Yes, in hell, but why forever

[sudy]

Let’s look at something simple, like contraceptives. A person could know that it is grave… yet still consciously use them… putting their own will before the will of God. I know people who are living like this and abstain from receiving Holy Communion. Of course this isn’t the ideal example but there are many other examples I could have given instead. I don’t think you’re allowing for concupiscence. We are inclined to sin. Some choose to do the grave sin, even while knowing. Yes, they may repent later… or they may not. Just check out oliver’s example of adultery.

Having said this much though, I do agree that we can freely choose to not sin mortally. Ultimately it’s a choice. It may be a tough decision at times, but it gets easier.

 

[claudine]

I don’t think they think it is a sin. They have ‘reasons’ like, too expensive right now to have kids etc. etc. This clouds out really seeing the ‘mortal sinness’ of it. I just don’t get that they know they are doing mortal sin. How can they sleep nights or eat properly leaded down with all that guilt. Somehow in their reason or memory they have shut down. As I said earlier its a kind of insanity or a state of temporary mental instablility. Hence, next comes the antidepressants, then on it goes, adultry perhaps, a child happens from an adulterous relationship. They finally go “Uh oh, Oh noooo”. Hence the repentence and regret I mentioned earlier. You see what I’m getting at?

 

[sudy]

I do see what you’re getting at. Mortal sin is a real possibility, though, as you acknowledged yourself a few posts ago. How rare it is isn’t really for me to determine. I can only speak from personal experience, the same as you.

 

[rightness]

I don’t think they think it is a sin. They have ‘reasons’ like, too expensive right now to have kids etc. etc. This clouds out really seeing the ‘mortal sinness’ of it. I just don’t get that they know they are doing mortal sin. How can they sleep nights or eat properly leaded down with all that guilt. Somehow in their reason or memory they have shut down. As I said earlier its a kind of insanity or a state of temporary mental instablility. Hence, next comes the antidepressants, then on it goes, adultry perhaps, a child happens from an adulterous relationship. They finally go “Uh oh, Oh noooo”. Hence the repentence and regret I mentioned earlier. You see what I’m getting at?

Just about the part about kids being too expensive, I just want to further elaborate how Moral Relativism causes havoc, and thank god for Saint Paul VI’s Humanae Vitae. All Christians, Catholic and Protestants, were in full agreement with each other in regards to contraception, then the Great Depression hit and the Anglican Church of England declared it to be licit in extreme cases. Slippery slopes are often a fallacy, but it is just what happened. One major denomination after another, they all start to say contraceptives are a good thing, even the Catholic commission by Saint John XXIII declared contraceptives to be a good thing through a majority vote, but Saint Paul VI shut it down, and that means the Catholic Church stands alone teaching against the use of contraceptives.

Contraception leads to sexual liberation, abortion, and homosexuality. A seemingly small sin turns into the culture of death. Now we have people denouncing the faith for their convenience, and some use moral relativism to bend the faith to their will through heretical thoughts like same-sex marriage.

 

[Vico]

…
All people, in their hearts, seek God.
…

Thank you for the book recommendation. It is good to remember that although persons sin, and then develop proclivity for sin, that it still cannot destroy the moral sense at its root. And we know that persons can commit mortal sin so it is not the case that sins are always done with invincible ignorance. Recall that the Catechism teaches about malice, hardness of heart, mortal sin:

Catechism

1860 … Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself. …
1864 … Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

It seems that you are describing conscience. Advertence on the part of the intellect or reason means intentional, due to consideration; contrast with the antonym inadvertent meaning accidental.

Mortal sin does require at least virtual advertence: that is, the full and free consent of the will to an evil act but the explicit intention to offend God and break His law need not be present.

Moral conscience may remain in ignorance and make erroneous judgments and this may be imputed to personal responsibility or not:

• indifferent to what is true and good - imputable,
• blinded through the habit of committing sin - imputable,
• invincible ignorance - not imputable.

And then always imputable is:

• voluntarily acting against conscience.

With passions, the will is impelled to sin through something extrinsic, however with certain malice it is intrinsic to the will itself.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 78: That cause of sin which is malice http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm

(Article 2 excerpt) But whenever he uses the vicious habit he must needs sin through certain malice: because to anyone that has a habit, whatever is befitting to him in respect of that habit, has the aspect of something lovable, since it thereby becomes, in a way, connatural to him, according as custom and habit are a second nature. Now the very thing which befits a man in respect of a vicious habit, is something that excludes a spiritual good: the result being that a man chooses a spiritual evil, that he may obtain possession of what befits him in respect of that habit: and this is to sin through certain malice. Wherefore it is evident that whoever sins through habit, sins through certain malice.

(Article 4 excerpt) It is one thing to sin while choosing, and another to sin through choosing. For he that sins through passion, sins while choosing, but not through choosing, because his choosing is not for him the first principle of his sin; for he is induced through the passion, to choose what he would not choose, were it not for the passion. On the other hand, he that sins through certain malice, chooses evil of his own accord, in the way already explained (Articles 2 and 3), so that his choosing, of which he has full control, is the principle of his sin: and for this reason he is said to sin “through” choosing.

 

[Vico]

…

(continued)
St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae > First Part of the Second Part > Question 78: That cause of sin which is malice http://www.newadvent.org/summa/2078.htm

(Article 3 excerpt) … for then alone does anyone sin through certain malice, when his will is moved to evil of its own accord. This may happen in two ways. First, through his having a corrupt disposition inclining him to evil, so that, in respect of that disposition, some evil is, as it were, suitable and similar to him; and to this thing, by reason of its suitableness, the will tends, as to something good, because everything tends, of its own accord, to that which is suitable to it. Moreover this corrupt disposition is either a habit acquired by custom, or a sickly condition on the part of the body, as in the case of a man who is naturally inclined to certain sins, by reason of some natural corruption in himself. Secondly, the will, of its own accord, may tend to an evil, through the removal of some obstacle: for instance, if a man be prevented from sinning, not through sin being in itself displeasing to him, but through hope of eternal life, or fear of hell, if hope give place to despair, or fear to presumption, he will end in sinning through certain malice, being freed from the bridle, as it were.

 

[Gorgias]

If the individual was told that the trip would be permanent, perhaps there would be some time to develop enough hopelessness.

Oh! There you go! So, not only unjust imprisonment, but ‘false witness’ to go with it! Seriously… please read the catechism!
Catechism of the Catholic Church:

1753 A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation.

No, let’s assume he’s already dead. We’re talking hypotheticals.

If he’s already dead, then he’s had his particular judgment by Christ. There’s no “change” possible at that point.

But since I am not omniscient, I can’t say that the impossible cannot occur anyway, for some unknown reason.

Umm… ok. Whatever.

 

[OneSheep]

I think that there are such people that would choose impenitence

Yes there are. However, when they do so, they do so in blindness or lack of awareness. I can prove this with many scenarios, but in order for this to be understood, you would have to verify this in your own life.

it breaks my heart to say this but there are some people who at least appear to be completely wicked

The appearance of a negative in the other is a product of our own resentment. We can start with the feeling of resentment, own it, and then own our perception of the other person. What I see as wicked in the other person is a projection of what I see as wicked in myself. It is something repressed, it has gone into one’s shadow self. While the repressed motive or capacity works to build the conscience, it also creates a self divided, an unreconciled subconscious.

We can start with the question: “Why did the person choose to do that?”, and proceed with “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand”. All human behaviors can be understood in the context of human dignity:

1. we do what we think is best
2. when the “best” is hurtful, we are either unaware, or are blinded by resentment or desire.

Now thankfully one can be pretty much certain that the great majority of humanity do seek the good, do seek a world where we are all happy but there are some people who relish in the suffering of others, do you think they could be saved?

When I have relished in the thought of others suffering, it is because I am seeking to punish what I see as wrongdoing. I am blinded by my own resentment, blinded by my desire for justice. The crowd who hung Jesus was blinded by their resentment, stemming from their desire for justice, which is essentially a function of the conscience. The did not know what they were doing. We become blind to the value of the other. It seems perfectly normal to say “He is bad”, but in so saying what has automatically happened in the mind is a devaluing, a dehumanization of the other.

 

[sudy]

This is an interesting topic. I find that as nice as some of the words are, and actually very caring too, about seeing others in this goodness light and being so blind that they aren’t responsible for their sins… I find that I can’t agree. Mortal sin destroys charity… this is love of God and love of neighbour. Love isn’t selfish and seeks the best for the other. God must come first in life. Our own desires don’t offset this, as far as I can see.

 

[OneSheep]

And we know that persons can commit mortal sin so it is not the case that sins are always done with invincible ignorance .

There is more to knowing the seriousness of a sin than simply hearing that something is sinful. It is a matter of human dignity that once a human knows all there is to know about the seriousness of a particular act, he simply will not choose to sin. All sin has the essential element of blindness or lack of awareness, and I refer back to the case of the irrational adulterer.

1860 … Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

People who make these choices do not know what they are doing.

1861 Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as is love itself.

It can be expressed as a possibility, even if it seems impossible. Expressing the possibility serves a purpose.

1864 … Such hardness of heart can lead to final impenitence and eternal loss.

Again, when people have hardness of heart, they do not know what they are doing. “Eternal” loss is what this thread is about. People recoil at the thought of God not behaving as the prodigal son’s father. The recoil indicates that they have a truthful image of God. The father loves, and forgives, unconditionally.

Mortal sin does require at least virtual advertence:

The act may be advertent, but the blindness that leads to the act is inadvertent. You would have to verify in your own life, Vico, that people do not know what they are doing when they sin. If a person is driven to hang onto guilt, this cannot be seen.

• indifferent to what is true and good - imputable,
• blinded through the habit of committing sin - imputable

Yes, this is the rubric for how we can judge other people, but we are forbidden from judging other people. We can, of course, judge ourselves, and we automatically do so. However, when we turn on the light, we can understand and forgive rather than judge. Whether an act is “imputable” or “not imputable” is essentially meaningless, when one realizes that every single choice one makes is not forced, it is to be owned.

Q: What is significant is do I blame? and Does God blame?

A: God does not blame. God understands, God forgives. God always forgives us.
A: Yes, I do blame, but God calls me to understand and forgive.

It is through prayer and reconciliation with all within that we can discover that God always forgives.

On the other hand, he that sins through certain malice, chooses evil of his own accord… so that his choosing, of which he has full control, is the principle of his sin: and for this reason he is said to sin “through” choosing.

When people so choose, they do not know what they are doing. Again, this is a seeing of human dignity that can be verified through reflection and prayer.

 

[laylow]

Real love also doesn’t come with a time limit.

 

[sudy]

The point I’m trying to make, albeit badly, is that whether they commit sin that is mortal or not, charity (love of God and neighbour) is already often being destroyed as people persist in their selfishness, with the exception of those who have invincible ignorance. Sin is death. God has written knowledge of right and wrong in our hearts… we have a conscience. Whether we have the law or not we are judged by what we are aware of… therefore right and wrong does matter and charity is everything when it comes to salvation. There is no time involved in eternity. We can only work with what is revealed. Even the lukewarm will be rejected.

 

[OneSheep]

Even the lukewarm will be rejected.

If I may cut in, what do you mean by “rejected”?

If he’s already dead, then he’s had his particular judgment by Christ. There’s no “change” possible at that point.

This, again, is an avoidance of the question. Please try to focus:

Your adult child has already died and chosen to go to hell. This is where he wants to be. Assuming that you do not want him to make this choice, you have tried everything within your power to convince him otherwise. You have the opportunity to simply let him go there, but then give him the chance to return, or you could just let him go there forever, with no chance of return.

Would you take the opportunity to give him a chance to return?

 

[laylow]

There is no time involved in eternity

Then the person shouldn’t be “locked” from changing their mind.

 

[sudy]

If I may cut in, what do you mean by “rejected”?

A poor choice of phrase really. I was in a hurry writing. I meant to say that they’re not doing the will of God.

Then the person shouldn’t be “locked” from changing their mind.

Changing your mind after sentencing is a little late, even in human courts.

 

[OneSheep]

God has written knowledge of right and wrong in our hearts… we have a conscience. Whether we have the law or not we are judged by what we are aware of… therefore right and wrong does matter and charity is everything when it comes to salvation.

Do you observe that people can be inadvertently blinded to their own conscience?

 

[sudy]

Yes, though this is after sins upon sins. It’s sin that destroys the conscience. With the exception of those who haven’t got the mental ability. Please excuse me… I’ll not be online til tomorrow now.

 

[OneSheep]

Yes, though this is after sins upon sins. It’s sin that destroys the conscience. With the exception of those who haven’t got the mental ability. Please excuse me… I’ll not be online til tomorrow now.

I observe that it happens often, and happens very quickly. People are not aware that they have become blind to their own conscience. It happens because of resentment or desire.

Here is an example: A person is in a state of desire and commits a sin, he does an act that he would ordinarily find unconscionable. Later on, when the mind is cleared of the desire, the person regrets what they have done. So, we go to the question: why did the person choose against his conscience?

 

[laylow]

Changing your mind after sentencing is a little late, even in human courts.

The judge and jury don’t “love” the accused…so not a great choice of comparison.

 

[Vico]

…

Mortal sin is committed without knowing all there is to know about the seriousness of a particular act, and therefore, to use your definition not knowing what they are doing. Mortal sin is not merely a possibility but a reality. We know, for example that Adam and Eve committed mortal sin, for they lost sanctifying grace because of it, and that is the only way that happens. Blindness that leads to sinful acts can be the result of prior sins therefore the doer is culpable for them. Mortal sin both has and continues to result from certain malice.