Understanding Mortal Sin?

[jinc1019]

knowledge is not thrown out the window. It’s illegal for one to drive without a liscence, and a liscence presumes one has passed a drivers test informing them of the laws of the road.

Take for example a person who commits fornication or adultery. Aside from a gun to someone’s head, what is the intent and motive behind one committing those sins?

On the act, when parties commit those sins, their intent to do it was there.

On the act, when parties commit those sins, how could one argue motive was not there as well?

In the case of adultery, I think you are absolutely right…But what about a scientist who works in a lab that does embryonic stem cell research? The scientist may know the Catholic position on this kind of research but may believe wholly and completely that there is nothing wrong with stem cell research because a simple embryo is NOT human life (I don’t believe this by the way). The scientist TRULY believes he or she is not breaking any kind of a command from God, but also knows the Church says he or she is.

This is the kind of situation I am talking about. Obviously, in cases where a person KNOWS the sin is a serious sin and does it anyway, that is turning one’s back on God, but what about when a person doesn’t believe something is wrong even though they have been told it is wrong? That’s the issue.

 

[jinc1019]

Why make this an either / or?

Didn’t Jesus say, “I will build my Church and not even the gates of hell will prevail against it”?

Do you believe that?

I believe Jesus said that, yes. I also believe Jesus meant it. I also believe you can make the reasonable case that the gates of hell will never “prevail” against it. But none of that is what we are talking about. We are talking about whether or not a person who truly believes he or she is doing the right thing will be damned to hell because the Church said something was wrong and the person disagreed, even though that same person is a faithful Christian in every other way.

 

[steve_b]

In the case of adultery, I think you are absolutely right…But what about a scientist who works in a lab that does embryonic stem cell research? The scientist may know the Catholic position on this kind of research but may believe wholly and completely that there is nothing wrong with stem cell research because a simple embryo is NOT human life (I don’t believe this by the way). The scientist TRULY believes he or she is not breaking any kind of a command from God, but also knows the Church says he or she is.

Actually science knows life starts at conception, the point that there is an “embryo”. At least That part of the argument has finally been won
j:

This is the kind of situation I am talking about. Obviously, in cases where a person KNOWS the sin is a serious sin and does it anyway, that is turning one’s back on God, but what about when a person doesn’t believe something is wrong even though they have been told it is wrong? That’s the issue.

That argument can be used everywhere by everyone who wants to do their own thing…right? To the extreme, that’s anarchy. Everyone being their own law is no law at all. Even the anarchist deep down knows it’s only a short time and they will be made a victim of their own philosophy.

 

[jinc1019]

Actually science knows life starts at conception, the point that there is an “embryo”. At least That part of the argument has finally been won

That argument can be used everywhere by everyone who wants to do their own thing…right? To the extreme, that’s anarchy. Everyone being their own law is no law at all. Even the anarchist deep down knows it’s only a short time and they will be made a victim of their own philosophy.

Ok, I appreciate you answering the question…I think it presents a massive problem, because now people who believe in Christ wholly and completely, who live the entirety of their lives as Christians, and who do everything “right” except one thing they truly disagree with are going to hell. Again, that makes a rule of the Church more powerful than faith in Christ.

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Hey Jose,
This is where things get complicated for me regarding mortal sin. If disobeying the Church’s teaching on something is the sole reason for a person having mortal sin and therefore going to hell, then people who FULLY believe in God, Jesus, and who engage in the sacraments…People who love, and are kind, and give to the poor, and otherwise live saintly lives, are damned to hell for disagreeing with a teaching the Church says is true but is something the individual doesn’t believe. Is that really and truly turning one’s back against God? If someone honestly disagrees…how can that be grounds for hell?

That’s why this thread is so important to me…because to me, it’s at the heart of salvation. What is more important? Faith in Jesus or faith in the Church authorities? If faith in Jesus cannot even overcome a lack of faith in some particular and confusing Church teaching, then what are church authorities really saying here?

Justin,

What you are presenting here is a different scenario. I was responding to the scenario you presented about the teenager. Here, all of the Church teachings have been put together in the mortal sin category if you disagree with them. That’s not what I’m saying.

The Church is clear when it doesn’t hold blame to those who through no fault of their own, stay away from being in union with the Catholic Church and are still seeking God (CCC 847).

The biggest problem is separating the Church from Christ. Is the Church also an institution? Yes. Is it composed of sinners? Yes. Is the Church the Body of Christ? Yes. The only reason the Church is what it is - is because of Christ. Not of ourselves. We respond to the call and some have a higher calling.

Hopefully I can present a better analogy.

I was raised Catholic and walked away from the Church. Not because of I disagreed, I just gave myself to the world… . When I started seeking Christ again in my adulthood I became Non-Catholic. I was raised in the 70’s-80’s Catholicism, where guilty and penance theology was vastly predominantly. The last thing I wanted to do was have someone tell me how horrible I was, I already knew that. Also, my wife was not Catholic. As I read the Bible more, I immediately noticed some books missing. The DC’s - Sirach was and still is one of my favorite books of the OT. And I liked Maccabees too. So that was odd and I inquired more. As I started changing denominations I inevitably encountered reformed theology, the five solas, etc. They were obviously foreign to me, so I started digging more. As I attended more Bible Studies I found myself reading Scriptures daily and starting to look into the history of the Church. Even when I was raised Catholic, I had a lot of misconceptions about the Catholic Church and I didn’t really know or understand a lot of Her teachings. This was a process of about 7 years. My poor wife stood by me all this time, lol. I have books upon books and I eventually give in to electronic formats, so much easier, lol. Long story short: All my children (4) were admitted into the Catholic Church in December of last year and my wife is attending RCIA. And I came back to the Church. This is the short version, lol.

The reason I’m saying this is to show some scenarios:

Me: I am held to a higher standard of all the other persons involved in that story. Because I have more knowledge of the Church and Christianity as a whole really. My remaining away from the Church because I think I know better would put me in danger after I had truly study what the Church actually teaches.

My wife: She was raised Protestant. She wasn’t Catholic because she didn’t know any better. She thought a Church was just a Church and all were the same. It wasn’t until she saw me struggle that she started asking questions. Her remaining away without knowing about the Church and still seeking Christ and living a Christian life would not have put her in danger.

Some of my Bible Study friends: Some just hate the Catholic Church and think we worship Mary and a whole bunch of other things… They have been fed all this information as they grow in denominations that are virulently anti-Catholic. That’s not their fault. However, when I start explaining to them what the truth is and I debunk their myths. If they still want to have a hardening of heart and be obstinate about it. They are placing themselves in an uncomfortable situation in regards to accountability. I presented official Church teaching, Church history, Councils declarations, etc. They were better off without knowing all of this if they want to remain hateful towards their fellow Christians.

And still, only God truly knows the heart of each and every one of us. He is merciful and He gives grace to the humble but opposes the proud. So as long as we remain on the humble side of things we are teachable and workable.

If possible, it would be really great if you were able to find a Priest that has the time and is knowledgeable. I found that the biggest difference maker (other than prayer) when I was searching - was sitting down and talking face to face to Pastors and Priests. I was really lucky to also connect to some really good people online and exchange emails in a very cordial manner. Some of them College professors, I really love History and they played a great part in directing me to credible sources and providing great references.

I hope I didn’t ramble too much and made sense

Peace,

 

[Isaiah45_9]

Ok, I appreciate you answering the question…I think it presents a massive problem, because now people who believe in Christ wholly and completely, who live the entirety of their lives as Christians, and who do everything “right” except one thing they truly disagree with are going to hell. Again, that makes a rule of the Church more powerful than faith in Christ.

Please don’t see it as either Christ or the Church. We see the Church as a means to strive towards the goal: Jesus Christ. In Him, Through Him and With Him.

 

[steve_b]

I believe Jesus said that, yes. I also believe Jesus meant it. I also believe you can make the reasonable case that the gates of hell will never “prevail” against it. But none of that is what we are talking about.

actually it is. We’re talking about authority. Bonafide authority. The kind of authority to actually bind and loose here that is also bound and loosed in heaven…right?
j:

We are talking about whether or not a person who truly believes he or she is doing the right thing will be damned to hell because the Church said something was wrong and the person disagreed, even though that same person is a faithful Christian in every other way.

Terchnically, we individually aren’t the pillar and foundation of truth. The Catholic Church has that title.

To me a faithful Christian follows all that the Catholic Church teaches. Afterall, if the Church is tha pillar and foundation of truth, and what she binds and looses here is bound and loosed in heaven, then just thinking outloud, why would anyone defy that and still call themselves a “faithful Christian”?

 

[jinc1019]

actually it is. We’re talking about authority. Bonafide authority. The kind of authority to actually bind and loose here that is also bound and loosed in heaven…right?

Terchnically, we individually aren’t the pillar and foundation of truth. The Catholic Church has that title.

To me a faithful Christian follows all that the Catholic Church teaches. Afterall, if the Church is tha pillar and foundation of truth, and what she binds and looses here is bound and loosed in heaven, then just thinking outloud, why would anyone defy that and still call themselves a “faithful Christian”?

So when the Catholic Church says that all heretics are to be “exterminated” and that Jews are required to dress differently from everyone else in society and be forbidden from holding public office, as the Church did in the Fourth Lateran Council, Catholics are to look at that and see the “foundation and pillar of truth?” I think it’s very, very hard given Catholic history to see what you are saying is there. I see a very fallible Church, one that is still guided by the Holy Spirit, but also capable of error. In the end, I believe the Church will get it right…but that’s not the same thing as saying they can’t teach error. They have…countless times.

 

[jinc1019]

Please don’t see it as either Christ or the Church. We see the Church as a means to strive towards the goal: Jesus Christ. In Him, Through Him and With Him.

I appreciate that Jose…I will try very hard to take everything to hear that you suggested. I have been studying these issues for more than three years and every single time I dig deeper, I see more flaws, not less…It’s very disheartening.

 

[steve_b]

Ok, I appreciate you answering the question…I think it presents a massive problem, because now people who believe in Christ wholly and completely, who live the entirety of their lives as Christians, and who do everything “right” except one thing they truly disagree with are going to hell.

Just being transparent

Everytime we try and nail down that one thing, another thing pops up. Then another thing and another thing.

And

"people who believe in Christ wholly and completely, who live the entirety of their lives as Christians, and who do everything “right”

You’re actually describing faithful Catholics in the Catholic Church.
j:

Again, that makes a rule of the Church more powerful than faith in Christ.

No, it means Christ stands behind His promises.

 

[steve_b]

So when the Catholic Church says that all heretics are to be “exterminated” and that Jews are required to dress differently from everyone else in society and be forbidden from holding public office, as the Church did in the Fourth Lateran Council, Catholics are to look at that and see the “foundation and pillar of truth?” I think it’s very, very hard given Catholic history to see what you are saying is there. I see a very fallible Church, one that is still guided by the Holy Spirit, but also capable of error. In the end, I believe the Church will get it right…but that’s not the same thing as saying they can’t teach error. They have…countless times.

Haven’t you and I already been over this before on other threads?

Not teaching error, is a protection from God, when His Catholic Church is teaching the entire Church on matters of faith and morals ONLY. The protection from Error is not covered in any other area

As far as exterminate heretics, we’ve been over that as well. The original document was written in Latin, and it didn’t mean kill. It meant remove heretics from the area, as in deport if we use a modern term. The Church was NOT to be involved in any murdering of heretics.

 

[jinc1019]

Haven’t you and I already been over this before on other threads?

Not teaching error, is a protection from God, when His Catholic Church is teaching the entire Church on matters of faith and morals ONLY. The protection from Error is not covered in any other area

As far as exterminate heretics, we’ve been over that as well. The original document was written in Latin, and it didn’t mean kill. It meant remove heretics from the area, as in deport if we use a modern term. The Church was NOT to be involved in any murdering of heretics.

I hate to break it to you…but defining who a heretic is and what ought to be done with them is a matter of faith and morals…You are just choosing not to see it that way.

 

[steve_b]

I hate to break it to you…but defining who a heretic is and what ought to be done with them is a matter of faith and morals…You are just choosing not to see it that way.

You made a broad statement then lumped everything together #28

I made a distinction.

• Not teaching error, is a protection from God, when His Catholic Church is teaching the entire Church on matters of faith and morals ONLY. The protection from Error is not covered in any other area
• As far as exterminate heretics, we’ve been over that as well. The original document was written in Latin, and it didn’t mean kill. It meant remove heretics from the area, as in deport if we use a modern term. The Church was NOT to be involved in any murdering of heretics.

At least before when we talked about this, you equated “exterminate” with killing. All I’m saying, that’s NOT the proper understanding. I gave the document before. If kill was what exterminate meant in the context of the canons, there would be a big conflict.

Getting back to the topic:

On post #9, I posted these links #15 , 1856 , do you agree or disagree in the understanding of mortal sin?

 

[DavidFilmer]

the CCC and scripture views all these sins as grave / mortal / sins #15 , 1856

The Church considers them grave and potentially mortal, but without sufficient intent and consent no act is mortally sinful, no matter what it is.

There is no such thing as an act which is always mortally sinful (because the act is only a third of the equation).

By the same token, there is no act which is always venially sinful (ie, it could not be mortally sinful given sufficient intent and consent). I could construct a case for mortal sin out of the most trivial sin you could possibly dream up. For example, calling someone a name. Is your intent to destroy his self-esteem and drive him to drink or suicide? Regardless of the chances of such an outcome, if that is your intent, you could be in mortal sin for something so trivial.

The act is only a third of the equation. It is never sufficient to determine the mortal or venial nature of an act. So, even the question of “grave matter” depends on intent and consent - what seems to be a trivial matter can easily become grave.

 

[steve_b]

The Church considers them grave and potentially mortal, but without sufficient intent and consent no act is mortally sinful, no matter what it is.

There is no such thing as an act which is always mortally sinful (because the act is only a third of the equation).

By the same token, there is no act which is always venially sinful (ie, it could not be mortally sinful given sufficient intent and consent). I could construct a case for mortal sin out of the most trivial sin you could possibly dream up. For example, calling someone a name. Is your intent to destroy his self-esteem and drive him to drink or suicide? Regardless of the chances of such an outcome, if that is your intent, you could be in mortal sin for something so trivial.

The act is only a third of the equation. It is never sufficient to determine the mortal or venial nature of an act. So, even the question of “grave matter” depends on intent and consent - what seems to be a trivial matter can easily become grave.

There will be no lawyer representing anyone’s case on the day each soul is judged. #15 is clear. And since that list of sins and their consequences are there inspired by the HS, we know how God views those sins and those who die in them.

 

[jinc1019]

You made a broad statement then lumped everything together #28

I made a distinction.

• Not teaching error, is a protection from God, when His Catholic Church is teaching the entire Church on matters of faith and morals ONLY. The protection from Error is not covered in any other area
• As far as exterminate heretics, we’ve been over that as well. The original document was written in Latin, and it didn’t mean kill. It meant remove heretics from the area, as in deport if we use a modern term. The Church was NOT to be involved in any murdering of heretics.

At least before when we talked about this, you equated “exterminate” with killing. All I’m saying, that’s NOT the proper understanding. I gave the document before. If kill was what exterminate meant in the context of the canons, there would be a big conflict.

Getting back to the topic:

On post #9, I posted these links #15 , 1856 , do you agree or disagree in the understanding of mortal sin?

Once again, I totally disagree with your interpretation of “exterminate,” which does NOT mean “move them out.” It means, get rid of them, which could mean moving them out or killing them or something else. The Church knew when it issued its command that the secular leaders would kill some heretics as a result of it…To deny that is to ignore history. As it has been pointed out in other threads related to that topic, Christian rules (secular) often had laws in place that allowed for the killing of heretics…This command simply exacerbated that issue.

That is not to say that many church leaders fought against abuse…they often did. However, to suggest the Catholic Church never had any part in the death of heretics is incredibly disingenuous.

Further, let’s assume you are right and “exterminate” means “make them move out of your land.” Fine. How is forcing people to leave a country and presumably move to (where exactly? Since every Christian ruler was commanded to force heretics to leave, I don’t see where these people are supposed to go) some other nation moral? It’s a horrible condemnation and you know it. There is absolutely no reason to defend it either.

Back on-topic (I don’t want to get bogged down on that issue as we have been in the past), I do agree with the definition set forward for mortal sin. The issue is knowledge, not whether the concept of mortal sin makes sense. I just don’t know how a reasonable person can argue that a person has full knowledge of something they truly and sincerely don’t believe, even if they SHOULD know. Intent appears to be at the heart of this issue.

However, I will say this: people shouldn’t ignore the teachings of the Church or willfully disobey unless they truly believe it’s wrong for good and thoughtful reasons. Even then, I am not saying the individual is right, only that he or she shouldn’t be treated the same as a person who knows or suspects something is a grave sin and chooses to do it anyway.

 

[jinc1019]

The Church considers them grave and potentially mortal, but without sufficient intent and consent no act is mortally sinful, no matter what it is.

There is no such thing as an act which is always mortally sinful (because the act is only a third of the equation).

By the same token, there is no act which is always venially sinful (ie, it could not be mortally sinful given sufficient intent and consent). I could construct a case for mortal sin out of the most trivial sin you could possibly dream up. For example, calling someone a name. Is your intent to destroy his self-esteem and drive him to drink or suicide? Regardless of the chances of such an outcome, if that is your intent, you could be in mortal sin for something so trivial.

The act is only a third of the equation. It is never sufficient to determine the mortal or venial nature of an act. So, even the question of “grave matter” depends on intent and consent - what seems to be a trivial matter can easily become grave.

I totally agree with David here.

 

[jinc1019]

There will be no lawyer representing anyone’s case on the day each soul is judged. #15 is clear. And since that list of sins and their consequences are there inspired by the HS, we know how God views those sins and those who die in them.

No one is questioning how God is viewing the sin…the question is how the individual understands the sin, a key component of mortal sin in the CCC Steve.

 

[steve_b]

Once again, I totally disagree with your interpretation of “exterminate,” which does NOT mean “move them out.” It means, get rid of them, which could mean moving them out or killing them or something else. The Church knew when it issued its command that the secular leaders would kill some heretics as a result of it…To deny that is to ignore history. As it has been pointed out in other threads related to that topic, Christian rules (secular) often had laws in place that allowed for the killing of heretics…This command simply exacerbated that issue.

The document you’re refering to was written in Latin. The word “extermino” was translated in some texts as exterminate. Here is the definition of “extermino” in Latin latin-dictionary.net/definition/20066/extermino-exterminare-exterminavi-exterminatus

Again, as you can see, this point I’m making, isn’t coming from me.
j:

That is not to say that many church leaders fought against abuse…they often did. However, to suggest the Catholic Church never had any part in the death of heretics is incredibly disingenuous.

heretics were often combatants. Lethal combatants. When they were, then obviously there follows a government interest to keep the peace.

And this is getting off the topic
j:

Further, let’s assume you are right and “exterminate” means “make them move out of your land.” Fine. How is forcing people to leave a country and presumably move to (where exactly? Since every Christian ruler was commanded to force heretics to leave, I don’t see where these people are supposed to go) some other nation moral? It’s a horrible condemnation and you know it. There is absolutely no reason to defend it either.

In the 12th century, that’s what they did.

Paul didn’t put up with heretics either Titus 3:10-11 Reject a heretical (αἱρετικὸν )man…]

Definition: disposed to form sects, sectarian, heretical, factious. A factious person, specializing in half-truths and misimpressions “to win others over” to their personal opinion (misguided zeal) – while creating harmful divisions
j:

Back on-topic (I don’t want to get bogged down on that issue as we have been in the past), I do agree with the definition set forward for mortal sin. The issue is knowledge, not whether the concept of mortal sin makes sense. I just don’t know how a reasonable person can argue that a person has full knowledge of something they truly and sincerely don’t believe, even if they SHOULD know. Intent appears to be at the heart of this issue.

When these instructions and condemnations were given, #15 where’s the wiggle room? That list doesn’t come from me. The HS inspired the writing of that. Which means it came from Jesus John 16:12-15 . And since Jesus is the one who will do the judging of EVERYONE, think of it as Jesus giving you that list in advance to show you how He is going to judge the person in those sins. So in effect, you’re not arguing with me you’re arguing with Him.

 

[DavidFilmer]

There will be no lawyer representing anyone’s case on the day each soul is judged. #15 is clear. And since that list of sins and their consequences are there inspired by the HS, we know how God views those sins and those who die in them.

OK, you seem completely immune from the Catholic doctrine that mortal sin requires ACT, CONSENT, and KNOWLEDGE (all three - not just the act).

So let’s consider one of your #15 points:

Revelation 21:8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the polluted, as for murderers, fornicators, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their lot shall be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

So, liars are all going to hell, right? Anyone who tells a lie, for ANY REASON, commits mortal sin, right? Nothing else matters. It does not matter if the person even knows that lying is a sin, and it doesn’t matter if he is under no external duress to tell a lie. His salvation is forfeit.

So, suppose you are an undercover cop, and a drug dealer puts a gun to your head and asks, “are you a cop?” And you say “no.” You are going to hell, right?

So it is IMPOSSIBLE that the gun diminished the freewill consent of the lie? Because the Church says that mortal sin "also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice [CCC 1859]. Personal choices are not usually made facing the barrel of a gun.