Understanding Mortal Sin?

[jinc1019]

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.

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

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

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.

The very fact that the rulers in this controversy in question DID IN FACT put to death those who refused to recant their unorthodox beliefs is PROOF of how this claim from the Fourth Lateran Council was understood. The fact that the word translated here as “extermination” means “banish” or “expel” does not prove your point at all. Is driving people out of a country by killing them not “expelling” them? Come on. History is Chrystal clear on this. That’s precisely what happened.

Your defense of this CLEARLY heinous act is ridiculous. And to ignore the very obvious fact that forcing people to leave their homes in the 12th and 13th centuries meant absolute ruin is not something you can just ignore. I think Matthew 5:38-39 is especially applicable here.

I don’t even know why you are defending this action since you yourself say it wasn’t an infallible command anyway.

 

[jinc1019]

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.

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

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

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.

FURTHER, as I have already proven by providing the source (and as you would see if you spent even a few moments investigating what actually happened here), the so-called revolutionaries here were persecuted, which is a big reason why they were violent in the first place. The local governing authorities actually supported them. It was the pope who supported a crusade against everyone involved. Both sides, I am sure, are to blame for atrocities, but you are painting a wildly inaccurate picture.

 

[jinc1019]

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:

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.

Once again, David is absolutely right about this. The formula is clear and Steve would have the Church do away with it in its entirety because he doesn’t like how lenient he believes it to be. In reality, that’s what the Church has declared.

 

[steve_b]

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

You use these words as if they are some big mystery.

I remember Clinton doing that with the word “IS” Remember when he said what is “is”?

Corrupt minded people can twist any word that is clear, and make it into complete nonsense.

Remember when Clinton also said directly into the camera “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? I remember his face was as red as a tomato when he said those words. The media don’t show that clip anymore. Gee I wonder why?
D:

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

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.

When Adam and Eve were told not to do ONE thing and they did it anyway, what happened?

Eve blamed the Serpent (satan) and Adam said to God, the woman YOU GAVE ME made me do it. IOW Adam blamed God. sheesh!

I’m thinking, where did Adam learn THAT move? Had anyone before Adam used that rediculous argument before? And I’m thinking in general, where did these 2, learn the blame game in the first place? Did they collude with each other in hopes to buffalo God? Why didn’t they just take ownership of what they did? Afterall Adam and Eve really had no concept of natural consequences yet. So why go to all this effort to wiggle out of their wrong? Did their efforts work? Nope! They got thrown outta the garden just as God said would happen.

The point I would bring up here is that no one had to explain the finer points to them. They were given a command, and they knew the consequences in advance if they disobeyed.

That’s why we have scripture #15 where wrongs are identified, and consequences are given as warnings
D:

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?

I previously qualified my statements with “aside from a gun to the head” i.e. doing something you’re forced to do, #[17 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12253213&postcount=17) then their is obviously an exception. I also used the issue of mental disease and / or mentally challenged as an exception as well in other conversations.
D:

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.

on post #9, I used 1856 and as far as 1859, you zero in on “full knowledge and complete consent”.

Why do you NOT bring up in 1859

• “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”
• “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

[1859 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1859.htm’) Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

That’s why scripture #15 makes it clear

 

[jinc1019]

You use these words as if they are some big mystery.

I remember Clinton doing that with the word “IS”

Corrupt minded people can twist any word that is clear, into complete nonsense.

Remember when Clinton also said directly into the camera “I did not have sexual relations with that woman”? I remember his face was as red as a tomato when he said those words. The media don’t show that clip anymore. Gee I wonder why?

When Adam and Eve were told not to do ONE thing and they did it anyway, what happened?

Eve blamed the Serpent (satan) and Adam said to God, the woman YOU GAVE ME made me do it. IOW Adam blamed God. sheesh!

I’m thinking, where did Adam learn THAT move? Had anyone before Adam used that rediculous argument before? And I’m thinking in general, where did these 2, learn the blame game in the first place? Did they collude with each other in hopes to buffalo God? Why didn’t they just take ownership of what they did? Afterall Adam and Eve really had no concept of natural consequences yet. So why go to all this effort to wiggle out of their wrong? Did their efforts work? Nope! They got thrown outta the garden just as God said would happen.

The point I would bring up here is that no one had to explain the finer points to them. They were given a command, and they knew the consequences in advance, if they disobeyed. That’s all that was required

That’s why we have #15 Wrongs are identified, and consequences are given

I previously qualified my statements with “aside from a gun to the head” i.e. doing something you’re forced to do, #[17 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12253213&postcount=17) then their is obviously an exception. I also used the issue of mental disease and / or mentally challenged as an exception as well.

on post #9, I used 1856 and as far as 1859, you zero in on “full knowledge and complete consent”.

Why do you NOT bring up in 1859

• “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”
• “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

[1859 (http://javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/1859.htm’) Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

That’s why scripture #15 makes it clear

Steve, the seriousness of mortal sins are NOT presupposed, that’s the whole point of the “full knowledge” part of the formula and declaration. The “presupposed” portion is in regards to those sins which are apparently obvious to all humans, such as murder…In most cases, when we are dealing with issues related to mortal sin, we are talking about sins which people don’t understand…like not treating the Eucharist with respect, etc. For certain mortal sins, yes, full knowledge is assumed from the beginning. But as you should know, we aren’t talking about those. No one is debating whether murder is a sin or not. The issues we are addressing have to do with those sins which are not clearly sins to the world.

 

[steve_b]

when we are dealing with issues related to mortal sin, we are talking about sins which people don’t understand…like not treating the Eucharist with respect, etc. For certain mortal sins, yes, full knowledge is assumed from the beginning. But as you should know, we aren’t talking about those. No one is debating whether murder is a sin or not. The issues we are addressing have to do with those sins which are not clearly sins to the world.

The “world” has already dumded down most sins. Depending on the lawyer, they can even get murderers off the hook. That’s why this list is timeless #15

 

[jinc1019]

The “world” has already dumded down most sins. That’s why this list is timeless #15

I can understand your frustration, but that doesn’t mean you get to ignore important parts of the formula, including ignoring how they were intended.

 

[steve_b]

FURTHER, as I have already proven by providing the source (and as you would see if you spent even a few moments investigating what actually happened here), the so-called revolutionaries here were persecuted, which is a big reason why they were violent in the first place.

What exactly have you proven?

I posted this

" 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"

So in that respect

One could argue, if one hadn’t become a heretic in the first place, which brings with it a way of living and viewing life differently that is in some way opposed to the status quo, causing harmful division, then there would be peace and no reason for any discord in the first place…true?

So to the point, which crusade are you speaking of? Would it involve the Albagensians perhaps?
j:

The local governing authorities actually supported them. It was the pope who supported a crusade against everyone involved. Both sides, I am sure, are to blame for atrocities, but you are painting a wildly inaccurate picture.

Again, which crusade are you speaking of?

 

[steve_b]

The very fact that the rulers in this controversy in question DID IN FACT put to death those who refused to recant their unorthodox beliefs is PROOF of how this claim from the Fourth Lateran Council was understood. The fact that the word translated here as “extermination” means “banish” or “expel” does not prove your point at all. Is driving people out of a country by killing them not “expelling” them? Come on. History is Chrystal clear on this. That’s precisely what happened.

The Lateran council, so their is no confusion how the Church teaches on this, prohibited the Church from engaging in any activity leading to a person’s death.

So when you talk about “rulers”, you’re speaking of secular rulers. Secular rulers don’t operate under Church canon law.

When this happens

" 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"

What part of that definition do you think might interest secular rulers?

When you say,

“The fact that the word translated here as “extermination” means “banish” or “expel” does not prove your point at all.”

Baloney! You translated it as kill…right? You know you did.

Now you know that’s incorrect. Expel, banish, deport, etc, are what is meant there. And it completely changes the polemic you were persuing.
j:

Your defense of this CLEARLY heinous act is ridiculous. And to ignore the very obvious fact that forcing people to leave their homes in the 12th and 13th centuries meant absolute ruin is not something you can just ignore. I think Matthew 5:38-39 is especially applicable here.

Fast forward to the 21st century. Do some people in this country get deported for their activites? Yes

Why would that be so strange then looking back to the 12th century for deporting certain people for their activities?
j:

I don’t even know why you are defending this action since you yourself say it wasn’t an infallible command anyway.

refresh my memory, what command are you speaking of?

 

[steve_b]

I can understand your frustration, but that doesn’t mean you get to ignore important parts of the formula, including ignoring how they were intended.

What did I ignore? 1859

Mortal sin

1. • requires full knowledge and complete consent.
   • It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.
   • It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
   • Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
   On the act, #'s 1-3 are satisfied here #[15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12237087&postcount=15) , special circumstances aside, like
   • gun to the head i.e. no free choice
   • mental disease
   • mental difficiency
   then on the act, one has committed a mortal sin
   
   A question could be asked
   
   if this is SUCH a mystery, distinguishing between mortal and venial sin, why in the world would St John say the following?
   
   “1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin,…”
   
   So people Can actually know this difference between sins, AND are able to see it in other people as well, and you don’t see John saying don’t do that, you can’t judge like that.
   
   and we can’t forget, feigned ignorance of sin and its distinctions, doesn’t get one off the hook of committing the sin. Doing that actually increases their fault.

 

[DavidFilmer]

When Adam and Eve were told not to do ONE thing and they did it anyway, what happened?

I know what did NOT happen. They did not forfeit their Baptismal Grace. Besides, even if they had it to forfeit, they seem to have true knowledge and consent (though they feigned blamelessness). Had Eve given Adam the fruit without telling him where it came from, he would have done no wrong. IT’S THE SAME FRUIT. In one case, he eats it and sins. In another case, he eats it and does not sin. IT’S THE SAME ACTION. What’s the difference? Knowledge and intent. Why is this so hard to understand?

Why do you NOT bring up in 1859

• “It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”
• “Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.”

Because that’s not what we’re talking about!!! We’re talking about someone who ACTUALLY does not have sufficient knowledge and/or consent. Nobody will argue that the guy who feigns ignorance is in worse trouble. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Why do you bring it up? Do you even know what we’re talking about?

I was perfectly content to cite this very section (CCC 1859) in another post (reply #3) three days ago [EDIT - oh, wait - that’s THIS thread. I cited it here before you did. I don’t think I failed to bring it up], where the section was actually relevant. It’s not like I don’t know about it - I just understand when it applies and when it does not. You seem to think that anybody who would deny knowledge and/or consent is faking it. That’s not actually what the Catechism is saying. Go back and read it again.

 

[Usagi]

Justin,

Dodging the side issues, I will attempt to answer your original question.

As you probably know, the Church (especially in recent times) tends to grant wide leeway when it comes to the concept of ignorance, even allowing that a deeply anti-Catholic Protestant may be rejecting the Church out of ignorance. So it is reasonable to think that sincere disagreement might reduce culpability on the grounds of insufficient knowledge. At least when it comes to non-Catholics, “I am aware of the Catholic position on this issue but have no especial reason to take that position into account or have been conditioned to find it ridiculous” seems to count as inculpable ignorance.

A few caveats, though:

It is impossible without a special gift from God for an outside observer to know with certainty whether another person has met the two internal requirements for mortal sin. That is why we do not presume that any individual has been damned, even if he or she died while, to all appearances, persisting unrepentant in objectively grave sin. It is therefore difficult for me to come to a definite judgment even in the matter of your hypothetical teenager and his fictional soul. Just personally, I would be more inclined to presume ignorance if he’d been brought up to accept pornography as normal, even if he also happened to know of the Catholic teaching against it, than if he is a catechized Catholic who seems to have come to his belief in the Church’s error on his own, and perhaps around the same time as discovering that pornography can be pleasantly stimulating. I could be entirely wrong about either of those assumptions, but that’s the way I would lay my bets.

Also, as you quoted from the catechism, the Church has a belief in natural law and that certain moral principles should be knowable to everyone, even if not explicitly taught. You’ve acknowledged murder as an act the sinful nature of which a mentally competent human cannot reasonably claim not to know. If the sin being contemplated were to fall in that category, then claiming honest disagreement would not suffice. I do not claim to know exactly which sexual sins fall into that category, though it is notable that the catechism’s special notes on possibly diminished culpability for, e.g., masturbation, seem to lean more on the factor of diminished consent rather than incomplete knowledge or philosophical disagreement.

Usagi

 

[steve_b]

I know what did NOT happen. They did not forfeit their Baptismal Grace.

What baptismal grace?

There was no baptism at the time of Adam & Eve.
D:

they seem to have true knowledge and consent (though they feigned blamelessness).

They had knowledge (the command + consequences) and they disobeyed freely (gave their consent)
D:

Had Eve given Adam the fruit without telling him where it came from, he would have done no wrong. IT’S THE SAME FRUIT. In one case, he eats it and sins. In another case, he eats it and does not sin. IT’S THE SAME ACTION. What’s the difference? Knowledge and intent. Why is this so hard to understand?

This list of commands #15 is like the one command God gave to both Adam and Eve. Both are to be taken seriously. One can’t pick and choose off this list #15 what they agree or disagree on without consequences, anymore than A & E could eat the fruit without consequences.
D:

Because that’s not what we’re talking about!!! We’re talking about someone who ACTUALLY does not have sufficient knowledge and/or consent.

Yet a person’s ignorance (eliminating the mentally challenged, mentally ill, no gun to the head) can often be imputed to personal responsibility. iow ignorance (lack of knowledge) is NOT always innocent. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits 1791.

So, (given the caveots above) if one ignores, won’t try, not interested to know, the following #15 , even if it’s the result of one being up to their eyeballs in sin, they are still culpable for the evil they commit.
D:

Nobody will argue that the guy who feigns ignorance is in worse trouble. But that’s not what we’re talking about. Why do you bring it up? Do you even know what we’re talking about?

I bring it up because you assume everybody is ignorant and innocently so. I don’t assume that.
D:

I was perfectly content to cite this very section (CCC 1859) in another post (reply #3) three days ago [EDIT - oh, wait - that’s THIS thread. I cited it here before you did. I don’t think I failed to bring it up], where the section was actually relevant. It’s not like I don’t know about it - I just understand when it applies and when it does not. You seem to think that anybody who would deny knowledge and/or consent is faking it. That’s not actually what the Catechism is saying. Go back and read it again.

there are very few places on this planet void of attaining this information. Which means massive amounts of information are more available now than any time in this planet’s history. Therefore, the CCC can say this 1791 iow a person’t ignorance is not necessarily innocent.

We’ve had this conversation on other threads. It’s not like we have to bring the same stuff up over and over again. You and I definitely disagree on this.

 

[jinc1019]

What exactly have you proven?

I posted this

" 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"

So in that respect

One could argue, if one hadn’t become a heretic in the first place, which brings with it a way of living and viewing life differently that is in some way opposed to the status quo, causing harmful division, then there would be peace and no reason for any discord in the first place…true?

So to the point, which crusade are you speaking of? Would it involve the Albagensians perhaps?

Again, which crusade are you speaking of?

Steve, I am done arguing over this. I already posted a link that everyone can read and decide for themselves. Your portrayal, while good-intentioned, is sadly mistaken. The Church was MORALLY WRONG to endorse the hanging (murder) of people AFTER THE CONFLICT WAS OVER who refused to recant their religious beliefs. Sorry, but they were. Period. If you want to defend that, go ahead, but I am not going to fight about it with you anymore.

 

[jinc1019]

What did I ignore? 1859

Mortal sin

1. • requires full knowledge and complete consent.
   • It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.
   • It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
   • Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
   On the act, #'s 1-3 are satisfied here #[15 (http://forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=12237087&postcount=15) , special circumstances aside, like
   • gun to the head i.e. no free choice
   • mental disease
   • mental difficiency
   then on the act, one has committed a mortal sin
   
   A question could be asked
   
   if this is SUCH a mystery, distinguishing between mortal and venial sin, why in the world would St John say the following?
   
   “1 Jn 5:16 If any one sees his brother committing what is not a mortal sin,…”
   
   So people Can actually know this difference between sins, AND are able to see it in other people as well, and you don’t see John saying don’t do that, you can’t judge like that.
   
   and we can’t forget, feigned ignorance of sin and its distinctions, doesn’t get one off the hook of committing the sin. Doing that actually increases their fault.

1. 
   Once again, as I already said…You are ignoring the fact that the references made to a presupposed knowledge of God’s law ONLY APPLIES to a very small number of sins that are apparently obvious, like murder. Many sins, such as profaning the Eucharist, would not be obvious to anyone, especially someone who is not Catholic. I have already laid this out clearly. Your formula, which you would have supersede the actual formula of the Church, is not accurate. Full knowledge is NOT presupposed, which is essentially the argument you are making.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I bring it up because you assume everybody is ignorant and innocently so. I don’t assume that.

You cannot show me one thread where I have EVER said this. In fact, in the #3 post in this very thread, I expressed doubts that the subject of the question lacked knowledge or consent (I kinda scoffed at the idea). But I never said he WAS guilty of mortal sin, only that I doubted that he could be innocent of it (my opinion only). So don’t tell me that I think everybody is innocent. I just don’t think everybody is guilty (as you seem to).

I have maintained that nobody knows. Not even the Pope knows. Only God knows (and I said that as well in post #3).

We don’t know if few or many sins are mortal in nature. You don’t know, and I don’t know. Nobody knows.

Quit saying we do know. It’s a lie (oops - #15 - sorry, steve. Give my regards to Adolf).

 

[jinc1019]

Justin,

Dodging the side issues, I will attempt to answer your original question.

As you probably know, the Church (especially in recent times) tends to grant wide leeway when it comes to the concept of ignorance, even allowing that a deeply anti-Catholic Protestant may be rejecting the Church out of ignorance. So it is reasonable to think that sincere disagreement might reduce culpability on the grounds of insufficient knowledge. At least when it comes to non-Catholics, “I am aware of the Catholic position on this issue but have no especial reason to take that position into account or have been conditioned to find it ridiculous” seems to count as inculpable ignorance.

A few caveats, though:

It is impossible without a special gift from God for an outside observer to know with certainty whether another person has met the two internal requirements for mortal sin. That is why we do not presume that any individual has been damned, even if he or she died while, to all appearances, persisting unrepentant in objectively grave sin. It is therefore difficult for me to come to a definite judgment even in the matter of your hypothetical teenager and his fictional soul. Just personally, I would be more inclined to presume ignorance if he’d been brought up to accept pornography as normal, even if he also happened to know of the Catholic teaching against it, than if he is a catechized Catholic who seems to have come to his belief in the Church’s error on his own, and perhaps around the same time as discovering that pornography can be pleasantly stimulating. I could be entirely wrong about either of those assumptions, but that’s the way I would lay my bets.

Also, as you quoted from the catechism, the Church has a belief in natural law and that certain moral principles should be knowable to everyone, even if not explicitly taught. You’ve acknowledged murder as an act the sinful nature of which a mentally competent human cannot reasonably claim not to know. If the sin being contemplated were to fall in that category, then claiming honest disagreement would not suffice. I do not claim to know exactly which sexual sins fall into that category, though it is notable that the catechism’s special notes on possibly diminished culpability for, e.g., masturbation, seem to lean more on the factor of diminished consent rather than incomplete knowledge or philosophical disagreement.

Usagi

Hi Usagi,
Great post. I won’t add anything to it. I respect your opinion and think you have made some very important and good points here. The only thing I would like you to clarify is the following sentence:

I do not claim to know exactly which sexual sins fall into that category, though it is notable that the catechism’s special notes on possibly diminished culpability for, e.g., masturbation, **seem to lean more on the factor of diminished consent **rather than incomplete knowledge or philosophical disagreement.

What do you mean here by “diminished consent”? I am not sure how masturbation could ever have an issue with consent, since it is obviously an individual act. Did you mean something else or am I just missing something here?

 

[jinc1019]

You cannot show me one thread where I have EVER said this. In fact, in the #3 post in this very thread, I expressed doubts that the subject of the question lacked knowledge or consent (I kinda scoffed at the idea). But I never said he WAS guilty of mortal sin, only that I doubted that he could be innocent of it (my opinion only). So don’t tell me that I think everybody is innocent. I just don’t think everybody is guilty (as you seem to).

I have maintained that nobody knows. Not even the Pope knows. Only God knows (and I said that as well in post #3).

We don’t know if few or many sins are mortal in nature. You don’t know, and I don’t know. Nobody knows.

Quit saying we do know. It’s a lie (oops - #15 - sorry, steve. Give my regards to Adolf).

That’s a good post by David…except for the whole “the OP is probably living in mortal sin” thing…which is frustrating.

 

[DavidFilmer]

That’s a good post by David…except for the whole “the OP is probably living in mortal sin” thing…which is frustrating.

You attribute quotes around something that I never said. You mis-quote me. I expressed doubts, which I clearly expressed as my own opinion. I never assigned a probability (which ranges from zero to one) to my doubt. I never claimed that my opinion was greater than 0.5 (which would establish a probability).

Please, don’t “quote” me in anything more than I have actually said. You do me a disservice and an injustice.

 

[steve_b]

Once again, as I already said…You are ignoring the fact that the references made to a presupposed knowledge of God’s law ONLY APPLIES to a very small number of sins that are apparently obvious, like murder.

And you know this how?
j:

Many sins, such as profaning the Eucharist, would not be obvious to anyone, especially someone who is not Catholic.

Protestants aren’t Catholic. They have our same NT. And they read it religiously.
j:

I have already laid this out clearly. Your formula, which you would have supersede the actual formula of the Church, is not accurate. Full knowledge is NOT presupposed, which is essentially the argument you are making.

Full knowledge is NOT eliminated either. How much more knowledge does one need than this #15 ?

Maybe what you need to define is what YOU mean by “full knowledge”