What sins could not possibly be mortal (under any circumstances)?

[DavidFilmer]

Another thread was discussing what sorts of sins are mortal. The Church says (in CCC 1857) that “mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter” (+ 2 other conditions).

I could not think of any sinful action that could NEVER be mortal under ANY circumstances, given sufficient knowledge and consent.

I tied to think of examples. What about being rude to someone? That doesn’t go against any of the Ten Commandments. Bad manners is not one of the seven deadly sins. But if your deliberate intent is to insult that person’s human dignity, I would say that could be mortally sinful. Or if you knew that person is a wife-beater, and when someone is rude to him, he takes it out on his wife, and yet (with full knowledge of the likely consequences of your action) you were deliberately rude (not provoked to rudeness, which could diminish consent, but were deliberately, freely and knowingly rude).

Can anyone come up with an example of a sinful act that could NEVER be mortal under ANY circumstances?

 

[Julian0404]

I suppose that such a sin would by nature have to NOT qualify as mortal in accordance with the Church, and to do so, on every occassion of commission, as so specified would necessarily then have to meet the definition of the Church; and to my knowledge the only such example would be “diminished capacity” such that due to a mental defect for life, that then the person who would commit such a sin; that would be mortal by any other fully capable person, would not be committing a mortal sin, because they DO NOT KNOW it to be wrong - although they may be of the age of reason, they are not of the capacity of reason.
And this then leads to the discussion of “temporary diminished capacity” as brought on by depression, drugs or other environmental factors that would cause someone to committ suicide - not because they know it to be wrong, but at that time, they are not of the mental capacity to rationalize the error of their acts due to “diminished capacity” brought on by depression or chemical interference with their reason.
I believe that the Church has for this very reason, changed the position on burying a person of suicide in a Catholic cemetery and providing a Catholic funeral service - they may have been temporarily of “diminsished capacity” and as such incapable of full reason for their act.

 

[Louis_wu]

I suppose that such a sin would by nature have to NOT qualify as mortal in accordance with the Church, and to do so, on every occassion of commission, as so specified would necessarily then have to meet the definition of the Church; and to my knowledge the only such example would be “diminished capacity” such that due to a mental defect for life, that then the person who would commit such a sin; that would be mortal by any other fully capable person, would not be committing a mortal sin, because they DO NOT KNOW it to be wrong - although they may be of the age of reason, they are not of the capacity of reason.
And this then leads to the discussion of “temporary diminished capacity” as brought on by depression, drugs or other environmental factors that would cause someone to committ suicide - not because they know it to be wrong, but at that time, they are not of the mental capacity to rationalize the error of their acts due to “diminished capacity” brought on by depression or chemical interference with their reason.
I believe that the Church has for this very reason, changed the position on burying a person of suicide in a Catholic cemetery and providing a Catholic funeral service - they may have been temporarily of “diminsished capacity” and as such incapable of full reason for their act.

You haven’t addressed the thread authors question. He asks whether any sin can be considered inherently venial due to the catholic church creating a distinction between sins which are “grave matter” and those that aren’t. “diminished capacity” is not a sin but a state of a person whereby they are not accurately able to assess whether they are committing sins or not.

 

[LilyM]

I think no sin sin committed by, say, a 3 year old child could be mortal under any circumstances, being that they are so far below the age at which someone could have sufficient knowledge of what one does combined with sufficient free consent. Of course a child of that age possibly would have sufficient knowledge of right and wrong to be guilty of venial sins.

 

[LilyM]

I don’t think stealing two cents would ever be considered grave matter. Even if it were someone’s only two cents, it isn’t as if they could buy anything with it

 

[GEddie]

ISTM that any sin is potentially mortal if one’s intention in committing it is depraved enough.

Even the example of stealing $.02, if done out of total despisal of the person being robbed, might qualify. IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

 

[LilyM]

ISTM that any sin is potentially mortal if one’s intention in committing it is depraved enough.

Even the example of stealing $.02, if done out of total despisal of the person being robbed, might qualify. IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

And you can despise someone equally well without stealing anything from them. The despising ISTM is a very different sin from the theft.

 

[Louis_wu]

I don’t think stealing two cents would ever be considered grave matter. Even if it were someone’s only two cents, it isn’t as if they could buy anything with it

But that’s just your own opinion, according to the catholic church only the magisterium can make infallible pronouncements on morals (and this would obviously include sin) and therefore only the magisterium can legitimately say whether a sin is “grave matter” or not. Therefore any statement made by a catholic as to whether a sin is grave matter or not is subject to doubt unless the magisterium has infallibly stated whether it is grave matter or not. Therefore you cannot say that stealing two cents is not “grave matter” because the magisterium has not pronounced that this is not grave matter.

 

[Louis_wu]

ISTM that any sin is potentially mortal if one’s intention in committing it is depraved enough.

Even the example of stealing $.02, if done out of total despisal of the person being robbed, might qualify. IMNAAHO.

ICXC NIKA

Is it just your opinion that any sin is potentially mortal or can you produce an infallible statement by the magisterium affirming your opinion? If you can’t then ultimately your view on this matter is without any value or legitimacy as only the magisterium can make infallible pronouncements on morals and thereby give your judgement any validity.

 

[LilyM]

But that’s just your own opinion, according to the catholic church only the magisterium can make infallible pronouncements on morals (and this would obviously include sin) and therefore only the magisterium can legitimately say whether a sin is “grave matter” or not. Therefore any statement made by a catholic as to whether a sin is grave matter or not is subject to doubt unless the magisterium has infallibly stated whether it is grave matter or not. Therefore you cannot say that stealing two cents is not “grave matter” because the magisterium has not pronounced that this is not grave matter.

And by the same logic you cannot say that stealing two cents is or ever could be grave matter when the Magisterium has never said that it is or even that it could be

Look, sin is ultimately a matter between the individual and God. All the Church can do, all it ever does, is offer guidelines for our assistance. The more contentious the topic of discussion (sexual sin, say, as opposed to murder) the more detailed the guidance needs to be.

 

[Louis_wu]

And by the same logic you cannot say that stealing two cents is or ever could be grave matter when the Magisterium has never said that it is or even that it could be

and the same argument could be used for every other sin that has not been defined as grave matter by the magisterium, which is quite a lot of sins.

 

[DavidFilmer]

I don’t think stealing two cents would ever be considered grave matter. Even if it were someone’s only two cents, it isn’t as if they could buy anything with it

I think that stealing everything that a person has could be mortally sinful, even if the person had very little.

But I think you are missing the sense of my question. I am asking if any particular sinful act could NEVER be mortally sinful. Obviously stealing can be mortally sinful (it is a violation of the Ten Commandments and is likely covered by two of the seven deadly sins (greed and envy)).

So, obviously, stealing is not ALWAYS venial. I’m wondering if there are sinful acts that are ALWAYS venial, and could never be mortal under any circumstances.

 

[LilyM]

and the same argument could be used for every other sin that has not been defined as grave matter by the magisterium, which is quite a lot of sins.

Yes of course. I’d imagine there ARE a lot more sins that are sometimes or often venial than sins that are always grave/mortal.

There are only 10 Commandments, after all, compared to the 613 lesser moral rules (breaches of which were all considered sinful to some degree) in the Old Testament.

 

[LilyM]

I think that stealing everything that a person has could be mortally sinful, even if the person had very little.

But I think you are missing the sense of my question. I am asking if any particular sinful act could NEVER be mortally sinful. Obviously stealing can be mortally sinful (it is a violation of the Ten Commandments and is likely covered by two of the seven deadly sins (greed and envy)).

So, obviously, stealing is not ALWAYS venial. I’m wondering if there are sinful acts that are ALWAYS venial, and could never be mortal under any circumstances.

Of course stealing can be and is sometimes grave/mortal sin. But stealing is a general (and incredibly broad, may I add) category of sin. And stealing two cents fits into the definition of a ‘sinful act’ just as much as stealing in general.

Now if you’re discussing sin that generally and broadly, then of course every such broad and general category of sin will admit of examples that are mortal. And your question is rendered so vague as to be pointless.

 

[Crumpy]

The catechism of the catholic church discusses the grave matter, as a previous post points out. The intro to the catechism asserts that the catechism describes the deposit of faith, and that this is from the magisterium of the Church.

So., without an explicit and dedicated list of mortal sins, the Catechism is nevertheless a good starting point. I don’t think it explicitly lists all the mortal sins there are.

We must be guided by natural law (including what may be called common sense) as well as by the CCC.

 

[LilyM]

The catechism of the catholic church discusses the grave matter, as a previous post points out. The intro to the catechism asserts that the catechism describes the deposit of faith, and that this is from the magisterium of the Church.

So., without an explicit and dedicated list of mortal sins, the Catechism is nevertheless a good starting point. I don’t think it explicitly lists all the mortal sins there are.

We must be guided by natural law (including what may be called common sense) as well as by the CCC.

Exactly. What is mortal sin, in essence? It is sin that seriously damages our relationship with God.

Would you need your spouse to provide an explicit and exhaustive written list in order for you to know what acts would seriously damage your relationship with him or her? Would you not try to even avoid the doubtful cases, just in case they did hurt your beloved? And would you not want to make amends if you even suspected you had done something to hurt him or her?

 

[DavidFilmer]

Now if you’re discussing sin that generally and broadly, then of course every such broad and general category of sin will admit of examples that are mortal. And your question is rendered so vague as to be pointless.

I rather think that IS the point. Rudeness would not normally be considered a mortal sin, but could be in some circumstances. I think ANY sinful act could be mortal in some circumstances.

I am of the opinion that only God really knows for sure if a particular act is sufficiently grave to be mortally sinful. Just as we say that only God can assuredly judge knowledge and intent (the other two components), I believe that only God can judge the gravity of the act itself.

Thus, I believe there is no such thing as a particular sinful act that is always venial in any circumstance.

There seems to be an opinion (at least an implied opinion) among Catholics that we humans can objectively judge the gravity of an act (because we can directly observe it) but not knowledge or consent (which we cannot observe). But I don’t think we can even judge the gravity of the act itself (regardless of knowledge or intent).

 

[Louis_wu]

I am of the opinion that only God really knows for sure if a particular act is sufficiently grave to be mortally sinful. Just as we say that only God can assuredly judge knowledge and intent (the other two components), I believe that only God can judge the gravity of the act itself.

Thus, I believe there is no such thing as a particular sinful act that is always venial in any circumstance.

There seems to be an opinion (at least an implied opinion) among Catholics that we humans can objectively judge the gravity of an act (because we can directly observe it) but not knowledge or consent (which we cannot observe). But I don’t think we can even judge the gravity of the act itself (regardless of knowledge or intent).

you say that “only God can assuredly judge knowledge and intent (the other two components), I believe that only God can judge the gravity of the act itself.”

If we can never know for certain any of the three criterion for a mortal sin a person can never possibly know if they have committed a mortal sin because you state only God is capable of knowing this.

you also state: “There seems to be an opinion (at least an implied opinion) among Catholics that we humans can objectively judge the gravity of an act (because we can directly observe it) but not knowledge or consent (which we cannot observe). But I don’t think we can even judge the gravity of the act itself (regardless of knowledge or intent).”

If no human can know the gravity of an act, whether they have full knowledge or free will in the act the obvious conclusion is that every sin that a person commits is venial because as you state a human cannot observe whether he is doing the act wilfully or not therefore he cannot ever be said to have full knowledge as only God can judge(according to your own statement) whether an act has full consent.

 

[GEddie]

I admit that I have never gone to Vatican.va, or the diocesan library looking for Church documents on this issue, and so might completely misunderstand it.

I doubt, however, that such a pronouncement exists. Such would in effect declare certain sins to be “ok”. But sin in general is never ok, since it gets between us and our LORD.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Louis_wu]

I admit that I have never gone to Vatican.va, or the diocesan library looking for Church documents on this issue, and so might completely misunderstand it.

I doubt, however, that such a pronouncement exists. Such would in effect declare certain sins to be “ok”. But sin in general is never ok, since it gets between us and our LORD.

ICXC NIKA

But the vatican itself makes a distinction between sins which are “grave matter” and those which are not