ATTRITION IS THE CLAIM THAT GOD CAN ACCEPT YOUR REPENTANCE FOR SIN IF SOME OF YOUR MOTIVES ARE IMPURE
Sin is an offence against God and his law. Sin is seen as being like a power with a destructive mind of its own as it were. So it calls for being feared and therefore hated. Repentance is to be a manifestation of hating sin.
If you hate the sin you hate the person who freely causes the sin. There are
no sins without persons. Being against somebody's sin is being personal. It
feels personal. You can't and don't hate the door you hit your head on but you
can hit the person who strikes you on the head. Sin may be described in our
language as if it were separate from the sinner but in actual fact the person is
the sin for there is no such thing as a sinful act as such but only sinful
characters or people. When the pope is lying and advocates his lying doctrine,
owing to the fact that it is so fundamental, it makes his whole system and life
built on a lie. It is like a marriage built on lies.
Hate is vindictive. Hate implies a dislike of a person that inclines you to want
to see the person hurt for your pleasure. You can't want to see a sin hurt. It
is the sinner you want hurt. Hate is not necessarily an intense dislike. But it
can be. To hate evil is to give evil power over you and to become evil.
The Church believes that it is love to want to see a person hurt in a way that
will help them or make them become better people. This shows that hate is not
forbidden because it can hurt people. This shows that the Church approves of
your arrogance in deciding that the person needs to be hurt to be changed. You
don't know the future. You don't know if it is the best road. You can't even
prove that your moral code is correct - such codes are relative. The doctrine is
vicious and vengeful because pain never changes people - it is only how they
respond that effects a change. Yet Jesus wished evil on people supposedly for
their good. We read that the apostle Paul handed a man over to Satan for
tormenting that he might repent and be saved. Hate is not forbidden because it
hurts you for it hurts you to wish pain on another. Hate is really just
forbidden because God forbids it and concern for the hater and the hated doesn't
come into it.
The hypocritical claim that you can love the sinner not the sin is foundational
to the Catholic system so the whole system is based on a lie. Would you believe
a person who said to you, "I have nothing against you. It is just your sin I
have something against"? Love the sinner and hate the sin means love the sinner
in spite of the sin which you hate so it is grudging love - if it can be called
love at all. It can hardly mean you must love the sinner because of the sin you
hate for that is impossible - you can't both hate the sin and love it. Religious
love is fake love. Religious people are required to hate sin more than
non-religious people are and do. Religious have to see it as an insult to such a
good God and see it has necessitating the death of Jesus Christ for sinners.
Religion encourages hate.
Contrition is when you repent your sin because it is sin and offends God.
Attrition is when you vow to stop your sin because you want to avoid punishment
or shame. It has no concern for God. Attrition is called repentance by the
Catholic Church though it is not. It may look like it a bit but that is all.
Repentance is turning away from the sin because it is a sin. It is an act of
love. Attrition is just fearing the punishment and not despising the sin and is
an act of selfishness - it is a bad manifestation of self-interest. Attrition is
wanting the sin but not the punishment. If that is not a sin in itself then what
is? The pope advocates the sacrament of confession - the need for this sacrament
is based on the idea of attrition. God does not forgive people who have
attrition unless they go to confession and absolved by the priest. The
confessional then is totally immoral. If Jesus provided the sacrament for
attrition and to reward such fake repentance then he was immoral. The
confessional is really about rewarding sin more than eradicating it.
The doctrine of the sufficiency of attrition is official "infallible" Catholic
doctrine. The Bible God says that if a prophet teaches things that match what
God says or predicts the future accurately but makes one false report in his
capacity as prophet he is to be rejected. Presumably Satan is keeping him right
but uses him to teach error. Satan as counterfeiter has to teach mostly truth
and deliver some error with the package to lead people astray. Even if the
acceptance of attrition were the only error Roman Catholicism made, it would
prove that it is not the true Church and not infallible. The Council of Trent
said, “If the person in confession is sorry for he will burn in Hell if he
doesn't that will do for absolution” (Session 14).
The Church does not censure the belief that repenting out of the fear of
punishment or repenting out of shame is enough to get you forgiven in confession
(Denz 2071, New Catholic Encyclopaedia, Contritionism). But it is certain that
the Church believes that it is sufficient in confession. The doctrine of Genesis
that God rejected Cain's offer of fruit and accepted Abel's offering which was a
better one comes to mind. The Catholic Church offers rubbish to God.
To teach such an evil doctrine such as attrition being enough for salvation
belittles those who go to Hell which is for all eternity. It shows the Church
does not love them at all. It hates them. The pope expects people to assume Hell
exists and believe in it even if they have poor evidence for it. This is
virtually asking them to want there to be a Hell. The pope cannot say he wishes
the doctrine of Hell wasn't true for that suggests that there should be no such
fate for those who go there and that the doctrine does not give dignity to God.
Yet if he said he wished that we would plainly see how vindictive his religion
is.
The doctrine that attrition is enough shows that the Church hates the sin but
loves the sin when the person comes to confession. Is this fair or sensible? How
could a paedophile priest feel bad about his sin of child molestation with a
doctrine like that? It would be an encouragement to the paedophile tendency to
feel that he has done nothing wrong.