A reader writes:
What is meant by the phrases “full consent” and “sufficient reflection” as two of the three conditions necessary for something to be a mortal sin? I have read spiritual authors who imply that it means that if you have immediate remorse after doing something gravely evil, then you obsiously did not have full consent or sufficient reflection. I have also read authors who say that true mortal sin is very rare for committed Christians because they almost never give full consent to a grave evil, when factoring in mitigating factors like anxiety, compulsion, etc.
On the other hand, if this is true, then how can anyone ever be considered to have commited mortal sin by giving in to temptation? Wouldn’t the temptation itself, by exerting influence, cause one not to have had full consent or sufficient reflection? And what are the implications of this for confession?
I appreciate it if you can make this more clear.
I’ll do what I can, but I’m not sure how much light can be shed on this question. The fact is that the Church has a stronger grasp on the principles involved in this area than it has on how they are to be applied in practice. This is one reason that the Church is reluctant to judge that a person has actually committed a mortal sin. It can recognize that he has committed an objectively grave act, but it is hard to assess his personal level of culpability (i.e., his understanding of what he was doing and how freely he did it anyway).
It may be that further doctrinal development will clarify how the consent and knowledge criteria are to be concretely applied, or there may just be something intrinsically slippery and subjective about these that will always make it hard to assess these matters.
Because of the difficulty we have in assessing them, the general rule for most people (i.e., those with a lax conscience or a normal conscience) is that if you think you may have committed a mortal sin then go ahead and confess it, just to be safe.
The exception to this rule is people who have a scrupulous conscience. For them the rule is do not confess unless you are sure that you have committed a mortal sin.
Whether a person has a lax, a normal, or a scrupulous conscience is something that is best determined in consultation with his spiritual director. It is also something that may change over time in his life. (E.g., most people who are serious about their faith go through at least temporary periods of being scrupulous; most people who are sons of Adam go through at least temporary periods of being lax).
When it comes to the subjective two criteria for mortal sin–that you need adequate knowledge of the moral character of the act and that you need to give adequate consent to it–I can offer these thoughts:
1) I don’t like the way these are sometimes phrased. For example, you sometimes read about a person needing to have "complete knowledge" of the moral character of the act. I think this is misleading because it can make it sound like if you aren’t a thoroughly catechized moral theologian who has thoroughly studied a situation and has all the relevant facts at his fingertips then there is no mortal sin.
Nonsense.
Suppose I’m a poorly-catechized ordinary guy who’s out hunting in the woods and I see a shape in the forrest in front of me that I think might be a man, but it might also be a deer. I am not excused from mortal sin if I shoot at it anyway, even though I didn’t know for certain whether I was objectively shooting at a human being or not.
Same thing goes for aborting a baby if I’m not sure whether it’s a human being or not.
I thus prefer to speak in terms of "adequate knowledge" of the moral character of the act. There are a lot of things that we can know in an intuitive or incomplete way and still be mortally responsible for them. If this were not the case then St. Paul would never have been able to speak in the terms he did in Romans 1 about pagans who "do not have the Law" (i.e., the Torah) and yet are gravely responsible to God for their actions.
One of the things that can hinder adequate knowledge, though, is a lack of what the reader terms "sufficient reflection." It may be that we do know that an act is gravely wrong and yet we haven’t reflected on it sufficiently to realize this at the particular moment.
The classic example of this is having impure thoughts creep into your head. They can just kind of start, without you even realizing it, and then you catch yourself and go "No! I don’t want to be thinking about that!" The general rule here is that if you catch yourself and immediately start resisting the thoughts then you weren’t engaging in them with sufficient reflection to result in a mortal sin.
2) I similarly don’t like the formulations that one needs to give "complete consent" or "full consent" before a sin is mortal. This is also misleading and can convey to a person that you have to be going, "Yes! Yes! YES!!! I know this is mortal sin AND I LOVE IT!!!"
That’s not true either.
Suppose I’m robbing a liquor store and I’m pointing a gun at the cashier, and to keep him from identifying me to the cops I shoot him in the heart, and just before I pull the trigger I have a little twinge of remorse about what I’m doing.
The fact that I had at least somewhat mixed feelings does not let me off from having committed a mortal sin.
I thus like the phrasing that the Catechism uses on this point, saying that we need to give "deliberate consent" to the act.
Some examples of when we do not give deliberate consent include:
1) When we do something on the spur of the moment, without thinking about it first.
2) When we do it when we are asleep.
3) When we do it when we are really groggy (e.g., just going to sleep or just waking from sleep)
4) When we are intoxicated or under the influence of a substance that makes us groggy (e.g., certain allergy or other medications), though this one raises the question of how we got into a state like this and whether we committed a sin in doing so.
5) Under the influence of reason-depriving emotion (e.g., walking in on someone sleeping with your spouse; thinking that your life is in imminent danger)
6) Under the influence of strong psychological illness.
Just how strong some of these have to be for deliberate consent to cease to exist is not easy to determine. Look at grogginess or intoxication as examples. The impairment those involve exists on a spectrum, and it is not easy to say just where on the spectrum deliberate consent stops. Being just a little tired or just a little tipsy is not going to be enough. Yet at some point one reaches a state where one does not have enough possession of one’s faculties to commit a mortal sin.
Where that line is is something that’s really hard to determine, which gets us back to the practical rules mentioned earlier: If you think you may have committed a mortal sin then confess it just to be sure, unless you are scrupulous, in which case don’t confess it unless you are sure.
We may see further doctrinal development (or pastoral distortion) on this question with the progress of time. Three things in this regard strike me as particularly noteworthy:
1) The development of psychology and cognitive science is going to play a role here. The Church already acknowledges in its pastoral practice that we have learned more about the psychological pressures and conditions people can suffer from than we previously knew and that this has an impact on how we assess the personal responsibility of people in various situations. The progress of the cognitive sciences is likely to deepen this awareness, as it has been shown that some decisions seem to be made by us before conscious thought even happens.
The danger in this area is allowing psychology and cognitive science to eliminate the concept of personal responsibility. This is something that is inconsistent with the Christian faith, and up with it the Church cannot put. We’re likely to see further Magisterial interventions at some point to try to clarify the role that psychological and biological factors can and cannot play in assessing moral culpability.
2) The Church is now living in a world in which it is much more acutely aware of the existence of people of good faith who are not Catholic or even Christian. This is a development that has been underway for several centuries–beginning with the age of exploration and the discovery of vast populations who had never heard the gospel–and the Church has become much more sensitive to the role of education and cultural conditioning in forming peoples’ consciences, such that many more people than were previously thought are recognized as being innocently ignorant of the objective moral character of their acts.
The same is true of the collapse of proper catechesis in the developed world. There are now large groups of people who are objectively Christian but who–through no fault of their own–have absorbed very little of the teaching of the Christian faith, and this has to be taken into account in assessing their personal moral culpability.
3) The Church has become more optimistic about the possibility of salvation–particularly in the last century. The previous two factors–greater awareness of psychological and informational impediments to full personal responsibility–have played a role in this, but even beyond that, the Church is just more optimistic.
I’m not fully comfortable with that. I’d love to think that more people will be saved rather than less, but I have a hard time squaring that with the way Christians have traditionally regarded matters and with certain statements in the New Testament.
Nevertheless, I have to acknowledge that doctrinal development may be underway on this point.
A while back I was reading an interview with Pre-16 in which he was taking note of this greater optimism and saying that we may hope (note the word "hope") that a large majority of people today are saved and that only a few go to hell.
If that’s the case then it has implications for how we read the criteria for mortal sin. You have to say that those who are properly catechized have a greater chance of getting to heaven than those who don’t (otherwise catechesis and evangelization would harm the good of souls, and we can’t say that), so you can’t chalk the optimism up to the fact that more people don’t know their faith. Neither do we have evidence that more people suffer from psychological impediments than in the past (it’s almost certainly the opposite).
So if you want to be more optimistic than previously about salvation then you’d have to say that it’s harder than previously thought to commit mortal sin or easier than previously thought to be reconciled with God–or (more likely) both.
Like I said, I’d love this to be true, but I’m not comfortable with saying that it is. Consequently, I fall back on the principle of erring on the side of caution and assuming in my own life that the traditional understanding of these matters is correct.
Part of what we have to do in a situation like this is just do the best that we can. Follow the best advice that we can obtain, even if it is fuzzy and unsatisfying advice, and then trust the results to God.
Remember: He’s a God of Mercy. God is Love. And unless we knowingly and deliberately hold something back in confession, he forgives us. If we do the best we can in confession, that’s good enough for him.
For further reading,
HERE’S THE CATECHISM’S DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE (INCLUDING THE ROLE THAT TEMPTATION–I.E., THE PASSIONS–CAN PLAY IN AFFECTING OUR CULPABILITY).
This discussion reminds me in a kind of a sideways fashion of the teachings of Peter Lombard which drove Luther around the bend – the need for -perfect- contrition before forgiveness could be assured, where perfect meant one knew for sure that there was no temptation or future possible temptation or enjoyment regarding the sin. Which for someone suffering from scruples, like Luther, was very destructive.
I like the term in the Book of Common Prayer: “unfeigned”
Why would anyone want to find a reason not to confess, when God is quick and eager to forgive us?
The fact that in Catholicism one cannot throw the charge that someone else is commiting a mortal sin around is just one of the innumerable elegancies of the Faith. It’s also one possible interpretation of Christ’s words:
“For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.”
In other words, that sin in one’s brother that one thinks is mortal could really be venial (a splinter), and the sins that one commits and takes for granted could really be mortal (a beam).
“I’d love to think that more people will be saved rather than less, but I have a hard time squaring that with the way Christians have traditionally regarded matters and with certain statements in the New Testament.”
Actually, there are a number of Church Fathers who hold out a hope for universal salvation (St. Gregory of Nazianus, par example), who also grant salvation to pagans (St. Justin Martyr on Socrates) so I see this as less a novelty than a return to the optimistic spirit of these early Christians. So the knowledge of “the existence of people of good faith who are not Catholic or even Christian” is not new at all, and I think it is very hard to say we have an advantage over the Early Fathers in this respect, or even the medievals. Dante puts Virgil, etc…in Limbo, for example, assuming while yet they don’t merit the Beatific Vision, they also don’t deserve the pains of Hell.
And even those who take a sober view on the massa damnata, like Augustine, hold strongly the possiblity that all can be saved – if they wish it. Furthermore, there also a number of passages in the NT that stress the universal salvific will, or suggest that a large amount who will be saved (ie. the multitude that no one could count in Revelation).
Remember; One of the messages of Fatima is ‘there is a hell, and people go there’.
Folks,
Let’s recall the Spiritual Works of Mercy, one of which is to Admonish the Sinner.
This is clearly demonstrated in the following verse from Scripture in the Old Testament where it is said that if you see your brother in sin and you don’t warn him, he’ll die in his sin but his blood God will require at your hands:
Ez 33:8-9
8 When I say to the wicked: O wicked man, thou shalt surely die: if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked man from his way: that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but I will require his blood at thy hand.
9 But if thou tell the wicked man, that he may be converted from his ways, and he be not converted from his way he shall die in his iniquity: but thou hast delivered thy soul.
One of the other lessons of Fatima (one that people often forget to mention) is to pray that:
“Jesus, lead all souls to heaven, especially those most in need of Thy mercy.”
Esau,
I agree with you in substance, but I think the problem is that in this brazen world there’s sometimes a fine line between admonishing the sinner, and puffing oneself up as a Pharisee (which Christ condemns time and time again). Before admonishing a sinner, the Catholic should make sure examine their own concious, and make sure they’re acting out of charity and also prudently. I think we can all easily recall a situation where we or someone we know crossed the line from admonishment, to judgment, and sometimes even, sadly, even gone to the point of damning another person.
“Yes! Yes! YES!!! I know this is mortal sin AND I LOVE IT!!!”
Uhhhh… JIMMY AKIN, I think you might have put things in another way, especially given the context of impure thoughts that were presented just before this.
When I read this, I could not help but think of Meg Ryan in the diner scene in the movie When Harry Met Sally!
Esau,
I agree with you in substance, but I think the problem is that in this brazen world there’s sometimes a fine line between admonishing the sinner, and puffing oneself up as a Pharisee (which Christ condemns time and time again). Before admonishing a sinner, the Catholic should make sure examine their own concious, and make sure they’re acting out of charity and also prudently. I think we can all easily recall a situation where we or someone we know crossed the line from admonishment, to judgment, and sometimes even, sadly, even gone to the point of damning another person.
Good point, Ryan C.!
This happens all too often, actually!
I think that, frighteningly, it can even happen unconciously. Thus we pray with the Psalmist -“Cleanse me from my hidden faults, oh God!”
In his post Jimmy refers to psych problems :
“6) Under the influence of strong psychological illness.”
I suffer from bi-polarism with a stronger tendency to be depressed. I’m doing well now (better living through modern chemistry!), but in the passed I have contemplated suicide and gotten to the point of “practicing” for it.
I’ve heard conflicting opinions on this…some have said that suicide is a mortal sin, and the person is condemned. Others have said that suicide is not a rational act and that the person is not held responsible because they are “under the influence of strong psychological illness.”
Thoughts? Opinions? Is there a direct answer from the church on this?
One of my greatest fears is that I’ll end up condemned because I slip back into deep depression and in a moment of despair decide to end it. I console myself with the knowledge that God is infinitely merciful and that he would take into account my deep desire for mercy.
Thank you very much for writing. I am sorry to hear about your condition and will pray for you, encouraging others to do so as well.
Here is what the Catechism of the Catholic Church says about suicide:
2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it to him.
It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life.
We are obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and the salvation of our souls.
We are stewards, not owners, of the life God has entrusted to us.
It is not ours to dispose of.
2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to preserve and perpetuate his life.
It is gravely contrary to the just love of self.
It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human societies to which we continue to have obligations.
Suicide is contrary to love for the living God.
2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal.
Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law.
Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one committing suicide.
2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. the Church prays for persons who have taken their own lives.
Depressive,
This previous post by Jimmy might be relevant:
http://jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/04/ministry_mental.html
While not extremely serious, I’ve struggled with OCD and depression in the past, and I found Jimmy’s post very helpful.
I believe true knowledge of whether something is a mortal sin is usually present in someone’s heart at the instant fo commission, but that the mind moves very quickly to analyze, dismiss, or obfuscate the action.
Since sin and grace exist both in the present time and eternity simultaneously, the quantum uncertainty principle is a useful tool when trying to understand them. (We can know where a particle is, or we can know it’s momentum, but we can’t accurately know both simultaneously) The instant of sin is what will be presented to us at the time of judgement, regardless of our successful attempts to confuse the matter through time. In this moment lies the danger of despair and the true sorrow that awaits each of us when we face Christ. When we work hard to build the image of ourselves that we are most comfortable with, this will hamper our ability to accept our true appearance when the mirror is made clear by Christ. Humility is the key – always and in everything. And TRUE humility that accepts we are good, made in God’s image, and in need of perfecting – not self-loathing humility that joins Satan in accusing ourselves into oblivion!
We are JUST like sub-atomic particles – but with the breath of God giving life to our thoughts and minds. Our lives are lived in constant struggle between trying to pin down where we are, and our worth vs. surrendering to the awesome and frightening unkown of the supra-temporal Christ.
Frequent confession is the best tool to help us maintain a closeness to what is Good, but it must also go hand in hand with an acceptance that WE cannot attain it on our own. The goal is to increase the depth and permeation of our surrender to Jesus and the will of the Father through the Grace of the Spirit.
What do they say about walking upright? Isn’t it just a controlled series of falls?
Interesting. I would have judged the robber who shot the cahier in the heart as actually being not guilty of mortal sin (for the murder) since he didn’t have time for sufficient reflection and was swayed by fear,adrenaline, etc., assuming that it was not his intent to commit murder when he started.
I wonder how priests are trained to judge these matters in COnfession- are they required to judge whether or not it was a mortal sin or a venial sin, or does it not matter??
I have read one spiritual advisor who said that mortal sin basically takes thought and planning- without those, it’s not a mortal sin even if grave matter.
I think you put it very well near the end of this post- we may have unsatisfying asnwers but we just have to do the best we can and trust God.
“What do they say about walking upright? Isn’t it just a controlled series of falls?”
Well, that’s how Laurie Anderson looked at it.
I would also encourage those who do NOT suffer from scrupulosity to confess all the sins you can name, mortal OR venial. For one thing, it cuts down the risk of presumption, and it also helps to fight those little sins that set us up for the big ones.
One of the greatest things about the Catholic faith is the sacrament of confession. Because confession requires a serious examination of conscience, it makes us put a NAME to our sins, which goes a long way toward enabling us to fight them.
“Since sin and grace exist both in the present time and eternity simultaneously, the quantum uncertainty principle is a useful tool when trying to understand them.”
Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle
Thanks Brian. But I refuse to use Werner’s name since he forgot to call me on my birthday.
” I would have judged the robber who shot the cahier in the heart as actually being not guilty of mortal sin (for the murder) since he didn’t have time for sufficient reflection and was swayed by fear,adrenaline, etc., assuming that it was not his intent to commit murder when he started.”
And he brought the gun because… what? He thought he might be attacked by a wild animal? I’d say that’s prima facie evidence of “sufficient reflection”.
Not to mention, murder is so deeply ingrained in the natural law that no one can claim ignorance of it. As for being in a stressful situation… he brought that on himself! Like the old joke that “some people suffer from stress, others are just carriers”.
One of the things I considered when I’ve struggled with this in the past has to do with the idea of baptism of desire. Superficially stated, if one is not presented with the teachings of the faith (or the materials to learn such teachings), nor access to the sacraments – let’s say this person is a tribal member of a tribe that has had almost no contact with missionaries – a sufficient “desire” to know God indicates that he would have seized upon that faith had he the opportunity, and for this reason we can hope that he would see heaven. Now, let’s flip this around. Could it not then be suggested that many “cafeteria” Catholics, agnostics, or indifferent members of our society are poorly catechized simply because they lack that “desire”. If we genuinely love someone and desire to know them, we seek out every opportunity to do so. Likewise, many of us desire to know God to the extent that we seek out every available resource. This can’t be said about everyone who hasn’t been properly instructed in the faith, but for many, I would guess that, as much as they claim to believe in God or to “love” him, those words aren’t supported by the same passionate thirst for knowing him as we would give to our spouse. How often, after all, have our well-reasoned arguments been rejected by plain indifference? How many times do we encounter others who have never opened the Bible on their shelves or bothered to ask a priest the answer to their questions? Just as baptism of desire might get one into Heaven, I think there are a great number for whom a lack of desire precludes any excuse that situation or mental condition might afford in the case of mortal sin.
Tim- I am supposing that he brought the gun to scare the clerk into giving him the cash (robbers usually have to have a threat) but he did not intend to shoot someone when he planned the robbery- just to rob the place. As far as bringing the “stress” on himself, that’s true but I don’t think that makes it any less of a factor in mitigating his guilt.
Interesting in how wide the spectrum can be in judging the degree of sin and guilt. It’s probably a good thing that the Church leaves it to us to decide what we HAVE to confess ( in other words, we are the ones who decide whether or not to accuse ourselves of mortal sin.)
We should all keep in mind that today’s cafeteria Catholic can be tomorrow’s saint. In fact, it’s happened before. That’s why all these discussions need to be kept firmly in the abstract, because we can only see a very small sliver of time with all the different people we meet, besides our close family and friends, and even there we cannot see into the heart as Christ can.
The old pre-VCII criteria for impure-thoughts-qua-mortal-sin have always thrown me for a loop. How do you tell how much consent you have given? How prolonged must the thought be before it qualifies as a full-consent event?
I have OCD, greatly eased by meds, but I still have trouble sometimes discerning between ego-dystonic or obtrusive thoughts, on the one hand, and thoughts that “fit” my psychology, thoughts I’ve truly given consent to, on the other.
It’s that *full* consent thing that throws me.
It’s hard for me sometimes also, unless I think of it as one spiritual writer put it: a truly mortal sin requires thought and planning. Maybe not everyone would agree with that but that’s what I go with.
BTW, I suppose you could say “how much thought and how much planning”?” I guess to that I would just have to respond, “Enough to not be spur-of-the-moment and/or clouded by passion.”
And I suppose that means that I would say that for a sin to be truly mortal, it has to be carried out pretty deliberately. Maybe I’m too lenient.
In regard to bad thoughts, here’s the explanation Fr. William Most gives that I found helpful: “Bad thoughts: Some confess these loosely, may even say: I took pleasures in them. But on questioning it turns out to be different. Here is the picture: a thought comes (or one sees a picture of someone dressed immodestly). It offers a sexual pleasure. To just let self go to take it in and enjoy it is mortal sin. But if instead, the person tries to get rid of it, even if it takes a dozen times before it settles, even if the feeling hangs around during that interval, there is no mortal sin, more likely much merit. There is another very tricky pattern: If someone is partly occupied in doing something, then a thought may crawl into the back of his head- may unroll itself like a movie — may run some time, until there is a wake-up point: ‘Oh Oh, I should not have it.” Up to that point, never a mortal sin, at most a bit of carelessness’.” (Most Theological Collection: Helps For Confession)…But if one is still in doubt, your best bet is to consult with a priest in confession.
As far as bringing the “stress” on himself, that’s true but I don’t think that makes it any less of a factor in mitigating his guilt.
I don’t think so. If a man has money to buy food, spends it extravagantly, and ends up stealing to eat, he is not as innocent as the man who had no money and no way to get it.
“The same is true of the collapse of proper catechesis in the developed world. There are now large groups of people who are objectively Christian but who–through no fault of their own–have absorbed very little of the teaching of the Christian faith, and this has to be taken into account in assessing their personal moral culpability”
This is so true on every level. How many Catholics do you know these days that don’t know the Church teachings on fundamental issues. Also that is true of some priests. Last year I called three local parishes to ask if I could hang a poster, approved by the local bishop, on celebrating NFP week. Two out of the three priests said ‘What is nfp?’ I actually had to explain it too them. How sad.
Mary- I think that’s true that it would make him more culpable than th eother fellow in your example. But i am only saying that it would still be a factor in judgin whehter or not he was guilty of mortal sin- he would still be guilty of venial sin and perhaps more guilty than of lesser venial sins.
Jimmy,
Your comments on this subject have helped me tremendously in the past as I teetered (maybe that should be present tense) on the edge of scrupulosity. Thank you.
Also:
This is something that is inconsistent with the Christian faith, and up with it the Church cannot put.
You’re not channeling
Winston Churchill by any chance?
Thomas Tucker:
Tim- I am supposing that he brought the gun to scare the clerk into giving him the cash (robbers usually have to have a threat) but he did not intend to shoot someone when he planned the robbery- just to rob the place.
Then he wouldn’t have loaded it when he went off to the robbery. To put bullets in a gun is a willingness to shoot someone should you not get your way.
The thing about not loading a gun does happen. I constantly hear of robbers who hold up places with unloaded or fake guns.
Maybe. Or maybe he just thought he would fire the gun to scare people. But the point of the scenario is that he either did or didn’t plan to kill someone as part of the robbery, whether with a gun or something else. My point was that, if he didn’t plan and think of killing ahead of time, then if it happened during the rushing, rapid, energy-fuilled course of events then he didn’t have the sufficient reflection and deliberate consent necessary to make the killing a mortal sin, although the robbery would be a mortal sin.
I liked very much what Jimmy Akin had to say about the “hope” that all may be saved:
“I’d love this to be true, but I’m not comfortable with saying that it is.”
That’s about the shape of it.
If it’s really just a “hope”, then perhaps–perHAPS–it’s okay. The problem is that this hope tends to have a way of becoming a working assumption which undermines the very notion of the working of sin in the world.
When Christ talks about the future of the world, the accent is on WARNING. WATCH OUT! The few and the many, the narrow and the broad, the sheep and the goats.
And St. Paul talks about the utter depravity of sinful man and their guilt for their actions: they knew better, they cannot deny it.
I’m afraid that if we make too much of the “backward glance” of Grace, we end up not really seeing what difference it made that Christ came. And another thing that pre-16 pointed out is the HUGE difference to the world that Christianity made…pre-Christian times were times of darkness and horror indeed.
St. Augustine says in the City of God that those who claim to hope that all will be saved and express the belief that all MAY be saved (which amounts to the same thing, don’t you think, though shifting the verb around here makes the possibility of heresy pop out a little more clearly) are not really concerned about the salvation of others. They are concerned about the salvation of themselves.
“St. Augustine says in the City of God that those who claim to hope that all will be saved and express the belief that all MAY be saved (which amounts to the same thing, don’t you think, though shifting the verb around here makes the possibility of heresy pop out a little more clearly) are not really concerned about the salvation of others. They are concerned about the salvation of themselves.”
Could you please post a quote of this? For at least two times elsewhere in his works (including his Retractions), Augustine affirms that all may be saved:
“According to Augustine, God, in his creative decree, has expressly excluded every order of things in which grace would deprive man of his liberty, every situation in which man would not have the power to resist sin, and thus Augustine brushes aside that predestinationism which has been attributed to him. Listen to him speaking to the Manichæans: “All can be saved if they wish”; and in his “Retractations” (I, x), far from correcting this assertion, he confirms it emphatically: “It is true, entirely true, that all men can, if they wish.” But he always goes back to the providential preparation. In his sermons he says to all: “It depends on you to be elect” (In Ps. cxx, n. 11, etc.); “Who are the elect? You, if you wish it” (In Ps. Lxxiii, n. 5).”
– The Catholic Encyclopedia
I know I am only the Visiting Methodist, but it seems to me that if someone is committing armed robbery, that is, in & of itself, a mortal sin. (At least,IMNSHO, it meets the requirements outlined).
If waving a gun in someone’s face, & demanding that he empty the cash register doesn’t constitute “grave matter”, what does then??
My Cat’s Name Is Lily (great alias) wrote –
” …it seems to me that if someone is committing armed robbery, that is, in & of itself, a mortal sin.”
‘Zackly.
MURDERING the guy you were robbing would have to be worse. The point is, the robber intentionally – with plenty of forethought – created a situation where he KNEW that he might very well end up killing someone. He decided to do it anyway, counting as cheap the lives of anyone who might get in his way.
Maybe he didn’t go in with the full intention of shooting someone, but he obviously wanted to leave the option OPEN, which makes him a murdering rat, heading straight to hell, unless he should repent.
to make it more clear, say he didn’t go in with a laoded gun. Sya he went in with a fake gun, but the guy behind the counter started yelling and screamin, and the robber panicks and hits him over the head with bottle. Still guilty of the mortal sin of murder?
BTW, visiting Methodist, I don’t disagree that the scenario above is grave matter; what I am wondering about is whether or not he had sufficient reflection and full consent- all three must be present for something to be a mortal sin.
One thing I would note is that while it is true that one who has a lax or normal conscience is RECOMMENDED to confess ‘doubtful mortal sins’ (especially the lax) and those who are scrupulous or who have some tendency to scruples are advised not to confess ‘doubtful moral sins’ (especially the scrupulous).
It is also true that neither one –including the normal or lax conscience —is OBLIGED to confess any ‘doubtful mortal sin’. Anyone may omit them or include them intentionally under “these and all my sins”.
When Jimmy says “rule” here it is an advisory rule not a rule one must follow.
Thomastucker: I think so, yes, it’s still murder. The robbery, in & of itself, is grave matter.
The guy behind the counter isn’t yelling for no reason; he’s yelling because there’s a crime taking place, & he’s the victim.
The very fact of grabbing that bottle in the intent to do bodily harm, to me, means that this is not a scared kid here; this is the real deal.
I know, I know; I’m being tough on him. Maybe. Or, maybe, just maybe, people who go around waving (real or fake) guns at people, have a real problem with the rights of others.
And maybe, just maybe, that’s what made our friend think that robbing someone at gunpoint was a better source of funds than, say, the late shift at Taco Bell….
It is that kind of thinking that, only all too often, ends with murder.
Most crimes, & most sins, are the result of what someone has called “stupidity and cupidity”.
When a weapon is involved, we are, I would suggest, on a whole new level.
OK, I have done my “homework”, & have something ;-)Truly Methodist to throw out here:
John Wesley’s definition of sin:
“Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God”.
His mother, Susanna, was tougher than her son…She was also considerably more prolix, and, it appears, if I am any judge, a woman who suffered from is referred to around here as scruples.
But I digress…..
“Sin is a willful transgression of a known law of God”.
That’ll work, though we run into the same problems… there are degrees of willfullness, as well as degrees of knowledge. What if you only suspect that something is a sin, but do it anyway? etc…
This ambiguity of willfulness is one of the primary reasons why we cannot judge someone else’s soul, but only reflect and advise on the objective graveness of their actions.
As for figuring out your own willfulness, the answer to this is practice and Confession. Daily examinations of conscience (I recommend the Examen) are the best way I know of to practice discerning for yourself whether you sinned and whether your sins are mortal or venial. Confession offers practice in admitting your sins, (sometimes) advice from the priest, and most importantly, the grace from God to actually avoid further sins.
If you suspect something is a sin, and you do not take reasonable steps to inform yourself, you are guilty. If you did almost everything you needed to be clear, your ignorance is a mitigating factor. If you did nothing, it would not be. Indeed, if you actively avoided doing things that would remove your ignorance, you may be more guilty than if you knew, because your actions are more willful.
(vincible vs. invincible ignorance.)