Controversial Catholic issues

[Abu]

Oreoracle #12
I don’t see the difference. To judge that one has murdered is to judge them as a murderer. To judge that one has stolen is to judge them as a thief. You can’t judge actions without implicitly judging the actors.

It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

But it is vital to follow the command to judge all actions, speech writing against truth and in this way we can help others by offering truth. This is the difference between judging guilt before God and judging the goodness/wrongness of their actions:
Apart from commanding the woman found in adultery to “go and sin no more” the Christ commanded us to:
“Stop judging by appearances, but judge justly.” (Jn 7:24).

“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but underneath are ravenous wolves. By their fruits you will know them” (Mt 7:15, 16).

“Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down and thrown into the fire. So by their fruits you will know them.” (Mt 7:19-20).

“Test everything: retain what is good.” (1Thess 5:21).

“The spiritual person, however, can judge everything but is not subject to judgment by anyone.” (1 Cor 2:15).

“I, for my part, although absent in body but present in spirit, have already, as if present, pronounced judgment on the one who has committed this deed…” (1 Cor 5:3; read 1-13).

“I am speaking as to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I am saying.” (1 Cor 10:15).

“Beloved, do not trust every spirit but test the spirits to see whether they belong to God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world.” (1 Jn 4:1).

“I know your works; I know that you are neither cold nor hot. I wish you were either cold or hot. So, because you are lukewarm, neither cold nor hot, I will vomit you out of my mouth.” (Rev 3:16).

We can’t judge according to truth by being mesmerized by others and giving them adulation, but according to the teaching of Christ’s Church, Her Tradition and Her Scriptures.

 

[Nihilist]

What is the truth anyways? There are Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, Christians. I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion. Protestant think Catholics are not following. Muslims believe Allah is God. Even within the Catholic community, people disagree on how serious a particular sin or what should be considered a sin. “Cafeteria Catholics” pray for the intolerance by the “traditional Catholics.” “Traditional Catholics” pray for “cafeteria Catholics.” What exactly makes someone a bigot? I am even surprised. People have different definitions of what constitutes gossip. Some Christians are so against being judgmental and all for Jesus’s love. Some are more judgmental. I just do not understand. Why can’t people respect other people’s opinions without name-calling? No matter what position, I take I will be a bad person to someone. If I think homosexuality is a sin, I am narrow-minded bigot. If I do not, I am a cafeteria Catholic. If I do not agree with abortion, I am not for women’s reproductive rights, if I do, I am condoning murder. If I speak out against sin, IT IS NOT MY PLACE TO TELL OTHERS WHAT TO DO IN THEIR PERSONAL LIFE. If I do not speak out against sin, what type of friend are you to watch someone sin mortally? IF I evangelize, I am being annoying. Religion is supposed to be personal. If I don’t evangelize, then I have failed.

Yes- there are many contradictions. The most important thing is to obey the commandments of God- and thereby to escape Hell. This is the really important thing, if you think about it. Thousands of people will tell you how you ‘should’ be (non-judgment, evangalizing, ‘dynamic’). I am even doing it, in a way, now.

But, the way I see it- everything else (human fulfilment, happiness, etc.) is ‘take it or leave it’- but escaping Hell, that’s the main thing…But how does one know how to escape Hell?

Your post raises a lot of questions- and when I think about the number of conflicting views, I am quite frightened. In fact, we know nothing for certain.

I would say, “Go with your conscience”- but how can I even know that?

 

[Abu]

CRATUS #1
What is the truth anyways?

Listen and learn is a good motto, but to whom do you listen?

Surely that Person who says emphatically “I am the Way the Truth and the Life. No one comes to the Father except through Me” [Jn 14:6]; that Person who teaches “I and the Father are one.” (Jn 10:30); who commanded: “As the father has sent Me, so I am sending you….For those whose sins you forgive, they are forgiven; for those whose sins you retain, they are retained,” (Jn 20: 21-23) – that Person commands respect and attention, particularly when Jesus reveals the reality:
‘He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Jesus said to him in reply, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah. For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my heavenly Father.” ’ [Mt 15:17].

Don’t you know that Christ proved that He is God?
The historian Eusebius in his Church history, 4.3, 1.2, tells us that writing about 123 A.D., apologist Quadratus cited those in his day who had been cured or raised from the dead by Jesus of Nazareth – prime witnesses – long after the miracles, crucifixion and death of the Son of God. No other religious founder claimed to be God and proved it – not Mohammed of Islam, not in Hinduism, not in Buddhism, not in Taoism, not in Confucianism.

The vast gulf between Catholicism and any other religion is that the Catholic Church has been founded by a Divine Person who lived with a human and divine nature and claimed to be God, proving that claim by His resurrection. When God leads us through His Church, others fashion their own beliefs and morals.

I have a fairly open mind and listen to anyone’s opinion.

Archbishop Fulton Sheen was not backward in coming forward:
“Religion has its principles, natural and revealed, which are more exacting in their logic than mathematics…the false notion of tolerance has obscured this fact from the eyes of many who are as intolerant about the smallest details of life as they are tolerant of their relations to God.”
Archbishop Fulton J Sheen has written: we “are suffering from tolerance: tolerance of right and wrong, truth and error, virtue and evil, Christ and chaos."

“A person who can make up his or her mind in an orderly way, as a person might make up a bed, is called a bigot; but a person who cannot make up his or her mind, any more than one can make up for lost time, is called tolerant and broadminded. Another evidence of the breakdown of reason that has produced this weird fungus of broad-mindedness is the passion for novelty, as opposed to the love of truth.” *Broad-Mindedness *in The Electronic Christian, Macmillan, 1979].

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

As I’ve been discussing with Polytropos, my understanding of Catholic morality is that people are culpable for their sins by definition. One cannot accidentally sin or be forced to sin by circumstance. So to even claim that someone has sinned is to presuppose that they are culpable for the act. If they aren’t, you can’t assume that they are responsible for it, which means you can’t assume they’ve actually sinned.

You do not have to presuppose they are culpable or responsible. One cannot assume their knowledge. They may have no idea that their action is is a sin. The way that Catholics look at mortal sin is that there are three parameters: grave matter, full knowledge and complete consent. Only God knows if a person has full knowledge and complete consent, but we can know if the matter is grave. You can say to a person who just told you that they commit adultery or that they have stolen something that committing adultery and stealing are sins-- a sin is an offense against God. The best way to approach the matter is that we are to say “that action is a sin”, not “you are sinner”. Although I am the first to agree with you that it doesn’t always turn out that way.

But we don’t simply declare that these actions are wrong. We use sanctions such as fines or prison to discourage those behaviors. To do so effectively, one has to judge the extent to which a person is culpable, otherwise all instances of a crime, such as manslaughter, would be dealt with in the same manner. I hope we can agree that it would be impractical to forego passing judgments, at least in the courtroom.

But the police who make the accusation of a crime are not the ones who declare guilt/punishment or not. It is the court that does that.

 

[Oreoracle]

"Prayer_Warrior:

You do not have to presuppose they are culpable or responsible. One cannot assume their knowledge. They may have no idea that their action is a sin.

Alright, but then you say this:

The way that Catholics look at mortal sin is that there are three parameters: grave matter, **full knowledge **and complete consent.

You can’t assume their knowledge of the sin, and mortal sin requires full knowledge. So you would agree that we can never ascertain whether someone has committed mortal sins, correct?

If someone slaughters every child in an orphanage, we can’t say they’ve committed a mortal sin, because to do so requires us to claim they had full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions and they gave full consent. Furthermore, Catholic morality holds that mortal sins affect the state of one’s soul. So to say they’ve committed a mortal sin requires us to judge the state of their soul.

And you haven’t answered the question of how practical all of this is. How, in a court of law, do we decide whether someone should be punished, or how they should be rehabilitated, if we cannot ascertain their guilt or consent to the crime?

It is very important NOT to judge a person’s guilt before God as commanded (Mt 7:1-5). We are commanded not to judge others regarding their motives, intentions, and guilt before God (a judgment reserved to God).

I will ask you the same question that I posed to Prayer Warrior: Without making claims about motives, how do you decide how to sentence someone in a court of law?

 

[Abu]

Oreoracle #25
Without making claims about motives, how do you decide how to sentence someone in a court of law?

A government has the right and duty to enact just laws to protect society. Unless a person is judged to be incapable of rational behaviour then that person is judged according to the law of the land, and in a democracy has the benefit of a lawyer to argue the case based on facts and the existing law, before a magistrate or judge.

The best laws would take into account God’s teaching through His Catholic Church.

 

[glendab]

Hello Oreoacle.

If someone slaughters every child in an orphanage, we can’t say they’ve committed a mortal sin, because to do so requires us to claim they had full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions and they gave full consent. Furthermore, Catholic morality holds that mortal sins affect the state of one’s soul. So to say they’ve committed a mortal sin requires us to judge the state of their soul.

Your hypothetical is a mess. If some person goes to an orphanage and murders say 50 children and the Sisters caring for them, not only do they have malice aforethought, but they had to plan for a while some of the details, like proper weapons and mode of entry and sufficient ammo, time of day when the task would be easier, etc. Now, you expect that there could be a circumstance in which this outrage wouldn’t be a mortal sin and expect to find substantiation for that premise in the Church’s teaching based upon the 3 things necessary formula and the fact of the murderers’ heart not being capable of being judged by anyone but God. Guess what? Murder is a mortal sin. Your example is a very mortal sin as many times over as there are dead bodies on the floor and then some for all the other mortal sins committed prior to and during the slaughter.

Glenda

 

[glendab]

And you haven’t answered the question of how practical all of this is. How, in a court of law, do we decide whether someone should be punished, or how they should be rehabilitated, if we cannot ascertain their guilt or consent to the crime? I will ask you the same question that I posed to Prayer Warrior: Without making claims about motives, how do you decide how to sentence someone in a court of law?

I forgot this part of the Quote: Actus Reus and Mens Rea are terms used to determine the degree of crime committed, usually murder in the first degree with aggravating circumstance. There has to be an actus reus, that is an *guilty act and a mens rea, a guilty mind *too. The person has to have malice aforethought. But this is to determine between types of felony murders. The case cited above, the slaughter of innocents in an orphanage to my mind shows both and it would be aggravated felony murder with however many counts as there are dead bodies. Getting to the motives is for those who think of the reasons behind crimes and the most interested is usually the defense so they can come up with a plausible excuse for their client that a jury or judge will buy. The going to court is a separate process than the actual court process and as we so often sadly note these days, going to court sometimes frees those who should be retained. Just getting to court for some is a monumental task. 98% of the punishments for crimes are listed in the Criminal Codes (Penal Codes) of a country and the other 2% is a judge being “creative” as in a liter bug being given a specific task to complete as his or her community service. (I’ve heard of some really funny ones.) or a King or Queen of a country getting involved in the case and handing down a specific punishment. That is how the punishment fitting the crime gets made. It is all written down somewhere. Has to be or justice would become arbitrary.

Glenda

 

[Oreoracle]

A government has the right and duty to enact just laws to protect society. Unless a person is judged to be incapable of rational behaviour then that person is judged according to the law of the land, and in a democracy has the benefit of a lawyer to argue the case based on facts and the existing law, before a magistrate or judge.

So you would agree that it is okay to judge people? I understand that you’re attaching conditions to that concession, but you do concede that Christians who say that judging people is solely up to God are incorrect? There are situations in which it is permissible for humans to pass judgment?

Your hypothetical is a mess. If some person goes to an orphanage and murders say 50 children and the Sisters caring for them, not only do they have malice aforethought, but they had to plan for a while some of the details, like proper weapons and mode of entry and sufficient ammo, time of day when the task would be easier, etc.

Okay, but that’s a judgment on your part. Some posters on this thread have contended that it is never our position to judge a person’s culpability. I take it that you disagree, at least in special cases?

I forgot this part of the Quote: Actus Reus and Mens Rea are terms used to determine the degree of crime committed, usually murder in the first degree with aggravating circumstance. There has to be an actus reus, that is an *guilty act and a mens rea, a guilty mind *too. The person has to have malice aforethought. But this is to determine between types of felony murders. The case cited above, the slaughter of innocents in an orphanage to my mind shows both and it would be aggravated felony murder with however many counts as there are dead bodies. Getting to the motives is for those who think of the reasons behind crimes and the most interested is usually the defense so they can come up with a plausible excuse for their client that a jury or judge will buy.

I think determining motives plays a more central role than you believe. To even call something “murder” is to judge the motive, as it could have been manslaughter. If I have an accidental car wreck that kills my passenger, that isn’t murder. Now you might say, “Well, you said it was an accident, so of course it isn’t murder.” But that’s just the problem: I attest that it was accidental. The jury has to decide whether my wreck wasn’t a clever ploy to kill a friend who cheated with my wife behind my back or some other scenario. So you really can’t escape making judgments.

 

[Abu]

Oreoracle #29
I understand that you’re attaching conditions to that concession, but you do concede that Christians who say that judging people is solely up to God are incorrect? There are situations in which it is permissible for humans to pass judgment?

There are no “concessions” – there are principles.

Actions need to be judged according to the standards of right and wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church. How could society function without good laws to control and punish miscreants, through examination and weighing of evidence, and passing judgment to deter offenders?

 

[polytropos]

So just to be clear, you’re saying that we can identify wrongful acts, but we can’t assess the degree of responsibility anyone has for their wrongful actions?

More or less, but it is not a Kantian categorical imperative. As I pointed out, there are cases where we can assess subjective culpability, but in general, we do not pronounce on the state of someone’s soul. (So one case is if someone tells us of their motivations. Another would be interpreting their actions as part of a broader pattern. I’m not claiming this is impossible and that we can never make determinations.)

Firstly, the initial poster to whom I replied said we can recognize sinful behavior, not just wrongful behavior. To say an act is sinful presupposes some degree of culpability on the sinner’s part.

Yes, it does, but it is natural to extend the term “sinful” to grave matter (ie. objectively evil acts without subjective culpability taken into account).

So someone who commits an objectively evil act, whether it has stained their soul or not, can be admonished, because they should avoid such acts in the future, for their own sake. The admonishment is not a meting out of judgment, but a guidance so that they do better in the future.

Secondly, how does this work in practice? You can acknowledge that someone is misbehaving, but you can’t directly blame them for the behavior. How would we decide how to sentence someone in a courtroom if we can’t assess their culpability?

As I said, it’s not a categorical imperative. With enough information, and situated in an appropriate role (ie. judge or legal authority, parent, etc.), one must assess and judge.

One cannot accidentally sin. One cannot sin due to external pressures beyond one’s control. (Unless I have sorely misunderstood Catholic morality.) So to say that another has sinned is to attribute culpability to them.

That’s all correct. Sometimes “evil act” and “sin” are loosely interchanged. (Another issue is that it may be appropriate to judge that something is a sin, but not the degree of culpability.)

 

[Oreoracle]

More or less, but it is not a Kantian categorical imperative. As I pointed out, there are cases where we can assess subjective culpability, but in general, we do not pronounce on the state of someone’s soul. (So one case is if someone tells us of their motivations. Another would be interpreting their actions as part of a broader pattern. I’m not claiming this is impossible and that we can never make determinations.)

…]

That’s all correct. Sometimes “evil act” and “sin” are loosely interchanged. (Another issue is that it may be appropriate to judge that something is a sin, but not the degree of culpability.)

Okay, it seems that we agree. Judgments are sometimes justified, depending on the information we are given. We judge guilt in particular cases, but we try to avoid judging someone in general, e.g., calling that person “evil”. This more or less coincides with secular morality as seen in law.

There are no “concessions” – there are principles.

Actions need to be judged according to the standards of right and wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church. How could society function without good laws to control and punish miscreants, through examination and weighing of evidence, and passing judgment to deter offenders?

Again, I’m asking only a simple yes or no question: Is it sometimes justified for humans to judge other humans? Yes or no?

 

[Abu]

Oreoracle #32
Again, I’m asking only a simple yes or no question: Is it sometimes justified for humans to judge other humans? Yes or no?

We are not simpletons, and the answer has been given:
Actions are rightly judged by an individual as to being right or wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church.

 

[Oreoracle]

We are not simpletons, and the answer has been given:
**Actions are rightly judged **by an individual as to being right or wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church.

Firstly, this is a shift of your position. Earlier you said:

Abu:

A government has the right and duty to enact just laws to protect society. Unless a person is judged to be incapable of rational behaviour then that person is judged according to the law of the land, and in a democracy has the benefit of a lawyer to argue the case based on facts and the existing law, before a magistrate or judge.

In the former quote you say actions are judged, but in the latter you say people are judged. Which is it?

I’m not doing this because I think anyone’s a simpleton. But I’ve been around the block a few times on these forums, and I know how it works. You have to practically twist people’s arms to make them commit to a statement without trying to wriggle out of it later.

So I’ll ask again: Is it sometimes permissible for humans to judge other humans? Yes or no? To be clear, the possible answers consist of 2 or 3 letters. If you want to elaborate afterwards, that’s fine, but I want a clear “yes” or “no” first.

 

[Abu]

Oreoracle #34
In the former quote you say actions are judged, but in the latter you say people are judged. Which is it?

Actions are rightly judged by an individual as to being right or wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church.
That is how an individual can and should judge all actions.

Your question in post #25 “how do you decide how to sentence someone in a court of law?”, has been answered as “the person is judged according to the law of the land, and in a democracy has the benefit of a lawyer to argue the case based on facts before a magistrate or judge.”

“The best laws would take into account God’s teaching through His Catholic Church.”

Quite obviously the purpose of human judges is to judge the guilt or innocence of the accused according to the existing law.

 

[Oreoracle]

Actions are rightly judged by an individual as to being right or wrong through the natural moral law and conscience, which are clarified by Christ, the Son of God, through His Church.
That is how an individual can and should judge all actions.

Again, in the quote I provided, you said that people were judged, not merely their actions. Here it is again:

Abu:

A government has the right and duty to enact just laws to protect society. Unless a person is judged to be incapable of rational behaviour then **that person is judged **according to the law of the land, and in a democracy has the benefit of a lawyer to argue the case based on facts and the existing law, before a magistrate or judge.

I will keep repeating the question until you answer clearly with a simple “yes” or “no”: Is it sometimes permissible for humans to judge other humans? A one-word response is sufficient.

I’m sorry for being so insistent, but I really have to twist your arm to avoid semantical games like this:
Iron Donkey:

It is not judging the person (if done correctly), it is judging the action.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Alright, but then you say this:

You can’t assume their knowledge of the sin, and mortal sin requires full knowledge. So you would agree that we can never ascertain whether someone has committed mortal sins, correct?

If someone slaughters every child in an orphanage, we can’t say they’ve committed a mortal sin, because to do so requires us to claim they had full knowledge of the wrongfulness of their actions and they gave full consent. Furthermore, Catholic morality holds that mortal sins affect the state of one’s soul. So to say they’ve committed a mortal sin requires us to judge the state of their soul.

And you haven’t answered the question of how practical all of this is. How, in a court of law, do we decide whether someone should be punished, or how they should be rehabilitated, if we cannot ascertain their guilt or consent to the crime?

I will ask you the same question that I posed to Prayer Warrior: Without making claims about motives, how do you decide how to sentence someone in a court of law?

YES, we cannot presume anyone is in mortal sin. Period. When I gave the parameters for mortal sin those are for ourselves so that we will know how God will judge us, and how we should judge ourselves, not how we are to judge people. God has written in His Scriptures what actions are wrong. He has spoken through His Church what actions are wrong. Thus, we can have a properly formed conscience and we can know what is an offense against God. However, not all people read the Scriptures, not all people pay attention to the teaching of the Church. So it is up to us who are paying attention to point out when a person commits a wrong action. Why is this important? We tell another person they committed a grave action so that they can REPENT. That is the practical part of all of this. When you say “dude, killing those kids was an offense against God” you are bringing them to an awareness/knowledge. They then have the chance to repent and not do it again.

Jesus is the the judge, He will decide what to do. Our legal system pales in comparison to His true Justice.

 

[Oreoracle]

YES, we cannot presume anyone is in mortal sin. Period.

Thanks for a direct answer.

When I gave the parameters for mortal sin those are for ourselves so that we will know how God will judge us, and how we should judge ourselves, not how we are to judge people.

Alright, let’s consider some of those parameters: To commit a mortal sin, one has to have full knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act and consent to the sin. You say that we cannot judge when people have sinned in such a way, so it follows that we cannot determine whether someone knowingly did something wrong or committed the offense with their consent.

Now, with that in mind, how would we sentence someone in a court of law? The insanity plea could always be invoked, because to argue that someone isn’t insane is to judge their consent to the crime and their knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. How could we ever establish a first-degree murder conviction? To do so would require us to argue that the murderer had malice toward the victim, which is among the things we can’t judge.

 

[Prayer_Warrior]

Thanks for a direct answer.

Alright, let’s consider some of those parameters: To commit a mortal sin, one has to have full knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act and consent to the sin. You say that we cannot judge when people have sinned in such a way, so it follows that we cannot determine whether someone knowingly did something wrong or committed the offense with their consent.

Now, with that in mind, how would we sentence someone in a court of law? The insanity plea could always be invoked, because to argue that someone isn’t insane is to judge their consent to the crime and their knowledge of the wrongfulness of the act. How could we ever establish a first-degree murder conviction? To do so would require us to argue that the murderer had malice toward the victim, which is among the things we can’t judge.

We are talking about two different things. I am talking about spiritual judgement. We can’t be the judge, Jesus is the judge. You seem to be talking about a temporal court with temporal judgement. Apples and oranges. As far as I know, nothing in Scripture forbids weighing evidence to see if man’s laws have been broken. In a temporal court of law, one is proclaimed guilty of breaking man’s laws or not guilty of breaking man’s laws. In truth, the verdict of “not guilty” doesn’t mean innocent, it only means that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt. While it is true that some of man’s laws line up with God’s laws, the judgement on the person in a court of law (guilty or not guilty) is not spiritual judgement, but rather temporal judgment.

 

[glendab]

hello Oreoracle.

So you would agree that it is okay to judge people? I understand that you’re attaching conditions to that concession, but you do concede that Christians who say that judging people is solely up to God are incorrect? There are situations in which it is permissible for humans to pass judgment?.. So you really can’t escape making judgments.

We are given brains for a reason. We are supposed to use them to figure out right from wrong and what is best for us and those around us. We are to think and use prudence and all the gifts God gives us. It isn’t wrong to agree with God and notice that something is wrong in society or with a persons actions, etc. Usually when someone is accused of being judgmental it is because they disagree with the one doing the accusing or are showing that there is a fault or a remedy lacking. We are told what is right and what is wrong and we live it every day. God is the one who told us. He determines what is right and what is wrong and how to live. The type of judgment He spoke against is the notion that one is somehow better than another. Also keep in mind that the Israelites were given specific judges who moderated all of their behaviors and religious practices and some ordinary men were called to be judges for a time and they did pass sentence over every one when they were called upon to do so. Think jury duty today. How well do you think it would work of the defense attorney stood up at the end of a trial and simply said, “Do not be so judgmental. Murder is a relative term and you shouldn’t use it.” And then sat down. Ummmm see what I mean? it really doesn’t work that way. Not at all.

Glenda