Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[chefmomster2]

OS:

After committing an act that is grievous, such as adultery, murder, rape, etc., the Church holds that only God can judge whether this is an actual mortal sin. We are doing this hypothetically.

The Church holds that every grievous act is determined (by God) to be mortal or not based upon the “rule” of K&W.

If a person should be determined to be fully knowledgable and fully willing in the commission of the act they are accountable for mortal sin.

Would you agree?

 

[OneSheep]

No, I did not say that.

Not what I wrote nor can be concluded from what I wrote.

Well, here is what you said:

Your observations are incomplete. Knowledge and the will are spiritual and are thus not available to be observed by human senses.

I was confused, that is why I asked instead of asserting. So, what do you mean by this statement?

I have no idea. Why do you say that the object of Jesus statement is the crowd and not someone else?

Thank you

Well, yes, Luke does not state specifically who He is referring to, though the reader is given the impression that the words were spoken for all present. If that is not the case, explain who do you think He was referring to, and apply the question the same way:

What would the people Jesus was referring to, when He said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

Thanks again, for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

OS:

After committing an act that is grievous, such as adultery, murder, rape, etc., the Church holds that only God can judge whether this is an actual mortal sin. We are doing this hypothetically.

The Church holds that every grievous act is determined (by God) to be mortal or not based upon the “rule” of K&W.

If a person should be determined to be fully knowledgable and fully willing in the commission of the act they are accountable for mortal sin.

Would you agree?

CM: Am I OS?

If so, my answer is yes, I agree with all the above.

Remember, though, that I think that man should be held accountable for everything he does, sin or not, and no matter what “type” of sin.

And, sorry for the ad nauseum, when people are “fully knowledgeable”, they don’t sin. That is only my observation, though. Still looking for that counterexample…

God Bless you, Chefmomster2, have a nice weekend.

OneSheep

 

[davidv]

Well, here is what you said:

I was confused, that is why I asked instead of asserting. So, what do you mean by this statement?

Well, yes, Luke does not state specifically who He is referring to, though the reader is given the impression that the words were spoken for all present. If that is not the case, explain who do you think He was referring to, and apply the question the same way:

What would the people Jesus was referring to, when He said “forgive them, for they know not what they do” have to know in order to actually know what they were doing?

Thanks again, for your response.

You have stated that you have observed that no one has knowingly and willing rejected God. What I am saying is that this is an inaccurate and misleading statement, as you cannot observe anyone else’s knowledge nor will. So, when you conclude that no one K&W rejects God, it is a invalid conclusion since it is based on incomplete, and I would contend, erroneous assumptions.

 

[Cone]

I take issue with the premise that anyone knowingly and willingly rejects God. But I’m interested to see some of the responses from people who do think that everyone who believes differently from them is a secret rebel who just hates God.

There are many people who knowingly and willingly reject God. Judas comes to mind. Of course, not everyone who rejects God does so knowingly or with full volition, but the poster wasn’t suggesting that.

 

[simpleas]

Hello!

If something wasn’t mentioned, it isn’t proof that it didn’t happen. The Gospel writers could not possibly write down every single word or action that occurred in the life of Christ.
John 25: Conclusion.
24 It is this disciple who testifies to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true. 25 There are also many other things that Jesus did, but if these were to be described individually, I do not think the whole world would contain the books that would be written.
The authors selected what was included based on themes that were important. Obviously asking for forgiveness is fundamental to our salvation. It is mentioned frequently and strongly. It just wasn’t mentioned directly in this instance. In my mind this is more an example of:

• The forgiveness of even the most grievous wrongs.
• The experience of reconciliation.
• The reaffirmation of Peter’s continuing role in the Church despite his imperfections.
• If you are correct and it was not actually a part of Peter’s reconciliation, perhaps it is an even greater example for us: that we must forgive others, whether they ask for our forgiveness or not! Reconciliation as the renewal of the relationship requires the coming together of both people, but the granting of forgiveness requires only one.

It is important to look at the entirety of the Gospels to find the various teachings which together form the foundation of our faith. No single verse holds all of the details. Even the Great Commandment took two!
Mark 12: 29-31
Jesus replied, “The first is this: ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is Lord alone! You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind, and with all your strength.
The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”

Have a blessed day!

Thanks.
Yes of course not every single word or action was written down, I wasn’t thinking that as such. I just pondered on how no mention of asking to be forgiven and being forgiven by the Risen Christ as a need for Peters salvation too either before or after Christ asks if Peter loves him enough times before he makes him leader of the church.
To me it could seem like Peter did not need to ask for forgiveness, that Christ always knew he would be the one whom he would pass on the teaching to, and asking him three times if he loved him was enough to be able to be forgiven.

If two people have a arguement, one person was right, the one who was wrong, by their conscience knows they were wrong and so apologises to the person in the right, and they accept, they have reconciled and brought back peace. None of them K&WRG, even if they caused hurt by their words because they realised their fault. No confession is needed to God in this case? Unless of course the wrong person thinks God is angry with them still.

 

[simpleas]

This thread has been sounding like a bad ChickLit Romance Novel.
Maybe people enjoy it, but is it such a good idea to wallow in sin, talking about it endlessly?
Go to confession and be done with it.

I don’t think of it as wallowing in sin, it does seem strange for me personally to be thinking on why people sin though. But I also think it’s worth understanding and keeping an open mind about situations in life, that most people will just put down to people being really bad sinners…if you get my meaning.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote:

It does not seem as if he had a committed relationship with Abba.

It is given that he was committed to the faith before he fell away by personal choice.

You wrote:

Your other statements indicate that his will has changed, that he is moving (slowly) towards repentance.

1.So, are you saying that he thinks he wills “yes”, but he is kidding himself, he is lying to himself?, that deep down, he is really saying “no”?
2. If so, would you like to modify some of those statements you made about him (above) on earlier posts, to reflect what he is thinking "deeper down?

1. No, he has not the necessary resolve to repent, it is only a wish as explained: he is afraid of hell. There is a difference between wish (a desire) and volition. No repentance has occurred.
2. No, the above should be sufficient.

The *alternate *answer I gave is:

He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).

Cognitive dissonance theory indicates stress as a motivating factor, but does not predict when a person makes up their mind, which is the volitional moment. There may be dissonance but the will to repent has not occurred yet, which must be all or nothing.

He knows that what he does is sinful (he was taught this), and has chosen it personally. Therefore it is time to consider why.

 

[chefmomster2]

To me it could seem like Peter did not need to ask for forgiveness, that Christ always knew he would be the one whom he would pass on the teaching to, and asking him three times if he loved him was enough to be able to be forgiven.

Peter was a human being. He needed reconciliation just like any man. We shouldn’t draw any implications from what isn’t there as I said before.

The plan had already been put in place for Peter to be the Rock of the Church. That happened just before the Transfiguration and soon after the first prediction of the Passion. The story of “Feed my Sheep” happens almost immediately before the conclusion of the Gospel of John, well after those events. This incident reinforces the idea that God does not require perfection. Peter sinned, he reconciled. He goes on to be the first Bishop of Rome and a martyr of the faith.

If two people have a argument, one person was right, the one who was wrong, by their conscience knows they were wrong and so apologises to the person in the right, and they accept, they have reconciled and brought back peace. None of them K&WRG, even if they caused hurt by their words because they realised their fault. No confession is needed to God in this case? Unless of course the wrong person thinks God is angry with them still.

No, that isn’t so. Remember the Great Commandment? If we sin against our neighbor, we are sinning against God. We must reconcile with them both.

If we sin, we always do so K&W. That’s the only way there can be sin. We see how wrong we were afterwards and seek to reconcile with each other and with God. We do this because we desire to be with Him, because He is Love. We don’t do it because “God is mad at us.” or skip it if we think He isn’t. If we sin, we automatically harm the relationship and it needs to be repaired. Guilt and a sense of responsibility help us to recognize our wrongdoing. They don’t cancel it out.

Remember that sin IS a rejection of God. It isn’t a debatable point. That is part of the Church’s definition. If we sin, we reject Him. If we sin grievously we reject Him fully.

K&W are considered after the sin has been committed. They are all about the judgment of our sins. God will determine what was in our heart at the time and determine how culpable we are for what we did. If we didn’t have full willingness, for instance, we still might be accountable to the degree that we did K&W sin. We still committed the sin. The sin is still just as evil whether we were K&W or not. If we were K&W according to the judgment of God, then we will be held fully accountable. If we do not reconcile before death, we will not enter heaven.

 

[chefmomster2]

This thread has been sounding like a bad ChickLit Romance Novel.
Maybe people enjoy it, but is it such a good idea to wallow in sin, talking about it endlessly?
Go to confession and be done with it.

We are having a serious and generally pretty respectful discussion on the doctrine of Mortal Sin. We see it as an opportunity to deepen our understanding and increase our faith. When it ceases to be helpful, it will come to an end on its own.

 

[OneSheep]

You have stated that you have observed that no one has knowingly and willing rejected God. What I am saying is that this is an inaccurate and misleading statement, as you cannot observe anyone else’s knowledge nor will. So, when you conclude that no one K&W rejects God, it is a invalid conclusion since it is based on incomplete, and I would contend, erroneous assumptions.

Okay, the gig is up.

Yes, I am only seeing with my eyes. I have no other eyes with which to see.

So, what do I see?

I see human goodness, wonder, and beauty, down to the core. Why? I have asked the same questions of myself that I have asked everyone else on this thread, and they always lead to the same place: to the goodness of our Lord within.

And, the goodness of what He created.

St. Augustine said: “It is through the Spirit that we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” I can relate to the part of the statement, that “whatsoever exists in any way is good”. Is it through the Spirit? Well, for me it has led to a true wholeness, a oneness with others. I can understand and relate to everyone. This too, is the result of my own prayerful investigation into myself, and by projection, all others. Yes, I project. All of us project, and we have no way to do otherwise. We only have one frame of reference, and there is no escape. Whenever a person A tries to see anything from another person B’s perspective, it is still person A doing so, with his own mind. There is no way out of the phenomenon of projection.

So, yes, absolutely it is incomplete! I long to hear the experiences of others; I seek to either discover a different answer, challenging my own observations, or to confirm that others can do the same, to see the truth of love within everyone; the innocence found in ignorance. We are all loveable, amazingly dumb-witted sheep.

So, not only are my own observations incomplete, but so are everyone else’ in the world. The I-statements, however, are truthful. What you observe is what you observe. What I observe is what I observe. Sure, we can challenge the observations, and that can be very fruitful. So, when I ask for a counterexample to my own observations, yes, it is a challenge to the observations of others as well as my own. If one of our observations is erroneous, it will not stand up to investigation.

I continue to invite possible counterexamples. Does anyone every knowingly and willingly reject God? Vico is working on an example, and we will see where it goes. My statements are based on observations, not assumptions. (Though I must admit, it is difficult to ascertain all of our assumptions. Feel free to point them out if I am not noticing.)

If you, David, think that my observation is erroneous, come up with a counterexample! I remain open minded, and in fact I was quite ready to make a modified exception with Vico’s example before I realized that I was misunderstanding his description of the sinner he presented.

Thanks, David, for bringing forward this important aspect of the whole conversation.

 

[simpleas]

Peter was a human being. He needed reconciliation just like any man. We shouldn’t draw any implications from what isn’t there as I said before.

The plan had already been put in place for Peter to be the Rock of the Church. That happened just before the Transfiguration and soon after the first prediction of the Passion. The story of “Feed my Sheep” happens almost immediately before the conclusion of the Gospel of John, well after those events. This incident reinforces the idea that God does not require perfection. Peter sinned, he reconciled. He goes on to be the first Bishop of Rome and a martyr of the faith.

No, that isn’t so. Remember the Great Commandment? If we sin against our neighbor, we are sinning against God. We must reconcile with them both.

If we sin, we always do so K&W. That’s the only way there can be sin. We see how wrong we were afterwards and seek to reconcile with each other and with God. We do this because we desire to be with Him, because He is Love. We don’t do it because “God is mad at us.” or skip it if we think He isn’t. If we sin, we automatically harm the relationship and it needs to be repaired. Guilt and a sense of responsibility help us to recognize our wrongdoing. They don’t cancel it out.

Remember that sin IS a rejection of God. It isn’t a debatable point. That is part of the Church’s definition. If we sin, we reject Him. If we sin grievously we reject Him fully.

K&W are considered after the sin has been committed. They are all about the judgment of our sins. God will determine what was in our heart at the time and determine how culpable we are for what we did. If we didn’t have full willingness, for instance, we still might be accountable to the degree that we did K&W sin. We still committed the sin. The sin is still just as evil whether we were K&W or not. If we were K&W according to the judgment of God, then we will be held fully accountable. If we do not reconcile before death, we will not enter heaven.

Thanks.

When I asked about confession, I was meaning actually going to confession. If a person by their own conscience reconciles with the person they hurt, they can ask or even do ask God for forgiveness each time the recite the Our Father. But by their own will they did the right thing by reconciling with the person and with God.

A person who doesn’t reconcile with the person they hurt, but does go to confession and ask for forgivess from God, can’t be doing the right thing because the damage to the “human” relationship is still there.

I’m not saying no one should go to confession, who can reconcile with others, I think we always confess what harm we have caused to others each time we do confess, because it may still be on the conscience, but you need not “go running” to confession if you have reconciled with the person and God through prayer.

Have a good day

 

[chefmomster2]

Thanks.

When I asked about confession, I was meaning actually going to confession. If a person by their own conscience reconciles with the person they hurt, they can ask or even do ask God for forgiveness each time the recite the Our Father. But by their own will they did the right thing by reconciling with the person and with God.

A person who doesn’t reconcile with the person they hurt, but does go to confession and ask for forgivess from God, can’t be doing the right thing because the damage to the “human” relationship is still there.

I’m not saying no one should go to confession, who can reconcile with others, I think we always confess what harm we have caused to others each time we do confess, because it may still be on the conscience, but you need not “go running” to confession if you have reconciled with the person and God through prayer.

Have a good day

Absolutely, unless the sin is grievous. Then, of course, confession is required.

Enjoy your weekend!

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep and davidv- I hope you won’t mind my response to this post.

OneSheep: There is nothing here against Catholic teaching, the only difference you will find is that of my observations.

I don’t believe you have made this claim before and I feel it is necessary to respectfully refute it if I can.

Originally Posted by davidv
A. Sin is an offense against God
B. Offending God is to reject Him
C. To sin one must know what one is is doing is a sin (sufficient knowledge) and do so willingly.
Conclusion: Any sin committed, whether venial or mortal, is to reject God, knowingly and willingly.

The above statements are faithful to Church teaching. I’ll contrast David’s assertions with yours and with support from Church Doctrine.

Point A

davidv: Sin is an offense against God.

OS: Sin is an offense against God’s law, when viewed by a knowledgeable third person.

CCC:1850 Sin is an offense against God: "Against you, you alone, have I sinned, and done that which is evil in your sight. "Sin sets itself against God’s love for us and turns our hearts away from it. Like the first sin, it is disobedience, a revolt against God through the will to become “like gods,” knowing and determining good and evil. Sin is thus “love of oneself even to contempt of God.” In this proud self- exaltation, sin is diametrically opposed to the obedience of Jesus, which achieves our salvation.
Sin is an offense against God, period. It is contrary to Church teaching to declare it to be “as seen” by any “knowledgable third person”. The Church guides us with her doctrine and holy Scripture. These must be the basis for our statements if we are to stay true to Church teaching. The Church and Scripture tell us what constitutes sin.

OS: The sinner actually may not know that the sin is against God’s law, which he would only “know” with his well-informed conscience; he has taken ownership of the law in his conscience. In my observation, people only sin when they do not know what they are doing. Sin is an act against reason.

It is certainly possible that a particular person may not know that a particular act is sinful. This might reduce its imputability. But, doctrine of the Church does not require or define such “ownership”. Knowledge is the awareness that an act they is opposed to God’s law. If they know this they are obliged to follow the law. It is only in accepting God’s will in the matter that they accept and love God. Choosing otherwise is to reject God Himself. It is sin.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[chefmomster2]

CONTINUED…

Point B

davidv: B. Offending God is to reject Him.

OS: B: Sufficient knowledge is knowing that it is against God’s law, which again runs into the conscience question. Does the person really have a grasp on the importance of the sin? For example, crucifying Jesus was a sin. Did they know they were rejecting God? No, they were acting on their misinformed consciences. Their punishment of Jesus was a decision of their consciences, and they did not know what they were doing. In addition, capitol punishment is a sin, is it not?

According to the CCC:386 Sin is present in human history; any attempt to ignore it or to give this dark reality other names would be futile. To try to understand what sin is, one must first recognize the profound relation of man to God, for only in this relationship is the evil of sin unmasked in its true identity as humanity’s rejection of God and opposition to him, even as it continues to weigh heavy on human life and history.

1855 Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God’s law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.We cannot presume to know what Christ was thinking in His judgment. Were they deficient in K&W? Presumably. Can we use one specific example to generalize and understand Church doctrine? No. We must consider Scripture and Tradition as a whole. Anecdotal evidence may give us valuable insight, but it does not prove anything.

Sin can be imputed if our erroneous judgment is due to negligence of learning the law or preferring our own judgment to the wisdom of the Church… Mere erroneous judgment does not mitigate the sin.
CCC: 1783…The education of conscience is indispensable for human beings who are subjected to negative influences and tempted by sin to prefer their own judgment and to reject authoritative teachings.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

What davidv presented to you is one of the definitions of the Church. Knowledge does not affect definition. Definitions of the Church which are formally declared are doctrine meant to be obeyed as written. We cannot expand on them or reorient them and still call them Church doctrine or Church teaching. Sin is rejection. Rejection is sin.
892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

The Church does not say that we must explicitly and directly reject God to be denied heaven. This is automatically the result of grave sin. We will be denied heaven if we die unforgiven of mortal sin.
According to the CCC:1470…**For it is now, in this life, that we are offered the choice between life and death, and it is only by the road of conversion that we can enter the Kingdom, from which one is excluded by grave sin.**79 In converting to Christ through penance and faith, the sinner passes from death to life and "does not come into judgment."80

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[chefmomster2]

CONTINUED…

Point C

davidv: C. To sin one must know what one is is doing is a sin (sufficient knowledge) and do so willingly.

OS: C. So, given that the crowd who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing, they were not sinning? In that case, sin never happens, because when people do harm to others, they do not know what they are doing. (Emphasis mine.)

If your theory is true, if man can never K&W act to offend God, then no one ever sinned. Not the fallen angels. Not Adam. Not Cain. Not the people of Sodom. Not Judas. Not the high priests. Not the crowd. Not anyone since the beginning of time.

That is exactly the fallacy of your argument. Man DOES sin. This is the explicit teaching of the Church. Therefore, man does have the ability to K&W commit an offense against God. They are intrinsically and indivisibly related.

TO BE CONTINUED… (Take heart! It will finish soon! )

 

[chefmomster2]

CONTINUED…

Conclusion

davidv: Conclusion: Any sin committed, whether venial or mortal, is to reject God, knowingly and willingly.

OS: People do not knowingly and willingly reject God when they sin, not only by lack of intent, but because they do not know what they are doing in the first place. People who do harm to others are not seeing the value of the victim’s well-being. If they did, they would not sin.

People who knowingly sin, knowingly reject. They are the exact same action.

People are born with an interior sense of right or wrong and with the assistance necessary to discern good and evil.
According to the CCC: 733 “God is Love” and love is his first gift, containing all others. “God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.”

735…we have received “power” from the Holy Spirit.

741"The Spirit helps us in our weakness…

1308…Even in childhood man can attain spiritual maturity…

1327…Our way of thinking is attuned to the Eucharist, and the Eucharist in turn confirms our way of thinking."

1704 The human person participates in the light and power of the divine Spirit. By his reason, he is capable of understanding the order of things established by the Creator. By free will, he is capable of directing himself toward his true good. He finds his perfection “in seeking and loving what is true and good.”

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.” Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor.

1724 The Decalogue, the Sermon on the Mount, and the apostolic catechesis describe for us the paths that lead to the Kingdom of heaven. Sustained by the grace of the Holy Spirit, we tread them, step by step, by everyday acts. By the working of the Word of Christ, we slowly bear fruit in the Church to the glory of God.

IOW, we have the love of God, the assistance and gifts of the Holy Spirit, the sacraments, Scripture, the Church, reason, free will, and freedom. We also have Natural Law.
1954…the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie: The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin . . .

1955 The “divine and natural” law shows man the way to follow so as to practice the good and attain his end. The natural law states the first and essential precepts which govern the moral life. It hinges upon the desire for God and submission to him, who is the source and judge of all that is good, as well as upon the sense that the other is one’s equal. Its principal precepts are expressed in the Decalogue. This law is called “natural,” not in reference to the nature of irrational beings, but because reason which decrees it properly belongs to human nature:

…The natural law is…the light of understanding placed in us by God; through it we know what we must do and what we must avoid. God has given this light or law at the creation.

1956 The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties:

**For there is a true law: right reason. It is in conformity with nature, is diffused among all men, and is immutable and eternal; its orders summon to duty; its prohibitions turn away from offense . . . . **

1958 The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress…it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies…

1959 The natural law, the Creator’s very good work, provides the solid foundation on which man can build the structure of moral rules to guide his choices…

1960…The natural law provides revealed law and grace with a foundation prepared by God and in accordance with the work of the Spirit.

OS: To reject God is to reject a loving entity of infinite value. A person who is not cognizant of His infinite value, and His presence of infinite value in all His sheep, does not know who they are rejecting. Yes, rejection happens, but it happens unwittingly…

If rejection does happen, as you indicate, sin happens. Sin is only sin if it is K&W. Since there is sin there is K&W.

TO BE CONTINUED…

 

[chefmomster2]

CONTINUED…

Knowledge as you use it is in opposition to Church teaching.
According to the CCC: 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes “knowledge of the sinful character of the act”, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. The weight of doctrine must and does take precedence over our own private experiences, feelings, revelations, inclinations, preferences, etc. which can be errant.2051 The infallibility of the Magisterium of the Pastors extends to all the elements of doctrine, including moral doctrine, without which the saving truths of the faith cannot be preserved, expounded, or observed.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation of sanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is not redeemed by repentance and God’s forgiveness, it causes exclusion from Christ’s kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has the power to make choices for ever, with no turning back. However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God.

We cannot divorce the act of understanding a moral doctrine from the teaching of the Church. We must subscribe to the true teaching of doctrine and that must be the starting place for any understanding. The Church defines “full knowledge” as a definition and we cannot ignore or restate the meaning of “full knowledge” from that same Church. Likewise, in explaining mortal sin, an important moral doctrine of the Church, we can’t ignore the Church’s guidance that sin is rejection. We can’t say with any credence that our experience or understanding trumps the sure statement of the CCC.

THE END

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico, I hope you had a blessed Sunday. I was very busy at goings-on in my parish this morning, and then took a much-needed nap. My mind is fresh and relaxed.

It is given that he was committed to the faith before he fell away by personal choice.

Yes, his falling away shows a lack of commitment in the first place. A condition happened which led to his falling away. If he had committed to remain in the faith unconditionally, he would not have fallen away, at least not knowingly and willingly rejecting God. We can discuss what was going on in his mind at that time, but I think you have chosen a different place in the scenario.

1. No, he has not the necessary resolve to repent, it is only a wish as explained: he is afraid of hell. There is a difference between wish (a desire) and volition.

I seem to have read your scenario incorrectly. So he wants to return to the sacraments, but he has done nothing? He is not taking steps to have his marriage blessed, he is not in a premarital program, he has done nothing. He only “wishes”. Is that the scenario?

The *alternate *answer I gave is:
He is not willing yes and no at the same time. No man can have two masters. He is willing no. He has a wish (a desire or hope for something to happen) to get out of it.

It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).

Cognitive dissonance theory indicates stress as a motivating factor, but does not predict when a person makes up their mind, which is the volitional moment. There may be dissonance but the will to repent has not occurred yet, which must be all or nothing.

He knows that what he does is sinful (he was taught this), and has chosen it personally. Therefore it is time to consider why.

So, allow me to put this together into a statement of what is going on in his mind, and please correct the statement so that what is going on in his mind fits the scenario you are presenting:

“I know that it is wrong for me to choose for things to remain the same, in fact I am destining myself to death, an eternity away from God. I am choosing hell for myself and my wife rather than taking the steps toward repentance and life.”

Is this what is going on in his mind?

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Chefmomster, I took the time to respond to your lengthy post. I omitted most for brevity’s sake. If I omitted something that you think I did not address fully enough, please bring it back.

OneSheep and davidv- I hope you won’t mind my response to this post.

I don’t believe you have made this claim before and I feel it is necessary to respectfully refute it if I can.The above statements are faithful to Church teaching. I’ll contrast David’s assertions with yours and with support from Church Doctrine.

My quote(?)

Sin is an offense against God’s law, when viewed by a knowledgeable third person.

Is this my quote? I need to see it in context. Let me clarify: A knowledgeable third person may determine that someone else has sinned, but the sin is not acknowledged by the sinner himself. It happens, often. Sin is an offense against God’s law.

But, doctrine of the Church does not require or define such “ownership”. Knowledge is the awareness that an act they is opposed to God’s law. If they know this they are obliged to follow the law. It is only in accepting God’s will in the matter that they accept and love God. Choosing otherwise is to reject God Himself. It is sin.

Yes, we are back to the definition of what it means to know of “opposition to God’s law”. If such knowledge is the simple “the Church says it is wrong”, followed by “no big deal”, then the person is far from having “full knowledge”. If “full knowledge” is the same as “simple knowledge” then yes, people probably commit mortal sins fairly often. They do not know what they are doing, but the sins can be categorized thus with that definition.

In that case, the words “full knowledge” are misplaced. However, to me, knowing “opposition to God’s law” involves something much more internal, so “full knowledge” is more descriptive.

Point B…
What davidv presented to you is one of the definitions of the Church. Knowledge does not affect definition. Definitions of the Church which are formally declared are doctrine meant to be obeyed as written. We cannot expand on them or reorient them and still call them Church doctrine or Church teaching. Sin is rejection. Rejection is sin.

Sin is rejection, yes. It is without knowing what they are doing in intent to reject, in my observation.
Rejection, is a sin, yes, but such rejection happens with limited knowledge, and, thus, limited will. I do not contest what is written. It is a matter of making sense of it, remember chefmomster?

Point C
If your theory is true, if man can never K&W act to offend God, then no one ever sinned. Not the fallen angels. Not Adam. Not Cain. Not the people of Sodom. Not Judas. Not the high priests. Not the crowd. Not anyone since the beginning of time.

Oh, well, I never said “man can never”. What I did say was that I have never seen a counterexample. We can discuss Cain, the people of Sodom, and Judas, the high priests, and the crowd, because they are all (seemingly) humans of typical makeup and experience. There may be a counterexample in there, but not in my observation. Stories of Adam and fallen angels are not comparisons. They are super-human.

For example, are you saying that since the crowd did not know what they were doing, they did not sin? If you are going to respond to this post, please, chefmomster, answer that question. To me, it was still sin whether they knew what they were doing or not. Sin is an act against reason, remember? Anyone who acts against reason is choosing from a position of ignorance. Choosing death is unreasonable, and such a choice is only made in ignorance or blindness. Rejecting God, in my observation, is only done in ignorance and blindness. Again, feel free to bring in another counterexample to investigate.

That is exactly the fallacy of your argument. Man DOES sin. This is the explicit teaching of the Church. Therefore, man does have the ability to K&W commit an offense against God. They are intrinsically and indivisibly related.

TO BE CONTINUED… (Take heart! It will finish soon! )

Yes, I am certainly open to the possibility that man has the ability to K&WRG, but you have still not presented an example of such. Yes, man does sin, in terms of violating God’s law or hurting people/self. He does not know what he is doing. Again, my observation. Do you see what I am saying? I am trying to make sense of it. I am making observations, and my “argument” is in favor of clarifying doctrine.

When it comes to mortal sin, for example, I am guessing that you think the CCC should say “simple knowledge” instead of “full knowledge”.

CONTINUED…

Conclusion

People who knowingly sin, knowingly reject. They are the exact same action.

Please present an example, and we can discuss it. We can work on the definition you are specifically using for “knowingly” there.

I respect that your conclusion of my “fallacy” stems from your own observations that people do K&WRG. That is fine, and we can agree to disagree too.

Feel free to challenge my observations, chefmomster. My “conclusions”, are essentially tentative and based on my observations. Do you notice my use of the word “possible”?

1706 By his reason, man recognizes the voice of God which urges him “to do what is good and avoid what is evil.” Everyone is obliged to follow this law, which makes itself heard in conscience and is fulfilled in the love of God and of neighbor.

I picked this one out as the most pertinent to our conversation. Yes, everyone is obliged, but everyone does not. They do so without knowing what they are doing.

(cont’d)