Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[davidv]

{snip}
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.

This is a clearly false statement. If someone truely does not know what they are doing, the can be no sin. This is clear in the Church’s definition of sin.

{snip}

 

[Vico]

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.

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.

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

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.

There are levels of vincible ignorance:

1. 
   *]**simple *
   **
   *]crass or **supine *
   **
   *]affected or deliberate
   • **Vincible ignorance, **unless affected, diminishes the moral responsibility of the agent.
   Authentic means not feigned so not affected or deliberate, above.
   
   Yes, the conscience is informed through charity. We must follow our conscience, but it must be informed, for example a Catholic heeds the teaching of the Magisterium. Rationalization is not acceptable. We eliminate affected by this required step. Contempt for moral law increases culpability (See CCC 1859).
   
   Here is one comment from Jimmy Akin on the topic (and link):"…those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis."
   catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

 

[OneSheep]

My quote:

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.

This is a clearly false statement. If someone truely does not know what they are doing, the can be no sin. This is clear in the Church’s definition of sin.

Thanks for your reply. I understand the “false statement” designation. I hope this clarifies.
I long ago changed my definition of sin to the second below, because otherwise the word “sin” would be meaningless to me. I apologize, I should have defined my terms.

If we are using the definition that sin is “knowingly and willingly…”, then I am saying that sin never occurs. If you disagree, okay. Provide an example!

If we are using a slightly different definition of sin, in that sin is doing what is harmful to the self or others, then sin does indeed occur, and occurs often. However, such sin still takes place with the necessary ingredient of blindness or lack of awareness.

.

 

[davidv]

My quote:

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.

Thanks for your reply. I understand the “false statement” designation. I hope this clarifies.
I long ago changed my definition of sin to the second below, because otherwise the word “sin” would be meaningless to me. I apologize, I should have defined my terms.

If we are using the definition that sin is “knowingly and willingly…”, then I am saying that sin never occurs. If you disagree, okay. Provide an example!

If we are using a slightly different definition of sin, in that sin is doing what is harmful to the self or others, then sin does indeed occur, and occurs often. However, such sin still takes place with the necessary ingredient of blindness or lack of awareness.

.

Why do you get to change the meaning of sin?

The Church is very clear what sin is and what its effect is.

 

[OneSheep]

There are levels of vincible ignorance:

1. 
   *]**simple *
   **
   *]crass or **supine *
   **
   *]affected or deliberate
   • **Vincible ignorance, **unless affected, diminishes the moral responsibility of the agent.
   Authentic means not feigned so not affected or deliberate, above.

1. 
   I’m sorry I am so slow-witted about all this, but I cannot make sense of any of it without a real example. If you are patient and care to explain it by applying these terms to a real-life situation, then I might be able to sort it out.
   
   When an act is “feigned” it may have a whole variety of motivations. When the act itself is hurtful, ignorance is involved. If ignorance is deliberate, ignorance (or blindness) is involved. All of this begs for an example. Would you like me to provide an example, and you tell me how all of these terms apply?
   

   Yes, the conscience is informed through charity. We must follow our conscience, but it must be informed, for example a Catholic heeds the teaching of the Magisterium. Rationalization is not acceptable. We eliminate affected by this required step. Contempt for moral law increases culpability (See CCC 1859).

   Here is one comment from Jimmy Akin on the topic (and link):"…those who have accepted the Catholic faith are in a special position concerning innocent ignorance. Vatican I taught that God gives special grace to those who have embraced the true faith so that they may persevere in it, “not deserting if he [God] be not deserted.” As a result of this special grace, “those who have received the faith under the teaching authority of the Church can never have a just reason to change this same faith or to reject it” (Dei Filius 3; ND 124, D 1794, DS 3014). This applies, of course, to those who have genuinely accepted the Catholic faith under the influence of the Magisterium, not those who—though baptized or received into the Church—never actually accepted the Catholic faith due to absent or grossly defective catechesis."
   catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=1203

   Well, people have their reasons for rejecting faith, and those reasons do not involve knowingly and willingly rejecting God, in my view. People also “accept” Catholic faith with an absent or grossly defective catechesis. Their rejection, later on, is done without knowing what they are doing.
   
   Do you see what I mean? People do not K&WR God. I have yet to find a counterexample. A person may say he has, but I don’t find that these hold up in my own scrutiny. I respect, and accept, though, the evaluation of others upon themselves.

 

[OneSheep]

Why do you get to change the meaning of sin?

The Church is very clear what sin is and what its effect is.

I did not “get to”.

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

So, sin defined as acts “hurtful to the self or others” works just fine. I am saying that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness, and the above definition does not rule that out. However, because sin has this necessary ingredient, **mortal sin does not seem to occur.

More clarification. I am a bit tired this morning.

 

[OneSheep]

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

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!

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 is a little unusual to answer the question why I did something by citing the CCC, is it not? I am not “refusing to consider”. I just don’t understand.

Let me try to understand. Are you saying that you read the CCC, and that is what changed your mind? And that is how you saw that you needed to care? Sorry, I am being a bit slow here. If so, what part of the CCC did you read that changed your thinking? Why did you decide to read the CCC as an atheist?

So, you did not know “that” there was a God while you were an atheist. Before you were an atheist, you did have some knowing of God. What did you know of God then?

And, by the way, I have done nothing to condone immorality. We can, though, understand immoral behavior. This is not condoning it. There is a very important distinction, one that many do not see.

Here is a way to start: Why do people sneeze? Such an evaluation is not likely to trigger condonation or condemnation from the conscience; we do not react to the reasons why people sneeze with some form of moral rejection. The same can be done, objectively, with immoral behavior. However, to begin to be “objective”, I must first address my moral reaction. If I feel resentful, I must forgive.

If I say “whatever the reason was, the behavior is to be complimented” because I really liked what someone did, then that, too, is an approach that does not seek understanding. Condonation in this case, however, is not really problematic, though, not in any example I have in mind now.

Now, if I may make a request. Before you send your next post, ask yourself, "Did I give Onesheep the benefit of the doubt on this? Am I treating Onesheep as I would my own son, daughter, mother? Am I being charitable? You do not have to do this, Amandil. I would just rather converse with someone who can speak charitably. I wasn’t going to respond this time at all, and you may have noticed I did not respond to much of your comments. The only reason I did respond is that this investigation is one worth having.

If you would like to drop the investigation altogether, I understand.

 

[Amandil]

I did not “get to”.

1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

So, sin defined as acts “hurtful to the self or others” works just fine. I am saying that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness, and the above definition does not rule that out. However, because sin has this necessary ingredient, **mortal sin does not seem to occur.

More clarification. I am a bit tired this morning.

What you fail to prove is that your idea of “ignorance and blindness” rules out the knowledge of the eternal moral law.

I have demonstrated time and again that neither ignorance or blindness can preclude everyone’s knowledge of the eternal moral law.

The Catechism affirms this.

So you’re off the rails on this, OneSheep. You have no real authoritative ground to stand on.

 

[Amandil]

It is a little unusual to answer the question why I did something by citing the CCC, is it not? I am not “refusing to consider”. I just don’t understand.

Let me try to understand. Are you saying that you read the CCC, and that is what changed your mind? And that is how you saw that you needed to care? Sorry, I am being a bit slow here. If so, what part of the CCC did you read that changed your thinking? Why did you decide to read the CCC as an atheist?

So, you did not know “that” there was a God while you were an atheist. Before you were an atheist, you did have some knowing of God. What did you know of God then?

I quoted the Catechism to point out that your question is ultimately irrelevant.

What part of “there are acts, independent of the intent and circumstances which are gravely illicit simply by the fact of the object chosen”, don’t you understand?

OneSheep:

And, by the way, I have done nothing to condone immorality. We can, though, understand immoral behavior. This is not condoning it. There is a very important distinction, one that many do not see.

Your version of “understanding” turns into the claim that immoral behavior doesn’t exist. Instead of recognizing sin as it actually is: sin. Which is precisely what Jesus did.

You’re instead saying that sin is non-existent.

OneSheep:

Here is a way to start: Why do people sneeze? Such an evaluation is not likely to trigger condonation or condemnation from the conscience; we do not react to the reasons why people sneeze with some form of moral rejection. The same can be done, objectively, with immoral behavior.

I think that it’s rather remarkable that you seem to be implying that something which is voluntary and diametrically opposed to our nature (such as sin)is comparable to sneezing which is natural and involuntary.

OneSheep:

I wasn’t going to respond this time at all, and you may have noticed I did not respond to much of your comments. The only reason I did respond is that this investigation is one worth having.

I wouldn’t have cared if you didn’t respond. But neither did I think you would refrain from it either. You seem to have some personal stake at pressing the issue even when you stand in contradiction with the Church. For whatever reason you want to believe that nobody commits a mortal sin. I not going to assume how that relates to you personally, I can only guess. And those guesses I’ll keep to myself.

Sorry but for the rest I simply don’t buy it. I think rather instead you didn’t respond to my points because there’s nothing to respond to. You’re simply off the rails at this point and now you’re just shirking the issue.

And I don’t think anything more needs to be said.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

CCC 1849 Sin is an offense against reason, truth, and right conscience; it is failure in genuine love for God and neighbor caused by a perverse attachment to certain goods. It wounds the nature of man and injures human solidarity. It has been defined as “an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law.”

So, sin defined as acts “hurtful to the self or others” works just fine. I am saying that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness, and the above definition does not rule that out. However, because sin has this necessary ingredient, **mortal sin does not seem to occur.

I’m entering this discussion late, so forgive me if I misread you.

I’m trying to locate where it says in the Catechism or in Scripture “that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness.” I’ve never heard that construction put upon sin. I do know that Plato through Socrates pretty much takes that position, but he has been refuted by Aquinas and the ordinary teachings of the Church. Then there is the principle of natural law, scriptural in both the OT and the NT, which declares that the law is written on our hearts, so how can we be ignorant of or blind to it?

Again, my apologies if I am interrupting without understanding the issue here.

 

[Vico]

I’m sorry I am so slow-witted about all this, but I cannot make sense of any of it without a real example. If you are patient and care to explain it by applying these terms to a real-life situation, then I might be able to sort it out.

When an act is “feigned” it may have a whole variety of motivations. When the act itself is hurtful, ignorance is involved. If ignorance is deliberate, ignorance (or blindness) is involved. All of this begs for an example. Would you like me to provide an example, and you tell me how all of these terms apply?

Well, people have their reasons for rejecting faith, and those reasons do not involve knowingly and willingly rejecting God, in my view. People also “accept” Catholic faith with an absent or grossly defective catechesis. Their rejection, later on, is done without knowing what they are doing.

Do you see what I mean? People do not K&WR God. I have yet to find a counterexample. A person may say he has, but I don’t find that these hold up in my own scrutiny. I respect, and accept, though, the evaluation of others upon themselves.

Catechism
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.
You have real examples given in the scriptures. The* individual* does not define what constitutes a rejection of God. Clearly people do willing sin by doing an immoral act against their conscience, or against the teaching of the Church, and it is imputable. The first example is that of Adam and Eve.

A person learns that some act is not to be done because it is sinful, and does it anyway because it offers some advantage. The person may learn from the Church, or from conscience.

A Catholic has been taught that abortion is wrong, and procures it anyway. Same for direct sterilization, which is always wrong. CCC 2271 “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”
Below, St. Peter teaches on the condemned and how that happened.*2 Peter 2
*4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment; 5 and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world; 6 and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah [to destruction], reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless [people] of what is coming; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people 8 (for day after day that righteous man living among them was tormented in his righteous soul at the lawless deeds that he saw and heard), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who follow the flesh with its depraved desire and show contempt for lordship.

 

[OneSheep]

I’m entering this discussion late, so forgive me if I misread you.

I’m trying to locate where it says in the Catechism or in Scripture “that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness.” I’ve never heard that construction put upon sin. I do know that Plato through Socrates pretty much takes that position, but he has been refuted by Aquinas and the ordinary teachings of the Church.

No problem entering the discussion. It would be a relief to interact with someone who begins with such humility. Thanks.
Fascinating. I had never heard that Plato and Socrates took the same position. I would love to see Aquinas’ refutation. Where can I find it?
I reached the conclusion through forgiveness and introspection, through prayer.

Then there is the principle of natural law, scriptural in both the OT and the NT, which declares that the law is written on our hearts, so how can we be ignorant of or blind to it?

Again, my apologies if I am interrupting without understanding the issue here.

Again, no problem, and thank you. So, when you ask the question “how?”, are you looking for examples, or are you asking for the actual semantics of the occurrence of blindness or ignorance? (Like, what is going on in the mind?)

 

[OneSheep]

Catechism
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.
You have real examples given in the scriptures. The* individual* does not define what constitutes a rejection of God. Clearly people do willing sin by doing an immoral act against their conscience, or against the teaching of the Church, and it is imputable. The first example is that of Adam and Eve.

Thanks for your reply, and willingness to discuss examples.

We can discuss Adam and Eve, but the problem is that the discussion can come to the point where it is determined that the two were omniscient. If we can agree that A&E were ordinary folks, not omniscient, then we can investigate their example. Shall we?

“Culpable” is an interesting word. To many, it means “condemnable”. “Culpable”, in my book, means “to be held responsible”. Everyone should be held responsible for what they do; all of us have control of our own behaviors. So, I don’t see this thread as a matter of addressing responsibility. I think we can all agree that we are to be held accountable for our behaviors. What God does with that account is a different question. What this thread addresses is “What is the account?” “Why do people sin?”

A person learns that some act is not to be done because it is sinful, and does it anyway because it offers some advantage. The person may learn from the Church, or from conscience.

In my viewing, the “learning” you are talking about is the informing of the conscience. We can hear what the Church says and “abide by the rules” but there are levels of ownership that take place. For example, a person who has experienced something being taken from him is going to have more of a “gut reaction”, an emotional reaction, to the thought of stealing something from someone else. It becomes less of an issue as to “it is wrong because the Church says its wrong” and more of an issue of “it is wrong because it is hurtful to others.” The latter describes a more fully informed conscience, it is a formation that involves empathy and love of others.

I am not saying that the human is born an “empty slate”. I am saying that it takes experience to have the conscience “formed”; conscience formation is more that just “knowing”. It is a deeper “knowing”, one that involves ownership.

A Catholic has been taught that abortion is wrong, and procures it anyway. Same for direct sterilization, which is always wrong. CCC 2271 “Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.”

Thanks for providing the example. Growing up, my Mother explained that abortion was okay, but the Church said it was wrong. So, even when I confirmed my faith, I took lightly the rules about abortion. It wasn’t until I saw the videos of abortion and understood the humanity of the unborn that “abortion is wrong” was incorporated in my conscience. Then, when I realized how ignorant I had been, I became quite zealous!

Below, St. Peter teaches on the condemned and how that happened.*2 Peter 2
*4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but condemned them to the chains of Tartarus and handed them over to be kept for judgment; 5 and if he did not spare the ancient world, even though he preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, together with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the godless world; 6 and if he condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah [to destruction], reducing them to ashes, making them an example for the godless [people] of what is coming; 7 and if he rescued Lot, a righteous man oppressed by the licentious conduct of unprincipled people 8 (for day after day that righteous man living among them was tormented in his righteous soul at the lawless deeds that he saw and heard), 9 then the Lord knows how to rescue the devout from trial and to keep the unrighteous under punishment for the day of judgment, 10 and especially those who follow the flesh with its depraved desire and show contempt for lordship.

I don’t believe that God punishes people in this way, but that is another topic. The Abba I know does not condemn people; He forgives people. However, I think we are working on the nature of man on this thread, not the nature of God.

I’d be happy to discuss it with you, but we may become a bit scattered in discussion.

Thanks again for your reply!

 

[davidv]

No problem entering the discussion. It would be a relief to interact with someone who begins with such humility. Thanks.
Fascinating. I had never heard that Plato and Socrates took the same position. I would love to see Aquinas’ refutation. Where can I find it?
I reached the conclusion through forgiveness and introspection, through prayer.

How does this point out where in the CCC or Scripture, ignorance or blindness is required for sin?

Originally Posted by Charlemagne III View Post
I’m entering this discussion late, so forgive me if I misread you.

I’m trying to locate where it says in the Catechism or in Scripture “that sin occurs with the necessary ingredient of ignorance or blindness.” I’ve never heard that construction put upon sin. I do know that Plato through Socrates pretty much takes that position, but he has been refuted by Aquinas and the ordinary teachings of the Church.

Again, no problem, and thank you. So, when you ask the question “how?”, are you looking for examples, or are you asking for the actual semantics of the occurrence of blindness or ignorance? (Like, what is going on in the mind?)

I think you misunderstood Charlemagne III’s post.

 

[OneSheep]

I quoted the Catechism to point out that your question is ultimately irrelevant.

What part of “there are acts, independent of the intent and circumstances which are gravely illicit simply by the fact of the object chosen”, don’t you understand?

Your version of “understanding” turns into the claim that immoral behavior doesn’t exist. Instead of recognizing sin as it actually is: sin. Which is precisely what Jesus did.

You’re instead saying that sin is non-existent.

I think that it’s rather remarkable that you seem to be implying that something which is voluntary and diametrically opposed to our nature (such as sin)is comparable to sneezing which is natural and involuntary.

I wouldn’t have cared if you didn’t respond. But neither did I think you would refrain from it either. You seem to have some personal stake at pressing the issue even when you stand in contradiction with the Church. For whatever reason you want to believe that nobody commits a mortal sin. I not going to assume how that relates to you personally, I can only guess. And those guesses I’ll keep to myself.

Sorry but for the rest I simply don’t buy it. I think rather instead you didn’t respond to my points because there’s nothing to respond to. You’re simply off the rails at this point and now you’re just shirking the issue.

And I don’t think anything more needs to be said.

I have great temptation to respond to all of your false assumptions about me and my beliefs, but I asked you to speak to me as if you are addressing your mother or your children. I hear you, you are not “buying” the part you deleted from my post, you are denying my request for charity. I don’t think you are open to any advice from me concerning how to be charitable, so I do suggest that you show your responses to me to a priest or someone you know is charitable, and try to get some advice about how to be kind.

There is nothing in the CCC that says that we are not to seek understanding human behavior. St Augustine does so in Confessions in the chapter “Why men sin”. He did not quote the CCC in answering the question, he simply addressed it. It is a very worthwhile endeavor, but it sounds like you do not want to participate. I accept your decision.

In the mean time, I hope you forgive me. I forgive you for your words, I sincerely believe that you do not know what you are doing; you do not know who you are talking to.

God bless you, Amandil! May God bless your family, and may he continue to guide all of us to the truth. May He make your days peaceful and gentle, may He shower you with kindness and mercy!

 

[OneSheep]

How does this point out where in the CCC or Scripture, ignorance or blindness is required for sin?

I’m sorry, David, I need to clarify more. Did I use the word “required” somewhere? I never meant it in that way. What I am saying is that people only exhibit hurtful behavior, sin, when they are either ignorant or blind. I think I used the words “necessary ingredient”. I have never seen sin happen unless the violator is blind or ignorant. I am really having trouble getting my point across; this is not because of your reading, it is because of my writing.

I think you misunderstood Charlemagne III’s post.

Quite possible, that is why I asked questions.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

I would love to see Aquinas’ refutation. Where can I find it?

This from the Summa Theologica:

“Hence he (Socrates) maintained that as long as man is in possession of knowledge, he cannot sin; and that every one who sins, does so through ignorance. Now this is based on a false supposition. Because the appetitive faculty obeys the reason, not blindly, but with a certain power of opposition; wherefore the Philosopher says 5 that “reason commands the appetitive faculty by a politic power,” whereby a man rules over subjects that are free, having a certain right of opposition. Hence Augustine says on Ps. 118 6 that “sometimes we understand [what is right] while desire is slow, or follows not at all,” in so far as the habits or passions of the appetitive faculty cause the use of reason to be impeded in some particular action. And in this way, there is some truth in the saying of Socrates that so long as a man is in possession of knowledge he does not sin: provided, however, that this knowledge is made to include the use of reason in this individual act of choice. Accordingly for a man to do a good deed, it is requisite not only that his reason be well disposed by means of a habit of intellectual virtue; but also that his appetite be well disposed by means of a habit of moral virtue. And so moral differs from intellectual virtue, even as the appetite differs from the reason. Hence just as the appetite is the principle of human acts, in so far as it partakes of reason, so are moral habits to be considered virtues in so far as they are in conformity with reason.”

 

[davidv]

I’m sorry, David, I need to clarify more. Did I use the word “required” somewhere?

Yes, by saying it is necessary.

I never meant it in that way. What I am saying is that people only exhibit hurtful behavior, sin, when they are either ignorant or blind. I think I used the words “necessary ingredient”. I have never seen sin happen unless the violator is blind or ignorant. I am really having trouble getting my point across; this is not because of your reading, it is because of my writing.

If ignorance or blindness is necessary, and they do not exist, how can there be sin?

Quite possible, that is why I asked questions.

 

[Amandil]

I have great temptation to respond to all of your false assumptions about me and my beliefs, but I asked you to speak to me as if you are addressing your mother or your children.

This is precisely how I would speak to either if they were saying the nonsense which you are.

My approach is no less loving than yours.

OneSheep:

I hear you, you are not “buying” the part you deleted from my post, you are denying my request for charity.

No. Your “request for charity” is a smokescreen and a red herring. You’ve pinned yourself into a corner and now you’re trying to squirm out by making this about me and not the failures of your position.

OneSheep:

I don’t think you are open to any advice from me concerning how to be charitable, so I do suggest that you show your responses to me to a priest or someone you know is charitable, and try to get some advice about how to be kind.

You’re confusing charity with kindness.

Charity is defined as desiring the highest good of the beloved. It may involve kindness, or it may involve frank, honest, and curt rebuke of someone’s foolish behavior or beliefs.

FYI I showed your comments and my responses to a priest. He said that I shouldn’t have dialogue with you at all.

Not because anything that I said was wrong or uncharitable, but because your opinions and what you profess to believe is itself for you and occasion for sin

That said, I believe that I’ll take his advice. God bless.

There is nothing in the CCC that says that we are not to seek understanding human behavior. St Augustine does so in Confessions in the chapter “Why men sin”. He did not quote the CCC in answering the question, he simply addressed it. It is a very worthwhile endeavor, but it sounds like you do not want to participate. I accept your decision.

In the mean time, I hope you forgive me. I forgive you for your words, I sincerely believe that you do not know what you are doing; you do not know who you are talking to.

God bless you, Amandil! May God bless your family, and may he continue to guide all of us to the truth. May He make your days peaceful and gentle, may He shower you with kindness and mercy!

 

[OneSheep]

FYI I showed your comments and my responses to a priest. He said that I shouldn’t have dialogue with you at all.

Not because anything that I said was wrong or uncharitable, but because your opinions and what you profess to believe is itself for you and occasion for sin

Feel free to have your priest contact me and he can explain where my sin is.

A Sister I love says “See? When I point my finger like this (she holds her hand like a pistol) see, there are three fingers pointing back at me.” She is a feisty old Italian, she, like me, knows what it is like to have a big beam in her eye.