Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

…

See post #758, August 28 for the original post on the man.

It is not pertinent, however to satisfy your query, I have no negative feelings about the man in this scenario. God has allowed us free will and I accept that some will choose to reject God and others will not.

• You wrote: “So, you are choosing to get into more detail about the man.”
  A. The sin against the first commandment is not new information. See Post #812, September 4 which has: “It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).”
  Also see post #848, September 8 has: "“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””
  And see post #876 September 13 for sins against the Holy Spirit (first commandment), this has bearing also on your next statement treated here.
• You wrote: “You have said nothing about the man refusing to accept forgiveness.”
  A. It is mentioned many times that he does not have proper contrition, and that he could repent but does not.

Also, from Dominum et Vivificantem: “If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this “non-forgiveness” is linked, as to its cause, to “non-repentance,” in other words to the radical refusal to be converted.”

• You wrote: “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.”
  A. Incorrect. From CCC 1860 shows that man has conscience “But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”
  And CCC 1865 that it may be clouded: “Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.”
• You wrote: “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?”
  A. No. It is the topic of the thread, the why of those the commit mortal sins (which is rejection). Without it, we would not be on topic.
• You wrote: “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.”
  A. No, 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.” He does not need to know God.
• You wrote: “he has “full knowledge”?”
  A. This was answered yes several times in these series of posts.
• You wrote: "You have proven nothing concerning the man knowing the seriousness of the sin. "
  A. It is my scenario and it is by design that he knows the seriousness of the sin, per the teaching of the Church.
• You wrote: “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.”
  A. It is a wish and he is unwilling to do what it takes to repent at this time. It would be one part of what is necessary but insufficient in itself.
• You wrote: “It does not matter what he “knew” before.”
  A. Actually it does, for he willfully got himself into the situation in the past, and without the necessary contrition, continues in that state.
• You wrote: “He is operating on his own truth now. He is rejecting a false image,…”
  A. Actually he is operating with doubt, as mentioned in previous posts, he knows what the Church teaches, but does not assent, but does not know if his ideas are true, therfore he is fearful. Did you forget the previous response on this question?

*You wrote: “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.”
A. The yes is to what is required for mortal sin, as repeatedly stated. He has a wish based upon fear.

• You wrote: “I don’t see God as being offended; the law is offended.”
  A. Willful opposition to Divine Law is an offense to God. CCC 1871 “Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22L 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.”

 

[OneSheep]

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.

I’m sorry, David, no red herring intended

You are quite correct, rights have nothing to do with it. I was using rights as an example of what you might think is truth vs. what the government thinks is truth, as a simile to the example of what a person thinks is sinful vs. what the Church thinks is sinful.

“Intent” is a word we use for will., so discussion of intent is very pertinent to this thread.

If you see the pertinence, can you answer my questions? If not, I can try to clarify my explanation. If you don’t want to bother with it, that is okay too.

God Bless your day!

 

[OneSheep]

Hey, Vico! Welcome back!

• You wrote: “So, you are choosing to get into more detail about the man.”
  A. The sin against the first commandment is not new information. See Post #812, September 4 which has: “It is no because he willed himself into the sinful situation by first falling away from the faith (a sin against the first commandment) and then by marriage without approval of the Church (a sin against the first commandment) and then persisting in fornication (in the situation of near occasion of sin) and also involving scandal. Having been trained in the faith and accepting it when younger, he is aware of the Divine Law (which includes the natural law and ecclesial law).”
  Also see post #848, September 8 has: "“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””

I was not saying that you hadn’t mentioned this before. I was only commenting that you wanted to engage in more analysis. It was not a challenge, just an observation. I welcome additional analysis!

And see post #876 September 13 for sins against the Holy Spirit (first commandment), this has bearing also on your next statement treated here.

• You wrote: “You have said nothing about the man refusing to accept forgiveness.”
  A. It is mentioned many times that he does not have proper contrition, and that he could repent but does not.

Also, from Dominum et Vivificantem: “If Jesus says that blasphemy against the Holy Spirit cannot be forgiven either in this life or in the next, it is because this “non-forgiveness” is linked, as to its cause, to “non-repentance,” in other words to the radical refusal to be converted.”

The man has not demonstrated, in your scenario, a “radical refusal to be converted”, unless you are saying that his “wish to return to the sacraments” demonstrates “radical refusal”. His mind is willing but his body weak. Is that “radical”?

BTW: any reference to God ever withholding forgiveness contradicts the premise that God loves unconditionally. So to me, the only way that “unforgiveness” ever makes sense is in light of the spirituality/psychology that a person who refuses to forgive will not experience, in a spiritual way, forgiveness, even though he is forgiven by God. This is off-topic though.

• You wrote: “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.”
  A. Incorrect. From CCC 1860 shows that man has conscience
  “But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man.”
  And CCC 1865 that it may be clouded:

  “Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.”
  ​

​

What this calls for is a clarification by the CCC. If a person can have a “clouded conscience”, then their own “knowing” of the principles of moral law can also be clouded. So, if it is not ignorance, then it is blindness. And blindness is a temporary lack of knowing, a lack of awareness. In other words, if the person is not deemed ignorant, then “clouded” uses a different word to explain the same phenomenon. This is also a bit off-topic, and begs for an example to clarify.

• You wrote: “Concerning “imputability” and “culpability” and so forth, which you continue to bring into this conversation and I have rsponded 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?”
  A. No. It is the topic of the thread, the why of those the commit mortal sins (which is rejection). Without it, we would not be on topic.

“Culpability” does not explain “why” in terms of what is going through the mind of the man. Culpability describes what people, the Church, someone, does in reaction to what the man does (hold accountable), unless you are talking about the man blaming himself. What am I missing here, Vico?

• You wrote: “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.”
  A. No, 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.” He does not need to know God.
  ​

​

Okay, let us apply it to the example. Evidence indicates that the man knows very little of God. Are you saying that the man knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God?

(cont’d)​

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

[/INDENT]* You wrote: “he has “full knowledge”?”
A. This was answered yes several times in these series of posts.

Actually, the question was this, and I will ask it again:

Are you saying that while someone says, “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church”, he has “full knowledge”?

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. Are you saying “yes”, such words are words of “full knowledge”? If so, then he is speaking the truth. And, if he is speaking the truth, then he is not rejecting God by his words or actions. If he is not speaking the truth, then this is an unusual understanding of “full knowledge”. You would be saying that he has full knowledge of an untruth.

• You wrote: "You have proven nothing concerning the man knowing the seriousness of the sin. "
  A. It is my scenario and it is by design that he knows the seriousness of the sin, per the teaching of the Church.

Okay, if I ask the man why his marriage outside of the Church is a serious sin, what would he say? His own actions say that he does not see the seriousness of the sin. Does the man also commit murder, false witness, and thievery? If not, why does he not? What would he say about the seriousness of those sins?

• You wrote: “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.”
  A. It is a wish and he is unwilling to do what it takes to repent at this time. It would be one part of what is necessary but insufficient in itself.

What I said, in context, was that your saying that he intends to knowingly and willingly reject God is a contradiction to those other statements. Even though it is “insufficient” the intent in statement such as “wanting to return to the sacraments” contradicts the intent in purposefully knowing and rejecting God. Are you saying that he wants to return to the sacraments, and wants to be back with the Church, but that he intends to reject God? This is very confusing.

Look at this statement:

“I intend to return to the sacraments and I intend to be back with the Church, I intend to reject God.”

Is this what he is saying? Or, are you saying that there is a difference between “want, hope for, wish” etc. and “intent”? Again, this man is very confusing, if not confused. Help!

• You wrote: “It does not matter what he “knew” before.”
  A. Actually it does, for he willfully got himself into the situation in the past, and without the necessary contrition, continues in that state.

Right, all along we have been talking about the state that he is in, the continued state, the state of wanting to return to the sacraments, but thinking that he is not bound by the precepts of the church.

• You wrote: “He is operating on his own truth now. He is rejecting a false image,…”
  A. Actually he is operating with doubt, as mentioned in previous posts, he knows what the Church teaches, but does not assent, but does not know if his ideas are true, therefore he is fearful. Did you forget the previous response on this question?

So, this is the first time that I remember your usage of the word “doubt”. If that is the case, he is unsure of himself and confused. Confusion, as we determined, is not an excuse for sin, nor does it mean that he is not sinning. However, are you saying that confusion demonstrates “full knowledge”? Are you saying that a confused person knows what they are doing? I am starting to see an unfamiliar definition of “knowingly” formulate.

• You wrote: “I don’t see God as being offended; the law is offended.”
  A. Willful opposition to Divine Law is an offense to God. CCC 1871 “Sin is an utterance, a deed, or a desire contrary to the eternal law (St. Augustine, Faust 22L 42, 418). It is an offense against God. It rises up against God in a disobedience contrary to the obedience of Christ.”

Okay, it is an offense against God in terms of that it is an offense to God’s rules. I’ll put it this way: God does not get angry about my sins. He forgives before they even occur. He sees the blindness and ignorance I have that increase the possibility of sinful behavior. This is Abba I know through relationship.

Thanks for your response, Vico. I had no idea that the analysis would carry on this long, but it is all good. This man is an interesting example. He still seems very confused. He doesn’t know what to believe sometimes, yet other times he makes very strong statements.

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “Are you saying that while someone says, “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church”, he has “full knowledge”?”
  A. Yes, I am saying that he has full knowledge as used in Catechism 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.”
  Also see post #854 with more explanations.
• You wrote: “if he is speaking the truth, then he is not rejecting God by his words or actions.”
  A. The full knowledge he has is as described in CCC 1859 above, of what the Church teaches yet he decides not to assent. By not giving assent he rejects God.
  Definitions:
  belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
  knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.
• You wrote: “if I ask the man why his marriage outside of the Church is a serious sin, what would he say?” and “So, this is the first time that I remember your usage of the word “doubt”. If that is the case, he is unsure of himself and confused.”
  A. Doubt: we covered that he does not believe that his dissent is the truth, he is fearful because of it. From post #848 with the summary in it:
  "I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”.

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

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Vico, good morning!

It’s a nice morning here. It might rain, and we need it desperately.

• You wrote: “Are you saying that while someone says, “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church”, he has “full knowledge”?”
  A. Yes, I am saying that he has full knowledge as used in Catechism 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.”
  Also see post #854 with more explanations.
• You wrote: “if he is speaking the truth, then he is not rejecting God by his words or actions.”
  A. The full knowledge he has is as described in CCC 1859 above, of what the Church teaches yet he decides not to assent. By not giving assent he rejects God.

Okay, you clearly state that the man has full knowledge, even though, in his mind, he is not bound by the precepts of the Church. This statement is the man’s truth, and he is standing by this truth with his actions, in spite of the fact that he has fears and doubts.

I think I see one of the reasons why this is taking so long, Vico. We have a pattern arising. When I say that his conjugal actions are strong statements of what he knows as truth, “I am not bound”, then you say “we covered that, he does not believe that his dissent is the truth, he is fearful because of it”. However, when I say that he is confused in his fear and doubt, you say that he is decidedly rejecting God by his actions and his “I am not bound” statement of what he thinks is true. When you tell me that his “I am not bound” statement is a statement that he finds untrue but abides by it anyway, then he is irrational, but you seem to be saying that even though he is irrational he is knowingly and willingly rejecting God. We keep going round and round on this.

This, in my view, is what you are essentially saying, unless we make the round again:

A. He has fear and doubt, he is confused and irrational, his “knowing” is compromised. He does not know what to know. However, he is K&WRG, because “knowing” allows for confusion and irrationality.

B. He truly believes that he is not bound by the precepts of the Church (by word and action), his believing an untruth is “fully knowing”. He is K&WRG, because “knowing” allows for believing an untruth, which he states by his actions (conjugal relations) coupled with words (I am not bound).

So, indeed, Vico, you have found an example of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God, as long as “knowingly and willingly rejects God” includes a person who believes an untruth (by his actions matching his words) or is confused and/or irrational.

For me, I think that a person who believes an untruth or is confused is not “knowing”. He may know the rules but his belief in the untruth and confusion compromises his “knowing”. He does not knowingly and willingly reject God.

Shall we end it at that?

If we put all of this in the context of the crucifixion, the crowd was unconfused and “rationally” thinking that Christ should be put to death (blasphemy was punishable by death), believing an untruth by their actions and words. The crowd did not know God, the value of the person, hanging before them. To me, if a crowd “does not know what they are doing” (stated by Jesus) without the factors of confusion and irrationality, then confusion and irrationality would only add to the unknowing.

Here is what the man “knows” Vico: In spite of what the Church says (that his conjugal relations are wrong) he sees his relationship as life-giving, it brings him joy and fulfillment, and it brings his wife the same. These are the facts that he “knows” from this experience So, yes, he knows the Church precepts, and perhaps that is part of his truth, even though he says he is not bound. However, the joy and that his marriage brings him is also what he knows to be true. He does not see sinfulness in his behavior, he sees quite the opposite. Now, this paragraph makes a bunch of assumptions about the man and his wife, but if these assumptions are incorrect, then please clarify.

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

Definitions:
belief: an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

Let me add one definition:
assent: the expression of approval or agreement.

If the man was making a statement of non-assent, but has “knowledge” of the rules, then he would say, “I agree that the teachings of the Church are true, but I do not agree to abide by them.” In this case, he is simply non-assenting albeit such non-assenting is being stated by a man who knows little of God and/or is making a firm decision to spend an eternal life in suffering. (which brings us back to a question you did not answer fully, like why is he willing to risk eternal life in hell)

Instead, he said, “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church.” Which is a statement of truth as he knows it, because you state that he has “full knowledge”. If he is abiding by truth as he knows it, he is not K&WRG. His “clouded conscience” is not violated. He is not rejecting God, he is rejecting, in his eyes, the assertions of marriage outside the Church as a sin because he finds that his marriage brings no harm, as other sins clearly do.

Here is my understanding of the sacraments, Vico: A sacrament is a sign, a sign of what has already happened, what is happening in the moment, or will happen in the future. When a priest marries two people, he has really no assurance that God is central to their marriage. He does all he can, but he does not really know. If the couple does not consider God an important part of the marriage but goes through the motions without making the deepest commitment in their hearts, the sacrament is one that anticipates that the couple will come to the point of choosing to incorporate God in their marriage in a real way: that they pray together, choose to serve, support each other in spiritual growth, and so forth. On the flip side, people choose to have God central to their marriage all the time, without having gone through formal process of the Church blessing their marriage. When they finally do marry in the Church, the sacrament is a sign of what has already happened.

• You wrote: “if I ask the man why his marriage outside of the Church is a serious sin, what would he say?” and “So, this is the first time that I remember your usage of the word “doubt”. If that is the case, he is unsure of himself and confused.”
  A. Doubt: we covered that he does not believe that his dissent is the truth, he is fearful because of it. From post #848 with the summary in it:
  
  "I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”.
  ​

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

The will to stop sinning is present in terms of decision to return to actual practice of the faith, but his will is weak in terms of not wanting to give up the pleasure. In spite of what you say, you have still not proven that the man knows the seriousness of his sin, that it is “gravely sinful”. I would really like you to answer these questions from my posts 944&945, which will give me a better idea of what the man knows:

1. If I ask the man why his marriage outside of the Church is a serious sin, what would he say? Obviously, he has heard that he “risks” an eternity in hell, but he is confident enough in his “I am not bound by the precepts” statement to make that the truth upon which he acts. Why is what he is doing wrong?
2. His own actions say that he does not see the seriousness of the sin. Does the man also commit murder, false witness, and thievery? If not, why does he not?
3. What does he say about the seriousness of those other sins? If he wanted to commit one of those other sins, would he again risk hell, or would he see some other serious aspects of those sins, ones of which he would have no doubt?
4. Please read this statement:

“I intend to return to the sacraments and I intend to be back with the Church, I intend to reject God.”

Is this what he is saying? Or, are you saying that there is a difference between “want, hope for, wish” etc. and “intent”?

1. Evidence indicates that the man knows very little of God. Are you saying that the man knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God? Yes, he does not have to know God in order to have sinned, but he has far from “full knowledge” unless “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge”.

Thanks for your response, Vico. Have a great weekend.​

 

[Vico]

…

I believe the ending will be when there is understanding of the concepts.

• You wrote: "If the man was making a statement of non-assent, but has “knowledge” of the rules, then he would say, “I agree that the teachings of the Church are true, but I do not agree to abide by them.” "

A. Not so. To agree that the teachings of the Church are true is assent.

• You wrote: "When I say that his conjugal actions are strong statements of what he knows as truth, “I am not bound”, and “However, when I say that he is confused in his fear and doubt, you say that he is decidedly rejecting God by his actions and his “I am not bound” statement of what he thinks is true.”

A. You do keep repeating the idea of “what he thinks is true” and I keep correcting it, to no avail. He does not believe that what he thinks is true, he has doubt. What he has done is not given assent to the teaching of the Church. Now, synonyms for doubt are lack of faith and confusion. Secondly rejection of God does not require one to believe that what is thought is true, rather it requires knowledge of the character of sinful action as learned from conscience or from the Church. Knowledge is not the philosophy definition but the common definition: knowledge: facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject.

• You wrote: “When you tell me that his “I am not bound” statement is a statement that he finds untrue but abides by it anyway, then he is irrational, but you seem to be saying that even though he is irrational he is knowingly and willingly rejecting God.”

A. He knows that “I am not bound” is against the teaching of the Church, obviously or there would be no use for the word “bound”. He does not find it untrue (he cannot prove his dissent is correct), rather he does not assent. Assent means: “the expression of approval or agreement.”
Yes, rejection of God occurs with grave sin. As quoted before from the Catechism 1872"Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity."
and 1806"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."

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico,

He does not believe that what he thinks is true, he has doubt.

Yes, this indicates that you agree to this statement:

He has fear and doubt, he is confused and irrational; his “knowing” is compromised. He does not know what to know. However, he is K&WRG, because “knowing” allows for confusion and irrationality.

What he has done is not given assent to the teaching of the Church.
He does not believe that what he thinks is true, he has doubt.
He does not find it untrue (he cannot prove his dissent is correct), rather he does not assent.
To agree that the teachings of the Church are true is assent.

So if he agrees that the teachings of the Church are true, but behaves as if they are not, then he is behaving irrationally, which also falls in line with the green statement above. While he is doubting the words that decisively guide his behavior, “I am not bound”, then he is also doubting the words that he fears are true, “I am bound.” So, again, he is confused, which also falls in line with the statement above.

I will work on a full response when you get to the rest of the questions on my posts 947 and 948. I look forward to your reply!

Thanks, Vico

 

[Vico]

…

I already posted answers to some of those questions in posts 947 or 948 in previous posts, particularly question one, so I am not answering that one again here. You have not digested the answers and keep asking again. There must first be understanding of what the Church teaches.

The knowing that pertains to this thread is that of Catechism: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.

• You wrote: "he has far from “full knowledge” unless “full knowledge” is the same as “superficial knowledge”.
  A. This was answered a few times. See 1859 above for what the knowledge constitutes.
• You wrote: are you saying that there is a difference between “want, hope for, wish” etc. and “intent”?
  A. Of course. Definitions:
  intention : a thing intended; an aim or plan.
  wish : a desire or hope for something to happen.

*You wrote: “His own actions say that he does not see the seriousness of the sin.”
A. He knows the teaching of the Church that it is seriously sinful, therefore he sees it. He is afraid, therefore he sees it.
Definition:
sees: discern or deduce mentally after reflection or from information; understand.

• You wrote: “Does the man also commit murder, false witness, and thievery? If not, why does he not? What does he say about the seriousness of those other sins?
  … ones of which he would have no doubt?”
  A. Given in the scenario is his dissent from the precepts of the Church, which I have shown below, and in particular those marriage laws. He is not dissenting from others although he sins in others.I. To attend Mass on Sundays and Holy Days of Obligation, and resting from servile works. (Corresponds to CCC 2042 – first precept.)

II. To observe the days of abstinence and fasting. (Corresponds to CCC 2043 – fourth precept.)

III. To confess our sins to a priest, at least once a year. (Corresponds to CCC 2042 – second precept.)

IV. To receive Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Holy Eucharist at least once a year during Easter Season. (Corresponds to CCC 2042 – third precept.)

V. To contribute to the support of the Church. (Corresponds to CCC 2043 – fifth precept.)

VI. To obey the laws of the Church concerning Matrimony. (Canon laws.)

VII. To participate in the Church’s mission of Evangelization of Souls.(Missionary Spirit of the Church)

Also CIC Canon 750 is significant:

Canon 750
§ 1. Those things are to be believed by divine and catholic faith which are contained in the word of God as it has been written or handed down by tradition, that is, in the single deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and which are at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn Magisterium of the Church, or by its ordinary and universal Magisterium, which in fact is manifested by the common adherence of Christ’s faithful under the guidance of the sacred Magisterium. All are therefore bound to avoid any contrary doctrines.
§ 2. Furthermore, each and everything set forth definitively by the Magisterium of the Church regarding teaching on faith and morals must be firmly accepted and held; namely, those things required for the holy keeping and faithful exposition of the deposit of faith; therefore, anyone who rejects propositions which are to be held definitively sets himself against the teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico.

I hope you had a nice weekend. Mine was very busy. I am going to clarify/add some questions.

My first question was,

1. If I ask the man why his marriage outside of the Church is a serious sin, what would he say? Obviously, he has heard that he “risks” an eternity in hell, but he is confident enough in his “I am not bound by the precepts” statement to make that the truth upon which he acts. Why is what he is doing wrong?

I already posted answers to some of those questions in posts 947 or 948 in previous posts, particularly question one… You have not digested the answers and keep asking again. There must first be understanding of what the Church teaches.

So, let me give an example and rephrase the question. I will make up two new people, Ellen and Allen. In addition, I first call attention to this very important verse, concerning divine law:

Matthew 22:36-40New International Version (NIV)

36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”

37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’[a] 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’** 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” **

So, I ask Ellen why theft is a serious sin. Ellen answers “theft is serious because it is hurtful to the victim; it is human to be territorial and possessive, and people become distressed when their things are taken. It is an action that would probably lead to suffering. It is an action taken without considering the feelings of the victim.” I ask her, “what about the possibility of going to hell, isn’t that sort of important?” She answers, “I don’t believe in hell, and if I did it would not matter. Theft is wrong, it is unloving, and it is hurtful. I am an atheist, and the “god” that people believe in is just a cruel manipulator of people’s behavior, and has nothing to do with love. I believe in loving other people, not taking things that are not my own. Stealing is wrong because it is wrong, not because some institution says so.”

Now, I ask Allen why theft is a serious sin. Allen says, “It is serious because the Church says it is serious. If I do it without confessing my sin to a priest, I am sure to go to hell when I die.” I ask him, “What about the feelings and needs of the victim, love for the other person, are they not important?” He answers, “I don’t know the victim, and the victim doesn’t matter. I don’t love anyone that I do not know. The victim can get over it. Besides, if someone gets something stolen, it is their own fault for not protecting their stuff.”

Because of their convictions, neither one of these people steal.

1A. Which of these people has “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”?

1B: If I asked the man we have been discussing, “Why is your marriage outside of the Church, your continued conjugal relations, considered a ‘serious sin’?” What would he answer, with at least the same amount of depth in the answer as Ellen and Allen?

The knowing that pertains to this thread is that of Catechism:

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.

pre·sup·pose (Merriam)
: to be based on the idea that something is true or will happen
: to require or depend on (something) in order to be true or exist

With the man, I think that you are saying that “presuppose” also includes that something might be true or might happen, right? I am remembering Bill Clinton, are we going to discuss the definition of “is”? No need to answer, it is a joke. This may come up again, though.

I eliminated questions 2 and 3, for they are part of new questions 1A and 1B.

I asked:
Please read this statement:

“I intend to return to the sacraments and I intend to be back with the Church, I intend to reject God.”

Is this what he is saying? Or, are you saying that there is a difference between “want, hope for, wish” etc. and “intent”?

• You wrote: are you saying that there is a difference between “want, hope for, wish” etc. and “intent”?
  A. Of course. Definitions:
  intention : a thing intended; an aim or plan.
  wish : a desire or hope for something to happen.

Okay, let’s put it all together then. I am paraphrasing the man statements, so correct me if I am wrong:

“I want to return to the sacraments. I hope to belong to the Church. I pray that my repentance will happen. I love God equally to my wife. I tried to stop conjugal relations. I want to convalidate my marriage. I aim or plan (intend) to reject God.”

1. Did I misrepresent the man?

My last question, which you did not answer, was as follows:

5 (now 3). Evidence indicates that the man knows very little of God. Are you saying that the man knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God? Yes, he does not have to know God in order to have sinned.

1. You stated that the man, in choosing his actions, is willing to risk hell. When a rational human takes a risk, it means that he believes he has a chance of winning the bet. Why does he think he has a chance of winning the bet? What is he thinking?

I hope that the questions are clear enough to answer, Vico. If they are not, please do not hesitate to ask for clarification. Would you like to stop answering the questions, and go with “A” and “B” on post 947? Those at least partially seem to summarize your statements.

Thanks for your continued replies. In my mind, I have asked no repeat questions. I am asking for more information.

God bless your day.​

 

[Vico]

… In my mind, I have asked no repeat questions. I am asking for more information. …

A person may have the knowledge of the sinful character of an act through the Church or through conscience.

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws.

**1958 **The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; 10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. 11

*** **You wrote: “With the man, I think that you are saying that “presuppose” also includes that something might be true or might happen, right?”
A. No. Mortal sin presupposes (requires) knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.

Presupposed: to require or depend on (something) in order to be true or exist

***** You wrote: “I am paraphrasing the man statements, so correct me if I am wrong:”
A. No need to paraphrase, the statement is in post #848 with the summary in it:
"I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”.

*** **You wrote: “Are you saying that the man knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God?”
A. And I replied “Yes, he does not have to know God in order to have sinned.” That means yes he knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God." As posted previously from the Catholic Encyclopedia:
“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.”
*You wrote: “When a rational human takes a risk, it means that he believes he has a chance of winning the bet.”
A. Sin is not rational.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1786 Faced with a moral choice, conscience can make either a right judgment in accordance with reason and the divine law or, on the contrary, an erroneous judgment that departs from them.

1736 Every act directly willed is imputable to its author: Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: “What is this that you have done?” 29 He asked Cain the same question. 30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered. 31 An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico.

I’m sorry, Vico, if I have been unclear in my questions. It appears that you have not provided much additional information about the man. I will ask the questions again, and encourage you to let me know if you need a question clarified.

Here is what I stated, with the questions:

So, let me give an example and rephrase the question. I will make up two new people, Ellen and Allen.

I ask Ellen why theft is a serious sin. Ellen answers “theft is serious because it is hurtful to the victim; it is human to be territorial and possessive, and people become distressed when their things are taken. It is an action that would probably lead to suffering. It is an action taken without considering the feelings of the victim.” I ask her, “what about the possibility of going to hell, isn’t that sort of important?” She answers, “I don’t believe in hell, and if I did it would not matter. Theft is wrong, it is unloving, and it is hurtful. I am an atheist, and the “god” that people believe in is just a cruel manipulator of people’s behavior, and has nothing to do with love. I believe in loving other people, not taking things that are not my own. Stealing is wrong because it is wrong, not because some institution says so.”

Now, I ask Allen why theft is a serious sin. Allen says, “It is serious because the Church says it is serious. If I do it without confessing my sin to a priest, I am sure to go to hell when I die.” I ask him, “What about the feelings and needs of the victim, love for the other person, are they not important?” He answers, “I don’t know the victim, and the victim doesn’t matter. I don’t love anyone that I do not know. The victim can get over it. Besides, if someone gets something stolen, it is their own fault for not protecting their stuff.”

Because of their convictions, neither one of these people steal.

1A. Which of these people has “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”?

1B: If I asked the man we have been discussing, “Why is your marriage outside of the Church, your continued conjugal relations, considered a ‘serious sin’?” What would he answer, with at least the same amount of depth in the answer as Ellen and Allen?

A person may have the knowledge of the sinful character of an act through the Church or through conscience

Catechism of the Catholic Church

1952 There are different expressions of the moral law, all of them interrelated: eternal law - the source, in God, of all law; natural law; revealed law, comprising the Old Law and the New Law, or Law of the Gospel; finally, civil and ecclesiastical laws. .

**1958 **The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history; 10 it subsists under the flux of ideas and customs and supports their progress. The rules that express it remain substantially valid. Even when it is rejected in its very principles, it cannot be destroyed or removed from the heart of man. It always rises again in the life of individuals and societies:

Theft is surely punished by your law, O Lord, and by the law that is written in the human heart, the law that iniquity itself does not efface. 11

This does not answer question 1A, and it most definitely does not touch 1B, from post 952. Does Allen know the sinful character of the act, the opposition to God’s law? Does Ellen?

I have a favor to ask, could you state my question with your answer next time? I really don’t know which question you are addressing, nor do I know whether you are addressing the questions at all. The question, specifically on 1B, includes “what’s love got to do with it?”, it’s a Tina Turner question.

Here was my question 2:
2. Okay, let’s put it all together then. I am paraphrasing the man statements, so correct me if I am wrong:

“I want to return to the sacraments. I hope to belong to the Church. I pray that my repentance will happen. I love God equally to my wife. I tried to stop conjugal relations. I want to convalidate my marriage. I aim or plan (intend) to reject God.”
Did I misrepresent the man?

This is the closest thing I can find to an answer in your post:

A. No need to paraphrase, the statement is in post #848 with the summary in it:
"I know that I have pridefully chosen to ignore the laws of the Church which is necessary for my salvation. I am weak in resisting the temptation of my civil marriage wife, but I do not want to separate. I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation”.

You may recall, question 2 is trying to narrow in on what the man intends, and you say that he intends to reject God. I put all the statements together made by the man that indicate that it is not his intention to reject God, and then I placed his other statement, indicating the opposite, “I intend to reject God” at the end. Are all of these statements from the same person, at essentially the same time? This is a yes or no question.

*** **You wrote: “With the man, I think that you are saying that “presuppose” also includes that something might be true or might happen, right?”
A. No. Mortal sin presupposes (requires) knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law.

Presupposed: to require or depend on (something) in order to be true or exist

Since the man is not sure what is true, the “I am bound” or the “I am not bound”, he is saying “might be true or might happen”. He is not sure what is true. Therefore, the presupposition has not occurred in his mind. Feel free to comment, but even if he was committed to the truth, in my view he is quite far from K&WRG. What is his answer to question 1B?

(cont’d)​

 

[OneSheep]

From post 952:

1. Evidence indicates that the man knows very little of God. Are you saying that the man knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God? Yes, he does not have to know God in order to have sinned.

A. And I replied “Yes, he does not have to know God in order to have sinned.” That means yes he knowingly and willingly rejects God, even though he does not know God."

As posted previously from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

“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.”
​

Okay, I am going to go with your answer and add a new conclusion-in-light-of-Vico’s-definitions.

Here is what we have so far:

VA. He has fear and doubt, he is confused and irrational, his “knowing” is compromised. He does not know what to know. However, he is K&WRG, because “knowing” allows for confusion and irrationality.

VB. He truly believes that he is not bound by the precepts of the Church (by word and action), his believing an untruth is “fully knowing”. He is K&WRG, because “knowing” allows for believing an untruth, which he states by his actions (conjugal relations) coupled with words (I am not bound).

VC: He does not know God, in that he does not even experience God in his wife, his knowledge of God is minimal at best. However, he is K&WRG because “knowingly and willingly” rejecting of someone allows for not knowing who is being rejected in a real way.

“VC” is the new one.

1. You stated that the man, in choosing his actions, is willing to risk hell. When a rational human takes a risk, it means that he believes he has a chance of winning the bet. Why does he think he has a chance of winning the bet? What is he thinking?

A. Sin is not rational.

This does not explain what he is thinking, nor does it explain why he thinks he has a chance of winning the bet. Even irrational people have something going through their minds.

Again, Vico, you are going to have to either provide additional information about the man in order to inform us as to why he thinks he has a chance of winning. Here are some options:

A. “I think I can win the bet because I strongly believe that I am not bound to the precepts of the Church.”

B. “I think I can win because there is no heaven or hell anyway, if I were to stop conjugal relations, it would be all for nothing.”

C. “I don’t think I can win, but it doesn’t matter. God is not real.”

D. “I don’t know what to think. Is it true? What is true? What is right? What is wrong? My wife and I love each other, and we are committed to one another through civil marriage, isn’t that good enough for God? Doesn’t God love us?”

E. “I am going to win the bet because space aliens more powerful than God will come down and change all the minds of the Church hierarchy and change all the rules before I die, and after I die my wife and I will go with the aliens to a new world in Wonder, Nevada”

Sorry, I couldn’t resist the last one. Feel free to choose one of these or your own statement on the part of the man. After all, you did create the scenario.

So, do VA, VB, and VC summarize your understanding of the concepts?

Sorry, Vico. You are not going to find in a book what is going on in man’s mind, you are only going to find it in your own mind, in your own relationship with God.

“Jesus tells us in today’s Gospel: ‘When He shall come, the Spirit of truth, shall guide you into all the truth.’ Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. The we receive the truth when we meet [it].”

Pope Francis

Thanks for your efforts! Please try to answer the questions.

If I might add, here, the readers may have heard the word “theodicy”, which explains why God is good in spite of all the bad that happens. This thread, in my view, is an “anthropodicy”, which is an attempt to show that man is good in spite of all the really hurtful things he does. Humans are wonderful, amazing creatures. Humans are ignorant, mainly, and blind, occasionally, but beautiful all the same. This is what can be gleaned through understanding and forgiveness.​

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “1A. Which of these people has “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”?”
  A. Both. God’s law includes natural law and natural law is manifest in human conscience. Even those that do not believe in God sin in opposing their conscience. Those that learn of the sinful character from the teachings of the Church sin in opposing the teaching.
• You wrote: “Why is your marriage outside of the Church, your continued conjugal relations, considered a ‘serious sin’?”

“It is serious because it demonstrates a lack of consistency between my state of life and the faith that I profess and my state and example leads myself and others into sin. It is an action that leads to suffering and is action taken without considering the good of others. As a result I cannot receive the grace of the sacraments, so it has also brought me corruption and fear.”
“I am afraid ot eternal suffering if I die without final repentence. Christ has been so loving, yet I have not been an icon of Christ since I pridefully decided not to obey the moral teachings of His Church.”

• You wrote: “Are all of these statements from the same person, at essentially the same time? This is a yes or no question.”
  A. No. See the answer to the next question. There is reference to the past in the present, and statements from the present.

*You wrote: “Therefore, the presupposition has not occurred in his mind.”
A. It has. The presupposition means requires here. Sin requires knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and one is informed of it by the Church or the conscience. See the answer to the next question.

• You wrote: “4. You stated that the man, in choosing his actions, is willing to risk hell. When a rational human takes a risk, it means that he believes he has a chance of winning the bet. Why does he think he has a chance of winning the bet? What is he thinking?”
  A. non sequitur. Rational man believes he has a chance, a man that sins is irrational, therefore it does not imply belief in a chance. See the statements for answers to what he is thinking.
• You wrote: “I am paraphrasing the man statements, so correct me if I am wrong: … Did I misrepresent the man?”
  A. Yes. All the personal statements from my posts are collected below:“I don’t want to give up the pleasure of conjugal relations” (#793, 9/1/14)

“What I am doing is really wrong, and destines me away from God”. (#797, 9/1/14)

"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” (#848, 9/8/14)

“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." (#858, 9/10/14)

“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.” (#890, 9/14/14)

“I am motivated by fear and having depravity of heart, it will take time for me to repent.” (#907, 9/16/14)

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.” (#914, 9/17/14)

So then it 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.” (#914, 9/17/14)

• You wrote: “So, do VA, VB, and VC summarize your understanding of the concepts?”
  A. Regarding VA, VB, VC, I reject all those statements. I cannot agree with the use of “knowing”, “fully knowing”, or “knowingly and willingly” in quotes implying that these are not used as in the Catechism regarding what constitutes moral sin. I think the phrase “He does not know what to know” is a nonsensical phrase, this needs to be expressed in on standard English word. He has not acted in accord with reason, and has doubt, which is different than using the word confusion which I do not apply to him.Dissent: hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed:
  Irrational: not logical or reasonable.
  Doubt: a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico, I thank you for your response.

• You wrote: “1A. Which of these people has “knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God’s law”?”
  A. Both. God’s law includes natural law and natural law is manifest in human conscience. Even those that do not believe in God sin in opposing their conscience. Those that learn of the sinful character from the teachings of the Church sin in opposing the teaching.

Actually, I think I it is possible that I did not give enough information to answer the question adequately. Ellen appears to know much of God within even though she is an atheist. Allen, however, is motivated only by fear, he does not appear to have any knowledge of love at all, in fact, his statement could easily be made by a “psychopath”. He is not knowing of the “sinful character of the act” because his answer shows no regard for the victim, and does not know “opposition to love” (divine law) because love of others has nothing to do with his behavior, only self-love, upon which fear is based. Perhaps you read more into Allen, which is understandable.

• You wrote: “Why is your marriage outside of the Church, your continued conjugal relations, considered a ‘serious sin’?”

“It is serious because it demonstrates a lack of consistency between my state of life and the faith that I profess and my state and example leads myself and others into sin. It is an action that leads to suffering and is action taken without considering the good of others. As a result I cannot receive the grace of the sacraments, so it has also brought me corruption and fear.”
“I am afraid ot eternal suffering if I die without final repentence. Christ has been so loving, yet I have not been an icon of Christ since I pridefully decided not to obey the moral teachings of His Church.”

That answer does, indeed, show some depth. He professes his faith, which is the strongest statement he has made so far in that direction. Would the man also say,

"What is also sinful is that we leave God out of our marriage, which makes our commitment to each other very fragile. We are not recognizing that the very love we feel for each other comes from God, and we are not enjoying the freedom of committing love to each other unconditionally, which we would know through the example of Jesus Christ. If my wife and I were to include God in our marriage, which we do not, our marriage would be more fulfilling in that our focus would be to love and serve a greater good, God, not simply to base our marriage on our temporary feelings for one another, which can be subject to emotion and discord. Indeed, it is greatly sinful that we leave God out altogether in our marriage. We could pray together, we could ask God to help and guide us to temporarily refrain from conjugal relations, and we could know the depth of what it means to have a marriage with both of us centered on love of God, which is an infinite love, beyond words.

Our problem is that we do not want help from God in guiding us through our struggles."

Would he say that also, Vico? Does this reflect his faith and his situation? In writing it, I had to do a lot of correcting; it is very difficult to incorporate his very limited knowledge of God. Like, how would he actually know the “depth of what it means” without having actually experienced it?

I hope to get to the rest of your post later on. For now, off to work!

God Bless

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “He is not knowing of the “sinful character of the act” because his answer shows no regard for the victim, and does not know “opposition to love” (divine law) because love of others has nothing to do with his behavior, only self-love, upon which fear is based.”
  A. It is not necessary to show regard for the victim to know the sinful character of an act, informed by conscience or by the Church of it. You said he knew by the Church teaching. This qualifies even when compromised by hardness of heart.

Catechism of the Catholic Church
1790 A human being must always obey the certain judgment of his conscience. If he were deliberately to act against it, he would condemn himself. Yet it can happen that moral conscience remains in ignorance and makes erroneous judgments about acts to be performed or already committed.

1791 This ignorance can often be imputed to personal responsibility. This is the case when a man “takes little trouble to find out what is true and good, or when conscience is by degrees almost blinded through the habit of committing sin.” 59 In such cases, the person is culpable for the evil he commits.

1859 … Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart 133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

1860 … But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. …

• You wrote: “Would the man also say, …”
  A. No. In this scenario the wife is not seeking to practice the Catholic faith, but does not oppose convalidation. He stated: “my civil marriage wife tempts me and I do not resist”.

 

[Vico]

…

Pope Alexander VIII (1689-1691)

*Errors Concerning the Goodness of an Act and Concerning Philosophic Sin **
[Condemned in the Decr. S. Off., Aug. 24, 1690] 1289 1. Objective goodness consists in the agreement of an object with rational nature; but formal goodness consists in the conformity of an act with the rule of morals. For this it is sufficient that the moral act tend toward its ultimate end interpretatively. Man is not obliged to love this end, neither in the beginning nor in the course of his moral life.
Declared and condemned as heretical. 1290 2. Philosophic or moral sin is a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason; but theological and mortal sin is a free transgression of the divine law. A philosophic sin, however grave, in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is a grave sin, but is not an offense against God, neither a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.
*Declared and condemned as scandalous, rash, an offense to pious ears, and erroneous. **
*Errors of the Jansenists * *
[Condemned in a Decr. of the Holy Office, Dec. 7, 1690] …

1295 5. Pagans, Jews, heretics, and others of this kind do not receive in any way any influence from Jesus Christ, and so you will rightly infer from this that in them there is a bare and weak will without any sufficient grace.
…
1300 10. The intention with which anyone detests evil and follows after good, merely that he may obtain heavenly glory, is not right nor pleasing to God.
…
1302 12. When in great sinners all love is lacking, faith also is lacking; and even if they seem to believe, their faith is not divine but human.

1303 13. Whoever serves God even in view of an eternal reward, if he lacks charity, is not free from fault, as often as he acts even in view of his eternal reward.

1304 14. Fear of hell is not supernatural.
…
1305 15. Attrition, which is conceived through a fear of hell and punishments, with a love of benevolence for God in Himself, is not a good and supernatural motive.
…

• denzinger.patristica.net/#n1200

 

[OneSheep]

Good morning, Vico!

It’s another beautiful day here. God is good, and it is a gift to be alive.

You wrote: “Are all of these statements from the same person, at essentially the same time? This is a yes or no question.”
A. No. See the answer to the next question. There is reference to the past in the present, and statements from the present.

I am having a great deal of difficulty pinning down time periods, even with your list of his statements. You also said that the man intended to reject God, so I am going to put that at the end of the string, as I did before.

Here goes:

"I wish to return to the sacraments and I hope and expect that I will not die before a convalidation. I am going to con-validate my marriage. " (statement of decision, albeit with an undefined time commitment). “I am trying to develop it (disposition for repentance) and pray for it to be so.” (prayer is an active attempt to resolve the matter). “It will take time for me to repent” (statement indicates, again, that repentance is his inclination.) And now, we have the added, “the faith that I profess”.

At the same time, if I read this right, he is saying, “I intend to reject God”.

Is that correct? If not, please tell me which statements are not of the same time period. It is quite true that all of these statements were taken out of context, but the only other thing he says that describes what he wants is “I want to continue conjugal relations” (for now), and even that is something he is trying (with no success) to resolve.

*You wrote: “Therefore, the presupposition has not occurred in his mind.”
A. It has. The presupposition means requires here. Sin requires knowledge of the sinful character of the act, and one is informed of it by the Church or the conscience.

But there is still a big gap to fill here, Vico. For one, he does not know God, and for the other, he does not know what the truth is. Let me provide another example. I may have brought this up before, but I do not remember your response. If you have responded, I apologize.

Let’s say I tell you “It is wrong to walk sideways on Thursdays, if you do so I will exact a fine on you.”. Do you know that it is wrong, or have you only heard that it is wrong? Based on my statement, are you aware of the wrongness of the act?

In addition, there is still the “risk” question.

• You wrote: “4. You stated that the man, in choosing his actions, is willing to risk hell. When a rational human takes a risk, it means that he believes he has a chance of winning the bet. Why does he think he has a chance of winning the bet? What is he thinking?”
  A. non sequitur. Rational man believes he has a chance, a man that sins is irrational, therefore it does not imply belief in a chance…

So, I think that you are saying that he is taking a risk upon which he either does not have a chance, or he thinks he has a chance, but the chance is based on nothing.

non se·qui·tur (mirriam webster)
: a statement that is not connected in a logical or clear way to anything said before it

There is nothing illogical about asking about the thoughts of an irrational man, as you have demonstrated that he is capable of thought. He said is going to risk. If he does not believe he has a chance, then we are back to his simple choice to suffer for eternity, and why he thinks that what he is doing is worthwhile.

[/INDENT]* You wrote: “So, do VA, VB, and VC summarize your understanding of the concepts?”
A. Regarding VA, VB, VC, I reject all those statements. I cannot agree with the use of “knowing”, “fully knowing”, or “knowingly and willingly” in quotes implying that these are not used as in the Catechism regarding what constitutes moral sin. I think the phrase “He does not know what to know” is a nonsensical phrase, this needs to be expressed in on standard English word. He has not acted in accord with reason, and has doubt, which is different than using the word confusion which I do not apply to him.

Dissent: hold or express opinions that are at variance with those previously, commonly, or officially expressed:
Irrational: not logical or reasonable.
Doubt: a feeling of uncertainty or lack of conviction.
​

Okay, I will modify VA-C to accomodate. Let’s see if these work:

VA. He has fear and doubt, he is confused and irrational, his knowing is compromised. He does not know which truth is the truth. However, he is K&WRG, because the word “knowingly” for this thread allows for confusion and irrationality.

VB. He truly believes that he is not bound by the precepts of the Church (by word and action), his believing an untruth is “fully knowing” for this thread. He is K&WRG, because the word “knowingly” for this thread allows for believing an untruth, which he states by his actions (conjugal relations) coupled with words (I am not bound).

VC: He does not know God, in that he does not even experience God in his wife, his knowledge of God is minimal at best. However, he is K&WRG because “knowingly and willingly” rejecting of someone, in this thread, allows for not knowing who is being rejected in a real way.

Does this better state your summary?

I have a request for you, now, Vico. We have been at this long enough for you to understand my position, right? Can you try to summarize my position, as I have tried yours?

As always, I look forward to your response. Also, I thank you for your time and patience.

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

John 3:17

As we “put on Christ”, Vico, do we seek to condemn, or to save? Do you see the contrast? We are not called to condemn. We are called to understand, forgive, and accept people, not condemn.​

 

[OneSheep]

• You wrote: “He is not knowing of the “sinful character of the act” because his answer shows no regard for the victim, and does not know “opposition to love” (divine law) because love of others has nothing to do with his behavior, only self-love, upon which fear is based.”
  A. It is not necessary to show regard for the victim to know the sinful character of an act, informed by conscience or by the Church of it. You said he knew by the Church teaching. This qualifies even when compromised by hardness of heart.

I explained that he heard what the Church says. I did not say what he knows, other than showing that he does not know Love, and he believed that he would be punished if he stole.

I await your answer concerning the “wrongness” of walking sideways on Thursdays. Allen knows nothing of the sin’s opposition to love, therefore he does not know the sinful character. Allen, as I described, is possibly a “psychopath”. He does not have “full knowledge”, not by a long shot.

I am wondering if you are, in your mind, taking the next step and thinking “This is ridiculous, if what OneSheep says is true, then even psychopaths will go to heaven.” This, however, is not what I am saying. I am explaining that the psychopath’s sins are chosen because he is ignorant, and does not know what he is doing. He does not know love. I am not talking about God’s response to the psychopath. I am showing that the Allen is truly ignorant, in a big way. He does not knowingly and willingly reject or accept God, in my view, because he knows nothing of God.