Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

… 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.

Are you saying that a confused man knows what he is doing?

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

If he is “rejecting”, by his actions, he does not know what he rejects. He is not K&WRG…

He knows that what he does is wrong, so he does “know what he is doing” per the definition of that phrase in having learned what the Church teaches is obligatory. “know what you are doing”: to have the knowledge or experience that is necessary to do something. (Cambridge Dictionary)
From the earlier postost #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.”
​

Of course the irrational and confused sin, and may be culpable. Earlier were posted some teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example:1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
And we know that one is bound to give assent:892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent” 422 which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it.80 But “faith apart from works is dead”:81 when it is deprived of hope and love, faith does not fully unite the believer to Christ and does not make him a living member of his Body.

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks."82 Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."83

 

[OneSheep]

Good Evening, Vico.

I had a full, eventful weekend, a hike with my wonderful wife, a Church carnival, mass, time with friends. I hope you had a nice weekend also.

He knows that what he does is wrong, so he does “know what he is doing” per the definition of that phrase in having learned what the Church teaches is obligatory. “know what you are doing”: to have the knowledge or experience that is necessary to do something. (Cambridge Dictionary)
From the earlier postost #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.”
​

Yes, he knows what he is doing is wrong in a very superficial sense. He knows what the Church says, but he is saying his truth takes priority over God’s truth, which is saying that his “right” takes precedence. He does not think that his sin is serious, for he is regarding his “knowing” of the commandment very lightly, as shown in his actions. Indeed, he says that he is not bound to the commandment. He is believing an untruth when he says “I am not bound”, and that is the “truth” he is following with his actions. He does not know what he is doing in the broad sense, in the deeper sense. He does not take ownership of the rule.

If he knew the seriousness, the harm done by his sin, to the point of truly appreciating such seriousness, he would not sin, not without the factor of blindness. People do not sin when they fully know what they are doing, and this man is not an exception. He does not know God. Sure, he had all of the catechesis, but his inability to see God in his wife is indicative of a very shallow understanding of God.

There were probably plenty of people in the crowd around the cross, for example, who knew that the crucifixion was “wrong” in a very superficial sense (i.e. there may have been some doubt that he was a blasphemer). To them, however, killing a blasphemer was the right thing to do at the time. Yet, as our Lord says, they did not know what they were doing. They did not know the divine hanging directly in front of their faces. The man you described, too, only very superficially knows the divine.

So, does anyone K&WRG? To you, I think, the answer stands as “Yes”. I could agree with you if I add some caveats:

“Yes, people do knowingly and willingly reject God (from their own view) when they have very little knowledge of God and have little regard for the gravity of God’s will. They are rejecting what they see is of little importance, a false image. They may reject this false image, but it is still what they perceive as God.”

I know, you would not say it this way. That’s okay.

In a way, this case mirrors the one brought forth earlier, the one about the fellow in the military permanently disabled in war, and angry and rejecting of God. He is angry at God, but he has a false image, he is thinking that God is cruel or wanted him to suffer the disability, etc.

My position, without the long description remains: “In my observations, no one has ever knowingly and willingly rejected God.”

I use “knowingly” in the “fullest” sense, the all-inclusive sense.

Of course the irrational and confused sin, and may be culpable. Earlier were posted some teachings from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, for example:1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
And we know that one is bound to give assent:…

1815 The gift of faith remains in one who has not sinned against it…

I want to thank you for keeping the CCC alive, Vico. It is important to remind people that just because we can understand and explain behaviors in light of ignorance, that does not mean that ignorance is an excuse.. But please, do not bring in the “vincible vs invincible” parts back into this. Ignorance is ignorance. The “vincibility” stuff is confusing at best and calls for an example with rigorous inquiry, such as we did on the man, in order to make sense of it.

We are in almost total agreement on this section, remember Vico? I go so far as to say that a person should be culpable for everything they do, whether it is a sin or not. Irrational, rational, confused, unconfused, everyone should be able to answer for what they have done. We are to be able to account for our actions, to respond for our actions.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

1816 The disciple of Christ must not only keep the faith and live on it, but also profess it, confidently bear witness to it, and spread it: "All however must be prepared to confess Christ before men and to follow him along the way of the Cross, amidst the persecutions which the Church never lacks."82 Service of and witness to the faith are necessary for salvation: "So every one who acknowledges me before men, I also will acknowledge before my Father who is in heaven; but whoever denies me before men, I also will deny before my Father who is in heaven."83

[/INDENT]

This section reflects the “sheep vs goats” saying in the gospel. As I have just read Good Goats, which is a quick read and very informative, I can try to say how what they said in the book may apply here.

How many of us here, readers, participants on the CAF have taken opportunities to acknowledge Jesus before men? Unless the person has never considered himself Christian, probably all of us have acknowledged Jesus before men. How many of us though, and it is time to be honest, have not taken every opportunity to acknowledge Jesus before men? I certainly have not. There have been plenty of times when I could have said or did something to acknowledge Christ but did not.

The point of the matter is not the face value, “If you disrespect me, I’m gonna disrespect you” tit-for-tat. Indeed, this would be far from unconditional forgiveness, turning the cheek, unconditional love, etc. What I am gathering from Good Goats is that the point of the matter is to address our behaviors, actions, and speech that do not acknowledge Christ. And yes, sin does not acknowledge Christ. Sin is an act that shows lack of knowledge of Christ.

I am trying not to repeat myself too much at this point, Vico. I think I haven’t much else to say that I have not already stated in my last 4-5 posts, especially post 918. However, if you have any changes or corrections to make about this fictional man we have been discussing, feel free to bring them forward.

God Bless, and Have a Great Week!

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “But please, do not bring in the “vincible vs invincible” parts back into this.”
  A. It is excluded here because it is a scenario involving knowing rather than ignorance, by design.
• You wrote: “I go so far as to say that a person should be culpable for everything they do, whether it is a sin or not.”
  A. This is not in accord with the teachine of the Church. There is not always culpability for objective sin committed. In this thread culpability must be considered as it is required for rejection of God.

Modern Catholic Dictionary has for culpable:
Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

• You wrote: “People do not sin when they fully know what they are doing, and this man is not an exception.”
  A. To “know what you are doing”: to have the knowledge or experience that is necessary to do something. (Cambridge Dictionary) Here, the man has the knowledge necessary to sin gravely. Therefore he fully knows what he is doing. I think one properly says that “the prudent man does not sin”.

CCC 1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” 65 “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” 66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. 67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

Your use of the phrase “knowingly and willingly reject God” does not equate to the definition from the Catechism which pertains to this thread:

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico,

I accept your position, though I do not agree with it. All you have proven it that the man knows the rule. He does not value the rule, in that he says he is not bound to it, and he has a very superficial understanding of God in that he does not even see God in his wife. Therefore, he is not knowingly or willingly rejecting God.

Let me ask another pertinent question:

1. Does the man want to reject God, is that his intent?

• You wrote: “But please, do not bring in the “vincible vs invincible” parts back into this.”
  A. It is excluded here because it is a scenario involving knowing rather than ignorance, by design.

All you have been able to prove is that the man knows the rule. As I stated before, he appears to value it as much as the common man a speed limit. He is not taking the rule seriously, “I am not bound”…

Given what your have said about the man, if you are thinking that this man is not ignorant, if that is your observation, all I can say is that I respectfully disagree. You have not proven that he knows God or that he sees the seriousness of his sin. If you change the scenario a bit, then I would have a different conclusion. He did not know God even before he “fell away”. Plenty of Catholics know very little of God.

So, what do those Catholics who don’t know God need to know? Do we say, “if you want to know God, read this list of ten commandments. If you violate them, you go to hell.” What does the listener learn of God? This is not an image of love, forgiveness, and mercy, where all of the commandments are given to us to protect us from harm and create the Kingdom. No, this is the image of a “Gotcha god”, a heavenly bureaucrat, one who stands in heaven saying, “you should have known…, this is what you knew…, I don’t care if you knew me or not…send this one to the ‘down’ elevator, his mind and actions said ‘yes’ for the most part, but this particular sin, well, he gave himself the boot… next!..”

• You wrote: “I go so far as to say that a person should be culpable for everything they do, whether it is a sin or not.”
  A. This is not in accord with the teachine of the Church. There is not always culpability for objective sin committed. In this thread culpability must be considered as it is required for rejection of God.

Modern Catholic Dictionary has for culpable:
Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

I repeat. We are to be held morally responsible for all of our actions. All of our actions stem from our own decisions, no one makes us do anything. I am “blameworthy” for everything I do, whether I knew it was wrong or not. The side question is, just because a person is worthy of blame, do we blame? For example, Vico, I have other questions for you, as this extension, I think, is very pertinent:

1. If you knew this man, how would you feel towards this man you described? If you knew him, would you hold any contempt? Would you hold anything against him?
2. Do you condemn him at all? Do you feel any negativity towards him?

… I think one properly says that “the prudent man does not sin”.

CCC 1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; “the prudent man looks where he is going.” 65 “Keep sane and sober for your prayers.” 66 Prudence is “right reason in action,” writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. 67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.
​

1. How does a person become prudent?

Your use of the phrase “knowingly and willingly reject God” does not equate to the definition from the Catechism which pertains to this thread:

CCC 1859 Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

Yes, this.is applicable to the man if “full knowledge” is equal to “superficial knowledge”, as I said in post 923. You can respond to my specific points there, if you like.

1. I guess you are saying that a person who does not know God and believes “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.” then he has “full knowledge.” If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.

Interesting how this conversation continues to move, Vico! I thought we were done with this man. I hope you do not continue to repeat that he knew what he was doing without providing more proof. The “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church” statement was a strong one, and it definitely shows his ignorance.

Thanks for your reply! I do hope you answer my five questions. We have rather worn out the scenario of the man.​

 

[simpleas]

Good morning, Vico,

I accept your position, though I do not agree with it. All you have proven it that the man knows the rule. He does not value the rule, in that he says he is not bound to it, and he has a very superficial understanding of God in that he does not even see God in his wife. Therefore, he is not knowingly or willingly rejecting God.

Let me ask another pertinent question:

1. Does the man want to reject God, is that his intent?

All you have been able to prove is that the man knows the rule. As I stated before, he appears to value it as much as the common man a speed limit. He is not taking the rule seriously, “I am not bound”…

Given what your have said about the man, if you are thinking that this man is not ignorant, if that is your observation, all I can say is that I respectfully disagree. You have not proven that he knows God or that he sees the seriousness of his sin. If you change the scenario a bit, then I would have a different conclusion. He did not know God even before he “fell away”. Plenty of Catholics know very little of God.

So, what do those Catholics who don’t know God need to know? Do we say, “if you want to know God, read this list of ten commandments. If you violate them, you go to hell.” What does the listener learn of God? This is not an image of love, forgiveness, and mercy, where all of the commandments are given to us to protect us from harm and create the Kingdom. No, this is the image of a “Gotcha god”, a heavenly bureaucrat, one who stands in heaven saying, “you should have known…, this is what you knew…, I don’t care if you knew me or not…send this one to the ‘down’ elevator, his mind and actions said ‘yes’ for the most part, but this particular sin, well, he gave himself the boot… next!..”

I repeat. We are to be held morally responsible for all of our actions. All of our actions stem from our own decisions, no one makes us do anything. I am “blameworthy” for everything I do, whether I knew it was wrong or not. The side question is, just because a person is worthy of blame, do we blame? For example, Vico, I have other questions for you, as this extension, I think, is very pertinent:

1. If you knew this man, how would you feel towards this man you described? If you knew him, would you hold any contempt? Would you hold anything against him?
2. Do you condemn him at all? Do you feel any negativity towards him?
3. How does a person become prudent?

Yes, this.is applicable to the man if “full knowledge” is equal to “superficial knowledge”, as I said in post 923. You can respond to my specific points there, if you like.

1. I guess you are saying that a person who does not know God and believes “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.” then he has “full knowledge.” If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.

Interesting how this conversation continues to move, Vico! I thought we were done with this man. I hope you do not continue to repeat that he knew what he was doing without providing more proof. The “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church” statement was a strong one, and it definitely shows his ignorance.

Thanks for your reply! I do hope you answer my five questions. We have rather worn out the scenario of the man.

*So, what do those Catholics who don’t know God need to know? Do we say, “if you want to know God, read this list of ten commandments. If you violate them, you go to hell.” What does the listener learn of God? This is not an image of love, forgiveness, and mercy, where all of the commandments are given to us to protect us from harm and create the Kingdom. No, this is the image of a “Gotcha god”, a heavenly bureaucrat, one who stands in heaven saying, “you should have known…, this is what you knew…, I don’t care if you knew me or not…send this one to the ‘down’ elevator, his mind and actions said ‘yes’ for the most part, but this particular sin, well, he gave himself the boot… next!..” *

This had me

I don’t think you meant it as humour, but I found it funny! (although I’m sure I shouldn’t be laughing!!)

 

[OneSheep]

This had me

I don’t think you meant it as humour, but I found it funny! (although I’m sure I shouldn’t be laughing!!)

Thanks. At least one person thinks I can be funny. Ask my kids, I laugh at my own stuff more than anyone else does, for sure.

It is the tragic, simpleas, that provides the basis for humor. It is funny that people see God that way, but they do sometimes. It is tragic and funny at once.

 

[Vico]

…

So we have the example of the man that has sinned gravely through pride, which constitutes malice. As a result he is having a very difficult time, and may never achieve, contrition. The sins of malice are the most difficult, in this case it is against the first commandment, a sin against the Holy Spirit. Catechism:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But 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. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

• You wrote “All you have proven it that the man knows the rule. He does not value the rule, in that he says he is not bound to it, and he has a very superficial understanding of God in that he does not even see God in his wife. Therefore, he is not knowingly or willingly rejecting God.” and "He is not taking the rule seriously, “I am not bound”… and “You have not proven that he knows God or that he sees the seriousness of his sin.”
  A. Clearly false. You can look up all the quotes from the past posts on it, that he knows what the Church teaches, he knows that he is not to dissent, he knows that he has dissented, he is fearful of this now and prays to achieve proper contrition. Also, it is not necessary to know God to sin, it is necessary to know the sinful character of the act.

You wrote: “Does the man want to reject God, is that his intent?”
A. Yes. As posted before from Catholic Encyclopedia (topic: sin) “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”.

Quote:

• You wrote: “I go so far as to say that a person should be culpable for everything they do, whether it is a sin or not.”
  A. This is not in accord with the teachine of the Church. There is not always culpability for objective sin committed. In this thread culpability must be considered as it is required for rejection of God.

*You wrote: “I am “blameworthy” for everything I do, whether I knew it was wrong or not.”
A. That does not relevant for culpability which is for rejection of God. Being responsible for consequences of on’e actions for that which is not a rejection of God is not what is significant for this issue of rejection of God.

You wrote: “I have other questions for you, as this extension, I think, is very pertinent:”
A. Off topic is how I feel about it.

Quote:

… I think one properly says that “the prudent man does not sin”.

CCC 1806 Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going." 65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers." 66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle. 67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.

• You wrote: “How does a person become prudent?”
  A. There are two types of prudence: 1) the fruit of training and experience developed into a stable habit by repetition and 2) prucence infused by the state of grace.
• You wrote: “I guess you are saying that a person who does not know God and believes “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.” then he has “full knowledge.” If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.”
  A. Full knowledge means he has information (as given in the previously posted quote from the Catehchims): he has learned of the sinful the character of the act (and what sin brings) from conscience or the teaching of the Church. Not to assent to the teachings of the Church with is a sin in itself. We are called to faith, not rationalism.
• You wrote: “I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church” statement was a strong one, and it definitely shows his ignorance."
  A. He is not ignorant of what the Church teaches and you also miss something from that post which is: 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.””

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico!

So, you are choosing to get into more detail about the man. Looking at it all, I am thinking that I am talking about apples and you oranges, so let me try to weed through this.

So we have the example of the man that has sinned gravely through pride, which constitutes malice. As a result he is having a very difficult time, and may never achieve, contrition. The sins of malice are the most difficult, in this case it is against the first commandment, a sin against the Holy Spirit. Catechism:
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But 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. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

Sin against the Holy Spirit is confined in application to people refusing to forgive. If a person is not open to forgiveness, they do not realize the Love of God. This is what I was taught in my catechesis. I was taught that this is narrowly, not broadly, defined. If you disagree, we will have to agree to disagree. That’s okay.

John Paul II explains the “Sin against the Holy Spirit” in his encyclical, “Dominum et Vivificantem”

And the blasphemy against the Holy Spirit consists precisely in the radical refusal to accept this forgiveness, of which he is the intimate giver and which presupposes the genuine conversion which he brings about in the conscience.

You have said nothing about the man refusing to accept forgiveness. If you would like to add that dimension, its up to you.

You may also note here, the reference to “conversion of conscience”. If “no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law” then there would not be a need for a conversion of conscience.

Concerning “imputability” and “culpability” and so forth, which you continue to bring into this conversation and I have responded at times, here you are showing a focus on God’s response to sin rather than the man’s K&WRG. This is part of the apples v. oranges I am addressing. It is a little confusing having two conversations, right?

• You wrote “All you have proven it that the man knows the rule. He does not value the rule, in that he says he is not bound to it, and he has a very superficial understanding of God in that he does not even see God in his wife. Therefore, he is not knowingly or willingly rejecting God.” and "He is not taking the rule seriously, “I am not bound”… and “You have not proven that he knows God or that he sees the seriousness of his sin.”
  A. Clearly false. You can look up all the quotes from the past posts on it, that he knows what the Church teaches, he knows that he is not to dissent, he knows that he has dissented, he is fearful of this now and prays to achieve proper contrition. Also, it is not necessary to know God to sin, it is necessary to know the sinful character of the act.

Here again, we are having different discussions. Yes, the man sinned. It is not necessary to know God to sin.

However, this thread is about whether anyone ever Knowingly and Willingly Rejects God. In order for a person to knowingly reject something, he has to know what he is rejecting. The man does not know who he is rejecting. He is fearful of hell, but he does not know God. If the man knew the seriousness of his sin, he would not need a conversion of conscience, of which he is in need.

You have proven nothing concerning the man knowing the seriousness of the sin. Yes, he knows the Church says that it is serious, but you have proven nothing concerning his own knowing that it is serious. For example, if you asked the man why murder is a serious sin, what would he answer? “Because the Church says it is so?” No, the man would answer that the sin is serious because it is uncharitable and harmful, and that is an answer from his conscience. If you asked the man why fornication is a serious sin, what would he answer? He does not see his relationship with his wife as harmful, indeed he loves his wife and he finds the relationship life-giving in some way.

Do you see what I mean? Yes, I am using “knowing” in the broadest sense, and you are using it in the superficial sense.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

A continuation of the conversation:

Vico:

You wrote: “Does the man want to reject God, is that his intent?”
A. Yes. As posted before from Catholic Encyclopedia (topic: sin) “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”.

Here we are definitely having two different discussions. For a person to** knowingly and willingly reject God**, he must at least have the intent to do so. That is what this thread is about.

I am asking, specifically, if he* intends* to K&WRG, and now you are saying “yes”. This, however, is a contradiction to your saying that he wants to have his marriage blessed, that he puts his relationship with God as “equal” to this wife, and that he hopes and “prays” to be back with the Church. The man sounds confused and/or irrational again.

You are addressing God’s reaction to sin. “Suffices” refers to culpability and accountability, which I agree with completely. However, I don’t see God as being offended; the law is offended.

You wrote: “I have other questions for you, as this extension, I think, is very pertinent:”
A. Off topic is how I feel about it.

Here were my questions:

1. If you knew this man, how would you feel towards this man you described? If you knew him, would you hold any contempt? Would you hold anything against him?
2. Do you condemn him at all? Do you feel any negativity towards him?

Did you have a negative reaction to the questions themselves? Sorry about that.

I will explain their pertinence. God’s actions will make sense in accord with our own projections. Seeing a person’s ignorance is a means of deeper forgiveness. If one refuses to recognize that people are ignorant, as were those at the foot of the cross ignorant, then the person is closed-minded to understanding people’s actions, and such closed-mindedness is a hindrance to a deeper forgiveness.

So, depending on your own answers to the above questions, you are most likely to perceive that God has the same reaction that you do. That said, it will not make sense to you that God recognizes and forgives people’s ignorance if you cannot do the same. I am sensing a resistance, on your part, to acknowledging that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God. If you have negative feelings about the man in this scenario, that would explain your resistance. Do you see what I mean? I said “if”. I am not saying that this is the case, but I am trying to understand the resistance.

That is why the questions are pertinent. If I knew this man, I would recognize his ignorance, understand where he is coming from. I would realize that I could behave exactly as he did given his scope of the situation. On this basis, I would forgive at a deeper level than simply a statement such as “I will not hold it against him”. From the cross, Jesus gave us the words that provide the means to a deeper level of forgiveness, “for they know not what they do.”

You may refuse to answer, I am not forcing you to do so. But the questions are pertinent.

• You wrote: “How does a person become prudent?”
  A. There are two types of prudence: 1) the fruit of training and experience developed into a stable habit by repetition and 2) prucence infused by the state of grace.

Yes, experience and training. I don’t know anyone who has “prudence” that cannot be attributed to experience and training. Experience and training involve learning, knowledge, so I stand by my statement: People do not sin when they fully know what they are doing, and this man is not an exception.

As I have said from the beginning, I am using “know” in the all-inclusive sense.

• You wrote: “I guess you are saying that a person who does not know God and believes “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.” then he has “full knowledge.” If that is not what you are saying, please clarify.”
  A. Full knowledge means he has information (as given in the previously posted quote from the Catehchims): he has learned of the sinful the character of the act (and what sin brings) from conscience or the teaching of the Church. Not to assent to the teachings of the Church with is a sin in itself. We are called to faith, not rationalism.

Since you have not modified what the man says, am I to conclude that you are saying that when someone says this:

“I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.”

he has “full knowledge”?

This is a yes or no question.

Remember, he not only believes those words, but he believes them to the point that he behaves by them, and risks eternal life, again by his own words.

Yes, he has not assented to the teachings. Yes, he has sinned. But you are still saying that a person who says this has full knowledge, and I disagree. This investigation was not about whether the man sinned. It was about finding out if he K&WRG. It does not matter what he “knew” before. He does not know God very deeply, and obviously never has. He is operating on his own truth now. He is rejecting a false image, the image of a god whose rules are of little importance, a god he does not even see in his wife.

Thanks for responding, Vico. The conversation is confusing, but still interesting and worth discussing. I appreciate this opportunity, very much so.

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Here we are definitely having two different discussions. For a person to** knowingly and willingly reject God**, he must at least have the intent to do so. That is what this thread is about.
{snip}

The Church teachings that has been presented throughout this thread have demonstrated that this is not true. The only intent required is the intent to disobey the law.

You have presented no evidence nor valid argument in favor of your claim.

 

[OneSheep]

The Church teachings that has been presented throughout this thread have demonstrated that this is not true. The only intent required is the intent to disobey the law.

Hi David,

Allow me to summarize what you are saying. “The only intent required in order for a person to be deemed to have sinned mortally is to have the intent to disobey the law.”

However, the CCC puts it much differently.

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.

So, if the person intends to disobey a law and commit a sin that to him is not sinful in character, as in this case the man’s civil marriage, or its opposition to God’s law, which he says that he is not bound to, then he does not have have full knowledge. His “truth” is that he is not bound, so he does not know, in any more than a very superficial way, that he opposes God’s law. If he intends without full knowledge, then he has not committed mortal sin.

Let me ask you this. Let’s say you oppose a particular traffic law. Are you intending to oppose the Government as a whole? Well, probably not. However, I could certainly point at you and say, “He is anti-American.” But would you seriously be anti-American because you oppose a traffic law?

I can make the assertion “You are anti-American if you oppose the traffic law.” However, this would not reflect your actual intent, your sentiment, or your thinking, right? Now, you could say, “but God is different, God condemns the man as opposed to him even though the man’s own reasons would say otherwise.” Does this reflect God? Does this reflect the man? To me, it reflects neither one. Remember, we are talking about the God, who while we were killing Him said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

You have presented no evidence nor valid argument in favor of your claim.

Feel free to find one of my arguments that is invalid, and we can discuss it. None of your arguments are invalid. I’m sure they make perfect sense to you, and I respect that.

Have a great day, David!

 

[simpleas]

Why would God give us a brain, and intellect, freewill etc, but not allow us to follow our own conscience even if it is said to k&wr?

We know through teaching what is a sin, yet we learn through experience what it can mean to ourselves and others. Some people do not, some don’t see any sin in what our church deems as sin. Why? because they have k&wr and God has washed his hands of them, or they haven’t “grown up” spiritually to connect with God?

What if they never reach that point where they agree 100% that all the church says to be k&wr God. I’m sure there are people who don’t believe a certain sin is the rejection of God, because they see things in a different way, because of their experience in life.
Surely we can understand this, to me if someone is “lost” they are not k&wr, and I think that would be most all of us.

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Why would God give us a brain, and intellect, freewill etc, but not allow us to follow our own conscience even if it is said to k&wr?

Yes, this is a very important question, and then-Cardinal-Ratzinger addressed the idea of a God who gives and then takes away. Such a God as “beneficent” makes no sense. It’s like "Why would a loving God create the with free will human in the first place, if he was planning to make life miserable for whoever rejected Him?

The way I look at it is if a person forgives everyone, it makes no sense for God not to forgive and stop at nothing to bring a person to Him. If a person does not forgive certain people, it will not make sense to them that God forgives them either, instead it makes perfect sense that “those people” suffer an eternity of punishment for their sins, disobedience, defiance whatever the individual particularly resents.

Do you see why I say that Spirituality, our relationship to God in the world, and in everyone, is the core? Rationality follows Spirituality, it follows relationship, not the other way around. We cannot intellectually convince a person that there is a God. Faith, to me, starts with awe and wonder, the “knowing” God’s beneficence in our prayer life, in the trees, the insects, and, of course, in every human.

We know through teaching what is a sin, yet we learn through experience what it can mean to ourselves and others. Some people do not, some don’t see any sin in what our church deems as sin. Why? because they have k&wr and God has washed his hands of them, or they haven’t “grown up” spiritually to connect with God?

So a person who hasn’t forgiven certain people is going to find the idea that “God washes His hands” of people makes sense. Everyone, I think, has some connection with God. I think that I have some “connection”, but there are many aspects of “connection” I think. One person may have a greater connection in terms of their real sense of God blessing their day. Another person may have a greater connection in terms of seeing God in others. Yet another may have a greater connection in being a servant to others. Are any of us “grown up”? Once in awhile, for fun, I look at very old people and know that they are just little kids, trying to make sense of the world, just like me.

What if they never reach that point where they agree 100% that all the church says to be k&wr God. I’m sure there are people who don’t believe a certain sin is the rejection of God, because they see things in a different way, because of their experience in life.
Surely we can understand this, to me if someone is “lost” they are not k&wr, and I think that would be most all of us.

I agree, though there is a God-given conscience within us, it is our learning and experience that enlightens us to it. Did you follow the examples in this thread? In both major examples, the person’s conscience was formulated (reformulated?) to allow for their own sins. They were not intending to reject God, they were changing the rules and their thinking in such a way that God would still accept them even if they sinned. In Vico’s example, I am guessing that “the man” was still able to look himself in the mirror and say “I’m a good person.” And, given the phenomenon of projection, in this case he was probably convinced that God felt the same way about him.

Are most of us “lost”? Hmmm. If you mean “none of us knows the whole truth”, I heartily agree. However, none of us in relationship with Jesus is “lost”. Love trumps knowledge.

Thanks, Simpleas. You have great insight. And hey, what is your Avatar? It’s too little to see.

 

[davidv]

Hi David,

Allow me to summarize what you are saying. “The only intent required in order for a person to be deemed to have sinned mortally is to have the intent to disobey the law.”

However, the CCC puts it much differently.

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.

Apples and oranges. Intent and knowledge are not the same. If one indends to commit an act that one knows to be sin, one, by definition k&w rejects God.

So, if the person intends to disobey a law and commit a sin that to him is not sinful in character, as in this case the man’s civil marriage, or its opposition to God’s law, which he says that he is not bound to, then he does not have have full knowledge. His “truth” is that he is not bound, so he does not know, in any more than a very superficial way, that he opposes God’s law. If he intends without full knowledge, then he has not committed mortal sin.

Let me ask you this. Let’s say you oppose a particular traffic law. Are you intending to oppose the Government as a whole? Well, probably not. However, I could certainly point at you and say, “He is anti-American.” But would you seriously be anti-American because you oppose a traffic law?

I can make the assertion “You are anti-American if you oppose the traffic law.” However, this would not reflect your actual intent, your sentiment, or your thinking, right? Now, you could say, “but God is different, God condemns the man as opposed to him even though the man’s own reasons would say otherwise.” Does this reflect God? Does this reflect the man? To me, it reflects neither one. Remember, we are talking about the God, who while we were killing Him said, “forgive them, for they know not what they do”.

Feel free to find one of my arguments that is invalid, and we can discuss it. None of your arguments are invalid. I’m sure they make perfect sense to you, and I respect that.

See above example of equivocation (invalid argument) of intent and knowledge.

Have a great day, David!

Likewise.

 

[Aloysium]

The why and how people knowingly and willingly reject God:

Gen 3:6 When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it.

It is preferable to look upwards to heaven, but if the abyss demands an answer, consider the act that got us to where we are and which lies at the foundation of all that separates us from the Divine.
Without the acknowledgement and repentance of sin there can be no salvation.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

Yes, this is a very important question, and then-Cardinal-Ratzinger addressed the idea of a God who gives and then takes away. Such a God as “beneficent” makes no sense. It’s like "Why would a loving God create the with free will human in the first place, if he was planning to make life miserable for whoever rejected Him?

The way I look at it is if a person forgives everyone, it makes no sense for God not to forgive and stop at nothing to bring a person to Him. If a person does not forgive certain people, it will not make sense to them that God forgives them either, instead it makes perfect sense that “those people” suffer an eternity of punishment for their sins, disobedience, defiance whatever the individual particularly resents.

Do you see why I say that Spirituality, our relationship to God in the world, and in everyone, is the core? Rationality follows Spirituality, it follows relationship, not the other way around. We cannot intellectually convince a person that there is a God. Faith, to me, starts with awe and wonder, the “knowing” God’s beneficence in our prayer life, in the trees, the insects, and, of course, in every human.

So a person who hasn’t forgiven certain people is going to find the idea that “God washes His hands” of people makes sense. Everyone, I think, has some connection with God. I think that I have some “connection”, but there are many aspects of “connection” I think. One person may have a greater connection in terms of their real sense of God blessing their day. Another person may have a greater connection in terms of seeing God in others. Yet another may have a greater connection in being a servant to others. Are any of us “grown up”? Once in awhile, for fun, I look at very old people and know that they are just little kids, trying to make sense of the world, just like me.

I agree, though there is a God-given conscience within us, it is our learning and experience that enlightens us to it. Did you follow the examples in this thread? In both major examples, the person’s conscience was formulated (reformulated?) to allow for their own sins. They were not intending to reject God, they were changing the rules and their thinking in such a way that God would still accept them even if they sinned. In Vico’s example, I am guessing that “the man” was still able to look himself in the mirror and say “I’m a good person.” And, given the phenomenon of projection, in this case he was probably convinced that God felt the same way about him.

Are most of us “lost”? Hmmm. If you mean “none of us knows the whole truth”, I heartily agree. However, none of us in relationship with Jesus is “lost”. Love trumps knowledge.

Thanks, Simpleas. You have great insight. And hey, what is your Avatar? It’s too little to see.

Thanks, I like when posters are willing to talk through a topic, rather than just quote material and say here is the answer…go figure it out…

People I think, may believe that they can’t forgive someone, but would think that only God could forgive…being God an all, he would be the one that could do this. Not saying people shouldn’t try to forgive, because when you don’t, it’s you who hurts the most and is trapped.
Yes, I would say we all can connect with God in various ways.
By “grown up” spiritually, I meant maturing as a person, some older people I have met act like teenagers! They are stuck in petty ways of seeing others as less than them, and still think that people should agree with everything they say/think. But trying to make sense of things at any age can only lead to a mature understanding.
Yes I have been following the thread, why wouldn’t the man think he is a good person? and that God felt the same way about him?

Some of us become lost, like the man?

My avatar is of my beautiful black labrador dipping his paws in a tiny paddling pool during the summer!

 

[OneSheep]

Apples and oranges. Intent and knowledge are not the same. If one indends to commit an act that one knows to be sin, one, by definition k&w rejects God.

See above example of equivocation (invalid argument) of intent and knowledge.

Likewise.

Hi.

Well, let’s see if it is apples and oranges. Let’s pretend that you think the US gun laws are ridiculous, and everyone should have the right to own a machine gun, that such a right makes us free. There are laws against such ownership, of course…

I will make a definition. “If you oppose any law in America, by my definition you oppose America itself.” What do you think of that? Does this reflect your intent? Do you intend to oppose America itself? Are you K&W rejecting your country?

BTW: for mortal sin, you left out the “full knowledge” part again. And a sin is a sin (in terms of being a wrong act) whether a person has heard it is a sin or not.

Thanks for your reply!

 

[davidv]

Hi.

Well, let’s see if it is apples and oranges. Let’s pretend that you think the US gun laws are ridiculous, and everyone should have the right to own a machine gun, that such a right makes us free. There are laws against such ownership, of course…

I will make a definition. “If you oppose any law in America, by my definition you oppose America itself.” What do you think of that? Does this reflect your intent? Do you intend to oppose America itself? Are you K&W rejecting your country?

BTW: for mortal sin, you left out the “full knowledge” part again. And a sin is a sin (in terms of being a wrong act) whether a person has heard it is a sin or not.

Thanks for your reply!

Thank you for demonstrating my point. What do rights have to do with knowledge or intent. Your scenario looks like a red herring to me. This indicates to me that you are not able to counter the arguments against your position.

 

[Vico]

So, Judas was created to fail.

We have free will so he was not created to fail, but it was known in advance by Christ that he would, just as it was know by the Holy Trinity in advance that the Virgin Mary would accept being the Mother of God.