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

[phil19034]

How do you know that you know everything about what you are doing? There is more to knowing sin than knowing that “it is a sin”. There is knowing why it is a sin, for example. Now this might make your mind go to “wait a minute, this is making excuses!”, which is very natural, but that voice coming from within is a roadblock in itself, it shuts off the mind to a deeper understanding. The focus here is on understanding, not condemnation or condonation.

but only enough to know to know it’s sinful or against the natural law

Yes, there it is! “It is only enough” means “only enough to condemn”. But the focus, again, is not on blame, the focus here is on understanding. The blame comes from the conscience (a good conscience).

Ok, this is not my opinion. I’m regurgitating teachings of St Thomas and other Saints, and the teaching of the Church.

The following is from the CATHOLICISM for Dummies website:

Three conditions are necessary for mortal sin to exist:

Grave Matter: The act itself is intrinsically evil and >immoral. For example, murder, rape, incest, >perjury, adultery, and so on are grave matter.

Full Knowledge: The person must know that what >they’re doing or planning to do is evil and immoral. >For example, someone steals a postage stamp, >thinking that it’s only worth 50 cents. She knows >that it’s sinful, but if she’s unaware that the stamp >is rare and actually worth a $1,000, she’s not guilty >of mortal sin but of venial sin.

Deliberate Consent: The person must freely >choose to commit the act or plan to do it. Someone >forced against her will doesn’t commit a mortal sin. >For example, a woman told she’s giving a minor >shock to another person who in fact is >administering tortuous electrical jolts is not guilty of >a mortal sin (although she may feel guilty if she >finds out the truth).

Mortal and Venial Sins in the Catholic Church - dummies

No where does it say that we must understand WHY a sin is a grave matter. We just have to know that it is.

Again, in the case of the Jewish leaders who killed Christ, they knew they were killing an innocent man (and would have been guilty of that in the eyes of God). But they didn’t know they were killing God Incarnate. They didn’t know they were killing the Sin of God. That is the sin Christ asked God to forgive them off (plus those in the Crowd who thought they were heckling a blasphemer).

BTW - when you know a sin is a grave matter, then you know there is a condemnation for it.

God Bless

 

[OneSheep]

No where does it say that we must understand WHY a sin is a grave matter. We just have to know that it is.

Well, again you are referring to criteria for blame, and I am talking about understanding why people sin. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions?

Again, in the case of the Jewish leaders who killed Christ, they knew they were killing an innocent man

Actually, they found Him guilty of blasphemy, right? They did not think He was innocent.

But they didn’t know they were killing God Incarnate.

They did not know that they were torturing and destroying something of value. The same is true for the other two men crucified.

We can apply the stamp example. The crucifiers thought that they were dealing with people of negative value, which is the way our conscience works. When we condemn someone, our mind is automatically disvalueing them, they are seen as less than human, worthless. The truth is, however, that every human is of infinite value.

BTW - when you know a sin is a grave matter, then you know there is a condemnation for it.

Well, when we blame we do perceive that God also blames, rather than forgives, but that depends on one’s image of God. For sure, we do self-condemn, and others may condemn us, from our well-formed consciences.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

No where does it say that we must understand WHY a sin is a grave matter. We just have to know that it is.

Well, again you are referring to criteria for blame, and I am talking about understanding why people sin. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions?

Again, in the case of the Jewish leaders who killed Christ, they knew they were killing an innocent man

Actually, they found Him guilty of blasphemy, right? They did not think He was innocent.

But they didn’t know they were killing God Incarnate.

They did not know that they were torturing and destroying something of value. The same is true for the other two men crucified.

We can apply the stamp example. The crucifiers thought that they were dealing with people of negative value, which is the way our conscience works. When we condemn someone, our mind is automatically disvalueing them, they are seen as less than human, worthless. The truth is, however, that every human is of infinite value.

BTW - when you know a sin is a grave matter, then you know there is a condemnation for it.

Well, when we blame we do perceive that God also blames, rather than forgives, but that depends on one’s image of God. For sure, we do self-condemn, and others may condemn us, from our well-formed consciences.

Ok, we are speaking past one-another. I’m not focusing on “blame.” I’m focused on when someone knows an action is morally wrong or not.

I’m not getting into subjectivity, I’m focusing on objectivity.

Not having enough subjective information regarding a grave sin may lower the cuplblity from a mortal sin to a venial sin, but it’s still a sin. Plus, only God truly knows when that happens.

I’m going to end this debate because I don’t think I can properly discuss this with you without speaking directly to you.

God Bless

 

[phil19034]

Actually, they found Him guilty of blasphemy, right? They did not think He was innocent.

Yes, some thought He was guilty of blasphemy (I mentioned, except for those who thought He blasphemed)

But some knew they were trumping up charges against him to kill Him. Some were in on the plot to kill Him.

 

[OneSheep]

Ok, we are speaking past on another. I’m not focusing on “blame.” I’m focused on where someone knows an action is morally wrong or not.

Yes, we may be speaking past each other. I am focused on why people sin, and I am saying that there are more things relevant to a person’s decision to sin than knowing whether an action is morally wrong or not. When we look at any sin, we can discern what it is that the person did not know, such that if they knew this, then they would not sin. As soon as we get into “it doesn’t matter that if they knew more, they would not have sinned, because it would still be mortal” then we are back into the focus on blame.

I’m going to end this debate because I don’t think I can properly discuss this with you without speaking directly to you.

God Bless

God Bless you also!

If you change your mind, feel free to respond. Thanks.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, some thought He was guilty of blasphemy

Well, we have no evidence that shows that they did not all think he was guilty of blasphemy.

Peter acknowledges in Acts that the leadership did not know what they were doing. You see, we can focus on why the leaders did what they did, what they did not know, without going into what level of sin it was.

 

[phil19034]

phil19034:

Yes, some thought He was guilty of blasphemy

Well, we have no evidence that shows that they did not all think he was guilty of blasphemy.

Peter acknowledges in Acts that the leadership did not know what they were doing. You see, we can focus on why the leaders did what they did, what they did not know, without going into what level of sin it was.

Maybe, but we evidence that they conspired to kill without having just cause.

John 11:45-57

John 11:45-57 NABRE - - Bible Gateway

www.biblegateway.com

God Bless

 

[guanophore]

God always forgives, but if we do not forgive one another we will not experience the unconditional love and forgiveness from the Father. We suffer the uncertainly of a conditional love.

But, that is not what the Scriptures say…

The majority of us have enough information to know something is sinful. We don’t have to have all of the information, but only enough to know to know it’s sinful or against the natural law.

But there must be some level of blindness/unknowing that people would act against the core of their nature, which is good.

How do you know that you know everything about what you are doing?

We can pretty much assume that we can’t/don’t “know everything” since we are not omnisicient.

There is knowing why it is a sin, for example. Now this might make your mind go to “wait a minute, this is making excuses!”, which is very natural, but that voice coming from within is a roadblock in itself, it shuts off the mind to a deeper understanding. The focus here is on understanding, not condemnation or condonation.

Perhaps this is the main difference between what you are saying and what is written in the catechism? the catechism purports that even a limited degree of knowledge is sufficient to know a mortal sin. The Catechism is focused on helping the people of God become Holy, not to make them omniscient.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, we may be speaking past each other. I am focused on why people sin, and I am saying that there are more things relevant to a person’s decision to sin than knowing whether an action is morally wrong or not. When we look at any sin, we can discern what it is that the person did not know, such that if they knew this, then they would not sin. As soon as we get into “it doesn’t matter that if they knew more, they would not have sinned, because it would still be mortal” then we are back into the focus on blame.

It may seem that way to you, but the criteria for whether a sin is mortal or not is not centered around “blame”. It is about responsibility and consequence. This may be where your approach is different than what is in the catechism. The Teaching of the Church is there to lead the faithful into holiness, so she instructs us in how to discern actions that are contrary to holiness.

 

[Vico]

…
So, back to my question. Do you agree that holding onto negative feelings against someone is not what Jesus calls us to?

Resentment is either a temptation to sin (a feeling) or a sin (ill will), therefore we are called to repent of sin (ill will). Ill will is voluntary, so if by holding onto, you mean ill will (which is voluntary), then yes.

 

[GLam1761]

I think that losing the Fear of the Lord is
what brought on my pornography addiction,
it got so bad(more and more perverse) that
I was afraid the POLICE were going to come
in and confiscate my computer!! I was feel-
ing so down over it that I find no reason to
live, so I checked into a mental health insti-
tution and got OUT of that loop and found
again the Fear of the Lord.,

 

[OneSheep]

Resentment is either a temptation to sin (a feeling) or a sin (ill will), therefore we are called to repent of sin (ill will). Ill will is voluntary, so if by holding onto, you mean ill will (which is voluntary), then yes.

Exactly, Vico. And this thread is about understanding people, especially discerning their lack of understanding and blindness involved in choices to sin. Jesus did this, Vico, He saw that the people did not know what they were doing and forgave. He had no resentment because He forgave from His Heart. He saw that their own resentment came from a place of blindness and lack of awareness.

Indeed, because of His position in the Trinity, and the Trinity is omniscient, it is reasonable to conclude that forgiveness happened before we were even created.

When we have resentment, that is, negative feelings toward a person, we are called to forgive, to forgive from the heart. From the cross, Jesus guides us in how to do this.

 

[OneSheep]

Praise God that you have gotten out of that loop!

With growth in empathy, though, a person can come to see that porn is an insult to human dignity. It is because of empathy for those who are enslaved by their own natures and the industry that we can come to avoid porn.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Resentment is either a temptation to sin (a feeling) or a sin (ill will), therefore we are called to repent of sin (ill will). Ill will is voluntary, so if by holding onto, you mean ill will (which is voluntary), then yes.

Exactly, Vico. And this thread is about understanding people, especially discerning their lack of understanding and blindness involved in choices to sin. Jesus did this, Vico, He saw that the people did not know what they were doing and forgave. He had no resentment because He forgave from His Heart. He saw that their own resentment came from a place of blindness and lack of awareness.

Indeed, because of His position in the Trinity, and the Trinity is omniscient, it is reasonable to conclude that forgiveness happened before we were even created.

When we have resentment, that is, negative feelings toward a person, we are called to forgive, to forgive from the heart. From the cross, Jesus guides us in how to do this.

These are different:

• not a sin: involuntary feeling of resentment
• a sin: Ill will (consent = personal choice) + invincible ignorance (not knowing)

 

[OneSheep]

Perhaps this is the main difference between what you are saying and what is written in the catechism? the catechism purports that even a limited degree of knowledge is sufficient to know a mortal sin. The Catechism is focused on helping the people of God become Holy, not to make them omniscient.

Well, when we bring this discussion back to mortal sin, we are talking about blaming, not understanding or forgiving. We can follow the words “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, discern a person’s lack of understanding, and then forgive.

But, that is not what the Scriptures say…

The scripture scholar who taught us made a very strong case. Do you have anything that says otherwise?

BTW, did you ever read Good Goats, Healing Our Image of God by the Linns?

It may seem that way to you, but the criteria for whether a sin is mortal or not is not centered around “blame”.

With mortal sin, the discussion goes to culpability, which is by definition blame. Culpability focuses on the natural thinking (from the conscience) that a person needs to “pay” versus a the thinking from empathy that a person needs to heal or have a conversion.

The Teaching of the Church is there to lead the faithful into holiness, so she instructs us in how to discern actions that are contrary to holiness.

Holding a grudge, having resentment toward people, is a very prominent focus in terms of leading the faithful to holiness. The position of the call to forgive in the Lord’s prayer says this clearly. It is with forgiveness that we are to approach one another, it is the means toward merciful engagement.

So yes, there are plenty of actions that are contrary to holiness, but the Gospel calls us to an encounter with those who do such actions with forgiving hearts. Jesus came not to condemn the world, but to save it. This comes from a place of mercy.

 

[guanophore]

Well, when we bring this discussion back to mortal sin, we are talking about blaming, not understanding or forgiving. We can follow the words “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, discern a person’s lack of understanding, and then forgive.

It would certainly be an interesting short and long term study to explore the effects of changing the definition of mortal sin as you are doing here. If the catechism parameters of grave matter, knowledge, and consent of the will were replaced with avoiding blame, striving for understanding, and achieiving forgiveness it might be very transformative for the Church.

 

[OneSheep]

It would certainly be an interesting short and long term study to explore the effects of changing the definition of mortal sin as you are doing here.

This is not a change in the definition. I am talking about what the mind is doing with a focus on whether or not a sin is “mortal”, it brings us back to blaming. It draws us away from understanding and forgiving.

You responded while I was still editing. Do you have any more comments on that post?

 

[guanophore]

With mortal sin, the discussion goes to culpability, which is by definition blame. Culpability focuses on the natural thinking (from the conscience) that a person needs to “pay” versus a the thinking from empathy that a person needs to heal or have a conversion.

It is an interesting psychotheological construct that seems to work well for you.

Holding a grudge, having resentment toward people, is a very prominent focus in terms of leading the faithful to holiness.

It certainly seems to be very prominent in your focus! I am glad that processing the concept of sin this way has been life giving and transformative for you.

This is not a change in the definition.

Of course it is.

I am talking about what the mind is doing with a focus on whether or not a sin is “mortal”, it brings us back to blaming. It draws us away from understanding and forgiving.

Yes. The change in definition is based on starting from a human perspective, rather than a divine perspective. If we look at sin from the perspective of what the human mind does, it will give us a very different understanding of the nature and function of mortal sin.

Focusing on our relationship to ourselves and one another, rather than our relationship with God will give us a much more humanistic perspective of sin - one that can focus on human healing.

 

[OneSheep]

not a sin: involuntary feeling of resentment

I think maybe it depends on what is going on in a person’s heart. If I am holding something against someone, this may be the feeling of resentment itself. It may just be a negative affect, or it may be “this person owes me”. In either case, there is a “holding against”, I am holding the actions of the individual against his value as a person in some way.

In my own life, in has been fruitful to address all of these resentments, and use them as a guide as to when to apply the call to forgive. This may not be the case for you, Vico. When I truly forgive, all resentment, feelings and ill will, go away. Is this the case for you?

 

[Vico]

Vico:

not a sin: involuntary feeling of resentment

I think maybe it depends on what is going on in a person’s heart. If I am holding something against someone, this may be the feeling of resentment itself. It may just be a negative affect, or it may be “this person owes me”. In either case, there is a “holding against”, I am holding the actions of the individual against his value as a person in some way.

In my own life, in has been fruitful to address all of these resentments, and use them as a guide as to when to apply the call to forgive. This may not be the case for you, Vico. When I truly forgive, all resentment, feelings and ill will, go away. Is this the case for you?

Well, holding indicates voluntary not involuntary. Actual sin is voluntary.
Involuntary feelings of resentment may not disappear even though one has forgiven another. from the heart (with charity)