Sin or No Sin ?

[Peace]

Let's say a Catholic is poorly catechized, reads parts of the Bible in his spare time, and incorrectly comes to the firm conclusion that it is a grave sin and contrary to a direct commandment of God for a Catholic to eat pork. Otherwise known as swine to our Canadian friends.

Then at a July 4th BBQ party the same Catholic sees the perfect rack of ribs on the grill. He says to himself "Well. If eating pork is wrong then I don't want to be right!" He then says "God. I love you, but these ribs. These ribs man! They are too tasty. Sorry to disobey. It is what it is."

He eats the ribs fully believing that to do so is a sin against God.

Does the Catholic sin?

If so, what commandment is violated?  Mortal or venial?

Or does he not sin because in actuality he is not forbidden to eat pork?

I tend to think that he sins, but I am not quite sure what sin he is guilty of. Thoughts?

[KnightofChrist]

In other words, is it possible to sin against a malformed conscience? 

[Luigi]

No sin.

1. He has not violated any commandments or laws of the Church.

2. As you say in the set-up, he "incorrectly comes to the firm conclusion..."

3. His attitude might be indicative of a certain weakness of will - if, in this case, he'd disregard what he thinks is a commandment, then what other commandments would he disregard? - but no sin has been committed. At the very worst, he's not living by his own precepts.

[Credo in Deum]

No sin. He's just an idiot. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I am not sure you are clear on things relating to Canada...

[Anomaly]

I would say he committed a mortal sin.    He violated the first commandment with willful intent.   Wether he was in error or not about eating pork, he understood it as honoring God foremost.   He did not change his mind about eating pork, but did change his mind about being obedient to God. 

He acted with intent to disobey and chose wrong.   Purposely choosing to do wrong supersedes the mistake of the act technically not being wrong. 

Regardless of being atheist or a theist, you form a conscience and discern right from wrong.  He clearly is violating a higher principle of good for a base fulfillment.  Arguing technical aspects later does not justify his intentions or understanding at the moment.  

Edited July 7, 2016 by Anomaly

[Gabriela]

Yeah, but doesn't sin actually have a relationship to the truth? I mean, if it is true that to eat pork is to sin, then it's possible for a pork eater to sin. But if it is not true that to eat pork is a sin, then it's not possible for a pork eater to sin (unless he eat gluttonously, but then it's not the pork that's the problem).

We say that charity is only charity if it is charity in truth. So isn't sinning only sinning if it's sinning "in truth"?

[Anomaly]

It's two actions.  1- Eating pork and 2- intentionally doing what your conscience tells you is wrong.  

He isn't sinning by eating pork.   He is sinning by knowingly doing "something" he believes is wrong.

[Gabriela]

Right. I got that. But at best that's venial, because his conscience is poorly formed. A mortal sin requires grave matter, and the truth of pork is that it is not grave but only delicious matter.

KoC summed this one up perfectly:

12 hours ago, KnightofChrist said:

In other words, is it possible to sin against a malformed conscience? 

[Credo in Deum]

Thankfully God his merciful and doesn't punish us for being stupid. 

[vee]

If the person thinks Canadians call pork swine then the person isnt too brilliant to begin with. 

"Whats for supper tonight, Mom?"

"Just some swine chops dear."

Said no Canadian ever.

[Anomaly]

14 hours ago, Peace said:

Let's say a Catholic is poorly catechized, reads parts of the Bible in his spare time, and incorrectly comes to the firm conclusion that it is a grave sin and contrary to a direct commandment of God for a Catholic to eat pork. Otherwise known as swine to our Canadian friends.

Then at a July 4th BBQ party the same Catholic sees the perfect rack of ribs on the grill. He says to himself "Well. If eating pork is wrong then I don't want to be right!" He then says "God. I love you, but these ribs. These ribs man! They are too tasty. Sorry to disobey. It is what it is."

He eats the ribs fully believing that to do so is a sin against God.

Does the Catholic sin?

If so, what commandment is violated?  Mortal or venial?

Or does he not sin because in actuality he is not forbidden to eat pork?

I tend to think that he sins, but I am not quite sure what sin he is guilty of. Thoughts?

In the scenario above, he stil willfully sinned against God and his conscience.   There is a slight difference of outcome if pork was forbidden.  Just as is there is a difference between attempted first degree murder by attempting poisoning by red skittles if you really thought the person was allergic to them, but they weren't. 

He violated the first commandment by putting pork ribs before God    Pork ribs or golden calf, it doesn't matter.   In the example he said "God. I love you, but these ribs...."

sheesh.    Ya gotta have some integrity.    Just following the letter of the law is not the final say, said Jesus as he plucked a wheat in the sabbath. 

 

[Papist]

Does the Church not teach we are morally required to follow our conscience?

[Anomaly]

Just now, Papist said:

Does the Church not teach we are morally required to follow our conscience?

The argument is that his conscience is mistaken.  No harm, no foul. Pork is okay  

My point is he is violating the first commandment. Also, the first half of Jesus' commandment.  Matthew 22:35-40.   You shall love the Lord thy God with all your heart, soul, and mind.  He is willfully acting contrary to his mind and dividing his heart   

 

[Peace]

1 hour ago, vee said:

If the person thinks Canadians call pork swine then the person isnt too brilliant to begin with. 

"Whats for supper tonight, Mom?"

"Just some swine chops dear."

Said no Canadian ever.

Just kidding of course. I am pretty sure that only the NOI calls it swine.

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Thankfully God his merciful and doesn't punish us for being stupid. 

Sure. But He might punish you for going against your conscience. Those are different things.

Here I tend to think that the atheist is correct. You are putting the ribs before God, as tasty as they may be.

Let's say that a criminal sees a police officer, sneaks up on the police officer from behind, grabs his gun, points it directly at the police officer, and pulls the trigger.  But for whatever reason there were no bullets in the gun, making it impossible for the criminal to actually kill the police officer. Shouldn't the criminal be charged with attempted murder? His intent to kill the police officer is what makes him culpable, regardless of the fact that it was impossible to carry out the murder.

I would have to find something, but I would venture to say that an improper intent against God can also cause one to sin against God (but of course, there are some actions that are intrinsically evil, regardless of intention).

3 hours ago, Gabriela said:

Yeah, but doesn't sin actually have a relationship to the truth? I mean, if it is true that to eat pork is to sin, then it's possible for a pork eater to sin. But if it is not true that to eat pork is a sin, then it's not possible for a pork eater to sin (unless he eat gluttonously, but then it's not the pork that's the problem).

We say that charity is only charity if it is charity in truth. So isn't sinning only sinning if it's sinning "in truth"?

I dunno. It's not like there is anything intrinsically evil about eating an apple.  The sin was not so much eating the apple per se, but the intention of the person in eating the apple. The intention to disobey God or be like God was the crux of the sin I think. Whether God forbade Adam from eating an apple, an orange, or a stack of ribs is rather secondary I think . . .

I think that intention does matter.

How about this?

Romans 14:13-23 English Standard Version (ESV)

Do Not Cause Another to Stumble

13 Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. 14 I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. 15 For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. 16 So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. 17 For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. 18 Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. 19 So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual up building.

20 Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. 21 It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble.[a] 22 The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. 23 But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.