Moral and Absolute Certainty

[BarbaraTherese]

Would you please define for me, moral and absolute certainty as defined in moral theology.
And can anyone ever assume on the basis of moral certainty to know that a soul is not saved?

Barb

 

[StMartin_67]

Would you please define for me, moral and absolute certainty as defined in moral theology.
And can anyone ever assume on the basis of moral certainty to know that a soul is not saved?

Barb

The question is improperly stated, IMHO. What do you mean by “to know”?

 

[AgingCatholic]

Would you please define for me, moral and absolute certainty as defined in moral theology.
And can anyone ever assume on the basis of moral certainty to know that a soul is not saved?

Barb

No, we can never presume to know the state of grace of ourselves or anyone else with certainty. That is because, as Jesus noted, we cannot presume to know the full mind and will of God.

In theology, moral certainty normally relates to specific actions, not people. For example, murder is always illicit, so we presume the act to be intrinsically evil. Judging people is harder. Before becoming St. Paul, we know that Saul had personal involvement with the torture/murder of a Christian. Yet, because of his status as a saint, we presume him to be among the saved.

Presumably this is why Jesus warned us on several occasions about the perils of judging others instead of looking to our own moral well being.

 

[StMartin_67]

No, we can never presume to know the state of grace of ourselves or anyone else with certainty.

This is incorrect. We can know with moral certainty; NOT with absolute or metaphysical certainty. They are both levels of certitude.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

No, we can never presume to know the state of grace of ourselves or anyone else with certainty. That is because, as Jesus noted, we cannot presume to know the full mind and will of God.

In theology, moral certainty normally relates to specific actions, not people. For example, murder is always illicit, so we presume the act to be intrinsically evil. Judging people is harder. Before becoming St. Paul, we know that Saul had personal involvement with the torture/murder of a Christian. Yet, because of his status as a saint, we presume him to be among the saved.

Presumably this is why Jesus warned us on several occasions about the perils of judging others instead of looking to our own moral well being.

… …thank you…

.

 

[StMartin_67]

Yet, because of his status as a saint, we presume him to be among the saved.

In the case of a Saint, we have absolute certainty (not moral certainty) that he is among the elect.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

In the case of a Saint, we have absolute certainty (not moral certainty) that he is among the elect.

Yes, because The Church assures us infallibly - hence we can be absolutely certain - that the person is indeed in Heaven. This is unquestioned I dont think. What is under question is that we cannot presume such assessments/judgements ourselves based on moral certitude.

Barb

 

[StMartin_67]

Yes, because The Church assures us infallibly - hence we can be absolutely certain - that the person is indeed in Heaven. This is unquestioned I dont think. What is under question is that we cannot presume such assessments/judgements ourselves based on moral certitude.

Barb

**

What is under question is that we cannot presume such assessments/judgements ourselves based on moral certitude.

**Can’t you see that this statement doesn’t make sense?

Now, can one have a moral certitude that a deceased loved one is saved (likely in purgatory)? Yes or No?

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Can’t you see that this statement doesn’t make sense?

Now, can one have a moral certitude that a deceased loved one is saved (likely in purgatory)? Yes or No?

I’m no theologian either. What I mean is that we cannot presume to state that a person is categorically in Heaven or Hell based on a moral assessment of some objective matter in their life and living and this is what I have been saying all along - in the other thread included. For example if I had known a person who lived like St. Paul prior to his conversion and that person were to die, I still would not presume to state whether he was damned or whether he was not. We simply cannot know. Will that clarify what I am trying to say?

Moral certitude can never categorically state that a deceased person is either damned or saved - in Heaven or Hell - that is my meaning and that has been my meaning from the start.

Apologies, but as with the other thread HERE, I am coming out of this one also and just overlooking it, as I am tired of going round and round in circles with you, SM, in post after post…it is a complete waste of time. I think I have conveyed my meaning and I know that what I mean is in line with Church teaching and that is sufficient for me.

Blessings and regards…in goodwill…Barb
Edit:
My Post does make sense if you read it in the full context, since I cannot have that absolute assurance that the Church conveys when speaking infallibly - on my own assumptions alone.

Originally Posted by BarbaraTherese forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cab/viewpost.gif
Yes, because The Church assures us infallibly - hence we can be absolutely certain - that the person is indeed in Heaven. This is unquestioned I dont think. What is under question is that we cannot presume such assessments/judgements ourselves based on moral certitude.

Barb

StMartin replies:

Can’t you see that this statement doesn’t make sense?

 

[Joysong]

BarbaraTherese:

What I mean is that we cannot presume to state that a person is categorically in Heaven or Hell based on a moral assessment of some objective matter in their life and living and this is what I have been saying all along - in the other thread included.

Your point is clear, Barb, but S.M. apparently enjoys twisting and spinning others’ words for his own private enjoyment and taunting.

If a person on their deathbed is reputed NOT to have been in the state of grace and dies unrepentent, there can be no moral certainty that he is damned to hell based on his/her externally known state of soul, as opposed to the internal reality, which cannot be discerned except by God.

Alternatively, if a person is seen receiving the sacraments at mass and dies, can we be assured their receptions of Communion were not sacrilegious and that they are in heaven? No. The judgments of God are hidden, for He alone knows the soul’s every thought, word and deed, some of which may be damning and unknown to us externally.

Many of our saints (both canonized and uncanonized) have asked God whether certain loved ones were in heaven, and as a special revelation and condescending gift of God’s grace, they were permitted to have His certitude. Can they prove it to another? No. Yet they remain absolutely without doubt due to the special mystical grace that implants certainty in their soul and gives them peace and consolation that this is truth.

Alternatively, St. Teresa of Avila had revelations of certain persons being taken by demons at their death, which gave her absolute horror interiorly. Can she prove it by her words? No.
Must we believe these revelations? No, and in their prudence, the saint usually does not name the person about whom they had this revelation.

I hope this helps.

 

[StMartin_67]

BarbaraTherese:

Moral certitude can never categorically state that a deceased person is either damned or saved - in Heaven or Hell - that is my meaning and that has been my meaning from the start.

I am asking if one can have a moral certitude; not whether a moral certitude can be an absolute certitude, it cannot by definition.

The question was as follows:

Is it possible for one to have a moral certitude that a deceased loved one is saved (likely in purgatory)? Yes or No?

It’s not a trick question; the answer is yes. Do you agree?

 

[StMartin_67]

Would you please define for me, moral and absolute certainty as defined in moral theology.

1. Metaphysical, Physical, and Moral Certitude.

Metaphysical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what things in their essence and nature must be. Our certitude that man is an animal, or that a totality is greater than any one of its component parts, is metaphysical, for the very concept of man’s essence, the very ideas of totality and part, make the judgments inevitable. Metaphysical certitude is also called absolute certitude.

Physical certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the order of nature and the consistency of natural laws. Our certitude that a dead man will not return to earthly life is physical; so also is our certitude that snow must be white, and that good seed will sprout when planted under favorable conditions in fertile ground.

Moral certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the normal mode of human conduct. Thus we have moral certitude that a mother will love her child. It is to be noted in passing that the expressions, “It is morally certain,” and “It is a moral certainty” are “newspaper English” for a greater or lesser degree of “probability.” These expressions, as used casually in unscientific speech, are not to be confused with the terms moral certitude and morally certain, used in Criteriology. For these terms do not indicate a mere opinion, however probable, but true certitude, a full and unwavering assent of the mind upon evidence taken from the normal human mode of action, evidence which the mind finds sufficient to win its full assent.

That which is metaphysically certain cannot be otherwise, cannot even be conceived of as existing otherwise. That which is physically certain can be conceived of as existing otherwise, but not unless the order of nature be suspended by virtue of a higher law. Thus physical certitude is certitude of that which must be, unless a miracle intervenes. That which is morally certain can be conceived of as existing other- wise, and may in fact exist otherwise without the intervention of a miracle, but not without the intervention of a human will which acts in a manner contrary to the normal and rational mode of human conduct, that is, of such conduct as proceeds from the deliberate will of a normal person. The basis and evidence of metaphysical certitude is the very essence of things; that of physical certitude is the constancy of nature; that of moral certitude is the constancy or normal human conduct.
I am metaphysically certain that a circle cannot be square. I am physically certain that bodies at rest tend to remain at rest. I am morally certain that a man of virtue will not suddenly become vile.

Another phase of moral certitude is that which the mind achieves by adverting to the evidence of normal human conduct in the circumstances. If I am in doubt whether a bill is paid; if I can find no evidence in writing that it was or was not paid; then I consider the character of the debtor, and the character of the creditor. I find that the debtor is scrupulously honest. I find that the creditor is exact in keeping accounts. By the evidence of these facts, by the evidence of what an honest debtor and a business-like creditor would normally do in the circumstances, I can arrive at moral certainty that the bill was paid. But if I an unable to determine the issue by such investigation; if the character of the debtor and the creditor leave me in doubt about the bill, then I fall back upon a reflex principle, viz., “A law of doubtful application cannot bind to certain obligation.” This principle expresses the normal, sane view of prudent men; it is a dictum of common human sense. Hence, direct methods failing, I may resolve my doubt by invoking this reflex principle and may achieve moral certitude thereby.

Criteriology, Monsignor Paul Glenn PH.D., S.T.D.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

As I wrote to you in answer to your PM to me which I received and answered this morning, I will not enter into any more correspondence with you, StMartin - either on or off a public forum as you insist on twisting what I am saying. As much as it saddens me to say that and it truly does. Your PM this morning again insisted in putting an understanding of what I was saying in my Posts to a completely inaccurate one. You keep accusing me of saying something that I am not saying at all and simply refuse to desist in doing so and understand what in fact I have posted.
Nor, I dont think, have you ever given one link to reputable source information in all your many Posts into this thread and the one on St. Faustina and her Diariest - HERE - in support anything you may have to say, which thus remains your opinion only. I have given many links to reputable source information indeed in my Posts - which I am coming to the conclusion that you must surely not read. It seems the only logical conclusion.

I am truly tired and frustrated with trying to get you to insight that you are twisting my words and my understandings into something that I am neither saying nor meaning. It is useless to respond to your correspondence.

God’s blessings and my regards…and in goodwill - for I wish you well…Barb

.

 

[BarbaraTherese]

Quoting Joysong:

Your point is clear, Barb, but S.M. apparently enjoys twisting and spinning others’ words for his own private enjoyment and taunting.

Thanks Carole…As I said I am tired and frustrated with trying to get SM to insight that I am not saying at all what he keeps insisting I am saying. He is doing the same thing generally in the thread on St. Faustina and her Diaries. Neither has he to date - to my memory and I could be wrong but I dont think so - in all his many posts indeed put in one link to a reliable source to support what he has to say.
Why he insists on twisting and spinning words defeats me since it descends to the level of stupidity and the ridiculous to my mind.

If a person on their deathbed is reputed NOT to have been in the state of grace and dies unrepentent, there can be no moral certainty that he is damned to hell based on his/her externally known state of soul, as opposed to the internal reality, which cannot be discerned except by God.

Amen:thumbsup: …My understanding precisely and from the very start of this nonesense SM has entered into.

Alternatively, if a person is seen receiving the sacraments at mass and dies, can we be assured their receptions of Communion were not sacrilegious and that they are in heaven? No. The judgments of God are hidden, for He alone knows the soul’s every thought, word and deed, some of which may be damning and unknown to us externally.

Absolutely again. The Church teaches what we can have moral certainty about in her long and careful defining of what is mortal and what is venial sin. However, StMartin keeps accusing me and in his PM to me again this morning of having abandoned moral certainty in appropriate matters altogether. This is not only absolutely false it is spreading scandal/false information re myself, and to have abandoned moral certitiude in any matter at all is plainly heretical.

Many of our saints (both canonized and uncanonized) have asked God whether certain loved ones were in heaven, and as a special revelation and condescending gift of God’s grace, they were permitted to have His certitude. Can they prove it to another? No. Yet they remain absolutely without doubt due to the special mystical grace that implants certainty in their soul and gives them peace and consolation that this is truth.

I cannot speak to the above Carole as I have never experienced this. Certainly I was given Peace of heart, mind and soul after quite a few years of doubting my brother’s salvation after he died which were dreadful years; however I still pray for his soul while I am personally sure he is either now in Heaven or in Purgatory - that his souls is safe. Can I share this assurance with any at all - no I cannot. Yet assured I personally am.

Alternatively, St. Teresa of Avila had revelations of certain persons being taken by demons at their death, which gave her absolute horror interiorly. Can she prove it by her words? No.
Must we believe these revelations? No, and in their prudence, the saint usually does not name the person about whom they had this revelation.

As was stated in the Thread on Fuastina and her Diaries, we are not bound to believe in the writings of saints and this is my understanding too and most always has been. StMartin however is not (up to where I left the thread) speaking to this point, rather he is challenging the theological integrity of the diaries when Rome has clearly stated that there is nothing theologically questionable about them by implication:
vatican.va/news_services/…ustina_en.html
(from the Vatican website and the Holy Father’s homily on the canonization of St. Faustina):

The mission of the Blessed Sr. Mary Faustina was recorded in her *Diary *which she kept at the specific request of the Lord Jesus and her confessors. In it, she recorded faithfully all of the Lord Jesus’ wishes and also described the encounters between her soul and Him. *Secretary of My most profound mystery — *the Lord Jesus said toSr. Faustina — *know that your task is to write down everything that I make known to you about My mercy, for the benefit of those who by reading these things will be comforted in their souls and will have the courage to approach Me *(Diary 1693). In an extraordinary way, Sr. Mary Faustina’s work sheds light on the mystery of the Divine Mercy. It delights not only the simple and uneducated people, but also scholars who look upon it as an additional source of theo-logical research. The *Diary *has been translated into many languages, among others, English, German, Italian, Spanish, French, Portuguese, Arabic, Russian, Hungarian, Czech and Slovak.

Be the above as it may, we are still not required to hold to the writings of saints; however if it came down to someone I do not know on a discussion board disputing theological accuracy of writings of a saint that Rome had declared free of doctrinal error and theologically not in dispute, I know who I would always believe - hands down and no problems as we say here in Australia.

I hope this helps.

Thanks Carole for supporting what I am saying and trying to say, and for interpreting my posts accurately…and yes it helps.

Blessings and warm regards…Barb

 

[BarbaraTherese]

I dont know if SM is using “certainty” and “certitude” in the same sense that I am - From Father Hardon’s Dictionary on the Real Presence website:
therealpresence.org/cgi-bin/getdefinition.pl

CERTITUDE.

Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.

I can have moral certainty or certitude for example that to delibertely set out to murder someone and to do so in one’s right mind is mortally sinful and to die unrepentant means that one is condemned for eternity. On the other hand if a convicted murderer appears to die unrepentant, can I have moral certainty that they are in Hell. No I cannot. But I can say with moral certitude that unrepented mortal sins that are in fact mortal sins have the potential to damn one’s soul if one dies unrepented and I can be absolutely certain personally too since it is what The Church teaches.
I can always have moral certitude that anything mortally sinful if unrepented prior to death has the power to damn one’s soul for eternity to Hell.
I am feeling or was feeling that I had to defend myself against accusations of heresy or lack of moral certitude on any matter - with the accusations based on the person interpreting what I had posted totally inaccurately and insisting on doing so despite repeated attempts to correct those inaccuracies of understanding and interpetation.

.

 

[StMartin_67]

BarbaraTherese and Friend:

I am truly tired and frustrated with trying to get you to insight that you are twisting my words and my understandings into something that I am neither saying nor meaning. It is useless to respond to your correspondence.

I’ve done nothing of the sort, but that’s fine. Good day mate.

 

[StMartin_67]

BabaraTherese:

I don’t know if SM is using “certainty” and “certitude” in the same sense that I am - From Father Hardon’s Dictionary on the Real Presence website:

CERTITUDE.

Firm assent of the mind to a proposition without fear of error. It implies clear knowledge that the evidence for the assent excludes even the possibility of error.

I have used the three levels of certitude. Metaphysical, physical and moral. They are all certitude. If you just use the word “certitude” then you are failing to specify what level of certitude. That is where the confusion lies.

BarbaraTherese:

I can have moral certainty or certitude for example that to delibertely set out to murder someone and to do so in one’s right mind is mortally sinful and to die unrepentant means that one is condemned for eternity.

No, I think this is wrong. We have absolute certitude that what the Church teaches about Mortal and Venial sin is true. Moral certitude deals with a mode of human conduct; not what the Church teaches on a certain subject. Here is Monsignor Glenn:

Moral certitude is the unwavering assent of the mind to what expresses the normal mode of human conduct. Thus we have moral certitude that a mother will love her child.

BabaraTherese:

On the other hand if a convicted murderer appears to die unrepentant, can I have moral certainty that they are in Hell. No I cannot.

Why?
BabaraTherese:

But I can say with moral certitude that unrepented mortal sins that are in fact mortal sins have the potential to damn one’s soul if one dies unrepented and I can be absolutely certain personally too since it is what The Church teaches.

No, you are making the same error as before. It is a dogma of the Church that an unrepentant mortal sinner goes to hell. That is absolutely certain. What we cannot be absolutely certain of is whether any specific individual has actually gone to Hell. We can be morally certain that an individual who by all appearances dies in a state of manifest unrepentant mortal sin is damned.
BabaraTherese:

I can always have moral certitude that anything mortally sinful if unrepented prior to death has the power to damn one’s soul for eternity to Hell.

Same error again. It (unrepentant mortal sin) will damn a soul. That is absolutely certain because the Church teaches is as such.
BabaraTherese:

I am feeling or was feeling that I had to defend myself against accusations of heresy or lack of moral certitude on any matter - with the accusations based on the person interpreting what I had posted totally inaccurately and insisting on doing so despite repeated attempts to correct those inaccuracies of understanding and interpetation.

You have repeatedly misstated a host of things regarding certitude because you have been so imprecise in your words. Nobody is twisting anything you’ve said, you’ve misstated it yourself.

 

[coda]

I am asking if one can have a moral certitude; not whether a moral certitude can be an absolute certitude, it cannot by definition.

The question was as follows:

It’s not a trick question; the answer is yes. Do you agree?

It would be impossible to {correctly} posses moral certitude as to the final place of reward for anyone other than OUR OWN SELVES. —Although we may well be incorrect…We could never have moral certitude in regards to the state of ANOTHER’S soul–{ no matter how much we like/dislike them} In the case of the saints- we have not only moral certitude, but also moral certainty that they are indeed in heaven. There is a grave difference between certitude and certainty…