What is culpability?

[guanophore]

All quoted definitions are from Collins Dictionary.

Thanks for citing your source!

 

[sirach2v4]

I am surprised that this conversation has not drifted towards the exact wording of the catechism in 1735:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

First, this doesn’t talk about the distinction between venial and mortal sin, so I assume it applies to either.

Second, One of the conditions that diminishes or even nullifies “imputability” and “responsibility” for an action is* inadvertance.* I don’t think the CCC implies anything further than the ordinary meaning. So, for example, you’re driving your car and you strike a pedestrian in dark clothing at night. You didn’t intend to kill anyone, much less strike them with your car. Causing someone’s death can in the worst case be viewed as a grave matter (no pun) according to the CCC. but you are not responsible for it.

Third, this distinction in the CCC suggests that there are “other” types of action, that are more intentional in nature, yet still involved diminished or nullified responsibility for the action. “Ignorance” regarding the action has been touched on in previous posts, citing Jesus’ statement (“Prayer”) on the cross, seeking His Father’s forgiveness for they know not what they do.

this opens a door to a whole spate of questions such as, who was Jesus talking about? all of us? the Roman soldiers and Sanhedrin? who? Someone with some skill at translation might be able to clarify this. Certainly the Roman soldiers knew WHAT they were doing – didn’t they? How could they have acted so, without some dim awareness of the pain they were inflicting, etc. How is it , that they don’t know what they are doing?

Fourth: duress. Might not a woman seek an abortion under “duress” or under “other psychological and social” circumstances, e.g. economic stress, poverty, shame, etc. and still have diminished or nullified responsibility? I can only conclude that this is so, because 1735 is part of the deposit of faith that we all MUST believe and affirm.

I would interject here that I think 1735 is about God’s mercy, not about legal technicalities.

see my next post

 

[sirach2v4]

recall: 1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

Fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and “OTHER” psychological or social factors. I don’t have time or space to elaborate (i.e. to say, speculate) on the meaning of these terms.

I believe that H/H Benedict XVI used 1735 as part of his discussion of homosexuality, to say that an active homesexual may not be in a state of mortal sin. There is an English document on the Vatican website discussing this.

And, I have to be even more vague now, Pope Francis quoted 1735 at least in part in one of his major writings, but I’m not sure what context.

1735 is written into a section of the CCC which discusses our freedom or lack thereof to avoid committing sins involving grave matter.

I think 1735 is lacking in stating the practical consequences of itself. I don’t think we are obliged to confess sins that might fall under 1735. But, I don’t think there’s guidance for priest or layman here.

But, another “punchline” about 1735 would be that WE are not to judge others, not only because Christ says we’re not supposed to, but because we don’t know how people stand with respect to the provisions of 1735. WE may assume the worst but we have no right to do so, and would do best to be as merciful as God is portrayed in 1735.

I think the question of what IS culpability is trivial – it is a definition of guiltiness which has probably been beat to death in earlier posts. The important question BEYOND culpability is imputability – whether God holds us accountable for this or that sin, and that is what 1735 addresses, however vaguely.

In summary all I know is this: 1735 is in the catechism and two popes have used it explicitly in the last several years, which gives us some guidance in how it was intended.

 

[OneSheep]

Hello, sirach, and welcome!

I am surprised that this conversation has not drifted towards the exact wording of the catechism in 1735:

1735 Imputability and responsibility for an action can be diminished or even nullified by ignorance, inadvertence, duress, fear, habit, inordinate attachments, and other psychological or social factors.

First, this doesn’t talk about the distinction between venial and mortal sin, so I assume it applies to either.

Second, One of the conditions that diminishes or even nullifies “imputability” and “responsibility” for an action is* inadvertance*. I don’t think the CCC implies anything further than the ordinary meaning. So, for example, you’re driving your car and you strike a pedestrian in dark clothing at night. You didn’t intend to kill anyone, much less strike them with your car. Causing someone’s death can in the worst case be viewed as a grave matter (no pun) according to the CCC. but you are not responsible for it.

Third, this distinction in the CCC suggests that there are “other” types of action, that are more intentional in nature, yet still involved diminished or nullified responsibility for the action. “Ignorance” regarding the action has been touched on in previous posts, citing Jesus’ statement (“Prayer”) on the cross, seeking His Father’s forgiveness for they know not what they do.

this opens a door to a whole spate of questions such as, who was Jesus talking about? all of us? the Roman soldiers and Sanhedrin? who? Someone with some skill at translation might be able to clarify this. Certainly the Roman soldiers knew WHAT they were doing – didn’t they? How could they have acted so, without some dim awareness of the pain they were inflicting, etc. How is it , that they don’t know what they are doing?

They were blind to Jesus’ value. They did not see Jesus as having the value of the person they loved the most, and we Catholics can all agree that He has at least such value. They were also ignorant about what Jesus said, and called what He said “blasphemous”. There are probably other relevant things they did not know too. There is a verse in Acts that also describes the leadership as not knowing what they were doing.

Fourth: duress. Might not a woman seek an abortion under “duress” or under “other psychological and social” circumstances, e.g. economic stress, poverty, shame, etc. and still have diminished or nullified responsibility? I can only conclude that this is so, because 1735 is part of the deposit of faith that we all MUST believe and affirm.

I would interject here that I think 1735 is about God’s mercy, not about legal technicalities.

see my next post

Fear, want, resentment, and other strong emotions do blind us, and the blindness is inadvertent, yes.

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut!

 

[OneSheep]

Hi Vico,

Really that is blaspheme, which is “to speak of or talk to with disrespect” or “to revile”. It is a different meaning. When we forgive someone for an offense it is not to blaspheme.

I’m not sure, but we may be talking past each other.
Yes, we are not blaspheming when we forgive. I am confused.

The Merriam Webster defintion of the verb to blame which includes:Etymology: Middle English blamen “to find fault with,” from early French blamer, blasmer (same meaning), from Latin blasphemare “to speak ill of,” from Greek blasphemein “to blaspheme”
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.

I’m confused again. Are you saying that there is, or saying that there should be, internal guilt for resentment in the one forgiving?

“God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.” - Gaudium et Spes
vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html

This is really a great goal, but people do judge, otherwise there would be no need for forgiveness. Taking offense automatically leads to judging on the part of the human. Of course, once we are aware that we have judged, we are called to forgive.

Your post does not seem to address the issue I brought up, but that’s okay. Maybe you could explain why it does?

Thanks!

 

[Vico]

Hi Vico,

I’m not sure, but we may be talking past each other.
Yes, we are not blaspheming when we forgive. I am confused.

I’m confused again. Are you saying that there is, or saying that there should be, internal guilt for resentment in the one forgiving?

This is really a great goal, but people do judge, otherwise there would be no need for forgiveness. Taking offense automatically leads to judging on the part of the human. Of course, once we are aware that we have judged, we are called to forgive.

Your post does not seem to address the issue I brought up, but that’s okay. Maybe you could explain why it does?

Thanks!

vico:

Really that is blaspheme, which is “to speak of or talk to with disrespect” or “to revile”. It is a different meaning. When we forgive someone for an offense it is not to blaspheme.

The Merriam Webster defintion of the verb to blame which includes:
Etymology: Middle English blamen “to find fault with,” from early French blamer, blasmer (same meaning), from Latin blasphemare “to speak ill of,” from Greek blasphemein “to blaspheme”
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.

“God alone is the judge and searcher of hearts, for that reason He forbids us to make judgments about the internal guilt of anyone.” - Gaudium et Spes

vatican.va/archive/hist_c…t-spes_en.html

“Really that is blaspheme, which is “to speak of or talk to with disrespect” or “to revile”. It is a different meaning.” … than blame.

Q. Are you saying that there is, or saying that there should be, internal guilt for resentment in the one forgiving?
A. Neither. If there is resentment in the one forgiving, it does not imply internal guilt (for resentment) in the forgiver.

You wrote: “once we are aware that we have judged, we are called to forgive.”

We should always forgive,* and* we must judge to be able to forgive, for otherwise there would be no discrimination to know that there is an objective offense. So we can make judgments, but not about the internal guilt of others.

 

[OneSheep]

“Really that is blaspheme, which is “to speak of or talk to with disrespect” or “to revile”. It is a different meaning.” … than blame.

Q. Are you saying that there is, or saying that there should be, internal guilt for resentment in the one forgiving?
A. Neither. If there is resentment in the one forgiving, it does not imply internal guilt (for resentment) in the forgiver.

You wrote: “once we are aware that we have judged, we are called to forgive.”

We should always forgive,* and* we must judge to be able to forgive, for otherwise there would be no discrimination to know that there is an objective offense. So we can make judgments, but not about the internal guilt of others.

Fascinating.

So, what is the difference between judging about “the internal guilt of others” and feeling resentment/“thinking evil of” someone else, which is blame?

Thanks for your response, Vico.

 

[OneSheep]

I think 1735 is lacking in stating the practical consequences of itself. I don’t think we are obliged to confess sins that might fall under 1735. But, I don’t think there’s guidance for priest or layman here.

“Guidance” may take the form of, “If one senses some separation, a guilty conscience, between one and God, it is advisable to go to confession.” One need not fear overuse by the scrupulous, for the wise priest would hopefully steer the person toward a more secure faith.

But, another “punchline” about 1735 would be that WE are not to judge others, not only because Christ says we’re not supposed to, but because we don’t know how people stand with respect to the provisions of 1735. WE may assume the worst but we have no right to do so, and would do best to be as merciful as God is portrayed in 1735.

Have you heard, as I have, that “judge” in the Gospel refers to a negative judgment and not a positive one? There is absolutely no harm in understanding where people come from and giving them the benefit of the doubt. This too can be seen as a “judgment”, but it is charitable.

I think the question of what IS culpability is trivial – it is a definition of guiltiness which has probably been beat to death in earlier posts. The important question BEYOND culpability is imputability – whether God holds us accountable for this or that sin, and that is what 1735 addresses, however vaguely.

In summary all I know is this: 1735 is in the catechism and two popes have used it explicitly in the last several years, which gives us some guidance in how it was intended.

Well, the definition is important because it needs to be distinguished, I think, that “culpable” is often (mostly?) a label used by a person in such a state that they are feeling resentful toward the “culpable”. So, ideally, yes, we are not to judge others, but we do. When we do, we find others “culpable”. When “culpable” includes blame (think evil of), then we are called to forgive from the heart, and actually if a person is not judging others, what is the reason to forgive anyway? Yes, we are called not to judge, the antidote is forgiveness.

The problem with the definition lies in the “sufficient awareness” part. If a person wants to hang onto judgment of others, he would not have the incentive to understand the culprit’s blindness or ignorance, he would want to sustain that a person had “sufficient awareness”. Do you see what I am saying? It would not be a problem if the word “blame” had nothing to do with “culpable”. “Culpable” would simply mean “is to be held accountable” with no “blame” (it is in a list of synonyms, though, unfortunately).

The problem, to some degree, is that if the word “culpable” is not defined with the word “label” in the definition (or something of that sort) then a person is essentially given permission to sustain forever an applied label of ** blame**worthiness as a perfectly Christian thing to do.

 

[guanophore]

Fascinating.

So, what is the difference between judging about “the internal guilt of others” and feeling resentment/“thinking evil of” someone else, which is blame?

I am not sure here if this is a reference to being objectively guilty, or the subjective sense of guilt. One may be objectively culpable, but not feel guilty. It is not possible for us (apart a person expressing guilt or from divine revelation) to know the internal guilt of others - their subjective feeling or sense of guilt. For that matter, it is not possible for us to know the objective state of culpability of another person.

We can know that certain acts are wrong, as was cited in the passages from the catechism above, but we cannot know how God evaluates the soul.

I think what you are saying is that our feelings of resentment and “blaming” others is connected to our sense of judgement about how we perceive their actions.

 

[Vico]

Fascinating.

So, what is the difference between judging about “the internal guilt of others” and feeling resentment/“thinking evil of” someone else, which is blame?

Thanks for your response, Vico.

Feeling resentment is having a feeling.
Blame (noun) is not defined as thinking evil of someone, it is responsibility for a fault or wrong.
To think evil of someone means “to believe to be true of someone” that they did evil, and a meaning of evil is doing that which causes harm. Now, since the internal state of the evil doer is not known, we cannot judge the internal guilt, but we may judge the objective evil.

 

[guanophore]

"Guidance" may take the form of, "If one senses some separation, a guilty conscience, between one and God, it is advisable to go to confession."  One need not fear overuse by the scrupulous, for the wise priest would hopefully steer the person toward a more secure faith.

Not because any real separation exists, though.

Have you heard, as I have, that “judge” in the Gospel refers to a negative judgment and not a positive one?

It depends upon the context and the language. “Discriminate” is also often translated “judge”, but what is meant is that we apply objective criteria to a situation. I think the usage you are referencing is what we would equate to “condemn”, which is certainly a negative judgment.

There is absolutely no harm in understanding where people come from and giving them the benefit of the doubt.  This too can be seen as a "judgment", but it is charitable.

Yes, I think that would be taking a compassionate approach. It may include making a discrimination, but not condemnation. For example, Jesus told Pilate that those who delivered Him had the “greater sin”. Certain criteria are applied to evaluate the severity of the situation. The Jews knew more, so were more culpable.

Well, the definition is important because it needs to be distinguished, I think, that "culpable" is often (mostly?) a label used by a person in such a state that they are feeling resentful toward the "culpable".

This may be, in modern American society. But the way this term is used historically in the Church it relates more to a persons’ relationship with God.

The problem with the definition lies in the “sufficient awareness” part. If a person wants to hang onto judgment of others, he would not have the incentive to understand the culprit’s blindness or ignorance, he would want to sustain that a person had “sufficient awareness”. Do you see what I am saying? It would not be a problem if the word “blame” had nothing to do with “culpable”. “Culpable” would simply mean “is to be held accountable” with no “blame” (it is in a list of synonyms, though, unfortunately).

Yes, I see your point. We are called to forgiveness even when the offender does have sufficient awareness. Being able to see blindness and ignorance does make forgiveness easier, but we are responsible to forgive whether we find them culpable, or not.

The problem, to some degree, is that if the word "culpable" is not defined with the word "label" in the definition (or something of that sort) then a person is essentially given permission to sustain forever an applied label of ** blame**worthiness as a perfectly Christian thing to do.

Yes, I think we all need to strive for the humility to leave this judgment to God. Only he knows the heart of a person.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico.

Feeling resentment is having a feeling.

Yes, and when we are judging the internal guilt of others, the thought process is occurring in conjunction with a feeling of resentment. Have you ever found yourself judging the guilt of someone else when not already feeling angry or resentful?

Blame (noun) is not defined as thinking evil of someone, it is responsibility for a fault or wrong.

Yes, I was not addressing the case of when “blame” has no “thinking evil of someone” element, such as this definition:

Blame: an accusation

vocabulary.com/dictionary/blame

or here:

the act of blaming; accusation; condemnation; censure
yourdictionary.com/blame#5LV1GxdeXFwRArJW.99

Not the case where “blame” as a part of “culpable” fits the words I presented earlier, which I believe is the same way you used the word above:

1. A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.

To think evil of someone means “to believe to be true of someone” that they did evil, and a meaning of evil is doing that which causes harm. Now, since the internal state of the evil doer is not known, we cannot judge the internal guilt, but we may judge the objective evil.

Yes, this is one way to think evil of someone. The more ordinary way to “think evil of someone” is to have a negative emotional attachment to the thoughts. This is what I am addressing with these definitions I proposed:

1. 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 “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
2. 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.

What I am saying, Vico, is that as long as everyone is operating from a definition of “culpable” from the #1 above, there are no problems. The problems begin when any aspect of emotional blame or accusation comes into play, which is very important it terms of Spirituality. Have you found a Catholic definition of “blame”? I have not.

Thanks again for your response.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico.

Yes, and when we are judging the internal guilt of others, the thought process is occurring in conjunction with a feeling of resentment. Have you ever found yourself judging the guilt of someone else when not already feeling angry or resentful?

Yes, I was not addressing the case of when “blame” has no “thinking evil of someone” element, such as this definition:

Blame: an accusation

vocabulary.com/dictionary/blame

or here:

the act of blaming; accusation; condemnation; censure
yourdictionary.com/blame#5LV1GxdeXFwRArJW.99

Not the case where “blame” as a part of “culpable” fits the words I presented earlier, which I believe is the same way you used the word above:

1. A non-emotional identification of a culprit. The identification of person or persons who committed an act contrary to law, commandment, or mores.

Yes, this is one way to think evil of someone. The more ordinary way to “think evil of someone” is to have a negative emotional attachment to the thoughts. This is what I am addressing with these definitions I proposed:

1. 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 “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
2. 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.

What I am saying, Vico, is that as long as everyone is operating from a definition of “culpable” from the #1 above, there are no problems. The problems begin when any aspect of emotional blame or accusation comes into play, which is very important it terms of Spirituality. Have you found a Catholic definition of “blame”? I have not.

Thanks again for your response.

You asked: “Have you ever found yourself judging the guilt of someone else when not already feeling angry or resentful?”

Yes.

I was addressing the case of when “blame” has “thinking evil of someone”, and it may be emotional. It is recognition that the person has offended you. This recognition has to come before forgiveness and the recognition must continue or there is no longer any forgiveness. What cannot be present with forgiveness is a *willful *lack of charity, because the forgiveness is forgoing punishment.

The one was posted earlier, I believe was from Modern Catholic Dictionary, but is only mentions the verb to blame in the Etymology.:

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.)

An example of usage of objective blame by St. Pope John Paul II is here:

Consider, in that connection, the apology contained in the Pope’s 1995 Apostolic Letter to Women. There, after deploring various affronts to women’s dignity throughout the ages, John Paul II says: «And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry».
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.html

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning

You asked: “Have you ever found yourself judging the guilt of someone else when not already feeling angry or resentful?”

Yes.

Well, I cannot relate, but perhaps it is because we are using two definitions of “judging”. I am using this definition:

Judge: to regard (someone) as either good or bad

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge

If I am judging the negative, I am feeling some anger or resentment. You not? Or, are you using a different definition? You see, if I hear or see something I have no emotional reaction to, I don’t find myself judging. Why would one do such a thing? After all, there is good reason for requiring that we not judge the internal guilt of others; it is hurtful.

I was addressing the case of when “blame” has “thinking evil of someone”, and it may be emotional. It is recognition that the person has offended you. This recognition has to come before forgiveness and the recognition must continue or there is no longer any forgiveness. What cannot be present with forgiveness is a *willful *lack of charity, because the forgiveness is forgoing punishment.

The one was posted earlier, I believe was from Modern Catholic Dictionary, but is only mentions the verb to blame in the Etymology.:

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, since it is in the etymology, and since “blame” is usually an emotional matter, the definition itself needs to make this extremely important distinction, and that is why I posted this thread. Without the distinction made as I did in the definition, something like I put forth, the emotional reaction is inherently sanctioned as part of a valid label sustained.

An example of usage of objective blame by St. Pope John Paul II is here:

Consider, in that connection, the apology contained in the Pope’s 1995 Apostolic Letter to Women. There, after deploring various affronts to women’s dignity throughout the ages, John Paul II says: «And if objective blame, especially in particular historical contexts, has belonged to not just a few members of the Church, for this I am truly sorry».
vatican.va/jubilee_2000/magazine/documents/ju_mag_01071997_p-26_en.html

God Bless him, St.Pope John Paul II ! Yes, we can be truly sorry for the “objective” blame, but realistically so very much of it was subjective, correct? And women were held culpable for matters when culpability itself should have been seen as a label to overcome in the people who held others culpable. Yes, “not just a few members of the Church” have blamed women and have not seen the blaming state as an illusion, a resentment to overcome.

You see, at this point in history, with St.JP II expressing sorrow for blame, it is a perfect opportunity to address the definition of “culpable”, as well as every place in doctrine that implicitly allows for judging one another (definition I used above for judging).

I am getting the impression that you don’t see this as important an issue as I do, Vico, or perhaps you are thinking that the problem is sufficiently addressed elsewhere. I understand that position, and I am okay with that stance, if that is yours.

Thanks, you are a great person with whom to discuss these matters; you are very resourceful and your responses always charitable.

 

[guanophore]

. The problems begin when any aspect of emotional blame or accusation comes into play, which is very important it terms of Spirituality. Have you found a Catholic definition of “blame”? I have not.

Do you say this because you do not consider the Scripture or the Catechism to be “Catholic” sources? I am curious why you are choosing to use a modern definition from Merriam rather than a Catholic source.

I agree that emotional blame and accusation does cause problems.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning

Well, I cannot relate, but perhaps it is because we are using two definitions of “judging”. I am using this definition:

Judge: to regard (someone) as either good or bad

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/judge

If I am judging the negative, I am feeling some anger or resentment. You not? Or, are you using a different definition? You see, if I hear or see something I have no emotional reaction to, I don’t find myself judging. Why would one do such a thing? After all, there is good reason for requiring that we not judge the internal guilt of others; it is hurtful.

Well, since it is in the etymology, and since “blame” is usually an emotional matter, the definition itself needs to make this extremely important distinction, and that is why I posted this thread. Without the distinction made as I did in the definition, something like I put forth, the emotional reaction is inherently sanctioned as part of a valid label sustained.

God Bless him, St.Pope John Paul II ! Yes, we can be truly sorry for the “objective” blame, but realistically so very much of it was subjective, correct? And women were held culpable for matters when culpability itself should have been seen as a label to overcome in the people who held others culpable. Yes, “not just a few members of the Church” have blamed women and have not seen the blaming state as an illusion, a resentment to overcome.

You see, at this point in history, with St.JP II expressing sorrow for blame, it is a perfect opportunity to address the definition of “culpable”, as well as every place in doctrine that implicitly allows for judging one another (definition I used above for judging).

I am getting the impression that you don’t see this as important an issue as I do, Vico, or perhaps you are thinking that the problem is sufficiently addressed elsewhere. I understand that position, and I am okay with that stance, if that is yours.

Thanks, you are a great person with whom to discuss these matters; you are very resourceful and your responses always charitable.

We forgive others, else we are not forgiven. If we willfully do not forgive in grave matter then we have no absolution from sin available until we relent. So we determine that the was an offense, and then we willingly forgo the punishment for it, and that is what opens the door to our own forgiveness. We do not say there was no offense for then there would be no need of forgiveness. We have to judge to know if there was an offense. We do not judge the internal guilt of others, but the objective, and I was not referring to internal, as I mentioned. There is not need for emotion in it. Priests have to do it to determine if they will give scandal, etc. The faithful have to do it to determine if they will be complicit in sin with others.

There may be emotion that is not willful, because it is resisted, even though it may persist. The forgiver is not being uncharitable.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

We have to judge to know if there was an offense. We do not judge the internal guilt of others, but the objective, and I was not referring to internal, as I mentioned. There is not need for emotion in it.

There is no need for emotion or resentment, but resentment happens, and it is an aspect of blame. We are to forgive when we hold anything against anyone, though, regardless of the gravity. There is no need to look at a book or know the catechism to know that we hold something against someone else. The definition of “culpable” does not address this important aspect, that the label itself is very often used as an expression of emotional negativity. We are sort of beating this to death, right? I think you are saying that you disagree, that the definition is fine as is, and I accept your opinion.

Priests have to do it to determine if they will give scandal, etc. The faithful have to do it to determine if they will be complicit in sin with others.

Well, the determination of complicity or scandal is not what I am addressing. These are judgments made to guide behavior, and do not involve “blame”.

The point I have been addressing all along is that in order for a person to be culpable, by the Catholic definition, he must have “sufficient awareness”. If a person wants a person to remain culpable, to sustain blame against the person, the definition provides a disincentive to discovering and understanding that an offender did not have “sufficient awareness”.

You see, good Catholics (as well as everyone else) find loopholes to hang onto blame, as addressed in your comments from St.JP II. Understanding plays a huge role in forgiveness, and when “culpable” involves emotional blaming, it needs to be seen as a label to overcome. I am addressing these specific cases, not the rational determination of complicity or scandal.

There may be emotion that is not willful, because it is resisted, even though it may persist. The forgiver is not being uncharitable.

Correct, the forgiver is not being uncharitable, but the emotion is still an indication that forgiveness from the heart still needs to be addressed. We disagree about God’s forgiveness, for I agree with the “always” from Pope Francis’ quote in my signature. God as I know Him forgives unconditionally, so I am not addressing requirements or obligations. What I am addressing is the human compulsion to hang onto blame.

The human is called to live a life free from the emotional shackles of blame. When we hold onto resentment, we are enslaved.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

There is no need for emotion or resentment, but resentment happens, and it is an aspect of blame. We are to forgive when we hold anything against anyone, though, regardless of the gravity. There is no need to look at a book or know the catechism to know that we hold something against someone else. The definition of “culpable” does not address this important aspect, that the label itself is very often used as an expression of emotional negativity. We are sort of beating this to death, right? I think you are saying that you disagree, that the definition is fine as is, and I accept your opinion.

Well, the determination of complicity or scandal is not what I am addressing. These are judgments made to guide behavior, and do not involve “blame”.

The point I have been addressing all along is that in order for a person to be culpable, by the Catholic definition, he must have “sufficient awareness”. If a person wants a person to remain culpable, to sustain blame against the person, the definition provides a disincentive to discovering and understanding that an offender did not have “sufficient awareness”.

You see, good Catholics (as well as everyone else) find loopholes to hang onto blame, as addressed in your comments from St.JP II. Understanding plays a huge role in forgiveness, and when “culpable” involves emotional blaming, it needs to be seen as a label to overcome. I am addressing these specific cases, not the rational determination of complicity or scandal.

Correct, the forgiver is not being uncharitable, but the emotion is still an indication that forgiveness from the heart still needs to be addressed. We disagree about God’s forgiveness, for I agree with the “always” from Pope Francis’ quote in my signature. God as I know Him forgives unconditionally, so I am not addressing requirements or obligations. What I am addressing is the human compulsion to hang onto blame.

The human is called to live a life free from the emotional shackles of blame. When we hold onto resentment, we are enslaved.

But blame does not imply culpability in the sense of assigning internal guilt for which there is punishment. It is about recognition of an offense which is necessary condition for forgivness. Praying “forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those that trespass against us” shows that the supplicant identifies a trespasser with the forgiving. When a person forgives it is an act of will, and will is the factor that brings sin, so what you speak of as hanging on is not forgiving.

 

[guanophore]

The point I have been addressing all along is that in order for a person to be culpable, by the Catholic definition, he must have “sufficient awareness”. If a person wants a person to remain culpable, to sustain blame against the person, the definition provides a disincentive to discovering and understanding that an offender did not have “sufficient awareness”.

I don’t think this is relevant in terms of forgiveness. It is not possible for human beings (aside from divine revelation) to know the state of another soul. We are called to forgive whether we think the person had “sufficient awareness” or not.

Understanding plays a huge role in forgiveness, and when "culpable" involves emotional blaming, it needs to be seen as a label to overcome.

I think understanding CAN play a huge role in forgiveness, but it is not necessary. I may never “understand” how those who flew planes into the Twin Towers were motivated, but that does not remove my obligation to forgive them.

You seem to want to promote the position that we should use the “gift of understanding” so that we can come to realize that those who have offended us lacked “sufficient awareness”. This seems like a useless exercise, since it is irrelevant to our obligation to forgive, and it disregards the fact that some people sin deliberately, with sufficient awareness, and need to be forgiven anyhow.

What I am addressing is the human compulsion to hang onto blame.

It is a worthy pursuit, but I don’t think denying the existence of mortal sin is the answer.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

1735 is about one’s own culpability in the eyes of God and is solely addressed to oneself or one’s own freely chosen spiritual director.

Forgiveness only comes into it on God’s part and only in respect of these factors, no other whatsoever.