Is there an offense which is ALWAYS mortally sinful by the nature of the act alone?

No, that is impossible. These acts are ALWAYS grave matter. No exceptions.

The commission of mortal sin however, is different. If one performs the grave act with full knowledge and consent, they have committed mortal sin.

Both are true.

One can indeed say:

Murder is a mortal sin.

or one can say

Murder is a grave sin

or one can say

murder is a serious sin

or one can say

murder is a grievous sin

or one can say

murder is a deadly sin.

Or yes one can say “murder is a grave matter” and one commits a “grave sin/mortal sin/serious sin” (the terms are synonyms for the same thing) if one does such with full knowledge and deliberate consent.

Sorry man but you just contradicted yourself with this statement and then everything below it lol.

I’m sorry but you are wrong

I had full knowledge of aborting the fetus growing in my wife’s tube. I gave full consent to abort the fetus. I knew abortion was a grave matter.

But if you truly believe that it is a mortal sin to abort a fetus that would otherwise kill both the mother and the fetus, then you may need to step back and evaluate your thinking of God’s mercy.

One must distinguish between direct abortion and what can be called “indirect abortion”.

Abortion (direct abortion to be more precise) is yes always a grave matter - always.

Indirect abortion-where one does not intend the death of the child (and that death is not the means) but say a uterus is cancerous and has to be removed for the sake of the life of the mother -that is not “abortion” in the moral sense that is used in the first. Rather it is the cancerous uterus that must be removed and the intended side effect is that death of the child (who has nowhere to go) or the child is in the tube of the mother and that tube is thus problematic and (the tube) must be removed or it will burst soon - the removal of the damaged tube is what is intended - the Child’s death is not intended -but unfortunately happens with that removal of the tube -for the child is there in the tube and cannot survive at this time. Though there have been as I recall cases where the child has been old enough to survive.

Hopefully fewer and fewer terrible cases will happen as medicine finds ways to save both the child and the mother -both patients.

I think most of the confusion/disagreement comes from what you mean by sin. We have two definitions:

Material sin: This would be the action itself. In this category, any sin against the 6th commandment, for example, is grave matter. I sometimes call this a “material mortal sin”, but that’s just terminology I made up from “material sin.” I then sometimes abbreviate “material mortal sin” as “mortal sin” when I talk about a kind of act rather than a specific act that someone did, where for it to be a mortal sin, they need the appropriate level knowledge, consent, and grave matter.

Formal sin: Basically this is the specific action as outlined above. Something is wrong and you know this and the will consents. See: oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Sin

In this sense, I think it is obvious that certain acts are “material mortal sins.”

Now, are there acts that are always formal mortal sins? An interesting question. We can immediately rule out most sins since they could theoretically be done in a way where you are not responsible (eg. someone secretly gave you a drug that greatly impairs your reason or something like that). However, I think there are still a few. For example, worshiping satan is obviously intrinsically grave matter. I don’t think you can worship without use of your reason, so if you do worship, it seems you would have the requisite consent and knowledge. Just theorizing here…

I also think there are some acts that are intrinsically grave matter and that everyone over age 7 years recognizes as such.

CCC 1860: Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

It isn’t a question of what I believe. It is a matter of Church doctrine. In the situation here, only God can judge. As a hypothetical case, assuming that the fetus would not survive the pregnancy if it continued, you could possibly choose to have the fallopian tube removed. This would occur without the direct intent of aborting the fetus. The fetus would die as an inevitable indirect result of the surgery.

Not at all! The word “directly” is essential here. Indirect loss of a child as a result of life-threatening health issues are not “abortion”. They are the death of the child not as the direct result of killing, but as an indirect result of absolutely medically required medical procedures designed to save the mother.

If you intervene to directly kill the baby (using an abortion procedure)- mortal sin and excommunication.

If you intervene to save the mother by performing medical care such as chemotherapy, radiation, organ removal, etc. and the fetus dies as a result, it is indirect and not a mortal sin.

catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-the-difference-between-direct-and-indirect-abortion

Here from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-the-difference-between-direct-and-indirect-abortion

Is this where I reply, “No, I’m not. You are.”? :smiley:

I have cited sources for my posts, most of which come from Church documents either directly or indirectly.

Can you cite objective support for your belief?

.

Here from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-the-difference-between-direct-and-indirect-abortion

(quotes St. Pope John Paul II as well)

.

Here from Catholic Answers: catholic.com/quickquestions/whats-the-difference-between-direct-and-indirect-abortion

Morally speaking

priestsforlife.org/qa/question.aspx?id=288

I can see where this is coming from but let’s be real. In an eptopic pregnancy, they are saying it is a mortal sin unless you wait to remove the tube until it bursts. That is terribly life threatening. As soon as you find out you have an ectopic, you don’t wait around for the tube to burst (when the mother’s life is really in danger), you go and take out the tube when you find out about it. If you wait, it could be catastrophic for the mother. But this link makes it sound like you have to wait until the mother’s life is in danger before the operations.

About 50% of eptopic pregnancy’s miscarry leaving the tube intact.

Tis at first a watch and wait situation morally -it may be that the tube is going to become a threat and it may be that it will not.

(There has been as I recall cases where Children have even able to grow and then survive… !)

(in any case - those who face such situations - contact the national Catholic Bioethics center and speak with an ethicist -they are there for you).

One is not required to wait until such an extreme crisis is imminent. What we must wait for is the valid medical opinion that the mother is in severe danger due to the failure of the fallopian tube and that no reasonable person would offer hope for the pregnancy. Then, the tube can be removed.

I didn’t get that sense at all.

Here was the answer. The part I was focusing on is what’s highlighted

"**Answer:**There is more than one medical way of handling an ectopic pregnancy. The relevant moral question is whether the method or action is in fact a killing of the child. If so, that is a direct abortion, which is never permissible for any reason. "Direct means that the destruction of the child is willed as the end or the means to another end. Sometimes ectopic pregnancies are handled this way, killing the child but leaving the tube intact. Such an action is morally wrong.
However, if what is done is that the damaged portion of the tube is removed because of the threat it poses to the mother, that is not a direct abortion, even if the child dies. What is done is the same thing that would be done if the tube were damaged from some other cause. The mother is not saved by the death of the child but by the removal of the tube. Because the death of the child in this case is a side effect which is not intended, and because the saving of the mother’s life is not brought about by the death of the child, such a removal of the damaged portion of the tube is morally permissible. The ethical rule that applies here is called the Principle of the Double Effect.

2 cases are presented. The 1st case is immoral. The 2nd case is moral

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.