Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => The Sacred: Catholic Liturgy, Chant, Prayers => Topic started by: Daegus on June 26, 2011, 06:28:35 AM
-
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.
-
Ask yourself about any other action you take.
Do you know what you're doing?
Do you do it willingly?
Apply the same standards that you apply to other actions.
The modernist NO religion is based on treating religion as a game of pretending, not as something real in the same way the other things we believe and do are real.
-
There are objective elements and subjective elements to morality. We can all observe the objective elements but only God knows the subjective elements. It is difficult to say with certainty that a specific person has committed a mortal sin because it requires knowing what is in his heart. However, we can say that something is a grave sin because that is based on observable actions. Abortion is always a grave sin. It is theoretically possible for it not to be a mortal sin.
For practical purposes, always go to Confession for a grave sin. For example, I received Communion before becoming Catholic (with the permission of a priest). Years later, I learned this was wrong. It is likely that it was not a mortal sin due to my ignorance, but I when I became aware it was a sin I confessed it anyhow.
-
How much consent is complete consent?
Some people always say that their sins are not their fault. For example the employer told them to either commit a sin (like bribery, usury, fooling tax collectors, sɛҳuąƖ sins etc.) or lose their jobs.
Does it make those sins venial?!?!
-
There are objective elements and subjective elements to morality. We can all observe the objective elements but only God knows the subjective elements. It is difficult to say with certainty that a specific person has committed a mortal sin because it requires knowing what is in his heart. However, we can say that something is a grave sin because that is based on observable actions. Abortion is always a grave sin. It is theoretically possible for it not to be a mortal sin.
This is what's confusing to me. How do "mortal" sin and "grave" sin differ? What does grave sin do to a person, vs. mortal sin? We know that mortal sin deprives a soul of sanctifying grace and sends them straight to hell. What does grave sin do? The same thing?
-
This is what's confusing to me. How do "mortal" sin and "grave" sin differ? What does grave sin do to a person, vs. mortal sin? We know that mortal sin deprives a soul of sanctifying grace and sends them straight to hell. What does grave sin do? The same thing?
I've never heard of that distinction. I always took it that there were sins that were objectively mortal but that the gravity could be lessened by subjective factors.
Anyway, full consent of the will and knowledge that a sin is mortal are not difficult standards to meet, whatever the NOs who minimize sin and believe in universal salvation might say.
I believe Romano Amerio covers this topic in his book Iota Unum.
-
This is what's confusing to me. How do "mortal" sin and "grave" sin differ? What does grave sin do to a person, vs. mortal sin? We know that mortal sin deprives a soul of sanctifying grace and sends them straight to hell. What does grave sin do? The same thing?
I've never heard of that distinction. I always took it that there were sins that were objectively mortal but that the gravity could be lessened by subjective factors.
Anyway, full consent of the will and knowledge that a sin is mortal are not difficult standards to meet, whatever the NOs who minimize sin and believe in universal salvation might say.
I believe Romano Amerio covers this topic in his book Iota Unum.
The Catholics over at CAF make it seem like there is a distinction.
-
There are objective elements and subjective elements to morality. We can all observe the objective elements but only God knows the subjective elements. It is difficult to say with certainty that a specific person has committed a mortal sin because it requires knowing what is in his heart. However, we can say that something is a grave sin because that is based on observable actions. Abortion is always a grave sin. It is theoretically possible for it not to be a mortal sin.
This is what's confusing to me. How do "mortal" sin and "grave" sin differ? What does grave sin do to a person, vs. mortal sin? We know that mortal sin deprives a soul of sanctifying grace and sends them straight to hell. What does grave sin do? The same thing?
There two ways of considering sin, objectively or subjectively. When considering it objectively, we are thinking about the action in itself. To say that something is a grave sin is to say that, in itself, it is very wrong. We don't ask the question "what does grave sin do to a person" because asking what it does to a person means we are considering the question subjectively. It is like asking "Is celery your favourite fruit?" Celery doesn't belong in the question because it it isn't part of the category you are discussing.
Something that is a grave sin is potentially a mortal sin. If it is a mortal sin it deprives your soul of sanctifying grace. If it is not a mortal sin then it does not. For practical purposes, treat your own grave sins as if they were mortal and get to Confession as soon as possible. Other people's grave sins are rarely something you need to think about (although it is always a good idea to pray for people who are doing anything gravely sinful). There is not likely to be a reason for you to need to know if somebody else's grave sin is also a mortal sin.
-
How much consent is complete consent?
Some people always say that their sins are not their fault. For example the employer told them to either commit a sin (like bribery, usury, fooling tax collectors, sɛҳuąƖ sins etc.) or lose their jobs.
Does it make those sins venial?!?!
It could reduce the culpability, but we don't know for sure. Whenever there is any doubt, people should go to Confession. Your question reminds me of this:
Q. 1. What are the 9 ways that one can participate in the sins of another person?
A. 1. They are:
1. By counsel (to give advice, one's opinion or instructions.)
2. By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)
3. By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)
4. By provocation (to dare.)
5. By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)
6. By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)
7. By partaking (to take part, to participate.)
8. By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)
9. By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)
(Note: To participate in the sins of another person means that one is just as guilty of the sin as the one who committed them. For example, if you encourage someone to have an abortion, you are guilty of the sin of abortion.)
-
How much consent is complete consent?
Some people always say that their sins are not their fault. For example the employer told them to either commit a sin (like bribery, usury, fooling tax collectors, sɛҳuąƖ sins etc.) or lose their jobs.
Does it make those sins venial?!?!
It could reduce the culpability, but we don't know for sure. Whenever there is any doubt, people should go to Confession. Your question reminds me of this:
Q. 1. What are the 9 ways that one can participate in the sins of another person?
A. 1. They are:
1. By counsel (to give advice, one's opinion or instructions.)
2. By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)
3. By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)
4. By provocation (to dare.)
5. By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)
6. By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)
7. By partaking (to take part, to participate.)
8. By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)
9. By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)
(Note: To participate in the sins of another person means that one is just as guilty of the sin as the one who committed them. For example, if you encourage someone to have an abortion, you are guilty of the sin of abortion.)
Jayne, could you give a source for these quotes?
-
I'm sure she got them off of Fish Eaters. Sounds familiar to me.
-
Q. 1. What are the 9 ways that one can participate in the sins of another person?
A. 1. They are:
1. By counsel (to give advice, one's opinion or instructions.)
2. By command (to demand, to order, such as in the military.)
3. By consent (to give permission, to approve, to agree to.)
4. By provocation (to dare.)
5. By praise or flattery (to cheer, to applaud, to commend.)
6. By concealment (to hide the action, to cover-up.)
7. By partaking (to take part, to participate.)
8. By silence (by playing dumb, by remaining quiet.)
9. By defense of the ill done (to justify, to argue in favour.)
(Note: To participate in the sins of another person means that one is just as guilty of the sin as the one who committed them. For example, if you encourage someone to have an abortion, you are guilty of the sin of abortion.)
Jayne, could you give a source for these quotes?
I've seen this list in my TLM missal so I knew it was good. I found it online on a site that I am not familiar with, which is why I did not give a URL. I just took the top hit from my search. I found it at: http://www.catholicdoors.com/faq/qu102.htm but for all I know this is not a good site.
-
I'm sure she got them off of Fish Eaters. Sounds familiar to me.
It's a traditional Catholic teaching that's available a lot of places.
-
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.
All three conditions have to be present at the time of commission in order for the sin to be mortal. Technically even two conditions could be present, however, if one is lacking, then the sin is not mortal.
I always found that St. Pius X's Catechism has the best definition of mortal sin.
From the Catechism of St. Pius X, "The Main Kinds of Sin," Question 9-10:
Q: What injury does mortal sin do the soul?
A: (1) Mortal sin deprives the soul of grace and of the friendship of God; (2) It makes it lose Heaven; (3) It deprives it of merits already acquired, and renders it incapable of acquiring new merits; (4) It makes it the slave of the devil; (5) It makes it deserve hell as well as the chastisements of this life.
Q: Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin?
A: To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.
I understand full consciousness to be another way of saying sufficient reflection.
Many times when I've done my examination of conscience I have to honestly ask myself it I did in fact ponder the sin over in my mind before I committed it.
In any case, I find it best to confess everything irregardless.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Modernists speak as if mortal sin were virtually non-existent. This is because their concept of sin is what justifies their belief in universal, or at least near-universal, salvation. It also supports their beliefs concerning "invincible ignorance."
For the Modernists (which is the conciliar church and the, so-called, neo-Catholics and even many neo-traditionalists) these three heresies support and defend each other. One may be invincibly ignorant of what constitutes mortal sin, therefore, one may not be capable of committing mortal sin. Such a conclusion is absurd, but this is why the Modernists believe that people of any regligion, being ignorant of Christian moral doctrines can still be on the road to salvation in spite of committing objectively mortal sins. Furthermore, they exaggerate the full consent and reflection clauses as if it were a legal loophole in which to exonerate a person from being found guilty of a mortal sin.
The fact is, that for most people who commit a sin, the personal guilt they feel after is generally a sign that the sin they have committed may be mortal and they should proceed on that basis. If what they did was done knowingly and voluntarily, then the sin is likely mortal. It doesn't have to be meticulously planned and coordinated activity to be a mortal sin. The person who plans out a murder and the person who kills another because he was embarassed by the victim have both committed mortal sins. The second wasn't simply venial because he didn't meticulously plan the homicide and carry it out in cold blood.
Likewise, the person who turns off the alarm Saturday night because he decides not to go to Mass AND the person who turns it off Sunday morning and rolls over and decides to sleep in and skip Mass because he's still tired are both equally guilty of mortal sins.
The person who intentionally puts himself in a situation that is likely to lead to sinful activity (for example, going to a party where it is known there will be an abundance of alcohol, strippers, etc.) commits sins that are just as mortal even if the the commission of the actual sins was unplanned and spontaneous.
Furthermore, the person who carefully plans out the commission of a sin but feels no pangs of conscience because he has convinced himself that there is no real sin involved or that the activity is actually a societal good (for example, the abortionist, the terrorist, the Protestant evangelist, and most modern-day western politicians, etc.) commits an even greater mortal sin because he has successfully formed his conscience contrary to what God has written on his heart. He has consciously and purposefully rejected God. Yet, here, the Modernists declare them blameless because they have not "full consent of the will" or they do not "know" that the sin is mortal.
Finally, when a person is formed in the Novus Ordo, it can take years for that person to fully grasp the concept of sin. The Novus Ordo community is very successful in minimizing sin to such a degree that much of the conciliar church faithful have abandoned Confession entirely, much to the pleasure of many priests who find hearing confessions an undesireable chore.
-
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm)
-
The fact is, that for most people who commit a sin, the personal guilt they feel after is generally a sign that the sin they have committed may be mortal and they should proceed on that basis.
I find this to be true. Sometimes we are not fully conscious of the gravity of the sin at the time we commit it. However, afterwards when we seriously reflect on what we have done we feel guilty and instinctively know we have committed a serious sin. That is way is is wise to confess everything. I note that the Baltimore Catechism teaches that if we are not sure if we've committed a mortal sin to confess 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.
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 (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm)
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.
-
Modernists speak as if mortal sin were virtually non-existent. This is because their concept of sin is what justifies their belief in universal, or at least near-universal, salvation. It also supports their beliefs concerning "invincible ignorance."
For the Modernists (which is the conciliar church and the, so-called, neo-Catholics and even many neo-traditionalists) these three heresies support and defend each other. One may be invincibly ignorant of what constitutes mortal sin, therefore, one may not be capable of committing mortal sin. Such a conclusion is absurd, but this is why the Modernists believe that people of any regligion, being ignorant of Christian moral doctrines can still be on the road to salvation in spite of committing objectively mortal sins. Furthermore, they exaggerate the full consent and reflection clauses as if it were a legal loophole in which to exonerate a person from being found guilty of a mortal sin.
The fact is, that for most people who commit a sin, the personal guilt they feel after is generally a sign that the sin they have committed may be mortal and they should proceed on that basis. If what they did was done knowingly and voluntarily, then the sin is likely mortal. It doesn't have to be meticulously planned and coordinated activity to be a mortal sin. The person who plans out a murder and the person who kills another because he was embarassed by the victim have both committed mortal sins. The second wasn't simply venial because he didn't meticulously plan the homicide and carry it out in cold blood.
Likewise, the person who turns off the alarm Saturday night because he decides not to go to Mass AND the person who turns it off Sunday morning and rolls over and decides to sleep in and skip Mass because he's still tired are both equally guilty of mortal sins.
The person who intentionally puts himself in a situation that is likely to lead to sinful activity (for example, going to a party where it is known there will be an abundance of alcohol, strippers, etc.) commits sins that are just as mortal even if the the commission of the actual sins was unplanned and spontaneous.
Furthermore, the person who carefully plans out the commission of a sin but feels no pangs of conscience because he has convinced himself that there is no real sin involved or that the activity is actually a societal good (for example, the abortionist, the terrorist, the Protestant evangelist, and most modern-day western politicians, etc.) commits an even greater mortal sin because he has successfully formed his conscience contrary to what God has written on his heart. He has consciously and purposefully rejected God. Yet, here, the Modernists declare them blameless because they have not "full consent of the will" or they do not "know" that the sin is mortal.
Finally, when a person is formed in the Novus Ordo, it can take years for that person to fully grasp the concept of sin. The Novus Ordo community is very successful in minimizing sin to such a degree that much of the conciliar church faithful have abandoned Confession entirely, much to the pleasure of many priests who find hearing confessions an undesireable chore.
Wonderful post. This explains quite a lot.
-
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
-
Sufficient reflection- full awareness or advertence. Sufficient reflection is a firm belief that the act is seriously wrong prior to or at the time of committing the act. You have to be fully conscious of its grave character and deliberately choose to commit the act. You cannot accidentally commit a mortal sin. As can happen we can be objectively guilty of a mortal sin but if full advertence is not present, we have to judge that the sin was not mortal. I believe this is especially true with sins of the tongue. How often do we blurt out something without stopping to consider fully what we are saying. Afterwards when we fully reflect on what we said it becomes clear that our words were gravely sinful.
-
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.
-
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.
I was not making an argument. I was asking a question. I asked: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.
It sounded like you want to say that certain people or groups of people are committing mortal sins, so I wanted to know why.
Perhaps you have encountered people who are saying that mortal sins are almost impossible to commit. There are some people who think that. Or maybe they are saying it is almost impossible to determine when someone else is committing a mortal sin. I agree with the latter position.
-
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)
-
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)
OK, I think I understand better now. I'm feeling pretty stupid today. I hope that it hasn't been too frustrating for you trying to get through to me. :)
-
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.
-
How could Osama possibly not know that murdering people is a mortal sin? Why would the international police (a.k.a the U.S. and its U.N. lackey) go after him or even condemn him for what he supposedly did if there wasn't anything wrong with it?
I'm pretty sure that even the Mohammedans (that aren't anti-non-Mohammedan) agree that what he did was wrong. I'm sure on CAF you'll find a Mohammedan to quote some random nonsense from their book showing that they believe murder is wrong (even though their "prophet" did plenty of it).
The CAF people don't have any clue of what the Catholic faith is. To them it's the "spirit of Vatican II", it's novelties and all the rest minus the Traditions that they don't like (which is most of them). The CAF people cannot deny that God has written His law on the heart of every man so that no one (not even Osama) can say that he is innocent at the moment of Judgment. If Osama did, by God's infinite grace, somehow manage to be saved before his death, there is NO WAY that he is anywhere but purgatory. I'm sure that's where he would remain, if he were to be there, until the end of time IF he were to be saved. The insurmountable amount of damage that he caused, whether he actually did anything or not (and I say this because of the dubiousness of the authenticity of all of his tapes), is just far too great to be ignored.
-
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.