Yes, in hell, but why forever

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

Vico:

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.

If you want to revisit this, you may recall that the counterargument is that a person who chooses ignorance does so with lack of awareness. There is a lack of experience, such that their conscience is not formed fully, or there is a blindness, denial, many different possibilities.

People do not choose harm on themselves unless there is some kind of blindness or lack of awareness involved. This is especially evident in the person who is suicidal.

Baltimore Catechism

I know you love the BC, but it is always the most recent catechism that reflects the Spirit in the Church at any moment in history.

The Baltimore and Catechism Second Edition are in complete agreement.

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.

 

[sudy]

God’s mercy is available to us right now… his judgement is at the end of life.

He is dying but not dead, his body and soul are still together, they are not seperate and so he is still in “a mode where he can change” he has not yet been locked into his sin

Your example is a man sinning right until death. With death comes judgement. God who probes the heart and discerns hidden motives, to give everyone what they deserve.

 

[Fauken]

He is dying but not dead, his body and soul are still together, they are not seperate and so he is still in “a mode where he can change” he has not yet been locked into his sin

No, he’s dead. Bone fragments from the explosion are not your body. They’re bone fragments.

 

[oliver109]

God will not forget the good that the priest has done or the priests own efforts to encourage other Catholics to live good lives. Just because someone sins until the point of death does not mean they are unsaveable, we need more hope and encouragement in the church.

 

[sudy]

That’s not what it says in Ezekiel. If we turn away from God… we’ll be judged accordingly.

Ezekiel 18

21 But if the wicked man turns away from all the sins he committed, if he keeps all my statutes and does what is right and just, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

22 None of the crimes he committed shall be remembered against him; he shall live because of the virtue he has practiced.

23 Do I indeed derive any pleasure from the death of the wicked? says the Lord GOD. Do I not rather rejoice when he turns from his evil way that he may live?

24 And if the virtuous man turns from the path of virtue to do evil, the same kind of abominable things that the wicked man does, can he do this and still live? None of his virtuous deeds shall be remembered, because he has broken faith and committed sin; because of this, he shall die.

25 You say, “The LORD’S way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?

26 When a virtuous man turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die.

27 But if a wicked man, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life;

28 since he has turned away from all the sins which he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

 

[oliver109]

What about a lump of brain, is that his body?

 

[Fauken]

What about a lump of brain, is that his body?

No. It’s a lump of brain.

 

[oliver109]

What constitutes a body in your view? Do you declare someone dead according to the doctors definition?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

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.

I agree that the divine perspective definitely involves moving beyond group tactics within biology! But first, we have a biology, and it is beautiful. We can celebrate it, and respect it. We can see God in our biology, in the formation of our conscience.

Can you see that the conscience itself involves the formation of a “shadow”? And with a shadow, we have a dualism within, so evident in St. Augustine’s Confessions. This division within is central to the beautiful mechanism by which we come to automatically govern our behaviors when our empathy is underdeveloped. What can be observed is that God creates in each of us the capacity for an internal schism, and the price is that we are to a large to degree less “whole”! So there is a trade-off, we come to “know” good vs. evil, but such “knowing” has the price of self-condemnation of parts of the very nature given to us by God.

God hesitated in giving humanity the “knowledge of Good and Evil” in the garden, it was going to create great internal discord, and it would be a discord projected onto the image of God Himself. And in a sense, it is our own self-condemnation that banishes us from the garden of wholeness. The banishment does not come from God, it comes from the mechanism of self-rejection, central to conscience formation. Are you following this perspective?

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?”

That would be a child with an underdeveloped shadow. It takes a while. A shadow is formed, which gives us gut reactions to the thought or witness of hurtful actions. Later, when empathy is developed, the conscience essentially becomes obsolete, but still serves us. That is when we are ready to do shadow work, to reconcile with our natural instincts.

There is some thing fundamentally non-self-evident about this classical, Augustinian Teaching on hell.

Augustine condemned parts of himself.

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.

Thank you. Yes, Jesus accepts the punishment perspective, even speaks to people “in their language”, from their place in spiritual growth, but invites us to transcend our nature; to understand and forgive very deeply.

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.

Tevye was closer to the truth?

 

[OneSheep]

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

Yes, but an empathetic person would not necessarily see that the Augustinian vision is natural. For the person who loves unconditionally, the “forever” aspect is a side-issue, just as contradictory as the idea of God sending a person there at all, or even allowing a person to make such a choice without being very much in-their-face about it!. The priest who taught our scripture class once shared this image: “If a person ever does choose to go to hell, they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way.” - that is God doing all He can to stop the person from making the choice.

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.

May He Bless your ministry!

 

[OneSheep]

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…

For the person who is operating from the image of God such that God loves/forgives conditionally, the concept of mortal sin makes perfect sense, and the concept and idea of eternal punishment will motivate the individual to behave in ways that uphold justice and hopefully be charitable.

For the person whose image of God is one of loving/forgiving unconditionally, the proclamation of the concept makes sense in that it motivates the person without such an image to maintain merciful behavior. Do you see what I’m saying? Hell is merely a side issue, the underlying issue is image of God.

Does that help, or does it instead sound insulting? No insult intended

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

Again, I invite you to support your words with actual proof.

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.

These perpertrators were not aware of “the intrinsic value and importance, in the moment, of the well-being of the potential victim” as I stated in that post. They were blinded by anger, resentment, or desire for what they saw as justice.

No; the knowledge was present already in the mind.

If we are blind to a knowledge, or distracted from it, it is the same as it not being there in terms of making decisions. We don’t consider what we don’t think to consider, and we don’t think to consider what seems to be contrary to what appears best at the moment. Everyone does what he thinks is best.

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.

Again, please provide proof.

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…

Okay, your adult 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?

 

[Fauken]

What constitutes a body in your view?

Ah, here we go! A good question.

From the Summa:

“I answer that, As we have said, if the soul were united to the body merely as its motor, we might say that it is not in each part of the body, but only in one part through which it would move the others. But since the soul is united to the body as its form, it must necessarily be in the whole body, and in each part thereof. For it is not an accidental form, but the substantial form of the body.”

So it’s not a brain, or bones, or an arm. A soul is fully in every part of the body. But the body isn’t its individual components, it’s all of them together.

Do you declare someone dead according to the doctors definition?

I think I answered that earlier in the thread. It’s when the soul separates from the body.

 

[Gorgias]

Does that help, or does it instead sound insulting? No insult intended

No, it doesn’t sound insulting. However, what it does sound like is that you’re saying “the Church teaches ‘mortal sin’ as an empty threat”…!

(I still maintain that the concept of a “conditionally loving God” is a mischaracterization of God, even in the face of the prospects of hell and condemnation, though…!)

Again, I invite you to support your words with actual proof.

We need look no further than today’s Gospel!

John 3:19-21

the light came into the world,
but people preferred darkness to light,
because their works were evil.
For everyone who does wicked things hates the light
and does not come toward the light,
so that his works might not be exposed.
But whoever lives the truth comes to the light,

People who perform evil works choose to avoid God. It’s not an “awareness” thing, it’s simply a “how do you want to live your life” thing.

Again, I invite you to support your words with actual proof.

Sure. From the CCC, #1033:

To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God’s merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self-exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called “hell”.

It’s a free choice, not a choice that’s made in ignorance. It’s self-exclusion, not self-delusion. It’s making the choice to not accept God’s love, not that God stops loving you.

Seriously, @OneSheep. You’re making this up wholecloth, and then asking us to disprove it for you…!

They were blinded by anger, resentment, or desire for what they saw as justice.

I would disagree, and assert that they weren’t blinded, per se (although that’s a figurative way of putting it) – rather, they let their anger, resentment, or desires outweigh their consciences. It would be convenient to say that they were “blinded”, but you would have to prove that in order for your case to hold up. There’s simply no evidence to prop up your assertion, here.

Okay, your adult 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?

Other than the fact that I don’t have the power to do that? In any case, what you propose is an impossibility: the ‘torment’ of hell is the knowledge of the permanent loss of salvation. You can’t give “just a taste” of that.

Yet, there’s still the basic question you’re attempting to pose in your thought experiment: would God give temporary punishment as a taste of permanent punishment not yet earned? That would, again, make God a tyrant.

 

[vz71]

I think I answered that earlier in the thread. It’s when the soul separates from the body.

Our friend wishes for God to intervene at death regardless of the way someone is living their life.

That God will somehow stop their free will by stepping in and overriding it.

It has the allure of being a comfort. That somehow we can live apart from God and be called back once the last moment has past.

A comforting thought that is wrong.
God warns us over and over to be watching. We ignore the advice at our peril.

 

[oliver109]

So theoretically God could work wonders in the moments between the plane hitting the body and the soul separating from the destroyed body? What gives me hope is the Catechism talking about salutuary repentance in the case of suicides: “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.

 

[Fauken]

So theoretically God could work wonders in the moments between the plane hitting the body and the soul separating from the destroyed body?

It’s nonsensical.

What gives me hope is the Catechism talking about salutuary repentance in the case of suicides: “We should not despair of the eternal salvation of persons who have taken their own lives. By ways known to him alone, God can provide the opportunity for salutary repentance.

That’s because suicidal people are not in their right minds, as they’re suffering from a mental illness such as depression, and such mental illness would lessen the culpability of that person. It does not say that suicide is not a mortal sin. It does not say that God didn’t offer them enough chances. They’re sick for no fault of their own. Your priest is not.

You really need to brush up on what the Church teaches. You’ve made a lot of erroneous assumptions of what the Church teaches.

 

[oliver109]

You have not given a detailed explanation as to why the idea I have been proposing is nonsensical, the priest did commit grave sin but he never intended to commit this grave sin for all eternity, there was a murderer on the news recently who did not just commit murder, she never regretted it and found it satisfying and “moreish” she admitted that if given the chance she would do it again and again, such a soul would be difficult if not impossible to save, this priest is not really in the same camp as he did make efforts to stop sinning like going to Confession and actually praying to God that he would stop this sin.

 

[Fauken]

You have not given a detailed explanation as to why the idea I have been proposing is nonsensical

Besides how incredible unlikely this is? I did. God could stop the plane. If this priest was planning on going to confession afterwards, ignoring the fact he’s presuming in God’s mercy, then why doesn’t God just let him go to confession? Why drop the plane at all? How is a plane killing him at all necessary at this point? You’ve added so many details to try to support your claim as opposed to conceding it that you’ve rendered parts of your story useless. Church teaching does not require absurd hypotheticals to be true.

the priest did commit grave sin but he never intended to commit this grave sin for all eternity

That doesn’t make mortal sin not mortal. He intended to have sex outside of marriage and break his vows. He intended to sin mortally.

this priest is not really in the same camp as he did make efforts to stop sinning like going to Confession and actually praying to God that he would stop this sin.

That doesn’t matter. After all those prayers, after going to confession, he sinned mortally and thus separated himself from God. Mortal sin is dependent on what you do now not what you did in the past. We live in the present, not the past.

Do you think the priest is a good person just because he’s not a serial murderer? Is that all it takes to be a good person? Don’t kill people? What sense does that make? He can be an accessory with that other woman as she kills her relationship with God through mortal sin, he can reject his vows he made to God, he can presume in God’s mercy because hey, he can just go to confession again, but he’s a good person.

 

[oliver109]

How is it presuming in Gods mercy to think you can go to Confession? Maybe the plane crashed because we live in a fallen world therefore terrible things happen, you may as well be asking why God does not stop all sudden deaths and that everyone should live a normal lifespan. Even if the priest was a serial murder he would not be beyond the reach of God, had that murderer I mentioned in my last post said that she regretted her crimes, that murder is bad even if you find it enjoyable would there be anything for God to condemn? the difference between the priest and the murderer is that the murderer loved murder, she would want an afterlife where she can murder, the priest would not want an afterlife where he can commit adultery.

 

[Fauken]

How is it presuming in Gods mercy to think you can go to Confession?

It’s presumption when you are in the middle of committing a mortal sin and don’t try to stop it because you can go to confession later. The priest apparently knew but didn’t stop and decided to just go to confession later. He is presumptuous and doesn’t sound sorry to me.

Even if the priest was a serial murder he would not be beyond the reach of God, had that murderer I mentioned in my last post said that she regretted her crimes, that murder is bad even if you find it enjoyable would there be anything for God to condemn?

That’s above my pay grade.

the difference between the priest and the murderer is that the murderer loved murder, she would want an afterlife where she can murder, the priest would not want an afterlife where he can commit adultery.

Oh, so now it’s adultery? He’s now an accessory to her violating her marriage vows? It doesn’t matter if he does or doesn’t want adultery in Heaven (especially since he can have his fill of it on earth and just confess it all away to God before he “dies”). That doesn’t make a mortal sin not mortal.