Can teenagers go to hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abigail_Lee
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
truetofaith said:
Yeah…I don’t care if you never even heard of God…who in their heart Doesn’t know it’s wrong to steal from another, rape & murder or lie to deceive someone :confused:

God put these laws in the caveman’s heart! :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I thought it was our Creator who was the judge of history!
 
MtnDwellar said:
“Through no fault of their own” is where the subjectivity can get involved. Is inherent stubbornness or an unwillingness to accept truth no fault of their own?

I would rather err to the side of safety and think the bar for invincible ignorance is high and relatively few people are excused from sin due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
I would err to both. On the one hand, I think it might be negliable for us to not put people off horrid crimes against our Creator by saying things are mortal, but on the other hand, I also think we have to be our own discerners and realise that there is greater sin in the man who has fuller knowledge and this can steer us away from judging others (not saying you do, btw). Thinking mercifully as the order of the day as opposed to condemning people in our hearts (a slippery slope). So a fine line, IMO.
 
friardchips said:
A lot of people attribute everything known to the Church, with St. Thomas Aquinas, and while I think he was right in many things, does not put him higher than current understanding in the RCC. I can immediately think of one detail he got wrong (not his fault, just born before it was revealed). If you are saying that St. Thomas Aquinas’ sensible reasoning explains the criteria in the CCC for mortal sin to be applicable in certain situations then that is different and we are indeed in dialogue.
Click to expand...
I was trying to define the sin of negligence and identify its source. When I used the term in an earlier post it was confused with negligible sin.

My main point is that if a person is ignorant of mortal sin, he may not be culpable for that sin, but may indeed be culpable for his own negligence and that negligence can be a mortal sin.
 
friardchips said:
I would err to both. On the one hand, I think it might be negliable for us to not put people off horrid crimes against our Creator by saying things are mortal, but on the other hand, I also think we have to be our own discerners and realise that there is greater sin in the man who has fuller knowledge and this can steer us away from judging others (not saying you do, btw). Thinking mercifully as the order of the day as opposed to condemning people in our hearts (a slippery slope). So a fine line, IMO.
Click to expand...
How can you err to both sides??:confused:
 
MtnDwellar said:
I was trying to define the sin of negligence and identify its source. When I used the term in an earlier post it was confused with negligible sin.

My main point is that if a person is ignorant of mortal sin, he may not be culpable for that sin, but may indeed be culpable for his own negligence and that negligence can be a mortal sin.
Click to expand...
So, for the same bad action, a person who commits it due to ignorance cannot be culpable and yet through negligence can be. Do you know how this sounds?
 
truetofaith said:
Hey I didn’t start this thread!
Click to expand...
True. You’ve had a bit of a hard rap so far in this thread.

The age of reason is understood to start at seven. As you said. And some violence is most certainly evil. Nevertheless, there are also extenuating circumstances. so it makes assessment hard. In some cases. Also, I raised the subject of premediation. This for me, if something is thought about some time before the act, seems worse.

Teens have a hard time with all the social pressures, and mixed in with peer pressure too, it must be difficult for them. And when young, especially, I think everyone has the capability to act rashly, even very, very sinfully, with next-to-no thought. All we can hope is that young people have greater access to Catholic education in the future and taught it in a way that they can understand and feel inspired to keep perservering.
 
friardchips said:
True. You’ve had a bit of a hard rap so far in this thread.

The age of reason is understood to start at seven. As you said. And some violence is most certainly evil. Nevertheless, there are also extenuating circumstances. so it makes assessment hard. In some cases. Also, I raised the subject of premediation. This for me, if something is thought about some time before the act, seems worse.

Teens have a hard time with all the social pressures, and mixed in with peer pressure too, it must be difficult for them. And when young, especially, I think everyone has the capability to act rashly, even very, very sinfully, with next-to-no thought. All we can hope is that young people have greater access to Catholic education in the future and taught it in a way that they can understand and feel inspired to keep perservering.
Click to expand...
True when I went to Catholic school, I knew mortal & venial sins in probably, 3rd grade. In 8th I knew that if you entertained impure thoughts, it was a mortal sin.
Stealing, murder, adultery…I feel like I always knew it!
 
truetofaith said:
True when I went to Catholic school, I knew mortal & venial sins in probably, 3rd grade. In 8th I knew that if you entertained impure thoughts, it was a mortal sin.
Stealing, murder, adultery…I feel like I always knew it!
Click to expand...
How many schools now have imbued in them solid Christian ethics? Of course, it is not just school education, we are all different, and have varying experiences, but solid moral education must surely assist in the character building of a person. As you said it did with you. So this really points out that much has to change in the West. In education - change at ground level. What I envisage when it comes to serious crime are inner city areas where extreme poverty is rife. I would have HATED to have lived in an area like some of those. A lot can be said for social reforms and money spent in areas to make the people feel as if they are worth something by having the environment around them looked after. Again, a rough environment does not excuse every human from evil acts, but we have a kind of relationship to the space around us, and this too can affect our morale. And I also think baptism is very important. It leaves a mark of our Saviour on our souls, and I think this does help youngsters to step back, maybe not noticeably, but enough to prevent them fully engaging in serious crime ( a generalisation, I know, but statistics would be hard to find).
 
friardchips said:
How many schools now have imbued in them solid Christian ethics? Of course, it is not just school education, we are all different, and have varying experiences, but solid moral education must surely assist in the character building of a person. As you said it did with you. So this really points out that much has to change in the West. In education - change at ground level. What I envisage when it comes to serious crime are inner city areas where extreme poverty is rife. I would have HATED to have lived in an area like some of those. A lot can be said for social reforms and money spent in areas to make the people feel as if they are worth something by having the environment around them looked after. Again, a rough environment does not excuse every human from evil acts, but we have a kind of relationship to the space around us, and this too can affect our morale. And I also think baptism is very important. It leaves a mark of our Saviour on our souls, and I think this does help youngsters to step back, maybe not noticeably, but enough to prevent them fully engaging in serious crime ( a generalisation, I know, but statistics would be hard to find).
Click to expand...
Someone posted that there are millions of kids in poverty areas that don’t go bad.
 
friardchips said:
So, for the same bad action, a person who commits it due to ignorance cannot be culpable and yet through negligence can be. Do you know how this sounds?
Click to expand...
Not exactly. A person can be culpable for a sin if he had full knowledge, etc.
A person can be culpable for the sin of negligence if he did not try to obtain sufficient knowledge.

How does that sound?
 
MtnDwellar said:
Not exactly. A person can be culpable for a sin if he had full knowledge, etc.
A person can be culpable for the sin of negligence if he did not try to obtain sufficient knowledge.

How does that sound?
Click to expand...
Better, but doesn’t sound as if the sin of negligence in this case would necessarily be mortal. It depends on too many factors. We might be in need of some example scenarios.
 
MtnDwellar said:
Originally the term was used to describe people who did not have access to Catholic teaching. Later, it was interpreted more like - ignorant of truth through no fault of their own.

“Through no fault of their own” is where the subjectivity can get involved. Is inherent stubbornness or an unwillingness to accept truth no fault of their own?

I would rather err to the side of safety and think the bar for invincible ignorance is high and relatively few people are excused from sin due to ignorance.
Click to expand...
Does that apply to children brought up without moral education?
 
tonyrey said:
Does that apply to children brought up without moral education?
Click to expand...
Does what apply? I don’t understand the question.

I don’t think it’s possible for someone to grow up without any moral education.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top