The Unpardonable Sin - What it is and how it may
be committed
Phenomena Magazine
Dateline: Friday, November 25, 2005
By: EDWARD O'TOOLE
By: Phenomena Gnostic Esotericist
"There are mistakes too monstrous for remorse." (Edwin Arlington Robinson)
What is the so great fault, said I, the ignorant commit, that they should be
deprived of deathlessness?
While reading Nathaniel Hawthorne’s Victorian (1850) short story, Ethan Brand, I
came across a phrase – or idea – that I had not heard in many years. I was
intrigued. The title character (although not the protagonist) had set off many
years earlier in search of the Unpardonable Sin and had, in the decades
following, become part of the small lime-burners’ town’s folklore. He returns
after having discovered the object of his adventure and, after spending an
evening talking bluntly with the remnants of the former well-to-do townsfolk,
commits suicide.
What really grabbed me and urged me to research Ethan Brand’s muse were both the
concept of Unpardonable Sin itself and a retort spoken by the man:
“Man!” sternly replied Ethan Brand, “what need have I of the devil? I have left
him behind me, on my track. It is with such halfway sinners as you that he
busies himself.”
What, I thought, could possibly be so dire that it even precludes the devil’s
involvement (at least at such a later stage)? I had heard the phrase
‘Unpardonable Sin’ before, but it had always seemed intangible and theoretical;
surely, the Gothic writer Hawthorne alludes to a more concrete, achievable
crime.
This must be, as its name implies, the sole crime of transgression of both
religious and moral values to which there is no hope of redemption. Unlike faux
evil and the pretentious mask of patchouli oil, black velvet and heavy eye
shadow adopted by some to exaggerate what they believe to be their noir façade,
the Unpardonable Sin must be a step into a realm where the mortal soul is lost
for all eternity. Satan was found guilty of vanity and treachery (and his
sentence in Dante’s 9th level of Hell reflects as such); what sin could a human
possibly commit that it damns him forever?
And my soul from out that shadow that lies floating on the floor
Shall be lifted -- nevermore!
My intent is to discover the Unpardonable Sin, and how to commit it
satisfactorily.
Intended Audience
The Unpardonable Sin is applicable and relevant to any with an interest in
Western religions, especially Judeo-Christian, and to those who wish to explore
the occult.
Methodology, Materials and Data
The search for the Unpardonable Sin will not be restricted to any single
particular doctrine, but will be a wide-ranging exploration of religious,
esoteric and mythological works. Where possible, individuals with areas of
expertise relevant to the search will be queried.
Expected Outcomes
The structure of the work is as follows:
1) Defining the Unpardonable Sin
2) Defining the Holy Ghost
3) Constructing the Ritual of the Unpardonable Sin
The outcome, therefore, will be a detailed procedure, most likely involving
ceremonial magic, whereby an interested party may reproduce the findings and
commit the Unpardonable Sin themselves.
Note – After initial searches, I have been unable to find a ritual precisely
fitting this context, therefore, my findings will be of an original nature and
unique.
What is the Unpardonable Sin?
The most obvious answer would be that of a satanic nature, some ineffable rite
such as la messe noire, the Black Mass; at least, one would be led to believe as
such given Hollywood’s propensity for the exaggeration and glorification of
anti-Judeo-Christian doctrine. Another possible answer lies in the Ten
Commandments and the breach of one, or the Seven Deadly Sins. However, 1 John
1:9, of the New Testament, tells us that no matter the severity of the sin –
bestiality, murder, etc. – all sinners may be forgiven:
"If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins"
A prime example for a sinner repentant, especially considering the nature of his
crimes – both against humanity and the Church – is Gilles de Rais.
“’We pronounce, decide and declare you, Gilles de Rais, summoned before our
tribunal, to be shamefully guilty of heresy, apostasy, and the evocation of
demons, for which crimes you have incurred sentence of excommunication and all
other penalties determined by the law.’…
Gilles stares at his judges, speechless, nodding. In that moment I realized
that, as with Joan of Arc before him, it was the sentence of what seemed like
final excommunication which struck him to the heart. Convicted and on his own
admission guilty of such monstrous crimes, he could still not believe that the
Church would cast him out….
Somewhere, once, I heard my master say, “I am redeemable”…Of all the men I have
known, Gilles de Rais seems to me the one whose life and death testifies most
strongly to the truth of the redemption.’"
De Rais begged forgiveness from the Church and was absolved, meaning he did not
go to the flames excommunicado, despite being declared an apostate, a heretic
and a trafficker in demons (not to mention also being a murderer, brigand and
paedophile). If the aforementioned crimes do not warrant unforgiveness, then
what does? The Baron de Metz’s constant claim that he was ‘the Perfect
Christian’, had little to do with his adherence to the Catholic Church or its
moral values as these he clearly acted in complete contradiction of, and is more
likely an affirmation of being a devout Cathar, a ‘Perfecti.’
In stark contrast to the diabolical de Rais (the inspiration for Bluebeard), the
16th Century Italian Protestant, Francesco Spiera , condemned himself as being
guilty of committing the Unpardonable Sin after refuting his own beliefs and
acquiescing to those of the Roman Church. His rapid physical and mental decline
he, and his colleagues such as Pier Paolo Vergerio, associated with the Holy
Spirit abandoning him as a hypocrite to that which he knew to be the truth (e.g.
Evangelism). He died shortly afterwards.
From these two examples one may deduce that the Unpardonable Sin has little to
do with physical actions and more to do with a spiritual concept. It is in the
Gospel of Matthew where the exact nature of this Sin is defined:
"And so I [Jesus] tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven men, but
the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. Anyone who speaks a word
against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come" (Matthew
12:30-32)
The Didache (c.150 CE) maintains that the unforgivable sin is disagreeing with
itinerant ministers (referred to as Apostles and Prophets in the work):
11:7 Do not tempt or dispute with any prophet who speaks in spirit, for every
sin will be forgiven, but this sin will not be forgiven.
We may dismiss this suggestion as it too wide ranging: it claims that every
single wandering priest to be the voice of God, which is a frightening concept.
The Didache also logically contradicts itself by first stating that ‘prophets’
may not be challenged as to their moral worth – that they are to believed
without doubt – and then secondly expounding that not all itinerant ministers
are genuine, some are in fact false prophets (especially those who stay for
three days or longer). If one is unable to question their veracity, how is one
to decide which is which?
The archaic French ritual of vengeance, The Mass of Saint-Sécaire, performed by
a defrocked or even just a disgruntled priest with the aid of his live-in
harlot, comes close to being unpardonable. It is definitely one of the darker
rituals, and perhaps originates from the Celtic Cult of the Dead. Between the
hours of eleven and midnight, the defrocked priest performs the Black Mass in a
ruined church; the Mass (it is unclear if this is the same version as that used
by LaVey or Melech – a comparison of both Latin versions may be found at the
Synagoga Satanae website ) uses a black triangular host and, horrifically, the
blood of Christ in the form of well water into which the body of an unbaptised
infant has been thrown. However, the Pope (and only the Pope, no members of the
lesser clergy) acting as the Vicar of God on Earth, may grant absolution should
he so desire.
The actual Judgement of whether a sin is Unpardonable or not, lies solely with
God, according to Arthur Pink. In his book ‘Studies in the Scriptures’ , he
(using the Royal first-person-plural for some unknown reason), acknowledges his
difference in opinion on the subject when compared to other writers; he states
that the Unpardonable Sin can include, but is not restricted to (as God decides
each sin on a case-by-case basis), suicide, continued apostasy of the truth, and
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. He lists several culprits: Esau, Cain, Saul,
and Mannessah. To substantiate his argument, he refers to Romans 9:18,
“Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will have mercy, and whom He will He
hardeneth”, and Ephesians 1:11, “[God] worketh all things after the counsel of
His own will”.
So, the common denominator and most prevalent incident of the Unpardonable Sin
is blasphemy against the Holy Ghost!
But what constitutes blasphemy?
Blasphemy
Blasphemy (Greek blaptein, "to injure", and pheme, "reputation") signifies
etymologically gross irreverence towards any person or thing worthy of exalted
esteem….
Blasphemy, by reason of the significance of the words with which it is
expressed, may be of three kinds.
It is heretical when the insult to God involves a declaration that is against
faith, as in the assertion: "God is cruel and unjust" or "The noblest work of
man is God".
It is imprecatory when it would cry a malediction upon the Supreme Being as when
one would say: "Away with God".
It is simply contumacious when it is wholly made up of contempt of, or
indignation towards, God, as in the blasphemy of Julian the Apostate: "Thou has
conquered, O Galilaean".
Again, blasphemy may be (1) either direct, as when the one blaspheming formally
intends to dishonour the Divinity, or (2) indirect, as when without such
intention blasphemous words are used with advertence to their import.
Both Exodus 20:7 and Deuteronomy 5:11 command that one shall not take the name
of the Lord in vain, e.g. to Blaspheme, and history shows that the act of
blasphemy is perhaps one of the worst crimes that can be committed. Leviticus
24:15-16 orders the penalty of death against an offender. The United States of
America also has cases on record of sentencing those guilty of blasphemy to
prison terms:
In the American Decisions (Vol. V, 335) we read that "Christianity being
recognized by law therefore blasphemy against God and profane ridicule of Christ
or the Holy Scriptures are punishable at Common Law", Accordingly where one
uttered the following words "Jesus Christ was a bastard and his mother was a
whore", it was held to be a public offence, punishable by the common law. The
defendant found guilty by the court of common pleas of the blasphemy above
quoted was sentenced to imprisonment for three months and to pay a fine of five
hundred dollars.
In modern times, Ayatollah Khomeini’s 1989 Fatwah against the author Salman
Rushdie showed that blasphemy is still considered, in certain religions, an act
punishable by death. A recent case (June, 2005) involving a 60-year-old hospital
Janitor, Yousaf Masih, in Pakistan has led to an outcry in the Christian West as
he, a Christian, was arrested and is under investigation for the blasphemous
crime of allegedly burning a Koran (he was unaware that the paper fragments he
was asked to dispose of as part of his job were a religious text). A guilty
sentence could lead to the death penalty.
Among Muslim-majority countries, Pakistan has the harshest anti-blasphemy law.
In 1982, President Zia ul-Haq introduced Section 295B to the Pakistani Code of
Criminal Procedure punishing "defiling the Holy Qu'ran" with life imprisonment.
In 1986, Section 295C was introduced, mandating the death penalty for "use of
derogatory remarks in respect of the Holy Prophet".
In 1990 the Federal Shari’ah Court ruled that the penalty should be a mandatory
death sentence, with no right to reprieve or pardon.
Unlike the Shari’ah (Islamic law) maintained in countries such as Pakistan and
Iran, where a sin is a sin is a sin, and sentencing taken straight from the
Koran, the Roman Catholic church has spent almost 2000 years arguing over the
precise degree of the sin, its punishment and penance where applicable. Instead
of holding to the Leviticus decree that death should be imposed on any that
blaspheme, The Roman Church considers the motivation behind the blasphemy to be
as important in its judgment of the sin as in the precise means of the blasphemy
itself.
Sin
The Catholic Church separates sin into various levels:
Sins are distinguished specifically by their formally diverse objects; or from
their opposition to different virtues, or to morally different precepts of the
same virtue. Sins that are specifically distinct are also numerically distinct.
Sins within the same species are distinguished numerically according to the
number of complete acts of the will in regard to total objects. A total object
is one which, either in itself or by the intention of the sinner, forms a
complete whole and is not referred to another action as a part of the whole.
When the completed acts of the will relate to the same object there are as many
sins as there are morally interrupted acts.
Original Sin, that which Adam committed and which the Human Race is damned for,
is irrelevant here; it is Actual Sin (a free personal act of individual will)
that needs analyzing.
Actual sin primarily consists in a voluntary act repugnant to the order of right
reason. The act passes, but the soul of the sinner remains stained, deprived of
grace, in a state of sin, until the disturbance of order has been restored by
penance. This state is called habitual sin, macula peccati. reatus culpa
Actual Sin may be broken down into:
a) Sins of Commission. A deliberate act of that which has been prohibited.
b) Sins of Omission. Not doing what one has been commanded to [Disobeying a
direct order, in military terms]. This sin, however, requires a deliberate
refusal rather than an accidental omission.
Malice of sins:
a) Sins of ignorance
b) Sins of passion
c) Sins of infirmity
d) Sins of malice
The means of sinning:
a) Sins of thought (cordis)
b) Sins of word (oris)
c) Sins of deed (operis)
Gravity of sins:
a) Mortal
b) Venial
Further distinctions of sin:
a) Material sin. Where the transgressor unwittingly breaks a Divine Law due to
ignorance of it.
b) Formal sin. Where the transgressor willingly breaks a Divine Law (whether
imagined or real), thereby transgressing against his own conscience [the case of
Francesca Spiera mentioned earlier is an example of Formal Sin]
Internal Sins (e.g. those of jealousy, pride, etc..):
a) delectatio morose. i.e. the pleasure taken in a sinful thought or imagination
even without desiring it;
b) gaudium, i.e. dwelling with complacency on sins already committed;
c) desiderium, i.e. the desire for what is sinful.
The primary distinction between the sins, and the one most relevant in the
search for the Unpardonable Sin, is that between Mortal and Venial:
Mortal sin destroys charity in the heart of man by a grave violation of God's
law; it turns man away from God, who is his ultimate end and his beatitude, by
preferring an inferior good to him.
Venial sin allows charity to subsist, even though it offends and wounds it.
Colin B. Donovan, in his article on Mortal versus Venial Sins , states that the
most heinous sins – e.g. idolatry, adultery, murder, and slander – are Mortal
and that they are committed with full knowledge of the transgressor as a
deliberate act against God. By committing such a crime, one’s soul is in dire
peril and – should the transgressor not confess his sins prior to death – it
could be lost for all eternity. However, and this is where it is clear that the
Unpardonable Sin is unfathomably more ‘evil’ than any other sin, the
transgressor of murder, fornication etc. may confess his sins and receive the
Sacrament of Penance, thereby ensuring that he will be permitted to enter Heaven
on Judgement Day. Those who commit the Unpardonable Sin CAN NEVER BE FORGIVEN,
as its name implies.
Therefore, utilizing the Catholic system of sin designation, a wilful act of
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost would be an Actual, Mortal, Formal, Malicious
sin of Commission, with the transgressor also being guilty of desiderium, the
wish to commit the sin in the first place. As to the means of committing the sin
(thought, word or deed), this will become clearer as the Unpardonable Sin
becomes better defined in shape.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
At this point it should be reiterated that the actual act of blaspheming against
the Holy Ghost is a deliberate one and, most likely, the culmination of many
years of rejecting and refuting Judeo-Christian doctrines and beliefs.
Ironically, it is those least likely to commit such a sin who worry about having
done so the most.
Evangelism, especially of the Fundamentalist bent, in the United States,
encourages believers to accept that the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (to
use the Holy Ghost’s 20th Century appellation) are a fundamental aspect of
everyday life; the omnipotence and especially omnipresence of the Divine Trinity
dictates the moral and physical actions of adherents. A psychological phobia,
bordering on the neurotic, has emerged whereby believers think that they have
committed the Unpardonable Sin, often on a daily basis, merely by doubting an
occurrence formally recognized as being the truth in Scripture.
“When I have stated my outright rejection of the modern tongues movement and
have given by ten reasons for doing so, I have been accused of blaspheming
against the Holy Ghost. There are undoubtedly some sincere Christians, who,
while they do not go along with the tongues movement, are nevertheless fearful
of taking a position of opposition to it lest they should be guilty of this
unpardonable sin.”
The doubting of the plausibility of Speaking in Tongues, on a subjective level
whereby the supposed transgressor has witnessed an apparent event and has come
away disbelieving its authenticity, later to berate himself at having (un)consciously
refused to accept an Evangelical ‘Article of Faith’, has brought many to seek
counselling with first their Pastors and later Psychologists, fearing the loss
of their souls. Dr. Henry Virkler, a Christian Psychologist, has made this field
his area of expertise:
Thus the textual evidence cited here suggests that the blasphemy of the Holy
Spirit is willfully misattributing the work of the Holy Spirit to the work of
Satan in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. The unpardonable sin is not
unwittingly insulting Jesus or His works, as many have feared…. it is an action
such as the Pharisees were in danger of committing when, faced with massive
evidence that Jesus was the Messiah and that the Holy Spirit was working through
Him, because of their evil hearts they hardened themselves against God, and
attributed the working of the Holy Spirit to the work of Satan.
This unpardonable sin is thus not a hasty decision based on either a momentary
impulse or misinformation. Rather, it was the culmination of a long set of
experiences in which a person has repeatedly been exposed to the power and
presence of the Holy Spirit in his or her life, and yet rejects this power.
Instead of accepting God's person and presence, the Pharisees had rejected it to
the point of despising it, and called the Holy Spirit's work the work of Satan.
This sin is of rejecting the Holy Spirit's work is unpardonable primarily
because a person who commits this sin has rejected God's grace, and has
voluntarily set himself or herself in continuing, deliberate rebellion against
God.
Max Heindel, in his Mysteries of the Great Operas , declares that the last phase
of the Unpardonable Sin is actual sexual intercourse with an etheric entity, a
crime Wagner’s Tannhauser is guilty of – fornication with demons (one must note
the parallels to Genesis 6:4, and the Nephilim – the crossbreeds of human women
and beney ha'elohim, the sons of God, which resulted in the Flood; or, Crowley’s
‘Moonchild’ - the "psychic foetus" of an astral entity. ). After God tells him
that there can be no forgiveness, Tannhauser curses everything in Heaven and on
Earth (although his soul is eventually saved through the intercession of
Elisabeth). Clearly, blasphemy against the Holy Ghost in this context is without
doubt a deliberate one – the physical act of coitus with an entity followed by a
direct Judgement from God, followed by the cursing of the Holy Ghost – not an
accidentally spoken slur (operis rather than oris or cordis).
On the other hand, Jack Parsons , former head of the Order Templar Orientis
(1944-52), says that sexual intercourse (albeit not with demons) is a means of
connecting with the Holy Ghost and uses the Latin phrase Spiritus Sanctus est
Spiritus in Materia. Id Est Aqua Hydor Theon Hypostatis Metres (the sanctified
spirit is that which has been made into matter, that is put into water) to
justify his argument that impregnation by the Holy Ghost (as in the case of
Mary) merely means natural sex and natural birth. Sadly, his continued
observations on masturbation and ‘transcendental sodomy’ (although without
pleasure, and ‘witnessed’ by his brethren) as being the perfect means of
communicating with the Holy Ghost, leave one suspect as to the genuiness of his
claims – it smacks too much of personal fetish, similar to flagellation for
masochistic rather than penitential reasons. In regards to the actual blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, Parsons clearly states that the Satanic concept of
orgiastic ritual in an attempt to defile the Holy Spirit paradoxically works to
please and ‘publicize’ the Holy ghost, and that it is the commercial advertising
of such sects for private and personal gain which constitutes blasphemy and
therefore the committing of the Unpardonable Sin.
Judy Kennedy, in her extract ‘The Gnostic Vision of Joseph Smith’ , alludes to
the Mormon church collectively blaspheming against the Holy Ghost – that the
potential neophyte should verify the veracity of the Church of Latter Day Saints
via a ‘sense’ of correctness imparted by the Holy Ghost, but that when the
neophyte becomes an adherent, they are to accept the Church’s word over that of
the Holy Ghost – excommunication is incurred via sinning against the church
rather than against the Holy Ghost.
One interesting concept that is often purported by born-again-believers of the
Christian faith (perhaps as a means of self-protection) is that blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost (and ultimately the committing the Unpardonable Sin) is
now impossible as it was only a viable transgression while Jesus was alive. They
state that the actual sin, as previously described by Dr. Virkler, was that
committed by the Pharisees to Jesus’ face – basically attributing all of his
works, done with the power of the Holy Ghost, to Satan – sin was dispensational.
Fundamentalist Baptists, among other more extreme Christian sects, now attribute
the modern version of the Unpardonable Sin to anyone who refuses to accept
Christ into their lives.
The Catholic Church relies on the teachings of Saint Thomas to summarise the
three principle blasphemies against the Holy Ghost:
1. A spoken insult against the Holy Ghost (as in Matthew 12), or against the
Holy Trinity.
2. St Augustine declares the blasphemy to be continued impenitence and
continuation in mortal sin until death. This is counted as blasphemy as it is
the Holy Ghost who grants remission of sins therefore by refusing to beg
forgiveness one is rebuffing the Holy Ghost.
3. Sinful acts deliberately opposed to virtuous deeds associated with the Divine
Trinity (e.g. charity, goodwill, etc.), especially when committed with malice of
forethought.
Summary of Defining the Unpardonable Sin
“…and so as a blasphemer, you are to be stoned to death.”
“Look, I’d had a lovely supper and all I said to my wife was ‘That piece of
halibut was good enough for Jehovah.’”
It is clear that the general act of committing the Unpardonable Sin
fundamentally requires a blasphemy against the Holy Ghost. As to the exact
nature of the blasphemy, it seems unlikely that it would be something as simple
as (or as easily, or accidentally, committed as) swearing at the Holy Ghost or
using its name in vain. The same can be said for oratorically attributing
Christ’s words and works to Satan. Therefore, I will take it as my premise that
in order to commit this sin, direct interaction with the Holy Ghost must
constitute a major aspect of the ritual. A face-to-face blasphemy must occur. In
keeping with this premise, I shall attempt to construct a ritual whereby the
Holy Ghost may be invoked as an entity, in order for it to be insulted
(physically, verbally, or otherwise) in such a manner that the participant in
such a rite would have committed the Unpardonable Sin without any question of
doubt, thus incurring the Wrath of God and Eternal Damnation.
Special thanks must be given to Jim Howard, and his Yahoo group Satanic_Mass,
for his help and astounding expertise in researching historic evidence for rites
pertaining to the blasphemy of the Holy Ghost. His references for Part 2 of the
Unpardonable Sin are invaluable.
References Used:
Poemandres, the Shepherd of Men, The Corpus Hermeticum, trs G.R.S. Mead, Gnostic
Society Library
Ethan Brand, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Gothic Short Stories, Wordsworth Editions 2002
The Raven, Edgar Allen Poe, 1850
The Life and Death of my lord Gilles de Rais, Robert Nye, Abacus, 1988
Francesco Spiera, Wikipedia
The Didache, Trs. Ben H. Swett, 1998
Latin of Melech and LaVey, Jim Howard http://www.angelfire.com/az3/synagogasatanae/index.html
The Mass of Saint-Sécaire, Micha F. Lindemans,
The Unpardonable Sin, Studies in the Scriptures, Arthur W. Pink, 1935
Blasphemy, John Webster Melody
Christian charged under Pakistan’s Blaspemy Law, Jeremy Reynalds, ASSIST News
Service, July 2, 2005
Blasphemy, Wikipedia
Sin, A.C. O'Neil,
IV. 1855. The Gravity of Sin: Mortal and Venial Sin, Catechism of the Catholic
Church, Libreria Editrice Vaticana
Mortal versus Venial Sin, Colin B. Donovan,
A doctrinal discussion of tongues, the foundation to all charismatic activity,
Harold Mackay,
Allaying Fears About the Unpardonable Sin, Henry A. Virkler, Ph.D., The Journal
of Psychology and Christianity, Vol. 18, No.3, pp. 254-269, 1999,
Mysteries of the Great Operas, Ch.XVII, Max Heindel
Mysticism Magick Dictionary on TRINITY, CHRISTIAN, PARSONS, JOHN WHITESIDE
The Gnostic vision of Joseph Smith, Chapter 6, Beyond the Rainbow: Renewing the
Cosmic Connection
Regarding Spirituality, Extraterrestrials, and Occult Conspiracy
The Unpardonable Sin, Dr. John W. McCormick, Fundamental Baptist Institute, 1995
Holy Ghost, J. Forget, Catholic Encyclopedia, NewAdvent.org
The Life of Brian, Monty Python Pictures Ltd, 1979
