(07-25-2012, 08:46 AM)moonlight1987 Wrote: If one thinks something is a sin which objectivey is no sin, and a person commits that sin with full consciece, does that mean that he sinned?
Only if one sinned.
This situation is too vague and so is the example.
Quote:For example: a man is convinced that it is wrong to touch a woman because the religous upbringig he received thaught him so. And he shakes a womans hand assuming it was a sin.
What religion?
Sin is an offense against God, not oneself. False religions are a different issue. It does not matter if it is a sin within a false religion. One is outside the Church and separated from God's grace.
If one has a mistaken teaching, such as that failing to genuflect properly when physically able to do so in church is a sin, and one willfully does not genuflect with this knowledge, then the sin is not in the act, but in the intent. Just as a person who intends to deceive, but is actually speaking the truth (thinking it to be false) still sins, intending to sin, yet failing in completing it is still a sin.
However, if something is falsely taught to be a sin and one discovers or rationally suspects it is not, and does not intend to sin, but no longer believes what he has been taught, then it is likely not a grave sin (if at all) because one is not intending to sin. For example, if the same person taught improperly about genuflecting were to realise that this cannot be a grave matter in general, and does not genuflect on purpose, but only because he does not think it is a sin, then it wouldn't be a sin.
EDIT: This may sound like that one can get around actual moral theology by merely intending not to sin while doing something which is sinful, but this is not some legal technicality, but an internal matter and God knows the will and what one knows. A person can try to convince themselves that the binding law of the Church does not apply to them, but no matter how they try to justify it, it won't work. However, if a person honestly believes the law does not apply (ie, dispensation from the Sunday obligation), and it happened that it did, it would not be a sin. But this would involve true ignorance or a mistake, not some mental gymnastics.
Quote:Same situation with another man,the difference is that this man does not think it is a sin beause his religion thought him so, but he is convinced it is a sin because he is scrupulous. Isn't it that both have sinned in this situation because both are convinced they were comiting a sin, or could you say that one suffering from scruples never is totally convinced that their scruples are sinfull?
People afflicted with scruples should consult their spiritual director. It is a serious spiritual problem and not fit for discussion online.
Sins require knowledge and intent as well as the matter.