What is the youngest a person can be and commit a mortal sin?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thoughtfulone
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
DanteAlighieri said:
“Ranting”? Perhaps being a little more respectful of this Pope and Saint – and maybe even deferring to his wisdom – is in order?

Furthermore, do not fail to notice that the boy in the story died. There is little opportunity for the father to mend his ways with regard to his son’s spiritual guidance, so your assessment of the story’s purpose does not stand, I’m afraid.

And, again, I daresay that it is a bit bold to say “There is no way” that God would do or not do something simply because we find it personally distasteful. Unless you can demonstrate how it is **fundamentally impossible **for a five-year-old to commit mortal sin, you have to accept the possibility.

Peace,
Dante
Click to expand...
Sorry, but there is no way I am “deferring” to this nonsense.

I understand that the boy in the story died…I was speaking of the man’s other children although I think that the poster who said this was probably all hallucination by a feverish mind is probably correct.

As far as your theory that it is possible for a 7-year-old to commit a mortal sin, let us look at Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Kohlberg was one of the most pre-eminent psychologists in his field and still is today. Keep in mind that a stage CANNOT be skipped over - one MUST progress from one to the next and so on, so even the most precocious child will have to go through ALL of the following stages before moral development is complete.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Although it has been questioned as to whether it applied equally to different genders and different cultures, Kohlberg’s (1973) stages of moral development is the most widely cited. It breaks our development of morality into three levels, each of which is divided further into two stages:

**Preconventional Level **(up to age nine):
Code: 
 ~Self Focused Morality
  1. Morality is defined as obeying rules and avoiding negative consequences. Children in this stage see rules set, typically by parents, as defining moral law.
  2. That which satisfies the child’s needs is seen as good and moral.
Conventional Level (age nine to adolescence):
Code: 
 ~Other Focused Morality~
  1. Children begin to understand what is expected of them by their parents, teacher, etc. Morality is seen as achieving these expectations.
  2. Fulfilling obligations as well as following expectations are seen as moral law for children in this stage.
Postconventional Level (adulthood):
Code: 
 ~Higher Focused Morality~
  1. As adults, we begin to understand that people have different opinions about morality and that rules and laws vary from group to group and culture to culture. Morality is seen as upholding the values of your group or culture.
  2. Understanding your own personal beliefs allow adults to judge themselves and others based upon higher levels of morality. In this stage what is right and wrong is based upon the circumstances surrounding an action. Basics of morality are the foundation with independent thought playing an important role.
**Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning.**Moral reasoning based on loyalty to a perceived supernatural being

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg’s_stages_of_moral_development

As you can see, the FINAL stage of moral development is based on loyalty to a higher power, or God and usually does not occur until well after one has reached adulthood. Even the most intelligent, independent, precocious 7 year old would never be able to understand this or make any real permanent decisions that rise to this level of morality. In other words, it is impossible for them to intentionally act against God with any real conception of what they are doing. Young children with a certain sanctity would have to be instilled with holiness by God Himself, but it could never work the other way. A child of this age is mentally and emotionally incapable of choosing hell.
 
🤷
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, but there is no way I am “deferring” to this nonsense.

I understand that the boy in the story died…I was speaking of the man’s other children although I think that the poster who said this was probably all hallucination by a feverish mind is probably correct.

As far as your theory that it is possible for a 7-year-old to commit a mortal sin, let us look at Kohlberg’s stages of moral development. Kohlberg was one of the most pre-eminent psychologists in his field and still is today. Keep in mind that a stage CANNOT be skipped over - one MUST progress from one to the next and so on, so even the most precocious child will have to go through ALL of the following stages before moral development is complete.

Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development

Although it has been questioned as to whether it applied equally to different genders and different cultures, Kohlberg’s (1973) stages of moral development is the most widely cited. It breaks our development of morality into three levels, each of which is divided further into two stages:

**Preconventional Level **(up to age nine):

~Self Focused Morality
  1. Morality is defined as obeying rules and avoiding negative consequences. Children in this stage see rules set, typically by parents, as defining moral law.
  2. That which satisfies the child’s needs is seen as good and moral.
Conventional Level (age nine to adolescence):

~Other Focused Morality~
  1. Children begin to understand what is expected of them by their parents, teacher, etc. Morality is seen as achieving these expectations.
  2. Fulfilling obligations as well as following expectations are seen as moral law for children in this stage.
Postconventional Level (adulthood):

~Higher Focused Morality~
  1. As adults, we begin to understand that people have different opinions about morality and that rules and laws vary from group to group and culture to culture. Morality is seen as upholding the values of your group or culture.
  2. Understanding your own personal beliefs allow adults to judge themselves and others based upon higher levels of morality. In this stage what is right and wrong is based upon the circumstances surrounding an action. Basics of morality are the foundation with independent thought playing an important role.
**Kohlberg suggested that there may be a seventh stage—Transcendental Morality, or Morality of Cosmic Orientation—which linked religion with moral reasoning.**Moral reasoning based on loyalty to a perceived supernatural being

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kohlberg’s_stages_of_moral_development

As you can see, the FINAL stage of moral development is based on loyalty to a higher power, or God and usually does not occur until well after one has reached adulthood. Even the most intelligent, independent, precocious 7 year old would never be able to understand this or make any real permanent decisions that rise to this level of morality. In other words, it is impossible for them to intentionally act against God with any real conception of what they are doing. Young children with a certain sanctity would have to be instilled with holiness by God Himself, but it could never work the other way. A child of this age is mentally and emotionally incapable of choosing hell.
Click to expand...
That’s your contention. I don’t see that you have proven it though. Why should we accept the less than 40-year-old theories of a psychologist who himself doesn’t claim that a 7 year old cannot commit mortal sin (that was your opinion)? How do we know these theories are correct?

In fact, how much of Freud’s work do you support? What don’t you support, and why? Why are some of his theories ‘right’ and others not? How about Jung? What about Eriksen and Piaget? There are some differences, aren’t there? Who is correct?
 
Suspicious_Mind said:
Being cathechized or not is irrelevant, since kids learn concepts that are well above their grasp in understanding until they are much older. My youngest brother who is 8 is going to be going to “reconciliation” soon :rolleyes: - as if he’d have a clue over mortal sins and venial sins.

I didn’t fully understand or even care for any of that until I was about 19, when life started to get in the way.

In other words, there is no minimum age, depending on the person, and even the disorders they may have, some may never actually commit a mortal sin. Everyone does not process information in the same way, and to know how exactly people reason things, or gauge their understanding is beyond any of us. Which is why we aren’t meant to judge.

I think Pope Gregory the Great needed a clue before he wrote the nonsense he did; a 5-year-old boy blaspheming :rolleyes: Any utterances of the sort would purely be something picked up by the parents, at that age it cannot be blasphemy since it’s just parroting.

I was watching a program on NatGeo the other day on serial killers and how many of them are people who have a different development in the brain in regards to emotion, insofar as that they processed scenarios differently. Where you and me might feel sorry and sickened that someone has to beg for mercy who is about to be killed, some serial killers do not ‘feel’ the same way as we do. For them it’s the same as going and making a cup of tea; no emotion. Tests conducted checking brain activity proved their findings, why is it that these happen? Suggestions include childhood upbringing, or simply being born that way (development of the temporal lobe or something).

We don’t know how culpable people are, or at what age they are.
Click to expand...
I don’t understand. So the age of reason for you was 19? So, if you died at the age of 18, would you have been free from any mortal sins you committed?
 
A lady who was involved with catechesis and stuff at churches in my archdiocese once said that she doesn’t teach children, such as those doing reconciliation preparation about venial and mortal sins because they cannot understand those things…
 
I think we underestimate the potential of children. I think we also overestimate the potential in many adults. Some of them cannot understand the same concepts that you all say children cannot understand either.
 
Tantum_ergo said:
🤷

That’s your contention. I don’t see that you have proven it though. Why should we accept the less than 40-year-old theories of a psychologist who himself doesn’t claim that a 7 year old cannot commit mortal sin (that was your opinion)? How do we know these theories are correct?

In fact, how much of Freud’s work do you support? What don’t you support, and why? Why are some of his theories ‘right’ and others not? How about Jung? What about Eriksen and Piaget? There are some differences, aren’t there? Who is correct?
Click to expand...
Kohlberg derived the majority of his studies from Piaget and expanded greatly on his work. I could go on for quite some time about Freud and Jung, but I won’t. The point is, psychologically and even neurologically speaking, children are INCAPABLE of this kind of thought. Their BRAINS aren’t even developed to the point of forming complex thoughts and making permanent decisions. Executive functions take until the mid 20s or later to fully form (Luna et al., 2001) and myelinization of the prefrontal cortex occurs in middle age (Sowell et al., 2003). Neurologically, it is not possible to make complex moral decisions until after adolescence, around the early to mid 20s.

"Myelination during adolescence

In addition to the winnowing of connections in the frontal lobes of the adolescent brain, another developmental factor is also at play. One of the final steps in developing an adult brain is the coating of nerves with a fatty material called myelin. This myelin sheath wraps around the axons of brain cells (neurons) and allows electrical impulses to travel faster and more efficiently. Before neurons receive their myelin sheath, they are considered immature and don’t function well, but after myelination, the neurons are mature and ready to fulfill their designated functions more efficiently. This is one reason why a toddler is less coordinated than a 9-year-old. Myelin develops in the more primitive areas of the brain first, and then gradually moves to the higher level functioning areas. It is not surprising then to find that the frontal lobes mature last. Researchers at the University of California at Los Angeles compared scans of young adults, 23 - 30, with those of teens, 12 - 16, looking for signs of myelin which would imply more mature, efficient connections. As expected, the frontal lobes in teens showed less myelination than in the young adults**. This is the last part of the brain to mature**: full myelination is probably not reached until around age 20.

The CEO of the brain

Why are these changes in the frontal lobes significant? The frontal lobes–specifically the area right behind the forehead called the prefrontal or orbit frontal cortex–have been called the CEO of the brain. It is in this part of the brain that executive decisions are made and it seems to mediate ethical/moral behavior. In fact, this part of the brain has been dubbed “the area of sober second thought.” Persons with damage to this part of the brain often know what they are supposed to do but are unable to do it.** The prefrontal cortex is responsible for many functions such as the ability to make sound judgments, goal and priority setting, planning and organization of multiple tasks, impulse inhibition, self-control, and emotional control.** These functions are practically a laundry list of characteristics that adolescents often lack.** Researchers suspect that an unfinished prefrontal cortex with its excess of synapses and unfinished myelination contributes to the adolescent’s deficits in these areas.** Their brains simply aren’t ready to take on the role of the CEO, resulting in a lack of reasoned thinking and performance."

tri-association.org/newsletter/highlights/09/adolescent_brain.htm

The Church would not have had access to this sort of information 2000 years ago. Of course, it is still a good thing to practice confession, etc., but a child of any age does not have the higher brain functions that comprise a fully developed sense of morality. Do you think god would allow someone to burn in hell forever who is physically incapable of complex moral decision-making?
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Kohlberg derived the majority of his studies from Piaget and expanded greatly on his work. I could go on for quite some time about Freud and Jung, but I won’t. The point is, psychologically and even neurologically speaking, children are INCAPABLE of this kind of thought. Their BRAINS aren’t even developed to the point of forming complex thoughts and making permanent decisions. Executive functions take until the mid 20s or later to fully form (Luna et al., 2001) and myelinization of the prefrontal cortex occurs in middle age (Sowell et al., 2003). Neurologically, it is not possible to make complex moral decisions until after adolescence, around the early to mid 20s. The Church would not have had access to this sort of information 2000 years ago. Of course, it is still a good thing to practice confession, etc., but a child of any age does not have the higher brain functions that comprise a fully developed sense of morality. Do you think god would allow someone to burn in hell forever who is physically incapable of complex moral decision-making?
Click to expand...
Your argument is that no one is capable of mortal sin until the “early to mid 20s” when they are capable of complex moral decisions?

By the way, this is all rubbish of course. I’ve seen children with grander intelligences than you or I. I myself was thinking about sin and evil when I was 12 or 13 years old (on account of really big mistakes I made at that point, and was punished for). I was reading on my own by the time I was 3 years old, and I have heard of other children having the same ability. I remember my thoughts clearly in those times. There was no lack of “higher brain function”, only a lack of experience and knowledge.
 
Apollos5600 said:
Your argument is that no one is capable of mortal sin until the “early to mid 20s” when they are capable of complex moral decisions?

By the way, this is all rubbish of course. I’ve seen children with grander intelligences than you or I. I myself was thinking about sin and evil when I was 12 or 13 years old (on account of really big mistakes I made at that point, and was punished for). I was reading on my own by the time I was 3 years old, and I have heard of other children having the same ability. I remember my thoughts clearly in those times. There was no lack of “higher brain function”, only a lack of experience and knowledge.
Click to expand...
Sorry, not true. Once again, this is science. I’m sure you were thinking to the best of your ability, but your brain was not physically developed at the time, no matter how “complex” you believe your thoughts to have been. I could recite the commandments at 2. It doesn’t mean I knew what the hell I was talking about. Read about Mylination if you are skeptical. These are facts, not some arbitrary age limit thrown out there for the hell of it. I edited my last post to include information on mylination if you care to look.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, it’s science.
Click to expand...
I studied Psychology in addition to Philosophy and the queen of the sciences…Theology.

And such is one persons theory…one persons idea…such come and go.

When it meets reality …the reality even of myself as a teenager…let alone all the great thinkers and even the great empirical scientists in their teenage years …it does meet the reality test.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, not true. Once again, this is science. I’m sure you were thinking to the best of your ability, but your brain was not physically developed at the time, no matter how “complex” you believe your thoughts to have been. I could recite the commandments at 2. It doesn’t mean I knew what the hell I was talking about. Read about Mylination if you are skeptical. These are facts, not some arbitrary age limit thrown out there for the hell of it. I edited my last post to include information on mylination if you care to look.
Click to expand...
Your so called wisdom in this is ridiculous. How can someone know what is going on inside a person’s mind? Certainly, children cannot make the same decisions that adults do… On the other hand, to accuse them of being mentally incapable of moral understanding simply defies common sense. Then you even take it further, claiming it is scientific that people from their early to mid 20s are not capable of complex moral thought? I think you got your psychology degree from a quack. I’ll take the teachings of the Church, and of a Pope and Saint, over your silliness.
 
I am not talking about “if certain mylination or various developments continue” …but the idea…the theory that a person does not have the capacity to make complex moral decisions prior to their early 20’s…that is just hitting the reality wall very fast and fattening out like a pancake.
 
Bookcat said:
I studied Psychology in addition to Philosophy and the queen of the sciences…Theology.

And such is one persons theory…one persons idea…such come and go.

When it meets reality …the reality even of myself as a teenager…let alone all the great thinkers and even empirical scientists in their teenage years …it does meet the reality test.
Click to expand...
Sorry, but the bulk of the evidence is based on neuroscience, not psychology. The neuroscience is based on MRIs of the brain, observable fact. PHYSICALLY, the brain of an adolescent CANNOT make complex moral decisions.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, but the bulk of the evidence is based on neuroscience, not psychology. The neuroscience is based on MRIs of the brain, observable fact. PHYSICALLY, the brain of an adolescent CANNOT make complex moral decisions.
Click to expand...
lol
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, but the bulk of the evidence is based on neuroscience, not psychology. The neuroscience is based on MRIs of the brain, observable fact. PHYSICALLY, the brain of an adolescent CANNOT make complex moral decisions.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t aware an MRI can pick up the signals of a moral understanding! That really clears up everything.
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Sorry, but the bulk of the evidence is based on neuroscience, not psychology. The neuroscience is based on MRIs of the brain, observable fact. PHYSICALLY, the brain of an adolescent CANNOT make complex moral decisions.
Click to expand...
First off it can be seen as part of psychology…I studied physiological psychology…

But in any case.

The observable fact of the reality test… is the fact of millions of human persons over the centuries making such complex moral decisions way before the early 20’s…including many who were young empirical scientists.
 
The catechism essentially says that masturbation among teenagers is generally not a mortal sin. Why? Because even with the complete lack of knowledge of the things I have posted (mylination, Piaget, Kohlberg, etc.) the Church understood that there is something happening in the body and brain of a teenager that reduces moral culpability where masturbation is concerned. Now, science knows why. This not only applies to masturbation, but to all behaviors. The teenage brain has too many open synapses and the frontal lobe that controls morality and ethical behavior and long-term rational decision-making is not developed yet, leading to high-risk, selfish behaviors such as sex, drug-taking, fast-driving, etc., etc. A teenager may THINK they have control, may THINK like an adult very often, but that part of the brain that controls impulses and morality is just not physically developed enough for one to make consistently moral decisions without personal intervention from God.
 
Bookcat said:
First off it can be seen as part of psychology…I studied physiological psychology…

But in any case.

The observable fact of the reality test… is the fact of millions of human persons over the centuries making such complex moral decisions way before the early 20’s…including many who were young empirical scientists.
Click to expand...
I also studied psychology when I was getting my Master’s degree and that is not what I am talking about. Ask a psychologist to read an MRI.

As I said, the MRI tells the tale. Of course a person may make a moral choice before the age of 20, and they might even SEEM to understand it. The point is, to do this consistently and with a definitive understanding of what one is doing, with full comprehension of the consequences is beyond the capability of someone who does not have the physical ability to do so.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top