Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: MichaelSolimanto on July 05, 2007, 01:15:27 AM
-
When bringing things up amongst others I think it appropriate to discuss what sinful, what is "appropriate" (hence debatable) and what is false judgments. I will not mention names nor should any of you, let's see if we can discuss this objectively.
We have the sins of detraction and calumny. Detraction is bringing a private sin to light that should remain private. Calumny is lying about someone. Both of these things are sinful. If someone tells someone their past sins publicly by a form of media: radio, TV, internet, newspaper than those discussions cannot fall under either category of detraction or calumny. We have the right to our good name when things are done privately.
Now what if someone brings up our sins in an act of calumny or detraction? Than to repeat those mistakes would be to take part in detraction or calumny. We have a duty as Catholics to refuse to hear the story as well as never to repeat it.
On things we disagree with others we have no right to smear someone else's name without first seeing if we can have a consensus on an issue. Unless that issue is grievous towards the common good, for example someone promoting doctrinal error which can lead a soul to Hell, we have no right to use another's name because we disagree with them in a smear campaign to promote a point or an agenda even if we find it personally important. Doing so would be injurious to charity which can be sinful without proper reflexion.
You should never find the opportunity to reveal grievous sins in public. Discussing experiences that can edify is one thing, but no one should discuss their own personal sins. No child is edified to know their father was a hitman, nor can a mother be proud of their son if he ran a brothel no matter how you explain it.
The moment you expose your improprieties to the world you lose the right to privacy if you tell the world through a form of media. You cannot tell everyone that you are stupid and then when someone repeats it you lose the right to feel disgraced after someone repeats it.
If someone uses your name in posts not related to you, and you make discussion personal when the persons involved never posted and in unrelated matters it also fails against charity. Discussions should never involve personalities unless the personalities are engaged.
How you engage with personalities in a discussion is a matter of personal decisions that has great degrees of liberty. One can find one post offensive, another can see it in the light of other principles of thought as long as they don't break the bounds of sound moral order.
If you disagree or wish to add do so, but don't make this thread into "he said" or "she said". Try to discuss this objectively. I think a good rule of order should be agreed upon before we discuss matters in other threads. Let's see how long this goes before someone calls out another.
-
Let's have the citation from the approved moral theologian who says that tap-tapping something into one internet message board is the same as saying something on TV or the radio or in the newspaper.
-
The internet didn't exist previous to the 1990's so I'm sure you can't find one, and yet it's more of a universal media that TV, newspaper or radio. One post can be read in all countries, at all times of the day, by anyone anywhere. The internet is more universal in scope than any previous medium ever.
Your asking an impossible question in species without looking at it generically, it would be like asking to find a moral theologian that mentions PCP or crack. Both are drugs, and yet we both know you can't do them. I've never seen a moral theologian condemn specifics like heroin either, just things in general.
The internet is a greater media venue than any other media outlet ever, hence the term "information super-highway" or "information age".
-
At least I agree that this should now be kept on a theoretical basis.
My point was missed. My point is that posting something at one website is not the same thing as telling something to the world on the worldwide internet. It's more like saying something unfortunate at a party at Mrs. Jones' house that you expect not to have thrown in your face at a party at Mrs. Smith's house, even if some of Mrs. Smith's guests were also Mrs. Jones' guests and so forth.
The internet is much less of a universal medium than TV or newspapers or radio are. It is dizzyingly diverse and vast and fragmented. It is also off-the-cuff and mostly amateur night. There is a natural human expectation of being able to go unnoticed. There is an "open private club" understanding when it comes to message board use that has no counterpart in the other media.
People need to be more prudent about what they put out there. But there is nothing "moral" about being a legalist who takes it upon himself to extrapolate from TV to an internet message board and run with it like the gingerbread man. We are being so very canonical and theological. How does one translate "tough noogies" into Latin as the answer to my objections to cross-message board tattling here stated?
One thing that the OP is overlooking is the way in which Catholic presentations of the sin of detraction are heavily weighted in favor of the one who might be the VICTIM of it. It is customary for Catholic authors to express disgust towards those who might be just a little too eager to take note of all the little loopholes that make doing something that has the bad smell of detraction a pious possibility. Check out St Francis de Sales on the subject.
"All things are lawful to me, but not all things are expedient."
"If Thou, O Lord, should mark iniquities, who shall stand?"
-
St Augustine should never have mentioned fathering a child out of wedlock, perhaps? "God, give me chastity and continence, but not yet."
I think, if a reformed sinners want to reveal their pasts, then it's upto them. It can be an inspiring example to show how low one can sink. and yet come good.
Prodigal son stories.
Clare.
-
Cletus, I got your point, but search engine optimization makes everything public knowledge. Punch in "John Doe" and one prominent keyword and typically you can find what you are looking for. That makes everything by and large public information worldwide 24/7. Sure it's a fragmented hodge-podge of hackneyed arguments, but most definitely readily available day and night.
Even if the person uses pseudonyms you are correct in saying it's nothing like TV on a national scale, but in another way you look at it from the standpoint that one can only focus on a certain amount of personalities per hour, whereas online all personalities within a certain field are easily ascertainable, knowable, and can be elements of discussion. Take for example the internet phenomenon of Ron Paul, he gets little media coverage but he is easily known, and those that support him can be easily known in certain environments. It's like a mini-tv with stories that can cover anything at anytime that is easily common knowledge amongst certain circles. It's like local tv or local newspapers.
Sins of detraction are for private matters. If someone told me they stole a Snicker's bar on PM I wouldn't be able to mention it. The internet is not a private message, but public. The very fact that people within our milieu can so readily discover information that it does make the matter public despite (and again I think the case of legalism goes both ways) our protestation. The difference being people like myself use their name and not pseudonyms. If I declared I fished without a fishing license it would be a public declaration of breaking the law. My protestation that it's just this message board is not honest in the light everyone knows who I am and such information could be easily accessible to someone who referenced my name and pertinent key words.
I'm familiar with St. Francis de Sales, but he was referencing private matters. I cannot see how posting on a message board for public view is private. Call it legalism, but if you, myself, my grandma in NY, and my uncle in Italy can see any message posted 24/7 I can't see how it's private unless that message board was password protected for private members.
Clare, just a quick point... St. Augustine never mentions his life except in the general sense. His life of reflection was insanely generic considering the life he led. He never mentions precise moments of his life in any of his writings. St. Paul asks that a thorn be taken from him (traditionally understood as fighting against lust), but no one could impute on him anything specific by his admission.
There is no case of saints publicly confessing sin after confession specifically. Saying you "fought addictions" is different that saying you snorted coke in L.A with prostitutes.
-
The internet didn't exist previous to the 1990's so I'm sure you can't find one, and yet it's more of a universal media that TV, newspaper or radio.
And there are no moral theologians within the Novus? As you are operating with the assumption that the Novus is the Catholic Church, someone must have said something about various aspects of the internet, including moral situations.
Find it, use it as your authority.
-
There is no case of saints publicly confessing sin after confession specifically. Saying you "fought addictions" is different that saying you snorted coke in L.A with prostitutes.
Point taken!
Clare.
-
"Thou sayest well: I have no husband. For thou hast had five husbands; and he whom thou now has is not thy husband. This thou hast said truly."
The woman saith to him: "Sir, I perceive that thou art a prophet. Our fathers adored on this mountain; and you say that at Jerusalem is the place where men must adore."
Didn't work then, won't work now.
-
There must be some heavily edited version of St Augustine's Confessions floating about. St Augustine mulls over the gory details of his sins and temptations and disorderly passions to such an extent that he is NOTORIOUS for being, in the eyes of unsympathetic critics, almost an exhibitionist. The theft of the fruit anecodote-a pear, I think- has become a standard example of so-called "Catholic guilt."
But that's just the dark side. St Augustine never mentions precise moments in his life in ANY of his writings? Okay, I'm speechless. Unlike St Augustine, who was never at a loss for words about anything, including hundreds and hundreds of precise moments in his life.
Only about his "concubines", especially about the mother of his son, is he somewhat reticent: we could go out on a limb and call it chivalry.
-
Watch out, Cletus. Mike has a saw and he knows how to use it.
The beauty of St. Augustine is that he told the truth, like the Samaritan woman at the well. With that Our Lord can work wonders. With that infamous river in Egypt, even God is hog tied.
-
The internet didn't exist previous to the 1990's so I'm sure you can't find one, and yet it's more of a universal media that TV, newspaper or radio.
And there are no moral theologians within the Novus? As you are operating with the assumption that the Novus is the Catholic Church, someone must have said something about various aspects of the internet, including moral situations.
Find it, use it as your authority.
My point was that moral theologians don't use specifics, but general sins. Where is a theologians which prohibits the faithful to stop using cocaine? Show me one, they don't exist. Show me a moral theologian who mentions the evil of watching TV.
Moral theology can be discussed on the level of extrapolations. I can extrapolate that because Moral Theologian A said not to use substances that can alter the mind that all said drugs, and the new ones that are created are bad.
You show me a moral theologian which mentions PCP before Vatican II or according to your logic they didn't exist, and I'll find one on the internet. Deal? Otherwise your argument doesn't stand.
Lastly, your non-sequitor of proposing because there are no moral theologians worth discussing is equal with no Church is rather laughable. There were no moral theologians for the first few centuries of the Church. Was St. Clement a real pope then on those grounds? Get a real argument before continuing with the sede hijacking of this thread.
-
There must be some heavily edited version of St Augustine's Confessions floating about. St Augustine mulls over the gory details of his sins and temptations and disorderly passions to such an extent that he is NOTORIOUS for being, in the eyes of unsympathetic critics, almost an exhibitionist. The theft of the fruit anecodote-a pear, I think- has become a standard example of so-called "Catholic guilt."
But that's just the dark side. St Augustine never mentions precise moments in his life in ANY of his writings? Okay, I'm speechless. Unlike St Augustine, who was never at a loss for words about anything, including hundreds and hundreds of precise moments in his life.
Only about his "concubines", especially about the mother of his son, is he somewhat reticent: we could go out on a limb and call it chivalry.
The most specific sin in the Confession is St. Augustine stealing pears. That's it. It's in Book II Chapter 4. There is no other specific sin he mentions. I know the book well. Most of his sins are mentioned as "lusts", but never mentions with who, did what, etc.. His sins are mentioned in a generic forms like him turning away from truth, his lusts, his folly, etc..
Bishop Sheen points out this nice understanding of the Confessions when he says that even though St. Augustine lived a bad life he never spoke of it specifically as to draw the attention on God and not on his sins. It's also commonly taught that the revealing of one's sins in public is a source of pride.
Here's the entire book for reference:
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1101.htm
-
My point was that moral theologians don't use specifics, but general sins.
Fr Heribert Jone is pretty specific at times.
There's a table of acceptable and unacceptable medical procedures in his "Moral Theology" book.
Clare.
-
Watch out, Cletus. Mike has a saw and he knows how to use it.
We, as civilized Catholics, are trying to discuss these matters without involving personalities. If you believe, without involving others, you cannot deal in the real of the objective try to sit this one out. I'm sure we all could take shots at one another, but we're trying not to, why not try with us?
-
I can think of two other particular sins which Augustine describes. He confesses to going to Mass with unworthy intentions and records a disgraceful conversation with a pal in which he played the part of a tempting devil.
"The most specific sin... That's it." That may be it for the most specific sin. But you are admitting that there is at least one other specific sin. Two specific occasions is not "never." Some sticklers would say that you are admitting to THREE specific sins in using the word "most."
But we were not talking only of describing sins. We were talking of describing "precise moments in his life." He describes many hundreds of those moments in his Confessions. If we mean only precise SINFUL moments, let's be precise and say so.
The Little Flower gives four or five examples of childhood sins that she sees as being serious enough to indicate that she was hell-bent even before she reached the age of reason. She confessed them, and then wrote about them, and did not edit them out even once she came to believe that she had been writing for the whole world to see. I think that her sister Mother Agnes edited out some of them.
-
Ouch! I've been rebuked! Some people have no sense of humor. :roll-laugh1:
-
My point was that moral theologians don't use specifics, but general sins.
Fr Heribert Jone is pretty specific at times.
There's a table of acceptable and unacceptable medical procedures in his "Moral Theology" book.
Clare.
Granted, and St. Alphonsus gets very specific in his treatise on moral theology. Let me re-phrase that then to be more precise.
Moral theologians cannot detail all specifics, nor is it their intention to when discussing morality. They discuss general sins, and discuss personal instances where the sin can be grievious or venial, what things to encounter to stop recidivism, things which are common specifically to look out for, but it cannot be comprehensive because of the changing of the world.
Let's go back to drugs and Fr. Jone's work. He only mentions morphine, opium and chloroform (section 110). He never mentions heroine, but one can obvious deduce that with the prohibition of opium that heroine can be included. He never mentions stimulants (which existed in his time) in general at all, nor did he mention pot.
Fr. Jone never mentions specific far-reaching implications of media when discussing what is public. He says:
"373. There is no injury to reputation, and hence no detraction when the faults mentioned are already publicly known....
"A crime is publicly known... if it is commonly known or if it will will soon be generally known.
"A crime publicly known in one place and not yet known in another may be made known in the latter if it can be foreseen that it will soon become known there..."
-
Where is a theologians which prohibits the faithful to stop using cocaine? Show me one, they don't exist.
The obvious flubs within this post shows me the attention you are giving to your responses, so I shall not bother to continue with this exchange. You're darn right no one prohibits the faithful to stop using cocaine!
Show me a moral theologian who mentions the evil of watching TV.
There are, as you likely know, some excellent works by solid priests upon this very topic.
Get a real argument before continuing with the sede hijacking of this thread.
You may stretch anything you like to fit your imagined parameters, Mike, but this dog will not hunt.
-
-
You're missing the point, Mike, which is that, to put it mildly, you overstated your case about St Augustine's reticence. St Augustine describes a specific sin of sacrilege against the Mass specifically, without, true, giving ALL the details. Citing a specific sin of sacrilege against the Mass (well, that's how most take it: it could have been some other "rite") is not the same as saying, "When I was young I was very sinful and besides the pears, let's leave it at that."
I refer to his conversation about marriage and related matters with his friend Alypius.
St Therese was under no order to write about her childhood sins, one of which was a sin of thought: she inwardly objected to being put in a dress with long sleeves, thinking that she would look better with her arms bare. She could have left them out. They were not remarkable. As for her not enjoying the writing of that book... I don't recall her expressing any dislike of writing it, though she was reluctant to do so, fearing that it might distract her. My impression is that she LOVED writing that book. I get from her the same feeling that others get from Agatha Christie: a keen sense of self-amusement that really draws in the reader.
But that's by the way. I take it that we are agreed that it was incorrect to say that nowhere in his writings does St Augustine describe a precise moment in his life.
-
[/quote]Quote:
Get a real argument before continuing with the sede hijacking of this thread.
You may stretch anything you like to fit your imagined parameters, Mike, but this dog will not hunt.
Excellent idea, Veritatis. Maybe I'm just tired, but I know I am tired of the convoluted rationale of the only rational member of this forum. I've reached my load limit for today, so I think I'll take my ball and go home.
I do have one question for ANYONE that can answer it. Why do these "super intellectuals" all talk in the same circles and use the same tricks? Couldn't they come up with something original just for a change of pace---like honest discourse?
And I have another question for Mater. Where the heck are all those threads Stephanos was covering the forum with? I simply can't find them.
-
You're missing the point, Mike, which is that, to put it mildly, you overstated your case about St Augustine's reticence. St Augustine describes a specific sin of sacrilege against the Mass specifically, without, true, giving ALL the details.
Actually he give none of the details. What type of sacrilege did he commit? He never says, that's why I quoted the source. He never says what he does except to say it was against the Holy rites. Tell me what did he do specifically? Sacrilege isn't specific, it's generic. Sacrilege can be a multitude of things.
St Therese was under no order to write about her childhood sins, one of which was a sin of thought: she inwardly objected to being put in a dress with long sleeves, thinking that she would look better with her arms bare. She could have left them out.
Can you please show where she wasn't under obedience? The entire book she opposed the idea of, by her own admission. Everything in it was for the sake of obedience. She wouldn't have said a word if it wasn't for the superior. Since you refuse to see this obvious point let me ask this: do you think she would have wrote that in the state of a religious if she was not compelled to do so? The answer is obviously no, so it was done under obedience.
They were not remarkable. As for her not enjoying the writing of that book... I don't recall her expressing any dislike of writing it, though she was reluctant to do so, fearing that it might distract her.
Which is why she didn't want to do so. She saw it as outside of our vocation as a religious, and as such it would be. Under obedience she did so, without such obedience such a book never would have existed. This is an obvious fact.
We are not in agreement because my attention was that St. Augustine does not mention specific sins except for stealing a pear. He doesn't mention anything sordid.
-
You may stretch anything you like to fit your imagined parameters, Mike, but this dog will not hunt.
I type fast, so what. These posts aren't made for examinations of syntax. The fact that your argument focuses on it shows how exposed you feel. Whatever....
-
These posts aren't made for examinations of syntax.
In my quoted words to which you give the above response, I was not even referring to syntax, Mike.
Your jibe about hijacking the thread is simply nonsense. It is to that absurd remark that I was responding in the words of mine that you quoted.
Exposed? Hardly, my dear friend. Carry on.
-
Maybe I'm just tired, but I know I am tired of the convoluted rationale of the only rational member of this forum.
Go rest, my dear lady. I shall do the same momentarily.
Why do these "super intellectuals" all talk in the same circles and use the same tricks? Couldn't they come up with something original just for a change of pace---like honest discourse?
I apologize for my part in any "games" [If any, it was unintentional]. I just wanted to point out that Mike's accusation of "hijacking" was undiluted hogwash. Sleep well.
Btw, I prohibit all of you to stop snorting cocaine!
-
Gladius.
I have no difficulty obeying your prohibition to stop snorting cocaine!
Clare.
-
Questions and Answers by Fr. Peter Scott
Is it permissible to publish the sins of deceased persons?
It is certainly true that a man's reputation is the most precious exterior possession that he can have, as the book of Proverbs states, `A good name is better than great riches (Prov. 22:1), and that he has a strict right to it in justice. It is also true that despite the fact that the modern world considers that a reputation is of little consequence, it is a sign of honor and goodness that a man values the opinion that others have of his excellence. Finally, it is also true that reputation concerns principally a man's practice of virtue, and only secondarily his other good qualities, and that this right is not extinguished by death, for a man, having an immortal soul, always has a right to his reputation.
Consequently, the deliberate telling or publishing of the sins that a man committed during his life, without proportionate reason, is a mortal sin of detraction both against justice and against charity, even if the facts told are perfectly true.
However, the right to one's reputation is not absolute, and has limitations. Just as we can tell the sins of the living, if it is necessary for their own good (that they might be corrected), or for the good of a third person (to prevent him from being led into error or sin), or for the common good, so also do there exist reasons for relating the sins of deceased persons. In the case of the deceased it is usually the common good that is invoked, and rightly so.
In fact, an historian of the Reformation who would not tell the sins of King Henry VIII or Luther could not be considered an historian. He would not tell the truth, and his history would serve no purpose. Likewise an historian of Pope John Paul II who would not tell of his public sin of religious indifferentism at Assisi in 1986 would not tell the truth. History is the master of life, as the saying goes, and to do so it must tell all that pertains to the truth, the evil as well as the good, the faults of Catholics as well as their virtues. Hence the moral theologians are in agreement that for the sake of history itself, there is always a sufficient reason, in virtue of the common good, for relating all certainly true events, and backing up with docuŠ¼ents (cf. Prummer, II, § 194).
This applies to all persons who are public, who have a role in history, and notably writers, authors, artists and men of ideas, and even with respect to acts that were not publicly known while they were alive. It is only by the full picture of their lives that their impact on history can be evaluated. Thus it cannot be considered a sin against justice for persons to have made known the already published sins of Eric Gill, who as an activist in the Catholic Distributist movement was a public and historical figure.
Nevertheless, a disorder can frequently arise in such matters, due to a certain curiosity about evil things that is common to fallen human nature. It is very easy for the mode of telling of sins to be excessive and scandalous, and to become a serious sin against charity.
Such is the case of those who would concentrate on a man's sins before his conversion, or who would describe his sins in a very graphic manner. This is particularly the case with sins against the sixth commandment, in which all detail is an occasion of sin, and very dangerous to relate or to read. Some people, however, wrongly take advantage of such sins to promote their own cause. The Internet is easily abused for gossip mongering, and those who went into the details of Gill's moral life on the Internet were sinning against charity by the manner and publicity that they gave to this discussion, and also on account of the scandal that an unnecessary and excessively public discussion of sins against purity does cause.
The key issue is the common good. Persons who have a particularly immoral life should only be discussed if the common good requires it, as it does with Luther or Henry VIII. However, the Catholic in charity ought to avoid so doing if it is not really necessary for history. It is for this reason that prudence dictates that it is preferable not to quote from or bring up the subject of such persons, particular if they are Catholic, on account of the scandal that the telling of historical facts could cause.