It makes perfect sense that the more pure our beliefs and enlightened our understanding... the more fervently we desire to reject sin. Christian life is a process of achieving such a state. Now for instance, if you think that I've committed the heresy of pelagianism or something by saying that... that's your opinion. I believe in the doctrine of original sin utterly. All I was saying was that as St Paul told us, we can know things by their fruits. The beliefs and understandings nourish our attitudes and behaviours and direct us away from sin.
I'm confused about what you're trying to say here, as I remember it as being Jesus who taught us that we will know truth by the fruit it bears (while warning us against false prophets and heresy). St. Paul does identify the fruits of the Spirit, but I don't think that's the passage you're thinking of, is it? Maybe we are thinking of very different things, or maybe I am forgetting something.
Regardless, it is important to note that purity and clarity are not synonymous. Thus, it is an error for us to use them synonymously. Do you think that Satan is in Hell because He just didn't know that he was doing anything wrong? Do you think God would allow him to spend eternity in Hell if he was merely unclear about right and wrong? Or, do you think it is more likely that Satan is quite aware that He is sinning and He is going to keep doing it anyway?
If I go to Confession and say to a priest that I think I committed a mortal sin but wasn't sure if I had or not, what would he ask me?
Sure we can say we believe something... but the evidence of true belief is reflected in a growth towards more purity and humility and love.
What you're identifying here is a difference in what we claim to believe as opposed to what we actually believe. That is not the same as a difference in being confused about something as opposed to understanding something.
Do you think that saying we believe something that we don't truly believe is the same as being confused about the particulars of something that we truly believe? Don't you think one of those things is lacking honesty while the other isn't? I'm not sure why you would equate those two circumstances.
We'll never be as pure as Jesus or Mary, but if that's what you've extrapolated by my comment, perhaps you're providing an example of the OP's issue.
This doesn't make any sense to me at all, so I'm going to ask you to clarify what you're trying to say here.
That's not the OP's point. It's about those who extrapolate heretical beliefs from comments that ordinary Catholics make in the course of discussion.
A heretical belief expressed by anyone, be they considered "ordinary" or somehow extraordinary, does not change whether or not the belief is heretical. Again, heresy is heresy.
Personally I try always to do more than just look at myself. I have a spiritual director that I see once a month and I'm doing Theology and Philosophy at University as of this year. My problem is that I happen to adore and love the teachings and theology that's come from our last Pope John Paul, and often times that's enough to put a target on a persons back to the some people.
I don't know who "the some people" are to whom you're referring, but it is merely a fact of life that people disagree, and engage in conversation about disagreement.