Generational Healing (GH): Revisit

A sibling has gotten into this and believed that it has helped resolved her problems. She has decided to promote this thing among friends and relatives but she couldn’t answer my question on efficacy of Baptism to provide a clean slate and on freewill related issues.

Catholic priests such Fr John H. Hampsch and Protestant Kenneth McCall have written books promoting this subject. I see 2 camps within the Catholic community advocating for and against GH. I am anti-GH but I am pro-healing through prayers and healing masses. I do have difficulty absorbing the implications for baptism and freewill if GH is Church accepted/approved.

Currently I have 2 sources that sort of support my view. There are many more I suppose but these will be sufficient.

ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/feb2003p12_1239.html
ad2000.com.au/articles/2003/mar2003p12_1264.html
catholic.org/news/international/asia/story.php?id=25913

I am seeking documentary proof that GH is either Church approved or disapproved. Writings from Church Fathers, Popes, Saints, Councils etc will be welcomed too.

Bible verses abound supporting either camps. I am interested to understand the theology behind GH, either for or against. I am not denying that people have been helped by GH but I’d like to sort out the correct understanding. Sometimes people are helped although genuinely mistaken as to the proper understanding of the efficacy of the medicine that they took.

I think Father Joesph capably refutes this new-age nonsense in his articles. What do you find lacking? The Church has never taught that we are punished for the sins of our parents.

You won’t find any Church teaching against this idea. The Church does not teach about what the Church does not teach. This is just one of millions of wacky ideas out there that the Church doesn’t teach. The Church makes no effort to refute all those ideas. Only if one gains serious traction would the Church take notice (and this is going nowhere).

That’s not strictly true. The Church HAS taught against this, in the person of Fr. Joseph. He is “only” a priest, and is not protected by infallibility, but he is an ordained representative of the Church and does carry some measure of authority. It’s not the Vatican, but it’s not just some guy with a blog, either.

And, of course, you won’t find any Church teachings that support this idea, because it’s nonsense.

So we’re left with good 'ol common sense, based on what we do know (such as the function of Baptism). As Fr. Joesph eloquently puts it (emphasis mine):

The belief in ancestral or generational curses, etc, is a perversion of the Catholic doctrine of Original Sin, which suffices to explain the evils and imperfections in this world. The remedy is baptismal regeneration and the life of Grace, not special exorcisms and healing rites, etc.

Some Catholics claiming to expel the influence of troublesome ancestors are really just misled by New Age influences, which play upon desperate people’s sensitivities and susceptibilities. It is typical of the new agers to teach others to look elsewhere than themselves for the source of their problems. This is a big problem in today’s world, namely refusing to take responsibility for our own choices and decisions. So some seek to blame their parents, or ancestors, or evil spirits, or a curse that was placed upon them.

It is also extremely imprudent to tell people afflicted with fears that their problems are caused by demons or ancestors binding them. Such explanations are only calculated to make them worse. What they do need is formation in the virtues of fortitude and trust in God.

I do side with Father Joseph’s views. However, one who is pro-GH can cite Father John H. Hampsch credentials as well.

“listed in Who’s Who in Religion in America. He has served as parish priest, seminary professor and rector, professor in four universities, lecturer, magazine writer, newspaper columnist, editor, retreat master, hospital chaplain, prison chaplain, campus chaplain, Cursillo director and director of suicide prevention programs in Texas and California.”

When folks with credentials take opposing views, I was hoping they would have taken it to the Church for dispute settlement. Or hope someone has.

That sibling of mine when could not made any headway convincing me of GH, she tried to go behind me and tried to get my wife to participate ( need to list down your parents/grandparents roots etc). My missus sounded me out not knowing the previous discussions that I had. Of course I was upset. Now I am more determine to put a brake on to this GH nonsense. But I need solid evidence from the Church to back me up.

That older sibling of mine has a stubborn streak and tend to brush aside any mental obstacles to GH. I brought up baptism and she just kept quiet and said that GH works for her and that’s that. I didn’t know she was going to actively promote it.

If anyone can has anything useful to counter this GH thing, please do share.

Well, unfortunately, that’s true. It comes down to who makes the most sense. This places the laity in the position of judging priests, instead of trusting them implicitly.

Fr. Hampsch cites passages from the Old Testament to back him up - such as David’s son being killed for his (David’s) sin. None of this takes into account the ministry of Jesus and the salvation of Christian Baptism. These are things that the Church DOES teach about (at length), and Fr. Joseph applies these teachings to the topic.

Of course, there are also priests who embrace the charismatic movement, enneagrams, and any number of other ideas that are not founded in Catholic spirituality.

ericc.

You said:

QUOTE:
A sibling has gotten into this and believed that it has helped resolved her problems. She has decided to promote this thing among friends and relatives but she couldn’t answer my question on efficacy of Baptism to provide a clean slate and on freewill related issues.

What was your question to your sister regarding the efficacy of Baptism as it related to the effects of intergenerational sin/generational healing?

She said generational sins could affect current generation. Actually she tried to use verbage similar to that for Original Sin, i.e. stain of sin aka effect of sin. I asked , isn’t baptism efficacious in wiping clean all prior sins? Because if what she claim is true, then baptism is not 100% effective.

ericc. It sounds like YOU already know, but there may be readers of this thread who don’t know about original sin . . . so let’s do the “quick-view” on original sin.

Original Sin is a lack or “privation” or “deprivation” of sanctifying grace.

Original sin changed our very nature. Since the best parents can do is pass on their nature to their children, we pass-on this fallen deprived nature to our children.

CCC 405 Although it is proper to each individual,295 original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam’s descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ’s grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

CCC 417 Adam and Eve transmitted to their descendants human nature wounded by their own first sin and hence deprived of original holiness and justice; this deprivation is called “original sin”.

CCC 418 As a result of original sin, human nature is weakened in its powers, subject to ignorance, suffering and the domination of death, and inclined to sin (this inclination is called “concupiscence”).


Now on the Baptism aspects, etc. . . .

Baptism GIVES sanctifying grace.

Baptism heals the wounded human nature.

Baptism GIVES us the Holy Spirit and gives us the life of God in us including supernatural faith, hope, and charity which we need to please God.

Baptism IS as you said, 100% “efficacious in wiping clean all prior sins” (and original sin) and the temporal punishment for those sins too.

Yet temporal consequences to sin REMAIN after Baptism including “weakness of character.”

CCC 1264a Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, . . .

I hear as a frequent mischaracterization of the trans-generational and intergenerational healing advocates, that you are “accountable” for your ancestors sins in the sense of your judgment.

YET NOBODY is or ever has been held accountable on their judgment for their ancestors sins OK? When I am judged some day, God is NOT going to say: “Well your great grandfather did THIS so I am holding YOU accountable Cathoholic!” No!

God has never done that and never would do that. . . . That being said . . .

God will/does allow the EFFECTS OF SIN to be trans-generational and intergenerational.

It is a mystery WHY these effects of evil are seen and passed on, but Baptism does not do away with all these things (as the CCC 1264 explains).

If an infant who was never Baptized gets beat-up (or worse) by a brutal caretaker . . . if you go and Baptize that infant the bruising doesn’t go away from the Baptism does it?

There are EFFECTS of that sin that remain in that infant and in society as well.

MATTHEW 24:12 12 And because wickedness is multiplied, most men’s love will grow cold.

Do inappropriate thoughts and opinions regarding the transgenerational and intergenerational healing movement exist? Of course.

Are there people who try to use prayers or formulas as a counterfeit/surrogate for the Sacraments? Yes.

But Father Hampsch isn’t one of those people who ignores the healing effects of the sacraments (as one of your AD2000 articles that you cited implies).

Fr. Hampsch sees the Sacraments as our primary spiritual gifts to fight back against the EFFECTS of evil (see here).

Also people like Father Hampsch and Father Ssemakula (see here) see not as a “replacement” for the sacraments in fighting the effects of sin, but as something to augment or supplement or “beef-up” our sacramental life.

“Baptism . . . . summon(s) him (us) to spiritual battle” as CCC 405 states, not replaces this battle that we are now empowered for and called to do.

Here is what you stated (bold and ul mine):

QUOTE:
She said generational sins could affect current generation. Actually she tried to use verbage similar to that for Original Sin, i.e. stain of sin aka effect of sin. I asked , isn’t baptism efficacious in wiping clean all prior sins? Because if what she claim is true, then baptism is not 100% effective.

Your sister is right AND you are right. But your are not talking about the same senses. Until you and your sister define your meanings, it will be difficult for you to understand what she is saying. I think she is talking about the EFFECTS (“affect”) of sin is on an individual or society transgenerationally and intergenerationally.

This temporal effects of sins running through generations is pretty classic Catholic teaching.

The issue is, what gifts are we given to mitigate these effects? HOW are we “summoned” to battle, that the Sacrament of Baptism empowers us but ALSO summons us to?

Does this answer your question?

God bless.

Cathoholic

ericc

In my re-reading and reviewing this thread, I said:

But Father Hampsch isn’t one of those people who ignores the healing effects of the sacraments (as one of your AD2000 articles from 2003— ‘Healing the family tree’: New Age under the guise of religion— that you cited implies).

What I meant to say is:

If you take the first AD2000 article, even in its best light, it would be easy to draw inappropriate conclusions about priests like Father Hampsch or Father Ssemakula because it lumps all of these healing ministries together.

Yes neither Father Hampsch or Father Ssemakula were specifically mentioned in the article and I wanted to clarify that before someone thinks otherwise.

But with the AD2000 article beginning: A major example of this (confusion) is the current fad for “Healing the family tree” . . . . It is hard not to discard Father Hampsch or Father Ssemakula’s healing ministries.

It would be hard NOT to think merely because these healing ministries exist, they must be “New Age” or perversions of Catholic teaching—neither of which would be true.

And it would be wrong to do so (to discard Father Hampsch or Father Ssemakula’s healing ministries).

As Anne Lastmann stated in her response letter (here). . . .

. . . . . this would be throwing out the “baby with the bath water”.

For example, you apparently linked the AD2000 article to Father Hampsch’s ministry (which is my point—this conclusion could easily but wrongly be drawn and applied to people like Father Hampsch and even just as wrongly concluded of Father Hampsch or others being involved in New Age practices!).

You stated:

I do side with Father Joseph’s views. However, one who is pro-GH can cite Father John H. Hampsch credentials as well.

So you evidently saw Fr. Hampsch’s ministry as an example of being involved in (as part of the AD2000 article title states) “New Age under the guise of religion”.

(Correct me if I am mistaken, but it seems like you drew that conclusion)

It would be inappropriate to debase all “Healing the family tree” ministries merely because abuses exist in some of the “Healing the family tree” movements.

The follow-up AD2000 article (here) brings up an array of irrelevant points to dealing with the effects of intergenerational and transgenerational sin such as . . . .

[LIST]
*]“naming your guardian angel”
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]“women worrying about miscarriages are impeding the happiness of their babies”
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]“No one knows for sure what St Paul is referring to when he mentions Corinthians “baptising on behalf of the dead”
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]The Rite of “Exorcism” (which assumes the Priest is dealing with a possessed person if they get that far—not someone merely suffering from effects intergenerational sin).
[/LIST]

These above objections in the AD2000 article are non-sequiturs concerning the healing of intergenerational sin effects.

I am not saying these points should not be addressed. I am just saying they have little or nothing to do with the fact that intergenerational sin and transgenerational sin effects exist. AND that there can be things done to mitigate such effects.

[LIST]
*]Just because intergenerational sin effects exist, doesn’t mean someone is possessed.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]Just because intergenerational sin effects exist, doesn’t mean people in that movement (per se) are assigning names to their guardian angel (some might be, some NOT in that movement might be doing so too).
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]Just because intergenerational sin effects exist, doesn’t mean people trying to make others aware of the fact that transgenerational/intergenerational sin effects exist are running around baptizing their miscarried babies either.
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]Just because intergenerational sin effects exist, doesn’t mean people in that movement are labeling people suffering from these effects of sin as “demon-possessed”.
[/LIST]


The Korean Bishops statement was also irrelevant to this intergenerational healing concept.

As the article you cited states: the Korean Bishops were addressing the bogus teaching that “people inherit their ancestors’ sins”.

This is NOT what intergenerational sin effects concern.

People DON’T inherit their ancestors’ sins. Frankly, I’ve never heard that taught . . . ever.

I believe it has been taught in Korea (where paganism is rampant), otherwise the Bishops there would not have addressed the topic. And the Korean Bishops responded appropriately to it!

We don’t inherit (for example) grandma and grandpa’s sins . . . but due to the effects of grandma and grandpa’s sins, . . . . the PROPENSITY for us picking up that sin OR SUFFERING from the effects of grandma and grandpa’s sins REMAINS.

The intergenerational/transgenerational healing ministry movement has to do with mitigating or even removing altogether these effects from sin.


This (two-part AD2000) article you cited is irrelevant to the transgenerational and intergenerational sin effects issue.

Are there loony examples among intergenerational/transgenerational healing ministry movement proponents? Yes of course. But there are also loony spiritual examples to people who claim to deny effects of sin transgenerationally and intergenerationally as well.

Thanks for your informative post. However, from your post, it sounds like you do accept that we suffer from the “effects” of intergenerational sin and that Baptism doesn’t cure it and hence the need for such GH ministries. I would like to ask for your sources that this is Church teaching. If that is true, then my sister’s stance would be supported and I in the wrong. Of course proving that linkage to intergerational sin is a separate thing entirely. And I am not sure those OT verses extend to Gentiles.

My attention is on the effect of sin, not inherited defects from DNA for example. In John 9:3, Jesus made it clear it wasn’t the man’s sin or his parents. But what you are saying that there could be the effects of intergenerational sins and I am troubled by that since I do not accept that as Church teaching at present. If I am in the wrong, I can be persuaded.

It appears that you accept the theory of “effects” of ancestral sins other than OS. Can you point me to your sources as to Church teaching on this topic or share your list of scriptural support? If this is indeed Church teaching, then my sister would be right and I be wrong. If this is indeed Church teaching, I may need to go retrain my brain.

BTW, your catechism quote “CCC 1264a Yet certain temporal consequences of sin remain in the baptized, such as suffering, illness, death, and such frailties inherent in life as weaknesses of character, and so on, . . .” is with respect to OS and not ancestral sins is it not? Or does ancestral sin possess this character as well?

If indeed “effects” of ancestral sin can be prayed over and vanquished, I don’t see why we need to stop there. We should go all the way back to Adam/Eve. Heal the Original Family Tree and our concupiscence problem will be solved. But I don’t think that’s how it works.

Then what did Jesus teach us in John 9:3 then? I am not saying that one’s sickness may not be due to DNA genetics. This is entirely the workings of God. But that weakness may not necessarily be attributed to ancestral sin, effects or not. If my ancestors have DNA defects of some sort, then descendants may picked up some of those defects. Why blame it on their sins? Why point a finger to that item? Current problems due to genetics or our own personal errors can be prayed over and we can ask for God’s help.

Anyway, we have no way of knowing whether we are suffering from a family tree problem unless supernaturally revealed. It could be evil spirits troubling us because of something we did. Attributing blame to someone else with no capability of response is bad and probably sinful. It would more or less come to “great great grandpa did this bad thing and I am suffering for it”. Praying for healing is good. Attributing healing due a misidentified cause/effect is not. Won’t that be voodoo catholicism?

ericc. You asked:

QUOTE:
It appears that you accept the theory of “effects” of ancestral sins other than OS. Can you point me to your sources as to Church teaching on this topic or share your list of scriptural support?

Yes I can. Great question and I will try to get to it soon.

You also asked:

QUOTE:
Then what did Jesus teach us in John 9:3 then?

All that John 9:1-3 shows is that THIS MAN was not blind because of sins from his parents sins and that THIS MAN was not blind because of the effect of **his own sins **either.

(But that doesn’t mean people don’t have effects from “their own sin” or effects from the sins)

Jesus warns a man in John 5:14 . . .

JOHN 5:14 14 Afterward, Jesus found him in the temple, and said to him, “See, you are well! Sin no more, that nothing worse befall you.”

(John 9:1-3 ALSO doesn’t mean people don’t have effects from the sins of their ancestors in every case or that this man had NO OTHER effects from his own sins or sins of his parents)

JOHN 9:1-3 1 As he passed by, he saw a man blind from his birth. 2 And his disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?” 3 Jesus answered, "It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be made manifest in him.

**Blindness in THIS man is NOT from **
[LIST]
*]His parents sin
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]His own sin
[/LIST]

**But this set of verses does NOT show that there are NEVER any effects from sin in anyone from . . . . **
[LIST]
*]Their parents sins
[/LIST]
[LIST]
*]Their own sins
[/LIST]

But someone’s sin CAN effect their children.

Someone’s sin CAN effect their kids. If a dad abandons his family, his sin will have effects on his kids (and himself).

If a guy constantly drinks alcohol to excess he will have effects from his sin (he may have liver failure).

These are quite obvious, but I just use them for the principle, not for the situations per se.

Pope John Paul II knew there were effects upon us from the sins of our forefathers. That’s WHY he issued acknowledgments and apologies for these sins (see here).

Grace comes with such admissions too.

LEVITICUS 26:40-42a 40 But if they confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers in their treachery which they committed against me, and also in walking contrary to me, 41 so that I walked contrary to them and brought them into the land of their enemies; if then their uncircumcised heart is humbled and they make amends for their iniquity; 42 then I will remember my covenant with Jacob, and I will remember my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham . . .

I’ll try to dig up more here soon and I will give you some Biblical and Catholic catechetical citations that have more information.

Keep up the great work ericc and I’ll get back here hopefully w/in a day or so.

I’d hesitate to argue from silence though.

But someone’s sin CAN effect their children.

Someone’s sin CAN effect their kids. If a dad abandons his family, his sin will have effects on his kids (and himself).

If a guy constantly drinks alcohol to excess he will have effects from his sin (he may have liver failure).

I think we need to differentiate these types of self inflicted mistakes that can have a biological after effect. One can also inflict injury that has lasting effect on someone’s family line too. Example causing DNA damage to another by exposing that person to damaging radioactive materials or dangerous chemicals. Or terminating employment of another that has lasting effect on the wealth/health of the affected party etc. Perhaps an ancestral sin that has no such after effects such as murder of a third party or cursing own family line and so on would give a clearer picture. If you know what I mean.

If one has a propensity to sin caused by ancestral sins, then one can deny self-responsibility. If one were to suffer, then it appears patently unjust paying for someone misdeed. I am not sure whether those OT quotes are still relevant as they pertain to Israelites only and not Gentiles. After all, we don’t observe most of those conditions except the 10 commandments at the off the top of my head. Anyway, I look forward to your ancestral sins resources. That should be an interesting read. Thanks!

The temporal effects of sin are a matter of cause and effect.

If you are worried about them, for yourself or others, the traditional way is to get a plenary indulgence for yourself or for others (by doing the normal stuff like praying, going to Confession, receiving Communion, etc.), to have Masses said for your intention or for your dead, and to perform acts of reparation (prayer, almsgiving, and good works).

If “intergenerational sin” is just the temporal effects of sin, you don’t need “healing the family tree.”

If “intergenerational sin” can’t be dealt with in the normal ways I listed above, it’s not just the temporal effects of sin. You don’t need any kind of exorcism or special ceremony for temporal effects.

Having a Mass said is the most powerful prayer there is. I don’t see why you’d need anything else, frankly.

Ericc. You said:

QUOTE:
I’d hesitate to argue from silence though.

Agreed. That’s why I cited John 5:14 and said I’d get into other verses.

My point was not to “argue from silence.” My point was, you asked . . .

Then what did Jesus teach us in John 9:3 then?

Jesus taught us (in John 9:3) that THIS guy’s troubles wasn’t from his sin (unlike the guy in John 5), and that this guy’s troubles wasn’t from his parents sin.

That’s all. I’m not trying to use this as an apologetic for the existence of intergenerational sin. Merely trying to answer your question AND show what John 9:1-3 WASN’T teaching.

Jesus’ teaching here concerned “This man”, not all possibilities.


Mintaka. You said:

QUOTE:
Having a Mass said is the most powerful prayer there is. I don’t see why you’d need anything else, frankly.

I think having a Mass said is GREAT! But sometimes God wants us to do battle beyond this.

You also mentioned:

QUOTE:
The temporal effects of sin are a matter of cause and effect.

If you are worried about them, for yourself or others, the traditional way is to get a plenary indulgence for yourself or for others . . .

We know that you receive plenary indulgences to do away with the temporal punishment that we still had due concerning an account of our forgiven sin. (We can receive indulgences for others but for now I will just concentrate on ourselves to make the concepts easier to grasp).

But sin has more effects than accruing punishment for our sin.

For example:

If a woman has an abortion, later regrets it, repents, goes to Confession etc. . . . She may go and carry out a plenary indulgence. Her temporal punishment is accounted for by the Treasury of Merit that the Church makes available to her. . . . . Yet . . . .

. . . Yet on the anniversary of her abortion maybe she still has overwhelming grief.
Maybe she still has crying jags.
Maybe she has to wrestle again with the anger she has re-kindled against her old boyfriend who urged her to kill her baby, then abandoned her anyway.
Maybe she has to forgive YET again her mother, who told her: “the abortion would be the best for all concerned here sweetie.”
Maybe she has new issues that develop when she finds out she is now sterile because the infection of her uterus after the abortion scarred over her tubes.
Maybe she still wrestles with anger against men.
Maybe she still wrestles with anger against herself and her resultant frequent “cutting” has caused another infection on her arm.
Maybe she will be tempted to drink away her pain.
Maybe she is thinking about doing away with this new pregnancy that she is faced with because she concludes, “Because of abortion number one, I don’t deserve a husband who loves me and I don’t deserve this baby so now I will entertain having abortion number two!”
Maybe, maybe, maybe.

We don’t tell these people to just go get a Mass said and go in peace, be warmed and filled.

JAMES 2:15-16 15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, 16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit?

(Yes James 2:15-16 concerns a corporal work of mercy, but the same principle can be applied to spiritual works of mercy such as “To comfort the afflicted” or “To pray for the living” [and the dead].)

There are a lot of other issues that need taking care of, that “a plenary indulgence” does not account for.

Let me also be crystal clear.

**I say the Sacraments are the primary weapons we are given for healing in these instances **. . . but I wouldn’t say . . .

[LIST]
*]I wouldn’t say . . . “Well don’t PRAY then too because after all, the Sacraments are to be used for healing.
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]I wouldn’t say . . . “Well quit that counseling that you are getting from your Priest over this issue. After all, the Sacraments are to be used for healing!”
[/LIST]

[LIST]
*]I wouldn’t say . . . “Well quit fasting and quit almsgiving for the graces to help you forgive that abortionist or that old boyfriend, or your mom.”
[/LIST]

That would be non-sense. The Sacraments equip us for the battle, not eliminate the battle.

You also said:

QUOTE:
You don’t need any kind of exorcism or special ceremony for temporal effects.

“Exorcism” is a special Rite that has a special purpose concerning people who are possessed by a demon or demons.

“Exorcism” is NOT what we are talking about here. I see a lot of people struggle to make arguments against intergenerational or transgenerational sin effects and ways to heal from this. When they cannot make the case they resort to non-sequiturs such as the things I said in post 8. It happens every time. Which suggests to me there is misunderstanding here.

And if these misunderstandings can be eliminated, we can concentrate on more sublime aspects of this whole area–like healing.

Concerning the lack of need for a “special ceremony” . . . . YOU just suggested having a Mass said for people suffering from effects of sin.

Yes the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is MORE than a mere “special ceremony” but you seem to be taking a contradicting position here to what you said earlier.


What do you think righteous King Josiah was talking about if not intergenerational EFFECTS of sin, when he said:

2nd KINGS 2:13b Great is the LORD’s anger that burns against us because those who have gone before us have not obeyed the words of this book; they have not acted in accordance with all that is written there concerning us.”

ericc

I was discussing this thread the other day with my wife. She pointed out that when people hear about healing from transgenerational and intergenerational sin effects, they immediately see . . . . groups of people hollering out prayers, people laying hands on other people, strange rituals, :eek: etc.

No wonder people get frightened of this.

As I said before, the healing ministries CAN be abused.

I would be very careful about who I let lay hands on me to pray! I would be cautious about WHO is running these “healing ministries” and what ties they have to the Catholic Church.

That Being Said . . . . Don’t figuratively, "Throw Out The Baby With The Bathwater"

That being said, some people need special help so we don’t want to toss out all healing ministerial aspects.

The best ones to carry out healing are usually Catholic Priests who discern what certain people need. Others might be who these Priests may recommend (i.e. a Psychiatrist or Psychologist as ancillary help to the Priest comes to mind. Or sometimes the Priest will recommend a trustworthy mentor. Etc.)

The Priest may have the person say a Chaplet of Divine Mercy daily at the 3’O Clock hour. He may have the person do an extra decade of the Rosary. Perhaps do the Stations of the Cross on Fridays, or some such suggestion. Possibly the Priest may feel the need to pray over a person in need of healing occasionally.

Devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus

Pope John XXIII calls devotion to the Precious Blood of Jesus a “marvelous manifestation of divine mercy toward individuals and Holy Church and the whole world redeemed and saved by Jesus Christ” (Pope John XXIII’s 1960 Apostolic Letter is, here and here in English, and Latin here], and in Spanish here]).

Our Bishops (USCCB) have the Litany of the Most Precious Blood posted here (and EWTN has it posted here and Our Catholic Prayers has it here) for those who may be interested. As Our Catholic Prayers tells us, “The Litany of the Most Precious Blood was approved for public use in 1960 by Pope John XXIII”.

Pope John Paul II has prayed The Chaplet of The Divine Mercy at the tomb of St. Faustina. He must have done that for a reason (either for himself, or as an example to us, or both).

These are some of the “extracurricular activities” that the Priest MAY ask a penitent to carry out for help in their healing.


But let’s get back to the existence of this phenomenon of the effects of transgenerational and intergenerational sin.

First let’s look at an example of transgenerational effects of sin.

We’ll use the sin of “adultery” as an example of how this affects not only the people involved, not only their children, but also our whole society!

ROMAN CATECHISM But the reason why adultery is expressly forbidden is because in addition to the turpitude which it shares with other kinds of incontinence, it adds the sin of injustice, not only against our neighbour, but also against civil society.

CCC 2385 Divorce is immoral also because it introduces disorder into the family and into society. This disorder brings grave harm to the deserted spouse, to children traumatized by the separation of their parents and often torn between them, and because of its contagious effect which makes it truly a plague on society.

Concerning the way we live, we have people around us who see our example and conduct. This in turn affects the conduct of others—both GOOD and BAD conduct.

That is WHY we have the General Judgment—Because justice DEMANDS it. Because our good AND bad conduct just proverbially “keeps on giving”. Our good and bad conduct has a ripple effect.

And even for those who do not succumb to the bad examples, they are still going to be TEMPTED (SUFFER Temptation) in ways they might not have been if it weren’t for these effects.

I want to illustrate an example of GOOD intergenerational effects too because sometimes we can get caught up thinking this ONLY has to do with sin.

I want to look at the obedience of Abraham in his willingness to offer Isaac his only beloved son (Genesis 22:2, 22:12, and 22:16), who carried the wood up the hill for a sacrifice. (And later a lamb, I mean a ram, had a “crown of thorns” on its head as its head was caught in a thicket bush).

Not only was Abraham rewarded for his obedience but ALL the descendants of Abraham and “all the nations of the earth” as well! This is an example of intergenerational effects of good works (done in some sort of grace).

GENESIS 22:15-18 15 And the angel of the LORD called to Abraham a second time from heaven, 16 and said, "By myself I have sworn, says the LORD, because you have done this, and have not withheld your son, your only son, 17 I will indeed bless you, and I will multiply your descendants as the stars of heaven and as the sand which is on the seashore. And your descendants shall possess the gate of their enemies, 18 and by your descendants shall all the nations of the earth bless themselves, because you have obeyed my voice."

Continued next post . . .

Continuation of last post . . . .

Moses likewise talked about this situation and ALSO told us our choices can have good ramifications or bad ramifications for our descendants.

DEUTERONOMY 30:19 19 I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and curse; therefore choose life, that you and your descendants may live

When God says . . . .

EXODUS 20:5-6 5b I the LORD your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, 6 but showing steadfast love to thousands of those who love me and keep my commandments.

EXODUS 34:6b-9 6b the LORD, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness, 7 keeping steadfast love for thousands, forgiving iniquity and transgression and sin, but who will by no means clear the guilty, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children and the children’s children, to the third and the fourth generation."

I see the fact that the iniquity is only visited upon three or four generations as a great gift (without God’s intervention it could be much worse).

But I think with prayer and repentance, this “visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children” can perhaps be even further mitigated!

THIS is where an authentic healing ministry can be helpful to those suffering.

Now certainly someone is going to say the Sacraments are our primary weapons in this battle—and I’d agree!

But there is also Eucharistic Adoration, the Rosary, and many other means the Lord gives us through the authority of His Church that He wants us to utilize.

And the Seven Sacraments are not going to DIRECTLY help your neighbor who may not only disparage Catholicism, but he/she may not even be a Christian at all (of course Baptism helps for those who have had it assuming the person isn’t rejecting their Baptism).

I’ll try to get back soon to give more on this subject that you asked about ericc.

I have to say this thread is a bit confusing to me.

Baptism removes both original sin and personal sin. There is no third category of sin which baptism does not remove.
Baptism removes ALL sin.
Subsequent to baptism any sins committed are forgiven and absolved in Confession.

Sin is only removed by the above and not by exorcism or any other rituals.

But the verses you have quoted are all OT quotes. It doesn’t resolve the basic question why baptism still leave us with baggage from prior generations. It shouldn’t, at least that was what I have been taught. Actually this GH thing came as a shock to me because it smells of paganism and remnants of ancestor worship. And why should Israelite customs/rules affect Gentile converts of which many of us are? The Israelites covenant with God has its terms and conditions. For Gentiles, our covenant of grace is different. We don’t need circumcision as well as many Jewish ritual/dietary laws. Why should Gentiles be saddled with such GH burden? We have been guaranteed a rebirth upon baptism.

Hence, to have a conclusive end to this GH, we must have relevant teaching on this. Otherwise, many flavors of these GH will sprout, each one claiming scriptural support and going the way of our Protestant brothers/sisters. I look forward to your sources.

What baggage?
Baptism removes both original sin and personal sin. Immediately a person is baptised they are without sin and if they die at that time they would go straight to Heaven.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.