In confession do you have to state that you committed a mortal sin on a Sunday? Is this analogous to saying that you stole from a church rather than just stealing?

Can you commit the mortal sin of reviling (also known as contumely) without saying anything out loud? I'm not talking about something like an efficacious desire to revile someone, but can you commit the sin of reviling itself just by thinking?

I know that if you commit a mortal sin against your parents you have to state that in confession. >"Sins opposed to piety are specifically distinct sins from those which offend against charity or justice. Therefore, they must be given distinct mention in confession; thus, for example, to strike one's own father and to strike another man are specifically distinct sins. Any offense contrary to piety between those who are **distantly** related to each other... does not change the moral species of the sin." (Handbook of Moral Theology by Dominic Prummer) But is there a specific limit to how far out the sin of impiety reaches so that you would have to state it?

Why isn't every venial sin the mortal sin of scandal? If someone knows you are Catholic and sees you commit a venial sin, wouldn't that be scandal? Where do you draw the line? Or is this like lying where it can be a venial sin but there's no test to know so you have to assume it's always a mortal sin in practice?

Note that my question is asking about married couples, not just any two people engaging in intercourse. According to the Catholic Church, would a husband in wife be in sin if they committed any of the following acts: 1. Anal sex 2. Oral sex (Manual sex) 3. Sex during pregnancy with knowledge of that pregnancy. 4. Sex after menopause. The reason I ask for these is because it seems that birth control is immoral since it leaves out the openness to life. So what about these circumstances? Also, perhaps one could add whether or not these are mortal or venial sins?

A mortal sin requires 3 things: grave matter, full knowledge, and deliberate consent. As finite beings, we cannot fully know God--this is stated by the apophatic tradition which includes Aquinas and Dionysus the Areopagite. Thus, we cannot know with absolute certainty what God considers a grave matter. The Catholic Church has not put together an infallible list of grave matters. Even if we were sure that God considered something a grave matter, we could not be absolutely sure that any specific act is an example of that grave matter. Stabbing someone in one instance is murder; in another, it is surgery. Is sex with a concubine adultery? We cannot know all the subconscious drives or instincts which contribute to any of our decisions. We are not in absolute control of our actions. Much of our choice is based on unconscious survival instincts of which we are not aware inherited from our ancestors. Untreated PTSD can trigger violent acts. We don't know how much systemic or cultural forces are contributing to our choice. For instance, stealing drugs when there is no national program to reduce prices might be a mitigating factor. I might not be aware of my racism because I'm living in a racist community. We can't overcome our limited knowledge of God. We can't fully know the nature of any specific act. Psychology and social science show we are not in full control of any of our decisions. No amount of deliberation can overcome unconscious or cultural forces. We cannot, of our own will, overcome concupiscence. Therefore, finite beings cannot fulfill the conditions for mortal sin. Right?

When I was a child, I attended a Catholic summer camp where the majority of campers were not baptized and did not profess any faith. This camp held weekly celebrations of mass, and distributed the Eucharist to everyone present, despite knowing that many did not have any belief in Christ. Is this is mortal sin and perhaps a sacrilege?

According to Catholic teaching, would it be a mortal sin if a Catholic were to knowingly pass on their sickness to another person? For example, say that a Catholic has an important project that they have been working on at their workplace and he/she is very close to finishing this project, however, he/she unfortunately comes down with the flu and so he/she needs to take time off from work to recover from the flu. Say that this Catholic were to then decide to return to work before he/she has fully recovered from the flu, because he/she is afraid or paranoid that their project will fail due to their absence, and he/she believes that a failed project could lead to them being terminated from their job. A few days later, several of his/her coworkers come down with the flu and they have to miss work due to coming down with the flu. Has this Catholic commited a mortal sin by knowingly passing on the flu to his/her coworkers?

In the following quote from the Catechism, it seems to imply that you can repent of a mortal sin after death. How does that fit with the standard "Once damned always damned after death" view that the Catholic church teaches elsewhere? > Suicide > > 2280 Everyone is responsible for his life before God who has given it > to him. It is God who remains the sovereign Master of life. We are > obliged to accept life gratefully and preserve it for his honor and > the salvation of our souls. We are stewards, not owners, of the life > God has entrusted to us. It is not ours to dispose of. > > 2281 Suicide contradicts the natural inclination of the human being to > preserve and perpetuate his life. It is gravely contrary to the just > love of self. It likewise offends love of neighbor because it unjustly > breaks the ties of solidarity with family, nation, and other human > societies to which we continue to have obligations. Suicide is > contrary to love for the living God. > > 2282 If suicide is committed with the intention of setting an example, > especially to the young, it also takes on the gravity of scandal. > Voluntary co-operation in suicide is contrary to the moral law. > > Grave psychological disturbances, anguish, or grave fear of hardship, > suffering, or torture can diminish the responsibility of the one > committing suicide. > > **2283 We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who > have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can > provide the opportunity for salutary repentance. The Church prays for > persons who have taken their own lives.** I'm curious about the phrase "salutary repentance". Does this mean that someone in Hell can repent?

A rough estimate of the time will do. To refer to mortal sins, the *Catechism of the Catholic Church* uses *peccatum mortale* ([CCC 1856-1857](https://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism_lt/p3s1c1a8_lt.htm#ARTICULUS%208%C2%A0%20PECCATUM)) , as does Saint Thomas Aquinas ([ST II-I Q88](http://www.logicmuseum.com/wiki/Authors/Thomas_Aquinas/Summa_Theologiae/Part_IIa/Q88) cf. [New Advent](https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm)) . However, the Code of Canon Law refers to *peccati gravis* ([Can 916](https://canonlaw.ninja/?v=sbs&nums=916)) . These are translated mortal sin and grave sin, respectively. In my experience, many people will make a distinction between grave sin, which is a sin of grave matter, and mortal sin, which is a sin of grave matter carried out with full knowledge and intention. But St. Thomas says in the same question cited above, article 6: >Nevertheless a sin which is generically mortal, can become venial by reason of the imperfection of the act, because then it does not completely fulfil the conditions of a moral act, since it is not a deliberate, but a sudden act, as is evident from what we have said above (Article 2). This happens by a kind of subtraction, namely, of deliberate reason. And since a moral act takes its species from deliberate reason, the result is that by such a subtraction the species of the act is destroyed. This seems to me to indicate that he thought mortal sin just referred to any sin which constituted grave matter, and that those sins could be made venial instead of mortal because of a lack of knowledge or intention, any circumstance which provides "subtraction... of deliberate reason." Because of this, I'm suspicious of the term "***peccatum gravis***,” or "grave sin." I suspect it is a modernist invention meant to muddy the waters on sin and confuse the faithful into thinking that they can generally still be saved when in habitual mortal sin. This is verified when I hear anecdotes about priests telling penitents that they may receive communion prior to confession of "grave sins" because those sins are habitual, and thus not really *mortal* sins. Of course, even this advice appears to contradict the plain words of canon law, which appears to me as even further evidence that this distinction was introduced in order to confuse. Does any pre-modern orthodox theologian, especially a Doctor of the Church, use the term "***peccatum gravis***?" And do they use it in this manner?

I heard that if martyrs denied Christ when forced under the punishment of death, the sin would not count since it was not freely chosen. Basically, they wouldn't commit a mortal sin since the mortal sin requires freedom of choice. But some theologians disagree and supposedly they would still have to repent and confess their sin. What is the Catholic perspective on this? If it's not a sin why were the martyrs willing to die if denying wouldn't be even considered rejection of their faith under this circumstance?

From what I have read, Catholics either are or are not in a state of grace. There's no grey area in between. Anyone living in an abject state of mortal sin according to the Church incurs a "judgment" by receiving communion unworthily. At the same time, they are still obligated to attend mass every Sunday (while abstaining from communion, of course). Suppose one person dies in a state of mortal sin, having attended weekly mass and abstained from communion. A second person also dies in mortal sin. This second person hardly ever attended mass, and when they did, they profaned the Eucharist by receiving it unworthily. That said, neither one is in a state of grace, so is one better of than the other?

In light of the current media trend of reporting and resorting to fake news and gossiping, and some netizens are somehow careless in becoming an instruments to spread it. Some social media users already have a habit of not making a diligent effort to verify the truthfulness of the news, and a lot of people who post on comments even link the fake news and worst posted it on their channels, clearly either unaware or intentionally to malign the character of a person. The subject of fake news usually is a recipient of character assassination and maligning one's dignity. The common habits in social media is sharing or posting "Fake News" and gossiping "Fake News" both action will end up damaging the subject's/person's character. **Has the Catholic Church particularly cited or considered sharing "Fake News" and gossiping "Fake News" as a griveous/mortal offense to God commandments especially if this common thing/actions in the mainstream & social media becomes habitual?**

As far as I know, a mass said by a priest who has lost friendship with God (in the state of mortal sin) is valid by the principle of [ex opere operato](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_opere_operato#In_the_Catholic_Church) , justified by the resolution of the [Donatist controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donatism) deciding on the side of the sacraments performed are still efficacious. If my understanding is correct, it's Christ himself who is the author of the sacrament, who in principle can make the matter and the form of the sacrament (the *Sacramentum Tantum*) STILL be the causal instrument of grace to the recipient, making the sacraments efficacious. But if generally, a mortal sin causes the loss of not only the sacramental effects (*Res Tantum*) but also the *sacramental character* (*Res et Sacramentum*), doesn't this mean that the mortal sin also has an effect on Holy Orders? My question is: **How does Catholic Sacramental theology explain the efficacy of sacraments performed by a priest in the state of mortal sin?** Maybe I was wrong to say that the mortal sin affects the *sacramental character*. Maybe the sacramental character is never removed. One explanation is that mortal sin [introduces an obstacle](https://holytrinityelo.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Week-6-The-Tri-Partite-of-Baptism.pdf) (*obex*). But this introduces other questions: - If the sacramental character is never removed but there is an *obex*, **what exactly is blocked within the priest if the Eucharist / Baptism offered / performed are still to be efficacious**? - Similarly, if the sacramental character is never removed, does it mean that when we commit mortal sin, the life of the Holy Spirit given at Baptism never leaves us, but only the effects (virtues, gifts, actual grace, etc.) cannot flow to us? How do we reconcile the seemingly incongruent idea that the life of the Holy Spirit can coexist with the state of mortal sin? ----- For a background explanation of the Catholic tri-partite theory of sacrament, see attachment to a [related question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/86611/10672) .

According to Catholicism, an act of heresy is a mortal sin. > "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same ... Catechism of the Catholic Church #2089 In particular, dogmatic statements end with warnings that not accepting the dogma results in falling away from the Catholic faith. For example, > Hence if anyone, which God forbid, should dare willfully to deny or to call into doubt that which we have defined, let him know that he has fallen away completely from the divine and Catholic Faith. Munificentissimus Deus #45 Why is this the case? Why do matters of doctrine result in loss of salvation?

This is actually not a speculative question! :) An act committed with mere knowledge is not a mortal sin--it must be full knowledge. So, what is the difference between mere knowledge and the full knowledge required for a mortal sin? Where's the cutoff? I don't know if this needs to be a second question--what's the difference between mere consent, which does not result in a mortal sin, and complete consent, which does? What's the cutoff? The Catechism gives a partial answer: 1862 One commits venial sin when. . .he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent. But it doesn't give a cutoff point for knowledge or consent. What's the cutoff? When does knowledge become the "full knowledge" and consent "complete consent" required for mortal sin? And how could I be absolutely sure I crossed that line?

Since some non-Catholic baptisms are valid, and thereby remit original sin and confer sanctifying grace, there would therefore be some non-Catholics who are in a state of grace. Cf. https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/54951/do-the-conditions-for-mortal-sin-apply-to-non-catholics and https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/58998/how-can-a-non-catholic-get-into-state-of-grace-as-understood-by-the-catholic-chu I ask this question, because it is not quite answered in either of the linked questions. Note that this question is not not asking if a non-Catholic can commit a *grave sin,* but rather if such a person can fulfill the other two conditions required to lose the state of grace, namely 1. Full advertence [attention] on the part of the intellect 2. Full consent on the part of the will [1]

For example: 1. An alcoholic decides to go to an event with an open bar (participates in near occasion of sin). 2. The alcoholic decides that he will not directly go to the bar and request a drink (avoids clear mortal sin). 3. The alcoholic decides that if anyone offers him a drink, he will accept it (openness to the possibility of sin). 4. No one ever offers him a drink and the alcoholic remains sober the entire night (avoidance of clear mortal sin). It seems to me that there is something mortally wrong with putting #1 and #3 together despite #2 and the end result being #4. However, looking at the definition of mortal sin Im running into a problem: 1. Its subject matter must be grave. 2. It must be **committed** with full knowledge (and awareness) of the sinful action and the gravity of the offense. 3. It must be **committed** with deliberate and complete consent The above example checks all three boxes but the mortally sinful act was never actually **committed**.

If one, faced with the threat of being burned alive, denied Christ, would his sin be mortal? It seems that it was treated as such in history, but how can this be so in light of CCC 1859 which says that 'complete consent' is needed for a sin to be mortal?

The Catholic Church has defined criteria for when a sin is a mortal sin: 1. The sin is grave. 2. It's committed with full knowledge of the sin and its gravity. 3. It's committed with deliberate and complete consent. However, many of the sins that the Church has at some point described as grave are on a spectrum of severity and must be subjectively judged. E.g., cheating at a game can be grave if it's severe enough (how severe is that?), wages have to be just or else underpaying someone counts as grave (how does one know the threshold?), hatred and envy are grave if one wishes great harm to another person (how great? does one have to wish for the harm to actually happen, or just enjoy the thought?), lying can be grave depending on details, and so on. My question is, how can one know when the threshold is met and a sin is grave? Is this enforced or defined in any regulating, normative way, or is it just left to the opinions of the clergy?