O
oldcelt
Guest
So, Judas was created to fail.
- Status
S
simpleas
Guest
Yes, it was all foretold, it had to happen that way, so really Judas could never have changed his mind and not hand Jesus over to the authorities…
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good morning, Vico! I have not had access to the net, sorry for the delay.
Adam, in the creation myth, has an encounter with God that no one else does, and when one delves into what was going on in his mind, the discussion is limited by claims of Adam knowing everything. Humans do not know everything. The story of Adam is just a story. Adam is far from just “anyone”.
Now, we could investigate the K&WRG for other humans, and I suggested Judas, but you did not want to continue. We can pick another, if you like. Perhaps we can work on one of the examples you presented on this post to which I am replying? I will give it a shot.
I am not asking you to retract your definition of “full knowledge”. Yours makes more sense to you, mine makes more sense to me. Neither definition is perfect, in my view.
And yes, I heard you, in your view, and you truly believe you are right: if the Catholic Church says it is a sin, and a person hears these words, then he has “full knowledge”. I disagree, the person may simply not take ownership of what the Church says on the “wrongness”, it happens quite often. However, let’s leave it at that, okay? I respect your position.
I have yet to encounter an example of "willful ignorance” or any other type that is not itself caused in part by ignorance. Let me give an example: Let’s say a person wants to go down to South America and exploit some resources. He knows that all he has to do is bribe the right people, and he can get all the documents made and accepted that says he owns a particular tract of land and has mineral rights. Now, someone may mention that there are some indigenous people who have a historical claim, but he says “I don’t want to know about that”. At first glance, this looks like willful ignorance, right? However, when we look a little deeper, the situation changes.
The question is, “why does he not want to know about the rights of the indigenous people?” The answer is that he is protecting what he wants, and what he wants is the resources from the land, and the money he will make from it. His “wanting”, in the first place, as something worth protecting at the expense of someone else, is a matter of ignorance. He does not know the impact of his actions, and if he did, he would realize that he is wrong, if he is of normal conscience. So, when he denies wanting to know more about the indigenous rights, he does so in ignorance, for if he knew what he was denying then he would not. The man is blinded by his desire for wealth. Now, you may see some holes in this scenario, but I am trying to be as brief as possible. Feel free to question, and please do. In addition, feel free to apply the words “vincible”, “invincible” or “willfull” to the scenario, so that those vague terms can be helped in definition. Yes, the man wills his own ignorance, but he wills so in ignorance.
Culpable means responsible, response-able. Everyone should have the ability to respond for their actions, even if the response is “it was an accident”. I am using “should” in terms of an ideal. Ideally, everyone should be responsible, culpable. Now, if you are talking about applicable consequence, sin has its own consequence. If you are talking about God condemning or punishing someone, then that is also a different topic.
Can we let “culpability” rest now? It is a bit off-topic and we seem to agree for the most part.
(cont’d)
O
OneSheep
Guest
No less of a luminary than Fr. Robert Barron, following the great Hans Urs von Balthasar, from his famous book on the topic, Dare We Hope That All Men Be Saved?, writes in his book, Catholicism, on pages 257-258:
Code:
If there are any human beings in hell, they are there because they absolutely insist on it. The conditional clause with which the last sentence began honors the church’s conviction that, though we must accept the possibility of hell (due to the play between divine love and human freedom),** we are not committed doctrinally to saying that anyone is actually “in” such a place.**I’ll let everyone make their own conclusions about the words in the Catholic Encyclopedia.
I think we Catholics can mostly agree that hell is possible because of God honoring free will.
So, the question are:
- Why did he marry without approval of the Church?
- Why does he no longer receive communion?
Please, contest my observations. My observations are full of holes here, for brevity.
Back to the most basic question:
Why does he steal at all? Well, he has the human appetite for material stuff, and he has the human appetite that makes what other people have appear very attractive. There are other animals with the same combination of appetites.
Why is he not considering the wants, the rights, the well-being of the victim? Would he steal from his own mother, from a friend, from his child? No, in most cases he would not. He does not know the value of the harm done because he does not value the well-being of his victim. His not knowing the value of his victim is a matter of ignorance, and desire-induced blindness.
Again, there are some observations and assertions here that may or may not be necessarily true! Feel free to point them out, and we can address other options.
What is very key, here, Vico, is another dimension of this discussion. I have had a few days to think about this, and I have to admit I am learning a lot in our discussion about how to help my writing be understood. If you are a normal human being, which I say as a matter of projection (like, this is what my reaction would have been before I saw things the way I see now), when you read my explanations of the theft and the fornication, you had a slight emotional reaction. My emotional reaction would have been one of dismay, disappointment, perhaps revulsion, and even suspicion. Perhaps the reaction would have been one of indignation. The thought, “This person is making excuses for everyone!” might be bouncing around in my mind, as well as “This person is full of baloney!”
Is this an accurate description of your gut reaction, Vico, if you are having one?
Thanks again, Vico, for your responses. I again apologize for my delay. I thought about PMing you to explain, but I decided that you are probably so busy that the delay is welcome.
Have a blessed Sunday!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Chefmom! Nice to hear from you again!
) So, the best I can do is to realize that I have judged, and then forgive. If people never judged, then there would not reason to have a call for forgiveness. Jesus is realistic about judging. He says “do not judge”, which is the ideal, but when we do judge we are called to forgive. We are not to make judgement a purposeful endeavor, that is the command. We are not to hang onto our judgements once they are triggered.
This thread is not about judgment, it is about explanation, it is about understanding why people sin, but this side topic is important to address. Judging colors all of our responses.
I must add here that the priest said,It is not to condemn or condone, but understand" ". It is the “understanding” part that led to the deeper level of forgiveness for me, not the simple “stay out of it”. In my own journey, if I tell my mind to “stay out of it”, it is like trying not to think about an elephant. Understanding leads to a deeper forgiveness, a more complete forgiveness.
Be real, now, have you ever condemned, felt negativity toward anyone? Did you think to yourself, “I am deciding to condemn that person” before the emotional/cognitive occurrence of condemnation was triggered in your mind? Not likely.
Could the crowd have refrained from placing the cause? Absolutely.
Was the crowd under obligation of preventing the evil effect? Well, it depends on “obligation to whom?”. A third party objective observer, not resenting Jesus, could easily assert that it was the crowd’s obligation to prevent the evil effect. Did the crowd recognize this obligation? No, they were in more of the mindset that it was their “obligation” to cause the death of the “blasphemer”! So, this one is a toss up. Obligation to who, or what?
(cont’d)
Yes, we are not to judge anyone. That is the command. I tried it for years, and finally realized that judgment of others is a gut reaction, and gut reactions work much faster than the mind, the frontal cortex “reasoning” part. (truly, Chefmom, you must have had some triggered gut-level reactions to my posts, right?
) So, the best I can do is to realize that I have judged, and then forgive. If people never judged, then there would not reason to have a call for forgiveness. Jesus is realistic about judging. He says “do not judge”, which is the ideal, but when we do judge we are called to forgive. We are not to make judgement a purposeful endeavor, that is the command. We are not to hang onto our judgements once they are triggered.This thread is not about judgment, it is about explanation, it is about understanding why people sin, but this side topic is important to address. Judging colors all of our responses.
I must add here that the priest said,It is not to condemn or condone, but understand" ". It is the “understanding” part that led to the deeper level of forgiveness for me, not the simple “stay out of it”. In my own journey, if I tell my mind to “stay out of it”, it is like trying not to think about an elephant. Understanding leads to a deeper forgiveness, a more complete forgiveness.
To me, when we feel guilt, we are self-condemning. These are one and the same. So again, we are not to judge ourselves, but we do, and such judgment is the activity of the conscience itself. It helps us keep our behaviors in check. However, it is an error to hang onto such self-condemnation as well as condemnation of others. When we forgive, and seek forgiveness, we are no longer enslaved.
Yes, it would mean that no one ever commits mortal sin, not unless they were all-knowing on the pertinent aspects. And this makes it more of a moot point because if they were all-knowing they would not commit the sin in the first place. If the broad definition ends the discussion, so be it. However, to me, Jesus was using the broad definition when He said “forgive them, for they know not what they do.” What did the people not know? That killing an innocent person is wrong? Certainly they knew this. What they did not know was that Jesus was not only innocent but a wonderful human and God Himself. Can you see the importance of this application? When we purposefully sin against another, it only happens when we have failed to recognize God in the other. When we condemn, which is what the crowd did, much faster than their minds could catch up, our mind automatically assigns a negative value to the person being judged. This happens before “reason” has a chance at it.
Be real, now, have you ever condemned, felt negativity toward anyone? Did you think to yourself, “I am deciding to condemn that person” before the emotional/cognitive occurrence of condemnation was triggered in your mind? Not likely.
The first point is very vague, but sure, anyone can confusedly forsee the evil effects which follow a cause. Did the crowd at the foot of the cross at least confusedly forsee the evil effects? Yes, “confusedly” can mean just about anything.
Could the crowd have refrained from placing the cause? Absolutely.
Was the crowd under obligation of preventing the evil effect? Well, it depends on “obligation to whom?”. A third party objective observer, not resenting Jesus, could easily assert that it was the crowd’s obligation to prevent the evil effect. Did the crowd recognize this obligation? No, they were in more of the mindset that it was their “obligation” to cause the death of the “blasphemer”! So, this one is a toss up. Obligation to who, or what?
(cont’d)
O
OneSheep
Guest
I think you may be using the word “culpable” as “condemnable”. Is that correct? I do not want to make assumptions. If so, we are back to the question of who/how/why God condemns, not if people K&WRG.
Here is what we do know: Do I condemn, or do I forgive? If I hold anything against anyone, I am clinging to condemnation, to judgment. How do I feel towards people who appear to me to K&WRG? Do I hold it against them, or do I forgive? How do I feel towards people who disagree with the Church? How do I feel toward atheists, Satanists, etc.? Do I hold it against them, or do I……?
Did Aquinas say this directly concerning mortal sin? If so, there may be a “full knowledge” contradiction. If not, it makes sense. When we sin, our free will is defective, we do not know what we are doing.
Well, we can assert that the will is regulated by reason, but that assertion is not always true, and when it comes to sin, it is rarely true. When it is true, the reason is “defective”, as Aquinas states. Malice on the part of the will is a matter of ignorance, and blindness due to condemnation of the victim is also involved at times. No one wills the sin “of its own accord”. Even if a person sins for the joy of it, he is still sinning because he wants the joy. I’m talking about some major “defectiveness” in awareness, here, this is “sociopath” territory if we are talking about adults.
As far as the “exterior causes” go, we would need to investigate an example of how these come into play. Like, “where did the exterior causes come to play in the act of the adulterous man we talked about?” It all sounds interior to me. Some further definition of terms would be good.
Thanks, Chefmomster, for joining us again!
And thank you for your efforts in bringing in all of those resources, they really add to the depth and pertinence of our discussion!
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Judas was fully human including his free will. Judas always had the option of not selling out to those who would murder Christ. Did God know that Judas would be a traitor? Certainly. But that does not mean he was predestined to commit this action.Yes, it was all foretold, it had to happen that way, so really Judas could never have changed his mind and not hand Jesus over to the authorities…
Pope Benedict On Judas Iscariot and Matthias
10/19/2006 - 6:00 AM PST
This mystery is even more profound if one thinks of his eternal fate, knowing that Judas “repented and brought back the 30 pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying ‘I have sinned in betraying innocent blood’” (Matthew 27:3-4). Though he departed afterward to hang himself (cf. Matthew 27:5), it is not for us to judge his gesture, putting ourselves in God’s place, who is infinitely merciful and just…
After his fall, Peter repented and found forgiveness and grace. Judas also repented, but his repentance degenerated into despair and in this way it became self-destruction. It is an invitation for us to always remember what St. Benedict says at the end of Chapter 5 – fundamental – of his Rule: “Never despair of God’s mercy.” In fact, “God is greater than our hearts,” as St. John says (1 John 3:20)…
The Gnostic writers say he wanted to liberate Jesus from the shackles of mortality. But the Gospels tell us that Satan entered into the heart of Judas. He yielded to a temptation from the evil one. It is a mistake to think that the great privilege of living in company with Jesus is enough to make a person holy. Jesus does not force our will when he invites us to follow him along the path of the beatitudes…
We must always remember that there are two separate things at work- our free will and God’s plan for salvation. We each have the ability to choose to love or to reject. God respects this and allows it in order to give us the option of freely choosing Him.
However, God’s plan for the world will ultimately succeed. The final outcome will be fully in accord with His will. That means that if Judas had chosen not to betray Christ, God would have pursued His overall plan and would still have provided in His own way for our ultimate redemption and salvation. The Kingdom of God will come about with or without our cooperation, but it WILL come about!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Yes, it was foretold, but Judas could have changed his mind. If he was going to change his mind, that would have also been foretold.Yes, it was all foretold, it had to happen that way, so really Judas could never have changed his mind and not hand Jesus over to the authorities…
I remember having this discussion with my college roommate.
I look at it this way. God, upon considering to hit the “create” button, looked, saw all the lousy decisions we were going to make, sighed, and saw all of the wonders, beauty, and great outcome. Then, He pushed the button.
God’s omniscience is not an infringement on free will. However, we had no choice on whether or not to be created.
Have a great day, Simpleas!
Oops, looks like Chefmomster replied at the same time. I agree with everything she wrote there too, for the most part.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Hi OS!
Culpability and condemnation are two different things.
Culpability: (merriam-webster.com)
responsibility for wrongdoing or failure
Condemnation: (merriam-webster.com)
to declare to be morally wrong or evil
Example: A man is trying to kill me. I kill him in self-defense.
Am I “culpable”? Yes, by definition. My action was the proximate cause of his death.
Am I to be condemned? No. My responsibility is completely mitigated by the threat of death.
Culpability is responsibility for an action. I can just as easily be “culpable” for a good action.
Example: I give $1,000 to an area food bank. I do it in part to get a deduction on my taxes.
Am I “culpable”? Sure! I gave the money to a good cause.
Am I to be, in this case, commended? Not 100%, maybe 95%?. My motive is not fully altruistic. But, this would still be considered by most to be a good, although somewhat self-serving, deed.
Following from these examples, I do not condemn either myself or others. Certainly I can seek to understand them. (Mostly, I choose to pray for them.) That is forming a final judgment, the province of God. However, I can take responsibility for my actions, decide whether those actions were morally good or evil by use of my conscience or deliberation, and seek to make ammends if appropriate or express thanksgiving for the HS’s help in avoiding possible sin. Again, this is about accepting responsibility, not condemnation.
OS: “How do I feel towards people who appear to me to K&WRG?”
Their “appearance” is of no concern for me. Appearance and reality are quite different and I am in no position to determine that. We cannot say that a person who commits a gravely serious act is necessarily going to be condemned by God*. We are in no position to know the person’s thoughts and conditions.
We can identify some acts as definitely grievous- murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. We can note that an act was committed by a person. If we committed the act we can seek reconciliation, not punishment, but a reestablishment of our relationship with God. If we believe that it was fully culpable and that we could be condemned for it, we are foolish if we do not do this. But even when it comes to ourselves we can’t be certain.
It is POSSIBLE that no one has been condemned to hell due to mortal sin. It is POSSIBLE that many have been sent to hell.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD. (Isaiah 55: 8)
So the question has little to do with condemnation except for the limited purpose of helping to propel us to avoid such sin. It is a question of culpability.
Why would anyone commit mortal sin knowing the possible extreme result?
Could anyone ever be found fully culpable of seriously grievous sin? (Meaning that they committed the act K&W.) Only God knows!
(*Note that not even God actually condemns! I use the term because it is the topic of one of your questions. We make a free choice. Have we chosen the love of God? Then, we enter to receive it. Have we rejected God? Then we do not enter. Our choice is respected. We will not be forced to remain with the object of our rejection for all of eternity.)
Culpability and condemnation are two different things.
Culpability: (merriam-webster.com)
responsibility for wrongdoing or failure
Condemnation: (merriam-webster.com)
to declare to be morally wrong or evil
Example: A man is trying to kill me. I kill him in self-defense.
Am I “culpable”? Yes, by definition. My action was the proximate cause of his death.
Am I to be condemned? No. My responsibility is completely mitigated by the threat of death.
Culpability is responsibility for an action. I can just as easily be “culpable” for a good action.
Example: I give $1,000 to an area food bank. I do it in part to get a deduction on my taxes.
Am I “culpable”? Sure! I gave the money to a good cause.
Am I to be, in this case, commended? Not 100%, maybe 95%?. My motive is not fully altruistic. But, this would still be considered by most to be a good, although somewhat self-serving, deed.
Following from these examples, I do not condemn either myself or others. Certainly I can seek to understand them. (Mostly, I choose to pray for them.) That is forming a final judgment, the province of God. However, I can take responsibility for my actions, decide whether those actions were morally good or evil by use of my conscience or deliberation, and seek to make ammends if appropriate or express thanksgiving for the HS’s help in avoiding possible sin. Again, this is about accepting responsibility, not condemnation.
OS: “How do I feel towards people who appear to me to K&WRG?”
Their “appearance” is of no concern for me. Appearance and reality are quite different and I am in no position to determine that. We cannot say that a person who commits a gravely serious act is necessarily going to be condemned by God*. We are in no position to know the person’s thoughts and conditions.
We can identify some acts as definitely grievous- murder, kidnapping, rape, etc. We can note that an act was committed by a person. If we committed the act we can seek reconciliation, not punishment, but a reestablishment of our relationship with God. If we believe that it was fully culpable and that we could be condemned for it, we are foolish if we do not do this. But even when it comes to ourselves we can’t be certain.
It is POSSIBLE that no one has been condemned to hell due to mortal sin. It is POSSIBLE that many have been sent to hell.
For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
nor are your ways my ways—oracle of the LORD. (Isaiah 55: 8)
So the question has little to do with condemnation except for the limited purpose of helping to propel us to avoid such sin. It is a question of culpability.
Why would anyone commit mortal sin knowing the possible extreme result?
Could anyone ever be found fully culpable of seriously grievous sin? (Meaning that they committed the act K&W.) Only God knows!
(*Note that not even God actually condemns! I use the term because it is the topic of one of your questions. We make a free choice. Have we chosen the love of God? Then, we enter to receive it. Have we rejected God? Then we do not enter. Our choice is respected. We will not be forced to remain with the object of our rejection for all of eternity.)
C
chefmomster2
Guest
OS:
"Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God’s law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:89:2; “De malo”, 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end."
OCE Sin
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Choosing a “lesser good” is not lack of K. It is merely what we do when we sin. We know what we are asked to choose to be in accord with God’s will. We choose the sin. It will always be a “good” or we would not choose it. It’s part of our human makeup.
One of the faults, as I see it, of your argument is that not only would there be no mortal sin, but in fact there could be no sin at all! The distinction between venial and mortal sin is in the gravity of the sin.
All sin requires K&W! The only real difference is in the first article
"Sin is nothing else than a morally bad act (St. Thomas, “De malo”, 7:3), an act not in accord with reason informed by the Divine law. God has endowed us with reason and free-will, and a sense of responsibility; He has made us subject to His law, which is known to us by the dictates of conscience, and our acts must conform with these dictates, otherwise we sin (Romans 14:23). In every sinful act two things must be considered, the substance of the act and the want of rectitude or conformity (St. Thomas, I-II:72:1). The act is something positive. The sinner intends here and now to act in some determined matter, inordinately electing that particular good in defiance of God’s law and the dictates of right reason. The deformity is not directly intended, nor is it involved in the act so far as this is physical, but in the act as coming from the will which has power over its acts and is capable of choosing this or that particular good contained within the scope of its adequate object, i.e. universal good (St. Thomas, “De malo”, Q. 3, a. 2, ad 2um). God, the first cause of all reality, is the cause of the physical act as such, the free-will of the deformity (St. Thomas I-II:89:2; “De malo”, 3:2). The evil act adequately considered has for its cause the free-will defectively electing some mutable good in place of the eternal good, God, and thus deviating from its true last end."
OCE Sin
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Choosing a “lesser good” is not lack of K. It is merely what we do when we sin. We know what we are asked to choose to be in accord with God’s will. We choose the sin. It will always be a “good” or we would not choose it. It’s part of our human makeup.
One of the faults, as I see it, of your argument is that not only would there be no mortal sin, but in fact there could be no sin at all! The distinction between venial and mortal sin is in the gravity of the sin.
All sin requires K&W! The only real difference is in the first article
S
simpleas
Guest
Thanks Chefmomster2 and Onesheep for your replies.
I thought that Judas could have changed his mind, but Jesus had said one of them would betray him, if Judas had changed his mind, then Jesus wouldn’t have been able to see into his soul. Jesus already knew who it was, the others did not.
Maybe if even as Jesus can see the rejection and greed in Judas’ soul, he could have overcome it and not betray him, there would have been another person or something happen for Jesus to be arrested.
Another thing, was Judas called a devil somewhere? I might be wrong about that, but If he was a devil then he would never have felt remorse for what he did, he would have been very pleased with himself. Instead he was ashamed, so much so that he took his own life.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
Perhaps your confusion is because you’re focusing on Jesus’ true humanity and not remembering that he was also fully God. Jesus knew Judas was going to betray him, but That doesn’t take away Judas’ free will. If he had not done so, then Jesus would have known that and the story would have been different- but still within God’s plan for salvation.
What do you mean when you say that Jesus "wouldn’t have been able to see into Judas’ soul? He is God! He can do ANYTHING!
It is mentioned in my quote from Pope Benedict above.
“But the Gospels tell us that Satan entered into the heart of Judas. He yielded to a temptation from the evil one.”
Judas was not the devil himself. He chose to follow the temptation of Satan. He was under the influence of Satan, but Satan does not have the power to remove free will. Judas had a choice. There may have been a point where his choice became final and he could no longer change his mind, but the choice was still his.
V
Vico
Guest
It was mortal sin, regardless of any declaration that one is in hell.
For these questions, they are in the original post so you can look them up.
- Why did he marry without approval of the Church?
- Why does he no longer receive communion?
About the example I posted, you wrote: “His not knowing the value of his victim is a matter of ignorance, and desire-induced blindness.” When the value was learned to be greater, the decision was made not to return it, at that moment it was a culpable grave offense.
C
chefmomster2
Guest
I think it would be helpful to qualify two terms that we all seem to be using, grievous matter (or its variations: serious matter, grave matter, etc.) and mortal sin.
We can judge whether or not a specific act constitutes serious sin. Murder, adultery, rape, etc. are all examples of GRIEVOUS MATTER.
MORTAL SIN implies a judgment of God. It is the sin that is referred to when a person is CULPABLE of GRIEVOUS MATTER.
I recommend that we use the two terms carefully because some of our problems here, and I am guilty here myself, appear to be due to poor communication, IMHO.
(VENIAL SIN can occur when a person is not fully culpable for a GRIEVOUS MATTER.)
We can judge whether or not a specific act constitutes serious sin. Murder, adultery, rape, etc. are all examples of GRIEVOUS MATTER.
MORTAL SIN implies a judgment of God. It is the sin that is referred to when a person is CULPABLE of GRIEVOUS MATTER.
I recommend that we use the two terms carefully because some of our problems here, and I am guilty here myself, appear to be due to poor communication, IMHO.
(VENIAL SIN can occur when a person is not fully culpable for a GRIEVOUS MATTER.)
O
OneSheep
Guest
It sounds like we look at these definitions and responsibility the same way. See, we agree on more things than we disagree, for sure!
We are also in agreement in all of this.
I would like to clarify the part about “How do I feel towards people who appear to me to K&WRG?” I am again addressing that “gut reaction” that we have, that triggered reaction. My emphasis is not on “appear”; my emphasis is on “feel”.
Say, for example, a person is particularly resentful of his own past when he chose atheism. He has never really come to peace with his choice, he never forgave himself. He does not recognize the fact that his choice was made out of ignorance, and that he did what he thought was right at the time. As a result, when he sees anyone has made the same choice, he has that gut reaction again, the image arises of himself as an atheist, and he resents the image. It is a mostly subconscious occurrence.
The same goes for when we know of an occurrence of adultery or any other serious sin. There is in our minds an image of the past, it would not have to result from a first-person experience. Perhaps I saw a person deeply hurt by an affair, and the image of the person who violated, and I use “image” there in a very broad sense, is in my mind. It is a negative image, and the image continues to guide my own behavior, in fact, it is a powerful force in my conscience. The image has a purpose. Again, most of this is subconscious.
However, the same force that guides my own behavior (through self-judging, guilt) also triggers my own judging of others. We react to the behaviors and statements of others. Sometimes, I actually surprise myself a little! Like, “Gee, I did kinda overreact there!”, which may be a reaction to my reaction (notice the word “overreact”). It would depend upon the tone of my statement, the emotion behind it, to determine if I were self-judging or not.
What does this have to do with K&WRG? A lot. Everyone who reacted to Jesus and sent Him to death was reacting with their own consciences. They had no idea they were K&WRG because they were all caught up in their own triggered reactions to images in their minds. Jesus was seen as a negative, an evil, expendable, and there were authorities present who were caught up in the same triggered reactions. They had not a clue what was going on. They were all slaves to their own consciences. The answer, the freeing answer, forgiveness, was far from their mindset. It was Jesus who offered the freeing answer in the situation. Indeed, what was needed was the crowd to forgive Jesus, but what happened? It went the other way. Jesus, our Lord forgave them. Have you ever looked at the incredible irony and those awesome words in this way?
And look at the genius of this even further. We reap what we sow. God sowed forgiveness, and He sowed it from the cross. What He reaps is our forgiveness, to forgive God for hardship, for pain, death, the misery that people do unto others, to forgive humanity (God in all people) for taking the wrong paths before we find the right one, to forgive God for creating us knowing that all of the horror would happen. Yes, it is my call to forgive God for everything I ever lament or complain about. He let it happen. Am I saying people blame God? Yes, they do it unknowingly, and certainly without the intent to do so.
Are you following me in this? This is only one of many aspects of “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”.
V
Vico
Guest
From Modern Catholic Dictionary (Fr. John Hardon, S.J.):
**
Culpability** “Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin.”
Imputability is “The moral responsibility for one’s human actions. A person is accountable to God only for his or her deliberate actions. They are acts performed with knowledge of what one is doing and with the consent of the will.”
Responsibility “adds to imputability the idea of being reliable and not merely held accountable”.
The Catechism of the Catholic Church gives the first instance of mortal sin by mankind. It is mortal for they lost sanctifying grace.**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
In Veritatis Splendor, St. Pope John Paul II explains about sin:
68. Here an important pastoral consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God’s grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to God’s commandments as set forth by the Church.
In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made “a free self-commitment to God”.113 With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses “sanctifying grace”, “charity” and “eternal happiness”.114 As the Council of Trent teaches, “the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin”.115
70 …
The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the “grave matter” of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is “full awareness and deliberate consent”. In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, “care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of *‘fundamental option’ — *as is commonly said today — against God”, seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hello Vico,
I looked at the original post, and there is no explanation to these questions. What did I miss?
What was going through his mind? What was he thinking? This is what I mean by “why”.
Back to culpability. Please, Vico, can we drop culpability? It seems that I am more likely to say that any particular person is more culpable than you are. Are you reading my posts? Culpability is the ideal, we are all ideally culpable for everything we do, right, wrong, sinful, mildly sinful, ignorant, hurtful, helpful, whatever the case may be. Did you notice that I was talking about the value of the victim?
We continue to have two different discussions. You are talking about culpability, which is not the topic of this thread, and I am talking about whether anyone knowingly and willingly rejects God, which is the topic of this thread.
So, at this point, I have two requests, because we keep going round and round on this, and getting nowhere. Please, Vico, it looks like we are really spinning our wheels.
A. First of all, as far as I am concerned, everyone is to be culpable for everything they do. If you want to talk about culpability, let’s talk about it on another thread someday, okay?
B. If you would like to discuss the topic, that is, does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God, the begged question, please fill me in with some sample answers to question 1 & 2 above, and we can see if any K&WR of God is actually occurring. If you don’t want to answer the questions, but want to make assertions of such K&WR of God, please provide real-life examples instead of doctrine that asserts culpability.
For example, if we are talking about anyone K&WRG, applied to this:
So, in order to determine if any K&WRG occurred, here is a pertinent question to investigate:
- Why do those children decide to do those things anyway? Specifically, what is going on in their minds?
V
Vico
Guest
You said before you were learning something, so I did not think we were getting nowhere.
Culpability
Culpability is pertinent to why because the knowledge that one is culpable has an effect on behavior. Since you want to exclude it, even though pertinent, we can, but it will not be possible to be accurate. I want to leave with what I said before, what you say is untrue, the Church does teach that we are not always culpable when we materially sin. You can research it.
Why Part I
As for why, which means “for what reason or purpose” is it to gain some material good. “I know I should resist because it is wrong, but I want this.”
I wrote: “You always have the common example of the fallen away Catholic that marries without approval of the Church and then returns, and refuses to separate from the spouse, even without children, and knowing that it is gravely sinful, and no longer is able to receive communion and does not do so.”
You asked:
- Why did he marry without approval of the Church?
- Why does he no longer receive communion?
- fallen away
- knowing that it is gravely sinful, and no longer is able to receive communion
What is going in in the sinners minds is that they are tempted by pride, lust, gluttony, greed, laziness, envy, and wrath (vengence), and choose not to resist it. This is the inclination to sin.
As taught by the Church, why we sin is explained by the fundamental change in the human condition. From *Original Sin Causes a Fundamental Change in Mankind *of Pope John Paul II:Underlying the descriptive forms, the fact that really matters is of a moral nature and is imprinted in the very roots of the human spirit. It gives rise to a fundamental change in the human condition. Man is driven forth from the state of original justice and finds himself in a state of sinfulness (status naturae lapsae). Sin exists in this state, which is also marked by an inclination to sin. From that moment, the whole history of humanity will be burdened by this state. In fact the first human being (man and woman) received sanctifying grace from God not only for himself, but as founder of the human family, for all his descendants. Therefore through sin which set man in conflict with God, he forfeited grace (he fell into disgrace) even in regard to the inheritance for his descendants. According to the Church’s teaching based on revelation, the essence of original sin as the heritage of our progenitors consists in this privation of grace added to nature.
“As we see from the biblical account, human sin does not have its primary origin in the heart (and in the conscience) of man. It does not arise from his spontaneous initiative. It is in a certain sense the reflection and the consequence of the sin that had already occurred in the world of invisible beings.” …
So detailed in its own way, what does this description reveal? It attests that the first man acted against the will of the Creator, under the influence of the tempter’s assurance that “the fruits of this tree serve to acquire knowledge.” It does not seem that man had fully accepted the totality of negation and hatred of God contained in the words of the “father of lies.” Instead, he accepted the suggestion to avail himself of a created thing contrary to the prohibition of the Creator, thinking that he also “man” could be “like God, knowing good and evil.”
According to St. Paul, man’s first sin consisted especially in disobedience to God (cf. Rom 5:19).
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/audiences/alpha/data/aud19860910en.html
V
Vico
Guest
Also, I hope you read this entire document from Vatican II, but particularly this:
With the whole tradition of the church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way as in every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter. Man perceives that this disobedience to God destroys the bond that unites him with his life principle: It is a mortal sin, that is, an act which gravely offends God and ends in turning against man himself with a dark and powerful force of destruction.
During the synod assembly some fathers proposed a threefold distinction of sins, classifying them as venial, grave and mortal. This threefold distinction might illustrate the fact that there is a scale of seriousness among grave sins. But it still remains true that the essential and decisive distinction is between sin which destroys charity and sin which does not kill the supernatural life: There is no middle way between life and death.
Likewise, care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of " fundamental option"-as is commonly said today-against God, intending thereby an explicit and formal contempt for God or neighbor. For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God’s love for humanity and the whole of creation; the person turns away from God and loses charity. Thus the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by individual acts. Clearly there can occur situations which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint and which have an influence on the sinner’s subjective culpability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to the construction of a theological category, which is what the “fundamental option” precisely is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin.
vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_02121984_reconciliatio-et-paenitentia_en.html
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi, Vico, now we are getting somewhere!
Okay, I concede that culpability, in the context of what the person considers or does not consider is a pertinent part of the discussion. You are quite right, it should not be excluded, but I request that the aim of the discussion is not to determine culpability, (i.e. determine a violation) but to determine what is going on in the person’s mind, which is what K&WRG is all about.
As far as the “no longer able to receive communion” part, it seems that the “fallen away” has already predetermined that he doesn’t wish to receive communion anyway, right? The fact that he is not allowed to receive communion is moot to him.
Here is another option, you can try this question: If a person says “I know I should resist because it is wrong, but I want this.” Why does he do what he knows is wrong? What is going on in his mind in terms of priority and gravity?
Let me give an example. Bill is jealous of Fred’s fancy car. He doesn’t like Fred. One day, Bill passed Fred’s car with a large, heavy metal object and was not careful about avoiding scratching the paint on Fred’s car when he passed. Why did he do this? What was going on in his mind? Feel free to answer these questions instead of the “falling away” question, or answer the other only, or both. For brevity’s sake, we should probably stick with one. Pick the one that you think will come to the point that the person knowingly and willingly rejected God.
I will stand by my opinion. Ideally we should be able to respond (be responsible) for all of our actions, whether the Church says it is a sin or not. It is a matter of being responsible or being irresponsible, I pick responsible, always. The Church does not prohibit responsibility. I can have my own extra “should” without having it being written in Church doctrine (oops, I am off-topic). You are not trying to promote irresponsibility, you are trying to be true to doctrine, that’s good!
Okay, I concede that culpability, in the context of what the person considers or does not consider is a pertinent part of the discussion. You are quite right, it should not be excluded, but I request that the aim of the discussion is not to determine culpability, (i.e. determine a violation) but to determine what is going on in the person’s mind, which is what K&WRG is all about.
Here is the next question:
- Why has he fallen away? (What was he thinking when he had done such “falling away”?)
As far as the “no longer able to receive communion” part, it seems that the “fallen away” has already predetermined that he doesn’t wish to receive communion anyway, right? The fact that he is not allowed to receive communion is moot to him.
Here is another option, you can try this question: If a person says “I know I should resist because it is wrong, but I want this.” Why does he do what he knows is wrong? What is going on in his mind in terms of priority and gravity?
Yes, the appetites compel us to do things. However, in order to actually sin, there is some defectiveness, some lack of sensibility that goes into an act, against reason, as stated by St. Thomas Aquinas. We are born with a palette of drives, desires, and capacities. The key part of what we are discussing here is not the appetites themselves, but what is going on in the sinner’s mind, what he is thinking.
Let me give an example. Bill is jealous of Fred’s fancy car. He doesn’t like Fred. One day, Bill passed Fred’s car with a large, heavy metal object and was not careful about avoiding scratching the paint on Fred’s car when he passed. Why did he do this? What was going on in his mind? Feel free to answer these questions instead of the “falling away” question, or answer the other only, or both. For brevity’s sake, we should probably stick with one. Pick the one that you think will come to the point that the person knowingly and willingly rejected God.
- Status