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

[OneSheep]

changes you are proposing the the Catechism!

I am proposing changes?

 

[guanophore]

I am proposing changes?

Surely it would not be appropriate to allow the Church to continue publishing such misleading ideas! There need to be some edits made so that it is clear that there are not really any “mortal” sins, since no one ever really knows what they are doing when they sin! Also, the sections on judgment need to be updated so that it is clear that God is not holding us culpable or finding us “blameworthy” for our sins. The faithful need to understand that these constructs come from our own human psyche, and not from God.

 

[OneSheep]

Surely it would not be appropriate to allow the Church to continue publishing such misleading ideas!

"As far as the most important virtue, I like to say what St. Josémaria used to say when asked the same question. He would respond that “sincerity” (honesty) is the most important virtue, because it leads to humility and self-knowledge, and allows the soul to be directed effectively in spiritual direction and confession. Sincerity, also known as honesty, is related to each of the four cardinal virtues. "

https://www.osv.com/OSVNewsweekly/S...6617/The-most-important-Cardinal-Virtues.aspx

Tell me, guanophore, does the catechism have within it “misleading ideas”?

 

[guanophore]

Tell me, guanophore, does the catechism have within it “misleading ideas”?

Clearly the notions of mortal sin you have addressed here and in other threads are misleading. They focus on responsibility, culpability, and lasting temporal and eternal effects. There is a basic assumption that everyone who commits a mortal sin has sufficient knowledge and action of the will to avoid doing so.

Your construction is much more refreshing, as it focuses on the opposite. No one every really knows what they are doing when they sin, because they lack the ability to see all the outcomes of their choices. You also focus healing from resentment and the bondage that accompanies not forgiving from the heart.

 

[OneSheep]

Clearly the notions of mortal sin you have addressed here and in other threads are misleading. They focus on responsibility, culpability, and lasting temporal and eternal effects.

Guanophore, to say that the catechism is misleading, though, may itself imply an intent to mislead. So let’s eliminate that first - no intent to mislead, agreed? Indeed, the intent is to give life, and uphold order, safety, charitable behavior, etc.

Secondly, while culpability is a rather complex matter, if a person does not blame, then there is a malfunction in the conscience itself. Blame, finding culpability, is the “default behavior”, it is the natural way that we are compelled to modify our own behaviors and call for the modification of others. And then, if we do not hold people to account, we have chaos. All of these things are important to uphold and address in the catechism, correct?

Clearly the notions of mortal sin you have addressed here

Are you thinking that I have the purpose of addressing aspects of “mortal sin”?

Your construction is much more refreshing, as it focuses on the opposite. You also focus healing from resentment and the bondage that accompanies not forgiving from the heart.

Thank you, I am assuming your sincerity. “Construction”, though, is an odd word, isn’t it?

No one every really knows what they are doing when they sin, because they lack the ability to see all the outcomes of their choices.

But you do get that there is much more to it than seeing outcomes, correct?

 

[OneSheep]

Does the clergy sin of course they do.

The question is, though, do they know what they are doing when they sin, or are they blind and/or lacking awareness? It can be found every time that if they knew something more, they would not have sinned.

Think of your own past. Can you see that you were lacking awareness in some way? That in some cases your own conscience became a bit malformed, and then “sprung back” after the sin?

 

[0104]

I think everyone is aware unless you’re mentally ill. Like I said Peter was a stinky fisherman and a sinner at that who else would Jesus leave His Church to the Pharisees and the Sadducees who was all about the rule of law and the rule of worship. No! He left it to 12 sinful men that while not perfect spread the Gospel all over the world.

And if there are Pope’s , bishops, priest are Deacon’s that don’t know if they are sinning that’s not for me to judge. I look over all the hypocrisy that is in the Church and that others try to smear their credibility. I know for a fact that sinner or not when that Pope , bishop are priest lifts up the host that a miracle takes place in (transubstantiation) bread and wine or changed into the body and blood soul and divinity of Jesus. Read John 6 He emphasizes this three times about his flesh is True Food in his blood is true drink and that you must eat and drink it.

What makes this claim even stronger is that the early church fathers talk about this as early as the first century.

Jesus said his true church wood last forever. Well the Catholic church is that true church. Saint Ignatius wrote a letter to Rome on his way to be executed talking about the one true church the Catholic Church

It’s not my place to say if this member of clergy knows what he was doing are not that’s between him and God. I just know Jesus gave them and awesome gift of changing bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus Christ and confession for Christ through the priest can absolve us from our sins.
God bless

 

[OneSheep]

I think everyone is aware unless you’re mentally ill.

Well, this is not what Jesus observed when He said “forgive them, for they know not what they do”, unless you are claiming that the whole crowd was mentally ill.

God bless

Blessings to you also!

 

[guanophore]

Are you thinking that I have the purpose of addressing aspects of “mortal sin”?

No, not at all! On the contrary, what others may perceive as mortal sin, and what the catechism defines as mortal sin does not exist in your paradigm.

Since everyone has blindness/lack of awareness at some level, and every person would and does choose the good when they can (by nature) then what has been traditionally defined as mortal sin no longer applies.

 

[OneSheep]

your paradigm

Well, I certainly cannot call the “paradigm” mine, because it begins with Jesus’ words from the cross.

Is the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin still seem contrary to your experiences?

 

[guanophore]

Is the observation that people do not know what they are doing when they sin still seem contrary to your experiences?

I see what you are saying, and I understand your paradigm. I just think it is not as all inclusive as you claim it to be. I have seen too many choices made with sufficient knowledge and acts of the will to be pursuaded that it is all blindness.

 

[Sir2v4]

Paragraph 1735 of the Catechism seems to plainly distinguish between “inadvertent” sins and other sins. So, it seems to suggest that there are sins where to some degree we know that we are performing some action, not necessarily always with the realization at the time that it is a sin or not always with the complete freedom of will. St Paul says somewhere that he does the things he wished he didn’t do. So, there must be times when he was distracted by anger or other emotion which pushed him over the edge to sin, although he does not elaborate as such when he said that.

 

[OneSheep]

I see what you are saying, and I understand your paradigm. I just think it is not as all inclusive as you claim it to be. I have seen too many choices made with sufficient knowledge and acts of the will to be pursuaded that it is all blindness.

I think that the assertion of “He should have known better” has its place, has its usefulness in keeping order in society.

In the mean time the observation that “If he did either know better or have more of a presence of mind, he would not have sinned” also has merit, since sin is irrational. However, in order to give any credence to it, this observation has to be proven in the eyes of the beholder, which may involve letting go, at least temporarily, of “He should have known better”.

So, I think we can probably leave it at that. It seems to me that your tone is both respectful and sincere, and I hope you can see the same in my own. Our interactions have been stimulating, if nothing else!

 

[guanophore]

I think that the assertion of “He should have known better” has its place, has its usefulness in keeping order in society.

Actually it is not a speculation of “should have”. It is an observation that he DID know better!

In the mean time the observation that “If he did either know better or have more of a presence of mind, he would not have sinned” also has merit, since sin is irrational.

Your construction certainly has merit.

People rationalize sin. Heavily.

And people who have presence of mind, and know better, still choose to sin. The Catechism calls this “mortal” sin, because it is committed knowingly and willingly. Your construct asserts that this kind of sin does not exist (as per the thread title).

 

[OneSheep]

Paragraph 1735 of the Catechism seems to plainly distinguish between “inadvertent” sins and other sins. So, it seems to suggest that there are sins where to some degree we know that we are performing some action, not necessarily always with the realization at the time that it is a sin or not always with the complete freedom of will. St Paul says somewhere that he does the things he wished he didn’t do. So, there must be times when he was distracted by anger or other emotion which pushed him over the edge to sin, although he does not elaborate as such when he said that.

Well, that is part of the question being addressed here. Is there ever a time when a person sins that he has complete awareness? The reason this question is important is that a person who does not have all the options available in terms of behavior is not totally free, his or her behavior is limited to what is known.

 

[OneSheep]

Actually it is not a speculation of “should have”. It is an observation that he DID know better!

Yes, I agree, that is also a useful assertion in keeping order in society.

People rationalize sin. Heavily.

Yes, rationalizing is a means by which people hope to escape responsibility, and that is an error. We agree about responsibility.

And people who have presence of mind, and know better, still choose to sin.

And this is the difference in our own observations. I think as long as you have the above observation, it makes sense to continue to reject mine as simply incorrect.

 

[OneSheep]

Well, that is part of the question being addressed here. Is there ever a time when a person sins that he has complete awareness? The reason this question is important is that a person who does not have all the options available in terms of behavior is not totally free, his or her behavior is limited to what is known.

The awareness or “presence of mind” brings us to the virtue of prudence. Can the person of perfect prudence sin? If so, how?

 

[guanophore]

Yes, I agree, that is also a useful assertion in keeping order in society.

I am not speaking so much about “order in society”, as I deal with people who have already been a menace to society, so asserting anything changes nothing, nor is it useful.

Morally, your paradigm precludes what the Catechism calls “mortal” sin, since no one every REALLY knows what they are doing when they sin. There is always sufficient blindness in a person so they do not know the full effects of their actions.

Yes, rationalizing is a means by which people hope to escape responsibility, and that is an error. We agree about responsibility.

Yes, but I am not referring to escape from responsibility AFTER the fact. I am talking about the human faculty of rationalizing wrongdoing BEFORE it happens. You are saying that sin is “irrational”, yet there is quite a bit of rationalizing prior to sinful acts occurring.

And this is the difference in our own observations. I think as long as you have the above observation, it makes sense to continue to reject mine as simply incorrect.

I don’t think "incorrect’ as much as incomplete. It is a very good explanation on many levels, and takes a very unique and useful perspective on conscience and especially forgiveness.

The problem I see is that the Catechism would need to be redacted for it to fit. All the references to mortal sin would need to be removed, since there really is no “mortal” sin in your observation.

 

[guanophore]

The awareness or “presence of mind” brings us to the virtue of prudence. Can the person of perfect prudence sin? If so, how?

I would stipulate that perfect prudence would prevent sins.

I also note that perfect prudence would not be different in quality from omnipotence. God does not require us to reach perfection before He enjoins us not to commit sin. Since He does not command us to do that which is not possible for us, I would have to deduce that a person with imperfect prudence can still choose not to sin.

 

[CradleRC58]

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”

Well, I’m not so sure that those who find themselves confessing the same sins in the confessional time and time again don’t realize they are sinning.