Where does Presumption end and Despair begin?

[Ziggamafu]

How does an individual judge his or her level of knowledge and understanding - and most importantly the freedom of the will and unhindered fullness of consent - when judging the weight of a grave sin? Even the gravest sin can be venial if one does not have a fully understood knowledge of its violation of natural law. Even the worst of grave matters, if committed, may be a venial sin if one does not have an unhampered consent toward the crime.

It would seem to me then that the discernment of an objective action is the easy part. Discernment of the subjective conditions is more difficult. It's not just "do I know that there is a list of things not to do and what I'm now doing is on it". It is, "do I understand why this is wrong; do I perceive the consequences of my actions and understand that they are so bad that I cannot justify my decision; [b]do I honestly [i]know[/i] this to be a gravely evil decision?[/b]

Similarly, it is not just "have I done the deed anyway". It is "have I deliberated about this? Have I done this deed in a free and unhampered state of being? Did I do this to achieve some kind of good? Did I feel helpless not to do it? [b]Did I honestly feel free enough to give [i]full and complete consent [/i]toward this action, and its consequences? [/b]

[i]Or did I want it;[/i] was I in a sane and calm state of mind, full of the grace and freedom necessary to make [b]a cold and calculated choice for evil to be brought into the world by my hands; [/b]have I chosen Hell on Earth - did I [i]will it [/i]to be - evil that I knew and consequences that I yearned for - the purposeful and intentional offense of a God I've decided to abandon and a Church whose salvation I've decided to sever myself from? [u]This [/u]is true mortal sin.

Every other sin, though it might be grave, twisted, deprived, and worthy of a torturous experience in Purgatory, is venial.

This is the only way I've been able to strike a balance between despair and presumption. Anyone disagree?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

St. Alphonsus de Liguori taught that if it's mortal sin, you'll know it beyond reasonable doubt.

[philothea]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Dec 26 2005, 08:34 AM']This is the only way I've been able to strike a balance between despair and presumption. Anyone disagree?
[right][snapback]836289[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sounds exactly right to me.

I assume that this analysis goes along with the desire to avoid all venial sins too?

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Dec 26 2005, 08:34 AM']How does an individual judge his or her level of knowledge and understanding - and most importantly the freedom of the will and unhindered fullness of consent - when judging the weight of a grave sin? Even the gravest sin can be venial if one does not have a fully understood knowledge of its violation of natural law. Even the worst of grave matters, if committed, may be a venial sin if one does not have an unhampered consent toward the crime.

It would seem to me then that the discernment of an objective action is the easy part. Discernment of the subjective conditions is more difficult. It's not just "do I know that there is a list of things not to do and what I'm now doing is on it". It is, "do I understand why this is wrong; do I perceive the consequences of my actions and understand that they are so bad that I cannot justify my decision; [b]do I honestly [i]know[/i] this to be a gravely evil decision?[/b]

Similarly, it is not just "have I done the deed anyway". It is "have I deliberated about this? Have I done this deed in a free and unhampered state of being? Did I do this to achieve some kind of good? Did I feel helpless not to do it? [b]Did I honestly feel free enough to give [i]full and complete consent [/i]toward this action, and its consequences? [/b]

[i]Or did I want it;[/i] was I in a sane and calm state of mind, full of the grace and freedom necessary to make [b]a cold and calculated choice for evil to be brought into the world by my hands; [/b]have I chosen Hell on Earth - did I [i]will it [/i]to be - evil that I knew and consequences that I yearned for - the purposeful and intentional offense of a God I've decided to abandon and a Church whose salvation I've decided to sever myself from? [u]This [/u]is true mortal sin.

Every other sin, though it might be grave, twisted, deprived, and worthy of a torturous experience in Purgatory, is venial.

This is the only way I've been able to strike a balance between despair and presumption. Anyone disagree?
[right][snapback]836289[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
While I can't presume to know the state of anyone else's soul, and while it's not prefectly clear exactly what kind of situations you are talking about in this post, this seems from my reading to be a dangerously presumptious and lenient mindset for to take for one's spiritual life, and one not in accord with Catholic orthodoxy.

If one commits an act he knows is gravely sinful, but does it freely and willingly (not unconsciously or accidentally, or forced from without), he has committed mortal sin.

He does not have to make a "make a cold and calculated choice for evil to be brought into the world" or deliberately "choose hell on earth" or consciously intend to seperate himself from God and salvation to commit a mortal sin!

Almost no one sins with such intentions, yet mortal sins are commited frequently.

For instance, most sexual sins are not committed with the deliberate intent of damning oneself, or committed out of cold hatred of God, yet if done freely and deliberately, they are mortal.

Sins involving grave matter are not mortally sinful only if the person honestly and sincerely believes (out of invincible ignorance) that the action is not seriously wrong, or if the person was not fully conscious of his actions, or was forced by someone else against his will.

A prolonged reflection on the evil of one's actions is not necessary to make them mortally sinful.

It is all too easy to excuse one's own sinful actions.

Sin is the choosing of a lower good over a higher good. In most mortal sins, the higher good is simply conveniently ignored.
Sins committed for the sake of evil or itself, or with the deliberate purpose of offending God are quite rare, and while they are the most serious, this is not necessary for a sin to be mortal.

Despair is believing one's sins cannot be forgiven by God, or that one is destined for damnation and cannot be saved.
That is a different matter from realizing that one is guilty of mortal sin.

I'd suggest consulting a good, orthodox priest if you have further questions about this.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

I do not think that it has to be THAT hard to commit a mortal sin. No one would if the conditions were that it was definitely grave matter, that they did it with absolute depth of understanding and full desire to burn in hell as a result.

However, it does require a simple knowledge that the act is gravely evil and that the act was freely committed (that is, that it was consciously decided upon and acted out without coercion and that the actor truly owns the act...it is his own).

However, one must desire to do what one knows to be objectively grave matter. He must do so with full use of his will (not so hard as it seems...a will which struggles internally and still acts is still freely acting). He must also know that the matter is grave and have no mental defect which would impede this ability.

The problem comes when one person says "it's so easy to commit a mortal sin" and another says "no, it's not!"

The fact is that for some who are beginning the spiritual journey or sometimes others who've fallen from the heights, it is easy...they say to themselves, "well, it would be a sin, I know that...and a big sin...but I want to do it because of such-and-such." Almost no one does it because they just want to offend God...that's not what we strive for. A person who is beginning on the spiritual journey is not so good at recognizing when he is approaching moral dilemmas with a scale, trying to balance out good and evil. This approach is called teleology and it's a faulty approach.

A person more advanced in the spiritual journey, however, says, "it would be a sin...and there is nothing that would excuse that." He sees the objective value of the sin and knows that there is no excuse. He sees that whatever pleasures he would get, they are not worth the eternal treasures he would lose, nor the offense he would commit against God.

It has to do with focus...the more our focus shifts toward God, the harder it is going to be for us to focus on temporal things. We will see a moral dilemma and more immediately and more resolutely focus our attention on God's will (albeit we all miss the mark everyday).

I think this attempt at discerning the difference comes from scrupulosity. Very often, the scrupulant can tell the confessor what the Catechism says about sins without any real trouble. The problem arises when he says, "but what if? What if my understanding is wrong? What if I didn't know? What if this? What if that?"

The fact is that the scrupulant torments himself so much with these questions, which kindle the excessive fear of hell, that he can no longer decide anything decisively. It's all possibilities...all uncertainties...what-if's are in command.

God did not intend our moral decisions to be like that. The Church outlines the distinctions entirely for the purpose of our knowing whether we have sinned. She does not desire for us to stand before God at the Gate of Heaven trying to split the hairs of every one of our acts. That's not the Church's will.

If you aren't certain from first glance in examination that you committed a mortal sin, then don't worry. That's one of the rules St. Alphonsus de Liguori set out.

In the words of one of the priest-professors at Franciscan, "you can't commit a mortal sin without knowing it. If you don't know if you committed a mortal sin, then there is no mortal sin."

The more you dig into yourself and beat yourself down with questions, trying to convict yourself of what is not there, the more blinded you become to the venial sins you commit, the more blinded you become to God's grace and mercy, and the more blinded you become to the whole purpose of the Church's teaching. The Church's teachings are not there to convict us...we are their to convict ourselves. We should not convict ourselves unless we know beyond [b]reasonable[/b] doubt that we have committed a sin. The teachings serve to inform our consciences to be proper judges, not to be the judges themselves.

Stop beating yourself up. Satan invented magic...he knows how to use smoke and mirrors and he knows that the more he wears you down, the more willing you will be to despair.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='philothea' date='Dec 26 2005, 11:19 AM']Sounds exactly right to me. 

I assume that this analysis goes along with the desire to avoid all venial sins too?
[right][snapback]836355[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Of course. Plus, the idea goes along with the belief that Purgatory is a truly terrible experience. And venial sins should still be confessed.

If that's not the way it works then people would have to go to confession DAILY. Grave matters ("white" lies, dishonor toward parents, cursing or saying a sacred name lightly, etc.) are committed by even the best of Christians every day. Either we have to be terrified that we'll die before we can get our clutches on an unsuspecting priest or we'll be pounding on a priest's door moring and night. Or I'm right.

More and more I firmly believe that the only sin that won't be forgiven in this world or the next is the conscious rejection of God; the choice for Hell. This fits not only into what Jesus said, but with common sense. If you have full knowledge and understanding and a completely unhampered consent of a free will and yet commit a grave matter anyway, you're not just committing a sin - you are rejecting God, point blank. You are choosing Hell. And I believe that the only reason people go to Hell is because they choose it.

And think of this: if I'm wrong, then Mother Church would be an awful Mother to only require me to go to Confession once a year. Sure she encourages me to go more frequently. But she only requires me to go once a year. For having the wisdom of God, that sure sounds like a stretch if mortal sins are committed daily.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Dec 27 2005, 05:49 AM']Of course. Plus, the idea goes along with the belief that Purgatory is a truly terrible experience. And venial sins should still be confessed.

If that's not the way it works then people would have to go to confession DAILY. Grave matters ("white" lies, dishonor toward parents, cursing or saying a sacred name lightly, etc.) are committed by even the best of Christians every day. Either we have to be terrified that we'll die before we can get our clutches on an unsuspecting priest or we'll be pounding on a priest's door moring and night. Or I'm right.

More and more I firmly believe that the only sin that won't be forgiven in this world or the next is the conscious rejection of God; the choice for Hell. This fits not only into what Jesus said, but with common sense. If you have full knowledge and understanding and a completely unhampered consent of a free will and yet commit a grave matter anyway, you're not just committing a sin - you are rejecting God, point blank. You are choosing Hell. And I believe that the only reason people go to Hell is because they choose it.

And think of this: if I'm wrong, then Mother Church would be an awful Mother to only require me to go to Confession once a year. Sure she encourages me to go more frequently. But she only requires me to go once a year. For having the wisdom of God, that sure sounds like a stretch if mortal sins are committed daily.
[right][snapback]836767[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm sorry, but your posting shows a lack of understanding about the meaning of mortal and venial sin, and what the Church teaches about mortal and venial sin.

"Mortal" does not mean "unforgivable." Mortal sin cuts us off from God's grace. It can still be forgiven in the sacrament of confession, (or by extraordinary means if God so grants in His Mercy.)

And not all sin is "grave matter." For instance, "white lies," mild disrespect to parents, or careless use of the Lord's name would in most cases be venial sin.
Lying about a serious matter or under oath, serious dishonoring of one's parents, and actually calling on God's name to curse another or to blaspheme would be mortal.

This is in the same way that stealing a dime would be venial sin, but stealing, say, $100.00 would be mortal sin.

Yearly confession is a [b]minimal[/b] requirement (what is necessary for one to call himself Catholic). One is supposed to go to confession as soon as possible after commiting mortal sin, and may mean frequent confession for many (I need to go pretty often myself). But how this implies [b]daily[/b] confession for everybody is beyond me. If one commits mortal sin on a daily basis, it is unlikely he is making much of an attempt to live a Christian life.
Some saintly people may never commit mortal sin.

You seem to have the impression that either every sin is mortal, or that one can only commit mortal sin by deliberately willing one's own damnation and consciously and coldly rejecting God.
Both these views are false and heretical.

I suggest you talk to one of the Church Scholars on this site, or an orthodox priest, and maybe they can recommend some good Catholic reading on this subject.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' date='Dec 27 2005, 05:49 AM'] You are choosing Hell. And I believe that the only reason people go to Hell is because they choose it.
[/quote]
For the most part you are correct. A person may "choose" hell by the general intent or direction of his life and sins; they do not have to have the intent of daming themselves in mind. It is enough to commit a mortal sin with the knowledge that it is wrong. One may murder another not intending to beaver dam himself, yet if he does not confess and do penance he will most likely suffer an ill fate.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 27 2005, 08:56 PM']...an ill fate.
[right][snapback]837272[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Just so everyone knows, Paphnutius ALWAYS speaks like this...it's not just type.

[Paphnutius]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Dec 27 2005, 08:11 PM'] Just so everyone knows, Paphnutius ALWAYS speaks like this...it's not just type.
[right][snapback]837294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Quid? not just a type?

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Paphnutius' date='Dec 27 2005, 09:13 PM']  Quid? not just a type? 
[right][snapback]837296[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I mean that you speak this way...it's not just your writing. :

Novice, we need to talk sometime. I hear a friend of mine is headed to seminary at CSC. I'll have to visit.

[philothea]

[quote name='Raphael' date='Dec 27 2005, 08:11 PM'] Just so everyone knows, Paphnutius ALWAYS speaks like this...it's not just type.
[right][snapback]837294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
That's so cool.

[Ash Wednesday]

I tend to think that mortal sin happens as a result of a certain predisposition prior to it being committed. I view venial sins as something that bring us towards that predisposition. Oftentimes I think when people commit mortal sin, they know it is wrong, and at the same time they simply don't seem to care about the possibility of damnation. Habitual venial sin leads to a "whatever" attitude and hardness of heart. It's like they "don't give a beaver dam."

I think many people that fall out of God's grace really "know better" along the way and do very little, even though they see the warning signs. I guess I interpret it as being a process, like conversion, only in the opposite direction.

In the end, the best way to find that balance between despair and presumption is to form a correct conscience.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 27 2005, 10:46 PM']I tend to think that mortal sin happens as a result of a certain predisposition prior to it being committed. I view venial sins as something that bring us towards that predisposition. Oftentimes I think when people commit mortal sin, they know it is wrong, and at the same time they simply don't seem to care about the possibility of damnation. Habitual venial sin leads to a "whatever" attitude and hardness of heart. It's like they "don't give a beaver dam."

I think many people that fall out of God's grace really "know better" along the way and do very little, even though they see the warning signs.  I guess I interpret it as being a process, like conversion, only in the opposite direction.

In the end, the best way to find that balance between despair and presumption is to form a correct conscience.
[right][snapback]837375[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
At the same time, we have to avoid falling into the fundamental option theory (there's a fundamental option involved, but not to the extent that the theory proclaims).

[Ash Wednesday]

You'll have to elaborate on fundamental option, because I'm not quite sure what that means and whether or not my observations fall into that category. Is that the heresy where it is claimed that people can form a conscience not necessarily in conformity with the Church?

Edited December 28, 2005 by Ash Wednesday

[Ash Wednesday]

[url="http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/fundoptn.htm"]http://www.ourladyswarriors.org/dissent/fundoptn.htm[/url]

[quote]Finally, the Pope notes, according to heretical teaching about fundamental option, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behavior were deliberately and gravely contrary to God's commandments as set forth by the Church. [/quote]

Just to note when I mean forming a correct conscience of course I mean in conformity with the church.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 27 2005, 11:11 PM']You'll have to elaborate on fundamental option, because I'm not quite sure what that means and whether or not my observations fall into that category. Is that the heresy where it is claimed that people can form a conscience not necessarily in conformity with the Church?
[right][snapback]837386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
The Fundamental Option Theory is the one where people say "well, I'm basically a good person, even though I fornicate and murder...so I'll go to heaven "

It creates a false dichotomy between the moral life and real life. It says that as long as I'm fundamentally on God's side, I can go ahead and commit as many and whatever sins I wish.

This is what Pope John Paul the Great had to say in [url="http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_06081993_veritatis-splendor_en.html"]Veritatis Splendor[/url]:

[quote]III. Fundamental choice and specific kinds of behaviour


"Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh" (Gal 5:13)

65. The heightened concern for freedom in our own day has led many students of the behavioural and the theological sciences to develop a more penetrating analysis of its nature and of its dynamics. It has been rightly pointed out that freedom is not only the choice for one or another particular action; it is also, within that choice, a decision about oneself and a setting of one's own life for or against the Good, for or against the Truth, and ultimately for or against God. Emphasis has rightly been placed on the importance of certain choices which "shape" a person's entire moral life, and which serve as bounds within which other particular everyday choices can be situated and allowed to develop.

Some authors, however, have proposed an even more radical revision of the relationship between person and acts. They speak of a "fundamental freedom", deeper than and different from freedom of choice, which needs to be considered if human actions are to be correctly understood and evaluated. According to these authors, the key role in the moral life is to be attributed to a "fundamental option", brought about by that fundamental freedom whereby the person makes an overall self-determination, not through a specific and conscious decision on the level of reflection, but in a "transcendental" and "athematic" way. Particular acts which flow from this option would constitute only partial and never definitive attempts to give it expression; they would only be its "signs" or symptoms. The immediate object of such acts would not be absolute Good (before which the freedom of the person would be expressed on a transcendental level), but particular (also termed "categorical" ) goods. In the opinion of some theologians, none of these goods, which by their nature are partial, could determine the freedom of man as a person in his totality, even though it is only by bringing them about or refusing to do so that man is able to express his own fundamental option.

A distinction thus comes to be introduced between the fundamental option and deliberate choices of a concrete kind of behaviour. In some authors this division tends to become a separation, when they expressly limit moral "good" and "evil" to the transcendental dimension proper to the fundamental option, and describe as "right" or "wrong" the choices of particular "innerworldly" kinds of behaviour: those, in other words, concerning man's relationship with himself, with others and with the material world. There thus appears to be established within human acting a clear disjunction between two levels of morality: on the one hand the order of good and evil, which is dependent on the will, and on the other hand specific kinds of behaviour, which are judged to be morally right or wrong only on the basis of a technical calculation of the proportion between the "premoral" or "physical" goods and evils which actually result from the action. This is pushed to the point where a concrete kind of behaviour, even one freely chosen, comes to be considered as a merely physical process, and not according to the criteria proper to a human act. The conclusion to which this eventually leads is that the properly moral assessment of the person is reserved to his fundamental option, prescinding in whole or in part from his choice of particular actions, of concrete kinds of behaviour.

66. There is no doubt that Christian moral teaching, even in its Biblical roots, acknowledges the specific importance of a fundamental choice which qualifies the moral life and engages freedom on a radical level before God. It is a question of the decision of faith, of the obedience of faith (cf. Rom 16:26) "by which man makes a total and free self-commitment to God, offering 'the full submission of intellect and will to God as he reveals' ". This faith, which works through love (cf. Gal 5:6), comes from the core of man, from his "heart" (cf. Rom 10:10), whence it is called to bear fruit in works (cf. Mt 12:33-35; Lk 6:43-45; Rom 8:5-10; Gal 5:22). In the Decalogue one finds, as an introduction to the various commandments, the basic clause: "I am the Lord your God..." (Ex 20:2), which, by impressing upon the numerous and varied particular prescriptions their primordial meaning, gives the morality of the Covenant its aspect of completeness, unity and profundity. Israel's fundamental decision, then, is about the fundamental commandment (cf. Jos 24:14-25; Ex 19:3-8; Mic 6:8). The morality of the New Covenant is similarly dominated by the fundamental call of Jesus to follow him — thus he also says to the young man: "If you wish to be perfect... then come, follow me" (Mt 19:21); to this call the disciple must respond with a radical decision and choice. The Gospel parables of the treasure and the pearl of great price, for which one sells all one's possessions, are eloquent and effective images of the radical and unconditional nature of the decision demanded by the Kingdom of God. The radical nature of the decision to follow Jesus is admirably expressed in his own words: "Whoever would save his life will lose it; and whoever loses his life for my sake and the Gospel's will save it" (Mk 8:35).

Jesus' call to "come, follow me" marks the greatest possible exaltation of human freedom, yet at the same time it witnesses to the truth and to the obligation of acts of faith and of decisions which can be described as involving a fundamental option. We find a similar exaltation of human freedom in the words of Saint Paul: "You were called to freedom, brethren" (Gal 5:13). But the Apostle immediately adds a grave warning: "Only do not use your freedom as an opportunity for the flesh". This warning echoes his earlier words: "For freedom Christ has set us free; stand fast therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery" (Gal 5:1). Paul encourages us to be watchful, because freedom is always threatened by slavery. And this is precisely the case when an act of faith — in the sense of a fundamental option — becomes separated from the choice of particular acts, as in the tendencies mentioned above.

67. These tendencies are therefore contrary to the teaching of Scripture itself, which sees the fundamental option as a genuine choice of freedom and links that choice profoundly to particular acts. By his fundamental choice, man is capable of giving his life direction and of progressing, with the help of grace, towards his end, following God's call. But this capacity is actually exercised in the particular choices of specific actions, through which man deliberately conforms himself to God's will, wisdom and law. It thus needs to be stated that the so-called fundamental option, to the extent that it is distinct from a generic intention and hence one not yet determined in such a way that freedom is obligated, is always brought into play through conscious and free decisions. Precisely for this reason, it is revoked when man engages his freedom in conscious decisions to the contrary, with regard to morally grave matter.

To separate the fundamental option from concrete kinds of behaviour means to contradict the substantial integrity or personal unity of the moral agent in his body and in his soul. A fundamental option understood without explicit consideration of the potentialities which it puts into effect and the determinations which express it does not do justice to the rational finality immanent in man's acting and in each of his deliberate decisions. In point of fact, the morality of human acts is not deduced only from one's intention, orientation or fundamental option, understood as an intention devoid of a clearly determined binding content or as an intention with no corresponding positive effort to fulfil the different obligations of the moral life. Judgments about morality cannot be made without taking into consideration whether or not the deliberate choice of a specific kind of behaviour is in conformity with the dignity and integral vocation of the human person. Every choice always implies a reference by the deliberate will to the goods and evils indicated by the natural law as goods to be pursued and evils to be avoided. In the case of the positive moral precepts, prudence always has the task of verifying that they apply in a specific situation, for example, in view of other duties which may be more important or urgent. But the negative moral precepts, those prohibiting certain concrete actions or kinds of behaviour as intrinsically evil, do not allow for any legitimate exception. They do not leave room, in any morally acceptable way, for the "creativity" of any contrary determination whatsoever. Once the moral species of an action prohibited by a universal rule is concretely recognized, the only morally good act is that of obeying the moral law and of refraining from the action which it forbids.

68. Here an important pastoral consideration must be added. According to the logic of the positions mentioned above, an individual could, by virtue of a fundamental option, remain faithful to God independently of whether or not certain of his choices and his acts are in conformity with specific moral norms or rules. By virtue of a primordial option for charity, that individual could continue to be morally good, persevere in God's grace and attain salvation, even if certain of his specific kinds of behaviour were deliberately and gravely contrary to God's commandments as set forth by the Church.

In point of fact, man does not suffer perdition only by being unfaithful to that fundamental option whereby he has made "a free self-commitment to God". With every freely committed mortal sin, he offends God as the giver of the law and as a result becomes guilty with regard to the entire law (cf. Jas 2:8-11); even if he perseveres in faith, he loses "sanctifying grace", "charity" and "eternal happiness".  As the Council of Trent teaches, "the grace of justification once received is lost not only by apostasy, by which faith itself is lost, but also by any other mortal sin".


Mortal and venial sin

69. As we have just seen, reflection on the fundamental option has also led some theologians to undertake a basic revision of the traditional distinction between mortal sins and venial sins. They insist that the opposition to God's law which causes the loss of sanctifying grace — and eternal damnation, when one dies in such a state of sin — could only be the result of an act which engages the person in his totality: in other words, an act of fundamental option. According to these theologians, mortal sin, which separates man from God, only exists in the rejection of God, carried out at a level of freedom which is neither to be identified with an act of choice nor capable of becoming the object of conscious awareness. Consequently, they go on to say, it is difficult, at least psychologically, to accept the fact that a Christian, who wishes to remain united to Jesus Christ and to his Church, could so easily and repeatedly commit mortal sins, as the "matter" itself of his actions would sometimes indicate. Likewise, it would be hard to accept that man is able, in a brief lapse of time, to sever radically the bond of communion with God and afterwards be converted to him by sincere repentance. The gravity of sin, they maintain, ought to be measured by the degree of engagement of the freedom of the person performing an act, rather than by the matter of that act.

70. The Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia reaffirmed the importance and permanent validity of the distinction between mortal and venial sins, in accordance with the Church's tradition. And the 1983 Synod of Bishops, from which that Exhortation emerged, "not only reaffirmed the teaching of the Council of Trent concerning the existence and nature of mortal and venial sins, but it also recalled that mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent".

The statement of the Council of Trent does not only consider the "grave matter" of mortal sin; it also recalls that its necessary condition is "full awareness and deliberate consent". In any event, both in moral theology and in pastoral practice one is familiar with cases in which an act which is grave by reason of its matter does not constitute a mortal sin because of a lack of full awareness or deliberate consent on the part of the person performing it. Even so, "care will have to be taken not to reduce mortal sin to an act of 'fundamental option' — as is commonly said today — against God", seen either as an explicit and formal rejection of God and neighbour or as an implicit and unconscious rejection of love. "For mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered. In fact, such a choice already includes contempt for the divine law, a rejection of God's love for humanity and the whole of creation: the person turns away from God and loses charity. Consequently, the fundamental orientation can be radically changed by particular acts. Clearly, situations can occur which are very complex and obscure from a psychological viewpoint, and which influence the sinner's subjective imputability. But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category, which is precisely what the 'fundamental option' is, understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin".

The separation of fundamental option from deliberate choices of particular kinds of behaviour, disordered in themselves or in their circumstances, which would not engage that option, thus involves a denial of Catholic doctrine on mortal sin: "With the whole tradition of the Church, we call mortal sin the act by which man freely and consciously rejects God, his law, the covenant of love that God offers, preferring to turn in on himself or to some created and finite reality, something contrary to the divine will (conversio ad creaturam). This can occur in a direct and formal way, in the sins of idolatry, apostasy and atheism; or in an equivalent way, as in every act of disobedience to God's commandments in a grave matter".[/quote]

[Socrates]

[quote name='Ash Wednesday' date='Dec 27 2005, 10:11 PM']You'll have to elaborate on fundamental option, because I'm not quite sure what that means and whether or not my observations fall into that category. Is that the heresy where it is claimed that people can form a conscience not necessarily in conformity with the Church?
[right][snapback]837386[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Raphael gives a more complete answer, but in a nutshell, "Fundamental Option Theory" is the heresy that one's eternal salvation or damnation is determined by a single choice choice of the will, for or against God, and that individual sins are pretty much irrelevant.

Ziggamafu's posts seem to have hints of this idea, as do "Snarf's" theories.

[Ziggamafu]

Hmm...I guess I feel it's more of a single choice for or against that which you've come to realize is Truth (and because I'm Catholic, that means the Catechism, basically).

The passage where Jesus mentions the "unforgivable sin" is usually used as a defense for Purgatory, which would mean that all sins but the fundamental rejection of God, who is Truth, can be wiped away in Purgatory.

[Ash Wednesday]

Thanks for the simpified nutshell, Soccer Tease. : (And thanks Raph for the valiant efforts as well...)

I is an edyookated Kaflick.