What is culpability?

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

One Sheep,

You said I think that you are drafting a writing, in your capacity as a “rather active parishioner”, to an unspecified audience, and have dealt with a wide range of different things without differentiating them.

Almost all my points in this thread are about getting you to state at every point, concretely, what you are talking about, to whom, and to what end.

If you were not going to be up front about those things, you would come over as moralising because confusing.

There’s a lot of hurt out there and as parishioners we mustn’t obscure the truth of Jesus.

Guanophore has made some extremely useful points in this thread.

I got the impression at one point that you were asking us to critique a draft.

Am I right in undertsanding that you have now dropped the idea of drafting any writing to any audiences around these subjects?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning!

But blame does not imply culpability in the sense of assigning internal guilt for which there is punishment.

Well, it blame does imply such in everyday usage, unless I am not understanding “internal guilt”. People say “he is to blame!” and then punishment of some kind is expected.

It is about recognition of an offense which is necessary condition for forgivness.

Yes, absolutely. And when “blame” is a label that has to do with finger-pointing, forgiveness should ultimately ameliorate resentment. In these cases “culpable” as “blameworthy” is label to overcome.

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.

Yes, the “hanging on” is not forgiving, but we have the word culpable as “blameworthy”, which sends a mixed message overall. It would more accurately reflect the Gospel, IMO, if the definition addressed the “blame” aspect in the definition. Again, it is a label, a label to overcome in the eyes of the person who labels. Of course, I am talking about a specific usage, Vico, but arguably such usage has persisted since humans have had the word “blame”, right?

Thanks. Are we getting anywhere, or simply rehashing everything? Feel free to disagree with my position. I hear you, I understand what the word “culpable” is supposed to mean. The problem is that usage of “blame” in the world makes “culpable” a label to overcome when we apply the Gospel to common usage. The CCC appears not to define “blame”, nor does it directly address this important problem with the use of “culpable”.

Remember, the biggest problem arises with the “sufficient awareness” aspect. I know people who claim that an evildoer had “sufficient awareness”, they want to hold onto their blame of someone. Yes, it is not forgiveness, but there is a denial aspect, i.e. “I was not hurt personally”, so the blaming remains. If the people were to address the “sufficient awareness” it would go a long way toward understanding and forgiveness, but they do not want to address such awareness.

Does that help clarify the problem?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vic

I got the impression at one point that you were asking us to critique a draft.

Please do! Here it is again:

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. 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
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.

There’s a lot of hurt out there and as parishioners we mustn’t obscure the truth of Jesus.

Please, do let me know of anything I write that appears to you to obscure the truth, Vic. I already know you to be charitable, so I will respond to whatever you address. I am trying to address the hurt that involves people holding grudges. From the OP:

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”?

I have tried to stick with this, Vic. Please let me know when I am going off course.

Thanks for the feedback, I am not here to hurt, but to help. Would you agree that there comes a time for a molested person to eventually understand and forgive?

 

[guanophore]

Please, do let me know of anything I write that appears to you to obscure the truth

This has always been such a fruitful endeavor here at CAF! :nope:

 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.

Although this is true in some situations, Catholics will not be able “to come to see” things this way because it is contrary to what Jesus taught, and therefore, contrary to the fullness of faith that is infallibly protected in the Church by the Holy Spirit.

 However, the definition of culpable assumes "sufficient awareness"

The Church’s definition and yours are quite different. Your standard involves omnipotence, where the church teaches that one must only know it is grave matter and freely choose.

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"?

It is really irrelevant, since culpability is between the soul and God, and the person and the law. We are called to forgive whether we find the “sufficiently aware”, or not.

  Please let me know when I am going off course.

Is that really useful, when one may have started off course.

  Would you agree that there comes a time for a molested person to eventually understand and forgive?

Yes, but understanding or excusing the perpetrator is not necessary.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning!

Well, it blame does imply such in everyday usage, unless I am not understanding “internal guilt”. People say “he is to blame!” and then punishment of some kind is expected.

Yes, absolutely. And when “blame” is a label that has to do with finger-pointing, forgiveness should ultimately ameliorate resentment. In these cases “culpable” as “blameworthy” is label to overcome.

Yes, the “hanging on” is not forgiving, but we have the word culpable as “blameworthy”, which sends a mixed message overall. It would more accurately reflect the Gospel, IMO, if the definition addressed the “blame” aspect in the definition. Again, it is a label, a label to overcome in the eyes of the person who labels. Of course, I am talking about a specific usage, Vico, but arguably such usage has persisted since humans have had the word “blame”, right?

Thanks. Are we getting anywhere, or simply rehashing everything? Feel free to disagree with my position. I hear you, I understand what the word “culpable” is supposed to mean. The problem is that usage of “blame” in the world makes “culpable” a label to overcome when we apply the Gospel to common usage. The CCC appears not to define “blame”, nor does it directly address this important problem with the use of “culpable”.

Remember, the biggest problem arises with the “sufficient awareness” aspect. I know people who claim that an evildoer had “sufficient awareness”, they want to hold onto their blame of someone. Yes, it is not forgiveness, but there is a denial aspect, i.e. “I was not hurt personally”, so the blaming remains. If the people were to address the “sufficient awareness” it would go a long way toward understanding and forgiveness, but they do not want to address such awareness.

Does that help clarify the problem?

Firstly, culpability applies only upon an offense. Therefore the must first be an offense. Secondly the offense must be recognized, and the mental recognition of it is to blame the offender. Thirdly any punishment for it may be forgiven. Forgiven or not, the offense remains recognized or else forgiveness or non forgiveness could not exist. If there is forgiveness then there is no willful punishment given, it is forgone, yet the offense remains recognized, the offender is still to blame, or is blameworthy.

The verb to blame has a few meanings. Now it is uncharitable to say that an offended person is internally guilty to blame their offender, therefore the worst meaning of to blame cannot be assumed.

to blame (verb) – Collins Dictionary

• to accuse of being at fault; condemn (for something); censure
• to find fault with (for something)
• to place responsibility for (an error, fault, etc.) on someone or something

 

[OneSheep]

Firstly, culpability applies only upon an offense. Therefore the must first be an offense. Secondly the offense must be recognized, and the mental "recognition of it is to blame the offender. Thirdly any punishment for it may be forgiven. Forgiven or not, the offense remains recognized or else forgiveness or non forgiveness could not exist. If there is forgiveness then there is no willful punishment given, it is forgone, yet the offense remains recognized, the offender is still to blame, or is blameworthy.

The verb to blame has a few meanings. Now it is uncharitable to say that an offended person is internally guilty to blame their offender, therefore the worst meaning of to blame cannot be assumed.

to blame (verb) – Collins Dictionary

• to accuse of being at fault; condemn (for something); censure
• to find fault with (for something)
• to place responsibility for (an error, fault, etc.) on someone or something

Here is what I stated:

Remember, the biggest problem arises with the “sufficient awareness” aspect. I know people who claim that an evildoer had “sufficient awareness”, they want to hold onto their blame of someone. Yes, it is not forgiveness, but there is a denial aspect, i.e. “I was not hurt personally”, so the blaming remains. If the people were to address the “sufficient awareness” it would go a long way toward understanding and forgiveness, but they do not want to address such awareness.

People hang onto blame for years, Vico. And that “blame” is accusation, disapprobation, censure, condemn. It is a very common usage, and people who hang onto such blame would find their blaming (accusation, disapprobation) completely okay with the extracted use of the word “culpable”. It’s like, “here is says I should forgive, but here it says a person is blameworthy if they had sufficient awareness. Well, I know that rotten so-and-so should have known better, so I am going to blame him for the rest of my life.”

Furthemore, the person with the grudge continues:

“I don’t need to understand that rotten so-and-so, he should have known better, I don’t need to understand him. Look, I decided not to beat his face in, so I have forgiven, right?”

You see, Vico, I agree, we are never to assume that a person means the “worst definition” of blame. However, that “worst definition” is extremely common; one can hear it in peoples’ actions and voices;, so I think it needs to be addressed in the definition of “culpable”.

Do you have an alternative means of dealing with the specific problem I addressed? I am very open to suggestions.

Thanks!

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

One Sheep, when I commented on a thread contributer’s contribution in this thread I was doing that exactly, neither more nor less. The points made by Guanophore on this occasion are worthy of follow up in themselves, as they stand.

Where Guanophore and I are in common is in identifying your various areas of vagueness.

You wrote:

quote

I am trying to address the hurt that involves people holding grudges. From the OP:

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”?

I have tried to stick with this, Vic. Please let me know when I am going off course.

Thanks for the feedback, I am not here to hurt, but to help. Would you agree that there comes a time for a molested person to eventually understand and forgive?

unquote

Just for starters, three questions for the price of one:

• what do you think of my post no. 99 above?
• what do you think of this post of mine (a review of two books):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13902073&postcount=1

• is this your struggle? I was sufficiently interested in making progress in my own life’s journey, that I was moved to study the issues in independent literature, thereby knowing even better than before what others are going through.

The victim’s or onlooker’s (you crucially don’t say which) understanding for a culprit’s degree of awareness of what they were doing, is a side issue, albeit it will usually and typically come into the picture somewhere, some time.

Your assumption that forgiveness always involves grudges, and that identifying what harm was done to you always involves grudges, is wrongful. We haven’t room for many feelings at a time so it’s natural that you should take the stance of being strongly disapproving regarding someone’s misdeed towards you, and to not deny it.

Also, I have to remember long term whom and what kinds of scenario to beware. Please try not to imply disapprobation with people that are slow on the uptake of what was done to them.

In parishes are for example several kinds of people. There are those that are oblivious when they are on the receiving end of manipulating and manoeuvring, because they would rather be in on the act.

Do you remember a time when you were without faith and identified that you needed catechesis - real catechesis?

Identifying harm is not a paradox vis-a-vis forgiveness.

Why is to take your example “a time for a molested person to eventually understand and forgive” (two separate things anyway) your affair or mine?

My repeated explicit calls, to state in what kind of publication you intend to publish your paragraphs, and whether you are going to preface them with explanations of to whom they are addressed and in what context and circumstances, I don’t appear to have seen your reply to as yet.

In other words your thread title should be saying, “What is what culpability towards whom?”

Many other posters are also trying to prod you to specificness.

 

[Vico]

Here is what I stated:

Remember, the biggest problem arises with the “sufficient awareness” aspect. I know people who claim that an evildoer had “sufficient awareness”, they want to hold onto their blame of someone. Yes, it is not forgiveness, but there is a denial aspect, i.e. “I was not hurt personally”, so the blaming remains. If the people were to address the “sufficient awareness” it would go a long way toward understanding and forgiveness, but they do not want to address such awareness.

People hang onto blame for years, Vico. And that “blame” is accusation, disapprobation, censure, condemn. It is a very common usage, and people who hang onto such blame would find their blaming (accusation, disapprobation) completely okay with the extracted use of the word “culpable”. It’s like, “here is says I should forgive, but here it says a person is blameworthy if they had sufficient awareness. Well, I know that rotten so-and-so should have known better, so I am going to blame him for the rest of my life.”

Furthemore, the person with the grudge continues:

“I don’t need to understand that rotten so-and-so, he should have known better, I don’t need to understand him. Look, I decided not to beat his face in, so I have forgiven, right?”

You see, Vico, I agree, we are never to assume that a person means the “worst definition” of blame. However, that “worst definition” is extremely common; one can hear it in peoples’ actions and voices;, so I think it needs to be addressed in the definition of “culpable”.

Do you have an alternative means of dealing with the specific problem I addressed? I am very open to suggestions.

Thanks!

A person cannot obtain forgiveness for any mortal sin without first forgiving others, no absolution. A person that does not forgive for a venial sin is still attached and will have to purge sometime before death or in purgatory. We cannot judge the inner state of the offender, so the imputability is not known (e.g., mortal, venial). Imputability is the factor which is based upon: ignorance, fear, passion, habits, violence, and mental disorder. So, we do not evaluate the inner but utilize the objective.

A grudge is not identical with blame, for there may be no forgiveness with hostility or vengeance, due to the will to not to renounce giving punishment. That is also true if condemn means to inflict a penalty upon, unless that penalty is in the persuit of justice and not from hatred. Grudge (noun), Collins Dictionary:
3. a strong, continued feeling of hostility or ill will against someone over a real or fancied grievance

If there is forgiveness, the recognition of the occurrence of the offense still exists. Also, it may never be possible to understand the offender. It is not necessary to understand the offender, it is sufficient that no body that lives is without sin.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

One Sheep, why are you concerned whether a person enjoys God’s forgiveness or not? Are you somebody’s spiritual director?

 

[OneSheep]

Good Morning, Vico

A person cannot obtain forgiveness for any mortal sin without first forgiving others, no absolution. A person that does not forgive for a venial sin is still attached and will have to purge sometime before death or in purgatory. We cannot judge the inner state of the offender, so the imputability is not known (e.g., mortal, venial). Imputability is the factor which is based upon: ignorance, fear, passion, habits, violence, and mental disorder. So, we do not evaluate the inner but utilize the objective.

Are you saying that the way to address the problem I put forth is to tell the person who holds a grudge that they will not be forgiven by God until they forgive?

A grudge is not identical with blame, for there may be no forgiveness with hostility or vengeance, due to the will to not to renounce giving punishment. That is also true if condemn means to inflict a penalty upon, unless that penalty is in the persuit of justice and not from hatred. Grudge (noun), Collins Dictionary:
3. a strong, continued feeling of hostility or ill will against someone over a real or fancied grievance

A grudge is not identical with blame, but does a person ever hold a grudge against someone who they are not blaming for some act?

If there is forgiveness, the recognition of the occurrence of the offense still exists. Also, it may never be possible to understand the offender. It is not necessary to understand the offender, it is sufficient that no body that lives is without sin.

Well, for people it may be “sufficient” to understand (I think that is what you were saying) that no body that lives is without sin. There is yet a deeper understanding, Vico, that leads to a deeper forgiveness from the heart. Yes, when we forgive we still recognize that there was an offense, but we no longer hold anything against the offender. When I truly understand and forgive, I have regained an emotional value of a person. It may be “sufficient” to say “we are all sinners” to be able to let go of punishing, but in my experience a deeper forgiveness from the heart involves a deeper understanding. Again, I am not talking about “requirements”.

Yes, it may never be possible to understand the offender, but what is very fruitful is to discover why I would have done exactly what the offender did, and come to forgive those motives and lack of awareness.

Vico, it would be helpful to me if you could say which part of your post address which question I ask, or what your comment specifically addresses.

Thanks, Vico, you bring up very good points.

 

[OneSheep]

Good Afternoon, Vic

Just for starters, three questions for the price of one:

• what do you think of my post no. 99 above?

I did not respond to it because it was not a question, nor did I know what it was referring to on this thread. I think it is fair to say that CCC 1735 was written for human guidance. Do you want me to address something else about it? Please feel free to ask questions.

• what do you think of this post of mine (a review of two books):

forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=13902073&postcount=1

I have a book to add to the mix, I am reading it now. It is Don’t Forgive Too Soon by the Linns. I think that we might find common themes in these books. I think that you know from my posts that I am not in any way promoting the idea that if we do not forgive, God does not forgive us. I do see the value of a victim narrative when one is suffering and angry, but I also see the value of a narrative that transcends that narrative. The original narrative need not disappear, but a new narrative can arise.

• is this your struggle? I was sufficiently interested in making progress in my own life’s journey, that I was moved to study the issues in independent literature, thereby knowing even better than before what others are going through.

At this point, no, I am not struggling with anything; not that something new may not come up! Are you struggling? Struggle has its place, I think. Sounds like we have both found guidance through “independent literature”. I like Scott Hurd’'s book on forgiveness, and everything by the Linns. Also, the Stanford Forgiveness Project put out some great material. I have read many others, but these are the ones that stand out.

The victim’s or onlooker’s (you crucially don’t say which) understanding for a culprit’s degree of awareness of what they were doing, is a side issue, albeit it will usually and typically come into the picture somewhere, some time.

Well, I disagree. Because “culpability” has to do with “sufficient awareness”, and in light of CCC 1735 (thank you for bringing that in) understanding awareness is a big part. But if you think it is a side issue, not a problem.

Your assumption that forgiveness always involves grudges, and that identifying what harm was done to you always involves grudges, is wrongful. We haven’t room for many feelings at a time so it’s natural that you should take the stance of being strongly disapproving regarding someone’s misdeed towards you, and to not deny it.

Also, I have to remember long term whom and what kinds of scenario to beware. Please try not to imply disapprobation with people that are slow on the uptake of what was done to them.

Forgiveness takes time. It cannot be rushed. What an empathetic person can do is reflect the hurt of another. Forgiveness does not always involve grudges,Vic, did I say otherwise? Where did I imply disapprobation? (Please, let me know!) And hey, denial is part of the process. It’s okay, right? Grudges/resentment have their place in conscience formation, IMO.

Are you hurting?

In parishes are for example several kinds of people. There are those that are oblivious when they are on the receiving end of manipulating and manoeuvring, because they would rather be in on the act.

Do you remember a time when you were without faith and identified that you needed catechesis - real catechesis?

Identifying harm is not a paradox vis-a-vis forgiveness.

I’m sorry, I am not sure what you are addressing with these. It could be a gender thing going on here. Are you “Vic” for “Victoria”? My male brain is not good with hints, as my wife will attest.

Why is to take your example “a time for a molested person to eventually understand and forgive” (two separate things anyway) your affair or mine?

It is only my affair as long as I care about people suffering. It is a matter of mercy. If I did not care, it would be none of my business.

My repeated explicit calls, to state in what kind of publication you intend to publish your paragraphs, and whether you are going to preface them with explanations of to whom they are addressed and in what context and circumstances, I don’t appear to have seen your reply to as yet.

In other words your thread title should be saying, “What is what culpability towards whom?”

Well, so far I have only “published” here on this thread. I will take your suggested title into consideration, but I must say that I am utterly confused by it. Sorry!

One Sheep, why are you concerned whether a person enjoys God’s forgiveness or not? Are you somebody’s spiritual director?

I care about people, Vic, as do you. I have learned that I can help.

 

[guanophore]

Here is what I stated:

Remember, the biggest problem arises with the “sufficient awareness” aspect. I know people who claim that an evildoer had “sufficient awareness”, they want to hold onto their blame of someone. Yes, it is not forgiveness, but there is a denial aspect, i.e. “I was not hurt personally”, so the blaming remains. If the people were to address the “sufficient awareness” it would go a long way toward understanding and forgiveness, but they do not want to address such awareness.

I don’t know if it is fair to say that people don’t “want to address” sufficient awareness. Some people may just recognize that this is only God’s purview, and not ours.

Certainly we can try to understand the ignorance and blindness of others because it makes it easier to forgive, but we are required to forgive even if we believe the person gave offense deliberately.

You seem to want to allocate all sin into the category of “lack of sufficient awareness”, but no faithful Catholic will be able to accept this position, because it denies the existence of mortal sin.

It's like, "here is says I should forgive, but here it says a person is blameworthy if they had sufficient awareness.

This seems to be mixing apples and squash. It is not the purview of human beings to determine the culpability or blameworthiness of a soul in relation to God. Since we are not omniscient, we will not know if they had sufficient awareness.

I think it is harder to forgive when we think the persons harm was deliberate, but that is what we are called to do nonetheless.

"I don’t need to understand that rotten so-and-so…

There is an extent to which this is true. We don’t need to understand them to forgive them.

… we are never to assume that a person means the “worst definition” of blame. However, that “worst definition” is extremely common; one can hear it in peoples’ actions and voices;, so I think it needs to be addressed in the definition of “culpable”.

Perhaps if you write one for the Theophilosophical Dictionary of One Sheep yours will be more precise?

 

[guanophore]

  I think it is fair to say that CCC 1735 was written for human guidance.

Yes, I think this is fair. But even more importantly, the CCC provides God’s perspective. This is what causes concern, when you publicly purport that you are Catholic, yet disregard it’s contents.

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

1733 The more one does what is good, the freer one becomes. There is no true freedom except in the service of what is good and just. The choice to disobey and do evil is an abuse of freedom and leads to "the slavery of sin."28

1734 Freedom makes man responsible for his acts to the extent that they are voluntary. Progress in virtue, knowledge of the good, and ascesis enhance the mastery of the will over its acts.

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.

1736** Every act directly willed is imputable to its author:**

Thus the Lord asked Eve after the sin in the garden: "What is this that you have done?"29 He asked Cain the same question.30 The prophet Nathan questioned David in the same way after he committed adultery with the wife of Uriah and had him murdered.31

An action can be indirectly voluntary when it results from negligence regarding something one should have known or done: for example, an accident arising from ignorance of traffic laws.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… even more importantly, the CCC provides God’s perspective. This is what causes concern, when you publicly purport that you are Catholic, yet disregard it’s contents.

I. FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY

1731 Freedom is the power, rooted in reason and will, to act or not to act, to do this or that, and so to perform deliberate actions on one’s own responsibility. By free will one shapes one’s own life. Human freedom is a force for growth and maturity in truth and goodness; it attains its perfection when directed toward God, our beatitude.

1732 As long as freedom has not bound itself definitively to its ultimate good which is God, there is the possibility of choosing between good and evil, and thus of growing in perfection or of failing and sinning. This freedom characterizes properly human acts. It is the basis of praise or blame, merit or reproach.

…

Exactly what I was saying One Sheep.

Your acts, your blame (or not), in God’s eyes. Not for you to “lecture” someone else about. About where the boundaries and the dynamics are.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

… I have a book to add to the mix, I am reading it now. It is Don’t Forgive Too Soon by the Linns. I think that we might find common themes in these books. I think that you know from my posts that I am not in any way promoting the idea that if we do not forgive, God does not forgive us. I do see the value of a victim narrative when one is suffering and angry, but I also see the value of a narrative that transcends that narrative. The original narrative need not disappear, but a new narrative can arise.

To me, your use of the B-word is very telling. From Jesus, “I have come that ye may have life more abundantly” is for me an and-phrase. Which I, and the authors I cite, place in the third layer, without setting prior time limits for starting.

At this point, no, I am not struggling with anything; not that something new may not come up! Are you struggling? Struggle has its place, I think. Sounds like we have both found guidance through “independent literature”. I like Scott Hurd’'s book on forgiveness, and everything by the Linns. Also, the Stanford Forgiveness Project put out some great material. I have read many others, but these are the ones that stand out.

I found the Linns talk about the way they go through things themselves. The authors I cited are employed by states and companies in extreme disasters and know that lives are at stake from the quality of empathy that occurs.

Forgiveness takes time. It cannot be rushed. What an empathetic person can do is reflect the hurt of another. Forgiveness does not always involve grudges, Vic, did I say otherwise? Where did I imply disapprobation? (Please, let me know …

Are you hurting?

Try this for size:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=13885193&highlight=cameo#post13885193

(section 1 about a cameo)

Factions of clergy and laity lured people, mostly outsiders to the Church, including some with learning differences, into alleged “catechesis” which would have meant a lot to them, only to use them as political footballs across their fault lines. No bishop publicly reprimanded them. They hijacked a diocesan publication to carry on their tirades. And the headline one day in the local secular press was that, when phoned by [title of paper], my friends who were an ordinary couple trying to hold jobs down, with several young children at the time, had put the phone down without speaking. (Somebody had simply fancied “setting the reporters” on them.) No mayor had made a speech, no usual local goings-on were as important as that. (That was on a separate occasion from my “cameo” and in a different paper.) It did escalate from there and I am not going to convey identifying details, nor some particularly sensitive things that unfolded before my incredulous eyes. In the end, one henchman had a burglary, and another was caught in an unrelated crime. I wouldn’t have wished those things for them. With hindsight, I was so stunned I forgot to pray for people enough. Still there are those who crow about their role, but evidence was circulated of deep seated widespread disapproval of these people’s strategies among a great many people of all kinds at the time. Therefore I think those various hench people should be less proud of themselves than they claim to be.

I have learned to be hard boiled and take mental notes of who to be wary of, while it strikes me you are basking in being regarded as the “pink and fluffy deacon”. In many of my posts I have lamented mob rule and arm twisting.

From your juxtapositions you appear to heavily imply that you are “dictating” to people who have gone through something (probably without comprehending exactly what, yet) what they are to think. “Oh I’d better pretend to be stoical and shrug it off because I wouldn’t want to look inferior in the eyes of Deacon One Sheep after he has dropped such heavy hints in his writings.” This is because juxtapositions tell us about your boundaries and dynamics. And that is also the means how it was implied that you tended to generally see people as carrying grudges, and that, if anyone dared show signs of wanting to debrief, you might want to hijack it.

… Are you “Vic” for “Victoria”? My male brain is not good with hints, as my wife will attest.

Not as it happens, am a bloke! For posting on forums I pull a quaint “screen name” out of a hatful I prepared earlier!

It is only my affair as long as I care about people suffering. It is a matter of mercy. If I did not care, it would be none of my business.

… I care about people, Vic, as do you. I have learned that I can help.

A fresh idea: how about caring by keeping quiet, staying out of it, maybe praying extremely quietly (when away from those folks).

Deciding on people’s timing, their comprehension, their boundaries, should be none of your business because you care.

Juxtapositions again - they didn’t convey to us that you were learning to help, in my opinion.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

• my nos. 39 and 40 add to the above.
• I couldn’t help thinking - again from your juxtapositions - that while oblivious to wrongs in the parish where you are “very active”, you appeared subliminally poised to “debrief in proxy fashion” about affairs, i.e tell people what to think.
• In your no. 52 you passingly acknowledge the need to explain explicitly the circumstances and details of your remarks but the rest of your post is back to your usual “fine mixture”
• Being up front about whose misdoing, what harm, whose empathy, whose forgiveness, plus allowing for the stun factor, will remove all the problems I have pointed out.
• I don’t think you’ve taken Guanophore’s point about resentment and conscience yet.

 

[Vico]

Good Morning, Vico

Are you saying that the way to address the problem I put forth is to tell the person who holds a grudge that they will not be forgiven by God until they forgive?

A grudge is not identical with blame, but does a person ever hold a grudge against someone who they are not blaming for some act?

Well, for people it may be “sufficient” to understand (I think that is what you were saying) that no body that lives is without sin. There is yet a deeper understanding, Vico, that leads to a deeper forgiveness from the heart. Yes, when we forgive we still recognize that there was an offense, but we no longer hold anything against the offender. When I truly understand and forgive, I have regained an emotional value of a person. It may be “sufficient” to say “we are all sinners” to be able to let go of punishing, but in my experience a deeper forgiveness from the heart involves a deeper understanding. Again, I am not talking about “requirements”.

Yes, it may never be possible to understand the offender, but what is very fruitful is to discover why I would have done exactly what the offender did, and come to forgive those motives and lack of awareness.

Vico, it would be helpful to me if you could say which part of your post address which question I ask, or what your comment specifically addresses.

Thanks, Vico, you bring up very good points.

Matt 6
13 And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil. Amen. 14 For if you will forgive men their offences, your heavenly Father will forgive you also your offences. 15 But if you will not forgive men, neither will your Father forgive you your offences.

Q. “…does a person ever hold a grudge against someone who they are not blaming for some act?”
A. Yes, for example with jealousy or envy.

I addressed grudges as you posted about them, and and the range of meanings of blame, in response to your comments on blame.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

…

Yes, it may never be possible to understand the offender, but what is very fruitful is to discover why I would have done exactly what the offender did, and come to forgive those motives and lack of awareness.

…

That’s very interesting OS, when younger in life I was more inclined to get whipped up in other people’s “campaigns” without thinking for myself how a person on the receiving end of the jockeying could be impacted.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

A narrative is not something a casual onlooker can wield on my behalf. Herman and Wean as experts are concerned to ensure survivors have got one. One aspect Wean brings out particularly well is how it doesn’t dawn on one till years later (or in the case of the Reformation, centuries later) what has hit one. Entire nations grapple with these things, and not as monoliths.

From the situation in my no 114 there are remaining awkwardnesses because the majority of clergy had been anxious to be seen taking various sides.

Most laity have “swallowed” an “official version” according to which not only have issues been “swept under the carpet” but also anyone with a unique point of view is seemingly to be framed as a whinger.

The majority of the people I was closer to in those days have become very set in their ways.

I dare look at the whole alarming thing.

I was always inclined to “read into” what I was told what I wanted to read into it. If people gave me a new slant on something that made a bit of sense, I regarded that as an advantage. Many participants in the scene saw new talk as replacing their old thinking, and by association by being present I am part of the problem. They aren’t interested in how deeply, creatively and flexibly I can crunch ideas and, in my own quiet way, rub along with strange types of people.

Pushiness in religion has become fashionable in the last 30 years but I am not a dedicated follower of fashion. The more pushy of those who were around saw very well that I wasn’t “fodder” and didn’t waste time trying to manipulate me, they know that I am a hardy plant that blithely roots in whatever soil suits it whether that suits someone else’s agenda or not.

Once reputedly vital concepts like faith, catechesis, Scriptures, initiation, relationships and community, diocese and parish have been concretely and vividly called into question.

There is still a way people have of finger pointing and, to bolster their own particular party spirit, give higher propaganda value to the vestiges of their “party line” than someone’s realities (including their own).

Whatever the original offenses, the dynamics end up more similar in each case as time goes on. I suspect a large proportion of CAF members are grappling with similar undercurrents in their own parishes and dioceses.

 

[Vic_Taltrees_UK]

If I, as I am perfectly entitled, take my time figuring out who is safe to mix with (and as everyone else should also) I am liable to be accused of lacking in faith, hope and charity. It’s not unnatural that when CAF members weild the F-word n the forum, I try to pin them down as to what they are talking about. Others can be misled. This is usually part of what underlies the qualms, quandaries and queries of so many enquirers at the forum who have been looked down on.

On a lighter note with some people I knew it was difficult to tell which was a greater cause of resentment to them - that another had annoyed them, or that the other had put them into the position of having to ask them forgiveness for resenting them I have a completely novel solution - just ignore it when people act annoying, however much they claim to call into question things of importance to me (assertiveness I regard as an optional extra and at my discretion, and dropping out or participating less often is a method of assertiveness).