Sin and how it relates to culpability hypothetical

[dcs6f4]

I will try to make this as short as possible…

A few of my Catholic friends and I were having a discussion on the nature of sin. The best way for me to explain it is that there were two schools of thought on this particular hypothetical:

A two year old kid goes into a grocery store and takes something he wants off the shelf. No one knows about it and he has no idea that it is wrong and the child and his parent leave the store without paying for the item. Is this a sin?

Getting caught up in the hypothetical is NOT the purpose here. Just assume the child has no knowledge that he should not do this. This is meant to look at the relationship between culpability and sin.

Two schools of thought arose:

1. The child has no culpability and therefore has not committed a sin and therefore is not in need of any forgiveness for this action.
2. While it is certain the child is not “culpable” his action is still a sin because it violates natural and eternal law. Thus, for this specific action the child is in need of forgiveness and the sacrifice of Christ otherwise he would be destined for hell. (This line of thought was based on the idea that any action which is contrary to natural law [regardless of culpability] is punishable by “death” as a sin) (Because of original sin a certain “sickness” has entered the world that is the cause of the child not knowing what he is doing is against the will of God, therefore, without the sacrifice of Christ this one action is enough to keep this child out of heaven.)

Alright, sorry I hope this can be followed… The basic question being, is #2 correct, #1 correct, or neither? If one is correct and the other is not… why did you come to that conclusion?

Thanks in advance for any replies… I will do my best to clear up any questions you have about “where exactly I am going with this”

Pax
Dave

(For the record I think #2 is correct)

 

[shondrea]

No, it isn’t a sin. You can’t accidently sin.

Take masturbation, for example. A mortal sin. But what about a 13 year old boy, who has NO IDEA that what he is doing is a sin? A mortal sin requires the knowledgethat what you are doing is wrong. He has no idea it is wrong, so he is not sinning.

The matter is still a grave matter, and objectively sinful, but he has committed no sin.

No one sins by accident.

 

[kage_ar]

Yes, the child committed a sin. Stealing is a sin.

In order for that sin to be mortal sin, it must be

Grave matter
Done with knowledge
Done with consent/free will

A child under the age of reason (believed to be 7 years old for most children) is not capable of meeting the second two conditions, so, even if that child stole a million dollars, it would be a venial sin.

The Catechism has a good section that explains sin.

 

[baltobetsy]

Of course the child did not sin. Not all taking is stealing. Stealing involves intent, which the child lacked. The child took something; he did not steal it.

Betsy

 

[shelby2014]

I was just about to post a very similar question…

Based on what I heard on Catholic Answers Live a few days (and also what I understand about sin) venial OR mortal, you have to understand what you are doing. So, no, the child did not sin.

But, then, what about people who do not know they are sinning because they are athiests or otherwise non Christians? Wouldn’t it just be easier to be athiest, then, because we’d never sin because we’d ignore knowledge of sin? I think for adults (because we have the gift of reason) it comes down to responding to your conscience. Therefore, an adult would know by the moral law that he had sinned, while a child would not. An athiest adult would not call it a “sin” but he could be judged for the sin because he ignored his conscience.

Now, that makes me wonder, if conditions 2 and 3 but not 1 of the requirements for a sin to be a “mortal” sin are met, wouldn’t that, by definition make it a mortal sin alone? In other words, wouldn’t knowing what to do and willingly not doing it be a grave matter? (Eating fruit off a tree does not seem grave, but it caused the fall of man)

 

[dcs6f4]

Okey dokey…

I will address each one as they came… hopefully this will merge into one conversation eventually.

No, it isn’t a sin. You can’t accidently sin.

Take masturbation, for example. A mortal sin. But what about a 13 year old boy, who has NO IDEA that what he is doing is a sin? A mortal sin requires the knowledge that what you are doing is wrong. He has no idea it is wrong, so he is not sinning.

The matter is still a grave matter, and objectively sinful, but he has committed no sin.

No one sins by accident.

I am not sure if I entirely agree. I completely understand what you are saying. I agree that these are the requirements for a mortal sin. However, is this the same for a venial sin?

See my other posts coming up here for more info an exactly where I am coming from…

 

[dcs6f4]

Yes, the child committed a sin. Stealing is a sin.

In order for that sin to be mortal sin, it must be

Grave matter
Done with knowledge
Done with consent/free will

A child under the age of reason (believed to be 7 years old for most children) is not capable of meeting the second two conditions, so, even if that child stole a million dollars, it would be a venial sin.

The Catechism has a good section that explains sin.

I agree completely with you statement here and I also think the CCC points to this conclusion. I have done extensive reading on the topic in the Catechism. Can you expound on this a little perhaps?

In CCC 1849 sin is defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.” (This quote is from St. Augustine).

CCC 1860 says 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 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.

Okay and here is the big issue with what a lot of people are saying especially the last poster before I started my replies.

CCC 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge of without complete consent.

So it is pretty clear that full knowledge and consent are not necessary to sin. One example someone gave was masturbation. Of course it is not a mortal sin if you have no idea it is wrong… but it is a stretch and appears to go against what the CCC says to suggest that it is not a sin at all.

 

[dcs6f4]

Of course the child did not sin. Not all taking is stealing. Stealing involves intent, which the child lacked. The child took something; he did not steal it.

Betsy

I apologize Betsy, I will be a little clearer. I had mentioned in the initial post not to get too caught up in the hypothetical. I realize it is somewhat flawed. Just imagine a person committed something that would be considered “sinful” but did not have full knowledge or intent.

It seems to me you would say that it is not a sin at all… please see my post right before this one for my issues with this opinion.

Thanks for the reply.

 

[dcs6f4]

I was just about to post a very similar question…

Based on what I heard on Catholic Answers Live a few days (and also what I understand about sin) venial OR mortal, you have to understand what you are doing. So, no, the child did not sin.

But, then, what about people who do not know they are sinning because they are athiests or otherwise non Christians? Wouldn’t it just be easier to be athiest, then, because we’d never sin because we’d ignore knowledge of sin? I think for adults (because we have the gift of reason) it comes down to responding to your conscience. Therefore, an adult would know by the moral law that he had sinned, while a child would not. An athiest adult would not call it a “sin” but he could be judged for the sin because he ignored his conscience.

Now, that makes me wonder, if conditions 2 and 3 but not 1 of the requirements for a sin to be a “mortal” sin are met, wouldn’t that, by definition make it a mortal sin alone? In other words, wouldn’t knowing what to do and willingly not doing it be a grave matter? (Eating fruit off a tree does not seem grave, but it caused the fall of man)

Please see my previous posts for a little more context is you need it.

It would seem the Catechism is in opposition to what you understood through CA Live.

CCC 1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge of without complete consent.

However, I think your inquisitiveness serves you well here and you are right in questioning the issue of unintentional (or as I have heard it called sometimes: invincible) ignorance as it relates to your previous understanding here.

(As a side note I think you are correct about the responsibility of adults… however, as we all know only God can judge a man’s heart, knowledge, and intent… all we can do is speculate for our own good and knowledge of sin… so of course judging in our own mind is not a good thing, but we can at least explore the question. That being said I truly believe that many atheists think they are following their conscience and are in a very genuine search for the Truth.)

Anywho… I want to explore this idea a little more because I think it really helps dissect the issue. Before Christ’s sacrifice mankind was under the auspices of the Law. Meaning, people’s lives were judged under scrutiny of the law that God had laid down essentially through nature and moral law, but some through revelation to Adam, Moses, Noah, and Abraham. However, none are able to meet the requirements of these laws because, most simply, we are human and without God’s grace we sin. Thus, no man was capable of attaining heaven before Christ.

After Christ’s sacrifice the system of grace was established. We know that mortal sin can rob us of sanctifying grace… however, sanctifying grace did not exist in man (as far as I know) before Christ instituted the Sacrament of Baptism. We know that God forgives sin through his grace and mercy. However, before Christ God’s justice would have condemned us all to hell strictly because we have all sinned. At this time it did not matter how grave the sin was. This is why we say Christ “opened the gates of heaven” or many of you may have heard the idea that all had to wait outside the pearly gates before Christ’s sacrifice…

Comments open to any and all who read… I could be very wrong.

 

[ready]

Something can be objectively a sin without it materially being a sin.

 

[Ron_Conte]

The act itself is theft, which in this case is objectively a venial sin. You are describing an objective sin which is not also an actual sin. Objective sin is any immoral act, any act contrary to the moral law. Actual sin is a knowingly chosen immoral act. The child did not know that the immoral act was a sin, therefore, it was an objective sin, but not an actual sin.

Culpability is only found in actual sins. So the child does not need forgiveness, he only needs continued instruction, as he grows older, about right and wrong.

 

[dcs6f4]

Thank you for that distinction Ron.

Could you refer me to some online sources for more reading on objective and actual sins? If you come back and read this that is…

 

[stuart12]

A two year old child can not commit a sin. The sin is when the persons wills to do the act, which he knows to be wrong. A child not knowing the destinction between right and wrong at that age is not culpable for the act, therefore there is no guilt. Only guilt needs to be forgiven.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thank you for that distinction Ron.
Could you refer me to some online sources for more reading on objective and actual sins?

this page
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html
addresses your question as to whether or not the very young can commit actual sin:
“children below the age of reason did not commit actual sin” (n. 23)

Here is a concise talk by JP2 about actual sin:
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19861029en.html
“Every actual (personal) sin is a real abuse of freedom, contrary to the will of God. The degree of this abuse may vary. The different degrees of guilt of the sinner also depend on this. In this sense one must apply a different measure for actual sins, when it is a question of evaluating the degree of evil contained in them. From this, too, derives the difference between “grave” sin and “venial” sin. Grave sin is also “mortal” because it brings about the loss of sanctifying grace in the one who commits it.”

And this official instruction for confessors
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/family/documents/rc_pc_family_doc_12021997_vademecum_en.html
deals with the topic of sins that are objectively grave, but not actual sins,
in a number of places.

“In general, it is not necessary for the confessor to investigate concerning sins committed in invincible ignorance of their evil, or due to an inculpable error of judgment. Although these sins are not imputable, they do not cease, however, to be an evil and a disorder.”

The document also refers to “the objective moral order established by God” and to “objectively grave transgressions of God’s law”.

An act is either objectively moral or objectively immoral under the law of God. But in order for an objectively immoral act to be an actual sin (so that guilt is imputable to the person who acts), the immoral act must be knowingly chosen. Lack of knowledge or lack of free choice would result in the objectively immoral act not being an actual sin (no guilt). Substantial reduction in knowledge or free consent would result in substantially reduced culpability (reduced guilt) for the person; in some cases, an objective mortal sin would be reduced in culpability to an actual venial sin.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Yes, the child committed a sin. Stealing is a sin.

In order for that sin to be mortal sin, it must be

Grave matter
Done with knowledge
Done with consent/free will

A child under the age of reason (believed to be 7 years old for most children) is not capable of meeting the second two conditions, so, even if that child stole a million dollars, it would be a venial sin.

The Catechism has a good section that explains sin.

A crime or sin has both a conduct element and a mental element. The conduct element without the mental element is no crime or sin.