Author Topic: Discussing Sin, Scandals, Improprieties (Read 1940 times)

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.

Cletus · « **Reply #1 on:** July 05, 2007, 02:07:34 AM »

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #2 on:** July 05, 2007, 02:52:02 AM »

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".

Cletus · « **Reply #3 on:** July 05, 2007, 04:07:09 AM »

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?"

clare · « **Reply #4 on:** July 05, 2007, 04:12:22 AM »

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #5 on:** July 05, 2007, 05:17:34 AM »

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.

gladius_veritatis · « **Reply #6 on:** July 05, 2007, 09:05:48 AM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

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.

clare · « **Reply #7 on:** July 05, 2007, 09:32:44 AM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

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.

Trinity · « **Reply #8 on:** July 05, 2007, 10:17:32 AM »

"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.

Cletus · « **Reply #9 on:** July 05, 2007, 02:03:30 PM »

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.

Trinity · « **Reply #10 on:** July 05, 2007, 02:33:02 PM »

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #11 on:** July 05, 2007, 05:51:44 PM »

Quote from: gladius_veritatis

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto
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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #12 on:** July 05, 2007, 05:57:06 PM »

Quote from: Cletus

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

clare · « **Reply #13 on:** July 05, 2007, 06:01:18 PM »

Quote from: MichaelSolimanto

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.

MichaelSolimanto · « **Reply #14 on:** July 05, 2007, 06:03:31 PM »

Quote from: Trinity

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?