Why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?

[Vico]

… .

• Actually I feel sad because I am afraid that you have gotten the idea that was condemned: That a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is not an offense against God, nor a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.
• You wrote: “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.”
  A. We follow the teaching of the Church and our conscience and teach other the Gospel by charity: our good example and by proclamation. We are called to point out to others their errors sometimes that they may adopt a holy life. This is taught in the Gospel and Epistles. Christ will judge so we do not say “you go to hell”.

You said: “He does not have “full knowledge”, not by a long shot.”
A. The full knowledge and consent per the Catechism for mortal sin, is different from your “full knowledge”.

You actually posted the following so it seems inconsistent with you statement “I explained that he heard what the Church says. I did not say what he knows”:
"Now, I ask Allen why theft is a serious sin. Allen says, “It is serious because the Church says it is serious.”
You said there that he is informed that theft is a serious sin per the Church.

• You wrote: “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?”
  A. I know because I am informed by you. If the informant were the Church or my conscience, then I would understand it to be binding.

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. You seem unwilling to use the words as in the Catechism without quotes.

• You wrote: “I am having a great deal of difficulty pinning down time periods, even with your list of his statements.”
  A. It was all explained weeks ago in textual comments. Your re-statement is incorrect.

Chronological Order:

T1. “I know what the Church teaches about marriage, and accept it as the truth.” (#914, 9/17/14)

T2. “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)

T3. After the heart is corrupted it became “I have my own ideas on marriage.” (#914, 9/17/14)

T4. Get’s a civil marriage.

T5. “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)

“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 of eternal suffering if I die without final repentance. 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.” (10/1/14)

• You wrote: “There is nothing illogical about asking about the thoughts of an irrational man”
  A. True. Yet that was not the objection, rather it was drawing the conclusion that an irrational man thinks he has a chance because a rational man thinks he has a chance. He did say “risking hell if I am wrong”.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico, this is quite fascinating.

• Actually I feel sad because I am afraid that you have gotten the idea that was condemned: That a human act not in conformity with rational nature and right reason in a man who either is ignorant of God or does not think about God during the act, is not an offense against God, nor a mortal sin dissolving the friendship of God, nor one worthy of eternal punishment.

As far as your “afraid” goes, I highly recommend Good Goats by Dennis, Sheila, and Matthew Linn. This book may reveal another way of looking at the issues you “fear” for me, and will introduce to you another way of looking at faith and God, and especially “healing our image of God”.

Nothing, absolutely nothing, Vico, separates us from the love of God. As was St. Paul, I too, am convinced. Do not fear for me, Vico. God loves me, all of us, unconditionally. He forgave us, unrepentant we were, from the cross. I know God’s love is unconditional, and I know it through relationship. Would you punish your own child forever, Vico, for any reason?

You might also learn something from this excerpt from Cardinal Ratzinger’s Introduction to Christianity:

robertaconnor.blogspot.com/2011/03/reappraisal-of-meaning-of-redemption.html

• You wrote: “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.”
  A. We follow the teaching of the Church and our conscience and teach other the Gospel by charity: our good example and by proclamation. We are called to point out to others their errors sometimes that they may adopt a holy life. This is taught in the Gospel and Epistles. Christ will judge so we do not say “you go to hell”.

By “condemn” I am referring to the practice of trying to find anathemas, heresies, and condemned ideas. You seem to be a walking encyclopedia of them, but all of these condemnations have to be addressed in context. There were problems back then that do not apply today. If many “heresies” etc. were revisited, I sincerely believe that the Church would have a different approach in today’s world. I am not questioning infallibility per se, what I am saying is that the Church probably did the right thing at the time. To dish out anathemas and condemnations on threads like these shows an effort to judge rather than understand.

A very wise priest once told me, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.”

You said: “He does not have “full knowledge”, not by a long shot.”
A. The full knowledge and consent per the Catechism for mortal sin, is different from your “full knowledge”.

Correction: Your interpretation of full knowledge and consent per the Catechism is different from mine. I get it, though; you are quite certain that your interpretation is correct, and are not open to a different interpretation. That is okay.

You actually posted the following so it seems inconsistent with you statement “I explained that he heard what the Church says. I did not say what he knows”:
"Now, I ask Allen why theft is a serious sin. Allen says, “It is serious because the Church says it is serious.”
You said there that he is informed that theft is a serious sin per the Church

.

I thought that I made quite clear that Allen did not know love, and did not see the act as contrary to divine law, because he did not see any harm in the act. Therefore, you are thinking that “full knowledge” has nothing to do with knowing God, or knowing why a sin is hurtful and unloving. I disagree. That’s okay. Do you have another anathema or condemnation to toss in my direction?

• You wrote: “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?”
  A. I know because I am informed by you. If the informant were the Church or my conscience, then I would understand it to be binding.

Know (merriam webster) a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of.

Wow, when I tell you something, you know it?

You know that walking sideways is wrong because I said so? Okay, now I’m telling you that typing is wrong. Do you know that typing is wrong too? Yes, you will say that you know that it is wrong, but you are not bound. Fascinating. (I really mean that, I am not being sarcastic) So, let me tell you this: Typing is wrong. Typing is right. Which one do you know?

(cont’d)

 

[OneSheep]

Vico:

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. You seem unwilling to use the words as in the Catechism without quotes.

I added the text “in this thread” so that you would not be making statements bound to the Cathechism, which is what you were rejecting. The quotes are there to denote which word is being defined.

Allow me to try again:

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 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 the word knowingly 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 the words knowingly and willingly rejecting of someone, allow for not knowing who is being rejected in a real way.

These are all in conformity with an infallible interpretation of the Catechism.

Sorry about that last line. I am poking fun at you, brother.

And hey, I am making an effort here. Can you summarize what I am saying, or is it so detestable that you cannot put it into words? Or do you simply not understand what I am saying?

• You wrote: “I am having a great deal of difficulty pinning down time periods, even with your list of his statements.”
  A. It was all explained weeks ago in textual comments. Your re-statement is incorrect.

Chronological Order:

Please note that he also said he was not bound by the precepts of the Church. What I want to know is, at what point(s) was he saying “I intend to reject God”?

• You wrote: “There is nothing illogical about asking about the thoughts of an irrational man”
  A. True. Yet that was not the objection, rather it was drawing the conclusion that an irrational man thinks he has a chance because a rational man thinks he has a chance. He did say “risking hell if I am wrong”.

Right, he said “risking hell if I am wrong”, which indicates he thinks he is possibly right about something. I really want to know, Vico, what the man would say if I asked:

"Man, why do you think you have a chance of winning? What are you thinking you are “right” about?

Man: ?

This is about the 4th time I have asked this. Don’t you believe that we should all be accountable? Please, have the man answer for himself.

Vico, I must tell you that I am always right. Okay, now that I told you, do you know it?

This has been a bit frustrating at times, Vico, but you are showing me a totally different definition of the word “know”, which is fascinating to me.

God Bless your day!

Readers, anyone, does anyone else have an example of a person knowingly and willingly rejecting God? I am using the definition of “know” in my last post. Feel free to cut in, and we can investigate another example.

 

[Vico]

…

For what you believe: I think you use the *philosophical *definition of knowledge not the common one, which is causing your usage to be different than what the Church uses in the Catechism. What the Church teaches is that the truth on faith and morals, however when we know (common) what the Church teaches, which we are to accept as true, we nevertheless may not know (philosophical) that it is truth. Also the conscience may not be clouded by sin so that although we know (common) we do not know (philosophical). A post-baptismal denial or doubt of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith constitutes sin.

Missing from the summary of quotes is one that occurred at T2 in yesterdays post. This occurs when he first dissents.
“I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church which the Church says is grave sin.” (#916 9/18)

• You wrote: “Right, he said “risking hell if I am wrong”, which indicates he thinks he is possibly right about something.”
  A. If I am wrong expresses doubt of the rightness of his own ideas which he knows the Church teaches are gravely sinful.
• You wrote: “Would you punish your own child forever, Vico, for any reason?”
  A. Punish, in the context of sin, means for God to respect the free will of each creature that He created with free will. There is no way to force another to love you, so when it is freely chosen to act against Divine Law, which constitutes sin, it is respected by God. Now, if the Church taught that final penitence was not required, then there would be an escape.
• You wrote: By “condemn” I am referring to the practice of trying to find anathemas, heresies, and condemned ideas. …To dish out anathemas and condemnations on threads like these shows an effort to judge rather than understand." and “Your interpretation of full knowledge and consent per the Catechism is different from mine. …”
  A. So putting the two sentences together you mean by condemn to “dish out”. I expressed my fear with uncertainty of what you believe, not condemnation. I am bound to support the teachings of the Church and use the actual sentences from the Catechism. Those are not obscure and are consistent with the Baltimore Catechism that I was trained in school with. I think it is possible that you believe in philosophical sin, based on what you have written. If you do it is pertinent to the discussion because it is not what the Catechism is using.
• You wrote: “Therefore, you are thinking that “full knowledge” has nothing to do with knowing God, or knowing why a sin is hurtful and unloving.”
  A. This is not news, as it has been through the thread in my posts.
• You wrote: “Do you know that typing is wrong too? Yes, you will say that you know that it is wrong, but you are not bound.” also “Okay, now that I told you, do you know it?”
  A. I know that you said typing is wrong. If you were an authority that I am bound to trust on matters of faith and morals, then it would be wrong.

I do not agrees to VA, VB, or VC. They are so far off that when I try to revise them there is little left.

As I posted before, I do not characterize him with confusion, but doubt, and I gave the reason. He does not believe and untruth, rather he does not assent to a teaching of the Church, this is called dissent based on doubt not certainty. Sinful actions may be from ignorance, passion, or malice.

Knowing God is not an issue, what he must know is that sinful character of the act. This applies even to non-Christians and atheists, per the Catholic teaching because Divine Law includes natural law and is present in the conscience. It is necessary to not act against the conscience.

• You wrote: “Don’t you believe that we should all be accountable?”
  A. We are accountable, as it should be, however not always personally guilty for objective sins. “Let every mouth be stopped, and let the whole world be held accountable to God” (Rom 3:19).

 

[simpleas]

I don’t know if this is an example you would be interested in, I was thinking on it the other day.

I know of a man who attends church every sunday. Brought up catholic, his parents very devote catholic’s also.
He lives with his partner, they are not married.
He does not attend holy communion.

So he respects what the church teaches as regards to mortal sin and receiving communion. Yet he attends church.

I might add that everyone that knows of him, treats him like everyone else, in that they don’t give him the cold shoulder, they accept him as he is, as does the priest. He is a lovely person. His personal relationship with God is just that, personal. He respects the church, listens to the word every sunday, but his view on marriage, is his view,(i don’t know what his view is) and has been for many years.

 

[Vico]

I don’t know if this is an example you would be interested in, I was thinking on it the other day.

I know of a man who attends church every sunday. Brought up catholic, his parents very devote catholic’s also.
He lives with his partner, they are not married.
He does not attend holy communion.

So he respects what the church teaches as regards to mortal sin and receiving communion. Yet he attends church.

I might add that everyone that knows of him, treats him like everyone else, in that they don’t give him the cold shoulder, they accept him as he is, as does the priest. He is a lovely person. His personal relationship with God is just that, personal. He respects the church, listens to the word every sunday, but his view on marriage, is his view,(i don’t know what his view is) and has been for many years.

Catholics and non-Catholics attend in our parish. Also, I have known in one parish of a civilly married Catholic with children, that regularly received communion.

Some may have receive absolution on condition of a brother sister relationship (for those remarried). St. Pope John Paul II spoke to the free unions and civilly remarried. Especially the canon law shows that they should not be admitted who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin. Now this is not a statement of culpability but of objective sin (the external forum not the internal forum) and the pastors should not give scandal (Eucharist or indissolubility of marriage).

CIC Can. 915 Those upon whom the penalty of excommunication or interdict has been imposed or declared, and others who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy communion.

*Baltimore Catechism:*368. Does he who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receive the body and blood of Christ and His graces?

He who knowingly receives Holy Communion in mortal sin receives the body and blood of Christ, but he does not receive His graces and commits a grave sin of sacrilege.
(a) To receive Holy Communion unworthily is a serious abuse of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, and therefore a sacrilege.
*
Familiaris Consortio*

Divorced Persons Who Have Remarried 84. Daily experience unfortunately shows that people who have obtained a divorce usually intend to enter into a new union, obviously not with a Catholic religious ceremony. Since this is an evil that, like the others, is affecting more and more Catholics as well, the problem must be faced with resolution and without delay. The Synod Fathers studied it expressly. The Church, which was set up to lead to salvation all people and especially the baptized, cannot abandon to their own devices those who have been previously bound by sacramental marriage and who have attempted a second marriage. The Church will therefore make untiring efforts to put at their disposal her means of salvation.

Pastors must know that, for the sake of truth, they are obliged to exercise careful discernment of situations. There is in fact a difference between those who have sincerely tried to save their first marriage and have been unjustly abandoned, and those who through their own grave fault have destroyed a canonically valid marriage. Finally, there are those who have entered into a second union for the sake of the children’s upbringing, and who are sometimes subjectively certain in conscience that their previous and irreparably destroyed marriage had never been valid.

Together with the Synod, I earnestly call upon pastors and the whole community of the faithful to help the divorced, and with solicitous care to make sure that they do not consider themselves as separated from the Church, for as baptized persons they can, and indeed must, share in her life. They should be encouraged to listen to the word of God, to attend the Sacrifice of the Mass, to persevere in prayer, to contribute to works of charity and to community efforts in favor of justice, to bring up their children in the Christian faith, to cultivate the spirit and practice of penance and thus implore, day by day, God’s grace. Let the Church pray for them, encourage them and show herself a merciful mother, and thus sustain them in faith and hope.

However, the Church reaffirms her practice, which is based upon Sacred Scripture, of not admitting to Eucharistic Communion divorced persons who have remarried. They are unable to be admitted thereto from the fact that their state and condition of life objectively contradict that union of love between Christ and the Church which is signified and effected by the Eucharist. Besides this, there is another special pastoral reason: if these people were admitted to the Eucharist, the faithful would be led into error and confusion regarding the Church’s teaching about the indissolubility of marriage.

Reconciliation in the sacrament of Penance which would open the way to the Eucharist, can only be granted to those who, repenting of having broken the sign of the Covenant and of fidelity to Christ, are sincerely ready to undertake a way of life that is no longer in contradiction to the indissolubility of marriage. This means, in practice, that when, for serious reasons, such as for example the children’s upbringing, a man and a woman cannot satisfy the obligation to separate, they “take on themselves the duty to live in complete continence, that is, by abstinence from the acts proper to married couples.”(180)
vatican.va/holy_father/jo…sortio_en.html

 

[davidv]

{snip}
Nothing, absolutely nothing, Vico, separates us from the love of God. As was St. Paul, I too, am convinced. Do not fear for me, Vico. God loves me, all of us, unconditionally. He forgave us, unrepentant we were, from the cross. I know God’s love is unconditional, and I know it through relationship. Would you punish your own child forever, Vico, for any reason?

If this is true why the Church teach the following?

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart.25 Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!"26 God gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:27

Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.
1433 Since Easter, the Holy Spirit has proved "the world wrong about sin,"29 i.e., proved that the world has not believed in him whom the Father has sent. But this same Spirit who brings sin to light is also the Consoler who gives the human heart grace for repentance and conversion.30

{snip}

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, Vico, I’ve been away from the computer a bit, which will continue to be the case for awhile.

For what you believe: I think you use the *philosophical *definition of knowledge not the common one, which is causing your usage to be different than what the Church uses in the Catechism. What the Church teaches is that the truth on faith and morals, however when we know (common) what the Church teaches, which we are to accept as true, we nevertheless may not know (philosophical) that it is truth. Also the conscience may not be clouded by sin so that although we know (common) we do not know (philosophical). A post-baptismal denial or doubt of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith constitutes sin.

I have never seen it written anywhere that the Church’s version of “know” is any different than the common version I know. In writing that, I just said that I “know” a common version, and in saying so, I am saying that the version I know is the truly common version, that is, not with doubt. If I had doubt, then I would say that I am either guessing, or I would qualify my “knowing” of the definition by saying that I have some doubts.

If Bill were to say, “I know I have a cell phone” it is, in my experience of the common vernacular, that Bill is certain. If he was uncertain, he would say “I might have a cell phone”. It would be extremely rare, if ever, in my experience for Bill to say, “I have full knowledge that I have a cell phone” if he was doubting that he had a cell phone. You have a different experience of the word, and that is okay. I am far from being a philosopher, though, and I have not seen the world from your shoes, so I have no authority to say your version is the “wrong” one. I am using the definition of “know” meaning "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of " I find in Merriam-Webster, which does not in its entry qualify the definition as being a philosphical version…

Missing from the summary of quotes is one that occurred at T2 in yesterdays post. This occurs when he first dissents.
“I am not bound to abide by the precepts of the Church which the Church says is grave sin.” (#916 9/18)

Exactly. In addition, we are agreeing that regardless of what he says, he has sinned. If it is the behavior that is what we are calling decisive, then the decision is the true indicator of what the man believes, in a prioritized sense. Regardless of his doubts, which occur in both directions, the truth he is acting on is “I am not bound”, as you said he now “has his own ideas on marriage”.

• You wrote: “Right, he said “risking hell if I am wrong”, which indicates he thinks he is possibly right about something.”
  A. If I am wrong expresses doubt of the rightness of his own ideas which he knows the Church teaches are gravely sinful.

Yes, he “knows” the way that you “know” that typing is wrong. He has heard it. He does not “know” (aware of the truth or factuality) any more than you know that typing is wrong as you heard from me. He does not value the authority, as he says that he is not bound. He does not even know the authority, as ignorant he is of God’s presence in the world.

In addition, though he doubts his rightness, he decisively has more doubt about his wrongness, as his behavior indicates.

• You wrote: “Would you punish your own child forever, Vico, for any reason?”
  A. Punish, in the context of sin, means for God to respect the free will of each creature that He created with free will. There is no way to force another to love you, so when it is freely chosen to act against Divine Law, which constitutes sin, it is respected by God. Now, if the Church taught that final penitence was not required, then there would be an escape.

Okay, let me rephrase the question to specific circumstance. If you told your child, “do not drive off the cliff, for you will die” and your child jumps into his car and begins driving straight for the cliff, would you respect his decision, or would you, perhaps, call his cell phone and say, “son, why are you doing this, please stop, don’t you know I love you?”

Indeed, your child, knowing of your love (if he believes it) may pay more attention. On the other hand, if your child knows that you would “respect” his decision to ignorantly drive off a cliff, perhaps that child would not know you as loving, indeed that child might know you as disconnected, aloof, or indifferent.

Do you see the “catch 22”? Is a God who “respects” the bad decisions of an ignorant man truly a loving God? No, a beneficent God would do all in his power to convince His son not to drive off a cliff. This, now that I think about it, reflects the opinion of a wonderful priest I once heard, “If a person chooses to go to hell, he does so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” With God, Vico, the God that I know (Merriam-Webster), all things are possible, a loving possible.

 

[OneSheep]

cont’d

Vico:

• You wrote: By “condemn” I am referring to the practice of trying to find anathemas, heresies, and condemned ideas. …To dish out anathemas and condemnations on threads like these shows an effort to judge rather than understand." and “Your interpretation of full knowledge and consent per the Catechism is different from mine. …”
  A. So putting the two sentences together you mean by condemn to “dish out”. I expressed my fear with uncertainty of what you believe, not condemnation. I am bound to support the teachings of the Church and use the actual sentences from the Catechism. Those are not obscure and are consistent with the Baltimore Catechism that I was trained in school with. I think it is possible that you believe in philosophical sin, based on what you have written. If you do it is pertinent to the discussion because it is not what the Catechism is using.

I have no idea what the “philosophical” version of sin entails. I am not a philosopher. I have had one class in logic, and I pretty much find the stuff too tedious to bother with. I like to speak in terms of examples, as I have demonstrated.

I find no condemnation whatsoever in your fear. I appreciate your honest expression, I am only saying that I think your fears are based on a different view of God than my own, and I see the fears as unnecessary. You are not “wrong”, about this. It’s okay. It is also okay for you to try to pin Church condemnations on my views, but it is not an approach that uses understanding, a gift of the Holy Spirit, to discern what I am saying. You have yet to tell me what you understand to be my point of view, even though I have asked twice.

It is an unusual way to express fear (out of concern for a person) in the way you did in post 959. If you do have concern, perhaps you could first try to understand what I am saying? Wouldn’t you rather I understand your point of view rather than condemn it? I am still trying to understand. I think I am getting closer.

• You wrote: “Do you know that typing is wrong too? Yes, you will say that you know that it is wrong, but you are not bound.” also “Okay, now that I told you, do you know it?”
  A. I know that you said typing is wrong. If you were an authority that I am bound to trust on matters of faith and morals, then it would be wrong.

However, you would first have to know that I am an authority. The man’s behavior indicates that he doubts the authority, in fact he does not know the authority in any real way.

The man knows that the Church says it is wrong, just as you know I said typing is wrong. Both of you are incredulous, both of you have your own ideas, and both of you are uncertain about the facts (though I do believe you are certain there is no wrong in typing.)

• You wrote: “Therefore, you are thinking that “full knowledge” has nothing to do with knowing God, or knowing why a sin is hurtful and unloving.”
  A. This is not news, as it has been through the thread in my posts.

I do not agrees to VA, VB, or VC. They are so far off that when I try to revise them there is little left.

Do try, Vico! There cannot possibly be “too little left” because you can add enough words to actually cover your position. You disagree with some items in at least one definition of “know”. State what they are, and you have said it. Let me try again:

The word know in usage concerning matters of sin does not include knowledge of God, certain/factual knowledge of the truth, or knowledge of God in a real way. In addition, if a person is irrational, he can still objectively know what he is doing, for knowledge does not indicate a statement of certitude or fact.

As I posted before, I do not characterize him with confusion, but doubt, and I gave the reason. He does not believe and untruth, rather he does not assent to a teaching of the Church, this is called dissent based on doubt not certainty. Sinful actions may be from ignorance, passion, or malice.

Knowing God is not an issue, what he must know is that sinful character of the act. This applies even to non-Christians and atheists, per the Catholic teaching because Divine Law includes natural law and is present in the conscience. It is necessary to not act against the conscience.

So, in addition,

“Knowledge of the sinful character of the act, its opposition to divine law” does not include knowing why a sin is hurtful or unloving."

Does this not state your position? If that is the case, we are left with "what does the man know? He knows that the Church says that his actions are sinful, just as you know that I said typing is wrong. Your action, typing, is not unlike the man’s action, conjugal relations with his wife, in the respect that neither one of you thinks that you are bound, and that you have your own ideas. Unless, of course, you tell me that you know that typing is not wrong, regardless of what I say, because you know that it does no harm to anyone, nor does it appear to be unloving. Do you see why I dislike philosophy? What a bunch of purposeless logic.

I find purpose in explaining how to understand a person’s behavior, learning how to forgive people, not in the heady logic stuff. I would much rather say that I respect your position and find it acceptable in the Catholic Church than to point out flaws. Indeed, I am saying that. No position is flawless, except the position of Love.

As far as accountability, I am guilty of every sin I have ever done. I have no excuses, only explanations. Those explanations will always include in what way I was blind and/or ignorant, not knowing what I was doing. Jesus observed the same from the Cross, in the behaviors of those around Him, and then forgave those who persecuted.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, David, I have been away for a bit. I am back to my computer, and can respond now. I thank you for your reply to my post to Vico.

Here was what I said:

Nothing, absolutely nothing, Vico, separates us from the love of God. As was St. Paul, I too, am convinced. Do not fear for me, Vico. God loves me, all of us, unconditionally. He forgave us, unrepentant we were, from the cross. I know God’s love is unconditional, and I know it through relationship. Would you punish your own child forever, Vico, for any reason?

If this is true why the Church teach the following?

IV. INTERIOR PENANCE

1430 Jesus’ call to conversion and penance, like that of the prophets before him, does not aim first at outward works, “sackcloth and ashes,” fasting and mortification, but at the conversion of the heart, interior conversion. Without this, such penances remain sterile and false; however, interior conversion urges expression in visible signs, gestures and works of penance.23

1431 Interior repentance is a radical reorientation of our whole life, a return, a conversion to God with all our heart, an end of sin, a turning away from evil, with repugnance toward the evil actions we have committed. At the same time it entails the desire and resolution to change one’s life, with hope in God’s mercy and trust in the help of his grace. This conversion of heart is accompanied by a salutary pain and sadness which the Fathers called animi cruciatus (affliction of spirit) and compunctio cordis (repentance of heart).24

1432 The human heart is heavy and hardened. God must give man a new heart.25 Conversion is first of all a work of the grace of God who makes our hearts return to him: "Restore us to thyself, O LORD, that we may be restored!"26 God gives us the strength to begin anew. It is in discovering the greatness of God’s love that our heart is shaken by the horror and weight of sin and begins to fear offending God by sin and being separated from him. The human heart is converted by looking upon him whom our sins have pierced:27

Let us fix our eyes on Christ’s blood and understand how precious it is to his Father, for, poured out for our salvation it has brought to the whole world the grace of repentance.
1433 Since Easter, the Holy Spirit has proved "the world wrong about sin,"29 i.e., proved that the world has not believed in him whom the Father has sent. But this same Spirit who brings sin to light is also the Consoler who gives the human heart grace for repentance and conversion.30

I highlighted the section that may appear to go against my statement. Yes, people do fear and do sense that God does not love them when they sin. This is due to the normal, healthy activity of the conscience. In my own experience, there was a certain time in my faith journey where I equated God with my conscience. Though God loves unconditionally, our conscience does not. When we see ourselves as behaving in a good way, we feel righteous, and the God-as-conscience “loves” us. When we behave in hurtful ways, our conscience punishes us with guilt, and we feel unloved and unlovable, unacceptable to this God-as-conscience.

So, in my own journey I have found a God-beneath-conscience, One Who loves unconditionally, regardless of the workings of the conscience itself. In my own relationship, I discovered the unconditionally loving God through forgiveness of all others, which is enhanced by use of the gift of understanding. We can forgive at a deeper level by understanding why people sin, and in my own investigations I have found that ignorance and blindness are a huge factor, an essential factor, in why people sin.

Thus, the reason why this thread is pertinent.

Have a nice weekend David!

 

[OneSheep]

To any reader:

Feel free to come up with an example or a scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Though I formerly saw many examples of such, I now observe that lack of awareness and blindness are essential elements in why people sin; I find that the question of this thread makes a false assumption.

The question, to me, is not “why does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”, but “Does anyone knowingly and willingly reject God?”. So far, two examples have been brought forth, both involving adultery. In one case, the fictional sinner ended up not being able to answer for himself, and in the other case the fictional sinner could answer for himself to some degree, but he was irrational and did not know God in a real way.

The investigation is worthwhile because it delves into why people sin. In my experience when we can see our ignorance and blindness involved in our sin, we can come to see and appreciate the beauty and wonder of the human. We can look upon ourselves and others with a deeper forgiveness, free from resentment.

I am not out to prove people wrong, as you can see in my posts. I do allow and accept different definitions, and we can work those out.

God Bless

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote “I just said that I “know” a common version, and in saying so, I am saying that the version I know is the truly common version, that is, not with doubt.” and

"I am using the definition of “know” meaning "to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of " I find in Merriam-Webster, which does not in its entry qualify the definition as being a philosphical version… " and

“…then the decision is the true indicator of what the man believes, in a prioritized sense.”

A. Good news to me that you do not mean the philosophical definition. What is used is factual knowledge of what the Church teaches (revealed truth, truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith), or revealed in our conscience. From the Catechism:2089 *Incredulity *is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "*Heresy *is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; *apostasy *is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; *schism *is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

• You wrote: "If you told your child, “do not drive off the cliff, for you will die” and your child jumps into his car and begins driving straight for the cliff, would you respect his decision, or would you, perhaps, call his cell phone and say, “son, why are you doing this, please stop, don’t you know I love you?”
  A. John 3:16.

*You wrote: “Do you see the “catch 22”?”
A. No.

*You wrote: “Is a God who “respects” the bad decisions of an ignorant man truly a loving God?”
A. Yes.

*You wrote: “It is also okay for you to try to pin Church condemnations on my views” …“Wouldn’t you rather I understand your point of view rather than condemn it?”
A. This does not make sense. I would like to you know what the Church teaches. I am not condemning. My concern is that you may not understand what the Church teaches.

• You wrote: “However, you would first have to know that I am an authority.”
  A. He first professes the faith. He has accepted the authority of the Church. Also faith is supernatural infused at baptism.
• You wrote: “Knowledge of the sinful character of the act, its opposition to divine law” does not include knowing why a sin is hurtful or unloving." Does this not state your position?
  A. No. Why is a reason or explanation or purpose, which in this case means our conscience or the Church has informed that it is a sin. However, even the ignorant can commit imputable sins:

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.

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. …

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico! Nice to hear from you.

[/INDENT]* You wrote: "If you told your child, “do not drive off the cliff, for you will die” and your child jumps into his car and begins driving straight for the cliff, would you respect his decision, or would you, perhaps, call his cell phone and say, “son, why are you doing this, please stop, don’t you know I love you?”
A. John 3:16.

Please let me know how the verse from John answers the question I asked.

*You wrote: “Do you see the “catch 22”?”
A. No.
*You wrote: “Is a God who “respects” the bad decisions of an ignorant man truly a loving God?”
A. Yes.

This is a little out of context, perhaps. Are you saying that Abba would not do all He can to reach out and personally make an ignorant lost sheep aware that he is choosing an eternity away from Him, and why that is a bad choice?

The “catch” is this: If a person does not view Church as an authority, then he will disregard the Church’s commands. In order for a person to respect and know God, he must first see Him as Love, and that Love is unconditional and infinite. However, if he sees God as aloof or indifferent, he will not grasp the fullness of God’s beneficence, he will not know God. If Abba’s response to ignorance and blindness is passive “respect” for a person’s bad choices, that is, he would allow his ignorant child to drive off a cliff, this goes against the idea of a loving, involved Father.

If a person understands God as indifferent, they may be better off rejecting this view of God. Indifference is not a description of a loving Father, nor is it an an example of how we are to love one another. A person may obey such a god out of fear, but his understanding of God would be very limited.

*You wrote: “It is also okay for you to try to pin Church condemnations on my views” …“Wouldn’t you rather I understand your point of view rather than condemn it?”
A. This does not make sense. I would like to you know what the Church teaches. I am not condemning. My concern is that you may not understand what the Church teaches.

Perhaps if you understood my view of/relationship with the Father, you would have no concern. I do understand your concern, especially if you are under the impression that God would allow an unaware person to inadvertently choose hell and go there forever. This is not the God I know, Vico. I ask again: Can you summarize what I am saying? I am not getting the impression that you understand my point of view. There is nothing about my point of view that is contrary to Catholicism. I have made reference to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Linns’ book, and a priest that led our Bible study. Are you concerned about them also? I am not saying that their views are the same as mine, but I have demonstrated that they are saying different things than what you are saying. It’s okay.

• You wrote: “However, you would first have to know that I am an authority.”
  A. He first professes the faith. He has accepted the authority of the Church. Also faith is supernatural infused at baptism.

If he accepted the authority of the Church, then he would not make decisions based on “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church” and “I have my own ideas about marriage”.

• You wrote: “Knowledge of the sinful character of the act, its opposition to divine law” does not include knowing why a sin is hurtful or unloving." Does this not state your position?
  A. No. Why is a reason or explanation or purpose, which in this case means our conscience or the Church has informed that it is a sin. However, even the ignorant can commit imputable sins:

Yes, the ignorant can commit imputable sins, I have addressed this. You stated before:

• You wrote: “Therefore, you are thinking that “full knowledge” has nothing to do with knowing God, or knowing why a sin is hurtful and unloving.”
  A. This is not news, as it has been through the thread in my posts.

Which is the reason why I thought I stated your position correctly. Now, I do not know your position on this specific matter.

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.

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. …

However, remember that there has also been reference to a “clouded conscience” and there is also reference to the fact that informing of the conscience is a life-long process. So, the information is in there, but we have limited, or blocked, access to it. Perhaps if you made the effort to state my position, as I have yours, we would not be so repetitive about these issues. Could you give it a try, Vico?

Note: I am still awaiting your answer as to at what point(s) the man said “I intend to reject God.”

Blessings to you!

P.S. to readers: The invitation still stands for you to present a scenario of someone knowingly and willingly rejecting God. Give it a shot, and we can investigate!

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote:“Are you saying that Abba would not do all He can to reach out and personally make an ignorant lost sheep aware that he is choosing an eternity away from Him, and why that is a bad choice?” and

"If you told your child, “do not drive off the cliff, for you will die” and your child jumps into his car and begins driving straight for the cliff, would you respect his decision, or would you, perhaps, call his cell phone and say, “son, why are you doing this, please stop, don’t you know I love you?” and

“Please let me know how the verse from John answers the question I asked.”
A. I give the example of God rather than myself for I have no children. John 3:16 (NABRE)“16 For God so loved the world that he gave[a] his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
God has redeemed us and sent the Holy Spirit, and through baptism we receive faith, hope, and charity. Oxford respect (noun) “1.2 Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others:”

• You wrote: “I have made reference to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Linns’ book, and a priest that led our Bible study. Are you concerned about them also?”
  A. I am not concerned about Cardinal Ratzinger faith. I accept that your views are different than others and I am sticking to the Catechism and authorized publications.
• You wrote: “If he accepted the authority of the Church, then he would not make decisions based on “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church” and “I have my own ideas about marriage”.”
  A. Not true. Acceptance is in the moment and may change.
• You wrote: "However, remember that there has also been reference to a “clouded conscience”
  A. Yes, after repeated sins. There is still culpability.
  CCC 1863 “… Deliberate and unrepented venial sin disposes us little by little to commit mortal sin. …”

CCC 1865 Sin creates a proclivity to sin; it engenders vice by repetition of the same acts. This results in perverse inclinations which cloud conscience and corrupt the concrete judgment of good and evil. Thus sin tends to reproduce itself and reinforce itself, but it cannot destroy the moral sense at its root.

CCC 1781 “… If man commits evil, the just judgment of conscience can remain within him as the witness to the universal truth of the good, at the same time as the evil of his particular choice …”

CCC 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.

*You wrote: “I am still awaiting your answer as to at what point(s) the man said “I intend to reject God.””
A. That is not one of his statements. However see statements from time T2 for the rejection.

 

[simpleas]

I don’t know if this is an example you would be interested in, I was thinking on it the other day.

I know of a man who attends church every sunday. Brought up catholic, his parents very devote catholic’s also.
He lives with his partner, they are not married.
He does not attend holy communion.

So he respects what the church teaches as regards to mortal sin and receiving communion. Yet he attends church.

I might add that everyone that knows of him, treats him like everyone else, in that they don’t give him the cold shoulder, they accept him as he is, as does the priest. He is a lovely person. His personal relationship with God is just that, personal. He respects the church, listens to the word every sunday, but his view on marriage, is his view,(i don’t know what his view is) and has been for many years.

Onesheep

Maybe you missed this above or perhaps you didn’t think it was a example of K&WRG.

I’m not sure if some view it as K&WRG, I don’t because the person still attends church, seeks God, but is imperfect as a human should be in the eyes of the church, or at least some people.
We are all imperfect, isn’t that why we seek God, pray that we can become a “perfect” follower of Christ, but then we wouldn’t need Christ if we did achieve perfection in this life.

The two priest’s I know I don’t believe they would ever accuse me or anyone of ever K&WRG. How can we say this about anyone within the church, or even outside of our church. To me the human is too complex, fear and anger contribute to much of the problems in our human nature.

 

[OneSheep]

Good afternoon, Vico.

I wonder, at this point, why you are continuing to ignore my request that you try to summarize my point of view. I respect your point of view, and my responses should not be taken as argument or attempt to influence, but instead as a means to explaining my viewpoint. If I ask a personal question, it is because there is something within that we can all relate to, unconditional Love, and I call attention to it as a guide for questions regarding spirituality.

• You wrote:“Are you saying that Abba would not do all He can to reach out and personally make an ignorant lost sheep aware that he is choosing an eternity away from Him, and why that is a bad choice?” and

"If you told your child, “do not drive off the cliff, for you will die” and your child jumps into his car and begins driving straight for the cliff, would you respect his decision, or would you, perhaps, call his cell phone and say, “son, why are you doing this, please stop, don’t you know I love you?” and

“Please let me know how the verse from John answers the question I asked.”
A. I give the example of God rather than myself for I have no children. John 3:16 (NABRE)“16 For God so loved the world that he gave[a] his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.”
God has redeemed us and sent the Holy Spirit, and through baptism we receive faith, hope, and charity.

This still does not answer the question I asked, as my question was more explicit, and your answers are more general. The question is, “what is God like?”, which is off-topic already, “Is God indifferent to the individual?” No need to answer.

Oxford respect (noun) “1.2 Due regard for the feelings, wishes, rights, or traditions of others:”

• You wrote: “I have made reference to Cardinal Ratzinger, the Linns’ book, and a priest that led our Bible study. Are you concerned about them also?”
  A. I am not concerned about Cardinal Ratzinger faith. I accept that your views are different than others and I am sticking to the Catechism and authorized publications.

Hmmm. You forgot to mention the priest I quoted and the Linns. Are you suggesting that God is not reflected in some of what I am saying? If that is the case, please feel free to summarize what it is that I am saying, and we can discuss what appears to vary from the Catechism.

• You wrote: “If he accepted the authority of the Church, then he would not make decisions based on “I am not bound by the precepts of the Church” and “I have my own ideas about marriage”.”
  A. Not true. Acceptance is in the moment and may change.

Exactly. At the time of his behaviors and words, he was not accepting the authority of the Church.

[/INDENT]*You wrote: “I am still awaiting your answer as to at what point(s) the man said “I intend to reject God.””
A. That is not one of his statements. However see statements from time T2 for the rejection.

From post 929:

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”.

So, this is not his statement, but it is his intent?

Here is T2:

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

This clearly sounds like he intends to reject the Church’s teachings. I am going to assume that at this point you are saying that he also intended to reject God, though he did not know God, and he was saying that his own ideas were so true that he was willing to “risk” hell. This is a bit confusing, again, because his statement of “risk” indicates he does not want to go to hell, but that there is something in his favor that gives him a chance of avoiding hell.

In addition, his attitude changes, somewhat, does it not? He later says:

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)

Is his intent (albeit lacking in awareness) still to reject God, or does his intent change?

Whatever the case may be, he is either irrational, or does not intend to reject God, but sees his own ideas as correct and the Church’s not, which allows him to “risk”.

I repeat, this suggests that “knowingly” includes either irrational behavior/thought or incorrect thought. If that is the definition of “knowingly” that you are using, then so be it!

I am using a different definition, Vico! The CCC does not specifically say that a person ever knowingly and willingly rejects God, which is what this thread is about. The CCC does not define “know” as “having heard but does not regard as the truth” or a person of “full knowledge” as being “irrational”.

Please, Vico, try to summarize what I am saying. Perhaps, then, you will understand.

Have a great evening!

 

[Vico]

…

• You wrote: “You forgot to mention the priest I quoted and the Linns.”
  A. I explained what I consider to be an acceptable authority.
• You wrote: "Exactly. At the time of his behaviors and words, he was not accepting the authority of the Church. " and “This clearly sounds like he intends to reject the Church’s teachings. I am going to assume that at this point you are saying that he also intended to reject God, though he did not know God, and he was saying that his own ideas were so true that he was willing to “risk” hell. This is a bit confusing, again, because his statement of “risk” indicates he does not want to go to hell, but that there is something in his favor that gives him a chance of avoiding hell.”
  A. That constitutes the sin because he did not assent but knew that the Church teaching is that he should assent. He knows this as demonstrated by his knowing it is a risk. This was discussed previously in a few posts, please look them up.

Your remark that “he did not know God” imply that it is of significant to whether he intended to reject God. This was discussed before, it is a grave sin willfully comitted, therefore it is a rejection of God. We are obliged to resist temptations to dissent: we must keep our faith.

• You wrote: “Is his intent (albeit lacking in awareness) still to reject God, or does his intent change?”
  A. His awareness is not lacking. He has not proper contrition at any point in the timeline, although plans have changed. The intent to repent has not occurred and must occur to stop the rejection.
• You wrote “I repeat, this suggests that “knowingly” includes either irrational behavior/thought or incorrect thought. If that is the definition of “knowingly” that you are using, then so be it!”
  A. Covering repeat territory again. This was discussed before. Have you forgotten? The Catechism defines sin as irrational.
  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity
• You wrote: “The CCC does not specifically say that a person ever knowingly and willingly rejects God, which is what this thread is about.”
  A. One example from the Catechism:2259 In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain,57 Scripture reveals the presence of anger and envy in man, consequences of original sin, from the beginning of human history. Man has become the enemy of his fellow man. God declares the wickedness of this fratricide: "What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood is crying to me from the ground. And now you are cursed from the ground, which has opened its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand."58
  Also there is Adam and Eve, and David, and Judas, mentioned in the Catechism in this regard.
• You wrote: “The CCC does not define “know” as “having heard but does not regard as the truth” …”
  A. This: “does not regard as the truth” is present in the sins against the Holy Spirit. Catechism:2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

• You continue: “… or a person of “full knowledge” as being “irrational”.”
  A. It does. Catechism:1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

• You wrote: “You forgot to mention the priest I quoted and the Linns.”
  A. I explained what I consider to be an acceptable authority.

We can agree to disagree on what constitutes “authority”. I find great authority in my own relationship with God. (which I continue to compare to, with guidance from, the Church). If you find that unacceptable, I understand your position. Positions based on your own relationship with God, even though I do not share them, I can accept.

The Catechism defines sin as irrational.
1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity

Yes, in this case the man is irrational. To me, irrational is not “knowingly” and certainly not “willingly”. You disagree, and I accept your position.

A. One example from the Catechism:2259 In the account of Abel’s murder by his brother Cain…

Since you are treating these examples as real individuals, and some indeed are, and we do not know what they knew or what they willed, we cannot apply these examples.

• You wrote: “The CCC does not define “know” as “having heard but does not regard as the truth” …”
  A. This: “does not regard as the truth” is present in the sins against the Holy Spirit. Catechism:
  2088 The first commandment requires us to nourish and protect our faith with prudence and vigilance, and to reject everything that is opposed to it. There are various ways of sinning against faith:
  ​

​

Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief. Involuntary doubt refers to hesitation in believing, difficulty in overcoming objections connected with the faith, or also anxiety aroused by its obscurity. If deliberately cultivated doubt can lead to spiritual blindness.

2089 Incredulity is the neglect of revealed truth or the willful refusal to assent to it. "Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him."11

Again, the topic of this thread is, “Does anyone ever knowingly and willingly reject God?” once we eliminate the false assumption. In all the cases above, the person does not know what they are doing, just as those who hung Jesus did not know what they were doing. We can claim that disregard for the truth is a sin, but disregard for the truth is still a matter of lack of awareness at a number of levels, not knowing God, not knowing the importance of the message, etc. I know, you disagree. I accept your position as Catholic.

• You continue: “… or a person of “full knowledge” as being “irrational”.”
  A. It does. Catechism:
  1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: "Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent."131
  1872 Sin is an act contrary to reason. It wounds man’s nature and injures human solidarity.
  ​

​

There is nothing in what you quoted that says that an irrational person is of “full knowledge”. However, if that is what it means to you, and that works for you, I accept your position, again, though I disagree.

A man behaving against his own will is not “willingly” doing so. The man’s intent changed, if he had ever intended to reject his own rather insignificant image of God.

“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.”

This, to me, indicates that he is not willingly rejecting God, he is trying to come into the faith. You will state that he is living in sin, but that is not the point, it is not the topic of this thread. Yes, his prayer, when stated, was extremely weak and did not seem like a prayer at all, and did not actually ask for help. This, again, shows that the individual does not know God. You will say again that he is still in sin, but again, that is not the topic. The man does not know God. He does not experience God in his wife.

Can we agree to disagree and be done with it? I am accepting your position. If you would like to point out errors in my position, Vico, please try to summarize my position first, so that you may understand it. If you do not want to understand it, then let’s just let it go, okay? Mature individuals can still be in communion and agree to disagree.

Thanks, again, for this interesting discussion!​

 

[OneSheep]

Onesheep

Maybe you missed this above or perhaps you didn’t think it was a example of K&WRG.

I don’t know if this is an example you would be interested in, I was thinking on it the other day.

I know of a man who attends church every sunday. Brought up catholic, his parents very devote catholics also.
He lives with his partner, they are not married.
He does not attend holy communion.

So he respects what the church teaches as regards to mortal sin and receiving communion. Yet he attends church.

I might add that everyone that knows of him, treats him like everyone else, in that they don’t give him the cold shoulder, they accept him as he is, as does the priest. He is a lovely person. His personal relationship with God is just that, personal. He respects the church, listens to the word every sunday, but his view on marriage, is his view,(i don’t know what his view is) and has been for many years.

I’m not sure if some view it as K&WRG, I don’t because the person still attends church, seeks God, but is imperfect as a human should be in the eyes of the church, or at least some people.
We are all imperfect, isn’t that why we seek God, pray that we can become a “perfect” follower of Christ, but then we wouldn’t need Christ if we did achieve perfection in this life.

The two priests I know I don’t believe they would ever accuse me or anyone of ever K&WRG. How can we say this about anyone within the church, or even outside of our church. To me the human is too complex, fear and anger contribute to much of the problems in our human nature.

Hi Simpleas!

I’m sorry, I did not respond because the answer seemed self-evident and appeared more like a reflection.

I don’t see that man as willingly rejecting God, but quite the opposite. He intends to be with God, be in communion, and actively does so to the degree that he is able. Obviously, as with the man that Vico brought up, he has modified their own rulebook concerning marriage in contrast to what the Church teaches, and perhaps he has done so in ignorance of the importance of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Is God in their marriage? Have they made a life-commitment to each other that includes God? Do they have witnesses? If so, it seems to me that if and when they have their relationship blessed in sacrament, this would be the case of the sacrament being a sign of something that already occurred. Remember, a sacrament is a sign. A couple may go through the motions of the sacrament, but not include God in their marriage in a real way until years later. In that case, the sacrament anticipates what will happen in the future.

I know of couples in this position. Some have not gained annulments on previous marriages. Others may not realize the harm in not having their marriage validated, that the example set is not one of life-commitment. Others do not want to commit, which is a suffering in itself, and they miss out on what it means to love unconditionally. They fear that something may happen that will end the marriage, but that “something” would be a condition of love, a condition that would end the commitment to love and remain in relationship.

There are plenty of questions to be asked. Why does the man not marry his partner? There is so much to investigate to determine if someone knowingly and willingly rejects God. Since I cannot find examples in my own life where I K&WRG, I cannot see such examples in anyone else. All of my rejecting was done in ignorance and blindness.

I sincerely hope that the man and your priest have had some long talks in trying to resolve the issues. It would be a huge disservice to simply give up.

Do you see what I’m saying? Feel free to disagree! What do you think?

Thanks for your post.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

I’m sorry, I did not respond because the answer seemed self-evident and appeared more like a reflection.

I don’t see that man as willingly rejecting God, but quite the opposite. He intends to be with God, be in communion, and actively does so to the degree that he is able. Obviously, as with the man that Vico brought up, he has modified their own rulebook concerning marriage in contrast to what the Church teaches, and perhaps he has done so in ignorance of the importance of the Sacrament of Matrimony.

Is God in their marriage? Have they made a life-commitment to each other that includes God? Do they have witnesses? If so, it seems to me that if and when they have their relationship blessed in sacrament, this would be the case of the sacrament being a sign of something that already occurred. Remember, a sacrament is a sign. A couple may go through the motions of the sacrament, but not include God in their marriage in a real way until years later. In that case, the sacrament anticipates what will happen in the future.

I know of couples in this position. Some have not gained annulments on previous marriages. Others may not realize the harm in not having their marriage validated, that the example set is not one of life-commitment. Others do not want to commit, which is a suffering in itself, and they miss out on what it means to love unconditionally. They fear that something may happen that will end the marriage, but that “something” would be a condition of love, a condition that would end the commitment to love and remain in relationship.

There are plenty of questions to be asked. Why does the man not marry his partner? There is so much to investigate to determine if someone knowingly and willingly rejects God. Since I cannot find examples in my own life where I K&WRG, I cannot see such examples in anyone else. All of my rejecting was done in ignorance and blindness.

I sincerely hope that the man and your priest have had some long talks in trying to resolve the issues. It would be a huge disservice to simply give up.

Do you see what I’m saying? Feel free to disagree! What do you think?

Thanks for your post.

As far as I’m aware they are not married. Yes you are right there would be many questions, with far to many asumptions.
I was just thinking on the whole marriage thing as being so important, and if you live with someone and do not commit and marry in the eyes of God, this could be seen as K&WR.

Thanks for the reply