Sin or No Sin ?

[Credo in Deum]

46 minutes ago, Peace said:

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

Sure he might do that if you're not an idiot. However, idiots are not culpable of sin.  His conscience, because of his idiocy, is malformed.  Just like the moron who thinks he is displeasing God by not eating dog poo. Would you think the person would be culpable of sin if they stopped eating dog poo just because their conscience told them that to not eat dog poo would be to go against a commandment of God? 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Credo in Deum

[Peace]

11 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sure he might do that if you're not an idiot. However, idiots are not culpable of sin.  His conscience, because of his idiocy, is malformed.  Just like the moron who thinks he is displeasing God by not eating dog poo. Would you think the person would be culpable of sin if they stopped eating dog poo just because their conscience told them that to not eat dog poo would be to go against a commandment of God? 

Your hypothetical is a bit difficult to answer because you are seemingly bringing another factor into it (mental illness) that was not presented in my hypothetical.

In other words, your hypothetical is difficult because it does not seem very likely for a person to draw the conclusion that eating dog poo is necessary unless the person were suffering from mental illness.  This is not true with my hypothetical. As you can see from the Bible passage that I quoted above, apparently some of the early Christians (former Jews) had concluded that they were still forbidden to eat certain things. That does not make them idiots or mentally ill. But it does mean that their consciousness were misinformed.

But to answer your question the best that I can, if a person who was not mentally ill somehow came to the conclusion that God required him to eat dog poo, then I think he would be bound by it. I think he would commit sin by not eating the dog poo.  I think that the sin would be venial because of the significant duress involved in eating dog poo. Doing such a thing is obviously terrible for one's health and biologically repulsive to us. . .

[Papist]

1 hour ago, Credo in Deum said:

Sure he might do that if you're not an idiot. However, idiots are not culpable of sin.  His conscience, because of his idiocy, is malformed.  Just like the moron who thinks he is displeasing God by not eating dog poo. Would you think the person would be culpable of sin if they stopped eating dog poo just because their conscience told them that to not eat dog poo would be to go against a commandment of God? 

One's conscious not being formed properly, does not automatically make one an idiot. Ignorant maybe, not necessarily an idiot.  

Unless you are mentally deficient, which I do not believe is the case in the OP,  you need to obey your conscience...even if malformed.  Is this not Church teaching?  So, you saying a mentally sound person intentionally disobeying his conscience is not sinning?  

[Gabriela]

The problem is, we are all constantly putting ourselves before God. Constantly. Not a single one of us loves God with all our heart, soul, and strength. We're miserable like that.

So his failing is a very human one. Yes, he did something he thought was against God's commands, and he did it intentionally. That's bad. But what he did—the actual consumption of the pork—was not really a sin, so all he did was what every one of us does every day: Put his satisfaction before God's.

If that's mortal, God help us all.

[NadaTeTurbe]

This is the most jesuit thing I've read today. 

[Seven77]

 It all comes down to the fact that it must be a grave matter if it can be considered to be a mortal sin… sure, in the hypothetical situation it is a sin… but it's not mortal

a grave matter is a grave matter whether you know it or not… likewise, something not grave is not grave whether you know it or not.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Seven77

[Peace]

33 minutes ago, Gabriela said:

The problem is, we are all constantly putting ourselves before God. Constantly. Not a single one of us loves God with all our heart, soul, and strength.

Speak for yourself! Didn't you hear about my recent canonization?

Quote

So his failing is a very human one. Yes, he did something he thought was against God's commands, and he did it intentionally. That's bad. But what he did—the actual consumption of the pork—was not really a sin, so all he did was what every one of us does every day: Put his satisfaction before God's.

If that's mortal, God help us all.

But putting something before God is a sin. One might consider it the PRIMARY sin in a sense. It is basically a form of idolatry I think.

27 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 It all comes down to the fact that it must be a grave matter if it can be considered to be a mortal sin… sure, in the hypothetical situation it is a sin… but it's not mortal

a grave matter is a grave matter whether you know it or not… likewise, something not grave is not grave whether you know it or not.

I think it can be grave. Could it be a form of idolatry? Consider the following for example:

Philippians 3:18-20English Standard Version (ESV)

 

18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

The guy in my hypo seems to have bowed down to the altar of ribs, if you will . . .

[Papist]

1 hour ago, Gabriela said:

The problem is, we are all constantly putting ourselves before God. Constantly. Not a single one of us loves God with all our heart, soul, and strength. We're miserable like that.

So his failing is a very human one. Yes, he did something he thought was against God's commands, and he did it intentionally. That's bad. But what he did—the actual consumption of the pork—was not really a sin, so all he did was what every one of us does every day: Put his satisfaction before God's.

If that's mortal, God help us all.

It is not mortal.  The sin is not a grave matter. 

Edited July 7, 2016 by Papist

[Seven77]

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

Speak for yourself! Didn't you hear about my recent canonization?

 I thought you were a Blessed? I keep hearing about Blessed Peace.

25 minutes ago, Peace said:

But putting something before God is a sin. One might consider it the PRIMARY sin in a sense. It is basically a form of idolatry I think.

I think it can be grave. Could it be a form of idolatry? Consider the following for example:

Philippians 3:18-20English Standard Version (ESV)

 

 

 

18 For many, of whom I have often told you and now tell you even with tears, walk as enemies of the cross of Christ. 19 Their end is destruction, their god is their belly, and they glory in their shame, with minds set on earthly things. 20 But our citizenship is in heaven, and from it we await a Savior, the Lord Jesus Christ,

The guy in my hypo seems to have bowed down to the altar of ribs, if you will . . .

 If the guy in your scenario eats the share of the man who is literally starving… I guess the thing can become grave…  or if he tries to commit suicide by eating 3 packs of bacon.

[Anomaly]

25 minutes ago, Papist said:

It is not mortal.  The sin is not a grave matter. 

I know it's hypothetical and may be hyberbolic, but in the scenario the guy believes it's a grave matter and is clear about it being wrong, but eats pork any way without any qualifications.

With full knowledge and consent of will, he is purposely putting eating ribs before obeying in what he believes is a grave matter.

Kinda like you get graded on a curve if you are invincibly ignorant, but in reverse.

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.

Edited July 7, 2016 by Anomaly

[Peace]

29 minutes ago, Seven77 said:

 I thought you were a Blessed? I keep hearing about Blessed Peace.

 If the guy in your scenario eats the share of the man who is literally starving… I guess the thing can become grave…  or if he tries to commit suicide by eating 3 packs of bacon.

Nope. Sorry. I am not saying that he is guilty of theft. In my hypo there are plenty of ribs going around for everyone. If there were this many ribs in the book of Genesis Adam would have had 7 or 8 wives. We are talking about a lot of ribs.

I am saying that he may have violated the 1st commandment.

[Credo in Deum]

6 hours ago, Peace said:

Your hypothetical is a bit difficult to answer because you are seemingly bringing another factor into it (mental illness) that was not presented in my hypothetical.

In other words, your hypothetical is difficult because it does not seem very likely for a person to draw the conclusion that eating dog poo is necessary unless the person were suffering from mental illness.  This is not true with my hypothetical. As you can see from the Bible passage that I quoted above, apparently some of the early Christians (former Jews) had concluded that they were still forbidden to eat certain things. That does not make them idiots or mentally ill. But it does mean that their consciousness were misinformed.

But to answer your question the best that I can, if a person who was not mentally ill somehow came to the conclusion that God required him to eat dog poo, then I think he would be bound by it. I think he would commit sin by not eating the dog poo.  I think that the sin would be venial because of the significant duress involved in eating dog poo. Doing such a thing is obviously terrible for one's health and biologically repulsive to us. . .

Given the mans internal dialogue with himself in your OP, I'm convinced he's mentally ill. 

[Peace]

3 minutes ago, Credo in Deum said:

Given the mans internal dialogue with himself in your OP, I'm convinced he's mentally ill. 

Heh. Either that, or they were some AWFULLY tasty looking ribs!

[Nihil Obstat]

Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent. This situation does not seem to involve grave matter, so it seems not to meet the criteria.

[Peace]

1 minute ago, Nihil Obstat said:

Mortal sin requires grave matter, full knowledge, deliberate consent. This situation does not seem to involve grave matter, so it seems not to meet the criteria.

I think that is the question.  Are grave matters limited to an enumerated list of actions "murder, rape, adultery" etc., or can a person's intention turn an otherwise benign action into a grave matter? I do not see why not.

For example, you point a gun at someone and pull the trigger, fully intending to kill the person. That is pretty bad right? I think you should do some serious jail time, even if unbeknown to you the gun was empty and the action of you pulling the trigger itself turned out to be completely harmless.

Should the person not have to go to jail only because he did not succeed in his desire to kill someone?