What is considered to be serious sin? (one aspect of, but not to be confused with mortal sin)

  • Thread starter Thread starter PLAT
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

PLAT

Guest
How do we know if we have commited mortal sins?
  1. Serious
  2. Understood
  3. Voluntary
But how exactly do we define these terms?
 
PLAT said:
How do we know if we have commited mortal sins?
  1. Serious
  2. Understood
  3. Voluntary
But how exactly do we define these terms?
Click to expand...
Well “serious” is often described as violating one of the ten commandments. This is fine though I think to the more mature Christian “serious” means violating the Law of Love.

Understood should be simple enough - It is when you know darn well you shouldn’t do something.

Voluntary - is when you “know darn well”, and choose to do it anyway.

These may not be terribly precise definitions but it’s how I think of them.

Peace
James
 
Good question! I use the Catholic Catechism to see if something is a mortal sin.

The Catechism helps you determine whether something is serious. It’s referred to as “grave”. Any time you hear those words describing something that means it is a mortal sin. You can ask a priest if you have any further questions about it.

What I find is helpful is that if I’m curious about something, I’ll just google the sin and “catechism of the catholic church” and usually I can find something on it.

Here are a few examples of mortal sins and how you can tell from the Catechism:

Getting drunk is a mortal sin:
“The virtue of temperance disposes us to avoid every kind of excess: the abuse of food, alcohol, tobacco, or medicine. Those incur grave guilt who, by drunkenness or a love of speed, endanger their own and others’ safety on the road, at sea, or in the air” - CCC 2290
Click to expand...
Masturbation is a mortal sin:
By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.” “The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose.” For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of “the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved.” - CCC 2352
Click to expand...
Betting unfairly, or cheating at gambling (assuming a significant amount of money) is a mortal sin:
Games of chance (card games, etc.) or wagers are not in themselves contrary to justice. They become morally unacceptable when they deprive someone of what is necessary to provide for his needs and those of others. The passion for gambling risks becoming an enslavement. Unfair wagers and cheating at games constitute grave matter, unless the damage inflicted is so slight that the one who suffers it cannot reasonably consider it significant. - CCC 2413
Click to expand...
So then after you have determined if it’s a mortal sin, the last requirements state if you knew it was a mortal sin, and freely chose it then it’s a mortal sin for you.

If that happens, look up masstimes.org and find the next available confession!

Hope that helps!
 
Always ask for the grace of perseverance to stay on the safe side, We are given the sacraments to help us to grow in holiness throughout life. When in doubt always seek forgiveness and reconciliation. Follow the good council of the above posters, Peace, Carlan
 
thistle said:
You are correct. The OP seems to be under the mistaken opinion that a serious sin is less than a grave/mortal sin which as you point out it is not.
Click to expand...
I’m not reading that in the OP. Grave/serious are interchangeable words (both referring to the objective seriousness of the action/inaction). Full knowledge/understanding is roughly equivalent. Deliberate consent/voluntary are, again, I believe a way of saying roughly the same thing.

So, I’m reading the question as to whether the seriousness of the sin needs to be established first (because these things can be defined objectively) before questioning about the presence of the other two factors of mortal sin, not as an attempt to see a separation into a ‘middle tier’ somewhere between mortal and venial (which doesn’t exist). And from there, to continue on to the question of what identifies the serious/grave matter (which, even if it is a serious/grave sin, might yet not be mortal for a particular individual). To take a rather radical example, suppose you have a mentally retarded woman whose caretakers put her on some form of artificial birth control and do not prevent her from engaging in fornication … the use of a contraceptive pill or Norplant and the fornication are both objectively serious matter [point one], but that woman is certainly not guilty of mortal sin because she is incapable of discerning the seriousness and may not be freely choosing either act. (The caretakers who undertake such a course of action/inaction, on the other hand … well, that verse about the millstone around the neck seems to apply.) OTOH, if the sin in question is not serious/grave matter (objectively speaking), should we be concerned about the other two factors? For example–the theft of a single normal first-class postage stamp (not serious/grave matter), yet presumably the thief would be quite aware that any theft is sinful, and isn’t being forced into the act–the knowledge that the thief was deliberately choosing to commit sin doesn’t turn the venial sin into a mortal sin (which I think was the point to the poll’s question).
 
Melissa said:
I’m not reading that in the OP. Grave/serious are interchangeable words (both referring to the objective seriousness of the action/inaction). Full knowledge/understanding is roughly equivalent. Deliberate consent/voluntary are, again, I believe a way of saying roughly the same thing.

So, I’m reading the question as to whether the seriousness of the sin needs to be established first (because these things can be defined objectively) before questioning about the presence of the other two factors of mortal sin, not as an attempt to see a separation into a ‘middle tier’ somewhere between mortal and venial (which doesn’t exist). And from there, to continue on to the question of what identifies the serious/grave matter (which, **even if it is a serious/grave sin, might yet not be mortal **for a particular individual). To take a rather radical example, suppose you have a mentally retarded woman whose caretakers put her on some form of artificial birth control and do not prevent her from engaging in fornication … the use of a contraceptive pill or Norplant and the fornication are both objectively serious matter [point one], but that woman is certainly not guilty of mortal sin because she is incapable of discerning the seriousness and may not be freely choosing either act. (The caretakers who undertake such a course of action/inaction, on the other hand … well, that verse about the millstone around the neck seems to apply.) OTOH, if the sin in question is not serious/grave matter (objectively speaking), should we be concerned about the other two factors? For example–the theft of a single normal first-class postage stamp (not serious/grave matter), yet presumably the thief would be quite aware that any theft is sinful, and isn’t being forced into the act–the knowledge that the thief was deliberately choosing to commit sin doesn’t turn the venial sin into a mortal sin (which I think was the point to the poll’s question).
Click to expand...
Serious sins/grave sins/mortal sins are the same thing. Different words for the same thing.
It is correct that if a person does not know a sin is of grave matter then they do not commit a mortal sin but that does not mean objectively the sin is no longer of grave matter.
Also if a person is coerced into committing a sin of grave matter or a person is below the age of reason, or otherwise mentally incapacitated then such a person is not committing a mortal sin.
Assuming a person is not coerced, below the age of reason, or mentally incapacitated then the only way they do not commit a mortal sin when the act they have committed is of grave matter is if they really didn’t know the Church taught such an act was of grave matter.
Your example of theft is not a good one. Everyone knows theft is a sin of grave matter. It does not matter if its postage stamps you steal or an automobile. The Church does not grade degrees of theft. Theft is theft.

I should add that continued ignorance of the Church teachings (if such ignorance is the result of being too lazy to learn or deliberately not learning) is in itself a sin of grave matter.
A person cannot continually say “I didn’t know”. Ignorance is not bliss with regard to Church teachings.
 
I think you are misunderstanding me … I am not (nor do I believe the OP is) trying to establish a difference between “serious sin” and “mortal sin” but rather the attempt is to distinguish whether or not the objective fact of “serious sin” needs to be established first before considering the other two factors involved.

And in the catechism, I am seeing that the Church does distinguish between theft of something with little intrinsic value (thus my selection of a first-class postage stamp) and things of greater value.
259(b) Theft and robbery are contrary to the natural law and are opposed to jusice. They are considered mortal sins unless that which is stolen is of little value. Even in the case of slight value, the violence attached to robbery may make it a mortal sin. (Baltimore Catechism #3, emphasis mine).
Click to expand...
So, to swipe a postage stamp from someone’s desk drawer or purse in an office setting (therefore, no violence as with robbery) … or to use the office meter machine for a single piece of personal mail when there is no permission to do so (some offices do allow it, but require the individuals to log how many personal pieces and settle up at some regularly scheduled date)–this is not grave/serious matter.
 
Melissa said:
I think you are misunderstanding me … I am not (nor do I believe the OP is) trying to establish a difference between “serious sin” and “mortal sin” but rather the attempt is to distinguish whether or not the objective fact of “serious sin” needs to be established first before considering the other two factors involved.

And in the catechism, I am seeing that the Church does distinguish between theft of something with little intrinsic value (thus my selection of a first-class postage stamp) and things of greater value.

So, to swipe a postage stamp from someone’s desk drawer or purse in an office setting (therefore, no violence as with robbery) … or to use the office meter machine for a single piece of personal mail when there is no permission to do so (some offices do allow it, but require the individuals to log how many personal pieces and settle up at some regularly scheduled date)–this is not grave/serious matter.
Click to expand...
Right there are things that are “grave matter” like murder, the use by a married couple of contraception, abortion, theft of some very large amount etc…

and there are things that are venial matter…like stealing little things of worth from the “non-very poor”…little ways we are not good to another…and the like…

Some matters can have both “grave” and “venial” possiblities…like theft.

Some things are always grave matters such as lust, murder etc

Though too one is to note that even though there is a “grave matter” involved…in order to “commit” a mortal sin subjectively…one does need also the full knowledge and deliberate consent…

If one of those is lacking it can be a venial sin…or perhaps there can be no guilt at all…
 
Bookcat said:
Right there are things that are “grave matter” like murder, the use by a married couple of contraception, abortion, theft of some very large amount etc…

and there are things that are venial matter…like stealing little things of worth from the “non-very poor”…little ways we are not good to another…and the like…

Some matters can have both “grave” and “venial” possiblities…like theft.

Some things are always grave matters such as lust, murder etc

Though too one is to note that even though there is a “grave matter” involved…in order to “commit” a mortal sin subjectively…one does need also the full knowledge and deliberate consent…

If one of those is lacking it can be a venial sin…or perhaps there can be no guilt at all…
Click to expand...
Sorry but that is not a Church teaching. Theft is theft and whether its stealing postage stamps from someone’s drawer or money from someone’s bag it is all grave matter. The Church does not teach that its only venial to steal something of little vaue from a rich person. If it does then please show me a Church document supporting your claim and I will happily stand corrected.
 
thistle said:
Sorry but that is not a Church teaching. Theft is theft and whether its stealing postage stamps from someone’s drawer or money from someone’s bag it is all grave matter. The Church does not teach that its only venial to steal something of little vaue from a rich person. If it does then please show me a Church document supporting your claim and I will happily stand corrected.
Click to expand...
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

It does not seem like stealing a postage stamp, ball point pen or any other item of little value would constitute mortal sin.

These do not meet the criteria of “serious matter”.
 
Indyann said:
1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

It does not seem like stealing a postage stamp, ball point pen or any other item of little value would constitute mortal sin.

These do not meet the criteria of “serious matter”.
Click to expand...
That CCC para does not confirm what you state. You’ll need something more definitive than that to convince me.
 
thistle said:
Sorry but that is not a Church teaching. Theft is theft and whether its stealing postage stamps from someone’s drawer or money from someone’s bag it is all grave matter. The Church does not teach that its only venial to steal something of little vaue from a rich person. If it does then please show me a Church document supporting your claim and I will happily stand corrected.
Click to expand...
You are quite mistaken…and may research in any orthodox work of Catholic Moral Theology.

Theft while generally grave admits of parvity of matter…that is smallness of matter.

but of course it is still sinful *unless it is not theft.

and should not be done
 
If I steal $100,000 that is a grave matter…(of course less would be too!..just a big example)

If I steal $5.00 that is ordinarily a light (venial) matter (from say an adv. American)
 
Bookcat said:
You are quite mistaken…and may research in any orthodox work of Catholic Moral Theology.

Theft while generally grave admits of parvity of matter…that is smallness of matter.

but of course it is still sinful *unless it is not theft.

and should not be done
Click to expand...
PS:

and it is also true that various aspects can go into things…circumstances that can make things worse…

(also anyone who reads the Cath. Ency. link above…needs to be aware that it was written about 100 years ago…when people made very little…a few dollars or actually I think even less a day or something…so bear that in mind too)
 
Bookcat said:
PS:

and it is also true that various aspects can go into things…circumstances that can make things worse…

(also anyone who reads the Cath. Ency. link above…needs to be aware that it was written about 100 years ago…when people made very little…a few dollars or actually I think even less a day or something…so bear that in mind too)
Click to expand...
Agreed. That is why I used a 100 yr old document, so as not to be accused of using a Vat.II document. That would open up another can of worms for some on these forums.:eek:
 
Bookcat said:
You are quite mistaken…and may research in any orthodox work of Catholic Moral Theology.

Theft while generally grave admits of parvity of matter…that is smallness of matter.

but of course it is still sinful *unless it is not theft.

and should not be done
Click to expand...
Okay then what is the measure against which a person who decides to steal considers if what they steal is objectively grave or objectively venial?
You might consider stealing USD 10 from a colleague’s wallet venial (I’m not saying you’ve done that. This is just an example).
Another person might consider stealing USD 1000 from a wallet venial.
Who decides what the cut-off mark is?
 
thistle said:
Okay then what is the measure against which a person who decides to steal considers if what they steal is objectively grave or objectively venial?
You might consider stealing USD 10 from a colleague’s wallet venial (I’m not saying you’ve done that. This is just an example).
Another person might consider stealing USD 1000 from a wallet venial.
Who decides what the cut-off mark is?
Click to expand...
various factors can go into this…

but in general reason …an well formed conscience…etc

(the Church of course where ever such is spoken of…orthodox Catholic Moral theologians )

But it is simply the case that theft admits of “parvity” of matter.

and example could be

Stealing $1000 from someone is going to be grave matter…

stealing $1 dollar is going to be venial matter…(though circumstance could make it grave…like the person is destitute etc)

of course *one is NOT to steal *
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top