The 2 conditions of a mortal sin

  • Thread starter Thread starter theforgiveable
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
T

theforgiveable

Guest
Hello,
Please read this entire post before responding

I’ve looked at many posts on this forum of people asking of something was a mortal sin. People then responded with saying the 3 conditions. As many of us know they are:

1:That the action was grave
2:Full knowledge
3: Full consent

This has also been seen is Vatican approved text books and in the Catechism itself. I was reading “This Rock”. The author claimed that a sin committed with Full knowledge and consent was still mortal if it turned out to be venial or not sinful at all. I can agree with him or her. I think this has be greatly overlooked. If you commit an action or omit one knowing with Full knowledge and consent it is still mortal regardless if I turned out to be venial. It should be. When you commit and action with 2 + 3 and it turned out to be venial you didn’t win a religious lottery and are free of something mortally sinful.

Now I can see many of you saying “But the action you did turned out to be venial or non sinful so it was not gravely thus not mortal” Although I can disagree. Your mortal sin was going against your conscience.

I’m not a moral Theology expert, nor do I pretend to be one. I just cannot see how this was spread.
I just wanted to clear this up.

Godbless

Please note: I’m not trying to say the Catechism is wrong. I’m simply pointing out something another knowledgeable person has said and that I agree with.
 
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that “Full knowledge consent” basically “raises the bar” or “increases the severity” of a sinful action. If I am reading you correctly then I would basically agree.

However - where you say that a “non-sinful” action can be mortal makes no sense at all.

I’d need an example of where one commits a “mortal” non-sinful act…🤷

Peace
James
 
It doesn’t “turn out” to be venial. It is either a grave matter in and of itself prior to any act by way of the object of the act. The circumstances never make a mortal sin in object into a venial one, it can only make a venial sin a mortal one, as a robbery of a few dollars (venial) becomes mortal when one steals a few dollars from a Church and thus makes the object of the act sacrilege instead of stealing.
The author claimed that a sin committed with Full knowledge and consent was still mortal if it turned out to be venial or not sinful at all.
Click to expand...
If it isn’t sinful, then it isn’t a sin in the first place. It would be a mean feat to make a sin out of something “not sinful”.

It is true, though, that the more perfected and spiritually advanced a person is, the more damaging the venial sin is to them by way of the knowledge or consent. But the nature of the act is still venial or mortal owing to the inherent nature of the object. It would be then that the knowledge is fuller due to the Holy Spirit’s Gift of Understanding in the spiritually advanced person but it would fail to affect the nature of the act in and of itself. Also, Full Knowledge is dependent upon varying levels of knowledge related to how formed our conscience is at the time.
 
How can someone have full knowledge if they are mistaken on whether the sin is mortal or venial? That itself implies that full knowledge is missing.

I know what you’re getting at though. It seems to be a grey area.

If I mistakenly think that missing Sunday mass because I’m sick is a mortal sin, but I stay in bed and miss it anyway, have I committed a mortal sin? I’d say not.

If I mistakenly think that receiving Eucharist while in a state of venial but not mortal sin is itself a mortal sin, but i do it anyway, have I committed a mortal sin? Hmmm… It seems that my disregard for the sacredness of the Eucharist is the same. However, given that my level of knowledge is so poor, perhaps God will judge me very differently in this regard.

I’m sure there are myriad examples and each could be dissected and discussed. But ultimately, I don’t believe that God is sitting up there waiting to pounce on anyone committing mortal sins. I believe that He gives as much benefit of the doubt as possible, and that is reflected in the wording of the catechism regarding the three conditions for mortal sin.

As a parent, there are times when my children willfully disobey me. I’ll punish them, as it is my role as a parent, but it never severs the bond of love I have for them. It may be possible that when they grow up, they choose to cut me out of their lives, and thus reject my love and relationship. I tend to think or mortal sin in this way. It is a willful rejection of God and His love. Willful disobedience, like a child who does the wrong thing, even knowing it is wrong, strains the relationship for a time, but does not sever it. If my child does something they think is wrong, even if it isn’t, I may be offended that they’ve done it, but it simply doesn’t come close to the adult child that cuts ties with their parent. People mightn’t like this analogy, but this is my take on it.
 
I was told by a priest that if I believe that something is a mortal sin, and still do it, even if it turns out to not be grave matter, I still separated myself from God in my intention. So: I need to confess it.

There’s a difference between material sin and actual sin… material sin is how serious the action itself is. That is entirely objective. But someone could commit a venial sin that is grave matter, or even make a mistake where something is a material sin, but they haven’t actually chosen to sin at all.

In the same way, an action could be venially sinful, but the person can sin in intention, if they do it thinking it’s mortal. In that case, it would be mortal for them.

Both the seriousness of the action and the intention can contribute.

I hope I undestood this correctly.
 
theforgiveable said:
Hello,
Please read this entire post before responding

I’ve looked at many posts on this forum of people asking of something was a mortal sin. People then responded with saying the 3 conditions. As many of us know they are:

1:That the action was grave
2:Full knowledge
3: Full consent

This has also been seen is Vatican approved text books and in the Catechism itself. I was reading “This Rock”. The author claimed that a sin committed with Full knowledge and consent was still mortal if it turned out to be venial or not sinful at all. I can agree with him or her. I think this has be greatly overlooked. If you commit an action or omit one knowing with Full knowledge and consent it is still mortal regardless if I turned out to be venial. It should be. When you commit and action with 2 + 3 and it turned out to be venial you didn’t win a religious lottery and are free of something mortally sinful.

Now I can see many of you saying “But the action you did turned out to be venial or non sinful so it was not gravely thus not mortal” Although I can disagree. Your mortal sin was going against your conscience.

I’m not a moral Theology expert, nor do I pretend to be one. I just cannot see how this was spread.
I just wanted to clear this up.

Godbless

Please note: I’m not trying to say the Catechism is wrong. I’m simply pointing out something another knowledgeable person has said and that I agree with.
Click to expand...
If you do not know if an act is a sin of venial matter, grave matter or even sinful at all then committing the act cannot be a mortal sin.
If you know an act is of venial matter and you commit the act it is a venial sin.
If you know the act is of grave matter and you commit the act it is a mortal sin.

By the way, the official Church teachings trump any alleged “knowledgable person” or “author”.
What is the official Church teaching for a sin to be mortal? It is this:
  • grave matter
  • full knowledge
  • full consent of the will
 
Let me clarify. II have searched and found the “this rock” post:

Q:“
If you think that something is a mortal sin (even though it is only venial), and you go ahead and commit the sin, understanding that when you commit a mortal sin you would be cutting yourself off from sanctifying grace and greatly offending God, are you committing a mortal sin?
”
A:
In this case, the venial sin becomes mortal because a person ignores his conscience and commits a sin that violates his conscience in a grave way.

Under the heading “Erroneous Judgment,” the Catechism states, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed” (1790).

When writing to the Romans, Paul speaks of a delicate pastoral situation in the first-century Church. There were many Jewish Christians who still believed that certain foods were unclean or otherwise forbidden (e.g., much of the meat sold in Gentile markets had been sacrificed to idols). Paul explained that none of these foods were really unclean or forbidden, but stressed that his readers should not do things that would tempt people into eating these foods if it would violate their consciences:
Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. (Rom 14:13–15)
The mortal consequences of sinning in this way are clear. Paul speaks of an individual being “destroyed” by violating his conscience in this way: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats” (Rom 14:20). “But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from belief *; for whatever does not proceed from belief is sin” (Rom 14:23).

In the end, when all is said and done, we will stand alone before the judgment seat of God and “Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace”(CCC 682)."

All credits to this rock
Going by what is in the article here is an example of my own:
You know that eating fish on friday is a mortal sin (even though it isn’t). You go out on friday and eat fish knowing it was a mortal sin.

You have committed a mortal sin.Your sin was not eating fish of friday (because it isn’t even venial) it was disobeying your conscience.*
 
theforgiveable said:
Let me clarify. II have searched and found the “this rock” post:

Q:“
If you think that something is a mortal sin (even though it is only venial), and you go ahead and commit the sin, understanding that when you commit a mortal sin you would be cutting yourself off from sanctifying grace and greatly offending God, are you committing a mortal sin?
”
A:
In this case, the venial sin becomes mortal because a person ignores his conscience and commits a sin that violates his conscience in a grave way.

Under the heading “Erroneous Judgment,” the Catechism states, “A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed” (1790).

When writing to the Romans, Paul speaks of a delicate pastoral situation in the first-century Church. There were many Jewish Christians who still believed that certain foods were unclean or otherwise forbidden (e.g., much of the meat sold in Gentile markets had been sacrificed to idols). Paul explained that none of these foods were really unclean or forbidden, but stressed that his readers should not do things that would tempt people into eating these foods if it would violate their consciences:
Then let us no more pass judgment on one another, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself; but it is unclean for any one who thinks it unclean. If your brother is being injured by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. Do not let what you eat cause the ruin of one for whom Christ died. (Rom 14:13–15)
The mortal consequences of sinning in this way are clear. Paul speaks of an individual being “destroyed” by violating his conscience in this way: “Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for any one to make others fall by what he eats” (Rom 14:20). “But he who has doubts is condemned, if he eats, because he does not act from belief *; for whatever does not proceed from belief is sin” (Rom 14:23).

In the end, when all is said and done, we will stand alone before the judgment seat of God and “Christ will reveal the secret disposition of hearts and will render to each man according to his works and according to his acceptance or refusal of grace”(CCC 682)."

All credits to this rock
Going by what is in the article here is an example of my own:
You know that eating fish on friday is a mortal sin (even though it isn’t). You go out on friday and eat fish knowing it was a mortal sin.

You have committed a mortal sin.Your sin was not eating fish of friday (because it isn’t even venial) it was disobeying your conscience.*

You are correct in saying that if a person thinks an act is of grave matter, when in reallity it is of venial matter, then the person commits a mortal sin when committing the act.
However, that has not reduced the 3 conditions to 2 but rather thinking the sin of venial matter is of grave matter the person is de facto satisfying the first condition, i.e. grave matter.
Click to expand...
 
thistle said:
You are correct in saying that if a person thinks an act is of grave matter, when in reallity it is of venial matter, then the person commits a mortal sin when committing the act.
However, that has not reduced the 3 conditions to 2 but rather thinking the sin of venial matter is of grave matter the person is de facto satisfying the first condition, i.e. grave matter.
Click to expand...
Understood 😃
 
theforgiveable said:
Hello,
Please read this entire post before responding

I’ve looked at many posts on this forum of people asking of something was a mortal sin. People then responded with saying the 3 conditions. As many of us know they are:

1:That the action was grave
2:Full knowledge
3: Full consent

This has also been seen is Vatican approved text books and in the Catechism itself. I was reading “This Rock”.*** The author claimed that a sin committed with Full knowledge and consent was still mortal if it turned out to be venial or not sinful at all. I can agree with him or her. I think this has be greatly overlooked. If you commit an action or omit one knowing with Full knowledge and consent it is still mortal regardless if I turned out to be venial. It should be.*** When you commit and action with 2 + 3 and it turned out to be venial you didn’t win a religious lottery and are free of something mortally sinful.

Now I can see many of you saying “But the action you did turned out to be venial or non sinful so it was not gravely thus not mortal” Although I can disagree. Your mortal sin was going against your conscience.

I’m not a moral Theology expert, nor do I pretend to be one. I just cannot see how this was spread.
I just wanted to clear this up.

Godbless

Please note: I’m not trying to say the Catechism is wrong. I’m simply pointing out something another knowledgeable person has said and that I agree with.
Click to expand...
You have a very ironic username 😛
 
Monica4316 said:
I was told by a priest that if I believe that something is a mortal sin, and still do it, even if it turns out to not be grave matter, I still separated myself from God in my intention. So: I need to confess it.

There’s a difference between material sin and actual sin… material sin is how serious the action itself is. That is entirely objective. But someone could commit a venial sin that is grave matter, or even make a mistake where something is a material sin, but they haven’t actually chosen to sin at all.

In the same way, an action could be venially sinful, but the person can sin in intention, if they do it thinking it’s mortal. In that case, it would be mortal for them.

Both the seriousness of the action and the intention can contribute.

I hope I undestood this correctly.
Click to expand...
If this is the case, then scrupulous people commit mortal sins every day. 🤷
 
Debora123 said:
If this is the case, then scrupulous people commit mortal sins every day. 🤷
Click to expand...
I don’t think this is true because, for the person who suffers from Scrupulosity, The intent is actually to go too far in trying to avoid sin and then to be too hard on themselves when they commit one (even inadvertently)
If they think about whether or not to commit an act, their scrupulosity will more likely cause them NOT to proceed rather than to commit the act with “full knowledge and consent”.
In short, the overly Scrupulous is far more likely to, upon consideration, avoid consciously committing a venial sin (wrongly thinking it grave matter) than they are to committing one.

Likewise if a persons who suffers from Scrupulosity issues reflects on something already done inadvertently and worries that it was a “mortal sin”, the fact of it being “inadvertent” (without full knowledge and consent) undercuts it’s mortality.

Peace
James
 
JRKH said:
I don’t think this is true because, for the person who suffers from Scrupulosity, The intent is actually to go too far in trying to avoid sin and then to be too hard on themselves when they commit one (even inadvertently)
If they think about whether or not to commit an act, their scrupulosity will more likely cause them NOT to proceed rather than to commit the act with “full knowledge and consent”.
In short, the overly Scrupulous is far more likely to, upon consideration, avoid consciously committing a venial sin (wrongly thinking it grave matter) than they are to committing one.

Likewise if a persons who suffers from Scrupulosity issues reflects on something already done inadvertently and worries that it was a “mortal sin”, the fact of it being “inadvertent” (without full knowledge and consent) undercuts it’s mortality.

Peace
James
Click to expand...
It does not undercut its morality in any way and this is the problem misunderstood here. It mitigates the culpability. That is what makes it not mortal.
The grave matter must be in the real, objective world. The scrupulous conscience remark as exposed by Deb123 is a correct observation.
 
Debora123 said:
If this is the case, then scrupulous people commit mortal sins every day. 🤷
Click to expand...
What the “This Rock article from Catholic Answers” observes is correct and standard in moral theology (Heck it is even in St. Paul…)

In regards though to those who are *scrupulous *or struggle with scruples…they are to have a regular confessor …and with his help they can then act against their scruples…via his direction and principles … and not sin via their mistaken fears…their “true” conscience being informed/formed via the confessor etc

They can be even at times like a ship without a rudder…they need the voice of a kind confessor (…priests are human too…and there can be various personalities etc)…to guide them amid the high waves…and then they can with confidence learn to dismiss their scruples…their fears…and act against them knowing that they do very well.

(they can also inform themselves too somewhat (via the catechism or other good solid sources…though some can still get confused in trying to do so…so really they should also have a regular confessor who can direct them)
 
How can you have full knowledge if you don’t even know the difference between a mortal sin and a venial one? You are naive about what you are doing, like a little kid who decides in a rage to do the worst thing he can think of to do. If he thinks writing on his mom’s make-up mirror with her lipstick is just as bad as killing her, that doesn’t mean the authorities are going to lock him up for wasting a tube of lipstick. That’s nuts.

I think what they mean is the situation where you do something with the intention of murder, for instance, but in a way that cannot in fact kill a person. That is different. You were trying to kill them, that’s a mortal sin. Your culpability isn’t reduced because you are an incompetent murderer. So a twenty-year-old who gave some drug to his grandmother, believing it would kill her, would not be less culpable because the drug he gave her could do no more than give her diarrhea. The civil authorities would put you in jail, and you would be just as guilty as if you had chosen with a more accurate knowledge base.

Do you think God is less wise in his judgments than civil authorities, that he would put someone of any age in hell for wasting a tube of lipstick? I don’t think so. God’s wisdom and mercy are infinite. It is offensive to think his judgements could be arbitrary or stupid.
 
EasterJoy said:
How can you have full knowledge if you don’t even know the difference between a mortal sin and a venial one? You are naive about what you are doing, like a little kid who decides in a rage to do the worst thing he can think of to do. If he thinks writing on his mom’s make-up mirror with her lipstick is just as bad as killing her, that doesn’t mean the authorities are going to lock him up for wasting a tube of lipstick. That’s nuts.

I think what they mean is the situation where you do something with the intention of murder, for instance, but in a way that cannot in fact kill a person. That is different. You were trying to kill them, that’s a mortal sin. Your culpability isn’t reduced because you are an incompetent murderer. So a twenty-year-old who gave some drug to his grandmother, believing it would kill her, would not be less culpable because the drug he gave her could do no more than give her diarrhea. The civil authorities would put you in jail, and you would be just as guilty as if you had chosen with a more accurate knowledge base.

Do you think God is less wise in his judgments than civil authorities, that he would put someone of any age in hell for wasting a tube of lipstick? I don’t think so. God’s wisdom and mercy are infinite. It is offensive to think his judgements could be arbitrary or stupid.
Click to expand...
Your example is correct. That is one example. But yes someone due to an erroneious conscience (lets leave children at various stages of development out here–that would be a larger question…and talk about adults) can commit a mortal sin …his knowledge is defective (like he thinks it is Sunday and he is obliged to go to Mass) but it is still full…he for example believes that it is Sunday and that he is to go to Mass…but knowing that he deliberately does not cause he wants to say…go to the movies instead. He is in error that it is Sunday…but his bad will still deliberately chooses what he thinks is a grave matter…such is gravely sinful.

Again …those who are scrupulous or have a difficulty with such …read my post above.
 
EasterJoy said:
How can you have full knowledge if you don’t even know the difference between a mortal sin and a venial one?
Click to expand...
A person would know the difference between mortal sin and venial sin…they just would for example hold falsely that such and such is a serious thing…a grave matter…or they would be mistaken other facts involved…and with full knowledge give deliberate consent.

(again those who are scrupulous etc see my other post above)
 
EasterJoy said:
How can you have full knowledge if you don’t even know the difference between a mortal sin and a venial one?
Click to expand...
A person would know the difference between mortal sin and venial sin…they just would for example hold falsely that such and such is a serious thing…a grave matter…or they would be mistaken other facts involved (my Sunday example above)…and with full knowledge give deliberate consent…

(again those who are scrupulous etc see my other post above)
 
In regards though to those who are scrupulous or struggle with scruples…they are to have a regular confessor …and with his help they can then act against their scruples…via his direction and principles … and not sin via their mistaken fears…their “true” conscience being informed/formed via the confessor etc

They can be even at times like a ship without a rudder…they need the voice of a kind confessor (…priests are human too…and there can be various personalities etc)…to guide them amid the high waves…and then they can with confidence learn to dismiss their scruples…their fears…and act against them knowing that they do very well.

(they can also inform themselves too somewhat (via the catechism or other good solid sources…though some can still get confused in trying to do so…so really they should also have a regular confessor who can direct them)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top