/lit/ - Literature

>>18282134
>>Certainly [...]
>> [...]
Damn, that hits deep

>>18282195
There was a paragraph between certainly and the last line, but it had spoilers for those who had not read TBK so I redacted them. It hits even harder with the full page, not to mention the nine hundred and seventy-four pages of buildup. I wept during the final chapter of the epilogue.

Christians, explain brain tumours right now.

How in the fuck is that in anyway fair for God to allow something that devastates a person’s cognition and basic ability to interpret reality while the entire path to salvation hinges on your ability to choose to have faith in Jesus?

https://moffitt.org/cancers/brain-tumor/symptoms/mood-changes/

Read about some of the drastic personality changes people suffer from who have brain tumours - changes in sexual morality, changes in motor function, one case I read about a woman literally thought she was in high school when she was married with children. How the FUCK is that fair or part of God’s plan? Does that person go to hell?

>>18282417
Whatever is caused by the tumor isn't done by you, it would seem. Of course, these are petty problems for an omniscient being that sees through to the soul

>>18282445
In 1966 Charles Whitman viciously murdered 16 people in a mass shooting including his own wife and mother. During the rampage he killed a pregnant woman. An autopsy found a pecan sized brain tumour.

Does this man go to heaven?

>>18282417
>>18282460
God moves in a mysterious way,
His wonders to perform;
He plants his footsteps in the sea,
And rides upon the storm.

Deep in unfathomable mines
Of never failing skill;
He treasures up his bright designs,
And works His sovereign will.

Ye fearful saints fresh courage take,
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy, and shall break
In blessings on your head.

Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
But trust him for his grace;
Behind a frowning providence,
He hides a smiling face.

His purposes will ripen fast,
Unfolding ev'ry hour;
The bud may have a bitter taste,
But sweet will be the flow'r.

Blind unbelief is sure to err,
And scan his work in vain;
God is his own interpreter,
And he will make it plain

>>18282417
read TBK, it's explained

>>18282417
If you cant fathom an idea as simple as free will, your not ready to be posting

>>18282460
Welp gotta ask the rabbi then

>>18282460
yeah we get it , you’re into sam harris ,,

>>18282829
retard. you can't even define free will. it's a nonsense phrase.

>>18282417
>christians, explain

Comeon now, go easy on em

>>18282460
Unironically what is the catholic churches teaching on this?

>>18282417
>why does God let *bad thing* exist?

Quite an easy explanation personally, even though not all Christians agree with my personal view on the topic.

The answer is: God is not good, but he is not bad.

There is this weird view on God that he's like your pal that you eat lunch with, and that may very well be the case. Even I fall into viewing him like that sometimes. But this pal also has the power to condemn, punish, and judge. He's the God that sent the flood to kill all of humanity, he's the God that condemned the jews to walk in the desert for all eternity, he's the God that punished mankind into mortal misery. Is it such a hard idea that God is not above being morally grey?

God is all-powerful, sure. Yet satan exists. Why is that? Why is there a being that goes around pulling his children away from the gates of glory? He can stop it, right? Yes, but he allows it to get us to make up our minds, to act on our own will even if that is against God. What does Satan bring? Chaos and disorder. Enough for us to question the very fabric of existence itself.

So what should you do? Be well, take action, and accept that what happens to you is according to free will. The freedom of creation beyond conception. This does not mean that being a Christian will save you from everything. Even the Bible says merely being Christian won't save you from judgment.
>Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ -Matthew 7:21-23

Does this seem fair to you? Does this seem kind to you? No, we all fall prey to free will on earth. And that is the consequence of it. The ultimate test.

So after all this, why? Why God? Why have you allowed good men to suffer? Why have you let disease and famine to torture us all?

I do not know. We cannot know. It is not for us to know.

It's a pretty shitty and unsatisfying answer right? Well, let us consider the alternative. There is no God, there is no higher power and there never was. All of this is just fiction.

Ok. What of it? Let us ask the same question in such a reality.

Existence! Why must you curse us with disease and famine? Why must you torture me with depression and loneliness? Why must I work so hard for nothing in return? Why must I feel terrible? Why do good men die? Why must my family face the terrible fate of mortality? My much children cry? Why do bad men win? Why? WHY??

All of this, and the answer is still the same. We do not know. We cannot know. It is impossible for us to know.

Regardless of your religious status, it is all the same. The same suffering, the same disillusionment, the same chaos.

Now what? Pray you land on one side of the coin more than the other.

>>18282445
One is not responsible for the way one's brain is initially fashioned by their genes and environment either... why is the person with a brain tumour less authentically themselves than the person given such and such brain configuration at birth?

>>18285569
yeah except 'Existence' isn't conscious and full of intentions, quasi-gnostic freak..

>>18285670
You failed to understand what I meant, or perhaps what I wrote wasn't clear enough.

Either way, it doesn't really matter. What I was trying to get at was that existence is suffering. It's bound to happen. Some more, some WAY more, some less, and some won't even be affected by it.

But it shouldn't bother you. Because regardless of your religious status, suffering will happen. There is no point in dwelling on "why", because your " why" won't get a clear answer regardless of any position you take.

Let's say, I shoved you really hard on the street, and you fall flat on your bum. But before you could get up, I run off. Never to be seen again.

Why did I shove you? Well, you come up with some ideas. Perhaps you say I'm a lunatic, or just a bad man, maybe you even say I'm off my meds to do that to a stranger.

Now all of these are good poderings, but is it really the truth? How can you know? You never asked me and you never will. So how are you so certain of your position? Only I know the answer as to why I shoved you and you don't. Any speculation is nothing more than a guess.

The same can be said about such pondering on suffering and God.

>>18285696
I think the point is not so much subjective despair about the suffering God inflicts but scepticism about Christian's claims about God's nature (his omnibenevolence, which is a dogma..) in light of it.. and worldly suffering is at least comprehensible, but Hell (and especially the things that merit one being sent there) are less so..

>>18285569
If God isn't good then that completely snaps all theological conclusions over one's knee.

Perfectly good is a necessary contention to fulfill God's absolute nature, and absolute perfection. If he lacks such an attribute as 'Good' (as we ascribe it) then he is, for one thing, undeserving of worship, and for another, necessarily limited, i.e, not God, an omnipotent being.

>>18285569
You have just used a lot of words to say nothing.

>>18282417
Based picture, more women of color should be sluts for BWC. This is your legacy, Martin Luther King - white men impregnating Black, Asian and Hindu women with mixed babies.

>>18285702
God can only be good if evil exists, the same way the concept of darkness can only exist if light exists, because darkness is the absence of light, and it could be argued that good is the absence of evil.
Therefore the question of the existence of evil is irrelevant. If evil didn't exist, the entire concept of morality wouldn't exist.
Even more, greatness wouldn't exist ; heroes do not exist without oppression, courage does not exist without fear.
All the beauty of the world couldn't exist if it wasn't for evil, you wouldn't be humble unless you've felt worthless at least once, you wouldn't be kind and empathetic if you had not suffered yourself.
I find it extremely presumptuous to question the existence of God based on your own concept of morality. You think evil shouldn't exist, and if God allows evil, then he isn't a god, because a god should prevent evil, according to you.
But why should it be true?
God created us in his image, he gave us free will because he loves us.
He could have smothered us with love and created a world free of pain, like the garden of Eden. But it is my conception that God allowed the snake to exist, even tacitely, because Adam and Eve weren't good, they just existed in a world without morality. They weren't good because they rejected evil, they were "good" because evil simply did not exist.
Is it not true that love isn't about removing evil?
A father who deeply loves his child will make him competent, strong, he will confront him to the hardships of the world.
A father who loves himself will protect his child from the world, so that the child can remain dependant and weak.
A father who loves his child will respect his child, and if you respect your child, you will have confidence in his ability to make the right choice.
This is essentially what God is doing by confronting us to evil. He is giving us the ability to make a choice, whether it is the right one or the wrong one is up to us.

>>18282134
just started the idiot, is this the same kolya in this book or?

>>18285826
As I explained here >>18285849, good simply cannot exist witout evil.
What you fail to understand is that being inherently good doesn't prevent evil from existing.
Let's say that someone murders a child, and you are the judge.
Will you forgive the murderer or will you condamn him?
If you forgive him, the family will find it unjust, and the children would have been brutally murdered without any consequence.
If you don't forgive him, and send him to jail, you will cause suffering to the murderer, is it not also evil to make this choice?
My point is that existence wouldn't be worth it if it wasn't for evil, and evil comes with more evil, even if you are good yourself

>>18282134

How do you get that emotionally involved ? I didn't feel the need to cry at any point while reading Karamazov. The only truly sad part was with the poor family and the boy that lost his dog.

>>18285915
>boy that lost his dog
I've read this a few months ago. Didnt Kolya took care of the dog afterwards?

>>18285946
Kolya finds the dog, teaches him a lot of tricks, change his name and pretend to everyone it is a random dog he found, but not the one who ate the bread with the needle.
When he come visiting the young boy, he gives him the dog and reveals to everyone that it is the very dog the boy thought he had killed

>>18285946

Anon you asked here.

Yeah I mean he brought the dog back, but the reunion was really soured by the fact the kid was going to die anyway and couldn't enjoy having his dog back.

Kinda want to read this since C&P was the first “real book” I ever read out of college, but feel like I’ve advanced so far past Dos that I’m worried I’d think it just meh.

Worth the read if I’ve already checked out Demons, The Idiot, etc?

>>18285882
No you don't understand me. What you're saying is the (old) argument that evil exists to provide contrast, allowing the good to shine forth.

What I'm saying is that Good is a particular outlook: my Good is, say, stumbling across a large pile of money; this benefits me yet will damage others: My Good/Their Evil. Good is, by definition, an outlook, an aim. You cannot have a 'Good' without it being predisposed towards a certain direction, a certain type of action. If God is not absolutely 'Good' then it would imply his inability to fulfill, through himself, HIS own 'Good', thus throwing his overall ability into doubt. This by itself btw destroys religious dogma—why should I be happy about a finite being with aims adversarial to my own?

The entire argument is specious though; there's a reason why most don't use it, but rather rely on a more Augustinian: 'Evil is a privation of God's Good'.

>>18286001
>advanced past Dostoevsky
Don't worry anon, from your post alone I can tell you you're retarded enough to be able to enjoy any book ever written.

>>18286068
>What I'm saying is that Good is a particular outlook: my Good is, say, stumbling across a large pile of money; this benefits me yet will damage others: My Good/Their Evil. Good is, by definition, an outlook, an aim. You cannot have a 'Good' without it being predisposed towards a certain direction

But good doesn't necesseraly come to the expense of someone, if someone is sick and you heal them, where is the evil here?

>If God is not absolutely 'Good' then it would imply his inability to fulfill, through himself, HIS own 'Good', thus throwing his overall ability into doubt.

How can you be so sure God doesn't fulfill his own "Good"?
What if sending you to hell for your sins is what he wants, his "good"?
Just because you disagree with or dislike the creation of god and the choice he makes doesn't mean it isn't part of his orientiation, or his good as you said it.

>>18286072
it’ll be ok babe

>>18286090
>Good doesn't come at the expense of something
Yes it does; in your example, 'Health' is the Good (the desired outcome), And 'Sickness' is the Evil. You can't have both, thus, by acting in a particular way—healing the sick man—one is defining a 'Good' AND a 'Evil'. If God sends a plague unto Earth, it ravishes many villages and kills many people, where is the Good? Is it in those who overcame fear, hatred and illegality, to NOT pillage, loot and, generally, to take advantage of the chaos to further their own ends? Or, is it in those who perished from the plague? from God's will? going to the Heavenly Kingdom whilst always maintaining faith? The point I'm making is that there must be a definitive 'Good' that God favours: God sends a plague > it kills people > either those who use it to prove their virtue are 'Good', or those who died believing are 'Good'—there can't be a situation where both dying and living are of equal 'Good' value.

>How can you be so sure God doesn't fulfill his 'Good'
Because you said so yourself; If God is not absolutely 'Good' then he cannot fulfill all absolutely, universally. his Good. I have my own 'Good' which I attempt to spread however I can that's within my power; yet my power is finite, and as such, my 'Good' too is finite, i.e, I'm incapable of bring my idea of 'Good' into a 1 to 1 with reality, it exists solely within my mind due to my inability to realise it.

If God possesses a 'Good' then it must be absolute: It's not that 'Good' as a concept must be absolute—God could be absolutely Evil—there are many things that exist with their own finite 'Good', I'm merely saying that by possessing a 'Good' it defines an end, and if something has an end without the means to fulfill it, that thing is not omnipotent; and a God that isn't omnipotent isn't a God, merely another existent being. Based on your definition of a God, the only criteria applicable is power; you would be qualitatively justified in worshiping myself as a God as much as your own.

>>18286171
>'Health' is the Good (the desired outcome), And 'Sickness' is the Evil. You can't have both
Of course, but being good in this example doesn't create more evil, curing the disease doesn't create evil.
>The point I'm making is that there must be a definitive 'Good' that God favours [...] there can't be a situation where both dying and living are of equal 'Good' value.


Why couldn't the "Good" that god favoured be nuanced? Why couldn't his objective be to have 2/3 of the population killed and the rest alive? Why should god either conform to the idea that everyone dies, or everyone survives.
His "Good" could very well be to have some of his followers join him in heaven, and have the rest stay on earth, there is nothing contradictory about that idea.

Also, what if the ultimate goal of God is to let the world spin, with close to no intervention?

>Because you said so yourself; If God is not absolutely 'Good' then he cannot fulfill all absolutely, universally
I don't recall saying this.
But you assume God wants good to be the only thing to exist, where in reality you have no proof of this.
You claim god is incompetent because he wants Good to succeed and evil exists, but you have no proof that God wants evil to disappear entirely, it's the main axiom of your whole reasoning, but it comes from nowhere.
in fact, if you read the bible, it is very clear that evil is part of god's plan.

You have absolutely no logical reason to believe the current events unfolding aren't what God REALLY wants to happen, the very concept of free will would indicate that god wants evil to exist for the sole reason that we could overcome it.

You are right by claiming a god unable to fullfil his vision isn't a god, but who are you to claim you know and understand god's vision and goals? That's what I fail to understand.

What if we live in a world with just the right amount of evil for good to arise?

>>18286217
The Good expunges the evil. Evil=Sickness/Good=Health: Sick man exists=1 Evil; Sick man is turned Healthy(Good) Healthy man exists=Good. The Evil is expunged for the Good.

The Good of God cannot be 'nuanced' because God is absolute, and must, in the end, have a definitive result. If the plague results in increased virtue, then this is a Good inspired by the Evil of the plague. The plague was the means for the virtue, which is Good; the end result of God's action must result in his (absolute) Good, his Absolutely Good end. The intermediate steps may be, to our humanly limited conceptions, Evil, but God, if he is absolutely Good, must in the end favour his own End: Good. Plague victims do not exist in God's 'Endgame'.

If his ultimate Good is merely non-interference with his creation, then that merely begs the question: for what purpose was existence made to begin with? Especially so if it was created by a, supposedly, limited being. But again, this is a specious argument: if God maintains complete non-interference, then there is literally no justification to worship in him.

>your last bit
Your entire argument is fallacious. I'm not arguing that God doesn't allow evil (though that would be a valid, and correct, argument), but rather, that God must, if he possesses a conception of Good and Evil and IS absolutely one or the other, have a final cause, a final end. This end, if he is absolutely Good/Evil, must exclude one or the other.

Your misunderstanding my primary point of contention, namely: God, to be omnipotent (and thus worthy of worship), must be either: Good, Evil, Good and Evil (though I couldn't understand such a position), or neither—in which case the human conception of morality is entirely debunked. God cannot, if he is omnipotent, have things – in the end – result in situation pleasing to him; any other contention deprives him of his omnipotence.

So you must either admit that your God is not omnipotent, or admit he is not Good. Again, it's not the intermediate stage, but the end.
Good/Evil
1/1 >>> 1/5 >>> 5/5 >>> 10/5 >>> 10/0
Evil serves to inspire Good: the end result must be Good's ultimate triumph if God is omnipotent and Good. The intermediate Evil must necessarily give way to the Good's end.

>>18285569
God and his prophets and his saints always keep talking about how good he is though. So was he just boasting? Does this mean the bible might be full of lies even if it's divine?

>>18282417
Brain tumors btfo all none physical theories on the philosophy of mind.

Just finished notes from a dead house today, not sure how I feel about it yet. Which Dostoevsky novel should I read next?

>>18286300
>if God maintains complete non-interference, then there is literally no justification to worship in him.
God maintains non-interference (mostly) on earth, but he is the king of heaven, and as such, he will decide your fate in the afterlife.
>God must, if he possesses a conception of Good and Evil and IS absolutely one or the other, have a final cause
Again, I disagree, and I think we will never agree on this.
God doesn't have to be entirely Good, he doesn't have to be absolute and there are absolutely no reasons to believe this.

And even if he was, even if he had to be absolute, I don't think our conception of morality is developped and accurate enough to be ported to the intentions of God, it is as if a bird was trying to comprehend the content of your caracter.

I think we fundamentally disagree on two things:
I don't believe God has to be absolutely Good, because good cannot exist without evil.
and I don't believe we are equiped to understand what God deems to be Good, if he truly is, as he should be, infinitely superior to us.

GOD is real and it's called the DEVIL.

>>18286363
there's no good or evil,rather there's only priority and precedence for survival

>>18286437
NASA = SATAN (exploding head emoji)

>>18286363
Basically you're just elaborating on old scholastic disputes. Is our Good the same as God's Good? I would recommend you read up on the schoolmen's contentions on this.

>Good cannot exist without Evil
Here you acknowledge your belief in non-contradiction, thus we can, through negation, come to some non-positive knowledge of God.
Namely, if he is one thing, he mustn't be its contradiction: If he is Good, he cannot be Evil. If he is not infinitely the things that compose him, then he is not infinite (for something cannot be partially infinite). Thus he must either lack Good/Evil, say, because these are human conceits outside God's ken, or, he must be absolutely one or the other.
If our Good isn't comparable to God's Good, then the comparison is analogical, a human heuristic to understand God. And otherwise, we can, negatively, understand God: If God is absolutely Good then he can't be in any way Evil; and vice versa.

>>18286111
More

The Brothers Karamazov made me a Christian

>>18286565
more like u got cucked.

>>18282417
>How in the fuck is that in anyway fair
>fair
What is "fair"? This presupposes objective ethics.

>>18286335
^

>>18286637
How about judging it through Christian ethics?

>>18282962

>>18286637
Just shut the fuck up idiot

>>18282134
It hits even harder when you remember that Dostoyevsky was tortured and brainwashed into Christianity.
Even after he was released from the Gulag they still kept treating him like shit.

>>18287826
What are you talking about

>>18285865
It is not. I really did enjoy the Idiot but it's the most different of Dosto's novels, so you may not like it. It's also bloated due to how it was published, and I'm sure that the fact I read the Idiot before Dosto's other works allowed me to bypass that. C&P, Demons, and TBK are all tighter than the Idiot. Very good book though, just not the same as Dosto's others.
>>18285915
I felt the need to cry whenever the schoolboys were involved. I was emotionally impacted by most of it though. I think I get attached to text easier than most people. I'm on the other side of autism where I hyperempathize rather than underempathize, and so random things make me emotional. I cry whenever I see bad news online and it tends to overwhelm me so I avoid being a SCROOOOLLER for that reason.

>>18286335
What have you read so far?

>>18288618
Literally just that one

>>18282460
Some catholic answer this

>>18288697
Revelation 20:11-12
>Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. From his presence earth and sky fled away, and no place was found for them. And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the books, according to what they had done.
God is the final judge.

>>18285569
>The answer is: God is not good, but he is not bad.
Anon, believing this by default makes you a heretic and a blasphemer. Repent

>>18288626
I would say TBK > Demons > C&P > Idiot in terms of quality, and I would go in reverse order (skipping the Idiot unless you're a Dostofag like me) from C&P to Demons to TBK. Demons is overlooked too often.

>>18282417
Read Job and realize that Christianity is battered wife syndrome but for some reason is considered acceptable.

I hate Abrahamic religions

>>18286324
They don’t though, they only do if you have a retarded understanding of what consciousness is (ie. conflating it with cognitive ability and thought)

>>18285569
>even though not all Christians agree with my personal view on the topic
I suppose you are an authority on God's word? lmao

>>18288812
no u

>>18285826
>If God isn't good then that completely snaps all theological conclusions over one's knee.
You think so? Why?
>If he lacks such an attribute as 'Good' (as we ascribe it) then he is, for one thing, undeserving of worship
God is capable of good, as is any human. But the difference lies in punishment. Is God good when he judges? To our moral beings, we can say no. After all, nobody really wants to go to Hell. So is he showing his kindness there? Perhaps not, but does that negate all the good he has done? Of course not!

So what do we do? Pray for mercy to a God that is as willing to love us, as he is willing to make us suffer in a relm devoid of mercy and grace.
>>18285835
Lmao, that was the point. Questioning suffering is pointless. No matter what religious or non-religious view you look at it, your "why" won't get a concrete answer.
>>18286306
>God and his prophets and his saints always keep talking about how good he is though. So was he just boasting?
Not necessarily. God is good. That can mean God is just, He is fair, He is powerful. That doesn't have to attribute to "God is nice", in which he can be.
>Does this mean the bible might be full of lies even if it's divine?
No, just the wordings can be used to mean different things. Like if I were to say, "God is powerful". What does that mean? Like physically? Is he buff? Well, I don't know, but we can say the meaning that He is powerful in the sense that he is all-knowing, capable of knowledge and power more than we can comprehend, etc.
>>18288812
>Anon, believing this by default makes you a heretic and a blasphemer.
Does it? I don't mean it in malice or ill-will, or even to discredit all what He has done. But I view it as a recognition of power and judgment. Someone who is capable of everything, right?
>>18291470
Nah, I'm just my own opinion. I've talked to others about it, but I most get put off by such an outlook.

But another way I see it, and perhaps more palatable to others, is that this is the ultimate act of mercy. You may be suffering, the world is being torn apart, existence is futile. But you are alive and relatively with a clean bill of health. Is that not the biggest act of mercy that God can bestow upon mere mortals?

>>18289450
What about notes from the underground

>>18282387
Based

>>18282460
the bible mentions madness many times and gives no reason for us to believe anyone is punished for things that they do in this state, but occassionally madness is used as punishment

>>18291810
Good as an entry to Dosto since it's only 120 pages. Ideas presented there are expounded upon in his other works, so if you read it, read it first.

>>18282417
A person incapable of comprehending their own actions is not disqualified from salvation, such as in the case of a sweet old woman becoming uncharitable due to Alzheimers and being incapable of recognizing it. That being said, this is in a case when our freedom to choose reason is removed. In many cases, although someone's behavior may change due to a tumor or something, they are still somewhat capable of reasoning their actions. In this case, sin knowingly and unrepentantly committed could mean Hell.

Your understanding of "fair" is not God's understanding of it. You have committed your "fair share" of Evil in your life and deserve nothing but Hellfire. However, God freely gives salvation to those who would choose it. God is infinitely just, but that doesn't mean that God doesn't allow us to be tempted. We are imbued with the freedom of choice to follow or to depart from his way, and we are to meet adversity with confidence knowing that to struggle is to grow.

>And not only so, but we glory in tribulations also: knowing that tribulation worketh patience;
>4 And patience, experience; and experience, hope:
Romans 5:3-4

>>18292039
Thanks

>>18282294
Thanks for the spoiler save bro.

>>18284791
Ultimately it's for God to say. It's impossible for us to know how much was the tumor and how much was his own doing. The tumor didn't just seize control of his body, but it certainly can impact his judgment. If he was able to recognize it was wrong and unrepentantly did it, Hell seems likely. It's like how homosexual temptation is not necessarily a sin, but when one acts on these inclinations, knowing it's wrong, that is the crime against God.

>>18285569
Abhorrent post. God is good because he created the universe, whatever God says is good because he is good. Ethics are defined and created by God. If God wanted it to be, anything would be moral or immoral because he created the universe. He can't in any meaningful way be "bad" even if he was as heretics consider Him to be the demiurge, because being bad would require some higher moral authority or power above Him to judge Him and there isn't

>>18291617
>Does it?
Yes, he is correct, this is basic Christian theology. To oppose it would, by definition, be heretical.

>>18292132
Do you know where I'd be able to find the teaching on this?
In the Catechism of the Catholic Church 1859
>Mortal sin requires full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act, of its opposition to God's law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin
Implies that this example would fall under that but I would like to know if any priests acting in official capacity of the church have taught that a brain tumour that changes a persons character would come under this
Links to any official publications would be appreciated