Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico, I think we are moving forward, mostly!

A. “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth. I am going to con-validate my marriage. I cannot confess yet because i do not have the proper disposition of repentance, that of regret and avoiding the near occasion of sin. I am trying to develop it and pray for it to be so. Being in the near occasion of sin, my civil marriage wife tempts me and a do not resist.”

Okay, this says one thing, but…

He refused to believe what that Church taught about marriage with approval of the Church and he neglected those lessons.

Let me get this straight. We are not talking about the period in which he began fornicating, because he obviously was believing an untruth, he did not know what he was doing. We do not need to revisit that time period.

It sounds like we are back to the “yes and no” period. The statement you made for him,
“I am going to con-validate my marriage.” is decisive and indicates volition, this does not indicate a rejection of God at all. However, his actions say otherwise. I suggested this before, and this was your response:

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.

Let us look at the “two masters” verse from the Gospel:

Luke 16:13

No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.

So, we need to pin this down to see where his volition really is. Is the one he loves, as the net effect his passion, or God?

I am really having trouble figuring this all out, because you also said:

Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No.

So, on the one hand, his relationship with God is more important than staying with his wife, that is what he is thinking. On the other hand, he is not doing what he thinks is important. But wait a minute, he said, “I am trying to develop it (disposition) and pray for it to be so”. He is willing “no” but prays “yes”? Is not prayer already an act of volition?

This sounds a bit irrational, does it not? This time, I have only one question to answer, and I think we are almost done.

1. Perhaps we could put some pressure on the man. We tell the man that he is going to die in three days. Does he go to confession and con-validate the marriage in those 3 days? This should tell us whether he intends to reject, right?

A. There are levels of learning. In terms of the noun knowing: “the state of being aware or informed”. It may increase of decrease over time depending on what is the subject, and the mental capabilities of the person.

Yes, knowledge may increase over time. As a result, some people are going to be much fuller in knowledge about the sinful character of an act than others, as I gave in the example of the witness testimony. The gap between “full” and “partial” is part of what I am describing as “not knowing”. The crowd who hung Jesus only had a partial knowing of his value as an individual. What they thought they knew was essentially false.

A. Yes, of his sinful acts; I wrote: “He learned what the Church teaches at a basic level, enough to know the character of sinful acts, and the result.”
A. Sufficient is relative to something. For commission of sin, sufficiency is information, from the conscience or from teaching of the Church, of the sinful character of the act.

Yes, and I explained that if a person says, “Yes, the Church says that, but it is no big deal.” then his knowledge is insufficient. He will know the sinful character when it is a recognized part of his conscience. A person who suffers because of the sin is going to know much more about the sinful character. He suffers, he learns from the suffering, he knows more.

The more he suffers, there will come a point in time where the amount of knowledge gained is sufficient to stop him from sinning. Until then, the amount of knowledge is insufficient, Vico! It may be sufficient to be called “full knowledge” if “full knowledge” is equated with “superficial knowledge”, but it is far from being sufficient to stop the sin.

• You wrote: “… he knew that the Church said what he was doing was wrong, but he was unconvinced of the wrongness.”
  A. He became corrupted through pride and sensuality, by personal choice, knowing what the Church teaches and also by conscience.

In context, that comment was about his intent. Since he believed an untruth, he did not know what he was doing. He saw what the Church taught as an untruth, which again clearly shows that he did not know what he was doing. So, yes, he rejected God, but he did so unwittingly.

• You wrote: “was God real to him, as real as the sun in the sky?”
  A. Yes, as the creator of the Sun and the law giver.

This begs the question as to why he would reject an unreality, but it is already clear that he did not know what he was doing when he “fell away”. He was believing a falsehood. But this is the past, and we are talking about this time where he no longer refuses to believe the Church.

• You wrote: “Is he rational?”
  A. He is a rational being, subject to passion, which brings man to do what is against reason.

People do what is irrational, this is not a knowing and willing rejection of God, it is an irrational rejection of God. Man’s passions alter his mind. He does not know what he is doing, he is blinded by desire.

Cont’d

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

You wrote: “Q: Why did he choose poorly? A: Because of depravity of heart. Q: Why does he have depravity of heart? A: Because he chose poorly.”
A. He had purity, but lost it by not fighting temptation. Once that occurred he had a state of depravity of heart, but not before that, however there is an inclination to sin called concupiesence which is not depravity, rather it is temptation.

This creates a new loop, but this is a bit off-topic at the moment. We can take it up later if it resurfaces.

In the mean time, give some thought to that one question. I know, it is unrealistic, but the fellow seems a bit indecisive, like he does not know what he is doing.

Thanks for replying.

 

[OneSheep]

Someone sinned, or forgiveness would have been unnecessary. Jesus released them from culpability for their sin. I have no idea what Jesus’ thoughts were. Nor do I know how he judged them. I don’t know what “them” means. Every person present? A smaller number who he judged to be ignorant? We cannot judge.

On the other hand, we can speculate what the crowd did not know about Jesus, and about what they were doing. What did they not know?

According to NABRE:

• [23:34] [Then Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, they know not what they do.”]: this portion of Lk 23:34 does not occur in the oldest papyrus manuscript of Luke and in other early Greek manuscripts and ancient versions of wide geographical distribution. The brackets found around the verse are not mine, but are those present in the NABRE. Since scripture is absolutely infallibly true, this does not mean that this verse is any less valid, but it is interesting, I think. Obviously later writers felt the need to add it, but the original writer did not.

Isn’t that fascinating? It’s like the Holy Spirit convened in a real way. I think it was St. Stephen who also asked for their forgiveness when he was stoned to death.

Those stories are not about sin. The first is about charity and humility. The “greatest” will act in charity to the “least”. They will humbly serve the Lord, most especially the downtrodden, the sick, the abused by society.

The second is about coming into faith and being rewarded. Those who come to faith early will realize complete happiness in eternity. Those who come late to faith will also experience complete joy. It is a mystery, but from what I understand, this is where the “levels” of heaven come in. Your joy may be more blissful than mine, but I feel content. (Obviously jealousy or disappointment would be incompatible with joy.) Again, it’s a mystery.

It is in our nature, part of the conscience, that everything be fair. Jesus challenges our nature on this, beside the other lessons. And then, the idea of “levels of heaven” come along to help modulate the idea of fairness, which the conscience demands. God, however, is not the same as the conscience.

I don’t believe this to be so. The conscience would recognize the acts of good, but the sense of fulfillment, I believe, is a gift of the Spirit. It is the grace we receive for our true charity and it gives us added strength and desire to continue to do the work of Christ.I believe we see others through the filter of our own condition and often attribute our own strengths and weaknesses to all. I believe you mentioned that you had a difficulty with being judgmental at one time. You met with the priest who guided you to seek understanding instead. (I couldn’t find the post in the multitudes! If I remember wrongly, I apologize.) I recognize the evil in men, and I certainly wish for them to be rendered unable to continue their acts. We are certainly right to make such judgments

As long as we are calling anyone evil, we are judging.

You interpret being judgmental and the desire for punishment to be universally present in man. Certainly no one is immune to these issues, but neither is everyone as afflicted as you believe.

. But, I feel no great desire for punishment. It isn’t in my nature. I prefer to see those who are evil converted. That is the only true way to achieve the Kingdom of God.

An example: I hate the depravity of Isis. I deplore their disgusting and hideous acts of hatred and their perversion of “faith” and “God”. I want them stopped. Some perpetrators may need to be eliminated. Others may be captured, jailed, or otherwise contained. I don’t desire their death, injury, capture or incarceration for its own sake. Punishment is another separate issue. I have little interest in it. It is a bad and sinful habit which has become automatic in those who have not recognized and reformed their behavior in this respect. It is not inherent in our wiring nor is it impossible to significantly overcome it.A movie can’t be considered here. I am participating in fantasy when I watch a movie. I can judge, punish, etc. I can cheer for the bad guy. It is not reality.

So, it sounds like when you watch a movie, you let yourself judge and and want punishment. When it comes to real life, though, you do not let yourself do so, you push away the compulsion. When you are watching a movie, Chefmom, are you thinking “I am going to judge that character and want them to be punished”? Or is it a triggered response? When you are watching a movie, you let your mind freely judge, you don’t say “I shouldn’t be thinking Darth Vader should be killed.” Do you see what I mean? When you think about punishing someone in real life, you are reacting, but just as quickly comes a gut reaction to that reaction. You have a healthy conscience!

Sometimes good and evil are difficult to distinguish. This is what makes decisions concerning morality challenging.
If we knew automatically, you would have no argument at all that we can lack knowledge of the evil of the acts. Conscience has a single general purpose: the determination of good and evil. It does not judge our knowledge or consent. It guides.

Have you ever heard “he/she/I should have known better”? The conscience definitely judges our knowledge!

Thanks for your post!

 

[OneSheep]

Can I be forgiven for bluntness?

You asked Vico these question about the man. How would you answer the same questions about your arguments in this thread? Many of us in Christian love have been concerned about these things…

• You reject the Church teaching that explains the correct interpretation of the definitions involved in these discussions.

Please, Chefmom. Which Church teachings have I rejected? Please do not make blanket statements. You brought forward some things, and I addressed them. If you think I did not address them, please let me know.

• You prefer the teaching of experience to the teaching of the Magisterium.

Correction: I am trying to make sense of the teachings in light of my own experience. This one is not typical of your charity, Chefmom.

• You have stated that no human is infallible and that doctrine can misconstrue God as not unconditionally loving.

You know a human that is infallible? Yes, doctrine can be misconstrued. We have to address this at times.

Since your argument depends upon your own personal experience, how is it not a matter of pride?

I can give examples if necessary, but I think you will recognize the ideas I refer to despite any linguistic foul-ups I may have perpetrated.

Again, I beg your forgiveness if my bluntness is hurtful. It is not my intention to cause you any distress.

Is it a matter of pride to point out someone else’ pride? Pride is a topic all of its own. It is used as a negative, and it encompasses at least three phenomena. I once did a thread on “how to forgive your own pride”. You can look it up. Our negative feelings about pride are a “shadow” issue.

My motive for being on this thread is to give people the tools to a deeper forgiveness of the self and others. Understanding our own ignorance and blindness is a tool. If a person closes their mind to the idea that ignorance and blindness are a key factor, a constant factor, in all sin, then the person may never fully reconcile within or with others. This is what I have to say about my “arguments” in this thread. Arguments?

My pet topic is not sin, but reconciliation and forgiveness. Check the topics I post.

I forgive you, Chefmomster. I know you are trying to be helpful, and that you are in protection mode. It’s okay.

 

[chefmomster2]

God, however, is not the same as the conscience.

Certainly not! I don’t believe I ever suggested it is.

As long as we are calling anyone evil, we are judging.

I believe I said that I hate the evil acts, the evil in men. We are required to judge acts as good or evil. That is what we do any time we use our conscience.

When you think about punishing someone in real life, you are reacting, but just as quickly comes a gut reaction to that reaction. You have a healthy conscience!

I don’t agree. I don’t react that way. I react to the act. I recognize that it is right or wrong. That is conscience.

Have you ever heard “he/she/I should have known better”? The conscience definitely judges our knowledge!

The conscience judges right and wrong. Knowledge is neutral. It names. It states facts. Reason makes judgments.

Thank you!

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “Let me get this straight. We are not talking about the period in which he began fornicating, because he obviously was believing an untruth, he did not know what he was doing.” and “It sounds like we are back to the “yes and no” period.”

A. We never changed time periods. I suppose you are not digesting what is written, recall from post #848 with the summary in it:

"I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”

This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the will to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made.

• You wrote: "I am really having trouble figuring this all out, because you also said: Quote: Originally Posted by Vico View Post - Is he thinking that staying with his wife is more important than his relationship with God? - No. "

A. It should not be confusing at all, consider “equal to”. He is working on convalidation and is not separating in the meantime. You asked if he knows he will die in three days will he convalidate? No, he could not get the Church to move on it. Would he separate from his civil marriage wife? No.

• You wrote “The gap between “full” and “partial” is part of what I am describing as “not knowing”.”

and

“I explained that if a person says, “Yes, the Church says that, but it is no big deal.” then his knowledge is insufficient. He will know the sinful character when it is a recognized part of his conscience.”

A. I understand that. To sin does not require more than basic knowledge from the conscience of Church that an act has the character of sin. (In fact one can sin by intention alone with an act thought to be sinful but not.)

• You wrote: “yes, he rejected God, but he did so unwittingly.”

A. No, the corruption is a personal choice to not resist temptation. He was aware that he should resist temptation.

• You wrote: “People do what is irrational, this is not a knowing and willing rejection of God, it is an irrational rejection of God.”

A. It is a deliberate sin, especially when irrational. Sin is irrational. The Church is clear in its teaching that the reason is overcome by passion due to intentionally not resisting that it constitutes a sin.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
**1799 **“Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.”

**1872 **Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

1873 The root of all sins lies in man’s heart. The kinds and the gravity of sins are determined principally by their objects.

 

[chefmomster2]

Please, Chefmom. Which Church teachings have I rejected? Please do not make blanket statements. You brought forward some things, and I addressed them. If you think I did not address them, please let me know.

I’ll include them in the next post.

Correction: I am trying to make sense of the teachings in light of my own experience.

This is totally valid. We all do this. We ought to determine how to put doctrine to work in our individual lives. However, sometimes when we interpret doctrine, we come to an erroneous conclusion. When the Church teaches one thing, but our experience leads us to a conclusion that is in conflict with the doctrine, I also believe that we must rethink our conclusion.

This one is not typical of your charity, Chefmom.

I apologize again. This was not my intention. I had difficult questions to ask and despite my best efforts, I am afraid that I still phrased them in a hurtful way. I hope our long acquaintance on this thread verifies that I would never wish to hurt you nor to be uncharitable in any way.

You know a human that is infallible?

Yes! The Pope, in specific situations. The Magisterium, a group of men, in specific situations.

Yes, doctrine can be misconstrued. We have to address this at times.

Absolutely! This is my very clumsy attempt at it.

Is it a matter of pride to point out someone else’ pride? Pride is a topic all of its own.

Quite possibly! But should one neglect to ask difficult questions of a friend when they become concerned about them? If we must be perfect in order to seek to help another, we can never cast a light on possible problems.

My motive for being on this thread is to give people the tools to a deeper forgiveness of the self and others.

Perhaps, then, this is where we have gone wrong. Whether people commit mortal sin or not, whether I understand them in your sense of the word or not, I can still forgive them fully. I have an understanding that I have expressed. Man is inclined to sin. We are prone to choose goods which are inferior to the Good of God. I can understand sinners of any sort of sin because I share these things.

This is because I can understand that we are all human complete with human frailty. I can be forgiving because I have experienced forgiveness in my own life. I have seen the example of Jesus Christ and since I love Him, I seek to emulate Him. I don’t have any problem

Understanding our own ignorance and blindness is a tool. If a person closes their mind to the idea that ignorance and blindness are a key factor, a constant factor, in all sin, then the person may never fully reconcile within or with others.

I know that we all have moments of ignorance and blindness, but I reject the premise that pervasive ignorance and blindness exist such that mortal sin can never be fully committed. This view would render all sin impossible.

Arguments?

As in a debate. Not in the common usage that implies hostility.

My pet topic is not sin, but reconciliation and forgiveness.

The thread is not about how we can forgive such people, but rather how they can commit such serious wrongs knowing that they are placing their immortal souks at risk. I believe it is dangerous to believe or to spread the belief that no person can ever be found fully K&W. This can lead to a false sense of security. Some persons, seeking an “out” for their seriously wrong behavior, may see it as a way to continue their lifestyle without concern for their eternal soul. It is far too close to a belief in OSAS for me to be comfortable.

I forgive you, Chefmomster. I know you are trying to be helpful, and that you are in protection mode. It’s okay.

Thank you! I have come to appreciate your insights very much, but I have real concerns about them.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Chefmomster

I believe I said that I hate the evil acts, the evil in men. We are required to judge acts as good or evil. That is what we do any time we use our conscience.

Scientific studies have shown that our gut reactions to evil acts take place in the part of the brain that is not the “thinking part”, the frontal lobes. In my own observation of my mind, this seems to be true. The conscience, God-given, is informed, and our reactions become automatic. This is very necessary because often in life we don’t have time to mull over with the reasoning mind what requires very quick action. Isn’t creation amazing? So, the “requirement” is a moot point. We don’t have to think to judge, it is an automatic reaction, in my experience. Can you think of an example in your life where you saw evil happening and had to discipline yourself to say “Oh, I should determine if this is good or bad”? If so, it is a rarity, right? The people who hung Jesus did not spend time considering their actions. People reacted to Jesus, a “blasphemer” and some were caught up in the “mood”, the mob reaction of mimetic condemnation.

Yes, you did say the “evil in men”. Which I apologize for having read too quickly, and I am going to address further. When I judge (gut reaction), I not only judge the action, but I judge the source. It is like something internal says “certainly whatever the source of this action is, it is evil.” For most people who do not have an aversion to judging others as “evil”, the “source” is condemned outright “That guy is a jerk”. However, I can see you have taken the steps to avoid condemnation of individuals, great!

So, do you see the human as part good, part evil?

My quote:

Onesheep:

When you think about punishing someone in real life, you are reacting, but just as quickly comes a gut reaction to that reaction. You have a healthy conscience!

your response:

I don’t agree. I don’t react that way. I react to the act. I recognize that it is right or wrong. That is conscience.

Okay, I stand corrected. However, didn’t you have a bit of a reaction (albeit small) when I implied that you used the words “evil men”? So, like all of us, you react to the act, but you also react to someone calling someone else evil, right? You were quick to point out that you did not say “evil men” and I respect that correction. Aren’t you, chefmomster who I regard quite highly, also reacting when someone calls someone else “evil” (i.e. it is wrong to think of someone as evil)? Do you react internally if and when you think of someone else as evil? I do. I react to my reaction, but then I discipline myself to understand and forgive.

The conscience judges right and wrong. Knowledge is neutral. It names. It states facts. Reason makes judgments.

Thank you!

You can ignore the brain studies, it really doesn’t matter. And we can say that “judgment” falls under “reason” or under “conscience”, but I think it is both, and science supports this. We have gut-level reactions, and we have the self-awareness to observe them. Our will (frontal lobes) has the ability to modify, to some degree, what happens in our gut. When someone on here accuses me of heresy or being un-catholic, I have a gut reaction, “how disrespectful!”. Then, I take the quick steps to pray and forgive.

There are plenty of reactions that people have on the forum. Often, the reactions are regretted. Well, why did they not think before they wrote in the first place? It is because they wrote with their gut. I become somewhat blind to the people’s feelings when my “disrespect” button gets pushed. This is not a K&W rejection of a person, it is a reaction without clear forethought.

Do you see what I’m saying? Again, Chefmomster, we are not looking at these things very differently, I think.

God Bless you, and may He bless your day.

 

[simpleas]

Okay, then why obey the ten commandments, and what was the purpose for God to give us the word made flesh, Jesus Christ to teach and send the Holy Spirit to give the leaders of the Church to Teach and Preach the Good news?

We obey the ten commandments because we love God, and our fellow humans. But not everyone does obey, as we know, and most of us including me has broken one of two commands through our lives. Usually we learn from our mistake, some people do some don’t depending on their situation in life.

If people haven’t heard the message of God correctly and fall into sin that is packed with emotion, then I don’t condemn, in fact I try not to condemn anyone anymore, because no one of us is perfect.

 

[OneSheep]

Quite possibly! But should one neglect to ask difficult questions of a friend when they become concerned about them? If we must be perfect in order to seek to help another, we can never cast a light on possible problems.

Thank you. I am honored to be called your friend, sister!

Perhaps, then, this is where we have gone wrong. Whether people commit mortal sin or not, whether I understand them in your sense of the word or not, I can still forgive them fully. I have an understanding that I have expressed. Man is inclined to sin. We are prone to choose goods which are inferior to the Good of God. I can understand sinners of any sort of sin because I share these things.

Cool. Like Simpleas, you see even the worst of sinners as no different than yourself, right? I share this observation. We are all capable. But still the accusation that people K&WRG is one that is worth investigating, because it is so often used as the basis for condemnation of people. I honestly do see it as false. People mean well, even when they sin. People always mean to do something that is beneficial in some way, even if it only benefits the person who is doing the behavior. Atheists are condemned for K&WRG, but this could not be further from the truth. Plenty of people “reject God” because the only God they know is the one demonstrated by the indignation they witness in the political arena. The people that “know” of God this way are being presented a false image. There are many, many, examples, and I have yet to find a counterexample. Do you see what I mean?

This is because I can understand that we are all human complete with human frailty. I can be forgiving because I have experienced forgiveness in my own life. I have seen the example of Jesus Christ and since I love Him, I seek to emulate Him. I don’t have any problem

I know that we all have moments of ignorance and blindness, but I reject the premise that pervasive ignorance and blindness exist such that mortal sin can never be fully committed. This view would render all sin impossible.

However, if you were to do like I have and really investigate every possibility, and always find the same thing, would you not be pointing it out in the same way? We are going to have to agree to disagree on the “all sin impossible” part. Perhaps mortal sin, as defined, is impossible, but sin, serious or not, happens all too often. Those that hung Jesus sinned, remember? Yet, they did not know what they were doing.

The thread is not about how we can forgive such people, but rather how they can commit such serious wrongs knowing that they are placing their immortal souks at risk. I believe it is dangerous to believe or to spread the belief that no person can ever be found fully K&W. This can lead to a false sense of security. Some persons, seeking an “out” for their seriously wrong behavior, may see it as a way to continue their lifestyle without concern for their eternal soul. It is far too close to a belief in OSAS for me to be comfortable.

Thank you! I have come to appreciate your insights very much, but I have real concerns about them.

Like I said before, your fears on this matter are to be respected. However, understanding brings awareness. When we are more aware of the goodness, the innocence, and the value of others, we don’t sin against them. When a person is more fully aware of the goodness, the innocence, and the value of himself or herself, then he/she is not going to be in the mode of throwing their life away, thinking, “I deserve to be thrown in hell, so what is the use?” Understanding, through self-awareness is very important.

Take the “worst” of sinners, for example. Would Hitler have been moved by saying that he was mortally sinning? No, he was in the process of destroying what he saw as evil. What he failed to understand was the humanity of the Jews, the humanity of his enemies. He was blinded by resentment. Was he K&WRG? No, he did not know of the God, our Jesus, within all of his enemies.

Does the doctrine on mortal sin inhibit more from committing adultery? Well, perhaps it does. It is unfortunate that for some people it takes a life-threat for them to avoid doing something that is very wrong. The problem is, the concept of God-throwing-out (God condemning, God not forgiving, a person “falling out of grace” etc), which as I said before is easy to construe, compromises the unconditional love of God.

But here is the catch: It still all works. A person who sees God as a condemning God will not believe that humans are unworthy of condemnation, and will certainly believe that God will condemn him for doing wrong acts. A person who sees that God loves unconditionally will see that nothing, not even sin, will keep God from loving us, but in order to reach this understanding, he or she has to be completely reconciled within and without, which would make it highly unlikely that the person ever sin.

It is a quandary. In order to fully see our own value within, we have to forgive what we condemn. However, if we forgive what we condemn we lose condemnation itself as a motivator for good behavior. There is a big “letting go”, a leap of faith, to be made.

But I know now that there is no reason to fear! Regardless of whether a person sees that God forgives no matter what, or forgives conditionally, the normal, functioning conscience is still there keeping behaviors in check. It does not go away! It still gives out buckets of guilt in the right circumstances, even if we know that God-beneath-the-conscience always forgives.

The doctrine on mortal sin condemns, “He should have known better”.
Investigation shows: “He did not know better.”

It has to be verified within each individual. When I did that sin, did I know what I was doing, or was I blind and/or ignorant?

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico! Thanks for your unending patience.

A. It should not be confusing at all, consider “equal to”. He is working on convalidation and is not separating in the meantime. You asked if he knows he will die in three days will he convalidate? No, he could not get the Church to move on it. Would he separate from his civil marriage wife? No.

One question only, again:

1. Okay, let us assume that the Church was ready and willing to move on it. Then, would he (temporarily) avoid intimacy with his wife, confess his sin, and then ask the Church to marry them?

I wrote: “People do what is irrational, this is not a knowing and willing rejection of God, it is an irrational rejection of God.”

A. It is a deliberate sin, especially when irrational. Sin is irrational. The Church is clear in its teaching that the reason is overcome by passion due to intentionally not resisting that it constitutes a sin.

Okay, we agree that sin is irrational. The question is, is the person K&WRG?

If he is rational, then he does not sin. If he is irrational, he does not know what he is doing. If he does not know what he is doing, then how can we possibly conclude that he is K&WRG?

Are you saying that he is irrational about everything concerning the sin except the part about knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

Those are just reflection questions, no need to answer.

 

[ready]

"Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

Sickness in a person’s soul is the cause.

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: “… would he (temporarily) avoid intimacy with his wife, confess his sin, …”

A. No, because he could not confess without proper disposition. There must also be sorrow (that he regrets them) for all mortal sins of his life. Being motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for him to repent. If convalidation occurs, it removes the near occassion of sin for lust and scandal.

You wrote: “If he is rational, then he does not sin. If he is irrational, he does not know what he is doing. If he does not know what he is doing, then how can we possibly conclude that he is K&WRG? Are you saying that he is irrational about everything concerning the sin except the part about knowingly and willingly rejecting God?”

A. It does not follow logically that the rational *never sin *or that the irrational *never know *what is done (a sin). See below:

Knowledge and Will The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent, or by failing to deliberate and impede the consent of the will when it could and should do so.
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Sources of the sinful character of an act are conscience and the Divine Law as given by the Church. “…formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts. Thus, a person who takes the property of another while believing it to be his own commits a material sin; but the sin would be formal if he took the property in the belief that it belonged to another, whether his belief were correct or not.”
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Also from the same source, “a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.” And the sin may be indirectly willed: That the act of the sinner may be imputed to him it is not necessary that the object which terminates and specifies his act should be directly willed as an ends or means. It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause, i.e. if the sinner foresees, at least confusedly, that it will follow from the act which he freely performs or from his omission of an act.
Advertence is the “the process of being heedful”. With that in mind intention is of two kinds: actual intention, operating with the advertence of the intellect and virtual intention, arising from a prior volition which is accounted as continuing in some result produced by it. Full advertence of the intellect is required for mortal sin. From the condemnation of the errors of Baius and Jansenius (Denz.-Bann., 1046, 1066, 1094, 1291-2) it is clear that for an actual personal sin a knowledge of the law and a personal voluntary act, free from coercion and necessity, are required. No mortal sin is committed in a state of invincible ignorance or in a half-conscious state. Actual advertence to the sinfulness of the act is not required, virtual advertence suffices. It is not necessary that the explicit intention to offend God and break His law be present, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act suffices.
and Venial sin is committed when the matter of the sin is light, even though the advertence of the intellect and consent of the will are full and deliberate, and when, even though the matter of the sin be grave, there is not full advertence on the part of the intellect and full consent on the part of the will.
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Rejection

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that mortal sin is rejection, since it makes us unjust, whereas venial sin is an affront to God but does not make us unjust. 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.
Also the Church teaching from the Council of Trent from the Catholic Encyclopedia:We cannot avoid all venial sin in this life. “Although the most just and holy occasionally during this life fall into some slight and daily sins, known as venial, they cease not on that account to be just” (Council of Trent, sess. VI, c. xi).
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
**
Sources of Sins**

Also the sources of sins are given in the Catholic Encyclopedia as three: ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice. Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice.
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm
Also St. Thomas Aquinas has commented on mortal sin through passion: On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 7:5) that “the passions of the sins . . . work [Vulgate: ‘did work’] in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Now it is proper to mortal sin to bring forth fruit unto death. Therefore sin committed through passion may be mortal.
newadvent.org/summa/2077.htm

Reference: O’Neil, A.C. (1912). Sin. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. Nihil Obstat. July 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, S.T.D., Censor. Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico!

I must say, I thought we were almost done, but now you have shown me an issue with the man that I did not fully grasp!

You wrote: “… would he (temporarily) avoid intimacy with his wife, confess his sin, …”

A. No, because he could not confess without proper disposition. There must also be sorrow (that he regrets them) for all mortal sins of his life. Being motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for him to repent. If convalidation occurs, it removes the near occassion of sin for lust and scandal.

So, what I thought before was that he was indeed sorry, but now it is quite clear that he is not sorry for his sin. Thanks for the clarification. So, we have a little more investigating to do, if you have the patience to do this. I hope you do, I am grateful.

1. Why is he not sorry for his sin? Please, do not say “because of the depravity of his heart”, this does not explain the actual thinking that is going on in his mind, and does not help us discern if he K&WRG. Let me give you some options again, but I am certain you have an alternative. Please let me know of the alternative, but it is easier to respond to if it is in first person:

Is the man thinking:

A: “I am not sorry because I did nothing wrong. Nobody is hurt by the relationship I have with my wife. God is not going to hold it against me. My relationship was right.”

B: “I am not sorry because even though I know it was wrong, and I know that I am wronging my wife, none of it matters because I am worthless and should be tossed into the fire. My life has no value, and what happens after I die, so be it.”(overwhelmed by self-loathing)

C: “I am not sorry because even though I know it was wrong, I am not going to get on my knees and beg for forgiveness. I don’t care if I go to hell. The Church does not know anything.”(angry, irrational)

I wrote: “If he is rational, then he does not sin. If he is irrational, he does not know what he is doing. If he does not know what he is doing, then how can we possibly conclude that he is K&WRG? Are you saying that he is irrational about everything concerning the sin except the part about knowingly and willingly rejecting God?”

A. It does not follow logically that the rational *never sin *or that the irrational *never know *what is done (a sin).

A completely rational person, with full knowledge of all he does and its consequence, with full knowledge of the value of the human, in the absence of blindness, will never sin. When you meet someone who fits the description, please let me know. Oh yes, we have one example in the Gospel.

Yes, the irrational may indeed know that what they are doing is a sin, to a certain degree. However, is the sinner K&WRG? Are you saying that he is irrational about everything concerning the sin except the part about knowingly and willingly rejecting God?

I am going to take snippets of the rest as they apply to the question at hand:

Knowledge and Will

The will never consents to a sin that is not at the same time a sin of the superior reason as directing badly, by either actually deliberating and commanding the consent,…
​

I would need an example to clarify this.

Sources of the sinful character of an act are conscience and the Divine Law as given by the Church. "…formal sin is committed when the agent freely transgresses the law as shown him by his conscience, whether such law really exists or is only thought to exist by him who acts…

Yes, an informed conscience is the source of the sinful character of an act. Informing the conscience is our responsibility. Divine law as given by the Church is only a source for the person who values Church doctrine. If the person does not believe what the Church says is true, then they will disregard it. It is beholden to the Church, really, to explain the sinful character of an act as best they can, as in the harm of the sin, so that a person’s conscience can be informed.

Also from the same source, “a dictate of conscience necessarily involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality.” … It suffices that it be willed indirectly or in its cause,

Lots of interesting stuff! “involves a knowledge of the Divine law as a principle of morality” seems to support what I said about if a person says, “The Church says so, no big deal”. A person who says that is not embracing a particular aspect of Divine law as a principle of morality. That said, this does not address K&WRG.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that mortal sin is rejection, …

Yes, sin is a rejection. This does not mean that a person is K&WRG.

Sources of Sins

Also the sources of sins are given in the Catholic Encyclopedia as three: ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice.

Here we have to consider only the efficient cause or causes of sin. These are interior and exterior. The complete and sufficient cause of sin is the will, which is regulated in its actions by the reason, and acted upon by the sensitive appetites. The principal interior causes of sin are ignorance, infirmity or passion, and malice.
newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

Yes, the reason why anyone does anything is the will. Passion is a sensitive appetite, and influences the will. Passions also cause blindness. Malice is a matter of ignorance, always, as it was when Jesus was crucified. This section all makes sense to me.

Thanks for all the homework, Vico. You are presenting a lot of interesting material, but most of it does not really pertain to what is specifically going on in people’s minds.

I look forward to your response to the question I asked. Thanks!​

 

[Vico]

…

As pointed out earlier in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1859), and subsequent posts, full knowledge of the sin is “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”. Read about advertance in the last post. It is the same as in the Baltimore Catechism “sufficient reflection”: Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it."

• You wrote: “So, what I thought before was that he was indeed sorry, but now it is quite clear that he is not sorry for his sin. … 1. Why is he not sorry for his sin?”

A. I wrote in the last post #874:“A. No, because he could not confess without proper disposition. There must also be sorrow (that he regrets them) for all mortal sins of his life. Being motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for him to repent”
Recall from post #858: “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth. I am going to con-validate my marriage. I cannot confess yet because I do not have the proper disposition of repentance, that of regret and avoiding the near occasion of sin. I am trying to develop it and pray for it to be so. Being in the near occasion of sin, my civil marriage wife tempts me and a do not resist.”
And from post #848 with the summary in it: "I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”
This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the will to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made.

• I wrote "A. It does not follow logically that the rational never sin or that the irrational never know what is done (a sin). "

You wrote: “A completely rational person, with full knowledge of all he does and its consequence, with full knowledge of the value of the human, in the absence of blindness, will never sin. When you meet someone who fits the description, please let me know. Oh yes, we have one example in the Gospel.”

A. You have not addressed what I wrote that that “it does not follow logically that the rational never sin”. The sources of sin are ignorance, passion, and malice. The rational faculty may operate enough with passion, for mortal sin, and certainly operates in malice. For an example of St. Thomas Aquinas there is: On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 7:5) that “the passions of the sins . . . work [Vulgate: ‘did work’] in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Now it is proper to mortal sin to bring forth fruit unto death. Therefore sin committed through passion may be mortal.
newadvent.org/summa/2077.htm

The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, our true last end, and a preferring of some created thing to which we subject ourselves.

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

The Church teaches about some forms of malice in the Catechism of Pius X:
6 Q. How many are the sins against the Holy Ghost?
A. The sins against the Holy Ghost are six:
(1) Despairing of being saved;
(2) Presuming on being saved without merit;
(3) Opposing the known truth;
(4) Envying another’s graces;
(5) Obstinately remaining in sin;
(6) Final impenitence.

7 Q. Why are these sins specially said to be against the Holy Ghost?
A. These sins are specially said to be against the Holy Ghost, because they are committed through pure malice, which is contrary to goodness, the special attribute of the Holy Ghost.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Sunday morning, Vico!

I have addressed much of this before, but I am happy to address it, in hopes that you will address my questions pertaining the man’s thinking.

As pointed out earlier in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (#1859), and subsequent posts, full knowledge of the sin is “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”. Read about advertance in the last post. It is the same as in the Baltimore Catechism “sufficient reflection”: Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it."

As I have previously stated, observation tells us that there is levels of knowing, there is a knowledge gap to be considered when determining whether a person knows enough about the sinfulness of an act, or the sinful character of an act, or its opposition to God’s law in order for a person to really take the initiative to avoid a particular sin. Yes, people may have a superficial knowledge of such sinfulness, but not a full knowledge, and a result people sin, but do not know what they are doing.

You are presenting an example of a the possibility of a person who sins and does know what he is doing, and we are investigating that.

• You wrote: “So, what I thought before was that he was indeed sorry, but now it is quite clear that he is not sorry for his sin. … 1. Why is he not sorry for his sin?”

A. I wrote in the last post #874:“A. No, because he could not confess without proper disposition. There must also be sorrow (that he regrets them) for all mortal sins of his life. Being motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for him to repent”

I’m sorry, Vico, but I must politely ask again. The above only explaing that he is not sorry, but it does not explain why he is not sorry, as to what he is thinking.

Recall from post #858: “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth. I am going to con-validate my marriage. I cannot confess yet because I do not have the proper disposition of repentance, that of regret and avoiding the near occasion of sin. I am trying to develop it and pray for it to be so. Being in the near occasion of sin, my civil marriage wife tempts me and a do not resist.”
And from post #848 with the summary in it: "I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”

Yes, it is quite obvious that I missed the part about him not having regret. Actually, at the time there were more glaring questions, so I asked those first. In order to investigate this example, we have to find out what his thinking was in terms of why he is not sorry.

This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith,…
​

Yes, but this still does not explain why he is not sorry, in terms of what he is thinking.

Is the man thinking:

A: “I am not sorry because I did nothing wrong. Nobody is hurt by the relationship I have with my wife. God is not going to hold it against me. My relationship was right.”

B: “I am not sorry because even though I know it was wrong, and I know that I am wronging my wife, none of it matters because I am worthless and should be tossed into the fire. My life has no value, and what happens after I die, so be it.”

C: “I am not sorry because even though I know it was wrong, I am not going to get on my knees and beg for forgiveness. I don’t care if I go to hell. The Church does not know anything.”

D: ?

It’s a multiple choice question, where you get to fill in anything for “D” that explains what he is thinking.

Thanks for your reply!​

 

[OneSheep]

Continued reply to Vico:

Vico:

[/INDENT]* I wrote "A. It does not follow logically that the rational never sin or that the irrational never know what is done (a sin). "

You wrote: “A completely rational person, with full knowledge of all he does and its consequence, with full knowledge of the value of the human, in the absence of blindness, will never sin. When you meet someone who fits the description, please let me know. Oh yes, we have one example in the Gospel.”

A. You have not addressed what I wrote that that “it does not follow logically that the rational never sin”.

I apologize again, because I thought I addressed it. “Rational” does not say it all. A person with absolutely no capacity for empathy, who cares nothing for anyone, can be “rational”. In his world, he cares nothing for the value of the lives of others, so any evil that he wants to do and can get away with makes “sense” to him.

Does anyone rational ever sin? Absolutely! However, the word “rational” itself has a gradient (“complete rationality” would have to be defined), and additionally everyone is subject to blindness, unless they have very keen skills to deal with such blindness. I too, have yet to completely develop those skills. I’m working on it. The question I am asking is if anyone ever sins while K&WRG.

The sources of sin are ignorance, passion, and malice. The rational faculty may operate enough with passion, for mortal sin, and certainly operates in malice. For an example of St. Thomas Aquinas there is: On the contrary, The Apostle says (Romans 7:5) that “the passions of the sins . . . work [Vulgate: ‘did work’] in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.” Now it is proper to mortal sin to bring forth fruit unto death. Therefore sin committed through passion may be mortal.
newadvent.org/summa/2077.htm

I don’t know if St. T. was operating under the same definition and explanation of mortal sin as the CCC describes. The translation I read of Romans 7:5 says:

Romans 7:5New International Version (NIV)

5 For when we were in the realm of the flesh,[a] the sinful passions aroused by the law were at work in us, so that we bore fruit for death.

I don’t know if the “unto” vs the “for” makes a big difference, but I have no argument against the assertion that sin is enslavement, which is spiritual “death” in this life. People enslaved by passions, by addiction, etc. are not alive, they are compulsive robots.

We have been working off definitions and explanations from the CCC. If you would like to get into Aquinas, then I think we have a long road ahead.

The true malice of mortal sin consists in a conscious and voluntary transgression of the eternal law, and implies a contempt of the Divine will, a complete turning away from God, …

Yes, we are trying to determine if this “complete turning away from God”, K&WRG, ever happens. Now, can you answer the question I put forth on my last post? I gave you three options, and left it open for an alternative.

Again, thank you very much for your reply! If there is anything else that I did not respond to, but you would like me to, please feel free to bring it forward.

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “The question I am asking is if anyone ever sins while K&WRG.”

A. Yes, as defined in the Catechism, and that is what the thread is about. Firstly it must be grave sin, for rejection, then we have excluded the cause of ignorance here, and acknowledge that, per Catholic teaching, full adventence (by conscience or by teaching of the Church, that the act has the character of sin), and finally full consent. It it not necessary to believe that an act is grave in order to commit it mortally, but rather to be aware of the teaching of the Church of its sinful character. There are grave sins against faith that prove that.

• You wrote: “I don’t know if St. T. was operating under the same definition and explanation of mortal sin as the CCC describes. … We have been working off definitions and explanations from the CCC.”

The same is said in the Baltimore Catechism: Q. 287. How can we know what sins are considered mortal? A. We can know what sins are considered mortal from Holy Scripture; from the teaching of the Church, and from the writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the Church.
Q. 314. What do we mean by our predominant sin or ruling passion? A. By our predominant sin, or ruling passion, we mean the sin into which we fall most frequently and which we find it hardest to resist.
Catechism of the Catholic Church shows that passions can, but do not always, diminish voluntariness: 1860 … “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. the promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders.” …

• You wrote “Is the man thinking: … I am not sorry because…”

A. Reposting from my last post, which already answered you question, and none of those you proposed was right – I carefully read each. But first, the Baltimore Catechism has that one must resolve to avoid near occassions of sin before contrition: Q. 753. What is contrition, or sorrow for sin? A. Contrition, or sorrow for sin, is a hatred of sin and a true grief of the soul for having offended God, with a firm purpose of sinning no more.
Q. 767. What is imperfect contrition? A. Imperfect contrition is that by which we hate what offends God because by it we lose heaven and deserve hell; or because sin is so hateful in itself.
Q. 770. What do you mean by a firm purpose of sinning no more? A. By a firm purpose of sinning no more I mean a fixed resolve not only to avoid all mortal sin, but also its near occasions.
Reposting from my last post, which already answered you question, notice that post #848 with the summary in it it states “which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions” and “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”.

And the entire summary again from post #848: "I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”
This person that had stopped actively practicing the Catholic faith, decides to return to actively practicing the Catholic faith, and knows that to receive the sacraments requires reconciliation with God and the Church. This person knows that it is not possible to receive Communion without first making a contrite confession. This person knows that it cannot happen until the proper disposition is acquired, which requires turning away from all gravely sinful actions, and that the current actions are gravely sinful. This person decides to separate from the spouse and to stop having marital relations, but then when it comes to actually doing it, does not do so thinking “I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations”. Therefore the will to stop sinning is not present so a valid confession cannot be made.
Catechism of the Catholic Church has:
1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

 

[Charlemagne_III]

“Goodness is that which all things desire.” - St. Thomas Aquinas

If it is our nature to seek goodness and God is the supreme good, then why does anyone knowingly and willing reject God (the supreme good)? Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject that which is ultimately in his or her own best interest?

We all desire goodness, as St. Thomas says.

Unfortunately, we do not all desire the same goodness. The goodness that comes from God is the goodness we should desire. The “goodness” that is offered to us by the devil is a counterfeit goodness. Thus Adam and Eve were persuaded by the devil that they could be as God if they ate the forbidden fruit. Their desire was the greatest goodness possible, and they did not trust the warning God had given them, that by eating the forbidden fruit they would surely die.

So the answer to the question why we willingly and knowingly sin against God is that we have put our will before the will of God. That is, we are too proud to obey.

And isn’t that why Jesus, when he taught us how to pray, said the first thing we should assent to is “Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done.”

 

[chefmomster2]

OneSheep:

I want to discuss further whether the impossibility of mortal sin would likewise make the commission of venial sin impossible.

(I am working on my Church teaching response where I will detail places where I am concerned that you deviate from doctrine.)

I am being tenacious on this point because I believe it to reveal a profound error naturally resulting from your beliefs about mortal sin. I also believe that it is a large enough error that it should render your thesis untrue. We’ll see! I am often wrong!

I prefer not to nitpick at words. Please consider my words in light of my previous posts. I am discussing the overall concepts here, not going for detailed and exacting phrasing.

We have been discussing mortal sin because by the teaching of the Catholic Church it is mortal sin which results in the loss of heaven. Mortal sin is an evil act that is first, grievous, second, done with full knowledge, and third, is done with complete willingness. Since mortal sin, a clear teaching of the Church, is defined as complete rejection of God, Mortal sin is the act by which man K&WRG. This leads to the question for this thread which asks why man would do this.

I am continuing this idea because if you are correct, mortal sin being impossible, would be non-existent. That would render this whole thread meaningless. If man cannot K&WRG, then there is no need to examine “why?”.

Your thesis, as I understand it, is that while you concede the minute possibility that mortal sin could be committed, you contend that in your experience such a thing appears to be impossible. For the purpose of this post, let us assume that you are correct in your experience and therefore while gravely evil acts are committed, mortal sin can never be K nor W. This would effectively mean that mortal sin as such cannot ever occur.

Please correct me where I am wrong in expressing your thesis. Again, let’s not nitpick with each other. We are looking at general statements here, if possible.

Are you game?