Correct me if Im wrong please

[Fides_et_Ratio]

As I started to say previously in regards to Mary (who had free will) but could not sin... free will is not the ability to choose what is evil, but rather, the ability to choose what is good (ultimately, God). Left to ourselves, we would not be able to choose God/the good, but it is a great grace that God has endowed us with precisely that--free will--in order that we might be enabled to choose that which is good.

Think of it this way-- when you are in sin, are you "more free" than when you are in a state of grace? Of course not, we would say that in sin, we are "bound" by sin and temptation. For sin and evil is slavery. Grace is freedom.

We will still have free will in Heaven, but also, in Heaven, we will be unable to sin. Yet, you wouldn't claim that we thus become "puppets" in Heaven, would you? The ultimate freedom is to be freed from sin and temptation.

[Quietfire]

I think Im more confused.
I'll try to understand.
Without free will we would not know the difference between good and evil?

[journeyman]

I'm having a related problem with the concept of natural law - which may tie in with the free will concept.

Natural law - at it's basic, fundamental, survival level (which is I think how I learned it, and why I am having trouble with the concept now) - says that creatures will do that which is necessary for survival - of themselves first, and then for their family/tribe/town/society. That can (when you're no longer in danger of starving) translate to a simple "pleasure" principle. (and/or selfishness; gluttony, etc etc)

The enhancement to natural law that I missed the first time around is that it is more than just life in a state of nature, but includes life as a result of OUR nature (as opposed to, say, the nature of rabbits, or trees). Aquinas says that our nature includes; that we were gifted by the Creator with; reason and intellect. This is one reason why we learned to grow crops, rather than foraging and migrating like some of the other animals. This idea of natural law includes the concept that we are also impressed with a desire to be like our Creator (I think this may follow from "made in His image")

So both the natural law and free will analysis end up in the same place (sort of, or at least according to the logic I probably haven't fully laid out).

Mary could not sin because her nature was so in tune with God's will that if presented with a "sinful" alternative, she chose the "not a sin" alternative. She wasn't compelled or limited, but chose it freely and correctly -- every time.

Would that I could.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jan 29 2006, 03:48 PM']I think Im more confused.
I'll try to understand.
Without free will we would not know the difference between good and evil?
[right][snapback]869382[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Sorry to be confusing. I'm off to a party and then to youth group, but I will try and post later tonight. I have a bit of reading to catch up on for class tomorrow too, though.

No, without free will one could still know the difference between good and evil... free will is not a matter of knowledge per se, but rather a matter of choice--though not in the terms most would like to think (i.e., ability to choose evil/bad). Free will is the ability to choose the good for ourselves.

[phatcatholic]

yea, i think we have officially made this more complicated than it needs to be. here are some definitions from a few catholic reference works that should be helpful:

[i]Our Sunday Visitor's Catholic Glossary[/i]:[list][b]Free Will:[/b] The faculty or capability of making a reasonable choice among several alternatives. Freedom of will underlies the possibility and fact of moral responsibility.
[/list][i]Pocket Catholic Dictionary[/i]:[list][b]Free Will:[/b] The power of the will to determine itself and to act of itself, without compulsion from within or coercion from without. It is the faculty of an intelligent being to act or not act, to act this way or another way, and is therefore essentially different from the operations of irrational beings that merely respond to a stimulus and are conditioned by sensory objects.
[/list][i]A Brief Lexicon of Some Commonly Used Philosophical Terms[/i][list][b]Free Will:[/b] Generally a misnomer. In humans the will is the "rational appetite" - the inner movement of the human mind to acquire the good and avoid the evil. Broadly speaking it would include acts of des-ire, intention, consent, choice, love, hope, joy, hate, etc. Depending upon the nature of the thing (its form) its possible ways of behaving are fixed within certain limits. For humans our "soul hunger" or "spiritual appetite" is fixed on happiness. What constitutes fulfillment will differ from one type of thing to another. Fulfillment for a flatworm is not the same as for a horse, etc. Creatures are not free in this regard. Hence, to the extent that we are bound to strive, within bounds, for a fixed ultimate goal our will is not free. Only someone who does not understand human freedom would want to be as free as a bird. Yet we still have FREE CHOICE. Thus freedom does not mean a complete lack of determination, but SELF-DETERMINATION.
[/list]that last definition actually gets into what it means to be "free" so, if it's confusing to you, just stick w/ the first line and the last line of the definition: "In humans the will is the "rational appetite" - the inner movement of the human mind to acquire the good and avoid the evil. . . . Thus freedom does not mean a complete lack of determination, but SELF-DETERMINATION."

does that help? i personally find the definition from the [i]Pocket Catholic Dictionary[/i] to be the most helpful.

pax christi,
phatcatholic

[phatcatholic]

also, from the Catechism:[list][b]1730 [/b]God created man a rational being, conferring on him the dignity of a person who can initiate and control his own actions. "God willed that man should be 'left in the hand of his own counsel,' so that he might of his own accord seek his Creator and freely attain his full and blessed perfection by cleaving to him."26[list]Man is rational and therefore like God; he is created with free will and is master over his acts.27
[/list]
I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

[b]1731 [/b]Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one's own responsibility. By free will one shapes one's own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

[b]1732 [/b]As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.
[/list]

[Quietfire]

Ok, after I stopped laughing after this statement...
[quote]yea, i think we have officially made this more complicated than it needs to be.[/quote]
I got the rest.

actually, this ties into a conversation I had with Phatcatholic via IM. Stuff I couldnt post here(sorry guys) and so I think he knew where I was heading with this.

But you know...its easy to see where she went wrong. the subleties of the statement.
I saw it heading towards, man being evil. scary.

[Quietfire]

P.S. Im not done.

But I am stopping for tonight. Thanks all.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

[quote name='Quietfire' date='Jan 29 2006, 09:02 PM']But you know...its easy to see where she went wrong.  the subleties of the statement.
I saw it heading towards, man being evil.  scary.
[right][snapback]869646[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
She who?
Me?

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Thanks, phat, for making things easier to understand.

[phatcatholic]

[quote name='Fides_et_Ratio' date='Jan 29 2006, 09:18 PM']She who?
Me?
[right][snapback]869659[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
oh, no, no, not you fides! Quietfire is referring to someone else that her and i were discussing via pm.

[Fides_et_Ratio]

Oh okay.

Good.

I was very confused.

[Quietfire]

Gosh, Im so sorry Fides.

I didnt mean to confuse you like that.
Phat is right though, it had NOTHING to do with you.

Youre golden....ya know?

[Jake Huether]

You must read St. Anselms works on Truth and Freedom of Will. It is an easy read, since he writes in the form of a Student asking the question and the Teacher responding. (special thanks to JeffR for hookin me up)

Freedom of Choice is simple, yet complex. St. Anselm does a much better job, I just hope I can wet your whistles enough to encourage you to read him.

The very basics of it is this.

Our freedom does not lie in our ability to choose sin. When we choose sin, we are are actually less free. God didn't give us a free will so that we COULD choose sin. On the contrary, He gave us our free will so that we WOULD choose HIM. Sin is merely a byproduct, and not the end goal, of a free will.

In summary:

In keeping an upright will by avoiding sin we are free in that we have an upright will and we are able to keep it.

In choosing sin and losing our upright will we are less free because although we still have the capacity to keep and upright will, we do not have the upright will to keep (i.e. we've sinned). Only God can give us our upright will back, through the Sacrament of Reconciliation.

It's likened to sight. We have the abiltiy to see. And when there is light and objects to be seen, we see. If light is removed, although we do not see, we still have the ability to see. So that our ability to see doesn't hinge on our ability to turn off the light.

God bless.