Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Liberal dioceses and communities interpret the Catechism on morals and faith(salvation) with an irrationality

cover
Usually a diocese or religious community is liberal/progressivist because they have changed  the teachings of the Catholic Church on morals and faith by interpreting the Catechism of the Catholic Church with an irrationality.Once the irrationality is identified and the change made the community or diocese has a traditional interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

I am thinking of communities  who interpret the Catechism on salvation (846)  by assuming we can judge those saved in invincible ignorance and the baptism of desire. The catechism does not state that these cases are physically visible to us and so are exceptions.However it is wrongly assumed as such.There is a new doctrine created there is a change in doctrine.

When there is dissent on a faith doctrine it is possible that there will follow dissent on morals.
It is assumed that we can judge in the case of morals, known exceptions to the traditional teaching on mortal sin.Deliberate consent and full knowledge mentioned in the catechism as conditions for mortal sin are assumed to be known exceptions to be able to say clearly that a mortal sin is a mortal as mentioned in Veritatis Splendor. So there are liberal Catholics who say that we can no more judge if immodesty in clothes is a mortal sin. Since for them the objective reality does not indicate the subjective thinking. This is  contrary to Veritatis Splendor. Neither does the Catechism of the Catholic Church mention this way of thinking.
The liberals assume that the subjective thinking of a Catholic in mortal sin , is assumed to be objective and innocent.As if they can read minds and  visibly see thoughts and motivation. In other words they can judge.They will judge the way they want to.They  assume that full knowledge and deliberate consent are objective even though the Catechism does not say this.
 
If they are not objective how can they be new exceptions to the traditional thinking on mortal sin?

This is irrational. We cannoy  judge or see or know the subjective thinking of a person who is in obvious mortal sin. We cannot say that he has a fundamental option for good or that we can read thoughts of the lack of full knowledge, deliberate consent or freedom in action.

In the dioceses of England, Australia i have noticed  these two errors are made regarding mortal sin and the issue of outside the church there is no salvation.Mortal Sins of faith and morals are condoned because of an irrational interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church  and persons in obvious mortal sin are allowed to receive the Eucharist.
-Lionel Andrades

Liberal catechesis on mortal sin by Jimmy Akins

Veritatis Splendor seems the least cited  encyclical of Pope John Paul II which is quoted.Whenever the Catechism of the Catholic Church is cited on mortal sin Veritatis Splendor is excluded.So we have the liberal interpretation of mortal sin, which is that we can never know when someone is in mortal sin.
Jimmy Akin 
Jimmy Akins convert apologist in  the National Catholic Register also excludes the teaching of Veritatis Splendor.The use of contraception is a mortal sin.Period. If someone 1) has full knowledge and 2) deliberate consent we cannot judge. These exceptions would be known only to God.
 
So if a Catholic has used contraception she should be genuinely sorry and go for Confession. Since if that women dies immediately, she is going to Hell.If she  receives the Sacrament of Reconciliation, which is God's Mercy,it  still means spending time in Purgatory,after death, where there is a fire and the suffering is more intense than that of earth.
 
However we have an example of a bad catechises by Jimmy Akins who is projecting a liberal non traditional interpretation of mortal sin.
The encyclical on moral theology, Veritatis Splendor is never quoted by Akins. The encyclical says mortal sin is objective and does not depend on subjective conditions.
 
Here is Jimmy Akins
 
Jimmy Akins :
What Mortal Sin Is
Although Catholics sometimes say things like “contraception is a mortal sin” or “sleeping together outside of marriage is a mortal sin,” this is a form of shorthand.
For a person to truly commit a mortal sin, more than a mere act of contraception or a mere act of fornication is needed.

Lionel:
False.A mortal sin is objective and obvious.There may be some sins which are not known to us .In general the use of contraception,abortion etc are always mortal sins.
 
Jimmy Akins:
According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1857 For a sin to be mortal, three conditions must together be met: “Mortal sin is sin whose object is grave matter and which is also committed with full knowledge and deliberate consent.”
Let’s look at those three conditions

Grave Matter
If a married couple contracepts or if an unmarried couple has sexual relations, this fulfills the first of the three conditions: They have committed a “sin whose object is grave matter.”
 
Lionel:
It is grave matter and it is a mortal sin.
 
But the other two conditions must also be fulfilled for the sin to be a mortal one.
 
Lionel:
False. The other two conditions are known only to God.
 
In our shorthand way of speaking, we’re warning people against doing these things, because if the additional two conditions are fulfilled, it will be a mortal sin, but if they are not fulfilled then it won’t be.
 
Lionel:
If they are fulfilled or if they are not fulfilled it will never be known to us.
 
Jimmy Akins:
Full Knowledge
The second condition involves having “full knowledge,” and here is where the reader’s remarks about society come into play.
The reader acknowledges that society makes it difficult for people to do what the Church teaches.
 
Lionel:
Irrespective of what society is or was, a mortal sin is always a mortal sin.
One of the ways it does that is by feeding them a constant narrative—through the media, through social interactions—that contradicts the Church’s teaching.
 
Lionel:
Deep within our heart we all know what is right and wrong.
 
Even within the Church, there have been many people (priests, nuns, catechists) who have undermined the Church’s teaching in recent years.
We’ve had really bad catechises for the last 40 years, as well as an assault on Church teaching by society and the media in general.
 
Lionel:
Including this report by Akins.It is the same liberal teaching on morals without any reference to Veritatis Splendor.
 
The result, as the reader notes, is that many people committing acts that are objectively gravely sinful do not believe that this is what they are doing.
As a result, for many of these people, the second condition needed for mortal sin may simply be lacking. On this point, the Catechism notes:
1859 Mortal sin . . . presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law.
1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense.
Lionel:
There could be ignorance in a person who is mentally retarded but in general Catholics know the faith, especially since they are given the Eucharist freely.
If a person is ignorant of sin then that Catholic should also not be eligible to receive the Eucharist.
 
This is likely the case with a large number of people who have been the victims of bad catechises and the constant subversion of the Church’s teaching by society and the media.
On the other hand, if someone has a kind of willful blindness, that won’t let them off the hook:
1859 Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.
How many people fall into this latter category? See below.
 
Jimmy Akins:
Deliberate Consent
The third condition is that of deliberate consent. According to the Catechism:
1859 Mortal sin . . . implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice.
 
Lionel:
The liberal catechises continues here. In some extraordinary case deliberate consent would be important and finally Jimmy Akins would not be able to judge.
A mortal sin is a mortal sin and we cannot judge deliberate consent .
 
1860 The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.
Lionel:
A mortal sin is a mortal sin (Veritatis Splendor) and the outward action indicates the inner intention. For Akins it is the reverse. This was the error of Fr.Charles Curran and Fr.Bernard Haring.
 
This means that the brief thoughts that flit through your mind and that you try to get rid of swiftly are not mortally sinful. You are not deliberately consenting to them.
You’re only doing that if you purposefully dwell on and foster them.
 
Lionel:
True.
 
In the same way, “the prompting of feelings and passions”—to which young people in particular are subject—“can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense.”
 
Lionel:
Sin emerges through promptings of feelings and passions but if one indulges them it is a mortal sin, if the matter is grave.
 
So can “external pressures” and “pathological disorders.”
 
Lionel:
Pathological disorders and external pressures will be decided by God on the Day of Judgement.
 
So even when people have committed a sin with grave matter and done so with full knowledge of its sinfulness, there are a number of things that could keep the third condition from being fulfilled and thus keep it from being a mortal sin.
 
Lionel:
Completely false!The second and third condition are known only to God. According to Veritatis Splendor the external objective sin indicates the inner intention. Not vice versa.
 
Jimmy Akins:
The State of American Catholics
Given the factors mentioned above, the situation for American Catholics does not look quite as bleak.
While it is true that many of them are committing sins that have grave matter, between poor catechises in Church, society’s constant assault on Church teaching, and the various factors that diminish the voluntary and free character of a sin, quite a number of them likely do not have all three conditions fulfilled.
 
Also, even when all three conditions are fulfilled and a sin is mortal, that does not mean a person will be damned.
It means that they would be damned if they died right now without repenting, but God is patient and gives us time to repent, and many people do before they die.
 
Lionel:
Correct. He is saying that if they died immediately without repenting, without receiving absolution in the Sacrament of Reconciliation they would be damned.
 
Thus, for example, St. Paul tells Timothy:
So shun youthful passions and aim at righteousness, faith, love, and peace, along with those who call upon the Lord from a pure heart [2 Tim. 2:22].
And the Psalmist says:
Remember not the sins of my youth, or my transgressions [Ps. 25:7].
These passages acknowledge that young people in particular are subject to certain temptations and sins but, as they age, they tend to drop these and often repent, regretting what they did in their youth.
This is another sign of hope.
Now let’s look at the reader’s fundamental question . . .
Lionel:
Just Cardinal Richard Cushing took a possibility, projected it as a known actuality in the present times and then assumed it was an exception to the traditional teaching on salvation and the need for Catholic Faith, Jimmy Akins is taking  a possibility known only to God, projecting it as a known reality and then assuming it is a variation, a development or change in the traditional teaching on morals, in particular mortal sin.
Like Archbishop Richard Cushing of Boston, Jimmy Akin also assumes that the baptism of desire and being saved in invincible ignorance are known exceptions to the traditional teaching on salvation and in particular the dogma extra ecclesiam nulla salus.The dogma mentions Hell has fire and that most people are on the way to Hell, as Jesus said the way to Hell is wide and most people take it.

Jimmy Akins uses a false premise in the interpretation of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on salvation and mortal sin.
 
How Many People Go To Hell?
We can’t really know this.
Different figures in Church history have had different viewpoints on the question, and the Church itself does not have a teaching on the matter.
Some passages of Scripture seem to have a pessimistic tone but others seem to have an optimistic tone.
We also should be careful in taking the pessimistic ones and applying them directly to our own age, because they were written in and about an age in which the world was swallowed in pagan darkness and the knowledge of the true God and his Son was severely limited compared to today.
For its part, the Church teaches the real possibility of dying in mortal sin and of eternal damnation, but it does not teach how many people experience this in practice.
It is worth looking, however, at a recent statement of former Pope Benedict’s . . .

Pope Benedict on Christian Hope
In his encyclical Spe Salvi, Pope Benedict noted:
45. With death, our life-choice becomes definitive—our life stands before the judge. Our choice, which in the course of an entire life takes on a certain shape, can have a variety of forms.
There can be people who have totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love, people for whom everything has become a lie, people who have lived for hatred and have suppressed all love within themselves.
This is a terrifying thought, but alarming profiles of this type can be seen in certain figures of our own history.
In such people all would be beyond remedy and the destruction of good would be irrevocable: this is what we mean by the word Hell.
On the other hand there can be people who are utterly pure, completely permeated by God, and thus fully open to their neighbours—people for whom communion with God even now gives direction to their entire being and whose journey towards God only brings to fulfilment what they already are.
46. Yet we know from experience that neither case is normal in human life.
For the great majority of people—we may suppose—there remains in the depths of their being an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God.
In the concrete choices of life, however, it is covered over by ever new compromises with evil—much filth covers purity, but the thirst for purity remains and it still constantly re-emerges from all that is base and remains present in the soul.
 
Pope Benedict then goes on to discuss how these people, in the middle group, experience purgatory so that they can be purified and enter the full glory of heaven.
Pope Benedict thus seems to take a somewhat optimistic view of individual salvation. He suggests that, based on experience, “we may suppose” that “the great majority of people” do not fall into the category of those who have “totally destroyed their desire for truth and readiness to love.”
 
They fall, instead, into the category of those who “in the depths of their being” have “an ultimate interior openness to truth, to love, to God,” and who thus will be saved once they have been purified of the “filth” and “compromises with evil” that have covered over their openness to God “in the concrete choices of life.”
Finding Peace
Pope Benedict does not impose this view as a matter of Church teaching. He says that it is something “we may suppose” regarding the majority of people, but when you have a pope saying this—particularly in an encyclical—it’s a position that we need to take seriously.
 
Doing so can be a component of finding peace amid the sins we see others around us committing.
 
Another part of finding peace is this: God loves them even more than we do and can work with them over time and in ways that are invisible to us.
 
What we are fundamentally responsible for is the salvation of our own souls. We need to make sure that we respond to God’s grace.
 
We want to do what we can for other people, but they are ultimately in God’s hands, not ours, and that is where we should leave them.
 
When we have the opportunity, we should invite them to grow closer to God and to abandon the sins that may be ensnaring them. We should pray for them, but we should not let their situation destroy our own peace.
 
Instead, we should entrust them to the loving and merciful God who gave his own Son to die on a Cross so that they might be saved.
 
That’s how much he loves them.-Jimmy Akins
 
-Lionel Andrades

 http://www.ncregister.com/blog/jimmy-akin/are-most-catholics-in-america-going-to-hell/#ixzz2XDLa86or



Here is an interesting comment on the report by Jimmy Akin

When it comes to the application of the three criteria that must be met for a mortal sin, we need to be careful. We need to avoid two extremes.
The first extreme is to define knowledge, consent, etc., so strictly that almost no one can ever be said to meet the criteria; this lets people off the hook too easily, who really do know better, or who have no excuse for not knowing better.
The other extreme is to apply the criteria so strictly that no one can be rightly said to be ignorant, so that even those who have no clue are condemned. That’s not right either.
Two other important points:
First: Whether or not you know something is a serious sin, it is objectively speaking still a serious sin. And all serious sin has serious repercussions in your life, spiritually and often physically as well, even if you don’t know about it. For example, if someone is using artificial birth control or cohabitating and has no clue it’s wrong according to Christ’s teaching or isn’t Christian and doesn’t know they should listen to Jesus…the fact is that their spiritual growth will be stunted as a result because we are designed by God to live purely if we are to function correctly spiritually, much less reach the heights. Worse if they do know, but still stunted even if they don’t.
Second additional point: Those who may be ignorant about the church’s teaching may be culpably ignorant. For example, if you can read, and have been Catholic all your life, and have never bothered to find out what the Church teaches on the most pressing matters of human life and salvation, you are quite likely culpable for your ignorance. God knows if spend lots of time watching tv rather than reading the Bible or Catechism…and then use “being busy” as your excuse for your spiritual ignorance. Do you get off the hook in this case just becuase you’ve been brainwashed by the larger society? If it were me, I wouldn’t bet my eternity on it…
Or, in another example, if you watch TV all the time knowing that it is smutty, and willingly expose yourself to it, then if you are tempted to sin and then fall, you are culpable for exposing yourself to what you know leads to sin. Exposing yourself knowingly to occasions of sin is itself a sin…
I think we have a lot of “sincere” people who know darn well that the church teaches contraception, etc., is wrong. They fall into several camps. Camp one: “I know what the Church says but I think it’s stupid (even though I never bothered to find out why the Church teaches this)...and I refuse to stop using it.” Many people are in this camp. I’m sorry, but it’s true. They may be brainwashed by the secular world, but their attitude stinks and I don’t think Jesus appreciates it!
Camp 2: “I don’t get why contraception is wrong, and I feel bad because the Church says it’s wrong, but I can’t convince myself or my husband/wife that it’s that big of a deal, so I keep on taking communion and never confess it and hope for the best. I’m too terrified of any unplanned children to stop.” The consciences of these folks bother them sometimes, but not enough to make them change their behavior. Only God knows their level of culpability. But if I were a priest and had a chance to talk to them, I’d tell them they need to decide if they value Jesus and heaven more than contraception or unfettered sexual pleasure, or not. It’s up to them.
Camp 3: People who have actually been misinformed by others, including dissenting nuns or priests, that it’s ok. This group, though rarer, is in my opinion, truly truly ignorant and I believe it is those who misled them who will be punished heartily by our Lord if they don’t repent.
Lastly, if you know it’s seriously wrong and you still take communion, that is a mortal sin of sacrilege. It would be better for you not go forward to communion, and make a spiritual communion of some kind until you get your life together.