Non-fallible teachings: any examples?

[1neophyte]

As per ccc1861: “However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” Why would that be so? Your statement made it sound as though “doing (objectively) the crime” implies one will “do the time”, but we are told that can’t be concluded. And further insight is found here (in the masturbation context):
Ccc2352: “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”

As you see, Catholic teaching is rather more subtle than your statement might suggest. But if God is just, should that be surprising?

Only God can answer this, because only he can know all the factors that bear on moral culpability, including knowledge, degree of consent, the voice of conscience, one’s change of heart and resolve to turn to God, and so on.

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but the Catechism we refer to is less than 25 years old. In the context of Church history, that is barely a few minutes. I can assure you, when I was at the age where this matter applied to me, the current Catechism did not exist, and the teaching I was given was not as “subtle” as the one you are quoting. So is this subtle teaching more accurate that the one given out before the current Catechism was published, simply because the Church is “smarter” now? This goes to the heart of the question of the thread. There are people still alive today whose experience of the Church didn’t include “psychological and social factors” when evaluating culpability or the gravity of sin.

I certainly agree that only God can answer the question, but as far as the Church and its teachings go, what is fallible and infallible? What is so special about our time that we can be assured the Church is now proclaiming the fullness of truth, when it is undeniable that teachings from recent history (or perception of teachings) created the mindset expressed by fladreamer? Is it possible that all of our questions and convictions about this or that just don’t amount to a hill of beans in the face of the truth that God loves us?

 

[Rau]

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but the Catechism we refer to is less than 25 years old. In the context of Church history, that is barely a few minutes. I can assure you, when I was at the age where this matter applied to me, the current Catechism did not exist, and the teaching I was given was not as “subtle” as the one you are quoting.

I don’t think attitudes in the present can rest on what one thinks one knew or understood in the past. The CCC did not create or establish any teaching - it presented the faith and the tradition that pre-existed.

…What is so special about our time that we can be assured the Church is now proclaiming the fullness of truth, when it is undeniable that teachings from recent history (or perception of teachings) created the mindset expressed by fladreamer? Is it possible that all of our questions and convictions about this or that just don’t amount to a hill of beans in the face of the truth that God loves us?

Nothing is special about our time and the Church has never claimed to have “the fullness of truth” (as I think you mean that). Threat certain acts are intrinsically evil (always wrong to choose) has been taught consistently for centuries. That circumstances can mitigate moral culpability is not a new idea.

 

[1neophyte]

the Church has never claimed to have “the fullness of truth”

 

[Vico]

It’s a fair question. And it relates directly to the original question of this thread. Catholic teaching says that a young teenage boy who masturbates is committing a mortal sin with the same gravity as a grown married father who has an affair with a woman other than his wife. Now, if the teenager comes from a devoted Protestant family, he may never have heard of Theology of the Body, and may never have been taught that masturbation is a serious sin. A properly cathechized Catholic teenager would be well aware that it is a serious sin. So if two teenagers tragically die with this unconfessed sin on both of their souls, and are facing final judgment, would the Catholic boy go straight to hell because he was better informed, while the Protestant boy would merely have to spend a few centuries in Purgatory because of his ignorance? I suspect this is the sort of question that led fladreamer to form his opinion of God and the Church.

Of course, in the case of the married adulterous grown man, he would be well aware of the seriousness of his sin regardless of his religious formation or lack thereof. His wife would be more than capable of educating him on this point, regardless of her religious formation.

Edit: Another interesting question… Would the Protestant boy age during his centuries-long stay in Purgatory? Or would he remain a teenager for the entire time?

Distinction between grave sin and mortal sin has to do with moral culpability. Catechism states:
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2352 … To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability

 

[1neophyte]

Distinction between grave sin and mortal sin has to do with moral culpability. Catechism states:
2396 Among the sins gravely contrary to chastity are masturbation, fornication, pornography, and homosexual practices.

2352 … To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability

Okay…and what about before 1992 when this was published? To say it was just proclaimin the truth that has always been is just silly. If that were true, there would have been no need to publish a new catechism.

 

[Rau]

You need to quote my full sentence!

 

[Rau]

Okay…and what about before 1992 when this was published? To say it was just proclaimin the truth that has always been is just silly. If that were true, there would have been no need to publish a new catechism.

I think I answered that earlier.

 

[1neophyte]

I think I answered that earlier.

Not very well.

 

[fladreamer]

I understand and agree with what you’re saying, but the Catechism we refer to is less than 25 years old. In the context of Church history, that is barely a few minutes. I can assure you, when I was at the age where this matter applied to me, the current Catechism did not exist, and the teaching I was given was not as “subtle” as the one you are quoting. So is this subtle teaching more accurate that the one given out before the current Catechism was published, simply because the Church is “smarter” now? This goes to the heart of the question of the thread. There are people still alive today whose experience of the Church didn’t include “psychological and social factors” when evaluating culpability or the gravity of sin.

I certainly agree that only God can answer the question, but as far as the Church and its teachings go, what is fallible and infallible? What is so special about our time that we can be assured the Church is now proclaiming the fullness of truth, when it is undeniable that teachings from recent history (or perception of teachings) created the mindset expressed by fladreamer? Is it possible that all of our questions and convictions about this or that just don’t amount to a hill of beans in the face of the truth that God loves us?

Catholicism is a legalistic religion. Unluckily for human beings, they will find out when they face God if love trumps the law, or the other way around. Take meat abstinence. jimmyakin.org/2010/02/substantial-observance.html It’s all a big mess, nobody knows what the right answer is. Who is behind this Tower of Babel? Catholic women in the 40s and 50s could not be in a state of grace if they weren’t pregnant every year. Nowadays they’ll be fine with 2 kiddos during all their fertile years.

My name pops up once in a while. In a nutshell, I realized from a very young age that life is not for me. Not fit for life, period. But having been raised by a fervent Catholic, I’ve always been aware that not only was life, the perspective of having to live 80 years, soul-crushing, daunting, but I knew that eventually I would drag my dead soul to the end of this life, but then my life sentence could be made eternal. What killed my faith irreversibly is the realization that God wasn’t going to help me put the past decisively behind me. I realized all God/Jesus can offer someone like me, someone who is broken psychologically is his lame dolorism (suck it up 80 years, live it up in heaven if you make it to heaven). ‘‘Why did a good, prescient, omniscient, omnibenevolent being who is crazy about me (modern theology) create someone like me knowing I’d be miserable, have a miserable life and likely miss heaven?’’ I long for sleep, annihilation. God is a dictator at heart; my way, my Jesus, or the highway (hell). Did I miss the ‘‘good’’ in the good news? If I knew for a fact I was either going to heaven, or I was going to be annihilated if I failed to meet God’s standards, I wouldn’t hate God. I’m cool with not living for ever.

Only God can answer this, because only he can know all the factors that bear on moral culpability, including knowledge, degree of consent, the voice of conscience, one’s change of heart and resolve to turn to God, and so on.

If only God can know that, it means the one committing the sin doesn’t himself know the extent of his culpability. Which means that hell sugar coaters’ tired old assertion that people choose to reject God, that they choose to send themselves to hell is a lie.

 

[fladreamer]

Fictional story. In the 1950s, a young guy, 14 years old or so, is told by a nun in school about hell and God’s justice. He then tells about two people. One is a good friend of his, the other one is a vicous, depraved man who has abused and molested children all his life. One day his friend, wanting to commit the solitary sin, digs himself a hole in a snowbank on his front yard and masturbates. The snowplough that he didn’t hear coming soon enough hits him and he’s killed instantly. The man who has been a horrible person finally decides one day to kill himself. Jumps off a bridge, but seconds before he hits the river, he thinks to himself, ‘‘I regret all the wrong i’ve done. Forgive me God’’. Bingo. Perfect contrition. So he asks the nun, ''Where is my friend and where is the evil man? ‘‘The man has been forgiven by God, he’ll be purified in purgatory and then he will be perfectly happy with God forever. Your friend, on the other hand, has commited a mortal sin, of which he hasn’t repented, so he’s in hell’’. If you ask me, that’s a parody of justice. If you don’t ask me, that’s still a parody of justice. Those who expect justice in the next life may be sorely disappointed. To me '‘God’,etymologically, means ‘‘the one who disappoints’’. Pretty sure the proclamation of the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception is way higher on God’s agenda than the eternal suffering of anyone. THAT is my God. Petty, stingy and callous. Misotheism 101.

 

[1neophyte]

Fictional story. In the 1950s, a young guy, 14 years old or so, is told by a nun in school about hell and God’s justice. He then tells about two people. One is a good friend of his, the other one is a vicous, depraved man who has abused and molested children all his life. One day his friend, wanting to commit the solitary sin, digs himself a hole in a snowbank on his front yard and masturbates. The snowplough that he didn’t hear coming soon enough hits him and he’s killed instantly. The man who has been a horrible person finally decides one day to kill himself. Jumps off a bridge, but seconds before he hits the river, he thinks to himself, ‘‘I regret all the wrong i’ve done. Forgive me God’’. Bingo. Perfect contrition. So he asks the nun, ''Where is my friend and where is the evil man? ‘‘The man has been forgiven by God, he’ll be purified in purgatory and then he will be perfectly happy with God forever. Your friend, on the other hand, has commited a mortal sin, of which he hasn’t repented, so he’s in hell’’. If you ask me, that’s a parody of justice. If you don’t ask me, that’s still a parody of justice. Those who expect justice in the next life may be sorely disappointed. To me '‘God’,etymologically, means ‘‘the one who disappoints’’. Pretty sure the proclamation of the doctrine of Mary’s immaculate conception is way higher on God’s agenda than the eternal suffering of anyone. THAT is my God. Petty, stingy and callous. Misotheism 101.

On what basis do you choose to believe the nun over the “modern theology” that God is crazy about you? Is it just an arbitrary choice to believe her or is there some evidence that she is the highest and most correct authority of who God is and what he does?

 

[Rau]

…If only God can know that, it means the one committing the sin doesn’t himself know the extent of his culpability. Which means that hell sugar coaters’ tired old assertion that people choose to reject God, that they choose to send themselves to hell is a lie.

Is it necessary to know in some quantifiable sense one’s own culpability - or is it enough to know one has done wrong? Your second sentence does not follow from the first. That one chose to do what is objectively wrong is recognisable in one’s acts. The reality that one’s culpability may be reduced is a just mercy - not to be leaned upon as an excuse to avoid resolving to be better.

 

[Rau]

…So he asks the nun, ''Where is my friend and where is the evil man?

Why does the story assume the best of conditions (perfect contrition) on the part of one and the worst of conditions (a blackened soul) on the part of the other? The nun has answered a question - of the real world - to which she cannot know the answer. That is the very point that is being made when we are told “not to judge”. It doesn’t mean we can’t assess the (objective) ‘moral character of an act’ - it means don’t make judgements about the soul of another because only God can do that.

 

[fladreamer]

On what basis do you choose to believe the nun over the “modern theology” that God is crazy about you? Is it just an arbitrary choice to believe her or is there some evidence that she is the highest and most correct authority of who God is and what he does?

If the Catholic Church is right, if the catechism tells the truth, scrupulous people actually have the right attitude, because God is legalistic. When/if someone says they love me, I’m interested in action. Same with God. He can love me as much as he wants, what jumps out at me is that I’m always one mortal sin away from suffering eternally. So the nun is theologically sound. She doesn’t contradict what the catechism says or said (at the time). Lastly ,about love, unless you’re schizophrenic, you can’t abandon yourself, entrust yourself to someone who sees a relatively minor offense as a grievous act of treason against the king, and which punishes that act in a way that makes Stalin appear humane. God is a dictator, and offers no humane, sane, reasonable alternative to heaven. Therein lies the essential problem. Remove hell, give heaven to the most deserving, God=awesome, praise-worthy. As things are, in some aspects, God is the spiritual equivalent of Kim Jong-un. You can go from an uncle he’s fond of to being killed on the spot in a matter of seconds. If a good Catholic decides one fine day that Mary’s perpetual virginity is dubious and that the immaculate conception is even more so, his soul is at stake. I see legalism and dictatorship, I hear about love.

 

[fladreamer]

Is it necessary to know in some quantifiable sense one’s own culpability - or is it enough to know one has done wrong? Your second sentence does not follow from the first. That one chose to do what is objectively wrong is recognisable in one’s acts. The reality that one’s culpability may be reduced is a just mercy - not to be leaned upon as an excuse to avoid resolving to be better.

I like to think that I don’t quite get what you’re saying because it’s late.

Is there a sure-fire internal mechanism that makes one infallibly competent in recognizing if this sin he’s committed is a mortal sin (3 conditions met), or but a venial sin (1 or more conditions are, luckily, lacking)? If every Catholic who has ever lived was not able to know for a fact, infallibly whether he was in a state of grace or not, then hell is not, cannot be freely chosen. Or only by those who just happened to be able to tell infallibly what state their soul was in. A reasonable justice system should make abundantly clear what is allowed, prohibited, and what one can reasonably expect in terms of punishment should he commit a crime.

 

[1neophyte]

If the Catholic Church is right,

Forget about “ifs”. Do YOU believe the Catholic Church is right?

 

[fladreamer]

Why does the story assume the best of conditions (perfect contrition) on the part of one and the worst of conditions (a blackened soul) on the part of the other? The nun has answered a question - of the real world - to which she cannot know the answer. That is the very point that is being made when we are told “not to judge”. It doesn’t mean we can’t assess the (objective) ‘moral character of an act’ - it means don’t make judgements about the soul of another because only God can do that.

A mortal sin requires 3 conditions. Sex was considered a terrible sin by the Church. Even by Mary (’‘Most people who go to hell do so because of sins of the flesh’’), so no way the solitary sinner wasn’t aware how grievous the sin was, the sin per se is a mortal sin, the only variable left is free consent. I think it’s safe to assume that he didn’t hear ‘‘Well done good and faithful servant’’. But who knows, right? As for the old perv, we have to assume it was perfect contrition, imperfect contrition would have, if my theology is not off, landed him in hell. Looks like a far-fetched scenario, but God’s justice /economy of salvation can definitely give rise to aberration and absurdity. That story aimed to illustrate that.

Another problem with God’s justice is this. If I had been born in a different family, better genes, smarter, potential, opportunities etc., I would likely be a thriving, productive, fulfilled, content fellow with a great past to look back on and a great future to look forward to. i would love life, cherish it, I’d bless the day I was born and conceived etc. What could I be sour and bitter about? Why would I be angry with God?

I also, obviously, believe in predestination. God favours whom he wills to favour. Gives conditions that are conducive to heaven or to hell. I am disgusted with God, I hate life, my eternal residence is likely to be hell. I hate him supremely for giving me life and not making me properly equipped to face it (i.e. the ‘‘carefull and wonderfully made’’ joke). It’s crazy how long our loving dad can sit by watching us drown before he deigns to throw a line. I have depression, anxiety and i’m overly sensitive. A snap of his holy fingers and I’m healed. But God’s tolerance of others’ pain is infinite, as is evidenced by the eternal torment and misery of the damned.

It’s a nightmare to realize how crushing life is and that the only way to avoid hell is to give up sin. A sinless life is a miserable one. I know it, i’ve tried it. Social anxiety, depression, a boring menial job, people who either tolerate me or who are subtly disrespectful, nothing to look forward to, an absent legalistic God who offers dolorism as his comfort for me etc. i’m still on the fence as to what sucks more: God or life? God loves me so much, but my inner misery and torment do not faze him. It’s a constant draining battle to be me. Can’t believe how heartless God was to a) create me b) not make my mom’s womb my tomb. I favour a) ; not ever knowing or hearing about God is better than paradise. But no, God had better plans (sic), so here I am. I think I’m starting to understand Lucifer a little better.

 

[fladreamer]

Forget about “ifs”. Do YOU believe the Catholic Church is right?

Don’t you know believing something does not make it true? I may be mistaken about lots of things. i’ve been force-fed catholicism from the youngest age, I have a hard time undoing, ‘‘unbelieving’’ what I once held to be true. I think the system we have is not worthy of a supreme being with all the omni- attributes that the Church declares he has. If you do the math with every generation from adam to Jesus, it adds up to 4000 years. The first human being was therefore created about 6000 years ago. Which does not make sense. It also doesn’t make sense that Adam enjoyed fellowship with God, intimacy maybe, yet he could retain his free will. Modern apologists say we can’t know for certain God exists because it would violate our free will! The CC leaves me deeply perplexed. i hope there is no God, I hope there is a good being who will treat us humanely and justly when we die, but to answer your question, I just don’t know. Too many things that don’t make sense, Church’s credibility is irreversibly eroded IMO. Again, I can’t believe a crummy system as the one we have can be the product of a perfect, almighty being’s genius mind. I can’t wrap my head around that.

I only know the Earth is around 5 billon years, the universe around 13 billion, I was born 40 some years ago, I,m not sure God exists but I think he does, I know I exist, but I wish I didn’t. I know people say I’m the apple of God’s eye, precious, unique and irreplaceable, but I simply wish the potter would have taken a day off 40 some years+9 months ago. It would have saved a lot of heartbreak,drama, anguish, hopelessness, torment, fear, angst, and tears. Having been given the '‘gift’, of life is a terrible, terrible curse. I’d choose nonexistence over God and his unfathomable love any second. But, again, here I am. To only think that some people die who’d give anything to live, and God, my grotesque father, the living, breathing, standing parody of love, gives ME life. Creation was such a dumb idea. Oh well, going to sleep, Tomorrow is another day my saviour might surprise me with a healing. Or remind me how his inexistent grace is enough. Living on God’s grace is a sure guarantee for a crummy sub-life, Rant over.

 

[Vico]

Okay…and what about before 1992 when this was published? To say it was just proclaimin the truth that has always been is just silly. If that were true, there would have been no need to publish a new catechism.

The truths of faith and morals do not change, however their presentation does, and there is some development of doctrine over time. Also the Catechism has additional teachings related to ecclesiastic law which does change.

From the prologue of the 1992 Catechism of the Catholic Church
III. THE AIM AND INTENDED READERSHIP OF THE CATECHISM

11 This catechism aims at presenting an organic synthesis of the essential and fundamental contents of Catholic doctrine, as regards both faith and morals, in the light of the Second Vatican Council and the whole of the Church’s Tradition. Its principal sources are the Sacred Scriptures, the Fathers of the Church, the liturgy, and the Church’s Magisterium. It is intended to serve “as a point of reference for the catechisms or compendia that are composed in the various countries”.15

12 This work is intended primarily for those responsible for catechesis: first of all the bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered to them as an instrument in fulfilling their responsibility of teaching the People of God. Through the bishops, it is addressed to redactors of catechisms, to priests, and to catechists. It will also be useful reading for all other Christian faithful.

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/prologue.htm

You can see from the Baltimore Catechism No. 2 (1941) that invincible ignorance was taught as mitigating culpability:

1. How can persons who are not members of the Catholic Church be saved?

Persons who are not members of the Catholic Church can be saved if, through no fault of their own, they do not know that the Catholic Church is the true Church, but they love God and try to do His will, for in this way they are connected with the Church by desire.

 

[Rau]

A mortal sin requires 3 conditions.

While grave matter is objectively identifiable, “full knowledge” and “deliberate consent” are subjective. As described earlier in a post directed to 1neophyte:

*ccc1861: “…although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.” *Now - why would that be so? Simply - it is wrong to believe that “doing (objectively) the crime” implies one will “do the time”. And further insight is found in the notion of culpability, addressed here (in the masturbation context):

ccc2352: “To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.”