Subjective sin and absolution

[seebs]

Okay, so, I'm a little unclear on this, but how does the notion of objective sin interact with absolution? In particular, imagine that I do something which is objectively sinful, but not known to me to be sinful when I do it, and there is no subjective sin. I go to confession, where I presumably do not confess this thing, because I know of no sin, and I am absolved.

After that, I find out about the objectively sinful nature of the action, so...
1. Does this now create subjective sin in my earlier choice?
2. Am I already absolved of this thing, too?
3. Was I absolved of it before I even knew it was wrong?
4. Should I confess it now anyway?

It seems to me that there are some cases where new information could change whether or not something was sinful retroactively. (e.g., if you get an annullment, you never had a marriage, so you obviously didn't have a divorce.)

 

[Carrye]

Okay, so, I'm a little unclear on this, but how does the notion of objective sin interact with absolution? In particular, imagine that I do something which is objectively sinful, but not known to me to be sinful when I do it, and there is no subjective sin. I go to confession, where I presumably do not confess this thing, because I know of no sin, and I am absolved.

After that, I find out about the objectively sinful nature of the action, so...
1. Does this now create subjective sin in my earlier choice?
2. Am I already absolved of this thing, too?
3. Was I absolved of it before I even knew it was wrong?
4. Should I confess it now anyway?

You would already be absolved, but might want to confess it the next time you went. Your lack of knowledge would preclude the sin from being mortal, and so wouldn't technically have needed to be confessed anyway (as venial sins are dealt with in the pentitential rite at every Mass as well).

 

[ProCommunioneFacior]

If you commit an objective sin without subjective knowledge then it is a venial sin and not a mortal sin. Retroactive knowledge does not change this, you have to have knowledge at the time of the sin. During cofession the sin is absolved, even those that you do not know about or forgot about. However, once a year I like to make a General Confession, even though they have been forgiven, I like to ask God to continue to give me the grace to purge the effects of these sins and to heal me and others from the wounds these sins caused.

If a sin has been forgiven and later remembered, I personally confess it. Confessing a sin has a tremendous humbling effect and thus I find it helpful to confess a sin that I may have forgotten or did not realize.

 

[Michelina]

To add to what our budding Theologians have said:

It is not necessary but still a good practice to confess such sins because the graces of the Sacrament will benefit you all the more if you do. The Sacrament not only absolves sin but also heals and fortifies the soul.

I didn't know you went to Confession, seebs!

 

[Benedicta00]

Seebs,

Sin is sin no matter what. If you commit a sin and you are not even aware that you did, it is still a sin and you are guilty but your guilt is venal and not mortal. That means that you did not kill the life of grace living in you, but you did wound it and you are in need of reparation.

It's like this, grave matter (which would be the objectiveness of the act), knowledge and willful consent kills our soul but grave matter with out the knowledge that it is grave or with out intent does not kill our souls but leaves our soul wounded/sick. The sin itself never went from objective to subjective or vise versa- it always was sin you committed and you are guilty of committing the sin but the effects it caused to your soul will depend on your knowledge and/or intent. Whether you killed your soul with a deliberate act against it or if you just wounded it with a unintentional act against it.

Does that make any sense to you? IOW, Grave matter is objective but that isn't per-say what makes you guilty of mortal sin which would mean you killing the life of grace living in you. Now once you are aware of what sins you did commit unknowingly or unwillingly, you should confess them even though they are venial as they were committed in the sight of God. That would be the reparation part.

 

[geocajun]

Seebs, I think your question has been answered very well, so I'll just add this - whenever you struggle with this question, remember the phrase "without consent, there is no sin".

 

[ps139]

The sin itself never went from objective to subjective or vise versa- it always was sin you committed and you are guilty of committing the sin but the effects it caused to your soul will depend on your knowledge and/or intent.

I think he meant by "subjective" is that the sin (every sin) is objectively sinful in the eyes of God, but if the person is unaware, then its somewhat "subjective" in that at the time it was committed, the person did not know it was a sin, therefore they are not required to confess that particular act - because how can you repent of that which you do not know exists?

 

[Michelina]

I know that women who have had abortions in pagan or atheistic periods of their earlier years often feel a strong desire to confess this sin. When they do, they receive tremendous healing of their newly awakened and informed consciences which regards such sins as the horrors they are.

Maybe someone could look this up: GKC once said that the main reason he wanted to become Catholic was so that he could know that his sins were forgiven.

 

[seebs]

I didn't know you went to Confession, seebs!

I don't, actually, but I figured I'd do the hypothetical without a really long and elaborate noun phrase.

I think there's an interesting difference here between different ways one might not know about a sin. For instance, iif we roll the clock back to before contraception pills were understood as well as they are now, you might have someone who actually, unknowingly, "had an abortion"... She might have believed abortion sinful, but not been aware that an actual conception occurred and was aborted. Or, you could have someone who did something, knowing he was doing it, but didn't realize it was sinful until later.

Very interesting responses, thanks! Something I find fascinating about Catholic teachings is that, more often than not, questions like this have already been considered and answered.

 

[geocajun]

Very interesting responses, thanks! Something I find fascinating about Catholic teachings is that, more often than not, questions like this have already been considered and answered.

I am sure then, you would love the style of the Summa Theolgica: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/

 

[seebs]

Heh. I was really down on Aquinas for a few years, until I realized that I'd somehow gotten him confused with Anselm.

 

[stray bullet]

I think he meant by "subjective" is that the sin (every sin) is objectively sinful in the eyes of God, but if the person is unaware, then its somewhat "subjective" in that at the time it was committed, the person did not know it was a sin, therefore they are not required to confess that particular act - because how can you repent of that which you do not know exists?

Though I wonder how it works for people who commit sins, knowing they are wrong in the eyes of the Church, but do not consider them immoral personally.

I have heard of gay and other Catholics who disagree with certain Church teachings and go to confession, but leave out the sins they disagree with the Church on because they do not believe they are sins..

 

[ps139]

Thats a good question stray. I do not know how that works. I can guess but then I can counter my answer, and then counter that and so on so maybe someone more qualified should answer.

There are some things I do not really understand why they are sins but I go by the motto "better be safe than sorry." Comparing the unimaginable glory and pure bliss of heaven to something which you don't know why its a sin... well I think that the scales of the mind should tip in Heaven's favor.

 

[Carrye]

Though I wonder how it works for people who commit sins, knowing they are wrong in the eyes of the Church, but do not consider them immoral personally.

Those are sins. I believe that's pretty cut-and-dry. I can say that the sky isn't blue all day, and it doesn't make it not-blue.

 

[stray bullet]

Those are sins. I believe that's pretty cut-and-dry. I can say that the sky isn't blue all day, and it doesn't make it not-blue.

Sure, but what kind of sin?

 

[Carrye]

Sure, but what kind of sin?

Depends on if it fulfills the requirements for mortal sin or not:

Grave Matter
Knowledge
Will/Consent

 

[seebs]

That's an interesting question. To stay away from hot-button issues, let's say that I spend a year or two studying the Bible, and I come to believe, for whatever wacky reason, that going to Mass every other week is acceptable, and that I have no reason or need to confess the sin. Which wins; the fact that I've obviously heard the Church teaching, or the fact that I have become convinced that it's not right?

I would tend to guess that the general absolution probably covers even fairly solid errors, as long as they are genuinely honest errors, but... I dunno.

(I may not see responses to this very quickly, but I really appreciate the answers so far.)

 

[stray bullet]

Depends on if it fulfills the requirements for mortal sin or not:

Grave Matter
Knowledge
Will/Consent

Whether it fulfills the requirements is precisely the question

 

[geocajun]

That's an interesting question. To stay away from hot-button issues, let's say that I spend a year or two studying the Bible, and I come to believe, for whatever wacky reason, that going to Mass every other week is acceptable, and that I have no reason or need to confess the sin. Which wins; the fact that I've obviously heard the Church teaching, or the fact that I have become convinced that it's not right?

I would tend to guess that the general absolution probably covers even fairly solid errors, as long as they are genuinely honest errors, but... I dunno.

(I may not see responses to this very quickly, but I really appreciate the answers so far.)

seebs, this is getting into the area of the human conscience - that is, the faculty of our minds which judges the moral quality of an act we are performing or will perform in the future. It is the teaching of the Church, that if you must always follow the certain judgement of your conscience - however if the judgement of your conscience is not certain, then you must follow the teaching of the Church on the matter.
That said, it is also the teaching of the Church that was is obliged to form their conscience in light of Church teaching, and that this is in fact a life-long task. If one does not spend the time forming their conscience, then they may be guilty for its erroneous judgement, even when it seems certain:

CCC-1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

CCC-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." In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

This section here in the CCC is related to this topic, and I highly suggest you read it for more information: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a6.htm

 

[geocajun]

Whether it fulfills the requirements is precisely the question

those requirements must be met at the time the sin is commited. If you did not have knowledge of the gravity of the matter, then you could not have consented to do it anyway, thus the individual doing it does not incur the guilt of a mortal sin.
Also for example, If some guy is holding a gun to your head, telling you to steal something or he will kill you - you would not be guilty of a mortal sin for stealing the thing, because you had no reasonable alternative, therefore you did not consent.

If all 3 are not present, together [at the time of the act], it is not a mortal sin, but rather a venial sin, provided it was a serious matter.

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."131

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

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.

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.