENCE WORKING WELL --AND THEN THEY GO FIND OUT FIRST…

BUT THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNREASONABLE FEARS AND WORRIES AND THIS SITUATION.

 

[Bookcat]

Not to take away from my post right above this one (because it is important- I could be having a breakthrough up there :newidea, I just wanted to question this:

'Let us now proceed. We have spoken of the examination regarding mortal and venial sins. But were a person to do an action with a doubt whether it was a mortal or a venial sin, what kind of sin would he commit? He would be guilty of mortal sin…" -
St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori

God bless him, but that really does seem to contradict the second of the three requirements (that one must have full knowledge) which must be fulfilled to be guilty of mortal sin. Maybe as that was spoken before Vatican II, maybe things are now since definitively clarified (like in Catechism #1857). If so, I’ve never wanted to hug Vatican II as I do right now.

He is not contradicting the three requirements and in fact he uses them well in his works.

What he is talking about is when a person has REAL REASONS to think something may be a serious matter…and do not take due diligence in finding out if it is before acting willie nille (not the band) …

For their conscience NOT THEIR SCRUPLES is certain that they have real reasons to think the action may be mortal but they act against that conscience.

He then turns around and says that a person with SCRUPLES is in a different boat for their fears are scruples and not real doubts (or are often such). and thus they are to act against those fears.

think of the hunter in the woods – he does not know if the movement up ahead is a deer or his friend Henry-- he should not shoot until he knows it is a deer…if he shoots in doubt he is guilty of risking really shooting his friend even if it turns out to be a deer.

the person with scruples will see the deer and think without reason --hey maybe henry is wearing a deer costume to play a joke on me …or he will shoot seeing the deer and think as he pulls the trigger --maybe henry has a new deer camogfloge …

 

[Bookcat]

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. (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

Not to throw you too much of a loop, but people commit mortal sin and go to Hell everyday without knowing that mortal sin exists.

What St. Alphonsus Maria de Liguori is getting at (I think) is that if you doubt whether it is mortal or not, then proceed, it is mortal by default until you know it is not, because the doubt allows for that possibility and you are then willing to risk it – which means you are willing to commit a mortal sin, and so are certainly committing one because of that very decision to ‘take the gamble with gravely offending God’ regardless if it is naturally one or not.

Again as Betsy points out this does not apply to those with scruples!

Though it can also happen that one with scruples is certain that something is a prudent doubt --and thus will find out first too. cause he will be certain. or those he trusts with normal consciences and good knowledge will say wait…and he will.

Reason is key.

but yes it is what i was also trying to say a few times…when one has reasons something may be sinful – i mean positive doubts not little negative doubts …then a person with a normal conscience should not act.

A person with scruples may take all his fears as maybe good reasons…and never act…so he normally is to act against his fears and doubts and he is not there by “acting doubtfully”–not sinning.

 

[Bookcat]

A great line from Gerson if i recall right --but quoted by St. Alphonsius Ligori

“Contra scruplos agendum est, et fixo operis pede certandum”

(Act contrary to scruples and with a firm foot overcome them)

---

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

Hmmm… I feel like I’m getting two answers . 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)?

 

[La-Petite-Fleur]

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?)

 

[Shin]

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.