Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: Ladislaus on November 10, 2015, 10:38:32 AM
-
On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."
For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.
In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
In fact, even the Church has always considered herself incompetent to judge matters of the internal forum, according to the maxim De internis Ecclesia non judicat. ("About internal matters the Church does not judge.")
Only God can see into the depths of souls and judge the degree of guilt that any individual has in the commission of various sins. Yet the Church does indeed judge and make presumptions of judgment based on external forum indicators.
What has happened since Vatican II is that the Concilar Prelates have decided that internal forum subjectivism OVERRIDES these external forum judgments of the Church, that subjectivist intent actually represents the true objective reality of the matter, whereas the objective action means nothing, is purely accidental to what's going on, and in the eyes of God is completely trumped by the internal forum. For them, internal forum is to external forum what substance is to accidents.
At first Vatican II did this with dogmatic theology. If someone is sincerely seeking God, then that in itself constitutes supernatural faith and charity, whether or not a person objectively has the Catholic faith. This is what has created the new subjectivist "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II.
Now, in the moral order, they're doing exactly the same thing, with this Relatio from the Synod against the Family. Despite the fact that the Church judges it objectively in the external forum to be a grave sin to cohabitate adulterously after divorce, if one has concluded in their own introspection of the internal forum that they do not have "full culpability" in the matter, then they are permitted to approach the Sacraments. So here too, in the moral order, the subjectivist dispositions of the internal forum override the objective reality of the external forum. That's clearly where Francis has been pushing his own "Who am I to judge?" agenda. Unfortunately, not even we ourselves are competent to decide our own culpability in the internal forum. But none of that trumps the judgment of the Church regarding the external forum. Can I receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin and before Confession simply because I am morally certain that I had made a perfect act of contrition? Absolutely not.
So let us make the proper distinctions between a true understanding of "Who am I to judge?" which Our Lord Himself and the Church after Him have taught and the modernist subjectivist version of the phrase. Bishop Williamson absolutely nails it on stating that all the errors of Vatican II are rooted in this subjectivism, a mindset that has grown over the years from Descartes to the Phenomenologists and gradually infected Catholicism with its rot. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both leading phenomenologists.
-
If he is guilty of the crime, let him be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to show our mercy in the form of providing for the sacraments to be made available.
In ancient times, even acts like theft could warrant death. The good thief wasn't called the "good murderer" probably for a reason... nor did he waste time arguing that he didn't deserve his own punishment. In the case of this scuмbag, what has been stolen can never be returned. It's my personal belief that pedophilia ought to be punishable by death. That way, true contrition might be more forthcoming than if they know they can eek out a feigned repentant existence.
If Gregory the Great was justified in isolating a dying monk and throwing his corpse on a pile of manure over a matter of a few gold pieces, no one ought to feel compelled to extend corporal acts of mercy towards sɛҳuąƖ predators. Most hardened criminals had brutal childhoods in one form or another, but it only serves as a possible explanation, not an excuse. Pray for them, provide the means of receiving the sacraments if requested, but be mindful that your Christian charity doesn't turn into sympathy for the devil.
This man has lost the right to live, much less be treated with "kindness" that would prevent us from judging his actions appropriately. If society didn't have that right, don't you think Christ would have spoken out against it. "Judge not lest you be judged" is perfectly valid here; if I did something that heinous, I wouldn't dream of demanding my life to be spared.
Exceptions can always be made for special cases or moments of tremendous grace, like in the case of St. Maria Goretti and Alessandro Serenelli, but it can't be made the rule. If the man be miraculously repentant, let's see the miracle! Unless you see something salvageable in the man, you're bound to throw pearls before swine. None of us here are close enough to tell.
If he did the crime, let him pay dearly.
-
"By their fruits you shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?" Matt 7:16
Wonder what Christ meant by that then?
-
If he is guilty of the crime, let him be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to show our mercy in the form of providing for the sacraments to be made available.
In ancient times, even acts like theft could warrant death. The good thief wasn't called the "good murderer" probably for a reason... nor did he waste time arguing that he didn't deserve his own punishment. In the case of this scuмbag, what has been stolen can never be returned. It's my personal belief that pedophilia ought to be punishable by death. That way, true contrition might be more forthcoming than if they know they can eek out a feigned repentant existence.
For grave sins of this nature (rape, pedophilia) castration might also work, instead of death. Wouldn't that remove the source of testosterone and basically the sex drive itself (ordered or disordered)?
I'm sure most men would fear castration about the same as death, anyhow.
For some it might be worse!
-
If he is guilty of the crime, let him be punished to the fullest extent of the law. We ought to show our mercy in the form of providing for the sacraments to be made available.
In ancient times, even acts like theft could warrant death. The good thief wasn't called the "good murderer" probably for a reason... nor did he waste time arguing that he didn't deserve his own punishment. In the case of this scuмbag, what has been stolen can never be returned. It's my personal belief that pedophilia ought to be punishable by death. That way, true contrition might be more forthcoming than if they know they can eek out a feigned repentant existence.
For grave sins of this nature (rape, pedophilia) castration might also work, instead of death. Wouldn't that remove the source of testosterone and basically the sex drive itself (ordered or disordered)?
I'm sure most men would fear castration about the same as death, anyhow.
For some it might be worse!
Well, that's a great option if allowed to live! Say, first offense? Victim's choice?
Multiple victims? Hang 'em high!
:judge:
-
For grave sins of this nature (rape, pedophilia) castration might also work, instead of death. Wouldn't that remove the source of testosterone and basically the sex drive itself (ordered or disordered)?
I'm sure most men would fear castration about the same as death, anyhow.
For some it might be worse!
No, it wouldn't, because the person's mental and spiritual addiction to such abominable sin would remain. There are many sɛҳuąƖ predators who are impotent, yet, they still prey on children, women and men. Andrei Chikatilo is one example. He suffered impotence, yet, he was the Soviet Union's most prolific sɛҳuąƖ serial killer who preyed on girls, boys and women.
The only solution to these demons is execution in the temporal realm. The Lord will be their judge regarding their afterlife. We should pray for them to repent, but the proper justice is still execution.
-
Laudislaus is right, especially about not judging a person without all the facts of the case, and American newspapers rarely give us all the facts which was evidently the sole source of the facts. Even then we should be slow to judge. On the other hand....
If the report of the actual crimes are true, then we have to make some judgments. If we have children who might be exposed to the man, we would certainly be prudent not to allow him access to them purely on the accusation since the accusation seemed, at the very least, credible. We should do this, which does require a judgment, even if the individual is never indicted, much less, convicted. I know individuals with whom I would never leave my children alone--even though they have never, to my knowledge, committed any crime.
What I was most disgusted about the whole topic was the reaction of people who condemned the SSPX for their "role" in all of this. While the newspaper article mentioned the SSPX as somehow being in the neighborhood, the facts the paper reported didn't seem to have anything to do with the SSPX at all (i.e., multi-state trips in a truck, living with the family of victims, etc.). These judgments were what seemed mostly out of place. Even prudence wouldn't tell one to abandon the SSPX for this, yet some people seemed willing to do so.
-
This thread wasn't about whether or not such a one should be punished. There's no contradiction between society bringing appropriate justice on such a one and at the same time having compassion and charity for the perpetrator, sincerely praying, "May God have mercy on your soul." whilst pulling the switch.
Evidently some people can't reconcile these two.
So the point of this post was not to discuss what a just punishment for such crime would be. It was to point out how the phrase "Who am I to judge?" can be understood in a completely Catholic sense, but more importantly to point out both with regard to Vatican II and the Relatio that what has been happening is that internal forum subjectivism is being pushed as trumping entirely the external forum.
Instead we get an argument about death vs. castration?
-
For grave sins of this nature (rape, pedophilia) castration might also work, instead of death. Wouldn't that remove the source of testosterone and basically the sex drive itself (ordered or disordered)?
I'm sure most men would fear castration about the same as death, anyhow.
For some it might be worse!
That would be mutilation, which I'm fairly sure is forbidden.
-
Instead we get an argument about death vs. castration?
Sorry!
-
No problem. I just felt it important to understand internal forum vs. external forum and how it all fits in with what's happening with Vatican II and the Synod.
-
On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."
For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.
In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.
I think that's what they meant by mocking you with it. We all know what Francis' agenda is in that regard. You appeared to be using the internal forum to pollyanna your way past the external one. I wouldn't figure you for that, but then again you did the same thing with Francis' generous "gesture" towards the SSPX.
we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes.
If by "charity" and "compassion" you meant providing him access to the sacraments, then I agree with you. Otherwise, you're way off. I don't see how knowing the man's whole backstory should or should not prevent us from having a violent reaction to him. Unless he was an MK Ultra test subject from outer space, he deserves every bit of condemnation handed down to him.
Since we're not even debating whether he did what he has been accused of, this should have been fairly straightforward.
This thread wasn't about whether or not such a one should be punished. There's no contradiction between society bringing appropriate justice on such a one and at the same time having compassion and charity for the perpetrator, sincerely praying, "May God have mercy on your soul." whilst pulling the switch.
Evidently some people can't reconcile these two.
No, I think people took issue because of the impression that we're asking for harsh judgment on ourselves by judging a horrific criminal and his crime merely based on "the external forum." If that is your position, duly noted! I'm sure you won't mind if we pick up where we left off ?
Don't expect that the old "oh but let's pray for him" is going stifle the outrage over a truly outrageous crime. Aside from physical torture, I can't think of any way there could possibly be an overreaction (though completely understandable) to this.
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time. The minute you make a point of mentioning it, it's going to appear like you're throwing a guilt trip out there. Do it out of genuine concern for your soul and theirs, don't make it an opportunity to shove it in our faces just because you have a need to lecture.
You may not have intended it, but it sure came off that way to me at least.
Instead we get an argument about death vs. castration?
Nah, more like a sub-agreement.
-
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time.
Thus the crux of our disagreement. Our Lord demands that we find it in our hearts to pray for such as these.
-
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time.
Thus the crux of our disagreement. Our Lord demands that we find it in our hearts to pray for such as these.
How's that novena for Roman Polanski coming?
-
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time.
Thus the crux of our disagreement. Our Lord demands that we find it in our hearts to pray for such as these.
How's that novena for Roman Polanski coming?
You miss the point. No, I am not currently praying for Roman Polanski. I have so many other people to pray for that I am not drawn to pray for him specifically at this time. But that doesn't mean I could not find it in my heart to do so if the inclination struck me. I do however pray generally every day for the "conversion of sinners", no matter how bad they are.
You know, the saints genuinely considered themselves the worst of all sinners; they would have considered themselves worse than Roman Polanski. How could this be? Theologians explain this as being due to the fact that while they knew quite well all their own sins and failings in the context of all the graces they had received, they were unable to draw the same conclusions regarding sinners like Roman Polanski. This is a well-establish point of Catholic ascetical/mystical theology.
-
If you can find it in your heart to pray for wretches like these, that's fine... but do it on your own time.
Thus the crux of our disagreement. Our Lord demands that we find it in our hearts to pray for such as these.
How's that novena for Roman Polanski coming?
You miss the point. No, I am not currently praying for Roman Polanski. I have so many other people to pray for that I am not drawn to pray for him specifically at this time. But that doesn't mean I could not find it in my heart to do so if the inclination struck me. I do however pray generally every day for the "conversion of sinners", no matter how bad they are.
Well, unless you have an inclination to pray for this man specifically, that's a platitude so broad that it isn't worth mentioning.... especially when you haven't prayed for him. I'm not sure where you're going with this. Be prepared to pray if I get the inclination? Impossible not to!
I know there's some debate as to the exact English translation of the Fatima prayer, but my take on it has been "lead all souls- those who are properly disposed to receive grace- to Heaven." Obviously, that includes all of Purgatory but also sinners who stand to make good use of Christ's mercy if given another chance. It's true we never know what's going on with each individual, but for the worst cases it's perfectly fine to wait for some signs of life first before getting carried away on a prayer crusade.
If you want to go above and beyond, you're welcome to but you can't use extreme cases like this to shame everyone else. It's not what St. Therese did when she prayed for the murderer who had a last minute conversion before his just execution.
-
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.
-
On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."
For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.
In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
In fact, even the Church has always considered herself incompetent to judge matters of the internal forum, according to the maxim De internis Ecclesia non judicat. ("About internal matters the Church does not judge.")
Only God can see into the depths of souls and judge the degree of guilt that any individual has in the commission of various sins. Yet the Church does indeed judge and make presumptions of judgment based on external forum indicators.
What has happened since Vatican II is that the Concilar Prelates have decided that internal forum subjectivism OVERRIDES these external forum judgments of the Church, that subjectivist intent actually represents the true objective reality of the matter, whereas the objective action means nothing, is purely accidental to what's going on, and in the eyes of God is completely trumped by the internal forum. For them, internal forum is to external forum what substance is to accidents.
At first Vatican II did this with dogmatic theology. If someone is sincerely seeking God, then that in itself constitutes supernatural faith and charity, whether or not a person objectively has the Catholic faith. This is what has created the new subjectivist "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II.
Now, in the moral order, they're doing exactly the same thing, with this Relatio from the Synod against the Family. Despite the fact that the Church judges it objectively in the external forum to be a grave sin to cohabitate adulterously after divorce, if one has concluded in their own introspection of the internal forum that they do not have "full culpability" in the matter, then they are permitted to approach the Sacraments. So here too, in the moral order, the subjectivist dispositions of the internal forum override the objective reality of the external forum. That's clearly where Francis has been pushing his own "Who am I to judge?" agenda. Unfortunately, not even we ourselves are competent to decide our own culpability in the internal forum. But none of that trumps the judgment of the Church regarding the external forum. Can I receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin and before Confession simply because I am morally certain that I had made a perfect act of contrition? Absolutely not.
So let us make the proper distinctions between a true understanding of "Who am I to judge?" which Our Lord Himself and the Church after Him have taught and the modernist subjectivist version of the phrase. Bishop Williamson absolutely nails it on stating that all the errors of Vatican II are rooted in this subjectivism, a mindset that has grown over the years from Descartes to the Phenomenologists and gradually infected Catholicism with its rot. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both leading phenomenologists.
Even so, that counselor was the adult of the group and should have known better. There is a reason why we hold adults, and in particular adults who have supervision over other peoples' children to a higher standard. This person didn't just bring discredit on himself but he also brought discredit on the SSPX who were affiliated with that camp.
-
On a recent thread regarding the SSPX Pedophile, I advised that we Catholics should also have compassion and charity for the perpetrator. I mentioned that we don't know everything that led to these sins and we don't know whether we ourselves would not have gone down the same path had we been in his shoes. I referred to the famous statement from St. Augustine, "There but for the grace of God go I."
For this I was mocked with "Who am I to judge?" images of Francis in that thread.
In point of fact, there's a very Catholic sense in which "Who am I to judge?" is absolutely true.
Judge not, that you may not be judged, For with what judgment you judge, you shall be judged: and with what measure you mete, it shall be measured to you again.
In fact, even the Church has always considered herself incompetent to judge matters of the internal forum, according to the maxim De internis Ecclesia non judicat. ("About internal matters the Church does not judge.")
Only God can see into the depths of souls and judge the degree of guilt that any individual has in the commission of various sins. Yet the Church does indeed judge and make presumptions of judgment based on external forum indicators.
What has happened since Vatican II is that the Concilar Prelates have decided that internal forum subjectivism OVERRIDES these external forum judgments of the Church, that subjectivist intent actually represents the true objective reality of the matter, whereas the objective action means nothing, is purely accidental to what's going on, and in the eyes of God is completely trumped by the internal forum. For them, internal forum is to external forum what substance is to accidents.
At first Vatican II did this with dogmatic theology. If someone is sincerely seeking God, then that in itself constitutes supernatural faith and charity, whether or not a person objectively has the Catholic faith. This is what has created the new subjectivist "subsistence" ecclesiology of Vatican II.
Now, in the moral order, they're doing exactly the same thing, with this Relatio from the Synod against the Family. Despite the fact that the Church judges it objectively in the external forum to be a grave sin to cohabitate adulterously after divorce, if one has concluded in their own introspection of the internal forum that they do not have "full culpability" in the matter, then they are permitted to approach the Sacraments. So here too, in the moral order, the subjectivist dispositions of the internal forum override the objective reality of the external forum. That's clearly where Francis has been pushing his own "Who am I to judge?" agenda. Unfortunately, not even we ourselves are competent to decide our own culpability in the internal forum. But none of that trumps the judgment of the Church regarding the external forum. Can I receive Holy Communion after committing a mortal sin and before Confession simply because I am morally certain that I had made a perfect act of contrition? Absolutely not.
So let us make the proper distinctions between a true understanding of "Who am I to judge?" which Our Lord Himself and the Church after Him have taught and the modernist subjectivist version of the phrase. Bishop Williamson absolutely nails it on stating that all the errors of Vatican II are rooted in this subjectivism, a mindset that has grown over the years from Descartes to the Phenomenologists and gradually infected Catholicism with its rot. John Paul II and Benedict XVI were both leading phenomenologists.
-
Here is an optional prayer that is said after each decade of the Rosary.
Fatima Prayer
O my Jesus, forgive us of our sins. Save us from the fires of hell. Lead all souls into heaven, especially those in most need of thy mercy.
This prayer is for all, everyone, who needs God's mercy. We do not have to name individuals like the subject of this post, but people like him are included.
-
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.
No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.
I'd wager most people here pray the Fatima prayer, the St. Gertrude prayer, etc. but you apparently felt the need to interject during a discussion right where expressions of disgust and horror were most appropriate, in order to inform us that we ought not judge lest... because? Apparently we were being to harsh on him! I can't think of any other reason why you felt the need to do that. Maybe you thought it would be an easy win in the debate column?
Somebody must have taken notes from female debate tactics 101!
You got called on it, you didn't like it, then extended that dead end with another false dilemma, and a reminder of how wrong everyone was for reacting the way they did to you.
The cool cucuмber act is getting downright stale! You're about as transparent as plastic wrap on a toilet seat. Pull yourself together man!
:boxer:
-
You're incorrigible and hopeless.
-
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.
No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.
Inclination is maybe better described as a movement of the Holy Ghost. Human beings are too limited to think and pray for all men at all times, except in general terms, but the Holy Ghost often moves different people to pray for specific others whether they know them personally or not. The thought pops into your head that you ought to pray for someone and you are moved, inclined, disposed, to cooperate with the inspiration.
-
No, it's not a platitude, but a principle, and a teaching of Our Lord. If you consider finding the ability to pray for such a one as "optional", then you've entirely missed the message of Our Lord.
No, that's not the principle you're presenting here. It's to be "prepared to pray" in the event one has the "inclination." You've admitted you haven't prayed specifically for these men and yet you feel the need to impress on everyone the need to pray for them. Either you are saying nothing at all, or you aren't taking responsibility when caught in a contradiction.
Inclination is maybe better described as a movement of the Holy Ghost. Human beings are too limited to think and pray for all men at all times, except in general terms, but the Holy Ghost often moves different people to pray for specific others whether they know them personally or not. The thought pops into your head that you ought to pray for someone and you are moved, inclined, disposed, to cooperate with the inspiration.
I agree. But to use a "preparation for an inclination" as a silencing move, when he clearly started out saying we shouldn't judge (which later turned into a "let us pray" moment instead), simply does not work or make any sense in this case. I'm not saying we shouldn't pray for him, but let him be condemned and pay the due penalty for his actions. I would never stop anybody who has an inclination to pray, but I do object when someone takes prayer for special cases and makes it an absolute requirement for everyone else.... especially when the inclination hasn't even hit them yet. It's just classic hypocrisy.
Imagine the ego it takes to sit there and say to everyone else to make sure they prepare to have an inclination to prayer (as if that's even definable) then turn around and say I don't have time to pray for him because I'm praying for more important things.
Truly astonishing, you've outdone yourself Ladi!
You're incorrigible and hopeless.
You've got an irrepressible urge to lecture and denounce that will get you into more trouble than it's worth.