Too much truth (CCC 2489)? (link)

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flopfoot
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
This is me and you know what that means (neither do I but, it does have some signfigance {I hope}). It is saying that we shouldn’t be rude with truth. You know, going around poking gays with a stick chanting that they are going to hell. And that untill they convert that there is comes a point where we could do something about the sitution why bother. Though I am a new convert and I am proboly wrong in which someone will come in and poke me with a stick telling me how wrong I was and will correct you. So till further notice just put this down as someones opion.
 
I’m not sure either but maybe it has something to do with serious gossip or detraction,so we should not tell people bad things about someone even if the bad things are true.
 
I would say that you are the ‘owner’ of the information regarding your own faults, and it is therefore your right to decide whether or not to divulge this information (basically, you cannot violate your own right to privacy). You are not the ‘owner’ of information regarding other people, and that’s why it becomes an issue of privacy when revealing information about someone else.

Now, one question I’d have is to what extent this group causes a member to feel compelled to reveal things which they’d rather not reveal to anyone outside the confessional. The group has no right to usurp ownership of the information of any particular member. So, if it’s to the degree that refusing to divulge personal info is looked at so askance that multiple such refusals would result in an invitation to depart the group, I’d say that there is a problem.
 
I think this is a very relevant issue. We are inundated with shows like Oprah, where people reveal the most intimate things about themselves. I think this is a problem.

Speaking as someone who tends to wear his heart on his sleeve, I have come to realize that so much openness is not necessarily a good thing. Not that the opposite is such a good thing, either. I’m in my late 40’s, and it’s taken me this long to realize that there needs to be a balance.

One poster says that you can’t violate your own right to privacy. I think that’s a little glib. You can, in fact, reveal too much about yourself so that you harm others. For example, if a permanent deacon were to reveal to others that he has been unfaithful to his wife since his ordination, even if his wife already knew, this is a cause for scandal. As a community of faith, it would cause us harm to have this information. You can make all sorts of arguments that it shows that he’s just human, or that it encourages other unfaithful husbands to reform, or whatever. But you can’t get away from the fact that it would cause serious harm to his ministry and his credibility.

“Being open”, as it’s often practiced in our society, is really a euphemism for narcissism. It is often distasteful, and contributes to a general lowering of moral standards. We seem to completely have lost a sense of shame.

“Being open” in confession, is of course, praiseworthy.

“Being open” in marriage is praiseworthy, too. But even here it is often prudent to keep some of our faults and failings private. For example, if a man was not a virgin before his marriage, perhaps he should tell his fiance, but it would cause harm to his marriage if he gave all the details to his wife, constantly reminded her of them, or made this information available to people who didn’t already know or have the right to know, like his children.

I think we generally should encourage prudence with regard to how much information we reveal about ourselves. Not a fearful, suspicious reluctance to become intimate friends, but rather a thoughtful, prudent guarding of our own reputations.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top