Joshua Claybourn is pondering the eternal question of free will versus predestination, or God's Love versus free will, which may be the same thing. This reminds me of what may be an apocryphal story about a medieval Pope. It seems this Pope was constantly being bothered by one religious order that fervently believed in predestination and by a competing order that believed equally as strongly in free will. The Pope solved the problem by declaring the whole thing a mystery, and forbidding the subject from being presented to him again.

If there's a historical basis for this story, let me know.

Update and Lightning Turn-Around Time

David provides this citation to authority - CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Congregatio de Auxiliis. The entry states:

Congregatio de Auxiliis
A commission established by Pope Clement VIII to settle the theological controversy regarding grace which arose between the Dominicans and the Jesuits towards the close of the sixteenth century. Vast as was the subject of that controversy, its principle question, and the one that gave its name to the whole dispute, concerned the help (auxilia) afforded by grace; while the crucial point was the reconciliation of the efficacy of grace with human freedom. We know on the one hand that the efficacious grace given for the performance of an action obtains, infallibly, man's consent and that action takes place. On the other hand it is certain that in so acting, man is free. Hence the question: How can these two things--the infallible result and liberty--be harmonized? The Dominicans solved the difficulty by their theory of physical premotion and predetermination; grace is efficacious when, in addition to the assistance necessary for an action, it gives a physical impulsion by means of which God determines and applies our faculties to the action. The Jesuits found the explanation in that mediate knowledge (scientia media) whereby God knows, in the objective reality of things what a man, in any circumstances in which he might be placed, would do. Foreseeing, for instance, that a man would correspond freely with grace A, and that he, freely, would not correspond with grace B, God, desirous of man's conversion, gives him grace A. This is efficacious grace. The Dominicans declared that the Jesuits conceded too much to free will, and so tended toward Pelagianism. In turn, the Jesuits complained that the Dominicans did not sufficiently safeguard human liberty, and seemed in consequence to lean towards Calvinism.

The controversy was resolved as follows:

Clement VIII died 5 March, 1605, and after the brief reign of Leo IX, Paul V ascended the papal throne. In his presence seventeen debates took place. The Dominicans were represented by Diego Alvarez and Tomçs de Lemos; the Jesuits by Gregoria de Valencia, Pedro de Arrubal, Fernando de Bastida and Juan de Salas. Finally, after twenty years of discussion public and private, and eighty-five conferences in the presence of the popes, the question was not solved but an end was put to the disputes. The pope's decree communicated (5 September, 1607) to both Dominicans and Jesuits, allowed each party to defend its own doctrine, enjoined each from censoring or condemning the opposite opinion, and commanded them to await, as loyal sons of the Church, the final decision of the Apostolic See. That decision, however, has not been reached, and both orders, consequently, maintain their respective theories, just as any other theological opinion is held. The long controversy has aroused considerable feeling, and the pope, aiming at the restoration of peace and charity between the religious orders, forbade by a decree of the Inquisition (1 December, 1611) the publication of any book concerning efficacious grace until further action by the Holy See. The prohibition remained in force during the greater part of the seventeenth century. (See also Augustine of Hippo; Baius; Baûez; Grace, Controversies on; Molina; Thomism.)

Quite diplomatic, don't you think, but hardly an answer to Mr. Claybourne. [Incidentally, I incline to the free will side of the question for reasons I hope to adumbrate later.]