Is "black-and-white" thinking wrong?

[Danjabo]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

 

[inocente]

That’s sounds like a question which detects for obsessive compulsive behavior (as in having to check the fire is out ten times before the ambiguity that the fire might not be out is finally removed). Since scrupulosity is a form of OCD, that might be why it’s being asked in a seminary.

Or not, it’s a bit ambiguous.

 

[belorg]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

Some things are black and some things are white, but most things have a different colour.

 

[grannymh]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

Personally, I would demand a complete explanation and examples of black–and–white thinking.

So far what you presented is normal toleration. Even the maxim “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” is normal charity. But, when either human nature (sinner) or the nature of the sin (example, chosen state of mortal sin) are being considered, then there are absolutely black–and–white Catholic doctrines.

Divine Revelation trumps.

 

[Regina7]

I think most things are black and white. The Church is pretty clear on most things.

Many people who I know use shades of grey thinking to normalize sin. Like, “I know that contraception, abortion, etc is wrong, but in this case, it’s ok.” I’m not saying that this is happening at your seminary, but I too would be wary/questioning of shades of grey teaching.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Personally, I would demand a complete explanation and examples of black–and–white thinking.

So far what you presented is normal toleration. Even the maxim “love the sinner, but hate the sin.” is normal charity. But, when either human nature (sinner) or the nature of the sin (example, chosen state of mortal sin) are being considered, then there are absolutely black–and–white Catholic doctrines.

Divine Revelation trumps.

Expanding on this, I think you’re vastly overthinking the question. It’s just gauging your level of flexibility in reactions and thinking to some extent. Obviously there are objective truths and black and white answers, so to speak. But not everything can be boiled down to as simple of terms as that. It’s not asking if you allow “alternative practices” into your view of Catholicism, but rather if you are able to work through a complex issue where the solution may not be readily apparent.

Example. Person steals a loaf of bread. That would be bad, black and white. But it’s a hypothetical. Rarely do people act on such simple and straightforward situations. There are myriad levels of rationalization that go into every decision we make. Objectively speaking, say that person stole a loaf of bread to feed their four children, to use a cliche example. They do recognize the act of stealing as wrong, but yet their love for their children and their need to provide for them, while lacking for whatever reason the means to do so, led them to violate that principle in favor of feeding their kids.

A black and white response to this issue would be either A) forgive the person entirely, as they were just feeding their kids, or B) punish them for stealing, as it is against the law, morally and civilly.

The colorful or gray area answer to this situation would be something in between, hence my use of the word gray. Gray falls anywhere between pure white and pure black, and if you’re using color as light, colors would also fall here, white being all colors black being no color. There are as many variations in response as there are shades of gray or hues of color between the two extremes. You could force the person to return the bread and pay a fine for having stolen it, yet also organize a food drive to provide food for the person’s family. You could impose no financial penalty for stealing, ban the person from entering the particular store again, and then pay from your own pocket to buy them groceries. You could force the man to work in the store to pay off the bread he stole, with the double effect of providing him a job to be able to feed his family. A cashier could see him steal the bread, and then hand him a second loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter, then pay the difference out of their salary. Etc. etc.

I’m relatively certain that line of thinking is what the question was trying to measure. Someone who is too extreme with their worldview can have a tendency to be vindictive and unforgiving, or alternately be a complete pushover. Whenever I think of a black and white worldview, I generally picture those military commander antagonists you find in movies and TV shows. They will accept no failure, give no leeway, and have a set response to anything. In a zombie apocalypse movie, this would be the leader of a group of survivors who shoots people who find them on sight out of fear that the person may be infected without actually verifying the information first.

Those with a black and white worldview tend to be horrible leaders. There is an essential distinction between having an objective standard of morality, yet being able to respond to each situation in a subjective way that weighs all significant factors, and having an objective standard for reality, which tends to result in irrational responses to unfamiliar situations.

 

[Joe_5859]

Sometimes. It’s a bit of a gray area.

In all seriousness, though, there are some things that are and some things that aren’t. Some people want to paint gray things as black and white. Others want to paint black and white things in shades of gray. I find it best to strive to look at things as they are.

 

[Kurisu35712]

I’m relatively certain that line of thinking is what the question was trying to measure. Someone who is too extreme with their worldview can have a tendency to be vindictive and unforgiving, or alternately be a complete pushover. Whenever I think of a black and white worldview, I generally picture those military commander antagonists you find in movies and TV shows. They will accept no failure, give no leeway, and have a set response to anything.** In a zombie apocalypse movie, this would be the leader of a group of survivors who shoots people who find them on sight out of fear that the person may be infected without actually verifying the information first.**

Further expanding on this, I can totally see someone responding with the opinion that this could be a potentially intelligent way to lead one’s group, as occasionally there is no way to verify certain facts. In this example, they may not be in a situation where they can verify whether the person was infected.

That is a perfect example of a viewpoint that is not black and white. Not every situation is the same, thus, every response should not be the same. If a group is on the run from a horde of zombies, they may not have time to verify. Yet if that same group is in some sort of safe location with guards and fences and food, the same response is utterly unjustifiable.

 

[Michael_Mayo]

Some things are black and white but then even in black/white, right/wrong we take into consideration circumstances that might diminish culpability.

Like the Church teaching on masturbation:

Black/and white:
2352 “Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action.”

and yet:
To form an equitable judgment about the subjects’ moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

 

[grannymh]

Example. Person steals a loaf of bread.

I did appreciate all your work. However …
“Person steals a loaf of bread” story --“A black and white response to this issue would be either A) forgive the person entirely, as they were just feeding their kids, or B) punish them for stealing, as it is against the law, morally and civilly.”

is not even close to a black-and-white Catholic doctrine which happens to be the definitive issue in post 3.

Post 3 stands. Please notice the specific identifying words human nature and nature of the sin.

But, when either human nature (sinner) or the nature of the sin (example, chosen state of mortal sin) are being considered, then there are absolutely black–and–white Catholic doctrines.

hat would be bad, black and white. But it’s a hypothetical. Rarely do people act on such simple and straightforward situations. There are myriad levels of rationalization that go into every decision we make. Objectively speaking, say that person stole a loaf of bread to feed their four children, to use a cliche example. They do recognize the act of stealing as wrong, but yet their love for their children and their need to provide for them, while lacking for whatever reason the means to do so, led them to violate that principle in favor of feeding their kids.

A black and white response to this issue would be either A) forgive the person entirely, as they were just feeding their kids, or B) punish them for stealing, as it is against the law, morally and civilly.

The colorful or gray area answer to this situation would be something in between, hence my use of the word gray. Gray falls anywhere between pure white and pure black, and if you’re using color as light, colors would also fall here, white being all colors black being no color. There are as many variations in response as there are shades of gray or hues of color between the two extremes. You could force the person to return the bread and pay a fine for having stolen it, yet also organize a food drive to provide food for the person’s family. You could impose no financial penalty for stealing, ban the person from entering the particular store again, and then pay from your own pocket to buy them groceries. You could force the man to work in the store to pay off the bread he stole, with the double effect of providing him a job to be able to feed his family. A cashier could see him steal the bread, and then hand him a second loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter, then pay the difference out of their salary. Etc. etc.

I’m relatively certain that line of thinking is what the question was trying to measure. Someone who is too extreme with their worldview can have a tendency to be vindictive and unforgiving, or alternately be a complete pushover. Whenever I think of a black and white worldview, I generally picture those military commander antagonists you find in movies and TV shows. They will accept no failure, give no leeway, and have a set response to anything. In a zombie apocalypse movie, this would be the leader of a group of survivors who shoots people who find them on sight out of fear that the person may be infected without actually verifying the information first.

Those with a black and white worldview tend to be horrible leaders. There is an essential distinction between having an objective standard of morality, yet being able to respond to each situation in a subjective way that weighs all significant factors, and having an objective standard for reality, which tends to result in irrational responses to unfamiliar situations.

 

[grannymh]

Please accept my apology for post 10. Trying to post on CAF has become a nightmare. When I came back to this thread, I discovered what had happened.

Also, my original post on this thread is post 4.

 

[Danjabo]

Thanks for all the responses.

There is an essential distinction between having an objective standard of morality, yet being able to respond to each situation in a subjective way that weighs all significant factors, and having an objective standard for reality, which tends to result in irrational responses to unfamiliar situations.

I really agree, Kurisu35712. I believe in an objective standard of morality, but I also believe that judgments must be made with wisdom and charity. Very often I think this becomes polarized in many peoples’ minds. They believe that one either has an objective standard of morality to the exclusion of charity or he is charitable and must surrender all objectivity. But isn’t that black-and-white thinking?

Maybe I am not as much of a black-and-white thinker as I thought.

…Also, I’m beginning to worry about an impending zombie apocalypse.

 

[Birdpreacher]

Black and white rules are great for certain huge taboos, example: Rape

However life is complex and requires measurements in degrees, especially with something as circumstantial as morallity.

Black and white rules make people feel safe. Structure makes us feel safe and lessens anxiety.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Expanding on this, I think you’re vastly overthinking the question. It’s just gauging your level of flexibility in reactions and thinking to some extent. Obviously there are objective truths and black and white answers, so to speak. But not everything can be boiled down to as simple of terms as that. It’s not asking if you allow “alternative practices” into your view of Catholicism, but rather if you are able to work through a complex issue where the solution may not be readily apparent.

Example. Person steals a loaf of bread. That would be bad, black and white. But it’s a hypothetical. Rarely do people act on such simple and straightforward situations. There are myriad levels of rationalization that go into every decision we make. Objectively speaking, say that person stole a loaf of bread to feed their four children, to use a cliche example. They do recognize the act of stealing as wrong, but yet their love for their children and their need to provide for them, while lacking for whatever reason the means to do so, led them to violate that principle in favor of feeding their kids.

A black and white response to this issue would be either A) forgive the person entirely, as they were just feeding their kids, or B) punish them for stealing, as it is against the law, morally and civilly.

The colorful or gray area answer to this situation would be something in between, hence my use of the word gray. Gray falls anywhere between pure white and pure black, and if you’re using color as light, colors would also fall here, white being all colors black being no color. There are as many variations in response as there are shades of gray or hues of color between the two extremes. You could force the person to return the bread and pay a fine for having stolen it, yet also organize a food drive to provide food for the person’s family. You could impose no financial penalty for stealing, ban the person from entering the particular store again, and then pay from your own pocket to buy them groceries. You could force the man to work in the store to pay off the bread he stole, with the double effect of providing him a job to be able to feed his family. A cashier could see him steal the bread, and then hand him a second loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter, then pay the difference out of their salary. Etc. etc.

I’m relatively certain that line of thinking is what the question was trying to measure. Someone who is too extreme with their worldview can have a tendency to be vindictive and unforgiving, or alternately be a complete pushover. Whenever I think of a black and white worldview, I generally picture those military commander antagonists you find in movies and TV shows. They will accept no failure, give no leeway, and have a set response to anything. In a zombie apocalypse movie, this would be the leader of a group of survivors who shoots people who find them on sight out of fear that the person may be infected without actually verifying the information first.

Those with a black and white worldview tend to be horrible leaders. There is an essential distinction between having an objective standard of morality, yet being able to respond to each situation in a subjective way that weighs all significant factors, and having an objective standard for reality, which tends to result in irrational responses to unfamiliar situations.

Kurisu,

I don’t agree with the whole first pp. Couldn’t read the rest, sorry. Already did my reading for the day. And they say I’M a chatterbox! And I probably would end up not agreeing with you.

However, don’t worry too much - I think our Pope agrees with you.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

Please accept my apology for post 10. Trying to post on CAF has become a nightmare. When I came back to this thread, I discovered what had happened.

Also, my original post on this thread is post 4.

Do you think Kurisu knows One Sheep??
This might be a conspiracy!!

God bless
Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

Could you, like, ask them for an example?

I’m a bit dense and can’t think that hard.

God bless you

 

[frangiuliano115]

Further expanding on this, I can totally see someone responding with the opinion that this could be a potentially intelligent way to lead one’s group, as occasionally there is no way to verify certain facts. In this example, they may not be in a situation where they can verify whether the person was infected.

That is a perfect example of a viewpoint that is not black and white. Not every situation is the same, thus, every response should not be the same. If a group is on the run from a horde of zombies, they may not have time to verify. Yet if that same group is in some sort of safe location with guards and fences and food, the same response is utterly unjustifiable.

Kurisu,

Okay. This post is short so I have more hope of understanding it. I’m slow this evening.

I like science fiction too. I’d say that your two scenarios are different; not A scenario which would have grey areas.

I’m no philosopher, but there is a difference here.

Think up something different.

BTW, have you seen Hunger Games? What about Cloud Atlas?
Aren’t you glad you saw those movies? Don’t you wish everybody did?

Especially Cloud Atlas.

God bless you
Fran

 

[edwest2]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

Not criminalized but rationalized away. Saying it’s grey or vague doesn’t explain anything.

Anyone can and should answer the following and without fear of being “scrupulous.”

A) Did I do wrong?

B) How do I know it was wrong?

C) Did I feel appropriate guilt about it or, if confused, did I talk to a priest about it?

D) If I did wrong, what should I do?

E) If it was a sexual sin, did I feel any remorse about it, or my other sins?

Those are the kinds of questions we need to ask ourselves before going into the Confessional. The Bible and Catechism lay out what sinful behaviors and actions are, including certain thoughts.

Best,

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Expanding on this, I think you’re vastly overthinking the question. It’s just gauging your level of flexibility in reactions and thinking to some extent. Obviously there are objective truths and black and white answers, so to speak. But not everything can be boiled down to as simple of terms as that. It’s not asking if you allow “alternative practices” into your view of Catholicism, but rather if you are able to work through a complex issue where the solution may not be readily apparent.

Example. Person steals a loaf of bread. That would be bad, black and white. But it’s a hypothetical. Rarely do people act on such simple and straightforward situations. There are myriad levels of rationalization that go into every decision we make. Objectively speaking, say that person stole a loaf of bread to feed their four children, to use a cliche example. They do recognize the act of stealing as wrong, but yet their love for their children and their need to provide for them, while lacking for whatever reason the means to do so, led them to violate that principle in favor of feeding their kids.

A black and white response to this issue would be either A) forgive the person entirely, as they were just feeding their kids, or B) punish them for stealing, as it is against the law, morally and civilly.

The colorful or gray area answer to this situation would be something in between, hence my use of the word gray. Gray falls anywhere between pure white and pure black, and if you’re using color as light, colors would also fall here, white being all colors black being no color. There are as many variations in response as there are shades of gray or hues of color between the two extremes. You could force the person to return the bread and pay a fine for having stolen it, yet also organize a food drive to provide food for the person’s family. You could impose no financial penalty for stealing, ban the person from entering the particular store again, and then pay from your own pocket to buy them groceries. You could force the man to work in the store to pay off the bread he stole, with the double effect of providing him a job to be able to feed his family. A cashier could see him steal the bread, and then hand him a second loaf of bread and a jar of peanut butter, then pay the difference out of their salary. Etc. etc.

I’m relatively certain that line of thinking is what the question was trying to measure. Someone who is too extreme with their worldview can have a tendency to be vindictive and unforgiving, or alternately be a complete pushover. Whenever I think of a black and white worldview, I generally picture those military commander antagonists you find in movies and TV shows. They will accept no failure, give no leeway, and have a set response to anything. In a zombie apocalypse movie, this would be the leader of a group of survivors who shoots people who find them on sight out of fear that the person may be infected without actually verifying the information first.

Those with a black and white worldview tend to be horrible leaders. There is an essential distinction between having an objective standard of morality, yet being able to respond to each situation in a subjective way that weighs all significant factors, and having an objective standard for reality, which tends to result in irrational responses to unfamiliar situations.

A black and white worldview is what Jesus gave us. As God, he could forgive sins but we cannot. As far as leaders, the best military leaders understood real people and how they would react, almost regardless of the situation. Officer candidates are taught various black and white things: that is, the average soldier is like this. The average number of variables include this. For example: some men will panic under fire, some men cannot perform/learn certain tasks quickly, some will desert under certain conditions. Being a good leader is about understanding your men and watching how they respond to certain situations.

The military is very rigid. It’s very black and white. Rules are rules and orders are orders.

As far as how to view sin and the sinner, Bishop Fulton Sheen:

"Love is not Tolerance

"Christian love bears evil, but it does not tolerate it.

"It does penance for the sins of others, but it is not broadminded about sin.

"The cry for tolerance never induces it to quench its hatred of the evil philosophies that have entered into contest with the Truth.

"It forgives the sinner, and it hates the sin; it is unmerciful to the error in his mind.

"The sinner it will always take back into the bosom of the Mystical Body;
but his lie will never be taken into the treasury of His Wisdom.

"Real love involves real hatred:
whoever has lost the power of moral indignation and the urge to drive the buyers and sellers from the temples
has also lost a living, fervent love of Truth.

"Charity, then, is not a mild philosophy of “live and let live”;
it is not a species of sloppy sentiment.

“Charity is the infusion of the Spirit of God,
which makes us love the beautiful and hate the morally ugly.”

Ed

 

[fhansen]

It seems like so-called “black-and-white thinking” has been much criminalized in society and even in the Catholic Church.

I’m taking a course on ministry at seminary and one of the beginning self-assessment questions was “I am able to live comfortably with ambiguity; I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’” Time and again in my formation I am hearing things like this and it really disturbs me.

I think I understand the value of being welcoming and forgiving and not passing judgment on people or writing them off; but what ever happened to the old maxim “love the sinner but hate the sin?” It sounds to me that we want to exhonerate the sin with the sinner. We explain sin away and say that it is just grey because things are always so complex.

What do you guys think?

Yes, tolerance can masquerade as love, when often it’s basis is actually fear. Most of us want to accommodate, to never say “no”, to please all, compromising truth in the process. That’s a problem.