Quote from: rowsofvoices9

I understand full consciousness to be another way of saying sufficient reflection.

Sufficient reflection?  That makes it sound as though if you don't ponder the pros and cons then it's only venial.

Full consciousness of the will means you know what you're doing and you're freely (voluntarily) doing it.  

Which sort of brings me back to the point I was making. It's not that I don't really know what a mortal sin is, or how such a thing is committed. It's that the way neo-Catholics speak of it that confuses me. They make it sound like mortal sin is virtually impossible to commit.

For instance, don't talk to them to the Jєωs about denying Christ being a mortal sin or they'll do to you what the Jєωs of Jesus' time did to Him. It's like certain people are incapable of committing sin. To them, atheists can't commit mortal sin, for example, because they don't believe in the existence of sin. Does not believing in sin change the fact that most of them know what they're doing? No.

Which sort of brings me back to the point I was making. It's not that I don't really know what a mortal sin is, or how such a thing is committed. It's that the way neo-Catholics speak of it that confuses me. They make it sound like mortal sin is virtually impossible to commit.

For instance, don't talk to them to the Jєωs about denying Christ being a mortal sin or they'll do to you what the Jєωs of Jesus' time did to Him. It's like certain people are incapable of committing sin. To them, atheists can't commit mortal sin, for example, because they don't believe in the existence of sin. Does not believing in sin change the fact that most of them know what they're doing? No.

Why is it important to you to talk about the mortal sins that someone else is committing?  Under most circuмstances the only mortal sins you need to worry about are your own.  

Ignorance that reduces/removes culpability is called invincible ignorance.  Some ignorance is vincible, that is, we are still responsible for sins committed under its influence.  Here is the explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circuмstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circuмstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incuмbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.

There is a whole article on  ignorance

Quote from: Daegus

Which sort of brings me back to the point I was making. It's not that I don't really know what a mortal sin is, or how such a thing is committed. It's that the way neo-Catholics speak of it that confuses me. They make it sound like mortal sin is virtually impossible to commit.

For instance, don't talk to them to the Jєωs about denying Christ being a mortal sin or they'll do to you what the Jєωs of Jesus' time did to Him. It's like certain people are incapable of committing sin. To them, atheists can't commit mortal sin, for example, because they don't believe in the existence of sin. Does not believing in sin change the fact that most of them know what they're doing? No.

Why is it important to you to talk about the mortal sins that someone else is committing?  Under most circuмstances the only mortal sins you need to worry about are your own.  

Ignorance that reduces/removes culpability is called invincible ignorance.  Some ignorance is vincible, that is, we are still responsible for sins committed under its influence.  Here is the explanation from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Quote

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circuмstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circuмstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incuмbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.

There is a whole article on  ignorance

Jayne,

I don't know why you keep making this argument (because it's a straw man). I don't care about anyone specific person's mortal sin, and I'm not trying to make it seem like I do. I'm trying to understand why some people make it seem like mortal sin is almost impossible to commit, when that is far from the case.  

Seeking what is true and good

62. Conscience, as the judgment of an act, is not exempt from the possibility of error. As the Council puts it, "not infrequently conscience can be mistaken as a result of invincible ignorance, although it does not on that account forfeit its dignity; but this cannot be said when a man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin".107 In these brief words the Council sums up the doctrine which the Church down the centuries has developed with regard to the erroneous conscience.

Certainly, in order to have a "good conscience" (1 Tim 1:5), man must seek the truth and must make judgments in accordance with that same truth. As the Apostle Paul says, the conscience must be "confirmed by the Holy Spirit" (cf. Rom 9:1); it must be "clear" (2 Tim 1:3); it must not "practise cunning and tamper with God's word", but "openly state the truth" (cf. 2 Cor 4:2). On the other hand, the Apostle also warns Christians: "Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2).

Paul's admonition urges us to be watchful, warning us that in the judgments of our conscience the possibility of error is always present. Conscience is not an infallible judge; it can make mistakes. However, error of conscience can be the result of an invincible ignorance, an ignorance of which the subject is not aware and which he is unable to overcome by himself.

The Council reminds us that in cases where such invincible ignorance is not culpable, conscience does not lose its dignity, because even when it directs us to act in a way not in conformity with the objective moral order, it continues to speak in the name of that truth about the good which the subject is called to seek sincerely.

63. In any event, it is always from the truth that the dignity of conscience derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the objective truth received by man; in the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what man, mistakenly, subjectively considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a "subjective" error about moral good with the "objective" truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or to make the moral value of an act performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the moral value of an act performed by following the judgment of an erroneous conscience.108 It is possible that the evil done as the result of invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not be imputable to the agent; but even in this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation to the truth about the good. Furthermore, a good act which is not recognized as such does not contribute to the moral growth of the person who performs it; it does not perfect him and it does not help to dispose him for the supreme good. Thus, before feeling easily justified in the name of our conscience, we should reflect on the words of the Psalm: "Who can discern his errors? Clear me from hidden faults" (Ps 19:12). There are faults which we fail to see but which nevertheless remain faults, because we have refused to walk towards the light (cf. Jn 9:39-41).

Conscience, as the ultimate concrete judgment, compromises its dignity when it is culpably erroneous, that is to say, "when man shows little concern for seeking what is true and good, and conscience gradually becomes almost blind from being accustomed to sin".109 Jesus alludes to the danger of the conscience being deformed when he warns: "The eye is the lamp of the body. So if your eye is sound, your whole body will be full of light; but if your eye is not sound, your whole body will be full of darkness. If then the light in you is darkness, how great is the darkness!" (Mt 6:22-23).

64. The words of Jesus just quoted also represent a call to form our conscience, to make it the object of a continuous conversion to what is true and to what is good. In the same vein, Saint Paul exhorts us not to be conformed to the mentality of this world, but to be transformed by the renewal of our mind (cf. Rom 12:2). It is the "heart" converted to the Lord and to the love of what is good which is really the source of true judgments of conscience. Indeed, in order to "prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect" (Rom 12:2), knowledge of God's law in general is certainly necessary, but it is not sufficient: what is essential is a sort of "connaturality" between man and the true good.110 Such a connaturality is rooted in and develops through the virtuous attitudes of the individual himself: prudence and the other cardinal virtues, and even before these the theological virtues of faith, hope and charity. This is the meaning of Jesus' saying: "He who does what is true comes to the light" (Jn 3:21).

Christians have a great help for the formation of conscience in the Church and her Magisterium. As the Council affirms: "In forming their consciences the Christian faithful must give careful attention to the sacred and certain teaching of the Church. For the Catholic Church is by the will of Christ the teacher of truth. Her charge is to announce and teach authentically that truth which is Christ, and at the same time with her authority to declare and confirm the principles of the moral order which derive from human nature itself ".111 It follows that the authority of the Church, when she pronounces on moral questions, in no way undermines the freedom of conscience of Christians. This is so not only because freedom of conscience is never freedom "from" the truth but always and only freedom "in" the truth, but also because the Magisterium does not bring to the Christian conscience truths which are extraneous to it; rather it brings to light the truths which it ought already to possess, developing them from the starting point of the primordial act of faith. The Church puts herself always and only at the service of conscience, helping it to avoid being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine proposed by human deceit (cf. Eph 4:14), and helping it not to swerve from the truth about the good of man, but rather, especially in more difficult questions, to attain the truth with certainty and to abide in it. "

Mortal and venial sin

69. As we have just seen, reflection on the fundamental
option has also led some theologians to undertake a basic revision of the
traditional distinction between mortal sins and venial sins. They
insist that the opposition to God's law which causes the loss of sanctifying
grace — and eternal damnation, when one dies in such a state of sin — could
only be the result of an act which engages the person in his totality: in other
words, an act of fundamental option. According to these theologians, mortal
sin, which separates man from God, only exists in the rejection of God, carried
out at a level of freedom which is neither to be identified with an act of
choice nor capable of becoming the object of conscious awareness. Consequently,
they go on to say, it is difficult, at least psychologically, to accept the
fact that a Christian, who wishes to remain united to Jesus Christ and to his
Church, could so easily and repeatedly commit mortal sins, as the
"matter" itself of his actions would sometimes indicate. Likewise, it
would be hard to accept that man is able, in a brief lapse of time, to sever
radically the bond of communion with God and afterwards be converted to him by
sincere repentance. The gravity of sin, they maintain, ought to be measured by
the degree of engagement of the freedom of the person performing an act, rather
than by the matter of that act.


70. The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio
et Paenitentia reaffirmed the importance and permanent validity of the
distinction between mortal and venial sins, in accordance with the Church's
tradition. And the 1983 Synod of Bishops, from which that Exhortation emerged,
"not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the
existence and nature of mortal and venial sins, but it also recalled that
mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with
full knowledge and deliberate consent".116

The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the "grave
matter" of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is
"full awareness and deliberate consent". In any event, both in moral
theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act
which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because
of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person
performing it. Even so, "care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal
sin to an act of 'fundamental option' — as is commonly said today —
against God", seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and
neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal
sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason,
chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes
contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the
whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently,
the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. Clearly,
situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological
viewpoint, and which influence the sinner's subjective imputability. But from a
consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a
theological category, which is precisely what the 'fundamental option' is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon
the traditional concept of mortal sin".117


The separation of fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular
kinds of behaviour, disordered in themselves or in their circuмstances, which
would not engage that option, thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine on mortal
sin: "With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the
act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of
love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and
finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad
creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of
idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of
disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter"."

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/docuмents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html


"VINCIBLE IGNORANCE


Lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence. One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one's lack of effort to clear up the ignorance. That person is crassly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but rather due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible.

A person has affected ignorance when one deliberately fosters it in order not to be inhibited in what one wants to do; such ignorance is gravely wrong when it concerns serious matters. (Etym. Latin vincibilis, easily overcome; ignorantia, want of knowledge or information.)" http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/dictionary/index.cfm?id=37108
hh

This is why we have a moral obligation to form a correct conscience so that we can distinguish between right and wrong.  We also have to cultivate the virtues so that we will have custody over our actions.

Jayne, you asked me why it is important for me to discuss the mortal sins of some else, when that's not even the point of me making this thread (hence, straw man). I have used different examples of people over and over. How could you possibly come to the conclusion that I am talking about a specific group of people, unless you are not really reading the thread?

I am not saying I've been encountering anyone who says mortal sins are impossible to commit. I am saying that the way N.O. Catholics speak of mortal sin, it is as if it is impossible to commit. This attitude exists over at neo-Catholic places like CAF. I've said this many times before on this very thread.

It's not that they're saying it's impossible to determine.. They are making it seem as though it's impossible for these sins to be committed.. period. I'm not sure why you aren't understanding this. Please read this post very carefully Jayne, because if you don't, you will get lost (as you have already) and think that I am presuming anything about anyone.

The way the modernists speak of mortal sin makes the unaware wonder about the validity of the teaching of mortal sin. Before I came to knowledge of traditionalism, I was unsure as to whether or not I should believe mortal sin even exists. Hey, I have an "addiction" to a certain vice, therefore my culpability is lessened and no sins committed. Wrong. I know that I am not addicted, given how easy it is to stop when prompting the BVM for help. (But this thread is not about me. I'm just giving an example of how the ambiguity that neo-Catholics use to discuss mortal sin makes me doubt its validity)

As far as I know, mortal sin constitutes 3 things, and they must be present for mortal sin to exist. These 3 things are:

(1) Grave matter (Something that is considered to be a very serious sin)
(2) Full Knowledge (Knowing that what you are committing is a grave sin)
(3) Full Consent of the Will (Agreeing to do what you're doing in a right frame of mind, unbarred by any addiction or mental disorder)

The way some N.O. Catholics (or CAF types) speak of mortal sin, it's almost as if it's virtually impossible for anyone to commit. It seems as though while grave matter is always present, the other 2 things go out the window very quickly. It's like atheists cannot be held culpable for their actions because they have not "known" God. Fornicators or "sex addicts" cannot be held culpable because they are not giving their consent to it. They're just addicted to sex! (sure..)

If 2 of the 3 conditions are missing (and it's usually the latter 2), then would that not make the matter a grave sin? If so, what is a "grave sin" and how does it differ from a mortal sin? There's no way I'm convinced that an act like abortion (one that is willed by the mother) is only a venial sin, even if someone doesn't "know" that Christianity condemns it as murder. The same holds true for atheists. Just because they don't "know" that their really is a God, that doesn't mean they aren't aware of what denying His existence really means.

Help me out here.

I have been a member of CAF for about 9 months now and I understand your pain with the NO Catholics.  

Back in May when Osama bin Laden was killed, someone started a thread about the big news. Someone else posted that they believed bin Laden went to Heaven!!!!  They said this because he didn't know Christ or the Church and so he was never taught that killing hundreds of thousands of people was a sin.  Because of this "ignorance," he couldn't have committed a mortal sin and went straight to Heaven!!! Now that's radical!!!

I think that the mercy of God that the neo-Catholics see is different than the mercy that traditional Catholics see.  Traditional Catholics put God's justice into consideration.

The CAF people don't have any clue of what the Catholic faith is. To them it's the "spirit of Vatican II"...

That's because the watered down Faith makes them feel good.

The pre-Vatican II teachings of the Church hurt people's feelings, according to them.  Vatican II was a "new start" for the Church.