dmar – I did notice the exception clause, although I wasn’t satisfied with it because I was still free to believe something that, at first and second and maybe third glance, I was failing to see as remotely orthodox. Sort of like, Catholics can believe it’s good to hate others, or they can’t (obviously they can’t, but if this sort of thing were permitted, no one could rest easily knowing that it was permitted)
I think there are a lot of horrifying positions that haven’t yet been declared heretical by the Church. Some theologians in Church History have argued that lying can be permitted in certain circumstances, for example. I am not sure how accurate the accusations are, but I believe many orthodox Jesuit writers have been accused of supporting lying under certain circumstances. (This is also tied up with the issue of “mental reservation,” which further obscures my understanding of the issue.) If the Church actually taught that it was sometimes okay to lie, I think I would have an extremely hard time with that, but since it doesn’t teach that I don’t have as much of a problem. I only have to accept that some theologians have adopted a position that I think is terrible, and they have not yet been declared outright heretics. I don’t really expect the Church to have to anathematize every idea that I think is terrible. I just give my reasons for thinking those positions are terrible, and move on.
You are right that I may have mis-interpreted Akin, here. I was confusing what Thomism meant. Although it still seems odd to me (due no doubt to my lack of knowledge), at the very least it doesn’t seem awful. I suppose my difficulty was just in understanding that God could make something work every time he wanted it to, without forcing man’s will. Which is still hard to comprehend but one could suppose it were possible if one knew more.
Scripture speaks many times of God moving the hearts of men, but somehow He does that without forcing it. That’s what I think Thomism is getting at.
What was problematic in my limited eyes was that God is spoken of a few times as choosing the elect for no other reason than his own will; that meaning, not because the elect would will to love Him if they were graced, but purely because He decided for some and not others, independent of who they were (thus it should seem, at random).
St. Augustine once said that God saves whom He saves to illustrate His mercy, and condemns whom He condemns to illustrate His justice. If we interpret that in a Calvinist way, it sounds terrible. But St. Augustine also clarified by saying that when a man is saved, that is due to God, and when a man is condemned, that is due to his own fault. Viewed in that light, it doesn’t seem bad to me at all: those who go to hell through their own fault do illustrate God’s justice. He gives them what they deserve.
It’s a sobering lesson, but I think it is important.
I bring that up because I don’t think Thomism makes God’s condemnatory judgment independent of how people act. It is His mercy that saves people regardless of how they acted in the past, but His justice condemns people
because of how they act, specifically a final, permanent decision not to accept God’s grace. Anyway, that is how I understand Thomism.
Lastly, the reason I had been interpreting negative reprobation to be the same as double predestination in terms of results was as follows: that anyone who received not grace from God for salvation, although they would have willed it if they could, is simply condemned de facto to Hell, because they have too impaired a will without grace (this being the way God made man’s natural will) to make it there on their own. Thus God, in passing them over, was not even offering so much as a life preserver, which seemed cruel if there were persons among them who would have liked to use a life preserver.
Thomism teaches against that, though, by saying that all men are given sufficient grace to be saved.
From Ludwig Ott: “God gives all the just sufficient grace (gratia proxime vel remote sufficiens) for the observation of the Divine Commandments. (De fide.)”
And: “God gives all the faithful who are sinners sufficient grace (gratia saltem remote sufficiens) for conversion. (Sent. communis.)”
And: “God gives all innocent unbelievers (infideles negativi) sufficient grace to achieve eternal salvation. (Sent. certa.)”
And: “There is a grace which is truly sufficient and yet remains inefficacious(gratia vere et mere sufficiens. (De fide.)”
In Thomism, therefore, those who reject God’s will are given sufficient grace (the life preserver), they just rejected it.
But perhaps here, also, those negatively reprobated are simply those God already knew, and did not reprobate them because of their future wills (which would imply again that God was forced by the actions of man) but out of His own will (although knowing).
I believe Catholic teaching does say that the reprobate are condemned in view of their future wills. From Ludwig Ott again: “God, by an Eternal Resolve of His Will, predestines certain men, on account of their foreseen sins, to eternal rejection. (De fide.)” Again, if you interpret this in a Calvinist way, it sounds terrible. But it specifically says the opposite of Calvinism: they are reprobated “on account of their foreseen sins,” whereas Calvinism says they sin on account of their reprobation.
Anyway, I hope that is helpful. Please let me know if I’ve helped you resolve anything at all.
