Does detraction apply to an organization?

[byhismercy]

It is possible to commit detraction against a person, is it also possible to commit it against an organization?

Say, if a company profiteers dishonestly, would it be detraction if you tell others (who have little interest in buying from that company) of it? Or if a parish has bad liturgical abuses, would it be detraction to tell others (who don’t go there usually) of it?

Detraction is commited against one’s neighbours, so would an organization be counted as a neighbour?

 

[po18guy]

It requires you to make a judgment call - others might not see it so.

 

[byhismercy]

It requires you to make a judgment call - others might not see it so.

I’m talking about it in general, since this is not a “did I commit a sin” thread. I think there should be some criteria for what counts as detraction and what counts as neighbour. The great principle is charity, but more clarity in detailed criteria would be useful for us in practising virtues and preventing vices (just like "love your neighbours is put into more detailed items as 4th to 10th Commandments).

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

If it’s true and a danger to the public, you need to tell (like a food factory that doesn’t wash its equipment to industry standards).

Other stuff is a judgement call.

 

[JerryZ]

The criteria is there and quite simple actually.
Unless you have direct objective knowledge of a practice or fact about either a person or an organization (it does not matter) then voicing opinions to others based on hearsay, incomplete evidence, etc. would be detraction.
But when we DO have complete evidence of an issue that impacts ours and others well being then, of course it is our duty to act accordingly.

Peace!

 

[BartholomewB]

You cite liturgical abuse in a parish as an example of your question about detraction committed against an organization, but I think that is a mistake. It isn’t the parish, as an organization, that is committing the liturgical abuse: it is a person, usually a priest.

 

[puer.dei]

Or if a parish has bad liturgical abuses, would it be detraction to tell others (who don’t go there usually) of it?

If they don’t usually go there, why would you need to tell them?

 

[Gorgias]

It is possible to commit detraction against a person, is it also possible to commit it against an organization?

Not as such. I think what you’re thinking about, however, is detraction against members of an organization, which is possible.

Say, if a company profiteers dishonestly, would it be detraction if you tell others (who have little interest in buying from that company) of it? Or if a parish has bad liturgical abuses, would it be detraction to tell others (who don’t go there usually) of it?

Are you saying that you know it to be true, with sufficient foundation? If not, then you’re talking about rash judgment or calumny.

 

[byhismercy]

It isn’t the parish, as an organization, that is committing the liturgical abuse: it is a person, usually a priest.

Not necessarily. It could be a systematic situation, where priests and EMHCs are involved, thus no names would be needed to be given when mentioning. Liturgical abuse is not necessarily initiated by a priest, altar servers, lectors, EMHCs, commentators can all play a role. Others may or may not associate the problem with certain priests, but rather keep it at the parochial level.

 

[byhismercy]

If they don’t usually go there, why would you need to tell them?

Reasons may include:

1. venting
2. explaining why you’re leaving a parish
3. asking for methods to deal with it
4. asking if it is problematic or normal
5. answering inquiries about the parish
6. discourging one to attend that parish later to prevent abuse
   And so on…

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

The more regulated industries usually have some sort of ethics hotline or a place where if you hear a credible complaint (even if you don’t have proof, just hearsay), you can contact them with your concerns and then they have inspectors to check it out.

 

[byhismercy]

voicing opinions to others based on hearsay, incomplete evidence, etc. would be detraction.

This is more like calumny or rash judgement than detraction. Detraction, to my understanding, is a certain fault of another person (or organization?) exposed to those who have no good reason to know it. Those that are known as false would be calumny, and those that are merely hearsay would be rash judgement.

 

[Gorgias]

It could be a systematic situation, where priests and EMHCs are involved, thus no names would be needed to be given when mentioning. Liturgical abuse is not necessarily initiated by a priest, altar servers, lectors, EMHCs, commentators can all play a role

It’s still the actions of individuals. If you’re calling it a dynamic of the parish, then what you’re asserting is that it’s the pastor who is allowing it. So… “individual, not group”.

 

[BartholomewB]

Even so, the abuse is still being practiced by individuals, not by “the parish” as a corporate entity. You can tell people what you’ve seen and heard as an eyewitness, and as long as you stick to the plain facts it’s not calumny. Only giving false information would qualify as calumny.

Nevertheless, passing on true information about somebody can also be considered detraction. The basic criterion, in this case, would be your motive. If you’re acting out of malice, then it would be detraction, but if you’re simply expressing a legitimate concern, then as far as I know there’s no sin in that. The only point I’m making here is that, however many priests, musicians, altar servers, and others are engaged in practicing the alleged liturgical abuse, and no matter how long they have been doing it, those abuses are being practiced by individuals, not by an abstract entity called “the parish.”