Is denying Christianity/Jesus under extreme duress

[j2c99]

A mortal sin? I saw a huge fight on another forum and wanted people’s opinions backed with Church doctrine if possible of whether it is or not. The link I’ve found on this forum is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259378

Can you hypothetically, not saying anyone is, lose salvation or go to hell if you deny Jesus under extreme mental or physical duress, like torture or gun to head? I understand how many martyrs have received the grace to persevere and maintain their verbal faith to Jesus, but does saying the words constitute a mortal sin, even though it doesn’t match belief in heart? Quite controversial, thank you.

 

[Caesar517]

If one is under “extreme duress”, then the sin would probably not be mortal because one would likely not be fully consenting to saying the words.

 

[Sir_Knight]

Didn’t Jesus say that whoever denies Him here on earth, He will deny before His heavenly father? I thought that was the reason why so many Christians were snacks to the lions.

The original Christians – those taught by the Apostles or their direct successors felt that it was better for their souls to be eaten alive by lions rather then to deny our Lord. Hard for me to imagine more “extreme duress” than that.

 

[Christy_Beth]

It is when we are under extreme duress that our testimony means the most. Christ died for us, are we so unwilling to give of ourselves during times like this? I often find myself praying that I would have the strength to hang onto my faith during times like this.

 

[YACatholic]

A mortal sin? I saw a huge fight on another forum and wanted people’s opinions backed with Church doctrine if possible of whether it is or not. The link I’ve found on this forum is:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=259378

Can you hypothetically, not saying anyone is, lose salvation or go to hell if you deny Jesus under extreme mental or physical duress, like torture or gun to head? I understand how many martyrs have received the grace to persevere and maintain their verbal faith to Jesus, but does saying the words constitute a mortal sin, even though it doesn’t match belief in heart? Quite controversial, thank you.

Let’s not be so quick to judge this a mortal sin. 1857 “For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: ‘Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.’” Deliberate is applied to what is done not hastily, but with full realization of what one is doing-Webster’s online dictionary.

One could easily argue that deliberate consent doesn’t exist in this situation. They are doing the bidding of another who is exercising psychological distress and threat of physical harm on them. While sticking to your convictions verbally in this situation is certainly pious, I don’t see how in this situation it could be a mortal sin. They are taking away the mental stability we have during normal human brain function, which allows us to reason and therefore choose not to do something sinful and realize that something is sinful (but that part points toward lack of full knowledge). Preservation of one’s life is so paramount, that it is morally allowable to kill in certain situations according to the Catholic Church. Certainly, in an extremely stressful situation where one’s life is being threatened, culpability would be extremely diminished (if it’s a sin subjectively speaking).

Let’s also not forget that full knowledge is also a mitigating factor. If this were indeed to be a mortal sin objectively, and the party involved was not aware of it due to lack of knowledge or inability to grasp the serious nature of their statement, it would not be a mortal sin for their soul. Would you be able to think completely clearly in order to carefully weigh the consequences of this action with a gun to your head? If not, the sin is venial (if culpability isn’t fully diminished in this hypothetical). They would not have had full knowledge. If denying Jesus was a knee-jerk reaction during a threat to one’s life, there is no mortal sin.

It’s easy to claim this is a sin using scripture. However, this is what makes the Catholic Church amazing: We have legitimate authority to speak on these issues. We aren’t left to our own devices of interpretation of Scripture to decide what is a sin or not to us.

Using the Church’s teachings on mortal sin, diminished culpability, and recognition of the right to preserve one’s own life, I personally do not see how this could be considered a mortal sin. Certainly, we all hope to have the strength and ability to profess Jesus even to death. However, if the faculties that allow us to make this particular statement of faith should be taken away from us forcibly, we need not worry.

Comments welcome.

Have a great day

God Bless,

YACatholic:thumbsup:

 

[Sir_Knight]

if the faculties that allow us to make this particular statement of faith should be taken away from us forcibly, we need not worry.

Comments welcome.

I have a comment. I mentioned it in my earlier post above. Why did the ealry Christians, who were taught directly either buy the Apostles or their immediate successors, feel differently about it?

 

[YACatholic]

I have a comment. I mentioned it in my earlier post above. Why did the ealry Christians, who were taught directly either buy the Apostles or their immediate successors, feel differently about it?

I don’t know that they did feel differently. I know that some chose to refuse to deny Christ. But I also know that we aren’t exactly experiencing the same kind of persecution for the faith that they were. Number-wise,wouldn’t more people back then have died professing their faith simply because there was unfortunately more opportunity for them to do so? I don’t know of any documentation that shows that denial under duress or torture is sinful. As we know, willful denial of Christ is certainly sinful. Could you find some documentation that shows that the given situation is sinful or that that the early Christians were taught that it was? Otherwise, all I have to go on is your statement that they were.

Also, your statement about the early Christians being taught by the Apostles or their immediate successors implies that the authority on which we are being taught does not have the exact same efficacy as in that time period. If somehow, being taught by the apostles is “better” or more “orthodox” teaching than we’re getting now, that would mean with every new pope we’re getting less reliable teaching. I don’t like the line of logic that creates.

If you could find some documentation to support your position, I would appreaciate it. I understand that I don’t have all of the knowledge in the world. Maybe I’ll learn something new today. Thanks for the response!

Have a great day

God Bless
YACatholic:thumbsup:

 

[Sir_Knight]

I am not questioning tha authority of the Church. I am merely questioning why the early Christians who were mostlikely under much greater duress than most folks now, still were willing to die for our Lord and I am reminded of Luke 18:8 … *“When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith on earth?” *

 

[j2c99]

Great thread!! Exactly the discourse I was looking for.

I just keep thinking that maybe martyrs were made a spectacle in the government realm, physically and publicly, with all the gross stories of martyrdom from the past. Today its most likely some wacko lone shooter that would make you deny verbally, not saying that the government days of martyrdom aren’t coming back.

 

[wcknight]

We all pray that we will have the courage to hold our faith under dire conditions. There are still some Catholics today that have to hide or worship in secret even today (in Communist China for one). I don’t know if the Church considers it a mortal sin to back down in the face of extreme duress.

It would certainly be a saintly act to admit your faith in the face of death or torture. But I would be hesitant to condemn someone for not having the courage to do so. Thank God it is not my call and hopefully no one here has to face that choice.

We face much less dangerous occasions for sin, and yet all too oftern we still fail to even overcome these.

 

[centurionguard]

At the time of Jesus arrest he said to Peter; before the cock crows you will have denied Me thrice.

Can anybody truly say that they would behave any different than Peter when he denied Christ Jesus three times ? I wonder how many Christian (Catholics) in their self assurance in fervent gifted faith, would behave any different than Peter did ? Fear even with Godly faith is an awful motivator on the human psyche particularly under mental duress.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen captures this beautifully when speaking about Peter’s Denial of Jesus. One can only imagine the memories of the past that must of rushed into the heart and mind of Peter in denying his Master. Jesus had called Peter “blessed” as He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and permitted him to see the Glory of Jesus in the Transfiguration. As Peter stood in the courtyard warming his hands over a fire in the chilly morning air his consciousness of guilt mounted in his soul, and he heard an unexpected sound. (“The cock crew”) Matthew 28:74. Even nature itself protested the denial of Christ. (“Before the cock crows, thou wilt Disown Me.”) Matthew 26:75
At this moment, Our Blessed Lord was led from the scourging, His face covered in spittle. And the Lord turned, and looked at Peter. Luke 22:61 Though Jesus was bound shamefully; Our Lord’s eyes sought out Peter with boundless pity.

Jesus said nothing; He just looked Peter in the eye. The look probably was a refreshment of memory and an awakening of love. Peter might deny the “man” but God would still love the man Peter. The very fact that Jesus had to turn to look on Peter, meant that Peter’s back had been turned on the Lord like a wounded stag was seeking a thicket to bleed alone. But Jesus look upon Peter’s wounded heart was to draw out the arrow.
And Peter went out and wept bitterly. Luke 22:62

Peter was now filled with remorse; as would Judas Iscariot a few hours later after the betrayal of handing Jesus to authorities. Peter’s sorrow was caused by the thought of sin itself or the wounding of the Person of God. Repentance is not concerned with consequences, but remorse is inspired principally by fear of consequences.

The same mercy extended to Peter who denied Jesus would be extended to those who nailed and crucified Jesus on the Cross (“including all of us”) And to the penitent thief who would ask Jesus for forgiveness. Peter really did not deny that Christ was the Son of God. He denied that he knew “the man” or that he was one of Jesus disciples.

Yes; Peter failed his Master. And yet; Jesus the Son of God knowing all. He made Peter a sinner, the Rock upon which He built His Church, that sinners and the weak might never despair.

 

[YACatholic]

I am not questioning tha authority of the Church. I am merely questioning why the early Christians who were mostlikely under much greater duress than most folks now, still were willing to die for our Lord and I am reminded of Luke 18:8 … *“When the Son of Man returns, will He find any faith on earth?” *

Oh, okay. Sorry for the confusion. I wonder too. I’ve always been curious what Early Christians were like. How they got their information, how they built and maintained a community, and what they had to do to not be found out. It’s something I’ve always wanted to know. Can anyone recommend a good book on Early Christians?

I believe the Son of Man will find faith when he returns. Sure, some crazy, messed up things are going on in the world. Since Adam and Eve though, this world has been messed up. But I think the people in it, are good and do have faith as a rule. Because negativity sells, we can’t go to the newspaper or tv looking for good news. If you want Good News, there’s a book that’s full of it <--------That’s my big, cheesy smile.

I’ve found that when I tell people how great the world is, they tend to agree with me. And the opposite is true as well. If we want this world to have faith, we need to have it ourselves and then not hide it under a basket. We have the privilege of sharing our faith with others. As witnesses, believers, workers, and teachers of Christ, we can try to make sure that when the Son of Man returns, he doesn’t just find faith in the world, he finds that the world is “reeking” of faith.

Comments Welcome.

Have a great day

God Bless,

YACatholic:thumbsup:

 

[centurionguard]

Oh, okay. Sorry for the confusion. I wonder too. I’ve always been curious what Early Christians were like. How they got their information, how they built and maintained a community, and what they had to do to not be found out. It’s something I’ve always wanted to know. Can anyone recommend a good book on Early Christians?

I believe the Son of Man will find faith when he returns. Sure, some crazy, messed up things are going on in the world. Since Adam and Eve though, this world has been messed up. But I think the people in it, are good and do have faith as a rule. Because negativity sells, we can’t go to the newspaper or tv looking for good news. If you want Good News, there’s a book that’s full of it <--------That’s my big, cheesy smile.

I’ve found that when I tell people how great the world is, they tend to agree with me. And the opposite is true as well. If we want this world to have faith, we need to have it ourselves and then not hide it under a basket. We have the privilege of sharing our faith with others. As witnesses, believers, workers, and teachers of Christ, we can try to make sure that when the Son of Man returns, he doesn’t just find faith in the world, he finds that the world is “reeking” of faith.

Comments Welcome.

Have a great day

God Bless,

YACatholic:thumbsup:

I’ve always been curious what Early Christians were like. How they got their information, how they built and maintained a community, and what they had to do to not be found out. It’s something I’ve always wanted to know. Can anyone recommend a good book on Early Christians?

Not sure if I could suggest just any ONE book about the Early Christians in the Church other than studying the Faith of the Early Fathers, Saints, and Martyrs within the Church as a starting base and branching off to your own favorite interests from there.
Here’s a few suggestions though that you may want to consider.
The small list below are popular Saints and the Popes who canonized them.

Name Lifespan Designation
(“St. Athanasius”)
(296 - 373 1568 by Pius V
(“St. Ephraem the Syrian”)
306 - 373 October 5, 1920 by Benedict XV
(“St. Hilary of Poitiers”)
315 - 367 May 13, 1851 by Pius IX
(“St. Cyril of Jerusalem”)
315 - 386 July 28, 1882 by Leo XIII
(“St. Gregory of Nazianzus”)
325 - 389 1568 by Pius V
(“St. Basil the Great”)
329 - 379 1568 by Pius V
(“St. Ambrose”)
339 - 397 September 20, 1295 by Boniface VIII
(“St. John Chrysostom”)
347 - 407 1568 by Pius V
(“St. Jerome”)
347 - 419 September 20, 1295 by Boniface XIII
(“St. Augustine”)
354 - 430 September 20, 1295 by Boniface XIII
St. Cyril of Alexandria
376 - 444 July 28, 1882 by Leo XIII
(“St. Peter Chrysologous”)
400 - 450 February 10, 1729 by Benedict XIII
(“St. Leo the Great”)
400 - 461 October 15, 1754 by Benedict XIV
St. Gregory the Great
540 - 604 September 20, 1295 by Boniface XIII
(“St. Isidore of Seville”)
560 - 636 April 25, 1722 by Innocent XIII
St. John of Damascus
645 - 749 August 19, 1890 by Leo XIII
(“St. Bede the Venerable”)
672 - 735 November 13, 1899 by Leo XIII
(“St. Peter Damian”)
1007 - 1072 September 27, 1828 by Leo XII
(“St. Anselm”)
1033 - 1109 February 3, 1720 by Clement XI
St. Bernard of Clairvaux
1090 - 1153 August 20, 1830 by Pius VIII
(“St. Anthony of Padua”)
1195 - 1231 January 16, 1946 by Pius XII
(“St. Albert the Great”)
1206 - 1280 December 16, 1931 by Pius XI
(“St. Bonaventure”)
1221 - 1274 March 14, 1588 by Sixtus V
(“St. Thomas Aquinas”)
1226 - 1274 April 11, 1567 by Pius V
(“St. Catherine of Siena”)
1347 - 1380 October 4, 1970 by Paul VI
St. Teresa of Avila
1515 - 1582 September 27, 1970 by Paul VI
(“St. Peter Canisius”)
1521 - 1597 May 21, 1925 by Pius XI
(“St. John of the Cross”)
1542 - 1591 August 24, 1926 by Pius XI
(“St. Robert Bellarmine”)
1542 - 1621 September 17, 1931 by Pius XI
(“St. Lawrence of Brindisi”)
1559 - 1619 March 19, 1959 by John XXIII
(“St. Francis de Sales”)
1567 - 1622 November 16, 1871 by Pius IX
(“St. Alphonsus Ligouri”)
1696 - 1787 July 7, 1871 by Pius IX
(“St. Thérèse of Lisieux”)
1873 - 1897 October 19, 1997 by John Paul II

You might also want to check some of these following links:

earlychristianwritings.com/

iclnet.org/pub/resources/christian-history.html

catholic.org/saints/

catholic.org/saints/doctors.php

catholic.org/saints/stindex.php

newadvent.org/fathers/

 

[pnewton]

Yes, we may go to hell for that. However, it is also possible we won’t. Catholic teaching holds out hope for those who would do so, because such a denial does not engage the full will. I do not think one can take the statement as an absolute. One noticable exception stands out in Peter, who did deny Christ before men out of fear for his life, in the exact situation you describe, yet he is counted among the Saints.

 

[Newbie2]

OK, here’s a twist…one commits apostasy under torture, but lies about it…“inside” he or she still holds Christ as Lord and Savior.

I think the key is what one truly believes. Most people have a breaking point, where under torture one would say most anything. But the Almighty knows our hearts, and the torturer does not.

 

[centurionguard]

OK, here’s a twist…one commits apostasy under torture, but lies about it…“inside” he or she still holds Christ as Lord and Savior.

I think the key is what one truly believes. Most people have a breaking point, where under torture one would say most anything. But the Almighty knows our hearts, and the torturer does not.

Hmmm; interesting hypothesis with a twist. What’s makes you presuppose that a torturer
would stop short of asking you to renunciate your faith in your religion and Jesus Christ.
What about forcing you to watch loved ones tortured to death or forcing you to kill to prove your fulfilled apostasy is as authentic as you are telling your torturer. Would you not rather have your aggressor kill you instead ?

Most people have a breaking point, where under torture one would say most anything

Most people have a breaking point, where under torture one would say AND DO almost anything. OR WOULD THEY ? Few would consider accepting the fate of becoming a martyr in some situations. Just a twist with a hypothetical thought to consider.

How many Saints and Christians in the early Church did become martyr because they would NOT renounce their Faith in Jesus Christ ?

 

[Sir_Knight]

At the time of Jesus arrest he said to Peter; before the cock crows you will have denied Me thrice.

Can anybody truly say that they would behave any different than Peter when he denied Christ Jesus three times ? I wonder how many Christian (Catholics) in their self assurance in fervent gifted faith, would behave any different than Peter did ? Fear even with Godly faith is an awful motivator on the human psyche particularly under mental duress.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen captures this beautifully when speaking about Peter’s Denial of Jesus. One can only imagine the memories of the past that must of rushed into the heart and mind of Peter in denying his Master. Jesus had called Peter “blessed” as He gave Peter the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven, and permitted him to see the Glory of Jesus in the Transfiguration. As Peter stood in the courtyard warming his hands over a fire in the chilly morning air his consciousness of guilt mounted in his soul, and he heard an unexpected sound. (“The cock crew”) Matthew 28:74. Even nature itself protested the denial of Christ. (“Before the cock crows, thou wilt Disown Me.”) Matthew 26:75
At this moment, Our Blessed Lord was led from the scourging, His face covered in spittle. And the Lord turned, and looked at Peter. Luke 22:61 Though Jesus was bound shamefully; Our Lord’s eyes sought out Peter with boundless pity.

Jesus said nothing; He just looked Peter in the eye. The look probably was a refreshment of memory and an awakening of love. Peter might deny the “man” but God would still love the man Peter. The very fact that Jesus had to turn to look on Peter, meant that Peter’s back had been turned on the Lord like a wounded stag was seeking a thicket to bleed alone. But Jesus look upon Peter’s wounded heart was to draw out the arrow.
And Peter went out and wept bitterly. Luke 22:62

Peter was now filled with remorse; as would Judas Iscariot a few hours later after the betrayal of handing Jesus to authorities. Peter’s sorrow was caused by the thought of sin itself or the wounding of the Person of God. Repentance is not concerned with consequences, but remorse is inspired principally by fear of consequences.

The same mercy extended to Peter who denied Jesus would be extended to those who nailed and crucified Jesus on the Cross (“including all of us”) And to the penitent thief who would ask Jesus for forgiveness. Peter really did not deny that Christ was the Son of God. He denied that he knew “the man” or that he was one of Jesus disciples.

Yes; Peter failed his Master. And yet; Jesus the Son of God knowing all. He made Peter a sinner, the Rock upon which He built His Church, that sinners and the weak might never despair.

You bring up an excellent point. Peter denied our Lord and Jesus forgave him. Now please answer me this … what happened with our Lord’s earlier comment that whoever denies him before man, our Lord will deny him before His heavenly Father. How do we reconcile the two?

 

[Sir_Knight]

I believe the Son of Man will find faith when he returns. Sure, some crazy, messed up things are going on in the world. Since Adam and Eve though, this world has been messed up. But I think the people in it, are good and do have faith as a rule. Because negativity sells, we can’t go to the newspaper or tv looking for good news. If you want Good News, there’s a book that’s full of it <--------That’s my big, cheesy smile.

I’ve found that when I tell people how great the world is, they tend to agree with me. And the opposite is true as well. If we want this world to have faith, we need to have it ourselves and then not hide it under a basket. We have the privilege of sharing our faith with others. As witnesses, believers, workers, and teachers of Christ, we can try to make sure that when the Son of Man returns, he doesn’t just find faith in the world, he finds that the world is “reeking” of faith.

Comments Welcome.

Have a great day

God Bless,

YACatholic:thumbsup:

Maybe it’s just me but the way that it is phrased, it sounds like Jesus is expecting to find very little faith upon His return.

 

[pnewton]

You bring up an excellent point. Peter denied our Lord and Jesus forgave him. Now please answer me this … what happened with our Lord’s earlier comment that whoever denies him before man, our Lord will deny him before His heavenly Father. How do we reconcile the two?

Let us look at the whole thing. It is one of the more difficult passages.

Matthew 10:32 Everyone who acknowledges me before others I will acknowledge before my heavenly Father. 33 But whoever denies me before others, I will deny before my heavenly Father. 34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword. 35 For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’ 37 "Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; 38 and whoever does not take up his cross and follow after me is not worthy of me.

Is this also saying Jesus is wanting to destroy families? No. He is saying that he is a source of division, in that choosing to follow Christ or reject him will divide all mankind, both here and in eternity. The act of denying Him is set in aposition to the act acknowledging Him. The first part is the part of emphasis, the second is the same thing worded in a negative.
How do we acknowledge Christ? On way is a profession of faith. Our baptism is also an acknowledgement of Christ when we are baptized as adults. These two courses of action, acknowledging Christ or denying Him are both things that most Christians, like Peter, will do in our life. Obviously death as a martyr fixes in eternity that choice. Until we die, we can sin and still be forgiven.

I believe that succomb to torture, like succombing to peer pressure or some other temptation, is a sin, though not necessarily a mortal one. Like all sin, it can be forgiven.

 

[LilyM]

Of course Our Lord forgave Peter - Peter repented. Doesn’t mean he didn’t sin or sin gravely - quite the contrary, especially considering his earlier avowal that he would never deny Him.

As for the early Christians, yes there are plenty of examples of splendid martyrs who stood firm when asked to deny their faith. Perhaps the fact that they were additionally asked to indulge in pagan worship, and therefore would’ve been sinning doubly, was an extra incentive to stand firm.

Nonetheless, there WERE numbers of people who DID deny their faith at the time, of course - it stands to reason. And I’m sure they weren’t shunned if they repented of their denials.