Good Morning Gorgias,
Hmm… I thought I posted this, but it looks like it didn’t ‘take’. Let me try again…
Yes, there are ways to not fully know the nature of a sin.
And people will have different opinions about the word “full”.
I’m not certain I agree with that. Upon what do you base that claim?
It can be proven that awareness decreases the likelihood of sin by working through examples. We can work on one, if you like.
“They” didn’t crucify Christ; “they” handed Him over to the Romans to be crucified. So, Jesus was appealing to His Father to not hold the sin of deicide against the Romans.
The crowd was complicit because they called for His condemnation. They did not know what they were doing.
Again: this discussion isn’t about mercy, it’s about the definition of mortal sin. Yes, we all hope for God’s mercy when we sin. However, that mercy is forgiveness, rather than the denial that sin exists in the first place.
If sin is alienation (I think I explained that in a previous post), then sin certainly exists. People are not in relationship, or have imperfect relationship, with God. To some degree, we are all a bit alienated. But you saw from the CCC the direction from which alienation comes. God always forgives us.
I agree that this is often the case. However, if it’s a ‘devaluation’, this implies that they know the value, and instead of acting according to the value they know, they instead engage their consciences and rationalize away what they know.
“Knowing”, however, is a dynamic condition. Blindness has a way of altering our minds. The content is in there, but our empathy becomes blocked. I am not making excuses for people, I am explaining what is happening in the mind. The devaluation is a subconscious, involuntary side effect of desire, anger, despair, etc. It takes awareness, prayer, meditation, an observational step back, to realize blindness has occurred.
Do you remember the character Gollum from The Hobbit? He was enslaved, but his true self within resisted, as the character is not joyfully enslaved but miserably so. The fictional character was not in connection with his true self, or with God. The enslaved do not know what they are doing.
Unless the person in your example thinks that all unborn children are evil, then you’re explicitly showing a mental process, by which he rationalizes what he knows and applies (flawed) principles of conscience to reach a decision!
It is worth taking a hard look at what happens in “rationalization”, and especially the way we use the word. If we use it in a way that says “he should have known better”, then we are again applying a “should”. If instead, we look at what
is, we can find that people become blind to value, and products of desire/anger/despair become more important than the ordered content of the conscience. People do not
will that their consciences become disordered, its occurrence is triggered by the emotions/drives I mentioned.
That said, the word “should”, and especially some implied accusation may help serve to wake up a person as to what is going on, but the “should” itself becomes compromised by strong desire. It is very natural, then, to resent strong desire, but the resentment in itself does not help in the long run. Repentance involves a seeing, it is a focus on love rather than the law.
Let me make sure I understand what you’re proposing: by showing an example of flawed mental process – possibly even mental disturbance – you’re suggesting that a single exceptional case disproves the general rule? I’m simply arguing that full knowledge is possible in the case of sinful actions, whereas you seem to be arguing that sinful action precludes full knowledge.
… you seem to be asserting that they’re present by default (and generally apply). That’s what I’m denying.
What I am observing is that Jesus’ words from the cross can be applied universally. When people sin, they do not know what they are doing.
Correct; at the point of their sinful action, they might not be culpable of the action. However, they generally are culpable of allowing themselves to get into that situation, and therefore, they are culpable of the sin. I’ve already referenced the relevant teaching in the Catechism.
Not to belabor this, but if “culpable” means “imputable”, we are culpable of all our choices. If “culpable” means “worthy of blame”, then we can avert blame by understanding and forgiving. It can be shown that if a person allows himself to get into a bad situation, then such allowance shows an ignorance or blindness.
There’s an important consideration to note here: in terms of real sins committed in real life, the “human ability to ‘assess’ sin” is irrelevant. After all, humans do not judge mortal sin – that belongs to God alone. However, we’re talking about the question in the abstract; in other words, we’re talking about the criteria, not any particular application. Nevertheless, the assumption that mortal sin is impossible (since full knowledge is impossible) – which is what it seems you’re asserting – seems incompatible with the teaching of the Church.
Well, we have to admit that it is possible that a person can turn away from God, which is the definition of m.s. The question of “mortality”, though, is worth pursuing. People who turn from God do not know what they are doing. Does God hold something against the blind and ignorant? Does God allow a blind, ignorant person to ultimately choose against Him? That will depend on one’s image of God, right?
Blessing to you.
:thumbsup:
