Why did Judas betray Jesus?

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, lovely day here!

Having strong desires does not equate to becoming blinded. Jesus had them too. Are you suggesting, because he was born with the capacity for strong desire, he became blinded?

No, I did not suggest that. Do those two fellows ever stop fighting?

I am not sure what you mean by this. I think what you are saying is that sin leads to more sin? The more we fall into the concupiscense the more inclined we are toward becoming enslaved to it?

The standard theology is such that as a result of A&E’s sin, God among other punishing acts, subjects humans to “concupiscence”. I am saying that such an addition does not make sense as a punitive action.

That is true, but for the sake of the discussion, since we are already way out at the edge of the thread topic, can we stipulate that strong desire, in itself, is a benefit?

Yes, though I am pretty sure we would not agree on the “benefit”.

Suppose Judas had a strong desire to see the Kingdom of God manifest itself on earth immediately. Would that be so bent? Did not the disciples "So when they had come together, they were asking Him, saying, “Lord, is it at this time You are restoring the kingdom to Israel?” (Acts 1:6)

It (CCC 1869)is based on the Teaching that humans are “bent” and that falling into sin continually enslaves us to more sin.

Yes, that would not be “bent”. Note: you haven’t come up with a specific reason as for why the human state is described as “bent”. Concupiscence, strong desire, seems to have been eliminated. Would you like me to suggest one?

Yes, but why resent a desire that seems good?

As you may have guessed, I have given this question some thought. We resent what is imposed on us without our permission. For example, we do not ask God to give us a sexual desire so strong that it sometimes warps our thinking. We do not ask God to give us a desire for wealth and power so strong that they enslave us. One theory is that something deep within us resists these drives, even though they “seem good” to the ego.

While we are all called to love, I am not sure that we are inclined that way in our natural state, which is basically selfish. In fact, the way Scripture defines love, it seems quite counter to our natural state.

The Church teaches that sin and concupiscence to incline us to harm - harm to ourselves, and harm to others. When we choose to yield to temptation, harm results.

Yes, we are basically selfish. However, as we grow in love, the “self” includes all that we love/value. Our children’s well-being, for example, becomes so much a part of who we are that their protection outweighs that of our own bodies. A perfect Love is such that we can include every human on Earth in such a sense of Self.

Yes, the Church teaches that concupiscence inclines us to harm, but we agreed that the CCC does not say the benefits of concupiscence. If one examines the benefits, the net effect is one of inclination to do something beneficial. For example, if Judas had turned over Jesus due to the fact that he was blinded by desire for the payment, his “inclination” was not to do harm, but to get the money. In his eyes, the net effect would have been something good. At the moment, the harm done would have been seen as insignificant, as not a purpose of the act. I am not saying that this is why Judas did what he did, though. I think your idea of Judas perhaps being disappointed and wanting faster results is more likely. But the money probably did not discourage him!

You were provided many scriptures on your other thread. It is clear that you interpret them within your framework to support your foundational premise that no one knowingly and willingly rejects God. I was puzzled why some members seemed to be saying that the sacrament of reconciliation was made unnecessary by this, but I think I understand it now. If there is no real mortal sin, then there is no use for confession.

In the case of denying the existence of mortal sin, it is pretty blatant.

Just a reminder: I already addressed mortal sin and its possibility. As far as confession goes, when Pope Francis says “God always forgives us” does that mean he is saying that there is no use for confession? No, there is always a use for confession, for there are always times when we sense a separation - when we feel guilty about something we had done.

Whew, lots to cover here, on to the next one.

 

[OneSheep]

You seem to be saying that, since human beings are not omniscient, that means they are not morally culpable because they are ignorant and blind.

It depends on what you mean by “culpable”. When Jesus said, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” He was definitely not saying that they did not torture Him. He was saying that He forgave them, and He was giving us the means to such forgiveness, to see the blindness, and to show us what it means to love and forgive unconditionally.

No, human beings cannot see the infinite. But that is not a requirement. We are only required to walk within the light that we have.

Now you are introducing the word “requirement” into your analysis. We could say that God required that the crowd “see the light” sufficiently to accept Him, but they did not. We could say that God “required” Judas to “see the light” but he did not. Yet, God always understands and forgives. So can we!

Judas could not have known what was going to happen. When he saw it, he regretted it, but unlike the other Apostles, he did not humbly ask for forgiveness. In his pride, he fell into despair and took his own life. He had the same choice as all the Apostles, who also abandoned Him in his hour of suffering. Peter even tried to go back to making his life as a fisherman. Jesus called him to repentance, and he humbled Himself before God. This is all that is required, not that we are able to “see infinite value” in every choice before us.

In the use of “required”, you are substituting what ought to happen with what does happen. As Jesus observed, what ought to happen does not always happen - because of blindness/ignorance.

I’m not sure you are using “require” this way, but “require” may imply a withholding of forgiveness if the requirement is not met. In that theology if, the requirement is not met, a condemnation of some kind is upheld from God, there is an upaid debt, etc. As I have said before, this view is legitmate, but the view that God loves and forgives without condition is also legitimate.

It is off the thread topic, so it would not be appropriate to do here, but I think it will be a fruitless exercise anywhere. The Church does not define concepts that never needed to be defined. This definition was made because the Church teaches that mortal sin exists, and that it separates us from God, and our eternal souls are in peril. Your rejection of this does not change what the Church teaches for anyone but yourself.

The Church has never explicitly claimed that any specific person has committed a mortal sin. “full knowledge and full consent” cannot be determined by mere humans. However, the definition is there and serves a purpose. If nothing else it confirms human freedom, that we are not predestined; we can make choices.

The Church teaches that each person is given sufficient grace to overcome sin. That means that Judas had sufficient grace to act otherwise, and he chose not to do so.

It must be that “sufficient grace” does not mean “sufficient awareness”. The crowd who hung Jesus also must have had “sufficient grace”, but they were blind, and Jesus forgave.

I am glad we found another point of agreement.

I’m glad, and I’m glad that you are glad. Maybe those two fellows can calm down a little.

This is why I say that you seem to be looking at the world through rose colored glasses. I can find no good motive in a group of men getting drunk and gang raping a woman then leaving her bleeding in a field.

That sentiment is very understandable. There is nothing good about what they did. However, they sought to be in control, and the victim had absolutely no value to them. She was disposable, nothing, worthless, a mosquito. Jesus was seen in the same way, and He saw the blindness. The motive is to fulfill some kind of sexual need and to dominate/control. These motives are not in themselves bad, and I believe Thomas Aquinas said as much. The problem is that people are born ignorant and are capable of blindness. I hear about cases like you describe, and like any person with a normal conscience, my first impulse is to severely punish the wrongdoers; and forgiveness is far from an objective. Jesus, however, calls us to forgive (not acquit) and from the cross He empowers us to do so.

When Satan works through people, there is no good intent or motive. The same is true with very mentally ill people who create hienous crimes.

We have to be very careful that we stay true to the fact that people are responsible for their own actions. Mentally ill people do heinous crimes, but we have absolutely no proof that satan had anything to do with it. Everyone needs to be held responsible to their choices, no excuses. (I know, that is probably sounding a bit strange coming from me. Start with the root of the word "responsible’.)

There may not be. For a Christian, the Holy Spirit can help to transcent the resentment. For those who do not have any source of light, the will to forgive and reconcile may not be there. Or there might be so much resentment it completely overshadows it.

Well, if you are thinking that some people do not desire reconciliation deep-down, then that would be a projection on your part, and my saying the opposite is also a projection. Neither can be proven. Everyone has a source of light, for God is within every single human. Yes, there is a “sufficient grace” in that we can know love. There are awareness and access issues. Resentment can overshadow, yes we agree.

On to the next one!

 

[OneSheep]

… One cannot, therefore, set aside the doctrines of the faith, and be confident that insight will be complete.

I agree.

I see that you will go to any lengths to try to remove culpability from the sinner. The Pharisees, like Judas, had sufficient knowledge, revelation, and freedom to choose Christ. We do not need to know everything to make such choices.

This conclusion contradicts the Teachings of the Church, which include the fact that God grants every soul sufficient knowlege to choose Him, or reject Him.

I answered this in another post. If the crowd had “sufficient knowledge” why did Jesus say they did not know what they were doing? Jesus is not asserting that they had sufficient knowledge. Bring forth the “teachings”, and we can see if they contradict what Jesus observed.

Can you produce any evidence from Scripture that this is the case? I think this might be a case of eisogesis.

We have evidence that the Pharisees resented Jesus, and we know that resentment blocks empathy, causes a blindness. But no other evidence; so it has to be listed under “speculative”.

No, OS, they are neither triggered or chosen randomly. These people sit around and plan specific “missions” that involve injuring other people.

Before they sit around and plan such missions, they are already blind or ignorant. These are triggered reactions. Again, do you ever think to yourself “I think I am going to feel resentful of that person today.”? No, anger and resentment are triggered emotional reactions, and the blindness that occurs is also automatic. A person who says “I will no longer see value in that person” is already not seeing value.

Yes, they may know “that” something is wrong or hateful, but such is a “propositional knowing”. When Jesus said “they do not know what they are doing”, he was speaking of an affective knowing, a knowing of value, as well as other “knowing”.

On what basis do you make these conjectures about what Jesus meant? From what source are you drawing your definitions?

The source is Luke. Jesus did not say “know that what they are doing is wrong”. Here, answer this question. When the crowd hung Jesus, what did they not know?

I do. I see that you have created a definition that rules out any existence of mortal sin. You have required that human beings posess omniscience in order to commit a mortal sin. It is a very dangerous approach.

Okay, by use of the word “danger” you are expressing that there is something to fear. What do you fear?

I am using the definition provided by the CCC, “full knowledge and full consent”. The crowd that hung Jesus had neither.

It seems that the need to be able to forgive others may trigger blindness about the nature the human person and the doctrine of mortal sin.

I have already addressed mortal sin, please look back for my response. What am I blind about concerning human nature? Project away.

Hopefully your strong desire to avoid holding resentments against others will eventually give way to the light so that you can accept that people do willingly and knowingly reject God.

Guanophore, I am going to have to log that under one of the most incredible things written by a fellow Catholic. I will accept that people knowingly and willingly reject God if it can be proven. You refuse to provide proof, so we are at a stalemate.

You would hope that “desire to avoid holding resentments” will “give way”? Tell the world, guanophore! Do not desire to avoid holding resentments! Hang onto them! Do not let go of your grudges! Grudges are good, they help us see reality of the evil of all people! You see, I am not incapable of a little sarcasm.

Well, this is quite an achievement, one that has never been achieved by any of the saints who came before you. Since Scripture testifies that only God can search the heart and know this much about us, you have also achieved something that transcends the Scriptures.

Let me go ahead and quote St. Augustine again:

“Through the Spirit we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.”

We can look at our motives and capacities, which truly exist in our nature and in the nature of other species, and reconcile with them, we can see their goodness, their beauty.

Enough for today. Don’t take any of this personally: you are a thoughtful, well-meaning person. Maybe you write things you aren’t certain of, or it comes out wrong. I have the same problem sometimes. I hope you can hear my voice; it is a friendly one. I appreciate your challenges and responses.

 

[guanophore]

 Do those two fellows ever stop fighting?  :)

Rarely.

The standard theology is such that as a result of A&E’s sin, God among other punishing acts, subjects humans to “concupiscence”. I am saying that such an addition does not make sense as a punitive action.

Can you point me to where you have found this “standard theology”?

I think this is your personal perception. I agree that such an “addition” does not make sense as a punitive action. It is a result of the gift of free choice. God created us in love, in and for freedom. Sin enslaves us and robs us of our freedom.

There are consequences to sin, and God allows those consequences to take their course with human beings. He is not interested in “punishing” but in redeeming us. If people do not see a need for redemption, they are not likely to seek it. This is one of the biggest problems with your formulation that there is no such thing as mortal sin. People will then lose the awareness that they need to reconcile with God.

Yes, that would not be "bent".

But it is, OS. Falling into sin causes us to become increasingly enslaved by sin, and our conscience to become more and more seared. I say it is “bent” because this is not the purpose for which God created us. We can become dead in our sins, rather than alive in Him.

Note: you haven’t come up with a specific reason as for why the human state is described as “bent”. Concupiscence, strong desire, seems to have been eliminated.

Concupiscence is not strong desire. Strong desire is a natural component of what it means to be a psassionate human being. Jesus has strong desires, and yet without sin, so it would be wrong to equate the human tendency toward evil with strong desires.

  Would you like me to suggest one?

No need. I will accept what the church teaches about concupiscence.

As you may have guessed, I have given this question some thought. We resent what is imposed on us without our permission. For example, we do not ask God to give us a sexual desire so strong that it sometimes warps our thinking. We do not ask God to give us a desire for wealth and power so strong that they enslave us. One theory is that something deep within us resists these drives, even though they “seem good” to the ego.

I can’t even imagine any reality in which these things would “seem good” to the ego.

Yes, we are basically selfish.

This is part of concupiscence. We are inclined toward what is opposite of what God wants.

Yes, the Church teaches that concupiscence inclines us to harm, but we agreed that the CCC does not say the benefits of concupiscence.

Do you think there are any benefits from being inclined away from our Creator?

 If one examines the benefits, the net effect is one of inclination to do something beneficial.

No, OS. There is nothing beneficial about concupiscence.

Concupiscense is opposite of the inclination to do anything beneficial. It is against God’s desire for us, which is all good.

 For example, if Judas had turned over Jesus due to the fact that he was blinded by desire for the payment, his "inclination" was not to do harm, but to get the money.  In his eyes, the net effect would have been something good.  At the moment, the harm done would have been seen as insignificant, as not a purpose of the act.

This seems like a very shallow argument. How can depriving a human being of their freedom (arrest and incarceration) be a lesser good than profit? Do you honestly believe that Judas could spend three years in the presence of Jesus and have such a shallow morality? I think he did act in self interest, or that he wanted to manipulate a “greater” outcome but this argument does not bolster your position because it is too simplistic.

Just a reminder: I already addressed mortal sin and its possibility.

Yes, you did. What you have not done is accept the reality of it. As such, you have rejected the Catholic teaching on the matter.

As far as confession goes, when Pope Francis says “God always forgives us” does that mean he is saying that there is no use for confession? No, there is always a use for confession, for there are always times when we sense a separation - when we feel guilty about something we had done.

Venial sins are confessed at the beginning of the Liturgy. Mortal sins ,those offenses against God that are knowingly and willingly committed, are to be confessed in the Sacrament. If such sins do not exist, there is no point.

Confession is not for “sensing” separation or “feeling guilty”, it is for actual separation, and actual guilt. Basing the need or purpose on human perceptions is a grave error. I think we will agree that some people “sense separation” and “feel guilty” when they have not actually done anything wrong.

 

[guanophore]

. If the crowd had “sufficient knowledge” why did Jesus say they did not know what they were doing? Jesus is not asserting that they had sufficient knowledge.

No, and He was not referencing “the crowds” either. He was referencing those who were pounding nails into his flesh. Those who crucified Him were soldiers following orders. Most of those soldiers would know little or nothing of the individual that was turned over to them to be executed, except that they have been given the death penalty. I daresay most of them learned not to care, either. It is a difficult job for one who tries not to see the value of the crucified, much less for a person who looked upon the condemned compassionately.

“The crowd” (I am not sure why you brought them into this discussion, since they are not the ones about whom He was speaking) was also stirred up by political opponents when they demanded He be crucified. But Jesus clarified His position when He stood before Pilate.

10Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” 11Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” John 19:9–11

Pilate missed the mark, looking Truth in the face, ,but failing to recognize Him. The greater sin belonged to the Sanhedrin, who delivered Him over. Why? because they knew more. They knew the Scriptures, they heard His teachings, yet they refused to come to Him that they might find life. Their rejection of God contained much more willfulness nad knowing than Pilate’s rejection.

This is the essence of culpability. He who knows more has the greater sin. He who wills deliberately against God has the greater sin.

We have evidence that the Pharisees resented Jesus, and we know that resentment blocks empathy, causes a blindness.  But no other evidence; so it has to be listed under "speculative".

Resentment certainly does block empathy. Or blocking empathy causes resentment. But every human person is given sufficient grace to choose for or against God. He does not call us to do that which He does not enable us to do. So then all men are without excuse (including “blindness”).

The Apostle writes that even Pagans have sufficient grace to perceive the Revelation by God of Himself in nature.

“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; 21for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23*and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles.” Romans 1:20–23

Before they sit around and plan such missions, they are already blind or ignorant. These are triggered reactions.

I am not sure what you mean by “triggered reactions”. It sounds like you think they might be impulsive in some way. I am not talking about impulsive responses to triggers, but a lifestyle/mindset that is oriented toward evil and against God. Human beings are never so blind or ignorant they cannot choose to repent, believe, and be saved. God desires all to be saved and come to the knowledge of the Truth. You seem to be attempting to build a platform that people are unable to do this because they are blind and ignorant, as if this condition has prevented their free will from operating.

Again, do you ever think to yourself “I think I am going to feel resentful of that person today.”? No, anger and resentment are triggered emotional reactions, and the blindness that occurs is also automatic.

Of course people think this way! I have had people tell me they will be resentful until they come to their grave, even when the other person has gone to his! I have heard people state emphatcially “I will never forgive …”, “I just can’t forgive…” These are not emotinal reactions, ,they are acts of the WILL.

Emotions trigger all kinds of reactions, but people are not designed to live by emotions. We are designed to live according to the intellect and the will. A person can feel resentful, and still choose to forgive. In fact, the choice to forgive is even more important when one is feeling resentful.

 Here, answer this question.  When the crowd hung Jesus, what did they not know?

The crowd did not crucify Jesus.

Okay, by use of the word “danger” you are expressing that there is something to fear. What do you fear?

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "Matthew 10:28–29

I am using the definition provided by the CCC, “full knowledge and full consent”.

Ahh. I see. So this is why no one commits a mortal sin…everyone is blind and ignorant to some extent, and therefore, are not culpable.

What am I blind about concerning human nature?

I am not sure. Sometimes I think it must be a very sheltered life, sometimes I think it is being steeped in humanism, sometimes I think it is a lack of experience with the human psyche…

Howesoever it happens, you seem to have a very lopsided perception about human functioning. It is not consistent with the Scriptures and the TEaching of the Church, but it seems to work for you.

 

[OneSheep]

I agree that such an “addition” does not make sense as a punitive action. It is a result of the gift of free choice. God created us in love, in and for freedom. Sin enslaves us and robs us of our freedom.

Good Morning!

Now we’re gettin’ down to business. Concupiscence is described as an innate characteristic of the human. Sin, however, is described as either a “state” of separation/alienation, or an act. Actions are behaviors that result from the choices made, influenced by our perceptions and motives.

You put forth a section of the CCC that described concupiscence as “strong desire”. Let’s take a look at this one:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

Here, the CCC falls short of fully developing “concupiscence”, in that it is an “inclination to sin”, but it does not explain the mechanism of the inclination. It does mention being “subject to ignorance” which definitely is a factor in human choices that result in harm, but it does not explain why ignorance would have been allowed by God as a result of an original disobedience. Indeed, it is ignorance that makes the situation much worse.

The CCC also does not define “inclination”. It gives the impression that people want to do evil just because it is evil. In fact, human “inclination”, if meaning the goal of our “strong desires”, is to satisfy our appetites. Because we are ignorant and subject to blindness, in the effort to satisfy our appetites we are capable of doing great evil. This is one way of developing the CCC in way that reflects why people make poor choices.

On the other hand, the goal of discipline is to avoid the problems associated with satisfaction of appetite. In this view, the appetites themselves are seen as an “inclination to evil” because the appetites do have a tendency to distract discipline. Therefore, it is very natural that the human come to resent his own appetites and think of them as “evil”. Yes, if I remember right St. Thomas A. said that the appetites in themselves are not evil, but the human whose goal is discipline is going to naturally think otherwise.

But it is, OS. Falling into sin causes us to become increasingly enslaved by sin, and our conscience to become more and more seared. I say it is “bent” because this is not the purpose for which God created us. We can become dead in our sins, rather than alive in Him.

Okay, then the “bending” is the searing of the conscience? Can you describe this phenomenon with an example? We may be thinking the same thing here.

Concupiscence is not strong desire. Strong desire is a natural component of what it means to be a psassionate human being. Jesus has strong desires, and yet without sin, so it would be wrong to equate the human tendency toward evil with strong desires.

“Theologians call this tendency to sin “concupiscence.” The word concupiscence is defined as a strong desire, a tendency or attraction, usually arising from lust or sensual desires. It is, morally speaking, the tendency to go off course.”

osv.com/MyFaith/ModelsoftheFaith/Article/TabId/684/ArtMID/13728/ArticleID/10340/What-Is-Concupiscence.aspx

I can’t even imagine any reality in which these things would “seem good” to the ego.

Sexual desire seems good because of the pleasure. Being in control also gives a person a positive feeling, as does winning a game (domination) or gaining wealth (desire for territory/resource) or popularity (status). The ego likes these because our neurological feedback is positive.

This is part of concupiscence. We are inclined toward what is opposite of what God wants.

Do you think there are any benefits from being inclined away from our Creator?

As I said, with normal human development, the “self” comes to be more inclusive. God does not put in us anything that inclines us from Himself, He puts in us appetites that incline us to meet our needs. The appetites incline us to survive, procreate, and maximize the chances of such survival and procreation. If you can think of another purpose of the appetites, please bring one forth.

God wants us to survive, and strong desires help us keep that goal front and center. Yes, some people have “strong desires” to help mankind. This is because they love mankind, so mankind has essentially become incorporated with the Self. “Their benefit is my benefit”.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

This seems like a very shallow argument. How can depriving a human being of their freedom (arrest and incarceration) be a lesser good than profit? Do you honestly believe that Judas could spend three years in the presence of Jesus and have such a shallow morality? I think he did act in self interest, or that he wanted to manipulate a “greater” outcome but this argument does not bolster your position because it is too simplistic.

Such deprivation can be seen as a “lesser good” if the person being incarcerated is seen as a threat to well-being. That is why I don’t think it was desire for money in itself that drove Judas to do what he did. Addicts can do awful things to family (theft) that seem very shallow, but we do not know that Judas was an addict. Judas must have seen Jesus as a threat in some way. There is also the benefit-of-the-doubt scenario where Judas was confident that Jesus could and would finally use His power to fight off the authorities.

Yes, you did. What you have not done is accept the reality of it. As such, you have rejected the Catholic teaching on the matter.

This time, you left out the words “in my own view, it appears that” between the words “such” and “you”. Taking your words literally, they are an accusation, which is not your goal, right?

Confession is not for “sensing” separation or “feeling guilty”, it is for actual separation, and actual guilt. Basing the need or purpose on human perceptions is a grave error. I think we will agree that some people “sense separation” and “feel guilty” when they have not actually done anything wrong.

Who is the judge of when guilt is “actual”, guanophore? Are you saying that if a person is feeling really guilty about something that the confessor sees as “not wrong”, he is to turn that person away? If a person is feeling guilty, his conscience is bothering him in some way, and that is a spiritual matter. Are you saying that confession excludes such spiritual matters? It may turn out that the priest says “you have done nothing wrong” and the confessor takes his word for it and is relieved. What is guilt if it is not felt? You may say, “guilt is simply doing something wrong”. What is going to confession if the person is not feeling sorry, which is tied with the feeling of guilt? One cannot separate human perception/emotion from this Sacrament, guanophore.

The fact is, God always forgives. We need priests to confirm that, and it benefits us Spiritually to bare our souls to someone else. Confession, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is very important!

Have a blessed day!

 

[OneSheep]

No, and He was not referencing “the crowds” either. He was referencing those who were pounding nails into his flesh.

“The crowd” (I am not sure why you brought them into this discussion, since they are not the ones about whom He was speaking)…

The crowd did not crucify Jesus.

So, when Jesus said “Forgive them, for they know not what they do” He was only referencing the actual nail pounders? Where did you get this idea?

What is it that we do every Passion Mass, guanophore, on Palm Sunday? We say the words “crucify Him!”. We are acting as participants in the nail-pounding. Would you rather relieve the crowd of such responsibility?

… But every human person is given sufficient grace to choose for or against God. He does not call us to do that which He does not enable us to do. So then all men are without excuse (including “blindness”).

Okay, in your catechesis Jesus was only referring to some very specific people present. I don’t know where you got that, but let’s take your word for it for the moment. (Note: I will grant that He was not referring to the people who did not want Him crucified). When St. Stephen was stoned to death, he also said “forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.” Are you saying that the stoners also had “sufficient grace”? If so, grace has nothing to do with awareness. Jesus observed that the executioners did not know what they were doing, and He forgave them.

I am not sure what you mean by “triggered reactions”. It sounds like you think they might be impulsive in some way. I am not talking about impulsive responses to triggers, but a lifestyle/mindset that is oriented toward evil and against God. Human beings are never so blind or ignorant they cannot choose to repent, believe, and be saved.

Of course people think this way! I have had people tell me they will be resentful until they come to their grave, even when the other person has gone to his! I have heard people state emphatcially “I will never forgive …”, “I just can’t forgive…” These are not emotinal reactions, ,they are acts of the WILL.

They will to “be resentful” because they are already resentful, and they are hanging onto their resentment. The “triggers” have to do with how the resentment got there in the first place. Yes, people do resist forgiving, but this is a result of the “separation” we have been discussing. When we are resentful, we are separated from the True Self, a self we find beneath all the anger and resentment. The True Self wills reconciliation. The ego, the superficial self, wills the grudge. Hopefully, the individual realizes that the grudge is a burden on their soul. I like the verse going around the web (attributed to the Buddha, but probably comes from A.A.) “holding a grudge is like drinking poison and expecting the other person to die”.

Emotions trigger all kinds of reactions, but people are not designed to live by emotions. We are designed to live according to the intellect and the will. A person can feel resentful, and still choose to forgive. In fact, the choice to forgive is even more important when one is feeling resentful.

Can you think of when a person needs to forgive when they are not feeling resentful? The choice to forgive is only pertinent when one is feeling resentful in the first place.

Mark 11:25New International Version (NIV)

25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

“Holding something against someone” is a matter involving resentment.

"And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell. "Matthew 10:28–29

So, you said " You have required that human beings posess omniscience in order to commit a mortal sin." Which was not what I said in the first place. What I said was that I have observed no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God. This statement, as I said, does not rule out the possibility that a person can do such rejection, nor am I claiming that I know everything, in order to make such an observation in the first place. I have yet to find an counterexample. There is nothing “dangerous” about this observation, and it is no reason to fear. What brings about fear, perhaps, is the slippery slope one takes away from my statement.

Ahh. I see. So this is why no one commits a mortal sin…everyone is blind and ignorant to some extent, and therefore, are not culpable.

It depends on what definition of “culpable” you are using. If you respond to this part, please include what you said I am responding to.

continued… again… I am really trying to cut down…

 

[OneSheep]

guanophore:

I am not sure. Sometimes I think it must be a very sheltered life, sometimes I think it is being steeped in humanism, sometimes I think it is a lack of experience with the human psyche…

Howesoever it happens, you seem to have a very lopsided perception about human functioning. It is not consistent with the Scriptures and the TEaching of the Church, but it seems to work for you.

That was mostly charitable, except you left out “seems to me to be that it is” between the words “is” and “not”. Yes, I do lack some experience with the human psyche, for I am far from all-experiencing. So far, your version of enlightenment seems to be that the human is evil or of some negative character, but you have not supported this with evidence. You have provided the fact that people do evil behaviors and superficially resist repentance.

So, please continue to share some experiences of the human psyche you have had that will give evidence to your premise, and I will consider them! On the other hand, you may rather concede that the Christian can have different ways of legitimately looking at these things.

Problem is, if you make such a concession, then those guys will stop fighting, and you might feel compelled to change your icon to one that is more conciliatory. Resist concession, guanophore. If you feel compelled to change your icon, then think of all the things that you could be doing that are more productive, like spreading mercy. In fact, then, making a concession is a distraction from spreading mercy.

Wait, is that a slippery slope I see?

Only kidding! Forgive me.

 

[guanophore]

Guanophore, I am going to have to log that under one of the most incredible things written by a fellow Catholic. I will accept that people knowingly and willingly reject God if it can be proven. You refuse to provide proof, so we are at a stalemate.

Of course we are! God’s revelations are not subject to human science and “proofs”. It is not possible to prove most of what He has revealed to us. And in any case, you are suffering from such a severe case of confirmation bias that no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

Concupiscence is described as an innate characteristic of the human.

Where?

Human beings were not created with concupiscence.

You put forth a section of the CCC that described concupiscence as “strong desire”.

No, OS, it does not. There is nothing about strong desires that are inclined away from God. Jesus has these same strong desires.

Let’s take a look at this one:

405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I think you lost me here. I am not seeing anything here that references strong desires, or equating them with concupiscense.

Here, the CCC falls short of fully developing “concupiscence”, in that it is an “inclination to sin”, but it does not explain the mechanism of the inclination.

I am sure we can explore some other passages and documents if that is necessary. It may be beyond the scope of this thread, though. I think everyone will agree that Judas suffered from concupiscence.

It does mention being “subject to ignorance” which definitely is a factor in human choices that result in harm, but it does not explain why ignorance would have been allowed by God as a result of an original disobedience. Indeed, it is ignorance that makes the situation much worse.

Freedom of choice was allowed by God. In the exercise of that freedom, humans chose against God, and were separated from a source of wisdom and revelation in which they were created. I agree, the ignorance makes the situation worse.

The CCC also does not define “inclination”. It gives the impression that people want to do evil just because it is evil. In fact, human “inclination”, if meaning the goal of our “strong desires”, is to satisfy our appetites.

This is not the case. If it were, then Jesus’ exercise of his strong inclination would have been self centered and flesh bound.

Because we are ignorant and subject to blindness, in the effort to satisfy our appetites we are capable of doing great evil.  This is one way of developing the CCC in way that reflects why people make poor choices.

And you reject this formulation?

Do you think what Judas dis was a great evil?

Do you think he is not culpbable becuase he was ignorant?

On the other hand, the goal of discipline is to avoid the problems associated with satisfaction of appetite. In this view, the appetites themselves are seen as an “inclination to evil” because the appetites do have a tendency to distract discipline.

I don’t think so. Appetites are a normal function of being human. Adam and Eve were created without sin, yet they had appetites.

Concupiscence pulls our appetites toward the world, the flesh, and the devil, against God’s plan for our lives. It is not the appetites that are evil, but what results from being pulled by concupiscence into evil.

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; 14but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15*Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.” James 1:12–15

 

[guanophore]

Therefore, it is very natural that the human come to resent his own appetites and think of them as “evil”.

Maybe, but it is a warped persepctive and not conducive to holiness. Jesus wants us to be fully human, fully alive. This means not purging or rejection of any part of ourselves, but bringing all into subjection to Christ. When He rules our appetites, instead of concupiscence ruling, we will be ordered as He made us to be.

Yes, if I remember right St. Thomas A. said that the appetites in themselves are not evil…

We can be easily tempted by our appetites. Battling it may cause someone to mistake the appetite as sinful.

Okay, then the “bending” is the searing of the conscience? Can you describe this phenomenon with an example? We may be thinking the same thing here.

Sorry, I stole the idea of “bent” from C.S.Lewis. I regret that my use of it has not forwarded the discussion.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared…For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Timothy 4:1–5

Now before you say that searing makes it nonfunctional, consider the context:

καυστηριάζομαι τὴν συνείδησιν: (an idiom, literally ‘to be seared in the conscience’ or ‘… as to one’s conscience’) to be unwilling to learn from one’s conscience—‘to refuse to listen to one’s conscience, to be completely insensitive to.’ κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν ‘their own consciences are seared’ or ‘they refuse to listen to their consciences’ 1 Tm 4:2. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament

Unwilling does not mean unable!

 

[guanophore]

“Theologians call this tendency to sin “concupiscence.” The word concupiscence is defined as a strong desire, a tendency or attraction, usually arising from lust or sensual desires. It is, morally speaking, the tendency to go off course.”

osv.com/MyFaith/ModelsoftheFaith/Article/TabId/684/ArtMID/13728/ArticleID/10340/What-Is-Concupiscence.aspx

I am not sure which “theologians” Msgr. Will King is referencing here, but I think this is not the best definition. It does not include the fact that there are strong desires, tendencies and attractions that do NOT arise out of any kind of lust or sensual desires. We can have holy passions as well as unholy.

Sexual desire seems good because of the pleasure. Being in control also gives a person a positive feeling, as does winning a game (domination) or gaining wealth (desire for territory/resource) or popularity (status). The ego likes these because our neurological feedback is positive.

I think Judas was motivated by some of these. I think he wanted to force Jesus’ hand to bring about the Kingdom, where he imagined a place of status for himself.

God wants us to survive, and strong desires help us keep that goal front and center.  Yes, some people have "strong desires" to help mankind. This is because they love mankind, so mankind has essentially become incorporated with the Self.  "Their benefit is my benefit".

I am glad we are in agreement that strong desire, in itself, is not sinful.

 

[guanophore]

Such deprivation can be seen as a "lesser good" if the person being incarcerated is seen as a threat to well-being.    Judas must have seen Jesus as a threat in some way.  There is also the benefit-of-the-doubt scenario where Judas was confident that Jesus could and would finally use His power to fight off the authorities.

I dont’ think Judas saw Jesus as a threat. He knew he had betrayed innocent blood. He betrayed him to gain something he thought was more valuable - an attempt to grab political power.

This time, you left out the words “in my own view, it appears that” between the words “such” and “you”. Taking your words literally, they are an accusation, which is not your goal, right?

No, but I do want to make a clear statement to readers.

Who is the judge of when guilt is "actual", guanophore?

God is the only one who is qualified. He is the only one who can read the secrets of our hearts.

Are you saying that if a person is feeling really guilty about something that the confessor sees as “not wrong”, he is to turn that person away?

This is not how it works. Although I must admit, this has happened to people that struggle from scrupulosity. A priest will refuse to hear the confession if it is another obsession without merit. It happened to Luther all the time.

If a person is feeling guilty, his conscience is bothering him in some way, and that is a spiritual matter.

I am not so sure it always is… Sometimes it is a psychological matter. Granted, psychological issues do impact the spiritual life, but just because a person accuses themselves, or is accused by another, or feels guilty, that does not equate to a moral infraction.

 What is guilt if it is not felt?

This is the dangerous part of your formulation, OS. Guilt is an actual state of responsibility for a wrongdoing. The state exists whether a person FEELS guilty for it, or not. Judas did not seem to feel any guilt until he realized his plan backfired. He clearly did not intend for Jesus to suffer. Of course, by the time he felt the guilt, it was too late.
What he put into motion would culminate in Jesus’ death.

You may say, “guilt is simply doing something wrong”. What is going to confession if the person is not feeling sorry, which is tied with the feeling of guilt? One cannot separate human perception/emotion from this Sacrament, guanophore.

Guilt is also a feeling, and it is meant to function as a guide to help us realize when we have done wrong. But because of our fallen state, guilt does not always function the way it was intended. People experience false guilt, a believe or sense they have done wrong when they have not. And since the conscience may also malfunctioning we may not have an accurate sense we have done wrong when we did.

We go to confession to be reconciled to God and His Church when we have been separated by sin. Feeling guilty is not a requirement. Ideally, when the concience an the emotions are functioning properly, guilt will accompany our realization that we have done wrong, but no feeling is a requirement for any sacrament. It is an act of the will to confess a sin, and an act of the will to receive absolution. We are required to have contrition.

“Contrition is willful regret for one’s sins. It isn’t a matter of one’s “feelings” of guilt, but of conviction of the evil of sin and the resolution to sin no more. In other words, contrition is rooted in the will, not in the emotions. For example, some people are more emotional than others: some get a case of the “scruples” and feel shame or guilt over any little thing, whether it’s sin or not; others can have committed murder and never “wallow” in guilt but are still truly contrite. The one is not necessarily more “holy” or making a better Confession than the other. What matters is their conviction – their will to offend God no more, and their resolution to make reparations as far as possible, do their penance, and patiently bear the temporal effects of their sins. Without contrition, Confession is not valid.”

That being said, I agree with you that ideally feeling guilty should not be separated from the sacrament. But it is not required.

The fact is, God always forgives. We need priests to confirm that, and it benefits us Spiritually to bare our souls to someone else. Confession, the Sacrament of Reconciliation, is very important!

Apparently only if someone “feels” guilty. It is only important to assuage and assure the person that all is good? There is no real requirement for the Sacrament, since there is really no such thing as mortal sin?

 

[OneSheep]

you are suffering from such a severe case of confirmation bias that no amount of evidence will be sufficient.

Guanophore, do you remember about pointing fingers, and what the Sister said? Point one finger, and there are three pointing back at ya.

No, OS, it does not. There is nothing about strong desires that are inclined away from God. Jesus has these same strong desires.

Like I said, “concupiscence” is a concept very poorly developed. You saw the Msgr’s article, which was the opposite of what you were saying. Jesus’ strong desire to save man is not concupiscence.

I am sure we can explore some other passages and documents if that is necessary. It may be beyond the scope of this thread, though. I think everyone will agree that Judas suffered from concupiscence.

Yes, Judas had a strong desire of some sort that blinded him to Jesus’ value.

I agree, the ignorance makes the situation worse.

Yay! we agree on something again.

This is not the case. If it were, then Jesus’ exercise of his strong inclination would have been self centered and flesh bound.

“Concupiscence” is poorly developed, as I stated. It is described as “strong desire”. However not all “strong desire” is concupiscence. Concupiscence, as best I can determine, pertains to strong desires associated with the appetites.

And you reject this formulation?

Do you think what Judas dis was a great evil?

Do you think he is not culpbable becuase he was ignorant?

I proposed that formulation, though I’m sure it does not originate with me. Yes, Judas did a great evil, but the answer to whether or not he is “culpable” depends on what definition one uses. Is he “condemnable”, yes, but he is forgiven by God, so who condemns him? Is he responsible? Yes.

It is not the appetites that are evil, but what results from being pulled by concupiscence into evil.

Yes, people do evil, but they in themselves are not evil, nor are any of their motives, desires, and capacities. People make bad choices for understandable reasons that always involve blindness or ignorance, but they are still bad choices. We can understand and forgive all of them.

“Let no one say when he is tempted, “I am tempted by God”; for God cannot be tempted with evil and he himself tempts no one; 14but each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire. 15*Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death.” James 1:12–15

This does not fully explain why people sin, but yes, people are enticed by desire, and when we give into the desire against right discipline, we may do harm. However, the point of this part of the discussion was to determine if the human has a “bent state”, and it seems to me now that we can agree that there is nothing about the human state that is “bent”, but that humans do make grave errors. What we disagree on, possibly, is God’s response to people’s errors.

Maybe, but it is a warped persepctive and not conducive to holiness.

We mostly agree. I would not describe the resentment of the appetites as “warped”, but such resentment is natural. For example, many people resent their own desire to dominate, and such resentment actually helps develop the conscience and helps keep their behaviors in check. This is part of the function of resentment itself. Yes, there is a cost to holiness because a person divided against himself is not exactly whole. However, the net effect, in the short term (the developing years) is positive.

“Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, 2 through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared…For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving; 5 for then it is consecrated by the word of God and prayer.” 1 Timothy 4:1–5

Now before you say that searing makes it nonfunctional, consider the context:

καυστηριάζομαι τὴν συνείδησιν: (an idiom, literally ‘to be seared in the conscience’ or ‘… as to one’s conscience’) to be unwilling to learn from one’s conscience—‘to refuse to listen to one’s conscience, to be completely insensitive to.’ κεκαυστηριασμένων τὴν ἰδίαν συνείδησιν ‘their own consciences are seared’ or ‘they refuse to listen to their consciences’ 1 Tm 4:2. Louw, J. P., & Nida, E. A. (1996). Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament

Unwilling does not mean unable!

That is so cool that you can decipher all the Greek! So, if the conscience is not actually “seared”, why does a person refuse to listen to their conscience?

Note: we already agreed that the conscience can be malformed or corrupted, so such a “searing”, meaning a non-functional conscience, is always possible.

Good night, I hope to get to the rest tomorrow morning!

 

[bsy]

1. Did he foresee what would happen?
2. Why did he return the money?
3. Why did he kill himself?
4. Did he regret what he did?
5. Could he have been possessed?

Hi tonyrey,

Going back to your original questions, .

Jesus in Matt 26:24 said, “…woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

Jn 12:6 “….because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.”

Judas was a sinful man right from the start. He became a follower of Christ because it posed as an opportunity to steal. He was there for the money.

Jn 13:27, “…Satan entered him.”

**Judas then succumbed to a great temptation - a sinister plot to betray Jesus by accepting a bribe. He must have thought that for certainty, Jesus would be able to escape persecution. **

Matt 27:3-4 “Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.”

**If Judas regretted his actions, why did Jesus not forgive him?

Jesus will always forgive a truly contrite heart. It was because Judas repented for the wrong reasons. He repented not to renew his friendship with Jesus, but he was afraid to suffer the consequence of his actions.

Counted among the curse, Judas returned his bribe. He must have thought that it may, in a way, alleviate his guilt, but despair became his constant companion; and hopelessness, his spouse. And, it ended in his gruesome death.**

---

 

[guanophore]

Like I said, “concupiscence” is a concept very poorly developed.

Actually you said that the passage I cited did not develop the concept fully. I did not have an argument with that, as it was only a small passage from the CCC. It is a concept quite well developed, beginning with the Scriptures and over the course of 2000 years. I know it will be difficult to incorporate the concept into your schema, but maybe it is time?

You saw the Msgr’s article, which was the opposite of what you were saying.

Not opposite at all. In fact, what he stated is quite consistent with the Church’s teaching, that strong desires captured by concupiscence do lead us into sin.

Jesus’ strong desire to save man is not concupiscence.

Or any of His other passions, or any of ours. Strong passions are not concupiscence.

Yes, Judas had a strong desire of some sort that blinded him to Jesus’ value.

Supposing Judas saw Jesus’ value? Supposing Judas wanted Jesus to take His earthly throne and demonstrate His kingship?

“Concupiscence” is poorly developed, as I stated. It is described as “strong desire”. However not all “strong desire” is concupiscence. Concupiscence, as best I can determine, pertains to strong desires associated with the appetites.

No, appetites are not concupiscence either. Adam and Eve and Jesus and Mary had them, all figures not afflicted by original sin. In Scripture, concupiscence is referred to as the “old man” or the “flesh”.

“But I say, walk by the Spirit, and do not gratify the desires of the flesh. 17For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh; for these are opposed to each other, to prevent you from doing what you would.”
Galatians 5:16–18

I proposed that formulation, though I’m sure it does not originate with me. Yes, Judas did a great evil, but the answer to whether or not he is “culpable” depends on what definition one uses. Is he “condemnable”, yes, but he is forgiven by God, so who condemns him? Is he responsible? Yes.

But his responsibility does not extend so far as that he willingly and knowningly rejected God?

Yes, people do evil, but they in themselves are not evil, nor are any of their motives, desires, and capacities.

When you say such things, it just seems to fly in the face of Scripture and the Teachings of the Church. Jesus addresed Peter as “Satan”, and identified Judas as “a devil”. Jesus spoke of human beings 'being evil" and “sons of the devil”. There just seems to be so many scriptures that need to be rejected for your assertion to be true, it boggles the mind.

However, the point of this part of the discussion was to determine if the human has a "bent state", and it seems to me now that we can agree that there is nothing about the human state that is "bent", but that humans do make grave errors.

No, OS, we do not agree on this point, because I espouse the teaching of the Church, which is that one of the consequences of the Fall is concupiscence (being bent). The tendency away from God was not created in humans (the opposite is true) but was joined to our natures at the time of the Fall.

Yes, there is a cost to holiness because a person divided against himself is not exactly whole.

The latter half of Romans 7 is an excellent description of this experience of being divided against oneself. The solution to the battle is found in Romans 8:1-2

That is so cool that you can decipher all the Greek! So, if the conscience is not actually “seared”, why does a person refuse to listen to their conscience?

Concupiscence! As James says, we are tempted by desire, and the sin that dwells in us pulls us toward evil.

13 Let no man, when he is tempted, say that he is tempted by God. For God is not a tempter of evils: and he tempteth no man.
14 But every man is tempted by his own concupiscence, being drawn away and allured.
15 Then, when concupiscence hath conceived, it bringeth forth sin. But sin, when it is completed, begetteth death.
16 Do not err, therefore, my dearest brethren. James 1:13–16

We may be drawn away and allured, but we CHOOSE not to listen. As Paul writes, the sin that dwells within…

James 1:13–16
Note: we already agreed that the conscience can be malformed or corrupted, so such a “searing”, meaning a non-functional conscience, is always possible.

No, the searing does not mean it is non-functional, just damaged. It can be healed as St. Paul attests in Rom 8:1-2

 

[tonyrey]

Thank you, bsy.

Going back to your original questions, .

Jesus in Matt 26:24 said, “…woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”

Jn 12:6 “….because he was a thief and held the money bag and used to steal the contributions.”

Judas was a sinful man right from the start. He became a follower of Christ because it posed as an opportunity to steal. He was there for the money.

I don’t think he would have endured hardships for three years just for the money which wasn’t a great amount!

Jn 13:27, “…Satan entered him.”

**Judas then succumbed to a great temptation - a sinister plot to betray Jesus by accepting a bribe. He must have thought that for certainty, Jesus would be able to escape persecution. **

Matt 27:3-4 “Then Judas, his betrayer, seeing that Jesus had been condemned, deeply regretted what he had done. He returned the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and elders, saying, “I have sinned in betraying innocent blood.”

It is certainly very difficult to avoid that conclusion which I share.

**If Judas regretted his actions, why did Jesus not forgive him?

Jesus will always forgive a truly contrite heart. It was because Judas repented for the wrong reasons. He repented not to renew his friendship with Jesus, but he was afraid to suffer the consequence of his actions.

Counted among the curse, Judas returned his bribe. He must have thought that it may, in a way, alleviate his guilt, but despair became his constant companion; and hopelessness, his spouse. And, it ended in his gruesome death.**

I believe Jesus did forgive him. He knew Judas hadn’t foreseen the outcome of his betrayal. He said “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do” on behalf of his executioners and it certainly applies to Judas. Otherwise he wouldn’t have hanged himself.

 

[OneSheep]

If Judas regretted his actions, why did Jesus not forgive him?

Thanks, bsy, for breaking the monotony.

I agree with Tony, the Gospel tells us that Jesus forgives. Do you have indication otherwise?

 

[guanophore]

I believe Jesus did forgive him. He knew Judas hadn’t foreseen the outcome of his betrayal. He said “Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do” on behalf of his executioners and it certainly applies to Judas. Otherwise he wouldn’t have hanged himself.

I am not sure what the connection is between Jesus forgiving Judas and hanging himself. “Otherwise he would not have hung himself”…why?
"not sure:

If Judas regretted his actions, why did Jesus not forgive him?

Jesus is Love itself, so He always forgives. People through pride or despair refuese to throw themselves upon His mercy.

Jesus will always forgive a truly contrite heart. It was because Judas repented for the wrong reasons. He repented not to renew his friendship with Jesus, but he was afraid to suffer the consequence of his actions.

Jesus forgives even those who do not repent, as you noted with his executioners.

He does not wait until we are contrite or repentant. While we were yet sinners, He died for us.

He forgives even when we repent for lesser reasons. This is what the sacrament of reconciliation is all about.

 

[Aloysium]

I think today’s first reading may shed some light on the OP:

Reading 1 Wis 2:1a, 12-22

The wicked said among themselves,
thinking not aright:
“Let us beset the just one, because he is obnoxious to us;
he sets himself against our doings,
Reproaches us for transgressions of the law
and charges us with violations of our training.
He professes to have knowledge of God
and styles himself a child of the LORD.
To us he is the censure of our thoughts;
merely to see him is a hardship for us,
Because his life is not like that of others,
and different are his ways.
He judges us debased;
he holds aloof from our paths as from things impure.
He calls blest the destiny of the just
and boasts that God is his Father.
Let us see whether his words be true;
let us find out what will happen to him.
For if the just one be the son of God, he will defend him
and deliver him from the hand of his foes.
With revilement and torture let us put him to the test
that we may have proof of his gentleness
and try his patience.
Let us condemn him to a shameful death;
for according to his own words, God will take care of him.”
These were their thoughts, but they erred;
for their wickedness blinded them,
and they knew not the hidden counsels of God;
neither did they count on a recompense of holiness
nor discern the innocent souls’ reward.