Is it exceeding difficult for a good or nominal Catholic to commit mortal sin?

[setter]

Is it exceeding difficult for a good or nominal Catholic to commit mortal sin, i.e., fulfill the conditions of mortal? I ask this because of the dismal statistics of the number of Catholics who ignore the Church’s prohibition against ABC, the requirement of weekly mass attendance, and number of cohabitating couples. Apparently these lapsing Catholics are not too worrried or give much thought to the eternal implications of their choices.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Is it exceeding difficult for a good or nominal Catholic to commit mortal sin, i.e., fulfill the conditions of mortal? I ask this because of the dismal statistics of the number of Catholics who ignore the Church’s prohibition against ABC, the requirement of weekly mass attendance, and number of cohabitating couples. Apparently these lapsing Catholics are not too worrried or give much thought to the eternal implications of their choices.

The conditions that need to be met for a mortal sin are found in the Catechism.

1857For 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.”

So if these “Catholics” are doing what you say while knowing that the Church teaches against it but chose to do so anyways, then I would say that the safe bet is that yes, they are committing a mortal sin.

 

[MilesXpisti]

I agree with ByzCath. I think that some apologists on the more progressive/modernist slant try to rationalize it, emphasizing the need for knowledge and consent, by demanding a requirement of affirmative knowledge, the idea that the individual must know and believe that it’s wrong before a mortal sin can be committed. Of course, this is just part of the overall tapestry post-conciliar progressivist message. If affirmation is a requirement, then most people are incapable of mortal sin and by extension evangelization is unnecessary. Utter hogwash; the universalist message at work. The simple fact is if the person knows tha the Church teaches that something is wrong and they do it anyway, they have satisfied full knowledge requirement and by doing it without duress, they fulfill deliberate consent.

 

[fix]

Is it exceeding difficult for a good or nominal Catholic to commit mortal sin, i.e., fulfill the conditions of mortal? I ask this because of the dismal statistics of the number of Catholics who ignore the Church’s prohibition against ABC, the requirement of weekly mass attendance, and number of cohabitating couples. Apparently these lapsing Catholics are not too worrried or give much thought to the eternal implications of their choices.

What do you think about this idea?:

Whether it be better to instruct a penitent about the evils of contraception, or to leave him in perhaps invincible ignorance, is not a question solved by adherence to inflexible rules. The Confessor endeavors to do what is best for his client in each individual case. The most desired solution is to dispel ignorance if the penitent will convert. But in other cases instructions to an unwilling penitent can do more harm than good — if he thereafter sins with eyes open rather than in ignorance. By and large, instructions about the evil of contraception needs to be done outside of the Confessional rather than within…

catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=7093

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS:

1. The principle according to which it is preferable to let penitents remain in good faith in cases of error due to subjectively invincible ignorance, is certainly to be considered always valid, even in matters of conjugal chastity. And this applies whenever it is foreseen that the penitent, although oriented towards living within the bounds of a life of faith, would not be prepared to change his own conduct, but rather would begin formally to sin. Nonetheless, in these cases, the confessor must try to bring such penitents ever closer to accepting God’s plan in their own lives, even in these demands, by means of prayer, admonition and exhorting them to form their consciences, and by the teaching of the Church.

1. The pastoral “law of gradualness”, not to be confused with the “gradualness of the law” which would tend to diminish the demands it places on us, consists of requiring a decisive break with sin together with a *progressive path *towards total union with the will of God and with his loving demands.43…

So, as your post asks how is it that so many would be authentically invincibly ignorant of teachings like this? How is one invincibly ignorant if they take little trouble to learn these teachings? If leaving one in invincible ignorance is pastorally acceptable why should the priest ever preach the truth or is it that only in the confessional the priest must decide to leave one in ignorance?

---

---

 

[otjm]

There are several problems in discussing ABC.

One is that Vatican 2 affirmed the priority of conscience; however, as it translated to the people in the pews, it was not clearly taught that while one must follow one’s conscince; one also has a duty to seek always a correctly formed conscience. Thus we have many people who have followed what they honestly believe to be their conscience, but do not seek further to form their conscience in line with Church teaching.

It would be hazardous to presume that they are in a state of mortal sin if they do not understand the need for further work on the issue.

A second issue is the status for the last 35 to 40 years of catechesis. It went into the toilet long ago, and then someone flushed… People who have not been taught what the Church truly teaches cannot be held accountable as if they have received it by osmosis from sitting in the pew… It is particularly easy to presume, if one has learned that ABC is wrong, that everyone else has been likewise informed. Given the discussion in this forum of the understanding of the Church’s explanation of Eucharist by the average Catholic in the street (abysmal ignorance), one should not be surprised that there are many, if not most who really know very little about what the Church teaches about ABC and regulating births.

A third issue is that the Pill came out about a decade or more before the Church addressed the issue. One needs to understand the history, especially prior to Humanae Vitae of how confessors, bishops and theologians were reacting to the Pill; opinions were split with many, if not most, aloowing the Pill because it appeared to be different than other forms of contraception; keep in mind also that it wasn’t until much later that it was found that the Pill in some forms at least could act as an abortificent. The commission set up to study the issue, prior to Paul 6 writing Humanae Vitae were likewise split, with the majority favoring allowing use of the Pill. And it would be the height of hubris and ignorance to simply accuse those on the commission of being “modernists” or “relativists”, or any of the toher neames that get bandied about.

That led to the reaction to Humanae Vitae that was immediate and extremely widespread, not to say virulent. This was most certainly not at the height of relativistic moral theology in the Church; the people in the pews who were rebelling so much and so quickly were adults in the middle 60’s, the youngest of whom were born in the 40’s and back to the 20’s (given an average age of married couples at the time HV came out, of 20 to 45 as being in child bearing years). These were folks who were catechized in their grade school years all before Vatican 2, so one cannot simply say they were poorly catechized, as that was the years of the Baltimore Catechism. It was this group of folks who layed the foundation for their children, and their children’s children, in terms of catechesis, and most especially about the use of the Pill. The Church has been in an uphill battle ever since trying to even get the converstion going about ABC.

So it is at best extemely simplistic to reduce everything to a formula that a) the Church teaches it; b) they ignore it (a questionable statement in itself) and therefore c) since the majority of Catholics (The figure of 80% keeps surfacing with little or no indication it is wrong) use ABC, they are all in mortal sin.

The Church is in the business of salvation. A pastor is faced with the reality that it is easier to catechize someone who is still actively involved with the Church than someone who isn’t, and this is by and large an explosive issue.

It is easy to sit and say what priests should do, when the decision and the consequences thereof are not yours.

And lest anyone misconstrue what I say to indicate a postion favoring ABC, let me disabuse you of the notion. I agree with the Church that it is flat wrong. But getting from that point to being able to convey the Church’s teaching about it in a way that keeps people in the conversation, and not simply walking away - from the conversation and the Church - is no easy issue.

 

[setter]

What do you think about this idea?:

VADEMECUM FOR CONFESSORS:

So, as your post asks how is it that so many would be authentically invincibly ignorant of teachings like this? How is one invincibly ignorant if they take little trouble to learn these teachings? If leaving one in invincible ignorance is pastorally acceptable why should the priest ever preach the truth or is it that only in the confessional the priest must decide to leave one in ignorance?

---

---

I would think that the privacy of the confessional is especially conducive to pastoral instruction and encouragement to know the truth and amend one’s ways in way honoring to one’s dignity in Christ and pleasing to God.

 

[setter]

There are several problems in discussing ABC.

…

So it is at best extemely simplistic to reduce everything to a formula that a) the Church teaches it; b) they ignore it (a questionable statement in itself) and therefore c) since the majority of Catholics (The figure of 80% keeps surfacing with little or no indication it is wrong) use ABC, they are all in mortal sin.

The Church is in the business of salvation. A pastor is faced with the reality that it is easier to catechize someone who is still actively involved with the Church than someone who isn’t, and this is by and large an explosive issue.

It is easy to sit and say what priests should do, when the decision and the consequences thereof are not yours.

And lest anyone misconstrue what I say to indicate a postion favoring ABC, let me disabuse you of the notion. I agree with the Church that it is flat wrong. But getting from that point to being able to convey the Church’s teaching about it in a way that keeps people in the conversation, and not simply walking away - from the conversation and the Church - is no easy issue.

I am amazed that folks are so ego fragile that a simple pronounciation of what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals would result in driving folks away is amazing. I believe that part of the solution is teaching and encouraging lasped and misinformed Catholics about the dual, co-existent aspects of God’s love – His infinite mercy and justice. How else is one to orient toward truth and cut through the confusion and denial? A pastoral challenge is to measure, temper and tailor the gospel message, …but how long will the Church leaders keep these wayward and straying and misinformed Catholics as babes in the faith. There comes a time for the solid food of the gospel, come what may.

 

[wjp984]

I get the impression by some of these posts that it is easier to get into Heaven by not being Catholic and keeping yourelf ignorant. I disagree but I get that impression. It sure doesn’t seem fair that I might put my soul in danger for sins that I know are potentially mortal because I try to be a faithful Catholic and then the non practicing ignorant person who claims to love Jesus and believe is off the hook.

 

[fix]

There are several problems in discussing ABC.

One is that Vatican 2 affirmed the priority of conscience; however, as it translated to the people in the pews, it was not clearly…

Yes, I think you are right on target here.

It would be hazardous to presume that they are in a state of mortal sin if they do not understand the need for further work on the issue.

Of course we cannot know the state of someone’s soul. We ought to presume the best, but does that not include relaying the truth when one holds an erroneous idea?

A second issue is the status for the last 35 to 40 years of catechesis. It went into the toilet long ago, and then someone flushed… People who have not been taught what the Church truly teaches cannot be held accountable as if they have received it by osmosis from sitting in the pew… It is particularly easy to presume, …

Right, but my question is are we who claim ignorance justified by claiming ignorance? Is not part of the process that we take initiative to learn the faith in order to grow in faith? You mention osmosis, but does that mean because we have not heard something at mass we have no obligation to do more? What about other sins like adultery. If that is not mentioned are we “off the hook” so to speak?

A third issue is that the Pill came out about a decade or more before the Church addressed the issue. One needs to understand the history, especially prior to Humanae Vitae of how confessors, bishops and theologians were reacting to the Pill; opinions were split with many, if not most, aloowing the Pill because it…

If they did not submit to what the Pope taught after HV then such conclusions would seem warranted.

That led to the reaction to Humanae Vitae that was immediate and extremely widespread, not to say virulent. This was most certainly not at the height of relativistic moral theology in the Church; the people in the pews who were rebelling so much and so quickly were adults in the middle 60’s, the youngest of whom were born in the 40’s and back to the 20’s (given an average age of married couples at the time HV came out, of 20 to 45 as being in child bearing years)…
So it is at best extemely simplistic to reduce everything to a formula that a) the Church teaches it; b) they ignore it (a questionable statement in itself) and therefore c) since the majority of Catholics (The figure of 80% keeps surfacing with little or no indication it is wrong) use ABC, they are all in mortal sin.

I would agree it is not a simple formula. But, it cannot be the opposite case either meaning that ignorance is not a sacrament that justifies us with God. It seems we want to minimize the fact God gave each of us talents. Will we not have to give an account? I am just as guilty as everyone else in this regard. Will we say hey I went to mass each Sunday and the priest never spoke it about so I am ok?

The Church is in the business of salvation. A pastor is faced with the reality that it is easier to catechize someone who is still actively involved with the Church than someone who isn’t, and this is by and large an explosive issue.

But does almost never mentioning it, or nuancing it, really display a pastoral approach?

It is easy to sit and say what priests should do, when the decision and the consequences thereof are not yours.

It is not telling priests what to do. It may be the faithful asking for more leadership.

And lest anyone misconstrue what I say to indicate a postion favoring ABC, let me disabuse you of the notion. I agree with the Church that it is flat wrong. But getting from that point to being able to convey the Church’s teaching about it in a way that keeps people in the conversation, and not simply walking away - from the conversation and the Church - is no easy issue.

OK, but can we at least discuss the issue without some folks claiming it is too divisive and drives people away?

 

[Genesis315]

We should neither presume the best nor despair of the worst. presumption and despair are both sins.

But, grave sins are objectively grave sins. And whether it is mortal or not, it is always best to turn from that grave sin. We should not presume that someone will be just fine persisting in a grave sin, but neither should we despair that they are automatically lost when they die.

Even if someone is ignorant, they may be mortally guilty for that ignorance. The law is written on all our hearts, so for most things there is no excuse. Plus, the Holy Spirit draws those in a state of grace into the Truth and gives them a hunger for it. If a Baptized person is not reponding to the Spirit–barring some extreme mitigating circumstances–he is resisting Him–which is a mortal sin–or He is not in the state of grace to begin with and has already expelled the Spirit of God.

Also, it is incredibly difficult to have the supernatural faith (even implicitly) and perfect contrition encessary for salvation in the state of ignorance.

 

[fix]

I would think that the privacy of the confessional is especially conducive to pastoral instruction and encouragement to know the truth and amend one’s ways in way honoring to one’s dignity in Christ and pleasing to God.

I would think that to be true. I accept every case is different, but why would people not be encouraged to seek out the truth in the matter? Is it now held by many that the faith is a burden?

 

[otjm]

I am amazed that folks are so ego fragile that a simple pronounciation of what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals would result in driving folks away is amazing. I believe that part of the solution is teaching and encouraging lasped and misinformed Catholics about the dual, co-existent aspects of God’s love – His infinite mercy and justice. How else is one to orient toward truth and cut through the confusion and denial? A pastoral challenge is to measure, temper and tailor the gospel message, …but how long will the Church leaders keep these wayward and straying and misinformed Catholics as babes in the faith. There comes a time for the solid food of the gospel, come what may.

It is said by the punsters that wisdom is the result of experience, and experience is the result of a lack of wisdom.

I don’t disagree that there is a time for the good solid food of the Gospel. It is another issue to know how to deliver that without having the result that people simply turn you off.

I am well aware of people needing to heed the Gospel mandates; I am no believer in some sort of solipsistic universal salvation. On the other hand, I have very practical experience with individuals and the issue of ABC, in particular the Pill; and it is not as simplistic as keeping people as babes in the faith; it is the issue of having the wisdom to know how to bring people along to the point where they can actually understand the Church’s psotion.

It is amazing to watch those who “get it”. It is much harder to get them to that position. I would never suggest that we don’t try. I would suggest that it is not as simple as those in these forums would suggest, particularly those who accept the truth of the Chrurch but have never been in a position where they are responsible for others’ eternal salvation.

 

[otjm]

I get the impression by some of these posts that it is easier to get into Heaven by not being Catholic and keeping yourelf ignorant. I disagree but I get that impression. It sure doesn’t seem fair that I might put my soul in danger for sins that I know are potentially mortal because I try to be a faithful Catholic and then the non practicing ignorant person who claims to love Jesus and believe is off the hook.

You may get that impression, but that would not be correct.

And as to fairness, I would suggest that you read the Passion account wherein Christ promises the Good Thief that he will that day be with Christ in Paradise.

God does not operate under our rules of fairness. He rules under His rules of mercy and justice, and it has often been said that His mercy trumps His justice.

 

[otjm]

Of course we cannot know the state of someone’s soul. We ought to presume the best, but does that not include relaying the truth when one holds an erroneous idea?

Absolutely it does. My issue is not the need to convey the truth, but how to do that so as to not inflict more damage. The priest’s responsiblity for souls (and ours individually, to a lesser degree) is an awesome and fearsome thing. It is not exercised well by a simplistic approach of “The Church says it, that ends it, and if you don’t get it you are going to hell”, as some (not you) would seem to propose. Moral theology is not a club to be used to beat people over the head, or decide who’s in the club and who’s not; it is our means of staying on the path to salvation.

Right, but my question is are we who claim ignorance justified by claiming ignorance? … What about other sins like adultery. If that is not mentioned are we “off the hook” so to speak?

Yes, part of the process is that we take the intiative; but I think that if you re-read my post, you will note that most people have never even been taught that one is required to do so. Many simply answer the question - I think with a greater honesty than some would admit - and then move on with their life, never looking further. As to adultery, I beleive that law is written in the heart of man much more deeply than the law about ABC, whcih is what we really are discussing.

If they did not submit to what the Pope taught after HV then such conclusions would seem warranted.

You lost me on that one.

As to bishops and theologians responsiblity, that would perhaps make another thread.

I would agree it is not a simple formula. But, it cannot be the opposite case either meaning that ignorance is not a sacrament that justifies us with God. It seems we want to minimize the fact God gave each of us talents. …

You need to separate yourself, who is obviously very interested in theology, from those who may have talents in many areas, but have probably only been introduced to religion as opposed to theology, and not much religion at that.

It is not exactly a new phenomenon that people upon receiving Confirmation “understood” that they knew all they had to know; they had to go to Church and fast on Friday, but they neither knew nor were taught that they had a lifelong obligation to know more about God; or at least, to know any more than waht they heard in the sermon (I am speaking of pre-Vatican 2 attitudes here; and there is little difference between pre- and post-Vatican 2 attitudes on this issue).

But does almost never mentioning it, or nuancing it, really display a pastoral approach?

No.

Neither does burn-out. Nor does the attitude of “once bit, twice afraid”. Sadly, both issues enter into this. Realize that we are left with a priesthood that is weighted heavily towards those who were ordained thirty, forty or more years ago, and they have been in the trenches with this issue since it blew up upon Paul 6th’s release. I am not trying to make excuses; I am talking about reasons. And couple that with the myriad other issues they deal with; it is not like they only have issues of, say, abortion, ABC and the True Presence in the Eucharist and they are derelict of duty.

And please let’s not get into bad-mouthing our clergy; in spite of some of the conversations in these forums about how liberal our priesthood and epsicopal members are, I find that the great majority are still there in the trenches because they truly do want to guide people to Christ.

It is not telling priests what to do. It may be the faithful asking for more leadership.

On that we will disagree; I all too often see comments in these forums that display not only a lack of understanding of the daily, weekly, monthly etc lives of priests, but also a black and white legalistic, moralistic, minimalistic and negativistic understanding of moral theology, inidcating to me, at least of a mere surface understanding of either faith of theology.

OK, but can we at least discuss the issue without some folks claiming it is too divisive and drives people away?

Yes. We can discuss it, and at length. I am open to any ideas of how to approach people with the issue, considering that I am involved not only with RCIA in my parish, but also with Catholics Returning Home. I am open to any ideas as to how to effectively evangelize people on the issue of ABC, because I have already royally teed off some people who’s attitude strongly resembeled “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”. My comments were originally to answer the OP and ByzCath.

 

[setter]

It is said by the punsters that wisdom is the result of experience, and experience is the result of a lack of wisdom.

I don’t disagree that there is a time for the good solid food of the Gospel. It is another issue to know how to deliver that without having the result that people simply turn you off.

I am well aware of people needing to heed the Gospel mandates; I am no believer in some sort of solipsistic universal salvation. On the other hand, I have very practical experience with individuals and the issue of ABC, in particular the Pill; and it is not as simplistic as keeping people as babes in the faith; it is the issue of having the wisdom to know how to bring people along to the point where they can actually understand the Church’s psotion.

It is amazing to watch those who “get it”. It is much harder to get them to that position. I would never suggest that we don’t try. I would suggest that it is not as simple as those in these forums would suggest, particularly those who accept the truth of the Chrurch but have never been in a position where they are responsible for others’ eternal salvation.

I would tend to agree with your post. However, one must consider also, how many folks are seeking to know and live the truth? Education and pastoral gradualness is for moot if one is dealing with stubbornness, self-indignation, …”You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink, …though you can try to make it thirsty”. I recall that St. Paul had a way of calling it out for what it was for those folks persisting as “babes in Christ” and forcefully engaging in philosophical and theological debate. Have we become too sophisticated in our displaced hierarchy of needs?

 

[wjp984]

You may get that impression, but that would not be correct.

And as to fairness, I would suggest that you read the Passion account wherein Christ promises the Good Thief that he will that day be with Christ in Paradise.

God does not operate under our rules of fairness. He rules under His rules of mercy and justice, and it has often been said that His mercy trumps His justice.

Well instead of saying my impression is the incorrect one, and for that matter I want it to be incorrect, why not try offering some sort of argument against it instead of just saying it is not correct. All I get from your post is that it is indeed easier to get into Heaven by being ignorant and a non practicing Catholic and a sinner as you gave an example that shows this. I think you misunderstood what I was saying would be unfair or that doesn’t seem right. I think it is great that God shows mercy and allows people like the thief on the cross into Heaven. What I get the wrongful impression of is in this example: There are two people. Person A is a devout Catholic but chooses to miss mass one time to watch a football game at the bar. Person B is a good non denominational Christian who doesn’t believe that going mass is a requirement or necessary and he watches this same game at the same bar. The two leave and get into a car accident killing them both. Person A would die in a state of mortal sin and therefore his or her soul is in danger and he or she could perhaps be sent to Hell. However, since person B was ignorant, he or she gets a free pass to Heaven since he or she can’t be responsible for his or her ignorance.

 

[otjm]

Well instead of saying my impression is the incorrect one, and for that matter I want it to be incorrect, why not try offering some sort of argument against it instead of just saying it is not correct. All I get from your post is that it is indeed easier to get into Heaven by being ignorant and a non practicing Catholic and a sinner as you gave an example that shows this. I think you misunderstood what I was saying would be unfair or that doesn’t seem right. I think it is great that God shows mercy and allows people like the thief on the cross into Heaven. What I get the wrongful impression of is in this example: There are two people. Person A is a devout Catholic but chooses to miss mass one time to watch a football game at the bar. Person B is a good non denominational Christian who doesn’t believe that going mass is a requirement or necessary and he watches this same game at the same bar. The two leave and get into a car accident killing them both. Person A would die in a state of mortal sin and therefore his or her soul is in danger and he or she could perhaps be sent to Hell. However, since person B was ignorant, he or she gets a free pass to Heaven since he or she can’t be responsible for his or her ignorance.

Because we are judged on the intent of our choices - we have a conscience and are to follow it - we are judged, by and large by how well we follow our conscience.

If an individual has a poorly or wrongly formed conscience through no fault of their own, how would it be justice to condemn them for what they did not know?

However, if one had purposely set out to avoid having a correctly formed conscience, then one is not completely without fault, and will be judged accordingly. And we do not know what that judgement will be, but we are certainly at risk should we take that path.

There are moral theologians who say that the example of the devout Catholic suddenly committing a mortal sin is simply not a realistic example of our relationship with God and He with us; ultimately, at its base, it posits a view of God that is best described as “Gotcha!”; one that views God as some ogre waiting to pounce rather than a loving Father who wishes and desires our salvation.

Implicit, also, in your example is that the devout Catholic was (essentially) free from all serious sin. Essentially, what they say is that a life lived in virtue is a virtuous life; in other words, they would not simply skip Mass. Devout people simply don’t do that.

I know you are trying to make an example, and I am not trying to be critical either of the example or your attempt. Christ calls all of us to live holy and virtuous lives, and many, if not most people try to do that with greater or lesser success.

This is not to say that someone who is virtuous could not or would not commit a mortal sin; that would border on a denial of free will. But simple observation of human nature would indicate that those who are virtuous tend to continue to be virtuous, and those who are not tend to continue to not be.

The deeper question has to do with the guilt or lack of it for failing to persue a correctly formed conscience. And that may get to some of the deepest motivations of an individual, and is what God will judge. Our responsibility is to worry less about what our neighbor is doing in that regard, and tend to what we are doing. We should always be willing to share the Good News with our neighbor; Christ calls us all to evangelize. How we do that may be another issue. It seems to me St Francis is creditied with telling his followers “Evangelize always; if necessary, use words.”

I do not wish to minimize the necessity of standing up for the truth, for following it, and for sharing it with others. I do, however, think that how we share it, if it is not done in true charity, may bring more condemnation on ourselves than for the individual we were setting out to “set straight”. Correction of our brother (and sister) most definitely needs to be guided by the dictum to take the log out of our own eye before attempting to take out the sliver in theirs.

 

[fix]

Yes, part of the process is that we take the intiative; but I think that if you re-read my post, you will note that most people have never even been taught that one is required to do so.

OK, is that not an example of what we are talking about here. Why have they not been taught that?

You need to separate yourself, who is obviously very interested in theology, from those who may have talents in many areas, but have probably only been introduced to religion as opposed to theology, and not much religion at that.

I was referring to Catholics who go to Church, claim fidelity, yet also claim a false primacy of conscience that allows them to reject the authority of theChurch and still claim non culpable ignorance. A big stretch.

On that we will disagree; I all too often see comments in these forums that display not only a lack of understanding of the daily, weekly, monthly etc lives of priests, but also a black and white legalistic, moralistic, minimalistic and negativistic understanding of moral theology, inidcating to me, at least of a mere surface understanding of either faith of theology.

This seems to be a case by case issue. Let’s use an example. A person goes to confession and accuses themself of contraception and they are told by the priest that theologians say the Church is wrong abot contraception and if one prays about it and thinks it is licit then God approves.
Do we need a doctorate in moral theology to draw appropriate conclusions?

Maybe you could offer an example where it would be legitimate to not offer the true teaching on the matter for fear the penitent would then formally sin?

Yes. We can discuss it, and at length. I am open to any ideas of how to approach people with the issue, considering that I am involved not only with RCIA in my parish, but also with Catholics Returning Home. I am open to any ideas as to how to effectively evangelize people on the issue of ABC, because I have already royally teed off some people who’s attitude strongly resembeled “Don’t confuse me with the facts; I already have my mind made up”. My comments were originally to answer the OP and ByzCath.

IMO, part of the problem with disscussion of the issue is that those who clearly present the teaching are often quickly accused of being non charitable, legalistic, and simple minded. I find issues of sexuality to be a big block to some because accepting the teaching means changing the way we live our lives. I really do see your point, but I also see the point that the scale is too tipped in the direction of nuancing and winking and nodding. I am not saying a 2x4 between the eyes is the answer, but for too long the answer has been silence or error. The natural result of failing to preach on such a topic is that you will get a type of backlash from folks who feel they have been misled and who believe many immortal souls, including their children, are at risk do to negligence and laxism.

 

[setter]

There are moral theologians who say that the example of the devout Catholic suddenly committing a mortal sin is simply not a realistic example of our relationship with God and He with us; ultimately, at its base, it posits a view of God that is best described as “Gotcha!”; one that views God as some ogre waiting to pounce rather than a loving Father who wishes and desires our salvation.

Implicit, also, in your example is that the devout Catholic was (essentially) free from all serious sin. Essentially, what they say is that a life lived in virtue is a virtuous life; in other words, they would not simply skip Mass. Devout people simply don’t do that.

I know you are trying to make an example, and I am not trying to be critical either of the example or your attempt. Christ calls all of us to live holy and virtuous lives, and many, if not most people try to do that with greater or lesser success.

This is not to say that someone who is virtuous could not or would not commit a mortal sin; that would border on a denial of free will. But simple observation of human nature would indicate that those who are virtuous tend to continue to be virtuous, and those who are not tend to continue to not be.

I do not wish to minimize the necessity of standing up for the truth, for following it, and for sharing it with others. I do, however, think that how we share it, if it is not done in true charity, may bring more condemnation on ourselves than for the individual we were setting out to “set straight”. Correction of our brother (and sister) most definitely needs to be guided by the dictum to take the log out of our own eye before attempting to take out the sliver in theirs.

To clarify, one can always lose sanctifying grace through the deliberate choice of “concrete kinds of behavior”.

But John Paul II goes on to point out that some theologians today “have proposed an even more radical revision of the relationship between person and acts. They speak of a ‘fundamental freedom,’ deeper than and different from freedom of choice, which needs to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood and evaluated” (n. 65). These theologians in effect relocate self-determination from the free choices we make every day, including fundamental commitments or “options” in this sense. Rather, for them “the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a ‘fundamental option,’ brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection but in a ‘transcendental’ and ‘athematic’ way” (n. 65). A distinction “thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behavior” (n. 65). “The conclusion to which this eventually leads is that the properly moral assessment of the person is reserved to his fundamental option, prescinding…from his choice of particular actions, of concrete kinds of behavior” (n. 65).

The pope rejects this move, declaring that “to separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behavior means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul” (n. 67). In fact, he judges the attempt to relocate self-determination from specific free choices to an alleged fundamental option at the depth of our being as “contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts” (n. 67). He teaches that the “choice of freedom” which “Christian moral teaching, even in its Biblical roots, acknowledges” as fundamental is the “decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16:26).” This is the free choice, he continues (citing Vatican I and Vatican II), “by which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering the ‘full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals’” (n. 66). Since faith is a commitment to God that is to bear fruit in works (cf. Mt 12:33-35; Lk 6:43-45; Rom 8:5-10; Gal 5:22), it demands that one keep the commandments of the Decalogue and follow Jesus even to the point of losing his life for Jesus’ sake and the sake of the gospel (cf. Mk 8:35) (n. 66).

christendom-awake.org/pages/may/veritas.htm

 

[otjm]

OK, is that not an example of what we are talking about here. Why have they not been taught that?

there could well be thousands of reasons for that. One is a simple failure to teach obout conscience, because one is teaching about other moral issues. Most adults are not taught in a classroom setting; I would like to think it sould come up in a classroom setting, but that would most likely be in high school; and that has two problems: 1) poor catechesis of both the teacher and the materials used (the bishops have been moving to correct the latter; but the former will take time) and the very real possiblity that people ahve been taught that, along with a whole lot of other information and simply didn’t hear or remember. I don’t go around positing bad will to most people.

I was referring to Catholics who go to Church, claim fidelity, yet also claim a false primacy of conscience that allows them to reject the authority of theChurch and still claim non culpable ignorance. A big stretch.

and I think my definiton fits that group - taught a smattering of religion and little or no theology. And tehy keep showing up at church regularly, but they just don’t know much.

This seems to be a case by case issue. Let’s use an example. A person goes to confession and accuses themself of contraception and they are told by the priest that theologians say the Church is wrong abot contraception and if one prays about it and thinks it is licit then God approves.
Do we need a doctorate in moral theology to draw appropriate conclusions?

No, some simple understanding of what the priest has been taught might help, though, before we go off condemning him. If he truly feels he is teaching correctly (and I have met too many who do), then we have a problem with catechesis; but I am getting tired of repeating myself. His teachers may have moral fault; I would hesitate to ascribe it to him.

Maybe you could offer an example where it would be legitimate to not offer the true teaching on the matter for fear the penitent would then formally sin?

I am a teacher, not a confessor. Not my issue. Mine is trying to figure out how to teach the truth without almost immediately finding I have started an arguement instead of a discussion. Not much is learned in arguements.

IMO, part of the problem with disscussion of the issue is that those who clearly present the teaching are often quickly accused of being non charitable, legalistic, and simple minded. I find issues of sexuality to be a big block to some because accepting the teaching means changing the way we live our lives. I really do see your point, but I also see the point that the scale is too tipped in the direction of nuancing and winking and nodding. I am not saying a 2x4 between the eyes is the answer, but for too long the answer has been silence or error. The natural result of failing to preach on such a topic is that you will get a type of backlash from folks who feel they have been misled and who believe many immortal souls, including their children, are at risk do to negligence and laxism.

I don’t disagree. Sexuality is a very deep issue, and the emotions run very deeply (and often not understood, or hardly at all). I do find that there are those who want to lay it all out at once. Back to the elephant - one bite at a time. Seems to me, in my experience, that the problem is getting them to take the first bite.

Again, I think that fear is a great issue in caussing many to simply shut down on the discussion; and if they can’t even articulate their fears, it is hard for womeone else to overcome them, or even work through them.