Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

Nice name, by the way. I always want to start with “Come stai?”

You wrote: “because you said that he sees his relationship with God as more important than staying with his wife.”
A. We covered this before, I did not say that. I asked if you considered “equal”.

Yes, I did a search, and you did ask that I consider that. Yes, that does make sense.

I’m not going along with the last three days addition to my original scenario. It is irrelevant because the decision would be the same.

As you may recall, I added in the 3-day scenario because the man was complacent, and it was difficult to discern volition one way or another. If it is irrelevant, then why do you want to remove it? We can remove it for now, but if complacency becomes an issue again, we are going to have to add it back in. His complacency was a matter of ignorance, an ignorance that we all have. Yes, none of us knows when we die, but* if ignorance of the time we will die is the guiding factor of our behavior, then the guiding factor, an assumption of “I have lots of time to think about this” is a matter of ignorance.* This ignorance does not reflect a “knowing and willing”, it is ignorance. In the mean time, all sin is slavery, and the man is unwittingly choosing a slavery. But there is no need to take the time to respond to this paragraph. We are trying to determine what is going on in this man’s mind, and I wish for you to answer the question I asked.

There are those Catholics whose dissent from a teaching of the Church who:

1. are aware that their present belief is contrary to the Church’s teaching,
2. are not aware that their present belief is contrary to the Church’s teaching.

Those in the first category have the requisite knowledge needed for mortal sin.

Please remember, though, that there is a tremendous range of perceptions in these two options. If a person says, for example, “this is contrary to Church teaching, but it is no big deal.” then the person obviously has not informed his actual conscience. This could hardly be called “full knowledge”, unless “full knowledge” is defined as “superficial knowledge”. A person can unwittingly reject God when he does not put much credence in the teachings of the Church.

He is aware of what the Church teaches yet has civilly married against the precept and due to fear, has regret and seeks to regularize his situation. He does not repent of the original sin through which he married civilly.

I really wish that this statement answered the question that I asked. We know he has regret, yes. We know that he does not want to stop his conjugal relations. What we do not know is why he is unwilling to stop his conjugal relations even though he is choosing an eternity of suffering in doing so.

Anything other than an “I” statement is likely to come out as a third-person evaluation of the man’s behavior, it is not likely to reflect what is actually going on in the man’s mind, which is where we have to work in order to determine if he is K&WRG. And, after all, we are demanding that the man be-able-to-respond for his actions, that he be respons-ible. *Everyone *should be able to respond for their actions.

Why does the man not resolve to avoid the sin? He says:

A. I am sorry, but I do not resolve to avoid the sin. I do not think I am doing anything wrong, but I am sorry because I may have made God angry even though I think that He still loves and forgives me. I am not going to stop my behavior because I don’t think I am doing anything wrong.(statement of modified conscience)

B. I am sorry, but I do not resolve to avoid the sin. I would like to have such resolve, but realistically I cannot stop myself from intimate relations with my wife, even though I know I I will go straight to hell and suffer for eternity. I give up. I can’t do it.(statement of despair)

C. I am sorry, but I do not resolve to avoid the sin. What I am doing is wrong, and I deserve hell, but I don’t care. My last days on Earth being intimate with my wife is worth an eternity in hell.(statement of despair, lack of self worth, short-sightedness, with probably a load of doubt)

D. I am sorry, but I do not resolve to avoid the sin. I do not have resolve to avoid the sin because…(fill in the blank, Vico, create a statement that reflects what is going on in his mind)

I am not boxing you in here, Vico. “D” can be any answer that explains his choice from his point of view.

Is the man blinded by passion? It sure sounds like he is. If that is the case his answer would be something like “I don’t know why I am doing this, I just can’t stop. I want her more than anything.” or something like that.

I do not like being a pest, about this. If you don’t want to answer the question, just tell me you do not want to answer or that you do not have an answer. I can respect that, but then we still do not have an example of someone K&WRG, which is why we started the investigation in the first place.

So, if you are ready to quit the investigation, I can respect that decision.

Thanks again for your responses, Vico, you have been a good sport about this.

 

[simpleas]

Our Church wants us to a life of love because we have faith. But, it recognizes that the possibility of punishment is sometimes necessary as a safeguard. (We want our children to do the right thing for more important reasons than not wanting us to punish them, am I right?)

It stresses much more strongly that if we lead lives of love according to God’s will we have no need to fear hell. I can get the CCC references if you need them.

Yes you are probably right, I do not have children, but I understand what you mean.

I think that the fear of punishment can keep us in line, but that as we grow into adults, we no longer fear punishment, because we would not commit the crime. And if we did, we would face the punishment because we know we would be deserving of it.

Sorry, I think I’m de-railing, and should be on the other thread…

 

[simpleas]

The Act of Contrition makes it abundantly clear that we are good both for the perfect reason (love) and for the imperfect reason (fear). The two reasons are not incompatible. While one reason will be more relevant to the person farther up the spiritual ladder, the other reason will impact the person farther down. Both persons need a motive to be better than they are, and Jesus made it very clear, when you read the end of Matthew 25, that hell is in the offing for those who do not love.

I was thinking more about people who may not be catholic, or practise any faith. They still have morals. They can see other people as people to be loved, and they didn’t need a fear of eternal fire to help them see.

 

[1to3to4to]

It seems unlikely that there would be a universal or singular reason why people, in a general sense, would knowingly and willingly reject God, but I know of at least one reason why someone would.

A dear friend of mine lost both of his legs in an attack in Iraq back in 2008. The anger he feels, even to this day, is directed primarily at God. He believes that God is real and doesn’t doubt that for a second. He also believes that God is Omniscient and Omnipresent; however, it is exactly for these reasons that he blames God for what happened to him, and as a consequence, he emphatically rejects God, quite willingly and certainly knowingly: he himself has said as much.

 

[OneSheep]

It seems unlikely that there would be a universal or singular reason why people, in a general sense, would knowingly and willingly reject God, but I know of at least one reason why someone would.

A dear friend of mine lost both of his legs in an attack in Iraq back in 2008. The anger he feels, even to this day, is directed primarily at God. He believes that God is real and doesn’t doubt that for a second. He also believes that God is Omniscient and Omnipresent; however, it is exactly for these reasons that he blames God for what happened to him, and as a consequence, he emphatically rejects God, quite willingly and certainly knowingly: he himself has said as much.

Hi

It is very understandable that your friend thinks he knows God, and that he knows God to be other than beneficent, based on his experience. It is very, very hard to argue or advise a person on this matter. We can only listen to his hurt and hope and pray that he comes to see that it was human choice, not God, that caused his injury. Those of us who are not angry at God see Abba differently.

To me, there is the valid argument that when God looked upon all that was to happen before he hit the “create” button, he certainly saw all of the suffering, and chose to hit the button anyway. So, to some degree, all suffering is His “fault”. It is a mystery, one that every individual of faith has to work out. Would the universe have been better off without creation? For me, I know that I am too lacking in knowledge to even know if that is the right question.

Jesus shows us that the way out of suffering is to suffer for others. How can your friend come to forgive God? Only he knows, through his relationship, I guess.

Thanks for bringing this into the discussion. Your friend would know God differently if he could forgive, somehow.

 

[Vico]

• You wrote: “As you may recall, I added in the 3-day scenario because the man was complacent, and it was difficult to discern volition one way or another. If it is irrelevant, then why do you want to remove it?”

A. I never accepted it. It is nonsense, people do not know the time of their death so I am not using it. I did answer directly that he is not complacent, from post #867:
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.
• You wrote: “A person can unwittingly reject God when he does not put much credence in the teachings of the Church.”

A. In the case of invincible ignorance, not this case. One that has learned what should be held to be true, is bound to assent, or else sin against faith is committed.
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: “why he is unwilling to stop his conjugal relations even though he is choosing an eternity of suffering in doing so.”

A. That was answered in 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”
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 I do not resist.”
Based on post #874:
“I am motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for me to repent.”

 

[chefmomster2]

I’m afraid it still does not cover the word ‘knowingly’.

Some Catholics may have received no catechism, or very limited instruction, especially if they went to non-catholic schools. They may still have gone to church each Sunday with their family and associated with being a good Catholic but then followed what everyone else was doing in their social group, when older - who may also be Catholic.

They go to church, pray to God and will not know that they are committing mortal sins, as ‘everyone else is doing it’, scenario. Obviously, yourself and I recognise mortal sins and ‘know’ them and would be straight to confession if we committed one, but lay Catholics do not necessarily realise this.

They feel as they’re praying to God, going to mass regularly, loving their neighbour, doing charity work, etc… and ‘being good’ citizens that they are not K or WRG.

To have full knowledge, according to the doctrine of the Church, is to be aware that a certain action is opposed to God’s law. Ignorance does not necessarily remove culpability.

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.

If a person K&WRG by committing a mortal sin, that is all that is necessary to cause him to lose heaven. Notice that I said K&W committed a grievous act. Knowledge and consent are factors required for a serious sin to be judged by God to be mortal. In your scenarios the acts might very well have insufficient K&W to be judged as mortal. By definition, these acts would not then entail a complete rejection of God.

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.

There is no separate knowledge requirement for “rejection” of God. Mortal sin is automatically and immediately rejection. There is no second determination about whether the mortal sin is rejection. There is no need. Both have occurred simultaneously. If someone is judged by God to be fully K&W, they have committed mortal sin and BY DEFINITION that is full rejection. There is no need because the Church declares it to be so.

The Church says that if we commit mortal sin and die without reconciling it, then we go to hell. Rejection merely explains why this is so. All sin is rejection of God.

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. (1847)

​

​

 

[Michael19682]

to have full knowledge, according to the doctrine of the church, is to be aware that a certain action is opposed to god’s law. Ignorance does not necessarily remove culpability.

please tell us why ***you ***equate ignorance and awareness by way of opposition? In latin, the church’s official mother tongue, awareness is really “conscius”, or consciousness. It’s opposite would be unconsciousness. The various modern existential philosophers, i would argue, have sufficiently suffocated the term “aware” in the very context of awareness itself.

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.

Essentially, all the paragraphs do here is provide a mirror for oneself to look into for scrutiny; and it is a mirror that reflects in a fundamentally distorted way inner human knowledge. Its no wonder some of us cannot understand that document.

Any advocacy in its favor should stand and answer for the church’s decline, especially as this is so in comparison to the growth of other world religions.

Btw, unless the document in question bold faces phrases, the person quoting them should not either – else he or she might be accused of biased readings and/or misrepresenting the quoted document. Respectfully yours.

 

[chefmomster2]

please tell us why ***you ***equate ignorance and awareness by way of opposition?

I was not using the word in the way you indicate. I meant it as a synonym for knowledge.

Essentially, all the paragraphs do here is provide a mirror for oneself to look into for scrutiny;

Sure it is used for scrutiny! But, it contains very necessary definitions of the terms we are using in this thread.

Any advocacy in its favor should stand and answer for the church’s decline, especially as this is so in comparison to the growth of other world religions.

Whike the CC is declining in the West, it is increasing in Latin America, Asia, and Africa. The overall percentage of persons affiliated with the Church in relation to adherents in other faiths has remained fairly steady over the past several years. Somewhere in some thread I have included statistics to back this up. But, this is definitely off-topic. We are debating the possibility that anyone can ever knowingly and willingly reject God and if so, why they would. (K&WRG).

Btw, unless the document in question bold faces phrases, the person quoting them should not either – else he or she might be accused of biased readings and/or misrepresenting the quoted document. Respectfully yours.

The many folks who have been discussing this thread for the past many months are well acquainted with the quote I used. I should have indicated that the boldness was my own, but I simply forgot. I believe that in context most would have accepted it for what it was- a way of highlighting the exact definitions and Church teachings I was referring to.

Blessings!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico!

• You wrote: “As you may recall, I added in the 3-day scenario because the man was complacent, and it was difficult to discern volition one way or another. If it is irrelevant, then why do you want to remove it?”

A. I never accepted it. It is nonsense, people do not know the time of their death so I am not using it. I did answer directly that he is not complacent, from post #867:

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.)
​

This does not explain his complacency in terms of his refusal to avoid sin as he says “it will take me time to repent”.

Thank you for reminding me all the reasons why I added the 3-day scenario. Yes, people very rarely have any inkling of when they die, but that does not mean that in not knowing the day they will die, they are of “full knowledge”. You are making his ability to wait here a key factor, and the key factor (his stalling) is based on an ignorant assumption, and if he dies tomorrow I could certainly observe that “he did not know what he was doing” in his assumption of having time to put this off. He was lacking in knowledge that he was about to die. Like I said, if it is irrelevant, why are you throwing it out now? It is a rather minor point, but his assumption shows one aspect of “not knowing what he is doing”. His complacency is a matter of ignorance no matter when he dies, but it would certainly be more relevant if he dies before he repents, in the standard view. Ignorance is not just a matter of what one could have known, ignorance is generally a matter of what one does not know. None of us truly knows when we will die, but this man’s assumption of time is truly a matter of ignorance. He does not know, but he thinks he knows, he has time.

• 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.

Yes! We agree on this one! When a person is irrational, they do not know what they are doing, just as the crowd did not know what they were doing when they hung Jesus. If a person does not know what he is doing, if he is irrational, we cannot say that he is K&WRG, unless we are saying that he is irrational in the act but rational in his K&WRG. If he is irrational, he is not knowing what he is doing. Those who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing. They were not knowingly rejecting God, they were punishing what they saw as a worthless blasphemer.

• You wrote: “A person can unwittingly reject God when he does not put much credence in the teachings of the Church.”

A. In the case of invincible ignorance, not this case. One that has learned what should be held to be true, is bound to assent, or else sin against faith is committed.
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."

I have addressed this enough times before that I do not need to address it again fully, but use of “invincible ignorance” is a vague term, and needs an example. Though we can insist on “bound”, if a person sees Church teachings as untrue or does not value the Church, he does not care about “bound”. In addition, there are degrees of “knowing” when it comes to sinfulness, i.e. the harm done by the sin. No need to respond to this, we have been through this before, and it is pretty much all right here with your statement and mine. If you want to discuss an example of invincible vs. vincible ignorance or try to see if a person is K&WRG if he sees Church teachings as untrue then we may get somewhere, but I’d rather tackle those when we are done with the man who wants to con-validate his marriage.

I have just finished reading Good Goats by the Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn. What they say in the book is pertinent here:

"We question whether anyone ever makes such a decision (mortal sin). The position we are taking, consistent with Rahner and others, is expressed by James Burtchaell:

As for full consent: no one ever fully consents to evil. We enter evil without much consent, and by entering it we impair our faculty of consent…

Serious matter, sufficient reflection, full consent; that’s a description of virtue, not of vice.

(cont’d)​

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

[/INDENT]You wrote: “why he is unwilling to stop his conjugal relations even though he is choosing an eternity of suffering in doing so.”

A. That was answered in 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”
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 I do not resist.”
Based on post #874:
“I am motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for me to repent.”

Here was something else the man said, as you wrote:

He thinks: “I have sorrow for the sin, but am not willing to turn away from the near occasions of sin, so I do not have contrition. This is the truth taught by the Church, which I accept.”

This is an outright refusal. This statement, taken alone, does not show volition, even if he does have sorrow, because if nothing else, his “sorrow” is weak. Compare the above statement with these you wrote:

" I am going to con-validate my marriage."
“I am trying to develop it (repentance) and pray for it to be so.”
“it will take time for me to repent.”

Which indicate volition. He is not only choosing to con-validate his marriage, but he is trying to develop contrition, which will take time, and prays for it to be so. Now, if these statements taken alone do not indicate volition, a non-rejection of God, we will have to agree to disagree.

So, this brings us back to the scenario where he is saying both “yes and no”, which brings us to the question as to what is his “net” answer.

If his net answer is “yes”, then he is not rejecting.

If his “net” answer is no, of which you insist, then we are still seeking his answer to why he is choosing an eternity of suffering while praying for his own ability to repent. The closest statement that I can call an answer is this:

“I am motivated by fear and having depravity of heart”

The motivation by fear would indicate that he does not want suffer for eternity. The “depravity of heart” needs to be clarified. So, let’s try to put it all together. Nothing the man has said so far specifically addresses why he is choosing an eternity of suffering.

Why, man, are you choosing an eternity of suffering?:

A. “I have depravity of heart. I seek self-destruction and misery, I want an eternity of suffering.”

B. “I have depravity of heart. I am not forgiven, therefore I deserve an eternity of suffering. I am to receive my just punishment.”

C. (fill in your own answer)

As you can see, I rephrased the question so that you might actually address what is going on in his mind when choosing an eternity of suffering. If you do not want to answer, I accept and respect your choice.

Please, if you do answer, include the words that specifically address why he is choosing an eternity of suffering.

In writing that, I am wondering if this thread has been for you an eternity of suffering.

May God Bless your day, Vico.

 

[Michael19682]

I was not using the word in the way you indicate. I meant it as a synonym for knowledge.

I see now.

Sure it is used for scrutiny! But, it contains very necessary definitions of the terms we are using in this thread.

Agreed upon.

Whike the CC is declining in the West, it is increasing in Latin America, Asia, and Africa.

Off topic, perhaps, but the success of the Church and the Catechism abroad only show us that the Church’s missions to the poor is somehow emboldened by the Catechism’s “get with the program” moral instruction. But the core issue aside from that is the power of economically empowering people and ministering to their needs of health of body – things Jesus would certainly do in person under similar circumstances. But does he personally offer such abstruse codes in the most simple of scriptures, the gospels? Paul talks about solid food, but some of the paragraphs appear indigestible.

he overall percentage of persons affiliated with the Church in relation to adherents in other faiths has remained fairly steady over the past several years. Somewhere in some thread I have included statistics to back this up. But, this is definitely off-topic. We are debating the possibility that anyone can ever knowingly and willingly reject God and if so, why they would. (K&WRG).

—> because people reject what they cannot assimilate into their living systems. The latrine teaches us that much.

The many folks who have been discussing this thread for the past many months are well acquainted with the quote I used. I should have indicated that the boldness was my own, but I simply forgot. I believe that in context most would have accepted it for what it was- a way of highlighting the exact definitions and Church teachings I was referring to.

Not a problem!

Blessings!

 

[Vico]

…

Post #854 gave the answer why.
A. Marriage was not the first fallen step, first comes missing Sunday and then not confessing sins. Later comes fornication, then much later comes invalid attempt of marriage. Early it was “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.”
So then if could be stated: “I know what the Church teaches, but do not assent to it preferring my own ideas, risking hell if I am wrong.”

If you recall, I also posted on how this came about through pride. The will (not merely the wish) to good exists when he can achieve contrition. Meanwhile, his will exists in his current actions, even against his wish. It is called virtual. Recall from the Catholic Encyclopedia quote posted before from “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.”

newadvent.org/cathen/14004b.htm

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

I hope, by this time, you have come to anticipate what my next question is. This is a process, and when information is left out that still stimulates the mind as “why is he doing that?, What is going on in his mind?” then we are not yet done.

You did not answer the question as to why he is choosing hell, but have clarified the scenario that he was not choosing hell, but risking hell, which is essentially the same thing.

So then if could be stated: “I know what the Church teaches, but do not assent to it preferring my own ideas, risking hell if I am wrong.”

Okay, he prefers his own ideas, for which he is willing to risk that he is right; he believes that he is right. He is so sure that he is right, that he is willing to risk hell.

1. What, specifically, are his “own ideas” as opposed to what the church teaches?
2. Is he right in his beliefs? This is a yes or no question.
3. Is he saying that conjugal relations with his wife are worth risking his life in hell? This is again, a yes or no question.

If you recall, I also posted on how this came about through pride. The will (not merely the wish) to good exists when he can achieve contrition. Meanwhile, his will exists in his current actions, even against his wish.

1. Are you saying that these statements below, taken by themselves, indicate a rejection of God? This is, again, a yes or no answer.

" I am going to con-validate my marriage."
“I am trying to develop it (repentance) and pray for it to be so.”
“it will take time for me to repent.”

1. Yes, he is not willing to give up his conjugal relations, which is an act of non-volition. Prayer, however, is usually an act of volition. It depends on the prayer though, I guess. What is he praying? There could be a huge range:

A “Father, I am prideful and have depravity of heart. Give me the strength and desire to stop conjugal relations with my wife until we are married. I want you in my life, but I don’t want to give up my conjugal relations at any time.”

B.“Father, I am prideful and have depravity of heart. I want to repent in order to be in your good graces again, but you are wrong about my relations with my wife being wrong, what I am doing is right.”

C. Any answer you have that shows his prayer, in the first person. If you decide that he was not actually praying, that is okay too. A change in scenario is just fine, we can call it a “clarification”. I am not going to hold you to the scenario of this fictive person, because that is not the point. The point is to exhaust all of the possibilities. It actually makes more sense if he is not praying, given his actions.

If you are decide to bring the “depravity of heart” issue in again, then please take the time to answer the questions on post #912, or explain why they do not pertain.

I apologize again for having so many questions, but this guy just seems kind of torn, like the whole picture is one of a man who is both defiant and non-defiant, just overall confused.

Have a great day, Vico, thank you for your response.

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “What, specifically, are his “own ideas” as opposed to what the church teaches?”
  A. His downfall initially was not protecting his faith. His idea became that “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church which the Church says is grave sin.” (Just one of which is marriage with approval of the Church.) From post #854:
  “Marriage was not the first fallen step, first comes missing Sunday and then not confessing sins. Later comes fornication, then much later comes invalid attempt of marriage. Early it was “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.””
• You wrote: “Is he right in his beliefs?”
  A. No. Not in his personal ideas that opposed to what he learned that the Church teaches is grave matter.
• You wrote: “Is he saying that conjugal relations with his wife are worth risking his life in hell?”
  A. Yes. (“it will take time for me to repent.” means he does not repent now although he is able to.)
• You wrote: “What is he praying?” and “If you are decide to bring the “depravity of heart” issue in again, then please take the time to answer the questions on post #912, or explain why they do not pertain.”
  A. I answered in post #914. 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.”

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Vico!

I was thinking yesterday, “poor Vico”. I ask all these questions, and I am guessing that for every question, you are thinking, “I already answered that” which is understandable. It is a very tedious process to know the questions that most directly explain what is going on in the man’s mind. This may be the end, today.

• You wrote: “What, specifically, are his “own ideas” as opposed to what the church teaches?”
  A. His downfall initially was not protecting his faith. His idea became that “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church which the Church says is grave sin.” (Just one of which is marriage with approval of the Church.) From post #854:
  “Marriage was not the first fallen step, first comes missing Sunday and then not confessing sins. Later comes fornication, then much later comes invalid attempt of marriage. Early it was “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.””
• You wrote: “Is he right in his beliefs?”
  A. No. Not in his personal ideas that opposed to what he learned that the Church teaches is grave matter.

So, he is believing an untruth. He is saying “this is true” but it is not.

Since any rational being wants to believe what is ultimately true, then he does not know what he is doing.

• You wrote: “Is he saying that conjugal relations with his wife are worth risking his life in hell?”
  A. Yes. (“it will take time for me to repent.” means he does not repent now although he is able to.)

Since any rational person who truly understands the sufferings of hell and who values his relationship with God would not take such a risk, he does not know what he is doing. You could say, “he is only taking a risk, he believes that he is right, so he is not worried about hell.” However, if he is thinking that his ideas are that truthful, so much that he is willing to risk an everlasting suffering, then this so much more underscores the fact that this man believes that his own ideas are true. He does not know what he is doing.

Those that hung Jesus also believed an untruth: that what they were destroying was of no value. They, too, did not know what they were doing.

• You wrote: “What is he praying?” and “If you are decide to bring the “depravity of heart” issue in again, then please take the time to answer the questions on post #912, or explain why they do not pertain.”
  A. I answered in post #914. 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.”

That is one of the oddest prayers I have ever heard. The man does not appear to be addressing God in a personal way, it is more like “this is what the facts are, God”. It does not sound like he is even asking God for help. In my observation, this guy appears to know very little of God. He knows the rules, but he does not know God. And in not knowing God, he rejects what he does not know. He is not rejecting God, he is rejecting an image that comes nowhere close to being the beneficent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent God.

I have more evidence for this.

Vico:

Does he experience God in his spouse? - No, they are not in a state of grace.

If the man knew God, “state of grace” or not, he would experience God in his spouse. He would know Jesus as being not only in the “least of His people”, but in everyone. This, however, is based on the observer’s experience of God. When one sees God in everyone, this seeing, this knowing, does not go away, it is forever. The only time I ever not see God in someone is when I am resentful and angry towards them, and this perception vacates as soon as I forgive.

St. Augustine said, “It is through the Spirit that one knows that whatsoever exists in any way is good.” Where there is goodness, there is God. If the man does not even experience God in his wife, then he does not know God, he does not know Who he is rejecting. He is rejecting some vague, impersonal set of laws, like rejecting an IRS code, not rejecting something that comes from a personal, unconditionally loving God, whose law comes from nowhere but love and care for his creation.

My conclusions are on the next post.

 

[OneSheep]

A continuation of my response to Vico:

In Conclusion:

1. The man assumes that he has plenty of time to make up his mind. He does not know when he is going to die, but he is assuming he has time. He does not know what he is doing in this respect. If he knew the freedom of what it means to follow God, then he would not hesitate.
2. The man is believing an untruth, “I am not bound”. Since he sees an untruth as a truth, he does not know what he is doing. He is willing to bet his afterlife on what he thinks is true, but he is wrong. In the mean time, he intends to have his marriage con-validated, which indicates he wants to make everything right with God, a God he does not even know. You are correct, he is motivated by fear. If he had a deeper knowledge of God, he would be motivated by love.
3. The man does not know of God, therefore he does not know who he is rejecting. To the degree that we see God in other people, in ourselves, and in all creation is the degree that we know God. He does not know God. He “accepts” (with very little conviction) the rules, but he appears to regard them as the next man does the highway speed signs. If he knew that love itself, all love ultimately comes from God, even, and especially, that which comes from his wife, whom you say he loves, then he would strive for a deeper relationship with God. He does not. His actions say “no”. He wants con-validation of his marriage, but it seems to be so for very superficial reasons.

Now, I am fully aware that you are going to disagree with what I am saying here. But please note, I have said from the beginning “In my observation no one ever knowingly and willingly rejects God”. Since a person’s evaluation of K&WRG depends on the individual person’s knowing of God, and we all have differing views of who God is, based on relationship, then there is plenty of room for difference of opinion. Those opinions are valid. If you disagree with me, I do not see your views as either wrong or un-Catholic in any way. Your views are going to be based on your relationship, and I respect that, Vico.

Now, I may be incorrect in my evaluation, and that is true. You may have a different picture of the man in your head than I do. If you can make the scenario such that he does know God, in a much deeper way, or that he is much more determined to be in relationship with God, then I would have different conclusions.

In closing, (though I am not closing conversation, only my statement here), I add that in my questions I tried to stick with what I is the standard view of God and relationship with man. That standard view includes the idea that someone could “fall out of God’s grace”, as if God would reject a person. However, I do not believe God rejects people, ever; His love and forgiveness is unconditional. In my questions I also stayed with the standard view that a person could be separated from the love of God. I am with St. Paul on this one, nothing separates us from the love of God. Even if a person rejects God, which in my observation only takes place unwittingly, God still loves him or her. In my questions I stayed with the standard view that it is impossible for God to reach a person and draw them into the Kingdom of Heaven after death. However, in my view, with God everything is possible, a loving, merciful possible.

Thank you again for your response, Vico, and know that I have delivered this with sincere respect. It has been a pleasure working through this with you.

“One Sheep”

 

[Vico]

…

You wrote: "So, he is believing an untruth. He is saying “this is true” but it is not. "
A. He is not saying that his ideas are* true*, but he does not hold to the faith and he has fear that he is wrong.

The conditions of repentance are the key to understanding how a person sins. The goal of the faithful is to live a Christlike life, to be true icons of Christ. A person is not an image of Christ when there is unwillingness to avoid the situations that lead to grave sin, called near and voluntary occasions of sin. In not avoiding such occasions that person also gives scandal. The Church has even given the teaching to the clergy to deny communion to a Catholic that married without approval of the Church while Catholic. A Catholic sins by willfully adopting an objectively sinful lifestyle, or not giving assent to the teaching of the Church on faith and morals, when aware of the consequences of these grave sins, per the teaching of the Church.

Cambridge Dictionary has for Knowledge: “awareness, understanding, or information that has been obtained by experience or study, and that is either in a person’s mind or possessed by people generally”

Grave sin occurs for those that do not “know what they are doing”, per the definition of “know what you are doing”: to have the knowledge or experience that is necessary to do something. (Cambridge Dictionary)

It is the knowing of the sinful character of an act, that it should not be done, which is information obtained from the conscience of from the Church, which is necessary.

A. Informed
knowledge = informed of the sinful nature of act and that is should not be done
consent or reflection = willfully done with forethought, when possible to avoid it
B. Vincible Ignorance, has increased willfulness
C. Intentional, but only thought to be a sin.

rejection = mortal sin (one is culpable for a grave sin)

Sources of sin are ignorance, passion, and malice.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico!

You wrote: "So, he is believing an untruth. He is saying “this is true” but it is not. "
A. He is not saying that his ideas are* true*, but he does not hold to the faith and he has fear that he is wrong.
.

So, a correction! Here is what he said:

Vico:

His idea became that “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church which the Church says is grave sin.”

Yes, he has fear. The fear in his mind may say “yes” to God, but his actions, in your scenario, say “no”. In addition, his “no” is strong enough, his “preference” for his own truth is adamant enough, that he is willing to bet his eternal life on his version of truth.

In other words, he is saying that his truth trumps whatever the Church says, and he is acting decisively on that untruth. To me, in this case, he is seeing what he believes as “not being bound” is true, more true than the Church’s teachings. If you are saying, however, that his decisive action, his betting his life on his statements, shows that he believes his statement to be untrue, then you are correct, he is not thinking that his statements are true. Instead, he is holding onto one truth and behaving on another. In that case, he is irrational. Are you are saying that a person behaving irrationally is K&WRG?

If he is irrational, in my book, he does not know what he is doing. He is not Knowingly and Willingly Rejecting God.

Here is another way of looking at it. You are saying the man prefers his own truth, but is afraid he is wrong. In that case, the man is quite indecisive, he is confused. Are you saying that a confused man knows what he is doing? If so, then you are correct by your own premise, he knows what he is doing, he is K&WRG.

To me, if he is confused, he does not know what he is doing; he is not K&WRG.

If he is not confused, Vico, change the scenario so that he is more decisive in his own mind as to what the truth is.

Grave sin occurs for those that do not “know what they are doing”, per the definition of “know what you are doing”: to have the knowledge or experience that is necessary to do something. (Cambridge Dictionary)

Yes, people sin when they do not know what they are doing. Remember, this is my statement. People only sin when they do not know what they are doing, that is my observation.

In the mean time, the man you described does not know very much of God. We know God by Love, and if he does not recognize God in the love from his wife, then he most certainly knows very, very little of God. If he is “rejecting”, by his actions, he does not know what he rejects. He is not K&WRG. If you can change the scenario such that he knows God in a way that is much deeper than his very superficial way,( which he seems to have as much regard for as an American does a speed limit), then we could address this in a different way. His “prayer” for his own repentance included an assertion that he does not resist sin.

If you have any more clarifications to make, please let me know. Again, if you would like to change the scenario such that he is not confused or irrational, feel free to do so. The point of what we are doing here is to find a case of someone K&WRG, not to stick to any particular scenario. If you would like, invent a new scenario altogether.

Thanks for your response.

 

[SuperLuigi]

“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?

Because it’s easy and fun.