Culpability of ignorance

[reen12]

Hi, Nan S,

Yes, I realized what your reply was in reference to.

I don’t even disagree with your analysis, per se.
Where I sound a note of caution is in assessing
culpability for the cases you’re describing, with the
possible exception of the CD copier.

I think it’s easy to think that the person is operating
uninfluenced by emotional factors, which would greatly
mitigate culpability, even in the “just this once”
category, in some cases.
That’s my whole point.
Human beings are rational, more or less !
But humans are more than just intellect.

If I wished to say that, for example, adultery is
sinful in every case, that, I believe, is an objective
statement of reality. The application, in terms of
culpability, may vary substantially.

Jesus told the woman caught in adultery:
Go, and sin no more.
I can assume that He knew that she knew what
she was doing, in terms of gravity.

A mind beclouded with grief and loss, might
lead an individual into what is objectively sinful,
with a far lower degree of culpability, though the
consequences in this life might be serious indeed.

[BTW, I see adultery as a sin against justice, in terms
of the other spouse, far more than that of a carnal sin.
It is an act of betrayal toward the other spouse, and
a violation of the marital vow.]
Note how in the OT, the prophets speak of Israel’s
turning to “other gods” in terms of adultery. They
had violated the Covenant.

This would not constitute relativism, but reality.
It’s the difference between cold justice and reasoned
mercy.

What do you think?

Best,
reen12

 

[Michels]

Nan S:

The question I addressed was whether a committed, believing Christian could consciously and freely commit new sins. The questioner postulated that we don’t commit new sins, instead we simply become increasingly aware that our old, difficult-to-break habits are sinful.

This was not the question. The question was can a person really commit a sin that is MORTAL, as in, if it isn’t mortal it is venial. That is where culpability comes in… I understand this is a very hard question, that is why in my orginal post I said it was “just something to thnk about.” The culpability of sin is something that is just about as hard to understand as the Trinity.

 

[Nan_S]

Michels:

This was not the question. The question was can a person really commit a sin that is MORTAL, as in, if it isn’t mortal it is venial. That is where culpability comes in… I understand this is a very hard question, that is why in my orginal post I said it was “just something to think about.” The culpability of sin is something that is just about as hard to understand as the Trinity.

I apologize for the delay in getting back to you. Instead of continuing to beat around the bush, I decided to take my time and try to answer this a little better.

You can find the definitive discussion on our culpability for sin in the Catechism of the Catholic Church at vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P6C.HTM

We are not excused from culpability for either mortal or venial sin due to the attractiveness of a temptation, or the level of stress in our lives. The list of sins considered grave by the Catholic Church is rather broad. So long as we understand the nature of our offence and still choose to commit it, we are culpable. That being said, there are some mortal sins which are graver than others, and our culpability is proportional.

For a sin to be Mortal, three elements are required. It must be of grave matter, it must be committed with full knowledge, and you must give complete consent. Grave matter is detailed below. Full knowledge and complete consent are explained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

So, you see, the test of whether we are culpable for mortal sin is not the sweetness of the temptation, nor the amount of stress in our lives, nor even whether the act has become habitual, but rather whether we simply understand that an act is gravely sinful and make a personal choice to commit it anyway.

The excuse of personal stress may only diminish our culpability for mortal sin, it does not eliminate it. Culpability for habitual acts might only be mitigated if the habit has descended to compulsion, that is, if the element of choice has been completely removed.

INDIVIDUAL GRAVE SINS

• Sins specified by the Ten Commandments, particularly murder, sexual sins, theft, false witness, fraud, and refusal to honor one’s parents
• Voluntary doubt, i.e., intentional disregard of church dogma
• Incredulity, i.e., neglect or willful refusal of church dogma
• Heresy
• Apostasy
• Schism
• Presumption upon your own power to save yourself, or upon God’s power and mercy
• Despair, i.e., ceasing to hope for salvation
• Indifference
• Ingratitude
• Lukewarmness in responding to God
• Acedia, i.e. apathy or spiritual sloth
• Deliberate hatred of God or neighbor
• Anger that desires death or serious injury of a neighbor
• Blasphemy
• Envy that wishes grave harm to a neighbor
• Malice
• Murder
• Deliberate neglect of the requirement to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation

THE ETERNAL SIN

• Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, i.e., the deliberate refusal to repent and accept God’s mercy

 

[J.W.B]

Well what if one like James White just doesn’t see it the Catholic Way? What he hears their beliefs and reasons for it but just cannot understand it and believes that the truth is something else? It all gets confusing to me.

Sometimes I tend to think that if a person TRULY KNEW the will of God, as if Christ stood right before someone and said “James White, stop persecuting the Catholic Church and come home to the Truth.” Or if he said “This is the Truth and not your belief, will you accept it?” If the individual still refuses then you know he’s full of pride just as the Pharisees who rejected Christ’s teaching were even after they witnessed many miracles.

But especialy in our day the Truth is so hard to find with so many opinons.

 

[Nan_S]

J.W.B.:

Well what if one like James White just doesn’t see it the Catholic Way? What he hears their beliefs and reasons for it but just cannot understand it and believes that the truth is something else? It all gets confusing to me.

Thank you for getting this thread back on it’s original track. Please see post #11.
J.W.B.:

But especialy in our day the Truth is so hard to find with so many opinons.

Nothing new here. Pontius Pilate asked the same question of Jesus. John 18:38.

 

[jimmy]

lacoloratura:

Please forgive me if I’m treading well-worn ground, but I didn’t find anything in my forum search that gave a thorough answer.

I understand that those who are ignorant of the Church and its truth are not considered culpable. In some cases, this is easy to determine - the person who’s literally never heard of Christ, etc. However, what if a person has heard all the evidence for the Catholic Church, but doesn’t believe it’s the truth? Is that person culpable, since they are technically not ignorant?

Thanks!

Only God can say who is truely ignorant of the truth. But you must be open to the truth. If your prejudice keeps you from learning the truth, you might be hellbound.

If you have an idea that it could be the truth and push it away, you might be hellbound.

 

[Genesis315]

Michels:

However, if society is drumming something into our heads that isn’t true, that is clouding our logic. All of your examples are perfect examples of this.

This really isn’t much of an excuse. We are obligated to reject the spirit of the world. Once you learn that what society is teaching is false then you must reject it. Listening to society instead of Christ is a very grave sin.

It is extremely difficult, almost impossible to think of something someone would actually do under a clear and well formed conscious that is a sin that is not habbitual.

Not really. Think of peer pressure. Someone might be afraid to say no because society will look down on them. This is no excuse. In general, people with clear conscience choose to sin all the time for the immediate temporal benefits of the world.:tsktsk:

I am by no means saying this is a free ticket. We are all called to live ever striving towards perfection. As our conscious becomes more well formed and clear, we sin less. But we also become more aware of sins we didn’t realize we were committing, so we are held accountable for more sins.

You should be glad that you are aware of more sins. It’s not about how much we can get away with. We shouldn’t want to be ignorant. We should want to know which of our thoughts, actions, and inactions are offenses to God. For the love of Christ we should want to know exactly how to live a life that is pleasing to Him.

Mortal sins do exist, where the line is drawn , that is hard to say. I just say it is better to be safe then sorry, confess all sins that are grave matters. After all the only unforgivable sin is to believe your since can not be forgiven at all.

I agree here. It is for God to judge our culpability. I would even recommend confessing sins of a not-so-grave nature too. When grace and forgiveness are available, why not get as much as you can?

By the way, here’s a good article from “This Rock” on invincible ignorance:
catholic.com/thisrock/1999/9907chap.asp

 

[reen12]

Dear Nan S,

quote: Nan S
**

INDIVIDUAL GRAVE SINS

• Sins specified by the Ten Commandments, particularly murder, sexual sins, theft, false witness, fraud, and refusal to honor one’s parents
• Voluntary doubt, i.e., intentional disregard of church dogma
• Incredulity, i.e., neglect or willful refusal of church dogma
• Heresy
• Apostasy
• Schism
• Presumption upon your own power to save yourself, or upon God’s power and mercy
• Despair, i.e., ceasing to hope for salvation
• Indifference
• Ingratitude
• Lukewarmness in responding to God
• Acedia, i.e. apathy or spiritual sloth
• Deliberate hatred of God or neighbor
• Anger that desires death or serious injury of a neighbor
• Blasphemy
• Envy that wishes grave harm to a neighbor
• Malice
• Murder
• Deliberate neglect of the requirement to attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation

I pray with Israel.

After 50 years, I’ve found the faith that most clearly

exemplifies the love and mercy of God to me, after

a lifelong search and struggle.

In Judaism, the commandments are presented in a way

that invites an individual to observe them, out of love

of the Creator- not for His gifts or to avoid eternal

separation-which is reserved for the adamantly

wicked.

There is a place in The World to Come for the

righteous of *all *nations…no theories of "invincible

ignorance" here.

The focus is on God Repentence is a “turning” back

to God, and has it’s proportionate position in the life of faith. Emphasis is on keeping holy the Name of God, and depending on Him to meet our needs, coupled with a robust prayer life.

For those Gentiles who accept the God of Israel,

there are 7 commandments, clear as crystal, in

terms of the moral law written in the hearts of all

men and women. [One of the 7 exhorts human beings[/color]

to treat innocent animal life with care and compassion.]

There is a gentleness, albeit firmness, with which

the requirements of the moral life of human beings is explicated.

It is a non-proselytizing faith, drawing people to the

God of Israel, by example.

Peace to you, Nan S. I will not participate in this

thread further, since the topic is culpability.

If I ever write an autobiography, I’ll title it:

Haggard to Holy: My Journey to Sinai

Kindest regards,

reen12

**

 

[reen12]

I often think that Jesus hung on the cross for 3 hours,
taking, not only the sin of the world to Himself, but the
great pain and injury that we’ve given to others, not at all
meaning for that to happen. This is called “lack of
culpability.”

Someone had to “absorb” the punishment for the pain and hurt caused by an individual with diminished culpability.
If we look at a crucifix, we will learn what is needed to
be known about “culpability.”

---

reen12

We would draw more people to God if we stated:
*“Our belief is…” *
*It is our behavior and attitude that **will help **them to decide *
if “our belief” reflects the truth.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

reen12:

I often think that Jesus hung on the cross for 3 hours,
taking, not only the sin of the world to Himself, but the
great pain and injury that we’ve given to others, not at all
meaning for that to happen. This is called “lack of
culpability.”

Someone had to “absorb” the punishment for the pain and hurt caused by an individual with diminished culpability.
If we look at a crucifix, we will learn what is needed to
be known about “culpability.”

---

reen12

We would draw more people to God if we stated:
*“Our belief is…” *
*It is our behavior and attitude that **will help **them to decide *
if “our belief” reflects the truth.

You are exactly right. Jesus hung on that cross and paid a price we could never pay by ourselves.

I think a perfect place to begin a discussion on culpability for ignorance would be on the cross, when Jesus said, “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”

Who do you suppose “them” is? I figure I’m a “them” and probably everybody else reading this thread is one of “them.” Do you suppose there were some in the crowd who even knew how wrong this was but still participated or denied Christ – such as St. Peter? Were they forgiven by His statement?

Seems to me it really is OK to accept His forgiveness. Whether we are ignorant by not knowing facts or ignorant by not knowing how to break a bad habit or ignorant by not knowing how to live up to our own expectations, I figure we’re all covered if we just believe, and do His commands. To step out on a bit of a limb (or maybe a plank) I might even suggest that stubbornness is ultimately ignorant in nature. When we stumble, go to confession. If you honestly don’t know you’ve done wrong, then rely on Jesus meaning what He said. Either way, Jesus’ yoke is easy and burden light. He took the burden. Let’s honor Him by not losing faith and worrying about what He already took care of.

Alan

 

[reen12]

Hi, AlanFromWichita

quote: AlanFromWichita:

You are exactly right. Jesus hung on that cross and paid a price we could never pay by ourselves.

What you wrote made me think of Jesus saying: To whom much is forgiven, much love is there.

I think a perfect place to begin a discussion on culpability for ignorance would be on the cross, when Jesus said, “forgive them Father, for they know not what they do.”

Who do you suppose “them” is? I figure I’m a “them” and probably everybody else reading this thread is one of “them.”

There’s quite a crowd gathered here, Alan, at the foot of
the cross, all of us weak with gratitude and joy.

The relief that comes from experiencing what’s written
below, is the balm God applies to heart and mind,
as well as soul:
quote: reen12

Someone had to “absorb” the punishment for the pain and hurt caused by an individual with diminished culpability.
If we look at a crucifix, we will learn what is needed to
be known about “culpability.”

Not the stuff of textbooks, but maybe God uses the
textbook to set the jar of balm on, to steady it.

Best regards, Alan,
Maureen

 

[AlanFromWichita]

reen12:

Not the stuff of textbooks, but maybe God uses the
textbook to set the jar of balm on, to steady it.

I really like the way you write. I especially like the way you “re-twisted” your words after I thought I was going to twist your first ones. If I said it was brilliant, would it sentence you to an upcoming humiliation? (Maybe I’d better not judge)

Textbooks are great, but I think they just prepare us for life, always an improv, and no dress rehearsal. Some books you learn the stuff and throw them away, some you keep for reference. Some you use as a jar holder.

Alan

 

[reen12]

Yo, AlanFromWichita !

quote: AlanFromWichita

If I said it was brilliant, would it sentence you to an upcoming humiliation? (Maybe I’d better not judge)

Up until my late forties, I swaggered around like a
Master of the Universe. Then, 12 days in a psych
ward. I’ve not swaggered one iota since…[well,
maybe just a little. ]

The skill involved, is to keep an eye out for verbs, and then
employ the verb as martial artists throw an opponent
with the weight of h/her forward movement.
[OK. I can hear the “purgomometer” clicking.]
Yes, I know this is “off-topic.”

Textbooks are great, but I think they just prepare us for life, always an improv, and no dress rehearsal. Some books you learn the stuff and throw them away, some you keep for reference. Some you use as a jar holder.

Amen.

[Given the signature lines at the bottom of the post,
it’s a good thing I’m no longer a Christian, for I’ve
violated my own code.] If Jesus is Messiah and Lord,
perhaps others can apply what I merely “understand.”

Maureen

 

[reen12]

Hint: If I were going to “throw my opponent” in terms of the above post, I’d latch on to “understand” “involved” and “my own code”… words ripe for a skilled opponent.

I’d also use plenty of :tsktsk: :tsktsk: [well, I wouldn’t, but some
seem to enjoy them] A judicious use of an might
liven the proceedings.

And one call always convey “sensitivity” by employing an

If an individual wants to get really good at adversarial
exchange, I’d recommend the works of P.G Wodehouse.
[The phrase above: “…some seem to enjoy them” is
pure Pelham Graham Wodehouse.]

OK, I’m outta here, so that the thread can resume it’s course.
Hopefully, it won’t morph into an Ox-bow lake.

Best to all,
reen12

 

[AlanFromWichita]

reen12:

OK, I’m outta here, so that the thread can resume it’s course.
Hopefully, it won’t morph into an Ox-bow lake.

Best to all,
reen12

Thanks for the inspiration on verbal martial arts; I’ve been daring myself to open a thread on it, but so far it’s never gotten into a Double Dog Dare.

My favorite book on it is now out of print, by Suzette Haden Elgin, is “The Gentle Art of Verbal Self-Defense.” She wrote some others with similar title, but I got one of them and found it inferior to the original one.

Were you improvising those comments? They seemed quite off-the-cuff, but you know we crazies can’t be trusted they’re not running a con game, right? If so, then I can see how your abstracting ability might fly over the heads of your average psychiatric intern or doc-wannabe. I did one for a couple weeks in 1983 at the age of 24, and then another about 4 years ago, under very different circumsances. (I’m 46 now.) It’s my last; I got it figured out this time.

The answer is that every problem has a spiritual solution. Somehow I always knew that but never had enough guidance in using the resources the Church has. I got some guidance and got some healing – I believe from the Divine Therapist. Feeling great now, just short of manic as I want to be. Not that you asked.

Oh, yes, and thank you for the warning about how my trigger words were for the picking. I’m not sure I noticed that but will go and review. Sounds like this technology could be used as a trap if deployed properly.

What was that about non-Christian? Was that an abstraction, or maybe a change in belief, or just a statement of unworthiness? None of the above? If you’d rather not answer, cool too.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

reen12:

And one call always convey “sensitivity” by employing an

I think this one is great because its surface meaning and its meta-meaning both point to confusion. This adds subjectivity that may require some recovery to determine the sincerity level and flavor.

Alan

Oh yeah, get the thread back on course.

Anyway, I think that we are never culpable if we keep close to the confessional, work to come into union with the Church and her teachings, and accept the words of Christ, “father forgive them for they know not what they do.” To me, those are among the most powerful words in the world, and can excuse even one’s worst enemies.

Example: Father, please forgive the terrorists for the pain they brought in connection with the aerial attacks, for they knew not what they were doing.

Even if someone objectively sinned in their behavior, and announced while doing this, “I know the Holy Roman Catholic Church says this is wrong, but by golly, not only do I intend to keep doing it I intend to impugn them for saying I shouldn’t,” then I still obey the command of Jesus not to judge. If this seems too much of a logical clash, I go with “the person really doesn’t know the Church or he would be in union with her. Therefore, Father forgive them…”

Here’s an exercise that might be fun. If you are angry and can’t find sincere words to pray for somebody, just insert their name into this sentence. If you say it grudgingly, say it 5 more times until you can say it without grimace.

“Father, forgive <> for they, like I, are still praying for our eyes to be fully opened. Thank you Father for giving us your only begotten Son.”

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

I believe this question was asked by Melchoir here Hindus, Muslims etc. can be saved - Can you clarify? and answered quite well by Fr. Serpa…

To be evangelized is simply to have been preached to. It does not mean that one has been converted. So no, people do not become responsible simply because they have heard the Gospel preached. It is only by the gift of faith that one can believe.

Anyone who has been given the gift of faith and chooses to reject it will not be saved unless he repents before he dies. But simply to hear the Gospel is not necessarily to have been given the gift of faith. To be given the gift of faith is to recognize the truth of the Gospel, to be touched by it. This is an interior matter that we can’t know from the outside by just looking at the person. We can only judge from externals. In this case externals don’t help much.

 

[reen12]

Hi, AlanFromWichita

NOTE: This post is definitely off-topic. Please pass
on by, so your interest in the actual topic is not interrupted.
Thanks, reen12

quote: AlanFromWichita

Were you improvising those comments? They seemed quite off-the-cuff, but you know we crazies can’t be trusted they’re not running a con game, right?

When I knew that I was seriously ill, it was 1965,
and I was only 19. I wanted professionals to explain to
me what was wrong. What a difference there is between
1965 and 1995, in terms of what professionals now
understand and medication available.

It wasn’t until 1994 that I described one thing I
experienced, and the psychologist said: It’s
called dissociaton. I was so ill, that I wanted
to jump for joy. Finally, someone understood.

So, no, I didn’t take intellectual advantage of medical personel
who were less gifted. I was frustrated. I wanted them to
be *more *gifted than me.

In that scenario, what would motivate me to run a
con game? I wasn’t resisting the various diagnoses.
I might have carried a sign that said: I COOPERATE

Forutunatly, the psychologist and psychiatrist that
I work with, are very, very fine individuals, and I trust
them. way
I was going to tell myself that everything was fine.]

quote: AlanFromWitchita

If so, then I can see how your abstracting ability might fly over the heads of your average psychiatric intern or doc-wannabe. I did one for a couple weeks in 1983 at the age of 24, and then another about 4 years ago, under very different circumsances. (I’m 46 now.) It’s my last; I got it figured out this time.

---

I don’t find that I’m tempted to employ my wit on interns.
You see, they’re young enough to be my children, and
I just see them as sweet, earnest youngsters who want
to help.

---

Setting my Mary Poppins get-up aside, there are
occassions on the forums where I can’t resist running
a number. It’s the &^$*# sense of “sureness”
or the declaiming mode, or the “I’ll check the manual”
mindset that occassionally launches me into
con mode. But that’s fairly rare. It’s also the
mindset that drove me from Christianity altogether.

[It is probably true that Jesus is Messiah, but many
of His devoted clients tend to exacerbate my illness.
I love Judaism, it is so much more human to me, and
I have an *instincitive respect for a rabbi. It just
strikes me as a saner faith.]

I got some guidance and got some healing – I believe from the Divine Therapist. Feeling great now, just short of manic as I want to be. Not that you asked.

I’m glad to know this. And I do understand “…just short
of manic…” I’m happy that the Church has been of
substantial help, Alan. For me, it’s just makes things
worse.

You know what I have recently come to understand?
The basis of my illness is “schizotypal” which is like
schizophrenia-lite. No hallucinations, no hearing voices,
but all of the negative symptoms…It’s the inablity to
metabolize excitement that seems to kick in a kind
of hypomania. I *hate *that feeling and would rather be
depressed than hypomanic.

CONTD…

 

[reen12]

CONTD.
NOTE: This post is definitely off-topic. Please pass
on by, so your interest in the actual topic is not interrupted.
Thanks

What was that about non-Christian? Was that an abstraction, or maybe a change in belief, or just a statement of unworthiness? None of the above? If you’d rather not answer, cool too.

I suppose it’s essentially unworthiness. I just feel that

what my illness brings with it renders me unfit for the

ecclesial game, as expressed by the “manual” artists.

Confession [do you have any idea what that does to

a person who is paranoid to begin with, who hovers on

the edge of “checking out of reality” with a fair amount

of frequency, who suffers from OCD, and feels that

“breathing” is probably sinful?]

And, there is no possiblity of my ever feeling “worthy”

enough, sinless enough, to receive communion. If I

could just tell Jesus I was sorry on the way up to the

communion rail, I might still be a Catholic today.]

Then there’s Christ’s references to hell…eternal fire,

eternal separation…well now* there’s* a recipe to attract

a human being who was emotionally abandoned as

a toddler, and was so ill [genetically], psychologically.

The only thing that I can hope for is that Jesus was

characturized by His own followers. I just want to

see what He has to say when I tell Him that there

was no room in His “true” church for a sick, injured

little sheep.

[no swagger here, Alan, huh? It’s always been a form

of compensation.]

Will He say: "You have imposed burdens on My people

beyond what My law required", or, will He say to me:

"Depart into the outer darkness, sick, little sheep, for

you were not “invincibly ignorant.”

In Judaism, I can pray to the God that I *know *exists,

and ask Him to have mercy on me, without having

to pass the impenetrable barriers of confession, and

worthy communion, which exacerbate the illness.

As I said in another thread, for me, it’s sacraments or

sanity. I’d be willing to die for my faith, but not to

experience the psychotic break that would surely come,

trying to follow what the true Church mandates.

[If you’re not mentally ill, please don’t even try to follow

this line of “reasoning.”]

So, I post on the various threads, drawing on 40 years

of Catholic reading, feeling like a tour guide, pointing

out the entrance to Christ’s “mansions”, while feeling

abandoned myself. [oops, here come the tears…]

Small wonder that I’d like to chuck a manual at those

entering “My Father’s house.” They’re so %$^&*

worthy, an’ all.

I feel like that little dog in the Grinch Who Stole

Christmas, trying to haul that sleigh up that big

hill, with the manual wavers as Grinch.

Well, I think I’ll go and listen to a tape by a rabbi,

Best,

Maureen

Sorry for interrupting the thread.

 

[otm]

an interesting thread, but I need to roll on out of here.