Vincible ignorance and mortal sin

[Soler]

I was reading the original Catholic Encyclopaedia article on “Ignorance” (of the immorality of an act).
A distinction was made between invincible and vincible ignorance: according to the article, the former completely excuses from culpability, whereas the latter does not.
However, the article also states that vincible ignorance (when not feigned or expressly deliberate, e.g. when someone refuses to research Church teaching) makes an act less voluntary.
Does this mean that vincible ignorance, if a sin is of grave matter, makes the sin venial?

 

[EmeraldWings]

that’s correct, if you do not know a sin is mortal, and commit it, it is only venial,
but it is also our obligation to learn all of our sins, and to fail in learning our sins when we have the ability to do so is also a sin.
or to put it another way, if we don’t know whether something is a sin or not, but know the chance is there, and we go and commit it anyways, we are committing a sin because we show, that even though we don’t know if it’s of grave matter or a sin at all, we are willing to greatly offend God anyways by doing something that could be a serious sin.

of course whether mortal or venial, we should always take serious measures in avoiding sin, for the love of God, and for the sake of our souls, which become sick and weakened by sins of any kind.

 

[Ron_Conte]

I was reading the original Catholic Encyclopaedia article on “Ignorance” (of the immorality of an act).
A distinction was made between invincible and vincible ignorance: according to the article, the former completely excuses from culpability, whereas the latter does not.
However, the article also states that vincible ignorance (when not feigned or expressly deliberate, e.g. when someone refuses to research Church teaching) makes an act less voluntary.
Does this mean that vincible ignorance, if a sin is of grave matter, makes the sin venial?

When ignorance is invincible, it is substantially complete; the person does not realize that his knowingly chosen act is at all immoral.

When ignorance is partial, there is a partial reduction in culpability. If the ignorance is minor, then culpability is reduced only to a minor extent, and the mortal sin would still be mortal. If the ignorance is substantial, so that the person knew that the act was immoral, but thought it was not a grave matter, then the objective mortal sin is reduced in culpability to an actual venial sin.

The term vincible is not much used in moral theology, and might be somewhat confusing. Invincible means that the person has no reasonable way to correct his ignorance in that particular situation at that particular time. So vincible would seem to imply that he is able to know that the act is immoral, making his ignorace culpable, to some degree. It is perhaps more useful to simply discuss whether or not his ignorance is culpable, and to what degree.

 

[Soler]

To what extent can one be culpable for one’s ignorance concerning the immorality and/or gravity of an objective mortal sin without its becoming an actual mortal sin?

 

[EmeraldWings]

well, for example, even when you know something is a mortal sin, but do not give full consent to it, it is venial,
when you are ignorant of a sin, not knowing that it is wrong at all, then how can you be blameworthy?
but if you are ignorant through your own fault, knowing what you’re doing may be wrong but not finding out, then you may as well be committing a mortal sin knowingly, because you are doing the same thing, saying “I know it’s wrong but i don’t care” or “i know it might be offending God greatly but i don’t care”

does that make sense? I’m not entirely sure if i understood what you were asking

 

[larry85704]

Suppose the definition of mortal sin is that if you die with it you go to hell. You all ok with that?

If you research the Catechism, you will find that we are judged by God. God can choose to forgive us even if we died having committed a grave, or mortal, sin. So, if we stick strictly to the definition, the “mortal” sin we though we had when we died was not “mortal”. You see, we didn’t go to hell. Still with me?

So then, for a sin to be mortal it must be one that God chooses not to forgive you for. Such a sin is defined in the Gospel.

And then there is this -

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[thistle]

well, for example, even when you know something is a mortal sin, but do not give full consent to it, it is venial,
when you are ignorant of a sin, not knowing that it is wrong at all, then how can you be blameworthy?
but if you are ignorant through your own fault, knowing what you’re doing may be wrong but not finding out, then you may as well be committing a mortal sin knowingly, because you are doing the same thing, saying “I know it’s wrong but i don’t care” or “i know it might be offending God greatly but i don’t care”

does that make sense? I’m not entirely sure if i understood what you were asking

Unless I misunderstand the way you worded your comments I don’t think what you are saying is correct.
If you know an act is grave matter then by definition you commit a mortal sin by doing it. You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident.

 

[Ron_Conte]

To what extent can one be culpable for one’s ignorance concerning the immorality and/or gravity of an objective mortal sin without its becoming an actual mortal sin?

If your conscience includes some limited degree of insincerity, or some limited degree of negligence in seeking moral truth, then your moral decisions might not be entirely in good conscience. If so, then your insincerity or negligence is itself a venial sin, and you might also sin venially by acting based on that insincerity or negligence. However, some limited faults and failings in seeking moral truth may reach only to the extent of imperfection, and not to the extent of even venial sin.

If your conscience includes a substantial degree of insincerity, or if you substantially ignore or reject the search for moral truth in any grave matter, then your moral decisions are not in good conscience. If so, then your substantial insincerity, negligence, or rejection of moral truth is itself a mortal sin, and you might also sin mortally by acting based on this insincerity, negligence, or rejection, in any grave matter.

Second Vatican Council: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, n. 16.

 

[Ron_Conte]

If you research the Catechism, you will find that we are judged by God. God can choose to forgive us even if we died having committed a grave, or mortal, sin. So, if we stick strictly to the definition, the “mortal” sin we though we had when we died was not “mortal”. You see, we didn’t go to hell. Still with me?

The Church infallibly teaches that all who die in a state of actual mortal sin are condemned to Hell.

Council of Florence, Sixth Session, 6 July 1439: “But the souls of those who depart this life in actual mortal sin, or in original sin alone, go down straightaway to hell to be punished, but with unequal pains.”

Pope Benedict XII, On the Beatific Vision of God: “By this Constitution which is to remain in force for ever, we, with apostolic authority, define the following… Moreover we define that according to the general disposition of God, the souls of those who die in actual mortal sin go down into hell immediately (mox) after death and there suffer the pain of hell.”

 

[Ron_Conte]

Unless I misunderstand the way you worded your comments I don’t think what you are saying is correct.
If you know an act is grave matter then by definition you commit a mortal sin by doing it. You cannot commit a mortal sin by accident.

Culpability in committing an objective mortal sin can be reduced if the act does not have full consent. Actual mortal sin requires:

1. full consent (also called full deliberation or full resolve)
2. full knowledge that the act is gravely immoral
3. grave matter

 

[thistle]

Culpability in committing an objective mortal sin can be reduced if the act does not have full consent. Actual mortal sin requires:

1. full consent (also called full deliberation or full resolve)
2. full knowledge that the act is gravely immoral
3. grave matter

I agree with that. You could have a situation where someone is coerced to commit an act of grave matter.
However, if a person knows a specific act is of grave matter and still goes ahead and commits the act willingly without any coercion would that not be a mortal sin?

 

[Ron_Conte]

However, if a person knows a specific act is of grave matter and still goes ahead and commits the act willingly without any coercion would that not be a mortal sin?

Not necessarily. For example, interior acts that are objectively gravely immoral, such as consent to gravely sinful thoughts, might not have full resolve (full deliberation). This lack of full resolve could also occur with an exterior act, for example, if a split second decision is required, and the person chooses an objective mortal sin, the culpability might be reduced by a lack of full consent (deliberation).

 

[larry85704]

Fine, no problem, if you die in the state of mortal sin you go to hell. You have accepted my version of the definition. It isn’t mine, it is the Churches.

What you seem to have trouble with is that only God can determine if the sin is mortal. Why is that?

Is it that you feel you are the one that can judge? When you say a person has committed a mortal sin you are saying that if he were to die, at that time, he would go to hell. You can judge, but I would caution against it. In judging you may be in fact committing a sin.

The Church stopped the sermons that said people would go to hell in the 60’s. If you give a sermon that tells people they will go to hell for anything you are likely to get a note from your boss. I guess this web site is for the people that are upset with Vatican II and liked the Church pre-Vatican II better.

Sorry the Church doesn’t meet your approval anymore.

 

[fix]

Fine, no problem, if you die in the state of mortal sin you go to hell. You have accepted my version of the definition. It isn’t mine, it is the Churches.

What you seem to have trouble with is that only God can determine if the sin is mortal. Why is that?

Is it that you feel you are the one that can judge? When you say a person has committed a mortal sin you are saying that if he were to die, at that time, he would go to hell. You can judge, but I would caution against it. In judging you may be in fact committing a sin.

The Church stopped the sermons that said people would go to hell in the 60’s. If you give a sermon that tells people they will go to hell for anything you are likely to get a note from your boss. I guess this web site is for the people that are upset with Vatican II and liked the Church pre-Vatican II better.

Sorry the Church doesn’t meet your approval anymore.

This sounds like what the current pope has taught against. Meaning there are two Churches, as in one before 1962 and one after.

He terms that the hermeneutic of discontinuity and rupture.

 

[Soler]

Fine, no problem, if you die in the state of mortal sin you go to hell. You have accepted my version of the definition. It isn’t mine, it is the Churches. What you seem to have trouble with is that only God can determine if the sin is mortal. Why is that? Is it that you feel you are the one that can judge? When you say a person has committed a mortal sin you are saying that if he were to die, at that time, he would go to hell. You can judge, but I would caution against it. In judging you may be in fact committing a sin. The Church stopped the sermons that said people would go to hell in the 60’s. If you give a sermon that tells people they will go to hell for anything you are likely to get a note from your boss. I guess this web site is for the people that are upset with Vatican II and liked the Church pre-Vatican II better. Sorry the Church doesn’t meet your approval anymore.

The Church has changed far less than you think. There are specific criteria for determining whether or not a sin is mortal, and it is a teaching of the Church that all
who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. That has not changed. Mortal sins cannot be forgiven after death. It can often be judgemental to state out of hand that a particular action was a mortal sin, but if the person who committed it gives us a detailed description of their state of mind at the time, we might well be able to make a reasoned judgement whether or not it was in fact a mortal sin.

Thanks to all who answered. By the way, Ron, would you be able to give me practical examples of the difference between limited insincerity/negligence/rejection and substantial insincerity/negligence/ rejection?

 

[larry85704]

I fear somebody doesn’t get it.

Please review the quote from the Catechism I provided.

Now, mortal sin + death = hell. Agree?

Mortal sin + God’s forgiveness = nothing. Agree?

Is God’s forgiveness only provided for by confession with a priest? No.

So, working backward…

Can a person that committed murder be in heaven? Yes

Is murder a mortal sin? In some cases no, couldn’t be. That person is in heaven. God forgave them. Not logically consistent to say murder is always a mortal sin.

Interesting point. Suppose you cannot be forgiven after you die. I’ll buy that. Now that would mean that God forgives you before you die. I’ll buy that too.

Can God forgive a murderer if he never goes to confession? Yes. Otherwise only Catholics could go to heaven. I am pretty sure the Church does not teach that. Please, be smart enough here to realize I single out murder as an example. You can use whatever sin you want, including original sin.

Therefore God is the only one that knows if a sin is mortal. Duh, isn’t that what the quote from the Catechism says?

By the way,

Going to confession, for a grave sin, hypothetically a mortal sin, does not guarantee your forgiveness, or your salvation. You must make a valid confession. You know, like being really sorry and trying not to sin again. Again, only God knows if your confession was valid.

Doesn’t God see what is your heart? What is in your heart if you are so willing to assume that God loves you enough to forgive you, but He does not love your brothers and friends as much? Don’t you think He forgives others just as much as He forgives you?

 

[Prometheum_x]

The Church has changed far less than you think. There are specific criteria for determining whether or not a sin is mortal, and it is a teaching of the Church that all
who die in a state of mortal sin go to Hell. That has not changed. Mortal sins cannot be forgiven after death. It can often be judgemental to state out of hand that a particular action was a mortal sin, but if the person who committed it gives us a detailed description of their state of mind at the time, we might well be able to make a reasoned judgement whether or not it was in fact a mortal sin.

Thanks to all who answered. By the way, Ron, would you be able to give me practical examples of the difference between limited insincerity/negligence/rejection and substantial insincerity/negligence/ rejection?

It is impossible, even with the testimony of the person committing the sin, to know whether it was mortal. Even we do not know our own hearts fully – it is far better to entrust all (including ourselves, which is more difficult at times) to the mercy of God, and to avoid sin altogether out of love for Him.

The individual is free to judge themselves (and should, to a certain extent, such as whether they need to go to confession before presenting themselves for communion), but I don’t think there are any circumstances under which we can declare that another person has committed a mortal sin. However, we can and should warn them of the great danger that they are in, for venial sins lead to mortal sin. As well, all sins wound us and deprive us of divine peace and joy, at least to some degree.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Interesting point. Suppose you cannot be forgiven after you die. I’ll buy that. Now that would mean that God forgives you before you die. I’ll buy that too.

You cannot properly understand the teaching of the Church on every subject solely from the Catechism. The Catechism must be read in the light of the teachings of the Faith in Tradition, Scripture, Magisterium.

It is a required belief of the Catholic faith that all persons who die unrepentant from actual mortal sin are sent by God to Hell. You cannot be forgiven for actual mortal sin after you die.

There is a difference between actual mortal sin and merely objective mortal sin. Only persons who die unrepentant from actual mortal sin are sent to Hell.

A person can repent from actual mortal sin and be forgiven in the Sacrament of Confession. Or, in the case of a non-Catholic, or a Catholic who is unable to receive the Sacrament, perfect contrition alone can forgive actual mortal sin. However, without repentance, God does not forgive actual mortal sin in this life. And there is no forgiveness for unrepentant actual mortal sin after death.

Catholic theology has numerous teachings on morality and sin, on forgiveness and repentance and the Sacraments, that would pertain to this discussion.

The main problem with the OP’s postings is that he is ‘teaching’ from his own assumptions and conclusions, without having studied Catholic teaching on the subject to any substantial extent.

 

[Ron_Conte]

Thanks to all who answered. By the way, Ron, would you be able to give me practical examples of the difference between limited insincerity/negligence/rejection and substantial insincerity/negligence/ rejection?

1. limited insincerity in seeking moral truth

Example: A practicing Catholic puts only a little effort into learning Catholic teaching on morality. At a certain point in time, he faces a decision at work, whether or not to lie to keep his job (a venial lie, in this example). He does not know that lying is always immoral. He decides that lying in this case is moral, and so he lies.

Analysis: He cannot claim to have invincible ignorance, even though he did not know that lying is always immoral, because he is a practicing Catholic, and within his own reasonable abilities and resources, he could have and should have known that teaching. But his act is not as sinful as the act of a Catholic who knows that lying is always immoral, and does it anyway. So he has a partial reduction in culpability.

1. substantial insincerity/rejection in seeking moral truth

Example: A Catholic publicly speaks out against the teaching of the Magisterium on the sinfulness of contraception, publicly asserting that contraception is moral.

Analysis: This practicing Catholic decides what is and is not moral based on her own reasoning, with substantial disregard for known Catholic teaching on morality. Although in one sense this person is ignorant of the truth that contraception is immoral, she is not ignorant that the Church teaches contraception is gravely immoral. She has knowingly chosen to completely disregard definitive magisterial teaching on a matter of grave morality. So there is no substantial reduction in culpability based on the fact that she does not ‘know’ that contraception is immoral.

 

[Soler]

What if the person in the second case above believed in all sincerity that the Church teachings concerning the authority of the Magisterium were untrue?