I was having this discussion today:
The first was-That Jesus did not offer His personal forgiveness to His crucifiers. He asked God the Father t forgive then…
The second was that Jesus said-“They know not what they do.”
So–if this is the case how do we reconcile this with forgiveness in our lives–with people who clearly know what they are doing and not repentant?
Also, it was mentioned that there is not one scripture in the bible that states that we have to forgive unrepentant sinners.
this is one of my favorite subjects.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, the deposit of faith which we all must hold, says
1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.
Jesus’ words from the cross are the prooftext for the “ignorance” word in this paragraph.
Fr. Mitch Pacwa of EWTN fame, answered my question about this paragraph on live TV, and the only example that he gave was of the case of someone who was criminally insane. He said that one may have a habit, which diminishes his responsibility, but that person is still responsible for developing the habit.
In the Old Testament, someplace, there is an example of a slave woman (married) who is forced into sexual relations. And, it says that she is not guilty of adultery because of the circumstances.
That’s all I can squeeze out of anybody on this question, and I have posed this to the priest who is presenting the series “Grab Your Catechism” on EWTN, but he has not replied to me about it.
the complications with 1735, to me, are numerous. First, “inadvertence” implies that we sometimes stumble into sin unintentionally. Whoa! Does that mean that the rest of 1735 applies to sins we do intentionally? Is our responsibility diminished by those other conditions? and what exactly are those “other” conditions?
Can a woman have an abortion if she is pressured into by “social” pressure, by her husband, let’s say? That pressure reduces her freedom, which is the section of the Catechism that this is contained in. Is her responsibility diminished by guilt (which is not even mention explicity, but which you might consider a psychological factor)?
I submitted my question to a priest who wrote a column in our local Catholic newspaper, but he dodged the question. I had asked that if our sin fell into the category of mortal sin, but then our responsibility was diminished by one of these factors, do we even have to confess it? The usual answer I get is “it won’t hurt to confess it” but when I have confessed mortal sin, the priest has never asked if any of the conditions of 1735 applied to me. So, what is the purpose of 1735? What is the point of 1735? and is there any practical use of 1735?
I have tried to “help” these priests, by pointing out that I think 1735 is about God’s mercy, not legalism.
This is a difficult area for discussion. We are responsible for our sinful actions, but, when do they slide over the line into the realm of 1735, where we have diminished responsibility or even none at all? Paragraphs 1736 to 1738 expand on this somewhat, with examples, none as severe as Fr. Pacwa’s demand of criminal insanity, as a standard.