The catechism clearly uses the word “full” before the word “knowledge” which means that simple knowledge does not suffice. In addition, “knowing the sinful character of the act” is a further descriptor. It appears that the writers of the CCC took some extra steps to add the words “full” and “sinful character of the act”. If the words “know that it is a sin” suffices, then why would they add the extra wording?
Yes, the full definition is “full knowledge.” Yes, it means “knowing the sinful character of the act.” However, that’s precisely what “know that it’s a sin” means. What these two phrases
don’t imply is any judgment of the conscience, which – unless I’m mistaken? – is what you seem to be implying is involved in the determination of “full knowledge.”
Note: It would be very difficult to extract “conscience” from why people make the choices they do. It can be understood that a poorly developed conscience would make choosing an evil act more likely, and conscience is developed by knowledge.
Agreed… but you’re helping make my point. ‘Knowledge’ isn’t ‘choice’ – it’s the (name removed by moderator)ut to a choice. ‘Knowledge’ isn’t ‘conscience’ – although it’s one of the (name removed by moderator)uts necessary for the development of a well-formed conscience.
The criterion we’re talking about here is simply ‘knowledge’. The attempt to presume a dependency of ‘conscience’ on ‘knowledge’ is simply backward, here.
I’m not sure that ignoring it is a different question altogether. Ignoring it would indicate a previous ignorance, and having an abortion indicates an ignorance, so the same root cause is there.
No, I’m not talking about ‘ignorance’ (i.e., ‘lack of knowledge’), but rather, simply deciding to disregard the consideration.
Actually, no, He doesn’t. He forgives us
when we repent. The case you seem to be making is that certain things don’t count as ‘sin’ – if they don’t, then there’s no impetus to repent… and no forgiveness. :nope:
If “culpability” involves blame (think badly of)
That’s the oddest definition of “blame” that I think I’ve ever seen. Culpability doesn’t mean “does someone think badly of you?”, but rather, “do you bear responsibility for your actions, such that there is a consequence for them?”
Accountability, however, need not involve blame, correct?
Not the way you define ‘blame’.
Does this have God punishing us by making it more difficult to follow His will?
God doesn’t “make it more difficult to follow His will”. Rather, A&E – through their actions which brought sin into the world – caused humanity to lose its preternatural gifts. Does God
allow the negative consequence? Yes. Does He
make it? Nope.
Yes, you are exhibiting what I said, being in the tricky position of making sure that A&E knew enough for them and their offspring to be punished instead of forgiven so that the story puts God in the best light.
No, I don’t think that’s what I’m doing. A&E knew the law that God gave them. They would have known that they were disobeying Him. That’s sufficient, for an identification of ‘sin’. Consequences on their offspring don’t come into play.
I had to look up “consequentialism”. In the defined sense, consequentialism refers to using evil means to attain a good end.
‘Consequentialism’ is a theory of ethics that holds that the basis for making moral judgment is solely the consequence of the action. If there’s a negative consequence for the moral actor, then the action is immoral; if there’s no negative consequence for the moral actor, then the action is moral. Therefore, by this way of thinking, if a burglar expects no negative consequences from robbing a house, then it’s a good action.
One analysis of consequentialism is the “ends/means” approach. However, that’s not a complete description of what it is: rather, it’s a system that says that the moral content of a decision is purely the analysis of the effects of an act. If you’re trying to say that A&E’s decision needed to have been based on the consequences on their offspring, then you’re assenting to consequentialism.
The Church rejects consequentialism.
All immoral acts create bad consequences, that is what I am referring to.
Yes, the Church
does teach that sin harms all of us.
Our awareness of those consequences varies greatly from person to person. It is a matter of development of conscience.
‘Conscience’ is not ‘awareness of consequences’. At an early phase of development, it may be the primary motivator – children might often reason, “am I gonna get caught? If I do, what will happen to me?” in order to reach a moral decision. Even if the train of thought is “will
anyone be harmed?”, that would still be consequentialism.
What I am saying is that people make immoral decisions because they do not know what they are doing, as Christ observed.
You’re conflating “knowledge of the action” and “knowledge of the consequences” again. The former is relevant; the latter is not.
) involves the Spirit guiding the Church in this literal/allegorical dynamic. For example, the Church had some major hesitations concerning Galileo’s findings because they conflicted with what was seen as literal, and the same reactions were expressed toward Darwin. However, we have learned more about how literally to read some scripture as nature continues to educate us about God and His creatures.
