To what extent are we culpable for the foreseeable sin of another person, if he was prompted to act by our information?

[Digitonomy]

Basically what the title says.

Here is the background that caused me to pose this question:
A man recently shot two guards at the Pentagon, in part (it is thought) because he did not believe the accounts of who was responsible for the attacks of September 11. I thought that those spreading lies about those events were in part culpable for this man’s attack. But then it occurred to me that similar situations could occur, where the truth could cause such an attack. Is there any culpability (for another’s action) in spreading the truth? If not, it seems that the culpability in spreading a lie would be similarly limited.

 

[Scoobyshme]

Basically what the title says.

Here is the background that caused me to pose this question:
A man recently shot two guards at the Pentagon, in part (it is thought) because he did not believe the accounts of who was responsible for the attacks of September 11. I thought that those spreading lies about those events were in part culpable for this man’s attack. But then it occurred to me that similar situations could occur, where the truth could cause such an attack. Is there any culpability (for another’s action) in spreading the truth? If not, it seems that the culpability in spreading a lie would be similarly limited.

Remember that the nature of sin is such that it involves an act of the will in disobedience to God. In other words, to sin, you must intend to disobey God in some way. I don’t see how that would apply here. There are no “accidental” sins.

 

[m134e5]

Basically what the title says.

Here is the background that caused me to pose this question:
A man recently shot two guards at the Pentagon, in part (it is thought) because he did not believe the accounts of who was responsible for the attacks of September 11. I thought that those spreading lies about those events were in part culpable for this man’s attack. But then it occurred to me that similar situations could occur, where the truth could cause such an attack. Is there any culpability (for another’s action) in spreading the truth? If not, it seems that the culpability in spreading a lie would be similarly limited.

We never realize all the consequences of sins when we do them. Many sins that may seem small at the time can escalate into something much more serious eventually. Sometimes this can take many many years to happen- and things may still happen as a result of our sins long after we are dead. I’m sure on judgment day we will all know what our sins led to- but I’m not sure we will be punished for what those sins led to (I’d imagine the awareness of how harmful our sins were would be enough), as we did not intend to cause that kind of harm. It may be something the souls in purgatory are able to see. I would imagine that souls in heaven have done enough penances and have found a true sorrow for their sins. They have accepted God’s mercy, and are at peace because they know that God is ultimately in charge. We should not offer forgiveness to someone, and then constantly remind them of their wrongdoings. It doesn’t seem that God would treat us that way.

 

[1ke]

Basically what the title says.

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.

1869 Thus sin makes men accomplices of one another and causes concupiscence, violence, and injustice to reign among them. Sins give rise to social situations and institutions that are contrary to the divine goodness. “Structures of sin” are the expression and effect of personal sins. They lead their victims to do evil in their turn. In an analogous sense, they constitute a “social sin.”

Here is the background that caused me to pose this question:
A man recently shot two guards at the Pentagon, in part (it is thought) because he did not believe the accounts of who was responsible for the attacks of September 11.

Recently? It happened in March.

Also, the man responsible had a mental illness, bipolar disorder, and held a host of anti-government and conspiracy theory positions.

I thought that those spreading lies about those events were in part culpable for this man’s attack.

I don’t think that the various 9/11 theories can be shown to be directly or even indirectly responsible for his actions.

But then it occurred to me that similar situations could occur, where the truth could cause such an attack. Is there any culpability (for another’s action) in spreading the truth? If not, it seems that the culpability in spreading a lie would be similarly limited.

I don’t think your premise is valid. A lie and the truth are not morally equivalent. A lie is itself an evil. The truth is not.

Merely telling the truth (or a lie for that matter) would not constitute the above quoted Catechism criteria regarding being culpable in the sin of others. I think you’d have to have some pretty *specific *speech in mind to even propose some sort of causation, such as someone directly inciting him, daring him, provoking him, ordering him, or brainwashing, etc. Not just various theories and postings on internet blogs and such.

And, as for this man being guilty of a sin, a mentally ill person is likely not able to meet the criteria of mortal sin-- they are not in full control of their faculties.

 

[Digitonomy]

Merely telling the truth (or a lie for that matter) would not constitute the above quoted Catechism criteria regarding being culpable in the sin of others. I think you’d have to have some pretty *specific *speech in mind to even propose some sort of causation, such as someone directly inciting him, daring him, provoking him, ordering him, or brainwashing, etc.

The larger the group, the more likely a statement is to provoke one of the less disciplined members of that group. Suppose the leader of a traveling group of - I don’t know, musicians, refugees, athletes, activists? - is heard by an auditorium in his current host town to say “Everyone I ever met from Rabbittown has been a no-good leach on society, and I suspect this country would be better off if the lot of them were thrown in prison.” This may be a true statement, but even if the leader is not addressing the Rabbittownspeople, it’s reasonable to suppose that some of the locals may be inspired to an act of violence against the group. Such an act wouldn’t be justified, but people being what they are I wouldn’t bet money on a safe stay for the group. Would the group leader be in any way culpable for such results of his statement?