O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Guanophore!
As usual, I cannot get anything past your accurate observation, you crotchety old grump!
God Bless you, too.
- Status
Good Morning, Guanophore!
As usual, I cannot get anything past your accurate observation, you crotchety old grump!
God Bless you, too.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning, Vico
That said, I did not need to use the word ādeserveā to make my point. I will state it again without the word:
Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with āculpableā as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When I cling to the label as an identification of someone I condemn, whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.
And, in order to overcome such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of āsufficient awarenessā; we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order for a transformation to occur in our hearts. 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.
Which brings us back to the crux of the paradox. If a person wants to sustain the āculpableā label, he has no incentive to discover the gap in the labelled personās awareness. Instead, the labeling person concludes āsufficient awarenessā and leaves it at that, instead of seeing that the labeling itself is something to overcome.
Well, it probably depends on the definition of ādeserveā, but I am having a difficult time coming up with an example of a person speaking of blame or blaming (finding culpable) unless he were to think that the person deserved blame. What do you see as the difference?
That said, I did not need to use the word ādeserveā to make my point. I will state it again without the word:
Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with āculpableā as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When I cling to the label as an identification of someone I condemn, whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.
And, in order to overcome such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of āsufficient awarenessā; we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order for a transformation to occur in our hearts. 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.
Which brings us back to the crux of the paradox. If a person wants to sustain the āculpableā label, he has no incentive to discover the gap in the labelled personās awareness. Instead, the labeling person concludes āsufficient awarenessā and leaves it at that, instead of seeing that the labeling itself is something to overcome.
G
guanophore
Guest
It seems to me that OneSheep wants to reach Catholics, and persuade us to re-interpret the Scripture and Sacred Tradition so as to make room for ideas that do not fit within the boundaries of traditional Catholic Teaching.
Here on CAF, all opinions are welcome, so long as the Catholic faith is respected. As such, non-Catholic ideas are welcome, and not āblameworthyā. The only difficulty may be in representing such ideas as Catholic, or putting oneself forth as āCatholicā when one espouses theologies that are directly contrary to Catholic faith.
It is very simple, OneSheep. Jesus only has One Teaching. An educated person well formed in the faith can compare such ideas with what He Teaches, and observe the discrepancy.
What you seem to be espousing is a form of relativism, as well as a denial of Divine Revelation. While human beings always struggle to be objective, this does not change the fact that objective Truth exists. If it does not, then everyone is left to interpret for themselves what they believe is true for them. This does not lead to One Faith.
It seems to me that I do this every day, sometimes several times a day.
I would hope that approaches would be more along the lines of mercy. Yes, feeling pain does not equate to carrying a grudge.
Vic Taltrees UK;13885233:
If you hit the quote/reply first you can select and cut the whole post, that will include the little blue link that will take the reader back to the original. Thanks for the post!
Did this definition come out of the Catholic dictionary? I do not think it is accurate. There are many offenses that take place that are not linked in any way with resentment. In fact, it seems to me that when holy people sustain offenses, they are often more hurt and sad than resentful. I think about some of the comments of Mother Teresa, who found a great many behaviors and attitudes offensive, but was not blaming or resentful at all. She simply tried to replace the offense with compassion.
Yes. We can recognize that an act is wrong without putting ourselves in the seat of judge.
You seem to have a tendency toward black and white thinking.
No, not really. One can simply accept that a certain behavior is a grave matter, even if one does not understand it.
used to describe someone blamed before understanding and forgiveness has taken place", this would put the word into a more accurate view.
You seem to be forwarding the view that, once someone has understanding and forgiveness, one is no loger culpable. Such a position would seem to support your premise that mortal sin is only a theory.
If we take out the notion of right and wrong, we can better support the relativism position.
Here we have another false dichotomy. Transformation is not contrary to obligation, and vice versa.
G
guanophore
Guest
There is only a disconnect for those who do not accept the words of Jesus in Scripture. For one who does not consider Scripture to be the inspired and inerrant Word of God, it is difficult to integrate the idea that even thinking evil about oneās brother and calling your brother āa foolā is in the same category as murder.
I do agree that resentment is natural. Catholics consider it a reflection of concupiscence, a concept you have rejected. You have some very unique perceptions of forming the conscience, some of which are not Catholic either.
None of these are contrary to culpability.
You seem to be saying first that resentment is a natural (reflexive) reaction to hurt, then you are saying it is purposeful.
Which does not mean the prodigal son did not err, or was not culpable for his actions. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I think you just stated it was notā¦
There is really no such thing as objective right and wrong, we all just need to be lovey dovey with each other?
Back to the shaking of hands, I guessā¦
Only for people that think in black and white, it seems.So, not to ābait and switchāā¦ Does the Catholic definition of āculpableā carry a disincentive to understand a perpetrator for those who want to sustain the āculpableā label?
Finding people responsible for their actions does not negate trying to understand them, or to forgive them.
G
guanophore
Guest
Another thought about blameā¦
Good Morning, Guanophore!
As usual, I cannot get anything past your accurate observation, you crotchety old grump!
God Bless you, too.
Ephesians 1:4New Revised Standard Version (NRSV)
4 just as he chose us in Christ[a] before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love.
Ć”mÅmos (an adjective, derived from 1 /A ānotā and 3470 /mį¹mos, āblemishā) ā properly, unblemished, without spot or blot (blight); (figuratively) morally, spiritually blameless, unblemished from the marring effects of sin.
I know this describes more of a spiritual state than the definition you are using for your thread. You are focusing on peopleās attitudes toward each other. Scripture most often uses this term to describe our relationship with God.
V
Vico
Guest
There are different words with different meanings. You wrote: āWhen I cling to the label as an identification of someone I condemn, whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.āGood Morning, Vico
Vico:
Well, it probably depends on the definition of ādeserveā, but I am having a difficult time coming up with an example of a person speaking of blame or blaming (finding culpable) unless he were to think that the person deserved blame. What do you see as the difference?
That said, I did not need to use the word ādeserveā to make my point. I will state it again without the word:
Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with āculpableā as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When I cling to the label as an identification of someone I condemn, whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.
And, in order to overcome such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of āsufficient awarenessā; we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order for a transformation to occur in our hearts. 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.
Which brings us back to the crux of the paradox. If a person wants to sustain the āculpableā label, he has no incentive to discover the gap in the labelled personās awareness. Instead, the labeling person concludes āsufficient awarenessā and leaves it at that, instead of seeing that the labeling itself is something to overcome.
Your statement explicitly includes condemnation, which is to give punishment, so is not about being culpable. To be culpable is a necessary condition in order to forgive, since there must be an offense to forgive. Being condemned is not the same as being culpable.
B
Ben_Quincy
Guest
**Reminder:
Discuss the topic, not each other.**
Discuss the topic, not each other.**
G
guanophore
Guest
Let me rephrase that.
Some sins are committed through ignorance and blindess, but not all. To say that someone does not know what they are doing indicates that a person has deficits in addition to ignorance or blindness. Such a one may have some sort of disability like brain damage, or developmental delays, or a poorly formed conscience. A person who is āvery active in the parishā has little excuse for a poorly formed conscience. We are all responsible to learn our faith, and obey it.
God does not expect us to be omniscient in order to prevent culpability.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Iām sorry, Vico, I thought it was clear that I was using āwhom I think evil ofā as the definition for ācondemnā. Your use of ācondemnā is much more accurate. Allow me to rephrase again, in context:
"Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with āculpableā as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When I cling to the label āculpableā as an identification of someone I whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.
And, in order to overcome such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of āsufficient awarenessā; we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order for a transformation to occur in our hearts. 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.
Which brings us back to the crux of the paradox. If a person wants to sustain the āculpableā label, he has no incentive to discover the gap in the labelled personās awareness. Instead, the labeling person concludes āsufficient awarenessā and leaves it at that, instead of seeing that the labeling itself is something to overcome."
You see, the outward punishment originates with the inward feeling and negavity, so I have difficulty making a large distinction between the person who hates and expresses it and the person who hates and does not. In either case, a transformation of the heart is not manifested until the āthinking evil ofā, the blame, is gone.
I very much appreciate your help in clarifying my statements in a way that makes more accurate use of Catholic definitions.
Thanks!
G
guanophore
Guest
I agree with you that it is much easier to forgive others when we can believe that they are ignorant and blind. I also agree that persuading ourselves that they lack sufficient awareness will make transformation easier. But I think the transformation that we need most comes when we can acknowledge that someone has willfully and deliberately done something hurtful to us, or to someone. It is also most difficult to forgive ourselves when we know we are culpable for an action that was hurtful.
This seems to be a completely Humanistic viewpoint. I agree that hanging onto the label can justify resentment, but Christ calls us to forgive whether we believe the person is culpable, or not. For Christians, the incentive is to obey Christās commandments, through which we are transformed by His love. It is not about labels, or understanding the lack of awareness in others from a human point of view, but entering into Divine Love.
I agree that blame and labeling are important to overcome. But for the Christian āleaves it at thatā is never an option. Unless we forgive others from the heart, we will not be forgiven.
It certainly seems very important to sound as Catholic as possible.Thanks!Code:I very much appreciate your help in clarifying my statements in a way that makes more accurate use of Catholic definitions.
V
Vico
Guest
We went over this before, the feeling itself is not sinful. What is sinful is willful and uncharitable. A reaction of vengence to an offense may not be controllable but when it can be overcome and is not willfully continued, but resisted, it is not sinful. A person that is offended forgives the offender after first recognizing the offender is culpable, and the offender forever remains culpable even though forgiven. It is dishonest to say there was not offense and without an offense there is no forgiveness.Iām sorry, Vico, I thought it was clear that I was using āwhom I think evil ofā as the definition for ācondemnā. Your use of ācondemnā is much more accurate. Allow me to rephrase again, in context:
"Do you see the distinctions, and the paradox? We start with āculpableā as a label. When the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence. When I cling to the label āculpableā as an identification of someone I whom I think evil of, toward whom I have any level of hate, we must see this label as something to overcome.
And, in order to overcome such clinging, we may have to let go of a conclusion of āsufficient awarenessā; we may need to actually determine in what way a person had a lack of awareness in order for a transformation to occur in our hearts. 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.
Which brings us back to the crux of the paradox. If a person wants to sustain the āculpableā label, he has no incentive to discover the gap in the labelled personās awareness. Instead, the labeling person concludes āsufficient awarenessā and leaves it at that, instead of seeing that the labeling itself is something to overcome."
You see, the outward punishment originates with the inward feeling and negavity, so I have difficulty making a large distinction between the person who hates and expresses it and the person who hates and does not. In either case, a transformation of the heart is not manifested until the āthinking evil ofā, the blame, is gone.
I very much appreciate your help in clarifying my statements in a way that makes more accurate use of Catholic definitions.
Thanks!
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning,
If the forgiveness does not involve transformation of the heart, such that the individual remains āthinking evil ofā the other, the heart is not transformed.
Feel free to disagree. I think you may be speaking from a position of what is ārequiredā, which is okay, and I am speaking from a position of what effects transformation at a deeper level.
Well, we have covered this before but not in depth. The feeling itself is not āsinfulā in terms of āsinful actsā. However, if sin is alienation, as some theologians define, then resentment is sinful. We do not will the initiation of resentment, but resentment alienates us from other people, and there is a compromise in our own wholeness. God calls us to forgive from the heart.
Are you disagreeing that the āculpableā label that a person may have for another, when āblameā means āto think evil ofā is resentment we are called to overcome?
Again, it depends on the use of the word āculpableā. As I said before, when the label involves a simple, objective identification of someone who has committed an act, it is of no consequence.
If the forgiveness does not involve transformation of the heart, such that the individual remains āthinking evil ofā the other, the heart is not transformed.
Feel free to disagree. I think you may be speaking from a position of what is ārequiredā, which is okay, and I am speaking from a position of what effects transformation at a deeper level.
G
guanophore
Guest
Just for the record, the Catholic faith is not defined by dictionary definitions or āsome theologiansā. Jesus gave the authority for such definitions to the Magesterium, and it is from this source that Catholics derive directions for the journey on earth.
I posted a New Testament (Greek) meaning for the word āblameā, and it is clear that it describes the state of the soul before God. One can be objectively culpable even if one feels no āalienationā or āresentmentā.
Those points being made, I think there is some validity to your statement above. At some point, an individual makes a conscious decision about how to manage the emotions that happen. If a person willfully and knowingly hangs on to a resentment and refuses to forgive, I think it is a sin.
Matthew 5:22
But I say to you that if you are angry with a brother or sister, you will be liable to judgment; and if you insult a brother or sister, you will be liable to the council; and if you say, āYou fool,ā you will be liable to the hell of fire.
Jesus does not distinguish if this happens inside oneās head, or comes out of oneās mouth.
I do not think this is true. Scripture is clear that we are to separate ourselves from persons who are engaged in a lifestyle of culpability. Just because we donāt hold resentment, or are quick to forgive, does not negate consequences.
I think this is the point Jesus is making in Matt. 5:22
G
guanophore
Guest
I notice you did not link to your source for this definition. What evidence do you have that it is āCatholicā?
Did it come from a book that you are going to claim has an āimprimaturā?
Either way, can you produce any collaboration from an official Magesterial document that will support the definition given here?
I ran across this quote in another thread that put me in mind of this thread:
But when Cephas was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed" Gal.2:11
The biblical evidence is convincing that this interaction was not a warm fuzzy one.
āhe stood to be condemnedā
ĪŗĪ±ĻĪµĪ³Ī½ĻĻĪ¼ĪĪ½ĪæĻ = kategnÅsmenos = condemned
2607 kataginį¹skÅ (from 2596 /katĆ”, āaccording to, down to,ā intensifying 1097 /ginį¹skÅ, āknow experientiallyā) ā properly, to find as decisively guilty and on the basis of direct, personal acquaintance; specifically condemn by having a first-hand awareness of the facts; to charge as guilty with specific (pointed) facts.
Apparently Paul found Peter decisively guilty on the basis of his own direct observations.
V
Vico
Guest
All forgiveness is transformation because all possible punishment is forgone, including willfully mentally planning punishment.
*Colossians 3:8 *But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Good Morning Vico,
By your answer I think you are agreeing that the āculpableā label that a person may have for another, when āblameā means āto think evil ofā is a resentment we are called to overcome.
So, if the definition of āculpableā is taken out of context, for example that it is extracted from the whole of Catholic teachings, it may appear that holding onto blame (think evil of) is sanctioned. Because it is such an important word, IMO the definition should incorporate use of the words ālabelā and āovercomeā and make some reference to transformation.
This would not be necessary if the word āblameā was completely extracted from the definition. One could use the word āresponsibleā or āaccountableā in the definition, but if one looks for synonyms and definitions of those words, one eventually lands on the word āblameā. So, rather than try to change the entire English language, it seems to me that we should leave the word āblameā right there in the definition of āculpableā, to explicitly state that finding culpability is most often associated with negative emotions, which we are encouraged to overcome:
Editing my previous post, I have:
Culpable:
- A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.
- An emotionally-charged label put upon someone by individual who has witnessed an act that has elicited anger or resentment in that individual. Closely associated with hatred, the label āculpableā, 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
- 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.
Again, Vico, anyone feel free to edit!
G
guanophore
Guest
Perhaps you can start planning your own Catholic Dictionary?
Have you considered the office of bishop? or maybe there are other venues to get into the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith?
It is curious how it might be determined how āfinding culpability is most often associated with negative emotionsā. Did you conduct your own āpersonal observationā reserach on that?
When the Church teaches about culpability, it is most often associated with an objective state of moral responsibility in relationship to God. It has nothing to do with emotions.
Culpable:
- A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.
- An emotionally-charged label put upon someone by individual who has witnessed an act that has elicited anger or resentment in that individual. Closely associated with hatred, the label āculpableā, 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
- 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.
How come you are using a āmodern Englishā definition, instead of a Tradtional religious one? Is this because your question is more germaine to New Age thinking that what belongs to the Catholic faith?
V
Vico
Guest
First is evil (noun) āanything that causes harm, pain, misery, disaster, etc.āGood Morning Vico,
By your answer I think you are agreeing that the āculpableā label that a person may have for another, when āblameā means āto think evil ofā is a resentment we are called to overcome.
So, if the definition of āculpableā is taken out of context, for example that it is extracted from the whole of Catholic teachings, it may appear that holding onto blame (think evil of) is sanctioned. Because it is such an important word, IMO the definition should incorporate use of the words ālabelā and āovercomeā and make some reference to transformation.
This would not be necessary if the word āblameā was completely extracted from the definition. One could use the word āresponsibleā or āaccountableā in the definition, but if one looks for synonyms and definitions of those words, one eventually lands on the word āblameā. So, rather than try to change the entire English language, it seems to me that we should leave the word āblameā right there in the definition of āculpableā, to explicitly state that finding culpability is most often associated with negative emotions, which we are encouraged to overcome:
Editing my previous post, I have:
Culpable:
Yes, this would make the word have two completely different meanings, but some English words have such very different meanings, such as the word āsanctionedā and others.
- A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.
- An emotionally-charged label put upon someone by individual who has witnessed an act that has elicited anger or resentment in that individual. Closely associated with hatred, the label āculpableā, 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
- 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.
Again, Vico, anyone feel free to edit!
Which provides occassion to label (tr. verb) meaning āto classify as; call; describeā.
This evil act is called, to use an obsolete noun, āblameworthiness; faultā. A falt is āsomething done wrongly (; specif.,) a misdeed; offense, or an error; mistakeā.
The person that did the evil may be mentally classified as one culpable (adj.) ādeserving blameā.
As a result of the evil, there may also be resentment (noun) āa feeling of displeasure and indignation, from a sense of being injured or offendedā.
Although someone is culpable, and there arises a feeling of resentment in the wronged, the feeling is not the same as an act of condemnation (tr. verb) āto declare to be guilty of wrongdoing; convict, or to pass judicial sentence on; inflict a penalty upon, or to doomā.
All quoted definitions are from Collins Dictionary.
O
OneSheep
Guest
Hi Vico,
Well, I was working from the definition of āBlameā you presented, as having some origin in āspeak evil ofā. And I think that it can be verified that āto speak evil ofā comes from the thoughts of the human, so it is not a stretch to say that blame includes āthink evil ofā, which would be difficult to distinguish from āresentmentā.
Therefore, it is not unprecedented that finding culpability (blameworthiness) involves resentment, with some (if not most) uses of the word in writing or when spoken.
Feel free to directly address the modified definitions I proposed, and/or explain why or why not they are warranted.
Thank you for your response, and God Bless you.
V
Vico
Guest
Really that is blaspheme, which is āto speak of or talk to with disrespectā or āto revileā. It is a different meaning. When we forgive someone for an offense it is not to blaspheme.Hi Vico,
Well, I was working from the definition of āBlameā you presented, as having some origin in āspeak evil ofā. And I think that it can be verified that āto speak evil ofā comes from the thoughts of the human, so it is not a stretch to say that blame includes āthink evil ofā, which would be difficult to distinguish from āresentmentā.
Therefore, it is not unprecedented that finding culpability (blameworthiness) involves resentment, with some (if not most) uses of the word in writing or when spoken.
Feel free to directly address the modified definitions I proposed, and/or explain why or why not they are warranted.
Thank you for your response, and God Bless you.
The Merriam Webster defintion of the verb to blame which includes:Etymology: Middle English blamen āto find fault with,ā from early French blamer, blasmer (same meaning), from Latin blasphemare āto speak ill of,ā from Greek blasphemein āto blasphemeā
When a person forgives what is personally recognized as an offense, even with resentment for the offense present, it cannot be judged that there is internal guilt for resentment in the one forgiving.
āGod alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.ā - Gaudium et Spes
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html
- Status