So, who is responsible?

[vz71]

It’s a bit like blaming the telephone wire, for the gossip that runs along it.

It is what happens when someone uses the dogma alone without the context of the catechism as well as the oral and written tradition of the church.

 

[ignatius777]

I already did, but here comes again: The URL is: jloughnan.tripod.com/dogma.htm

Extracted from “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” by Dr Ludwig Ott; Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1974.

See the article by EWTN expert, Colin B. Donovan, STL, on Heresy, Schism and Apostacy

Footnote:

[1] The English translation of Dr Ott’s “Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma” has:

“The Sacraments of Baptism, Confirmation and Consecration when they are received validly but unworthily, revive after the removal of the moral indisposition, that is, the sacramental grace is conferred subsequently. (Sent. communis.)” See A CRITIQUE by Fr. Camillus Hay, O.F.M. OF THE ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF FUNDAMENTALS OF CATHOLIC DOGMA

See also “Dogmatic Canons and Decrees” [of the Council of Trent], The Devin-Adair Company, 1912, p.61 - Session VII March 3, 1547, Decree on the Sacraments, On the Sacraments in General. Canon IX, AND
in somewhat more modern terms, “The Church Teaches - Documents of the Church in English Translation”, 1955, by Jesuit Fathers of St Mary’s College, p.264; my copy published by Tan Books and Publishers, Inc. 1973:

Canon 9. “If anyone says that in three sacraments, namely, baptism, confirmation, and holy orders, a character is not imprinted on the soul–that is, a kind of indelible spiritual sign whereby these sacraments cannot be repeated: let him be anathema.”
F. John Loughnan
Revised Feb. 16, 2001​

Specifically, the dogmas #69 and #70:

1. God keeps all created things in existence. (De fide.)
2. God co-operates immediately in every act of His creatures. (Sent. communis.)

If you have problems, please go directly to the author. To conclude: “Which part of every don’t you understand?”.

Ok lets work with your assumption. I notice you highlight EVERY but this is about RESPONSIBILITY. I suspect you mean to say that if God “co-operates” with EVERY act of His creatures then He is thereby RESPONSIBLE for the act. Isnt that what you REALLY mean to say? You are letting your passions get ahead of you my friend. Heres what I notice though that no where I’ve looked is EVERY or “co-operates” synonomous with RESPONSIBILITY. Please stay on topic.

 

[4Horsemen]

God controls events whether good or bad. Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it with the exception of sin. I think that’s already been established.

Through Isaiah, the prophet, He tells us, “I am the Lord and there is none else. I form light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil (not sin). . . It is I who bring both death and life; I who inflict wounds and heal them,” He said to Moses. “He bringeth down to the tomb and He bringeth back again; the Lord maketh poor and maketh rich, he humbleth and he exalteth” (in the Canticle of Anna, the mother of Solomon.) “Shall there be evil (disaster, affliction) in a city which the Lord hath not done?”

And there are numerous other passages.

How can God will or allow evil?

There is sinfulness in all of these actions. God is not and cannot be the author of sin. But in every sin there are two parts to be distinguished, one natural and the other moral For example, say a person has a grievance against you and strikes you with his arm. There is a physical (natural) movement of the arm but also a movement of the will that turns aside from right reason and the law of God. So the physical action of the movement of the arm is neutral in itself until combined with the sinful intention which comes from the will of the person who strikes you.

The action of the man using his arm to strike another can be attributed to God and to the person in so far as they are natural, physical acts. But the moral part can be attributed only to the will of man in so far as it is sinful.

(Several saints have written about this concept of God’s responsibility. One is St. Alphonsus.)

 

[ignatius777]

The cops did not have the power to prevent it. The cops did not actively maintain the bullets in their trajectory. This is a very good case when the analogies fail. You cannot equate the unlimited power of God to the limited tools available to the cops.

I am not sure what does this have to do with “immutability”. At best it shows that no one, not even the pope has as much faith as a grain of mustard seed. No one has enough “faith” to move not just a mountain, but even a speck of dust.

AGAIN this is about RESPONSIBILITY. The police are NOT repsonsible for gang activity. You may be able to successfully argue that are RESPONSIBLE for either stopping it or making other citizens safe but they are not RESPONSIBLE for gang shootings. If knowledge itself is considered RESPONSIBILITY then what are you RESPONSIBLE for?

 

[ignatius777]

God controls events whether good or bad. Nothing happens in the universe without God willing and allowing it with the exception of sin. I think that’s already been established.

And there are numerous other passages.

How can God will or allow evil?

There is sinfulness in all of these actions. God is not and cannot be the author of sin. But in every sin there are two parts to be distinguished, one natural and the other moral For example, say a person has a grievance against you and strikes you with his arm. There is a physical (natural) movement of the arm but also a movement of the will that turns aside from right reason and the law of God. So the physical action of the movement of the arm is neutral in itself until combined with the sinful intention which comes from the will of the person who strikes you.

The action of the man using his arm to strike another can be attributed to God and to the person in so far as they are natural, physical acts. But they can be attributed only to the will
of man in so far as they are sinful.

(Several saints have written about this concept of God’s responsibility. One is St. Alphonsus.)

Excellent points! The same movement of the arm to strike another in a boxing ring is perceived and thought of entirely differently. In one place that neutra lmovement of the arm is a crime in another its a sport. The difference is will and intent. I suspect Spock woudl argue that since God knows your will and intent and doesnt stop it then He is RESPONSIBLE for the action. Free will however dictates a different conclusion in that each person is free to choose how to act and God’s knowing makes Him no more RESPONSIBLE then the police in a scenario posted elsewhere conserning shootings

 

[Spock]

Spock “co-operates” does not mean that God provoked it.

Agreed. And I did not say he did.

It means that God enabled it through His sustenance of the universe. Why does that make Him responsible in the way you are talking?

Look down further.

It’s a bit like blaming the telephone wire, for the gossip that runs along it.

An especially incorrect analogy. The wire has no choice what to transmit and not to. God is not a wire, which has no choice. God chooses to transmit the “evil” intents, which makes him an active participant.

 

[vz71]

An especially incorrect analogy. The wire has no choice what to transmit and not to. God is not a wire, which has no choice. God chooses to transmit the “evil” intents, which makes him an active participant.

Is MicroSoft responsible for hackers around the world using their product to criminal intents?

Actually I should edit this for more clarity.
No, God is not a wire. The wire does not choose what will and will not transmit across it.
But it is in the Gift of Free Will that you should know that God does not choose what will and will not transmit either. We are given to our own decisions.

Yes, God has a choice of what should and should not be.
But God also has chosen to allow us our own choices.

Yes, some choose hell. And to that end, it is a wonderful thing that God loves us so much that even with knowledge that some will choose against him he allows us the choice anyway.
If you believe God should have chosen not to create anyone that would choose hell, perhaps you are underestimating how valuable Free Will is.
Perhaps the Free Will we have been given is of greater value then the choice we make with it…?

 

[Spock]

Ok lets work with your assumption. I notice you highlight EVERY but this is about RESPONSIBILITY. I suspect you mean to say that if God “co-operates” with EVERY act of His creatures then He is thereby RESPONSIBLE for the act. Isnt that what you REALLY mean to say? You are letting your passions get ahead of you my friend. Heres what I notice though that no where I’ve looked is EVERY or “co-operates” synonomous with RESPONSIBILITY. Please stay on topic.

As you wish. At the very least you should agree that the person and God share the responsibility for everything. The person for initiating it, and God for putting it into practice. Are we in agreement so far?

If so, then we can go one step further. Who is responsible for the very existence of the person? Easy, right? God is responsible, since he knew what the person will do, IF he creates him. (Good ol’ omniscience bites again!)

 

[Spock]

Is MicroSoft responsible for hackers around the world using their product to criminal intents?

Oh, please! Microsoft has no control over the use of their product. One incorrect analogy cannot be remedied by creating another incorrect one. No analogy works here.

 

[ignatius777]

As you wish. At the very least you should agree that the person and God share the responsibility for everything. The person for initiating it, and God for putting it into practice. Are we in agreement so far?

If so, then we can go one step further. Who is responsible for the very existence of the person? Easy, right? God is responsible, since he knew what the person will do, IF he creates him. (Good ol’ omniscience bites again!)

No my friend we dont agree. Your insistence on making a point based on a false premise is causing you to overplay your hand. You want to avoid the idea of free will. This only comes down to the question…is the creator of anything or person repsonsible for the actions of that person. The only answer is “No” due simply to the fact that free will dictates responsibility. There IS something that bites my friend but its not God"s omniscience no matter how much you wish to justify your position.

 

[vz71]

Oh, please! Microsoft has no control over the use of their product. One incorrect analogy cannot be remedied by creating another incorrect one. No analogy works here.

Microsoft has perfect control over what can and cannot run on their product.
Should they choose, they can specify that only certain apps will run on their platform and prevent all others from working.

The analogy holds.

So…is Microsoft responsible for hackers nefarious ends?

 

[ignatius777]

Microsoft has perfect control over what can and cannot run on their product.
Should they choose, they can specify that only certain apps will run on their platform and prevent all others from working.

The analogy holds.

So…is Microsoft responsible for hackers nefarious ends?

Its an excellent analogy as well as the numerous others which have been presented here.

 

[vz71]

No my friend we dont agree. Your insistence on making a point based on a false premise is causing you to overplay your hand. You want to avoid the idea of free will. This only comes down to the question…is the creator of anything or person repsonsible for the actions of that person. The only answer is “No” due simply to the fact that free will dictates responsibility. There IS something that bites my friend but its not God"s omniscience no matter how much you wish to justify your position.

Spock believes he has proven the point repeatedly.
The dogmas do lead one to the conclusion.

But it is a proof based on incomplete information.
The rest of the information shows the conclusion wrong.

Spock has been good enough to examine church documents and learn the dogma.
Perhaps Spock will be good enough to read the bible and the catechism as well.

 

[Spock]

No my friend we dont agree. Your insistence on making a point based on a false premise is causing you to overplay your hand. You want to avoid the idea of free will. This only comes down to the question…is the creator of anything or person repsonsible for the actions of that person. The only answer is “No” due simply to the fact that free will dictates responsibility. There IS something that bites my friend but its not God"s omniscience no matter how much you wish to justify your position.

Not true. The whole “free will” thingy only applies IF the person gets created. And that is where responsibility starts.

IF the creator knows the activities of the created before he actually does the act of the creation, then he is responsible for it.

 

[ignatius777]

Spock believes he has proven the point repeatedly.
The dogmas do lead one to the conclusion.

But it is a proof based on incomplete information.
The rest of the information shows the conclusion wrong.

Spock has been good enough to examine church documents and learn the dogma.
Perhaps Spock will be good enough to read the bible and the catechism as well.

Well stated!

 

[4Horsemen]

Excellent points! The same movement of the arm to strike another in a boxing ring is perceived and thought of entirely differently. In one place that neutra lmovement of the arm is a crime in another its a sport. The difference is will and intent. I suspect Spock woudl argue that since God knows your will and intent and doesnt stop it then He is RESPONSIBLE for the action. Free will however dictates a different conclusion in that each person is free to choose how to act and God’s knowing makes Him no more RESPONSIBLE then the police in a scenario posted elsewhere conserning shootings

From reading certain of his posts, it seems he doesn’t give credence to free will. But free will is based on reason, so he can’t logically believe in reason either. Perhaps, he thinks of God as some mechanistic deity which operates all his toys as he pleases. I hardly think so, but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to explain the universe without the true essence of God.

Actually, I’m not condemning him as I went through an atheistic phase myself.

 

[ignatius777]

From reading certain of his posts, it seems he doesn’t give credence to free will. But free will is based on reason, so he can’t logically believe in reason either. Perhaps, he thinks of God as some mechanistic deity which operates all his toys as he pleases. I hardly think so, but it takes a lot of mental gymnastics to explain the universe without the true essence of God.

Actually, I’m not condemning him as I went through an atheistic phase myself.

Exactly so since he denies the presence of free will it can only be concluded that God who created us is also responsible for our actions. So maybe the question is whom does Spock think is responsible for his actions. Since I dont think he believes in God then God could not be responsible for creating him and therefore cant be responsible for his actions. And if thats the case it can only be concluded that Spock himself is responsible for his own actions. WOW thats sounds familiar.

 

[Spock]

Microsoft has perfect control over what can and cannot run on their product.
Should they choose, they can specify that only certain apps will run on their platform and prevent all others from working.

The analogy holds.

So…is Microsoft responsible for hackers nefarious ends?

Obviously you are not a systems programmer. (I used to be one). There is no way that any system would be “foolproof” to be able to prevent any malicious use of the platform they created. The conglomerate of millions of hackers is much smarter than the dozens of hundreds of programmers at Microsoft.

IBM has a an old system, called CICS, several decades old. It is composed of millions of lines of assembler code. Literally millions of lines. Do you even know what assembler code is? Not many people do. Even after many decades, constant debugging and updates, it still has unknown numbers of “bugs” - all of which can be exploited by hackers. Don’t try to create “analogies” which you know nothing about.

 

[ignatius777]

Not true. The whole “free will” thingy only applies IF the person gets created. And that is where responsibility starts.

IF the creator knows the activities of the created before he actually does the act of the creation, then he is responsible for it.

So you are saying that when someone gives you the freedom to do as you please by virtue of the fact that they gave you that freedom they are responsible for whatever you do with it. At one time I had a wood burning stove and I swear to you that cast into the very structure of the stove were the words “CAUTION HOT WHEN IN USE”. I guess they agreed with you that the stove manufacturer was responsible for a person with the freedom to touch a hot stove and knwe it would happen which is the ONLY reason to have that cast into the stove.

 

[vz71]

Obviously you are not a systems programmer. (I used to be one). There is no way that any system would be “foolproof” to be able to prevent any malicious use of the platform they created. The conglomerate of millions of hackers is much smarter than the dozens of hundreds of programmers at Microsoft.

IBM has a an old system, called CICS, several decades old. It is composed of millions of lines of assembler code. Literally millions of lines. Do you even know what assembler code is? Not many people do. Even after many decades, constant debugging and updates, it still has unknown numbers of “bugs” - all of which can be exploited by hackers. Don’t try to create “analogies” which you know nothing about.

Just as the proof you are relying upon is based upon incomplete information…

Well, perhaps you should start looking at the profiles of the people you are debating with. These sorts of errors can be avoided.