RCIA class on sin

[Seeksadvice]

Essentially, there didn’t seem to be much difference between what was discussed and what I would classify as relativism.

As noted in another post, for many years, I’ve basically been an atheist/moral nihilist. Have been looking at the enforcement of laws from the standpoint of societal functioning and not “right” or “wrong.” Things as simply acts without any intrinsic goodness or badness; i.e. whether is person is a hero or a terrorist is largely based on which side you ask.

For reasons that I can’t fully explain, since early this year, I have felt compelled to look to the Catholic faith to see if my outlook is wrong. Prior to today, I have never experienced anything quite like it. I began to truly long to be able to fully participate in the Mass, but I also respect tradition and had a desire to learn more fully about the faith. If waiting until Easter to join was a requirement for the parish out here, then I was prepared to endure the months of unresolved longing as a type of penance for my prior acts, and as a sign of the work that I needed to do. Then, today’s RCIA class hit me like a 2x4 between the eyes, and left me asking: What?

There was talk akin to if a person grows up lying frequently, and develops the “habit” of lying, that subsequent lying, even though you know you shouldn’t, isn’t as serious due to the “habit.” This really made me scratch my head.

There was also stuff about whether or not it is a sin to kill somebody who breaks into your house. And, that apparently, it could be a sin to shoot somebody armed with a knife/bat/etc. (unless they get close) vs. somebody armed with a firearm? Um, what?

We even had people saying that they don’t tell their kids about certain things because they don’t want them to have “mortal sin” because the kids would know better if they were told. Again, what? Let’s not tell kids that pre-marital sex is a bad plan, if for no other reason that it can cause pregnancy and STD’s?

Got an example of somebody growing up in the mafia and it not being as serious a sin for that person to go out and engage in those activities because they didn’t know better. I guess as long as you go through the formalities of the faith and don’t look too carefully at those areas that speak against the actions of the mafia, you’re good-to-go because you “didn’t know better” when you ordered a half-dozen “hits” on your opponents. Apparently, if your “culture” tells you you’re okay, it’s okay, where have I heard that before?

I would certainly hope that God wouldn’t hold it against some poor schmuck to have been born in North Korea, or some other place with extreme government oppression, regulation, etc. Nobody gets to choose their parents, or what conditions they are born into. But, to give people a free pass so-to-speak in a modern country for “not knowing better,” really?

I guess one could say that I came away disappointed. I felt called to pursue Catholicism, and came away with the feeling that an many respects it’s relativism with an official stamp of approval slapped on it. Now, I am not sure how to proceed. It’s left me with serious doubts about my own ability to discern a belief set.

 

[Edmundus1581]

I guess one could say that I came away disappointed. I felt called to pursue Catholicism, and came away with the feeling that an many respects it’s relativism with an official stamp of approval slapped on it. Now, I am not sure how to proceed. It’s left me with serious doubts about my own ability to discern a belief set.

You presented the discussions you heard, and your thoughts very well.

Your remark that you “came away with the feeling that an many respects it’s relativism with an official stamp of approval slapped on it” is an honest and insightful response. You put it so succinctly that it actually makes it easy to see where you (apparently) went wrong, or where the class failed to complete the picture for you.

In Catholic teaching personal morals are often absolute (eg. no adultery, no stealing, obligation to love God, etc), however the subjective guilt of the “sinner” depends on many factors, and is often ameliorated by various factors, such as those described in your scenarios (eg. growing up in a mafia home or an atheist nation, force of addiction, etc.). The Church does not teaching that it necessarily decreases the guilt, but that it can do so. Each situation can only be guessed at, with God alone knowing for sure a person’s inner conscience.

So, there is not, in general, “relativism”, but rather clarity about sin itself, while the culpability of the sinner can and does vary with their personal circumstances.

 

[Seeksadvice]

With things like addiction though, it ultimately comes down to a personal choice. I am a caffeine addict. Be that as it may, it’s still a matter of choice whether or not I make a 12 cup pot of coffee for the morning (and maybe one for the afternoon too) or not. Yes, may feel terrible for not doing so, but it’s still a choice. At the end of the day, I am responsible for my choice whether or not to consume caffeine. I truly fail to see how I am less “culpable” for choosing to drink a half-gallon of coffee instead of walking away from it.

I guess my problem is that, short of infancy (i.e. minor), mental incapacitation/illness, or some other situation truly beyond one’s ability to control, all action or inaction boils down to personal choice (and even for older minors).

The priest raised a hypothetical about somebody telling a person that they were going to shoot them from across the bank if the person didn’t rob a bank with an unloaded gun. There are alternatives to robbing the bank, the person doesn’t “have” to rob the bank. The decision to rob the bank is only one of the options including fighting the person, running, asking the teller to call for help instead of robbing the place, diving for cover somewhere, or simply telling the person no.

 

[Trishie]

Seeksadvice,
it could perhaps be helpful to study some source material, like Catechism of the Catholic Church, regarding sin.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a8.htm

Here’s the index to this extensive Catechism:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

God bless and guide you.
Prayers and warm wishes

 

[Tis_Bearself]

I’m sorry you had that experience. While the underlying principle was clearly to show how things like habit or lack of knowledge can make a sin less serious, I think the examples given based on your description were poor choices for an audience new to this.

Regarding lying: my former pastor, who preached on the dangers of lying just about every other sermon, was not so ready to excuse lying because it had become a “habit”. On the contrary, he preached repeatedly that even small lies were super serious BECAUSE you would develop a habit of lying and move on to big lies. To me, there is a difference between “habits” of the serious physical or mental addiction variety, such as heroin or gambling addiction, that likely require professional help to break, and just calling every repeated pattern of sin a habit. There is a tendency in the US today to excuse people for bad choices and it seems you ran into some of that.

As for what parents do or don’t teach their kids about sex, there is no one Catholic position on that and many parents are just so uncomfortable with discussing it, they’ll seize on any old excuse not to do so.

Your experience just points up to me two things: 1) the reasons why I do not get much out of small group discussions with Catholics on these types of topics, and 2) the discomfort that many in the Church have with discussing the topic of sin. It seems like we have one group of people with total bright line rules who see a mortal sin under every tree, and another set for whom the concept of sin is so mushy and distant it might as well not exist. I try to shoot for something down the middle.

I agree it would probably be best for you to read the Catechism with respect to sin, as the RCIA discussion seems to have gone off track.

 

[Joe_5859]

I’m sorry you had that experience.

My suspicion is that maybe the presenter just didn’t choose the best examples or articulate it as well as it needed to be articulated.

It seems to me the point trying to be made was regarding culpability. If someone “doesn’t know better” or has an ingrained habit, then their culpability for committing a sin may be reduced. However, the sin is still a sin. It doesn’t become “not a sin.” It merely might mean the person would not be culpable for having sinned mortally.

For a sin to be mortal it must involve (1) grave matter; (2) be committed with full knowledge of the gravity of the act; and (3) be committed with complete consent. Thus, someone who “doesn’t know better” may not have full knowledge. And someone with an ingrained habit may be less free to offer complete consent. Thus, for them, they might only be guilty of having sinned venially rather than mortally. But the grave sin is still a grave sin.

Now, I think we need to be careful with this. Some people tend to think the bar for “full knowledge” is so high that very few actually cross it and sin mortally. That’s not quite true. As the Catechism puts it:

CCC 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.

“No one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.” Thus, I wouldn’t be too quick to give a free pass to the mafia don’s son who has only ever known a life of lies, theft, and murder. The moral law is written on his heart, which includes knowing that these things are wrong.

However, since I can only observe the grave act and cannot see into a person’s heart to grasp their level of knowledge and consent, I tend to refrain from making pronouncements on the state of the soul of a particular person. Like with all the talk of Hugh Hefner at his passing. I can say unequivocally that he committed very gravely evil acts with far reaching negative consequences. Can I judge the fate of his eternal soul? Not with any certainty. I might feel like the outlook is not so good in his case, but I cannot know his interior life. Nor is it really necessary for me to make any judgment in that regard. Jesus is his judge, not me.

Acknowledging that we are no one else’s judge is not the same as relativism. We know that the sin is grave.

You’re right that the mentality of not communicating the truth about sin to our children is a very skewed way of looking at the Church’s teaching in this regard. The moral law is written on our heart, so it’s not as though we’re completely off the hook so long as we cannot quote the paragraph number from the Catechism that explicitly states such-and-such is a sin.

 

[Joe_5859]

(continued from above)

For me, what it comes down to is a variation of the old adage to work like everything depends on me and pray like everything depends on God. I know I need to strive for virtue and reject sin. I know I need to communicate the truths of the Catholic faith as well as possible to my children and all those I encounter. But I’m also going to entrust them all to God and his infinite mercy. I’m not going to play the blame game or attempt to identify who is going to hell.

Does that make sense? Hopefully I did not add to your confusion. (Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[CatholicSpirit]

I wanted to extend my congrats for pursuing RCIA and hope that when your thinking is challenged, you will become better in the faith.

 

[De_Maria]

Essentially, there didn’t seem to be much … whether is person is a hero or a terrorist is largely based on which side you ask.

Like Benedict Arnold is a hero in England.

But can we agree that being a traitor is bad?

For reasons that I can’t fully explain, since early this year, I have felt compelled to look to the Catholic faith to see if my outlook is wrong.

God is calling you.

Prior to today, I have never experienced anything quite like it. I began… my prior acts, and as a sign of the work that I needed to do. Then, today’s RCIA class hit me like a 2x4 between the eyes, and left me asking: What?

, I understand. Be patient. Ask God for answers. He gives you gifts in your dreams.

There was talk akin to if a person grows up lying … This really made me scratch my head.

Well, that goes to premeditation. Let me see if I can give an example. Therebare times when we say to ourselves, “I’ll just say Inwasn’t home.” When we were truly home. And we justify whatever without realizing we’re lying.

Well, I’ve done it anyway. It remains a sin, but in the balance, its not as weighty as an intentional lie.

Do you see what I mean?

There was also stuff about whether or not it is a sin to kill somebody who breaks into your house. And, that apparently, it could be a sin to shoot somebody armed with a knife/bat/etc. (unless they get close) vs. somebody armed with a firearm? Um, what?

That boils down to a discussion about whether it is a sin to kill in self defense. The answer is no. The rest is fluff. God will know whether such an action is due to malice or fear for one’s life.

We even had people saying that they don’t tell their kids about certain things because they don’t want them to have “mortal sin” because the kids would know better if they were told. Again, what? Let’s not tell kids that pre-marital sex is a bad plan, if for no other reason that it can cause pregnancy and STD’s?

That sounds like you were listening to other catechumens. I hope that wasn’t the Catechist’s advice.

Got an example of somebody growing …its" on your opponents. Apparently, if your “culture” tells you you’re okay, it’s okay, where have I heard that before?

That sounds like you got frustrated and became cynical. Maybe if you know the Catechist you could ask for clarification.

I would certainly hope that God wouldn’t hold it …ive people a free pass so-to-speak in a modern country for “not knowing better,” really?

No one gets a free pass. We all have a conscience.

By the same token, a person who knows Christ and commits the same crimes as one that doesn’t, receives a more severe punishment.

I guess one could say that I came away disappointed. I …my own ability to discern a belief set.

I take it this was your first class. I say go back and get clarification. Also, go to the catechism, look up subject matter. And, mostvof all, prayer. Talk to God like He was right next to you. Ask Him for the answers. He will send them to you in “aha” moments and while you sleep.

 

[1ke]

I guess one could say that I came away disappointed.

Well yeah. Because whoever taught this class did a poor job of it.

and came away with the feeling that an many respects it’s relativism with an official stamp of approval slapped on it.

Because you didn’t receive authentic teaching on sin.

Mortal sin requires three elements:

grave matter
full knowledge
free will/consent

What the person did badly was try to distinguish between the objective nature of gravely wrong acts and the subjective culpability for sin. Sin always requires that we know what we do is wrong and freely choose to do it.

In some cases, a person may know something is wrong but not be free to choose/not choose. In some cases a person may truly not know something is wrong. In these cases, their culpability is lessened or may completely remove culpability.

This is all tied together with conscience formation, and our duty to properly form our conscience.

The examples they were giving were attempting to explain this and doing it badly.

There is no relativism in the Church-- morality is objective.

Culpability for SIN is not the same thing as the wrongness of the act. Because sin is always a personal choice, an act of the intellect and will.

 

[RandomAlias]

Essentially, there didn’t seem to be much difference between what was discussed and what I would classify as relativism.

Don’t be so quick to label it as relativism. At least some of what you described sounds like the nuances of Catholic teaching, things like the difference between mortal and venial sin.

Diminished culpability is a tricky area. The Church recognizes that our judgement is sometimes impaired by physical, social, and psychological factors. The idea, I think, is not to excuse but to better understand our own sinful behavior and work toward true repentance.

By the way, I think it is inaccurate to compare your “addiction” to coffee to serious addiction, for example to opiates. Our ability to make moral choices depends, in part, on brain function, and strong drugs seriously impair our moral judgment. The addict’s rational and free choice to take the drug may have been the first time they tried it, a long time ago.

The Church’s teaching on self-defense is an application of the principle of double effect. As Thomas Aquinas wrote, “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. …The one is intended, the other is not.” I guess that means our objective should go no further than preservation of our life (or the lives of others when we have a duty to protect them). We should not, in my opinion, kill to defend against non-lethal threats or against threats only to our property.

It might be helpful to make an appointment to bring specific questions and concerns to a priest.

 

[steve-b]

Essentially, there didn’t seem to be much difference between what was discussed and what I would classify as relativism.

As noted in another post, for many years, I’ve basically been an atheist/moral nihilist. Have been looking at the enforcement of laws from the standpoint of societal functioning and not “right” or “wrong.” Things as simply acts without any intrinsic goodness or badness; i.e. whether is person is a hero or a terrorist is largely based on which side you ask.

For reasons that I can’t fully explain, [snip for space]

The CCC (Catechism of the Catholic Church) has this to say about “habit”

http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=habit&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

Seeksadvice:

There was also stuff about whether or not it is a sin to kill somebody who breaks into your house. And, that apparently, it could be a sin to shoot somebody armed with a knife/bat/etc. (unless they get close) vs. somebody armed with a firearm? Um, what?

We have a right to defend ourselves. As we know, It doesn’t open the door to murdering someone.
http://ccc.scborromeo.org.master.com/texis/master/search/?sufs=0&q=habit&xsubmit=Search&s=SS

seeksadvice:

We even had people saying that they don’t tell their kids about certain things because they don’t want them to have “mortal sin” because the kids would know better if they were told. Again, what? Let’s not tell kids that pre-marital sex is a bad plan, if for no other reason that it can cause pregnancy and STD’s?

We are to educate our children and not leave them to figure it all out by themselves.

seeksadvice:

Got an example of somebody growing up in the mafia and it not being as serious a sin for that person to go out and engage in those activities because they didn’t know better. I guess as long as you go through the formalities of the faith and don’t look too carefully at those areas that speak against the actions of the mafia, you’re good-to-go because you “didn’t know better” when you ordered a half-dozen “hits” on your opponents. Apparently, if your “culture” tells you you’re okay, it’s okay, where have I heard that before?
[snip for space]

Here’s some advice I like to share when the time allow

Ez3:17-21 RSVCE - “Son of man, I have made you a - Bible Gateway

 

[PJM]

THANKS for sharing this ALFULL incident:

My name is Patrick, I ‘m a 73 year old trained and Certified Catholic Catechist who co-taught RCIA for 3 years before my active retirement, with about 30 years of teaching experience.

RCIA programs vary largely from area to area and parish to parish; depending LARGELY on the Parish’s ability to have a Priest or consecrated Religious to tach or at least personally oversee the course.

Over the years I heard stories of both Good and Bad programs. And this is a VERY SAD reality.

PERSONALLY, I do not understand WHY a Pastor is not actively involved in this critical to Souls program as that is their PRIMARY Mission. I personally hold the position that they ought to Be in charge and TAKE charge. NOT doing so often results in just finding “holy” perceived folks, often with no public speaking or teaching experience to do this important task, which often lack an prepared and organized program. Some Diocese OFFER a program, but not all.

Before going further, allow me to OFFER a remedy to your situation. Sin is a SERIOUS ISSUE. 1 Jn 1:6-7, 1 Jn 5: 16-17 & John 20:19-27. It is a complex and profound issue; IMO, not suitable for RCIA discussion without a Priest presence.

GOOGLE: a Catholic Encyclopedia on SIN, and also The Catholic Church on Sin; then GOOGLE the Catechism of the Catholic Church on Sin. … Doing the above ought to go far in clarifying what we ACTUALLY teach and believe in an OBJECTIVE manner.
Then do the same on “culpability” if you think it would be beneficial to do so.

The NORM for RCIA in America is September to Easter; NOT anyway near enough time to actually teach our beautiful 2,000 year old Catholic Faith. So the Church relies on YOU [in most cases] to pursue a more in depth study of the Faith AFTER you are received into the Church. So go along with the program; Enter into God’s One True Faith and Church [Mt 10:1-8, Mt 16:15-19, Jn 17:17-20, Eph 2: 20-22, Eph .4: 1-31] the SHORT COURSE… and continue your own efforts to actually learn our beliefs and practices. This period is termed “Mystogia”

Much of what, but all that you shared is personal opinion of that staff and participants, and seemingly not well articulated. NOT Doctrine

Space is limited, PLEASE DO LET US know if you have more questions [CAF] where you woll finf both informed and uninformed opinions.

It IS GOD the Holy Spirit is who nudging you and directing to HIS Church and Faith.

PRAY very much
Patrick [PJM]

 

[Seeksadvice]

The “intentionality” factor seems to be something of nearly infinite flexibility and can be crafted to fit almost any circumstance. Almost like going to a criminal defense attorney’s convention. Reminds me of people who “convert” nearly on his death bed so that they could keep doing what they were doing without having to worry about little “details.” As long as you keep yourself from knowing “too much,” then it’s less intentional?

DeMaria: “Traitor” is a definition that’s applied by people, yes? The only thing that separates George Washington from say Mr. Arnold is that Washington’s side won. If the proto-US had not won, you could be sure that Washington would have either been killed on the battlefield or would have gained a few extra inches compliments of a rope and a tree. His name would have had the same infamy attached that Arnold’s does. If we universally agree that being a traitor is bad, then where do we place the prostitute Rahab in the story about Jericho? Actually, we did get the victim of culture position presented.

Randomalias: Here’s the thing; how do you know what the guy breaking into your house wants? It’s 3:00AM; he’s not there asking to borrow a cup of sugar. How do you determine that he’s just there to steal the TV, computer, whatever? There’s a nasty little thing called zero witness cleanup, and it’s exactly what it says on the tin. Criminals don’t like to get caught.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Seeks advice: Catholic morality has a different paradigm. I recommend the book “Morality: The Catholic View”, from St. Augustine Press.

In terms of habit, they were trying to teach that an immoral action occurs when a person willfully goes against one of the Ten Commandments, such as not lying. “Willfully”may or may not be in force when the sin is a habit. But willfully ignoring the habit and using habit as an excuse for sin, is willfully sinning. If a person with a lying habit is really trying to break the habit, and a lie slips out of habit, they are still sinning. It is the culpability that is being discussed, such as was the slip willfull?

We have to be careful, because we can be dishonest with ourselves. Willfully lie, and say, well that was a habit, not me. Hidden faults, that God helps us to see, if we are willing to let Him. Pope Benedict speaks to this beautifully, in the Encyclical “Spe Salvi”…in the section on prayer.

Cleanse me of my hidden faults! (Psalms 19)

 

[De_Maria]

The “intentionality” factor seems to be something of nearly infinite flexibility and can be crafted to fit almost any circumstance…

Don’t forget that in the classroom, the Catechist was merely trying to get you and the others to understand the Doctrine. But, in reality, God knows your heart. In the Final Judgment, you won’t be in a courtroom explaining anything to God. God will be explaining it to you.

What the Catechist is trying to teach you is that God is infinitely Just. And He will consider even the minutest factors.

Matthew 12:36 I tell you, on the day of judgment people will render an account for every careless word they speak.

DeMaria: …If we universally agree that being a traitor is bad, then where do we place the prostitute Rahab in the story about Jericho? Actually, we did get the victim of culture position presented.

So, you answered your own question. And therefore, she is placed as hero. Here is what Jesus said:

Matthew 21:31 … “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

Randomalias: Here’s the thing; how do you know what the guy breaking into your house wants? It’s 3:00AM; he’s not there asking to borrow a cup of sugar. How do you determine that he’s just there to steal the TV, computer, whatever? There’s a nasty little thing called zero witness cleanup, and it’s exactly what it says on the tin. Criminals don’t like to get caught.

So, if you truly fear for your life, then it is self defense and in the Final Judgment, God will acquit you of any wrong.

Capiche?

 

[1ke]

The “intentionality” factor seems to be something of nearly infinite flexibility and can be crafted to fit almost any circumstance.

Not at all.

If you have the impression this is an “easy out” then you don’t have the right understanding of conscience formation yet.

The knowledge bar is not that high.

 

[1ke]

As long as you keep yourself from knowing “too much,” then it’s less intentional?

No we have a responsibility to form our conscience, an obligation.

This little game you describe does not fool god.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Sadly there are some dismally unqualified folks out there who lead these sessions. Make notes and speak to the pastor.

 

[RandomAlias]

Randomalias: Here’s the thing; how do you know what the guy breaking into your house wants? …

In the home-invasion scenario, you don’t have a great deal of time to think things through. Still, you have some options, and you make a choice, and so there is a question of morality.

When it happens, you won’t be able to coolly and rationally figure out the morality. It wouldn’t be a bad idea to think through the options ahead of time: escape, hide, confront, and in a confrontation scenario, how to minimize risk to yourself, assess the threat, and spare the intruder’s life if possible.

What if you just panic and kill the intruder needlessly? In the Catechism, we see that guilt (or imputability, or responsibility) may be reduced or even nullified by fear or duress. Do you think the Church is soft on sin because they make such allowances?