Yes, in hell, but why forever

[OneSheep]

And if the Church posits the existence of mortal sin, then you’re saying she’s teaching untruth.

Yes, but the “if” is not asserted.

This is what is an impossibility.

Well, now you’re talkin’. So, since it is impossible for a person to choose hell in ignorance, and it is impossible for a fully aware person to choose hell, then it is an empty place. I can agree that such is quite possible.

OK. Cite where you think it’s saying it differently, please.

**[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…

So the guiding factor is full knowledge and complete consent. What can be observed is that the more aware a person is about the harm of a behavior, about the intrinsic value and importance, in the moment, of the well-being of the potential victim, the less likely the sinner is to sin. From there, one only needs to discern what the sinner did not know, such that if he did know he would not have sinned. When this item is brought and sustained in awareness, the person will not choose to sin, period. “Full” is not “full” until it is filled. The passage does not say “more or less full” or “partially full”. Full does not mean omniscience; it means everything relevant.

There is the “regret test”. Does the person regret his sin? If so, would he repeat the sin in the state of regret? You see, the state of regret is more a position of “full knowledge” than not regretting. Does the person not regret his sin? If this is the case, he is ignorant or has a malformed conscience, which is lack of awareness.

What you consider “knowing” is so high a bar that it can never be reached. That’s the problem with your argument, here…

Its a problem that mortal sin is essentially impossible? Why is that a problem?!! The point is not filling hell, brother, the point is that people are truly good and innocent of intent, they do not know what they are doing when they sin. I condemn no one, and the Abba I know doesn’t either.

The Church disagrees

Feel free to cite such disagreement.

It defines it differently than you do. If you want to make a positive claim – that is, that you’re stating what the CCC states – then let’s see the evidence.

I stated it above.

Awareness with anything short of knowing the experience of hell itself, would not be sufficient, right?

No, that’s not true.

Let’s put it this way. Your own child is leaning toward choosing hell. Would you refrain from giving him or her an actual experience of hell, if you could, in order to aid in talking him or her out of it?

 

[Vico]

… So the guiding factor is full knowledge and complete consent . …

Catechism

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.

1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.

There is culpability for sin when it is done through free will choice , but only when there is knowledge that is a sin, but also there must be sufficient reflection , enough for it to be a personal choice. Although, as St. Thomas Aquinas wrote, vincible ignorance can also be a sin.

Reply to objection 2: If the ignorance be such as to excuse sin altogether, as the ignorance of a madman or an imbecile, then he that commits fornication in a state of such ignorance, commits no sin either mortal or venial. But if the ignorance be not invincible, then the ignorance itself is a sin, and contains within itself the lack of the love of God, in so far as a man neglects to learn those things whereby he can safeguard himself in the love of God.

Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 88 > Article 6

Baltimore Catechism

Q. 282. How many things are necessary to make a sin mortal?
A. To make a sin mortal, three things are necessary: 1.a grievous matter, sufficient reflection, and full consent of the will.

Q. 284. What does “sufficient reflection and full consent of the will” mean?
A. “Sufficient reflection” means that we must know the thought, word or deed to be sinful at the time we are guilty of it; and “full consent of the will” means that we must fully and willfully yield to it.

Commentary from Baltimore Catechism

“Sufficient reflection,” that is, you must know what you are doing at the time you do it. For example, suppose while you stole the diamond pin you thought you were stealing a pin with a small piece of glass, of little value, you would not have sufficient reflection and would not commit a mortal sin till you found out that what you had stolen was a valuable diamond; if you continued to keep it after learning your mistake, you would surely commit a mortal sin.

 

[mhmtas63]

The punishment of killing someone could be lifelong on the world. We can accept that. Rejecting God means kill moral existence of God with all attributes. God is eternal with all attributes. So rejecting means killing an eternal person and the payment is to be forever. After death there is no death again. People will get into Hell because of rejecting God and commiting sins. The payment of sins is suffering from Hell’s tortuments as much as sins. Standing in Hell forever is the punishment of rejecting.

Note: rejecting is the most mortal sin.

 

[Magnanimity]

Can you respect that people are not born with such awareness? Have you always been able to move beyond the simplistic, or do you sometimes “stay with” the negative affect,

Thank you @OneSheep, Your reply is very thoughtful and engaging. I understand what you were saying above with regard to various behavioral mechanisms preserving various groups. That is a little afield from my comments. I do find evolutionary biology to be utterly fascinating, and maybe you think that it is a bedrock for these sorts of discussions. I’m not sure that I do. I don’t entirely see the relevance, because when I speak of the possibility of hell , I am ever trying to get at what might be a thought to be the divine perspective. And that perspective will of course move far beyond group tactics within biology.

And yes, I admitted above that when I was younger, and I have thought a lot less about these things, and had just lived very little life, it was vastly easier for me to except that God could send people away from him forever. So I do think a certain level of thoughtfulness and maturity is probably necessary to get one closer to a universalist understanding.

However there is something also a bit knee-jerk about people’s reaction when they hear about hell for the first time. For example, it strikes children as strange when they hear the doctrine. They say to themselves, “really?! God would send someone to this place forever?” There is some thing fundamentally non-self-evident about this classical, Augustinian Teaching on hell.

 

[Magnanimity]

When empathy is not developed, it is the punishment (some form of consequence)

Another excellent post, thank you. And yes, certainly “sticks and carrots” are what moves human behavior. But the Augustinian Hell, as I’m sure you’re aware, is not a “stick,” it’s a “giant sequoia!”

If I’m following you here, you’re claiming that it’s precisely because God is aware that humans will approach him from all manners of backgrounds and vantage points (all along the empathy-spectrum), and what we see in scripture is a God that anyone on that spectrum can relate to and accept. If that’s what you’re claiming, then I say bravo. That’s well-said. The God who loves unendingly would do just that very thing, I suppose—meet people where they are.

Fiddler on the Roof , if the mother had been as (naturally) bigoted as the father,

Yes, entirely true! But this plays into my arguments here. The perspective of Tevyeis not merely an alternate perspective to balance out the mother. It is the superior approach, the one nearer to the truth and fullness of the matter.

If I’m following you here, you are trying to get me to see how it is that Catholic folks could continue to persist in their belief in the Augustinian vision of Hell. But then, the empathetic person would likely already have this awareness, no?

If I see my role here as anything, it’s to merely probe and challenge my various interlocutors to show them that there is a better perspective—one that can still hold the “you reap what you sow” motif. But it just doesn’t get us to the monstrous, vindictive divinity that we need to be saved from. Christ does not save us from the Father. He came to save us from ourselves, despite ourselves, and his love is everlasting. That’s all I’m trying to get folks to see.

 

[vz71]

, the priests body may have been wrecked by the plane but God could have moved it to another planet.

The argument just lost whatever credibility it may have had.

 

[goout]

I don’t think there’s a problem with your desire and hope for salvation for everyone. That’s our call: to propose this hope for everyone and desire it.

My issue with your proposition is it’s hypothetical nature. Human beings should not live out their salvation according to hypotheticals and speculations, but rather in the flesh as we are able.
True hope doesn’t base itself on speculative hypotheticals but on what is revealed to us. Based on that we are called to live decisively for Christ. Immediately as Mark likes to say.

 

[Gorgias]

Christ is not imposing himself on the person, he is just talking to them, trying to reason with them, that’s a nice thought is it not?

Again: nice isn’t the issue. For some reason, we in the West in the 20th-21st century are hung up on the notion that “nice” counts. Read the Bible: Jesus is good, He is loving. He isn’t always ‘nice’.

No, a court-order or a family intervention for the substance-abuser is not tyranny.

I already addressed this: a “court-order or family intervention” is appropriate when a person is incapable of acting in his own interest. That’s not the case we’re talking about here. We already know that a person who is not culpable for his sin is not condemned, so that situation isn’t in play here.

Rather, we’re talking about a person who is capable of acting in his own best interest, but who chooses a different course of action. And, in our society, it is recognized that forcing such a person into a course of action he does not choose is precisely the definition of tyranny.

All of these acts are love toward the one who does not see what is in their own best interest in the moment and who (perhaps) by force of habit find it near impossible to cease doing that which is not in their own best interest.

Two thoughts:

• It’s never the case that the issue is whether the person sees what’s in his best interest – it’s always whether he is capable of seeing it. If he is, we leave him alone.
• Another red herring here: the person “who by force of habit find it near impossible to cease” his sin has reduced culpability (and therefore, is not committing mortal sin, and therefore, is not condemned for it). The Church already teaches that this scenario, too, isn’t in play here.
  

That is precisely what St Paul was after in Romans 7. He couldn’t have said it any plainer.

Don’t stop there – read a little further! Namely, the next few verses:

For what the law, weakened by the flesh, was powerless to do, this God has done: by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, he condemned sin in the flesh, so that the righteous decree of the law might be fulfilled in us, who live not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.

The answer is “live according to the spirit, not the flesh; God has provided a path for you.”

 

[goout]

We should always treat people as if they are capable of moving towards full agency. If a person is an addict and enslaved to a vice, we should still treat them as if they will attain free agency at some point, not as a helpless victim.
That is the goal of the Christian life: to freely respond and do God’s will. We are not permanently helpless victims of our failings.

The parent who enables a child to wallow in helpless victim-hood does not help him. This is not God. God has the highest hopes and the highest expectations for us.

 

[Gorgias]

Yes, but the “if” is not asserted.

Umm… so then, what would you call all the Church teaching on mortal sin? If it doesn’t exist, why does the Church teach it? If it’s impossible to do, why warn against it? You’re not making sense here…

So, since it is impossible for a person to choose hell in ignorance, and it is impossible for a fully aware person to choose hell, then it is an empty place.

It is not true that “it is impossible for a fully aware person to choose hell.” The Church teaches otherwise.

What can be observed is that the more aware a person is about the harm of a behavior, about the intrinsic value and importance, in the moment, of the well-being of the potential victim, the less likely the sinner is to sin.

That’s not only not true, it’s merely anecdotal, so it isn’t useful as ‘proof’ of your argument.

In fact, although it would be nice if it worked that way, it’s usually the opposite: in some of the greatest atrocities of the 20th and 21st centuries, the perpetrator was, in fact, well aware of the effect of his actions on the victims.

You see, the state of regret is more a position of “full knowledge” than not regretting.

No; the knowledge was present already in the mind. You’re talking about the operation of the conscience, which is a different thing altogether.

Its a problem that mortal sin is essentially impossible? Why is that a problem? !!

No, it’s a problem that your argument suggests that it’s essentially impossible. It’s a problem because it runs counter to the teaching of the Church and of Jesus.

Feel free to cite such disagreement.

I see that @Vico’s already done a good job of dismantling your argument with quotes from the Catechism.

I stated it above.

No… you showed the definition of mortal sin, but then merely re-stated your claim, without any support. That’s kinda like asserting that the moon is made of green cheese, and then attempting to support the claim by quoting a science text that merely says, “the surface area of the moon is 14.6 million square miles.” The text doesn’t support the argument.

OneSheep:

Let’s put it this way. Your own child is leaning toward choosing hell.

Let’s put it this way: a child isn’t just an adult in miniature; he’s someone who hasn’t yet developed and isn’t as culpable for his actions. We’re talking about adults who freely choose to sin. Apples and oranges…

oliver109:

the priests body may have been wrecked by the plane but God could have moved it to another planet.

The argument just lost whatever credibility it may have had.

I don’t think there’s a problem with your desire and hope for salvation for everyone.

 

[Magnanimity]

It is to be a merciful approach for the benefit of the sinner, … God’s justice is mercy. … In contrast, our doctrine now emphasizes the concept of human dignity. To me, part of that is in seeing the beauty of our nature, even the beauty of Augustine’s version as a natural conclusion based on his own human experience…It sounds like we agree

Yes, there is an enormous amount of overlap on our thinking in this area (between you and me). Many do begin the journey in the Augustinian fashion, and you’re right–it is natural. To see the ugly side of humanity can incline one to believe it is so fundamentally disordered as to be practically deserving of Hell.

But as long as a Christian doesn’t stay in this place, intellectually and within the heart–as long as they revisit what is entailed by bearing the image and likeness of God–to have within oneself (inalienably) this intrinsic worth/dignity/sacredness is precisely what makes one made for heaven, made for beatitude. Even St Augustine himself, for all the complaining I do about him, has the famous “You have made us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless until they rest in you” line. So very much deeply true within that statement. In a way, it’s entirely summative of human life!

Then, the sentence will serve not only to protect society but rehabilitate the convict.

Absolutely!

Can we agree that a young Church would logically have a theology that reflects that of a young person, a person yet to grow more in awareness?

Maybe I can grant you a little of this point, at least as regards the church in the west. But the historical record of Gregory of Nyssa, Origen, Clement, Gregory Nazianzen all being either explicit universalists or having had theology that allowed for it is enough to show me that the church of St Augustine’s time had sufficient maturity of thought to keep one from advocating his position on God, human anthropology and Hell. Maybe it was just something peculiar to St Augustine himself though, as you seem to suggest.

When society is in chaos, when behavior and civility is out of control, an Augustinian approach is far better than an unresolved, insecure alternative.

This is a very thoughtful and interesting point. I’ll have to ponder it more deeply. Again, many thanks for your mature and insightful engagement!

 

[Magnanimity]

I already addressed this: a “court-order or family intervention” is appropriate when a person is incapable of acting in his own interest. That’s not the case we’re talking about here.

Yes, it precisely is just what’s being discussed here. So often when folks like yourself resurrect the free-will defense of Hell, you balk at the idea of God “forcing” a person into Heaven who doesn’t want to be there. But, the only type of person who would not want to be where he was made to be (beatitude) would be the person who was so disordered that what is called for is intervention. This person cannot even see that he was created, designed and built for such an existence–beatific vision.

And I want you to address @Gorgias, my thought-experiment of “Sarah,” the goat bound for Hell. I want to see the argument for how we state that God loves (wills and works for the good of) Sarah as he holds her in existence indefinitely in Hell.

The answer is “live according to the spirit, not the flesh; God has provided a path for you.”

Of course, the context of my allusion to Romans 7 had nothing to do with me wondering about what will save us from ourselves or from sin. That question was not raised here. Rather, my allusion was to point out to you that whatever role you want to assign to free-will, it is most assuredly a limited, conditioned phenomenon.

I gave example after example above of all the various influences both within yourself and outside of you that constantly impose themselves upon you and thereby make you less “free.” These influences make the Sartrian view of absolute freedom to be frankly silly and not to be taken seriously. None of us ever finds herself completely free of outside or interior influence when she is considering choosing ‘x’ or ‘not-x.’ Again, unless you’d like to counter all the innumerable influences I’ve listed above as not really impacting us… Unless you’d like to counter St Paul’s assertion that he does the very things that he does not want to do (how “free” is St Paul then?). St Paul, as we all do, wrestles with himself to do the good and avoid sin, to say nothing of factoring in the innumerable spiritual, environmental, habit-based, peer-pressured (etc, etc) influences upon us.

Rather, we’re talking about a person who is capable of acting in his own best interest, but who chooses a different course of action.

And who are those people? Give some examples of these “absolutely free” individuals (other than Jean-Paul Sartre or Nietzsche).

 

[oliver109]

What is important is whether my proposition is sane or not and is not contradicted by Catholic teaching, I think that what I said is in line with Catholic teaching, it does not violate free will and the choice is still very much on the person whether to obey Christ or not. We are to change immediately but not be eternally punished if we slip up and apologise afterwards.

 

[vz71]

What is important is whether my proposition is sane or not

I think that flew out when you proposed God deposit someone at the end of their life on another planet.

 

[oliver109]

I think that it would be completely possible, it is as sane as believing in bilocation or transubstantiation. It is good to live life in hope and the belief that everything is possible.

 

[Fauken]

It is good to live life in hope and the belief that everything is possible.

Except everything is not possible. There are impossibilities in reality.

 

[oliver109]

Ok sure, in reality the salvation of Satan is impossible as is it also impossible for a sinner to go back in time and not sin, to unsin so to speak, that is impossible what is done is done. What I see as possible is for the soul and body to continue in a different region after loss of consciousness without any separation.

 

[Fauken]

What I see as possible is for the soul and body to continue in a different region after loss of consciousness without any separation.

That’s not what you’ve been advocating. The way you describe it here is basically someone under anesthesia. Not some priest whose body got torn apart by a plane falling on his house.

 

[oliver109]

Anaesthesia? I don’t think so, just picture this, the body has been torn into 1000 pieces by the crash, now the soul is still attached we could say to a piece of his body, the soul does not have a specific size, you could theoretically shrink someone to such a small size that they are microscopic. Now the soul will be able to be moved with the body to a different region.

 

[Aquinas11]

What I see as possible is for the soul and body to continue in a different region after loss of consciousness without any separation

What are the conditions for this possibility? When is it not possible?