I’m not sure what it is you are disagreeing with. You are thinking that saying some group “believes the same things as the devil” is the means toward reconciliation, toward resolving discord?
But we are discussing your contention that suggesting some people, by the actions they choose, appear to be influenced by the demonic is rash judgement.
Imagine if during the Notre Dame fire someone had said, stop paying attention to the fire! Look, here is a gouge in one of the pews!
I hit the wrong button…I am OK with you being unsure here.
Have you noticed that I have not contended, but instead I have focused on doing exactly what the CCC asks of us? For the example you brought forth, the words from a leader of BLM in NY, I suggested some more favorable interpretations rather than demonic influence. This is an invitation to seeing people’s words in a more favorable way. Do you have a resistance to such interpretation? If so, why?
Yes, well, we have both witnessed the actions of the same groups. He refers to the protests and violence in the streets, that is what he is addressing. I am wondering if he finds a more favorable interpretation than demonic influence.
One has to be careful to choose experts that speak and behave in accord with the CCC and the Magisterium; perhaps you have read parts of this thread that question his credentials. But you see, that is not what I am focusing on. St. Ignatius invites us to “See God in all things”; we can see God in the people who are doing those protests, even though they may be quite angry or quite mistaken in their thinking. What they want comes from a God-given place. I can certainly see God in Fr. Ripperger; I have no doubt that he is doing and saying what he thinks is best. His motives are commendable.
Yes, I have watched a bit also. There are some things that he has neglected to consider, or has not verbalized how he eliminated other interpretations of what the groups are saying or doing.
Okay, if you can come up with an example of demonic influence, we can address it. The last thing you mentioned was people’s actions, but you were not specific. Is there a specific action on the part of the protesters that you are thinking is attributable to demonic influence?
I like the analogy, even if I think it is a misapplication. The biggest “fire” is the discrimination in our society, and the factionism and discord in our society and church. We all need to ask ourselves, “am I sowing discord, or am I sowing peace? Am I sowing justice, or am I sowing discrimination?”
Yes, an investigation is worth doing, but the investigation must involve considering the thoughts and motives of people who are actually doing the protesting and leading movements like BLM. Do you agree that such an investigation should consider the grievances and needs of those who are protesting?
I watched most of the video. Did you see where Fr. R actually considers the valid grievances of protesters? Did you see where he says “These people have these good things in mind?”.
I’m not going to tell you.
OneSheep self-congratulating on his last post wrongly thinking he did not fall victim to his own criticism here . . .
What I see is a jumbled “argument”.
I do hope you see the irony of this!
I have answered this question two times. It is interesting that you have avoided considering my answer.
Excellent points Annie.
.
Really? Could you find your answer? I cannot.
Does that answer your question? If not, how would you like me to elaborate?Annie:
It can be. It depends on how the person defines “devil” and “influence”, and how they see their own actions. I think it is quite rare that a person would believe that their own actions are so influenced, especially those seeking social justice, as BLM does.
I am following the suggestions of CCC2478.
Yes, I did not attribute his theory to “rash judgment”. Instead, we are investigating other interpretations for the motives of the demonstrators, and seeing if they are more favorable. In doing this, we can start with what the people of BLM want.
Yes, since I think I know a more favorable interpretation of BLM statements and actions, I am avoiding judging Fr. R.'s statements, and instead adjoining people to consider other options. Once we come up with those options, we can see if they are more favorable.
I have not said this about actions. What Fr. R. was addressing was influence and intention, which is what we can also investigate. I think we can all agree that violence is hurtful, and is to be condemned. As you may recall, some of the protesters themselves are reacting to violence with violence. It certainly isn’t helping their cause. It was violence on the part of police that triggered the action.
If this is true, let’s consider some things. Why does Melina Abdula want to communicate with a dead person? (a person who may be a saint?)
On a positive note, I read some things about what used to appear on the BLM website that I found offensive, but those items are no longer there. Can you see the action of the Spirit in this, or do you attribute this removal as something hiding the demonic? Do you see how there are more favorable interpretations about what happens in the world?
I quoted your question and answered it. I am sorry you missed that.OneSheep:
If a priest, especially an exorcist, told me he thought my actions in a certain area were influenced by the devil, I would probably ask him why he thought that and discuss the situation with him. I do not want my actions to be influenced by the devil and would welcome the warning.
I asked you what you think. You responded that regarding a third person it depends on definitions: “It depends on how the person defines “devil” and “influence”, and how they see their own actions.”
You are judging Fr R’s statements. You are saying right here that since you can come up with “a more favorable interpretation,” that you yourself will aweand suggest that others all ignore his statements, which entails thinking his statements are rash judgement and therefore unworthy of attention.
Your initial reaction was to ask if he was familiar with CCC2478!
Sure… are we permitted to dialogue or attempt to dialogue with the dead? No.
Do we have any evidence whatsoever that the person she is attempting to communicate with is a saint?
Look at the first part I bolded: insofar as possible. There is a boundary to this. If you see your married brother passionately kissing a shapely young woman not his wife, it is theoretically possible to think, Oh, how nice! He is saving her life by giving her artificial respiration!
You don’t “communicate” with dead people.
What I attribute here is that I don’t bite on false dichotomies.