Intergenerational Sin/curses/forgiveness

  • Thread starter Thread starter MatureMomG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MatureMomG

Guest
I am just beginning to learn about this inter-generational stuff (ordered some good Catholic books on the topic).

I believe (not sure, but pretty sure) that my (long deceased) mother was abused (or at least had some issues) and harbored great resentment and lack of forgiveness towards those in her life who had hurt her (I am not sure who all that might have been). Again, my siblings and I don’t know details but it seems pretty clear that was the case for a variety of reasons.

Question: can I extend forgiveness on her behalf to those who harmed her? Even though I’m lacking any positive proof or specific names/people?

Make any sense?
 
Pray for the soul of your mother and for the souls of those who have harmed your mother, even if you don’t know their names. If you don’t harbor resentments towards them, it’s great; God already knows that. But now all the matter is between God and them. Besides, you can’t be sure that your mother didn’t eventually forgive them.

Intergenerational sin/curse is not Catholic teaching. God doesn’t punish a person for the sins of others and there is no such thing as a restless soul who seeks revenge after death by haunting the living. How can a Catholic who receives the sacraments fear curses?

Useful links:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=163333
ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/feb2003p12_1239.html
catholicdoors.com/isit/isit12.htm
catholic.org/international/international_story.php?id=25913

Ezekiel 18
19 Yet you say, “Why should not the son suffer for the iniquity of the father?” When the son has done what is lawful and right, and has been careful to observe all my statutes, he shall surely live. 20 The person who sins shall die. A child shall not suffer for the iniquity of a parent, nor a parent suffer for the iniquity of a child; the righteousness of the righteous shall be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be his own.

John 9
1 As he walked along, he saw a man blind from birth. 2 His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him”.
 
Intergenerational sin/curse is not Catholic teaching. /QUOTE]
As I said, I am just beginning to study this, so can’t say I have an informed opinion. A little bit I’ve read here on CA forums seem to indicate it is Cath. teaching. Or perhaps that was intergenerational healing (as compared to sin/curse). forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=845513&highlight=intergenerational+healing Just one of the threads.
I don’t know if the books I ordered have an imprimatur or not.
But you may be right, maybe it is not Cath. teaching.
That’s partly why I came to CA with this- CA is pretty expert on Cath. matters! 👍
 
Yes, I know there are many threads and people have different opinions. Some are recent converts who probably have learned about such things in other religions, others have encountered the practice in Charismatic communities, where people speak in tongues and practice the “healing the family tree” or have “healing masses”. But I can assure you that all these are recent phenomena. Ask any older priest (an example here; besides, the question in this example was wrongly worded, because the Catechism of the Catholic Church never mentions generational sins or curses). I am a cradle Catholic and never heard about “generational” sins until I discovered CAF a few years ago. Traditionally, people just request priests to say masses for the souls of their departed ones (Requiem Masses) and pray themselves for them. What can be more powerful than that? 🙂
 
To Mature Mom G from John Jerpe

I have the same type of concern. I’ve done some reading and I don’t know exactly what I think.
I read Dr. Kenneth McAlls “Healing The Family Tree”. He was a non-catholic Christian, but seemed to have a serious Christian faith as a doctor and a minister and a serious reverence for the Eucharist. One of the results of his book was the book written by Father Robert DeGrandis, S.S.J., a catholic priest who I read and reported that the book greatly influenced him. I’m not certain, but it sounds to me like this is in the area of the Healing Ministry. None of the Catholics that I have heard from take issue with the legitimacy of the Healing Ministry, and Father Hampsch (I don’t know the community) shows up all over the place. Then there is the whole area of the deliverance ministry which seems to be at least related to this topic. I have ordered a copy of “Unbound: A Practical Guide for Deliverance” by a Catholic author named Neal Lozano. I will have to wait and see what his qualifications are. I am interested but I am moving cautiously. I shared in my first entry when I joined the site that there was some very serious stuff wrong around my father’s father’s generation, and for reasons that I cannot go into here, there are some very eerie
circumstances that warrant investigations.I hope we can talk again.

John Jerpe
 
TO: VAMES
FROM: JOHN JERPE

What do you think of the deliverance ministry? In the limited reading I have done, I think I have noticed that the the deliverance ministry, the healing ministry, and maybe even inter-generational healing seem to overlap, at least in the literature. At the moment, I think I would trust the deliverance ministry people if I were confident in the individuals I was consulting. I know it can attract some extreme people. After I read Neal Lozano’s book, I will write to you again.

John Jerpe
 
MatureMomG. You asked:
Question: can I extend forgiveness on her behalf to those who harmed her?
Pope John Paul II seemed to think this is a reasonable concept (here are some examples).

vames. All that John 9:1-3 shows is that THIS man was not blind because of sins from his parents sins and that THIS man was not blind because of the effect of his own sins.

JOHN 9:1-3 1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

Blindness in THIS man is NOT from
  • His parents sin
  • His own sin
But this set of verses does NOT show that there are NEVER any effects from sin in anyone from . . . .
  • Their parents sins
  • Their own sins
Ezekiel 18 merely shows that there is no accountability from sins of parents at their judgment.

Ezekiel 18 also shows that there is no advantage at your judgment from the righteousness of parents.

Ezekiel 18 does NOT show (nor does John 9:1-3) that there are no EFFECTS from sins or righteousness of your parents.
 
TO: VAMES
FROM: JOHN JERPE

What do you think of the deliverance ministry? In the limited reading I have done, I think I have noticed that the the deliverance ministry, the healing ministry, and maybe even inter-generational healing seem to overlap, at least in the literature. At the moment, I think I would trust the deliverance ministry people if I were confident in the individuals I was consulting. I know it can attract some extreme people. After I read Neal Lozano’s book, I will write to you again.

John Jerpe
I think that if such a trend has already developed or is developing in the Catholic practice, it is simply an attempt to counteract the appeal of Protestant practices of deliverance, healing etc. by attracting people who otherwise would have been rejected by Catholic priests, who are (rightly) bound by very strict rules regarding exorcism and are strongly discouraged from assuming that bad things that can happen in a house or family are the result of demonic influences. As Catholic exorcists say (and I’m not talking about Gabriele Amorth who sees demons everywhere), actual demonic possession is extremely rare, so the apparition of “deliverance ministries” can be explained in a Catholic environment only by this attempt to avoid losing people to Protestant denominations. The same applies to the whole notion of “intergenerational” sins/curses/healing.

You’ll find Traditionalist Catholics who reject everything that has to do with Charismatic practices and these “deliverance ministries”, simply because such things didn’t exist before Vatican II, so clearly they are novelties, Protestant imports. I’m not one of these Traditionalists, but any priest that I know would say that the tendency to attribute bad things to generational sins and curses or to demonic influences betrays a mindset inclined towards superstition and magical thinking. I am strongly convinced that the demonic influences are vastly overrated and that, as the priests quoted in my links above say, the mission of the Church is to encourage personal responsibility of people for their own sins and a healthy hope in the omnipotence, mercy and justice of God, instead of encouraging fear of demons, the belief that God punishes us for the sins of others or the belief that a person who curses someone can be more powerful than the old, basic, unbeatable sacraments instituted by Christ. If in doubt, anyone can request a priest to say a Mass and can pray by himself or herself. But two words are essential: Fear not!

This is my opinion, so don’t shoot me 🙂
May God help you in your spiritual journey!
 
vames. All that John 9:1-3 shows is that THIS man was not blind because of sins from his parents sins and that THIS man was not blind because of the effect of his own sins.
So when did Jesus say that there is such thing as generational sin/curse?
The quote reveals the primitive mindset of the Jews who thought that if a man is ill, there must be a punishment from an unforgiving God. If the situation of this man were an exception and the vast majority of people had been punished for the sins of their fathers, don’t you think that the idea would have been at least suggested elsewhere by Jesus?
Ezekiel 18 does NOT show (nor does John 9:1-3) that there are no EFFECTS from sins or righteousness of your parents.
There is a very big difference between noticing that a disease can be transmitted hereditarily or that the children from a dysfunctional family have to overcome social and psychological burdens and the belief that sins are transmitted magically within a family and that their “curse” can be broken only by special rituals of “healing”. Where is God’s mercy and justice in all this?
 
vames. You said:

Quote:

. . . the belief that sins are transmitted magically within a family and that their “curse” can be broken only by special rituals of “healing”. . .

What are you talking about vames?

My point in my post was John 9:1-3 does not refute the concept of intergenerational sin effects. Nor does Ezekiel chapter 18.

And I stand by my assertion. John 9:1-3 and Ezekiel 18 does not negate the concept of intergenerational sin effects.

And you directed a comment to me with this:
. . . the belief that sins are transmitted magically within a family and that their “curse” can be broken only by special rituals of “healing”. . . .
And it leaves me proverbially scratching my head. Where did vames get such an idea? (It could not be from my post.)

If you want to discuss the effects of intergenerational sin, we can sure do so.
 
What are you talking about vames?
I’m talking about the context of this thread. When someone talks about generational sin/curse/healing, the notion implies a preternatural (curse)/supernatural (divine punishment) factor that influences the fate of a family or community, not the natural effects (social stigma, lost opportunities, inherited illnesses) of the bad choices of our ancestors. The Jews who asked Jesus why the man is blind believed in this kind of supernatural factor, they didn’t speak about hereditary or accidental blindness as a natural effect of what the parents of that man did.

I just said that the natural effects are real and nobody can deny them. But if someone believes that bad things happen to him or her because of an old curse or because God feels the need to punish a family for the sins of her ancestors, this is to believe in generational sin/curse/healing. Curse = magical words that are said to cause trouble or bad luck.

When Pope John Paul II apologized for the past mistakes of the Church, he didn’t think that he has to break a curse or to escape divine punishment for something done centuries ago. He wanted to show that the Church cares about the victims and has the honesty to recognize the less pleasant chapters of its history. The apologies were well received precisely because one of the accusations towards the Church (social stigma = natural effect of past sins) is that she twists history to make it look like she has always behaved beyond reproach. This is what secular politicians do, too. Nothing preternatural/supernatural is involved here.

Again, please read the answer of Fr Vincent Serpa to this question about generational curses. This indirect answer may be useful, too.
 
Hi MatureMomG,

Yes, you can pray for her and forgive on her behalf.

I have always found this topic fascinating.

I have read Protestant writings about it, and have heard about these same Catholic priests that some of you have posted about here.

I come from both a Catholic and a Protestant background. I read both Catholic and Protestant publications, due to my upbringing. That is just how I am. My parents were Catholic converts, and I was born a “cradle Catholic.” Most of my family is Protestant.

Anyway, we know some people who are into occult practices. I don’t consider some of these things to be magical thinking, in any way. It is all very real to my husband and I. They know how we feel about what they do, but they don’t see anything wrong with it.

So can someone from the past put a curse on someone else? I think so. Can God take care of things for another person, and protect that person? I certainly believe so, too.
 
I’m talking about the context of this thread.
I will give you the prime example of a generational curse: Original Sin.
Code:
You know  I don't know one single exorcist priest who thinks lightly of  Fr. Amorth.  I guess you deride Fr. Amorth you may as well deride  Bishop Emeritus Andrea Gemma.  

  You mention Tradition as if there were no lay exorcists in Catholic Tradition.  What  Tradition not the Roman Catholic Church?  Case and point, St. Alphonsus Ligori who wrote: “private exorcism is permissible to all Christians; solemn exorcism is permissible only to ministers who are appointed to it, and then only with the express permission of the bishop.”

  People say only a priest with the Bishop's mandate can cast demons out of possessed people.  Fine,  Padre Pio never once had his Bishop's mandate to perform exorcisms; yet,  Padre Pio is probably the most known for his exorcisms which were all private (not official) exorcisms.

  What people don't understand is that exorcism is a Blessing, a very powerful form of Blessing.  It is also a great act of Charity.  The Catholic Church is well ordered; but She does recognize that some laity have genuine Gifts of the Holy Spirit and one Gift recognized is the ability to liberate people suffering from demonic possession.  Case and point:
" While the ministry of exorcist is not preserved as a common institution of the Latin Church by Pope Paul VI’s reform of the discipline of the first tonsure, minor orders and subdiaconate promulgated Aug. 15 1972, it can be estabilished as a formal instituion in particular regions by episcopal conferences with the permission of the Holy See. In such cases the ministry would be conferred on laymen, Regardless of that, however public, simple exercisms will continuse to be performed by bishops, priests and deacons, who are their proper minsters in virtue of their Holy Orders. Bishops will continue to authorize priests and possibly deacons to perform public exorcisms of po possessed persons when needed. Presumably, a bishop could give permission to a lay exorcist to perform public exorcisms where episcopal conferences have formally established the ministry of exorcist. Cf. L’Osservatore Romano, Eng. ed, 9/21/72 p. 9-Ed."

Requests for back-copies or archive material may be sent by post to:
L’Osservatore Romano Archives, 00120 Vatican City
via fax: (+39)06.69883675,
or via e-mail:

archivio@ossrom.va

Bishops can and have appointed lay exorcists to perform public, solemn exorcisms; but it takes special dispensation or permission from the Holy See. True this was under the Pio-Benedictine Code of Canon Law of 1917. The Canons were as restrictive concerning exorcism as the Canon 1172 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law:

Canon 1151 No. 1: “No one, even though qualified to act as an exorcist, may procede to the exorcism of obessesd persons without the special and explicit permission of his Ordinary that is to say of his Bishop.”

The Bishop will not grant this permissiobn except to a priest known to be pious, prudent and of irreproachable conduc: AND THE PRIEST WILL NOT UNDERTAKE THE EXORCISM UNTIL IT HAS BEEN ADEQUATELY ESTABLISHED, after cautious and careful examination, that the subject to be exorcised is really possessed by the Devil.

Canon 1152: :Exorcisms pratcised by authorised ministers may be undertaken non only for the faithful and for catechumenss, but also for non-Catholics and the excumminicated."

Canon 1153: “Those who are authorised to employ the exorcisms used in baptism, consecrations and benedictions are the legitimate ministers of these sacred rites.”

Canon 1172 of the 1983 Code of Canon Law: §1 No one may lawfully exorcise the possessed without the special and express permission of the local Ordinary.

§2 This permission is to be granted by the local Ordinary only to a priest who is endowed with piety, knowledge, prudence and integrity of life.
Code:
  And lastly,  the Church was born on the Feast of Pentecost.  I am not of the Catholic Charismatic Renewal nor am I a lay deliverance minister.  I do take issue with people who consider ministries that are approved by the Vatican and deride them.

  I admit that the theology concerning private exorcisms that has been expounded by the great moral theologians of the 1/2 of the 20th century is not well known.  The Church places more emphasis on healing.  But the new rite of Exorcism reflects the 1917 Codes of Canon Law.   I also admit that Fr. Amorth can be mistaken but his opinion is well respected.
 
Vames you said regarding your comment about “sins (being) transmitted magically”:

Quote:

I’m talking about the context of this thread.

Then why direct comments like this . . . .

Quote:

sins are transmitted magically

. . . . directly concerning my post?

I never said anything like this, nor did anyone else on this thread. I’ve never heard of the notion of intergenerational sin as a “magical transmission of sins” from anyone except people who misrepresent other people who discuss the concept of intergenerational sin.

You also said:
I just said that the natural effects are real and nobody can deny them
I don’t think anyone here is denying the “natural effects” of sin.

You also said:
When Pope John Paul II apologized for the past mistakes of the Church . . . This is what secular politicians do, too. Nothing preternatural/supernatural is involved here.
That is your opinion. I am OK with it.

But I recall Pope John Paul II apologizing for “sins”.

Yet the article you cited specifically states:
the intent of the apology being made evident by the introduction of a system of redress that is prompt, open, fair, and transparent.
It did not say:
the intent of the apology being made evident by the sorrow for sins.
You might say, “Well that was the implied message”. Again. I am OK with that too.

And concerning Pope John Paul II, that is your opinion of what Pope John Paul was carrying out.

My opinion is different. My opinion was that Pope John Paul II was applying a principle in the Old Covenant to our day and Covenant and age for graces for the Church.

LEVITICUS 26:40-42a 40 But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery which they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, 41 so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity; 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham . . .

If you don’t think there are spiritual benefits for the Church that we otherwise would not have gotten when Pope John Paul II did his public apologies for sins of our ancestors, that’s fine.

If you want to insist it was a mere political and/or natural move on his part that’s OK too (but I disagree).

Your linking to Fr. Serpa about this question (“Could THIS be a generational curse?” [all caps and bold emphasis mine]) was great vames and you and I concur on this.

Fr. Serpa said this is a “quite a stretch” that this Chiropractor’s financial irresponsibility was due to generational sin. I concur. I also think from the information given it is “quite a stretch” that this Chiropractor’s financial irresponsibility was due to a bad environmental example too. I think it is just personal frivolity and possibly even his own personal sin.

I think Fr. Serpa is correct. The person described here is seemingly trying to avoid personal responsibility and the fact that the guy had “strings pulled to get him in college” does not suggest a natural bad example of poor financial management nor does it suggest a problem with intergenerational sin in “This” example.

But this does not mean the concept of intergenerational sin does not exist vames.

I am not trying to argue that intergenerational sin/curses exist on this thread (so far).

I think the concept does exist though and I will be glad to discuss that issue, but so far all that I have said is that John 9:1-3 and Ezekiel 18 do NOT do away with the concept of intergenerational sin.

The link you gave condemning Reiki, New Age aspects, Centering Prayer, Yoga, and the Enneagram . . . .

. . . . I agree with all of that vames. I too condemn all of that.

The links for “Speaking in Tongues” that cited Fr. Serpa (“speaking in tongues is a way of praying and is a charism or gift. But it is far, far from the greatest of gifts”—Fr. Serpa) I also agree with and is really not germane to the discussion about the existence of intergenerational sin. The Charismatic citation also does not address the issue we are discussing.

As I said, John 9:1-3 (and Ezekiel 18) in no way discounts the concept of the existence of intergenerational sin. Again I stand by that.

You intimated the intergenerational sin concept is a recent Catholic-Protestant phenomenon
I think that if such a trend has already developed or is developing in the Catholic practice, it is simply an attempt to counteract the appeal of Protestant practices of deliverance, healing etc. by attracting people who otherwise would have been rejected by Catholic priests, . . . .
Then you intimated the concept of intergenerational sin is a concept of the “primitive mindset of the Jews”.
The quote reveals the primitive mindset of the Jews who thought that if a man is ill, there must be a punishment from an unforgiving God.
Which is it vames? A new invention of Catho-Protestants or an old invention of a “primitive mindset of the Jews”? (I don’t think it is either one)
 
I will give you the prime example of a generational curse: Original Sin.
Original Sin is unique and it is removed by the Baptism. It is not the model or precedent for any other generational curse inflicted by God on people, not to mention a model for any curse inflicted by sorcerers and occultists on anyone. I was taught that to believe in curses is superstition and that a Catholic who believes in superstitions has to repent.

CCC 2111: “Superstition is the deviation of religious feeling and of the practices this feeling imposes. It can even affect the worship we offer the true God, e.g., when one attributes an importance in some way magical to certain practices otherwise lawful or necessary. To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.”

Private exorcisms in the tradition of Catholic Church had nothing to do with breaking generational curses and they were specifically designed to defend people from demonic influences (as it is wearing a St Benedict medal or using blessed water and simply praying to be protected from demonic influences).

I think every Catholic has the right to question what Fr Amorth says. Some did here, here and here.

I have nothing against Charismatic Catholics (on the contrary, anything that emphasizes the role of the Holy Spirit is excellent for the Church) or against ministries that are approved by the Vatican. What I disapprove is when people see that there are bad things happening in their life and are quick to attribute them to malefic, unnatural factors that transcend generations. That’s all.
 
You might say, “Well that was the implied message”. Again. I am OK with that too.
Exactly. A secular authority doesn’t speak about sins; a pope speaks about sins. I didn’t imply that it was a mere political move from JPII and of course I believe there are spiritual benefits for the Church, because God loves the truth and mandates us to show love and to make peace with others. But these are not the sins of JPII or of any Catholic who lives today. So this was a symbolic confession and a symbolic reparation. The Church didn’t start to pay compensation to any group named by JPII in his apologies. Nor did JPII said or implied that something bad happening within the Church is the result of God punishing her for what she did centuries ago to European heretics or to Mesoamericans. When we go to confession, we don’t confess the sins of our ancestors and don’t expect to be punished by God in this life or in the next for the sins of our ancestors. This is the difference.

I was somehow expecting a quote from Leviticus or another OT text where people are threatened with earthly punishments. Are we under the Old Covenant or under the New Covenant? Do you refrain from cutting your hair roundwise or from shaving your beard, as Leviticus mandates? Confessing our own iniquities is also mandated by Jesus. But He didn’t mention anything about “the iniquity of their fathers”, because the New Covenant doesn’t have to do with the people of Israel, that was essentially a tribe = an enlarged family, where bloodlines and genealogies had that huge importance, but with all nations, with people who have no common bloodlines and are linked only by the spiritual fact that they become Christians and belong to the Church.

So IMO “the primitive mindset of the Jews” is reflected whenever we think that God punishes us with personal tragedies for the sins of our ancestors or that any curse inflicted on our ancestors can have powers over us, despite the fact that we have received the Baptism, the Communion and the Confirmation. Let’s say one is a good Christian, doesn’t harm anyone etc, but sees that his house is destroyed in an explosion or he loses his job and his wife. What can explain it? He rejects the normal, natural explanation (=it simply can happen to anyone) and starts to search for a supernatural cause. He discovers that one of his grand-grand-grandfathers dabbled in occultism or did something awful to someone and didn’t appear to repent. Bingo! Let’s seek a supernatural remedy! This is the pattern of thinking that I have problems with. And not so much in the man who seeks such causes (because suffering and grief can lead people to do all sort of things to ease their pain), but in those who encourage this thinking and make money from it.

I guess there can be people who learn to discard any natural explanation in the favor of the supernatural one, not only because the latter is more spectacular, but because there are other people who promise “deliverance and healing” by special rituals. I am aware that in places where such practices aren’t already part of the culture, people usually don’t feel the need to resort to them, because they aren’t so tempted to seek such explanations for their “bad luck”. So I guess there is a market for such demand and the market, in turn, creates more demand.
 
Vames. In post 16 you said:
I was somehow expecting a quote from Leviticus or another OT text . . .
Ezekiel is an “OT text”.

Vames. You were the one that brought up Ezekiel chapter 18 and tried to make it say something it doesn’t say.

Concerning Pope John Paul II’s public apologies for the sins of our ancestors, you said:
So this was a symbolic confession and a symbolic reparation.
That’s fine you think that. I think it goes beyond mere symbolism.

You also said:
Are we under the Old Covenant or under the New Covenant? . . . . So IMO “the primitive mindset of the Jews” is reflected whenever we think that God punishes us with personal tragedies for the sins of our ancestors or that any curse inflicted on our ancestors can have powers over us, despite the fact that we have received the Baptism, the Communion and the Confirmation.
So are you saying there WAS/IS intergenerational sin effects in the Old Covenant (and if you believed that, why did you try to assert Ezekiel 18 as being opposed to this concept of intergenerational sin in post 2)?

Once you say yes, you are at least affirming the principle of the effects of intergenerational sin (and then you also have to ask yourself what about non-Catholics today who are not members of the New Covenant even though they are invited to consent to it). Once you say no, you seem to be contradicting yourself.

You went on to say:

Quote (bold and underline mine):

I guess there can be people who learn to discard any natural explanation in the favor of the . . .

If you are NOT talking about my posts with this portion of your quote, I have no idea whose post(s) you are alluding to or what you are talking about.

If you ARE talking about my posts with this quote, this is utter non-sense vames.

I have already gone out of my way in post 14 to say:

Quote:

I don’t think anyone here is denying the “natural effects” of sin.

But just because “natural effects” from sin exist, does not disqualify occasional or even frequent concomitant preternatural aspects of the effects of sin.

vames. You said:
I guess there can be people who learn to discard any natural explanation . . . . because they aren’t so tempted to seek such explanations for their “bad luck”. So I guess there is a market for such demand and the market, in turn, creates more demand.
As Charlie Brown would say: “Good grief”.

As I have said, the crux of my posts have concerned: John 9:1-3 and Ezekiel 18 do NOT do away with the concept of intergenerational sin.
 
Ezekiel is an “OT text”.
I said “another OT text where people are threatened with earthly punishments”. Ezekiel 18 doesn’t say that; on the contrary, “a righteous son shall not die for his father’s iniquity” (to be put to death is an earthly punishment) and this is a rule for everybody: “What do you mean by repeating this proverb concerning the land of Israel, ‘The parents have eaten sour grapes, and the children’s teeth are set on edge’? As I live, says the Lord God, this proverb shall no more be used by you in Israel”.

As I said in #11, there were/are intergenerational sin effects, as in “natural consequences”. But I don’t believe there were/are intergenerational sin effects as in “earthly punishments inflicted by God on sons for the sins of their fathers”. The texts of the OT that speak of God punishing subsequent generations for the sins of their ancestors reflect the way people from those times understood God and the world. The earth was flat and had 4 corners, the sky was a solid “firmament” and the cause of most illnesses and natural disasters was unknown. That’s why for them it was normal to explain the sufferings and slavery of the people of Israel as divine punishments and that’s why God in the OT was highly anthropomorphized and seen as a being who today is angry, threatens and destroys everything, but tomorrow takes pity on the chosen people, wipes out their tears and prepares for them “a feast of fat things”.

When 2 texts of the OT enounce opposite rules, the criterion to choose between them is the concordance with the New Covenant instituted by Jesus. And Jesus didn’t say that God punishes sons for the sins of their fathers. Jesus emphasized God’s love, mercy, forgiveness and just treatment of people, regardless of their genealogies, social rank and ethnic background. In the OT, God commands the chosen people to kill other tribes until the last living child; in the NT, Jesus tells the parable of the good Samaritan as an example to be followed by his fellow Jews.
 
vames. You said:
But I don’t believe there were/are intergenerational sin effects as in “earthly punishments inflicted by God on sons for the sins of their fathers”
“Allowed by God” instead of “inflicted by God” may be a better phrase to use if you want to capture the meaning of what you are opposing.

Were the punishments that were allowed upon the Egyptian first born children for the sins of the paganism that was passed down to and practiced by Pharaoh (pagan practices which Pharaoh received from his ancestors) just all mere natural consequences vames?

I am sure you are a fine Catholic vames.

You said:
But I don’t believe there were/are intergenerational sin effects as in “earthly punishments inflicted by God on sons for the sins of their fathers”
I am not trying to get you to affirm the concept of intergenerational sin effects vames. But reading the Scriptures raises fair questions and issues. I am not attempting to assert the concept of intergenerational sin here.

My point was and is, Ezekiel 18 and John 9:1-3 does not contradict the concept of intergenerational sin effects and the questions and issues raised by people about this topic are good questions and deserve a fair discussion.

There are very good Catholics out there that can readily observe certain unusual sins manifest in a generational pattern (you have already admitted as such). Where you and I would partially disagree is “why”.

You said some people give demons more than they are due. I agree with that too. Some people see demons behind every proverbial rock. But some other people are not on guard enough concerning preternatural aspects either vames.

But neither of these points go to the heart of the question of “does intergenerational effects of sin even exist?”

Your argument about the natural realm and bad example and such are all true concerning what you affirm. I am not going to deny any of that.

And also people know sins of other people have had harmful effects on them (even if when being victimized, those same suffering victims do not commit sin as a result, they still can suffer as a result of other people’s sin).

A woman who has been raped (no sin) has effects from the sin of somebody else (the perpetrator). You and I both know that.

So the question is, what factored into this (why did this guy do that, and what can this woman do to mitigate the hurtful effects of this guy’s sin)?

The same question can be raised regarding intergenerational issues.

These people wonder if they could see with the “eyes” of the Heavenly Angels, is there any preternatural aspects to some suffering (since we can’t peer into that realm, we are going to be forced with conjecture unless the Church gives more definitive statements–at least that I am aware of).

If a certain person chooses to have a dubious “spiritual posse” hanging around them all the time, can it effect anyone else in the house?

Can this dubious spiritual posse that they in some cases welcome, effect their kids?

I am NOT SAYING that it is the sin of the kid if his parent is ouija boarding OK?

Let’s not try to falsely say I am asserting that.

But ask yourself if mom and dad are conjuring, do you think it MIGHT have negative and hurtful effects upon the kids (of course from bad example but is that ALL? Do you think the demons that reside “around the household” are going to say to themselves “leave that innocent kid alone”?

Why would God allow this? It is a mystery. I don’t know. But part of the reason is because God can and will bring a greater good out of it just like He does with the curse of death (see CCC 1009)

So if mom and dad are conjuring, do you think the spiritual climate just MIGHT have negative and hurtful effects upon the kids?

If this is “yes” how far (generationally) can it go? Can it effect others?

MATTHEW 12:43-45 43 “When the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, he passes through waterless places seeking rest, but he finds none. 44 Then he says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when he comes he finds it empty, swept, and put in order. 45 Then he goes and brings with him seven other spirits more evil than himself, and they enter and dwell there; and the last state of that man becomes worse than the first. So shall it be also with this evil generation.”

Is there anything I can do to protect myself or others from the effects of this guy who willingly keeps bad spiritual company?

The people asking on this thread want to know if there is a spiritual preternatural element aspect to any of it.

You insist insist “no.” You would say it is all natural characteristics (nature, bad examples, etc.) and never associated with any preternatural aspects. Fair enough vames. You are entitled to your opinions.

If there is a preternatural element, they want to know what they can do in the power of the Sacraments (if they are Catholic) to mitigate some of these effects.

Or perhaps they see a non-Catholic friend or relative in this situation and want to help alleviate some of the suffering they are watching their friends undergo. They can’t tell their non-Catholic relative who they care for to, “just go to Confession”.

These are good people vames. They have real questions and want to help alleviate suffering.

And even with purely NATURAL issues vames, things like prayer helps.

We don’t say to a loved one with cancer: “Oh no. No praying the Rosary (or whatever). You got Baptism, the Eucharist and Confession!”

You and I would agree with this vames.

The questions the “askers” here raise are issues that must be appropriately addressed.

Using pejoratives like “superstition” when caricaturizing them is not helpful.

Mischaracterizing what they say is even less helpful.
 
So the question is, what factored into this (why did this guy do that, and what can this woman do to mitigate the hurtful effects of this guy’s sin)?

The same question can be raised regarding intergenerational issues.
I see no logic here. The perpetrator could have done it because he was badly educated, abused, frustrated, drunk or angry at the woman. The woman goes to counseling and seeks support from ther social circle. Are you saying that the perpetrator or the woman were cursed because something that their ancestors did?
So if mom and dad are conjuring, do you think the spiritual climate just MIGHT have negative and hurtful effects upon the kids?

If this is “yes” how far (generationally) can it go? Can it effect others?
Now do you really believe that demons come like docile puppies when they are conjured and remain there for decades and centuries, unable to find anything else to do than to haunt the same family over and over again, like dumb bedbugs stick to old furniture? So if a teenager plays with an ouija board today, his unborn (yet) children, grandchildren, grand-grand-grandchildren and their families are already doomed to suffer from a generational curse? So why bother to start a family - only to doom your children? When one starts to assume such things, exactly how does he know where to stop? What stops us from assuming that these generational curses last forever and explain everything in this world?

The only interpretation of Mt 12 that I know is that Jesus rebukes the scribes and Pharisees who suspected him of using demonic powers and asked for signs. He cautions them that 1) it’s not enough to be righteous like a Pharisee to be holy - they needed to recognize Jesus as the Son of God and to become “filled” with His presence; 2) when one is privileged to be in the presence of Jesus but rejects Him, the sin is greater and harder to overcome than for unprivileged ones like the people from Nineveh. For us, it means that we as Christians are held to a higher standard than anybody else. My own bible lists 2 Peter 2:20 as relevant reference for this passage and 2 Peter 2:20 is clearly about the sins and bad habits of each of us.
We don’t say to a loved one with cancer: “Oh no. No praying the Rosary (or whatever). You got Baptism, the Eucharist and Confession!”
First, cancer is treated by medical doctors, not by spiritual healers. Then, if the problem is that non-Catholic relatives and friends suspect any generational curses, why bother to give a Catholic stamp to a delivery ministry? The sufferers won’t resort to Catholic ministries anyway if they belong to another religion. Don’t other religions have their own healers and delivery ministries? And if the sufferers are atheists, they don’t believe in curses and demons anyway. As for Catholics, again, why do they need new, special delivery ministries if they already have the sacraments?

We know (and priests know much better) there are many people who suffer from scrupulosity. They are the most exposed to a superstitious mentality leading them to explain everything by malefic spiritual influences. If a scrupulous man is encouraged to believe he’s cursed because someone did something 20 or 200 years ago, this leads him to obsession. Do you know how easy is to convince someone that something bad happened more than once in a family because there’s an unusual, unnatural pattern of occurrences? Because the human mind is inclined to see patterns even when they don’t exist, like when they see the face of Jesus in a burned toast. Do you know how easy is to convince someone that unclean spirits are haunting his family? Because there’s no rational way to oppose such a claim: the burden of proof is on you, but you won’t admit it.

This is the classic appeal of the paranormal TV shows. Sensationalism and fearmongering always sell. Fear is the most powerful thing that impacts sound judgment - that’s why fearmongering is a successful business. And there is always a progression: they may be persuaded that a certain remedy helps (sacraments, healing ceremonies, private exorcisms), but it doesn’t last long, because their mind is already used to find terrifying “patterns” and when any new bad thing happen to them, they don’t know what to do anymore: if neither X nor Y did help, what should I do?? So the next step is to repeat the old remedies until the next bad thing happens and then to discard the old remedies in favor of new, more extreme ones. This is desperation.

I have seen Orthodox people who came to pray to St Anthony in Catholic churches (something frowned upon by the Orthodox Church) because they couldn’t find a job; when their prayers didn’t have any results, the next step was to go to dubious healers, charlatans and “good sorcerers” to be “freed from evil charms”. Similarly, others explore New Age spiritual methods (that’s why the CA apologist offered those links). And one doesn’t even need to believe in generational curses to behave like this. But when generational curses are assumed, the desperation is even quicker to develop and more powerful, because you are already convinced that the bad luck isn’t accidental, but it’s in your blood like an incurable disease. This is what I’m talking about.

This is the reason why then-Cardinal Ratzinger wrote this instructions, at a time when “assemblies formed to pray for liberation from the influence of demons (though they do not perform exorcisms as such) have been increasing in number”, as the document says:
ewtn.com/library/CURIA/CDFEXORC.htm

Some food for thought. Not to mention that the old formula of exorcism against Satan and the fallen angels referenced in the document contained zero allusions to generational sins, curses and healings.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top