When is full consent for a mortal sin given?

[faithhopelove12]

I have had some questions about the “full consent” part of the requirements for a mortal sin.

Here is a hypothetical situation (but one that I have found myself in):
You decide on the spur of the moment to view nude images (not necessarily pornographic, but lets assume they provoke lust in you). You freely decide to do this. Maybe after about 5-10 seconds of viewing, you regret this and turn away.

Was full consent given at the moment you decided to look at the images, or did turning away after only short viewing demonstrate a lack of total consent?

 

[1ke]

you have two things mixed up:

full knowledge (you know it is wrong)
free will (consent, you freely do it)

It is not “full consent”, there’s no such thing

Yes, your decision (act of the will) was a free choice to look at images you know are wrong. You were not coerced. You did not accidentally stumble upon the images. This was an act of your will.

Regarding full knowledge, you knew this was wrong.

 

[faithhopelove12]

thank you

 

[thistle]

you have two things mixed up:

full knowledge (you know it is wrong)
free will (consent, you freely do it)

It is not “full consent”, there’s no such thing

Yes, your decision (act of the will) was a free choice to look at images you know are wrong. You were not coerced. You did not accidentally stumble upon the images. This was an act of your will.

Regarding full knowledge, you knew this was wrong.

 

[Deo_Gratias42]

According to Jone’s Moral Theology, in order for a sin to be mortal, it must be Grave Matter (which what you did was), Full Knowledge, and Free Consent.

Full Knowledge of the serious nature of a sinful action is present if one is clearly conscious of the fact that the act is mortally sinful.

It suffices that one clearly realizes that the act may possibly be a mortal sin. …]

Free Consent is present if one freely wills an act although he has clearly recognized the gravity of its sinful character.

…]

If after performing an action one adverts to its sinfulness only in a general way, without reflecting whether ir is a mortal or venial sin, he may presume that he sinned only venially, even though it was a grave matter, provided he has otherwise a tender conscience and does not commit mortal sins. Concerning those with a lax conscience, confer 90.

 

[Bookcat]

It is not “full consent”, there’s no such thing

.

The term has been used in Theology – though the better term would be “complete consent”

Complete consent is as opposed to not consenting or giving partial consent.

 

[Bookcat]

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.

vatican.va/archive/compendium_ccc/documents/archive_2005_compendium-ccc_en.html

Catechism

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[fred_conty]

How much consent does one need?
What comes to mind is Moses and the Rock.
He hesitated but for a split second.

What do you think? Anyone?

 

[Bookcat]

How much consent does one need?
What comes to mind is Moses and the Rock.
He hesitated but for a split second.

What do you think? Anyone?

While one can draw lessons etc etc from the Old Testament – remember in addition to there being various imperfect things in the Old Testament etc – various things there do not translate as exact or even always as good models for Christian life per se. All must be interpreted in Christ etc.

---

For mortal sin one needs “complete consent” “deliberate consent” with the needed knowledge and the grave matter.

(I note this without commenting on if the OP had such or not)

 

[Miguelita]

sorry wrong reply

 

[capoly]

Catechism:

One commits a mortal sin when there are simultaneously present: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent.

Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

The problems are the highlighted parts. What is a “grave matter”? Who decides it? What does it mean than one has “full knowledge” that the act is “sinful”? For catholics it is simple, they are required to accept whatever the church says. For non-catholics it is not simple at all, since non-catholics do not accept the authority of the catholic church. Most non-catholics shrug off the idea that masturbation is a “grave matter”, or that artificial birth control is a “grave matter”. Many “cafeteria” catholics reject the idea that these acts are “grave”.

And the “full knowledge” part. We are fully aware that this is the official teaching, but that only means that we have “full knowledge that the church says so”, or in other words we “knowledge of” it. I do not know that ABC is a grave matter, I only have knowledge of such opinion - which I do not share. An equivalent would be the claims of astrologers: I have knowledge of their claim that the constellation of the stars and planets have an influence on us". But I “do not have knowledge that the stars and planets have influence on us”. I hope you see the enormous difference.

So the real question is: “is the church’s opinion binding on non-catholics”? If it is, then we are said to have committed a “mortal sin”, even if we are not aware that the was a “grave” matter - and therefore we did not (and could not) commit a mortal sin. If we are not bound by the church’s opinion, then there is no problem.

 

[thistle]

The problems are the highlighted parts. What is a “grave matter”? Who decides it? What does it mean than one has “full knowledge” that the act is “sinful”? For catholics it is simple, they are required to accept whatever the church says. For non-catholics it is not simple at all, since non-catholics do not accept the authority of the catholic church. Most non-catholics shrug off the idea that masturbation is a “grave matter”, or that artificial birth control is a “grave matter”. Many “cafeteria” catholics reject the idea that these acts are “grave”.

And the “full knowledge” part. We are fully aware that this is the official teaching, but that only means that we have “full knowledge that the church says so”, or in other words we “knowledge of” it. I do not know that ABC is a grave matter, I only have knowledge of such opinion - which I do not share. An equivalent would be the claims of astrologers: I have knowledge of their claim that the constellation of the stars and planets have an influence on us". But I “do not have knowledge that the stars and planets have influence on us”. I hope you see the enormous difference.

So the real question is: “is the church’s opinion binding on non-catholics”? If it is, then we are said to have committed a “mortal sin”, even if we are not aware that the was a “grave” matter - and therefore we did not (and could not) commit a mortal sin. If we are not bound by the church’s opinion, then there is no problem.

If you know about Christ, his Gospel and his Church but reject them then by that alone you will not be saved if you die unrepentant.

 

[capoly]

If you know about Christ, his Gospel and his Church but reject them then by that alone you will not be saved if you die unrepentant.

This is not exactly what I was asking. But I highlighted the pertinent word: “ABOUT”. Yes I heard ABOUT them, but I also heard of many things, and I do not believe everything I heard. The point is that the catechism uses a strong phrase: “you have full knowledge” which is very far from “having heard about”. Since I do not have “full knowledge”, my lack of belief cannot be construed a “mortal sin” because having “full knowledge” is a prerequisite.

Now, either the catechism is wrong (or sloppy) and the correct verbiage should be “if you ever heard that the church considers an act a grave matter then you MUST accept this and thus you are considered to have full knowledge - even if you do not believe what the church says” or the catechism is right and “actual full knowledge” is required which would be 1) heard of it, 2) accepted it and 3) internalized it. If that is the case then we are fine, since we are not “fully aware” that performing non-procreative sex (for example) is a “grave matter”.

By your statement, of course everyone who is not a catholic is doomed to hell, if they ever heard of Christ, the bible and the catholic church… jews, protestants, muslims, atheists… you name it. But the church does not teach that any more - it would not be politically correct. (A tongue-in-cheek article in the Onion: Hellbound! about the good old times, when the church was more outspoken.)

So, let’s try again.

 

[CopticChristian]

This is not exactly what I was asking. But I highlighted the pertinent word: “ABOUT”. Yes I heard ABOUT them, but I also heard of many things, and I do not believe everything I heard. The point is that the catechism uses a strong phrase: “you have full knowledge” which is very far from “having heard about”. Since I do not have “full knowledge”, my lack of belief cannot be construed a “mortal sin” because having “full knowledge” is a prerequisite.

Now, either the catechism is wrong (or sloppy) and the correct verbiage should be “if you ever heard that the church considers an act a grave matter then you MUST accept this and thus you are considered to have full knowledge - even if you do not believe what the church says” or the catechism is right and “actual full knowledge” is required which would be 1) heard of it, 2) accepted it and 3) internalized it. If that is the case then we are fine, since we are not “fully aware” that performing non-procreative sex (for example) is a “grave matter”.

By your statement, of course everyone who is not a catholic is doomed to hell, if they ever heard of Christ, the bible and the catholic church… jews, protestants, muslims, atheists… you name it. But the church does not teach that any more - it would not be politically correct. (A tongue-in-cheek article in the Onion: Hellbound! about the good old times, when the church was more outspoken.)

So, let’s try again.

Capoly,

I sense pride and a sense of lack of understanding…2000 years ago…Paul wrote in a book, we call the Bible some words that hold true today…Protestants and Catholics believe in this book…

12For all who have sinned without the Law will also perish without the Law, and all who have sinned under the Law will be judged by the Law; 13for it is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, but the doers of the Law will be justified. 14For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, 15in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

What was true then is true today…the Church teaches and I believe that as Paul says…those in the Church that have all the stuff that you get by being in the Church is available to all…

9There will be tribulation and distress for every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek, 10but glory and honor and peace to everyone who does good, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 11For there is no partiality with God.

We believe and the Church teaches that there is one God…if you cannot wrap your head around this…then Ok…are you going to hell…who knows…will you sleep tonight, probably, will you wake up, probably…will you wonder someday, somewhere if there is a God…who knows…only you know…

But know this…while you choose to balk at sin…the secular world calls this unethical…and if you don’t believe in ethics…then what are you going to do in the world if you are unethical…I know…bear the consequences…

So while what the Church has, what the Church teaches…you are not interested in and although I am required to say that you should look and look earnestly…maybe you should not look and maybe you should seek elsewhere…but it is not for me to say…

This was the first thread you started…

According to my understanding (which could be erroneous), christians in general and catholics particular are called to spread the “good news”, to evangelize the non-christians, to explain them why they should consider to convert. Obviously, this process can be either very effective or maybe not so effective, depending on the person who performs the task and the one who listens to the apologetics.

I am asking your opinion: on the boards here - how effective is this process? What are the different methods employed? And how effective are they? Which method seems to be effective when talking to people of different dispositions, protestants, jews, muslims, or atheists? Also how would you evaluate the process in general (world wide)?

Remember, I am simply asking your opinion. If you have some links to provide, it would be also nice. Thank you for your consideration.

You asked with what appeared to be a contrite, interested heart…have you lost that?

 

[Crescentinus]

 

[jcandyfan]

That is a good answer. Thanks. Regardless of the situation, it would probably be good to go to confession if images are viewed, but I have a second question.

If somebody is in a state of depression and as depressed used images as an escape from reality. Like some may use other activities such as food or shopping. The person knows it is wrong and freely decides to look at the images, but perhaps sort of starting looking in a moment of weekness. Does this reduce the seriousness of the sin?

 

[Miguelita]

Mental illness, habituated sin, trauma, abuse, etc can all limit ones cupability to a sin, but here’s the catch; ou can’t use that as an excuse. Once you realie that you have a problem that perpetually leads you to sin, and you’re sane enough to know it’s sin, you need help.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

I have had some questions about the “full consent” part of the requirements for a mortal sin.

Here is a hypothetical situation (but one that I have found myself in):
You decide on the spur of the moment to view nude images (not necessarily pornographic, but lets assume they provoke lust in you). You freely decide to do this. Maybe after about 5-10 seconds of viewing, you regret this and turn away.

Was full consent given at the moment you decided to look at the images, or did turning away after only short viewing demonstrate a lack of total consent?

If you knew the images would provoke lust in you, then you probably committed a mortal sin.

For example,
If you were studying an art history book and were aroused by Botticelli’s Birth of Venus and immediately turned away, you probably did not commit a mortal sin.
If you did it again the next day knowing you would be aroused then you probably did commit a mortal sin this time.

I hope this helps.