Culpability for atheism and the CCC

[thyrodandstaff]

CCC 21225
Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances.

What are some of the intentions and the circumstances that can diminish culpability for the sin of atheism?

 

[RPRPsych]

CCC 21225
Since it rejects or denies the existence of God, atheism is a sin against the virtue of religion. The imputability of this offense can be significantly diminished in virtue of the intentions and the circumstances.

What are some of the intentions and the circumstances that can diminish culpability for the sin of atheism?

To tell you the truth, that one has me scratching my head as well

But I think the following might count:

• an adolescent who has grown up educated (or brainwashed) by a society that is overtly hostile to religion, portraying it in purely naturalistic terms and dismissing all religion as superstition.
• alternately, a man or woman who has grown up in isolated circumstances, and knowing only a particularly cruel or vile form of “religion” - for example, one that practiced ritual child sacrifice, sexual “rites”, or cannibalism.

In such circumstances, while not believing in God would still be a sin (for there are other forms of evidence!), its imputability would probably be diminished.

 

[DeepBlueSea]

I’m guessing cultural circumstances such as the Confucius culture in China/Japan/Korea in which people have no concept of God for many generations.

 

[Allegra]

I would think temporary periods following tramatic experiences of periods of profound grief would diminish culpability.

 

[prodigalson2011]

I believe there is a section in the Catechism, also, that states that Christians can be held responsible for diminishing the faith of others through bad example or improper teaching of God’s truth. I would imagine the increase of culpability on the part of the Christian would imply a decrease in that of the nonbeliever in this case.

 

[Viviphilia]

• an adolescent who has grown up educated (or brainwashed) by a society that is overtly hostile to religion, portraying it in purely naturalistic terms and dismissing all religion as superstition.
• alternately, a man or woman who has grown up in isolated circumstances, and knowing only a particularly cruel or vile form of “religion” - for example, one that practiced ritual child sacrifice, sexual “rites”, or cannibalism.

Why only an adolescent or someone isolated? What about an adult within Christendom who was simply unconvinced? What if she genuinely tried to have faith, she may even genuinely want to have faith, but was prevented by some other compelling logic?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Why only an adolescent or someone isolated? What about an adult within Christendom who was simply unconvinced? What if she genuinely tried to have faith, she may even genuinely want to have faith, but was prevented by some other compelling logic?

I think that might depend on how far one went to try and retain faith. There’s some pretty compelling evidence for the truth of Christianity, if you dig deep enough. This is coming from a former hard-line atheist.

I will be presumptuous and assume that you are the “she” who genuinely tried and may even genuinely want to have faith. If that is the case, my heart goes out to you. The first thing I point people towards are two documentaries which make an impact that is as visceral as it is intellectual: “The Star of Bethlehem” (www.bethlehemstar.net) and “The Real Face of Jesus?”, both of which present some compelling scientific research (“The Star of Bethlehem”, for its part, received praise from several NASA directors) into their respective subjects. Both sent chills up my spine and brought tears to my eyes. I saw the first one when I was still teetering on the agnostic fence. Needless to say, it was compelling enough to keep me digging.