Judging the sin, not the sinner

[AlanFromWichita]

This came up on another thread so I thought I’d hit it here head-on.

If there is a sin, does that imply that there was a sinner who performed it?

If you know somebody to be a sinner, then have you not judged them clear down to the heart?

If you judge them clear down to the heart, have you not thereby claimed to know their hearts?

Unless you claim you know their hearts, and are therefore omniscient, then how can you make a right judgment?

Hence, how is it even possible to “judge the sin, but not the sinner?”

Alan

 

[Student09]

This came up on another thread so I thought I’d hit it here head-on.

If there is a sin, does that imply that there was a sinner who performed it?

If you know somebody to be a sinner, then have you not judged them clear down to the heart?

If you judge them clear down to the heart, have you not thereby claimed to know their hearts?

Unless you claim you know their hearts, and are therefore omniscient, then how can you make a right judgment?

Hence, how is it even possible to “judge the sin, but not the sinner?”

Alan

I think what it means is that we can say an objective act is immoral, but when a person actually performs that act, we cannot see their heart or their intention, so we cannot judge them. For instance, we can say that having an abortion is grave matter, which means it is a mortal sin if done with full knowledge and consent. But if we meet someone who had an abortion, we cannot say that she committed a mortal sin, because maybe she was young and terrified and her parents or boyfriend or spouse pressured her into it, or there may have been some other reason that would mitigate the gravity of the sin.

The Church has to be able to say that some things are objectively sinful, but it does not judge individual instances of the sin, except to some extent in the confessional.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

As a parent I never did bet angry at the children but I did get angry at what they did wrong. I guess a lot of smarter people then me once more will tell my that I did wrong but I draw the line here.My children are my children and on this site,or any other,I don’t accept anyone who tells me what to do.:takethat:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I think what it means is that we can say an objective act is immoral, but when a person actually performs that act, we cannot see their heart or their intention, so we cannot judge them. For instance, we can say that having an abortion is grave matter, which means it is a mortal sin if done with full knowledge and consent. But if we meet someone who had an abortion, we cannot say that she committed a mortal sin, because maybe she was young and terrified and her parents or boyfriend or spouse pressured her into it, or there may have been some other reason that would mitigate the gravity of the sin.

The Church has to be able to say that some things are objectively sinful, but it does not judge individual instances of the sin, except to some extent in the confessional.

I think I understand, and I support your view on this. Even though an act may be grave matter – and even result in tragedy, that doesn’t mean it’s actually a sin. This definitely supports my premise that it is humanly impossible to “rightly” judge another human being. For that matter, neither can we judge ourselves because how do we know, when there are several possible motives influencing us, which motives have caused our actions.

Hence, I submit that we can neither claim that from outward observations of behavior, whether it is an actual sin or not – that we can say with certainty to a brother, “you have sinned.” Therefore, we cannot say, “that person is a sinner” based on the event under discussion.

And yes, I like your way of putting it that an act is sinful, but in any given instance we don’t know if a sin was actually committed. If we are the person’s confessor, that might be a different story.

Alan

 

[AlanFromWichita]

As a parent I never did bet angry at the children but I did get angry at what they did wrong. I guess a lot of smarter people then me once more will tell my that I did wrong but I draw the line here.My children are my children and on this site,or any other,I don’t accept anyone who tells me what to do.:takethat:

As a parent I never stopped loving the children, but I did get angry when they did wrong, back in the day. I always wanted what was best for them, even while I was angry.

Anger in and of itself blocks me from thinking clearly and separates me from God, so I honestly cannot tell you whether it was the children or the actions I was mad at. All I know is my child did something, and then I was angry. To claim that the anger was a direct (and unavoidable) result of the child’s act is to allow my anger to be controlled by external circumstances. That could make for an interesting subject all in itself.

Christ did get angry at the moneychangers, but I suspect He knew what was in their hearts or maybe He would have handled it in a less confrontational way.

What prompted you to say that nobody on this site can tell you what to do? Do I come across as having done so, and if so, in what way? If I’m coming across that way, I didn’t intend to so maybe I missed something in the way I said it? I wish to offer points of view that maybe haven’t been thought of before, and/or respond to others with what I think might help them – with at least some diligence in trying to be understood – and then let the Holy Spirit take it from there. It isn’t my job or my desire to require that others conform to my “preaching.”

Alan

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

As a parent I never stopped loving the children, but I did get angry when they did wrong, back in the day. I always wanted what was best for them, even while I was angry.

Anger in and of itself blocks me from thinking clearly and separates me from God, so I honestly cannot tell you whether it was the children or the actions I was mad at. All I know is my child did something, and then I was angry. To claim that the anger was a direct (and unavoidable) result of the child’s act is to allow my anger to be controlled by external circumstances. That could make for an interesting subject all in itself.

Christ did get angry at the moneychangers, but I suspect He knew what was in their hearts or maybe He would have handled it in a less confrontational way.

What prompted you to say that nobody on this site can tell you what to do? Do I come across as having done so, and if so, in what way? If I’m coming across that way, I didn’t intend to so maybe I missed something in the way I said it? I wish to offer points of view that maybe haven’t been thought of before, and/or respond to others with what I think might help them – with at least some diligence in trying to be understood – and then let the Holy Spirit take it from there. It isn’t my job or my desire to require that others conform to my “preaching.”

Alan

It is very simply. If I get it wrong,and that has happen also here,I confess that I was wrong and say I am sorry. At work if I mess up,well,I am lawyer so I guess there is no need to explain more. But when it comes to my family,matters that has to do with my family,my children,all that comes with being married (and much older then you may think) I have a strict rule,the kids are my responsibility,well,they are all adults now. Hence,that is my private life,and nobody on a public web-site tells me what to do with my kids,unless I ask,but that will not happen. Furthermore,I have not,and will never,discuss (or debate,God forbid) my private life with anyone else then those who for some reason need to know,except my priest. That is my rule,has been,is and will be. If someone has a problem mad with it,I am sorry.:tsktsk:

 

[AlanFromWichita]

It is very simply. If I get it wrong,and that has happen also here,I confess that I was wrong and say I am sorry. At work if I mess up,well,I am lawyer so I guess there is no need to explain more. But when it comes to my family,matters that has to do with my family,my children,all that comes with being married (and much older then you may think) I have a strict rule,the kids are my responsibility,well,they are all adults now. Hence,that is my private life,and nobody on a public web-site tells me what to do with my kids,unless I ask,but that will not happen. Furthermore,I have not,and will never,discuss (or debate,God forbid) my private life with anyone else then those who for some reason need to know,except my priest. That is my rule,has been,is and will be. If someone has a problem mad with it,I am sorry.:tsktsk:

I have zero problem with your refusal to discuss certain topics. I endorse your right to privacy.

What I wanted to know was whether I said something that violated your boundary, and if so, how could I have avoided doing so? It is not in the best interest for my points of view to violate boundaries because it reduces, not increases, the chance of being understood or even heard out.

On this site, other people discuss matters way more personal – even to the extent that I feel repulsed through my imagination and empathy – than I’m comfortable with, but nobody has ever told me that I must disclose this or that about things I don’t want to. At least not yet. They have told me that I MUST believe this or that, but I know they are only sharing what they believe, based on their own understanding, to be something that they think would be healthy for me. To that, I comment that my doctor and I choose my medicine. They may offer remedies, but I’m not going to take it unless I trust it.

Alan

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

Dear friend,you,or anybody else for that matter,did not say anything that I did not like. I have,sadly,noticed that when it comes to children,there is always someone who thinks I do wrong,or have done wrong,and that,and only that,is the reason why I want to make sure to all that that is a topic I do not discuss nor debate. I don’t give opinions to other parents if the specifically ask for it. If they ask for help,then I might say something,but I think that we all should concentrate on religious matters. All the best to you and your family,and no,we wont see each other in court. God bless you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Dear friend,you,or anybody else for that matter,did not say anything that I did not like. I have,sadly,noticed that when it comes to children,there is always someone who thinks I do wrong,or have done wrong,and that,and only that,is the reason why I want to make sure to all that that is a topic I do not discuss nor debate. I don’t give opinions to other parents if the specifically ask for it. If they ask for help,then I might say something,but I think that we all should concentrate on religious matters. All the best to you and your family,and no,we wont see each other in court. God bless you.

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I have six children, and for myself I have a different approach; that is, I actually enjoy discussing my thoughts on parent-child relationship with other people.

That said, I think people are too quick to judge others’ concepts about the matter. I can understand why you or anybody else would want to opt out of a debate on the issue. :slapfight:

In fact, part of the reason I returned to active posting on this forum recently is so that I may learn to deal with people who are judgmental and/or closed-minded, and converse on various issues without either a) letting it get to me personally, or b) getting the other person riled up more than necessary, while c) not being afraid of getting to the topic. I am doing this as part of the idea I got for Lent, to fast from having to be right. I have failed miserably, but it has been an interesting thought exercise to listen to another person saying things I think are clearly self-contradictory, and try to think, “in what way might they both be right?” http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/1.gif

So on my threads I plan to introduce themes that involve opening our minds to new thoughts and new concepts, not being so sure of ourselves, and ultimately how to communicate with love and respect with people who have beliefs that appear to clash with our own.

Part of it is because I miss doing “real” work. When I worked for Bell Labs part of my job was called “special projects.” I would go to the factories to hear them out on age-old feuds between departments on how to do things. They had different needs, and so each factory did things in different ways; my job was to find a common way that was compatible with all the needs of all the factories. I loved doing that, and in general I like to pretend I’m an ambassador who can help people of different backgrounds and circumstances, live in peace with each other. So that’s why I’m so driven in that direction.

Alan

 

[JRKH]

This came up on another thread so I thought I’d hit it here head-on.

If there is a sin, does that imply that there was a sinner who performed it?

Yes.

If you know somebody to be a sinner, then have you not judged them clear down to the heart?

No - It might depend on what you mean by “heart”.

If you judge them clear down to the heart, have you not thereby claimed to know their hearts?

One can draw certain conclusions about anothers interior condition based on their exterior actions and words. This is the thing that James is talking about when he speaks of faith needing works.

Unless you claim you know their hearts, and are therefore omniscient, then how can you make a right judgment?

And this is why we should not judge and condemn. Rather we should seek to help.

Hence, how is it even possible to “judge the sin, but not the sinner?”

Alan,
I suggest you read Mt 18:15-18 on this matter.

In the passage, the sinner is confronted quietly by his friend in hopes of resolving the matter quietly. If that does not work, then a few others can be brought in to clarify and offer support. If that still doesn’t work, the matter is brought before the church.
Only at this point is the person “Judged” and expelled if he refuses to “listen to The Church”.

And even after this, we should not lose hope that the individual be redeemed and returned to the faith through repentance - - - By a change of heart.

Peace
James

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. I have six children, and for myself I have a different approach; that is, I actually enjoy discussing my thoughts on parent-child relationship with other people.

That said, I think people are too quick to judge others’ concepts about the matter. I can understand why you or anybody else would want to opt out of a debate on the issue. :slapfight:

In fact, part of the reason I returned to active posting on this forum recently is so that I may learn to deal with people who are judgmental and/or closed-minded, and converse on various issues without either a) letting it get to me personally, or b) getting the other person riled up more than necessary, while c) not being afraid of getting to the topic. I am doing this as part of the idea I got for Lent, to fast from having to be right. I have failed miserably, but it has been an interesting thought exercise to listen to another person saying things I think are clearly self-contradictory, and try to think, “in what way might they both be right?” http://bestsmileys.com/thinking/1.gif

So on my threads I plan to introduce themes that involve opening our minds to new thoughts and new concepts, not being so sure of ourselves, and ultimately how to communicate with love and respect with people who have beliefs that appear to clash with our own.

Part of it is because I miss doing “real” work. When I worked for Bell Labs part of my job was called “special projects.” I would go to the factories to hear them out on age-old feuds between departments on how to do things. They had different needs, and so each factory did things in different ways; my job was to find a common way that was compatible with all the needs of all the factories. I loved doing that, and in general I like to pretend I’m an ambassador who can help people of different backgrounds and circumstances, live in peace with each other. So that’s why I’m so driven in that direction.

Alan

Well,I am born in Ireland,so I do know what it is to be a catholic,we did move to Finland when I was young,but something never changed. And I was thaught that “family-things are family-things.” And they are,but something what I did learn as a child still are with me,and I do have another reason as well,"if you still want to sleep in the same bed,deal with our problem where they are"so I can’t do much more,I like my bed.

 

[mcrow]

I think it’s wrong to say you can’t judge people. You can and you can judge their sins as well. However, I don’t believe we’re allowed speak on how God will judge people. I believe the bible charges us to point out wrong doing but not cast judgement on whether or not someone will go to hell or heaven.

 

[JRKH]

This is an interesting topic in light of todays’ Gospel Reading…
36 Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful.
37 "Judge not, and you will not be judged; condemn not, and you will not be condemned; forgive, and you will be forgiven;
38 give, and it will be given to you; good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap. For the measure you give will be the measure you get back."

Something good to meditate on and something (IMHO) that is often overlooked. That we shall be treated before God in the same way as we have treated our fellow man.
Even in the Lords Prayer we ask to be forgiven as we forgive others…

Can we judge? - well I guess we can - - but we had best be ready to be judged by the same “measure”…

Peace
James

 

[itsjustdave1988]

This came up on another thread so I thought I’d hit it here head-on.

If there is a sin, does that imply that there was a sinner who performed it?

If you know somebody to be a sinner, then have you not judged them clear down to the heart?

If you judge them clear down to the heart, have you not thereby claimed to know their hearts?

Unless you claim you know their hearts, and are therefore omniscient, then how can you make a right judgment?

Hence, how is it even possible to “judge the sin, but not the sinner?”

Alan

Scripture states, “after a first and second admonishment, a heretic avoid.” (Tit 3:10). It is presumed, then that we have a means of knowing with at least moral certainty whether or not our fellow brethren are being heretical, othewise, how could we be called upon to admonish them, perhaps also to avoid them?

Similarly, Matt 18:17ff tells us how we are to respond when one of our brethen sins agains us (and, heresy is a sin against fellow brethren). We are to first attempt what can be called fraternal correction. If they realize and repent of their sin, we’ve done exactly what is asked of us by God. If they do not, then we are to then bring the testimony of two or three witnesses, which is more authoritative than a single opinion. If they still do not repent, we are to “tell it to the Church.” The passage, it seems, means bring it to those vested with judicial authority in the Church, doesn’t it? Otherwise, “church” would more broadly mean, “tell it to even more brethren.” More brethren would imply “bring the testimony of four or five witness, then six or seven, etc.” How many “brethren” constitute “the Church”, all of them?

Surely that cannot be what Matthew is telling us. He must instead be referring to “the Church” in the sense of those who have been vested with the authority to judge on behalf of the Church, and it is this authority who are the “final arbiters” when brethren sin against other brethren.

So it would seem the sacred authors have in mind that the Church of the NT is a hierarchical Church (Grk hier = holy, arche = rule). And when we must “tell it to the Church” we are really telling it to those who hold the “keys” (Matt 16:18ff), to which the power to “bind and loose” have been vested. And if they do not even listen to the hierarchy, the holy rule of the Church, we are to consider them separated brethren.

It seems that what Paul very succinctly stated in Tit 3:10, that after a first and second admonishment, we are to avoid a heretic, is the same thing that Matthew is teaching in his gospel.

All of this seems to be what is called “fraternal correction”, intended to heal our brethren who are wounded by sin. *This differs, I think, from judging the eternal disposition of another’s soul. *In other words, we must judge in order to offer the charity which is called “fraternal correction”, but in doing so we must not presume to judge the eternal disposition of another’s soul. Only God can do that.

In admonishing the sinner (a work of mercy), St. Pius X taught that we are to “***[leave] out of consideration the internal disposition of soul, of ***which God alone is the judge” (Pascendi Dominici Gregis). However, that does not mean that we are not supposed exercise judgement in admonishing the sinner as a work of mercy, out of love.

**Pope Benedict XVI **describes charity demands fraternal correction:

Fraternal correction is a work of mercy. None of us sees himself or his shortcomings clearly. It is therefore an act of love to complement one another, to help one another see each other better, and correct each other.

I think that one of the very functions of collegiality is to help one another, also in the sense of the previous imperative, to know the shortcomings that we ourselves do not want to see - “ab occultis meis munda me” [from my secret ones cleanse me - Psalm 18:13 Douay-Rheims] , the Psalm says - to help one another to open ourselves and to see these things.

Of course, this great work of mercy, helping one another so that each of us can truly rediscover his own integrity and functionality as an instrument of God, demands great humility and love.

***Only if it comes from a humble heart that does not rank itself above others, that does not consider itself better than others but only a humble instrument to offer reciprocal help; only if we feel this true and deep humility, if we feel that these words come from common love, from the collegial affection in which we want to serve God together, can we help one another in this regard with a great act of love. ***

Here too the Greek text adds some nuances. The Greek word is “paracaleisthe”; it is the same root as the word “Paracletos, paraclesis”, to comfort.*** It does not only mean to correct but also to comfort, to share the other’s sufferings, to help him in his difficulties.*** And this also seems to me a great act of true collegial affection. (Pope Benedict XVI, Opening of the 11th Ordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops, 3 October 2005)

 

[mcrow]

:thumbsup:Great post Dave.

 

[Sum_Fidelis]

When it comes to “heavenly” or religious matter we are not to judge. (It is in the Bible.) When it comes to “earthly” issues I am as a lawyer forced to do my duty to a point where a judge will,and must,give a judgment. By the way,when you say,with all respect for you,in a way judging those who are looking at it from an other angel. God bless you.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

Sigh.

I’m afraid the approach I took has led to a useless debate about splitting hairs with shades of meaning of what “judge” even means, this scripture says this, that one says that.

I’ve been gifted with some rather incredible experiences in the past 10 years, emotional, psychological, and spiritual. They have had an incredible transformative effect on my life. IMO, they were directly related as an integral part of my healing process. These experiences took my mind and imagination, sometimes over my decided effort to prevent them, to places I’ve never been before and considering insights I’ve never seen before. :whacky:

So basically I’m saying that in the past 10 years, my mind has gone places no man has gone before, and that were even beyond my own imagination. During that time, I was able to consider points of view that were very different than any I’ve ever heard expressed. What I’m trying to do, is to take some of the things I’ve learned and put them into words so that others may benefit from them – it isn’t about being right or wrong, it’s about going through thought exercises (call them “prayers” if you would prefer) that let you see things from a new perspective. A perspective that people of the world neither teach nor comprehend, unless someone or something takes them out of the world of everything they can imagine so they can quit trying to see new concepts through old eyes. Fresh wine in old wineskins, as it were.

Part of the exercise is to imagine what would happen if we took some of Jesus’ more “absurd” statements to the extreme, without creating exceptions, without disclaimers, and without searching for corroborating evidence. Just take what He says at face value, and imagine what it could mean.

The problem is, judging has been to drilled into each of our minds, that IMO creates roadblocks to absorbing Jesus’s words without giving them qualifiers or explaining them away such that He might as well not have said them at all. http://bestsmileys.com/religous/3.gif

Consider this. I may or may not be right about what Jesus was thinking when He said, “do not judge,” but I have found great peace in exploring this concept, without clinging on to my previously held belief that it is not only our option, but in fact our duty to judge. Let that go. Dare to think against the grain, and see where it leads. It won’t hurt, really. I promise. I was taken to those places “by force” it seemed, but once I got there I saw it had its advantages.

That said, let me offer some thought for reflection that I hope some of my friends here can follow. It has nothing to do with whether I’m right or not; I’m trying to share an experience that I had under extreme conditions, without your having to be in those same conditions. In essence, I’m appealing to your human empathy to catch a glimpse of what I’m trying to say, above and beyond the words I use to try to say them.:newidea:

Think of it, if it helps, as if I’ve seen some movie that may be fictional, but gave me some keen insights. Without your sharing the movie – that is seeing them the (sometimes horrible) way I saw them, I’d like to give you enough that you get the point, even if only intellectually. To really feel and experience the point is another matter and you may or may not ever have that experience. But if you even think about a world of no judgment and what that would mean to the spirit, without worrying about whether it’s factually true 100% of the time, then I have succeeded. :extrahappy:

Arguing about whether the movie is factual is an interesting argument, but that’s not what I’m here for. I’m here to share the beauty of the order that I’ve been given out of chaos – the benefit I got from having seen the movie.

Basically, I’m saying that I took a trip into “insanity” and back, and I’m telling you I’ve seen some things that could help us. Think outside the box. Jesus would say things that horrified his friends, to shake them out of their static mindsets. If you can believe that Jesus really meant what He said by “you must eat my flesh and drink my blood” then I appeal to you, to consider He really meant what He said by “do not judge.”

For those who can’t let go of the argument, I’ll make this concession: I’m not sure Jesus was actually giving a command here, but advice. We have the free will to judge, but then we’ll be judged. I wish to explore what it could mean if we took that advice to the extreme.

I’ll post this now because I have to take a break; I will continue soon with some of the ideas I had.

Alan

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Dare to think against the grain, and see where it leads.

I spent decades of my life thinking “against the grain” in the sense that it was against the Church. I found out first hand where it leads, and I didn’t like it. Thanks to God, I was given a gift from God, a gift called metanoia, which has convinced me that if I seek the blessed life, I should “think with the Church” as that great saint Ignatius of Loyola was so fond of saying. This is the kind of reversal in thinking that we ought to be seeking, the kind of thinking that not only leads to sanity, but also leads to sanctity.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

I spent decades of my life thinking “against the grain” in the sense that it was against the Church. I found out first hand where it leads, and I didn’t like it. Thanks to God, I was given a gift from God, a gift called metanoia, which has convinced me that if I seek the blessed life, I should “think with the Church” as that great saint Ignatius of Loyola was so fond of saying. This is the kind of reversal in thinking that we ought to be seeking, the kind of thinking that not only leads to sanity, but also leads to sanctity.

After some bewilderment, I finally realized something: we are not talking the same language.

It sounds like you are talking about what I call “the outside” of the Church. A person heavily weighted toward the “outside” part is interested in a) preserving the institution of the church, b) doctrine, dogma, c) rules and regulations, d) literal meaning of scripture, e) vocal prayer, f) behavior codes to follow, and g) liturgy and rituals, and h) whatever I’ve missed.

There are others much more qualified to speak on those matters than I am.

I’m more interested in the “inside” of the Church. Since we are the Church, it is about what’s inside our hearts – how do we really feel and act compared to what we profess? Contemplative prayer forms, such as Lectio Divina. What can we do to condition or ready our minds and hearts for God to speak to us in His native language – which devoid of human words? These things are not about dogmatic theology, but about mystical theology.

Here it is not a matter of right and wrong, but a transformation process where the Word takes you, beyond the literal meaning and in part through the other senses of scripture than the literal sense.

An undisputed masterpiece of Catholic mystical theology is called the “Cloud of the Unknowing.” In this model, the “Cloud” represents everything outside the set of things we know or can imagine at any given time. The “Cloud” is where you meet God, because God is everywhere but in order to grow in God’s mystical wisdom, one must be willing to go, and even invite the Lord to take them, into the Cloud. There are many translations online, some very difficult to read. The translation I’ve used upon recommendation by SD, is by William Johnston; I don’t know if it’s online but it’s for sale on amazon. Incidentally, Johnston also wrote a book “Mystical Theology: The Science of Love” which I think is a good book even though I’ve only read a little of it.

I’m not saying it’s bad or wrong that some people focus on the externals. I will say that it’s incomplete, if your goal is truly union with God. Even if I accept that you know and understand the literal context of every single teaching of the Church on every topic, and abide by the obedience rules, that proves nothing about whether you actually have any love at all – not an academic knowledge of love, but a true experience of the Love of God.

(continued)

 

[AlanFromWichita]

(continued)

I base my claim that it is incomplete on my own personal experience and testimony first and foremost, but I think this scripture – even by the literal meaning – addresses that. Note that good behavior, and knowledge, do not guarantee love, or this scripture would describe an impossibility:
a Cor 13:

2 And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing.
3 If I give away everything I own, and if I hand my body over so that I may boast but do not have love, I gain nothing.

Before anybody claims they do have love and I just don’t see it, know that I am not implying at all, that you are without love.

What I am claiming is that I’m inviting you to a conversation about the things of love that transcend the usual bickering over grammar and word meaning, into the deeper senses of the scripture, into a deeper and more genuine discussion of how to be open for God to speak to us through any of His creation He chooses, and for Him to renew our minds and hearts.

I believe that the posters on this forum are bursting with love, but i’m afraid that most of us, and I’m not excluding myself, are mere infants when it comes to true mystical theology. Because of that, we make loving remarks to each other and they backfire as we end up with one or both sides becoming defensive and there is a dualistic debate over which one is more correct than the other or whether the other person is a hypocrite.

This is not a new phenomenon. Is isn’t rare for mystical leaders – including Jesus – to be considered blasphemous or heretical, by the “outside” people. The mystics – the inside people – see the outside people as hypocrites and misguided fools in matters of love. This is dualistic thinking on the part of both sides. Each part of the body thinks it’s more important than the other.

So to bring literalist arguments, including the one I started in this thread, is to feed the tendency of our egos to tell each the wonderful things we think we know but we assume the other person doesn’t. We may in fact know more about Church teaching on an issue than another person. That doesn’t mean, though, that we know everything about that issue that is relevant:
1 Cor 8:1b-3:

… we realize that “all of us have knowledge”; knowledge inflates with pride, but love builds up. If anyone supposes he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. But if one loves God, one is known by him.

So does that mean we can never know anything? Certainly not, in the literal sense. We can know exactly what the Church expects of obedient Catholics, but we must keep in mind that this knowledge, in and of itself, does not give us love. In fact, we must be careful not to be condescending to those who know less, because who knows but that person may know much love even though they may not know a lick of scripture.

So again, I ask you all to disregard my initial approach to the topic of “judging,” and consider some of the ideas that I have come to think – right or wrong – but have given me a deeper understanding of scripture. If I say something against doctrine, than yes, I appreciate somebody pointing it out. But my ideas, not intended to be doctrine but ideas through which I am trying to share the essence of my experience, should be stated in a way that I’m not claiming they are right or wrong – just enjoying where it takes my mind and spirit to ponder those things.

The deeper senses of the scripture I think are not generally discussed, because they are not documented, in part because scripture speaks to everyone slightly differently, even if we could agree completely on the literal surface meaning. Because we can’t apply mathematics or logic to discover these meanings unambiguously, I think we just don’t focus on them. A more pessimistic view is that we don’t focus on them because they don’t directly support our desire to control other people’s behavior.

That’s where spiritual direction comes in. Spiritual directors are interested in guiding souls to God, not the externals of the Church. It seems there are two basic factions int he church – the “outside” people, and the “inside” people, although most people are somewhere in between. Without the outside people, we wouldn’t have an institutional church, and/or its teaching would become increasingly corrupt with time. Without the inside people, the church would have no heart and would be as a clanging gong or crashing symbol.

Alan