Consider, what if the person in the story was your own sister.
“My sister sat down next to me. She is a ravishingly beautiful girl.
Familial relations don’t blind us, you know. I can look at the menu without ordering.”
Doesn’t sound too good, does it?
I do have several sisters, and they ARE attractive. It’s the reason I own a shotgun (that’s humor, for those who are going to rashly judge that I’m sinning by joking about the possibility of shooting someone). There’s nothing wrong with noting that my sisters are attractive and talking with the younger ones along the way about why this can present them problems with opportunistic guys.
So you can forgive me for having reservations.
I’m not your confessor, nor do I judge you. I merely highlighted that you should check your statement about the bishop against what the catechism says about making rash judgements. Whether or not you have offended truth, as the Catechism puts it, is a matter of your own formation of conscience.
And I think it IS wrong to “admire” a person’s beauty who is not your spouse. A woman’s or man’s beauty should have no bearing on anyone who is not their spouse.
I assume, then, that you can present us with church teaching that says it is wrong to think that someone is attractive? Otherwise I have to reject this as a false personal teaching and not one that has any magisterial authority.
Now, in this story, I’m not sure what the bishop’s intentions were when he said that, so, yes, I was wrong to jump to conclusions, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.
The only thing I was pointing out is that you stated:
- The action was dispicable (calling a woman into ministry to lepers in Vietnam is not, generally, considered dispicable)
- Was a lustful action and a sin against the ninth commandment (basically, you judged a person as guilty of violating grave matter when they were not)
- That this bishop was setting a bad example (scandalizing the bishop)
I hope you can understand how this sort of judgement against a BISHOP is wrong, particularly when you don’t have the full story.
So let’s look at the Catechism, under the section of offenses against truth:
**2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.[277] He becomes guilty:
- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor**;
2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it.
Basically, Rock, the church
REQUIRES that you give the benefit of the doubt, particularly in a situation where you don’t know the full story.
I’m not judging you, Rock, I’m merely giving you Church teaching as food for thought in advance of the next time you hear a partial story and are tempted to declare that you think someone is sinning.
More on the subject of rash judgements can be found on
THIS thread.
