Author Topic: Detraction (Read 3957 times)

InfiniteFaith · « **on:** February 25, 2014, 12:38:34 PM »

Hello CathInfo. Long time no see. I have a question regarding detraction. Lets say that an individual wrote something on a website that was considered to be offensive i(n a sinful manner). But he wrote it a long time ago. Now lets say that another individual knows the first individual, and tells other people about what he wrote on the website... even though a lot of time passed by and most people weren't even thinking about it by then. Would this be detraction? Keep in mind that detraction occurs even if what is being spread around is true. Also, I am aware that if what the individual said or done was notorious (i.e. public), and people talked about it with other people then it would not be detraction. However, it seems to me that if time has passed by and people keep bringing it up, and its something that could ruin a person's reputation...then i think it would be detraction at that point I would think that it is not right to continuously refer to another person's fault or sin for the rest of that person's life. What are your thoughts?

Here is the Catholic Encyclopedia on Detraction...

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

Frances · « **Reply #1 on:** February 25, 2014, 02:28:49 PM »

:dancing-banana:
If you talk in order to disgrace the person, or if the person has changed in the ensuing years, then it is mortally sinful detraction. If you mention something in passing with no evil intent, then it is still detraction, but not a mortal sin.

Dolores · « **Reply #2 on:** February 25, 2014, 03:27:34 PM »

Stripped down to basics, detraction consists of the revealing of the sins of another without necessity. (Baltimore Catechism Q.1311).

Put another way, it is an attempt to harm a person's reputation by unjustly revealing past faults or crimes. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure a person could commit detraction by bringing up an Internet post. Everything posted publicly on the Internet is just that: public. You aren't "revealing" anything by bringing it up, because it is already publicly available. I think in order for detraction to occur, the person's fault, crime, or sin needs to have been not generally known in order for it to be "revealed."

Frances · « **Reply #3 on:** February 25, 2014, 04:43:12 PM »

:dancing-banana:It would be detraction to post a person's private sins on the internet.

Dolores · « **Reply #4 on:** February 25, 2014, 08:18:14 PM »

Quote from: Frances

:dancing-banana:It would be detraction to post a person's private sins on the internet.

But the OP isn't talking about private sins (at least I don't think he is). He's talking about a person brining up past public internet posts that he made. It would be no different than a person bringing up a book he previously wrote. There is nothing private or personal about these things, so by brining them up, nothing is being "revealed." I'm not sure how it could be detraction.

poche · « **Reply #5 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:28:36 PM »

If you post something on the internet then you may as well post it on a billboard at the busiest intersection. That being said, why did this person post the information?

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #6 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:33:35 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Stripped down to basics, detraction consists of the revealing of the sins of another without necessity. (Baltimore Catechism Q.1311).

Put another way, it is an attempt to harm a person's reputation by unjustly revealing past faults or crimes. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure a person could commit detraction by bringing up an Internet post. Everything posted publicly on the Internet is just that: public. You aren't "revealing" anything by bringing it up, because it is already publicly available. I think in order for detraction to occur, the person's fault, crime, or sin needs to have been not generally known in order for it to be "revealed."

Yes but heres the catch...according to the encyclopedia...it is not detraction if the sin was publicly known (we all know that)....however, if it had been long forgotten (if a bunch of time passed by and people stopped talking about it) then it would be detraction for someone to bring it up again. That is how I am understanding things based on what the encyclopedia says. Correct me if I am wrong...

.."in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten." (Detraction, Catholic Encyclopedia).

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #7 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:37:03 PM »

Quote from: poche

If you post something on the internet then you may as well post it on a billboard at the busiest intersection. That being said, why did this person post the information?

I agre with that to a certain extent. But there still needs to come a time where people move on and stop referring back to things in the past. Would you not agree?

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #8 on:** February 25, 2014, 10:46:33 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: Dolores
Stripped down to basics, detraction consists of the revealing of the sins of another without necessity. (Baltimore Catechism Q.1311).

Put another way, it is an attempt to harm a person's reputation by unjustly revealing past faults or crimes. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure a person could commit detraction by bringing up an Internet post. Everything posted publicly on the Internet is just that: public. You aren't "revealing" anything by bringing it up, because it is already publicly available. I think in order for detraction to occur, the person's fault, crime, or sin needs to have been not generally known in order for it to be "revealed."

Yes but heres the catch...according to the encyclopedia...it is not detraction if the sin was publicly known (we all know that)....however, if it had been long forgotten (if a bunch of time passed by and people stopped talking about it) then it would be detraction for someone to bring it up again. That is how I am understanding things based on what the encyclopedia says. Correct me if I am wrong...

.."in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten." (Detraction, Catholic Encyclopedia).

Also, why would anybody thumbs down my OP? There was nothing wrong with that post. Wouldn't that be unjust punishment?

poche · « **Reply #9 on:** February 25, 2014, 11:19:40 PM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: poche
If you post something on the internet then you may as well post it on a billboard at the busiest intersection. That being said, why did this person post the information?

I agre with that to a certain extent. But there still needs to come a time where people move on and stop referring back to things in the past. Would you not agree?

I would agree.

Dolores · « **Reply #10 on:** February 26, 2014, 09:39:01 AM »

Quote from: InfiniteFaith

Quote from: Dolores
Stripped down to basics, detraction consists of the revealing of the sins of another without necessity. (Baltimore Catechism Q.1311).

Put another way, it is an attempt to harm a person's reputation by unjustly revealing past faults or crimes. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure a person could commit detraction by bringing up an Internet post. Everything posted publicly on the Internet is just that: public. You aren't "revealing" anything by bringing it up, because it is already publicly available. I think in order for detraction to occur, the person's fault, crime, or sin needs to have been not generally known in order for it to be "revealed."

Yes but heres the catch...according to the encyclopedia...it is not detraction if the sin was publicly known (we all know that)....however, if it had been long forgotten (if a bunch of time passed by and people stopped talking about it) then it would be detraction for someone to bring it up again. That is how I am understanding things based on what the encyclopedia says. Correct me if I am wrong...

.."in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten." (Detraction, Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure there can be an objective answer, especially where the Internet is concerned. In the Middle Ages, if a person committed a public sin when he was 20, likely it would be mostly forgotten by the time he was 40, and thus no longer a public sin, and detraction for someone to bring up. In the age of the Internet, however, nothing is every really forgotten because it is always instantly accessible, unless it has been deleted.

Perhaps it is still possible for something said on the Internet to be somehow "forgotten" such that it is no longer a public sin, but the exact amount of time that needs to pass for that to happen, I think, is not objective, and may be unanswerable. Certainly, it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In any event, I don't think a lay person can definitely say that what you describe in your OP was detraction; there are too many variables. In my opinion, for what it's worth, I do not think it was detraction.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #11 on:** February 26, 2014, 06:24:03 PM »

Quote from: Dolores

Quote from: InfiniteFaith
Quote from: Dolores
Stripped down to basics, detraction consists of the revealing of the sins of another without necessity. (Baltimore Catechism Q.1311).

Put another way, it is an attempt to harm a person's reputation by unjustly revealing past faults or crimes. (Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure a person could commit detraction by bringing up an Internet post. Everything posted publicly on the Internet is just that: public. You aren't "revealing" anything by bringing it up, because it is already publicly available. I think in order for detraction to occur, the person's fault, crime, or sin needs to have been not generally known in order for it to be "revealed."

Yes but heres the catch...according to the encyclopedia...it is not detraction if the sin was publicly known (we all know that)....however, if it had been long forgotten (if a bunch of time passed by and people stopped talking about it) then it would be detraction for someone to bring it up again. That is how I am understanding things based on what the encyclopedia says. Correct me if I am wrong...

.."in the second, within the limits of the town, or even elsewhere, unless in either instance the offender in the lapse of time should have entirely reformed or his delinquency been quite forgotten." (Detraction, Catholic Encyclopedia).

I'm not sure there can be an objective answer, especially where the Internet is concerned. In the Middle Ages, if a person committed a public sin when he was 20, likely it would be mostly forgotten by the time he was 40, and thus no longer a public sin, and detraction for someone to bring up. In the age of the Internet, however, nothing is every really forgotten because it is always instantly accessible, unless it has been deleted.

Perhaps it is still possible for something said on the Internet to be somehow "forgotten" such that it is no longer a public sin, but the exact amount of time that needs to pass for that to happen, I think, is not objective, and may be unanswerable. Certainly, it would have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

In any event, I don't think a lay person can definitely say that what you describe in your OP was detraction; there are too many variables. In my opinion, for what it's worth, I do not think it was detraction.

When the Catholic encyclopedia addresses a sin that was made public...it mentions that it is not detraction for people to talk about it since it was public. But then, it addresses 2 circuмstances that make it detraction:

1) It would be detraction to spread something about a sinner that the sinner has previously repented for. (and quite honestly, who knows if and when a sinner has repented for a particular sin.)

2) It would be detraction to bring up a sin that someone has committed in the past if the audience that was made aware of that sin moved on. Meaning the audience stopped talking about it, forgot about it (even for a short period), and moved on to bigger and better things. That is the point that defines when it becomes detraction again. Its pretty clear.

Whether it be by internet, Tv, a speech in front of an audience, etc. the sin of detraction can occur publicly under the above 2 circuмstances. Yes anything on the internet can be accessible at any time. But you would really have to be taking note of everything everyone is saying, and you would have to know exactly where it was said in order to make reference to it. I imagine that if you are going to that extent to make reference to certain things that people have said, then your intentions are not good. If you intend on punishing people for what they have said, then you must realize that you do not have the authority to do so. Thus making it an unjust punishment.

Another question I have regarding detraction would be this...

Lets say that an individual gives a speech to an audience. He says something that is considered offensive to some. Naturally, the group that was offended, would talk about it amongst themselves, and other members of that particular audience, after the speech. This would not be detraction. My question at this point is would it be detraction if the offended group of people told people that were not apart of the audience (people who did not know about it)?

Dolores · « **Reply #12 on:** February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AM »

InfiniteFaith,

It seems to you didn't ask the question in search of an answer, but you already had an answer in mind and wanted someone to back you up.

I'm sorry, I just don't think what you described in your OP was detraction. I've read what both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the Baltimore Catechism have to say on the matter, and my opinion is that there was no detraction. Feel free to disagree with me, but that is my opinion.

PerEvangelicaDicta · « **Reply #13 on:** February 27, 2014, 12:31:10 PM »

Quote

2) It would be detraction to bring up a sin that someone has committed in the past if the audience that was made aware of that sin moved on. Meaning the audience stopped talking about it, forgot about it (even for a short period), and moved on to bigger and better things. That is the point that defines when it becomes detraction again. Its pretty clear.

That was my understanding of it also. But perhaps I need further instruction.

If the intent of the person(s) resurrecting the past incident - which is now forgotten - for a new audience, is malicious, then of course it is sinful. However, the person(s) may think they have good intent - perhaps justifying their action as a warning, for example.

I ;thought there was a process to avoid this sin? That is, I discuss the situation directly with you to confirm the information that came to attention. If you corroborate it and do not correct it, then I go to the authority (parish priest, forum moderator, etc) for it to be corrected privately, or escalated as needed, in a Catholic manner. We all fall too easily into projection, speculation and then gossip.
Fantastic meditations about the evil of the tongue by our great saints.

In this situation, shouldn't the offended discuss the incident with the person who committed the offense, if possible? Always in an honest, straightforward manner, without childish sarcasm and insults - just man to man. I presume both parties are Catholic.

IF, perhaps the person who is furthering the past incident to a new audience can be approached. Blessed are the peacemakers, all the more so when one has to eat a truckload of humble pie.

InfiniteFaith · « **Reply #14 on:** February 27, 2014, 02:21:57 PM »

Quote from: PerEvangelicaDicta

Quote
2) It would be detraction to bring up a sin that someone has committed in the past if the audience that was made aware of that sin moved on. Meaning the audience stopped talking about it, forgot about it (even for a short period), and moved on to bigger and better things. That is the point that defines when it becomes detraction again. Its pretty clear.

That was my understanding of it also. But perhaps I need further instruction.

If the intent of the person(s) resurrecting the past incident - which is now forgotten - for a new audience, is malicious, then of course it is sinful. However, the person(s) may think they have good intent - perhaps justifying their action as a warning, for example.

I ;thought there was a process to avoid this sin? That is, I discuss the situation directly with you to confirm the information that came to attention. If you corroborate it and do not correct it, then I go to the authority (parish priest, forum moderator, etc) for it to be corrected privately, or escalated as needed, in a Catholic manner. We all fall too easily into projection, speculation and then gossip.
Fantastic meditations about the evil of the tongue by our great saints.

In this situation, shouldn't the offended discuss the incident with the person who committed the offense, if possible? Always in an honest, straightforward manner, without childish sarcasm and insults - just man to man. I presume both parties are Catholic.

IF, perhaps the person who is furthering the past incident to a new audience can be approached. Blessed are the peacemakers, all the more so when one has to eat a truckload of humble pie.

I suppose that would be another question of mine. Could you warn someone about a particular sin that someone has committed in the past? Perhaps someone who has committed adultery, gets divorced because of it, then attempts to remarry a couple years down the road...would it be ok for someone who knew about the adultery to warn the new spouse about it? Even though the persons intent was not to destroy the abusers reputation...they were simply warning the new spouse about the abusers past. I'm pretty sure that is still detraction. Correct me if I am wrong, but I would be willing to bet that detraction has nothing to do with the intent of the detractor. Rather the result of the detraction. Whether its a warning or evil intent the information would still ruin someones reputation.

Nevertheless, you are still right about how it should be handled in a certain manner.