Oddly, "detraction" in the Bible?

[otrrl]

2 Ki 13:1-2

1
In the twenty-third year of Joash, son of Ahaziah, king of Judah, Jehoahaz, son of Jehu, became king over Israel in Samaria for seventeen years.

2
He did what was evil in the LORD’s sight: he did not depart from following the sins that Jeroboam, son of Nebat, had caused Israel to commit.

the wording of verse 2 occurs again and again in 2 Kings, this king or that king did what was evil in the sight of the LORD.

Detraction is a sin against the Eight Commandment, where we say something about a person which detracts from their good name., even if what we say is true.

But, here is the Bible saying just such kind of things about the kings of Israel.

Isn’t this detraction, in the Bible? How do we reconcile this with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?
t
Not only here but in many places, even the NT there is such talk about people committing sins , starting with Adam and Eve. (OT)

 

[OsculeturMeOsculo]

It is a historical record so I would think that is there for a purpose.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

The Bible is recording the facts of history. The Bible has history in it, just like a textbook in school. The historical record must be kept and preserved so people can learn from it, both the good and the bad.

Surely you would not want people to be ignorant of history and important events and people? As the saying goes, people who are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[Nita]

Definition of detraction from the CCC.

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

• …
• of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

Motivation and reason comes into play in determining whether it’s the sin of detraction. Knowledge of the condition of the nation/leaders explains why God withdrew His protection and allowed both the Northern and Southern kingdoms to eventually be conquered.

 

[otrrl]

So…………you’re saying that detraction is OK because it’s in the Bible? A lot of Bible stories would otherwise be plain old sinful because they’re detraction, but because it’s in the Bible, it’s OK?

You do agree that these stories are detracting, right? I mean, you do see that? First, you have to admit this very plain fact, then we can move on to what the Catechism does not explain, namely what are the “objectively valid reason(s)” for detraction, in general (please list all of such valid reasons) and then focus in on why there is (are) objectively valid reasons for all this detraction in the Bible?

[Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, Cain killed Abel, Noah got drunk, etc. the kings of Israel and Judah did “what was evil in the sight of the Lord.” Peter and Judas betrayed Jesus, Paul persecuted Christians, etc. and we are told the spiritual faults of the seven cities of Asia Minor." – from one end of the Bible to the other.]

Please feel free to comment on why there are so many frequent examples of something (detraction) in the Bible that we are not supposed to do. We’re not supposed to do it, but the Bible does it again and again, from Genesis to Revelation.

(In Revelation we’re told about the faults of the seven cities of Asia Minor.)

Couldn’t the Bible have been written without doing something that is otherwise sinful?

 

[ShowersofRoses]

No, we’re saying the Bible absolutely does not commit the sin of detraction. The entire premise is a ridiculous concept. Did you read the definition provided by Nita? Detraction is ruining someone’s reputation unjustly without a valid reason.

We do have a valid reason for knowing the history and the sins of the Jewish people, their leaders, and the sins of the nations around them. How can we learn from past mistakes if we aren’t told of their mistakes?

Do you know the story of good King Josiah in 2 Kings 22-23? He found the scrolls of the Law in the temple and read it to the people. The whole nation repented of the sins committed by their forebearers and turned back to God. This is just one example–there are hundreds like this in the Bible.

Think of St. Paul…he had greatly sinned by persecuting Christians. Later, people told his story as an example of how great God’s mercy is towards us. He wasn’t being slandered…it was a powerful testimony of the grace of God working in us.

Again, we are not detracting people’s reputations by accurately recording their deeds in history books or in the Bible. Would you say that Hitler is being detracted when books are written about his role in the Holocaust? No, because we absolutely need to remember the Holocaust. It’s all too likely it could be repeated one day if we forget the atrocities committed.

God gave us the 10 Commandments, but He also provided concrete examples of how these Commandments can be broken. In fact, as He gave the Law to Moses, the people were participating in gross idolatry. The Jewish people needed to be reminded of this over and over because they kept falling into the same sin.

God is not just a stern Law-giver…He is also a loving Teacher who is trying to draw us closer to Him. Trying to teach this stubborn, hard-headed human race is not easy. We need to be reminded of our past mistakes because we keep falling into the same traps.

 

[Nita]

The Catechism says it is detraction when there is no valid reason present. When there is a valid reason present, it is not detraction.

Obviously the Holy Spirit felt there was a valid reason for making known the faults/sins. Usually it’s connected with a punishment God is inflicting or allowing to be inflicted on someone. Thus, it is necessary to show why God is punishing someone (Adam & Eve, Israel, etc.). For example, if we were just told that God one day decided to cast Adam and Eve out of Eden and start making suffering and death part of their human existence, without revealing the reason for His action, we’d probably form some VERY INCORRECT ideas about God.

 

[ShowersofRoses]

Thus, it is necessary to show why God is punishing someone (Adam & Eve, Israel, etc.). For example, if we were just told that God one day decided to cast Adam and Eve out of Eden and start making suffering and death part of their human existence, without revealing the reason for His action, we’d probably form some VERY INCORRECT ideas about God.

Yes, yes, exactly this!! God has to tell us WHY punishment or discipline is happening. You wouldn’t punish your children without telling them why. The whole point of chastisement is to bring the sinner back into fellowship with God. Punishment without being told why and without the goal of reconciliation would be cruel and unjust, which God is not.

We are told to make reparations for the sins committed by humanity. How would that make sense if we didn’t know of any sins??

 

[Nita]

otrrl, post:5, topic:492617
So…………you’re saying that detraction is OK because it’s in the Bible? A lot of Bible stories would otherwise be plain old sinful because they’re detraction, but because it’s in the Bible, it’s OK?

No. I’m saying that it is not detraction because there are valid reasons present.

Justice in a nation is dependent on revealing injustices that occur; that’s how a court system operates.

…(please list all of such valid reasons) and then focus in on why there is (are) objectively valid reasons for all this detraction in the Bible?

I will leave that up to you to do for yourself. Just go to every instance where the revelation of someone’s faults/sins bothers you, and ask God for help in understanding why that revelation would not be considered detraction.

 

[Nita]

I’ll just share some of what has helped me in reading the Bible.
The first thing I’m interested in is “What does this tell me about God?” I always want to know more about Him; those insights are the most rewarding and joyous ones for me.

Then, when reading the Old Testament, I keep in mind that it is the history of God’s chosen people (from Genesis 12 on). And not just the history of the people, but more importantly for me, it’s God’s interaction in that history. I look for that; what it reveals about God. For example, in your opening post, you mention the lengthy list of kings who were evil. God is going to punish Israel by allowing the Assyrians to conquer them and send them into exile. He sent prophets to warn them what would happen if they did not change. That long list of evil kings reveals the patience of God. Without it, not only would we wonder why God allowed the Northern Kingdom (part of His Chosen People) to be conquered and dispersed, but we’d have no idea of how long He patiently waited before chastising.

I

 

[otrrl]

The definition in the CCC must lead us to the conclusion that telling the faults or sins of another is detraction. The CCC fails us, by leaving it to us to decide when there is a valid reason for revealing the faults or sins of another. It doesn’t define what those valid reasons are. From the responses so far, if the Bible reveals the faults or sins of a person, that’s a valid reason.

As a kid in Catholic school, I learned that the end does not justify the means. The instances in the Bible of revealing the faults and sins of a person seem to break this rule. Even if the “end” is to teach us about God or to teach us what is wrong, that still does not seem to justify doing what is generally considered not only wrong, but sinful.

 

[otjm]

Truth is not per se a detraction. Your presumtion that truth of evil is a detraction is without foundation.

 

[veritatisstella]

The definition in the CCC must lead us to the conclusion that telling the faults or sins of another is detraction. The CCC fails us, by leaving it to us to decide when there is a valid reason for revealing the faults or sins of another. It doesn’t define what those valid reasons are. From the responses so far, if the Bible reveals the faults or sins of a person, that’s a valid reason.

Many instances in the Bible are not really revealing the faults of another. When it says that a king “was evil in the sight of the Lord”, this king would have done evil things known to everyone. Because his evil deeds were publicly known, how could mentioning that fact be “revealing them”? For example, it isn’t detraction to tell people Kim Kardashian did a nude photo shoot because that is public information accessible to everyone. If you found out that a girl you knew in high school did a nude photo shoot on the side to make some extra cash, telling other people would be detraction to her good name because she did not make that information public and revelation of it could damage her reputation.

There can be serious reasons when revealing some fault or crime of another person is necessary. One example is if you happen to know someone is planning an armed robbery, you have a duty to report that to law enforcement.

The Catholic Encyclopedia provides more information on valid reasons for revealing another’s faults: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

 

[otrrl]

Thank you for the citation from the encyclopedia. The CCC, again, only drifts off vaguely on what the “valid” reasons might be for revealing the faults and sins of another. The news about retired Cardinal McCarrick being restricted from public ministry is a case in point.

Even this encyclopedia entry has a lot of vagueness in it, about the “importance” of the detractor and of the one who is subject to the detraction. There’s a lot of iffiness there,too, whether it is a mortal sin or a venial sin. I guess if you’re a sailor, there’s less harm in recounting your drunkness – maybe the theologians think less of them; but, is the reputation of theologians intact regarding alcohol consumption?

My whole point in this thread is that there sure is a lot of what looks like detraction from one end of the Bible to the other, all the way to the problems with the seven cities of Asia Minor. It bothers me a lot, and I’m looking for the silver lining in this cloud. Perhaps what hits me is the horror of sin. I read of others’ sins and I am horrified by my own. I see myself in their sins. I am certainly no better than any of the people in the Bible.

 

[Gorgias]

But, here is the Bible saying just such kind of things about the kings of Israel.

Isn’t this detraction, in the Bible? How do we reconcile this with the Catechism of the Catholic Church?

Two thoughts:

• The kings of Israel – heck, every person in the Bible – is a human. Humans sin.
• The whole thrust of the account of the kings of Israel and the kings of Judah – that is, during the divided kingdom – is that the kings of Israel are, without exception, sinful (and that the kings of Judah are sometimes good and sometimes bad).

So… in no way do the Biblical accounts contradict the Catechism. In fact… they support its assertions.

 

[veritatisstella]

There’s a lot of iffiness there,too, whether it is a mortal sin or a venial sin. I guess if you’re a sailor, there’s less harm in recounting your drunkness – maybe the theologians think less of them; but, is the reputation of theologians intact regarding alcohol consumption?

I think they have the example of sailors because at the time it was written a sailor’s reputation wouldn’t be seriously damaged and he wouldn’t lose his livelihood if people found out he got drunk. A person in a more respected profession would face more serious repercussions if it were reported he had a drinking problem.

Anyway, there always will be some “iffiness” here because it’s an issue of applying general principles to specific circumstances. It is ultimately up to our own prudential judgment to determine when the circumstances are such that reason would call for us to reveal a person’s fault. Detraction is defined as “the unjust damaging of another’s good name by the revelation of some fault or crime of which that other is really guilty.” This means it is okay to talk about a person’s fault when a) it wouldn’t ruin their good name; or b) reporting the person’s fault would not be unjust.

Whether it is mortal or venial can only come down to particular circumstances and it’s really hard to delineate what exactly would be a mortal sin as opposed to a venial sin of detraction. Ultimately whether a detractor is culpable of mortal or venial sin is highly personal and can only be determined on a case-by-case basis.

there sure is a lot of what looks like detraction from one end of the Bible to the other, all the way to the problems with the seven cities of Asia Minor. It bothers me a lot, and I’m looking for the silver lining in this cloud. Perhaps what hits me is the horror of sin. I read of others’ sins and I am horrified by my own. I see myself in their sins. I am certainly no better than any of the people in the Bible.

You make a good point here. I think instilling us with a horror of sin is one of the main reasons the Bible records others’ faults. Due to the divine inspiration of Scripture, there must be a good reason why any fault is included because it would be wrong to impute sin to any of the sacred writers. I would argue from this that any mention of faults in Sacred Scripture either does not damage another’s good name, or does not do so unjustly so it would not fall under the rubric of detraction.