The definition of sin

[Dan_Defender]

Um, believers don’t always know when they are sinning. We’re not talking about obvious stuff like lying, bank robbery, or murder here.

Of course I am talking about the important stuff. St Paul said:
‘They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them.’ - Romans 2:15

 

[Lea101]

So people who don’t know something is a sin, as is generally the case with non believers for example, are not committing a sin when they do something that would be considered a sin if a Catholic or Christian did it? An example of this might be sex outside of marriage.

Technically a sin is a sin. What you’re referring to would be the culpability of it, right?

As for non believers, I think the equivalent would be knowing something is morally wrong, but then doing it anyway.

But your example of sex before marriage is tricky, because your average person genuinely thinks it’s alright. And your average Joe or Jane isn’t going around intentionally hurting people. In this case, I don’t think they can be held culpable for it.

This was one of the areas I was struggling with. I was definitely happier before learning about mortal sin, lol!

 

[Polak]

Exactly, that’s why I gave that example. People can agree, whether they are religious or not, that murder and theft are wrong. The excuse of ‘I didn’t know stealing was wrong’ won’t be an excuse a non believer could use before God. ‘I didn’t think sex before marriage was wrong’ however, is probably a legitimate excuse though.

That then brings up another question, which I actually think I have brought up before. If a Christian lay person or priest tells a non believer sex before marriage is wrong, and they still don’t believe it is, could they still excuse themselves later with ‘well I thought the Christian lay person/priest was wrong’ or would that fall into the ‘well you were told about it and chose to ignore it, so that isn’t an excuse’ category?

I would assume if truly in their heart they still thought it was fine, despite being told it isn’t, they might be able to ‘get away with it’.

 

[Lea101]

If a Christian lay person or priest tells a non believer sex before marriage is wrong, and they still don’t believe it is, could they still excuse themselves later with ‘well I thought the Christian lay person/priest was wrong’ or would that fall into the ‘well you were told about it and chose to ignore it, so that isn’t an excuse’ category?

To be honest, I don’t think this is fair too.

If someone from another religion came up to me and told me drinking alcohol is wrong, it would seem unreasonable for that God to expect me to immediately comply.

This also reminds me about what happens to an atheist if they explored Catholicism and just couldn’t believe, and walked away. I know atheists tend to bring it up, that it’s not fair to send non Catholics to hell if they didn’t believe even after looking into the Church. That it’s not true rejection of God if they didn’t believe

 

[Gorgias]

The excuse of ‘I didn’t know stealing was wrong’ won’t be an excuse a non believer could use before God.

Wouldn’t the excuse be “according to my moral code, doing something that’s good for me isn’t immoral”…?

 

[Polak]

I suppose it could be, but deep down, even if people follow this type of logic, I don’t think they believe it’s right, they just try/train themselves not to think about the person they hurt in the process.

 

[kapp19]

People can agree, whether they are religious or not, that murder and theft are wrong. The excuse of ‘I didn’t know stealing was wrong’ won’t be an excuse a non believer could use before God. ‘I didn’t think sex before marriage was wrong’ however, is probably a legitimate excuse though.

No they certainly do not always agree. Take a look at the horrifying and widespread practice - across history and still today in some places - of throwing away unwanted children into the jungle to be eaten (or just burying them alive). Or the socialists who “appropriate” wealth and property… etc.

Romans 1… Again, and again, and again. There is no excuse for real atheism, nor any excuse for directly violating the basic precepts of justice (the Ten Commandments). None. Zero. For anyone, ever. See Hebrews 11 as well. Invincible ignorance does not go that deep - unless one’s mind is completely destroyed, in which case there is no moral subject at all, just a human who can’t act as a human.

 

[Richca]

As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says, a sin is any thought, word, deed, or desire contrary to the law of God. A sin is a bad or evil human act as opposed to a good human act. A bad human act is contrary to the law of God whereas a good human act is in conformity to the law of God.

As the CCC teaches, there are three sources that determine the morality, the good or evil, of human acts. These are the object or the act itself, for example, almsgiving or murder; the circumstances and the intention. For a human act to be good, the object, circumstances, and intention must be good. For a human act to be bad or sinful, only one of these three sources need be bad. There are some human acts that are intrinsically evil in their object such as murder, robbery, fornication. These human acts are always bad regardless of the circumstances or intention. However, the circumstances or intention can lessen a person’s moral responsibility or culpability even to a point where such an act that is objectively evil is not imputed to the person at all, for example, under intense external pressure, force, or duress by some person, or invincible ignorance. However, the act in itself is still a bad act. A true human act is one that is done in freedom so someone who is externally forced to do a bad human act is less culpable of the act than a person who commits such a bad human act in freedom or without external force.