Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Yes, by saying it is necessary.
If ignorance or blindness is necessary, and they do not exist, how can there be sin?

Ignorance and blindness do occur, and occur often.

When I said “necessary”, I meant that people will not harm themselves or others unless they are doing so with blindness or ignorance. With perfect conscience, in the absence of blindness, in my view, sin would not occur. I have yet to find an example of such occurrence.

Thanks, and feel free to provide an example of someone “knowingly and willingly rejecting” God, and we can investigate. Feel free to provide a fictive scenario.

 

[Vico]

… 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? … What this thread addresses is “What is the account?” “Why do people sin?” … 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. …

God does forgive, if one is contrite, but there is more than forgiveness involved, as sin brings punishments that are not eternal, and also may bring eternal punishment. Some people do not like to use the term punishment and instead use the term consequences. Either way, these effects result from a person’s sinful actions.

The point of the previous post was to provide an example or more of imputable sins, not the concept of “punishment”. It is not an issue of dispute that sin entered the world through Adam or that the fallen angels are in chains awaiting the judgment, or that there was destruction as a result of the sins of many prior to the flood. Any sin is uncharitable, which is a rejection of God, and a person does not have to conceive of it that was for it to be a rejection.

Really the earlier post was not addressed yet by you, specifically, about what is meant by full knowledge. A person can be culpable because of neglect.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/quickquestio…ean-it-isnt-mo
If this discussion moves to Adam’s transgression, then it necessarily requires an understanding of what the Church has taught dogmatically on original sin at Trent, and it also provides the answer to why people sin.

The Catholic Catechism provides that they lost holiness and became afraid:399 Scripture portrays the tragic consequences of this first disobedience. Adam and Eve immediately lose the grace of original holiness. 280 They become afraid of the God of whom they have conceived a distorted image - that of a God jealous of his prerogatives. 281

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin, as St. Paul affirms: “By one man’s disobedience many (that is, all men) were made sinners”: “sin came into the world through one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all men sinned.” 289 The Apostle contrasts the universality of sin and death with the universality of salvation in Christ. “Then as one man’s trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man’s act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men.” 290

407 The doctrine of original sin, closely connected with that of redemption by Christ, provides lucid discernment of man’s situation and activity in the world. By our first parents’ sin, the devil has acquired a certain domination over man, even though man remains free. Original sin entails “captivity under the power of him who thenceforth had the power of death, that is, the devil”. 298 Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action 299 and morals.

Densinger
Council of Trent 1545-1563, Session v (June 17, 1546)
Decree On Original Sin *

788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost his holiness and the justice in which he had been established, and that he incurred through the offense of that prevarication the wrath and indignation of God and hence the death with which God had previously threatened him, and with death captivity under his power, who thenceforth “had the empire of death” [Heb. 2:14], that is of the devil, and that through that offense of prevarication the entire Adam was transformed in body and soul for the worse [see n. 174], let him be anathema.

 

[OneSheep]

Wow, Charlemagne, thanks! I need to order “Aquinas for dummies” some day. His work is so tedious for me to read.

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,…

This is Aquinas’ observation, that the appetitive faculty obeys reason. However, reason is a secondary occurrence in the mind. The appetites work much more quickly. As soon as we apply “reason” to the whole phenomenon of how the mind reacts, we have gone beyond the primary gut reaction.

So, given that Aquinas was speaking from a position of reason, beyond the gut reaction, it is natural for him to assert that the appetitive faculy obeys all reason. But sciences of the mind have proven that our gut reactions are much faster, and they do influence the frontal lobes. A person has to recognize this influence and move beyond resentment, anger, and so forth in order to be objective. In brief, the person must forgive in order to have purity in their 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.

Again, that “reason” is only in its purist form when reconciliation within and without has occurred. Until then, resentment blinds us. In addition, desire blinds us. A person would have to first recognize that they have a particular desire, and then let go of the desire before their mind is capable of “free” reason.

For example, if my desire is to win an argument, my desire to win may trump my openness to the other point of view, which is unreasonable and that would be my loss. The “winning” blinds me to the valuable (name removed by moderator)ut from others.

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.

Why would one exclude this provision? If a person is not using reason in their choice, they are choosing from a position of ignorance. To me, it goes without saying. Absent “use of reason”, we have ignorance. I must be missing something here. I work better with examples!

Reason and conscience, yes. Well-informed conscience

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."

Hmmm. An “appetite to be “well-disposed” by habit of moral virtue”. In order for such a habit to form, the person would have to have a well-formed conscience and have overcome a lot of ignorance. In addition, the person would have to be immune from blindness in order for there to never be an occurrence of sin in the area of concern, or be highly skilled in dealing with such blindness. Lack of such skill, and lack of a well-formed conscience, are all matters of ignorance/lack of awareness.

So, I agree with Socrates, and to me, Aquinas appears to agree with him also. I don’t understand why the provision he mentioned would be excluded. To me, we cannot exclude either reason or a well-informed conscience from “knowingly and willingly”.

Thanks again! Fascinating stuff!

 

[davidv]

Ignorance and blindness do occur, and occur often.

Why is how often something happens relevant?

When I said “necessary”, I meant that people will not harm themselves or others unless they are doing so with blindness or ignorance.

This is plainly false. Else, there would be no criminal offense call premeditated murder.

With perfect conscience, in the absence of blindness, in my view, sin would not occur.

You have yet to show that this consistent with Church teaching.

I have yet to find an example of such occurrence.

Then I will presume your experience is severely limited.

Thanks, and feel free to provide an example of someone “knowingly and willingly rejecting” God, and we can investigate. Feel free to provide a fictive scenario.

This has already been provided and was rejected by you.

 

[OneSheep]

Why is how often something happens relevant?
This is plainly false. Else, there would be no criminal offense call premeditated murder.

You have yet to show that this consistent with Church teaching.

Then I will presume your experience is severely limited.

This has already been provided and was rejected by you.

Hi David, thanks again for responding. How often something occurs is not relevant, it is an observation.

Premeditated murder happens only if the perpetrator is blind or ignorant. If you like, present a counterexample. If have yet to find one.

Based on Charlemagne’s post on Aquinas, A. seems to agree with what I am saying; with a perfect conscience, in the absence of blindness, sin would not occur.

Wow, perhaps my experience is severely limited! Please provide an example of sin where ignorance or blindness is not part of the equation.

Two examples were attempted. In the first example, the dedicated Catholic who commits adultery, the “culprit” gave up answering for himself. In the second example, the person refused to address my question completely, not giving reasons for his behavior, but only citing the CCC. He would not even tell me why he chose to be an atheist. How can we find an example if we do not give it scrutiny? Otherwise, all we have to present is assertions. Assertions are not evidence, right?

Thanks again. I’m running off to Mass! God Bless.

 

[davidv]

Hi David, thanks again for responding. How often something occurs is not relevant, it is an observation.

Premeditated murder happens only if the perpetrator is blind or ignorant. If you like, present a counterexample. If have yet to find one.

Based on Charlemagne’s post on Aquinas, A. seems to agree with what I am saying; with a perfect conscience, in the absence of blindness, sin would not occur.

Wow, perhaps my experience is severely limited! Please provide an example of sin where ignorance or blindness is not part of the equation.

Two examples were attempted. In the first example, the dedicated Catholic who commits adultery, the “culprit” gave up answering for himself. In the second example, the person refused to address my question completely, not giving reasons for his behavior, but only citing the CCC. He would not even tell me why he chose to be an atheist. How can we find an example if we do not give it scrutiny? Otherwise, all we have to present is assertions. Assertions are not evidence, right?

Thanks again. I’m running off to Mass! God Bless.

Good day. It appears that your a unable understand what has been posted. I won’t repeat what already has been said.

 

[OneSheep]

Good day. It appears that your a unable understand what has been posted. I won’t repeat what already has been said.

Here is what I understand:

1. A person may be ignorant of the rule, completely.
2. A person may be ignorant of the consequence.
3. A person may be ignorant of the value of the Authority who makes the rule i.e.“God said it, so what? God is a figment of the imagination.” Or, “you only think God said that.” or: “Am I supposed to take it from the guys who molest little boys?”
4. A person may be ignorant of the steadfastness of the rules. “Hey, lots of people get away with this.”
5. A person may be ignorant of his own value. “I’m going to hell? So what, I am garbage and I have it coming.”
6. A person may be ignorant of the value of the other. “I only fail to forgive the enemy, bad people, heretics, criminals, and idiots. I forgive everyone else.”
7. A person may be ignorant of the hurt caused by sin. “All I did was… so what? I know it is against the rules, but it is no big deal. The rules are stupid.” (This indicates non-incorporation in the conscience.

None of these examples, David, depict a knowing and willing rejection of God. To this point, no one has been able to provide an example of someone K&WRG. I wait patiently.

You are thinking that I am unable to understand what has been posted. Enlighten me, David, it is your duty to do so! What is it I am not understanding? I am far from omniscient, but I am very open-minded.

Thanks again, for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

God does forgive, if one is contrite, but there is more than forgiveness involved, as sin brings punishments that are not eternal, and also may bring eternal punishment. Some people do not like to use the term punishment and instead use the term consequences. Either way, these effects result from a person’s sinful actions.

The basic issue here in terms of why it is difficult for me to make sense of much of what the CCC says about sin concerns what you are saying here. First of all, there is an Abba who I know and love through relationship, much of which stems from introspection. Abba I know through relationship loves unconditionally, and forgives unconditionally. Though it is true that a person will gain nothing from God’s forgiveness if they choose to reject it, God is always there forgiving. Again, these are my own experience.

As far as the use of “punishment”, punishment in the context of love and forgiveness is a gift when it serves to open the eyes of the punished, when its purpose is reformative. And yes, these effects result from a person’s sinful actions. “Eternal Punishment”, if is indeed without possibility of end is not reformative, and in the human mind if it is not reformative then it is vindictive and reflects a God who condemns, not forgives. Otherwise, with life after death (as we know it) as a given, and given that God is Love and God is omnipotent, such eternity away from God, unless it is the individual’s choice, makes no sense.

The point of the previous post was to provide an example or more of imputable sins, not the concept of “punishment”. It is not an issue of dispute that sin entered the world through Adam or that the fallen angels are in chains awaiting the judgment, or that there was destruction as a result of the sins of many prior to the flood. Any sin is uncharitable, which is a rejection of God, and a person does not have to conceive of it that was (way?) for it to be a rejection.

Really the earlier post was not addressed yet by you, specifically, about what is meant by full knowledge. A person can be culpable because of neglect.

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."

We can agree that any sin is uncharitable. Yes, a person does not have to conceive of sin as rejection in order for it to be a rejection. I am saying that in my observation, the rejection always includes an aspect of lack of awareness or blindness.

Yes, neglect does not give us an escape from responsibility. Nothing gives us an escape from responsibility. We are to have the ability to respond for all of our actions. I find nothing I can disagree with about language of culpability (responsibility). This thread, though, is about why people do what they do, specifically why people sin. My observation (excuse, please, my repetition) is that people do not knowingly reject God. This is not an excuse for anyone, but the definition of “mortal sin” includes that the person know what they are doing. They do not, and it is precisely because they do not, that sin, as “hurtful action” is possible in the first place. Again, my observation.

When people feign ignorance, they do so lacking awareness. When people are hardhearted, they are enslaved by their appetite for justice, they are blind. They are enslaved by grudge-holding. Yes, justice is, to me, also a human appetite. It is a normal human drive that can enslave us. Holding a grudge is the effect of slavery to the desire for justice.

If this discussion moves to Adam’s transgression, then it necessarily requires an understanding of what the Church has taught dogmatically on original sin at Trent, and it also provides the answer to why people sin.

The Catholic Catechism provides that …

402 All men are implicated in Adam’s sin,…

407 The doctrine of original sin,…
Densinger

Council of Trent 1545-1563, Session v (June 17, 1546)
Decree On Original Sin *

788 I. If anyone does not confess that the first man Adam,…, let him be anathema.

Yes, other good reasons to avoid the creation myth is that so many aspects of Adam and the whole story are taken literally and have all been carefully defined and asserted. There are at least 10 billion or so examples of other humans who have sinned that we can investigate in terms of whether any knowing or willing rejection of God took place, without the added layer of explicit divine interaction.

So, let’s work on a different example. Would you like to provide one, or shall I? Let’s give it a shot!

Thanks, Vico.

 

[OneSheep]

This is plainly false. Else, there would be no criminal offense call premeditated murder.

Here, let me present this and you can give me a different analysis.

On “60 minutes” a few years back, there was a story about a mafia boss responsible for many murders. He wanted to spend more time with his family, and was appealing to the courts to allow him to do so.

The interviewer asked him, “You can see why people find this a problem. Why should you be allowed to see your family when so many people will never see their loved ones again because of your actions?”

His answer: “I did not know those people.”

I believe him. He did not know the people he killed, and he finds no value in any member of the outgroup. If someone goes against him, their lives are worthless, and so are the lives of all the people he does not know. Given this, he has absolutely no idea what he is doing, he sees his actions as inconsequential, or actually a “good thing”, not unlike killing mosquitoes or rats. His love is very limited, and so is his view of the goodness of humanity.

He has very little knowledge of the God who is present in all of us. Yes, he “should” know, but he does not. To him, those lives were worthless. I think all of us have experienced what it is like to consider some other life worthless, it is a triggered response. It takes forgiveness to pull out of that thinking, and this mafia boss had a very limited understanding of forgiveness if any at all.

Do you see what I mean? What am I missing?

 

[simpleas]

Does anathema mean curse, or excommunication, or both? Would being excommunicated be like a curse anyway?

If one is excommunicated from the church, they aren’t separated from God, just not being active in the church?

Anyone…

 

[chefmomster2]

Does anathema mean curse, or excommunication, or both? Would being excommunicated be like a curse anyway?

If one is excommunicated from the church, they aren’t separated from God, just not being active in the church?

Anyone…

Anathema is a major excommunication. It is undertaken, for example, when a person has refused to stop propagating their heretical beliefs. Having an abortion causes immediate excommunication.

They would be separated from the Church by anathema. No one can separate a person from God except the person himself through his own conscious decisions. However, this act assumes a seriously grave offense, so they have broken their relationship with God.

It isn’t a curse as it isn’t intended as punishment, but as a way of instructing the person in the seriousness of their offense in the hope that they will repent and return to full communion.

 

[Vico]

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.”

Summa Theologica
First Part of the Second Part Question 58. The difference between moral and intellectual virtues
Article 2. Whether moral virtue differs from intellectual virtue?
newadvent.org/summa/2058.htm

There are really five articles.

Article 1. Whether every virtue is a moral virtue?

• …not every virtue is a moral virtue, but only those that are in the appetitive faculty.

Article 2. Whether moral virtue differs from intellectual virtue?

• …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.

Article 3. Whether virtue is adequately divided into moral and intellectual?

• … every human virtue is either intellectual or moral.

Article 4. Whether there can be moral without intellectual virtue?

• Moral virtue can be without some of the intellectual virtues, viz. wisdom, science, and art; but not without understanding and prudence.

Article 5. Whether there can be intellectual without moral virtue?

• Other intellectual virtues can, but prudence cannot, be without moral virtue.

 

[Vico]

…

noun: forgiveness; plural noun: forgivenesses: the action or process of forgiving or being forgiven.

1. You wrote: “but the definition of “mortal sin” includes that the person know what they are doing. They do not, and it is precisely because they do not, that sin, as “hurtful action” is possible in the first place. Again, my observation.”

The person has to know that what they do is wrong, not “know what they are doing”. CCC 1859: " It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s laws."

I prefer the Baltimore Catechism for it’s simplicity. From No. 4, 56. Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.”

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

"Full consent:’ Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:

The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.

1. You wrote “such eternity away from God, unless it is the individual’s choice, makes no sense.”

“Eternal Punishment" is not vindictive, but self-exclusion.CCC 1033 "… To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.”
3. Spitual blindness does not exclude sin. Per Catholic teaching, spiritual blindness may result deliberately. CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

*Voluntary doubt *about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.
​

4. As a Catholic I cannot in good faith, make statements about particular instances of sins because I cannot know their guilt, however, scripture itself has pronounced it, so that I why I go that direction. You suggested Adam and Eve, but now, have decided against it, but I also provided other scriptural examples in the previous posts other than Adam and Eve, which you have also decided against. The point there is that the Church teaches that there are many instances of grave sins.
Psalm 51(50) Miserere mei, Deus

Have mercy on me, God, in your kindness. In your compassion blot out my offense.
O wash me more and more from my guilt and cleanse me from my sin.

My offenses truly I know them; my sin is always before me
Against you, you alone, have I sinned; what is evil in your sight I have done.

 That you may be justified when you give sentence and be without reproach when you judge,

O see, in guilt I was born, a sinner was I conceived.

Indeed you love truth in the heart; then in the secret of my heart teach me wisdom.
O purify me, then I shall be clean; O wash me, I shall be whiter than snow.

Make me hear rejoicing and gladness, that the bones you have crushed may thrill.
From my sins turn away your face and blot out all my guilt.

A pure heart create for me, O God, put a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me away from your presence, nor deprive me of your holy spirit.

Give me again the joy of your help; with a spirit of fervor sustain me,
that I may teach transgressors your ways and sinners may return to you.

O rescue me, God, my helper, and my tongue shall ring out your goodness.
O Lord, open my lips and my mouth shall declare your praise.

For in sacrifice you take no delight, burnt offering from me you would refuse,
my sacrifice, a contrite spirit, a humbled, contrite heart you will not spurn.

In your goodness, show favor to Zion: rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
Then you will be pleased with lawful sacrifice, (burnt offerings wholly consumed), then you will be offered young bulls on your altar.

 

[OneSheep]

noun: forgiveness; plural noun: forgivenesses: the action or process of forgiving or being forgiven.

1. You wrote: “but the definition of “mortal sin” includes that the person know what they are doing. They do not, and it is precisely because they do not, that sin, as “hurtful action” is possible in the first place. Again, my observation.”

The person has to know that what they do is wrong, not “know what they are doing”. CCC 1859: " It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s laws."

Yes, the problem is that “wrongness” is known by degree. Some people know of the wrongness “Oh, I have heard that is a sin, it’s not a big deal.” and some people have incorporated the wrongness of an act into their conscience and empathetic responses. “Oh that’s awful! How hurtful that is!”.

The topic of this thread is not whether someone should “get away with” sin, as would be implied in the above if one were to read it with eyes focused on “justice for the evildoer”. Instead, this thread is focused on whether anyone “knowingly and willingly rejects God”. The person I first described above has not incorporated the wrongness, and does not see the wrongness of the act, therefore he is far from K&WRG. His “knowing” is very, very, superficial. The second person, knowing a bit more, especially the presence of God in the other, and how the act is hurtful, knows much more about what he is doing. He will avoid the sin (with some exceptions).

Here is a rather important exception: A person may have a moral repulsion to crucifixion, but finds that crucifixion of “evil people” is acceptable. As soon as someone depicts someone else as “evil”, there is a blindness occurring. The people who hung Jesus were blind.

I prefer the Baltimore Catechism for it’s simplicity. From No. 4, 56.

Q. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
​

A. To make a sin mortal three things are necessary: a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

“Grievous matter.” To steal is a sin. Now, if you steal only a pin the act of stealing in that case could not be a mortal sin, because the “matter,” namely, the stealing of an ordinary pin, is not grievous. But suppose it was a diamond pin of great value, then it would surely be “grievous matter.”

I see. “Grievous matter” has to do with the value of the object to the individual. So, theft of a cheap pin highly valued by a young girl is much more “grievous” than stealing an expensive pin from a person who has so many they would not notice. On the other hand, if the thief’s approach to his victim is “they deserve this”, then he is probably blind. If the thief’s approach is “what pain they feel from this theft is none of my concern” he is quite ignorant of the value of humanity, specifically people he does not know.

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

I think you would agree that both acts are wrong and “grievous” regardless of the value of the pin. People steal because they do not have “do not steal” incorporated in their conscience, or they steal when they see the effect as insignificant, that they do not value the well-being of their victim. I think you would agree that the deepest level of the sin is in that the thief does not see Jesus in his victim. It would take a lot of “sufficient reflection” for the thief to overcome this sin, the sin of not seeing Jesus where Jesus is present. In any case, there is no occurrence here of K&WRG.

"Full consent:’ Suppose you were shooting at a target and accidentally killed a man: you would not have the sin of murder, because you did not will or wish to kill a man.

Therefore three things are necessary that your act may be a mortal sin:

The act you do must be bad, and sufficiently important;
You must reflect that you are doing it, and know that it is wrong;
You must do it freely, deliberately, and willfully.

What about if I were wishing to kill a man who I thought was evil? Hung Him on a cross and crucified Him? I certainly would not know this act was “grievous”, no, I would be “incurring justice”. Would this be an act of “sufficient reflection”? No, far from it, I would be blind with resentment. Would it be “full consent”? Yes, full consent of a person who has no idea what he is doing. And Jesus characterized the act accurately, “they do not know what they are doing.” There was no K&WRG happening. Jesus calls us to see the ignorance that people have when doing wrong.

Do you see what I am saying? I am not making assertions, but observations. A lot of clarification is called for. And please, Vico, keep in mind that I am not arguing against responsibility or against consequences. I am addressing the topic on this thread.

You wrote “such eternity away from God, unless it is the individual’s choice, makes no sense.”

“Eternal Punishment" is not vindictive, but self-exclusion.**CCC 1033 "… To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell.” **

Yes, “hell” makes sense when it is the individual’s choice. I was addressing assertions of “sent” or “condemned to”. Those words do not imply choice.

Sorry my response is so long!
(cont’d)

 

[Aloysium]

. . . And Jesus characterized the act accurately, “they do not know what they are doing.” There was no K&WRG happening. Jesus calls us to see the ignorance that people have when doing wrong. . . .

He is speaking to us. We are not God; we must assume ignorance because we are ignorant.
He is also praying to God to spare these people who do not realize the true magnitude of what they are doing, people who may, regardless of His prayer, be condemned to hell, as He had to die on the cross.

We must forgive or we will not be forgiven - we cannot plead ignorance of this fact.
It would be an interesting twist that those who brutalize you go to heaven, and you to hell because you cannot get past the damage they will have caused you and those who love you.

It is possible to forgive because there is justice, and it belongs to God. We leave ourselves and our fate in His hands.

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

1. Spirtual blindness does not exclude sin. Per Catholic teaching, spiritual blindness may result deliberately.
   CCC 2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:*Voluntary doubt *about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.
   ​

​

Voluntary doubt is done in ignorance, in my observation. Deliberate blindness, also, a matter of ignorance. Ignorance is not an “excuse”, but ignorance explains human behavior. Lack of awareness is the opposite of K&W. People always sin without knowing what they are doing. The more they know, the more they do not sin. I am using “knowing” in an all-inclusive way.

Yes spiritual blindness does not exclude sin. Spiritual blindness and ignorance have to be there in order for a person to choose to do wrong in the first place. With a perfect conscience, and full knowledge of the situation, people do not sin. There are some rare exceptions, for example when a person is having to choose one sin over another, choosing a “lesser of two evils”. It happens.

Do you see what needs clarification in the CCC? “Sin” is so tied to the “knowing” but it is in ignorance, the “not knowing” that people do hurtful acts in the first place. The doctrine became so caught up in not letting people get away with stuff, that the whole reason why people sin in the first place was passed over. St. Augustine did the same, he did spend some time on “why men sin”, but was never able to figure out why he did some of the hurtful things he did. He got so caught up in guilt that he could not discern his thinking and motives. Again, my observations.

Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

1. As a Catholic I cannot in good faith, make statements about particular instances of sins because I cannot know their guilt, however, scripture itself has pronounced it, so that I why I go that direction. You suggested Adam and Eve, but now, have decided against it, but I also provided other scriptural examples in the previous posts other than Adam and Eve, which you have also decided against. The point there is that the Church teaches that there are many instances of grave sins.
   Psalm 51(50) Miserere mei, Deus

Yes, there are many instances of grave sins. Just to set things straight, it was you that presented Adam as an example in post 672, and I shared my misgivings because Adam is carefully defined as essentially omniscient. Following all the “anathema” language (which is not used very often by our hierarchy 6 centuries later, thank God!) I saw that you were going to stick to the assertive approach to what was going on in Adam’s mind, so we would be studying an omniscient super-human who experiences God more directly than any one of us can relate to. I see the creation story as allegorical.

We do not have to assess a person’s guilt while investigating whether someone is K&WRG. I think the best example to work on is the crowd who hung Jesus, because we already know that He forgave them. Why not address the crowd? Why focus on the first Adam when we are supposed to focus on the last?

Oh, and nice psalm. “Cast me not” implies the image of a God-who-casts-out, but this is not the God I know through relationship. “Casting” is more an act of our God-given conscience. When I equated God with my own conscience, then I perceived of a God Who Casts. Of course, the psalms were written well before Jesus walked on Earth.

Thanks again for your charitable, respectful responses, Vico. You are providing an example of a view somewhat counter to my own without accusation or demeaning attitude, and I really appreciate that. Some of the other posters had so much vitriol that many readers may automatically discount the message based on the messenger.

God Bless​

 

[OneSheep]

He is speaking to us. We are not God; we must assume ignorance because we are ignorant.
He is also praying to God to spare these people who do not realize the true magnitude of what they are doing, people who may, regardless of His prayer, be condemned to hell, as He had to die on the cross.

So, Jesus, who asks for forgiveness, being One With the Father, may not abide by His own prayer? Straighten me out on this.

“Condemned” here goes back to the “sent” language instead of the “choice” language, right?

We must forgive or we will not be forgiven - we cannot plead ignorance of this fact.
It would be an interesting twist that those who brutalize you go to heaven, and you to hell because you cannot get past the damage they will have caused you and those who love you.

It is possible to forgive because there is justice, and it belongs to God. We leave ourselves and our fate in His hands.

This would make God’s forgiveness conditional, but since love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of Love, then forgiveness, too, is unconditional, in my view. The “forgive or you will not be forgiven” language in the gospel was been very carefully explained to us in a Bible study. It is not as it appears, there are some contradictions to be worked through.

We are going to see God based on our own relationships. If God forgives conditionally, then He loves conditionally.

It goes to the question “what are those hands like?” I remember Einstein’s “is the universe friendly?”

Thanks for your response!

 

[simpleas]

Anathema is a major excommunication. It is undertaken, for example, when a person has refused to stop propagating their heretical beliefs. Having an abortion causes immediate excommunication.

They would be separated from the Church by anathema. No one can separate a person from God except the person himself through his own conscious decisions. However, this act assumes a seriously grave offense, so they have broken their relationship with God.

It isn’t a curse as it isn’t intended as punishment, but as a way of instructing the person in the seriousness of their offense in the hope that they will repent and return to full communion.

Thanks

 

[Vico]

… With a perfect conscience, and full knowledge of the situation, people do not sin. There are some rare exceptions, for example when a person is having to choose one sin over another, choosing a “lesser of two evils”. It happens. … Do you see what needs clarification in the CCC? “Sin” is so tied to the “knowing” but it is in ignorance, the “not knowing” that people do hurtful acts in the first place…

Perfect conscience, and full knowledge of the situation are not required conditions to commit a grave sin, even excluding “the lesser of two evils” where the good effect cannot be achieve directly via the bad effect, and the bad effect must be unintended/unavoidable.

The Catechism has given the meaning of “full knowledge”. ** CCC 1859** “Mortal sin requires full knowledge … It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.”

Adam should be fine for discussion; he knew that what he did was in opposition to God’s law. That he had supernatural grace and use of reason as would a typical baptized eight year today, is enough.

The foremost examples in scripture are the fallen angels, Adam and Eve, Judas, St. Peter.Ez. 18, 24: But if the just man turn himself away from his justice, and do iniquity according to all the abominations which the wicked man useth to work, shall he live? all his justices which he hath done, shall not be remembered: in the prevarication, by which he hath prevaricated, and in his sin, which he hath committed, in them he shall die.

Ez. 33, 12: Thou therefore, O son of man, say to the children of thy people: The justice of the just shall not deliver him, in what day soever he shall sin: and the wickedness of the wicked shall not hurt him, in what day soever he shall turn from his wickedness: and the just shall not be able to live in his justice, in what day soever he shall sin.

Mt. 26, 41: Watch ye and pray that ye enter not into temptation.

I Cor. 10, 12: He that thinketh himself to stand, let him take heed lest he fall!

I Cor. 6:9-10 9 Know you not that the unjust shall not possess the kingdom of God? Do not err: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, 10 Nor the effeminate, nor liers with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor railers, nor extortioners, shall possess the kingdom of God.

Luke 22:31-34 “Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you,4 that he might sift you like wheat, 32 but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail. And when you have turned again, estrengthen your brothers.” 33 Peter said to him, “Lord, I am ready to go with you both to prison and to death.” 34 Jesus said, “I tell you, Peter, the rooster will not crow this day, until you deny three times that you know me.”

Luke 22:47-48 While he was still speaking, there came a crowd, and the man called Judas, one of the twelve, was leading them. He drew near to Jesus to kiss him, 48 but Jesus said to him, “Judas, would you betray the Son of Man with a kiss?”
That the faithful may commit deadly sins, is a dogma of faith.THE COUNCIL OF TRENT - Session VI - 13 January, 1547 (Pope Paul III)

CHAPTER XV - BY EVERY MORTAL SIN GRACE IS LOST, BUT NOT FAITH

Against the subtle wits of some also, who by pleasing speeches and good words seduce the hearts of the innocent,[91] it must be maintained that the grace of justification once received is lost not only by infidelity, whereby also faith itself is lost, but also by every other mortal sin, though in this case faith is not lost; thus defending the teaching of the divine law which excludes from the kingdom of God not only unbelievers, but also the faithful [who are] fornicators, adulterers, effeminate, liars with mankind, thieves, covetous, drunkards, railers, extortioners,[92] and all others who commit deadly sins, from which with the help of divine grace they can refrain, and on account of which they are cut off from the grace of Christ.

Canon 27.
If anyone says that there is no mortal sin except that of unbelief,[129] or that grace once received is not lost through any other sin however grievous and enormous except by that of unbelief, let him be anathema.

 

[Aloysium]

So, Jesus, who asks for forgiveness, being One With the Father, may not abide by His own prayer? Straighten me out on this.

“Condemned” here goes back to the “sent” language instead of the “choice” language, right?

This would make God’s forgiveness conditional, but since love is unconditional, and forgiveness is an act of Love, then forgiveness, too, is unconditional, in my view. The “forgive or you will not be forgiven” language in the gospel was been very carefully explained to us in a Bible study. It is not as it appears, there are some contradictions to be worked through.

We are going to see God based on our own relationships. If God forgives conditionally, then He loves conditionally.

It goes to the question “what are those hands like?” I remember Einstein’s “is the universe friendly?”

Thanks for your response!

Firstly, I would like to point out to other readers that if they are interested in what the Church teaches that they do not go by what I or any one else here says, but to go straight to the Source. The Vatican has a web site. Do look at it, particularly the Cathechism. Also Fr John Hardon’s The Catechism of the Catholic Church is an excellent resource, which among other areas, covers this topic extremely well from what I recall.

To the poster whom I am quoting, I don’t know what you are talking about most of the time.

As to the Trinity, The Father loves the Son, His Word whereby all was created and is maintained. The person of the Son exists in loving obedience to the Father to whom He prays constantly.
I understand that you are confused. Think, “Why would He pray to Himself.” It is the Father’s Will that will be done.

As to condemnation:

Matt 25:31-46 - "But when the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. "All the nations will be gathered before Him; and He will separate them from one another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats; and He will put the sheep on His right, and the goats on the left. "Then the King will say to those on His right, 'Come, you who are blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave Me something to eat; . . . "The King will answer and say to them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did it to one of these brothers of Mine, even the least of them, you did it to Me.’ "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels;. . .“These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Rev 20:12-15 - And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

There is Justice, which is dispensed by Love Himself.