Does the Church teach that a Baptized person who dies in a state of mortal sin cannot POSSIBLY be saved?

[mamlukman]

For what it’s worth, the God I believe in would welcome that family that went to a baseball game into Heaven with open arms.

All too many people on this site seem to be over-scrupulous and Puritans at heart. There are ALWAYS conditions and circumstance that we can’t understand. In the case you cited, “willingness” was definitely compromised. Only God knows all the circumstance surrounding any particular act. Therefore we all need to cut people a lot of slack and assume they are good people until proven otherwise.

 

[Vico]

For what it’s worth, the God I believe in would welcome that family that went to a baseball game into Heaven with open arms.

All too many people on this site seem to be over-scrupulous and Puritans at heart. There are ALWAYS conditions and circumstance that we can’t understand. In the case you cited, “willingness” was definitely compromised. Only God knows all the circumstance surrounding any particular act. Therefore we all need to cut people a lot of slack and assume they are good people until proven otherwise.

There is an external standard that must be upheld by the clergy so that others are not mislead through scandal. Note that scandal may mislead the weak even in something that is *not know *to be a sin but only has the appearance of it. This is shown in the canon law CIC:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

 

[mamlukman]

There is an external standard that must be upheld by the clergy so that others are not mislead through scandal. Note that scandal may mislead the weak even in something that is *not know *to be a sin but only has the appearance of it. This is shown in the canon law CIC:
Can. 915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

Can. 1007 The anointing of the sick is not to be conferred upon those who persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.

You could also quote St. Paul in 1 Corinthians where he answers the question about the legitimacy of eating meat that has been offered to idols: he thinks it’s OK in itself, but recommends people don’t do it because it would give scandal or bad example to those who don’t understand why it’s OK.

I wouldn’t disagree with what you wrote, but two points are worth noting.

1. Both of your points talk about “persevering in manifest grave sin” or “persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.” Missing Mass to see your son’s first baseball game doesn’t fall into those categories. I would say that being a GM executive who knew about the faulty ignition switches but did nothing and said nothing would be “persevering in manifest grave sin.” So would being a banker who defrauded people on mortgages on a daily basis. Or a salesman who knowingly sells products that have a defect of some type that is kept secret. And yet we rarely hear about these things–the focus is almost always on sex. To me that in itself is a big problem.
2. The Church is like a government. It makes general rules and laws. It lets police and judges decide on the degree of guilt and punishment. For example: a city cannot pass a law saying it’s OK to run red lights. There would be chaos. So it’s illegal to run a red light. But there are always extenuating circumstances: what if it’s 2 AM and you’re taking someone who had a heart attack to the emergency room? I doubt if any policeman would give you a ticket, and if they did, I can’t imagine any judge would let it stand. So the same with the Church: it has to issue general rules and let either the priest in confession or God sort out the circumstances. That’'s all I’m saying–is that ultimately only God knows ALL the circumstances, both external and internal.

 

[jinc1019]

Well, our responsibility and culpability are based on knowledge and intent. So, if an act is of grave matter, we know this to be true, and we deliberately commit it anyway, then we’ve sinned seriously against God and neighbor; we’ve turned away from love and goodness by our act, even more so to the extent that it’s persisted in. Any lip service we may pay to our faith in and love for Christ is rendered hypocrisy by such behavior.

On top of that Scripture informs us that sinners don’t enter heaven, that we’re to be holy because God is holy, transformed into His image as it were, and that without holiness no one will see Him.

Well that’s my whole point though. In my example, the person committing the grave sin does not believe it’s a grave sin because the person thinks the RCC is wrong. However, the person does not escape because of ignorance because the person knows the RCC’s teaching, he or she just rejects it as false.

To me, it seems apparent that under Catholic teaching, a person who falls into this category, unless he or she repents, will go to hell. Period. But, this also effectively means people who truly and absolutely believe in Christ will go to hell. Their faith doesn’t save them.

 

[jinc1019]

You could also quote St. Paul in 1 Corinthians where he answers the question about the legitimacy of eating meat that has been offered to idols: he thinks it’s OK in itself, but recommends people don’t do it because it would give scandal or bad example to those who don’t understand why it’s OK.

I wouldn’t disagree with what you wrote, but two points are worth noting.

1. Both of your points talk about “persevering in manifest grave sin” or “persevere obstinately in manifest grave sin.” Missing Mass to see your son’s first baseball game doesn’t fall into those categories. I would say that being a GM executive who knew about the faulty ignition switches but did nothing and said nothing would be “persevering in manifest grave sin.” So would being a banker who defrauded people on mortgages on a daily basis. Or a salesman who knowingly sells products that have a defect of some type that is kept secret. And yet we rarely hear about these things–the focus is almost always on sex. To me that in itself is a big problem.
2. The Church is like a government. It makes general rules and laws. It lets police and judges decide on the degree of guilt and punishment. For example: a city cannot pass a law saying it’s OK to run red lights. There would be chaos. So it’s illegal to run a red light. But there are always extenuating circumstances: what if it’s 2 AM and you’re taking someone who had a heart attack to the emergency room? I doubt if any policeman would give you a ticket, and if they did, I can’t imagine any judge would let it stand. So the same with the Church: it has to issue general rules and let either the priest in confession or God sort out the circumstances. That’'s all I’m saying–is that ultimately only God knows ALL the circumstances, both external and internal.

True, only God knows, but I don’t see ANYWHERE in the CCC that allows for such a “red light” example. If you commit a grave sin (missing mass deliberately is a grave sin), and you do so willingly, and you do so knowing it is a grave sin, you have committed a mortal sin and you are not going to heaven. Period. That’s the Catholic teaching. If in their last moments, they asked for forgiveness, then they would get it, according to Catholic teaching. But if there was no time to think about it, then according to RCC teaching, there is no way around the mortal sin. However, it’s likely not everyone understood it was a grave sin to miss mass one time, so only those who truly understood that would be considered guilty of having committed a grave sin knowingly.

 

[fhansen]

Well that’s my whole point though. In my example, the person committing the grave sin does not believe it’s a grave sin because the person thinks the RCC is wrong. However, the person does not escape because of ignorance because the person knows the RCC’s teaching, he or she just rejects it as false.

To me, it seems apparent that under Catholic teaching, a person who falls into this category, unless he or she repents, will go to hell. Period. But, this also effectively means people who truly and absolutely believe in Christ will go to hell. Their faith doesn’t save them.

We can’t know individual cases with certainty of course-God’s the judge; only He knows the heart and judges by it. But just because a person is aware of a Church teaching doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily responsible knowing if the Church is right to begin with-or worth giving heed to IOW. We’re simply judged on what we really know-and what we’re willing to do despite that knowledge, not what we think maybe we should know. Once the knowledge is truly our own, then we become culpable.

 

[mamlukman]

you do so willingly, and you do so knowing it is a grave sin, you have committed a mortal sin.

I’ll let your own words speak for themselves. “Willingly” and “knowing it is a grave sin.” A lot of room there for discussion. It’s not all black and white. It’s very, very, very grey.

In the particular case under discussion, missing Mass to go to your son’s first baseball game, let’s have a look at section 1855 of the catechism: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God…” Hmmmm. Do you really think by this act “charity was destroyed in the heart of man”? Really? That it “turned them away from God”? Really? If so, I don’t want anything to do with a church that would teach that or a God who would make that judgment. But luckily, the Catholic Church–at least the one I know about–wouldn’t say that.

Then we move to section 1859: “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.” [Emphasis in the catechism itself] Let’s move on to 1860: “…can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures [son’s first baseball game] or pathological disorders.” How free are we, really? A lot of psychologists would argue–convincingly–that we are not very free at all. We are conditioned by our own genes and brain, by the way we were brought up, by the culture around us, etc. etc. We may not be total puppets, at least not all of us, but we are easily manipulated. Look at advertising. Look at politics. Would you resist the same temptation at age 17 that you would at age 67? No? If you lived in 1315 would you make the same moral decisions on certain issues that you do in 2015? If you were born and brought up in Palestine, would you feel the same way as you would if you were born and brought up in Kansas? There is an awful lot of wiggle room in “full knowledge” and “complete consent” and no one can possibly know the degree of knowledge and consent–including the person himself–except God.

Then go to 1861: “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.” And that’s the last sentence of my original post: “That’s all I’m saying–is that ultimately only God knows ALL the circumstances, both external and internal.”

Also–and this is not directed at any particular person, just in general–I notice no one has picked up on my comments about the GM executive, the banker, or the salesman. I have made similar comments in other threads. All have gone unnoticed and uncommented on. But I have seen a lot of hand-wringing over things like missing Mass to go to your son’s first baseball game, or (a current favorite!) whether watching “Naked and Afraid” will send you to Hell. I am suggesting here, as I have elsewhere, that if these things are your main concerns, and not the crimes of the GM executive, the banker, or the salesman in my examples, then when you wonder why the country is falling apart, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

 

[jinc1019]

We can’t know individual cases with certainty of course-God’s the judge; only He knows the heart and judges by it. But just because a person is aware of a Church teaching doesn’t mean that he’s necessarily responsible knowing if the Church is right to begin with-or worth giving heed to IOW. We’re simply judged on what we really know-and what we’re willing to do despite that knowledge, not what we think maybe we should know. Once the knowledge is truly our own, then we become culpable.

That’s not the Church’s position. The RCC’s position is a person is considered to have knowledge if they have been properly instructed and they understand. If they understand the position and choose to reject it freely, it’s still considered full knowledge.

 

[jinc1019]

I’ll let your own words speak for themselves. “Willingly” and “knowing it is a grave sin.” A lot of room there for discussion. It’s not all black and white. It’s very, very, very grey.

In the particular case under discussion, missing Mass to go to your son’s first baseball game, let’s have a look at section 1855 of the catechism: “Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God…” Hmmmm. Do you really think by this act “charity was destroyed in the heart of man”? Really? That it “turned them away from God”? Really? If so, I don’t want anything to do with a church that would teach that or a God who would make that judgment. But luckily, the Catholic Church–at least the one I know about–wouldn’t say that.

Then we move to section 1859: “Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent.” [Emphasis in the catechism itself] Let’s move on to 1860: “…can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures [son’s first baseball game] or pathological disorders.” How free are we, really? A lot of psychologists would argue–convincingly–that we are not very free at all. We are conditioned by our own genes and brain, by the way we were brought up, by the culture around us, etc. etc. We may not be total puppets, at least not all of us, but we are easily manipulated. Look at advertising. Look at politics. Would you resist the same temptation at age 17 that you would at age 67? No? If you lived in 1315 would you make the same moral decisions on certain issues that you do in 2015? If you were born and brought up in Palestine, would you feel the same way as you would if you were born and brought up in Kansas? There is an awful lot of wiggle room in “full knowledge” and “complete consent” and no one can possibly know the degree of knowledge and consent–including the person himself–except God.

Then go to 1861: “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.” And that’s the last sentence of my original post: “That’s all I’m saying–is that ultimately only God knows ALL the circumstances, both external and internal.”

Also–and this is not directed at any particular person, just in general–I notice no one has picked up on my comments about the GM executive, the banker, or the salesman. I have made similar comments in other threads. All have gone unnoticed and uncommented on. But I have seen a lot of hand-wringing over things like missing Mass to go to your son’s first baseball game, or (a current favorite!) whether watching “Naked and Afraid” will send you to Hell. I am suggesting here, as I have elsewhere, that if these things are your main concerns, and not the crimes of the GM executive, the banker, or the salesman in my examples, then when you wonder why the country is falling apart, all you have to do is look in the mirror.

I have read all of your points, but with all due respect, you’re totally wrong here. Of course God knows all of the circumstances, no one is disputing that. Of course the bishops don’t know everything in a man’s heart, no one is disputing that. The point is that the RCC teaches it has the ultimate authority to bind and loose sins, so when it does, the faithful are REQUIRED to adhere to that. If they are told something is a grave sin and they do it willingly and knowing that sin is considered grave by the RCC, then it is a mortal sin. You say it’s not “black and white” but that’s the teaching of the RCC. If you are arguing that the people in the care didn’t know they were committing a grave sin then you are changing the entire scenario established. If full knowledge is not present, no mortal sin! But, if we are assuming they did know it was a grave sin and they did it anyway, then yes, by the RCC’s definition, they have committed a mortal sin. Period. Nothing you quoted from there has anything to do with disputing that claim.

And your examples about the banker and others who continually sin have nothing to do with this conversation either. Those people are ALSO committing grave sins. There is NOTHING in the CCC that says the grave sin must be done over and over to be considered mortal, which seems to be what you are implying with your examples. Perhaps you could explain them better?

 

[fhansen]

That’s not the Church’s position. The RCC’s position is a person is considered to have knowledge if they have been properly instructed and they understand. If they understand the position and choose to reject it freely, it’s still considered full knowledge.

“…if they understand”: There can be levels or degrees of understanding, and therefore degrees of knowledge. I understood the church’s position on abortion when I was young but my level of understanding grew immensely as I came to grasp the reasons why it was wrong later in life-and so my opposition to abortion grew simultaneously. My culpability for that sin would be greater now than before.

 

[mamlukman]

.And your examples about the banker and others who continually sin have nothing to do with this conversation either. Those people are ALSO committing grave sins. There is NOTHING in the CCC that says the grave sin must be done over and over to be considered mortal, which seems to be what you are implying with your examples. Perhaps you could explain them better?

I’m not sure you got my point, which may have been lost in my verbiage: but “full knowledge” and “complete consent” [catechism] are both terms that depend on the situation and the person and are very hard to define in black and white terms. That’s my main point. I’m not saying that a mortal sin has to be repeated to be a mortal sin–although the catechism does talk about that.

Similarly other people on this thread talk about “the moment of death” as if they know exactly what that is. It seems to me that the more we know about physics the more we realize that all these terms are extremely flexible. And if you want to discount physics, that’s OK too, look at it on purely religious grounds. Because if God is outside space and time (which are creations), then the “moment” of death can very well be outside time as well. I’m just sort of bemused by the degree of certainty I see on these posts; I read the same words and see only an infinite amount of uncertainty.

As for my examples of the GM executive, the banker, and the salesman, my point is that so far on this site (this thread and others) I have seen obsessive concern with all sorts of minutiae (my opinion) and a Puritanical outlook on sex that would make Hawthorne’s Puritans look like libertines. Scrupulosity is running wild. There is even a whole section devoted to it! Meanwhile, what to me are the major moral issues of our time are totally ignored.

Let me expand on that a bit. In virtually every business situation there is a moment where the person in charge is in a meeting and announces some policy that is either illegal or morally wrong. If your hand goes up and you say “Wait a minute, you can’t do that,” you are not a team player and you are fired. So most people go along and are complicit in evil.

Let me give a few examples from my own experience.
In a department meeting, the head of the department explained his plan to defraud people. His #2 enthusiastically endorsed the plan. I objected that it was wrong. I took contracts, invoices, and spreadsheets proving the fraud to the president. I was fired.
In another department meeting at another company, a discussion centered around how to fire a secretary who got pregnant. Her immediate supervisor (a woman!) was the main advocate of firing her. I protested that this was illegal. I was fired.
In another company, they discovered that one of their main medical products was ineffective. They refused to recall the product, didn’t notify anyone, and continued to sell it. I objected. I was fired.
In a high school teaching job, at the end of the year I walked into the departmental office and found the department head sorting final exams into piles. I asked what he was doing. He said, “I’m grading the papers.” I asked how he could do that since students had just finished the exam. “I don’t need to read them, I know what mark they deserve,” he answered. I said that was unfair. My contract was not renewed.

Every job (8 full time jobs) I have ever had involved some degree of wrong doing; in some cases, it probably killed people. This is the sort of stuff that bothers me–and I don’t think I am somehow exceptional in the jobs I’ve had. I think this is the norm. All you have to do is read the papers. I’m sure there was a meeting at Citibank sometime before 2007 where some hot shot said, “I’ve got a great idea! We’ll buy derivatives!” and I’m sure someone in the meeting raised their hand and said, “Wait a minute. That’s a stupid idea. It could destroy the company.” And I’m sure they were fired because they weren’t a team player. In the movie “Margin Call” the Demi Moore character did exactly that–she was the only one to oppose the policy. When it came time to find a scapegoat, it was the Demi character. They paid her off to take the fall. It’s an instructive movie because as the crisis unfolds layer after layer of employees is bought off to change their position from doing the right thing to being complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. In the end, every single layer in the company (a thinly veiled portrayal of Goldman Sachs) goes along.

But so far I’ve not seen anything vaguely approaching these issues. Nothing on immigration; nothing on health care; nothing on war. Nothing on shady business practices. To me it’s like being a passenger on the Titanic and watching the crew debate whether they want cereal or eggs for breakfast as the ship sinks. I confess I don’t get it.

 

[jinc1019]

“…if they understand”: There can be levels or degrees of understanding, and therefore degrees of knowledge. I understood the church’s position on abortion when I was young but my level of understanding grew immensely as I came to grasp the reasons why it was wrong later in life-and so my opposition to abortion grew simultaneously. My culpability for that sin would be greater now than before.

All true. But in the hypothetical, the people do understand missing mass is considered a grave sin. Obviously, if they don’t know, to whatever degree, the culpability is lower.

 

[jinc1019]

I’m not sure you got my point, which may have been lost in my verbiage: but “full knowledge” and “complete consent” [catechism] are both terms that depend on the situation and the person and are very hard to define in black and white terms. That’s my main point. I’m not saying that a mortal sin has to be repeated to be a mortal sin–although the catechism does talk about that.

Similarly other people on this thread talk about “the moment of death” as if they know exactly what that is. It seems to me that the more we know about physics the more we realize that all these terms are extremely flexible. And if you want to discount physics, that’s OK too, look at it on purely religious grounds. Because if God is outside space and time (which are creations), then the “moment” of death can very well be outside time as well. I’m just sort of bemused by the degree of certainty I see on these posts; I read the same words and see only an infinite amount of uncertainty.

As for my examples of the GM executive, the banker, and the salesman, my point is that so far on this site (this thread and others) I have seen obsessive concern with all sorts of minutiae (my opinion) and a Puritanical outlook on sex that would make Hawthorne’s Puritans look like libertines. Scrupulosity is running wild. There is even a whole section devoted to it! Meanwhile, what to me are the major moral issues of our time are totally ignored.

Let me expand on that a bit. In virtually every business situation there is a moment where the person in charge is in a meeting and announces some policy that is either illegal or morally wrong. If your hand goes up and you say “Wait a minute, you can’t do that,” you are not a team player and you are fired. So most people go along and are complicit in evil.

Let me give a few examples from my own experience.
In a department meeting, the head of the department explained his plan to defraud people. His #2 enthusiastically endorsed the plan. I objected that it was wrong. I took contracts, invoices, and spreadsheets proving the fraud to the president. I was fired.
In another department meeting at another company, a discussion centered around how to fire a secretary who got pregnant. Her immediate supervisor (a woman!) was the main advocate of firing her. I protested that this was illegal. I was fired.
In another company, they discovered that one of their main medical products was ineffective. They refused to recall the product, didn’t notify anyone, and continued to sell it. I objected. I was fired.
In a high school teaching job, at the end of the year I walked into the departmental office and found the department head sorting final exams into piles. I asked what he was doing. He said, “I’m grading the papers.” I asked how he could do that since students had just finished the exam. “I don’t need to read them, I know what mark they deserve,” he answered. I said that was unfair. My contract was not renewed.

Every job (8 full time jobs) I have ever had involved some degree of wrong doing; in some cases, it probably killed people. This is the sort of stuff that bothers me–and I don’t think I am somehow exceptional in the jobs I’ve had. I think this is the norm. All you have to do is read the papers. I’m sure there was a meeting at Citibank sometime before 2007 where some hot shot said, “I’ve got a great idea! We’ll buy derivatives!” and I’m sure someone in the meeting raised their hand and said, “Wait a minute. That’s a stupid idea. It could destroy the company.” And I’m sure they were fired because they weren’t a team player. In the movie “Margin Call” the Demi Moore character did exactly that–she was the only one to oppose the policy. When it came time to find a scapegoat, it was the Demi character. They paid her off to take the fall. It’s an instructive movie because as the crisis unfolds layer after layer of employees is bought off to change their position from doing the right thing to being complicit in the conspiracy to defraud. In the end, every single layer in the company (a thinly veiled portrayal of Goldman Sachs) goes along.

But so far I’ve not seen anything vaguely approaching these issues. Nothing on immigration; nothing on health care; nothing on war. Nothing on shady business practices. To me it’s like being a passenger on the Titanic and watching the crew debate whether they want cereal or eggs for breakfast as the ship sinks. I confess I don’t get it.

From the RCC perspective, I don’t disagree with you at all. All I would say is that I do think you’re playing a little too fast and loose with the concept of “full knowledge,” implying as though most people are confused by every teaching when most people are not; they simply choose to ignore the teaching. They get the RCC teaches one thing or another, they just think it’s ridiculous for whatever reason. My family is FULL of Catholics like that. They know what the RCC teaches, they just disagree.