Moral Correction

[Jimbo2]

In another thread about a moral question, a poster wrote:

And as Catholics, we believe in love and prayer, not confrontation and recrimination?

I have been fighting with this poster on several threads and now I see why.

I think this topic is over-arching and affects most of the threads about moral questions. Without answering this, Catholics will always fight about how to handle moral issues.

Broadly, I see the two sides like this:

1.The correctors.

I fall in this camp. I believe that I am able to judge public situations and it is my responsibility to give a Catholic response. If a friend is cheating on his wife, I believe I have a responsibility, due to my Baptism, to tell my friend that he is doing wrong and is committing a mortal sin. This is, of course, only one example. In short, I believe I am compelled to confront him and correct him.

I believe this is the most charitable response.

2.The pacifists.

I do not fall in this camp, so I cannot speak to these motivations. I can only recount my observations.

These people do not believe in confronting those who are doing wrong. Broadly, I charcterize these people as believeing that confronting someone about a moral wrong is to be “judgmental”.

I observe that people from these different camps rarely see eye-to-eye. My own observation leads me to believe that the Church of the last 40 years has leaned very much toward pacifism.

In my own life, pacifism has torn my family apart. My in-laws refuse to confront my BIL about his co-habitation with his girlfried, believing that “Only God can judge” his behavior.

The rest of the family refuses to confront the parents about their dereliction of responsibility, because “Only God can judge” their actions.

Instead, they have, collectively, decided that my wife and I are the only “UnChristian” people in the family because we refuse to go to the shack-up house.

So, personally, I find the pacifist option to be one that tends to turn virtue in vice, and vice into virtue.

I also think the pacifist option carries a rather large temptation. It is very tempting to say “I am maintaining normal polite relations with this person for the sake of keeping lines of communication open in hopes of saving his soul”…when in fact the real reason the pacifist will not stand up is fear. The temptation is to choose the easy way out and then try to justify it as some sort of charity.

So, this is what I see as the bigger issue, and I think if you go to any of the contentious threads, you will find these two camps engaged in battle.

It seems that it would be better to fight over this, and try to seek some resolution, rather than re-hashing the same fight again and again against different backdrops.

 

[jc-servant]

I believe that there are more than 2 camps.

I see people who like to give “correction” no matter what means they deem necessary. Sometimes this results in the “killing a fly with a sledgehammer” approach and puzzlement on the “corrector’s” part as to why people don’t understand how they are right in their conduct.

I see people on the other end who would never point out someone’s bad or sinful choices for fear of being “judgmental.”

In the middle is a huge range of folks who may appear to the first group to be shirking their duty to “correct,” but who may actually be biding their time for what they deem to be a good teachable moment when the message will be heard. The second group would still probably think them judgmental for daring to say anything even if it is done in a charitable and loving manner.

I think a little prudence is a good thing to nurture before we take it upon ourselves to deliver correction to anyone. Many times a situation is not what it first appears and the more charitable and prudent course is to get fully informed before acting.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

I disagree with people who do that “Only God can judge” thing. He did judge certain behaviors, I’m not making the rules, I just informing other people what they.

I don’t think we need to run around pointing out other people’s sins all the time either though. There are times when trying to admonish the sinner is pointless because they are just too ignorant or faithless for any meaningful instruction to sink in.

Like, why bother telling Bill Clinton that adultery is wrong? Why bother pointing out to Rosie O’Donell that homosexual relations are sinful? She doesn’t care, and probably likes to make Christians angry.

So there are times when you say something and times when it’s not worth the aggravation.

 

[Della]

The thing that any person who wishes to point out another’s sins has to avoid is the temptation to relish doing so.

All correction ought to be done by the proper person at the proper time and with nothing, and I mean absolutely nothing, but charity in one’s heart for the sinner.

Any time we bulldoze our way into another’s life, dictating how they should be acting/believing, etc. all we do is put them off and make them even more defensive.

There is a right way and a wrong way to handle such situations. We’d better be absolutely certain we are going about such correction in the right way or we will have to answer to God for our presumption and the sin of pride.

A bit of wisdom on the topic from St. Francis de Sales:

A servant of God signifies one who has a great charity towards his neighbor and an inviolable resolution to follow in everything the Divine Will; who bears with his own deficiencies, and patiently supports the imperfections of others.

The person who possesses Christian meekness is affectionate and tender towards everyone: He is disposed to forgive and excuse the frailties of others; the goodness of his heart appears in a sweet affability that influences his words and actions, presents every object to his view in the most charitable and pleasing light.

 

[NewUlm1976_2000]

I believe that there are more than 2 camps.

I see people who like to give “correction” no matter what means they deem necessary. Sometimes this results in the “killing a fly with a sledgehammer” approach and puzzlement on the “corrector’s” part as to why people don’t understand how they are right in their conduct.

I see people on the other end who would never point out someone’s bad or sinful choices for fear of being “judgmental.”

In the middle is a huge range of folks who may appear to the first group to be shirking their duty to “correct,” but who may actually be biding their time for what they deem to be a good teachable moment when the message will be heard. The second group would still probably think them judgmental for daring to say anything even if it is done in a charitable and loving manner.

I think a little prudence is a good thing to nurture before we take it upon ourselves to deliver correction to anyone. Many times a situation is not what it first appears and the more charitable and prudent course is to get fully informed before acting.

Exactly, it is not a matter of two options, one applying the rule to the letter and another not applying any rules at all. Life is more complicated than this.

It comes down to if you can get your point across by applying the “letter of the law” (first option for OP) and the “spirit of the law” (not an option from OP). The latter is trying to get to the meaning of the rule in question with some space allowed on both sides to move towards resolution.

You can have corrective change without going with an hardline interpretation of the “rules”. By going more rigid, you reduce your options. This option often does not work and turns many people off (referring to one thread the OP eluded to I also posted on). You also reduce the trust level between the two parties (or more) in disagreement. You end up with a bunker mentality with both sides dug in for the verbal and psychological trench warfare.

The “spirit of the law” is a style which takes all parities views into consideration. It opens up an ongoing dialog which over time allows both sides to slowly see the other’s view and breaks down barriers (real and perceived). The process brings parities together on their similarities and does not push them apart on their differences. It also builds mutual trust in the process.

Managing interpersonal relationships is no different at any level, single, married, other, etc… One of the toughest things we as humans struggle with is relating with others and all the trials and tribulations it sometimes entails.

 

[Linnyo]

i would agree that there are more than one camp. I also read the other thread and I think that all the Catholics in the thread were of the opinion that wrongdoers should be told that they are doing wrong. The differences were in what was done after the ‘telling off’. Some people like to take action - create further negative consequences for the wrongdoers. Others might provide support when it all goes pear-shaped after the event. Yet again, some might express their disagreeance verbally but with love and patience whilst others remove themselves from the wrongdoer and choose to pray for them. People are different and God has given us different ways for a reason. It doesn’t mean that 'correctors are right or pacifists are right. It means that we each have to look to the Holy Spirit for the right solution for you. What do you think God would do? We are all different for a reason - God may want a corrector and a pacifist being there to help a wrongdoer do right. However, we should never compromise our relationship with God by not telling the person they are doing wrong and highlighting the consequences.

 

[Jimbo2]

You can have corrective change without going with an hardline interpretation of the “rules”.

Very, very suspicious of this. Consider applying this to, say, a person considering getting an abortion. Perhaps this idea needs carification, and application to some examples.

 

[Orionthehunter]

In another thread about a moral question, a poster wrote:

And as Catholics, we believe in love and prayer, not confrontation and recrimination?

I have been fighting with this poster on several threads and now I see why.

I think this topic is over-arching and affects most of the threads about moral questions. Without answering this, Catholics will always fight about how to handle moral issues.

Broadly, I see the two sides like this:

1.The correctors.

I fall in this camp. I believe that I am able to judge public situations and it is my responsibility to give a Catholic response. If a friend is cheating on his wife, I believe I have a responsibility, due to my Baptism, to tell my friend that he is doing wrong and is committing a mortal sin. This is, of course, only one example. In short, I believe I am compelled to confront him and correct him.

I believe this is the most charitable response.

2.The pacifists.

I do not fall in this camp, so I cannot speak to these motivations. I can only recount my observations.

These people do not believe in confronting those who are doing wrong. Broadly, I charcterize these people as believeing that confronting someone about a moral wrong is to be “judgmental”.

I observe that people from these different camps rarely see eye-to-eye. My own observation leads me to believe that the Church of the last 40 years has leaned very much toward pacifism.

In my own life, pacifism has torn my family apart. My in-laws refuse to confront my BIL about his co-habitation with his girlfried, believing that “Only God can judge” his behavior.

The rest of the family refuses to confront the parents about their dereliction of responsibility, because “Only God can judge” their actions.

Instead, they have, collectively, decided that my wife and I are the only “UnChristian” people in the family because we refuse to go to the shack-up house.

So, personally, I find the pacifist option to be one that tends to turn virtue in vice, and vice into virtue.

I also think the pacifist option carries a rather large temptation. It is very tempting to say “I am maintaining normal polite relations with this person for the sake of keeping lines of communication open in hopes of saving his soul”…when in fact the real reason the pacifist will not stand up is fear. The temptation is to choose the easy way out and then try to justify it as some sort of charity.

So, this is what I see as the bigger issue, and I think if you go to any of the contentious threads, you will find these two camps engaged in battle.

It seems that it would be better to fight over this, and try to seek some resolution, rather than re-hashing the same fight again and again against different backdrops.

There is a time and a place bothl. Some are inclined/inspired to be more of one than the other.

I am by nature quite confrontational so in an effort to allow Christ to change me, I try to have my first reaction to be in the words of the great Pacifist Saint Francis, “Always, always preach the Gospel. Use words when necessary.”

But Jimbo, I above would like to address some things you say above:

With regards to correctors: “I believe this is the most charitable response.” It appears you are implying that those whose first impulse isn’t to confront are uncharitable. Doesn’t this seem to be uncharitable?

With regard to pacifists, you say because you are not a pacifist you “cannot speak to these motivations.” but then you go onto judge their motives when you say the believe that "confronting someone about a moral wrong is to be “judgmental”. "

And you also say “the real reason the pacifist will not stand up is fear. The temptation is to choose the easy way out and then try to justify it as some sort of charity.” Talk about judging another’s motives.

From the Catechism:

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.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Be slow to admonish others – after all, it may be they who are in the right!

Before admonishing others, stop and think, “What am I trying to accomplish? Is this the best way?”

Love and prayer will go a long way to achieving most goals, where vituperation and condemnation will fail.

 

[MaryD7]

You bring up some very interesting points, Jimbo. I tend to be more on the pacifist side, simply because of my personality and the way my mind works. I tend to ask questions and will search for different views on the same subject. For example, the Reformation … I am interested in different viewpoints about the events, not only the Catholic side.

But when it comes to morality it gets a little trickier. I’ve been down a road that isn’t the shining example of what a Christian should be but I know why I was down that road and because of some reasons it couldn’t be avoided. But that road also led me to the Catholic Church. So was I wrong to be on that road? It certainly gives me a lot of empathy for people who are struggling with their religious beliefs. I’ve been there and done that.

But then there is this little nugget: Not a half hour ago I placed a phone call to a priest who is a ‘by the book’ Catholic. He is, by your definition, a Corrector. I am looking for his insight to a personal problem that I am having. I trust his insight and his straight up way of answering me. I’m not seeking the advice of a pacifist but of someone who I trust to tell me the truth.

 

[Jimbo2]

My best estimate is that Pacifists outnumber Correctors (both lay and ordained) about 10 to 1. I mean in the Church in America.

I look at the state of the Church, at the confusion, at the lack of clear doctrine, and I’m pretty sure the cause is exactly that.

I think the overwhelming numbers of pacifists have created a very unhealthy atmosphere in the Church where people are mostly unwilling to be honest with their brethren, and likewise their erring brethren think that no one has the right to correct them. It’s a downward spiral of timidity and arrogance feeding on each other.

 

[Orionthehunter]

My best estimate is that Pacifists outnumber Correctors (both lay and ordained) about 10 to 1. I mean in the Church in America.

I look at the state of the Church, at the confusion, at the lack of clear doctrine, and I’m pretty sure the cause is exactly that.

I think the overwhelming numbers of pacifists have created a very unhealthy atmosphere in the Church where people are mostly unwilling to be honest with their brethren, and likewise their erring brethren think that no one has the right to correct them. It’s a downward spiral of timidity and arrogance feeding on each other.

Maybe the Holy Spirit is urging this ratio (10:1). Do you KNOW otherwise?

Based on some of hte posts to your thread, they believe it is how they are called to spread the Gospel.

FYI, I’m having a hard time finding much charity in your characterization of pacifists. Just wondering if we should be harder in our moral correction?

 

[Jimbo2]

Well, I don’t like 'em! I think it’s wrong-headed way to live. I think we in the Church are suffering mightily from an epidemic of Bishops who act like that.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Maybe the Holy Spirit is urging this ratio (10:1). Do you KNOW otherwise?

Based on some of hte posts to your thread, they believe it is how they are called to spread the Gospel.

FYI, I’m having a hard time finding much charity in your characterization of pacifists. Just wondering if we should be harder in our moral correction?

Maybe we should be harder on those who see it as their prerogative to get up on a soap box and condemn others?

 

[maryjk]

Maybe we should be harder on those who see it as their prerogative to get up on a soap box and condemn others?

Sounds good.

 

[Linnyo]

I think it is important to realise that pacafists do not all just sit back and let everything happen around them, They can be active in a different way from correctors. I would say that I am a peaceful person but I would still say if someone I was clase to was making a grave mistake. I would say with love and patience rather than condemnation but I would certainly let the wrongdoer know my concerns. Whilst not necesarrily agreeing with their actions I would attempt to empathise with their situation. It isn’t always easy to walk away from sin - support is often needed to enable people to leave sin.

 

[Jimbo2]

But I like to condemn people.
Shunning is the new craze, baby.
A good Catholic should go around telling people they’re going to Hell.
That’s how you make God like you.

The above is sarcasm.

I’m being sarcastic because I think it’s silly for people to equate correction with a lack of love and charity. I get that all the time. It sickens me. If someone is in danger of Hell, correction is the loving thing to do, even if it is difficult for everyone involved.

Sometimes, I think Catholic message boards devolve into competition, depending on the flavor of the board. Trad boards often devolve into “I hate VII more than you” contests. Some of these threads here devolve into a “I can appear more nice than you even if I have to be rude to get that through your thick head”. So, even in situations that cry out for correction, people make a contest to see who can be the nicest.

Some situations do not call for niceness, but rather for honesty. If only Catholics would compete to see who could be more honest…

 

[vern_humphrey]

But I like to condemn people.
Shunning is the new craze, baby.
A good Catholic should go around telling people they’re going to Hell.
That’s how you make God like you.

The above is sarcasm.

I’m being sarcastic because I think it’s silly for people to equate correction with a lack of love and charity. I get that all the time. It sickens me. If someone is in danger of Hell, correction is the loving thing to do, even if it is difficult for everyone involved.

Sometimes, I think Catholic message boards devolve into competition, depending on the flavor of the board. Trad boards often devolve into “I hate VII more than you” contests. Some of these threads here devolve into a “I can appear more nice than you even if I have to be rude to get that through your thick head”. So, even in situations that cry out for correction, people make a contest to see who can be the nicest.

Some situations do not call for niceness, but rather for honesty. If only Catholics would compete to see who could be more honest…

I’ve found the quickest way to get people to hate you is to tell them you refuse to hate the people they hate.

 

[Orionthehunter]

Jimbo: We are all called to follow the whisperings of the Holy Spirit to our conscience. Now there are matters that are clear with regard to dogma, doctrine, Teaching, Truth and such for which the Church is our ordained Teacher. There are also places where the right choice is left to individuals and their prudential judgment. One of them is how to spread the Good News (including fraternal correction.

You make a lot of statements that are not very charitable towards those who have an inclination and inspiration to adopt the manner of St. Francis.

From Jimbo: In short, I believe I am compelled to confront him and correct him. I believe this is the most charitable response.

In other words, a non-confrontational choice is deficient in charity.

From Jimbo: Broadly, I charcterize these people (pacificists) as believeing that confronting someone about a moral wrong is to be “judgmental”.

Even though many on this thread said that they had other motives.

From Jimbo: personally, I find the pacifist option to be one that tends to turn virtue in vice, and vice into virtue.

St. Francis certainly will not appreciate this.

From Jimbo: I also think the pacifist option carries a rather large temptation. It is very tempting to say “I am maintaining normal polite relations with this person for the sake of keeping lines of communication open in hopes of saving his soul”…when in fact the real reason the pacifist will not stand up is fear. The temptation is to choose the easy way out and then try to justify it as some sort of charity.

Now you can read the hearts of good devout Catholics and their motives.

From Jimbo: My best estimate is that Pacifists outnumber Correctors (both lay and ordained) about 10 to 1. I mean in the Church in America. I look at the state of the Church, at the confusion, at the lack of clear doctrine, and I’m pretty sure the cause is exactly that. I think the overwhelming numbers of pacifists have created a very unhealthy atmosphere in the Church where people are mostly unwilling to be honest with their brethren, and likewise their erring brethren think that no one has the right to correct them. It’s a downward spiral of timidity and arrogance feeding on each other.

So much for Christ’s promise that He would always protect the Church. According to Jimbo, He has allowed Satan to take over.

From Jimbo: Well, I don’t like 'em! I think it’s wrong-headed way to live. I think we in the Church are suffering mightily from an epidemic of Bishops who act like that.

I’m sorry that you see a need to not like them in the face of our call to love one another. Charity first before correction. Where is the charity?

From Jimbo: I’m being sarcastic because I think it’s silly for people to equate correction with a lack of love and charity. I get that all the time. It sickens me.

Jimbo, with all charity, I am not surprised you get this all the time. Read your quotes above from the perspective of a person who is trying to live their Christian vocation by emphasizing the Love and Peace of Christ and you characterize them as “wrong-headed”, fearful to judge bad behaviour, the cause of the moral decay in society, etc.

From Jimbo: If someone is in danger of Hell, correction is the loving thing to do, even if it is difficult for everyone involved.

Nobody denies that in-the-face confrontation is sometimes appropriate. But, you fail to see that example, love and empathy can both be effective vehicles to make the person open to correction but can be correction itself.

From Jimbo: Some situations do not call for niceness, but rather for honesty. If only Catholics would compete to see who could be more honest…

And you conclude by accusing them of being dishonest.

 

[Jimbo2]

According to Jimbo, He has allowed Satan to take over.

I’m going to single this one out for rebuttal.

This is one of those glib, throwaway statements you see in internet debate. It has no meaning, and is only included to lampoon someone else.

The promise of indefectibility concerns doctrine, not behavior. Every reasonably informed Catholic knows this, and I’ll bet the poster does, too.

Every Bishop in the whole world could be a sniveling coward, and the promise of indefectibility would not even be touched.

Personally, I think there is a crisis of courage in the Church, and has been for decades. I think that, in every age, there is a great temptation that we are all subject to: To be very concerned about meaningless things while letting the important issues go by without engaging them.

CS Lewis wrote about this in Screwtape, and I have always remembered it. In one of the letters, Screwtape mentions that Satan wishes to blind people to the real problems of their age and get them to major in minors. This is what I see in the matter of correction.

This is the nicest the Church has ever been, I’ll wager. People in flagrant public sin can waltz through a parish every week for years and expect never to be challenged by anyone, even if they receive communion. Politeness is trumping truth in our Church.

However, just like Screwtape said, even in this environment where we are much too nice, everyone is on a hair-trigger to condemn “meanness”, charcterizing correction as “in-your-face” uncharitability. The great vice of the age has been turned into its great virtue.

It is because of this terrible disconnnect between charity and truth that we have the spectacle of pro-choice politicians receiving communion in our Cathedrals while our Bishops wring their hands. Oh, I understand - they think they are trapped - those Bishops apparently believe that if they try to tell these politicians the truth, they will be branded “mean” “nasty” “insensitive” and “unchartiable”. Well, they are right about that -they would be!

Oh, don’t worry, I have a very strong notion of which side St. Francis would be on.