Do you agree with Aquinas?

[ShrodingersCat]

Healing takes many forms.

I would like to add however, regarding those of us who do need to see a psychiatrist, that it is not a sign of personal weakness and definitely not something that one should be embarrassed about. Alternatively, medication is not a cure for our spiritual ills.

Of course it isn’t a sign of weakness

For every person who has scrupulosity there is a different root cause. Scruples are just a symptom.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Notwithstanding willful ignorance (and there’s a lot of it about), holding a belief sincerely if that belief is not correct is not deceiving yourself. It just means that you are wrong. Your question should read:

‘If there is a God, and you have sincerely believed that there is no God, how is that not a sin?’

There’s not, I have and it isn’t.

In passing, if I’m wrong, then I’ll get the chance to find out. If you are wrong, you won’t.

If I were you, I’d rather not find out.

 

[Bradski]

If I were you, I’d rather not find out.

Let’s say we are both wrong and we end up in front of Shiva. Would you expect to be punished for your honestly held beliefs?

I’d wager not.

 

[e_c]

My conscience is telling me St. Thomas Aquinas’ arguments are incomplete, lacking in compassion/love, and are just too simplistic for such a topic.

This bolded statement does not follow St. Paul’s meaning to the Galatians. Paul is saying that if you are going to circumcise yourself out of a (false) loyalty to God, then you are also bound to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law because you would be under a curse (according to Dt 27:26) if you didn’t. Paul is not saying that because you mistakenly follow Mosaic Law that somehow you are sinning against your conscience if you don’t follow through all the way.

If the Galatians were indeed duped by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, how the would Thomas reconcile that with his later statements on false precepts not being binding?

What a knot you’ve tied… There is a plain meaning here - if you have believed that you must follow the whole Law, then you indeed must follow it, even though it is wrong to. It would be yet more wrong not to follow it when you believe that it is the foundation upon which salvation rests.

Let’s say we are both wrong and we end up in front of Shiva. Would you expect to be punished for your honestly held beliefs?

I’d wager not.

Why not? It seems reasonable…

 

[John_Martin]

Let’s say we are both wrong and we end up in front of Shiva. Would you expect to be punished for your honestly held beliefs?

I’d wager not.

I expect that we all know the fact that we want to know what is really real.
I also expect that “if there is a God”, that God would also have created his intelligent creatures to have this desire, since all that this God knows is what is really real.

Now, if, for intelligent beings, knowing what is really real is their vitality, their life, then I would expect that settling for what is less than really real is a defect of bringing their knowing to its fullness.

We have the proclamations of the religions in the world, and it is not a matter of sincerity for us, but a matter of knowing whether what is proclaimed is true or not.

Even if the proclamations are matters of “belief” since the spiritual is beyond our sensitive apprehension, our reason is able to recognize what cannot or could not be. And this leaves any remaining as “options” that our reason cannot renounce for their unreasonableness.

With Jesus, we have the only religion where in recorded human history, there is the material apprehension of a God coming in person, and human, to do the proclamation of his reality and truth in person. Then doing the act of love of a person loving his God, pouring his life back into this God, as his Father, and giving his body and blood to his own for them to consume, and have his material being within their material being.

And there is the witness that life was poured back to him (from his Father), and he rose, his material being, with new and final material being - including into the body his followers ate and drank, when they also were filled with the pouring of life back into him as they received the Holy Spirit.

This proclamation is in the world, from this God; Shiva’s theology is also available. But we, being human, intelligible and intellectual being, have a goal of knowing the really real and abandoning the not really real. Ignorance of this (ignoring “to know”), is not part of our purpose. When we deny Shiva, it is because we reason the error of being really real about Shiva. And if we have found error, we “KNOW” Shiva cannot be real and will not be found when we pass from this world. We cannot find such knowing or error in Jesus and his being. Even if we must believe in him, yet we cannot find defect via reason. We can only find that it is desirable for him to be really from where he claims to be from, and to be part of him.

If we are sincerely searching for the really real, and never settling for less, then we are what we were made to do, we are living our being.
If we opt into a religion without asking if it is really real, we are usually doing if out of a kind of laziness and selfish benefit we have discovered in choosing that path.

It is “interesting to idle curiosity” to perceive that there are many religious teachings in the world, but it is life to know the really real, and to reject perceptions defective of this knowing as non-options. As humans, we have a mandate to know: “What is this?” “Is it true?” and “Is it good to be one with this?” And then to join to it, or flee from it.

If the object of our “sincerity” is defective of being really real, then our sincerity is an ignorant sincerity, defective because we call “really real” that which is not. Someone said, “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.” Which is what most sincerity is about - not wanting to know the truth about a preferred belief, but simply preferring it for its immediate apprehended advantage.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

What a knot you’ve tied… There is a plain meaning here - if you have believed that you must follow the whole Law, then you indeed must follow it, even though it is wrong to. It would be yet more wrong not to follow it when you believe that it is the foundation upon which salvation rests.

Why not? It seems reasonable…

Thomas does not seem to be open to subtleties. The verses from Galatians are referring to pagans who were told (erroneously) by Jewish Christians that they must be circumcised. Circumcision was the baptism, so to speak, of Judaism. Paul was being a little tongue in cheek when he told them they are bound to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law. The pagans had no conscience about this matter, they were just doing what they were told by people who they obviously took for authority. Thomas goes on, in his articulation of binding conscience, to say that erroneous precepts are not binding.

I’m calling into question Thomas’ evidence for a false conscience being binding. I understand the meaning is plain, but this part of Thomas’ evidence for such a plain meaning is questionable. IMO, Thomas’ bullet points do not comprise a rich understanding of conscience.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Let’s say we are both wrong and we end up in front of Shiva. Would you expect to be punished for your honestly held beliefs?

I’d wager not.

Well, here’s the rub. If you don’t play you can’t win.

I at least could win if Shiva doesn’t exist and Christ does!

You could not win in either case.

But what is it about Shiva that could make Shiva preferable to Jesus Christ?

 

[Charlemagne_III]

By the way, how can a sincere conscience make us desire to be atheists?

Whereas a sincere conscience can truly make us desire to be Christians.

 

[inocente]

Thomas does not seem to be open to subtleties. The verses from Galatians are referring to pagans who were told (erroneously) by Jewish Christians that they must be circumcised. Circumcision was the baptism, so to speak, of Judaism. Paul was being a little tongue in cheek when he told them they are bound to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law. The pagans had no conscience about this matter, they were just doing what they were told by people who they obviously took for authority. Thomas goes on, in his articulation of binding conscience, to say that erroneous precepts are not binding.

I’m calling into question Thomas’ evidence for a false conscience being binding. I understand the meaning is plain, but this part of Thomas’ evidence for such a plain meaning is questionable. IMO, Thomas’ bullet points do not comprise a rich understanding of conscience.

Paul isn’t the slightest tongue in cheek, look at his language, he lays himself on the line with “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you”. All commentators seem to agree on this, for example Barnes paraphrases Paul with:

Behold, I Paul say unto you - I, who at first preached the gospel to you; I, too, who have been circumcised, and who was formerly a strenuous assertor of the necessity of observing the laws of Moses; and I, too, who am charged (see Galatians 5:11) with still preaching the necessity of circumcision, now solemnly say to you, that if you are circumcised with a view to being justified by that in whole or in part, it amounts to a rejection of the doctrine of justification by Christ, and an entire apostacy from him. He is to be “a whole Saviour.” No one is to share with him in the honor of saving people; and no rite, no custom, no observance of law, is to divide the honor with his death. The design of Paul is to give them the most solemn assurance on this point; and by his own authority and experience to guard them from the danger, and to put the matter to rest.

Once Paul makes them realize this, none of them can in good conscience continue down both paths, and I think Thomas is correct in using this to say “Therefore, a false conscience binds in things intrinsically evil”.

 

[inocente]

By the way, how can a sincere conscience make us desire to be atheists?

Whereas a sincere conscience can truly make us desire to be Christians.

Each man must do what seems right to him, not what seems right to you.

*A person may think their own ways are right, but the Lord weighs the heart. - Proverbs 21:2

Do you see a person wise in their own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for them. - Proverbs 26:12*

 

[e_c]

Thomas does not seem to be open to subtleties. The verses from Galatians are referring to pagans who were told (erroneously) by Jewish Christians that they must be circumcised. Circumcision was the baptism, so to speak, of Judaism. Paul was being a little tongue in cheek when he told them they are bound to follow the rest of the Mosaic Law. The pagans had no conscience about this matter, they were just doing what they were told by people who they obviously took for authority. Thomas goes on, in his articulation of binding conscience, to say that erroneous precepts are not binding.

I’m calling into question Thomas’ evidence for a false conscience being binding. I understand the meaning is plain, but this part of Thomas’ evidence for such a plain meaning is questionable. IMO, Thomas’ bullet points do not comprise a rich understanding of conscience.

The Angelic Doctor “not open to subtleties”? Am I being punk’d?

Ok, so then the implication Thomas draws from the passage (which is definitely there…) would not have been mainly aimed at pagan converts, but at the Judaizers who ought to know better. That element of mistaken conscience is addressed in Objection and Reply 5 in the Article referenced… You must read the whole thing if you are going to criticize it and its author - who certainly does not lack a rich understanding of pretty much anything in philosophy or theology or patristics.

 

[o_mlly]

…

If the Galatians were indeed duped by Jewish Christians from Jerusalem, how the would Thomas reconcile that with his later statements on false precepts not being binding?

St. Thomas and our Catechism teach that a false conscience that proceeds out of ignorance of the natural law allowing intrinsically evil acts is sin in itself and such acts are sinful and the culpability for such acts is binding.

1. A false conscience which is mistaken in things which are intrinsically evil commands something which is contrary to the law of God. Nevertheless, it says that what it commands is the law of God. Accordingly, one who acts against such a conscience becomes a kind of transgressor of the law of God, although one Who follows such a conscience and acts according to it acts against the law of God and sins mortally. For there was sin in the error itself, since it happened because of ignorance of that which one should have known.
   dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

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. …
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Paul isn’t the slightest tongue in cheek, look at his language, he lays himself on the line with “Mark my words! I, Paul, tell you”. All commentators seem to agree on this, for example Barnes paraphrases Paul with:

Behold, I Paul say unto you - I, who at first preached the gospel to you; I, too, who have been circumcised, and who was formerly a strenuous assertor of the necessity of observing the laws of Moses; and I, too, who am charged (see Galatians 5:11) with still preaching the necessity of circumcision, now solemnly say to you, that if you are circumcised with a view to being justified by that in whole or in part, it amounts to a rejection of the doctrine of justification by Christ, and an entire apostacy from him. He is to be “a whole Saviour.” No one is to share with him in the honor of saving people; and no rite, no custom, no observance of law, is to divide the honor with his death. The design of Paul is to give them the most solemn assurance on this point; and by his own authority and experience to guard them from the danger, and to put the matter to rest.

Once Paul makes them realize this, none of them can in good conscience continue down both paths, and I think Thomas is correct in using this to say “Therefore, a false conscience binds in things intrinsically evil”.

I’m referring to Gal 5:3. But there’s also this:

Gal 5:12
11
As for me, brothers, if I am still preaching circumcision,* why am I still being persecuted? In that case, the stumbling block of the cross has been abolished.i
12
Would that those who are upsetting you might also castrate themselves!*

Tongue in cheek

 

[1Lord1Faith]

The Angelic Doctor “not open to subtleties”? Am I being punk’d?

Ok, so then the implication Thomas draws from the passage (which is definitely there…) would not have been mainly aimed at pagan converts, but at the Judaizers who ought to know better. That element of mistaken conscience is addressed in Objection and Reply 5 in the Article referenced… You must read the whole thing if you are going to criticize it and its author - who certainly does not lack a rich understanding of pretty much anything in philosophy or theology or patristics.

1. We do not conclude from that argument that a false conscience does not bind under pain of sin if it is not followed, but that, if it is followed, it excuses from sin. Consequently, the argument is not to the point. When the error itself is not a sin, the conclusion is true, as when the error is due to ignorance of some fact. But, if it is ignorance of a law, the conclusion is wrong because the ignorance itself is a sin. For before a civil judge, also, one who thus appeals to ignorance of a law which he should know is not excused.

Are you talking about this? This is not subtle. I did read the whole thing. I didn’t study it, but I read it. It’s lacking.
Thomas is comparing God’s judgement to that of a civil judge.

There are different opinions on this matter. For some say that conscience can be mistaken both in things which are intrinsically evil and also with regard to indifferent things. Furthermore, a mistaken conscience does not bind in things which are intrinsically evil, but does bind with regard to indifferent things. But those who say this do not seem to understand in what sense conscience imposes an obligation. For conscience is said to bind in so far as one sins if he does not follow his conscience, but not in the sense that he acts correctly if he does follow it. Otherwise, a counsel would be called obligatory, for one who fulfills a counsel acts correctly. Still, we do not say that we are bound to counsels, since one who neglects what is of counsel does not sin. But we say that we are bound to precepts because, if we do not keep them, we commit sin. Therefore, conscience is not said to bind in the sense that what one does according to such a conscience will be good, but in the sense that in not following it he will sin. dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

Sorry, I meant counsel’s not precepts. What the pagans received from the Jewish Cristians was, IMO, counsel. Paul is talking to the pagans not the Judaizers, that is clear if your read on to Gal 5:10-
I am confident of you in the Lord that you will not take a different view, and that the one who is troubling you will bear the condemnation, whoever he may be.h

 

[1Lord1Faith]

St. Thomas and our Catechism teach that a false conscience that proceeds out of ignorance of the natural law allowing intrinsically evil acts is sin in itself and such acts are sinful and the culpability for such acts is binding.

1. A false conscience which is mistaken in things which are intrinsically evil commands something which is contrary to the law of God. Nevertheless, it says that what it commands is the law of God. Accordingly, one who acts against such a conscience becomes a kind of transgressor of the law of God, although one Who follows such a conscience and acts according to it acts against the law of God and sins mortally. For there was sin in the error itself, since it happened because of ignorance of that which one should have known.
   dhspriory.org/thomas/QDdeVer17.htm#4

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. …
vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Ahhhh…much better. Thomas is great, but his work was a foundation. Thomas’ work should not stand alone. The Church has built on it for 500 years.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

Ahhhh…much better. Thomas is great, but his work was a foundation. Thomas’ work should not stand alone. The Church has built on it for 500 years.

Closer to 800 years!

 

[e_c]

Ahhhh…much better. Thomas is great, but his work was a foundation. Thomas’ work should not stand alone. The Church has built on it for 500 years.

Indeed… a foundation which has not changed in this regard.

You taking pot shots at a behemoth (whom you don’t even seem to know basic biographical details of). Do really you think Thomas didn’t treat of ignorance diminishing culpability? He did! But this is not about that. It is about the conscience… and where the conscience goes, we must go too.

Yes, fine - Galatians is mainly addressed to the pagan converts.

However, 5:3 is pretty clear… If you undergo circumcision, you are bound to follow the whole law.

It seems Paul is of the opinion that one ought to be taking his conversion seriously enough to understand what he is getting himself into… That if you are going to become a Christian, you are bound to know what that does and does not entail.

What is the problem with comparing God to a civil judge? It is an illustration to show a relationship by allegory… A man who fails to uphold a civil law clearly available to all to learn may justly be put away by a judge. How much more so with the natural law (Romans 1!!!), which is written on our hearts, and revealed law, which is available through the Church?

 

[John_Martin]

Whether right or wrong in conscience, when you disobey it, your sin is that you are saying, like Satan, “I will not serve you, God” (because mistaken or not, the soul knows that conscience is a voice created by God).

If you obey your conscience, and it is false, you are not a disobedient person to God, yet still ignorant of what is the true law (and hopefully someone informs you).

If your ignorance is through laziness in learning the truth or listening for it, then your sin is your act and your laziness/sloth, but it is not an outright rebellion against God.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

We always know when we have sinned.

Conscience troubles us and will not let go no matter how hard we try to deceive ourselves.

 

[e_c]

We always know when we have sinned.

Conscience troubles us and will not let go no matter how hard we try to deceive ourselves.

That does not seem to square with experience at all.