More and more science is proving that external human behavior is conditioned by Genetics and human chemistry. I myself am a witness to that, in a way that I will explain in a later posting. These scientific achievements can influence our traditional thinking about free will.

The Church had already perceived that, when she stopped prohibiting ceremonial burial of people who had committed suicide, after science having proved that suicidal tendencies were all too common in depressive people, invalidating the full consentment requirement for a mortal sin.

This casts a whole new light on Christ's commandment not to judge your neighbor: you will never know the genetic and chemical predisposition of your neighbor towards sin. This makes us think that sanctity is rather the difference between what you are inclined to do and what you actually do then outwardly "correct" behavior.

This helps explain the canonization of strange saints, like St. Jerome, about whom we are discussing these days, who had an almost unbearable character (his horrible treatment of Saint Augustine is proverbial). Some of his detractors said that he lived in a cave less for ascetic reasons and more for the fact that nobody could live with him. He was reportedly absurdly rude. "Free will" is then more about the effort to you do to counteract your sinning tendencies than about the external behavior you present.

This means that a person who may be seen as unsupportable may be a saint, while a person who is naturally inclined to friendship (a " people's person") may be a sinner, because his apparent love for people is chemically driven, while he might be behaving egotistically, in giving less love than he could. Psychology is there to prove that a very common behaviour is that of the "altruistic woman", who does everything for her family and others only to collect praise. Justice has been aware of this, declaring guilty with attenuants or even innocent women who commited crimes (even murder!) while under effect of Pre-Menstrual Tension (is that its name in english?). We who are man have some difficulty in undestanding that, but things are getting clearer day after day.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), May 05, 2000

Answers

To the top.

-- Atila (me@somewhere.com), May 05, 2000.

But the nice thing is Atila, in the end, the only thing WE have to find people guilty or innocent of is breaking the laws of the land. God is the one who has to decide whether or not they really are saints or sinners, which I assume he is well equipped to do.

Frank

P.S. Having children of my own, I *personally* bet God is MUCH more forgiving of us than we are of ourselves or each other. -F

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), May 06, 2000.

Dear Atila,
Rather than using the verb 'prove' and 'conditioned', it's probably wiser to say 'suggest' and 'influenced'.

Scientists write an article for some journal saying that their study has supported a particular conclusion. This may or may not mean 'proved'.

Many people buy into this kind of science very credulously. They are often the most skeptical in regards to philosophical or religious thought; a pursuit just as important to the human race as scientific research. If you'll pardon my own brand of skepticism, I see 'Psychology' as one of the more dubious modern sciences. It hardly ever has 'proven' anything. Read the Confessions of Saint Augustine. I venture to say without any hesitation, this book will be instructive and illuminating forever. No modern psychologist can begin to understand the human condition as well as he did. And I'm not saying so because I'm 'conditioned' by my genetic and chemical makeup. St. Augustine is only one of scores of great thinkers raised up by the Catholic Church. I'm sure you agree.

-- Eugene Chavez (rechavez@popmail.ucsd.edu), May 07, 2000.