Is "black-and-white" thinking wrong?

[Bradski]

It seems pretty obvious that the world itself is not black and white. From the very important questions (should I marry this girl, should we invade this country), to the minor (should I go for a run or call into the pub).

If you can’t live with this daily uncertainty, where there is rarely a definite answer one way or another, then you are going to experience quite a few problems.

 

[Michael19682]

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?

People sway with the pendulum. I think b&w thinking involves focusing exclusively on one side of an issue and ignoring the other. Yes, a sin like abortion is wrong: But if we focus exclusively on the sin, the person can’t heal from it. It might be impossible to find good from such an act, but our faith demands that as a community people live with the consequences and not be dragged into indifference or as had been said hate.
Similarly, if they find exhilaration in having avoided indifference then they lose sight of the basic, immutable sin in the act.
That is the prototype of the b&w dilemma. All situations that strain or stress-out our faith involve b&w thinking. If I am angry because I was insulted and all I do is say “How can that person insult me?” and don’t recognize that he too is having problems, etc., I will form an imbalanced view of him – he insults. It matters little if he is an arrogant insult to me: what is important is that I don’t become one to him or others.
There need not be gray at all. Just a shift in focus, a gestalt, that enables us to not become stuck and helps to transcend the dilemma. In the end, we want to act consciously and aware of our need to balance the forgiveness and the correction of social ills.
Only when b&w are combined physically do you get gray. There is no need for that. Why waste time with creating hybrid doctrine that will incur the enmity of everyone and offend God:
Mt 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Mt: 12:25
But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.
Mk 9:50
Salt is good, but if salt becomes insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have peace with one another.”

 

[Kurisu35712]

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. Yet as Michael Mayo points out here…

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

…Culpability is something that is subjective to each unique situation. Obviously this does not change whether something is a sin, but based on unique variables, the culpability for a given sin is not set in stone. The sins themselves are.

Also, my post deviated quite a bit from your post that I quoted. They weren’t necessarily that related, so I’m sorry for any confusion granny. I went off on a tangent. I was mostly responding to the actual question contained in the seminar test. I think the purpose of the question was different than what Danjabo had read. I feel like it was asking whether the applicant is adaptive to different and unfamiliar situations, rather than asking if they feel doctrine should be a fluid thing. I wholeheartedly agree that Catholic doctrine is black and white. Things are either objectively true or objectively false regarding what we believe.

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

Haha, yeah I’ve noticed that I turn my responses here into essays quite a bit. If I were a theology major, I’d have a thesis by now.

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

God bless
Fran

I don’t think I know who One Sheep is. The name is familiar, so I’ve probably been on threads they’ve responded to. You can go through my post history if you decide you need some reading material.

 

[frangiuliano115]

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

Thank you edwest2.

I second that emotion.

May I add:

The more you read the bible and get close to God, the more you know what He expects from you. And,

He that believes in everything, believes in nothing.

God bless

 

[frangiuliano115]

It seems pretty obvious that the world itself is not black and white. From the very important questions (should I marry this girl, should we invade this country), to the minor (should I go for a run or call into the pub).

If you can’t live with this daily uncertainty, where there is rarely a definite answer one way or another, then you are going to experience quite a few problems.

Hello Bradski,

Don’t you love what Micael19682 says?
I didn’t think so.

BTW, any good pizza recipes??

Fran

 

[frangiuliano115]

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. Yet as Michael Mayo points out here…

…Culpability is something that is subjective to each unique situation. Obviously this does not change whether something is a sin, but based on unique variables, the culpability for a given sin is not set in stone. The sins themselves are.

**Also, my post deviated quite a bit from your post that I quoted. They weren’t necessarily that related, so I’m sorry for any confusion granny. I went off on a tangent. I was mostly responding to the actual question contained in the seminar test. I think the purpose of the question was different than what Danjabo had read. I feel like it was asking whether the applicant is adaptive to different and unfamiliar situations, rather than asking if they feel doctrine should be a fluid thing. I wholeheartedly agree that Catholic doctrine is black and white. Things are either objectively true or objectively false regarding what we believe.
**

Haha, yeah I’ve noticed that I turn my responses here into essays quite a bit. If I were a theology major, I’d have a thesis by now.

I don’t think I know who One Sheep is. The name is familiar, so I’ve probably been on threads they’ve responded to. You can go through my post history if you decide you need some reading material.

Good morning Kurisu,

No reading material necessary. This might turn out to be an interesting thread and I’ll get to know you eventually. In the meantime, I do agree with your entire pp highlighted above. So maybe I SHOULD have read your entire post last night when I had a slight headache. Sorry 'bout that.

Someone who likes science fiction can’t be all bad!
BTW, I don’t consider zombie movies science fiction but that 's a whole different story.
(horror,maybe?)

Fran

 

[Joe_5859]

Isn’t in kind of ironic that we can turn this thread question into a black & white issue? Either black & white thinking is right or black & white thinking is wrong. There is no other option in between.

From a logic point of view, I guess that’s more problematic for those who assert that black & white thinking is wrong because that statement itself is a black and white statement.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Isn’t in kind of ironic that we can turn this thread question into a black & white issue? Either black & white thinking is right or black & white thinking is wrong. There is no other option in between.

From a logic point of view, I guess that’s more problematic for those who assert that black & white thinking is wrong because that statement itself is a black and white statement.

You’re too good!

God bless

 

[Kurisu35712]

People sway with the pendulum. I think b&w thinking involves focusing exclusively on one side of an issue and ignoring the other. Yes, a sin like abortion is wrong: But if we focus exclusively on the sin, the person can’t heal from it. It might be impossible to find good from such an act, but our faith demands that as a community people live with the consequences and not be dragged into indifference or as had been said hate.
Similarly, if they find exhilaration in having avoided indifference then they lose sight of the basic, immutable sin in the act.
That is the prototype of the b&w dilemma. All situations that strain or stress-out our faith involve b&w thinking. If I am angry because I was insulted and all I do is say “How can that person insult me?” and don’t recognize that he too is having problems, etc., I will form an imbalanced view of him – he insults. It matters little if he is an arrogant insult to me: what is important is that I don’t become one to him or others.
There need not be gray at all. Just a shift in focus, a gestalt, that enables us to not become stuck and helps to transcend the dilemma. In the end, we want to act consciously and aware of our need to balance the forgiveness and the correction of social ills.
Only when b&w are combined physically do you get gray. There is no need for that. Why waste time with creating hybrid doctrine that will incur the enmity of everyone and offend God:
Mt 6:24
“No one can serve two masters. He will either hate one and love the other, or be devoted to one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon."
Mt: 12:25
But he knew what they were thinking and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.
Mk 9:50
Salt is good, but if salt becomes insipid, with what will you restore its flavor? Keep salt in yourselves and you will have peace with one another.”

This is more or less what I was getting at. I would say that the part I bolded is thinking in terms of gray, but at this point, the only difference is in semantics.

Black and white as an attitude towards other people communicates an inability to relate to others and a lack of understanding of their viewpoint. As you pointed out in your example, to me, black and white is thinking that because a person insulted me, they are bad because it was unjust of them, rather than understanding that they may have problems that they’re dealing with and simply took their frustration out on me. But if you consider that understanding to be viable with a black and white viewpoint, our only disagreement is on words used, not the actual issue.

 

[Kurisu35712]

Isn’t in kind of ironic that we can turn this thread question into a black & white issue? Either black & white thinking is right or black & white thinking is wrong. There is no other option in between.

From a logic point of view, I guess that’s more problematic for those who assert that black & white thinking is wrong because that statement itself is a black and white statement.

That is black and white thinking. I agree with you that it depends on the scenario. Some things need to be black and white in order to function correctly, or whatever the case may be. Other things cannot function under such an extreme, and in such instances, answers may fall under a spectrum. The real world isn’t perfect, and if one considers black and white viewpoints to be the only acceptable standard, they’ll just end up disappointed.

Also, “love the sinner, hate the sin,” based on how I’m interpreting black and white, is a shades of gray situation. If it’s black and white, no exceptions, the sinner has sinned and cannot be given any consideration, as sinning is objectively wrong. Whether sin is tolerable as an object on its own is black and white. It is never tolerable. Whether a sinner is tolerable is a gray issue dependent on the nature of the sin committed, in regards to what kind of response is appropriate.

 

[Michael19682]

This is more or less what I was getting at. I would say that the part I bolded is thinking in terms of gray, but at this point, the only difference is in semantics.

Black and white as an attitude towards other people communicates an inability to relate to others and a lack of understanding of their viewpoint. As you pointed out in your example, to me, black and white is thinking that because a person insulted me, they are bad because it was unjust of them, rather than understanding that they may have problems that they’re dealing with and simply took their frustration out on me. But if you consider that understanding to be viable with a black and white viewpoint, our only disagreement is on words used, not the actual issue.

Thank you.

 

[fisherman_carl]

If “black-and-white” thinking was wrong, then that itself would be a “black and white” thought, which would then be a contradiction, since it would be wrong.

 

[Michael19682]

This is more or less what I was getting at. I would say that the part I bolded is thinking in terms of gray, but at this point, the only difference is in semantics.

Black and white as an attitude towards other people communicates an inability to relate to others and a lack of understanding of their viewpoint. As you pointed out in your example, to me, black and white is thinking that because a person insulted me, they are bad because it was unjust of them, rather than understanding that they may have problems that they’re dealing with and simply took their frustration out on me. But if you consider that understanding to be viable with a black and white viewpoint, our only disagreement is on words used, not the actual issue.

Can you explain why the bold printed you referenced but that does not appear above is thinking in gray?

 

[Michael19682]

This is more or less what I was getting at. I would say that the part I bolded is thinking in terms of gray, but at this point, the only difference is in semantics.

Black and white as an attitude towards other people communicates an inability to relate to others and a lack of understanding of their viewpoint. As you pointed out in your example, to me, black and white is thinking that because a person insulted me, they are bad because it was unjust of them, rather than understanding that they may have problems that they’re dealing with and simply took their frustration out on me. But if you consider that understanding to be viable with a black and white viewpoint, our only disagreement is on words used, not the actual issue.

I think it is more than the issue. We know abortion is wrong, but focusing only on the mother’s role leads us to ignore critical issues that are involved in the determination of sin – for example mental stability in this case. If we say, “no one could possibly have an abortion and not agree to it with full consent of their will,” we ignore the fact that it is a mentally unstable thing to do. If we say, “Only a mentally unstable person would have an abortion,” we ignore the role of the person who advises, and of the fact perhaps that a person could use mental instability to evade personal culpability.
It’s not so much disagreement on words used only, nor on actual non-negotiable issues, but on the process we use to reach our determination. Does the process leave us open equally both sides of the issue. Key for me is that what we do to remedy the problem and/or to more fully develop an emerging good mindset is open to unique or custom adjustment.
Finally, if we say it is all about process, we ignore that a clear cut case can exist and we become imbalanced at that dimension, forever feeling as though we need elaborate meetings to determine if killing a mosquito should result in capital punishment.
The dialectic process can go on forever. A good approach I have found is to make up your mind and to observe others. People who control meetings when they say things like “put this issue to rest,” are as intolerant as those who say “no bounds on what we can accomplish, and all decisions are tentative until we have more information.”
Yet this does not mean we can’t put issues to rest and be tentative both.
Transcending b&w thinking leads to a state of mind. It is a fallacy to think you can’t take action that you disagree with emotionally if you know it has merit on wisdom.
Can you hear it…we regret this but we must. Disingenuous or heartfelt? How to know?

 

[Zavius_Firerave]

If “black-and-white” thinking was wrong, then that itself would be a “black and white” thought, which would then be a contradiction, since it would be wrong.

Interesting.

I myself think in terms of black and white. I never knew that I think in such a way and never really cared. Jesus Himself said that we have to say no for no and yes for yes for everything else comes from the evil one…or something like that. You know what I’m talking about.

Now some people might point out Jesus’ action when he was confronted by the mass about Mary Magdalene. Some people might think that Jesus was fine with Mary’s action but He still told her not to sin again after that.

What I think causes confusion is that there are still matters which we don’t know how to react to.The fruit of the tree tells you whether the tree is good or bad, remember? I don’t recall Jesus ever said anything about a tree that’s neither good or bad. I don’t think He ever taught anything about “grey areas”.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Interesting.

I myself think in terms of black and white. I never knew that I think in such a way and never really cared. Jesus Himself said that we have to say no for no and yes for yes for everything else comes from the evil one…or something like that. You know what I’m talking about.

Now some people might point out Jesus’ action when he was confronted by the mass about Mary Magdalene. Some people might think that Jesus was fine with Mary’s action but He still told her not to sin again after that.

What I think causes confusion is that there are still matters which we don’t know how to react to.The fruit of the tree tells you whether the tree is good or bad, remember? I don’t recall Jesus ever said anything about a tree that’s neither good or bad. I don’t think He ever taught anything about “grey areas”.

Everything you say is 100% correct. People who think as Kurisu thinks have been infected with relativity. Every situation is to be considered on its own and there are no moral absolutes. This could be believed by a secular person, but not by a christian person. Christians believe in objective moral values. No grey areas.

Jesus said: Whoever is not against us is for us" Mark 9: 40
He was talking about spreading his teachings so those who are against Him are also against His teachings. It seems pretty black and white to me.

Turning away from the christian way of thinking brings us to danger. Everyhting could be said to be grey. Everything could be debated. Spoken to any atheists lately? Everything would depend on who’s making the rules at that moment, or who’s rules we accept.

This cannot work. We’re trying it currently in our society and everything is getting out of hand.

Fran

 

[LittleFlower378]

You have to be careful of liberalism. A sin is a sin. For Catholics to somehow come up with theories how artificial contraception, same sex marriage, etc etc is ok then they have dove into the deathly realm of liberalism. Of course they will say black and white thinking is wrong, but only to promote their own hideous cause to undermine Church doctrine. My final point is that not all things are black and white but some things are.

 

[edwest2]

Interesting.

I myself think in terms of black and white. I never knew that I think in such a way and never really cared. Jesus Himself said that we have to say no for no and yes for yes for everything else comes from the evil one…or something like that. You know what I’m talking about.

Now some people might point out Jesus’ action when he was confronted by the mass about Mary Magdalene. Some people might think that Jesus was fine with Mary’s action but He still told her not to sin again after that.

What I think causes confusion is that there are still matters which we don’t know how to react to.The fruit of the tree tells you whether the tree is good or bad, remember? I don’t recall Jesus ever said anything about a tree that’s neither good or bad. I don’t think He ever taught anything about “grey areas”.

Very good. We should think in black and white and have a mental list of right and wrong actions. Yes, Jesus never spoke in greys. As God, He had the power to forgive sins but with the clear intention that His mercy did not mean that any sin or sins He forgave were meant to be allowed. Each of us should know that.

But, regarding other people, meaning strangers, we do not know anything about them, especially on the internet. Even in person, when I stood in front of an abortion clinic, our group had no way of knowing what was motivating these young women: fear? loss of a husband or boyfriend if she didn’t? condemnation from her family? We don’t know. We had a few women in our group that would hand them an information packet that gave them contact information for alternatives to abortion and abortion counseling. In fact, before repenting, one of the women in our group had had an abortion at that clinic.

So we can bring up unusual circumstances but unless we know specific individuals, we can only treat each example on a case by case basis, and without full knowledge, we may be unable to tell if other circumstances compelled someone to do something.

Ed

 

[Beircheart]

I do not need to have reality be ‘black and white.’”

I think the piece I snipped to quote is the key point. The church’s teachings are fairly all-encompassing and clear-cut. They speak to the ideal perfection of creation and to be striven for in humanity. *Reality *is seldom perfect. I suspect the question is something of the form, “We all know what the ideal case is. How comfortable are you with situations and conditions seldom if ever meeting that ideal?”

Just a thought. Your best bet would be to ask directly for more clear explanations and a few example scenarios.

 

[frangiuliano115]

Very good. We should think in black and white and have a mental list of right and wrong actions. Yes, Jesus never spoke in greys. As God, He had the power to forgive sins but with the clear intention that His mercy did not mean that any sin or sins He forgave were meant to be allowed. Each of us should know that.

But, regarding other people, meaning strangers, we do not know anything about them, especially on the internet. Even in person, when I stood in front of an abortion clinic, our group had no way of knowing what was motivating these young women: fear? loss of a husband or boyfriend if she didn’t? condemnation from her family? We don’t know. We had a few women in our group that would hand them an information packet that gave them contact information for alternatives to abortion and abortion counseling. In fact, before repenting, one of the women in our group had had an abortion at that clinic.

So we can bring up unusual circumstances but unless we know specific individuals, we can only treat each example on a case by case basis, and without full knowledge, we may be unable to tell if other circumstances compelled someone to do something.

Ed

Hate the sin
Love the sinner

Fran