It may be less common to blame a person who is holding a grudge than to falsely accuse those who aren’t. (The latter is a nervous tic by authorities that want to dampen down any appearance of distress however genune.)
“Falsely accuse” gets to the heart of the issue in the OP. Culpability is a legal term that mainly applies to judging and sentencing and assigning of liabilities in matters of negligence.
Sorry - I meant church authorities blaming the victims of offences within churches including things that aren’t against the law of the land.
You made above the point I thought you missed. Sorry for not noticing this sooner. But I must wonder if anyone is up to the task of objectivity and non resentment.
An offense is an act that creates resentment, makes sense. Blame is appropriately used with “offense”, I think you were trying to say (we are both not editing our posts well enough?
) Blame does mean placing responsibility, but does not necessarily mean finding someone culpable or condemning them? This might be more of a distinction if the root were not “blameworthy”. These aspects of the definition do not directly address the paradox.This comment gets closer to addressing the crux of the dilemma. A person who has experience genocide in his family is naturally going to feel great resentment toward the perpetrators; he will want them to be forever held culpable in human history. Given that “culpable” is defined such that the blamed had “sufficient awareness”, and the finding of such “sufficient awareness” would involve an effort to Understand, the want to sustain culpability provides a disincentive toward understanding.
Let me know when I have implied such! A call to forgive is not meant to imply a non-feeling of pain.
Sometimes I have to be drawn a picture, I really am that dense. Murderers were mentioned… where? In the lorry? GF = gluten free? General Fund? Girlfriend? I am not grasping “mental pigeon holes as a small punishment” and what follows.
Position: parishioner.
Okay, a rather active and energetic one!I leave that up to Jesus. Besides the Lord’s prayer, we have this:
Again, this is a lack of comprehension on my part. Could you reword? Pretend that you are talking to a teenager? or Donald Trump? Maybe there is a language barrier…
I think that you are saying that the media assuses people of grudges and resentment, but I’m not sure what you are referring to as an “everyday occurrence”. The accusation? The resentment? I’m going with “accusation”.
Do people ever “set out” to have a grudge or resent? I must be having a GF, gluten-free disconnect again. You guys talk funny on your side of the pond.
On the contrary I’m talking about the bossing and bullying that I’ve sometimes seen church organisations do. What you advocate is what I advocate and what I was decrying was if they hijack the situation to hurt people that someone else has already hurt - if you haven’t seen it don’t worry!
I’m thinking again that you are speaking in terms of “ought” and I am speaking in terms of “is” concerning condemnation. When I feel resentful towards someone, I hold something against them, I devalue them, I condemn them in the sense that I feel negatively toward them. These are natural feelings and thought patterns that serve a purpose.
.
Again with the “ought”?
It is okay to sense resentment if it is okay to resent. It is a matter of empathy, is it not? I agree that a person has to be gentle about it, ask questions rather than assume, etc. Harsh, angry responses are a pretty clear sign though, correct?Yes, perhaps it should accompany all my posts, like the avatar. I’ve never done those, but it’s a good idea.
… Does the Catholic definition of “culpable” carry a disincentive to understand a perpetrator for those who want to sustain the “culpable” label?The Oxford Dictionary adjective blameworthy means:
Yes, and the root of “blame” is “speak evil of”. Transformation involves change in the thoughts behind the speech, the resentment behind the speech. This is what I am pointing to in terms of paradox. The goal is to overcome the label, to understand one another, which can be done through prayer and God’s help. However, the definition of “cupable” provides a disincentive to such understanding if a person wants the label to remain.
Hmmm. I lean more towards the view that our choice not to punish or take vengeance *can be a sign * of transformation, because such a choice can also take place because of fear of reprisal, but we have already been here. It is an imperfect transformation. In that case, hey, its a start!
And, as we would all prefer to have others see us as we are, each and every one us beautiful creations. In order for this to occur, there needs to take place an understanding of those who have offended us. When we understand, we see the beauty and the value of every individual.
Oops
There is a vast difference between deserving of and actually speaking of. Not the same word at all. You are talking about something else. Now the word culpable also means deserving blame.Good Morning!
Yes, and the root of “blame” is “speak evil of”. Transformation involves change in the thoughts behind the speech, the resentment behind the speech. This is what I am pointing to in terms of paradox. The goal is to overcome the label, to understand one another, which can be done through prayer and God’s help. However, the definition of “cupable” provides a disincentive to such understanding if a person wants the label to remain.
Hmmm. I lean more towards the view that our choice not to punish or take vengeance *can be a sign * of transformation, because such a choice can also take place because of fear of reprisal, but we have already been here. It is an imperfect transformation. In that case, hey, its a start!
And, as we would all prefer to have others see us as we are, each and every one us beautiful creations. In order for this to occur, there needs to take place an understanding of those who have offended us. When we understand, we see the beauty and the value of every individual.
With understanding, the label “blameworthy”, in terms of “speak evil of” or “think evil of” disappears, there is a transformation in our eyes. I’m talking about a much deeper transformation. Forgiveness as the withholding of punishment is a great start, but there is more to it. There is more to forgiveness from the heart.
“through the Spirit that we see that whatsoever exists in any way is good”
St. Augustine
Seeing involves understanding.
Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with “culpable” as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When the label is clung to as an identification of someone as deserving condemnation, deserving to be thought evil of, deserving any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome for those of us who do such clinging.
And, in order to do such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of “sufficient awareness”, we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order to be transformed. For a person like Eva Kor, for example, she had to address all of the hatred she had for her persecutors and seek to understand their actions. She found their blindness.
I don’t think this conclusion necessarily follows. To recognize that a person has committed a wrong does not equate to blame or lack of forgiveness.
I think you are right, that the Church leaves this deliberately in solution, because the “line” is different for everyone.
This is a good point, Vico. Our personal “claim” to exact penalties or fix “blame” are separate from the objective state of culpability. A person can be guilty of something, but that does not mean we should not forgive them.
I think this is a very dangerous position. As has been noted above, there is no way any human being can “know all the relevant information”. That would require human beings to be omnscient.God does not hold us to any such standard. “Full knowledge” with regard to mortal sins is much more basic. For example, those actions described in the 10 commandments are grave matter. One can know this without having “all the relevant information”.
Recognizing that an action is wrong does not equate to holding resentment or assigning blame. No one can know the heart of another.
You seem to be creating a false dichotomy. A rigorous self examination does not result in a lack of joy (unless one does so without grace and mercy).
Most probably to support the conclusion that no one ever willingly and knowingly rejects God.
Recognizing right from wrong is not a contradiction to the fullness to which we are called.
No, OS. “sufficient awareness” just means that a person knows it is a grave matter. That means they have read the 10 commandments, and accept that they represent God’s point of view. This does not call for omniscience as your "full awareness’ model does.
I am not fond of it, but I see a lot more difficulty with your framework.Do you see the difficulty with the definition?
Thanks.
I think you are confusing condemnation with discriminating.
In that case, it would seem that our conscience if very poorly formed. You may be developmentally disabled and unable to think well from brain damage, or not well catechized. Or you may just be in denial.
It is true that harm comes through blindness and ignorance. In your model, no one is capable of “sin” because we all have a degree of blindness and ignorance. Such a position is contrary to the Teachings of Jesus.
There are a couple problems with this statement. For one, it is not up to us to “find that someone has committed a mortal sin”. This is not our purview.
Exactly. And according to your model, mortal sin is possible only in “theory” but nothing you have ever observed.
What “good nature” is that?
No.
There is a disconnnect here. Certain actions are grave matter. Whether or not the person is culpable for them relates to their knowledge. His actions were grave, but we cannot know if "his sins’ were, or were not. Only God knows the heart.
Human beings will never be “aware of all the relevant information”. That is why this standard is not adequate to the subject. You make a good point, though, that divine revelation can bring us to deeper understanding.
I think you are confusing “blame” with an examination of conscience. Knowing that one has engaged in actions that are grave matter does not require self recrimmination, although I agree with you that this is common. Actions in which we participate that are grave matter may or may not be mortal. The beauty of confession is that we don’t need to figure it out!
This sounds like a false dichotomy. Transformation does not preclude justice.
I agree that we are called to understand, but this is not a requirement to forgive. We are called to forgive especially when we don’t understand. There are gave sins committed that we may never understand.
Only if you are Catholic, OS, are you bound by the Teachings of the Church. Everyone has free will, and you are free to depart from what the Catholic Church teaches. But to purport that one is still Catholic after rejecting the Teachings is disingenuous.
This is a solid Humanistic way of theologizing. It bases the assessment of what Love is on human perceptions. It also seems to create the false dichotomy that Love does not have consequences. You have said that you do not believe that God would “punish” humanity with concupiscence. I expect this is part of a 'clarification" you have made to justify the departure from the Teachings of the Church.
I think you ahve endorsed the view that hell is actually therapy, during which human beings are transformed so they can be released from it and go to heaven.
It seems to me that this is your ending premise as well as the starting.
I note this is an argument often used by my Reformed brethren. They tend to conflate God’s unconditional forgiveness and love with a lack of judgment. God will love us unconditionally while He allows us to walk right through the gates of hell.
You seem to want to believe that your disagreements allow your position to remain in the boundary of what it means to be Catholic.
Again this seems like a false dichotomy. If a person espouses both of these, then is that not one legitimate way?