Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep,

I think we are coming nearer to the end of our interesting conversation. I may have found the true root of our disagreement. It is not the definition of “knowledge” nor whether a passion can blind one to the truth. You touched on it when you summarized my view as obedience. Essentially our difference lies in the way we approach sin and doctrine in the Church.

Your method (correct me if I don’t understand) relies upon several things. These include: experiences, observations, and reflections on sin and its source and implications in our moral lives. You consider your own experiences to inform your conscience and you evaluate your behavior in light of those experiences. You consider man to have been created by God with impulses, passions, reactions, and shortcomings that make full knowledge virtually impossible to attain. As a result, there is no mortal sin, no rejection of God, and no damnation. You interpret Church teaching primarily by using your common sense.

My method is quite different. I base mine primarily on the teachings of the Church. I study the scriptures, listen to the homilies, read from the Fathers of the Church. I investigate issues of interest and areas where I have weaknesses in my understanding. I do this to inform my conscience. I consider man to have been created by God as a good thing, but one with a free will that can lead to sin. I believe that mortal sin is possible, that it is a rejection of God and that it can cause damnation. I feel that God provided His law as a standard by which to judge our faithfulness. I follow Church teaching as given with little or no interpretation as the inerrant teaching revealed by God.

I believe the two different methods can be described as inward focus and outward focus. Inward focus is using God’s gifts of the human mind, heart and soul to arrive at judgments about sin and personal responsibility. Outward focus is based upon evaluating sources from outside of oneself such as the doctrines of the Church to arrive at these judgments.

I believe the method of outward focus that I describe is demonstrably better for making these important judgments. Man is seriously flawed. Our behavior is flawed and our thinking is flawed. We are easily misled by our temptations, passions, and desires. In order to overcome these obstacles to our salvation we must rely upon God’s loving gift of sanctifying grace and loving mercy. But God is also a God of justice and we will be held accountable by Him for our errors. To help us, God sends us all of the tools we need. Most importantly He sends the gift of the Holy Spirit to endow us with faith and grace and the Church through which He reveals His will to us.

The Church has been instituted by the Holy Soirit to guide us. It is the treasury of God’s revelations of His will. Through her traditions and interpretations of scriptures she is uniquely positioned to help us to our salvation since she was created to be inerrant in the areas of faith and morals. As flawed human beings we are called to rely upon her perfect wisdom in these areas and to have the obedience of faith to follow her teachings. Relying upon our own human understanding rather than upon the very will of God as expressed through the Church is to choose the judgment of a weak and fallible self over the supreme wisdom and understanding of God’s revelation.

CCC 1850 Sin is an offense against God… Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to the contempt of God.”

It is obligatory to follow the doctrine of the Church. Not because we can’t think for ourselves, but because reason tells us that the Church is the standard by which we can rightly judge our behavior, inform our conscience and follow God most perfectly.

CCC 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is **called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.**78

 

[OneSheep]

Enjoy! and don’t be concerned. I believe we have mutual respect or this conversation would be quite worthless.

C: Are you a practicing Catholic?
M: Sure!
C: Do you believe in the teachings of the Church?
M: Sure! What do you think! ? (Aggravated)
C: Who knows better what is right or wrong? God or us?
M: Why…God of course!
C: OK. The Church teaches us how to behave in a way pleasing to God?
M: Sure!
C: You know that having sex with that woman is adultery, right?
M: Yes…
C: And you know adultery is a mortal sin, right?
M: Well, yeah?
C: And you know that you can lose heaven when you commit mortal sin?
M: Yeah, they taught us that.
C: So, what does that tell you about what you are doing?
M: Well, I said I’d be in hell with all my buddies.
C: Ok. You understand. So be it!
M: But God wouldn’t do that!!!
C: Why not?
M: He loves me.
C: True enough! But that isn’t what changed.
M: What do you mean?
C: YOU STOPPED LOVING GOD! When you decided to have your affair you decided that you don’t have to obey God. What He is saying now is…I have a place prepared for you according to your desire. There you need never obey me.

More later!

M: I don’t care what you say, it isn’t true. I did not intend to stop loving God, and you have no right to say what my intentions were. What I am doing is right because I am free again, I am the happiest I have been in years; I am not satisfied with my marriage (blah, blah, he may insert here that his wife obviously doesn’t love him, that it is her fault, etc.). Something is not wrong just because the Church says its wrong. Besides, maybe there is no heaven or hell anyway. Maybe you just die. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing, I am not hurting anyone.

C: (?)

Keep trying, chefmom, you aren’t reaching him yet. The list of sins is not a random assortment, there are reasons why some acts are considered sins, and he doesn’t have a grip on why this act is sinful, he is far, far, from knowing the seriousness of his sin. For all his claims, he is a rather shallow individual, he does not appear to have much of a relationship with God. The law is not in his heart; it is only in his mind, and that is not enough.

He needs to see the pain he is causing, the harm he is causing, to truly know what he is doing. The people who hung Jesus did not see that they were causing harm, they perceived that they were destroying an evil.

A few months ago I was listening to CA radio, and there was a guy on there talking about how to engage and influence people on the subject of abortion. He explained that moralizing goes absolutely nowhere, that he simply presents the facts; the facts are on our side. People do not know what they are doing when they abort children, generally speaking. This is the same case here, chefmom, this man, for all the seeming “knowledge” of the rules, does not know what he is doing. Seeing “opposition to God’s law” is seeing the harm. This is the way that the conscience is informed, chefmom.

And isn’t that what this thread is about? Do you see, he doubts you, and he doubts the Church, and he even doubts God. He doesn’t “knowingly and willingly reject”. If he had such knowledge, to the degree that others do, then he wouldn’t be doing what he is doing. He is blind. Did you hear his nonchalance about going to hell with his friends? He has doubt about the whole of it.

 

[OneSheep]

chemomster:

CCC 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78

It is with sadness that I view this passage.

Gone are the days that we can even try to demand such respect and affection. This passage reflects a day in the Church where fear of God was rampant. I think we can agree that respect and affection must be earned, or at the very least not violated. We cannot make anyone love us.

People don’t believe in a wrathful God anymore, chefmom, and those who did had little understanding of God’s love. They were obedient without knowing what they were doing.

Do you see what I am saying? Cardinal Ratzinger wrote about the error of the idea of expiation. He said that the idea of expiation gives the false image of a “sinister god”.

So, the flip side of the discussion is, “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly obey God?” Arguably, if they are obeying a “sinister god”, they are not knowingly and willingly obeying God, but only a false depiction. My observation: yes, people do knowingly and willingly obey God, even if they misperceive God’s attitude. Even if people are following a false depiction, their intent is to follow. I do not observe blindness involved, though there may be a bit of ignorance. On the other hand, I am seeing some weakness in my conclusion. Perhaps it is best to say “People knowingly and willingly obey God to the degree that they know God, and to the degree that that they intend to obey.”

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep,

I think we are coming nearer to the end of our interesting conversation. I may have found the true root of our disagreement. It is not the definition of “knowledge” nor whether a passion can blind one to the truth. You touched on it when you summarized my view as obedience. Essentially our difference lies in the way we approach sin and doctrine in the Church.

Your method (correct me if I don’t understand) relies upon several things. These include: experiences, observations, and reflections on sin and its source and implications in our moral lives. You consider your own experiences to inform your conscience and you evaluate your behavior in light of those experiences. You consider man to have been created by God with impulses, passions, reactions, and shortcomings that make full knowledge virtually impossible to attain. As a result, there is no mortal sin, no rejection of God, and no damnation. You interpret Church teaching primarily by using your common sense.

Well, I think this is mostly “my method”, except that the word “method” sounds a bit to rational. I think that our conscience formation is much more at the gut level. True, we can “inform” our gut, but this takes time and discipline. For the most part, our gut reactions to sin are formed by experiencing harm; it is much more than a matter of educating the mind. (exception, perhaps, socio and psycopaths, those who have inability to empathize). Is there no damnation? Well, in my view, not from God. There is damnation from our conscience. Abba, though, loves us much more than our consciences do.

My method is quite different. I base mine primarily on the teachings of the Church. I study the scriptures, listen to the homilies, read from the Fathers of the Church. I investigate issues of interest and areas where I have weaknesses in my understanding. I do this to inform my conscience. I consider man to have been created by God as a good thing, but one with a free will that can lead to sin. I believe that mortal sin is possible, that it is a rejection of God and that it can cause damnation. I feel that God provided His law as a standard by which to judge our faithfulness. I follow Church teaching as given with little or no interpretation as the inerrant teaching revealed by God.

I believe the two different methods can be described as inward focus and outward focus. Inward focus is using God’s gifts of the human mind, heart and soul to arrive at judgments about sin and personal responsibility. Outward focus is based upon evaluating sources from outside of oneself such as the doctrines of the Church to arrive at these judgments.

I believe the method of outward focus that I describe is demonstrably better for making these important judgments. Man is seriously flawed. Our behavior is flawed and our thinking is flawed. We are easily misled by our temptations, passions, and desires. In order to overcome these obstacles to our salvation we must rely upon God’s loving gift of sanctifying grace and loving mercy. But God is also a God of justice and we will be held accountable by Him for our errors. To help us, God sends us all of the tools we need. Most importantly He sends the gift of the Holy Spirit to endow us with faith and grace and the Church through which He reveals His will to us.

The Church has been instituted by the Holy Soirit to guide us. It is the treasury of God’s revelations of His will. Through her traditions and interpretations of scriptures she is uniquely positioned to help us to our salvation since she was created to be inerrant in the areas of faith and morals. As flawed human beings we are called to rely upon her perfect wisdom in these areas and to have the obedience of faith to follow her teachings. Relying upon our own human understanding rather than upon the very will of God as expressed through the Church is to choose the judgment of a weak and fallible self over the supreme wisdom and understanding of God’s revelation.

Can we agree that both the inward and outward focus are valuable? Without an inward focus, then the law will never be “written in our hearts”, but only in our minds, and the mind is obviously subject to human shortcomings. Without an outward focus, the human has to learn everything from the school-of-hard-knocks, which can be fatal, and such focus is also subject to all of the shortcomings that come with our nature, including blindness and ignorance. For many pharisees, the law was written in their minds, but perhaps not in their hearts. They viewed the sinner with contempt, not empathy (I do this too, when I am blinded by resentment). Seeing the blindness of others, and ourselves, is a means to such empathy.

 

[OneSheep]

You are quite right to quote the church teachings

I know my thoughts aren’t what the church teaches. If I missed mass, but went during the week, I can’t think of the God I have come to know all my life as one that would exclude me from his presence when I die, because I didn’t attend a mass on sunday, but went to make up for it during the week…
Even if I died before making it to the weekday mass, I still trust God with all my heart that he would never turn his back on me.

Yes, simpleas, you are not intending to hurt your relationship with God. When we do “intend” to hurt our relationship with God, we do so without “knowing what we are doing” at a deeper level. A person who is suicidal or hates himself, for example, hasn’t a clue what he is doing. If she thinks “I don’t deserve heaven” she is self-resentful and blind.

Yes, simpleas, God loves us no matter what we do.

 

[chefmomster2]

M: I don’t care what you say, it isn’t true. I did not intend to stop loving God, and you have no right to say what my intentions were. What I am doing is right because I am free again, I am the happiest I have been in years; I am not satisfied with my marriage (blah, blah, he may insert here that his wife obviously doesn’t love him, that it is her fault, etc.). Something is not wrong just because the Church says its wrong. Besides, maybe there is no heaven or hell anyway. Maybe you just die. There is nothing wrong with what I am doing, I am not hurting anyone.

C: No, I cannot know your heart and God is the only and final judge. But, you did ask and as a Catholic **I have a duty to reply not according to my own opinions, but rather with the firm teaching of the Church **which we are told we must follow with the obedience of faith.

• Adultery is ALWAYS INTRINSICALLY EVIL. You know this. You acknowledged it in our first conversation.
• The ends never justify the means. It is choosing evil and a rejection of God’s law to commit an objectively evil act for “good”. You know this as a catechized practicing Catholic.
• The result of this act is a transitory and questionable good since it is selfishly aimed at yourself.
• Marriage which you entered sacramentally is a lifelong bond which has responsibilities defined in the doctrines of the Church. You assented freely to these renquirements at your wedding. Since you completed Pre-Cana you were fully knowledgable of this fact.
• In fact something IS wrong when the Church says it is wrong. The Church is infallible in its formal teaching on morals and faith. You know that as a practicing Catholic.
• As a Catholic we assert our faith every time we pray the creed. Among other things we state our belief in the judgment and eternal life. This is dogma that must be obeyed as a Catholic.
• You can’t possibly believe that you are hurting no one. Your wife is being hurt. That is obvious and you have already acknowledged it in our original conversation.

Prove your statements.

• Where does the Church state definitively that your personal sense of freedom and happiness take precedence over the sacramental marriage you vowed to live?
• Where does the Church state definitively that an unfulfilling marriage is grounds for committing adultery?
• Where does the Church state definitively that it does not teach infallibly?
• Where does the Church state definitively that there is no afterlife?
• By what objective measure are you judging behavior, if not the Church?

---

I replied since you asked, but the statements you claim the man made are not valid. You have not followed the characterization of the man that I gave in my initial description.

Let’s define our person as a cradle Catholic, practicing and with full sacraments. He went to catechism and generally strives to follow Christ. He has begun an adulterous affair with a Catholic co-worker. They met a year ago and they fought their mutual attraction for many months. They even talked about how terribly wrong having an affair would be. Eventually, though, they became involved.

You wanted an example case, so I’m going to hold you to it. The words you put in my character’s mouth are not aligned with his description.

M: I don’t care what you say, it isn’t true.

He might say this, but it can easily be shown through official Church documents that what I am stating here is officially taught by the Church.

I did not intend to stop loving God, and you have no right to say what my intentions were.

As a practicing Catholic, he knows the definition of sin. He knows that Christ said, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” Keeping the commandments demonstrates love and the converse, that breaking the commandments is rejection, is also true.

What I am doing is right because I am free again, I am the happiest I have been in years;

Not a chance! A practicing Catholic as I have described would not make this statement.

I am not satisfied with my marriage (blah, blah, he may insert here that his wife obviously doesn’t love him, that it is her fault, etc.).

He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! He was married in the Church with full pre-marital training. He would not say this.

Something is not wrong just because the Church says its wrong

.
He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! He would not say this except as a desperate attempt to excuse his behavior.

Besides, maybe there is no heaven or hell anyway. Maybe you just die.

He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! Why in the world would someone practice Catholicism or any other faith if they believed there was no afterlife? This is not a reasonable statement for this man to make.

There is nothing wrong with what I am doing, I am not hurting anyone.

He is a practicing Catholic! He knows it hurts people! Anybody knows this, for that matter! Jew, atheist, Protestant, whoever!

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep: chefmom, you aren’t reaching him yet.

He, as I stated in my previous post, is not responding true to character. Also, I don’t have to prove it to him. I have to show that in this scenario, he commits mortal sin. It is NOT ENOUGH for you to defend him through a series of opinions, observations or reflections. You need to provide proofs. In the same way, I need to provide proofs. I have proven through the use of official Church documents, that there are specific, applicable doctrinal statements of the Church that apply in his case.

The list of sins is not a random assortment, there are reasons why some acts are considered sins, and he doesn’t have a grip on why this act is sinful, he is far, far, from knowing the seriousness of his sin.

Prove your definition of knowledge. Define your own statement. * What EXACTLY does he need to know?* Prove that “knowledge” of “mortal sin” is defined in the way you declare rather than the way I have presented it.

For all his claims, he is a rather shallow individual, he does not appear to have much of a relationship with God. The law is not in his heart; it is only in his mind, and that is not enough.

Only in your statement which was not according to his stated character. He knows it is wrong. He fought it for many months. He discussed how wrong it was with his lady friend. He is a cradle Catholic and that has certainly informed his conscience and is clearly knowledgable as defined by the church.

He needs to see the pain he is causing, the harm he is causing, to truly know what he is doing. The people who hung Jesus did not see that they were causing harm, they perceived that they were destroying an evil.

Even if this were true, it does not apply. Your definition of knowledge is invalid.

A few months ago I was listening to CA radio, and there was a guy on there talking about how to engage and influence people on the subject of abortion. He explained that moralizing goes absolutely nowhere, that he simply presents the facts; the facts are on our side. People do not know what they are doing when they abort children, generally speaking. This is the same case here, chefmom, this man, for all the seeming “knowledge” of the rules, does not know what he is doing. Seeing “opposition to God’s law” is seeing the harm. This is the way that the conscience is informed, chefmom.

I couldn’t disagree more. Again, what specific knowledge are you demanding that our man MUST possess? Where do you find your definition of full knowledge? You must prove that your definition of knowledge is correct and that mine is wrong.

And isn’t that what this thread is about? Do you see, he doubts you, and he doubts the Church, and he even doubts God. He doesn’t “knowingly and willingly reject”. If he had such knowledge, to the degree that others do, then he wouldn’t be doing what he is doing. He is blind. Did you hear his nonchalance about going to hell with his friends? He has doubt about the whole of it.

No, it really isn’t. If he doubts church teaching and God on issues of faith and morals he is not in communion with the Church. This, ultimately, has the same effect as mortal sin itself.

Mortal sin is a doctrine of the Catholic Church. It is defined by the Church. It is to be followed by the Faithful. It is invalid to define the concepts of a Catholic belief in any way besides the way the Catholic Church defines it.

At best he is being obstinately ignorant, which makes his “ignorance” invalid. He has been told and obstinately refuses to accept it. He has self-induced blindness caused by his unwillingness to assent to the teachings of the Church. If he doesn’t believe me, that doesn’t matter. But he has a DUTY AND OBLIGATION to find out what the Church teaches for himself. If he does not do so, he is willfully ignorant, at best, and therefore culpable.

My point is to show that in at least this one case the person has mortally sinned. You are trying to prove he hasn’t. I am not trying to influence him to make him stop committing adultery. That would be an entirely different conversation. I am trying to prove that as a Catholic, using the laws defined by Christ and revealed through the Church, this man in our example has committed mortal sin.

 

[TEPO]

“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

Who cares…

Whatever the reason, we need to respect it.

 

[chefmomster2]

Gone are the days that we can even try to demand such respect and affection. This passage reflects a day in the Church where fear of God was rampant. I think we can agree that respect and affection must be earned, or at the very least not violated. We cannot make anyone love us.

This passage the most modern statement of official Church teaching. It is valid today. We are to have respect and affection for the leaders of the Church for Jesus’ sake not because of any personal qualities they have. Their teachings are to be respected since the teachings come from Christ through the revelations of the Holy Spirit. We are to have affection for them as representatives of Christ. We are to OBEY AND SUBMIT in a respectful and affectionate way because we have chosen to follow Christ as Catholic believers. We are asked by God to love everyone, even our enemies. Should we not then love our leaders of our chosen faith with at least this same spirit?

• Do you believe that as Catholics we must accept and follow the teaching of the Church?* Do you believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a teaching of the Church?* Do you believe that the Church is infallible when defining doctrine of faith and morals?

People don’t believe in a wrathful God anymore.

Nothing in the CCC statement reflects belief in a wrathful God. You also do a disservice to early peoples when you suggest that they trust and respect merely out of fear. Look at the expressions of love in the psalms for example. And, this is not blind love. The psalmist argues with God, makes demands of Him, and demands His help. The doctrine does assert that God is in authority over us. It says that we are to submit to His authority by submitting respectfully and affectionately to His Church.

God is a God of mercy and justice. Your statements all reflect the concept of mercy, but reject God’s justice. The Church through its official teachings outlines what we are to believe. They do this because God told the Apostles to go out and teach. They are lovingly transmitting this information to us so that we can attain heaven. Yes, a God of mercy might forgive all things by all people, but that is clearly not justice.

“People knowingly and willingly obey God to the degree that they know God, and to the degree that that they intend to obey.”

This is not the definition of the Church. We are told to love God with our whole heart, our whole mind and our whole soul and to love our neighbors as ourselves. When we do that we demonstrate an acceptance of God’s love. When we act contrary to the love of God we reject Him. When we act in a gravely unloving way, we reject God completely. The God of justice holds us responsible; the God of mercy is ready to forgive up until the moment of our death.

 

[chefmomster2]

I came across this information and it seemes connected with some of the discussions here.

Fundamental option is the fundamental choice we make for or against God. The theory holds that individual acts don’t change our fundamental orientation. It isn’t until we make a radical shift away from God that we lose the state of grace. Fundamental option theorists claim that one can commit acts such as adultery, homosexuality, and masturbation without changing one’s fundamental option. Some further claim that only a prolonged pattern of sinful behavior can do so. This belief minimizes the effects of mortal sin and its danger to the human soul.

Veritatis Splendor
Encyclical Regarding Certain Fundamental Questions of the Church’s Moral Teaching
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
In point of fact,** the morality of human acts is not deduced only from one’s intention, orientation or fundamental option…Judgments about morality cannot be made without taking into consideration whether or not the deliberate choice of a specific kind of behaviour is in conformity with the dignity and integral vocation of the human person. Every choice always implies a reference by the deliberate will to the goods and evils indicated by the natural law…prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation,…the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the “creativity” of any contrary determination whatsoever…the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.**

In point of fact, …With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law;…he loses…eternal happiness.

69…They insist that the opposition to God’s law which causes the loss of sanctifying grace and eternal damnation…could only be the result of an act which engages the person in his totality…Consequently,…it is difficult,…to accept the fact that a Christian, who wishes to remain united to Jesus Christ and to his Church, could so easily and repeatedly commit mortal sins,…The gravity of sin, they maintain, ought to be measured by…the freedom of the person performing an act, rather than by the matter of that act.

The separation of fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of behaviour…thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine on “mortal sin:” “With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will. This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter”.[118]

1. In this context, appropriate allowance is made both for “God’s mercy”…for the “understanding of human weakness.” ,Such understanding never means compromising and falsifying the standard of good and evil in order to adapt it to particular circumstances. It is quite human for the sinner to acknowledge his weakness and to ask mercy for his failings; what is unacceptable is the attitude of one who makes his own weakness the criterion of the truth about the good, so that he can feel self-justified, without even the need to have recourse to God and his mercy., An attitude of this sort corrupts the morality of society as a whole, since ,it encourages doubt about the objectivity of the moral law in general and a rejection of the absoluteness of moral prohibitions regarding specific human acts, and it ends up by confusing all judgments about values.,

Instead, we should take to heart the “message of the Gospel parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector” The tax collector might possibly have had some justification for the sins he committed, such as to diminish his responsibility. But his prayer does not dwell on such justifications, but rather on his own unworthiness before God’s infinite holiness…The Pharisee, on the other hand, is self-justified, finding some excuse for each of his failings. Here we encounter two different attitudes of the moral conscience of man in every age. The tax collector represents a “repentant” conscience, fully aware of the frailty of its own nature and seeing in its own failings, whatever their subjective justifications, a confirmation of its need for redemption. The Pharisee represents a “self-satisfied” conscience, under the illusion that it is able to observe the law without the help of grace and convinced that it does not need mercy.

1. All people must take great care not to allow themselves to be tainted by the attitude of the Pharisee, which would seek to eliminate awareness of one’s own limits and of one’s own sin. In our own day this attitude is expressed particularly in the attempt to adapt the moral norm to one’s own capacities and personal interests, and even in the rejection of the very idea of a norm.,

…moral theologians are called to develop a deeper understanding of the reasons underlying its teachings and to expound the validity and obligatory nature of the precepts it proposes,

1. …From the theological viewpoint, ,moral principles are not dependent upon the historical moment in which they are discovered. Moreover, the fact that some believers act without following the teachings of the Magisterium, or erroneously consider as morally correct a kind of behaviour declared by their Pastors as contrary to the law of God, cannot be a valid argument for rejecting the truth of the moral norms taught by the Church.,

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Chefmom, thanks for your response! I thought for a moment you were going to quit.

I replied since you asked, but the statements you claim the man made are not valid. You have not followed the characterization of the man that I gave in my initial description.

You wanted an example case, so I’m going to hold you to it. The words you put in my character’s mouth are not aligned with his description.

He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! He was married in the Church with full pre-marital training. He would not say this.

He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! He would not say this except as a desperate attempt to excuse his behavior.

He is a catechized, practicing Catholic! Why in the world would someone practice Catholicism or any other faith if they believed there was no afterlife? This is not a reasonable statement for this man to make.

Yes, he would say these things, because he is blind. He is not rational, his mind is conforming to his desire. And yes, despairing people not only say ridiculous things to cover their behavior, but they believe the things they say.

Okay, you are saying that the words I gave him do not conform to the aspects of the character you gave him. What I am saying is that with the aspects of the character you gave him, he simply would not commit adultery. Perfectly disciplined people do not sin. However, if you have directly experienced this person, in real life, you win!

But can you see the contradiction? You are saying that the man does not rationalize because he is incapable of blindness. This is not reality, chefmomster.

In order to confirm this, you could think of the times in your own past where you sinned. Were you totally cognizant of the hurt, the seriousness, of the sin? Was your conscience mechanism, your gut, saying “no”? If your gut was saying “no”, why did you sin? When humans choose, they choose for a reason; it is not necessarily a rational reason.

Since you are the guide of your fictional character’s reaction (who I am not defending, BTW!) let me ask a question, and you answer for him. Can we turn the tables a bit?

OneSheep: Dude, why are you doing this? You know that it is wrong, you are a married man. You are setting a poor example for your kids, and everyone else around. Why are you doing this?

Man: ?

He is a practicing Catholic! He knows it hurts people! Anybody knows this, for that matter! Jew, atheist, Protestant, whoever!

OneSheep: Man, why are you doing this even though you know you are hurting people?

Man: ?

 

[OneSheep]

At best he is being obstinately ignorant, which makes his “ignorance” invalid. He has been told and obstinately refuses to accept it. He has self-induced blindness caused by his unwillingness to assent to the teachings of the Church. If he doesn’t believe me, that doesn’t matter. But he has a DUTY AND OBLIGATION to find out what the Church teaches for himself. If he does not do so, he is willfully ignorant, at best, and therefore culpable.

Remember, IMO he is culpable regardless of what he says and why he does what he does. If he is willfully ignorant, the question goes as follows:

OneSheep: Why are you being willfully ignorant about this matter?

Man: ?

My point is to show that in at least this one case the person has mortally sinned. You are trying to prove he hasn’t. I am not trying to influence him to make him stop committing adultery. That would be an entirely different conversation. I am trying to prove that as a Catholic, using the laws defined by Christ and revealed through the Church, this man in our example has committed mortal sin.

In the case of the fictive man, who is to me a contradiction (you seem to be saying that the man has sinned without being capable of sin), then you have made your case. What I am saying is that the man does not exist. He is a super-human who sins for some unknown reason. This will all be clarified, I hope, in your version of the man’s responses.

The man is not doing what he ought. Why? Please, don’t say “he is not doing what he ought because he is not adhering to the law” or something like that. Why is he not adhering to the law even though he knows it?

I came across this information and it seemes connected with some of the discussions here.

…

1. …From the theological viewpoint, ,moral principles are not dependent upon the historical moment in which they are discovered. Moreover, the fact that some believers act without following the teachings of the Magisterium, or erroneously consider as morally correct a kind of behaviour declared by their Pastors as contrary to the law of God, cannot be a valid argument for rejecting the truth of the moral norms taught by the Church.,

.

We can totally agree on the “ought”. However, this thread is about what people do.

I am not saying that the sinner’s argument is valid. I am saying that the sinner’s argument comes from a position of ignorance and/or blindness. The sinner’s argument is understandable in light of such blindness or ignorance.

 

[OneSheep]

CCC 1269 Having become a member of the Church, the person baptized belongs no longer to himself, but to him who died and rose for us.76 From now on, he is called to be subject to others, to serve them in the communion of the Church, and to “obey and submit” to the Church’s leaders,77 holding them in respect and affection.78

This passage the most modern statement of official Church teaching. It is valid today. We are to have respect and affection for the leaders of the Church for Jesus’ sake not because of any personal qualities they have.

This is probably a bit off-topic, but I’ll address it quickly. I have respect and affection, real respect and affection, not because of a demand of such but because I am called to forgive those who I hold something against.

People do not simultaneously respect and have affection for those they detest, and making such respect a moral imperative only worsens the matter.

Catholic: You, you hierarchy, having moved priests around who molested my child, do not have my respect. You do not have my affection.

Hierarchy: It says right here in the CCC that you must have our respect and affection, and we demand it.

Do you see what I am saying? Such a demand goes nowhere. Instead, we are to encourage forgiveness. Humans respect when the respect is not violated, and have affection when the affection is not violated.

I ran a thread called “how to forgive child molesters”. Perhaps I need to run a thread on “How to forgive leaders who moved priests around rather than banishing child molesters from ministry”. Those leaders were ignorant. Those leaders did not knowingly and willingly reject God, no, they thought they were doing the right thing. Was there a bit of automatic denial involved, the denial that happens when a person desperately does not want to believe something? Yes, I believe so. Denial is not willful blindness, it is a reaction from the mind. Were the leaders aware they were in denial? Not likely. And even if they became aware, their minds would have desperately fought against truth. Do you see what I am saying? I am addressing and explaining what happens, not what ought to happen. The leaders did not know the seriousness of their sins.

Are we to have more respect and affection for the leaders than we do for a poor beggar on the street? For a person in prison? If I were pope, my answer would be “no”. So, as long as we are making commands for love, let them be all-inclusive.

Oh, and I apologize for not having addressed all of your individual comments and questions. Feel free to bring the ones forward that I have not addressed in some way that apply to the topic, PM me if you like. I am trying to cut down on the writing, and I am still not doing very well at that.

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep,

Here are my basic objections to your overall argument.

1. • The “blindness” you assign to people who commit seriously evil acts, does not exist automatically. The total and complete blindness you describe is rare.
   • It starts with the belief that mortal sin cannot occur and then reflects backwards to prove its own predetermined theory of blindness. This is the opposite of objective evaluation of the morality of the act. The act, if it is intrinsically evil, is automatically mortal sin. The person has committed mortal sin. This is the case in adultery. There is then an evaluation of whether or not the sinner is fully culpable, partially culpable, or inculpable.
   • It presumes the superiority of human judgment over God’s judgment. It relies on human thought, human evaluation, and human experience over the objective law of God.
   • It is dangerous. If one assumes that they cannot commit mortal sin because of their blindness, they will not be able to fully repent for the sin since they will be disavowing their willing consent to the act. If their view is wrong, and they are truly and fully culpable they risk it all.
   • It totally ignores all of the Catholics who are just as tempted, just as human and just as experienced who, despite all of these things, fight their human urges to follow the objective laws of God and the Church.
   • It relies completely on the mercy of God, while totally ignoring His justice. He is both!
   • It denies the possibility of ALL sin. All sin requires knowledge that the act is wrong and that they consent to it.
   • It espouses a sort of situational ethics which is inconsistent with Church teaching.
   • It ignores Church doctrine.
   • It ignores our duty to follow Church doctrine.
   • Judgment is a rational decision.
   • It denies the absolute connection between mortal sin and rejection of God.
   • If it does not “excuse”, then what does it do? If a person is not culpable it would not be just to punish them.
   These are still open questions:
   1. • Where does the Church state definitively that your personal sense of freedom and happiness take precedence over the sacramental marriage you vowed to live?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that an unfulfilling marriage is grounds for committing adultery?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that it does not teach infallibly?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that there is no afterlife?
      • By what objective measure are you judging behavior, if not the Church?
      • What EXACTLY does our man need to know? I need details.
      • Prove that “knowledge” of “mortal sin” is defined in the way you declare rather than the way I have presented it.
      And most importantly:
      **
      • Do you believe that as Catholics we must accept and follow the teaching of the Church?
      • Do you believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a teaching of the Church?
      • Do you believe that the Church is infallible when defining doctrine of faith and morals?
      **
      
      Finally.
      
      OneSheep: Man, why are you doing this even though you know you are hurting people?
      Man:
      
      Because I am weak. Because I neglected a very important part of the equation.
      When I first met the woman, I was warned by my conscience. I saw immediately that I was attracted to her. I had a duty to step away right then. Ultimately my sin became mortal at that point. I knew that my feelings could result in a sinful relationship. I knew that if it would, it would destroy my marriage, my wife, and my life. I knew that committing mortal sin would cause me to lose my relationship with God. I also knew that it would become harder and harder to resist her.
      
      Despite all of this reflection, I thought I was “immune” from temptation since I am a “good” Catholic. When I decided to stay in a situation of serious temptation, I became responsible for the outcome.
      
      OneSheep,
      You don’t need to answer all of this. I think we’ve been all around it and fleshed out our views. Perhaps we’ll just agree to disagree. I have enjoyed our discussion and getting to know you just a bit. I thank you for helping me to learn at a deeper level what I truly believe and why. That is always invaluable!
      
      :tiphat:

 

[chefmomster2]

Hierarchy: It says right here in the CCC that you must have our respect and affection, and we demand it.

We are NOT required to have respect or affection for evil acts, especially not for those perpetrated by people in positions of moral authority. We are not asked to respect all actions, beliefs or statements they might make. The men in the clergy are as fallible as any humans.

The requirement to respect and affection applies to the Church itself as given by Christ, and the doctrines of the Church as given by the revelations of the Holy Spirit. Unlike humans, they ARE infallible.

 

[OneSheep]

We are NOT required to have respect or affection for evil acts, especially not for those perpetrated by people in positions of moral authority. We are not asked to respect all actions, beliefs or statements they might make. The men in the clergy are as fallible as any humans.

The requirement to respect and affection applies to the Church itself as given by Christ, and the doctrines of the Church as given by the revelations of the Holy Spirit. Unlike humans, they ARE infallible.

What you are saying is “we ought separate people from their acts.” This is very, very difficult for people. The observer holds the adulterer in contempt. It is normal, and natural. Forgiveness is called for.

 

[chefmomster2]

What you are saying is “we ought separate people from their acts.” This is very, very difficult for people. The observer holds the adulterer in contempt. It is normal, and natural. Forgiveness is called for.

Normal, yes, but not the way Od Christianity. We are called to “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

As Christians we are called to a higher standard than “people”.

Whoever said Christianity was easy? It is incredibly difficult, but not impossible. Christ promised we would be persecuted, that we would have trials, and that we would be tested.

 

[OneSheep]

OneSheep,

Here are my basic objections to your overall argument.

1. • The “blindness” you assign to people who commit seriously evil acts, does not exist automatically. The total and complete blindness you describe is rare.
   • It starts with the belief that mortal sin cannot occur and then reflects backwards to prove its own predetermined theory of blindness. This is the opposite of objective evaluation of the morality of the act. The act, if it is intrinsically evil, is automatically mortal sin. The person has committed mortal sin. This is the case in adultery. There is then an evaluation of whether or not the sinner is fully culpable, partially culpable, or inculpable.
   • It presumes the superiority of human judgment over God’s judgment. It relies on human thought, human evaluation, and human experience over the objective law of God.
   • It is dangerous. If one assumes that they cannot commit mortal sin because of their blindness, they will not be able to fully repent for the sin since they will be disavowing their willing consent to the act. If their view is wrong, and they are truly and fully culpable they risk it all.
   • It totally ignores all of the Catholics who are just as tempted, just as human and just as experienced who, despite all of these things, fight their human urges to follow the objective laws of God and the Church.
   • It relies completely on the mercy of God, while totally ignoring His justice. He is both!
   • It denies the possibility of ALL sin. All sin requires knowledge that the act is wrong and that they consent to it.
   • It espouses a sort of situational ethics which is inconsistent with Church teaching.
   • It ignores Church doctrine.
   • It ignores our duty to follow Church doctrine.
   • Judgment is a rational decision.
   • It denies the absolute connection between mortal sin and rejection of God.
   • If it does not “excuse”, then what does it do? If a person is not culpable it would not be just to punish them.

1. 
   Well, chefmom, there are so many assumptions about me and what I have said that I am going to pass at the moment addressing them. I’m trying to stay on the topic. I understand your basis for the assumptions, but they are not correct. We agree on all of the “ought”. There are, though, natural consequences for our actions that cannot be escaped regardless of culpability.
   

   These are still open questions:
   

   1. • Where does the Church state definitively that your personal sense of freedom and happiness take precedence over the sacramental marriage you vowed to live?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that an unfulfilling marriage is grounds for committing adultery?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that it does not teach infallibly?
      • Where does the Church state definitively that there is no afterlife?
      • By what objective measure are you judging behavior, if not the Church?
      • What EXACTLY does our man need to know? I need details.
      • Prove that “knowledge” of “mortal sin” is defined in the way you declare rather than the way I have presented it.

   1. 
      

      And most importantly:
      **
      

      • Do you believe that as Catholics we must accept and follow the teaching of the Church?
      • Do you believe that the Catechism of the Catholic Church is a teaching of the Church?
      • Do you believe that the Church is infallible when defining doctrine of faith and morals?

      **
      
      Let’s put it this way. I say the creed with a clear conscience. The catechism is a living document, it evolves.
      
      As for the most pertinent part, I will address that tomorrow, I hope.

 

[chefmomster2]

I understand your basis for the assumptions, but they are not correct. We agree on all of the “ought”. There are, though, natural consequences for our actions that cannot be escaped regardless of culpability.

Agreed, as consequences and punishment are quite different things.

Let’s put it this way. I say the creed with a clear conscience. The catechism is a living document, it evolves.

I apologize if my questions seemed to imply that I question your faith. There has never been a doubt in my mind that your belief is sincere, deep, and loving.

 

[simpleas]

Normal, yes, but not the way Od Christianity. We are called to “Hate the sin, but love the sinner.”

As Christians we are called to a higher standard than “people”.

Whoever said Christianity was easy? It is incredibly difficult, but not impossible. Christ promised we would be persecuted, that we would have trials, and that we would be tested.

What does than “people” mean?

I’m sure you realise that even the most devote Catholic can commit a “mortal” sin?

No matter how well a person follows the church teaching they will do what they believe is right for them at some point in their life.