Good Morning, Vico
Q. When saying “you did that” without expressing any anger or condemnation, with no indication of disapproval. Have I “blamed”?
Yes, to identify someone of an offense is to allege which is also to blame, but it is not condemnation.
That makes sense, but it is not an ordinary use of the word, right? People say “Who is to blame for all this good fortune?”, but it is usually a tongue-in-cheek usage. But yes, in these cases “blame” is used for "identification”. However, the definition of culpability involves much more than simple identification, it involves evaluation, a judgment of the person is involved, what they knew and did not know, etc. And when the human judges, resentment follows quickly. In fact, the resentment is triggered as soon as the evil act has occurred, and the process of determining how “culpable” someone is becomes more of a determination as to whether to hang onto such resentment.
On the other hand, we are all called to forgive, so when we do resent the sins of others or feel guilt for our own sins, we are called to forgive, seek forgiveness
.
So of course, if the definition of culpability sanctions blame, the call to forgive provides a quick, overriding remedy.
And certainly, the identification aspect is useful, and has its place. In addition, we provide laws and mores for the purpose of guidance. It is useful for the individual to compare his own behavior and the behaviors of others against the laws and mores.
Concerning your next comment, here was my question:
I am thinking “that person is a jerk”, I am thinking and feeling very negatively toward the person. Am I forgiving from heart, as Jesus calls us to do?
Q. For “Am I forgiving from heart, as Jesus calls us to do?”
Yes, one may forgive from the heart while still experiencing even strong anger. Sin is a matter of the will and an involuntary emotion is not a matter of the will. In fact, non retaliation in the presence of stronger emotion, is more meritorious. Catechism 1773 "In the passions, as movements of the sensitive appetite, there is neither moral good nor evil. But insofar as they engage reason and will, there is moral good or evil in them”
So one should not willfully try to increase anger. There is also righteous anger (indignation) which may be justified to seek punishment, but the necessary provision is absence of hatred and no desire for revenge.
I will grant that it is much more difficult to avoid retaliation when one is angry. In fact, it would take a rather warped individual to retaliate when not angry!
I agree that one should not willfully try to increase anger. What about willfully trying to decrease anger? Do you know people walking around for years with a dark cloud of anger? Such is hardly holiness. Yes, we have all of the rationalizations for hanging onto righteous anger. By our good nature, though, anger has an accompanying resentment, and yes, hatred. And when the resentment and hatred is mitigated
through understanding, the anger goes away. In the aftermath, justice can be sought with a peaceful, forgiving mind and heart.
A
sustained involuntary emotion is a matter of the will, Vico. If I am feeling very negatively toward a person, dehumanizing them, demonizing them, thinking of them as a “jerk” and worse,
I have not forgiven from the heart!, in itself it is an expression of hatred. Does the BC say something different?
Q. Let’s say I have decided to refrain from punishing someone else just because I am afraid of reprisal. A “transformation” has not taken place, right?
It is imperfect contrition, which is meritorious, and disposes to forgiveness in confession. Some things take time for the Holy Spirit.
Yes, transformation takes time. And yes, there is a lot to be said for
the decision to forgive. I am beginning to think that you may be speaking from a position of
obligation and I am speaking from a position of fundamental transformation.
So, if a person says “I am going to forgive, I am going to purge from my mind any desire to punish, but I am still going to think of the person as a worthless jerk, because he is.”, this is an expression of hatred, is it not?
Has this person forgiven? No, he has not, even though it is “meritorious” that he has at least chosen to forgive. And in order to forgive in a mature way, the person will need to pray for, and utilize, the gift of understanding. Part of such understanding will always involve the recognition that people behave badly in ignorance and blindness. In fact, the specific finding of such ignorance and blindness is usually key to understanding why the resented person has sinned.
So, we are back to the dilemma. Let’s say a person is clinging to his “righteous anger”, and thinks that the other person is a “jerk” or some other demonizing/dehumanizing manner. In order to overcome his condition, he will need to come to the understanding that the person he is judging as negative had some gap in awareness. However, since finding “culpable”, that is “blameworthiness”
depends on a determination of “sufficient awareness”, the judging person choosing to cling to righteous anger will also resist understanding because he
wants the “jerk” to remain blameworthy.
Do you see the problem?
Put into the context of the crucifixion scene, the crowd had righteous anger (in their own eyes); they did not forgive, and they were clinging to their hatred. What did Jesus do? If he had been angry, He forgave them. How did He forgive them? He saw their ignorance and blindness, He understood. If Jesus had decided to hang onto His own “righteous anger”, if it were not for His divine nature (omniscience), He might have never sought to understand the ignorance of the crowd, he would have died blaming the crowd.
(continued)
May you join me creating a charitable community of people seeking Truth.