Is it charitable

  • Thread starter Thread starter BobCatholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BobCatholic

Guest
Is it charitable to do any of the following:
  • Someone is doing something wrong. It is a grave sin. You refuse to correct them because you worry it will hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. It is a grave sin. You tell them it is OK so you don’t hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. Another person sees this behavior and thinks it is OK. You refuse to correct the second person because you worry it will hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. Another person sees this behavior and thinks it is OK. You tell the second person it is OK so you don’t hurt their feelings.
I don’t thnk it is charitable (Ezekiel 14 comes to mind)
 
I look at another way…

I think you are being charitable by expressing that their improper behavior leads them away from God’s love and compassion. Would you rather they don’t have hurt feelings but have impaired their souls?

You can still be charitable by pointing out the improper behavior - I wouldn’t call it sin - just call it not treating themselves or others right and respecting one another.

Good luck
 
I agree.

However, I’m being accused of being uncharitable by “reading another’s soul” when I say an action is wrong.

I believe the accusation is ridiculous.
 
BobCatholic said:
I agree.

However, I’m being accused of being uncharitable by “reading another’s soul” when I say an action is wrong.

I believe the accusation is ridiculous.
Click to expand...
You might want to tell your situation, it is easier to discuss.
What you mean by “reading another’s soul” in your case?

Thanks!
 
water said:
You might want to tell your situation, it is easier to discuss.
What you mean by “reading another’s soul” in your case?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Person#1 does something wrong.
Person#2 sees this and thinks it is OK.

I tell Person#2 that it is not OK, that it is wrong.

Person#3 accuses me of reading Person#1’s soul and because of that, Person#3 says I am uncharitable toward person#1.

I believe this is ridiculous, and need help in refuting it.
 
BobCatholic said:
Person#1 does something wrong.
Person#2 sees this and thinks it is OK.

I tell Person#2 that it is not OK, that it is wrong.

Person#3 accuses me of reading Person#1’s soul and because of that, Person#3 says I am uncharitable toward person#1.

I believe this is ridiculous, and need help in refuting it.
Click to expand...
Maybe try to explain the distinction that you are pointing out actions which are objectively sinful without making any claims about person #1 or #2’s culpability. But if person #3 is accusing you of soul reading I don’t know if they’d be able to understand the nuance.
 
Each of these items involves either participation in the original sin through silence or allowing that sin to scandalize the innocent. The Christian thing to do in these cases will always be to point out to both the sinner and anyone else who happens to witness it its evil nature. I would not concern myself too much with the hurt feelings of those caught up in this sin. Better a bruised ego now than an eternity in Hell.
 
BobCatholic said:
Person#1 does something wrong.
Person#2 sees this and thinks it is OK.

I tell Person#2 that it is not OK, that it is wrong.

Person#3 accuses me of reading Person#1’s soul and because of that, Person#3 says I am uncharitable toward person#1.

I believe this is ridiculous, and need help in refuting it.
Click to expand...
According to you, Person #1 is wrong.
According to Person #3, you are wrong.

Now, if I were Person #4, I needed to know what it was all about before saying who was right or wrong.

Nonetheless, one cannot jump to conclusion without knowing very well about a situation.

Sorry, I couldn’t help much.
 
water said:
Now, if I were Person #4, I needed to know what it was all about before saying who was right or wrong.
Click to expand...
OK, let me add more information.

Person#1 behaves in an egotistical self-aggrandizing manner, and rebels against a legitimate authority which exercises itself legitimately. (for the sake of argument: open your Bible to Numbers 16, Korah versus Moses)

Person#2 thinks “cool! Person#1 is very brave and honorable! He did good!”

I say that Person#1 is behaving in a prideful manner, and pride is one of the 7 deadly sins. He should not be rebelling against that legitimate authority which exercises itself legitimately.

Person#3 accuses me of reading Person#1’s soul, and says I am uncharitable for accusing him of doing something wrong.
 
The Catechism addresses this:

1868 Sin is a personal act. Moreover, we have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them:
  • by participating directly and voluntarily in them;
  • by ordering, advising, praising, or approving them;
  • by not disclosing or not hindering them when we have an obligation to do so;
  • by protecting evil-doers.
 
Since when is it love to lie to someone? A true friend is honest, even when it hurts.

That being said, be delicate, not dishonest. Never compromise yourself by agreeing with the crowd. If the topic comes up at a bad moment, just don’t say anything and wait for a better time. For example, rather than saying something in front of lots of people, wait for a private moment to say, “I saw you do this and it bothered me because I don’t think that’s right.” (or something like that 🤷 ) maybe they’ll tell you the full story (incase you had missed something) or maybe they’ll get mad or maybe they’ll value your (name removed by moderator)ut or honesty.

Even if they just end up dismissing you, you did your part and you can go on being friends with a clear conscience.

❤️
 
water said:
You might want to tell your situation, it is easier to discuss.
What you mean by “reading another’s soul” in your case?

Thanks!
Click to expand...
Really this exact instance happens with frequenct on these boards.

If person #1 post a topic.

Person #2 comments “eh whatever, just do what you want to”

Then in comes person #3 who responds with any sort of firmness in saying that the advice from person #2 is wrong and sinful…well #3 better also include multiple disclaimers explaining they are not inferring #1 is going to hell, they aren’t saying #2 is going to hell, #3 isn’t saying he is superior to #'1 or #2, etc…

Failure to include such disclaimers will generally result in reprisals from person’s #2, #4, and #5, who are generaly very confused on the difference b/t judging souls and judging actions and claim that as Catholics we can never judge.

Still #'s 2, 4, and 5 aren’t usually persons that don’t contribute much to the board in reguard to general moral advising. Instead they are often judgement specialialists swooping in to point out precieved judgements of other’s souls then they move on to check if any other theads have posts w/o disclaimers attached.

And I don’t mean this to insult anyone, I just think it is true that this occurs. Many people read looking to see if anything might be offensive, when really people don’t include every possible disclaimer for 2 simple reasons:
  • b/c message boards don’t generally thrive on long posts like this
  • b/c the disclaimers distract from the main point of a post, shrouding the issue in a cloud of PC wordyness.
 
if it were me I would get some new friends.
And start a Numbereed Persons club. You make the rules

Kathy
 
BobCatholic said:
Is it charitable to do any of the following:
  • Someone is doing something wrong. It is a grave sin. You refuse to correct them because you worry it will hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. It is a grave sin. You tell them it is OK so you don’t hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. Another person sees this behavior and thinks it is OK. You refuse to correct the second person because you worry it will hurt their feelings.
  • Someone is doing something wrong. Another person sees this behavior and thinks it is OK. You tell the second person it is OK so you don’t hurt their feelings.
I don’t thnk it is charitable (Ezekiel 14 comes to mind)
Click to expand...
in all these scenarios I strongly expect the person considering this dilemma is more worried about his own feelings, and how others will think of him, than he is of the feelings, much less the goodwill of the persons he considers are contemplating wrong actions.
 
So what about the accusation of “reading someone’s soul” simply because I would dare to say someone’s actions are not morally correct?

I believe this accusation is ridiculous. How do I prove this?
 
BobCatholic said:
So what about the accusation of “reading someone’s soul” simply because I would dare to say someone’s actions are not morally correct?

I believe this accusation is ridiculous. How do I prove this?
Click to expand...
I would hit on the difference between labeling what is objectively sinful and judging others. For example, if someone is truly ignorant that what they did was sinful or were coerced into doing it then they are not culpable for that sin. Pointing out the distinction between what is good and what is bad doesn’t mean you’re judging them personally.
 
I would need specifics on what the person #1 did. “Self-aggrandizing behavior” is pretty subjective. I think people who claim to be speaking with Christian authority should be absolutely certain that the person they are “correcting” is truly in violation of Christian principles (not their subjective ideals) before administering the correction.

If it’s clear that the person is sinning, then I would be uncomfortable, but I would try very hard to deliver the message in a manner which encouraged the person to reconsider his actions in a spirit of love for Christ, rather than come off as a holier than thou critic. I don’t think delivering the message is effective if you just make the person defensive because then they harden their hearts more. What I’m trying to say is I would make absolutely sure my motives and delivery were focused on the other person and his spiritual well-being rather than my pride or concern for my own spiritual welfare.
 
You seem to be saying that in the course of casual conversation, you became aware that person number 2 probably has a defect in their understanding of Catholic moral doctrine. From the information provided, it seems that you don’t feel you have sufficient reason to figure that #3 has this same lack of knowledge. So you are wondering if you are obligated to address the defect in #2’s understanding on the spot, or if you should delay it until a private time, or if you can omit the correction. I’m assuming #1 is some distant person who is not present and not relevant to the situation.

Since only #2 has the potential defect, perhaps it would be best to instruct them without an audience. I think it depends on a lot of factors, but overall, I’d go with that. Also, I’d lay out my description of moral teaching without reference to #1.

I don’t correct every defect that I suspect in a person’s understanding. However, if it is a major defect, like whether ABC is grave matter, then I’d correct it if I think it can be done profitably. I’m assuming you are dealing with a fellow Catholic here, and they are not a Muslim, etc. That changes the flavor. Also, I am assuming there is no history of antagonistic response from this person.

I don’t think this is the case of admonishing a sinner. Rather, it is the case of teaching or instructing. I’ve learned fewer guidelines for this situation, though. Of course, do it in the gentlest possible manner! Anyway, just some thoughts to add to the pile.
 
dwc said:
I would need specifics on what the person #1 did. “Self-aggrandizing behavior” is pretty subjective.
Click to expand...
In the example of Korah versus Moses, I was using, Korah was not being “self-aggrandizing” in rebelling against Moses? Moses is the clear authority here.

So if Korah wanted to rebel against Moses, he is not committing the sin of ego-tripping?
 
Bob, we’re talking about your situation with 1,2,and 3. #2 seems to think #1 did not sin. #3 seems to think you would need to know more about that person’s motivations before you could know whether he was sinning. You won’t give details about what actually happened, beyond saying he rebelled against legitimate authority. What do YOU mean by rebelled? Do you mean he refused a clear directive? Did he ask for an explanation? Express a disagreement? And what’s the clear authority in your scenario – an accepted and required teaching of the church?

You want agreement without giving the facts. I can’t do that, because sometimes whether or not something is a sin does in fact depend on the person’s inner motives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top