Venial sins and consent of the will

Humm seemed to work well there.

Tis from 1919

Yes the thing itself is sinful (material sin). The sinfulness involved is regarding the nature of the thing - it is “sinful” but not regarding subjective guilt. There is disorder there. It can be quite bad for the person - but the person has not committed a sin (in the way "committed gets used generally in the Church’s recent documents).

But the person does “not commit a sin” and such is not matter for confession - not any sin to confess.

Oh and to add to the above response (forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12250060&postcount=18) to this post

—lets look at your source (which of course can be rather good - but it important to remember it is dated from almost a hundred years ago)…the 1919 CE:

“An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin”

As I noted my taking that book was materially sinful.

It was “theft”. But I have nothing that can be confessed for I did not commit an actual sin. The disorder there was material not formal.

Material sins are where there is that disorder present - but I am innocently doing that act. I do not say have a clue that it is wrong. I have not “sinned” in the normal use of the term.

I won’t quibble over the semantics of “commit a sin” but we definitely agree that it is not a matter for confession.

Regarding when I said that your sarcasm detection needed adjustment, it was based on your comment that the authors of the 1917 Encyclopedia were dead, as if you thought I didn’t know that…Why you would think that is a bit bizarre since it is common knowledge, it says so at the bottom of every entry, I’ve quoted it extensively over the years on here, and it was precisely in part because of its antiquity that I wrote earlier in this thread about it that it “is not the best authority.” But fine, you think I’m stupid, no problem.

Then I have been misunderstood. I never said that a material sin is not a *material *sin, I meant that because it is only a material sin it is not a formal or actual sin.

Please back up your statement that certain venial sins do not require any consent of the will or knowledge to the sinfulness involved. It is my understanding that for a sin to be venial there must be some knowledge of the sinfulness and some consent to it. God bless you.

Why would you say to contact them? To update it?

No offense intended. Humor not offense. :wink: Nor did I think you were stupid. Many may think it is current.

As to the discussion - see may later posts.

Yes, I was being snarky since the user seemed to ignore (and still ignores) the obvious meaning of the words used by the CE’s authors.

Well I was making a joke in response.

Correct.

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12250060&postcount=18

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12250124&postcount=22

[quote=Bookcat]As I noted my taking that book was materially sinful.
[/quote]

I disagree, certainly inasmuch as we are using the CE definition of material sin. Your example is mistake of fact, not any kind of sin.

[quote=Catholic Encyclopedia, Sin]This distinction is based upon the difference between the objective elements (object itself, circumstances) and the subjective (advertence to the sinfulness of the act). An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin
[/quote]

Based on the definition above, the person in your example did not contravene the Divine Law, unless you are trying to imply that there is a Divine Law about being mistaken about facts. The theft of intellectual property (illegal sharing, for instance) is a much better example, since that does contravene divine law, although many people do not realize it.

It --the CE -states:

Yes it is a mistake in matter of fact - sure. But that is the point that is what the CE is talking about in the example.

“An action which, as a matter of fact, is contrary to the Divine law but is not known to be such by the agent constitutes a material sin; whereas formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin”

It -the CE_states then:

“Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin”

That is their example!

End of CE discussion. It says what I noted.

But there is no need to continue on this for this gets off the topic somewhat.

The only way I can think of that a person can be culpable for something that they do not know is objectively a sin is through willful ignorance. God bless you.

Catechism:

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

scborromeo.org/ccc/ccc_toc.htm

There can be yes culpability in ignorance. And there can be cases where there is no culpability in ignorance -the evil is not “imputed” to him - they do not “sin” (actual sin). But the thing remains still an evil a disorder (a material sin).

I already was aware of all of the above. God bless you.

You are right, and I am wrong on that example, as far as their authority is concerned. My apologies. I’d still like to now argue with both of you, but if so I’ll make another thread. :slight_smile:

yes of course. Was pointing it out for the thread. In conjunction to your discussion.

For the original poster:

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=12249993&postcount=13

Thanks.:slight_smile:

Yes, Bookcat, thank you. I am only concerned with the sin we normally talk about–actual sin or personal sin. I am not concerned with material sin.

The question has been answered to my satisfaction.

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.