When is anger mortal?

[Blenderx]

When is anger a mortal sin? For example, a mother losing her temper with her little ones’ bad behavior, repeatedly corrected, and then yelling at them and spanking harder than she normally would. Would this be mortal?

 

[underacloud]

When is anger a mortal sin? For example, a mother losing her temper with her little ones’ bad behavior, repeatedly corrected, and then yelling at them and spanking harder than she normally would. Would this be mortal?

No. It’s being a parent, which frequently involves being frustrated. A parent has a job to discipline their children, and to become more angry that we should through frustration is very different from giving full consent to gravely sinful acts.

If anything, anger can make it harder to meet the requirement of deliberate consent neccessary for any sin to be a mortal sin. Even in extreme cases, with very serious sins, anger may certainly diminish one’s capacity to make a deliberate choice (eg you come home to find your spouse with another person in a compromising situation and you react with violence).

(PS as a parenting preference I don’t like spanking, but that’s a side issue)

 

[Blenderx]

(PS as a parenting preference I don’t like spanking, but that’s a side issue)

I don’t prefer it, but I do believe it can be used now and then to good effect.

 

[Jcnava15]

There are some good books that can be read

 

[Bookcat]

2302 By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”

The Catechism quote gives the basics above (the CCC of course is not meant to be exhaustive)…(there is even “Just Anger” like that of Jesus in the Temple!)

…other things one could note is when it leads to serious injustice or serious scandal …or hatred of God etc or to consenting to such…

Also In terms of immoderate outbursts…such can often be venial sin…though if a person were to deliberately go into such a rage that it they can be considered to have lost their reason…then it is a different story.

I imagine more could be said …

But remember too…that especially with outbursts…even if there is grave matter…one must also have the knowledge and deliberate consent…

As to mortal sin:

Compendium --issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.

1. When does one commit a venial sin?

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

 

[Elizabeth502]

What brings anger to the level of seriously sinful has to do with its excessiveness. And the excessive character of any angry outburst or action relates to proportionality: (1) what was the occurrence resulting in anger? (2) what degree of anger resulted, and what form of expression did it take (words, physicality, etc.)? (3) what role (parent, sibling, friend, stranger, authority figure, subordinate), respective to the object of anger, is operative?

So in Catholic examens, excessive anger is usually listed as a mortal sin. It is up to the individual to discern, through honest introspection and prayer, if the anger was excessive or proportional to the event and proportionally expressed in a responsible manner.

 

[Holly3278]

I would say that anger becomes mortal sin when it turns into rage or when it turns into a desire for revenge.

 

[underacloud]

I would say that anger becomes mortal sin when it turns into rage or when it turns into a desire for revenge.

The Oxford Dictionary describes rage as “violent uncontrollable anger”.

How could something uncontrollable meet the requirement of deliberate consent?

Mortal sin isn’t simply about sin being more serious or extreme, it’s also importantly about the choice we have in committing the sin. People who are angry may have a diminished freedom of choice. People in a rage, by definition, lack control over their anger. Perhaps they have greatly sinned in allowing the anger to grow to this point, but the rage itself seems to lack a basic requriement for mortal sin.

 

[Bookcat]

Catechism:

"2302 By recalling the commandment, “You shall not kill,” our Lord asked for peace of heart and denounced murderous anger and hatred as immoral.

Anger is a desire for revenge. “To desire vengeance in order to do evil to someone who should be punished is illicit,” but it is praiseworthy to impose restitution “to correct vices and maintain justice.” If anger reaches the point of a deliberate desire to kill or seriously wound a neighbor, it is gravely against charity; it is a mortal sin. The Lord says, “Everyone who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.”"

The Catechism quote gives the basics above (the CCC of course is not meant to be exhaustive)…(there is even “Just Anger” like that of Jesus in the Temple!)

…other things one could note is when it leads to serious injustice or serious scandal …or hatred of God etc or to consenting to such…

Also In terms of immoderate outbursts…such can often be venial sin…though if a person were to deliberately go into such a rage that it they can be considered to have lost their reason…then it is a different story.

I imagine more could be said …

But remember too…that especially with outbursts…even if there is grave matter…one must also have the knowledge and deliberate consent…

As to mortal sin:

Compendium --issued by Pope Benedict XVI

1. When does one commit a mortal sin?

1855-1861
1874

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. This sin destroys charity in us, deprives us of sanctifying grace, and, if unrepented, leads us to the eternal death of hell. It can be forgiven in the ordinary way by means of the sacraments of Baptism and of Penance or Reconciliation.

1. When does one commit a venial sin?

1862-1864
1875

One commits a venial sin, which is essentially different from a mortal sin, when the matter involved is less serious or, even if it is grave, when full knowledge or complete consent are absent. Venial sin does not break the covenant with God but it weakens charity and manifests a disordered affection for created goods. It impedes the progress of a soul in the exercise of the virtues and in the practice of moral good. It merits temporal punishment which purifies.

 

[Elizabeth502]

The Oxford Dictionary describes rage as “violent uncontrollable anger”.

How could something uncontrollable meet the requirement of deliberate consent?

When it is the result of a decision not to exercise control over one’s reason, faculties, and behavior.

Be very careful with this oft-misunderstood aspect of mortal sin called “consent.” I think a good parallel to draw with this is to consider how criminal law handles “premeditated.” (As in, murder.) Lots of people think that “premeditated” involves complex plotting and carrying out a deliberate plan. It doesn’t. It means merely a conscious decision to act, a decision that can occur within a split second; that decision can also be a cumulative reaction which results from intemperate passions which have allowed to rise to a level of rage. (Successive decisions not to reign in our passions.) But Christianity & Catholicism require us to tame our passions.

As a passion, Anger is one of the 7 Capital Sins – or, originating vices on which many specific acts, or sin events, rest. (The decision to do something quietly and tamely to subvert someone else’s career, may arise from the Capital Sins of Envy and/or Anger, no matter how passively the effort is executed.) Feeling anger is not mortally sinful, but acting in a malicious way out of that anger, is: such as vengeful action, vengeful thought, serious overreaction to one weaker than us.

Most angry outbursts we do as parents are probably venial at worst, but occasionally we as parents do get ‘carried away’ and can be guilty of abuse of power and misuse of anger. Only the person who has exercised that anger is in a position, with the help of prayer & honest reflection, to evaluate whether the anger was gravely excessive, slightly excessive, or appropriate & necessary.

 

[Leoteng]

I find this topic very interesting. Very often I find myself in a situation when I have to decide if getting angry at things is a sin or not. God ask us to love our neighbours and getting angry at them is not exactly loving. But I guess the art of loving is when we have to do what is good for the person and not for ourself. I would imagine if the purpose of getting angry is to correct a situation just like the incident when Jesus got angry with the people in the synagogue selling stuffs instead of worshipping, it would the right thing to do.

 

[underacloud]

When it is the result of a decision not to exercise control over one’s reason, faculties, and behavior.

Yes, I think you’ll find I said something to that effect above. But it’s still not black and white.

Be very careful with this oft-misunderstood aspect of mortal sin called “consent.” I think a good parallel to draw with this is to consider how criminal law handles “premeditated.” (As in, murder.) Lots of people think that “premeditated” involves complex plotting and carrying out a deliberate plan. It doesn’t. It means merely a conscious decision to act, a decision that can occur within a split second; that decision can also be a cumulative reaction which results from intemperate passions which have allowed to rise to a level of rage. (Successive decisions not to reign in our passions.) But Christianity & Catholicism require us to tame our passions.

The term premeditated indicates not just a conscious decision to act in a way that brings about a death, but a conscious decision to act in a way to bring about a death. The death is the purpose, not just the outcome. Who makes choices with a purpose that they will enter a deliberate rage?

In the same way that choosing to act in a way that leads to a death isn’t neccessarily murder, choosing to act in a way that leads to grave matter isn’t necessarily mortal sin. It depends on purpose and knowledge.

The term “consent” may well be misunderstood. But why do you presume that I’m misunderstanding it? The catechism describes consent requried for mortal sin as “sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice”. That sounds quite different to the “cumulative reaction” that you suggest.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Yes, I think you’ll find I said something to that effect above. But it’s still not black and white.

I didn’t say it is. I said (twice now ) that the gray matter can only be discerned by the actor.

Who makes choices with a purpose that they will enter a deliberate rage?

I was (as I said) drawing a parallel, rather than making a direct equivalency. However, what constitutes both situations is a deliberate choice --however brief-- to let go of self-control, to allow oneself to be controlled by one’s passions, not the other way around. Rage is not a “purpose,” but a result of failure to exercise discipline and restraint. It is the end point in a series of smaller occasions of sin that we have consented to indulge, crossing over from the ‘near occasion’ to the embraced vice, which by not taming, we have consented to identify with and activate.

 

[underacloud]

I was (as I said) drawing a parallel, rather than making a direct equivalency. However, what constitutes both situations is a deliberate choice --however brief-- to let go of self-control, to allow oneself to be controlled by one’s passions, not the other way around. Rage is not a “purpose,” but a result of failure to exercise discipline and restraint. It is the end point in a series of smaller occasions of sin that we have consented to indulge, crossing over from the ‘near occasion’ to the embraced vice, which by not taming, we have consented to identify with and activate.

A “deliberate choice to let go of self-control” does not constitute both situations. Premeditated murder involves an intent to kill, not merely a lack of discipline and restraint. So to draw the parrallel, mortal sin involves an intent to gravely sin, not merely a lack of restraint. I’m not surprised that you’ve back away from the analogy.

In my opinion, and I beleive it is consistent with Church teaching, a series of smaller occasions of sin, even if compounding, does not add up to one mortal sin. The consent required for mortal sin is to the grave matter, not to a series of smaller sins that leads into grave matter; depending, of course, on whether or not one can reasonably know where the series of choices is leading.

Anyway, this has come up from the suggestion that rage constitutes mortal sin. But I don’t know of any sources that cite rage per se as grave matter. Surely grave matter related to anger is any actions (murder, violence, assault) or ill will (willfully wishing others ill) that results from the feelings of anger.