Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin?

[Vico]

Jesus said:

Luke 23:34New International Version (NIV)

34 Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

It can be seen that Jesus not only forgave those who wanted Him dead, but forgave from His heart by using the gift of Understanding. He saw that they did not know what they were doing.

Can this be applied universally? It seems to be so. I can’t think of a case where people actually know what they are doing when they sin, when using an all-inclusive definition of the word “know”. (i.e. knowing all the information relevant to the decision to behave in a certain manner)

We know that Adam and Eve did and so did the fallen angels. Those were mortal sins.

It is possible but “we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God”. Catechism:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

 

[fisherman_carl]

Can you come up with a scenario where a person chooses ignorance and knows what he is doing in choosing such ignorance?

VINCIBLE IGNORANCE
Definition: Lack of knowledge for which a person is morally responsible. It is culpable ignorance because it could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence. One is said to be simply (but culpably) ignorant if one fails to make enough effort to learn what should be known; guilt then depends on one’s lack of effort to clear up the ignorance. That person is crassly ignorant when the lack of knowledge is not directly willed but rather due to neglect or laziness; as a result the guilt is somewhat lessened, but in grave matters a person would still be gravely responsible. A person has affected ignorance when one deliberately fosters it in order not to be inhibited in what one wants to do; such ignorance is gravely wrong when it concerns serious matters. Reference

 

[OneSheep]

Well, one could say that because we don’t know the future then we don’t have all of the relevant information.

Yes, this is true, but a person lacking in experience also has less of an ability to predict the future. Such predicting is grounded in an experience-based knowledge (wisdom).

I would disagree here. There are many people who are addicted to things that want to quit because they can not. Its not just a simple matter of telling them how to quit. They have to want to quit and be willing to suffer. Be willing to suffer those withdrawl symptoms. It could be that sin is often caused by people who are not willing to suffer. Or not willing to die to themselves. It’s not always an easy thing to deny oneself. Just having knowledge doesn’t negate that.

I think you are referring to the sick woman who says, when buying the cigarettes, “I want to quit, but I don’t want to suffer through the pain of quitting.” She is saying that continuation of her life is not worth the pain, correct?

…could be cleared up if the person used sufficient diligence…

What is going through a person’s mind when they are not using sufficient diligence? This is a new scenario to pursue. Could we end with a person knowing what they are doing?

Would you like to give it a try?

 

[OneSheep]

We know that Adam and Eve did…

Eve saw that “it was good to eat”. In the long run, was it?

Adam and Eve had regret. Did they know more when they were feeling the regret, or did they know more when they were making the bad choice?

Thanks, Vico, nice to hear from you.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

We know that Adam and Eve did…

Eve saw that “it was good to eat”. In the long run, was it?

Adam and Eve had regret. Did they know more when they were feeling the regret, or did they know more when they were making the bad choice?

Thanks, Vico, nice to hear from you.

It is not necessary to know all information relevant to a decision to behave in a certain manner in order to sin mortally. What Adam and Eve, and the angels knew, was sufficient for mortal sin.

 

[OneSheep]

It is not necessary to know all information relevant to a decision to behave in a certain manner in order to sin mortally. What Adam and Eve, and the angels knew, was sufficient for mortal sin.

To stay with the intent of the thread, let me pose a question for you.

If your own two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did (defying your words), would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is not necessary to know all information relevant to a decision to behave in a certain manner in order to sin mortally. What Adam and Eve, and the angels knew, was sufficient for mortal sin.

To stay with the intent of the thread, let me pose a question for you.

If your own two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did (defying your words), would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

No, it is phrased to generally. Missing some relevant information in their choice would not. Only specific relevant information is sufficient to determine culpability.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m sorry, Vico, for the life of me I can’t figure out your response.

Is your “no” a response to the first question, or the second?

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry, Vico, for the life of me I can’t figure out your response.

Is your “no” a response to the first question, or the second?

Second: Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

It is given that the defiance it is willful (there could be no actual sin without that) and you wrote “two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did”) so that would be grave sin then, per your stipulation. You question is not about involuntariness nor gravity, but knowledge. Also assumes that they have achieved the use of reason, else they could not actually sin.

Perhaps you are trying to make it out as venial. “Venial sins do not alter a man’s state, for they neither destroy nor diminish charity…” - St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[OneSheep]

It is given that the defiance it is willful (there could be no actual sin without that) and you wrote “two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did”)

Correction, Vico. I asked:

If your own two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did (defying your words), would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

And then, the second question followed from the first:

Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

To which your answer is “No”, with the added comment “It is given that the defiance it is willful…so that would be grave sin.”

To clarify, would you not forgive your own children for such defiance?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

It is given that the defiance it is willful (there could be no actual sin without that) and you wrote “two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did”)

Correction, Vico. I asked:

If your own two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did (defying your words), would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

And then, the second question followed from the first:

Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

To which your answer is “No”, with the added comment “It is given that the defiance it is willful…so that would be grave sin.”

To clarify, would you not forgive your own children for such defiance?

No. Because the defiance was given to be like that of Adam and Eve, therefore it is grave and voluntary and uncharitable, and they had use of reason, so it would justify temporal punishment therefore it is not forgiven. As to the guilt of the offense, just as God forgives that with proper contrition, then man can forgive that with proper contrition from their children.

 

[OneSheep]

No. Because the defiance was given to be like that of Adam and Eve, therefore it is grave and voluntary and uncharitable, and they had use of reason, so it would justify temporal punishment therefore it is not forgiven. As to the guilt of the offense, just as God forgives that with proper contrition, then man can forgive that with proper contrition from their children.

Good Morning Vico

So, I think you are saying, then, that you would not forgive the defiance of your own children without “proper contrition”. I thank you for your sincere reply.

Let’s put this in the perspective of the Kingdom for a moment, Vico. We pray “Thy Kingdom come, thy will be done, on Earth as it is in Heaven”. In a sense, Vico, as Christians we participate in creating this Kingdom, and Jesus had a vision, a vision that meant to bring all people together in love and mercy, a vision of human family.

And what do we have here on Earth? We had Christian groups fighting one another because forgiveness had not taken place; people demand “proper contrition” from one another, and such contrition does not happen because there is so much anger. Very naturally, people hang onto their anger and resentment. Neither side is the first to have “proper contrition”.

The antidote for anger and resentment is to forgive. What if your own children died before they had a chance to express “proper contrition” to you? Would you hang onto resentment of their defiant act forever?

Have you heard “holding a grudge is like taking poison and waiting for the other person to die”?

Jesus invites us to forgive without “proper contrition” from the other:

Mark 11:25New International Version (NIV)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

These words Jesus spoke are mirrored in His own action from the cross spoke in Luke 23:34. He did not wait for “proper contrition” from the crowd. He forgave the unrepentant.

And here is another section from Matthew 5 to consider:

43“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbori and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Jesus is calling us to be perfect, a merciful perfection. Is withholding forgiveness until after “proper contrition” a merciful perfection? Withholding forgiveness is neither merciful to the sinner, nor is it merciful to the one “taking the poison”, right?

And then, what is this thread about? It is about helping people forgive in the way that Jesus did from the cross, through understanding that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

 

[Vico]

…
And then, what is this thread about? It is about helping people forgive in the way that Jesus did from the cross, through understanding that people do not know what they are doing when they sin.

You restricted the question to me as like Adam and Eve, yet in the opening of the thread you say “He saw that they did not know what they were doing.” Essentially you asked me a different question and now switch.

We are taught that God requires the unrepentent to convert because of the lack of charity. It is not a grudge to require repentance. Grudge is different than justice: grudge: noun, a persistent feeling of ill will or resentment resulting from a past insult or injury.

 

[OneSheep]

You restricted the question to me as like Adam and Eve, yet in the opening of the thread you say “He saw that they did not know what they were doing.” Essentially you asked me a different question and now switch.

Here was my question, Vico:

If your own two children behaved in the manner that Adam and Eve did (defying your words), would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

I said “behaved like Adam and Eve”. I thought you answered my second question, based on your own children behaving in the manner that Adam and Eve did, defiantly. I think you may have interpreted the question as if your children were Adam and Eve. Is that what happened?

If your own children behaved like Adam and Eve (defiantly) but were not Adam and Eve, would you understand that they were missing some relevant information in their choice?

and then:

Would the realization that they did not know what they were doing help you forgive them?

It is not a grudge to require repentance

If a person requires repentance in order to forgive, then the person does not forgive until repentance occurs. Withholding forgiveness is the same as holding a grudge, correct?

grudge: noun, a persistent feeling of ill will or resentment resulting from a past insult or injury.

If a person does not forgive, then they are holding onto the feeling of ill will or resentment, correct?

 

[Vico]

…
I said “behaved like Adam and Eve”. I thought you answered my second question, based on your own children behaving in the manner that Adam and Eve did, defiantly. I think you may have interpreted the question as if your children were Adam and Eve. Is that what happened?
…If a person does not forgive, then they are holding onto the feeling of ill will or resentment, correct?

You can go back and read what I wrote again, because I was careful to answer the question as you asked it, saying they were like Adam and Eve (they were not Adam and Eve).

Q. If a person does not forgive, then they are holding onto the feeling of ill will or resentment, correct?
A. No that does not follow. Action is not the same as feeling.

The initial post of “forgive them for they know not what they do” is not the same as the Adam and Eve situation. So by comparing Adam and Eve you diverge.

One may not be culpable for a material sin when ignorant, depending upon why there is that ignorance.

Depending on its type and degree, ignorance may remove, diminish, leave unaffected, or even increase one’s culpability for a materially sinful act (cf. CCC 1735, 1746, 1859). Conversely, it may have the same effects on one’s imputability for a materially righteous act. Here we will deal only with the effects of ignorance on one’s culpability for sin.

Invincible ignorance removes one’s culpability for a materially sinful act, whether one of omission or commission (CCC 1793). Vincible ignorance may variously affect one’s culpability for a sinful act, depending on the kind of vincibility. If some, but insufficient, diligence was shown toward finding the answer, the ignorance is termed merely vincible. If little or no diligence was shown, the ignorance is termed crass or supine. If one deliberately fostered the ignorance then it is termed affected or studied.

If vincible ignorance is merely vincible, crass, or supine, it diminishes culpability for the sinful act relative to the degree of diligence that was shown. If a vincibly ignorant person showed almost reasonable diligence, most of his imputability for the sin could be removed. If he was crassly ignorant, having shown little or no diligence compared to what was reasonable, little or none of his imputability would be removed.

Affected or studied ignorance can increase culpability for a sin, especially if it displays hardness of heart, whereby one would commit the sin irrespective of any law that might exist concerning it. Such an attitude shows contempt for moral law and so increases culpability (cf. CCC 1859).

Library : Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible

Ignorance—Invincible and Vincible In this article, James Akin explains the meaning of vincible and invincible ignorance in the light of moral theology. He also differentiates among the degrees of vincible ignorance and the consequent culpability of the individual. Akin discusses these varying...

www.catholicculture.org

 

[fisherman_carl]

Here is some supplementary information related to this topic you may want to consider. Some topics include the role of conscience, vincible and invincible ignorance.

It’s the first 8.5 minutes of this video

 

[OneSheep]

You can go back and read what I wrote again, because I was careful to answer the question as you asked it, saying they were like Adam and Eve (they were not Adam and Eve).

Okay, then your answer that you would not forgive your own children is more confusing, Vico. It sounds like you actually would not forgive your own children for defiance unless they had contrition. I am talking about forgiveness from the heart.

Q. If a person does not forgive, then they are holding onto the feeling of ill will or resentment, correct?

A. No that does not follow. Action is not the same as feeling.

Could you explain this? I am talking about forgiveness from the heart. Do you know a different kind of forgiveness? If a person forgives from the heart, they are simultaneously letting go of resentment, they are no longer holding something against someone.

 

[Vico]

…Do you know a different kind of forgiveness? If a person forgives from the heart, they are simultaneously letting go of resentment, they are no longer holding something against someone.

Part I

You can read what I posted before to understand how it applies to children that are like Adam and Eve.

To forgive has to do with removal of our anger and desire. Justice may still call for punishment.

forgive, transitive verb (Collins Dictionary)

If you forgive someone who has done something bad or wrong, you stop being angry with them and no longer want to punish them.

God forgives the guilt of our mortal sins for which we have proper contrition, however not all sins and temporal punishments are remitted, except for in baptism. But we do still have to live with the consequences of our sinful actions. Penance is to remove punishments that remain after the guilt is forgiven. This is for our good.

“Forgiveness thus does not mean treating someone as if they had never sinned. That would require us to let go of our reason as well as our anger. The Church acknowledges this principle. In his encyclical Dives in Misericordia, John Paul II notes that the “requirement of forgiveness does not cancel out the objective requirements of justice. . . . In no passage of the gospel message does forgiveness, or mercy as its source, mean indulgence toward evil, toward scandals, toward injury or insult. In any case, reparation for evil and scandal, compensation for injury, and satisfaction for insult are conditions for forgiveness” (DM 14).”

The Limits of Forgiveness | Catholic Answers Magazine

We should control our anger inasmuch as we can. St. Paul states in Ephesians 4:26, “Be angry but do not sin; do not let the sun go down on your anger.”

Haydock Commentary:

Ver. 26. Be angry, and sin not, as it is said Psalm iv. 5. Anger, as a passion of the mind, may proceed from a good motive and be guided by reason; as our Saviour, Christ, (Mark iii. 5.) is said to have looked about at the Jews with anger, i.e. with a zeal against their blindness and malice. — Let not the sun go down upon your anger. If moved to anger, return without delay to a calmness of mind and temper. (Witham) — Be angry when reason or necessity compels you; but even then, so restrain your anger that you neither offend God nor scandalize your neighbour. Moreover, lay it aside as soon as you are able, so that the sun go not down upon your anger. (Jansenius)

 

[Vico]

…

Part II Quotes from the Catechism

Catechism

1450 “Penance requires . . . the sinner to endure all things willingly, be contrite of heart, confess with the lips, and practice complete humility and fruitful satisfaction.” 49

1459 Many sins wrong our neighbor. One must do what is possible in order to repair the harm (e.g., return stolen goods, restore the reputation of someone slandered, pay compensation for injuries). Simple justice requires as much. But sin also injures and weakens the sinner himself, as well as his relationships with God and neighbor. Absolution takes away sin, but it does not remedy all the disorders sin has caused. 62 Raised up from sin, the sinner must still recover his full spiritual health by doing something more to make amends for the sin: he must “make satisfaction for” or “expiate” his sins. This satisfaction is also called “penance.”

1471 … "An indulgence is a remission before God of the temporal punishment due to sins whose guilt has already been forgiven, …

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Carl, I hope you are ready for a beautiful Christmas.

Dr. David Anderson brings up three cases that pertain here, and I will try to remember them as I post here. In the first case, yes, the Doctor who simply did not know of the dignity of the unborn did not know what he was doing.

In the second case, the doctor who learns the “nature and dignity of the unborn” will simply not preform abortions; it would be contrary to his nature to do so unless by not performing the abortion the mother would surely perish, killing both individuals (or some other very difficult moral choice, where there is no path that would not involve doing something bad.)

In the third case, the doctor who decides not to read the document that lines out the nature and dignity of the unborn, he does not know what he is doing in choosing the ignorance. If he knew that reading it would open his eyes to the truth that abortions truly violate his own well-formed conscience, then he would read them. His fear blinds him to the importance of reading the document.