History and committing detraction

[akathlic]

While im doing history homework, I’m often asked to recall certain historical events or actions which someone way back when might have done.

I do get scrupulous, but would it be a mortal sin or sin at all for me to address the horrible acts of people in history for the sake of finishing my homework?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

While im doing history homework, I’m often asked to recall certain historical events or actions which someone way back when might have done.

I do get scrupulous, but would it be a mortal sin or sin at all for me to address the horrible acts of people in history for the sake of finishing my homework?

There is no sin whatsoever in this.

Stop and think — the Bible itself is chock-full of the bad things various people did. Catholic schools and universities have taught history for centuries. Did all of these writers and students sin in writing and studying these events? Certainly not.

Try to put this thinking behind you, but if that doesn’t work, please find a priest loyal to the magisterium in all things, and do whatever he tells you. CAF is not the place to come, to address one’s scruples. You need a priest to tell you these things in person.

 

[RolandThompsonGunner]

I do get scrupulous, but would it be a mortal sin or sin at all for me to address the horrible acts of people in history for the sake of finishing my homework?

If you’re scrupulous, and this question is like level 10 scrupulous, you really should not come to CAF with questions like these. @HomeschoolDad gave you a very reasonable answer, but the problem is you’re going to get used to coming here to ask for reassurance to settle your anxiety.

You need to find a priest, tell him you’re scrupulous, and then go to him and only him. And follow his advice and don’t shop around for second and third opinions.

 

[Beryllos]

No sin, but I like your curiosity about this. Let’s look up detraction in the Catechism:
http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/2477.htm

(bold emphasis mine)

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;
• of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

The key here is the qualification “without objectively valid reason.” Do you think the study of history is an objectively valid reason? I am sure it is.

It is said that we must remember history or we are doomed to repeat it. We must learn from the mistakes that others have made in the past.

Bear in mind also that most of these people are dead, so that their reputation today, good or bad, no longer has any impact on their lives. If they are long dead, it furthermore doesn’t impact their descendants.

 

[Freddy]

akathlic:

I do get scrupulous, but would it be a mortal sin or sin at all for me to address the horrible acts of people in history for the sake of finishing my homework?

If you’re scrupulous, and this question is like level 10 scrupulous, you really should not come to CAF with questions like these.

Then the earlier question about putting ketchup on fries gets an 11.

As everyone says, ak, you are suffering from scrupulosity. Have a chat with your local priest. He’ll put you straight.