"Grave Sin" = Mortal Sin

[Eucharisted]

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.

JIMMY AKIN.ORG: "Grave Sin" = Mortal Sin

 

[Dark_Lite]

I'm gonna go with what the Catechism says rather than the speculation of some blogger. Not to mention that "grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin" does not mean "grave condition = mortal sin." He is taking a logical leap here. I posit that clause more accurately means "grave conditions are often also mortal sins" or "in practice, the words are used interchangeably."

The doctrine is explicitly spelled out in the Catechism. If what this blogger claims is true actually was true, it would be a biiiiit more publicized than just showing up on his blog methinks.

Edit: See http://www.christianforums.com/t7464724/#post54641063 for updated thoughts.

 

[Eucharisted]

I'm gonna go with what the Catechism says rather than the speculation of some blogger. Not to mention that "grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin" does not mean "grave condition = mortal sin." He is taking a logical leap here. I posit that clause more accurately means "grave conditions are often also mortal sins" or "in practice, the words are used interchangeably."

The doctrine is explicitly spelled out in the Catechism. If what this blogger claims is true actually was true, it would be a biiiiit more publicized than just showing up on his blog methinks.

The Catechism is awesome

 

[BAFRIEND]

I'm gonna go with what the Catechism says rather than the speculation of some blogger. Not to mention that "grave sin is in practice identified with mortal sin" does not mean "grave condition = mortal sin." He is taking a logical leap here. I posit that clause more accurately means "grave conditions are often also mortal sins" or "in practice, the words are used interchangeably."

The doctrine is explicitly spelled out in the Catechism. If what this blogger claims is true actually was true, it would be a biiiiit more publicized than just showing up on his blog methinks.

buti thought right there in the OP that JPII states that is wrong to make that distinction, or did i read it wrong

is JPII any blogger

 

[Eucharisted]

buti thought right there in the OP that JPII states that is wrong to make that distinction, or did i read it wrong

is JPII any blogger

Here is the Pope's words: Reconciliation and Penance - John Paul II - Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation (December 2, 1984)

 

[Dark_Lite]

Here is the Pope's words: Reconciliation and Penance - John Paul II - Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation (December 2, 1984)

I may have actually misunderstood the blog post. The blogger seems to be arguing against calling these sins "grave sins." If he is arguing that there are only two categories, venial and mortal, and that a mortal sin still requires all 3 conditions, then he is correct. If he is saying that a mortal sin does not require all 3 conditions, then I don't see him being right.

 

[Eucharisted]

I may have actually misunderstood the blog post. The blogger seems to be arguing against calling these sins "grave sins." If he is arguing that there are only two categories, venial and mortal, and that a mortal sin still requires all 3 conditions, then he is correct. If he is saying that a mortal sin does not require all 3 conditions, then I don't see him being right.

 

[SpiritualAntiseptic]

Jimmy Akin is a blogger that really has no authority, training or education to discuss complex Church issues. Yet, he is often cited like he were a theologian or canon lawyer.

I'm really not sure why he is arguing that particular point and he demonstrates quite the inability to engage in even the most basic level of comprehension on the issue. When one commits a sin, it is either venial or mortal. Mortal means that the sin has completely cut off the relationship with God and the Church. When one commits a sin that is a grave matter, that is, a 'grave sin' then it can either be venial or mortal depending on the circumstances surrounding it.

I don't know why that seems so complicated for Jimmy. Even in his black and white view of theology that should make sense. Maybe he wants his fans to be scrupulous? It's also quite dangerous, suggesting that people can completely break themselves away from God without consent.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I've always understood them to be the same thing. If someone is gravely ill, they are in danger of death.

Something can be objectively sinful but not subjectively sinful if the intention was not there or there is a lack of culpability, thus it offends God and causes damage but the individual is not held accountable for it.