Tension between two Catholic concepts of judgment

[yellow8yellowM]

Could somebody help me reconcile the tension between these two Catholic concepts of salvation?

1. If you die in the state of grace you will go to heaven (maybe through purgatory first).
2. Those with greater responsibility will be judged more severely (James 3:1; I bet there are more scripture citations that I am missing.)

It seems to me that there can be any one of three things, all of them relating to the requirement of committing a mortal sin.

a) For the more responsible person (like a priest or a parent), a grave sin is committed when a venial sin might be committed by somebody else. For example, it may be a venial sin to cuss, but a grave sin to cuss in front of your daughter.

b) You are held more responsible for knowing when something is grave matter.

c) You lose the excuse of saying that the grave sin was not committed with full consent of the will because your will is supposed to be stronger.

So the dying in the state of grace part still holds true, it’s just that for the more responsible person it is “harder” to stay in the state of grace.

 

[Shin]

That would be a bit upside down wouldn’t it?

As if ignorance were in fact beneficial overall? Or it were better not to know the Faith? When in fact it is the opposite?

That the more you know the better able you are to be good and avoid sin? And the less you know the more sinful you are likely to be?

‘All sins which are due to ignorance can be reduced to sloth, to which pertains the negligence of a man who declines to acquire spiritual goods because of the labor associated with them. . . Since knowledge is further removed from morality than prudence. . . it follows that ignorance has the nature of mortal sin, not of itself, but on account either of a preceding negligence or the consequent result, and for this reason ignorance is reckoned one of the general causes of sin. . . All sin proceeds from some ignorance.’

St. Thomas Aquinas

'On the contrary, Nothing but sin deserves punishment. But ignorance deserves punishment, according to 1 Corinthians 14:38: “If any man know not, he shall not be known.” Therefore ignorance is a sin.

Ignorance differs from nescience, in that nescience denotes mere absence of knowledge; wherefore whoever lacks knowledge about anything, can be said to be nescient about it: in which sense Dionysius puts nescience in the angels (Coel. Hier. vii). On the other hand, ignorance denotes privation of knowledge, i.e. lack of knowledge of those things that one has a natural aptitude to know. Some of these we are under an obligation to know, those, to wit, without the knowledge of which we are unable to accomplish a due act rightly. Wherefore all are bound in common to know the articles of faith, and the universal principles of right, and each individual is bound to know matters regarding his duty or state. Meanwhile there are other things which a man may have a natural aptitude to know, yet he is not bound to know them, such as the geometrical theorems, and contingent particulars, except in some individual case. Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called “invincible,” because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know.’

St. Thomas Aquinas

‘Unbelief has the character of guilt from resisting the faith rather than mere absence of the faith.’

St. Thomas Aquinas

 

[thomasf]

I think the point is, the more you know of the faith, the more you should grow in the faith, and turn away from sin. And therefore, to grow in faith you must know more about your faith. The idea is, as become more holy as your faith grows. If you know the truth of God, yet don’t grow in faith and don’t grow away from sin and closer to God, you may be judged more harshly. To know, yet to still sin, is more serious, and more of a rejection. I wouldn’t say it’s harder to stay in a state of grace, but the more you know the easier it should be to stay in a state of grace.

At least, that’s the way I understand it. It motivates me to grow away from sin, closer to God, and to grow in faith and holiness.

 

[yellow8yellowM]

That would be a bit upside down wouldn’t it?

As if ignorance were in fact beneficial overall? Or it were better not to know the Faith? When in fact it is the opposite?

That the more you know the better able you are to be good and avoid sin? And the less you know the more sinful you are likely to be?

Shin, your words of wisdom and quote from Aquinas were helpful generally, but do you think you can help me reconcile the tension I mentioned?

I think the point is, the more you know of the faith, the more you should grow in the faith, and turn away from sin. And therefore, to grow in faith you must know more about your faith. The idea is, as become more holy as your faith grows. If you know the truth of God, yet don’t grow in faith and don’t grow away from sin and closer to God, you may be judged more harshly. To know, yet to still sin, is more serious, and more of a rejection. I wouldn’t say it’s harder to stay in a state of grace, but the more you know the easier it should be to stay in a state of grace.

At least, that’s the way I understand it. It motivates me to grow away from sin, closer to God, and to grow in faith and holiness.

thomasf,
How would you compare these two people in light of the perceived tension I wrote about in the original post?

1. The Pope never commits a mortal sin, but also just does the bare minimum in terms of praying and following the commandments.
2. A Catholic lay person who does the same thing.

I would imagine that the Pope would be judged more harshly, but both go to heaven considering they both died in the state of grace.

 

[Consigliere]

I think the point is, the more you know of the faith, the more you should grow in the faith, and turn away from sin. And therefore, to grow in faith you must know more about your faith. The idea is, as become more holy as your faith grows. If you know the truth of God, yet don’t grow in faith and don’t grow away from sin and closer to God, you may be judged more harshly. To know, yet to still sin, is more serious, and more of a rejection. I wouldn’t say it’s harder to stay in a state of grace, but the more you know the easier it should be to stay in a state of grace.

At least, that’s the way I understand it. It motivates me to grow away from sin, closer to God, and to grow in faith and holiness.

I think this is well said.

I understand what the O.P. is trying to say here and I am in agreement. If one is young and doesn’t know (or feel) the calling to understand our faith, then although he/she may have committed a sin, it doesn’t appear to be as morally responsible.

On the other hand, when you truly do understand the Faith and doctrine more, it should test and allow your faith (and will to resist sin) moreso. So, by giving into sin at a heightened state of knowledge or responsibility seems to be ‘worse’ in comparison.

 

[Ad_Orientem]

I think the severity of judgment refers not to the determination whether one will be saved, but to the degree of reward or punishment, whichever is applicable. But I could be wrong.