Ending an a friendship

[Xantippe]

I opt for honesty. It’s what I would like and its what I think is best for most people. That doesn’t necessitate being mean-spirited or nasty. Just being honest in a friendly, tactful way. I think that not being honest is frankly a little cowardly in normal circumstances.

A lot of times we don’t tell our friends that they are hunched over or have a funny piece of bean on their teeth because we’re afraid of embarrassing the person or what the response may be. But I hope that someone who calls himself my friend would tell me if I have something on my teeth! And I wish someone would ask me if I was okay cause I was hunched over, instead of just thinking it to himself. The problem is that most of us are so darned insecure that we can’t bear it.

That said, there are special cases- people who just absolutely can’t stand to be told this or that- and we should be careful for the other person, and of course, of ourselves, if said person is a little cooky. As always, we should use prudence.

Sure, most people don’t take negative feedback well, even when its constructive (myself included), but it may not be you telling someone this, but you and someone else down the road- a girlfriend/boyfriend/family member/another friend, etc… that will finally help this person see reality and deal with it if he/she wants to.

We have a lot of trouble owning up to our own behaviors. Sometimes its necessary to hear it from others that are not mom and dad to finally come to an understanding and a change of plan. Honesty. Honesty with prudence.

It’s not dishonest to not share information with people.

I share your dislike of white lies, but not taking calls, texts, or joining a friend for activities is not dishonest.

 

[Anglewannabe]

We can either 1) fade out without explanation (the option other people have mentioned that you don’t like) or 2) explain to them why we think they’re a terrible person, a bad influence on us, and not a good use of our time. Is #1 really the harsher option?

Personally, I don’t like #1 since I would feel like if I bumped into them and chatted for 5 minutes, I would be leading them on. And having been on the receiving end of #1, I always resented the other person not being upfront.

I don’t like #2 either because I agree it is harsh.

I would like to add a 3rd option. The OP said his friends are unreliable. I would simply say something like ‘It is very important to me that I can count on my friends to do what they say. You seem to be the type of person who wants to come and go at the drop of the hat. I can respect we see things differently, however, I just can’t be close friends with a person who has such a different perspective’

Angie

 

[Xantippe]

Personally, I don’t like #1 since I would feel like if I bumped into them and chatted for 5 minutes, I would be leading them on. And having been on the receiving end of #1, I always resented the other person not being upfront.

I don’t like #2 either because I agree it is harsh.

I would like to add a 3rd option. The OP said his friends are unreliable. I would simply say something like ‘It is very important to me that I can count on my friends to do what they say. You seem to be the type of person who wants to come and go at the drop of the hat. I can respect we see things differently, however, I just can’t be close friends with a person who has such a different perspective’

Angie

Your #3 sounds a lot like my #2.

 

[Anglewannabe]

Your #3 sounds a lot like my #2.

Your #2 said to tell them they are a bad influence and a terrible person. My #3 said to tell them we have different opinions and I can respect their opinion just not be around some behaviours. My #3 is not saying they are wrong or attacking their character. It is simply pointing out people need to have things in common to be friends

 

[EasterJoy]

One of my friends was great at first but when I got to know him I found he drank a lot, dated mutltiple women at once and was just generally unreliable. Another friend constantly made promises which he never followed through on.

Not everyone who has been an acquaintance for a long time or through a difficult time is a friend. Some are still only acquaintances. More to the point, we don’t have the sight to appreciate everyone in this life. It is OK to socialize with those most likely to give mutual enjoyment, and let the other birds find their own to flock with.

When someone is generally unreliable, you quit putting them in positions of trust. If they don’t pay you back what was understood as a loan and not a gift, you quit loaning them money. If a gift was given with the understanding that it was for a need and they use it on something else, you quit trusting them with your largess. If they treat their other friends badly (such as dating two women but not telling them about each other), you don’t expect that they treat you any better when you are none the wiser. If they drink too much for your comfort, you tell them you are uncomfortable with the amount they drink. If their drinking affects how they treat you, you tell them that the treatment is not acceptable and their drinking is not an excuse. If this means nothing to them, you take it into account that their goals and values and yours may possibly have to be left unreconciled in this life.

When you enjoy someone less, you spend less time with them for enjoyment. When you cannot rely on them, you stop putting them in positions of trust. Other than letting them know things that you aren’t comfortable with–you don’t like it when they drink so much, you don’t like spending time in loud places, you don’t like staying out so late, you don’t like spending so much–you don’t have to let someone know when they fall short in the character department. You may just stop putting them into positions of trust that require character. They ought to be able to put that two and two together on their own.

If a person in your life is spiteful to those who put the light on their faults, do not toss pearl before swine and get yourself torn to pieces. Offer no correction where it is unlikely to be welcomed or attended to unless your position of authority requires you to make it. The rest of us can keep our improvement ideas for others to ourselves without sin, and might just as easily be more virtuous by biting our tongues than by correcting someone who didn’t ask for our correction.

The only exception I can think of is someone who is doing the best he can, regrets it when he lacks social graces, and doesn’t manipulate by bad behavior but still has a hard time showing sustained improvement in social awareness. An honest desire to be gracious and worthy of friendship ought to count for something, even when the word “graceful” doesn’t describe the result. To include someone like that even though it might harm our own social attractiveness is an atonement for our own social failures and blindness, and I believe it will not go without its reward.

 

[EasterJoy]

So, how do we go about politely disentangling a person who is a bad influence on us?

We can either 1) fade out without explanation (the option other people have mentioned that you don’t like) or 2) explain to them why we think they’re a terrible person, a bad influence on us, and not a good use of our time. Is #1 really the harsher option?

If the person was our fellow believer, maybe we would have an obligation to do fraternal correction, but not necessarily. See here:

newadvent.org/cathen/04394a.htm

How would you do it?

These are two separate things. You do not tell people about the things they do that upset you unless you are going to give them the opportunity for amendment, not unless you are using these violations as evidence that they have broken an understanding that you had.

For instance, if you break up with a boyfriend because he acts like a pig around other women, you tell him why you are breaking up with him, even if you have no intention of staying around. He deserves to know why an understanding that he believed to be real was lost. If you go on a few dates with a fellow and decide you can’t endure the way he treats or talks about other women, it is just fine to quit accepting his invitations to go out together. Once you’ve rejected him, he does not need you to catalog his faults as the pièce de résistance some dramatic bon voyage speech. You do not owe it to him, either. You can just say, “Thanks for the invitation, but I don’t think so,” and leave it at that.

If someone is likely to do you harm because you are the bearer of bad news, they cannot expect you to trust them to take the news in a civilized way. Don’t make the delivery; they don’t have a right to be told your reasons. It is a gratuity that you can give or not give, both as you are inclined to give and as you believe the recipient may want to receive.

 

[EasterJoy]

Your #2 said to tell them they are a bad influence and a terrible person. My #3 said to tell them we have different opinions and I can respect their opinion just not be around some behaviours. My #3 is not saying they are wrong or attacking their character. It is simply pointing out people need to have things in common to be friends

I would keep it to “you do this, and I don’t find that acceptable.” To make personal attacks usually only makes people defensive. Besides, if you say “you are a terrible person,” it implies a permanent condition, and not something that they choose to do or something they could choose to change. It betrays a lack of confidence in their basic capacity to meet your expectations.

News flash: If someone truly is a “terrible person,” what you need to do is stay off that person’s radar, because you probably haven’t seen nuthin’ yet. The truly terrible person will cut off his nose to spite his face, and these people are not as rare as we like to think. Stay out of their way. Do not provoke them to sin, because sinning against you is what they will do if you cross them. That does no one any good. As for everyone else, consider before you speak whether your words will really do any good or not.

No foul language should come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for needed edification, that it may impart grace to those who hear. Eph. 4:29

 

[bsf]

Ronin, are you talking about acquaintanceship or friendship?

Acquaintanceship

acquaintanceship - a relationship less intimate than friendship

acquaintance - a person whom one knows.

Friendship (from My Daily Bread by Anthony J. Paone, S.J., page 180)

All true friendship must be based on virtue and loyalty to Christ. Unless I am helping my friends in some way to live a better life, I am not a true friend. So, too, people who are not helping me become a better person, are not real friends of mine, but useless acquaintances. Anyone who brings me closer to sin by his words or ways, is an enemy in spite of any good intentions which he may profess.

Beyond opining that a distinction exists and may helpful in your discernment, I do not believe I have much to offer you. Sorry.

I have been struggling with a similar situation. In my case though, I consider(ed) the relevant individuals acquaintances. IMO, the relevant relationships were primarily based upon common recreational activities. I spent considerable time with some of these individuals over the course of many years. I did not feel close to these individuals, though. I hope I maintain Christian charity in my heart for them. However, over the last 3 years, my life has changed dramatically. I no longer engage in recreational activities I once did. Mostly, I let all these recreation-based relationships simply die through lack of contact and communication. When I switched to a new cell phone service provider and began using a new phone number, I only gave out my new # to a couple of these individuals. I believe all but a couple of these individuals were unaffected by this, but I suspect a couple may have been offended, if not hurt. That weighs on me a bit.

I will pray that God grant you wisdom in discerning the proper course of action. If you could do the same for me, I would be appreciative.

 

[Joie_de_Vivre]

There is sometimes merit in continuing these friendships to help them become better people of course this would require some sacrifice on your part.

 

[Paperwhites]

I have been in this situation many times!

I think one of the first questions to ask is whether this person has influence over you. For instance, if being chaste is a struggle for you, it might not be the best idea to be friends with someone who constantly talks about his wild life of womanizing and makes you rethink your choices. This, to me, is a spiritual equivalent of the Catholic teaching that you shouldn’t mutilate yourself, even to help someone else.

On the other hand, if you can help someone else without real harm to yourself, I think you should. That is self-donation. Even if it’s a burden, if you have the charity to give, you should give it. You might be surprised, as people get older, how much they are willing to let go of sin when they realize how broken and empty it leaves them - and to see you shine in a life where you at least try to avoid sin can be a beacon to them. To use the chastity example again, your joy in your chaste life and the healthy way you treat the opposite sex can be a witness to this person, even if it takes a long time.

The line between giving so much you harm yourself and giving so much that you grow spiritually is not simple to discern! I think that is the dividing line to look for, though. I think advice to distance yourself a little is good advice, at least while you try to figure out on what side of the line you fall.

 

[EasterJoy]

There is sometimes merit in continuing these friendships to help them become better people of course this would require some sacrifice on your part.

We have to be careful not to flatter ourselves, either in how resistant we are to picking up bad habits and inappropriate attitudes or in how edifying it is for other people to spend time with us. We also have to be careful we don’t start thinking that virtue consists in being someone we find agreeable to be around, while vice consists in being someone we find difficult for some reason. We are not such exemplary human beings that no one can possibly be both totally innocent of sin and yet fail to please us in a social setting.

If we spend time with people in spite of their faults on the supposition that of course there are people who also overlook our annoying or disappointing deficits or have put up with us while we were learning the manners that we do have, because we all need mercy from Heaven and our fellow human beings, that is one thing. That is a charitable attitude.

If we think we are doing other people some kind of a favor by giving them the honor of our presence or if we think will make other people into better human beings merely by allowing them near us in a social setting, well, all we have to do is to imagine saying that out loud in order to realize how arrogant that attitude really is! Spare people that “favor,” or at least do not blame in on your faith if you insist on distributing it.

 

[robwar]

There is sometimes merit in continuing these friendships to help them become better people of course this would require some sacrifice on your part.

I understand your point. The impression I got from Op is that these people were more social type recent “friends” and they turned out to live life styles that are incompatible with trying to live a religious moral life style. Op ask what was the best and cordial way to discontinue the relationship. If you read both OT and NT, there are a number of warnings about the company one’s keeps. “Bad company corrupts good morals”. There is a difference between friendly cordial on the surface type relationship and a more deep real friendship. One isn’t going to be able to continue a more deeper relationship if the other person drinks, sleeps around etc and so on. And trust me, the these other types of people are not going to be interested in maintaining a “friendship” with a religious person that isn’t doing these things. It would be too convicting. The best and easiest way to slowly back out of a social relationships like these is to stop being available to do things with them and move on. There is nothing wrong with that at all. I am kinda surprised by some of the posts on this thread that seem to think that one must maintain “friendship” with others when there is some kind of incompatibility at all costs no matter what. Op can still be friendly, say hi, do light talk, but one isn’t going to be able to maintain any thing deeper than that when lifestyles and desires are in the opposite direction.