Hate the sin, love the sinner?

[1_with_God]

If I’m understanding you correctly, are you saying that “hate the sin, and love the sinner” is wrong?

IF so, I pray that this thought is incorrect - I would say our salvation depends on God loving us despite our many sins.

What I mean is that:

I love everybody just the way they are!! I don’t look at people and think what kind of sinner are they, are they good or are they bad. What kind of sins do they commit that I should hate?

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

We are to LOVE!! We all own our own sins and that is between the individual and God.

People can talk about me all they want, but I’ll talk about them when I am on my knees talking to God. Lord have Mercy on us all.

 

[Farien]

As a heterosexual, I find my own sins (of all types) hateful, disgusting, and repugnant. There. Happy now?

I recognize that I don’t hate myself…

Very strange, how can you disassociate yourself from your actions? But I guess I learn something new everyday.

 

[Farien]

Opinions, mere human opinions and nothing more. Only Sacred Tradition matters. That is the mark of the “real” orthodox Catholic: he who carefully discerns and only professes what the Church teaches. The Romans used to say: “verba volant, scripta manent”, and surely you won’t find “stomach-turning” or the like in official Catholic teaching.

I am sure you realize that in their opinion, they are the ones who correctly adhere to what the church teaches, and there is no way you can persuade them about their “errors”.

What matters, though, is how we refer to the person, not the act. For, as many have mentioned, any act can be seen as disgusting and worse, and some may in fact be. Personally I find any practice that violates chastity a form of desecration, but only because I insist in believing what St. Paul wrote, namely that “our body is not our own …] but the temple where the Holy Spirit dwells”, and because I am aware of what these practices in general do to family and to society on the long run, and of the evils they have caused. Those reasons make me regard some practices as disgusting, more than the acts per se.

I see what you mean. I just don’t see how can anyone separate the person from their actions.

 

[Farien]

I would like to direct your attention to the current thread of Should I strive… I find it very close to the topic we have been discussing here.

 

[LilyM]

I never heard of the Folsom Street Fair. Of course I looked it up after your reference, but that is not what I had in mind. I was thinking about those simple tribal societies, which were untouched by western civilizations. Those societies were not large in numbers, but they were composed of human beings, who had no special problems with either nudity or sex. The children were brought up in a tribal environment, where everyone took part in the duties of raising them. The problem is the relatively new and western taboo over nudity. In the medival Japan people had no problems with sex, not even with homosexual relationships. As long as it was consensual, no one raised an eye.

Sorry to hear your negative experiences. Too bad that the contemporary social custom looks at recreational drug use with a “jaundiced” eye, as if there would be any problem with properly controlled usage of certain substances. Remember, that at the end of the 1800’s and at the beginning of the 1900’s there were no drug laws, all those substances were over-the-counter substances (from cocaine to morphine and marijuana and hashish) an there were no drug-problems. But this is the topic of a very different thread. (There is a very interesting book about the subject: “Licit and Illicit Drugs” - a collection of essays, which you might find in the local library. A truly eye-opener look at the so-called “drug-problem”. Just one tidbit of info. In the old Ottoman (Turkish) empire the possession of “coffee” was a criminal offense punishable by death… and in a free association test if you would see the word “Turkish”, you very probably would associate it with “coffee”.)

No drug problems? Drugs cost the 18th-century poet Coleridge pretty much everything - his marriage, his health, his livelihood. Opium caused war between Britain and China (hint, they’re actually CALLED the Opium Wars). Thomas de Quincey (writer of Confessions of an English Opium Eater) noted all sorts of ill effects of his addiction - not least on his writing itself, as it left him very unproductive.

It’s most naive of you to say that drugs caused no problems prior to the modern era. It was because there were such massive problems that the substances became restricted and/or banned in the first place.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Very strange, how can you disassociate yourself from your actions?

In the same way that the Roman Catholic Church distinguishes between the person and his or her wholeness/integrity/essence, and Jesus Himself did. In extending mercy, Jesus never denied the sins of others, but rather saw into their repentant hearts, commanded a reformed life, and forgave them, all of which together enabled them to enter into a renewed life and also re-established their bonds with their community of like-minded believers and followers.

I am not my sins. There is not an equation there. (Nor, obviously, is anybody else.) Now, should I become so sinful that my very character rots from the wholehearted embrace of evil and the refusal to reform, then at some point, I have by habit allied myself with an evil lifestyle and am in danger of ultimate separation from God (the further and further I associate myself with an evil/sinful lifestyle).

The human person, as person, is a child of God, by birth (whether he or she recognizes that or not) and always has an opportunity on earth, to convert and be in friendship with God. When we sin, our essence does not metaphysically transform into an essence of sin; our being is still intact, but our holiness and joy is threatened by our actions.

 

[Farien]

No drug problems? Drugs cost the 18th-century poet Coleridge pretty much everything - his marriage, his health, his livelihood. Opium caused war between Britain and China (hint, they’re actually CALLED the Opium Wars). Thomas de Quincey (writer of Confessions of an English Opium Eater) noted all sorts of ill effects of his addiction - not least on his writing itself, as it left him very unproductive.

Individual problems happened all the time. The opium wars were all about money and politics, they had nothing to do with drug consumption.

It’s most naive of you to say that drugs caused no problems prior to the modern era. It was because there were such massive problems that the substances became restricted and/or banned in the first place.

Incorrect info. Read the book: “Licit and Illicit Drugs”. There was one reason for introducing the sweeping drug laws: William Randolph Hearst (the newspaper magnate) wanted to protect his huge forest holdings from the cheap competition of hemp paper (did you know that the Constitition was written on hemp paper?) and since he had the congress in his pocket, the drug laws were enacted. Coffee is “drug”, it is a stimulant, just like cocaine. Is there a coffee-consumption problem? Morphine is available through physician prescription. Is there a “morphine-problem”? The problem is the drug laws, not the drugs.

Of course this has nothing to do with the topic. Let’s drop it.

 

[Farien]

I am not my sins.

Of course not. But you consider them to be part of you. So you hate at least part of yourself. As I said, very strange.

 

[Acerunner]

Individual problems happened all the time. The opium wars were all about money and politics, they had nothing to do with drug consumption.

But at what point does it stop becoming an individual problem and start becoming a societal problem. One person out of a community getting high is not necessarily a problem. But when you start getting very large numbers of people getting high, especially in small communities, the social structure will literally fall apart.

Read Coffee is “drug”, it is a stimulant, just like cocaine. Is there a coffee-consumption problem?

There are health side effects to drinking too much coffee
just the same as taking any other “drug” it’s side effects just take longer to manifest. Are you really comparing coffee to coke? They work on two completely different mechanisms in the body. Cocaine can and will kill you outright. Coffee cannot.

Morphine is available through physician prescription. Is there a “morphine-problem”?

Yes actually there is a morphine problem currently. Of you have any grand parents that come from the WWII era ask then how many of their friends were and still are addicted to morphine because of it’s abuse during and after the war. There are still many new people today that become addicted to this narcotic. It is a very dangerous addiction because doctors are still writing prescriptions for dosages that are outright obscene and actually killing people.
The problem is the drug laws…
I cannot buy into this. Working in EMS has showed me that no it is not the drug laws that cause people to become addicted to drugs and flush their lives away. It us most definitely the drugs.
Thank you for your time.
/rant

 

[Elizabeth502]

Of course not. But you consider them to be part of you. So you hate at least part of yourself. As I said, very strange.

No, again: Sins are actions. “Part of me” suggests that they belong to my nature, my essence, my being. They are not “part of me” in that sense whatsoever. They are evil actions, evil decisions, evil behaviors. While I “take ownership” of them, that does not mean that my core is defined by sin. It means that I can at the same time declare repugnancy for my sins, as can God, as can the Roman Catholic Church, as can my neighbor - who can hate what I do without hating me. He can repudiate those evils without rejecting me. He might want to stay very far away from me while I am committing evil, but once he sees that I have been restored to the goodness which is the human nature, recognize that he can have a relationship with me, acknowledging the good which he and I share.

There’s nothing strange about it all. You obviously haven’t studied much philosophy, and certainly not Catholic philosophy.

It’s not only perfectly possible to have humane associations with active homosexuals without at all acknowledging, discussing referring to their lifestyle, but people do it all the time, including I. (And to still find the activity “repugnant,” “disgusting,” etc.)

If I had a neighbor on one side of me who was an active homosexual (shared that fact with me) and a heterosexual neighbor on the other side of me who was an open adulterer (shared that fact with me), I would not comment on the lifestyle and the choices of either one of them. However, it is actually most likely that the person whose actions I would find most “disgusting” would be the adulterer, who knows better. The homosexual lifestyle I find to be a tragic choice.

And I always feel much more pain for the homosexual. It is a pursuit which does not satisfy, and the fact that on any given day on CAF there are new threads opened by those trying to justify the behavior and to force that assent on others, is evidence of how, deep down, there is natural knowledge of how misdirected it is.

 

[R_C]

I am sure you realize that in their opinion, they are the ones who correctly adhere to what the church teaches, and there is no way you can persuade them about their “errors”.

Many people think they adhere to “what the Church teaches” yet few actually know what “the Church teaches”. And we can persuade them by showing them the official Catholic teaching.

I see what you mean. I just don’t see how can anyone separate the person from their actions.

Well, Aristotle said that “we are what we repeatedly do”, and there is some truth in this; however, many actions are intrinsically evil, and yet the person that commits them is not intrinsically evil - and thus redeemable by means of repentance and reparation. This would be irrational and unfeasible unless we could distinctly separate person from action.

Theologically speaking - though this trascends the topic at hand - there was (is?) an erroneous understanding of the Trinity according to which the divine Persons were defined based on their actions, an erroneous understanding that was condemned, for the distinction between the divine Persons is in their origin, not in their actions. This may have little to do with the original topic, but it sure shows that the distinction between person and action goes deep into Catholic tradition even beyond the discussion of man.

 

[Farien]

rant

Let’s talk about it in a different thread.

 

[Farien]

No, again: Sins are actions. “Part of me” suggests that they belong to my nature, my essence, my being. They are not “part of me” in that sense whatsoever.

Sorry, I thought that I can get away with being a little sloppy. This is what I meant:

1. Part of you are - are your actions. (You cannot say that your actions have nothing to do with you)
2. Some of your actions you describe as sinful.
3. You say that you hate sins, your own included.

Therefore you hate some part of what you do, and since at least partially you are what you do, therefore you hate some part of yourself. And this is what I feel uneasy about. In hindsight there are some actions which I might have done differently, not many, but a few. However, I do not “hate” those actions. I cannot imagine “hating” what I do, or did. If I did I would not do them. Do you see my point?

There’s nothing strange about it all. You obviously haven’t studied much philosophy, and certainly not Catholic philosophy.

Maybe you should not make hasty judgments.

It’s not only perfectly possible to have humane associations with active homosexuals without at all acknowledging, discussing referring to their lifestyle, but people do it all the time, including I. (And to still find the activity “repugnant,” “disgusting,” etc.)

As long as you keep those feelings to yourself, there is nothing problematic about them. My point was that expressing those feelings would not come across as “loving” to those are “admonished”.

And I always feel much more pain for the homosexual. It is a pursuit which does not satisfy, and the fact that on any given day on CAF there are new threads opened by those trying to justify the behavior and to force that assent on others, is evidence of how, deep down, there is natural knowledge of how misdirected it is.

There can be a very different explanation for it.

 

[Farien]

Many people think they adhere to “what the Church teaches” yet few actually know what “the Church teaches”.

Undoubtedly.

And we can persuade them by showing them the official Catholic teaching.

Maybe, maybe not. Many people see what they want to see. Can you convince the protestants that they err when they reject the authority of the pope and the magisterium?

Well, Aristotle said that “we are what we repeatedly do”, and there is some truth in this; however, many actions are intrinsically evil, and yet the person that commits them is not intrinsically evil - and thus redeemable by means of repentance and reparation. This would be irrational and unfeasible unless we could distinctly separate person from action.

I reject the idea that there are “intrinsically” evil actions. And the church agrees with me, when it says that one must take into account both the intent, the action and the outcome when passing a judgment. Since all three must be considered, you cannot say that the “action” itself can be separated and considered “evil” IN and BY itself. You might assert that no matter what the intent and the outcome might be; the three of them are always “evil”, but such sweeping judgment is not very convincing. No one can claim omniscience, can they?

 

[R_C]

Maybe, maybe not. Many people see what they want to see. Can you convince the protestants that they err when they reject the authority of the pope and the magisterium?

Excellent point. In fact, all we can do is show the truthfulness of the teaching.

I reject the idea that there are “intrinsically” evil actions. And the church agrees with me, when it says that one must take into account both the intent, the action and the outcome when passing a judgment. Since all three must be considered, you cannot say that the “action” itself can be separated and considered “evil” IN and BY itself. You might assert that no matter what the intent and the outcome might be; the three of them are always “evil”, but such sweeping judgment is not very convincing. No one can claim omniscience, can they?

I understand your point, but I am not sure it nails the Church teaching. For instance consider the following section of the Veritatis Splendor:

Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such always and per se, in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”

a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide; whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat labourers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons …]

If acts are intrinsically evil, a good intention or particular circumstances can diminish their evil, but they cannot remove it. They remain “irremediably” evil acts; per se and in themselves they are not capable of being ordered to God and to the good of the person.

Consequently, circumstances or intentions can never transform an act intrinsically evil by virtue of its object into an act “subjectively” good or defensible as a choice.

 

[Farien]

Excellent point. In fact, all we can do is show the truthfulness of the teaching.

Yes, sometimes you just have to do the best you can.

I understand your point, but I am not sure it nails the Church teaching. For instance consider the following section of the Veritatis Splendor:

Well, I certainly have no desire to “nail” the church. But let’s be honest, the church is composed of fallible humans, and it may happen that complicated issues get incorrectly analyzed.

As an example, let’s consider your quote. It says: "Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”. But this claims omniscience! Moreover, the analysis is incomplete.

There is an old saying that next to each huge gate there is a small door, which offers an “escape”. In this case the small door is the “principle of double effect”. The quote says: “Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide…”. But then again, a foreseen, but uninteded outcome will render the act itself not evil! And if someone would argue that intentional, premeditated murder (and let’s not forget that "murder is a legal term) is always wrong, then this argument addresses the intent, over and beyond the act itself - not just the act of taking the life of someone.

Of course my ethical foundation is somewhat (but not totally) “utilitarian”. When someone faces a dilemma, where only negative outcomes are possible, it is incumbent to choose the one which causes “less harm”. Some people assert that “non-action” is a “moral option”, but, of course that cannot be accepted. If one sees an upcoming event, which will cause a disaster to people, it would be an unacceptable defense: “well, I could have intervened, and prevented the disaster, but since the impending disaster was not my doing, I chose inaction, and I am morally blameless”.

Of course we diverged from the topic.

 

[Pug]

I’ve casually assumed in the past that those who advise others to “hate the sin” are suggesting the stance one ought to have concerning the action or type of action. One should not do it oneself and one should oppose things that wrongly encourage or support it if applicable and one should believe it to be sinful matter. That is not advice to tell a possible sinner that their actions are personally disgusting to you.

I choose to live my life by going to mass every Sunday and Holy Day. If someone were to tell me my choice disgusts them, say as a regular act of cowardice, I might doubt they were talking about me. How tedious it would be if they kept on saying it. I’m not sure I’d conclude they thought me a coward, though. (Maybe to talk about what constitutes a person as what they are requires a lot of groundwork to be laid.)

 

[Farien]

I choose to live my life by going to mass every Sunday and Holy Day. If someone were to tell me my choice disgusts them, say as a regular act of cowardice, I might doubt they were talking about me.

Why would anyone say something like that? What you do is meaningful to you, it is an important thing in your liefe… and most importantly - it does not affect anyone in any way. Even if someone would disagree with your choice (meaning that they would not wish to follow your path) it would be rude, hurtful and impolite to put that opinion into words. What would they achieve, beside hurting your feelings? Thay may very well believe that you waste your time with these practices, but it is none of their business.

So, I would suggest to follow the same path - not “you”, personally, but “you” generally. You disagree with their lifestyle, you may even find it “disgusting”, but they do what they do in the privacy of their home, so it does not affect you. You are entitled to you opinion, but keep it yourselves. Putting it into words will achieve onely one thing: you hurt them with your derogatory words, and that is not very “charitable” behavior.

Of course this is merely my opinion.

 

[LilyM]

Why would anyone say something like that? What you do is meaningful to you, it is an important thing in your liefe… and most importantly - it does not affect anyone in any way. Even if someone would disagree with your choice (meaning that they would not wish to follow your path) it would be rude, hurtful and impolite to put that opinion into words. What would they achieve, beside hurting your feelings? Thay may very well believe that you waste your time with these practices, but it is none of their business.

So, I would suggest to follow the same path - not “you”, personally, but “you” generally. You disagree with their lifestyle, you may even find it “disgusting”, but they do what they do in the privacy of their home, so it does not affect you. You are entitled to you opinion, but keep it yourselves. Putting it into words will achieve onely one thing: you hurt them with your derogatory words, and that is not very “charitable” behavior.

Of course this is merely my opinion.

I don’t find homosexuality ‘disgusting’ any more than I find heterosexual adultery or pre-marital sex disgusting. And few people I know would say that they do find it ‘disgusting’.

I do find it concernig for all the same reasons that I am concerned by the others.

‘Live and let live’ doesn’t wash at times. Let me give you an example. You find out your best friend is cheating on his or her spouse. It is something they do in private that does not directly harm you - or does it?

Is there no harm to you in the fact that your friend is the sort of character who ignores his or her marital vows? Who therefore cannot be trusted to keep even the most solemn and sacred promise when it is inconvenient to them? Is there no harm in bing around someone who is unreliable when it comes down to it?

So yes even ‘victimless’ wrongs can do damage to people other than the participants.

 

[Pug]

Why would anyone say something like that?

I’m not sure. Very few people comment on it, but some do. I’ve assumed they intend something constructive, but on those rare occasions when it happens I try to escape the conversation or wait it out in a passive manner, so something constructive is very unlikely to happen. You are right, though, that “time wasting” has been mentioned.

I agree with you that if the words are going to be unhelpful to the person, don’t speak them. Our duty is not one of speaking, but one of service and charity.

People choose to be what they choose to be and that is who comes out of the house to interact with others, causing an effect. So that part of your point I disagree with, but that is off your main topic. I do agree with you about only behaving in helpful ways towards other people.