May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[Vico]

Vico:

The explicit intention to offend God and break His law is not necessary rather the full and free consent of the will to an evil act is sufficient.

How can one appreciate the evilness of an act without intending at once to reject/offend goodness per se? The distinction is incoherent. To the extent a person does not intend to offend God, they do not appreciate (fully) the evilness of what they choose. After all, what makes anything at all evil, is precisely its deviation from God who is goodness itself, as evil is merely the privation of Goodness (which is God), as St. Augustine taught. If a person does not understand that they are rejecting that, they do not understand the evilness of their action in any complete sense. So the distinction is literally illogical and impossible.

PS: Notice I’m NOT saying it’s impossible to reject God; only that the distinction you wish to draw between rejecting the final object of the will (goodness itself, which is God) and wilfully choosing evil is an impossible one.

You can read about virtual advertence here in the Catholic Encyclopedia

From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

http://patristica.net/denzinger/

 

[Vico]

Vico:

Since it is not in concord with the dogma of faith of the Catholic Church the person makes an error which could mean that the conscience is not properly formed, yet it is not difficult to become properly informed.

Right, but he doesn’t want to inform his conscience. So that might not be ignorance at all?

I could not conclude that it was from ignorance for the person may rather willfully hold contempt for the Church.

So if he willfully holds contempt for the church, which I am going to rephrase as wants to hold contempt for the Church, then he is not ignorant?

What I stated is that three cases could be considered:

• vincible ignorance
• invincible ignorance
• the malice of contempt.

There is a distinction between to will and to want which makes the rephrase not capture the meaning of what I posted. To will is the act of choosing to do something which is different than a wish or desire.

See Catholic Encyclopedia

It must not be forgotten that, although vincible ignorance leaves the culpability of a person intact, still it does make the act less voluntary than if it were done with full knowledge. This holds good except perhaps with regard to the sort of ignorance termed affected. Here theologians are not agreed as to whether it increases or diminishes a man’s moral liability. The solution is possibly to be had from a consideration of the motive which influences one in choosing purposely to be ignorant. For instance, a man who would refuse to learn the doctrines of the Church from a fear that he would thus find himself compelled to embrace them would certainly be in a bad plight. Still he would be less guilty than the man whose neglect to know the teachings of the Church was inspired by sheer scorn of her authority. Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or fact, exempts one from the penalty which may have been provided by positive legislation. Even vincible ignorance, either of the law or fact, which is not crass, excuses one from the punishment.

Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

 

[Rubee]

You can read about virtual advertence here in the Catholic Encyclopedia

I’ve read much of that page, I’m not sure it means what you think it means, or on the other hand that you understand what my contention is.

An “explicit intention to offend God” is not required, but my understanding of that is one need not sin against “God” understood in explicit terms as religious folks do. So, for example, even an atheist without such explicit formulas of goodness is capable of mortal sin. That’s no argument from me.

But my contention is not that “one cannot reject God without an explicit belief in God and natural moral law.” It’s that one cannot be said to at once understand that they are committing “evil” and at the same time not know that they are rejecting goodness per se. Goodness per se is God. So what do you think is meant by “virtual advertence” to such goodness?

Notice this, just below your quote:

The [true] malice of mortal sin consists in a [conscious] and [voluntary] transgression of the [eternal] [law], and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from [God], our [true] last end, and a preferring of some [created] thing to which we subject ourselves. It is an offence offered to [God], and an injury done Him; not that it effects any change in [God], who is immutable by [nature], but that the sinner by his [act] deprives [God] of the [reverence] and [honor] due Him: it is not any lack of [malice] on the sinner’s part, but [God’s] immutability that prevents Him from suffering. As an offence offered to [God] mortal sin is in a way [infinite] in its [malice], since it is directed against an [infinite] being, and the gravity of the offence is measured by the dignity of the one offended ([St. Thomas], [III:1:2, ad 2um]. As an [act] sin is finite, the will of [man] not being capable of [infinite] [malice].

And

The first and primary malice of sin is derived from the object to which the will inordinately tends, and from the object considered morally, not physically. The end for which the sinner acts and the circumstances which surround the [act] are also determining factors of its [morality].

My point is: We can’t say, “this is mortal because you are freely choosing to reject goodness in itself,” and on the other “It does not matter if you don’t actually know that that is what you’re rejecting.”

It is impossible to reject what you don’t know, or to be said to reject X by rejecting Y, (i.e reject X by mistake). What one is rejecting (goodness/God) must appear to the intellect in some sufficient form to enable the will’s rejection/acceptance of it in the first place (Whether one equates this intellectual object to the explicit formulas of divinity known elsewhere is not needed). Otherwise no exercise of the will (choice) can proceed.

 

[Vico]

…
But my contention is not that “one cannot reject God without an explicit belief in God and natural moral law.” It’s that one cannot be said to at once understand that they are committing “evil” and at the same time not know that they are rejecting goodness per se. Goodness per se is God. So what do you think is meant by “virtual advertence” to such goodness?

…
My point is: We can’t say, “this is mortal because you are freely choosing to reject goodness in itself,” and on the other “It does not matter if you don’t actually know that that is what you’re rejecting.”
…

Theologians have variously defined virtual advertence. The C.E. text states “explicit intention to offend God and break His law is not necessary”.

Virtual intention is, per Modern Catholic Dictionary:

An intention that was once made and continues to influence the act now being done. But it is not present to the person’s consciousness at the moment of performing the act. This kind of intention is sufficient for a human act to be voluntary and therefore morally responsible.

The malice implies a contempt of the Divine will.

You wrote: “It is impossible to reject what you don’t know”.

Actually that is not so because in a general manner a person can intentionally reject and be culpable; “Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.”

Re: Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

This crass ignorance is referred to in the Catechism 1791 (“takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”)

 

[Rubee]

You wrote: “It is impossible to reject what you don’t know”.

Actually that is not so because in a general manner a person can intentionally reject and be culpable; “Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.”

Re: Delany, J. (1910). Ignorance. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm

This crass ignorance is referred to in the Catechism 1791 (“takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.”)

But none of what you wrote implies that you can “reject what you don’t know.” When you fail to educate yourself, you’re rejecting that particular good (better understanding). You can’t jump from that to “You are rejecting something you’ve never considered.”

It’s literally impossible for that to be the case and it’d make nonsense of the notion of willing if it were taught: You choose between actual things, not nothing, so you must know before you can elect. That order cannot be inverted. Otherwise in what sense can you be said to be “choosing” and WHAT would you be “choosing”? It is indeed the FACT that we know (consciousness) that allows us to choose at all, differently from animals (that can’t know). Free will belongs ONLY to rational beings for that very reason. If knowledge was not crucial, animals could have it.

An intention that was once made and continues to influence the act now being done. But it is not present to the person’s consciousness at the moment of performing the act. This kind of intention is sufficient for a human act to be voluntary and therefore morally responsible.

This makes your case worse: It refers to something explicitly chosen in the past so that it doesn’t have to be explicitly chosen again and again as long as one stays in the same course.

Nothing you’ve written/presented can be used to suggest the will chooses what it is ignorant of. It literally contradicts the notion.

 

[Vico]

…
Nothing you’ve written/presented can be used to suggest the will chooses what it is ignorant of. It literally contradicts the notion.

It is possible to reject what one does not know. The definition of reject is:

dismiss as inadequate, inappropriate, or not to one’s taste. (Oxford Languages)

One can reject the teaching authority of the Church as distasteful without even knowing all of the teachings of the Church, e.g. contempt for authority.

The Catholic Encyclopedia which clearly states the condition there is “the full and free consent of the will to an evil act”:

It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

Catechism on culpability when in ignorance:

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

 

[Rubee]

Catechism on culpability when in ignorance:

You still don’t get it. The Catechism says erroneous judgments are not all free of guilt and can be imputed to the responsibility of that soul: THAT STILL DOES NOT MEAN THE SOUL HAS CHOSEN WHAT IT DOES NOT KNOW. The catechism says its guilty of what it has knowingly chosen (i.e. of its ignorance) not anything beyond that, for example, the rejection of ultimate good. You are making a further leap beyond what the church is saying in the catechism.

One can reject the teaching authority of the Church as distasteful without even knowing all of the teachings of the Church, e.g. contempt for authority.

And they would be rejecting the authority, not the teachings they don’t know. You are making this unnecessarily complicated.

The Catholic Encyclopedia which clearly states the condition there is “the full and free consent of the will to an evil act”:

Exactly: “To an evil act”. It necessarily involves knowing that the act is evil. If its evilness consists in rejection of goodness per se, and this is not known, then said condition is not fulfilled.

Repeating: Nothing you have said or quoted REMOTELY supports the frankly absurd notion that free will can be exercised in ignorance. It’s a vitiation of the very idea. An oxymoron. Just sit down for one moment and try to imagine “choosing” something that is not in your mind. How would you do that? Magic? It’s completely ridiculous.

PS: Being guilty of being ignorant is being guilty of being ignorant, it’s not being guilty of something else beyond that. It requires, like ALL sins that one first know the object/good in question. In this case, “the duty and power to find, and know the truth.” Then (and only then) can that soul choose to reject this KNOWN object (the duty to know the truth). Suggesting choice without this exercise of the intellect is complete absurdity. We might as well start preaching damnation for lions and other animals in this case.

 

[Vico]

…

I think you are trying to restrict culpability to only mortal sin.

We are in agreement that one can be culpable for ignorance. Also for culpability for not wanting to know the moral law itself. The Catechism item is:

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance … Such ignorance … [is] not always free of guilt.

The virtual advertence case is the advertence lacking in the moment but that previously existed.

 

[Rubee]

I think you are trying to restrict culpability to only mortal sin.

I am not. I’m restricting it to sin, period. Sin is impossible without knowledge, as choice is impossible without it.

801 Conscience can remain in ignorance … Such ignorance … [is] not always free of guilt.

And that guilt is only the guilt of ignorance, which is knowingly chosen.

The virtual advertence case is the advertence lacking in the moment but that previously existed.

As I said, it’s a course previously taken that one has not left and is deemed to continue whether the present reflexive attention is on it or otherwise preo-ccupied, i.e. UNTIL a different course is taken. So there’s utterly no “ignorance” operational here. The object was KNOWINGLY chosen and that choice has not been vitiated. That’s all. Our theology is only rational, after all. See here: Intention | EWTN

First, there is the actual intention, operating, namely, with the advertence of the intellect. Secondly, there is the virtual intention. Its force is borrowed entirely from a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. In other words, the virtual intention is not a present act of the will. but rather a power (virtus) come about as an effect of a former act, and now at work for the attainment of the end. The thing therefore that is wanting in a virtual, as contrasted with an actual, intention is not of course the element of will, but rather the attention of the intellect, and that particularly of the reflex kind. So, for example, a person having made up his mind to undertake a journey may during its progress be entirely preoccupied with other thoughts. He will nevertheless be said to have all the while the virtual intention of reaching his destination.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “I am not. …” [speaking only of mortal sin]
Good

You wrote: “And that guilt is only the guilt of ignorance, which is knowingly chosen.”
Good.

You wrote: "As I said, it’s a course previously taken that one has not left and is deemed to continue "
Good.

 

[OneSheep]

An “explicit intention to offend God” is not required, but my understanding of that is one need not sin against “God” understood in explicit terms as religious folks do. So, for example, even an atheist without such explicit formulas of goodness is capable of mortal sin. That’s no argument from me.

Could you expand on this part? (italicized)

 

[Rubee]

Could you expand on this part? (italicized)

I was assuming then that the term meant “You don’t have to be thinking in the exact/explicit terms of the church to commit evil.” In essence, even an atheist or religiously indifferent person is capable of knowing the good and rejecting it, i.e. committing evil. My contention has been that this doesn’t mean one understands that in committing a particular evil, they are electing to separate themselves eternally from goodness itself. I.e. that they fully appreciate the degree of evil involved in a true mortal sin. I believe we are capable of great evil, indeed; I just doubt that most people are capable of THAT degree of evil. Typically, people delude themselves into thinking that the evil they do is good in some sense at least for them. They choose to separate themselves from some good for the sake of some other good, not to exile goodness from their soul (IMO). I doubt most understand the “gravity” of the matter, in other words.

For example, I confess every “grave matter” thing I do, like skipping mass on Sunday, but I doubt, tbh, that every time I chose to stay home one Sunday, I truly, deep down, really believed (and therefore chose it to be my lot) that I was separating myself from goodness itself. If we really believed this we probably would be more likely to knowingly drink poison/jump into a shark tank than commit a single thing listed as grave matter.You don’t even have to be holy, just have to like yourself a little bit; enough to desire your own wellbeing at least, i.e. to never want to suffer the deepest/imaginable (indeed UNimaginable) alienation possible, for any reason under the sun.

I think what’s more likely is that we do commit evil, but not in the complete sense logically entailed by the concept of “mortal sin.” A sin causing the soul to die, in a worse way than any physical death you can imagine: separating it eternally from goodness itself! It’s difficult to imagine that a soul freely chooses this in any full sense, which is why I “dare to hope.” I don’t see how we can say someone knows the “gravity” of the matter if they don’t know the degree of deviation (and therefore separation) from goodness itself (God), entailed in the act chosen (which is what constitutes its gravity!). What “gravity” do they know if they don’t understand that?

 

[OneSheep]

My contention has been that this doesn’t mean one understands that in committing a particular evil, they are electing to separate themselves eternally from goodness itself. I.e. that they fully appreciate the degree of evil involved in a true mortal sin.

I agree. In fact the definition of “knowing” must include what you describe. Fact is, the more a person knows, the less likely they are to sin. It involves a knowing of the value of God,humanity and life itself.

Typically, people delude themselves into thinking that the evil they do is good in some sense at least for them. They choose to separate themselves from some good for the sake of some other good, not to exile goodness from their soul (IMO). I doubt most understand the “gravity” of the matter, in other words.

Exactly. People who sin do not know the gravity of their sin. I use “know” in an all-encompassing sense, all that is relevant. People do not know what they are doing when they sin. I have yet to find a counterexample. There is always something that they could have known that would have swayed their choice to sin.

For example, I confess every “grave matter” thing I do, like skipping mass on Sunday, but I doubt, tbh, that every time I chose to stay home one Sunday, I truly, deep down, really believed (and therefore chose it to be my lot) that I was separating myself from goodness itself.

Yes, this is one of the reasons why catechesis that focuses on blame is so misleading. First of all, we are to forgive, not blame. Secondly, people do not know what they are doing when they sin. Both of these are supported in the gospel. The distinctions between vincible and invincible ignorance still seem to be focusing on means to blame rather than means toward understanding and forgiveness.

I think what’s more likely is that we do commit evil, but not in the complete sense logically entailed by the concept of “mortal sin.” A sin causing the soul to die, in a worse way than any physical death you can imagine: separating it eternally from goodness itself! It’s difficult to imagine that a soul freely chooses this in any full sense, which is why I “dare to hope.”

I appreciate this discussion moving to “Why would anyone choose hell?”, instead of the implications of God condemning people, which is resolved already

God does not condemn anyone, and the whole idea of a “Gotcha God” where someone at the pearly gates surprises you with all the things deemed that you “should have known better”, the judgmental God, represents a part of ourselves that is singularly focused on justice at the expense of both reason and mercy.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

God does not condemn anyone

Wrong.

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him.
John 3:36 RSV-CI

John 3:36 He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. | Revised Standard Version Old Tradition 1952 (RSV-C) | Download The Bible App Now

 

[OneSheep]

Okay, because you are quoting a valid source, I will respond.

John 8:
13 The Pharisees challenged him, “Here you are, appearing as your own witness; your testimony is not valid.”

14 Jesus answered, “Even if I testify on my own behalf, my testimony is valid, for I know where I came from and where I am going. But you have no idea where I come from or where I am going. 15 You judge by human standards; I pass judgment on no one. 16 But if I do judge, my decisions are true, because I am not alone. I stand with the Father, who sent me. 17 In your own Law it is written that the testimony of two witnesses is true. 18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.”

19 Then they asked him, “Where is your father?”

“You do not know me or my Father,” Jesus replied. “If you knew me, you would know my Father also.”

John 5
19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. 22 Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, 23 that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Whoever does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.

The Church’s teaching is that people choose hell, not God sending them there. The discussion I am having with @Rubee is about what humans choose.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Moreover, the Father judges no one , but has entrusted all judgment to the Son

You neglected to focus on this part.

And you missed this as well.

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
John 9:39 RSV-CI

So does Jesus contradict Himself, or do you understand Him incorrectly?

God damns as well as he saves.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Okay, because you are quoting a valid source

No you finally recognize the source I posted from

 

[OneSheep]

You neglected to focus on this part.

And you missed this as well.

Jesus said, “For judgment I came into this world, that those who do not see may see, and that those who see may become blind.”
John 9:39 RSV-CI

So does Jesus contradict Himself, or do you understand Him incorrectly?

16 For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Are we officially Bible thumpers now?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

Read on.

He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
John 3:18‭-‬19 RSV-CI

John 3:18-19 He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light has come | Revised Standard Version Old Tradi

 

[OneSheep]

Yeah, I knew you would have me include that!

The “condemnation” refers to not being in relationship with God. When we are not in relationship, we are in a state of alienation, or sin. When in a state of sin, we “love the darkness”,we try to gain fulfillment by being caught up in the appetites. But chasing the appetites is a condemned life, a life enslaved by desire for wealth, power, sex, intoxicants, etc. This teaching is along the theme that “eternal life” begins on Earth, it is a good life, a free life, a holy life unburdened by grudges, etc. And then, in seeing that forgiveness is a holiness, a freedom, we can certainly see that God is at least as forgiving as we are, and Jesus asks us to forgive everyone.

Yet, there is a part of ourselves that gets wrathful and condemns others, it is a good part in that it is self-protective. When we are a reconciled, integrated Whole, in communion with Love, this part of ourselves (I call it “conscience”, others call it “superego”) is informed and nurtured by Love, and we can come to a life of more internal peace and harmony, an eternal life.

Hanging onto grudges, condemning people instead of forgiving: that is a life of misery, not holiness.

I know that this may seem foreign to you, but it is the Catholic theology I was taught nearly 40 years ago, so this is nothing new. The theology of a wrathful God is more in line with some of the more fire-and-brimstone protestant churches.