May Catholics Endorse Universalism?

[OneSheep]

It does help to understand people.

Yes.

And the distinction should be remembered between knowledge (which is objective truth)

Some “objective truth” has some very subjective elements. For example, what does it mean to know love? What does it mean to know the infinite value of people? To the degree that a person does not have a grasp of the somewhat affective content of these, they are less capable of “full knowledge” in any of their chosen actions. I say this as a means toward understanding 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.

I didn’t quite understand the meaning of that sentence as a whole. I think that you are saying that it is important for a person to inform as much as possible their consciences concerning the moral character of an act. I agree.

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

Yes, this is along the same theme that I am agreeing with Vico. There is a “knowing” that comes from being in relationship with Jesus, with the Spirit. It is not an “objective” knowing, it is a connection with love, mercy, the conscience, and many other aspects of our spiritual self.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Yes, this is along the same theme that I am agreeing with Vico. There is a “knowing” that comes from being in relationship with Jesus, with the Spirit. I

Which makes apostasy even worse.

 

[Vico]

Vico:

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.

I didn’t quite understand the meaning of that sentence as a whole. I think that you are saying that it is important for a person to inform as much as possible their consciences concerning the moral character of an act. I agree.

From the CE posted before:

“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.”

There is a difference between knowledge (the consciousness of an object) and the intrinsic evidence why it is so. To consider the knowledge of the moral character of an act as purely subjective is an error.

 

[OneSheep]

There is a difference between knowledge (the consciousness of an object) and the intrinsic evidence why it is so.

There is so much more to “knowing”, though, than what can be put into words. We know God through relationship, there is a knowing of security and freedom that is part of the whole of knowing. It is a connection.

To consider the knowledge of the moral character of an act as purely subjective is an error.

I agree completely, but even objectivity begins with a set of “givens”. For example, “theft is sinful” is an objective truth, for sure, but it is an objective truth given our created human nature. For example, when we ask “Why is theft so hurtful?” the “given” is that people naturally need resources to survive and we expend needed energy to acquire resources, so theft of these resources is truly hurtful. In addition, since we have an innate desire to possess, which has a territorial aspect, we naturally react to invasion of our stuff, especially theft. Therefore, it is objectively true that theft is immoral in the sense that it is hurtful to people.

However, the thinking of a person who commits theft may be such that he does not see the objective truth. His hearing that it is an “objective truth” will be far from sufficient for him to know it as an objective truth. For example, he may have grown up in a culture where it is fine to steal from people of a different religion or ethnicity because those “others” don’t count as having an equal human dignity. If he steals, my own compulsion to punish this person or think that the person deserves God’s wrath is beside the point, and the compulsion itself is an enslavement. What Jesus calls us to do is correct the sinner, for sure, and such correction may involve seeking civil penalty, but even before doing so we are called to forgive. Jesus demonstrates such forgiveness from the cross; we can put aside our desire to punish and seek to understand people as they are, leaving all the “shoulds” aside, and then forgive.

Such understanding of people sometimes involves the objective truth that people often look at situations subjectively, and seeing this disconnect is part of the realization that people do not know what they are doing when they sin. So yes, seeing moral character of an act as purely subjective is an error, but such seeing of moral character as subjective in itself involves a person who does not know what he is doing; he is to some degree disconnected from reason and Love.

Now, once I have said the above, a reader might agree, “yes, there is something to understand and forgive about people when they sin, including that they do not know what they are doing.” Or, on the other hand, that inner compulsion to punish wrongdoing, that urgency in seeing that it is so right that no sin go unpunished may instead be forefront, resisting any movement towards understanding and forgiving. The fact of the matter is that these two need not be mutually exclusive.

 

[Vico]

His hearing that it is an “objective truth” will be far from sufficient for him to know it as an objective truth.

The thing is an objective truth, and the subjective element is awareness of that, not “the intrinsic evidence why it is so” (in the post I made). The person has full knowledge when there is sufficient reflection before voluntarily doing something learned to be sinful from the authority of the Church or from certain conscience. That is what makes is a personal choice. In other cases there may not be full reflection so there could be the choice with just partial knowledge.

 

[OneSheep]

The person has full knowledge when there is sufficient reflection before voluntarily doing something learned to be sinful

Yes, “full knowledge” is when there is “sufficient reflection” on all the relevant aspects of what is learned to be sinful. What can be observed is that “learning” is not equivalent to “hearing” when considering the context of the individual. In addition, we can observe that with full reflection on full knowledge, people simply don’t choose to sin. For an individual to do otherwise is completely irrational, and irrationality is not “knowing what we are doing” in the sense that our choices are connected with our values.

Irrationality is part of what Jesus saw from the cross, to be sure, but He probably also saw blindness due to desire for justice (perceived) as well as lack of awareness, among the many possibilities of people not knowing what they are doing when they sin.

I know, you wish to reply with the assertion that mortal sin is possible. I will grant that it is possible, but only because I am not omniscient. However, I do think that the Church needs to take a very hard look at doctrine to make sure that it does not encourage people to judge rather than forgive. Because sections concerning sin can inadvertently encourage judging, it would be fruitful to incorporate some language that involves understanding and forgiveness in those sections.

In addition, it is easily conclusive that Jesus’ observation “they know not what they are doing” is in itself a truth that upholds human dignity. To accuse any person of being in full knowledge and consent when they sin is not a charitable consideration of the individual’s mindset, and does not stand to scrutiny. We are all to pray for the gift of understanding, that we may see God in all people.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

it is easily conclusive that Jesus’ observation “they know not what they are doing”

Is not a statement that should be taken out of context.

Which is what you do in the entirety of your soliloquy.

 

[Vico]

…
Yes, “full knowledge” is when there is “sufficient reflection” on all the relevant aspects of what is learned to be sinful. What can be observed is that “learning” is not equivalent to “hearing” when considering the context of the individual. In addition, we can observe that with full reflection on full knowledge, people simply don’t choose to sin. For an individual to do otherwise is completely irrational, and irrationality is not “knowing what we are doing” in the sense that our choices are connected with our values.
…

No, just knowing that the Church teaches, for example, that fornication is a serious sin, is sufficient for full knowledge, and there is the use of reason in judging that which is irrational, which is the reflection made before sin.

See S.T. I-II 88:6 ad 2

Reply to Objection 2. If the ignorance be such as to excuse sin altogether, as the ignorance of a madman or an imbecile, then he that commits fornication in a state of such ignorance, commits no sin either mortal or venial. But if the ignorance be not invincible, then the ignorance itself is a sin, and contains within itself the lack of the love of God, in so far as a man neglects to learn those things whereby he can safeguard himself in the love of God.

https://www.newadvent.org/summa/2088.htm

 

[OneSheep]

No, just knowing that the Church teaches, for example, that fornication is a serious sin, is sufficient for full knowledge…

We’ve been through this before. When we go back to the CCC, the language is much less rigorous in terms of “just knowing that the Church teaches”, and then you are omitting everything it says about conscience development. The Baltimore Catechism is not the guiding catechesis. See the example I gave above about the person who does not think sins against people of other ethnicities or religions is applicable.

and there is the use of reason in judging that which is irrational, which is the reflection made before sin.

Exactly. “Use of reason” is very much compromised when one is blinded by desire or contempt.

Reply to Objection 2

This is a section about accusation and judging, not understanding and forgiving. St. Thomas’ words are not the modern catechism, as there are hundreds of years of unfolding revelation after his works.

 

[Julius_Caesar]

St. Thomas’ words are not the modern catechism

So they have no weight?

Even the modern Cathechism goes against you.

1857 For 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."131

1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

[Vico]

…

No conflict exists with the earlier writings and CE and BC have no doctrinal errors, per Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur given.

The teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that knowledge is “of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law” (CCC 1859). It seems that what you are referring to has to do with culpability not knowledge.

 

[OneSheep]

The teaching in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that knowledge is “of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”

Okay, let’s revisit this one more time. I am talking about understanding people, not culpability. Let’s consider the individual who has heard that theft is sinful and in opposition to God’s law, actually heard those words.

However, the man was raised to believe that laws and mores only apply to his in-group, his ethnicity, his religion, his race, or some other criteria. Those not in his ingroup are beneath him, less human, in some way, and can be treated poorly because his family did just that to others not in his in-group.

Are you saying that this man knows what he is doing when he sins?

 

[Vico]

…

Did the person hear that theft from any human is sinful and in opposition to God’s law?

 

[OneSheep]

Did the person hear that theft from any human is sinful and in opposition to God’s law?

Yes, but when he hears the word “human” he understands it as “people in my in-group”. He only values people in his in-group, as that is the way he was brought up.

Does this person know what he is doing when he steals from someone in the out-group?

Does he know what he is doing when he is being uncharitable to another in the out-group?

Does he know what he is doing when he dismisses the person in the out-group as “evil” or “stupid” instead of considering what the other is thinking, or wanting, in a more charitable way, giving the person the benefit of the doubt?

 

[Vico]

…

Each voluntary act is considered alone not from totality. Earlier I posted this list related to culpability:

• 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)

To not steal from others in his in-group is correct morally so it would be sinful when voluntary. For the out-group the person may have vincible or invincible ignorance, and may be intentionally ignoring conscience. H.H. Pope Francis wrote in Evangelii Gaudium 170 “Spiritual accompaniment must lead others ever closer to God”.

 

[OneSheep]

related to culpability

Oh, Vico. Please try to answer my question from your own mind. This is a philosophy forum, and I am not asking about culpability. Finding culpability, blame, is contrary to the Gospel.

So, please let go of the doctrine for a moment and put on your ability to understand people.

Does this person know what he is doing when he steals from someone in the out-group?

If your answer is “maybe”, which I think it is, could you explain how this person could possibly know what they are doing. Please refrain from using the terms of culpability such as “vincible”.

Are you possibly thinking that this person might know what he is doing, even though he sees the others as non-human? Vico, please try to imagine this situation.

 

[Vico]

…

I did not find culpability of the person, only showed the possibilities per the Catechism. I did answer the question about knowledge – there are various degrees, not enough information is given in your scenario to determine more than possibilities.

 

[OneSheep]

I did answer the question about knowledge – there are various degrees, not enough information is given in your scenario to determine more than possibilities.

Okay, what more information do you need to know? I told you that the person does not see people outside of his religion or race or political ideology as human. Are you thinking that this person has a developed conscience? How could this person possibly know what they are doing when they sin against a person in their out-group?

 

[Vico]

…
Okay, what more information do you need to know?
…

Conscience is one source of knowledge which you did not specify. Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists and the belief may actually be false. To be knowledge it must be objectively true. The person may accept something to be true when it is not and yet be responsible for that. Once source of sin is ignorance and that has direct bearing on salvation which is the topic of the thread.

This person may have at one time perceived that what is now believed, is wrong, but through habit of opposing it now be almost blind.

 

[OneSheep]

Conscience is one source of knowledge which you did not specify

Okay, this person’s conscience is in a state of development. He knows that theft from people is wrong, but his definition of “people” is extremely limited. His version of “truth” is that the wrongness only applies to what he perceives as people.

Belief is an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists and the belief may actually be false.

Yes, and when a person has a false belief, they do not know what they are doing when that belief is relevant to the sin. This is the premise that I’m putting forth.

To be knowledge it must be objectively true.

Exactly, those who hung Jesus were either blind or not aware of the objective truth of his infinite value.

The person may accept something to be true when it is not and yet be responsible for that.

As soon as the word “responsible” enters into this discussion, we are moving into some sort of judgment, which is what we are trying to avoid.

This person may have at one time perceived that what is now believed, is wrong, but through habit of opposing it now be almost blind.

I am telling you that this person does not see people in the out-group as human. If he sins against a person in the out-group, does he know what he is doing? Does his choice consider all the relevant truth?