What is culpability?

[OneSheep]

Vico:

Q. the crowd’s decision to blame and carry out punishment.

The punishment is what was wrong, she was blameworthy. They decided, as did Jesus, not to condemn (punish) her. They all accused her of sin, which was objectively true. We do need to avoid slander, and calumny, and scandal. Sometimes it is necessary to point out an objective sin to avoid scandal. Jesus identified that they were wrong, in this case.

Yes, blame may be justified, but not condemnation (to hell) which is reserved to God. There may be legal and ecclestical punishment that are just also, with due process.

Again, you may be speaking from a position of justice and I am speaking in terms of transformation. The punishment was not “wrong” in their eyes, as adultery was a capital offense.

The fact is, they held something against her. Jesus call us to forgive those we hold something against, and if we are thinking of someone as a jerk or other negative, we are holding something against them. Notice: “holding something against someone” is not a simple desire to punish, it is much more, correct? And it does not necessarily include a claim to punish or effort to punish. “Holding something against someone” would most certainly include holding a person’s actions as a basis for their value, *against *their value.

In order to see value/forgive, we are called to understand, and if we want to hang onto any kind of anger and blame, we will resist the effort. We will not want to see that a person did not have “sufficient knowledge”. Do you see what I am addressing?

 

[davidv]

Hi Folks,

Here is the Catholic definition:

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.)

The etymology is “blameworthy”, worthy of blame. A paradox begins to come into play, because we are called to understand and forgive. In the process of understanding, we can come to see that people do not know what they are doing when they sin; they are blind or ignorant. However, the definition of culpable assumes “sufficient awareness”, and if we want to find a person culpable, we resist understanding such blindness or ignorance.

Therefore, does the definition itself discourage understanding? If so, does the definition contradict the call to forgive? Does a designation of “blameworthiness” give us permission to blame? After all, are there not many discussions about when a person is/is not “culpable”?

When you want to find someone culpable, I believe you are playing god. God’s call to forgive as we ask to be forgiven does not depend on the offender’s culpability. Their culpability is God’s call not yours.

Where does God call us to understand? In my opinion understanding is not required for forgiveness. It may make us more, or less, willing to forgive.

The definition does not discourage, nor encourage, understanding. But this is moot point as understanding should play no role in forgiveness. We are to forgive whether we understand, or not. As such the definition does not contradict the call to forgive.

The supposed paradox does not exist. Culpability, as defined, has no bearing on forgiveness, from our human perspective.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning also!

Good morning Vico, and OneSheep.
Since Adam and Eve both sinned, God made the rest of humanity partially blameworthy with original sin. We as you know are born with this. Though the infant has done nothing, the gates of heaven are closed to it till it has been baptized.

Though that theology is legitimate in the Church, it is not a theology that we are bound to, nor is it the only way of looking at God and His ways and intentions. One must start with the knowledge that God is Love, and loves us more than anyone ever will. Then, we can look at our theology and say, “Does this theology demonstrate an image that is at least as loving as the person who loves me most?” If the answer is no, there has to be some clarifications made.

Our Lord and Savior suffered cruelly for each and every sin that was committed, for every person that ever was or will be. Even the ones that land in hell. This ultimately shows that when a sinful act is committed, there is blame and restitution is required on our part. It is not as if God is saying, “I forgive, there for all is ok.” Restitution of sorts must me made. Our Lords sufferings did not negate the need for repentance. Otherwise, why did He suffer?

You make a good point, but again there are other answers. For example, it could be that Jesus suffered so that we can relate to Him in His suffering. It could be that Jesus suffered in order to show us that we can forgive in the worst of circumstances. It could be that He wanted to show us the effects of “righteous anger”. Here is something to keep in mind:

Pope Francis Verified account
‏@Pontifex

God is always waiting for us, he always understands us, he always forgives us

If this were not the case, then our forgiving someone is moot because ALL sins had been forgiven in Completeness. And to further that then anyone could do anything without fear of punishment in the next life. And to further that, then there would be no need of hell except for the bad angels.

Regardless of what hell is, there is always a purpose for hell because God gives us the freedom to choose against Him. I agree with you that if a person believes that all sins are forgiven, as the Pope stated, we may fear that people will do evil things without fear of punishment.

However, the fear can be addressed. In order to actually believe the statement that God Always Forgives, the person would have to know this from the stance of a someone who always forgives. If a person always forgives, they are connected in relationship with every single human, and empathizes with everyone, they do not need fear of punishment in order to behave compassionately, they behave compassionately because of Love and connection, and the Love is great!

That said, if the fear is present for the individual, it is a legitimate fear held by all of us who need that fear in order to motivate our own behaviors toward compassion.

However I agree with you Onesheep that to forgive is important. And that we cannot fully know a persons intent to the degree that God does. But not to admonish when needed is a sin of omission. Silence can denote consent of an evil act.

Yes, I agree, pacifism is not compassionate. So, since we do not really know people’s intent, though, our admonishment itself must be delivered with the humility of awareness of such lack of knowledge. It is probably better to start with the premise that the person we are set to admonish did not know what they were doing.

This is why we are to know, love and serve God in this world so we can be happy with him for ever in the next. The greater we know, love and serve God the better we are able not only to recognize sinful things but their far reaching effects. Thus we must be harsh on our selves, but show mercy and patience and forgiveness to others. Therefore if we are to follow Christ, we must forgive.

If your conscience is like mine, we do not need the discipline to be harsh on ourselves. Do you remember that Love is patient, kind, and gentle? A discipline to forgive includes a discipline to forgive ourselves. Harsh treatment of ourselves has its place, but there comes a time to drop the gavel, and the whip.

Also, we must forgive others on the premise that anything that is done against us personally, is as nothing when compared to the offense we give God with even the slightest of venial sins. And do we not ask for His forgiveness?
I hope that I am understanding your view on this, if not please do not hesitate to correct me. I get a little too focused on one connotation some times.

To me, you are not saying anything contrary to the teachings of the Catholic Church. We all have individual relationships with God. For example, God as I know Him, if He ever took offense, in His omniscience forgave me even before He created me. God as I know Him does not change his attitude toward me when I do wrong, because He already knew long ago what I would do, when I would do it, and why I would do it, but he loves me anyway, without condition.

… and we can disagree on these images, it’s okay…

Here are two legitimate ways of seeing the purpose of the Incarnation:

1. Jesus came to change God’s way of seeing man.
2. Jesus came to change man’s way of seeing God.

Of course, there are probably a lot of “in-betweens” on these purposes, but I am seeing both as legitimate.

So, no corrections. There is humility and gentleness in your voice, and I pray that such example inspires others on the CAF. You appear to have a solid faith!

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, David!

When you want to find someone culpable, I believe you are playing god. God’s call to forgive as we ask to be forgiven does not depend on the offender’s culpability. Their culpability is God’s call not yours.

It seems that such would be good to incorporate in the definition. I am working on writing some possible additions to the definition. (not that such writing serves some sort of editorial function. )

Where does God call us to understand?

Jesus’ words from the cross, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do”, reflects an understanding of those who crucified Him.

In my opinion understanding is not required for forgiveness. It may make us more, or less, willing to forgive.

Yes, understanding is not a requirement. However, if the understanding is true, it will make us more willing to forgive. Can you think of an understanding that would make it less so?

The definition does not discourage, nor encourage, understanding.

If a person wants to hold a person “blameworthy”, and since “blameworthiness” depends on “sufficient awareness”, there is a disincentive to understand in this case. I agree that without such a want, there is no encouragement or discouragement.

But this is moot point as understanding should play no role in forgiveness.

Hmmm. “should”? It seemed to play a role on the cross.

We are to forgive whether we understand, or not.
As such the definition does not contradict the call to forgive.

The supposed paradox does not exist. Culpability, as defined, has no bearing on forgiveness, from our human perspective.

Well, the paradox is somewhat limited in application, I admit. But it is true that people do find others “culpable” even though it is not our role to do so, as you stated. When we want to cling to such judging, we are not exactly in a rush to find avenues to let go. In addition, since the definition of “blameworthiness” (culpable) involves the person having “sufficient awareness”, the person blaming is less likely to shine a light on the possibility of blindness or ignorance if they want to continue blaming.

It would serve us well to incorporate what you said in the beginning of your post.

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

…

In fact a person may not be able to understand a particular person, so it is in order to not seek punishment (turn the other cheek)., we are called to forgive, and I agree with you that if there is a desire to cling to anger, we will resist it, however if there is no blame, then there is no offense to forgive. An offense is “something that is wrong or improper” and blame can be taken two ways 1) to hold responsible 2) to place responsibility for, where responsible is “being the cause or explanation”.

No, a sustained involuntary emotion is a not a matter of the will, rather a voluntarily sustained emotion is. Either something is involuntary or it is voluntary. I agree that is it sinful to voluntarily retaliate because it is not charitable. In what I posted it is not so called “righteous anger” but truly so, and then there must not be vengeance sought.

Jesus said to his Father, forgive them, which means may they not be punished for it.

Repentence is metanoia:

1. Faith involves a change of life, a “metanoia”, (148) that is a profound transformation of mind and heart; it causes the believer to live that conversion. (149) This transformation of life manifests itself at all levels of the Christian’s existence: in his interior life of adoration and acceptance of the divine will, in his action, participation in the mission of the Church, in his married and family life; in his professional life; in fulfilling economic and social responsibilities.

Faith and conversion arise from the “heart”, that is, they arise from the depth of the human person and they involve all that he is. By meeting Jesus Christ and by adhering to him the human being sees all of his deepest aspirations completely fulfilled. He finds what he had always been seeking and he finds it superabundantly. (150)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html

 

[Jack_Spratly]

Just wanted to say thankyou Onesheep for the kind words. I’m going to be pretty busy for a bit so I am bowing out for now.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

In fact a person may not be able to understand a particular person, so it is in order to not seek punishment (turn the other cheek)., we are called to forgive, and I agree with you that if there is a desire to cling to anger, we will resist it, however if there is no blame, then there is no offense to forgive. An offense is “something that is wrong or improper” and blame can be taken two ways 1) to hold responsible 2) to place responsibility for, where responsible is “being the cause or explanation”.

A great deal hinges on what that “holding responsible” entails, which involves more of the meaning of blame. When a person is blaming, there is nearly always an emotional aspect that includes anger and resentment towards the offender. To bring it back to the OP, this is one of the more important aspects of the word “blameworthy”. If “culpable” means “blameworthy”, and “blame” includes all of the typical anger and resentment, then the definition not only applies to the placement of responsibility, but also essentially sanctions the natural anger and resentment that accompanies blame.

Does the BC address the typical anger and resentment that accompanies blame?

No, a sustained involuntary emotion is a not a matter of the will, rather a voluntarily sustained emotion is. Either something is involuntary or it is voluntary. I agree that is it sinful to voluntarily retaliate because it is not charitable. In what I posted it is not so called “righteous anger” but truly so, and then there must not be vengeance sought.

Well, we may have a disagreement. Are you saying that a person who is initially involuntarily angry or resentful cannot make choices to reflect, pray, understand, and make effort to resolve the anger? Are you saying that with God’s help one cannot choose to address and mitigate his own anger and resentment?

Initially, emotional responses are voluntary. Sustained emotional responses are not. I think I remember a study showing that unless a person continues revisiting an offense, anger will dissipate almost completely within 90 seconds, including the physiological responses. People are not aware that they continue to feed anger. It seems involuntary, but it is not. Resentment is a different story, and is addressed through forgiveness. (Which, of course, is voluntary)

Jesus said to his Father, forgive them, which means may they not be punished for it.

Repentence is metanoia:

1. Faith involves a change of life, a “metanoia”, (148) that is a profound transformation of mind and heart; it causes the believer to live that conversion. (149) This transformation of life manifests itself at all levels of the Christian’s existence: in his interior life of adoration and acceptance of the divine will, in his action, participation in the mission of the Church, in his married and family life; in his professional life; in fulfilling economic and social responsibilities.

Faith and conversion arise from the “heart”, that is, they arise from the depth of the human person and they involve all that he is. By meeting Jesus Christ and by adhering to him the human being sees all of his deepest aspirations completely fulfilled. He finds what he had always been seeking and he finds it superabundantly. (150)
vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cclergy/documents/rc_con_ccatheduc_doc_17041998_directory-for-catechesis_en.html

Yes, they will not be punished.

Does not transformation include the freedom from grudges, from resentment, from anger? Such would have to be included in the “deepest aspirations”, for who in the depth of the heart wants to walk around for the rest of their life holding something against a person? And when that “holding against” includes finding someone “blameworthy”, the exercise in finding someone culpable, with the inclusion of the typical emotional responses associated with blame, is more of a step away from transformation, not a step toward it.

Yes, there is a time for blame, it has its function and place. However, a sustained blaming of someone, self included, does not demonstrate metanoia.

 

[OneSheep]

Okay, it is time to present a definition of “culpable” that includes some reference to a guidance toward metanoia, towards transformation.

First, the definition from a Catholic Dictionary:

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.)

Here: some language included that involve the guidance that our Gospel calls for:

Culpable:

1. A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.
2. A description of the perception an individual who has witnessed an act that has elicited anger or resentment in that individual. Closely associated with hatred, an identification of culpable, when coupled with emotional responses, is a perception of lack of value in another person due to their behaviors. For application to the self, see: guilt
3. An emotionally negative identification which, when sustained over time, is a hindrance to fulfillment and runs contrary to metanoia. The finding of the culpable is a condition resolved through understanding and forgiveness.

Feel free to heavily edit, anyone! I am sure to find a much better wording over time. I am very open to suggestions.

Thanks!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Missed this thread. A few things I spotted that aren’t covered above:

• you haven’t said whom your writings are addressed to. It’s essential not to mislead, misguide or reinforce bad boundaries, which are huge, everywhere, already.
• “culpability” and “blameworthiness” differ on whose task that is. If I am restaurant manager and one of my staff skips his washing-up stint, it is my task to blame him (unless a family member of his had an emergency). If someone uses “blameworthy” methods to resist conception, whilst most knowingly and with determination having systematically pursued integration into the Catholic Church with really active assistance from the Church (in itself quite a long shot), it is God’s task to find them culpable to the extent of whatever culpability He may really find in them in His eyes (assistance in integrating into the Church entails being accompanied in a journey of conversion of heart).

In other words God does not delegate to us to get heavy with people if something is His task.

• “forgive” means not exact our punishment. Giving them the place of “stupid idiot” in our mental pigeon holes without telling them may indeed be perfectly objective or alternatively may be a little bit of a punishment we ourselves are aware of which is the main thing. “He’s too stupid to know he’s a stupid idiot anyway”! Don’t lose sleep, have a minor laugh at yourself, merely make a note to be suitably balanced the next time it crops up. A person that appears to have killed someone (GF) has to be reported I believe.
• it is for the person hurt to forgive. Not anyone else at all. Prelates that mouth off about “we are called to be a forgiving community to the priest that has injured a vulnerable person” should be shunned and if possible vocally criticised.
• forgiveness by the person hurt depends on knowing what the hurt was. Injured parties take years to cotton on what has been done to them.
• It’s not for anyone around, whether in authority or bystander, to dictate what the victim OR other bystanders are told to think.
• debriefing must never be allowed to be hijacked.
• ALL must be given ALL time to develop their own perspectives.
• You need all your time to compute what harm a molesting priest (GF) has done to your community and your friends. Everybody has had a double whammy. Feel the pain. Carry on feeling it.

The moral of the tale everybody: be concrete otherwise it’s mush and uses supposed morality to manipulate people.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Does not transformation include the freedom from grudges, from resentment, from anger? Such would have to be included in the “deepest aspirations”, for who in the depth of the heart wants to walk around for the rest of their life holding something against a person? And when that “holding against” includes finding someone “blameworthy”, the exercise in finding someone culpable, with the inclusion of the typical emotional responses associated with blame, is more of a step away from transformation, not a step toward it.

…

We’ll only have metanoia if our eye and heart are “single”.

Culpability in a relationship is objective and is about what was done to someone.

Feeling pain does not equate to carrying a grudge. It’s time to knock that accusation on the head. (If there is a grudge it is a grudge and may not be for us to comment on.)

We’ve all got to stop being a bunch of headless ostriches burying each others’ heads in the sand by proxy!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vic,

Missed this thread. A few things I spotted that aren’t covered above:

• you haven’t said whom your writings are addressed to. It’s essential not to mislead, misguide or reinforce bad boundaries, which are huge, everywhere, already.

You aren’t the least bit opinionated about this, are you?

• “culpability” and “blameworthiness” differ on whose task that is. If I am restaurant manager and one of my staff skips his washing-up stint, it is my task to blame him (unless a family member of his had an emergency). If someone uses “blameworthy” methods to resist conception, whilst most knowingly and with determination having systematically pursued integration into the Catholic Church with really active assistance from the Church (in itself quite a long shot), it is God’s task to find them culpable to the extent of whatever culpability He may really find in them in His eyes (assistance in integrating into the Church entails being accompanied in a journey of conversion of heart).

I see your point, we all come with experiential definitions, and yours are fine.
I was working from the Catholic dictionary definition, and specifically addressing resistance to understanding because of wanting to continue blaming.

In other words God does not delegate to us to get heavy with people if something is His task.

By our nature, though, such “heaviness” is elicited, triggered emotions occur. I think a distinction is to be made between “ought” and “is”.

• “forgive” means not exact our punishment. Giving them the place of “stupid idiot” in our mental pigeon holes without telling them may indeed be perfectly objective or alternatively may be a little bit of a punishment we ourselves are aware of which is the main thing. “He’s too stupid to know he’s a stupid idiot anyway”! Don’t lose sleep, have a minor laugh at yourself, merely make a note to be suitably balanced the next time it crops up. A person that appears to have killed someone (GF) has to be reported I believe.

In the Christian faith, forgiveness from the heart involves transformation. If I were to thing of someone as a “stupid idiot”, in my mind that represents a devaluation. In your mind it may be different, which is a difference in experience of vocabulary.

• it is for the person hurt to forgive. Not anyone else at all. Prelates that mouth off about “we are called to be a forgiving community to the priest that has injured a vulnerable person” should be shunned and if possible vocally criticised.

When we empathize with a hurt person, we may hold something against the perpetrator. Christians are called to forgive anyone we hold anything against.

• forgiveness by the person hurt depends on knowing what the hurt was. Injured parties take years to cotton on what has been done to them.

• It’s not for anyone around, whether in authority or bystander, to dictate what the victim OR other bystanders are told to think.

• ALL must be given ALL time to develop their own perspectives.

Okay, are those an agreement with something I stated, or disagreement, or just something extra?

• debriefing must never be allowed to be hijacked.

Not sure what you meant by that, Vic. Am I culpable of something?

• You need all your time to compute what harm a molesting priest (GF) has done to your community and your friends. Everybody has had a double whammy. Feel the pain. Carry on feeling it.

I posted a thread some time ago on how to forgive child molesters. There was a lot of great (name removed by moderator)ut!

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=620485

The moral of the tale everybody: be concrete otherwise it’s mush and uses supposed morality to manipulate people.

If I am not concrete am I culpable? If so, in whose eyes? If I have been found culpable, then the finding was made that I had “sufficient awareness” (Catholic defn.). However, how would one ever know when to stop the discovery process? In addition, if someone is already feeling negative about something I have written that is not “concrete” enough, and the blame is already emotionally there, and the blamer prefers to cling to such emotion and blame, there is a disincentive to understand the position of the blamed. For if it is found that the blamed was ignorant or blind, then one would be obliged (or inspired) to let go of the applied “culpable” label.

That’s it! Label! “Culpable” is a label. It is an “A” worn on the chest of the blamed, applied by the blamer. The word “label” must be used in the definition! Do you see how I think with my fingers?

Does that clarify the issue, or make it even less concrete?

Thanks, I love a good, hearty, charitably-delivered challenge!

 

[OneSheep]

We’ll only have metanoia if our eye and heart are “single”.

Sounds good, maybe not concrete enough.

Culpability in a relationship is objective and is about what was done to someone.

I have been blamed for having opinions that seem unchristian to people. What was “done” was a perceived misleading of others. How on Earth could such perception be objective? Objectivity, for the most part, IMO, is an illusion.

Feeling pain does not equate to carrying a grudge. It’s time to knock that accusation on the head. (If there is a grudge it is a grudge and may not be for us to comment on.)

I think it might be uncommon for a person to blame someone for holding a grudge. I would hope that approaches would be more along the lines of mercy. Yes, feeling pain does not equate to carrying a grudge.

We’ve all got to stop being a bunch of headless ostriches burying each others’ heads in the sand by proxy!

Actually, ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand, this was the misperception made by people looking from a distance seeing ostriches bending down and turning their eggs.

And come to think of it, the misperception of ostrich behavior is a wonderful metaphor for the accusation that I may have of others, that others are culpable if they approach issues in different ways than I do. My labeling of others as culpable (Catholic def.) of head-burying, and especially any associated negative emotion, would all likely be because of a misperception.

 

[Vico]

…

Blame does not necessarily include finding someone culpable nor condemning them. Culpability can be moral or legal and there are degrees of it. Blame does mean “to place responsibility for (an error, fault, etc.) on someone or something”. So it it appropriate to use the word offense with to blame:

Offense can be (Collins Dictionary)
1 an offending (; specif.,)

1a the act of breaking a law; sin or crime; transgression
1b the act of creating resentment, hurt feelings, displeasure, etc.​

vico:

An offense is “something that is wrong or improper” and blame can be taken two ways 1) to hold responsible 2) to place responsibility for, where responsible is “being the cause or explanation”.

I think you meant to post “Initially, emotional responses are [in]voluntary. Sustained emotional responses are not”. However, some strong emotional responses resist our active fight to overcome them, and so are sustained. (E.g., genocide, including our own family, may take years to deal with.) So to sustain can be wrong (to keep in existence; keep up; maintain or prolong) or not wrong (to bear up against; endure; withstand).

Not the legal definition of to hold (as the Jews used) but the common one (Collins American #11): to have an opinion or belief about; regard; consider.

Only with the occurrence of an offense does forgiveness become possible. Even once forgiven, it is held that an offense occurred and also that it is forgiven. And forgiven means no punishment. (For God, however, the forgiveness of serious sins is of the eternal punishment, not necessarily of the temporal.) The verb to blame has different meanings of which one is acceptable (to place responsibility for) and another is not (to condemn - inflict a penalty upon).

Baltimore Catechism No. 3 (since you asked):
Q. 714. What lessons do the other Beatitudes convey?
A. The other Beatitudes convey these lessons: The meek suppress all feelings of anger and humbly submit to whatever befalls them by the Will of God; and they never desire to do evil for evil. The justice after which we should seek is every Christian virtue included under that name, and we are told that if we earnestly desire and seek it we shall obtain it. The persecuted for justice’ sake are they who will not abandon their faith or virtue for any cause.

Q. 302. What is anger?
A. Anger is an excessive emotion of the mind excited against any person or thing, or it is an excessive desire for revenge.

Q. 1277. What is forbidden by the fifth Commandment?
A. The fifth Commandment forbids all willful murder, fighting, anger, hatred, revenge, and bad example.

Q. 1280. Why are fighting, anger, hatred and revenge forbidden by the fifth commandment?
A. Fighting, anger, hatred and revenge are forbidden by the fifth commandment because they are sinful in themselves and may lead to murder. The commandments forbid not only whatever violates them, but also whatever may lead to their violation.

Q. 538. Why must the Pope sometimes warn us on political and other matters?
A. The Pope must sometimes warn us on political and other matters, because whatever nations or men do is either good or bad, just or unjust, and wherever the Pope discovers falsehood, wickedness or injustice he must speak against it and defend the truths of faith and morals. He must protect also the temporal rights and property of the Church committed to his care.

Baltimore Catechism No 3., 1933 eighth edition;

1. What is forbidden by the fifth Commandment?

The fifth Commandment forbids all wilful murder, fighting, anger, hatred, revenge, and bad example.

The health of our own body demands cleanliness, temperance, regularity in meals and rest, industry, and the use of remedies for sickness. Furthermore we must protect our lives against dangers (dangerous occupations, amusements, sports, excessive eating, etc.). Every individual has the right to protect himself. This self -protection allows even the taking of life, if necessary.

The same principle of self-defense also applies to the state.

Ill-will, anger, etc., are forbidden, because they induce us to harm others. (Sermon on Mount, Math. 5, 22.)

To give scandal means to lead others into sin by instruction, by example, or by encouragement. (Math. 18, 7.)

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Nov 29, '11, 1:35 pm
journey2kazoo
New Member Join Date: February 10, 2008
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Posts: 35
Religion: Catholic convert

Re: How to forgive child molesters

… We shouldn’t give them the wrong idea. The apostle Paul told the Corinthians to cast out the fellow who was having relations with his father’s wife. We are told not to associate with people who call themselves Christians, but are blatant hypocrites. I think there is a measure of wisdom needed in our understanding of a “blanket of forgiveness” that is unscriptural. I do understand that many people have problems forgiving those who are sorry for offending. A girlfriend of mine has that problem. It is a serious problem, but shouldn’t be misconstrued to include forgiveness for blatant sinners. The whole purpose is to bring them to the Lord…and scripture is very wise in individual situations for sinners. We should also teach and take that approach .

En d of quote

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

I worked out my own probably and provisionally justified viewpoint on what I personally witnessed. This took a “heck” of a long time.

I evaluated my friends and neighbours’ testimony to their reaction to same and their testimony of its impact on them.

I evaluated the statements of members of all the factions.

I have read comments on deeds elsewhere.

I have read comments by those closely impacted, on those comments.

The last two are in the public domain in lorry loads.

A church criminal for example ruins a lot of people’s church, it ruins their religion, it ruins the life of their friend, their family member, their neighbour. Maybe their reputation by association in the minds of their colleagues at their profession.

If we’ve been hurt, we’ve got to feel the pain. One must beware of obliquely implying that they shouldn’t.

(My point about mental pigeon holes as a small punishment we at least have the “satisfaction” of knowing about is exactly the same as “devaluing”. The ones we do this to aren’t at the level of church criminals, murderers were also mentioned (GF).)

You haven’t told your audience whom your pieces are addressed to nor from what viewpoint you are writing. Have you got a position in a church?

The other main weakness in your pieces is, they don’t highlight clearly enough what harm was done to whom or whose job it is to do what kind of forgiving and how we should tell each other to do it.

Your response to my allusion to hijackings of debriefings is most intriguing.

We’ve got our lives ahead of us, There’s time to come back to all of this. It’s safer to breathe than you think.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Actually, ostriches do not bury their heads in the sand, this was the misperception made by people looking from a distance seeing ostriches bending down and turning their eggs. …

Thank you for pointing out about the way they turn their eggs! I love biology!

In my imaginative metaphor I was “piggy” backing more on the headless birds concept!

Headless = panic

Sand = denial

By proxy = subtle appearance of manipulation (maybe not truly intended) by inexact wielding of precepts not quite in the appropriate context when people are made vulnerable by the injury already done to them.

E.g some people who feel they have “responsibilities” feel vaguely more comfortable if they can “encourage” those hurt to adopt more of the denial they themselves have - often unwittingly - fallen into due to their own panic.

Hence your pieces should systematise what kind of situations are being talked about at any point.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

1. A vivid little cameo, in two scenes.

When I was in lodgings and had the afternoon paper delivered there, I occasionally used to stroll to the corner shop at lucnh time and give myself a few hours’ head start on the news. One day I did this and a story about my church was in it.

The next day my boss told me, “When I saw the [name of paper] last night I understood why you had come back from lunch as white as a sheet.”

1. An amok elephant (I’ve dubbed him Ganesh) is in the carefully-manicured china shop. He can bring us true wisdom.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Another one:

#8 Nov 29, '11, 5:02 pm
OneSheep
Regular Member Join Date: September 6, 2011
Posts: 2,898
Religion: Catholic

Re: How to forgive child molesters

I continue my response to journey2kazoo:

Jesus asks us to forgive an infinite number of times. The Lord’s prayer does not call for conditions for which we forgive or not. To me the idea of God forgiving conditionally conflicts with the premise of an unconditionally loving God.

But I know what it feels like to resent, and I can understand completely the rule “don’t forgive unless they repent”. I think the reason that this is such a common rule is because of the control aspect. We want to withhold any kind of “good” towards someone (as punishment) unless the situation is under control, which is the purpose of our “punishment instinct” in the first place. But I think Jesus asks us to go beyond our instincts, (they are good in themselves, but we are enslaved by them) and to forgive unconditionally.

As far as resentment of our society’s “tolerance”, I think you are wanting more control over people’s behavior, and that some non-acceptance on our part would help the problem. You make a valid point. It is possible to love and forgive people, yet communicate non-acceptance of behavior: difficult, but doable. Better still is express oneself using NVC, or non-violent communication, which is really the modern version of “turning the cheek”. NVC trains us to communicate in a way that lessens the possibility of triggering an escalating battle, it is a method that concentrates on empathy. I am not “good at” NVC, but I try once in awhile.

end of quote

In the piece I quoted earlier the poster is doing NVC with empathy and constructive assertion and is affirming interpersonal boundaries. In this response you swerve between categories without flagging up why.

The forgiveness we probably already know Christ calls us to do is for what was done to us, and it may not be appropriate for someone in authority to pointedly “carry on” about it as if we are the blot on the horizon for receiving from our God the gift of pain.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

Hi Folks,

Here is the Catholic definition:

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.)

… does the definition contradict the call to forgive? Does a designation of “blameworthiness” give us permission to blame? After all, are there not many discussions about when a person is/is not “culpable”?

In the Catholic definition given what is referred to is culpability in God’s eyes.

God created us as separate personalities to Him, however much called to be in harmony and filled with His character.

So the answers to the questions you have put are:

• No it doesn’t.
• Let God blame (objectively and without harbouring resentment) whom it is His job to, for what it is His job to, and let us blame (objectively and without harbouring resentment) whom it is each our different job to, for what it is our each different job to.
• The more exact we can be, up front, about what situations we are talking about, the more it assists us to apply these principles. The opposite of what can become what I referred to as “mush”.

I have brought interpersonal relationships into this thread because you bring them in in your middle question here which impacts your last question here. Most of your posts (and some of the comments of others) have had the appearance of swerving in and out of categories without warning.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… Here: some language included that involve the guidance that our Gospel calls for:

Culpable:

1. A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.
2. A description of the perception an individual who has witnessed an act that has elicited anger or resentment in that individual. Closely associated with hatred, an identification of culpable, when coupled with emotional responses, is a perception of lack of value in another person due to their behaviors. For application to the self, see: guilt
3. An emotionally negative identification which, when sustained over time, is a hindrance to fulfillment and runs contrary to metanoia. The finding of the culpable is a condition resolved through understanding and forgiveness. …

Your points 1 and 3 seem, maybe, to be hinting at the things I and journey2kazoo were spellling out, but it may not come over due to prior moralising people have been subjected to. In a sharper context para 1 would work as worded.

Point 2 as it stands in my opinion seems to lay too much stress on the angle that pain necessarily implies grudge and resentment. If you look at the media, you can see this accusation being levelled at the vulnerable to a huge extent. The fact that in a “war zone” (GF) it is an everyday occurrence doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be cautious of reinforcing the stance of those who do it.

A parishioner ceases to hold a grudge against or resent a bishop who let chaos reign in the diocese but he has his eyes more open about his expectations of the bishop’s role given the personality of the particular incumbent at this stage of his personal history - people will go through phases you know! Not to mention all the other participants in the “chaos”!

In a case I know of, sadly one of the participants was later found to be in deep trouble about something else. If we had prayed more for him, whilst having our eyes open about what he had already done, at the same time as we were stunned by it, maybe his hand would have been further stayed.

The psychological role of being stunned in the way all these dynamics happen gets too little press. People don’t set out to have a grudge or to resent when they’ve been stunned.

Being stunned works against pain which muddles the whole process up. Then the big shots get in quick with moralising. Years later we ourselves wonder why we are in distress around certain people.

Vico has given a good very brief general survey. Particularly good point about enduring that should be given more prominence.