What did the crowd not know?

[BarbTh]

Hello Barb!

I can totally relate to this. In fact, I am pretty wary of saying that I ever know what I am doing. The dawn came all at once for me, more or less. I realized what a fool I was, and since the awareness was so profound, I know fully what it is like to think that I have All Righteousness and Truth on my side, when in fact with my condemning attitude, I put the Law over People. I had made righteousness more important and more valuable than Love itself, more valuable than mercy, more valuable than forgiveness. I had somewhat a Pauline fall-off-the-horse experience.

As you write that I know that you are not diminishing the forgiveness of sin inside the Confessional either, that really all forgiveness, as do Love and Mercy, come from God and illustrate His Glory. Have you read St. Augustine’s Confessions, where he addresses why people sin?

In your own journey did you come to see as St. Thomas Aquinas did, that people do what they think is best?

I am searching for the exception, when it is not the story, actually. Do you gather that Stalin, Hitler and Pinochet knew what they were doing?

Thanks for your response!

Thank you for your post

I did not have a sudden awareness of God’s Glory. I do not know how or when it happened - it has just happened and I have no idea whatsoever of how, when, where or why.

I would never diminish in any way the full and total forgiveness of The Confessional. Our past sins cease to exist once (mortal) sins are subjected to The Confessional. There are many other ways God forgives venial sin apart from confessing them, which is not necessary rather an option.

However, even though The Confessional forgives absolutely all sin so that they cease to exist, one’s human memory is not wiped away. I think this is a very positive thing, since one renews and renews very often one’s sorrow for the past. This, I think, has a way of reinforcing quite strongly one’s abhorrence of sin and resolution to not sin again.
I have neither read extensively St Augustine nor St Thomas Aquinas. It also can reinforce or even introduce compassion, understanding and empathy towards others. I am reminded of a story from the desert fathers. A young monk had committed a serious offence and was banned from choir for a month. After a few days, the abbot’s council noticed that the abbot had not been in choir either. They decided to approach him in his cell and enquire of his health. The abbot replied to them “I too am a sinner”.

Another thing just occurred to me too - there is nothing worse possibly than a ‘pain in the b***t ex-smoker’

I do think it is probably quite unusual and rare even that a person will act in the interest of their own unhappiness. One of the ancient philosophers (can’t recall whom) wrote that a person acts in their own interests even when they hang themselves - something like that anyway.

We are not given privy to the state of soul of other persons. Certainly, we know the horrific crimes of Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and many others who have committed horrific acts. Did they repent before they died, we cannot know. We do know that nothing whatsoever is beyond the Loving Mercy of God. All the aforementioned persons are beloved creatures of God. If they do find themselves in Hell, it is not because God has consigned them there, it is because in committing serious mortal sin, they have deliberately chosen to separate themselves from God, choosing evil and the consequences (hell or hatred of God and separation totally from Him). Somebody has written that The God who created us without our permission, will not save us without our permission i.e. free will.

Did they have full knowledge and full consent at the times of horrific crimes - again we have no access at all to that information. Their acts were certainly grave matter.

We are called not to judge ever - and it seems to me the reason is very obvious and that is because we do not ever have access to the full and total interior life and thought processes of others. Judgement per se is to morally categorize including moral consequences.
In life, we do need to assess at times another person or persons’ place in our life in order to get on with our lives and in a constructive manner in every way. This is not judgement.
It is certainly, or ideally should be rather, an admission of our own weakness and failure- our inability to love without exceptions whatsoever some of our brothers and sisters, to Love as God Loves.

In the Divine Office, The Church regularly prays for the salvation of **all **souls. And Our Lady of Fatima asked for this beautiful prayer which we pray in The Rosary “O My Jesus forgive us our sins and save us from the fires of Hell - and lead all souls to Heaven especially those most in need of Your Mercy.”

I know for sure that neither Our Lady nor The Church would ask of us, nor pray on our behalf, petitions that are absolutely impossible.

All from my armchair

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Simpleas!

Yes it happened. It does not happen as much as when I was younger, I see things differently now.

You mean you can control your emotions, but you can not empathise?

What I am saying is that anger is a triggered response, and so is resentment. Yes, for me also my anger is not triggered as often as when I was younger, but when it is, it is never chosen. Do you know anyone who rationally says, like an actor, "I think I want to be really angry right now? Even actors have to come up with things they are angry about, or were angry about, to show real anger. The same is true with resentment. The triggering is extremely difficult to control, right?

But once we do feel angry, we can attain some skills to deal with it, such as observing and accepting it, and taking the steps to be in control of a situaltion and forgive. We can always control our behavior; dealing with the emotions is a more procedural effort.

In addition, when I am really angry or resentful with someone, my empathy is blocked, yes. And in my observations of people when they are angry, it seems universal.

Yes I think so. I can only read what is available in the scriptures, but that does not encompass every person who was in discussion with the leaders who were calling for Jesus’ death. I’d like to hope there were many understanding and forgiving souls that were not calling for Jesus’ death.
I tend to believe that it takes only a small number of people to say things in a certain manner that injects anger/fear into those who feel the most threatened, and are likely to take action. (that being the high priests/ Pilate etc)
The crowd could have just followed whoever shouted the loudest. But not being there I can only guess.

Thanks Have a good day

This is part of the point here. We are trying to cover all the different possibilities of what the crowd was thinking and did not know.

We also can apply the same question to the leadership, just in case we are thinking that the leadership was “In the know”:

Peter later said of the crucifixion scene:

Acts 3:17New International Version (NIV)

17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Barb!

I really appreciate your taking the time to give thoughtful responses. I hope you have the time and patience to continue.

Thank you for your post

I did not have a sudden awareness of God’s Glory. I do not know how or when it happened - it has just happened and I have no idea whatsoever of how, when, where or why.

In reality we probably have different definitions of what is included in “God’s Glory”. Yes, for me some of the awareness happened over time, but it was those “aha moments” that stand out the most. For me, seeing God’s Glory is the seeing His wonder and beauty in all of creation, in all of humanity, even every aspect of our own nature. It is a matter of seeing an infinite value in all that is. I’m not saying that you have presented anything contrary to this, but it is rare to find someone who has the exact same viewpoint, and every word has a different definition, of course, depending on our experiences.

I react naturally to the occurrence of evil, but upon prayer and reflection there is a return to a stasis of seeing God’s Glory. If members of the crowd did know God’s Glory, they had not returned to such stasis, but in my view even our capacity to react gives Glory to a beneficent Creator.

I would never diminish in any way the full and total forgiveness of The Confessional…The Confessional forgives absolutely all sin so that they cease to exist, one’s human memory is not wiped away. I think this is a very positive thing, since one renews and renews very often one’s sorrow for the past. This, I think, has a way of reinforcing quite strongly one’s abhorrence of sin and resolution to not sin again.

I agree completely. What I am seeing is that resentment itself serves a purpose in formation of the conscience. There is an image set up in the mind, and we are guided by our abhorrence. The whole process of conscience formation is beautiful. What I also see is that the workings of the conscience, including the empathy-blocking that I am discussing with Simpleas, is beautiful.

If we forgive what we abhor, the abhorrence no longer has the same effect, even though the triggers are still there. However, once what is abhorred within has been understood and forgiven (a light shined upon it) the light itself becomes the guide, rather than the more mechanical conscience. It is a transcending.

Can you relate? I am wondering if your journey has taken you in a similar direction. There is more, of course. And for me it centers and begins with those amazing words from the cross.

I am reminded of a story from the desert fathers…

Another thing just occurred to me too - there is nothing worse possibly than a ‘pain in the b***t ex-smoker’

What do you think of these words from Cory Booker?

I do think it is probably quite unusual and rare even that a person will act in the interest of their own unhappiness. One of the ancient philosophers (can’t recall whom) wrote that a person acts in their own interests even when they hang themselves - something like that anyway.

Well, just how rare is it? Try to use your own introspection to come up with a way in which a person behaves for a purpose other than achieving a perceived “good”. Does it ever happen? If you come up with something, I am definitely “all ears”!

We are not given privy to the state of soul of other persons. Certainly, we know the horrific crimes of Stalin, Hitler, Pinochet and many others who have committed horrific acts. Did they repent…

What I can know is exactly why I would have done what they did. One can “stand in their midst” and see the world they way they had seen it. Our abhorrence resists the effort, but it is worthwhile. We need not fear understanding. The priest who set me on the path said, “It is not to condemn or condone, but understand.” I have found that understanding is the key to a deeper forgiveness.

Somebody has written that The God who created us without our permission, will not save us without our permission i.e. free will.

I know the image presented there, and it does not in itself preclude a pacifist God, but I see an image that is more active, presented to us by another priest: “The only way a person goes to hell is if they do so screaming and kicking against God the whole way”.

Did they have full knowledge and full consent at the times of horrific crimes - again we have no access at all to that information. Their acts were certainly grave matter.

What we do have access to is our own imagination and experience. We can consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our capacities to do exactly what they did. It is an exercise in painful admissions and humility. The conscience resists such ownership, for very good reasons, but it is worth “going there”.

(continued)

 

[OneSheep]

BarbTh:

We are called not to judge ever - and it seems to me the reason is very obvious and that is because we do not ever have access to the full and total interior life and thought processes of others. Judgement per se is to morally categorize including moral consequences…

It is certainly, or ideally should be rather, an admission of our own weakness and failure- our inability to love without exceptions whatsoever some of our brothers and sisters, to Love as God Loves.

In the Divine Office, The Church regularly prays for the salvation of **all **souls…

I know for sure that neither Our Lady nor The Church would ask of us, nor pray on our behalf, petitions that are absolutely impossible.

All from my armchair

Indeed, we are to pray as if what we are asking for will happen. In addition, in my observation our conscience is meant to operate in such a way that at least in the short term we love with exception, that is, conditionally, in certain circumstances, such as demonstrated by the crowd. They abhorred, and they punished: it is part of a natural desire for justice. It is mechanical.

We are not “called” to judge (condemn), but in my view it is part of our functional nature to do just that, to abhor. We can notice that Jesus spent a lot more time talking about forgiving than not judging. For me, it is unrealistic to try to avoid judging others (tried it for years, but was unsuccessful. Judging happens ). It is triggered in the mind, and at best I can realize that the triggering happened, and then take the steps to forgive (when it is time).

I do enjoy talking to the person in your armchair!

 

[guanophore]

What I am saying is that anger is a triggered response, and so is resentment. … anger is never chosen. Do you know anyone who rationally says, like an actor, "I think I want to be really angry right now? Even actors have to come up with things they are angry about, or were angry about, to show real anger. The same is true with resentment. The triggering is extremely difficult to control, right?

This seems to suggest that it is a reflex response, an instinct, like a startle reflex, and therefore, outside of a persons’ conscious control.

But once we do feel angry, we can attain some skills to deal with it, such as observing and accepting it, and taking the steps to be in control of a situaltion and forgive. We can always control our behavior; dealing with the emotions is a more procedural effort.

This is curious, since you have previously asserted that forgiveness has not really happened if there are residual emotions…

In addition, when I am really angry or resentful with someone, my empathy is blocked, yes. And in my observations of people when they are angry, it seems universal.

It also seems overly simplistic. Thank God this is not how it works, otherwise, when parents got angry with their children they would lack empathy and no children would survive to adulthood.

As a matter of fact, no relationships could survive, since relation requires empathy, and anger/resentment would “block” it. Fortunately people are able to continue to have empathy when angry, so that we are restrained from acting on our resentments.

 This is part of the point here.  We are trying to cover all the different possibilities of what the crowd was thinking and did not know.

It certainly is an interesting imaginitive exercise.

We also can apply the same question to the leadership, just in case we are thinking that the leadership was “In the know”:

Peter later said of the crucifixion scene:

Acts 3:17
17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

And yet, Jesus told Pilate the Leaders had the “greater sin”. Or perhaps this exchange is another place where you think the human sentiments crept into the text?

  It is a matter of seeing an infinite value in all that is.

This seems to be where your formulation departs from the Catholic faith. The notion taht human beings are not culpable for their actions unless they can see “infinite value” is quite a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. There really would be no such thing as mortal sin, because people only sin out of ignrance and blindness. Therefore, there is also no need for confession, since no one willingly and knowingly rejects God.

What I am seeing is that resentment itself serves a purpose in formation of the conscience.  There is an image set up in the mind, and we are guided by our abhorrence.  The whole process of conscience formation is beautiful.  What I also see is that the workings of the conscience, including the empathy-blocking that I am discussing with Simpleas, is beautiful.

Clearly you have some very interesting ideas about the formation and function of the conscience.

If we forgive what we abhor, the abhorrence no longer has the same effect, even though the triggers are still there. However, once what is abhorred within has been understood and forgiven (a light shined upon it) the light itself becomes the guide, rather than the more mechanical conscience. It is a transcending.

Now you seem to be saying that forgiveness is an act of the will, and that it is still valid, even if emotion is still triggered? That seems to be a reversal of your previous statement that, if there are triggers, forgiveness has not really occcurred.

Well, just how rare is it? Try to use your own introspection to come up with a way in which a person behaves for a purpose other than achieving a perceived “good”. Does it ever happen? If you come up with something, I am definitely “all ears”!

Your posting history indicates that any and all examples contrary to your preoconceived psychotheology will be rejected, so perhaps those “ears” function with large filters attached?

What we do have access to is our own imagination and experience. We can consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our capacities to do exactly what they did.

This is a Humanistic epistemology of Truth.

 

[simpleas]

Hi Simpleas!

What I am saying is that anger is a triggered response, and so is resentment. Yes, for me also my anger is not triggered as often as when I was younger, but when it is, it is never chosen. Do you know anyone who rationally says, like an actor, "I think I want to be really angry right now? Even actors have to come up with things they are angry about, or were angry about, to show real anger. The same is true with resentment. The triggering is extremely difficult to control, right?

But once we do feel angry, we can attain some skills to deal with it, such as observing and accepting it, and taking the steps to be in control of a situaltion and forgive. We can always control our behavior; dealing with the emotions is a more procedural effort.

In addition, when I am really angry or resentful with someone, my empathy is blocked, yes. And in my observations of people when they are angry, it seems universal.

This is part of the point here. We are trying to cover all the different possibilities of what the crowd was thinking and did not know.

We also can apply the same question to the leadership, just in case we are thinking that the leadership was “In the know”:

Peter later said of the crucifixion scene:

Acts 3:17New International Version (NIV)

17 “Now, fellow Israelites, I know that you acted in ignorance, as did your leaders.

Yes the trigger is, but the prolonged feeling is not

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, guanophore,

With a little explanation, I think I can show you how it all fits together.

This seems to suggest that it is a reflex response, an instinct, like a startle reflex, and therefore, outside of a persons’ conscious control.

Yes, the emotional upwelling of anger, in the most immediate sense, is not controlled. The temporal lobes (reason) are slower than the more primitive parts of the brain that produce emotional reactions.

This is curious, since you have previously asserted that forgiveness has not really happened if there are residual emotions…

It may be curious, but it is not contradictory. We can control our behaviors, always. We cannot control the triggering of an emotion. Quite often the emotion is there before we even realize it, corrrect?
And remember what I said: we have residual emotion to the degree that we have not forgiven. In my experience, if I have residual emotion, that indicates that there are other issues to address.

It also seems overly simplistic. Thank God this is not how it works, otherwise, when parents got angry with their children they would lack empathy and no children would survive to adulthood.

Actually, the common myth is that anger in itself causes violent behavior. Well, just as they say “guns don’t kill people; people kill people” we can say the same for anger. Anger does not cause violence, people’s choices cause violence.

If we start with the question: “Why does not more violence happen if anger blocks empathy?” what do you think? The angry parent avoids abuse because he or she fears hurting the child too much. Are you thinking that fear of consequence is the same as empathy?

I am convinced that harsh parenting is a default mode, and the more disciplined efforts toward gentle parenting (such as those practices of the !kung bushmen) are a more advanced culture.

Empathy-blocking is not chosen. Look at what happens on CAF threads. When things get heated up, civility and kindness go out the window. It is all very natural.

As a matter of fact, no relationships could survive, since relation requires empathy, and anger/resentment would “block” it. Fortunately people are able to continue to have empathy when angry, so that we are restrained from acting on our resentments.

Are you assuming that people do not forgive? Yes, relationships where anger and resentment are not addressed do not survive. Let’s say a wife cheats on her husband. He is angry. Is he empathizing with whatever reason she had for doing what she did? She fooled around because she is tired of his self-centeredness and found someone who treats her like someone special. Can he empathize, feel and understand her emotion? Probably not, not right away. Is he going to kill her? Not likely; even though his empathy is blocked, he fears the consequences of such an action, and something of his conscience says “no!” to such violence. Empathy is not the same as our internal rule-book, though it guides our internal rulebook formation to some degree.

And yet, Jesus told Pilate the Leaders had the “greater sin”. Or perhaps this exchange is another place where you think the human sentiments crept into the text?

There is no contradiction between Jesus looking upon the crowd and saying “forgive them for they know not what they do” and Peter saying, “we know that you and your leaders were ignorant”. Yes, some sins are greater than others. In their observation, ignorance was a factor in all of them.

This seems to be where your formulation departs from the Catholic faith. The notion taht human beings are not culpable for their actions unless they can see “infinite value” is quite a departure from what the Apostles believed and taught. There really would be no such thing as mortal sin, because people only sin out of ignrance and blindness. Therefore, there is also no need for confession, since no one willingly and knowingly rejects God.

Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. If they were not aware of a relevant fact, they did not commit a mortal sin. People have infinite value, is that not the truth? If an individual does not know this in the moment, and such knowing would have changed their behavior, then his awareness was insufficient. This brings us back to the question presented by this thread.

I have already explained to you the need for confession. Ask any priest: does God forgive this person waiting to come to confession? Answer: yes. Does the waiting person feel as if he is right with God, that the relationship is okay? Answer: no. Thus, the need for the confessional. The confessional is there for reconciliation. God already forgives us, guanophore. People feeling guilt are not experiencing this forgiveness. People who do not feel guilt, but should, are even further from relationship.

Now you seem to be saying that forgiveness is an act of the will, and that it is still valid, even if emotion is still triggered? That seems to be a reversal of your previous statement that, if there are triggers, forgiveness has not really occcurred.

It is our conscience that puts the triggers there. Forgiveness does not remove the triggers. Let’s say that when someone cuts in front of me on a freeway, my anger is triggered. Then, I forgive. An hour later, someone cuts in front of me again. Did the trigger go away? No. However, over time our triggers can be modified by feedback from the frontal lobes. The triggered anger is faster than my decision to forgive.

continued…

 

[OneSheep]

guanophore:

This is a Humanistic epistemology of Truth.

Oh, have I triggered your NOT CATHOLIC button?

What I said was this:

What we do have access to is our own imagination and experience. We can consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our capacities to do exactly what they did.

What I should have said to avoid your triggers was this:

What we do have access to is our God-given imagination and God-given experiences. We can use our God-given mind and God’s gift of Understanding to consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our God-given capacities to do exactly what they did.

I left out a few “thous” and “thys”, but hopefully that will suffice for thee.

God Bless your day!

 

[OneSheep]

Yes the trigger is, but the prolonged feeling is not

My thoughts exactly. Thanks.

 

[guanophore]

Yes, the emotional upwelling of anger, in the most immediate sense, is not controlled. The temporal lobes (reason) are slower than the more primitive parts of the brain that produce emotional reactions.

I think it maybe the term “controlled” is what throws me here. Perhaps we would agree that emotions occur outside the function of the will, yet can be managed by the will. When you say “not controlled” I am left with the impression that an upwelling of anger, by nature, takes over the persons’ behavior.

The temporal lobe is involved in primary auditory perception, such as hearing, and holds the primary auditory cortex. The primary auditory cortex receives sensory information from the ears and secondary areas process the information into meaningful units such as speech and words. I think you mean by “reason” higher cortical/executive functions found in the frontal lobe, such as impulse control, decision making, judgment?

It may be curious, but it is not contradictory. We can control our behaviors, always. We cannot control the triggering of an emotion. Quite often the emotion is there before we even realize it, corrrect?
And remember what I said: we have residual emotion to the degree that we have not forgiven. In my experience, if I have residual emotion, that indicates that there are other issues to address.

So we agree that forgiveness is an act of the will, and any residual emotions will eventually follow?

If we start with the question: “Why does not more violence happen if anger blocks empathy?” what do you think? The angry parent avoids abuse because he or she fears hurting the child too much. Are you thinking that fear of consequence is the same as empathy?

I am thinking that fear of causing hurt has do to with much more than fear of consequences. Would it not include empathy to want to refrain from injuring loved ones?

I think “blocks” sounds to all or nothing. It seems that empathy is impaired or impeded. I do acknowledge, though, that there are cases where it seems totally blocked, especially during impulsive rage. As you pointed out, even sociopaths have empathy.

I am convinced that harsh parenting is a default mode, and the more disciplined efforts toward gentle parenting (such as those practices of the !kung bushmen) are a more advanced culture.

The followers of Dr. Spock will be very disappointed.

Empathy-blocking is not chosen. Look at what happens on CAF threads. When things get heated up, civility and kindness go out the window. It is all very natural.

While I agree with your point, I also know that people choose and willfully work at avoiding caring feelings toward those about whom they want to harbor hate.

Are you assuming that people do not forgive?

I think I am assuming that forgiveness is more likely with empathy. If empathy is totally blocked, how can one make a decision to forgive?

Yes, relationships where anger and resentment are not addressed do not survive. Let’s say a wife cheats on her husband. He is angry. Is he empathizing with whatever reason she had for doing what she did? She fooled around because she is tired of his self-centeredness and found someone who treats her like someone special. Can he empathize, feel and understand her emotion? Probably not, not right away. Is he going to kill her? Not likely; even though his empathy is blocked, he fears the consequences of such an action, and something of his conscience says “no!” to such violence. Empathy is not the same as our internal rule-book, though it guides our internal rulebook formation to some degree.

Well, I guess we see it differently. I do not think about it in such all or nothing terms.

Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. If they were not aware of a relevant fact, they did not commit a mortal sin.

Such a formulation is contrary to the teaching of the church. Sufficient awareness/knowledge does not mean being omniscient, or aware of all the “relevant facts”. God does not require us to be omniscient for us to be responsible.

 

[OneSheep]

I think it maybe the term “controlled” is what throws me here. Perhaps we would agree that emotions occur outside the function of the will, yet can be managed by the will. When you say “not controlled” I am left with the impression that an upwelling of anger, by nature, takes over the persons’ behavior.

We are always in control, regardless the emotional upwellings.

The temporal lobe is involved in primary auditory perception, such as hearing, and holds the primary auditory cortex. The primary auditory cortex receives sensory information from the ears and secondary areas process the information into meaningful units such as speech and words. I think you mean by “reason” higher cortical/executive functions found in the frontal lobe, such as impulse control, decision making, judgment?

I looked up where the part of the brain is that stores vocabulary and concepts, and it seems to be all over. This means of course, that my entire brain is probably breaking down with ACCRS (that’s the advanced case). Yes, the frontal lobes is where I meant.

So we agree that forgiveness is an act of the will, and any residual emotions will eventually follow?

They will follow to the degree that forgiveness has actually happened. The person who says “I have forgiven” but is still caught up in his resentment has a ways to go.

I am thinking that fear of causing hurt has do to with much more than fear of consequences. Would it not include empathy to want to refrain from injuring loved ones?

No, that is not specifically empathy, but it may be the result of empathy. When a person is angry, though, his empathy is compromised (“blocked” is probably an over-statement if applied to all cases). If I refrain from spanking my child because my conscience says it is wrong, it is the abhorrence that is motivating my action, not understanding that comes from consideration of the child’s mindset. If I am understanding the child’s mindset, I am already a long way toward forgiving. Ideally, I have forgiven before I enact any consequence, but this takes discipline, of course, a discipline to forgive.

I think “blocks” sounds to all or nothing. It seems that empathy is impaired or impeded. I do acknowledge, though, that there are cases where it seems totally blocked, especially during impulsive rage. As you pointed out, even sociopaths have empathy.

Well, I guess we see it differently. I do not think about it in such all or nothing terms.

I think it was Simpleas that discovered the article. Sociopaths have empathy when they want to, when they will it. Did we discuss sociopaths on this thread? Sociopaths have an empathy disability.

While I agree with your point, I also know that people choose and willfully work at avoiding caring feelings toward those about whom they want to harbor hate.

And it is my observation that when people want to harbor hate, they do so in ignorance.

I think I am assuming that forgiveness is more likely with empathy. If empathy is totally blocked, how can one make a decision to forgive?

I think you are right, forgiveness is more likely with empathy, but if a person is empathizing with the other, have they not already partially or wholly forgiven? Forgiveness is a choice, there is a desire to be reconciled, a discomfort with division, and the person chooses to resolve the situation. These are the more immediate motivators, right? If a person is really resentful, though, it takes years of suffering the resentment before they realize that it such grudge-holding serves no purpose.

Through following the Gospel, a person can learn the value of forgiveness regardless of their current state of mind, right?

Though total blocking happens, the amount of blocking probably varies a lot among individuals.

Such a formulation is contrary to the teaching of the church. Sufficient awareness/knowledge does not mean being omniscient, or aware of all the “relevant facts”. God does not require us to be omniscient for us to be responsible.

I said nothing of omniscience, and we are to be held responsible for everything we do. We make our own choices to behave, not anyone else. We have covered responsibility, right? So, removing all your comments that do not apply to my statement, we are left with this question:

Is it the Truth that we have sufficient awareness/knowledge when we are not aware of all the relevant facts?

 

[guanophore]

I have already explained to you the need for confession. Ask any priest: does God forgive this person waiting to come to confession? Answer: yes. Does the waiting person feel as if he is right with God, that the relationship is okay? Answer: no. Thus, the need for the confessional. The confessional is there for reconciliation. God already forgives us, guanophore. People feeling guilt are not experiencing this forgiveness. People who do not feel guilt, but should, are even further from relationship.

This explanation is consistent with a Humanistic viewpoint of the sacrament. It is not consistent with what the Church teaches.

Abolution has nothing to do with human emotion, though I do agree that people generally feel better when reconciled.

The difference is that the Church teaches that sin separates people from God, not just their personal perception of God.

It is our conscience that puts the triggers there.

I am at a loss to understand your ideas about conscience, but I am certain that it is not the conscience that causes the triggers.

Triggering is caused by perceptions, usually malformed perceptions. These are more related to ego and trauma than to conscience.

Oh, have I triggered your NOT CATHOLIC button?

Is there a button? It seems more like a program that runs constantly in the background. :yup:

What I said was this:

What we do have access to is our own imagination and experience. We can consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our capacities to do exactly what they did.

What I should have said to avoid your triggers was this:

What we do have access to is our God-given imagination and God-given experiences. We can use our God-given mind and God’s gift of Understanding to consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our God-given capacities to do exactly what they did.

I am afraid that will not work either OneSheep. All you have done is substitute secular Humanism for Religious Humanism, but it is still Humanism.

For Catholics, we understand what is true by what was revealed to us by God, particularly through the public revelation that includes Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is not to say that our imagination and experiences cannot be helpful, but they must be placed under the higher Source of Truth, so we are not misled by them.

In your representation, human imagination and experience is primary. This is one of the hallmarks that distinguishes Humanism from Catholicism.

I left out a few “thous” and “thys”, but hopefully that will suffice for thee.

Of course it suffices. Humanists, whether secular or religious, are welcome here.
The only potential problem is representing these Humanistic ideas as consistent with Catholicism, when they are not.

 

[BarbTh]

Indeed, we are to pray as if what we are asking for will happen. In addition, in my observation our conscience is meant to operate in such a way that at least in the short term we love with exception, that is, conditionally, in certain circumstances, such as demonstrated by the crowd. They abhorred, and they punished: it is part of a natural desire for justice. It is mechanical.

We are not “called” to judge (condemn), but in my view it is part of our functional nature to do just that, to abhor. We can notice that Jesus spent a lot more time talking about forgiving than not judging. For me, it is unrealistic to try to avoid judging others (tried it for years, but was unsuccessful. Judging happens ). It is triggered in the mind, and at best I can realize that the triggering happened, and then take the steps to forgive (when it is time).

I do enjoy talking to the person in your armchair!

For me, emotions are a spontaneous reaction to a situation and probably connected to the flight or fight principal…i.e. survival. That spontaneous reaction is not chosen, but what we do with that reaction is a choice. This latter choice then involves the will and it is in the will that I sin or not sin - i.e. - I choose.
When the will makes a choice that goes against one’s negative spontaneous reaction (for example, abhorrence at an horrific crime), the memory is not wiped away and therefore the memory of the situation remains ;and may come to mind at times. Memory, I think, can be just as spontaneous as emotional reactions and may come back to mind either as a choice, or as an involuntary occurrence. And along with that memory returning, the related emotions might occur as well. We are indeed broken creatures - perfection impossible. We all have a dire need to come before God humble, humbled, and in absolute need of His Infinite Love and Mercy and always - without all the answers and probably without the appropriate questions either.

Sin is always an act of the will, not the emotions or memory (without getting ridiculous).

As far as judging negatively is concerned, to judge is to morally condemn along with the connected penalty. I think we do need to assess a person’s place in our life at times in order to get on with life and in a positive and uncomplicated manner. I don’t think that this is judging. I certainly do assess at times whether a person is a positive influence in my life or a negative factor, but in those instances I am also careful to identify and ponder on their good points. I am yet to run across a person who does not have some good points worth considering even worth imitating. And we should never be afraid of good example - gold after all is wherever it is found.

What makes my sin less serious than another’s, all things taken into consideration which only God can know. We cannot and must not judge (assign moral culpability) simply because we do not know and cannot know the whole story - only God does.

 

[BarbTh]

we love with exception,

I think that the above asks that you define what love is in order to be assured we are on the same page.

Judging happens ). It is triggered in the mind, and at best I can realize that the triggering happened, and then take the steps to forgive (when it is time).

We have no control over what is spontaneously triggered or just occurs either in the mind or the emotions. There is no moral culpability attached to these because they were not freely chosen by the will. The steps we take towards forgiveness are chosen by one’s free will - but “complete” success may or may not occur and this can be outside our volitional choice as well and therefore no moral culpability.

Indeed because one desires to completely forgive and is unable to do so can be even a great suffering and we are reminded yet again of our brokenness and need of God and His Love and Mercy - and though one ardently desires it, one just cannot attain perfection. I might succeed here - but then over there, I have failed.

 

[guanophore]

And it is my observation that when people want to harbor hate, they do so in ignorance.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But some people choose to be hateful willingly and knowingly.

  I said nothing of omniscience, and we are to be held responsible for everything we do.  We make our own choices to behave, not anyone else.  We have covered responsibility, right?  So, removing all your comments that do not apply to my statement, we are left with this question:

Is it the Truth that we have sufficient awareness/knowledge when we are not aware of all the relevant facts?

I think not. I suspect your definition of “relevant facts” will relate again to the “infinite values of human beings” or something in the omnicient range.

On the other had, “thou shalt not kill” is simple and straightforward, and does not require empathy or “sufficient knowledge of all the relevant facts’ to obey.” What is relevant to making moral decisions is what God has revealed and commanded. It is not a product of the human imagination.

 

[simpleas]

Originally Posted by OneSheep

I think it was Simpleas that discovered the article. Sociopaths have empathy when they want to, when they will it. Did we discuss sociopaths on this thread? Sociopaths have an empathy disability.

What article was that?

 

[OneSheep]

What article was that?

I don’t remember now, Simpleas. Maybe it was just psychopaths:

sociopathworld.com/2013/07/sociopaths-feel-empathy-sort-of.html

So, psychopaths not only have a disability, but they are definitely not “in the know” like most humans are concerning the value of the other. It doesn’t come naturally to them.

 

[guanophore]

I don’t remember now, Simpleas. Maybe it was just psychopaths:

sociopathworld.com/2013/07/sociopaths-feel-empathy-sort-of.html

So, psychopaths not only have a disability, but they are definitely not “in the know” like most humans are concerning the value of the other. It doesn’t come naturally to them.

Are you suggesting that knowing the “value of the other” is something that comes naturally to people? At least those who are not psychopaths?

 

[OneSheep]

This explanation is consistent with a Humanistic viewpoint of the sacrament. It is not consistent with what the Church teaches.

Abolution has nothing to do with human emotion, though I do agree that people generally feel better when reconciled.

The difference is that the Church teaches that sin separates people from God, not just their personal perception of God.

Good Morning!

Could you perhaps be more specific in terms of what I actually wrote that is inconsistent with Church teachings? Here is what I wrote:

“Ask any priest: does God forgive this person waiting to come to confession? Answer: yes. Does the waiting person feel as if he is right with God, that the relationship is okay? Answer: no. Thus, the need for the confessional. The confessional is there for reconciliation. God already forgives us, guanophore. People feeling guilt are not experiencing this forgiveness. People who do not feel guilt, but should, are even further from relationship.”

I am at a loss to understand your ideas about conscience, but I am certain that it is not the conscience that causes the triggers.

Triggering is caused by perceptions, usually malformed perceptions. These are more related to ego and trauma than to conscience.

If we see torture, and react negatively (triggered anger) toward the person doing the torture, this is not a malformed perception. This trigger involves the same abhorrence that guides us not to torture people. Do you see what I mean? The conscience is in part an internal rulebook, formed by experience but guided by our nature, which comes from God. This is why people’s consciences are usually a little bit different. When the rulebook is violated, a negative emotion is triggered.

I am afraid that will not work either OneSheep. All you have done is substitute secular Humanism for Religious Humanism, but it is still Humanism.

For Catholics, we understand what is true by what was revealed to us by God, particularly through the public revelation that includes Scripture and Sacred Tradition. This is not to say that our imagination and experiences cannot be helpful, but they must be placed under the higher Source of Truth, so we are not misled by them

In your representation, human imagination and experience is primary. This is one of the hallmarks that distinguishes Humanism from Catholicism.

Of course it suffices. Humanists, whether secular or religious, are welcome here.
The only potential problem is representing these Humanistic ideas as consistent with Catholicism, when they are not.

Where did I say that human imagination and experience is primary?

This is what I said:

“What we do have access to is our God-given imagination and God-given experiences. We can use our God-given mind and God’s gift of Understanding to consider all of the possibilities and then come to own our God-given capacities to do exactly what they did.”

Haven’t you used your human imagination to infer that I am placing my own imagination and experiences over God-given Truth? Yes, and now you are stating as Truth that your inference is valid, and my view isn’t Catholic. Isn’t this one of those straw-man things?

Just as that wonderful Italian sister told me, when we point our finger at someone, there are three fingers pointing back at us!

Look at what I said guanophore. I showed how we can understand people. There is nothing in Church teachings contrary to this.

The two are not mutually exclusive. But some people choose to be hateful willingly and knowingly.

So, it is the Truth that some people choose to be hateful willingly and knowingly? It that in Catholic teachings, or is that a product of your own imagination and experience? If it is a Catholic teaching, please show us where it explicitly says this.

Of course, you know that I am not the least bit averse to discussing items of imagination and experience, so if you would like to back off from your assertion (you won’t find something explicit, only your own interpretation of teachings) and discuss how an individual can possibly willingly and knowingly be hateful, please feel free to do so.

It would be an exercise in empathy!

Thanks for your response.

 

[OneSheep]

Are you suggesting that knowing the “value of the other” is something that comes naturally to people? At least those who are not psychopaths?

Yes, the human is compelled to Love. We have Love within. When we love, we see value. We tend to disvalue those who violate our rulebooks or are in the outgroup. Those are a couple of exceptions. Jesus, of course, addressed the exceptions by encouraging us to forgive those we hold anything against (violate the rulebook) and to include (i.e. be able to eat together or shake hands with) those we tend to reject (i.e. Samaritans, tax collectors, sinners, lowly children, lepers, “unclean”, centurion, etc. etc.). In modern days that would be those of different ethnicity, race, religion, etc.