The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."
What if a sin has been committed that has grave matter but lacks the knowledge and consent needed to make it mortal? How might one refer to such a sin?
Since it has grave matter, one might refer to it–logically–as a grave sin. That would seem pretty straightforward: Sin with grave matter is grave sin. Add the needed knowledge and consent and it becomes mortal. Right?
Well, you'd think that. Only you wouldn't be right.
For some years it's been clear (to me, anyway) that ecclesiastical documents like the Code of Canon Law and the Catechism of the Catholic Church regularly use the phrase "grave sin" to mean "mortal sin."
But until recently I haven't had an explicit statement documenting this fact. Now I do (CHT to the reader who provided it!)
The statement is found in a post-synodal apostolic exhortation by John Paul II from 1984. The synod of bishops had been held the previous year on the theme of reconciliation and penance, and in the resulting exhortation,
During the synod, some apparently proposed a spectrum of sins consisting of venial, grave, and mortal sins–apparently using the middle category not the way proposed above but as a sin that is worse than venial but less than mortal. This is perhaps related to the mistranslation of "grave" as "serious" in English that was common for a long time.
In any event, that kind of division would be wrong, and so John Paul II wrote:
During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.
And so (here comes the money quote) . . .
Considering sin from the point of view of its matter, the ideas of death, of radical rupture with God, the supreme good, of deviation from the path that leads to God or interruption of the journey toward him (which are all ways of defining mortal sin) are linked with the idea of the gravity of sin's objective content. Hence, in the church's doctrine and pastoral action, grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin.
So. Glad we've got that cleared up.
So grave sin is mortal sin but not necessarily mortal in all cases?
So a sin is not mortal, even if it involves grave matter, without full knowledge. What if it works the other way? If someone commits a sin which objectively does not involve grave matter, but the person honestly believes himself to be committing a mortal sin…is he?
Sins are herd animals; they rarely dwell alone. So somebody committing the sin of, say, adultery, is likely to be committing a whole bundle of sins: failing to avoid the near occasion of sin, seriously harming his spouse with his betrayal, taking pleasure in an illicit sexual act, leading his mistress into sin, and knowingly and deliberately turning his back on God who always gives opportunities to turn back. I’m not saying these elements don’t in a sense “bundle” into one actual sin, and certainly a person in confession wouldn’t need to parse out every element, but almost any sin involves several other “aggregating” sins.
My point is this: a person who only mistakenly believed that a sin of his involved grave matter would very likely have committed some grave aggregating sin. Let’s say I think that taking an extra ketchup packet from McDonalds is theft, and that theft in any amount is a mortal sin that will separate me radically from God. I take the packet anyway. Now the act itself of taking the ketchup packet is of course not objectively grave, and only my malformed conscience judges it to be so. But the internal act of rebellion, which is related to the external act of taking the packet and is enacted through the external act, but is not strictly identical with the external act, *is* grave matter. If the other conditions for mortal sin have been met, I have committed a mortal sin.
Luckily, virtuous or meritorious acts are herd animals, too, and God accepts them in the same way. Isn’t that the moral of the widow’s mite? The objective value of her offering was minimal, but in the Lord’s eyes she gave more than anyone else.
We can talk about sin in two ways:
1) in an objective sense — that is, certain actions are objectively evil, even if the agent is not morally culpable for some reason.
2) in a subjective sense — that is, certain actions, whether or not they are objectively evil, can be made sinful depending on the intent and moral culpability of the agent.
Obviously, in the subjective sense, there is only one differentiation that is important: does the sin “kill the supernatural life” or not? So it totally makes sense to have just “venial” and “mortal” when referring to sin in the subjective sense.
Yet it seems to me that the phrase “grave sin” can be useful, if it is used to refer those sins that are objectively grave but not subjectively soul-imperiling (that is, mortal).
To use it merely as a synonym for “mortal sin” seems like a waste of what could be a meaningful separate term.
And, of course, it raises the question: If “grave sin” = “mortal sin,” then what term CAN be used to refer to those sins that are objectively grave but not mortal? Any suggestions?
A grave sin is a mortal sin, period. The question is who is guilty of a mortal sin? Only a person who fulfills all three condtions is guilty re: culpable.
The one area of obscurity is the person who does something he “believes” is seriously (mortally) sinful even though it is not “grave matter” barring some psychological difficulties he would be “guilty”. Now, it is still up to God to determine the objective fact of guilt. But for us here and now; if you “believe” you have comitted a mortal sin for your souls sake hit the sin bin fast!(For those post vatII Sin bin is a confessional.
I’m utterly confused. Jimmy, are you saying that a person who commits a sin whose object is grave matter, but without full knowledge and/or deliberate consent is still guilty of a mortal sin?
Thanks!
Is Huck Finn committing a mortal sin when he decides that if he goes to hell for not revealing Jim, he will go to hell? Personally, I think he is evincing prudence, that cardinal virtue.
I too am confused and would ask you to look at this in reverse- from the punishment perspective; hell is an absolute- separation from God being the primary punishment- i’m hard pressed to see how there would be degrees of separation ; you are separated or not- so as to Mortal[ grave] sin- We agree the matter itself must be of a very serious nature; so serious as to negate the very love the Christ displayed for each of us- and you must be mindful that you are rejecting same; so robbing a bank, taking a retiree’s entire nest egg savings, killing a head of a family, abortion, and violating the norm for sabbath observance are all’ grave’ according to Mother church- yet the punishment for these grave matters ‘ reasonably’ can’t all be the same since they are apparently not all the same ‘gravity’ or – are they?? ? – what am i missing- E.G. a single act of masturbation is a grave matter ; as is the murder[unjust taking] of a humans’ life – can the punishment for both be the same , i.e.separation from the Beatific Vision?? or do I just not have a proper appreciation for the seriousness of masturbating- or as one of the commentators pointed out – the issue is in the culpability , not only the matter – but i reject that because the teachers are clear- the matter itself must be grave- If you think it is grave, but go ahead and consent to the act anyway – you are guilty of serious sin as i understand the principle- but does missing mass thru momentary laziness on a sunday equate in “seriousness” with deliberate killing of an innocent person??- when the primary punishment is the same??? help- I’ll read all you write- comment too as to habitual sin- wherein no consent of will is given at all; in fact in many cases the event can’t even be recalled ex post facto
Dave,
What Jimmy seems to be saying is that when the Church uses the term “grave sin” in Her documents and practice, it isn’t intended to be distinguished from mortal sin.
This is just about how the Church is talking about things, not the actual state of a person’s soul.
This would be different from talking about a sin with grave matter, which would need to be committed with deliberate consent and complete knowledge to become a mortal sin/grave sin. Using terminology this way, we could say this:
“A sin with objectively grave matter, committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, is a grave sin.”
We could also say,
“A sin with objectively grave matter, committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent, is a mortal sin.”
Jimmy believes that the Church equates the two terms – remember we’re just talking about terms here – in Her documents. I’m not sure that I agree with him that this is what John Paul II meant, but that’s what he’s saying – NOT that sins with grave matter are mortal even if lacking in consent and/or knowledge.
I’m not an apologist, and we don’t have the full text in front of us, but note that the first quote requires a “grave matter”, and the last one notes a “grave sin” is a “mortal sin”. These aren’t mutually consistent. A person could argue, therefore, that a “grave sin” requires a “grave matter”. Obviously, a grave sin would require a grave matter. But, it would seem, that a grave sin requires more than only a grave matter, showing, I suppose, how affirmatively we must act to separate ourselves from God’s love.
On gedda fan’s comment on comparing the eternal results of unconfessed mortal sins, I suspect it’s not entirely a good idea for us humans to ponder that. It’s easy to discount sin’s from a human prospective, as in “it’ can’t really be a sin to masturbate as I don’t see the harm”, or, back in the old days, “it can’t really be all that sinful to eat meat on Friday” (which was actually a sin because of the refusal to follow the church’s requirements), but what determines the degree of sinfulness might be how seriously God views things, not us. To the degree that murder is more serious than masturbation, not doubt that’s true, but the comparative difference might be found in how easy it may be to have the sin forgiven, although that’s a wild guess on my part.
Oops, I meant above that “these aren’t mutually inconsistent”