May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[Vico]

…
Okay, then show me the terms that have to do with a state of “knowing”.
…

Full knowledge is knowledge of the immoral quality, that it is a sin. Baltimore Catechism explains full knowledge as sufficient reflection.

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

The term knowledge is also termed advertence in older publications:

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

Degrees of knowledge of the moral character:

• invincible ignorance (no actual sin but material sin)
• vincible ignorance (the ignorance itself can be a sin)
• partial knowledge (venial sin)
• full knowledge (present in mortal sin and maybe in venial sin)

Note that human knowledge is assisted by the revelation of grace.

 

[MNathaniel]

So, just to summarize, as I was saying there is a part of ourselves that is self-protective (and protective of our loved ones, to some degree) that condemns others, and ourselves, for misdeeds and hurtful acts. It is very, very, natural to equate this part of ourselves with God, and it appears that you have done so. I go so far to say that it is the “default” image of God, and I had this image of God as a young man. Notice that Jesus accepts that people carry an image of a wrathful God, He does not contest it full-on. Instead, He invites us to something deeper.

Can I just contribute one thing for you to think about.

In case you don’t realize?

You’re wrong about this idea you keep repeating. (That people are projecting wrath onto God because they themselves feel wrathful, or believe God will judge because we ourselves don’t know how to forgive.) That just silly psychologizing. Many of us have no such instinctive belief in or desire for justice or judgement, never ever did from the time we were children, were universalists our whole lives, but humbly submitted that to the Church (out of humble trust in the God we love and trust not to tell us lies), and ceased being universalists when we converted. Our hearts didn’t change, only our beliefs did.

I don’t ‘want’ anyone to choose hell anymore today than I did when I was ten. There is literally no part of myself, no instinct or emotion or thought I can identify, that wants any person to go to hell. And at the same time, I accept that God – who only tells the truth – has revealed that hell is a place it is possible for us to go.

To tell yourself (and let leak out to others) that you think believing anyone might actually go to hell is a sign that they secretly want anyone to go to hell, or that they don’t truly understand forgiveness etc, comes across as self-satisfied, condescending, self-righteous, etc. You clearly seem to think your universalist belief is connected to you being a kinder and more forgiving person (in your own mind) than those who don’t hold it.

It’s really off-putting. Just throwing that out there. You don’t understand other people as well as you seem to have comfortably convinced yourself that you do.

 

[OneSheep]

I accept that God – who only tells the truth – has revealed that hell is a place it is possible for us to go.

Agreed, it is theoretically possible, because we have free will.

You clearly seem to think your universalist belief is connected to you being a kinder and more forgiving person (in your own mind) than those who don’t hold it.

And your assigning thoughts I don’t have and saying what I think of myself is kind?

Just throwing that out there. You don’t understand other people as well as you seem to have comfortably convinced yourself that you do.

Are you open to the possibility that some people really do project onto God their own desire for justice, to punish all wrong-doing?

 

[MNathaniel]

Are you open to the possibility that some people really do project onto God their own desire for justice, to punish all wrong-doing?

100%. Are you open to the possibility that many people really don’t, and still sincerely believe that some people will go to hell, because this seems to be what the all-good God teaches?

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, some people do believe that some people go to hell, but like Bishop Barron, I am not going to be surprised if no one is there.

Oh, and yes, absolutely, people can certainly believe in a non-judgmental God and simply believe that some people choose hell, leaving the whole “judgmental God” aspect out of it completely.

I base that on a two-fold experience of life: 1. That God forgives unconditionally. 2. That people who have “full knowledge” choose God.

I am happy to engage with you more on these points, but I’m going to work on other things for the rest of the day.

I do gather that you do not hold the image of a wrathful God, contrary to the person I responded to. Is that true?

 

[MNathaniel]

Interestingly, the other day I came across old notes on my phone from when I was wrestling things out during the process of converting to Catholicism. Here are a few of those notes, in case it gives you a sense of where my state of mind was before becoming Catholic:

“If I die and find out permanent hell is real, will I feel guilty? SHOULD I feel guilty? If I find out hell is impermanent and/or reincarnation is real, will I rejoice in the superior goodness of that God? To what degree can I trust my intuition about what’s good and be guided to the best God on that account, and to what degree (and by what criteria) should I identify a God as true and conform my sense of what’s good to Him (even against my intuition)? Where does the responsibility of conscience lie?”

And

“I’m permitted to hope that everyone will be saved. The question to every individual is: why wouldn’t you want to cooperate with God on YOUR salvation path? The path of others isn’t yours to see.”

And

“I FEEL like I’m being unjust. Like if God took me now, I’d feel guilty and wrong for allowing myself to be so misled. For allowing myself to be shaped into borders and a box that cannot hold the divine”

I will say that subsequent to writing these notes, I came down on the side of believing that Jesus is real. And putting my trust in him. And allowing him to tell me what’s right and good, rather than deciding for myself and seeking out a belief system that reflects my own intuitions.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

And your assigning thoughts I don’t have and saying what I think of myself is kind?

The pot is calling the kettle black.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

What would have been going through their minds to make such a choice?

The text only gives us that they sinned against the Holy Spirit.

What was going through their minds in making this choice?

What does the text tell us?

 

[OneSheep]

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

While the BC is not the CCC, I will show how the aspect of knowing still comes into the picture. Who “knows” the sinfulness of a thought, word, or deed better, the person who has simply heard that “theft is a sin” but does not care a whit about other people’s pain, or a person who has experienced the crime of theft, has suffered from it, and appreciates the damage it causes for people, who he values?

The term knowledge is also termed advertence in older publications:

An old Catholic Encyclopedia is not the CCC. The BC does not rise to the level of a modern catechism either.

A Catholic should ask oneself when reading old doctrine: “Does doctrine encourage understanding and forgiveness, or does it encourage judgment and condemnation?”. The Spirit has worked in the last century improving our ability to forgive and include, not to judge and exclude. Anything written before Vatican II in terms of doctrine must be scrutinized in this way.

 

[OneSheep]

I will say that subsequent to writing these notes, I came down on the side of believing that Jesus is real. And putting my trust in him. And allowing him to tell me what’s right and good, rather than deciding for myself and seeking out a belief system that reflects my own intuitions.

It sounds like you went through a great discernment process. Does “right and good” include that God loves and forgives without conditions? What does your intuition tell you on that aspect?

 

[Vico]

…

Those are authoritative documents having the approbation of the Church. Yet the same is said in the later Catechism 1859 clearly states mortal sin “presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”

 

[OneSheep]

Those are authoritative documents having the approbation of the Church. Yet the same is said in the later Catechism 1859 clearly states mortal sin “presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”

Correct, and we come upon the same questions:

Who “knows” better the sinful character of a thought, word, or deed, the person who has simply heard that “theft is a sin” but does not care a whit about other people’s pain, or a person who has experienced the crime of theft, has suffered from it, and appreciates the damage it causes for people, who he values?

Which of these people has a better grasp (knowledge) of its opposition to God’s law?

 

[Vico]

…
Which of these people has a better grasp (knowledge) of its opposition to God’s law?

The one that has simply heard.

John 10

27 My sheep hear my voice: and I know them, and they follow me.

Matthew 11

25 At that time Jesus answered and said: I confess to thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them to the little ones.

Luke 18

17 Amen, I say to you: Whosoever shall not receive the kingdom of God as a child, shall not enter into it.

 

[OneSheep]

The one that has simply heard.

They both heard, I left that part out for the second. So, which one of those people has a better grasp (knowledge) of its opposition to God’s law?

 

[Vico]

…

Knowledge of the moral character does not depend upon charity or compassion (caring a whit). So one cannot tell from the criteria you use to differentiate.

Luke 5

32 I came not to call the just, but sinners to penance.

 

[OneSheep]

Knowledge of the moral character does not depend upon charity or compassion

A very interesting assertion; and I would be extremely surprised if you could back it up with doctrine, and I cannot see how you could back it up with reason. I will back up my position.

Vico, to know “moral character” is only superficial if one has simply heard “It is wrong to steal”. What, for example, of the person who finds no harm in theft? What if the person finds no harm in hurting others, because he only cares about himself? What about the person who has heard but does not value the authority of the words? This person is very, very far from the state of knowing that a person has who values all humanity, cares about the authority of the Church, understands the harm of the sin itself, and takes ownership of the importance of the moral code. Indeed, when he sins, the first person I described knows far less about what he is doing than if the second were to do so.

Now, what is your rational support for a different conclusion?

And then, I repeat the importance of application of the CCC as a whole! Are we using the CCC in guiding us toward understanding and forgiving people, which is in keeping with the Gospel, or are we using the CCC to judge and condemn people, which is forbidden by Chris Himself?

 

[Vico]

…

The issue is only knowledge of the moral character of the act, not details beyond that, for anything else is not going to change the knowing that the act (or omission) is sin. If a person hears in conscience that something is wrong and does it willingly, this is sin. Similarly, for that act or omission learned from the Church to be wrong, that is done willingly, is sin. It does not require any advanced study or experience beyond that.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given with the gift of supernatural grace, which includes informs the conscience through which the moral quality of an act is recognized.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1785 In the formation of conscience the Word of God is the light for our path,54 we must assimilate it in faith and prayer and put it into practice. We must also examine our conscience before the Lord’s Cross. We are assisted by the gifts of the Holy Spirit, aided by the witness or advice of others and guided by the authoritative teaching of the Church.55

1777 Moral conscience,48 present at the heart of the person, enjoins him at the appropriate moment to do good and to avoid evil. …

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

 

[OneSheep]

The issue is only knowledge of the moral character of the act,

And as I exhibited, such knowledge happens in degrees. As we grow in knowledge, we have a better understanding and appreciation of “moral character”, “morality”, and the impact of the act. The more a person knows and is in connection, the less likely they are to sin. When we sin, there is a gap in what we know, or there may be a blindness present.

If a person hears in conscience

Yes, very good point.

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are given with the gift of supernatural grace, which includes informs the conscience through which the moral quality of an act is recognized.

Exactly. Excellent, Vico. We are not born recognizing, nor are we necessarily recognizing when we first hear about what is immoral. Grace is manifested over time, we grow in knowledge and wisdom:

1785 In the formation of conscience

Yes, it is a formation process. The more formation that happens, the less likely a person is to sin. A person with perfect conscience, and not blinded by the passions or anger, will not sin.

1796 Conscience is a judgment of reason by which the human person recognizes the moral quality of a concrete act.

Excellent. This also:

1784 The education of the conscience is a lifelong task. From the earliest years, it awakens the child to the knowledge and practice of the interior law recognized by conscience. Prudent education teaches virtue; it prevents or cures fear, selfishness and pride, resentment arising from guilt, and feelings of complacency, born of human weakness and faults. The education of the conscience guarantees freedom and engenders peace of heart.

And as the conscience develops, which is part of a growth of knowledge and wisdom (but also a prayerful “knowing” of the Love of God), a person of conscience becomes increasingly less likely to sin. When he does sin, there is a gap in his knowing.

I am putting these forth as a means of understanding why people sin. Assertions of why we should instead judge and condemn people (i.e. find them culpable) is an exercise contrary to Christ’s teachings. Of course, this does not remove our obligation to point out that there are acts that are immoral/cause harm, which I am certain is part of your motivation for being in this conversation, Vico. I commend you for that effort; conscience formation in oneself and in others, when called for, is a task in which we should all participate.

 

[Vico]

…

It does help to understand people.

And the distinction should be remembered between knowledge (which is objective truth) and “why it is so” for a person does not need to know why it is so to have full knowledge of the moral character of an act.

Catholic Encyclopedia

Knowledge is essentially the consciousness of an object … Any attempt to reduce the object to a purely subjective experience could result only in destroying the fact itself of knowledge, which implies the object, or not-self, as clearly as it does the subject, or self. … Knowledge supposes a judgment, explicit or implicit. … Truth and certitude are conditions of knowledge … If the authority on which it rests has all the required guarantees, faith gives the certitude of the fact, the knowledge that it is true; but, of itself, it does not give the intrinsic evidence why it is so.

Dubray, C. (1910). Knowledge. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08673a.htm

 

[Julius_Caesar]

The more a person knows and is in connection, the less likely they are to sin

The false teachers? Ananias and Sapphira?

No.

The more one walks with the Spirit, the less likely they are to sin.