I hope this priest is censured for his irresponsible comments. Who is his bishop?
Great, then we are in agreement that Fr. Ripperger did not fall into the sin of rash judgement and that neither is an expert suggesting someone may be demonically influenced
I thought that we had both agreed that wanting good things does not protect from falling into bad spiritual locations?
It would seem that their attempts to communicate with those who have died does open a door to demonic influence.
Further than that, I can not go. Fr Ripperger is someone with a lot of experience in that sort of thing and I am not. I do not have sufficient knowledge of any aspect of this situation to be able to assess his comments.
Ah, now you have taken another step. What I have agreed to is that people with good intent can end up doing bad things, hurtful things. I don’t know what “spiritual location” you are talking about, but if you are assuming that they actually have gone to a “bad spiritual location” then that is an evaluation that is based on something, and I would like to know what it is, specifically, that you have based that evaluation.
So, what have they said or done that you have interpreted as “falling into a bad spiritual location”?
Or, it could be that the woman wants to ask something of a saint. Do you know more about this? If not, we are, according to CCC2478, to stay with the most favorable interpretation, assume the best.
Would you not want people to assume this of you, that you prefer to appeal to a saint rather than a demon?
Is this not the most charitable position?
These are not rhetorical questions.
It may also open the door to some serious self-reflection that involves relationship with God. Indeed, if she does attempt to talk to a merciful part of herself (thinking she is talking to, say, Harriet Tubman) then the “response” may come from the Spirit, guiding her away from that which escalates the violence, for example.
Again, the problems with the practice lie more in presenting herself as an authority figure because she has special access to God or revelation. So far, from what I’ve read, this is not the case.
If you go to the Archdiocese of Denver website, they suggest that you contact the priest directly, which I think you can do by this means:
According to the gospel, if we have a grievance against someone, we are to go to that person directly. The Denver Archdiocese is absolutely correct in encouraging direct contact. Once one has done this, one next goes to other witnesses, and then the Church. It makes sense. We are to treat people charitably.
What did you and I agree to? That as a general principle, a good motive or desire will not protect someone from falling into sin. Right?
And that is what I was referring to. The general principle that “good things does not protect from falling into bad spiritual locations.”
And what I mean by bad spiritual location is simply mortal sin, demonic influence, whatever.
I think I have made it clear that what happens is that from time to time, people try to contact dead people and are deceived by demons, under whose influence they then unwittingly fall.
And here we are back again: is suggesting that someone may have fallen under demonic influence a less favorable interpretation and if so why?
And if it is, why did you deny that it was earlier?
Cathoholic . . . .
What is so “unhinged” about Father’s statement about seeing signs of the demonic when at least some of these people ADMIT to spirit channelling??
Good grief. It is NOT “doubtful”.
Have you read the thread LeafByNiggle?
I think the whole concept of hate crime is an attemot to fashoon a new religion. There is right and wrong
. Hate crimes by definition are concepts that cement the idea of group identity and because the whole concept is vague and constantly changing and because it is usually directed only one way it is a very bsd and damaging religion that can only bring division.
We must remember that none of us have the right or position to say that someone else has fallen into mortal sin. Secondly, “mortal sin” does not rely on demonic influence, so these are two different things. We also do not have the position to say whether or not someone has “rashly judged”. That is between Fr. R. and God.
The question is this:
What have they done? We have already examined their statements and have found no basis for “demonic influence”, correct? Now we turn to what they have done. Once we see what they have done that may lead a person to assume “demonic influence”, then we can see if there is a more favorable interpretation, i.e. that the person was trying to do something good.
And you have proof of this? Or, is there a more favorable interpretation of what happened?
Much of this also depends on what you mean by the word “demon”.
So, to say they are being influenced by the devil at the very least does not honor people’s good intentions, those intentions that have the well-being of others in mind.
If by “devil’s influence” you mean that we are subject to lack of awareness or ignorance, then we are all subjected to this, and then it would be rather silly to be pointing at someone else and claiming “devil influence!” because when we do this, there are three fingers pointing back at ourselves (like a pistol hand). Indeed, we need to take a careful look at this verse, as I am convinced that it probably applies here many levels:
Judging Others Matthew 7:
1“Do not judge, or you will be judged. 2For with the same judgment you pronounce, you will be judged; and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3Why do you look at the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to notice the beam in your own eye? 4How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ while there is still a beam in your own eye? 5You hypocrite! First take the beam out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye
So you are thinking that the lawmakers are trying to fashion a new religion?
Yes, I agree. Hate is wrong.
There are group identities; it is a fact driven by human desire to belong to a tribe. Saying that it should not be so does not stop it from being so.
Yes, tribalism is factionism, and it is division. Our Church is also divided by factions. This divisiveness is called part of the “spirit of death” by St. Paul.
Some additional relevant sections from the CCC:
III. OFFENSES AGAINST TRUTH
2475 Christ’s disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By “putting away falsehood,” they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
**2476 False witness and perjury . When it is made publicly, a statement contrary to the truth takes on a particular gravity. In court it becomes false witness.276 When it is under oath, it is perjury. Acts such as these contribute to condemnation of the innocent, exoneration of the guilty, or the increased punishment of the accused.277 They gravely compromise the exercise of justice and the fairness of judicial decisions.
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:
of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279
of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.
I think lawmakers like the rest of us are influenced by many different factors.
What we have seen over preceding decades is the removal of Christian thought from law, government controlled bodies and popular media. By necessity a new religion is needed to ensure community cohesion even if that religion is not recognised as a religion.
Group identities exist, i agree with you there. But when a new religion which is driving law seeks to distinguish between group identities and support narratives of favouring one group over another then there is a problem which will lead (and has led) to divisiveness which feeds back into a lack of social cohesion and then the desire for the new religion to be more authoritarian.
I think Christianity is incompatible with Leftism and families that go that way end up becoming less Christian in subsequent generations and more Leftist to the point that at some point Christianity is put aside.
I don’t even know what to say.
(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)