Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Amandil]

A final note from the Catechism:

"Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

I reiterate:

“…it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.”

Thus even someone who is “clouded” in their conscience still knows the moral law in their core being, in their heart.

 

[Aloysium]

A third person observer may assertain that a mentally ill person has knowingly and willingly rejected God, yes. The mentally ill person himself may say that he has .

However, whatever behavior he did that we describe as K&WRG probably involves one of the examples of ignorance I gave on post 617. And so my own observation would still remain that the K&WRG had not taken place. It is hard enough for a human to “know” very much about God. A mentally ill human? He would likely know even less about what he is doing.

Yes, such intervention may be appropriate, I agree.

There is no third person - there is only oneself and God.

If one has a mental illness wherein one’s mind and feelings say that one has sinned when one has not, then understanding and professional help should be sought.
When one sins, one shouldn’t go looking for any reasons. The explanation lies in our sinful nature.
Confessing, one will be done with it. It is gone, taken up by Christ on the cross.
If one does not repent, the sin will remain and fester.

Now, if you confess and feelings of guilt and shame persist, I would suggest then examining what are the causes of those feelings. The sin is gone.

The treatment of scrupulosity does not lie in the denial of sin. It is very likely that it could in fact contribute to the problem of guilt. The person would not truly free from sin, viewing it as ignorance, rather what it truly is - an offense toward God.

Confess and be done with it.

 

[oldcelt]

Some feel that it gives them a purpose in life…others are just rejecting a particular model and others interpret that as a total rejection.

 

[Vico]

…
Actually, what comprises a mortal sin depends on knowing the seriousness of the act, remember? …

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does teach on this issue.

The full knowledge necessary for mortal sin does not require knowledge of the gravity of the particular sin, only that is it not to be done, because it is sinful. CCC 1791 in particular addresses a free will rejection of God.IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61​

 

[simpleas]

From CCC :

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 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,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

I have much difficulty understanding that all sin is a person preferring themself over God. Some sins I could view as a person who believes they are a God by the control and evil acts they may commit against another person/s.(whether they believe this I can’t know)

What the CCC seems to say to me is that when a person sins they reject God and believe that they are superior even if they don’t realise it. So must we realise that we do indeed believe we are “better” than God at making a decision between what is Good or Evil, so we can take steps to alter our behaviour, or should we just already know (somehow) that something is offence to God and never commit the sin or aleast try never too?

 

[OneSheep]

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does teach on this issue.

The full knowledge necessary for mortal sin does not require knowledge of the gravity of the particular sin, only that is it not to be done, because it is sinful. CCC 1791 in particular addresses a free will rejection of God.IV. ERRONEOUS JUDGMENT

1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

So, yes, a person can be ignorant. He may have an uninformed conscience. In order to have an informed conscience, he would have to know the gravity of the sin. To me, there is a big difference between simple “knowledge of the rules” and “having an informed conscience”. If you equate the two, we can agree to disagree.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man "takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin."59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1792 Ignorance of Christ and his Gospel, bad example given by others, enslavement to one’s passions, assertion of a mistaken notion of autonomy of conscience, rejection of the Church’s authority and her teaching, lack of conversion and of charity: these can be at the source of errors of judgment in moral conduct.

1793 If - on the contrary - the ignorance is invincible, or the moral subject is not responsible for his erroneous judgment, the evil committed by the person cannot be imputed to him. It remains no less an evil, a privation, a disorder. One must therefore work to correct the errors of moral conscience.

1794 A good and pure conscience is enlightened by true faith, for charity proceeds at the same time "from a pure heart and a good conscience and sincere faith."60

The more a correct conscience prevails, the more do persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and try to be guided by objective standards of moral conduct.61​

Yes, charity proceeds. And yes, everyone is responsible for their sins. All of that makes sense!

All of the language concerning “vincible” and “invincible” ignorance doesn’t make much sense, and the only way to work that out is to apply an example. Ignorance is ignorance. Better worded, ignorance is a lack of awareness. What is are examples of “vincible” vs “invincible” ignorance? It seems to be less an application of defined terms and more a means by which nobody can “get away with murder”. But who cares about the “vincibleness”? Nobody should get away with murder, period. Everyone should be held accountable for the harm they do others.

 

[OneSheep]

From CCC :

1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight."122 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,"123 knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus "love of oneself even to contempt of God."124 In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.125

I have much difficulty understanding that all sin is a person preferring themself over God. Some sins I could view as a person who believes they are a God by the control and evil acts they may commit against another person/s.(whether they believe this I can’t know)

What the CCC seems to say to me is that when a person sins they reject God and believe that they are superior even if they don’t realise it. So must we realise that we do indeed believe we are “better” than God at making a decision between what is Good or Evil, so we can take steps to alter our behaviour, or should we just already know (somehow) that something is offence to God and never commit the sin or aleast try never too?

Wow, are we in sync this morning, dear. Or, let’s see, it is already 3 p.m. on your side of the pond!

Yes, the language of “preferring oneself over God” is not an existential approach, it seems to be a rather third-person evaluation. And yes, they would not realize it, so if the intent is not there, why describe sin in such a manner in the first place? This is not K&WRG.

Answer that makes sense: To motivate people to avoid sin. If a person knows little of God, but is living a life harmful to himself/others, then at the very least he should know that our omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, beneficent God says “this is harmful, don’t do it.”

So, yes, I agree, it is so that we alter our behavior. The conscience, to me, transforms the inner messages to condemnations and condonations. It rewards our good behaviors with “good” feelings, and punishes our bad behaviors with guilt. These responses from the conscience are “hard-wired”. We get real biochemical/neurological responses when our conscience is activated.

 

[OneSheep]

I answered your post with post 627.

Your claim simply holds no water.

Good morning, Amandil. First, let me reiterate my claim: My claim is that I have yet to observe an example of mortal sin, (or knowingly and willingly rejecting God) and I cannot come up with a scenario of such occurring.

You provided the example for investigation of a person “knowingly and willingly rejecting God”, in that you had chosen to be an atheist. You did not answer the questions on my post 624 in post 627, so I am going to copy and paste the post here. If you do not want to answer, that is fine, but it seems to me you have not “proven me wrong” when you are not addressing my questions. You may, indeed, “prove me wrong”, but that has not happened yet. Assertions do not “prove” anything, Amandil.

Originally Posted by Amandil:

Amandil:

Because I didn’t need to.

So, you did not care about God because you did not need to. At some point, you discovered that you needed to care?

My quote:

What motivated you to repent? That is the important thing. What did that motivation look like?
What was your reason to stop being an atheist? (This is all part of the same question.)

Your response:

Death, non-existence, the purposelessness of existence, and a desire to know the truth.

It sounds like you did not know the truth. It also sounds like you did not know God. What did you know of God?

This is a chance to really witness to the forum, Amandil. Tell me what happened in that you took the right path! Something happened that changed your mind. Praise God!

 

[OneSheep]

There is no third person - there is only oneself and God.

To clarify: The “third person” would be i.e. my evaluating that someone else has K&WRG. I would be the third person.

When one sins, one shouldn’t go looking for any reasons. The explanation lies in our sinful nature.

Well, the explanation lies in our good nature, which also has the capacity to motivate sin, but always with the factor of ignorance or blindness present. If we are to not look for the reasons for sin, we close our mind to the possibility of avoiding sin in the future by use of introspection and self-awareness. Are you against introspection and self awareness? If so, why? When it comes to sin, our minds naturally try to block our “going there” but such “going there” has been very enlightening to me. Like I said elsewhere, a priest once said to me, “it is not to condemn or condone, but understand”. Are you saying we are not to seek understanding?

Confessing, one will be done with it. It is gone, taken up by Christ on the cross.
If one does not repent, the sin will remain and fester.

Now, if you confess and feelings of guilt and shame persist, I would suggest then examining what are the causes of those feelings. The sin is gone.

The treatment of scrupulosity does not lie in the denial of sin. It is very likely that it could in fact contribute to the problem of guilt. The person would not truly free from sin, viewing it as ignorance, rather what it truly is - an offense toward God.

I agree, the treatment of scrupulosity does not lie in the denial of sin. The treatment of scrupulosity lies in a more mature level of forgiveness/reconciliation. When we are children, we are asked to forgive, to go to confession. Forgiveness lies in the simple “it is wrong to be mad at someone, don’t be mad at them anymore.” This works great for kids. They go to confession, and they find out that God isn’t mad at them anymore. All is well and good.

As adults, though, these simple formulas no longer work for many people. Guilt persists regardless of confession. Yes, confession “should be good enough” we can assert. It is not. The person has the nagging issue of not being able to forgive himself. It is my experience that real reconciliation within happens when we discover our core motives and perceptions, really dig in and evaluate why we do the bad things we do. It is a difficult path, one that involves a lot of painful admissions and humility, but it is a worthwhile endeavor. The result, with me, was a deeper level of forgiveness and reconciliation within
myself and between myself, and others, and God. I now see the goodness of God in everyone, in our very nature.

It did not happen over night, it took 2-3 weeks of intense prayer, meditation, and self reflection, and it was not permanent because other issues of the subconscious arose afterward. However, I repeat the process of understanding, forgiveness, and reconciliation, and I am back to a “wholeness” again.

So yes, it is good to seek a professional. I initially did not. I simply took to heart the words of the priest, and my eyes were opened in a profound way. Years later, I wanted to understand what psychotherapists do because I was investigating the possibility of the career. I went to a Catholic psychotherapist, told her my story, and she told me that I had gone through the same process she does with her own clients.

 

[OneSheep]

Sorry, Amandil. I skipped a bunch of stuff that I have already answered. Let’s agree that we differ on some definitions, okay? You are not “wrong”.

What you are “talking about” is in fact bearing false witness to Church teaching, no matter how well intended. You are in a position of incredulity(CCC 2089).

You answers are not “Catholic”, nor can they be for the simple fact that it violates the law of non-contradiction if nothing else.

Catholic Christianity holds to something called objective reality, OneSheep. It’s expositions of moral law are based upon objective moral truths, real right and wrong, not subjective and relative moral opinions such as yours.

Your idea to simply “make room” for such opinions as yours is nothing more than a contradiction of Jesus’ own teachings. You want to compromise the Faith for a feigned sentimentality. Your opinions are no different than that of Montanus, Donatus, Pelagius, & Arius, to Calvin and Luther and every other schismatic and heretic who wanted the Church to “make room” for their absurd opinions.

If the Church had done what you suggest, not only would it have abandoned it’s vocation, it would make Christianity an absurdity and would make God a liar.

I am going to pick up a question here that I asked on the other thread. I think it has its place here now.

So, if I am uncharitable to someone else, am I so hardened and indifferent? If I always assume the worst about the comments of the other, am I hardened and indifferent? The key point at the end of Matthew 25 is that God is in all of us, and how do we treat one another. Do we treat one another as we would God Himself? In my “righteousness” do I berate, belittle, and point fingers? When I do, I do so in ignorance. Do I treat everyone else as I would my own child, my own mother?

And since when are my moral truths any different than your own? Am I saying something immoral? Is there something immoral about trying to make sense of the faith, of life?

Or rather that my choice of atheism directly contradicts your position. I stand as proof that your assumptions are in fact incorrect.

My feelings are irrelevant. Although I regret my choice, I have confidence in God’s salvation as an objective reality that (thank God) doesn’t depend on some “warm fuzzies” to know that it is true. That’s called faith.

I am not going to contest your evaluation of yourself. I can explain my observation if you answer the questions on post 624.

As far as feelings being irrelevant, I think that you have done a fairly good job demonstrating that on this thread. To me, compassion involves being aware of people’s feelings, Amandil, and not considering them irrelevant, even your own. I asked in the very beginning if you have become a bit desensitized over the years, and you did not answer. Have you? Have you ever taken one of those “thinking vs feeling” tests? I think that you are way over the end on the “T”. That’s okay.

But know this, Amandil, when we do not consider feelings, we sound like, well…

1 Corinthians 13 New International Version (NIV)

13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,** but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.**

Let me add to this: “If I can point my fingers of righteousness with the greatest of accuracy and earnest, but have not love, I communicate nothing.”

Are you trying to communicate the Love of God?
Do you know how to be charitable?

My problem with your position is that you are

condoning. And apparently you don’t even possess the sense to see that you are doing it.
.

Possibly. What is it that I have condoned that you don’t like?

Bottom line of this post: Hear my request for charity. If you want to concentrate on a response, respond to post 624.

 

[davidv]

{snip}

Possibly. What is it that I have condoned that you don’t like?

Why do you think it is matter of like v. dislike?

Seems to me what is at issue is what is true v. untrue.

 

[OneSheep]

Why do you think it is matter of like v. dislike?

Seems to me what is at issue is what is true v. untrue.

Okay, David. Is there something I said that you think is untrue?

If so, name it, and we can evaluate it.

 

[davidv]

Okay, David. Is there something I said that you think is untrue?

If so, name it, and we can evaluate it.

See post #66.

OneSheep:

…The “full knowledge” never seems to be present in the instance of sin…

If this were true, all of the Church’s teaching on mortal sin, its effects, and mitigation are meaningless. None of the Church teahings are meaningless, so your statement above is untrue.

 

[Amandil]

Good morning, Amandil. First, let me reiterate my claim: My claim is that I have yet to observe an example of mortal sin, (or knowingly and willingly rejecting God) and I cannot come up with a scenario of such occurring.

And it is contradicted by reality. It can be rather difficult to observe something when you purposefully blind yourself to the evidence around you.

You provided the example for investigation of a person “knowingly and willingly rejecting God”, in that you had chosen to be an atheist. You did not answer the questions on my post 624 in post 627, so I am going to copy and paste the post here. If you do not want to answer, that is fine, but it seems to me you have not “proven me wrong” when you are not addressing my questions. You may, indeed, “prove me wrong”, but that has not happened yet. Assertions do not “prove” anything, Amandil.

:tsktsk: Atheism is a mortal sin, a violation of the first commandment.

I answered your question by citing the Catechism. Your insistence on refusing to consider this an answer is proof enough that you really don’t care to discuss it objectively at all.

It sounds like you did not know the truth. It also sounds like you did not know God. What did you know of God?

I’ll again reiterate from the Catechism:
“There are acts which, in and of themselves, independently of circumstances and intentions, are always gravely illicit by reason of their object…”

I did not need to know explicitly who God is to know that God is.

And by rejecting the fact that God is I committed a mortal sin(on top of the various mortal sins that I committed after that as well).

So your supposed “point” is moot.

This is a chance to really witness to the forum, Amandil. Tell me what happened in that you took the right path! Something happened that changed your mind. Praise God!

And what that was is irrelevant to the issue at hand and an attempt at a Red Herring by you.

 

[Amandil]

Sorry, Amandil. I skipped a bunch of stuff that I have already answered. Let’s agree that we differ on some definitions, okay? You are not “wrong”.

For the record, what you skipped are citations from the Catechism which prove that your opinions are incorrect and that you refuse to address them.

OneSheep:

I am going to pick up a question here that I asked on the other thread. I think it has its place here now.

So, if I am uncharitable to someone else, am I so hardened and indifferent? If I always assume the worst about the comments of the other, am I hardened and indifferent? The key point at the end of Matthew 25 is that God is in all of us, and how do we treat one another. Do we treat one another as we would God Himself? In my “righteousness” do I berate, belittle, and point fingers? When I do, I do so in ignorance. Do I treat everyone else as I would my own child, my own mother?

There is more than just one point being made at the end of Matthew 25, and none of them are mutually exclusive or more “key” than the others.

OneSheep:

And since when are my moral truths any different than your own? Am I saying something immoral? Is there something immoral about trying to make sense of the faith, of life?

You’re essentially saying that mortal sin doesn’t exist, or at least that nobody commits mortal sin. It takes a certain level of moral blindness to even make such a claim in the fact of the myriad of moral evils perpetrated by man on a daily basis.

So yes, there is something tragically immoral that you’d even suggest such a thing.

Christ was not so blind to deny the existence of sin. When He forgave He never said that there was no sin or that there was nothing to be forgiven. He in fact said, “go, and sin no more.”

OneSheep:

I am not going to contest your evaluation of yourself. I can explain my observation if you answer the questions on post 624.

Since you cannot contest it then I’ll take that as you ceding the point.

OneSheep:

As far as feelings being irrelevant, I think that you have done a fairly good job demonstrating that on this thread. To me, compassion involves being aware of people’s feelings, Amandil, and not considering them irrelevant, even your own.

Compassion is not involved in the choice of rejecting God, OneSheep. And it is not “compassionate” or loving to lie to people who are in a state of sin and say that what they are doing is not really sinful.

Love is ordered to objective universal goodness, not subjective “kindness” or “compassion”.

OneSheep:

Are you trying to communicate the Love of God?
Do you know how to be charitable?

I am communicating the Love of God accurately, which can be as bleeding heart liberal to those who truly desire Him in their weakness, or as hard as a 2x4 upside the head of those who are hardened and impenitent.

Christ is as hard-headed as He is soft hearted. That is what I emulate.

You only have seen my hard-headedness, and have mistakenly confused it with hard-heartedness, because that is what I have emphasized against your soft-headed ideas.

Loving sin for the sake of loving sinners is just as dangerous as hating sin by hating sinners.

OneSheep:

Possibly. What is it that I have condoned that you don’t like?

Mortal sin.

OneSheep:

Bottom line of this post: Hear my request for charity. If you want to concentrate on a response, respond to post 624.

Bottom line, I don’t need to because I already did. You can’t claim that I didn’t answer your question because I answered with something you didn’t anticipate.

You may not like the answer,but that’s your problem, not mine.

 

[OneSheep]

…The “full knowledge” never seems to be present in the instance of sin…

See post #66.

If this were true, all of the Church’s teaching on mortal sin, its effects, and mitigation are meaningless. None of the Church teahings are meaningless, so your statement above is untrue.

Actually, my saying that “full knowledge never seems to be present” is completely true, for me. It may very well seem to be present in someone else’ eyes. I was making an I-statement.

As far as the the “if this were true” aspect, what follows is not necessarily so, and does not negate the teachings on mortal sin. That is a slippery slope.

Are you afraid that if people realize they behave without full knowledge, they will sin more? That is an understandable reaction.

 

[davidv]

…The “full knowledge” never seems to be present in the instance of sin…

Actually, my saying that “full knowledge never seems to be present” is completely true, for me. It may very well seem to be present in someone else’ eyes. I was making an I-statement.

Except that you have projected your experience as a truth for all - this is the falsehood that some of us have objected to.

As far as the the “if this were true” aspect, what follows is not necessarily so, and does not negate the teachings on mortal sin. That is a slippery slope.

Please explain how, if there no possibilty of mortal sin, there is so much teaching on it.

Are you afraid that if people realize they behave without full knowledge, they will sin more? That is an understandable reaction.

I am not afraid. Why do you think so?

The problem is that what you define as full knowledge is in conflict with the the Church teaches.

 

[Vico]

So, yes, a person can be ignorant. He may have an uninformed conscience. In order to have an informed conscience, he would have to know the gravity of the sin. To me, there is a big difference between simple “knowledge of the rules” and “having an informed conscience”. If you equate the two, we can agree to disagree.

Yes, charity proceeds. And yes, everyone is responsible for their sins. All of that makes sense!

All of the language concerning “vincible” and “invincible” ignorance doesn’t make much sense, and the only way to work that out is to apply an example. Ignorance is ignorance. Better worded, ignorance is a lack of awareness. What is are examples of “vincible” vs “invincible” ignorance? It seems to be less an application of defined terms and more a means by which nobody can “get away with murder”. But who cares about the “vincibleness”? Nobody should get away with murder, period. Everyone should be held accountable for the harm they do others.

Vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance are different in that when vincible, it could be overcome through moral diligence.So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of “moral diligence”. This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence requisite must be commensurate with the importance of the affair in hand, and with the capacity of the agent, in a word such as a really sensible and prudent person would use under the circumstances. Furthermore, it must be remembered that the obligation mentioned above is to be interpreted strictly and exclusively as the duty incumbent on a man to do something, the precise object of which is the acquisition of the needed knowledge. In other words the mere fact that one is bound by some extrinsic title to do something the performance of which would have actually, though not necessarily, given the required information, is negligible. When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine.
newadvent.com/cathen/07648a.htm

“Full knowledge” does not mean of the gravity of the sin."Saying that mortal sin requires “full” knowledge and consent is a handy memory cue that may useful in catechesis, but it not a precise formulation of the kind one would get in a moral theology manual.

The kind of consent needed, more technically, is the degree of consent needed to make a fully human act. This does not mean saying, “Yes! I want to do something really evil!” and having no reticence about it. One can have misgivings, regrets, mixed feelings, et cetera and still give deliberate consent to an action.

Similarly, one does not have to know with metaphysical certitude that a given act is gravely sinful. Lesser degrees of knowledge will also count—again, the degree of knowledge needed for an authentically human act is the key. Indeed, someone might even be feigning ignorance or being hardhearted toward the evidence in such a way that he is responsible for knowing something even though he professes not to know it."

catholic.com/quickquestions/if-someone-is-unsure-about-whether-a-sin-is-mortal-or-not-doesnt-that-mean-it-isnt-mo

 

[OneSheep]

Except that you have projected your experience as a truth for all - this is the falsehood that some of us have objected to.

Well, we all project our experiences. We only have one frame of reference with which to see the world.

I am very careful and respectful about the use of “to me”. Have you noticed? Others have different ways of seeing the world, God, faith, etc and not only do I respect those ways but I accept them here as “Catholic”, I have yet to hear an opinion here that goes against Catholic teaching.

“To me” is not a falsehood in my opinion.

Please explain how, if there no possibilty of mortal sin, there is so much teaching on it.

I have never negated the possibility, because I am far from all-knowing. I just haven’t seen an example of mortal sin now that my relationship with God has grown in the direction that it has. As a teenager and before I was married, I would have agreed that people often K&WR God. After a lot of introspection, prayer, and soul-searching, I see things differently.
Was I “wrong” before? No. Though at first I blamed the Church, family, etc. for steering my thinking in the “wrong direction”, I have come to respect “where I was at”. I forgive the Church, family, society, institutions for the perspectives on world and life that I now find a bit lacking. I am in charge of my own spirituality, so to speak.

I choose God, and I love Him now more than ever. I see His goodness now more than ever.
That is the direction my journey has taken me.

Why does the Church spend so much emphasis on sin? Sin is harmful. Sin is depicted as offending God to motivate us to avoid it. It’s all for a good reason. To me, sin does not “offend God”. God knew that we would sin when He created us. I don’t see him as riding the up and down human reactions going from offense to forgiveness, etc. What makes sense to me is that He forgave us when He chose to create us, and He sent Christ to show us that love and forgiveness.

I am not afraid. Why do you think so?

I did not know one way or another, that was why I asked. It is very common to fear that people will sin more if people are more readily forgiven or understood.

The problem is that what you define as full knowledge is in conflict with the the Church teaches.

Not so. Just tonight, on Catholic Answers radio, I heard Patrick Madrid talking about application of “mortal sin” in much the same way I do. Culpability is up to God. There is much more to “full knowledge” than simply knowing the assertions.

If culpability is up to God, we can only speculate, none of us knows. However, each of us is going to have some “deep down” knowledge of how God reacts to us, to our sins, to our motives, etc. I see nothing but good intent from people, though I do see their ignorance and blindness. Does God see things differently? I cannot fathom that. I agree with St. Augustine’s “It is through the Spirit that we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” I share this perspective. I forgive those I hold anything against, and everything else falls into place around that. My whole perspective revolves around forgiveness of everyone, including myself.

Forgiveness is the path, it is the starting point for discussion about sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Vincible ignorance and invincible ignorance are different in that when vincible, it could be overcome through moral diligence.

So far as fixing human responsibility, the most important division of ignorance is that designated by the terms invincible and vincible. Ignorance is said to be invincible when a person is unable to rid himself of it notwithstanding the employment of moral diligence, that is, such as under the circumstances is, morally speaking, possible and obligatory. This manifestly includes the states of inadvertence, forgetfulness, etc. Such ignorance is obviously involuntary and therefore not imputable. On the other hand, ignorance is termed vincible if it can be dispelled by the use of "moral diligence". This certainly does not mean all possible effort; otherwise, as Ballerini naively says, we should have to have recourse to the pope in every instance. We may say, however, that the diligence .... When ignorance is deliberately aimed at and fostered, it is said to be affected, not because it is pretended, but rather because it is sought for by the agent so that he may not have to relinquish his purpose. Ignorance which practically no effort is made to dispel is termed crass or supine..

Yes, I have read the quasi-example in the catechism. It is too theoretical, not depicting an actual event. All ignorance can be overcome, but simply reading a list is not the same as informing the conscience. It takes much, much more for a conscience to be informed, it takes ownership of the reason. If a person simply follows the rules because they fear retribution from God, they are not behaving from an informed conscience, they are behaving out of fear.

The conscience is ultimately informed by love of others.

Can you come up with a real-life specific example that explains vincible vs invincible ignorance? In my observation, when a person purposefully avoids the kind of reflection and introspection that informs the conscience, he does so out of ignorance. Is such avoidance vincible or invimcible?

For example, there are people on this thread whose consciences allow for disrespectful, uncharitable language. Is this lack of respect the result of vincible ignorance or invincible? How can one evaluate such a thing? It is not in those individuals’ experience that such language is hurtful, they are perhaps not sensitive to the way that disrespect turns people off, that it pushes people away, that it does not communicate God’s unconditional love. Instead, it communicates lack of forgiveness. Disrespect communicates anger and resentment. Do such posters have crass or supine ignorance if they do not make an effort to dispel their ignorance? To me, the words “crass” and “supine” communicate resentment on the part of the person who uses them. More judgment, more opportunities for understanding and forgiveness. I forgive the disrespect; the labels about vincibilty, crassness, etc.only serve to subtract from understanding and empathy.

To me, this is not ignorance but blindness. Resentment automatically blinds us of the goodness of the object of resentment. Such blindness is very, very common. It is not chosen, it is triggered. People don’t decide, “I am going to feel resentment toward this person, and I am going to treat them like dirt.” Instead, the mind immediately dehumanizes the other, and the ill treatment proceeds from that.

Many people even deny that they ever resent anyone. Is denial chosen? Well, sort of, but not really. If we resent our own capacity to resent, then we may protect ourselves by denying that we ever feel resentment without even realizing that we have denied the fact of the emotion. I’ve done it plenty of times. It is an error. It is better to simply admit feelings of resentment, and follow with steps toward forgiveness.

“Full knowledge” does not mean of the gravity of the sin.

"Saying that mortal sin requires "full" knowledge and consent is a handy memory cue that may useful in catechesis, but it not a precise formulation of the kind one would get in a moral theology manual.

What I am saying is that when people sin, they do not know what they are doing. Ignorance is a necessary component of all sin. When people are aware, they do not sin.

The kind of consent needed, more technically, is the degree of consent needed to make a fully human act. This does not mean saying, "Yes! I want to do something really evil!" and having no reticence about it. One can have misgivings, regrets, mixed feelings, et cetera and still give deliberate consent to an action.

“needed”? Is that referring to qualifying as “mortal sin”? I’m a little confused here.

Similarly, one does not have to know with metaphysical certitude that a given act is gravely sinful. Lesser degrees of knowledge will also count—again, the degree of knowledge needed for an authentically human act is the key. Indeed, someone might even be feigning ignorance or being hardhearted toward the evidence in such a way that he is responsible for knowing something even though he professes not to know it."

What is a human act that is not authentic? I am confused here. Can you give an example?

Again, in my observations when people feign ignorance they do so out of ignorance, or they are trying to avoid consequence. If they are “hardhearted”, which is a difficult condition to pin down, they are probably inadvertently blinded. Again, it would be much better to work with a specific example.

I want to thank you for your respectful approach to me and the topic, Vico. Others that contest my approach are making the opposite opinion look bad because the delivery is uncharitable.