Category: Moral Theology

A reader writes:

My brother in law is expecting to be "baptized" as a JW in September.  I fear that my in-laws, although they don’t agree with this "religion", feel that it has done my brother in law good, and would like all of us (me, my husband and our 4 children) to go.  I am planning on declining on attending, and insist that my children stay home with me.  I think my husband may go too.  What do I do if arguments ensue?  I feel that, as a Catholic, I cannot attend because then I would be giving my approval of this.  I certainly don’t want my children attending this “baptism”. 

If arguments ensue, I would point out that our presence at a ceremonial life event says something. If we attend a wedding, a baptism, or a similar event, we are in a sense lending our endorsement to it or to some aspect of it.

To show up at a Jehovah’s Witness baptism would communicate either approval of the fact that the person is becoming a Jehovah’s Witness or–at a minimum–that one recognizes that there is some kind of legitimacy to the baptism that is being performed, even if one doesn’t approve of the fact it is JWs who are doing it.

To show up at such an event thus would constitute a form of false witness. It would deceive people (either the brother-in-law or others who were at or knew about your attendance at the event) into thinking one of the above things.

Even if one tells the person that you do not approve or do not regard this as a valid baptism, the message will remain that it obviously wasn’t important enough to you to keep you from coming and thus you value what the person will think of you was more important than your concerns about the baptism or the person’s new religion.

And telling the person getting baptized that you think the baptism is invalid doesn’t tell that to all the other people who will see you at the event or who will learn of your presence there.

My policy is that if a sacrament will be valid then it will be possible in principle to attend. My reasoning is that if God is going to show up at the sacrament (in the sense of his action to make the sacrament valid) then it is in principle permitted for me to show up and watch as God does this.

If God isn’t going to "show up," though (meaning: the sacrament will be invalid) then I shouldn’t either.

To do so would send the wrong message, no matter what I might say with my lips.

In the end, it is more loving to an individual (and others) to be honest with them about the fact that a sacrament is not valid–and to prove that you’re serious about that by not showing up–than to paper over the matter and send the message that you’re not really serious or even that you approve.

20

In a recent post an issue arose in the combox over whether a particular term has a crass origin and what the implications should be for Christians who use this term.

I won’t link to this post for reasons which will promptly become obvious.

In fact, I won’t even use the term in question, though at least partly for a different reason than you might think.

There is a well-known phenomenon in languages of using euphemisms for tabooed words. Every language has tabooed words. When people of conscience feel the impulse to use these tabooed words, they often substitute a euphemism in their place.

Over time these euphemisms can become so established that they are viewed as independent words in their own right and they do not call to mind the original tabooed words on which they are based.

I’d give you examples, except to make the point effectively I’d have to enlighten (or try to enlighten) you about a word origin that you didn’t already know.

You’d then be burdened with the knowledge of where a particular word came from, and you’d have unpleasant, tabooed associations pop into your head when you heard or were tempted to use the word whose origin I had "outed."

To avoid this problem, let’s make up a new pair of words.

Suppose that schmelf used to be a taboo word. It doesn’t matter what the meaning of schmelf was. It could have been any of the usual suspects: something connected with the bedroom, something connected with the bathroom, something connected with religion. All that matters is that schmelf was a really, really tabooed word.

Let’s say it had the same kilotonnage as the F-bomb.

Naturally, polite people wouldn’t want to use it. But, being human, they’d be tempted to at least on occasion. And so a euphemism–smurf–comes into existence.

At first, the fact that smurf is being substituted for schmelf (pardon my language!) is painfully obvious to everyone. But with time, smurf takes on a life of its own, and people no longer realize how the word originated. It has its own, distinct meaning (let’s suppose that it refers to a tiny, blue imaginary creature), and it no longer calls to mind any of the unpleasant associations of the tabooed word from which it was derived.

In fact, let’s suppose that smurf becomes a very popular word, and people use it all the time, saying things like "Oh, Papa Smurf! He’s just the smurfiest smurfing smurf that ever smurfed!"

And one day a Catholic blogger who does not know the origin of the word smurf (a blogger who happens not to be me, though easily could have been since I had never heard its claimed origin either) is writing a blog post in which he uses it, and someone in the combox says:

I am SICK TO DEATH at seeing the vulgar slang words, "smurf" and "trolling," beginning to appear even on Catholic blogs. How in the world could people not be aware of the following:

(1) "trolling" is so obviously a euphemism for "troll king" (which word comes to mind every time the milder version is spoken/written).

(2) "smurf" (as I well recall from my childhood) was coined as a variant of "schmelf" (slang term that sounds as bad as the F-bomb), and then took on an extended meaning of "small blue imaginary creature."

Anyway, folks, DON’T USE THESE BAD WORDS, please.

What would happen next?

Probably, a lot of people would point out that it doesn’t matter where smurf came from. Regardless of whether this word was originally a euphemism for schmelf, it simply doesn’t mean that anymore and does not call up that association in the minds of most people. Now–for the great majority of people–it refers to a small blue imaginary creature, and that’s all.

Not meeting with the success he wanted, the commenter might then reply:

I should have realized that no one here is truly Catholic, but will
do/say anything to justify their use of euphemisms (that call to mind
the vile words behind them), rather than resolve to amend their lives
and pursue the universal vocation to sanctity. I guess that’s one of
the reasons for Purgatory, to burn away the love for the vulgar that is
found in so many people who responded to me.

The lack of humility among almost all commenters here — and the
penchant for kneejerk self-justification and rationalization –are
mind-boggling. It breaks my heart to see NOT EVEN ONE person write a
message saying, "Thanks, dude. I was not aware of what you told us. I
will avoid saying ‘smurf’ and ‘trolling’ in the future."

As always, we can ask the question, "What Would Jesus Do?" You can
be sure that he would not use foul language or even any euphemisms
derived from it it. He would also not use His Father’s name improperly.
Ditto for His vicar on earth, Pope Benedict XVI. Let’s follow these
role models, instead of making bad role models of ourselves.

PS to another commenter: It doesn’t matter what "Jimmy" says on this, because I
have noticed that he too has rationalized some of his own (and others’)
improper behavior. Although "Jimmy" knows lots of facts, he is
definitely no guru for Catholics’ behavior.

Setting aside the attempt at poisoning the well there at the end (and the strange quotation marks around my name, and noting that I’m a sinner in need of Christ’s mercy and do not aspire to be a guru for others’ behavior), I would raise the following concern.

To the great majority of people today, the word "smurf" is not associated with its alleged term of origin. (And word origins for slang terms are really tricky matters. Slang terms–especially tabooed ones–don’t get well documented in dictionaries, meaning that it’s hard for etymologists to trace their pedigree, so a lot of what you read is just conjecture. As someone who spends a lot of time looking up word etymologies, I know what I’m talking about. Sources regularly disagree and admit ignorance over where terms came from, and there are popular myths about word origins that simply aren’t true. Most of the origins that you hear for the F-bomb are false.)

Since most people today are not burdened by the knowledge of where the term smurf (may have) originated, they do not have to wince when they hear it or wonder whether they should correct others who use it or feel bad when they are tempted to use it themselves, because for them it has no crass associations.

If for you it does have crass associations, that is a cross you must bear (either that or decide that at some point it’s not worth fretting over what the origin of a word was and just go with the way it’s being used now).

It is one thing to shoulder this cross yourself, but it is another thing entirely to impose it on others by forcing upon them knowledge that will now be the occasion for scrupulosity on their part.

Now, many people will not scruple over this–or scruple much–but some will. (Particularly the scrupulous ones.)

The meritorious thing to do in such a situation would be not to disturb the consciences of others and to shoulder one’s own cross, without causing others to suffer as well.

Incidentally, I’ve been restrained in discussing this subject in the past because I didn’t want to burden people by revealing the origins of words they didn’t know. Now that I’ve come up with smurf and schmelf, I’ll be able to talk about it more freely.

I’d also recommend that people not "out" euphemisms in the combox. (That was kind of the point of this post.)

Anyone who does so is a smurfitty smurf who’s just out trolling!

(NOTE FOR LINGUISTS KEEPING SCORE: The use of smurf as a way of avoiding using an actual euphemism makes it a meta-euphemism. Schmelf, as a replacement for a non-specific taboo word, would be a generic euphemism.)

A reader writes:

I was raised in a Protestant family, but I never really felt "at home" in the church in which I was raised, preferring instead the Catholic Church introduced to me by my best friend.  Not until  years later, however, did I finally feel ready to make the move and become an actual member of the Roman Catholic Church.

My relatives freaked out over my decision, and the years have not calmed them down.  I don’t argue with them, I certainly don’t try to convert.  I try, instead, to live by that little rule of St. Francis:  "Preach always, and sometimes use words".

Just last week, however, I received a letter from my mother.  She has always had a problem with the Catholic Church, and especially with my being part of it.  Here is part of what she said: "…I do not expect to see either you or your father in Heaven, where I know there is a place now ready for me…"  This letter came from her out of the clear blue sky, and I don’t know what to think about it.

I gather she subscribes to the "once saved, always saved" doctrine, and I am writing you to ask if I should try to address this with her.  It greatly saddens me that she would write such a thing, but I am not sure if I should say something in return, or just let it go.

As with any situation like this, there is no unambiguously right or wrong answer. It involves a judgment call based on your knowledge of your mother and what good could be done by addressing the subject with her.

It is understandable that you would feel sad and hurt by what she said to you. Sadness and hurt are the things that this statement would typically produce (along with anger) if something like this is said to a person.

I would try to understand what your mother said from her perspective, which is likely to be that she was trying to do you good.

At least, I assume that this is what she’s trying to do. (There are
emotionally abusive parents out there who simply want to hurt their
children, but I assume that your mother is not one of these.)

She believes that a certain set of requirements must be met for salvation, and she believes that you do not meet those. It therefore pains her to think that you will not be in heaven, and she is trying to spark your conscience in a way that could lead you to re-evaluate your spiritual life and end up being saved.

I would therefore try to look past the sadness and hurt (and, if needed, anger) that your mother’s comment caused and focus on the underlying fact that she was trying to help you.

It must be admitted that, if one thinks a relative’s salvation is in jeopardy, that there are better ways to help them than saying "I don’t expect to see you in heaven." For example, "I really want to see you in heaven, and here’s what I am convinced you need to do to get there." But however inelegant her attempt to help you was, I presume that her fundamental motive was good.

And that’s important. Focusing on it can help one get past the pain and disappointment such comments can cause.

As far as how to respond, there are a large number of options, but here are some that occur to me as potentially plausible ones:

1) Talk to your mother about how what she wrote made you feel.

This one has the potential to clear some emotional air between you, but it won’t address the underlying theological problem. Do it only if you feel it would have a reasonable chance of success. Otherwise, move on to the other options.

2) Do something to educate your mother about the Catholic faith in general.

Like giving her a book or some tapes that may clear away some of the misconceptions she is likely to have that may lead her to think that Catholics aren’t saved or aren’t Christians.

3) Do something to help alleviate her concerns regarding your salvation in particular.

For this I would talk or write to her directly, rather than giving her books or tapes. I would simply assure her that you love Jesus and that you are trusting in him and his grace for your salvation. I would point out that you can’t do anything good without God’s grace, that you cannot save yourself no matter what you do, and that your salvation is entirely due to God’s grace. Tell her that you love Jesus and you know he died to save you from your sins, and that’s exactly what you are trusting him to do.

This strikes me as a response that has one of the better chances of success, but if you feel it would be too direct for your mother you might . . .

4) Simply call her and tell her how much you love her.

Don’t mention the letter. Just shower her with love and try to shine the light of Christ in her life.

Or you could . . .

5) Simply pass over the letter without taking any special action.

In this case you should just try to be a good person and a good daughter, but not go out of your way, as in the previous response.

My own instincts would be to do something like #3, possibly in combination with some of the other options, but I don’t know your mom. I don’t know how she would respond to any of these. You know her and how she responds far better than I do, so you are in a better position than I to decide what the appropriate course of action is.

As with many interpersonal situations, there is no single obvious answer, and when confronted with an ambiguous situation, you just have to make the best choice you can and entrust the results to God.

Doing the best you can and then stepping out in faith this way honors him, and he will bless you for it.

I hope this helps, and I encourage my readers to pray for your situation!

20

A reader writes:

There is something I have been struggling for some time with. When exactly does gossip become a mortal sin.

When it gravely harms the person being gossiped about through calumny or detraction (that’s what’s necessary to fulfill mortal sin’s requirement of grave matter) and when this is done with adequate knowledge and consent to the action (those are the other two conditions for mortal sin).

In the dictionary it says gossip is the spreading of rumors. But not all rumors about a person are negative, eg: So and so is finally having that baby they have been trying so hard for.

It’s certainly true that rumors can be involved in gossip, but not all gossip involves rumors. It can just be malicious talk about things that are true (i.e., detraction). Also, I suspect that the word is used differently by different people with regard to whether gossip is always negative. Some might not count positive stories you tell about people (e.g., they’re having a baby) as gossip. Others might.

In general, you should be aware that Catholic moral theology tends not to use "gossip" as a category for evaluating actions. That’s why I said gossip would become mortally sinful if (among the other criteria I named) it involved grave harm through calumny or detraction. Calumny and detraction are the categories that Catholic moral theology tends to use in covering this territory.

Before we go forward, here’s how the Catechism of the Catholic Church defines those terms:

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.

These definitions will make it easier to answer the questions below.

So I thought maybe you could put the definitions into every day life and make it more understandable. Now I know that Calumny and detraction have to be taken into consideration. Making up lies and then spreading them about someone. Or, spreading the faults of others in order to hurt their name or character.

Is it gossip if:

1. my friend or family member wants to vent to me about her problems with her husband/kids? Her telling me that her husband is “doing this” or he was caught “doing something”, or said something particularly nasty to her, and is not really looking for advice, just venting. Would that be gossip? Would it be detraction since she is making the faults known. Is that a sin for me
to listen to her? What degree of sin? (I believe this is where most of my confusion lies)

It may or may not be considered gossip (I could see some folks distinguishing between venting and gossip), but it should not automatically be assumed to be detraction or to be sinful.

Human beings have a need to process their frustrations, and often times this means that they need to "just tell somebody" about what they’re going through in order to release the emotions they’re feeling and gain sympathy and acknowledgement from another.

If you are fortunate enough to have a family, you can frequently talk to your family about your frustrations (e.g., ones you’re having at work), but if your family is who you’re frustrated with at the moment, it can make sense to talk to a trusted friend who will listen, understand, give advice (if possible), and keep his or her mouth shut about what you said.

If this is done constructively, it allows you to go back to your family with your frustrations released and with an attitude that will help you get along better in your family.

If done destructively, it can poison relationships in your family by fostering resentments that should not be fostered.

It therefore is not automatically a good thing or a sinful thing. It depends on the circumstance.

In general, it is not sinful to listen when a friend feels the need to vent. Only the friend knows how strong their frustrations are and whether talking about them will help. That’s a determination that the friend generally has to make, and there is a presumption of deference toward them on that question. (Which is not to say that one always has to listen. You have a life, too, and you may not have the time, patience, or emotional energy to listen at the moment.)

In general one would have an obligation to try to handle the listening side of the relationship in a way that results in it being a constructive rather than a destructive experience, but one shouldn’t over think this or get scrupulous about it. Just do what seems best at the time and leave the rest in God’s hands.

2. What if I am the one frustrated with my husband/kids? Am I gossiping by talking about their annoying habits? Is it detraction?

Not necessarily. Detraction involves disclosing the faults of others "without objectively valid reason" in the words of the Catechism.

Needing to process your thoughts and emotions and get a better handle on the situation can be an objectively valid reason to talk to a trusted friend about them. Just make sure that the friend is really trustworthy.

This is basically the flip-side of the answer on #1. (Or, I should say, the answer to #1 basically covers this territory.)

3. What if it is something good, such as the baby example, or say, so and so’s kid got into college?

There is no calumny or detraction in this case. You’re not harming someone’s reputation by reporting good things (or neutral things) about them, so there is no sin here. (Unless you are deliberately being fast and loose with the truth in reporting good things–e.g., "Did you hear that they just won a million dollars!" when you don’t have adequate reasons to believe that they won a million dollars and they probably didn’t.)

4. Someone comes to me and tells me something bad about someone, for no reason but to say bad stuff about this person. I know she had comitted detraction, what about me as the listener? Sometimes it is hard to get away from certain friends or family members who do this on a regular basis, how do you deal with it?

The burden here is generally on the teller rather than the listener. You as a listener are only responsible if you’re fostering the malice of the person you know is committing detraction.

The social pressure that we are put under by friends or family who want to detract to us usually excuses us from culpability in putting up with them, though there comes a point at which it becomes prudent to say, "You know, I’d rather not talk about that/things of that nature."

When that point arrives will depend on what our relationship with the person is, how successful we’ll be in getting them to stop, how important it is for them to stop, and other situational factors. As before, it’s a judgment call and you just have to do the best you can and leave the rest to God.

5. If they truely want advice and are telling me these bad things, that is not sinful, correct?

Presumptively, the answer would be no, it is not sinful–assuming that the reason they’re sharing the things with you is to get advice or process their feelings. But to the extent that they stray beyond that into pure malice it would be sinful for them. If you encourage them to go beyond into pure malice then it would be sinful for you, but I would assume a person of conscience such as yourself probably isn’t doing that.

Now I know we are suppose to be there to help, and listen when other people need us. But if someone is telling us horrible stuff about their spouse/boyfriend/children and we are telling them we can’t listen because they are commiting detraction (well not tell them in those words) then we are not being charitable, and they will feel they can’t come to us for help.

This is correct. However, as noted, a person can dwell on their problems in a way that becomes morbid and at some point the thing to do may be to deflect the conversation to something else, either temporarily (for this conversation) or permanently (for all future conversations). This gets us back to the judgment call issue.

Thank you for taking the time to help me. This is something that seriously affects me at Communion time and Confession time. When I am trying not to gossip but it comes to me unwanted, and I am sometimes drawn into it. Yes I am aware that I am obsessive-compulsive but if I had a more definite answer it would make things in my spiritual life very much easier.

Based on what you have said, I would strongly counsel you not to let this affect you at Communion time or in confession.

I very much doubt that you are doing grave harm to the person being talked about (as would be the case, for example, if he were detracted or calumniated in a way that cause him to lose his job or his marriage, for example). As long as that is the case, the grave matter necessary for mortal sin is not present.

It sounds more to me like your obsessive-compulsive difficulty is causing you to become scrupulous about this (e.g., worrying about whether saying good things about others is sinful) and that the thing to do is to relax and not worry about this unless you get into a situation where it seems unambiguous that grave damage will result to the person being talked about.

Hope this helps!

20

A young mountaineer’s tragic death on Mount Everest has divided climbers around the world. David Sharp, 34, is believed to have died of oxygen deficiency after being passed up by an estimated forty climbers determined to press on to the top rather than cancel their ascent to help him.

"Sharp was trying to climb the mountain alone. He died after he apparently ran out of oxygen 300 metres below the summit.

"[Climber Mark] Inglis [himself a double amputee who climbs with prosthetic legs] said his party was the only one among about 40 climbers to stop and help Sharp as he lay in Everest’s ‘death zone,’ above 8000 metres. He said his group kept climbing after deciding there was nothing they could do to save the Briton.

"’He had no oxygen, he had no proper gloves,’ Inglis said. ‘He was effectively dead … so we carried on. Trouble is, at 8500 metres it’s extremely difficult to keep yourself alive, let alone keep anyone else alive.’"

GET THE STORY.

Another veteran climber isn’t buying the excuses.

"’There have been a number of occasions when people have been neglected and left to die and I don’t regard this as a correct philosophy,’ [Sir Edmund Hillary] told the Otago Daily Times.

"’I think the whole attitude toward climbing Mount Everest has become rather horrifying. The people just want to get to the top,’ he told the newspaper.

"Hillary told New Zealand Press Association he would have abandoned his own pioneering climb to save another’s life.

"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ he said.

"He said that his expedition, ‘would never for a moment have left one of the members or a group of members just lie there and die while they plugged on towards the summit.’"

GET THE STORY.

Who is Sir Edmund Hillary?

CLICK HERE.

"’It was wrong if there was a man suffering altitude problems and was huddled under a rock, just to lift your hat, say "good morning" and pass on by,’ [Hillary] said."

"[Jesus asked] ‘Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ [The lawyer] said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise’" (Luke 10:36-37).

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Digging into the Great Quotes File, we find a quote that I first found attributed to that apostle of common sense, G. K. Chesterton, and was pleasantly surprised to later find attributed to an unexpected source:

"Morality, like art, means drawing a line someplace." –Oscar Wilde

Who was Oscar Wilde?

CLICK HERE.

As you may know, Oscar Wilde lived an actively homosexual life for some years. What you may not know is that he was received into the Catholic Church on his deathbed. For more on that story, check out Joseph Pearce’s biography The Unmasking of Oscar Wilde.

GET THE BOOK.