Summary of text [comment] pages 37, 38 and 39
[While the previous blog constitute a hypothesis (by way of scenarios), I sense that it resonates with Schoonenberg’s ideas, and may help explain why …]
Schoonenberg proceeds to the issue of finality.
The many decisions for good or evil are analogues of that global decision by which we decide our eternity in the act of dying … or … anticipations of that final option during this life …
[While many would laugh at the idea of a “final option” at the moment of death, we must remember that the ways of God are not the ways of humans.
The increase in intensity portrayed in the last blog resonates with the image of finality.
The increase of intensity is directly linked to “denial of the consequences, lawdenial” that is “not taking responsibility for one’s actions”.
As the intensity increases, the sinner’s perceptions of the consequences become more and more impossible, until, of course, one arrives at Progressivism, Communism, Fascism, or any of the modern Public Cults founded on “an object that brings all of subjects into organization”.
All proclaimed that their object was historically inevitable. “Inevitability” indicates “a total denial of the consequences of one’s actions”.
Oh, and it provides that unnerving excuse: I was just obeying orders.]