The Catholic Message Board
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/

Are Grisez-Finnis right here?
http://forums.avemariaradio.net/viewtopic.php?f=22&t=169596
Page 1 of 1

Author:  Jack3 [ Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:28 am ]
Post subject:  Are Grisez-Finnis right here?

"Since free choices are self-determining and the self they determine lasts, a sinful free choice goes on harming one, in oneself, even after one carries it out."

From their letter to the Pope.

Quote:
There is, moreover, humanly obvious good reason for the requirement of a purpose of
amendment. Sinful acts carry out sinful free choices. One’s sinful acts often harm others but
one’s sinful free choices always harm oneself.6 They deprive one of some of the human
fulfillment one could have even now if one made good free choices instead of sinful ones.
(This truth is clouded by misunderstandings about self-denial. In fact, one’s sinful self is the
only self that one must deny.) Since free choices are self-determining and the self they
determine lasts, a sinful free choice goes on harming one, in oneself, even after one carries it
out.
Nothing and no one—not even God—can put an end to that harm unless one undoes
the sinful choice by making an opposing good free choice. That is why a purpose of
amendment is required for receiving forgiveness.

note 6: The summary teaching of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on the necessity of a firm purpose of
amendment for Confession begins with that affirmation: “To the eyes of faith no evil is graver than sin and
nothing has worse consequences for sinners themselves, for the Church, and for the whole world” (1488). It
continues: “To return to communion with God after having lost it through sin is a process born of the grace of
God who is rich in mercy and solicitous for the salvation of men. One must ask for this precious gift for oneself
and for others. The movement of return to God, called conversion and repentance, entails sorrow for and
abhorrence of sins committed, and the firm purpose of sinning no more in the future” (1489–90).


The "human fulfillment" language that comes before makes me suspicious if it's NNL.

Author:  Pro Ecclesia Dei [ Sat Jan 05, 2019 3:22 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Are Grisez-Finnis right here?

More or less. I don't like the "even God" la, but it is true properly understood (for God heals the remnants of sin through cooperative grace, thus it is not without the will's action)

Page 1 of 1 All times are UTC - 5 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/