A
AnneTeresa
Guest
Does it mean that it’s always a sin? In theory it’s a son? Usually a sin, but under certain subjective circumstances, it may not be a sin?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The “object” itself is sinful.
In itself …per se it is sinful.
It is something that should never be chosen.
Murder
Adultery
Fornication
etc
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
In itself …per se it is sinful.
It is something that should never be chosen.
Murder
Adultery
Fornication
etc
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5R.HTM
vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P5S.HTM
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
So, from the first link…
“The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death).”
Does this mean an “objectively sinful” act would always be evil, but could be greater or lesser sin depending on circumstances?..
… and if so, that means that an “objectively sinful” act could be a venial, not mortal sin, depending on the circumstances?
“The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death).”
Does this mean an “objectively sinful” act would always be evil, but could be greater or lesser sin depending on circumstances?..
… and if so, that means that an “objectively sinful” act could be a venial, not mortal sin, depending on the circumstances?
P
puzzleannie
Guest
It means it is always sinful objectively, that is, looked at outside specific individual circumstances. That means it always has the harmful effects associated with sin. Subjectively (looked at from the personal POV if the person) that person may not be guilty of sin in this instance because he lacked full knowledge or full free will consent. Or his guilt may be mitigated by circumstances.Does it mean that it’s always a sin? In theory it’s a son? Usually a sin, but under certain subjective circumstances, it may not be a sin?
example: murder of an innocent person is always objectively a grave sin. If I shoot you with full knowledge, intention and consent you are dead, and I committed a mortal sin.
If my 5 year old shoots a gun at you and kills you, you are still dead, the evil effects of the sin still happened, but he has no guilt because of his age and lack of knowledge and intention.
Another example: use of artificial means to prevent conception is always objectively gravely sinful. There may still be Catholics who grew up on another planet who have never heard this teaching, and those in charge of their marriage preparation failed in their duty to communicate this teaching. So for that couple to practice contraception may not mean they personally are guilty of sin, or their guild may be less, because they lacked full knowledge. Or their intention may have been to protect the mother’s help, and they did not realize this does not justify a grave evil. So to that extent their culpability is less. However, the harmful effects on marriage and intimacy, not to mention the physical dangers associated with some of those methods, still affect them, because they are inherent in the sinful action.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The circumstances do not lessen the evil.So, from the first link…
“The circumstances, including the consequences, are secondary elements of a moral act. They contribute to increasing or diminishing the moral goodness or evil of human acts (for example, the amount of a theft). They can also diminish or increase the agent’s responsibility (such as acting out of a fear of death).”
Does this mean an “objectively sinful” act would always be evil, but could be greater or lesser sin depending on circumstances?..
… and if so, that means that an “objectively sinful” act could be a venial, not mortal sin, depending on the circumstances?
1754…Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.
But the culpability (personal guilt) of someone may be lessened…or even not at all. Say for example a child taught that it is moral to steal and that they must do so…(perhaps)
An “objectively gravely sinful act” is always going to remain “objectively gravely sinful” but the person doing it may be “subjectively” not fully culpable for mortal sin.
Or the opposite can happen…the persons sin can be increased! Due to circumstances.
B
Bookcat
Guest
1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
B
Bookcat
Guest
1755 A morally good act requires the goodness of the object, of the end, and of the circumstances together. An evil end corrupts the action, even if the object is good in itself (such as praying and fasting “in order to be seen by men”).
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
The object of the choice can by itself vitiate an act in its entirety. There are some concrete acts - such as fornication - that it is always wrong to choose, because choosing them entails a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil.
1756 It is therefore an error to judge the morality of human acts by considering only the intention that inspires them or the circumstances (environment, social pressure, duress or emergency, etc.) which supply their context. There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object; such as blasphemy and perjury, murder and adultery. One may not do evil so that good may result from it.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
So, who then determines if one is culpable? Only God could really do this, correct? Even a priest only knows what he is told. Perhaps this is why one can have one priest tell someone something is mortal sin and another priest say it is venial, or no sin at all? And how do we live our lives with all this gray area? Some may just say always avoid “objectively sinful” matter, but it is not always possible due to complications.But the culpability (personal guilt) of someone may be lessened…or even not at all. Say for example a child taught that it is moral to steal and that they must do so…(perhaps)
An “objectively gravely sinful act” is always going to remain “objectively gravely sinful” but the person doing it may be "subjectively not fully culpable for mortal sin.
Or the opposite can happen…the persons sin can be increased! Due to circumstances.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
So in the case of the couple and contraception, once they heard that the church taught it was objectively sinful, that would increase their culpability and guilt, I assume? So at that point would it become mortal sin? Or, because they still had a long history of not knowing it was sinful and a load of mental baggage, would they not be guilty of mortal sin at that point because it was really hard for them to grasp it as sinful in their own thinking?It means it is always sinful objectively, that is, looked at outside specific individual circumstances. That means it always has the harmful effects associated with sin. Subjectively (looked at from the personal POV if the person) that person may not be guilty of sin in this instance because he lacked full knowledge or full free will consent. Or his guilt may be mitigated by circumstances.
example: murder of an innocent person is always objectively a grave sin. If I shoot you with full knowledge, intention and consent you are dead, and I committed a mortal sin.
If my 5 year old shoots a gun at you and kills you, you are still dead, the evil effects of the sin still happened, but he has no guilt because of his age and lack of knowledge and intention.
Another example: use of artificial means to prevent conception is always objectively gravely sinful. There may still be Catholics who grew up on another planet who have never heard this teaching, and those in charge of their marriage preparation failed in their duty to communicate this teaching. So for that couple to practice contraception may not mean they personally are guilty of sin, or their guild may be less, because they lacked full knowledge. Or their intention may have been to protect the mother’s help, and they did not realize this does not justify a grave evil. So to that extent their culpability is less. However, the harmful effects on marriage and intimacy, not to mention the physical dangers associated with some of those methods, still affect them, because they are inherent in the sinful action.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
What is an example of “feigned ignorance”? Trying to understand…1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
:idea: This just occurred to me…
If it’s “objectively sinful” then it means the act itself is always sinful, but the person doing it may or may not be guilty of that sin due to circumstances and intention. Is that correct?
If it’s “objectively sinful” then it means the act itself is always sinful, but the person doing it may or may not be guilty of that sin due to circumstances and intention. Is that correct?
B
Bookcat
Guest
We are to living according to the Teachings of the Church…forming our conscience accordingly …So, who then determines if one is culpable? Only God could really do this, correct? Even a priest only knows what he is told. Perhaps this is why one can have one priest tell someone something is mortal sin and another priest say it is venial, or no sin at all? And how do we live our lives with all this gray area? Some may just say always avoid “objectively sinful” matter, but it is not always possible due to complications.
God alone fully knows a persons culpability.
Even if a person may have reason to think that their culpability is lessened perhaps…such of course is not a green light to willfully engage in an objectively sinful action.
Someone might be tempted to think–oh due to my circumstances…my culpability is lessened…I can do such and such etc…they are fooling themselves. They can actually be increasing the sinfulness of the said act.
As to the Priest question…some priests may have received some defective formation…or be mistaken…or misinformed etc…
and some things are various judgment calls …one might ask one Priest " should I avoid such and such …is it really a near occasion for me?" and he may give advice that another may differ with. But if one asks “Can I commit murder, or adultery, or perjury or blasphemy?” etc and one says ok to any such as those…one needs to see a new priest …and it would seem a call to the Bishop would be in order.
Heck some of the heresies back in the day were started by Priests! A Priest needs to think with the Church. As do of course we all.
B
Bookcat
Guest
I suppose fooling oneself would be one way…What is an example of “feigned ignorance”? Trying to understand…
(man I think this is a sin…but I am not going to look…til after I do it…etc)
(one the devil has liked to use to tempt us since Eve!)
B
Bookcat
Guest
In a sense…but I would not exactly put it that way…I would focus on say the lack of knowledge or consent…:idea: This just occurred to me…
If it’s “objectively sinful” then it means the act itself is always sinful, but the person doing it may or may not be guilty of that sin due to circumstances and intention. Is that correct?
It is important to note that as noted above …a circumstance or intention *cannot *make such good.
And
For example a person can not say “well my intent is good or I am in such and such a circumstance” --so I can do it.
No such is not what is meant.
More like…the kid is 5 years old as noted above …and did not know what they were doing…so are not culpable.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
yes. moreover Catholics have the obligation to learn about their faith, the commandments, practices, moral teaching etc. so they can form a correct conscience and make informed moral decisions. That obligation is especially strong when they disagree with Church teaching. Then they have an absolute obligation to keep studying, consulting with priests if necessary, until they fully understand and accept the teaching.So in the case of the couple and contraception, once they heard that the church taught it was objectively sinful, that would increase their culpability and guilt, I assume?
It becomes a mortal sin when there is grave matter (objectively), the person has full knowledge that it is gravely sinful, and the person deliberately chooses the wrong course of action with full knowledge and intent to accomplish the evil inherent in the action.
the important aspect, as stressed by posters is above, that lack of knowledge and a good intention are not enough to reverse an objectively sinful action or to make it somehow not evil. It is evil because it is evil in and of itself, and no outside circumstance can change that. The only think that is subjective is the level of culpability and guilt of the penitent.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
It’s all mud. Some priests just account more for the fact that some circumstances really are very very difficult and perhaps believe that relieves some culpability.Someone might be tempted to think–oh due to my circumstances…my culpability is lessened…I can do such and such etc…they are fooling themselves. They can actually be increasing the sinfulness of the said act.
As to the Priest question…some priests may have received some defective formation…or be mistaken…or misinformed etc…
and some things are various judgment calls …one might ask one Priest " should I avoid such and such …is it really a near occasion for me?" and he may give advice that another may differ with.
But should you weight the opinion of your own pastor more than that of another priest that perhaps you saw in confession? I know many people don’t have this problem, but where I live you can actually kind of guess (I’ve figured out) what priests will say what about things after you’ve been to them for confession a time or two. And so you can pick just one priest to go to whenever you can, but how do you know he’s the right one? I’m not talking about clear situations but ones where things are not so clear or black and white.
Some priests told me there is such a thing as “pastoral” discretion in evaluating situations. So that means you shouldllisten to your own pastor in my mind even if it disagrees with what others say is “objectively sinful”. Like I said, it’s all mud.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Possible reduced culpability subjectively is not a green light to engage in the action.It’s all mud. Some priests just account more for the fact that some circumstances really are very very difficult and perhaps believe that relieves some culpability.
B
Bookcat
Guest
A Pastor can be wrong.So that means you should llisten to your own pastor in my mind even if it disagrees with what others say is “objectively sinful”. Like I said, it’s all mud.
In the case of advising a person to do something that is objectively sinful…such is always and everywhere bad advice. And certainly wrong.
P
puzzleannie
Guest
not at allIt’s all mud. Some priests just account more for the fact that some circumstances really are very very difficult and perhaps believe that relieves some culpability.
.
don’t compare advice you were given in your own confession based on what you told the priest about your personal situation, against generalized teaching, or advice given by another priest to another person in another situation.
A
AnneTeresa
Guest
How do you know that? What if the pastor saw something, based on his long experience with people in similar situations, that made him realize that in this case the person is not culpable because of circumstances?A Pastor can be wrong.
In the case of advising a person to do something that is objectively sinful…such is always and everywhere bad advice. And certainly wrong.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.