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

[OneSheep]

God would not make people responsible for things they can’t know. In His mercy He will forgive everyone for everything, since no one can know what thev are doing.

I think this brings us back to the definition of “make people responsible”. For example, if a drug addict robs my store to support his habit, I can truly forgive the person, from my heart, because I know that his mind is perverted by the drugs. My forgiveness from the heart does not mean that I do not hold him responsible for what he did, though.

For example, I do not claim that it was “the addiction” that made him steal. He always had the choice not to steal, it was he who did the theft. He is responsible for what he did, not anyone else. Everyone is responsible (has ownership of) every choice they ever make, and that is the truth.

However, since I see him as responsible, I also see the need to do what is merciful to reverse the problems that led to his choice. A mercifully-applied punishment, for example, that will lead to his conversion/repentance is called for.

Does God “making people responsible” mean “blame and wrathfully collect a debt”? That does not reflect the Father I know. Does it for you?

So, now, with the above analysis in mind (and anything you would like to add to it), Are you thinking, then, when Jesus said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” that He was proclaiming that they were not responsible?

And I am still curious… is the Abbey truly a “welcoming place”? The website uses the word “welcome”. You could message me the answer if you like. Thanks.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. … you are talking about the supernatural, and I am talking about the natural. … As long as the resentment is not addressed (through grace), the perversion is still possible, and probable. Are you following me in this?
A. It is possible to do good without supernatural grace and it is possible to sin mortally, even with supernatural grace (these are dogmas of the Church).

Q. So then, how do we “seek justice” in a way that involves no sin?
A. There may be the feeling of displeasure (the resetment) but justice can be sought without ill will. The feeling can temp to wrong action but the will may override it. Grace makes it possible to do what would be considered a natural limit.

Q… how, from the cross, did Jesus show us how to forgive those who are difficult to forgive and unrepentant? We can see that all sinners do not know what they are doing.
A. He asked the Father to forgive those that were invincibly ignorant, not all.

 

[Vico]

…

Q… If I have resentment, I still “hold something against” someone, I have not forgiven. However, in your definition, that forgiveness from the heart is not as central.
A. We went over the definition about 5 to 4 days ago.

Q. We cannot simultaneously hold grudges and know/experience God’s complete love for us. See Mark 11:25
A. Sin is something voluntary, so feelings that are involuntary do not cause sin, rather voluntary acts of will do.

Q. So Jesus was not one with the Father in that instance? I have never heard this “non-declaration” stated before.
A. Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? Psalm 22.
Christ was not abandoned either by His Father or by His own divinity but is speaking in our place.

Q. Does the catechism say that Jesus did not forgive those whom He prayed the Father forgive?
A. Catechism 597 … Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. [Cf. Lk 23:34; Acts 3:17]…

 

[Vico]

…
However, such forgiveness did not preclude individual sinners’ need for a merciful application of some kind of punishment or natural consequence. …

Even venial sin entails temporal punishment, which can be forgiven, such as occurs in baptism.

Catechism

1862 One commits venial sin when, in a less serious matter, he does not observe the standard prescribed by the moral law, or when he disobeys the moral law in a grave matter, but without full knowledge or without complete consent.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree with everything you wrote there, guaophore! Should we note this as a significant point in history?

Did you see my post 330?

 

[OneSheep]

Q. … you are talking about the supernatural, and I am talking about the natural. … As long as the resentment is not addressed (through grace), the perversion is still possible, and probable. Are you following me in this?

A. It is possible to do good without supernatural grace and it is possible to sin mortally, even with supernatural grace (these are dogmas of the Church).

There you go with mortal sin again… What I was commenting on was the “knowing” involved in grace. You are really focused on mortal sin, correct? This thread seems to bring out the topic in you.

Q. So then, how do we “seek justice” in a way that involves no sin?

A. There may be the feeling of displeasure (the resetment) but justice can be sought without ill will. The feeling can temp to wrong action but the will may override it. Grace makes it possible to do what would be considered a natural limit.

The will can override it if the person is aware of how to apply the will to override, and knows that resentment is something to “override” in the first place. We can seek justice in a way that does not involve sin by first forgiving from the heart, which eliminates resentment. This is grace in action, this is grace manifested in the person.

Q… how, from the cross, did Jesus show us how to forgive those who are difficult to forgive and unrepentant? We can see that all sinners do not know what they are doing.

A. He asked the Father to forgive those that were invincibly ignorant, not all.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that interpretation.

Q… If I have resentment, I still “hold something against” someone, I have not forgiven. However, in your definition, that forgiveness from the heart is not as central.

A. We went over the definition about 5 to 4 days ago.

Looked, but could not find it.

Q. We cannot simultaneously hold grudges and know/experience God’s complete love for us. See Mark 11:25

A. Sin is something voluntary, so feelings that are involuntary do not cause sin, rather voluntary acts of will do.

Holding a grudge is a voluntary act, so what you said does not apply.

Q. So Jesus was not one with the Father in that instance? I have never heard this “non-declaration” stated before.

A. Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani? Psalm 22.

Christ was not abandoned either by His Father or by His own divinity but is speaking in our place.

When it comes to the “abandonment” verse, I agree. Where does the Church say that the same applies to Luke 23:34?

From CCC597:… Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders…

Even venial sin entails temporal punishment, which can be forgiven…

All sin can be forgiven.

“God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.”

• Pope Francis

 

[Vico]

…

Q. … you are talking about the supernatural, and I am talking about the natural. … As long as the resentment is not addressed (through grace), the perversion is still possible, and probable. Are you following me in this?
A. It is possible to do good without supernatural grace and it is possible to sin mortally, even with supernatural grace (these are dogmas of the Church).

Q. There you go with mortal sin again… What I was commenting on was the “knowing” involved in grace. You are really focused on mortal sin, correct? This thread seems to bring out the topic in you.
A. You stated perversion which is an act rather than a natural feeling. Properly, sin is only mortal sin, which is a lack of charity.

Q. The will can override it [wrong action] if the person is aware of how to apply the will to override, and knows that resentment is something to “override” in the first place. We can seek justice in a way that does not involve sin by first forgiving from the heart, which eliminates resentment. This is grace in action, this is grace manifested in the person.
A. A person can avoid sin while experiencing the feeling of resentment even without the help of grace. It is imperative to not sin, even while being unable to remove such a feeling – the resistance to act improperly on it is sufficient to avoid sin.

Q. I have absolutely no idea where you got that interpretation.
A. The case thay could apply to “for they know not what they do” is invincible ignorance.

Q. Looked, but could not find it.
A. Here plus before and after: Does anyone ever know what they are doing when they sin? - #308 by Vico

Q. Holding a grudge is a voluntary act, so what you said does not apply.
A. It does apply since resentment can be a feeling (a temptation to sin) or ill will (a sin). Do you remember this from earlier in the thread?

Q. When it comes to the “abandonment” verse, I agree. Where does the Church say that the same applies to Luke 23:34?
A. Catechism 597: Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. 386 – Footnote 386 Cf. Lk 23:34; Acts 3:17.

 

[guanophore]

I agree with everything you wrote there, guaophore! Should we note this as a significant point in history?

And you thought all that time I wasn’t paying attention!

I do not claim that it was “the addiction” that made him steal. He always had the choice not to steal, it was he who did the theft. He is responsible for what he did, not anyone else. Everyone is responsible (has ownership of) every choice they ever make, and that is the truth.

As someone who works with addicts who steal on a daily basis, I can tell you that their addiction really does make them steal, as well as a lot of other heinous behaviors. One of the ways we can know the difference between a person suffering the disease of addiction and a sociopath is that an addict, when they get into recovery they feel guilt and shame for their acts, stop doing them, and attempt to make reparation. People who have no respect for the rights of others do not have these changes when they don’t have drugs.

I think there is a difference between ownership and responsibility on a subjective vs objective level. Some people do not take ownership of their actions. We could legallly and using other means hold them responsible for them, but many people go to jail/prison and never take responsibility. I actually had a thief tell me once that it is only a crime if he gets caught.

There you go with mortal sin again… What I was commenting on was the “knowing” involved in grace. You are really focused on mortal sin, correct? This thread seems to bring out the topic in you.

Your construct is dialectically opposed to the Church’s teaching on mortal sin. Perhaps that is why the thread keeps “bring out” the topic?

 

[guanophore]

He asked the Father to forgive those that were invincibly ignorant, not all.

I have absolutely no idea where you got that interpretation.

Because He said “for they know not what they do”. This is invincible ignorance. A person makes a decision they believe is right because they are acting in the best conscience they have, and within the Truth they know, which is insufficient.

The people present that knew they were doing wrong like the Jews who received the commandment “thou shalt not kill” were not invincibly ignorant.

Holding a grudge is a voluntary act, so what you said does not apply.

It can be, but it is not always. Many people hold resentments and do not even realize they are doing so. They can come to the knowledge that they are doing this (as I suspect you did at some point) and then have a choice to persist or to forgive. People have an amazing ability to push things out of their consciousness, and can hold grudges for decades without believing that they do.

Sin is something voluntary, so feelings that are involuntary do not cause sin, rather voluntary acts of will do.

Sin is sometimes involuntary, but as such, would never be mortal. A person can do something objectively wrong without intending to do wrong. But I do agree that feelings are never sinful. They are part of our human functioning, like perspiration.

“God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us.”

Pope Francis

Yes, but not all want to be forgiven, or ask to be forgiven. God, in respect to our free will, allows us to retain our sins.

A person can avoid sin while experiencing the feeling of resentment even without the help of grace. It is imperative to not sin, even while being unable to remove such a feeling – the resistance to act improperly on it is sufficient to avoid sin.

I really like the way this is stated. I think feelings of anger, resentment, revenge, etc. are often a reflex, and as such, we cannot stop them any more than we can blinking or breathing. But we do have a choice about how we act on them. We also have an obligation not to nurture emotions contrary to love.

 

[OneSheep]

A. You stated perversion which is an act rather than a natural feeling. Properly, sin is only mortal sin, which is a lack of charity.

“Perversion” in context is not an act, but an attachment. From CCC 1849:

it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods

This “attachment” in effect alters the mind of the individual.

A person can avoid sin while experiencing the feeling of resentment even without the help of grace. It is imperative to not sin, even while being unable to remove such a feeling – the resistance to act improperly on it is sufficient to avoid sin.

Yes he can,avoid sin, but such avoidance is far less likely to occur without forgiveness practiced. Indeed this is a bit difficult to put together, for if a person is feeling resentment they are already alienated, in a “sinful state” (remember: I am talking about resentment being a negative feeling and the coupled perception of lack of value of the resented person). This would be a pretty “surgical” application of grace, having the grace to avoid hurting someone else, but not having the grace to forgive from the heart.

The avoidance of sin, in the case your are describing, is done out of fear of consequence. That makes sense. Grace in the form of fear, of course.

Ultimately, it is forgiveness from the heart that brings the sinner back into reconciliation with God and the other person, right? Short of reconciliation, there is a bit of alienation, which is sin. So while the individual could avoid doing a worse sin by the grace of fear of consequence, if the person is not reconciled with his neighbor (in his heart, if not in actual handshake), he is still alienating himself. He does not know what he is doing, and he is forgiven, but still alienated. Does this make sense to you Vico?

 

[OneSheep]

Q. Holding a grudge is a voluntary act, so what you said does not apply.

A. It does apply since resentment can be a feeling (a temptation to sin) or ill will (a sin). Do you remember this from earlier in the thread?

Yes, feelings are involuntary, but resentment is different. With resentment (as opposed to simple anger) comes an automatic associated disvalue of the resented person, he is perceived as a “jerk” or worse. While this is all involuntary, it still leads to a “perversion” caused by an attachment to a triggered desire for justice.

This is what happened at the crucifixion. Jesus said and did things that triggered a gut-level negative reaction from the Jewish leadership and others. The resentment had a coupled disvalue of Jesus, and they proceeded to do (advocate) awful things to Him as punishment, choices enhanced by seeing Jesus as something less than a valuable human. Do you see what I am saying? When the people had the gut-level reaction, disvalueing Jesus, they were already alienated from the Truth. When we see any other person as less than a loved by God, as having some lesser value as a human, we are already alienated, but we do not even realize it has happened.

Forgiveness from the heart erases the resentment, and the alienation.

A. Catechism 597: Jesus himself, in forgiving them on the cross, and Peter in following suit, both accept “the ignorance” of the Jews of Jerusalem and even of their leaders. 386 – Footnote 386 Cf. Lk 23:34; Acts 3:17.

Yes, this is from the catechism, but are you implying that when Jesus said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” He was not speaking for Abba Himself, that God did not forgive even though Jesus did?

Remember: I am using definition “forgiveness from the heart”.

 

[OneSheep]

As someone who works with addicts who steal on a daily basis, I can tell you that their addiction really does make them steal, as well as a lot of other heinous behaviors.

Guanophore, are you saying the person does not have free will? Please clarify “makes them steal”.

I think there is a difference between ownership and responsibility on a subjective vs objective level. Some people do not take ownership of their actions. We could legallly and using other means hold them responsible for them, but many people go to jail/prison and never take responsibility. I actually had a thief tell me once that it is only a crime if he gets caught.

Yeah I think that we are both really talking about the importance of having a person account for their choices, and I agree with this. This is what is a bit confusing about what you may be saying. Can a person say “the addiction made me do it”, as a means of avoiding some type of consequence? To me, that would truly be “making excuses”. OTOH, if the addict had the self-awareness to admit that he was making choices from an altered mind, that his addiction truly warped his conscience at the time of his choice to do evil, then he is explaining what actually happened. However, does such explanation mean that we are to lessen consequence? No, absolutely not, IMO, prescribed consequence should be meted based on what will mercifully lead to conversion, not based on a level of intent or motive. I might have to clarify what I am saying with examples…

Because He said “for they know not what they do”. This is invincible ignorance. A person makes a decision they believe is right because they are acting in the best conscience they have, and within the Truth they know, which is insufficient.

The people present that knew they were doing wrong like the Jews who received the commandment “thou shalt not kill” were not invincibly ignorant.

And what I am saying, in a sense, is that it can be shown that all cases of ignorance are invincible. However, that statement needs a lot of clarification through use of examples. Jesus’ prayer from the cross is all-inclusive, though, so He would be including the “vincible” in the forgiven, if such “vincibility” existed. I don’t see any evidence of “vincible ignorance” anywhere; it can be shown to be a false accusation.

 

[GLam1761]

We are to be ON GUARD and alert, the thief
comes to steal, to kill and destroy(our works).
we have TWO entrances which we must
guard(I know this, sadly, from my own life)
Our eyes and our ears(audio-visual)
Satan usually chooses the first entrance, esp.
males, who are more receptive to feminine
beauty/body.The second entrance mostly has
to do with gossip/slander/lies.
I know that Jesus said that nothing OUTSIDE
a man can defile him, but in the same text, the
Scriptures say that Jesus was just declaring
ALL FOODS clean, He wasn’t talking about
other things!!(Mark 7:19).
IF and when we sin, whose fault is it? Us!!
b/c we have FAILED to guard ourselves from
sin in the form of a temptation entering thru
one or both entrances to the Temple that is
our body.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, are you saying the person does not have free will? Please clarify “makes them steal”.

Their free will is taken bondage by the addiction. The addiction drives their behavior. They can no longer just will themselves to stop using, and are driven by chemical cravings to do whatever necessary to protect the supply.

. Can a person say “the addiction made me do it”, as a means of avoiding some type of consequence? To me, that would truly be “making excuses”.

Their addiction does make them do things, and sometimes they don’t even remember what they do. But I agree, it does not make them less responsible for what they do. People go to prison all the time that were so high or drunk they have no memory of killing or maiming someone, but it does not prevent them from paying the consequence.

OTOH, if the addict had the self-awareness to admit that he was making choices from an altered mind, that his addiction truly warped his conscience at the time of his choice to do evil, then he is explaining what actually happened.

If they are not sociopathic, they are able to do this after they get sober. Warped perceptions, warped chemicals, warped behavior. One of the fundamental aspects of treatment is being able to understand how this works so that a person is not overwhelmed with shame and remorse.

However, does such explanation mean that we are to lessen consequence? No, absolutely not, IMO, prescribed consequence should be meted based on what will mercifully lead to conversion, not based on a level of intent or motive.

Well I guess that depends upon who “we” are. If you are part of the legal system and have the authority to impose sanctions, then I guess you can mete out whatever you want to prescribe.

But it is not allowed to combine religious conversion with legal sanctions is inherently problematic because it is an overlap of church and state. In the early days, before the Constitution, this is exactly what they did with members of the village/community that violated the norms. They would pin them in the stocks, or apply other punishments to get them to convert.

What is conversion, if not changing level of intent and motive?

 

[guanophore]

it can be shown that all cases of ignorance are invincible

Without question, when you are doing the showing, it could not come out any other way!

Jesus’ prayer from the cross is all-inclusive, though, so He would be including the “vincible” in the forgiven, if such “vincibility” existed.

This seems to be somewhat of a flaw in your theory. He clearly states 'they know not what they do" indicating which ones to which he is referring.

The Catholic Church seems to have missed the mark, indicating that such vincibility really does exist.

IF and when we sin, whose fault is it? Us!! b/c we have FAILED to guard ourselves from
sin in the form of a temptation entering thru one or both entrances to the Temple that is our body.

How can you guard against a sin that you don’t know you are going to do? You dont have to worry so much about being on your guard, because you will be invincibly ignorant of anything you do.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. “Perversion” in context is not an act, but an attachment. From CCC 1849:
A. CCC 1849: “Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience”. Specifically it is sin, of which all are acts (commission or omission).

Q. Yes he can, avoid sin, but such avoidance is far less likely to occur without forgiveness practiced. Indeed this is a bit difficult to put together, for if a person is feeling resentment they are already alienated, in a “sinful state” (remember: I am talking about resentment being a negative feeling and the coupled perception of lack of value of the resented person). This would be a pretty “surgical” application of grace, having the grace to avoid hurting someone else, but not having the grace to forgive from the heart.
A. Actual grace is given simultaneously with the act of will of the person, and the emotions are not under the control of the will, which requires temperance. It takes time to perfect the virtues of prudence, fortitude, justice, and temperance that even venial sin is avoided.

Q. Grace in the form of fear, of course.
A. Fear of the consequences of sin can be attrition.

Q. Ultimately, it is forgiveness from the heart that brings the sinner back into reconciliation with God and the other person, right?
A. No, it is sacramental confession, absolution, and satisfaction.

Q. … not reconciled with his neighbor (in his heart, if not in actual handshake), he is still alienating himself.
A. If not voluntary then it is not sin. If not voluntary then the person is not alienating himself.

 

[Vico]

…

Q. … While this is all involuntary, it still leads to a “perversion” caused by an attachment to a triggered desire for justice.
A. Justice is a virtue.

Q. When we see any other person as less than a loved by God, as having some lesser value as a human, we are already alienated, but we do not even realize it has happened. Forgiveness from the heart erases the resentment, and the alienation.
A. Definition of see 2) “discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.” So to see is not something unconscious.

Q. Yes, this is from the catechism, but are you implying that when Jesus said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” He was not speaking for Abba Himself, that God did not forgive even though Jesus did?
A. I am just giving the catechism item without drawing any other consusions from it.

 

[GLam1761]

Blockquote
I know, but that’s not what I’m implying, I am
saying that we have culpability IF we ALLOW
ourselves to continue watch or hear tempting
things, we are not avoiding OCCASIONS for
sinning.
“God does not tempt anyone, but it is of our
own lusts that we are dragged
away and enticed , giving birth to sin…” james 1:13-14

 

[guanophore]

I am saying that we have culpability IF we ALLOW ourselves to continue watch or hear tempting
things, we are not avoiding OCCASIONS for sinning.

I think you need to go back and read the thread from the beginning. A person can only avoid near occasions of sin when they are AWARE of what they are doing when they sin. But the OP is pointing out that no one is able to have all the relevant information, and therefore, anyone who commits a sin is invincibly ignorant. Jesus forgives all who sin, whether they are invincibly ignorant or not. Therefore it is better to throw ourselves upon His mercy than to invest ourselves in so much work to avoid the near occasions of sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Their free will is taken bondage by the addiction. The addiction drives their behavior. They can no longer just will themselves to stop using, and are driven by chemical cravings to do whatever necessary to protect the supply…Their addiction does make them do things, and sometimes they don’t even remember what they do.

Would you agree that your position is, then, controversial. I have heard plenty of expert discussion about people always truly being in control of everything they do, every decision they make. People can and do choose to stop getting drugs.

But I agree, it does not make them less responsible for what they do

Look at that, we agreed on something again!

If they are not sociopathic, they are able to do this after they get sober. Warped perceptions, warped chemicals, warped behavior. One of the fundamental aspects of treatment is being able to understand how this works so that a person is not overwhelmed with shame and remorse.

Interesting. It seems to me, though, that the person who is overwhelmed could be shown that his or her addiction came from a position of not knowing what they were doing, so that they could transcend the overwhelming self-condemnation… I see that it must indeed taking getting sober to help them see this though, both the guilt and self-forgiveness. When things are out of control, all of this reflection-centered stuff is out of the picture. You work with this these people? Must be a challenge.

What is conversion, if not changing level of intent and motive?

I think you may have misread my post there, I was saying that consequence should not be based on intent and motive, not that conversion is not a changing of level of intent and motive.

I think conversion is ultimately a matter of changing perceptions and awareness. People’s motives and intents, at their deepest level, come from a good place, but motive and intent is run through the filter of illusion, misperception, etc., and the result is bad choices.

I think that you must deal with this very regularly. People become addicts to escape something difficult or to experience pleasure in a life with great misery, correct? And who could argue with such intent or motive? The problem, however, is in the thinking that they will be able to have this “good” experience of the high without consequences that are worse than what they are escaping. People have to suffer to bring this to light, correct?