What did the crowd not know?

[OneSheep]

Here was my question:

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

I think not.

Don’t tell me about your “suspicions”, please.

Here is what the Church teaches:

1859 Mortal sin requires** full knowledge and complete consent. It presupposes knowledge of the sinful character of the act**, of its opposition to God’s law. It also implies a consent sufficiently deliberate to be a personal choice. Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart133 do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin.

So, we have to know the sinful character of the act. If a person destroys (kills) a human that they perceive as having the value of a mosquito, I am gathering that they do not comprehend the sinful character of that destruction.

What did the crowd not know, guanophore? They did not know Jesus’ value. He saw their ignorance and blindness, and He forgave them. So, if we say that knowledge of value is not a relevant fact, then we may be contradicting what Jesus said at the crucifixion.

Now, before you start calling this analysis “Humanistic” or “non-Catholic” or something like that, why don’t you simply admit that there are different ways of looking at this picture? Your own interpretation and views on the matter are Catholic, and so are mine. We have a difference of opinion. Instead of making more assertions about how my views don’t follow my Catholicism, could you just open your mind, for once, just a little?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning Barb,

I am again grateful for your response!

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.

I think we are coming from the same page. A guy pulls in front of me and I have to slam on my brakes. I react: he is a complete idiot in my mind (of course, this is somewhat dependent on my current mood). i have automatically judged. When I calm down, I take the steps to understand and forgive (i.e. what he was aware of, what his experience is, etc.) and I put myself in his shoes, addressing all the possibilities. When I can see that I could have done the same thing (which is always the case), and have prayed and let go of the reaction, forgiveness has happened.

But this is what I am alluding to, and I am hoping that you can answer this question from an earlier post:

Well, just how rare is it (acting in the interest of their own unhappiness)? 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?

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

What I stated was:

" 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"

The crowd’s love of Jesus (or at least their acceptance of Him) was conditioned upon His behavior. When He appeared to blaspheme, the love went away, whatever love was there. What Jesus said and did was unconcionable to them, it was abhorrent. This same abhorrence guides our/their behaviors, “thou shalt not blaspheme”. Violators, be they the self or others, are mechanically punished, at least in part by negative emotional reaction from the individuals, complete with a label, i.e. “He is an idiot” “He is a blasphemer” “He is a secular humanist” etc, depending on the person judging. And remember I see the judging as an automatic thing, a “spontaneous occurrence” as you say below. And yes, once we realize that we have judged, it behooves us to forgive, of course.

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.

So along the same lines of the question above, can Jesus’ words be universally applied? Do we ever “freely choose” our judgement (condemnation) of others, which greatly influences our behaviors, or are we always ignorant/blind when we judge? Of course, your answer represents a projected observation (“projected” used in an all-encompassing sense, not just the negative stuff). No, we cannot know the minds of others, but what we can know is our own mind (at least to some degree). So, what do you project? Does anyone ever freely choose to condemn, or are people always encumbered by ignorance or blindness when do so, and behave based on those perceptions? To me, there is not a simple answer, but one that can be gleaned from some investigation. Actually, you may have already answered this question, come to think of it.

I remember this:

Way back in my past, I surely had no idea what in fact I was doing.

Yes, it is easy to see our ignorance “way back in our past”. It is harder to see our ignorance in our present. Instead we resort to the self-condemning “I should have known better”.

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.

No doubt, we need His Love and Mercy, yes. We can completely forgive, though, with His help. Are you familiar with shadow work?

God Bless your day.

 

[guanophore]

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.”

Not everyone waiting to come to confession receives absolution. Repentance is required.

Whatever the waiting person “feels” is irrelevant. The state of a person’s relationship with God (whether they are in a state of grace or not) is not based on feelings.

The confessional is not needed because a person wants to feel that their relationship with God is “ok”.

Absolution exists apart from one’s subjective sense of guilt.

Perception of the function of Sacraments in terms of human needs and feelings is a Humanistic framework.

 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.

This falls short of a Catholic understanding of conscience.

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

If you use the little blue icon next to the post source, you can go back thru the thread connecting to all the posts that directly respond from it. Using that tool one can see specifically what was written.

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.”

Yes. Human imagination, experience, understanding and capacity. Nothing here about what God’s direct revelation of Himself to humankind. It is all subjective.

Haven’t you used your human imagination to infer that I am placing my own imagination and experiences over God-given Truth?

It is possible, in reading your posts and striving to grasp the meaning of them, that my imagination has been active. The post does not include any revelation supplied by God. God created human beings with imagination, Use of human capacities does not equal the revelation of God by Himself.

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?

Your epistemology is based in what belongs to human nature, rather than what has been revealed by God. Catholics “know” what is true by receiving what God has revealed.

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

The Church rarely finds it necessary to contradict other religions, philosophies and psychologies.

Yes, your post gave a very humanistic approach to understanding people. It does not include the revelation of God, which is a Catholic way of understanding people. I know you want with all your heart to believe that your view is not contrary to Church teaching.
It is a puzzle to me why someone would so strongly desire to be identified as Catholic while at the same time rejecting so much of what it means to be Catholic.

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.

We both know this is a dead end exercise, OneSheep. You have been provided multiple examples of this, and you have consistently rejected them all.

I will accept that this is an element of Catholic teaching you do not espouse.

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.

This is testimony to the uselessness of the pursuit. You have made up your mind in advance that such an example cannot be found. Any and all examples offered will be filtered through the theophilosphy of OneSheep, and ultimately be found inadequate to support the Catholic viewpoint.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, guanophore!

Not everyone waiting to come to confession receives absolution. Repentance is required.

The confessional is not needed because a person wants to feel that their relationship with God is “ok”.

Absolution exists apart from one’s subjective sense of guilt.

Actually, my statement did not deny any of this. If you point out specifically what I actually stated that denied it, I can address it. There is a big difference between “absolution” and “forgiveness”, right?

Whatever the waiting person “feels” is irrelevant. The state of a person’s relationship with God (whether they are in a state of grace or not) is not based on feelings.

I think you saying that a “state of grace” when manifested, will not erase resentment, depression, etc., that this is Truth.

Perception of the function of Sacraments in terms of human needs and feelings is a Humanistic framework.

I think you are saying that rejection of any importance of the Sacrament in terms of human needs and feelings is doctrinal, that this is Truth.

This falls short of a Catholic understanding of conscience.

I think you are saying that the Catholic understanding of conscience, which has evolved through the centuries and continues to evolve, is not completely represented in my statement. Yes, my statement was incomplete, and is based on science and observation. You may be suggesting that anything based on science and observation is not Catholic, or is to be rejected.

If you use the little blue icon next to the post source, you can go back thru the thread connecting to all the posts that directly respond from it. Using that tool one can see specifically what was written.

Are you now claiming that I said human imagination is primary over revelation, and leaving the reader to go find it? I never said it. Charity, guanophore, involves not claiming falsehoods.

Yes. Human imagination, experience, understanding and capacity. Nothing here about what God’s direct revelation of Himself to humankind. It is all subjective.

God reveals himself to individuals through love, guanophore.

The post does not include any revelation supplied by God.

I think you are saying that this criticism includes revelation supplied by God.

God created human beings with imagination, Use of human capacities does not equal the revelation of God by Himself.

Revelation is not just about words. It is much, much more than words, brother.

“Paul does not say to the Athenians: ‘This is the encyclopedia of truth. Study this and you have the truth, the truth.’ No! The truth does not enter into an encyclopedia. The truth is an encounter - it is a meeting with Supreme Truth: Jesus, the great truth. No one owns the truth. We receive the truth when we meet it.

Pope Francis

Do you see? We have the human capacity to enter relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord.

Your epistemology is based in what belongs to human nature, rather than what has been revealed by God. Catholics “know” what is true by receiving what God has revealed.

God gave us our human nature. Our human nature is the lens through which we see what is revealed by God. God is Love!

The Church rarely finds it necessary to contradict other religions, philosophies and psychologies.

Yes, your post gave a very humanistic approach to understanding people. It does not include the revelation of God, which is a Catholic way of understanding people. I know you want with all your heart to believe that your view is not contrary to Church teaching.
It is a puzzle to me why someone would so strongly desire to be identified as Catholic while at the same time rejecting so much of what it means to be Catholic.

Okay, I have rejected so much of what it means to be Catholic. This is your statement, and I know that you want to represent the Truth.

We can begin to regard the words of Truth from a person based on this:

1 Corinthians 13New International Version (NIV)

13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,** but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.**

I have extended my hand to you, guanophore, and you refuse to shake it. Your words are full of criticism, and you show no kindness, and you say that I reject Church teachings.

Did you intend to honor me, or do you intend to dishonor me?

My hand is still extended, waiting for you to grasp it! C’mon, calm down and get a grip! What are you so worried about? Pray for me, guanophore. Try to understand.

 

[OneSheep]

Dear Guanophore,

You obviously have a very firm belief that people knowingly and willingly reject God. This belief seems to sustain you, to give you life in some way. Is it too hard to accept that other Catholics observe that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God?

What did the crowd not know, guanophore? What did the leaders not know?

Please, try to answer the question!

 

[guanophore]

God reveals himself to individuals through love, guanophore.

Yes, of course. And part of His love for us is the public revelation of Himself through the Church. He has given us knowledge of Himself, ourselves, and each other, so that we can enter and live in His Kingdom. He has given us the Sacraments as a place of encounter with Him.

Revelation is not just about words. It is much, much more than words, brother.

The Sacraments are not about"words", OneSheep, but an encounter with the Living Christ.

Do you see? We have the human capacity to enter relationship with Jesus Christ our Lord.

This statement does not seem to be consistent with what the Church believes and teaches, which is that sin separated us from God at the Fall, and that we can no longer enter a relationship through “human capacity”. We must depend upon HIs grace.

From a Humanist perspective, though I acknowledge that what you are saying is consistent. Humanism rejects the concept of original sin, separation from God, or the need for grace to be saved. It is all about “human capacity” being sufficient to enter divinity.

God gave us our human nature. Our human nature is the lens through which we see what is revealed by God.

I think this summarizes the differences very well. Humanism teaches that our nature was not marred or damaged by sin, and that it was created “good” and is sufficient for us to reach our complete potential as persons.

Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our human nature has been wounded, and that the “lens” is bent/marred, leaving us in need of a Divine lens to see properly. So where a Humanist would use human nature as the lens, Catholics use Divine Revelation as the lens. Divine revelation is above and apart from human nature.

Did you intend to honor me, or do you intend to dishonor me?

Neither. I intend to point out the differences between Humanistic theophilosophy and Catholicism.

 

[OneSheep]

This statement does not seem to be consistent with what the Church believes and teaches, which is that sin separated us from God at the Fall, and that we can no longer enter a relationship through “human capacity”. We must depend upon HIs grace.

We are not puppets, guanophore. Yes, on grace we depend, but we have a human capacity to respond and act on this grace.

355 "God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him, male and female he created them."218 Man occupies a unique place in creation: (I) he is “in the image of God”; (II)** in his own nature he unites the spiritual and material worlds;** (III) he is created “male and female”; (IV) God established him in his friendship.

I. “IN THE IMAGE OF GOD”

356 Of all visible creatures only man is “able to know and love his creator”.219 He is “the only creature on earth that God has willed for its own sake”,220 and he alone is called to share, by knowledge and love, in God’s own life. It was for this end that he was created, and this is the fundamental reason for his dignity:

What made you establish man in so great a dignity? Certainly the incalculable love by which you have looked on your creature in yourself! You are taken with love for her; for by love indeed you created her,** by love you have given her a being capable of tasting your eternal Good**.221

357 Being in the image of God the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and** entering into communion with other persons.** And he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead.

(bold is mine)

From a Humanist perspective, though I acknowledge that what you are saying is consistent. Humanism rejects the concept of original sin, separation from God, or the need for grace to be saved. It is all about “human capacity” being sufficient to enter divinity

.

Allow me to present a humanist perspective, then:

Romans 8:38-39New International Version (NIV)

38 For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons,[a] neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, 39 neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

God created our human capacities, all of them. We were created in the image of God.

I think this summarizes the differences very well. Humanism teaches that our nature was not marred or damaged by sin, and that it was created “good” and is sufficient for us to reach our complete potential as persons.

Genesis 1:31New International Version (NIV)

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good.

You’re right, it wasn’t created good, it was created very good.

Catholicism, on the other hand, teaches that our human nature has been wounded, and that the “lens” is bent/marred, leaving us in need of a Divine lens to see properly. So where a Humanist would use human nature as the lens, Catholics use Divine Revelation as the lens. Divine revelation is above and apart from human nature.

Yes, this is taught, but it is interpreted in many ways. What is clear is that we were created good, and we are powerless to create ourselves, as all power comes from God. We naturally resent parts of ourselves and see ourselves as wounded. Some say that the woundedness is our ignorance, and some say it has to do with concupiscence and other aspects. What is very clear is that we are in need, and we have a great deal of room to grow.

On the other hand, almost everything I have said is humanistic, according to you. You must have the divine lens, and I do not. It’s just an impression. It may be my human lens that tells me that you must have a divine lens and I not. On the other hand, if I am seeing the truth in that observation, I must have a divine lens. On the other hand, if I am seeing that you have a divine lens, but I am seeing such with a human lens, then I must be making a false observation, so you truly do not have a divine lens when I think that you do. Woops, ran out of hands already!

Guanophore, the divine lens is to look with eyes of Love.

Neither. I intend to point out the differences between Humanistic theophilosophy and Catholicism.

Well, when you come up with something from my posts that you say is not Catholic, and I cannot come up with a Catholic response, then you have made your point. Hasn’t happened yet.

In the mean time, how about answering the question of this thread Mr. Loveable Cantankerous Smartypants?

What did the crowd not know?

Good night, you old grump. Sleep well!

 

[guanophore]

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

You are putting it forward as the primary method of knowing.

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.”

Yes, God has given us amazing faculties.

He did not give them to us so that we could rely on our own imagination, experiences, and understanding.

Humanism calls a person to “come to our own capacities” to arrive at the fullness of being.

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.

Just reading the posts.

It does not require an imaginitive experience.

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

Of course you can understand people using Humanism, other psychologies, philosophies, science, etc. The Church is not contrary to philosphy, science, or any human endeavor to understand himself or the world in which he lives.

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?

Yes, it is Catholic. But we have been down this road already, OS. Any and all examples will be rejected by you, because the “lens” you are using does not admit that perspective.

    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.

Is there really any point in trying to have a discussion with someone who has already made up his mind to the contrary? You are saying that mortal sin does not happen.

Here was my question:

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

Your bar for “relevant facts” (omniscience) is not the same bar used by God. God holds us accountable for what we know- what has been revealed. There is sufficient knowledge to choose between sinning,and not sinning without know “all”.

Don’t tell me about your “suspicions”, please.

So you are withdrawing your invitation to explore the subject using imagination?

So, we have to know the sinful character of the act. If a person destroys (kills) a human that they perceive as having the value of a mosquito, I am gathering that they do not comprehend the sinful character of that destruction.

Perhaps not “all” the value. The degree of culpability is mitigated by lack of knowledge. But a person is responsible for their choice to perceive another as having less value.

This is the point of Jesus’ he Parable of the Unforgiving Servant Matt. 18,

So, if we say that knowledge of value is not a relevant fact, then we may be contradicting what Jesus said at the crucifixion.

I don’t think so, OS. You see, these are opposite perspectives. The person doing the forgiving does not have to have all the “releveant facts” either. Jesus does, of course, but it is incumbent upon us to forgive others whether we think they know what they are doing, or not.

From the perspective of the person doing evil, their culpability may be mitigated by their ignorance and blindness, but they are still culpable.

Now, before you start calling this analysis “Humanistic” or “non-Catholic” or something like that, why don’t you simply admit that there are different ways of looking at this picture?

I think I have pointed that out clearly in acknowledging that you are using a Humanistic perspective.

Your own interpretation and views on the matter are Catholic, and so are mine. We have a difference of opinion. Instead of making more assertions about how my views don’t follow my Catholicism, could you just open your mind, for once, just a little?

My mind and heart are open to your need to believe that your point of view is Catholic.

I have acknowledged that it is a mystery to me why this is so.

 

[guanophore]

I think you saying that a "state of grace" when manifested, will not erase resentment, depression, etc., that this is Truth.

Yes, a person can be in a state of grace and continue to experience uncomfortable, unpleasant, and unwanted emotions. If one does not address them, one will most likely depart from that state of grace because of them.

  I think you are saying that rejection of any importance of the Sacrament in terms of human needs and feelings is doctrinal, that this is Truth.

No, Jesus knows our human needs,and has designed the Sacraments to meet them. I am saying that the Sacraments are not based on human feelings. A person does not go to confession to be relieved of the feelings of guilt (only).

I think you are saying that the Catholic understanding of conscience, which has evolved through the centuries and continues to evolve, is not completely represented in my statement.  Yes, my statement was incomplete, and is based on science and observation.  You may be suggesting that anything based on science and observation is not Catholic, or is to be rejected.

Not at all. The Catholic Church is largely responsible for the development of science. Your observation, based on science and observation, is not Catholic when it excludes what God has revealed to the Church.

  Are you now claiming that I said human imagination is primary over revelation, and leaving the reader to go find it?  I never said it.  Charity, guanophore, involves not claiming falsehoods.

Just pointing out that your post forwarded human imagination as “the” method, without mention of anything God may have provided apart from it.

I think you are saying that this criticism includes revelation supplied by God.

The method you proposed did not include any revelation by God. This is consistent with a Humanistic perspective.

Revelation is not just about words. It is much, much more than words, brother.

Jesus is the Word, the Logos. He existed before any human imagination. It is this Word we encounter in the Scripture and Sacrament. I don’t deny that He can also be encountered in human imagination, but this is not our only Source of knowlege of HIm.

Okay, I have rejected so much of what it means to be Catholic.

This is your perogative, OneSheep. There is no requirement that particpants here at CAF be Catholic. Humanists are welcome here, so long as they respect the Catholic faith.

The only potential problem comes in asserting these Humanistic views while representing your affiliation as “Catholic”. People may read your posts, and think they are reading a “Catholic Answer” from a Catholic, when in fact they are reading something that departs from the Catholic pespective.

   Your words are full of criticism, and you show no kindness, and you say that I reject Church teachings.

It is not loving or kind to withold the Truth from people. .

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

You are putting it forward as the primary method of knowing.

He did not give them to us so that we could rely on our own imagination, experiences, and understanding.

As evidenced in my post 127? You are inferring this, which again is using your imagination as a primary method of knowing. Are you relying on your inferences?

You are saying that mortal sin does not happen.

Correction: I have said it is possible, but I have never observed it, and I do not have the knowledge and experience to imagine how it can happen. When I ask you to explain how it could happen, you withdraw and refuse to answer. Yes, those discussions go nowhere.

Your bar for “relevant facts” (omniscience) is not the same bar used by God.

First of all, you again are putting forth a falsehood, which I remind you is NOT Catholic. I never said anywhere that a person mush be omniscient. Secondly, is it Catholic to claim that you know the “bar” used by God?

Again, you point at me and say that I am saying my “human imagination” is primary, yet you appear to think that you know better than I do what “bar” God uses.

So you are withdrawing your invitation to explore the subject using imagination?

Of course not. I asked you many times to answer the question of this thread, and you have still not done so.

When are you going to answer the question presented in the OP?

Perhaps not “all” the value. The degree of culpability is mitigated by lack of knowledge. But a person is responsible for their choice to perceive another as having less value.

This is the point of Jesus’ he Parable of the Unforgiving Servant Matt. 18,

Truthfully, I was going to package my response in one quote and simply ask you to respond to the question in this thread, but I keep getting opportunities to explain a different Catholic perspective to you, and this is one of them.

A scripture scholar/priest once explained to us the meaning of the parable, and it is one that needs explanation because Jesus tells Peter that we are to forgive an infinite number of times, but in the parable the master only forgives the servant once. Would you like to hear the explanation? He used modern psychological terms and concepts.

On to the next post…

 

[OneSheep]

The only potential problem comes in asserting these Humanistic views while representing your affiliation as “Catholic”. People may read your posts, and think they are reading a “Catholic Answer” from a Catholic, when in fact they are reading something that departs from the Catholic pespective.

It is ironic that you make this claim while I consistently back up everything I say with actual Catholic teachings, and Catholic references, while you make assertions without such. In the rare moments that you do bring forth actual teachings, I respond to them with a Catholic perspective that just happens to be different than your own.

If you would like to have people actually listen to you and value what you are saying, start with showing the charity, respect, and humility to shake my hand.

It is not loving or kind to withold the Truth from people.

I must add this here, though I am pretty sure you won’t listen, even though he is Christian:

Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people;

before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children;

before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors.

In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

Corey Booker

When are you going to shake my hand, guanophore, when? Is a refusal to shake hands a Catholic Answer? A Catholic way to treat people?

And while I am asking questions, when are you going to answer the topic of this thread?

 

[guanophore]

God reveals himself to individuals through love, guanophore.

He does, and He has revealed Himself to the World through public revelation of Himself that is available through Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Leaving these elements of His love expressed to us out of our mental formulations will leave us incomplete. Imagination and human nature/reason can only take us so far.

Dear Guanophore,

You obviously have a very firm belief that people knowingly and willingly reject God. This belief seems to sustain you, to give you life in some way.

I find it quite painful, actually. What sustains me is the Life of Christ available through His One Church. Despite humans willingly and knowingly rejecting Him, He came to die for us, and if we throw ourselves upon His mercy, we can be delivered of slavery to sin. What sustenance!

Is it too hard to accept that other Catholics observe that people do not knowingly and willingly reject God?

No. If that were the case, I would not frequent the fora.

Catholics who reject parts of the Church teaching are

1. Poorly catechized - have not been taught or studied their faith
2. Nominal Catholics -in name only that do not really want to know their faith but identify themselves as Catholic for other reasons
3. Catholics who have really become Protestants that don’t realize it
4. Catholics suffering from an obstinant post baptismal denial of fundamental doctrines of the faith (which may be the same as #3)

I have met all of these on the fora. In this particular case, it appears that the Humanistic observations of an individual have overshadowed/replaced what the Church teaches.

C'mon, calm down and get a grip!  What are you so worried about?  Pray for me, guanophore.  Try to understand.

It is an error for you to assume that I am upset by your choices. I have not lost any “grip”, on the contrary, I am quite confident that no psychology, Humanstic or otherwise, will put a wedge between my self and the One Church.

I pray for you every day, as I do all on my CAF list. Included in that prayer is one that readers will not be led astray by any theophilosophies that are inconsistent with the Catholic faith.

Are you familiar with shadow work?

And speaking of theophilosophies or psychologies, are you asking about the “shadow” of the personality defined by Carl Jung? The part that is not conscious but purportedly appears in our dreams and projections?

 

[guanophore]

As evidenced in my post 127? You are inferring this, which again is using your imagination as a primary method of knowing. Are you relying on your inferences?

Your post is describing a way of knowing that does not include what God has communicated through public revelation. There is nothing wrong with it. It is just not a Catholic perspective. In a Catholic view, ways of knowing would include Scripture and Sacred Tradition. The way of knowing you propose leaves these out, and relies only on human standards.

Correction: I have said it is possible, but I have never observed it, and I do not have the knowledge and experience to imagine how it can happen.

This is the heart of what distinguishes Humanism from Catholicism. Humanists rely on their own knowledge and experience only, excluding the revelation by God of Himself (at least that part of the revelation that does not come through the human nature). Therefore knowing is limited to what can be perceived only through the human person.

When I ask you to explain how it could happen, you withdraw and refuse to answer. Yes, those discussions go nowhere.

Yes. All examples and explanations have been rejected by you, so that you can cling to your “observation”. Of course, that discussion cannot go anywhere. It is like trying to use Scripture to have a discussion with an atheist or other person who does not accept that Scripture is inspired and inerrant. If the premise is rejected, then there is no foundation for further discussion.

First of all, you again are putting forth a falsehood, which I remind you is NOT Catholic. I never said anywhere that a person mush be omniscient.

Is there any other way for a human being to know “all the relevant facts”? Seems pretty omniscient to me!

Secondly, is it Catholic to claim that you know the “bar” used by God?

It is Catholic for the Church to claim the bar. Individual Catholics can benefit from that privilege to the extent they are in unity with the Church.

The Church defines mortal sin as knowing the act is wrong, not by the bar you have set as “knowing all the relevant facts”, which no human being can ever do.

Here is an example:

17"And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also." Acts 3:17

ARe they still culpable, though they were ignorant?

" 30"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross." Acts 5:30

Although they were ignorant, they put him to death.

Scripture says that Stephen was 'full of the Holy Spirit" when he said this:

51"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52"Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;…" Acts 7:31

Ignorant? yes. Blind? Yes. Betrayers and murderers? Yes. Did they have "all the relevant facts (omniscience)? No. Did they have full knowledge that they participated and planned the death of someone widely regarded by the populace as a prophet? Yes.

Were they stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the HS?
Perhaps you will say that this is yet another passage that is not “divine” in origin, and that it just reflects “human sentiment” since it does not cleave with your idea of forgiveness?

Again, you point at me and say that I am saying my “human imagination” is primary, yet you appear to think that you know better than I do what “bar” God uses.

I was pointing to your POST, OneSheep, and taking note that use of the human imagination is being proposed as the primary source of knowledge. That your epistemology did not include any of public revelation as a reliable source of guidance.

Honestly, I have no way of knowing what you know and don’t know. I can only go on your posts. Are you suggested that God does not use a “bar”? Truth is not relative, OneSheep.There is not one truth for you, and another truth for others. There is only One Truth. It is not my intention to attack you (You are starting to sound defensive again), but just to point out the differences between what you are posting, and what is Catholic.

Of course not. I asked you many times to answer the question of this thread, and you have still not done so.

When are you going to answer the question presented in the OP?

You might try what works for me, and reread the posts. I read yours several times, trying to understand, as you have enjoined me to do. Perhaps you are just expressing your exasperation and frustration that I don’t agree with you?

Truthfully, I was going to package my response in one quote and simply ask you to respond to the question in this thread, but I keep getting opportunities to explain a different Catholic perspective to you, and this is one of them.

In that case, I am glad you have gotten your needs met.

But it is not Catholic to fail to take into ones reasoning what God has revealed to mankind. :nope:

A scripture scholar/priest once explained to us the meaning of the parable, and it is one that needs explanation because Jesus tells Peter that we are to forgive an infinite number of times, but in the parable the master only forgives the servant once. Would you like to hear the explanation? He used modern psychological terms and concepts.

On to the next post…

Sounds like an interesting topic. Maybe you should start a new thread on forgiveness!

 

[OneSheep]

The Church defines mortal sin as knowing the act is wrong, not by the bar you have set as “knowing all the relevant facts”, which no human being can ever do.

Actually, the CCC says more, and I presented it to you. We have to have full knowledge and full consent. When the crowd hung Jesus, they did not have full knowledge, and he forgave them. What did the crowd not know?

Here is an example:

17"And now, brethren, I know that you acted in ignorance, just as your rulers did also." Acts 3:17

ARe they still culpable, though they were ignorant?

CULPABLE
Definition

Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

Well, Jesus did not find them blameworthy, so under this definition of culpable, they were not culpable. To me, they had no one else to blame, and they made the choices. Do you blame them? I do not. Did the apostles forgive the leaders? We should assume yes.

Should they have paid a human-designated consequence for their actions even though no one actually held anything against them? Probably.

" 30"The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom you had put to death by hanging Him on a cross." Acts 5:30

Although they were ignorant, they put him to death.

Scripture says that Stephen was 'full of the Holy Spirit" when he said this:

51"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52"Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become;…" Acts 7:31

Ignorant? yes. Blind? Yes. Betrayers and murderers? Yes. Did they have "all the relevant facts (omniscience)? No. Did they have full knowledge that they participated and planned the death of someone widely regarded by the populace as a prophet? Yes.

Were they stiff necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, always resisting the HS?
Perhaps you will say that this is yet another passage that is not “divine” in origin, and that it just reflects “human sentiment” since it does not cleave with your idea of forgiveness?

So, they were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, makes some sense. Jesus forgave them. They were ignorant. Did St. Stephen forgive them? We can assume that he did, even though his language sounds negative.

Why were they stiff-necked, guanophore? What reason did they have for being stiff-necked? You may be less capable of answering that question because you cannot find it in doctrine, and you seem to resist using human reasoning. Use your own experiences, your own God-given experiences, to answer the question. It is okay for Catholics to do this guanophore, if you do this you are not making human reasoning “primary”. It is okay for Catholics to think and speculate!

What did the crowd not know? What did the stiff-necked people not know?

Obviously, they did not know something relevant. If this is not obvious, please explain what they did not know, and we can determine if it was relevant.

What did the crowd not know?

 

[guanophore]

If you would like to have people actually listen to you and value what you are saying, start with showing the charity, respect, and humility to shake my hand. …When are you going to shake my hand, guanophore, when? Is a refusal to shake hands a Catholic Answer? A Catholic way to treat people?

Whatever I was saying must have upset you again because I see you have relapsed back into this coercive dance. You are saying that I can demonstrate charity, respect and humility by shaking your hand, which implies that not shaking your hand means I am uncharitable, disrespectful and arrogant. Further you seem to be equating my compliance with your demand to people listening to me, and valuing what I am saying, as if shaking your hand would give me more status? :whacky:

What did the crowd not know?

They were under a similar type of coercion (on a much larger scale) from the Sanhedrin, who could successfully accuse them if they failed to cooperate with what they were directed to do. Jews could be flogged, put out of the synagogue, and other consequences for disobedience. They did not know it would have been better for them to disobey the Sanhedrin, and accept the punishment.

Fortunately, you are not able to have me flogged if I fail to follow your demands, so I am in a much safer position than the crowd!

I must add this here, though I am pretty sure you won’t listen, …

I think you are suffering a misunderstanding, OneSheep. You are equating listening to you with obeying and agreeing with you. The fact that I don’t agree, and won’t comply with your demands does not mean I don’t listen…

Before you speak to me about your religion, first show it to me in how you treat other people;

before you tell me how much you love your God, show me in how much you love all His children;

before you preach to me of your passion for your faith, teach me about it through your compassion for your neighbors.

In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to tell or sell as in how you choose to live and give.

Corey Booker

An excellent quote, if somewhat not applicable in this situation. I am not here to tell you about my religion (since you already claim to espouse it).

I am not here to convince you God loves you (you already seem to be convinced of that)

I am not here to teach you about my passion for my faith (you already have your passions)

I am not here to tell and sell.

I am only pointing out the discrepancies between your posts and the Catholic faith.

And while I am asking questions, when are you going to answer the topic of this thread?

I had nothing to add to the first nine posts.

I don’t think the statement was made about the crowd, but about HIs executioners. I have said this before. Your refusal to accept my answer does not mean one was not given to you. Continuing to demand it is not going to make it change.

Actually, the CCC says more, and I presented it to you. We have to have full knowledge and full consent. When the crowd hung Jesus, they did not have full knowledge, and he forgave them.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

Full knowledge means knowledge that the act is sinful. This does not include "all the relevant facts according to One Sheep (omniscience).

What did the crowd not know?

I think this was answered multiple times in the first 9 posts of the thread.

CULPABLE
Definition

Morally responsible for an evil action. Culpability assumes sufficient awareness and (internal) consent to the evil done. It is identified with formal guilt or sin. (Etym. Latin culpabilis, blameworthy; from culpare, to blame.)

We read it differently, don’t we?

Forgiveness does not imply there was no offense.

insufficient awareness does not mean that culpability does not exist.

Well, Jesus did not find them blameworthy, so under this definition of culpable, they were not culpable.

If they were not blameworthy, then why did they need any forgiveness? Seems like a waste of breath to forgive someone who has not committed a wrong.

 

[guanophore]

So, they were stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, makes some sense. Jesus forgave them. They were ignorant. Did St. Stephen forgive them? We can assume that he did, even though his language sounds negative.

Scripture says that He was filled with the Holy Spirit in saying those words, so you are saying that the HS sounds negative, or this passage is not theopneustos.

Whichever the basis, Stephen did forgive them, but he did not say they were not culpable.

Then he fell on his knees and cried out, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them.” Acts 7:60

Again, if there is no sin, no culpability, then what need is there for forgiveness?

Why were they stiff-necked, guanophore? What reason did they have for being stiff-necked? You may be less capable of answering that question because you cannot find it in doctrine, and you seem to resist using human reasoning.

I can think of several reasons. Why would you think this is not part of the teaching of the Church?

The fact that I refuse to speculate for you on command does not mean I have any resistance to human reasoning. You have purported that human reasoning is the primary source of our knowledge in these cases. I am saying that, for Catholics, divine revelation is considered a Source of information. The two are not contradictory (unless you are Humanist).

 Use your own experiences, your own God-given experiences, to answer the question.  It is okay for Catholics to do this guanophore, if you do this you are not making human reasoning "primary".  It is okay for Catholics to think and speculate!

I don’t believe I claimed otherwise.

What did the crowd not know? What did the stiff-necked people not know?

The context of Jesus prayer is His being nailed to the wood, which was being done by the executioners.

The stiff necked people being addressed by Stephen were the Sanhedrin.

51"You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit; you are doing just as your fathers did. 52"Which one of the prophets did your fathers not persecute? They killed those who had previously announced the coming of the Righteous One, whose betrayers and murderers you have now become; 53you who received the law as ordained by angels, and yet did not keep it." 54Now when they heard this, they were cut to the quick, and they began gnashing their teeth at him. 55But being full of the Holy Spirit, he gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God… Acts 7:54

Circumcision is a pledge of faith and covenant to God. I think he is saying that the hearts and ears of the Sanhedrin were not acting in faithfulness toward God within the covenant.

They did not keep the law because they had an illegal trial for Jesus, accused him unjustly and accepted false witnesses, then rejected His own testimony.

Why were they cut to the quick? Whey did they gnash their teeth? Could it be because Stephen hit the nail on the head? Culpable?

Obviously, they did not know something *relevant.*   If this is not obvious, please explain what they did not know, and we can determine if it was relevant.

What did the crowd not know?

You must assume this, in order to preserve your framework. You must assume that, had they “known” they would not have committed this sin. This is where your framework falls apart, One Sheep. People do willingly and knowingly reject God. They had sufficient knowledge. Some of them had spent hours listening to Him preach and teach. Some of them were baptized already. There were even members of the Sanhedrin that were believers!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

Whatever I was saying must have upset you again because I see you have relapsed back into this coercive dance. You are saying that I can demonstrate charity, respect and humility by shaking your hand, which implies that not shaking your hand means I am uncharitable, disrespectful and arrogant. Further you seem to be equating my compliance with your demand to people listening to me, and valuing what I am saying, as if shaking your hand would give me more status? :whacky:

Fortunately, you are not able to have me flogged if I fail to follow your demands, so I am in a much safer position than the crowd!

I am not demanding this, and never had. Will you, guanophore, shake my hand as a sign of respect?

What did the crowd not know?

They were under a similar type of coercion (on a much larger scale) from the Sanhedrin, who could successfully accuse them if they failed to cooperate with what they were directed to do. Jews could be flogged, put out of the synagogue, and other consequences for disobedience. They did not know it would have been better for them to disobey the Sanhedrin, and accept the punishment.

First of all thank you for addressing the question. All your words about coercion from the Sanhedrin are speculative, but we can certainly address this scenario.

In what way would it have been better for them to disobey the Sanhedrin and accept the punishment?

An excellent quote, if somewhat not applicable in this situation. I am not here to tell you about my religion (since you already claim to espouse it).

I am not here to convince you God loves you (you already seem to be convinced of that)

I am not here to teach you about my passion for my faith (you already have your passions)

I am not here to tell and sell.

I am only pointing out the discrepancies between your posts and the Catholic faith.

Allow me to reword, with the spirit of Corey Booker’s statement:

Before you try to point out discrepancies, show me how you can treat people with respect.

The quote was not “tell and sell” the quote is “tell or sell”. It is pretty obvious that you are here to “tell”. You want to tell me and everyone reading that there are discrepancies between my posts and the Catholic faith, you just stated such.

So, let’s look at the line again, together:

" In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to** tell** or sell as in how you choose to live and give."

So, do you choose to shake my hand, or do you choose to be enslaved by your fear and suspicion? Can you give freely, or are you encumbered by prejudice and ingroup/outgroup mentality?

I had nothing to add to the first nine posts.

So, does that mean you agreed with the first nine posts?

I don’t think the statement was made about the crowd, but about HIs executioners. I have said this before. Your refusal to accept my answer does not mean one was not given to you. Continuing to demand it is not going to make it change.

Actually it does not matter whether the statement was directed against just the executioners or not. The verse from Acts confirms that everyone involved was ignorant, and we know that Jesus forgave them, for they did not know what they were doing.

Full knowledge means knowledge that the act is sinful. This does not include "all the relevant facts according to One Sheep…

Again, when Jesus said, “they know not what they do” was he not referring to relevant facts? Was the knowledge gap you suggested relevant?

Forgiveness does not imply there was no offense.

insufficient awareness does not mean that culpability does not exist.

If they were not blameworthy, then why did they need any forgiveness? Seems like a waste of breath to forgive someone who has not committed a wrong.

Well, I agree with you. So, let us revisit the definition. Jesus did not blame, but yes, the crowd was “worthy” of blame in terms of that the normal human would blame the crowd. Now I am using “blame” as “condemn” or “regard negatively”, because I could not find a Catholic definition of blame. The crowd and leaders did something bad, and we are compelled to punish wrongdoing. Since “culpable” in the Catholic definition requires by definition “sufficient awareness”, **and ** internal consent (which I also observe was not present), then the crowd was not culpable by Catholic definition.

So the definition of the word is a bit of a puzzle when applied to Luke 23:34. The people committed a wrong. Jesus forgave them, and observed that they did not have sufficient awareness. In my opinion, Jesus forgave them even before man was created.

Feel free to have a cow about that last sentence!

 

[OneSheep]

You must assume this, in order to preserve your framework. You must assume that, had they “known” they would not have committed this sin. This is where your framework falls apart, One Sheep. People do willingly and knowingly reject God. They had sufficient knowledge. Some of them had spent hours listening to Him preach and teach. Some of them were baptized already. There were even members of the Sanhedrin that were believers!

Let’s see, choices choices! Do I believe guanophore, who has the divine lens, is the holder of all Truth, much more so than I, or do I believe Jesus who said, “For they know not what they do”?

I’ll believe Jesus on this one, guanophore. They did not have sufficient knowledge.

Or, do you hold some obscure revelation?

 

[guanophore]

 Good Morning!   I am not demanding this, and never had.  Will you, guanophore, shake my hand as a sign of respect?

Subtle coercion is still coercion, OneSheep. I think you have forgotten that this “handshaking” business started in the context of pushing a Humanistic framework of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist. You will have to forgive me if I am not eager to affiliate myself with such ideas.

You are demanding some action on my part to prove my respect for you that exceeds beyond what CAF requires of all members. Perhaps you see yourself as over and above the standards to which all members are bound? Why should one member be more special than all others?

First of all thank you for addressing the question. All your words about coercion from the Sanhedrin are speculative, but we can certainly address this scenario.

I think not, OneSheep. It is clear from the documentation in the New Testament that the Sanhedrin carried out their authority in many ways. Here is an example:

“They took his advice; and after calling the apostles in, they flogged them and ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and then released them.” Acts 5:40

I doubt the Apostles considered this flogging “speculative”. Is there any reason that members of the crowd could not expect the same treatment, had they supported Jesus, or failed to join in condemning Him?

Or perhaps you do not consider the New Testament an accruate historical document?

Perhaps applying the speculative imagination of human nature would be a better and more primary method of finding the Truth? Honestly, OneSheep, it defies the imagination how anyone (even a non-Christian) could expect a Christian to place the products of human imagination above Scripture. :whacky:

In what way would it have been better for them to disobey the Sanhedrin and accept the punishment?

The moral consequences of putting to death the Lord of Glory are much higher than disobedience to the temporal authorities.

Allow me to reword, with the spirit of Corey Booker's statement:

Before you try to point out discrepancies, show me how you can treat people with respect.

The quote was not “tell and sell” the quote is “tell or sell”. It is pretty obvious that you are here to “tell”. You want to tell me and everyone reading that there are discrepancies between my posts and the Catholic faith, you just stated such.

OneSheep, you are correct that I do have a message, but I do not expect the message to impact you in any way. In other words, the message is not intended for you.

 So, let's look at the line again, together:

" In the end, I’m not as interested in what you have to** tell** or sell as in how you choose to live and give."

So, do you choose to shake my hand, or do you choose to be enslaved by your fear and suspicion? Can you give freely, or are you encumbered by prejudice and ingroup/outgroup mentality?

This is part of the coercive method, OneSheep. You are equating my refusal to shake your hand with me being “enslaved by fear and suspicion”. If I am to be seen by others as NOT being “enslaved by fear and suspicion” I must comply with your demand.

If I do not “shake hands” with you I am “encumbered by prejudice” and exclusivity.

It is reminiscent of the response of the Sanhedrin when they did not hear what they wanted from members of the crowd. One of the aspects of human nature is that we tend to disparage and degrade those who don’t agree with us. You yourself have pointed this out in a number of your posts. You have made judgements about and against me in retaliaiton for my lack of support of your ideas. Your words remind me of what the Pharisees said to the blind man healed by Jesus:

13They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind.,” 16Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath.” …34*They answered him, “You were born in utter sin, and would you teach us?” And they cast him out." John 9

In your eyes I have not kept civil respect and refuse to shake your hand. You have made disparaging remarks about my character, or lack of it, and have stated that no one will take my posts seriously because I won’t comply with your wishes.

So, does that mean you agreed with the first nine posts?

Yes

Actually it does not matter whether the statement was directed against just the executioners or not. The verse from Acts confirms that everyone involved was ignorant, and we know that Jesus forgave them, for they did not know what they were doing.

You asked why I did not respond to the OP, and that was my answer. If it does not matter, why did you ask?

 

[guanophore]

Again, when Jesus said, "they know not what they do" was he not referring to relevant facts?  Was the knowledge gap you suggested relevant?

From the point of view of the Apostles, “full knowlege” constituting a mortal sin means awareness that one is aware it is “grave matter”. That does not equate with your standard of "all the relevant facts " (omniscience). God does not require that humans be in posession of “all the relevant facts” to prevent sin. It is not possible for human beings to know “all the relevant facts” without divine intervention.

The knowledge gap is not a “suggestion” of mine. For Catholics, the Scripture is the inspired and inerrant Word of God. The contents of it are not “suggestions” for the faithful, but a sure guide to the Truth.

Well, I agree with you. So, let us revisit the definition. Jesus did not blame, but yes, the crowd was “worthy” of blame in terms of that the normal human would blame the crowd.

I am not talking about “normal human blame” OneSheep. I am not using a Humanistic perspective that is centered on the human person. I am looking from God’s perspective, which has been revealed to us in His Word. For Catholics, this is the primary Source of Truth available to us.

Now I am using “blame” as “condemn” or “regard negatively”, because I could not find a Catholic definition of blame.

It is not a term I prefer to use, either, for many reasons. I prefer culpability, as this is a Catholic term.

The crowd and leaders did something bad, and we are compelled to punish wrongdoing.

How is that, OneSheep? Is that why you are affixing so many disparaging discriptions to me? Do you feel compelled to punish the wrongdoing of others?

Can you substiantiate with any Catholic source that human beings are compelled to punish wrongdoing?

Since “culpable” in the Catholic definition requires by definition “sufficient awareness”, **and ** internal consent (which I also observe was not present), then the crowd was not culpable by Catholic definition.

Well, you have different standards than God, which is nothing new.

Catholics are “compelled” to have our imagination and speculation function within the boundaries of what has been revealed by God, but this is not a boundary that need to be observed by Humanists or members of other non-Catholic religions.

Jesus has this to say:

11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” John 19

Catholics interpret within the context of what has been revealed by God, knowing that He will not reveal anything in contradiction to what He has already revealed. This is a prinicple that seems to be opposite of the Humanistic one that you are using.

So Jesus acknowledges that Pilate has sinned in condemning Him, but that those who delivered Jesus to him have the “greater sin”. This shows that there are degrees of sin, some greater than others (because the culpability and nature of the sin), and that those who delivered Jesus to Pilate are more responsible. Who is “he who delivered”? Crowd? High priest? Judas? Sanhedrin?

So the definition of the word is a bit of a puzzle when applied to Luke 23:34. The people committed a wrong. Jesus forgave them, and observed that they did not have sufficient awareness. In my opinion, Jesus forgave them even before man was created.

If they did not sin/have culpabiity, why did they need forgiveness?

Feel free to have a cow about that last sentence!

Jesus redeemed the whole world “while we are yet sinners”.

He forgives us while we continue to sin. Not all benefit from His redemption, or forgiveness. Some choose not to participate in redemption. Some choose not to avail themselves of forgiveness.