Do Religious People Really Believe in Their Religion?

[Seeker2010]

That, of course, is not Catholic doctrine. A Catholic statement would be, “unless of course you’re one of the unknown number of people who choose to persist unrepentantly in mortal sin.” That’s a fairly significant difference.

Let me see if I understand how this works, per Catholicism. Please correct any of the following if I misstate it.

If I commit a mortal sin, I am no longer in a state of grace.

If my human existence comes to an end (i.e. if I die) while not in a state of grace, I go to hell.

If I go to confession, and am absolved by a priest, my state of grace is returned, and upon death (assuming it happens before I commit another mortal sin) will be going to heaven.

Once you die, the decision is made, and there is no opportunity after death to receive absolution, even should you desire it.

It is a mortal sin to not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Unless one or more of those statements is factually incorrect, it is in fact a doctrine of the Catholic Church that all non-Christians (indeed, all non-Catholics, as I don’t think many Baptists or Methodists are going to confession) are headed to an eternity of damnation and torture, even if they don’t say so in so many words.

As a further practical example, please either confirm the following scenarios as laid out by me is correct, or show me where I have made an error.

Scenario A:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He arrives, confesses, is absolved, and heads home.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way home.
He goes to heaven.

Secnario B:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way to the church.
He is screwed, and spends all of eternity being tortured.

Thanks in advance!

S

 

[JDaniel]

If I believed that this present life were just a brief test to determine whether I would be admitted after death to another life of eternal bliss, it is inconceivable to me that I would ever commit a sin, since it would simply be foolish. Yet I hear Christians all the time say that they were ‘weak’ or ‘tempted’ on a given occasion to sin, and so did so, thus jeopardizing their own rational best interest in enjoying infinite bliss for the sake of a brief moment of trivial indiscretion. But since sane people are never tempted to bend down and touch the third rail of a subway because they are tempted by a piece of candy they spot lying there, I would assume that no sane Christian would ever be tempted to sin. Since they so often do sin, however, demonstrates that they don’t really believe in the doctrine they profess.

Similarly, if I believed that my present life were just a brief test prior to a possibly infinite afterlife of heavenly bliss, nothing that goes wrong here could ever seriously bother me. If we were all at a giant garden party given by God, and he imposed a forfeit on someone and made him blind for the duration of the party prior to admission to Heaven at the end of the afternoon, that blindness would be no more distressing than being ‘it’ for a little while in a schoolyard game of tag. So the fact that Christians wail in despair when some serious but mundane tragedy ruins only this life for them makes me again suspect that they don’t really believe what they profess.

I do imagine that Christians seriously think that they believe, but this is only because they have never seriously examined the incongruities of their behavior in the situations I have sketched above.

Sinner:

Well, I do, and, it’s not second order belief!

(Interestingly, the more time I spend here on CAF, the more unquestionably my belief remains exceptionally first order.)

God bless, good question.
jd

 

[JDaniel]

Let me see if I understand how this works, per Catholicism. Please correct any of the following if I misstate it.

If I commit a mortal sin, I am no longer in a state of grace.

If my human existence comes to an end (i.e. if I die) while not in a state of grace, I go to hell.

If I go to confession, and am absolved by a priest, my state of grace is returned, and upon death (assuming it happens before I commit another mortal sin) will be going to heaven.

Once you die, the decision is made, and there is no opportunity after death to receive absolution, even should you desire it.

It is a mortal sin to not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

Unless one or more of those statements is factually incorrect, it is in fact a doctrine of the Catholic Church that all non-Christians (indeed, all non-Catholics, as I don’t think many Baptists or Methodists are going to confession) are headed to an eternity of damnation and torture, even if they don’t say so in so many words.

As a further practical example, please either confirm the following scenarios as laid out by me is correct, or show me where I have made an error.

Scenario A:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He arrives, confesses, is absolved, and heads home.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way home.
He goes to heaven.

Secnario B:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way to the church.
He is screwed, and spends all of eternity being tortured.

Thanks in advance!

S

If he is truly going to confession with true remorse in his heart, he will be forgiven. Although, he may spend some epochs in Purgatory.

Also, I think the Baptists and Methodists would fall under the “invincible ignorance” statute. But, don’t forget that we all subsist under the aura of predetermination. To be a mortal sin, all three prerequisites must be present. You can look them up yourself.

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Also, I think the Baptists and Methodists would fall under the “invincible ignorance” statute.

Perhaps I misunderstood ‘invincible ignorance’, or had it explained to me wrong.

I thought it covered people who had never had the opportunity to learn ‘The Truth’, not those who were told, but chose to reject it. Is that not correct? Therefore, since most Baptists are at least peripherally aware of Catholic practices, they would not be covered.

But, don’t forget that we all subsist under the aura of predetermination.

Could you try that one again in English please.

To be a mortal sin, all three prerequisites must be present. You can look them up yourself.

Can you humor me and post what they are?

 

[Roy5]

A sentence I read - I think it was in a recent issue of US Catholic - has stuck in my mind. It said that millions of Catholics “are really Protestants who go to mass.”

The suggestion was, of course, that millions of Catholics do not fully accept the teachings of the church. I also recall a poll, again reported in the *US Catholic*, that found that 43% (or thereabouts) of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation.

 This doesn't surprise me at all. In casual chats with Catholics over the years most of the ones I know well are cultural and cafeteria Catholics. If they attend mass, as many of them do, they simply ignore teachings that they find 'unbelievable'. Others no longer go to mass, and some have joined various denominations.

 

[JDaniel]

Perhaps I misunderstood ‘invincible ignorance’, or had it explained to me wrong.

I thought it covered people who had never had the opportunity to learn ‘The Truth’, not those who were told, but chose to reject it. Is that not correct? Therefore, since most Baptists are at least peripherally aware of Catholic practices, they would not be covered.

Well, cradle-Baptists, as well as many non-cradle-Baptists, do not have clear knowledge of all Catholic practices. Also, remember, Protestants, in general, firmly believe that all that is required is acceptance of Christ and Baptism. So, that really could be invincible ignorance.

Could you try that one again in English please.

Please read some of the post in the recent thread, I think it’s entitled, "What exactly is predestination?"

Can you humor me and post what they are?

1. A mortal sin is a sin of grave matter
2. A mortal sin is committed with the full knowledge of the sinner
3. A mortal sin is committed with the deliberate consent of the sinner

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

A sentence I read - I think it was in a recent issue of US Catholic - has stuck in my mind. It said that millions of Catholics “are really Protestants who go to mass.”

The suggestion was, of course, that millions of Catholics do not fully accept the teachings of the church. I also recall a poll, again reported in the *US Catholic*, that found that 43% (or thereabouts) of Catholics do not believe in transubstantiation.

 This doesn't surprise me at all. In casual chats with Catholics over the years most of the ones I know well are cultural and cafeteria Catholics. If they attend mass, as many of them do, they simply ignore teachings that they find 'unbelievable'. Others no longer go to mass, and some have joined various denominations.

Thank God that we’re still growing!

God bless,
jd

 

[Seeker2010]

Also, remember, Protestants, in general, firmly believe that all that is required is acceptance of Christ and Baptism. So, that really could be invincible ignorance.

OK. But couldn’t the same argument be made for bonafide atheists? That they truly believe there is no spiritual realm, and no God. Or even people like me who believe that there IS a God, but who truly believe that religions are completely man made? Based on this position, pretty much everyone gets into heaven.

Which, incidentally, is what I believe. This is a school, and sins do not lead to damnation, they lead to learning.

1. A mortal sin is committed with the full knowledge of the sinner

In the spirit of my last question, does genuine belief that an action is NOT a sin, despite the teaching of this or that religion that it is, not imply that full knowledge does not exist? As an example, if Person X truly believes that, for example, masturbation is NOT a mortal sin, despite the fact that he or she knows that their religion (or, another religion) teaches that it is, and then masturbates, does their sincere (and for the sake of discussion assume it’s sincere) belief mean they don’t have full knowledge?

 

[davidv]

OK. But couldn’t the same argument be made for bonafide atheists? That they truly believe there is no spiritual realm, and no God. Or even people like me who believe that there IS a God, but who truly believe that religions are completely man made? Based on this position, pretty much everyone gets into heaven.

Which, incidentally, is what I believe. This is a school, and sins do not lead to damnation, they lead to learning.

In the spirit of my last question, does genuine belief that an action is NOT a sin, despite the teaching of this or that religion that it is, not imply that full knowledge does not exist? As an example, if Person X truly believes that, for example, masturbation is NOT a mortal sin, despite the fact that he or she knows that their religion (or, another religion) teaches that it is, and then masturbates, does their sincere (and for the sake of discussion assume it’s sincere) belief mean they don’t have full knowledge?

Would you agree that believing and knowing are two different things?

Not believing does not preclude knowing.

There many examples of people knowing things that they do not believe or fail to accept. Know many addicts can truthfully say they didn’t know that drugs were addictive?

 

[JDaniel]

OK. But couldn’t the same argument be made for bonafide atheists?

Seeker:

Some, yes. But, unfortunately not those that found their way to this forum.

That they truly believe there is no spiritual realm, and no God. Or even people like me who believe that there IS a God, but who truly believe that religions are completely man made?

Jesus was a man. But, He was also God. He initiated the catholic Church, which has since become the Catholic Church. So, I guess, you could say that churches are man-made.

Based on this position, pretty much everyone gets into heaven.

Sorry, it really must be invincible ignorance. Remember, God knows your heart.

Which, incidentally, is what I believe. This is a school, and sins do not lead to damnation, they lead to learning.

I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean here,

In the spirit of my last question, does genuine belief that an action is NOT a sin, despite the teaching of this or that religion that it is, not imply that full knowledge does not exist? As an example, if Person X truly believes that, for example, masturbation is NOT a mortal sin, despite the fact that he or she knows that their religion (or, another religion) teaches that it is, and then masturbates, does their sincere (and for the sake of discussion assume it’s sincere) belief mean they don’t have full knowledge?

A very good question. But, never forget, God knows their hearts. You can’t pull a fast one on Him.

God bless,
jd

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

Let me see if I understand how this works, per Catholicism. Please correct any of the following if I misstate it.

If I commit a mortal sin, I am no longer in a state of grace.

If my human existence comes to an end (i.e. if I die) while not in a state of grace, I go to hell.

If I go to confession, and am absolved by a priest, my state of grace is returned, and upon death (assuming it happens before I commit another mortal sin) will be going to heaven.

Once you die, the decision is made, and there is no opportunity after death to receive absolution, even should you desire it.

It is a mortal sin to not believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God.

God is truth, so adhering to an untrue doctrine separates a person from God. As such, it can be considered sinful. One is only culpable for a sin to the extent that one willfully consents to it. So someone who does not believe in Jesus out of ignorance is certainly not guilty of a mortal sin. Someone who willfully disbelieves (say, deliberately convincing themself for whatever reason) could be.

Unless one or more of those statements is factually incorrect, it is in fact a doctrine of the Catholic Church that all non-Christians (indeed, all non-Catholics, as I don’t think many Baptists or Methodists are going to confession) are headed to an eternity of damnation and torture, even if they don’t say so in so many words.

Let’s start with the easiest case. Non-Catholic Christians almost all have valid baptim. So a person who is baptised and dies before committing a mortal sin is absolutely saved.

As for non-Catholics, I’d refer you to baptism by desire. Per Catechism paragraph 1260:

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

Further, remember that baptism and confession are the normal ways to restore grace, but not the only ways. Perfect contrition will do the trick. So non-Catholics who are truly sorrowful for the serious sins they are aware of can be saved.

As a further practical example, please either confirm the following scenarios as laid out by me is correct, or show me where I have made an error.

Scenario A:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He arrives, confesses, is absolved, and heads home.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way home.
He goes to heaven.

Secnario B:
Billy Joe Bob masturbates, a mortal sin.
Realizing his mistake, he goes to confession.
He is killed in a traffic accident on the way to the church.
He is screwed, and spends all of eternity being tortured.

Not at all. Catechism paragraph 1484:

“Individual, integral confession and absolution remain the only ordinary way for the faithful to reconcile themselves with God and the Church, **unless physical or moral impossibility **excuses from this kind of confession.”

Being killed en route certainly qualifes for physical impossibility, so Billy Joe Bob can go to his judgment with confidence.

Thanks in advance!

S

Your’e welcome!

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

If he is truly going to confession with true remorse in his heart, he will be forgiven. Although, he may spend some epochs in Purgatory.

Also, I think the Baptists and Methodists would fall under the “invincible ignorance” statute. But, don’t forget that we all subsist under the aura of predetermination. To be a mortal sin, all three prerequisites must be present. You can look them up yourself.

God bless,
jd

If Billy’s death on the way to confession was absolutely not his fault, I think he’s going to get full credit for the intended confession. I don’t think he’s going to do any more time in Purgatory due to circumstances out of his control.

 

[JDaniel]

If Billy’s death on the way to confession was absolutely not his fault, I think he’s going to get full credit for the intended confession. I don’t think he’s going to do any more time in Purgatory due to circumstances out of his control.

NE:

I think you are almost perfectly correct. I threw that in to cover my . . . well, you know.

God bless,
jd

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

OK. But couldn’t the same argument be made for bonafide atheists? That they truly believe there is no spiritual realm, and no God. Or even people like me who believe that there IS a God, but who truly believe that religions are completely man made? Based on this position, pretty much everyone gets into heaven.

Which, incidentally, is what I believe. This is a school, and sins do not lead to damnation, they lead to learning.

In the spirit of my last question, does genuine belief that an action is NOT a sin, despite the teaching of this or that religion that it is, not imply that full knowledge does not exist? As an example, if Person X truly believes that, for example, masturbation is NOT a mortal sin, despite the fact that he or she knows that their religion (or, another religion) teaches that it is, and then masturbates, does their sincere (and for the sake of discussion assume it’s sincere) belief mean they don’t have full knowledge?

There’s a certain ambiguity in these terms, and so you’ll find a wide range of opinions. There are those who say that, for instance, reading something posted by a stranger on an internet forum constitutes full knowledge, so once a person has read that masturbation (or whatever) is a sin, then they are held fully culpable thereafter.

Speaking for myself, I mostly agree with you. I think the three conditions for a sin to be mortal amount to one thing: deliberate rejection of God. I don’t believe anything else will result in damnation. I think that sins which were committed out of ignorance or other mitigating factors result in learning, not hell. Of course, that learning might be done in the School of Hard Knocks called Purgatory.

I say “mostly” agree with you, because I don’t think everyone goes to heaven. There are those who deliberately reject God. This is a choice that God reluctantly accepts. Although even the most forceful rejection can be undone in a single moment of contrition. God is always more eager to forgive than we are to ask for forgiveness.

Oh, that reminds me of something from your earlier post that I forgot to address:

Once you die, the decision is made, and there is no opportunity after death to receive absolution, even should you desire it.

It is true that once you’re dead, you’re committed. But things such as the Diary of St Faustina give reason to hope that even the most hardened sinner will have an explicit offer of salvation in the moments before death.

Let’s not lose track of the point of the Good News. God came not to condemn the world, but to save it. Anyone who wants to be saved will be.

Of course, let’s also not commit the heresy of indifferentism. Our choices and our beliefs can constitute explicit rejection of God. Let us therefore seek truth will our whole hearts and minds, and embrace it unconditionally.

 

[Seeker2010]

Would you agree that believing and knowing are two different things?

I would, but I’m not sure I see your point. For example, I believe there is a God, but I do not KNOW it. I acknowledge that it’s possible that I’m wrong, and that the reality is that we fade to black upon death. Now, were God himself to show up at my door, and had some way of proving that he is in fact God, then I would KNOW he existed.

Again, I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this.

 

[Seeker2010]

Some, yes. But, unfortunately not those that found their way to this forum.

Why would you say this? If a genuinely held belief that we are nothing more than physical beings, complex chemical reactions, with no consciousness post death qualifies as invincible ignorance, how do you then come to the conclusion that in some cases, it doesn’t.

I suppose you may point to doubt, a person who believes there is no God, but isn’t completely sure, but I think regardless of our beliefs we ALL have doubts, regardless of what we may admit out loud. I believe there is a God, but I acknowledge I could be wrong. I concede that I honestly have no idea what to make of the Jesus story. One the one hand, I was raised Christian, and there’s a part of me that FEARS that fact, on the other hand, it is in fact the truth.

I’m sorry I don’t know what you mean here,

It means I believe this physical plane of existence is primarily a school for souls. Why we come here for lessons, instead of having school there I don’t know, one theory of mine is that in physical form we lack certain knowledge that is conducive to learning. For example, we have various religions that give us competitive views of the afterlife. But even true believers don’t KNOW.

 

[Seeker2010]

God is truth, so adhering to an untrue doctrine separates a person from God. As such, it can be considered sinful.

One is only culpable for a sin to the extent that one willfully consents to it. So someone who does not believe in Jesus out of ignorance is certainly not guilty of a mortal sin.

How are these two statements compatible with one another? The first statement says a Muslim, or a Jew, or an Atheist is committing a sin by adhering to an untrue doctrine, while the second says they’re not culpable for that sin if the belief is sincere.

Someone who willfully disbelieves (say, deliberately convincing themself for whatever reason) could be.

How does one do that? If a Catholic starts to question their religion, and through study concludes they don’t think it’s right, is that willful disbelief? Or just the ignorance you referred to above?

Let’s start with the easiest case. Non-Catholic Christians almost all have valid baptim. So a person who is baptised and dies before committing a mortal sin is absolutely saved.

OK, except it’s certainly NOT true that EVERYONE has been baptized, and many were, but not by choice. My nephew was baptized at only a few months of age. He has no knowledge of the event, did not consent.did not request it, and unless he’s told of it when he gets older, won’t even know it.

Every man who is ignorant of the Gospel of Christ and of his Church, but seeks the truth and does the will of God in accordance with his understanding of it, can be saved. It may be supposed that such persons would have desired Baptism explicitly if they had known its necessity.

I can’t imagine that any soul that ever existed, or will exist, DESIRES eternal damnation and torture. Ergo, I’d argue that ‘if they had known’ (that Catholicism were true (or in the event another religion is the TRUE religion, that information), they would follow it. I do not believe Catholicism is true. If, somehow, I were to come to KNOW (not just believe, KNOW) that it were, you can bet your ***** I’m getting MY ***** to confession ASAP. But I don’t see that happening.

It almost sounds like the fine print says that as long as you are sincere in your beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, you’re good. Even bonafide atheists.

 

[NaturalEnquirer]

How are these two statements compatible with one another? The first statement says a Muslim, or a Jew, or an Atheist is committing a sin by adhering to an untrue doctrine, while the second says they’re not culpable for that sin if the belief is sincere.

I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you don’t understand here. Your rephrasing is exactly correct. I need you to clarify your question please.

How does one do that? If a Catholic starts to question their religion, and through study concludes they don’t think it’s right, is that willful disbelief? Or just the ignorance you referred to above?

No, I’m thinking more of a situation where, for instance, someone really believes Catholicism is the truth, but intentionally persuades themselves otherwise for whatever reason.

OK, except it’s certainly NOT true that EVERYONE has been baptized, and many were, but not by choice. My nephew was baptized at only a few months of age. He has no knowledge of the event, did not consent.did not request it, and unless he’s told of it when he gets older, won’t even know it.

I didn’t intend to imply that everyone is baptized. That was just one trivial example of how a non-Catholic can be saved.

I can’t imagine that any soul that ever existed, or will exist, DESIRES eternal damnation and torture. Ergo, I’d argue that ‘if they had known’ (that Catholicism were true (or in the event another religion is the TRUE religion, that information), they would follow it.

I see your point. But I think you’ve got to balance both sides. Sure, no one would pick damnation over salvation, if everything else is equal. But it’s not equal. Salvation entails certain sacrifices. So I think the question is not just, “Would this person desire salvation,” but “Would this person desire salvation enough to do the right thing.”

I do not believe Catholicism is true. If, somehow, I were to come to KNOW (not just believe, KNOW) that it were, you can bet your ***** I’m getting MY ***** to confession ASAP.

Amen, brother. You’re not far from the kingdom.

But I don’t see that happening.

You never know.

It almost sounds like the fine print says that as long as you are sincere in your beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, you’re good. Even bonafide atheists.

Almost. One must also make a sincere effort to follow the natural law written on their hearts, which certainly includes commandments such as murder, theft, adultery, etc. And contrition and repentance when they fail to do so.

And it’s worth remembering that traditional Catholic teaching is that heaven has varying levels of reward. Presumably, a heathen who barely squeezes in by way of invincible ignorance will be rewarded less than a faithful lifelong Catholic. Although I don’t know how official that teaching is.

 

[davidv]

I would, but I’m not sure I see your point. For example, I believe there is a God, but I do not KNOW it. I acknowledge that it’s possible that I’m wrong, and that the reality is that we fade to black upon death. Now, were God himself to show up at my door, and had some way of proving that he is in fact God, then I would KNOW he existed.

Again, I’m not sure I understand where you’re going with this.

It was a premise for countering your statement the not “believing” something is sinful, makes it not sinful. (see the post I quoted)

This not likely the case. In your particular case you have sufficient information relative to what is defined as sinful, based on numerous conversation on various topics. Based on this I would state that any claim that you don’t “know” something is sinful is due to willful ignorance on your part. This would be true whether you “believe” it, or not.

 

[LilyM]

No, I’m thinking more of a situation where, for instance, someone really believes Catholicism is the truth, but intentionally persuades themselves otherwise for whatever reason.

There are other situations as well, for example where someone is so comfortable in their atheism or other belief system that they dobt want to be challenged. And so don’t bother to impartially investigate the possibility that the claims of Catholicism might be true, even though they have ample opportunity and maybe feel a spiritual prompting to do so.

I see your point. But I think you’ve got to balance both sides. Sure, no one would pick damnation over salvation, if everything else is equal. But it’s not equal. Salvation entails certain sacrifices. So I think the question is not just, “Would this person desire salvation,” but “Would this person desire salvation enough to do the right thing.”

A good analogy is jail. Few if any people commit crime wanting to go to jail, even though many of them know there’s a fair chance they’ll go there even at the time they’re doing it.

The only conclusion one can reach is that they are just so attached to the rewards of crime, whatever those might be, or else find it so burdensome to be law-abiding (after all, crime is many times easier), that they’re willing to make the leap into crime even though the end result is jail.

We don’t think it’s wrong to send criminals to jail in such circumstances, since they knew there was that risk.