Guardian Angels
#21
(01-21-2020, 05:33 AM)KIM.T Wrote: MagisterMusicae.
I do not agree with much of what you said.

Yet you only take issue with one thing. Why not explain where you disagree and why instead of trying to give a Catechism lesson to someone who teaches Catechism?

Also you previously wrote you wished to "agree to disagree". On what? You still have not answered that question.


(01-21-2020, 05:33 AM)KIM.T Wrote: Your last sentence says :
"Yes, as to the subjective culpability, but we do not give the benefit of the doubt to objectively bad or questionable actions."

You are supposed to give the benefit of the doubt to what looks like an "objectively bad action", when you see the action performed by a known subject.
No one needs to give the benefit of the doubt to what looks like an "objectively good action".  What virtue is there in not judging in a bad light, an "objectively good action"?  Virtue lies in not judging others that are performing an action that objectively looks bad.

So again, we cannot judge Judas?

He must have had a good reason to do what he did. We should not assume he is morally culpable for selling Christ to the Jews?

We should not judge a man for going into a brothel?

The principle of not seeking to assign moral culpability is fine and good. You're just overapplying the principle to the point of destroying it.

When we see something that is objectively evil we can judge it to be evil. Murder, theft, fornication, lying, etc. are all evil actions. Anyone who does these things is doing evil. We cannot assign any certain culpability to them, indeed, but we can and it is virtuous to judge the action. Otherwise a parent could never punish a child, nor could police ever justly arrest someone, because maybe they are not actually intending evil.

Rash judgment is evil because is to judge rashly—i.e. without sufficient knowledge. Judgement of what one has sufficient knowledge of is not rash, and not sinful. It is quite necessary to leads one's life, act rightly and avoid sin.

(01-21-2020, 05:33 AM)KIM.T Wrote: To make this clear, I will give you an example : Someone on a board propagates what I know are lies about a known person. This is objectively bad, but subjectively (culpability of that lying person) I cannot tell.  I could think of that action as an evil action of "calumny" or I would follow the Church and give the liar the benefit of the doubt. I give them the benefit of the doubt by thinking: they might not know the truth, were lied to, or that they were rash in writing without deep thinking. Their culpability is known only to God.
Now if that same person (that lied) said good things about the known person (instead of lies), then there is no objectively evil action and there would be no need to give them the benefit of the doubt.

No.

The person has objectively committed calumny. "The Church" does not demand what you suggest. She demands we not rashly judge the man, or assign guilt. She demands only that we cannot see the man's culpability. We know he did an objectively evil thing. This is evident. He told a falsehood about someone. Not only is this evident, but if we know the truth, we even have a moral obligation to correct these falsehoods.

What we cannot do is judge these things as "lies" which are intentional falsehoods. That is how you give the "benefit of the doubt". The man might not know the truth, or perhaps there is some other legitimate excuse, but the man has said something false, and that is materially-speaking calumny. Whether there was malice or not is not clear unless he clearly indicates this, so until that was clear, one cannot judge the moral culpability of the man.

(01-21-2020, 05:33 AM)KIM.T Wrote: Fr Ripperger is a known exorcist very knowledgeable in his work, and you said things about him that were not charitable. You came to conclusions based on his actions/words , which now moves this into what is referred to as "subjective" judgement.  You came to your conclusions based on your own personal knowledge of the "demonic realm" and upon the words of others (this one said, and that one saw).

I pointed out verifiable facts, which lead to a very clear logical conclusion. In no way to I assert, or have I asserted that he has acted with malice, but objectively he has violated Canon Law, attacked those who pointed this out, asserted his clear violation of Canon Law was with knowledge (which he ought to have as a priest) and excused his violation of Canon Law.

I have pointed out objective actions which were objectively bad. I have not in any way made a subjective judgement of Fr Ripperger's culpability for this. I did suggest that one possible interpretation, given the sequence of events which does not seem to make sense is that Father was trying to sell his books. There are plenty of other interpretations, but it certainly is hard to give the "benefit of the doubt" when one attacks those who point out said objective violation of the law as being in league with the devil.

There is nothing uncharitible about identifying clear public facts about a public figure, especially when someone is putting him up as an expert or reliable source. In fact it is prudent to examine our sources, and test their reliability. This is even more important when that figure is an expert or noteworthy figure. They have a particularly grave duty towards acting rightly. That is even more the case with an exorcist, since he, of all people, must know that the devil will use every type of legalism, every venial sin, and even mere material violations of the law against such a one.

In short, there is almost no excuse for an intelligent, well-trained priest who is obliged by his office to know moral theology, dogmatic theology and Canon Law, to violate the latter and excuse his violation is inconsequential. Perhaps there is some "doubt" which could be given here, but I find it difficult to do so, given the office and responsibilities that such a man has. Nevertheless, I never said, nor would say that subjectively, Fr Ripperger is guilty of some sin, because that would be rash judgement.

I would add that one's knowledge is somewhat immaterial to whether they have violated a law or not, so even if Fr Ripperger is a "very knowledgable" that does not really matter here. A very knowledgeable person can both do wrong things and also be incorrect.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#22
MagisterMusicae,
Lack of time causes me to limit myself to answering what is important (or most important). But agreeing to disagree is sometimes the best action to take. After quoting the Bible and/or the CCC, what other authority can I quote? So the wisest thing is to agree to disagree
Reply
#23
(01-21-2020, 07:29 AM)KIM.T Wrote: MagisterMusicae,
Lack of time causes me to limit myself to answering what is important (or most important). But agreeing to disagree is sometimes the best action to take.  After quoting the Bible and/or the CCC, what other authority can I quote? So the wisest thing is to agree to disagree

You have quoted authorities, but then misapplied the quotations against plain common sense and reason, as I have clearly shown.

You accused me of sin, contrary to your own stated principles, I would point out.

You said I violated Charity. That is to accuse someone of sin, at least venial. You have judged my words uncharitible, but I thought you were supposed to give the benefit of the doubt.

Now you don't seem to have time to defend your accusation. 

Curious.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#24
MagisterMusicae,
I think you are mixing up judging "deeds" and judging "intentions". We are allowed the former but not allowed the latter.
When Christ said "by their deeds you shall know them" he meant for us to judge the outward acts (deeds) as good or bad. When He said "thou shalt not judge etc....." He meant for us not to judge the intention of the person committing the outwardly bad act.

Here is an example to make things clear.
If a person curses another person publicly, I am allowed to judge the fruit (deed) of that person as not charitable (cursing others in public is not charitable). What I cannot do is judge the intention (culpability) of the curser by saying that he is doing it because "he hates him" or "he wants to make money" etc....


We all learn about people (good or bad) by their outward actions. A mother that sees a friend of her kid cursing, will judge this as a bad thing, and will not allow her kids to see this cursing kid. If a person is always drinking alcohol and fighting with others, his friends will judge him as "not good to be with and he is dangerous" and they limit their exposure to that person. In these two cases what the mother, and the friends of the alcoholic did, is justifiable. Judging the intention of the cruising kid, and the alcoholic, is what the Church says we should not do.


What the Church teaches can actually be reached using logic. Can you imagine a mom not judging that a drug addict is not good for her child to hang around with? Can you imagine a father thinking that his kid drinking a bottle of whisky every night is not wrong? We judge outward actions all the time.

So for me to say your words are not charitable (re Fr Ripperger) is judging the outward deed as Christ implies for us to do (by their deeds you shall know them). I never judged your intention as evil or sinful. I did not call it calumny or detraction or anything of that sort. since I cannot read your conscience. I leave that to God.
Reply
#25
KIM.T

Care to outline your credentials? Magister Musicae was trained in logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law in a Traditional seminary. I'm just curious what your training is.
Jovan-Marya of the Immaculate Conception Weismiller, T.O.Carm.

Vive le Christ-roi! Vive le roi, Louis XX!
Deum timete, regem honorificate.
Kansan by birth! Albertan by choice! Jayhawk by the Grace of God!
“Qui me amat, amet et canem meum. (Who loves me will love my dog.)” 
St Bernard of Clairvaux

My Blog 'Musings of an Old Curmudgeon'
FishEaters Group on MeWe
Reply
#26
(01-19-2020, 04:51 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(01-19-2020, 04:22 AM)KIM.T Wrote: I heard from Fr Ripperger, the famous exorcist, that there exists certain evil generational spirits that are sort of inherited from parent to child. Some persons make a pact with the devil and hand him their children and their children's children etc.....These people have a tougher fight with evil, than those whose ancestors loved and served God. 
Fr Ripperger said that sometimes just going to confession gets rid of these generational spirits.
So one should not lose trust in God and His angels because bad things happened to them as kids. Any thoughts that bring us far from God are not from a good spirit. I had my share of evil happening to me as a child and I just brush it off. I think it is wise to dwell on positive things, once we start the spiritual journey towards Heaven.

Generational Spirits are a load of hooey.

The idea that one who makes a pact with the devil or invited the devil in by false worship can cause problems for his family for several generations in Scriptural. In Exodus 20:5-6, God says (as an explanation of the First Commandment), "Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth. Thou shalt not adore them, nor serve them: I am the Lord thy God, mighty, jealous, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me."

So yes, that kind of diabolical problems are certainly true.

However, you misrepresent Fr Ripperger's idea of "Generational Spirits".

In one online article he clearly defines what he means : "What's a generational spirit? It's one in which if parents commit particular kinds of sins, they open the door to demons inserting themselves into their family life, and it gets passed from generation to generation."

Thus, if your father were an alcoholic then the same alcoholic demon that is attacking him, might be passed it to you, and if you are seeing signs of alcoholism you should buy his book of deliverance prayers to be delivered from this demon and break this curse. If dad had a habit of masturbation, look out, you might also because of a demon.

This idea does not find any support in Catholic teaching, and in fact seems to war against several passages in Scripture as well as the rite of Baptism. It also sounds very much like the New-Agey Pentecostal "Catholic" "Generational Healing" and not anything traditional.

To be fair, however, certainly when parents rob their children of a good formation for any reason be it alcoholism, abuse, a failure to take seriously the Faith, or even simply parents not living in the state of grace or not praying and sacrificing for their children and thus losing the many graces their children need, it is not surprising that the children grow up malformed and worse that their parents, and so their own children are yet worse. No devil need be posited to explain this, and since the Thomstic principle is that we never look for a supernatural or praeternatural cause when natural causes sufficiently explain things, there is no good reason to presume a devil. Bad parenting explains it pretty well.

However, if you want to sell some unapproved books of deliverance prayers and justify speaking engagements ... the devil's in the details.


In all fairness, I heard Fr Ripperger say that though the book has no imprimatur, all the prayers in it are actually approved. Sorry I don't have time to find the link. but I know that's what I heard him say in an interview.
Oh my Jesus, I surrender myself to you. Take care of everything.--Fr Dolindo Ruotolo

Persevere..Eucharist, Holy Rosary, Brown Scapular, Confession. You will win.
Reply
#27
(01-21-2020, 08:19 PM)JacafamalaRedux Wrote: In all fairness, I heard Fr Ripperger say that though the book has no imprimatur, all the prayers in it are actually approved. Sorry I don't have time to find the link. but I know that's what I heard him say in an interview.

I am familiar with that. This was his first excuse when he was questioned about it by some priests. It was mentioned above already.

Even if that were true, that all the prayers came from sources previously given an imprimatur, that is still a clear violation of Canon Law. All prayer books, according to Canon Law (Canon 826 §3), require an Imprimatur, no matter if the content was previously approved or not (Canon 829). The imprimatur covers only the original edition and any exact photostatic reprints.
[-] The following 1 user Likes MagisterMusicae's post:
  • jovan66102
Reply
#28
(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: KIM.T

Care to outline your credentials? Magister Musicae was trained in logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law in a Traditional seminary. I'm just curious what your training is.

I am sorry but I cannot divulge any of that. All I can tell you is that I went beyond a master's degree.
Reply
#29
(01-21-2020, 09:07 PM)KIM.T Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: KIM.T

Care to outline your credentials? Magister Musicae was trained in logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law in a Traditional seminary. I'm just curious what your training is.

I am sorry but I cannot divulge any of that. All I can tell you is that I went beyond a master's degree.

In?
Reply
#30
(01-21-2020, 09:17 PM)MagisterMusicae Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 09:07 PM)KIM.T Wrote:
(01-21-2020, 07:00 PM)jovan66102 Wrote: KIM.T

Care to outline your credentials? Magister Musicae was trained in logic, philosophy, theology, and canon law in a Traditional seminary. I'm just curious what your training is.

I am sorry but I cannot divulge any of that. All I can tell you is that I went beyond a master's degree.

In?


Sorry, cannot discuss any of that. Do you mind me asking you why do you want to know?
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)