Yes, in hell, but why forever

  • Thread starter Thread starter MaximilianK
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The priest I would say is not presumptuous, he probably felt that he was taking a risk by committing a mortal sin and I would also say that he was uncertain about where his soul would go after the act had taken place. So many of us commit mortal sins that theoretically a large proportion of the Catholic population are in real danger if damnation if God does not take them away quickly after they go to Confession. The church has never given an answer as to why one lifelong sinner is saved at the moment of death while another was not. As St Alphonsus Liguori said: Nor can we demand from god a reason why He pardons one a hundred sins, and takes others out of life and sends them to Hell, after three or four sins. By His Prophet Amos, God has said: “For three crimes of Damascus, and for four, I will not convert it” (1:3). In this we must adore the judgments of God, and say with the Apostle: “O the depth of the riches, of the wisdom, and of the knowledge of God! How incomprehensible are His judgments”
 
I think intention is important, the murderer I mentioned earlier was completely unrepentant, she was in love with her sins, her life was murder. This priest enjoyed committing sin but he did not want to make it his life, he wanted to get rid of it which is why he went to Confession, such a person would not be impossible to save.
 
I know that committing a mortal sin is turning against God, that so much is true, Thomas Aquinas taught that God can have every reason to let someone die in a state of mortal sin and go to Hell. I am arguing here for more mercy, for more chances of forgiveness without any violation of free will, what I am advocating is completely in line with the teachings of the church.
 
Maybe he was not making enough of an effort but that is not the point, he was confessing his sins on a regular basis and clearly the sort of soul God could work with, when Judas was condemned by Christ he was primarily being condemned not because of his sins but because he had no hope in Christ, he had no hope that he could save him.
 
oliver109 said:
Maybe he was not making enough of an effort but that is not the point, he was confessing his sins on a regular basis
Click to expand...
Actually it is. Confession requires a firm purpose of amendment. Part of that is avoiding the near occasion of sin.
 
How was he supposed to avoid the near occasion of sin then? it is not always possible to go to where it is impossible to be tempted, even if you lock yourself up in a cell you will still be able to be tempted, to think sinful thoughts.
 
oliver109 said:
How was he supposed to avoid the near occasion of sin then? it is not always possible to go to where it is impossible to be tempted, even if you lock yourself up in a cell you will still be able to be tempted, to think sinful thoughts.
Click to expand...
A near occasion to sin isn’t simply a temptation. It’s being around something, somewhere, or someone that increases such temptations and desire to sin. In your hypothetical, the priest allowing himself to be alone with Laura is a near occasion to sin, as he clearly struggles with purity and has sinned multiple times with her. Her being alone with him is a clear temptation. What he should have done was either not invite her inside, or had someone else around to make sure they wouldn’t do anything.
 
Ok he was unwise to meet her but we must realise how easy it was for him to do so, he knew it was against God but did it because he let passion take control over him, it was just simply not easy for him to avoid it, his heart was beating fast, he felt such a strong urge that he went ahead and committed the sin, this is something that has happened to so many priests over the centuries, sadly to the point where many horrible crimes have been committed. Maybe if God made it harder to commit mortal sins the priest would not have sinned.
 
Last edited:
but we must realise how easy it was for him to do so, he knew it was against God but did it because he let passion take control over him
Click to expand...
And this reduces his guilt how, exactly? Guys may have high sex drives, but they’re not beasts whose eyes glaze over at the mere sight of a woman.

oliver109:
Maybe if God made it harder to commit mortal sins the priest would not have sinned.
Click to expand...
From Second Corinthians:
“12:9 And he said to me: My grace is sufficient for thee: for power is made perfect in infirmity. Gladly therefore will I glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ may dwell in me.”
Click to expand...
The grace of God is all we need. It’s up to us to cooperate with it
 
He is still guilty but it seems unfair for this priest to die in sin while another priest sleeps with a woman and then manages to get to Confession afterwards and then dies in grace after going to Confession, it just seems absurd. The church really needs to develop it’s teachings on death more, we are still talking about how the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas are fit for the 21st century, I am sure that are more merciful approach could be taken.
 
Last edited:
oliver109 said:
He is still guilty but it seems unfair for this priest to die in sin while another priest sleeps with a woman and then manages to get to Confession afterwards and then dies in grace after going to Confession, it just seems absurd. The church really needs to develop it’s teachings on death more, we are still talking about how the teachings of St Thomas Aquinas are fit for the 21st century, I am sure that are more merciful approach could be taken.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t need to be “developed”. The reason why one of those priests was damned and the other wasn’t is simple: the second one stopped committing fornication, and the other didn’t. One priest rejected God’s grace, the other accepted it. Development deepens our understanding of a teaching, it does not change what that thing is. And the doctrine is that should we not participate in the graces given freely to us by our infinitely merciful and just God, who can count the hairs on our heads and knows how many days we have left, then we die in mortal sin. We die how we wanted: separated from Him. And we end up with what we ask for, which is Hell.
 
I don’t think we die how we wanted, unless we commit suicide we were never given a choice, perhaps the priest never wanted to die in a state of mortal sin.
 
i don’t know why and also think it’s a little crazy
but it’s not for me to understand
i just wish we could cease to exist after a really long time
i know our souls are immortal but they can removed
 
Gorgias said:
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.
Click to expand...
When they are choosing this way, they do not know what they are doing. Yes people who do wicked deeds hate the light. They are hating the light because they are unaware of what the light is, that it brings life, not death. They are seeing that their wicked deeds bring fulfillment and happiness, but it is very superficial, and does not, in the long run, bring life.
Gorgias said:
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”.
Click to expand...
This does not state that it is impossible for a fully aware person to choose hell.
Gorgias said:
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
Click to expand...
When they “let” this happen, it is because they do not know what they are doing. No one wills their conscience to be blinded, at least not when it happens initially. It is a triggered effect. When the blindness is willfully maintained, it is done out of lack of awareness.
Gorgias said:
Other than the fact that I don’t have the power to do that?
Click to expand...
I said “IF you could”
Gorgias said:
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.
Click to expand...
With God, all things are possible.
Gorgias said:
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.
Click to expand...
Hell as punishment already begs the question of God’s benevolence and love of people.

Are you refusing to answer the question? Here it is again:

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?

Please, I already know you are not God. I am asking “IF you had the power to do this, would you?”
 
Vico said:
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.
Click to expand...
Even if a person has, in the content of their knowledge, “what is true and good”, what leads to sin in that case is that they are blind to what it true and good. On “person being culpable”, the Gospel calls us to forgive, not to judge or blame. Jesus showed us how to forgive through understanding that people do not know what they are doing when they sin. So, if “culpable” means “to be blamed” the word would conflict with the Gospel. Since the CCC cannot conflict with the Gospel, then “culpable” must mean “imputable” (he did the sin) or “responsible” (he is to respond for the sin).

Neither having a person own up to their sin or respond as to why they sinned makes them worthy of blame either. In fact, the person who is truly aware will own every single one of their actions and, if truly aware, can respond for every one of their actions. All of us are capable of blindness.

I don’t blame anyone, and I am not God. Does this make me more forgiving than God?
Vico said:
1801 Conscience can remain in ignorance or make erroneous judgments. Such ignorance and errors are not always free of guilt.
Click to expand...
Yes, we should indeed feel guilt when we sin, when we make erroneous judgments, which are attributable to blindness. Now, if we are talking about God not forgiving, then this brings us back to the discussion of the nature of God’s unconditional love and forgiveness. If you are talking about the Church not forgiving, then this is in conflict with the Gospel, so such is to be countered with the call to forgive.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top