What is culpability?

[OneSheep]

Hallo, fhansen

And yet man very often has more control over his choices and actions then you seem to admit.The Church even teaches that we can be responsible for our ignorance, that we can *prefer *untruth to truth, carrying on that family tradition first instituted by our first parents.

We are in control of all of our choices. We are not in control of our awareness, for the most part. Yes, we can self-educate, but then we have concupiscence to deal with. With concupiscence, our notion of truth becomes warped. Not only does an untruth become preferred, but it is seen as truth. Desire causes blindness. Not always, of course, but often.

And I believe that this is what the Pharisees were guilty of, and why Jesus railed against them the way He did. You simply cannot remove moral responsibility from humans without doing them the disservice of denying them correction, of denying them conviction of sin. When free from the onus for the need to grow in perfection and righteousness we probably, simply, won’t.

The human does not naturally grow in love? Are people not motivated when realizing that they have hurt someone? Are you sure?

If I am hearing you right, I think that perhaps what you are saying makes methodology pressure anthropology, and theology. There is some precedent and rationale for that, and it is perfectly acceptable, but it is not the only way to look at the big picture.

Thanks for your response. As usual, you make a strong argument.

 

[OneSheep]

No, this doesn’t make him “not culpable”.

In any case you are still mixing up:

• anyone’s culpability towards God
• anyone’s culpability towards another
• anyone’s culpability towards you
• anyone’s culpability towards me
• your culpability towards another
• my culpability towards another (if applicable)

etc, etc.

Hi Vic,

I was using the standard Catholic definition of “culpable” in terms of “culpability toward God” given the parameters I assumed. I do not find him “culpable” given the definition. Others may find him culpable.

Do you? Do you blame?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Afternoon, Blue H.,

The difficulty I see with the discussion to date is that it is shackled somewhat by understanding sin through a human-relationship analogy and therefore somewhat anthropromorphic understandings of God.

Well, it is part of the human condition that we cannot fully place our minds into that of the Father. If I am to consider the world according to any other person, I am still doing such consideration with my own mind. Yes, we have revelation through Christ, scripture, tradition, prayer, etc, but there is no escape from the possibility of anthropomorphic understandings. Thanks to the Spirit, we have been guided through the ages.

Yet the Church/Tradition has always maintained re sin that there are two sides to this coin.

Sin is not simply disobeying a subjective verbal word/law (which some would maintain could be a completely immoral and arbitrary command from “God” addressed to us in a private revelation).

Aquinas puts it well when he says that sinful deeds are always against reason.
This is the objective side. That is, disobeying a “law” that is written into creation itself - including our own human nature. This is not a personal, verbal command but a “command” of nature itself as created by God. It is freely choosing known disordered acts. In traditional moral theology this is the three fonts analysis well explained in the CCC.

Yes, all of that is clear, except that “known disordered acts” are “known” to varying degrees. The case can be made for the conclusion that the more we know, the less likely we are to sin. Of course, concupiscence is the wild card, but given that subjection to concupiscence and human nature is generally equal among people, awareness is a firm predictor of choice for disordered acts.

It is important to note that affective knowledge is probably more important than simply hearing commands. I can elaborate on that if you wish.

Seriously disordered acts are known as “grave matter” and these are defined in two ways: by revelation (the Commandments); and also by God-given natural power of reason applied to creation (eg the civil Code of Hammurabi is an example even prior to Moses).
The other two fonts apply to the imputability of the action to the heart of the agent. If freely chosen with full knowledge of the disorder then we have full imputability (culpability). If not, then we have a temporal transgression with temporal effects - but no eternal offence before God and no eternal effects.

If we start with the question “Why did that sin happen?”, and investigate with an objective mind, seeking to understand rather than condemn, we can discern how much knowledge the person had. All possible scenarios can be considered.

That is how sincere unbelievers, who know no God, can still be rightly condemned for their actions against reason and against created nature.

Yes, we can “rightly” condemn, but we are called to forgive. Understanding very often plays a huge role in forgiveness, but if understanding is not pursued with an open, objective mind, the “desire” to hold onto such condemnation, like concupiscence, blinds us to a deeper truth. Of course, this has to be introspectively verified. This is a big part of why I am looking at the definition of “culpability”.

All wrong is against Law.
But there are at least two types of law: one verbal (revelation) and one natural (the intrinsic “laws” of created nature). One we see as subjective and personal, the other is objective and mechanical karma (you jump off a cliff you die). In God they are consistent and in fact the same.

For mere mortals, we see them as different things. Sometimes we think they are so different as to be in contradiction. This cannot be so, at least not according to Catholic Tradition. We hold them to be but different sides of the one coin.

I’m not sure what you meant there, but perhaps some examples would illustrate.

Thank you, Blue Horizon, please continue to present any objections to my points!

 

[guanophore]

Well, it is part of the human condition that we cannot fully place our minds into that of the Father.

This is exactly WHY human beings do not willingly and knowingly reject God. If human beings could see the infinite value of others as God sees them, we would not cause harm to one another, and we would not go against God’s desire for us. God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know.

 It is important to note that *affective* knowledge is probably more important than simply hearing commands.

This is probably what happened with Adam and Eve. They did not have affective knowledge. They heard God’s commands, but deep in their souls, where their passion and conscience lay, they did not experience the intense value of their decison. They just were not “feeling it”. As a result, they made a choice from a very shallow place of knowing, which is just a commandment, without a sense of meaning connected to it.

If we start with the question "Why did that sin happen?", and investigate with an objective mind, seeking to understand rather than condemn, we can discern how much knowledge the person had.  All possible scenarios can be considered.

And we will find, every time, that the person lacked sufficient awareness.

 

[Vico]

This is exactly WHY human beings do not willingly and knowingly reject God. If human beings could see the infinite value of others as God sees them, we would not cause harm to one another, and we would not go against God’s desire for us. God does not hold us accountable for what we do not know.

This is probably what happened with Adam and Eve. They did not have affective knowledge. They heard God’s commands, but deep in their souls, where their passion and conscience lay, they did not experience the intense value of their decison. They just were not “feeling it”. As a result, they made a choice from a very shallow place of knowing, which is just a commandment, without a sense of meaning connected to it.

And we will find, every time, that the person lacked sufficient awareness.

In fact people do reject God, which can even be from virtual advertance (a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it). Catechism:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 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.

 

[guanophore]

In fact people do reject God, which can even be from virtual advertance (a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it). Catechism:

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. 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.

Theoretically, yes, but in order for a sin to be mortal, one must have sufficient awareness. Since it is clear that there is always ignorance and blindness involved in sins, we know that no one can be really culpable of a mortal sin. Human beings always do what they think is best, and even if they miss the mark, their intentions are not to exclude themselves from God or separate themselves from his sanctifying grace.

 

[Vico]

Theoretically, yes, but in order for a sin to be mortal, one must have sufficient awareness. Since it is clear that there is always ignorance and blindness involved in sins, we know that no one can be really culpable of a mortal sin. Human beings always do what they think is best, and even if they miss the mark, their intentions are not to exclude themselves from God or separate themselves from his sanctifying grace.

Ignorance or blindness of the type you mention is called invincible ignorance, and is not always present. Invincible ignorance and half-conscious state, excuses entirely from sin. Being aware of the moral character of an act from the teaching of the Church is sufficient knowledge or from conscience. The Church teaches that the sources of sin are ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice.

Read from Catholic Encylopedia:

Imputability

That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act. When the cause produces a twofold effect, one of which is directly willed, the other indirectly, the effect which follows indirectly is morally imputable to the sinner when these three conditions are verified:

• first, the sinner must foresee at least confusedly the evil effects which follow on the cause he places;
• second, he must be able to refrain from placing the cause;
• third, he must be under the obligation of preventing the evil effect.

Error and ignorance in regard to the object or circumstances of the act to be placed, affect the judgment of the intellect and consequently the morality and imputability of the act. Invincible ignorance excuses entirely from sin. Vincible ignorance does not, although it renders the act less free (see IGNORANCE). The passions, while they disturb the judgment of the intellect, more directly affect the will. Antecedent passion increases the intensity of the act, the object is more intensely desired, although less freely, and the disturbance caused by the passions may be so great as to render a free judgment impossible, the agent being for the moment beside himself (I-II:6:7, ad 3um). Consequent passion, which arises from a command of the will, does not lessen liberty, but is rather a sign of an intense act of volition. Fear, violence, heredity, temperament and pathological states, in so far as they affect free volition, affect the malice and imputability of sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.

Division of sin
As regards the principle from which it proceeds sin is original or actual. The will of Adam acting as head of the human race for the conservation or loss of original justice is the cause and source of original sin. * Actual sin is committed by a free personal act of the individual will. It is divided into sins of commission and omission. * A sin of commission is a positive act contrary to some prohibitory precept; * a sin of omission is a failure to do what is commanded. A sin of omission, however, requires a positive act whereby one wills to omit the fulfilling of a precept, or at least wills something incompatible with its fulfillment (I-II:72:5).

• As regards their malice, sins are distinguished into sins of ignorance, passion or infirmity, and malice; * as regards the activities involved, into sins of thought, word, or deed (cordis, oris, operis); * as regards their gravity, into mortal and venial.
  This last named division is indeed the most important of all and it calls for special treatment. But before taking up the details, it will be useful to indicate some further distinctions which occur in theology or in general usage.

O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Ecclesiastical approbation. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Not entirely, or Jesus would not have said from the cross “forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

Yes entirely.
Do you really believe your 4 sec interpretation of a Jesus one liner which contradicts 2000 years explanation by his followers is worthy of a response?

You have a socratic view clearly rejected by the Catholic Catechism sorry.
Let’s move on, nothing to see here.

 

[Blue_Horizon]

This is exactly the point, though. Since humans always seek what one believes to be good, they cannot be culpable if they are mistaken.

They can if the alleged ignorance is culpable.
You may like to study Aquinas who has gone into this quite deeply from a Christian perspective…

Surely you are not suggesting that the will and the intellect are separated from base desires?

Again, a study of Aquinas’s philosophy of man will help you understand the distinction between the various faculties of the soul accepted by traditional Catholic theology.

If we are “slaves to sin” is it really possible to have any imputability?

Yes it is possible. A conclusion of standard Catholic moral theology. That is what vice does.

Are you saying that Satan cannot be imputed for refusing to serve God?

No. I am saying that with angels it is all or nothing, no such thing as degrees of imputability. No venial sin I believe, only mortal sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Blue Horizon,

I have a feeling you will probably not respond to this (as you have not responded to my posts), so any reader who would like to cut in, feel free to do so!

Thats an old chestnut - its the ancient eastern Socratic view of bad behaviour - that its purely due to personal ignorance. Catholic tradition explicitly disagrees with this view.
Buddhism seems to hold strongly to this thinking too.

Well, there is ignorance, but there is also blindness. It would be an error, IMO, to say that people only behave badly because of ignorance. People also are blinded by desire and resentment.

I have observed that either blindness or ignorance is an essential factor in all bad behavior. Have you observed differently?

Aquinas obviously concedes the faculty of human will always seeks what it believes to be a good even if it is objectively a false good. I suppose the issue is how we come to believe a particular good is, in the given circumstances, a true good. If Catholic tradition is correct then it would seem that the will must have some ability to culpably blind the intellect.

Thanks for again bringing in the word “culpably”. So, are you saying that the Catholic Church blames the will, or that the Catholic Church imputes the will?

Of course few human choices are totally free - I suppose its always an admixture on a continuum between pure free choice and “automated” weakness due to passion or cultural conditioning

I tend to agree with this.

I don’t know how this opinion could be empirically verified.

The observation that people have a stronger inclination to do the good than they have an inclination to sin can be empirically verified through introspection, and by considering every possibility imaginable. The observation is consistent with the above statement you quoted from St. Thomas.

Inclinations in scholasticCatholic moral theology are probably understood differently from what I think you are saying here. Ethical good and evil choices are not primarily decided by “inclinations” but by the soul’s highest faculties, the will and intellect, when presented with knowledge by the intellect. Aquinas states that the will is the “appetite” of the intellective faculty.
“Inclinations”, in this traditional Catholic philosophy of man, are lower faculties which influence intellect and will indirectly - thus making degrees of imputability possible.

Degrees of imputability? Shoot, now is imputability also a matter of pointing blame? Please set me straight on this. People make choices. We are in control of every single action we make, except for involuntary ones such as breathing and sneezing. I was equating “impute” with “having done”.

Thanks, I hope you respond!

 

[Blue_Horizon]

Good Morning Blue Horizon,

I have a feeling you will probably not respond to this (as you have not responded to my posts), so any reader who would like to cut in, feel free to do so!

Well, there is ignorance, but there is also blindness. It would be an error, IMO, to say that people only behave badly because of ignorance. People also are blinded by desire and resentment.

I have observed that either blindness or ignorance is an essential factor in all bad behavior. Have you observed differently?

Thanks for again bringing in the word “culpably”. So, are you saying that the Catholic Church blames the will, or that the Catholic Church imputes the will?

I tend to agree with this.

The observation that people have a stronger inclination to do the good than they have an inclination to sin can be empirically verified through introspection, and by considering every possibility imaginable. The observation is consistent with the above statement you quoted from St. Thomas.

Degrees of imputability? Shoot, now is imputability also a matter of pointing blame? Please set me straight on this. People make choices. We are in control of every single action we make, except for involuntary ones such as breathing and sneezing. I was equating “impute” with “having done”.

Thanks, I hope you respond!

OS this could be debated until the cows come home - but in the end the Church has clear
teachings on most of the matters you raise. Its just a matter of putting in the elbow crease to find such resources on the Net and spend time mulling over them. Vibrant discussion is only the first step to insight - the next steps are hard grind and are done alone through personal research, reflection and prayer.

I contribute briefly only, to do otherwise is to short circuit a true learning process which cannot be had by adrenaline fueled discussion alone.

The small point I make is that many of our “sinful” actions are no more than sneezing and though they may involve serious transgressions and temporal effects they may mean nothing to God or eternity. This is the classic distinction between material and formal sin.

However there can be and is sin that involves minimal blindness, these sins are the worst. Malice and deep pride are the basis of such sins. Imputability (and culpability) are simply words that express how much human freedom is involved in an evil action.
If little freedom is involved then there is little sin before God (before man may be different). Merely moral sneezes if you will. Ignorance is traditionally seen as a form of moral blindness. If it is understandable it mitigates, if it is not then imputability remains.
Lack of consent is the only other factor other than blindness(ignorance) that reduces imputability. This is because both ignorance and lack of full consent reduce true human involvement in evil. Human passion is usually understood to reduce consent rather than cause blindness. But both can operate. However emotion is tricky. It can both reduce or decrease imputability depending on corcumstances. If it is antecedent to an evil choice it may mitigate imputability. If it arises during the act and is incited by the will it increases imputability. All standard Catholic Moral Theology.

I really don’t understand your pre-occupation with personal blame and culpability. In the end sin is not defined by someone else externally holding something against you and punishing you or forgiving you for it. That is a primary school understanding that needs to be better filled out as we mature.

Sin arises from within our own being and in the nature of creation. It is a real possibility that we can freely choose to act in such a disordered and repeated fashion that not even God can save us from the consequences no matter how much he loves us or forgives us. Its just karma, the nature of things.

You jump off a cliff you die. Someone tries to stop you, but in the end if you keep wanting to do this you will die. Why would anyone want to do this? Who knows, perhaps purely to spite love and the help of others, to assert “free choice”.
If that is what we truly want, God cannot stop us no matter how forgiving he is.
The only way he could stop us is to either destroy our human nature, personal freedom (which he would never do), or keep changing the nature of the world so we don’t experience the consequences of our choices. He will not do that either for to do so would be to deny the nature he gave creation at the time of its making.

Just as the Catechism says, “mortal sin is a root possibility in human nature” regardless of whether God or man forgives us or not.

Good luck with your research.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Blue Horizon

I am back from a bit of vacation, and I feel refreshed!

OS this could be debated until the cows come home - but in the end the Church has clear
teachings on most of the matters you raise. Its just a matter of putting in the elbow crease to find such resources on the Net and spend time mulling over them. Vibrant discussion is only the first step to insight - the next steps are hard grind and are done alone through personal research, reflection and prayer.

Yes, I have spent some time in personal research, reflection and prayer. My conclusion (tentative, of course, because personal research is a life-long endeavor) is that there are two (at least) valid ways of reading the Gospel.

I contribute briefly only, to do otherwise is to short circuit a true learning process which cannot be had by adrenaline fueled discussion alone.

My adrenaline level is quite mild, I hope you can see this in my posts.

The small point I make is that many of our “sinful” actions are no more than sneezing and though they may involve serious transgressions and temporal effects they may mean nothing to God or eternity. This is the classic distinction between material and formal sin.

However there can be and is sin that involves minimal blindness, these sins are the worst. Malice and deep pride are the basis of such sins. Imputability (and culpability) are simply words that express how much human freedom is involved in an evil action.
If little freedom is involved then there is little sin before God (before man may be different). Merely moral sneezes if you will. Ignorance is traditionally seen as a form of moral blindness. If it is understandable it mitigates, if it is not then imputability remains.
Lack of consent is the only other factor other than blindness(ignorance) that reduces imputability. This is because both ignorance and lack of full consent reduce true human involvement in evil. Human passion is usually understood to reduce consent rather than cause blindness. But both can operate. However emotion is tricky. It can both reduce or decrease imputability depending on corcumstances. If it is antecedent to an evil choice it may mitigate imputability. If it arises during the act and is incited by the will it increases imputability. All standard Catholic Moral Theology.

It would be really helpful if you could come up with an example in which a person with full awareness of all relevant information and with full consent finds reason to ultimately choose to do evil. You have obviously spent some time in personal reflection and study, and I would greatly appreciate your presentation of an example (the example can be fictional, of course).

I really don’t understand your pre-occupation with personal blame and culpability. In the end sin is not defined by someone else externally holding something against you and punishing you or forgiving you for it. That is a primary school understanding that needs to be better filled out as we mature.

The preoccupation has to do with use of Understanding in the process of forgiveness. The definition of “culpability”, when not seen as a label held by one who desires to hold contempt, could be seen as to sanction the holding onto the label. We can all agree that my resentful finger-pointing at anyone is a condition Jesus calls us to overcome. An effort to get me to understand and forgive the person I am accusing should be encouraged

Sin arises from within our own being and in the nature of creation. It is a real possibility that we can freely choose to act in such a disordered and repeated fashion that not even God can save us from the consequences no matter how much he loves us or forgives us. Its just karma, the nature of things.

You jump off a cliff you die. Someone tries to stop you, but in the end if you keep wanting to do this you will die. Why would anyone want to do this? Who knows, perhaps purely to spite love and the help of others, to assert “free choice”.

Yes, a person may so desperately desire autonomy that he may kill himself. However, is he in the moment aware of the value of his own being and of life itself? Do you see that a gap in awareness in the moment is an essential part of such a choice? And if such awareness is not in the forefront, he is choosing from a limited pool of options.

If that is what we truly want, God cannot stop us no matter how forgiving he is.
The only way he could stop us is to either destroy our human nature, personal freedom (which he would never do), or keep changing the nature of the world so we don’t experience the consequences of our choices. He will not do that either for to do so would be to deny the nature he gave creation at the time of its making.

In full awareness and consent, it is not what the human, by nature, truly wants. Again, it would be very helpful if you could put forth an example or scenario that demonstrates the involvement of human nature and a reasoning mind.

Just as the Catechism says, “mortal sin is a root possibility in human nature” regardless of whether God or man forgives us or not.

Good luck with your research.

Yes, it is a possibility because the Catechism says so. Even more important is that the possibility is presented so that we remain vigilant in awareness and in choices we make.

I do hope your “good luck” statement is not an abandonment of the discussion. I am not going to find the examples I asked for above in a needle-in-the-haystack search of Catholic teachings. If you can give such an example, that would be very helpful!

Thanks for your response!