Catholic Virtual Wars: 00 Rash Judgment - The Stealthy Sin

 "The Gossips" | 1948 | Norman Rockwell
(study the painting well - starting with the first lady at top, and the last at the end!)
Gossip, detraction, calumny, false accusations , etc., often begin with "rash judgment"

What is rash judgment or, "judgment from suspicion", as it was called by St. Thomas Aquinas? Let's look at it collectively and consider our online activity. I'll kick off the discussion; you make it come alive - in the Combox!

Introduction


We make judgments all day long without thinking about them:  What to eat; what to wear; who to "hang out" with on a given day, or what to read on the internet.  Parents must judge the actions of their children in order to teach them.  Likewise, teachers must pass judgments on the work of their students, and when their behavior causes problems for others.  Police officers make judgments on the street; judges judge in a courtroom. 

Snap decisions must often be made about moral issues.  If one student offers another a master sheet with test answers, the other student must make a judgment: To accept and use it would be cheating. For him to point this out to the other student is not a rash judgment but, fraternal correction - a topic for another post. It is evident that the purpose of having such a thing is to cheat, which is immoral.   

Using a really exaggerated example to avoid "hot-button" topics, if we encounter a Catholic online in new media or social media who is claiming that there are four persons in the Trinity, it would be an act of charity to say something.  There is also a duty to truth.  How it gets said is another matter, and that will also be the subject of another post.

A simple rule to follow is that we cannot judge someone else's motive, or the state of their soul. We are sometimes incapable of discerning our own motives, especially when we fail to spend time in silence and prayer.  How much more incapable when it involves motives behind other people's words and actions. We cannot claim that someone in a position of authority is a coward because he did not do this or that.  We may make the observation that something was not done, but we get into trouble when we continue with the thought, "because...." The moment we convince ourselves that the "why" behind the inaction is some kind of bad conduct, in the absence of reasonable, manifest proof, we have likely crossed the line into rash judgment because only God can know motive.

We encounter a gap in an otherwise contiguous line, and we want to fill in the blank. When we do, we may be inclined to use the most negative filler, rather than the most positive one, especially if we don't particularly like the person involved.  That we believe the most negative thing about someone else's words or actions has it's roots in our human fallen nature. That inclination is concupiscence in action. That is why it is important to recognize when we are being tempted to make a judgment from suspicion and to fight it by virtuously looking for a more positive interpretation.  This is the prudent response. Wisdom which is the engine behind prudence, does not permit us to react rashly. 

I have often wondered whether we have engaged in rash judgment online without realizing it because we do not understand it and have not contemplated the matter. Typically, when the 8th Commandment is taught to young people, the focus is on telling the truth and not to tell lies.  However, few sources really discuss rash judgment.

If you are unfamliar with the 10 Commandments, you can read through this Examination of Conscience for Sacramental Confession based on the Commandments (Scroll down to the 8th Commandment).   Of the many such examens I found online, not all of them cover rash judgment.

With this post, I am not intending to offer an exhaustive look at the subject of judgment, which is broad.  St. Thomas Aquinas has six articles on judgment (60).  I'm narrowing the scope to what he calls, "judgment from suspicion". The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) refers to it as, "rash judgment".  Therefore, our focus will be on Articles 2-4.  We will not be discussing the kind of judgment which takes place in law enforcement or the judicial system.

It might help to read all six articles - slowly, and more than once as an overview.  Use a dictionary, as needed.  If you don't understand it all, that's ok.  Just try to familiarize yourself.  For those who have never read any part of the Summa, you may want to read this brief, How to read Aquinas

Let us look at some other texts to help set this up before getting to the Summa.  All bold text within quoted material is my emphasis.


Passages from Sacred Scripture

These passages are related to rash judgment, and there are more, but you get the idea with these. I think they are often misunderstood and loosely thrown around online. 

Judge not, that you be not judged.  For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get.  Why do you see the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when there is the log in your own eye?  (Matt 7:1-4)

Let us therefore no longer pass judgment on one another, but resolve instead never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of another. (Rom 14:13)

For judgment is without mercy to one who has shown no mercy; yet mercy triumphs over judgment. (James 2:13)

The CCC on Rash Judgment

What does the CCC say about rash judgment?  It is covered in Section Two - The Ten Commandments under Article 8:III Offenses Against Truth.  I will give you CCC 2477 and 2478 in full so you have context, but we will set aside discussion of calumny and detraction for later.

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;
- 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.

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. and if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved. [Attributed to St. Ignatius of Loyola, Spiritual Exercises, 22 in footnotes]

Footnote 277 in the above is cross referenced to the Code of Canon Law.  Canon 220 states:

Can. 220 No one may unlawfully harm the good reputation which a person enjoys, or violate the right of every person to protect his or her privacy

I'm planning to explore more deeply this area of "good reputation" under another set of subjects I found in the Summa because, there are some interestings twists. 


"Rash Judgment" in Modern Catholic Dictionary

Servant of God, John A. Hardon S.J. wrote the Modern Catholic Dictionary- a very handy book to have.  It is also online at Catholic Culture with a search bar.  Indeed, when I looked it up, our topic was there. Here is what Fr. Hardon says:

RASH JUDGMENT
Unquestioning conviction about another person's bad conduct without adequate grounds for the judgment. The sinfulness of rash judgment lies in the hasty imprudence with which the critical appraisal is made and in the loss of reputation that a peson suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely.

Going back to what I said earlier about wisdom being the engine behind prudence, I found Fr. Hardon's explanation of imprudence very fitting to pull out, in part.

IMPRUDENCE  
Sins against prudence that are either by defect or by excess. Sins by defect against prudence are: rashness, which acts before due consideration has been given; thoughtlessness, which neglects to take the necessary circumstances into account; and negligence, which does not give the mind sufficient time for mature deliberation.

Does that sound like some things you have seen in Catholic new media, social media, and especially in comboxes? 


Let's move on to some quotes, starting with St. Thomas Aquinas.

St. Thomas Aquinas on Rash Judgment


In Article 2 (under, "I answer that..."), St. Thomas says judgment is faulty and unlawful, "...thirdly, when the reason lacks certainty, as when a man, without any solid motive, forms a judgment on some doubtful or hidden matter, and then it is called judgment by 'suspicion' or 'rash' judgment."

This is a question we need to ask ourselves, and others, when we suspect rash judgment is present:  How do I (or you) know that?   I think, online especially, we need to start gently challenging one another with this question.  Consider how we enable someone in their rash judgments when we do not challenge them?  Another consideration is whether our reading or watching some content leads us to rashly judge others.  In other words, you could put yourself into the occasion of sin by digesting material that is laden with rash judgments.  Do we lead others into rash judgment with our content? Ignorance of the sinfulness of judgment from suspicion is leading many into bitterness of others. St. Thomas goes into this next.

In responding to Objection 1 in Article 2, which referenced Matthew 7:1 ("Judge not, that you be not judged), Aquinas writes:

Reply to Objection 1. In these words our Lord forbids rash judgment which is about the inward intention, or other uncertain things, as Augustine states (De Serm. Dom. in Monte ii, 18). Or else He forbids judgment about Divine things, which we ought not to judge, but simply believe, since they are above us, as Hilary declares in his commentary on Matthew 5. Or again according to Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John of the Cross], He forbids the judgment which proceeds not from benevolence but from bitterness of heart.

Think for a moment how we judge the motives of those whom we like.  We are willing to give them the benefit of every doubt, sometimes to the point of excusing away that which should be confronted.  But when it involves someone whom we do not like, it's the opposite.  From there, contentious entries in new media and social media begin; and, comboxes become a cesspool of rash judgment, detraction, calumny, derision, quarreling and utter imprudence. 

In Article 3, Aquinas says:

On the contrary, Chrysostom [Hom. xvii in Matth. in the Opus Imperfectum falsely ascribed to St. John of the Cross] in comment on the words of Matthew 7:1, "Judge not," etc., says: "By this commandment our Lord does not forbid Christians to reprove others from kindly motives, but that Christian should despise Christian by boasting his own righteousness, by hating and condemning others for the most part on mere suspicion."

St. Thomas then goes on to say that suspicion itself, "denotes evil thinking based on slight indications".  He says there are three causes:

1. He is prone to think evil of others due to his own wickedness (we are often guilty of the very things we accuse others of).
2. He is ill-disposed towards another (there is envy or anger)
3. He has experienced the faults of others (Aquinas says the elderly can fall into this trap because they had time to experience more evil).

Aquinas then says that the more we engage in it, the more vicious it gets.

THREE DEGREES OF SUSPICION

I feel this next part is so important, that it warrants quoting it in full.  He discusses the level of sinfulness of these kinds of suspicions (emphasis mine in bold):

Now there are three degrees of suspicion. The first degree is when a man begins to doubt of another's goodness from slight indications. This is a venial and a light sin; for "it belongs to human temptation without which no man can go through this life," according to a gloss on 1 Corinthians 4:5, "Judge not before the time." The second degree is when a man, from slight indications, esteems another man's wickedness as certain. This is a mortal sin, if it be about a grave matter, since it cannot be without contempt of one's neighbor. Hence the same gloss goes on to say: "If then we cannot avoid suspicions, because we are human, we must nevertheless restrain our judgment, and refrain from forming a definite and fixed opinion."  The third degree is when a judge goes so far as to condemn a man on suspicion: this pertains directly to injustice, and is consequently a mortal sin.

Note that one of the qualifiers for the second degree to be a mortal sin, is that the rash judgment be about grave matter. Keep in mind that for a sin to be mortal, three conditions must be met: It must be objectively grave matter and the person must have full knowledge that it is grave matter and consent to it. 

A question that arises in my mind is whether the second degree is sinful if it is strictly interior? What if the suspicion is harbored internally and is not passed along to anyone else?  Going back to Fr. Hardon's definition of rash judgment, he said that it was "...loss of reputation that a peson suffers in the eyes of the one who judges adversely."  This would seem to indicate that another party need not be involved for us to sin in this regard, venially or gravely.

Something else that jumped out at me, was his emphasis on "slight" indications.  We have very little evidence to prove what we believe, but we are certain of that belief.

In Article 4, Aquinas looks at whether doubts should be interpreted for the best.  I want to focus on his Reply to Objection 2 where he says, "It is one thing to judge of things and another to judge of men".  There is no harm done to things regardless of which way they are judged.  However, when it comes to judging men he says:

On the other hand when we judge of men, the good and evil in our judgment is considered chiefly on the part of the person about whom judgment is being formed; for he is deemed worthy of honor from the very fact that he is judged to be good, and deserving of contempt if he is judged to be evil. For this reason we ought, in this kind of judgment, to aim at judging a man good, unless there is evident proof of the contrary. And though we may judge falsely, our judgment in thinking well of another pertains to our good feeling and not to the evil of the intellect, even as neither does it pertain to the intellect's perfection to know the truth of contingent singulars in themselves.

On his Reply to Objection 3 in Article 4, I must admit that he lost me.  I read that a few times, and perhaps I was looking at it all too long.  Someone enlighten me, in the combox.

Quotes from others


St. Teresa of Avila (Interior Castle, Chapter III, p 5)

Those who are careful not to offend God, and who enter the religious state, think there is nothing more to do. How many maggots remain in hiding until, like the worm which gnawed at Jonas's ivy, 8 they have destroyed our virtues. These pests are such evils as self-love, self-esteem, rash judgment of others even in small matters, and a want of charity in not loving our neighbour quite as much as ourselves.

St. John of the Cross

173. Do not be suspicious of your brother, for you will lose purity of heart.

There is an entire chapter on "rash judgment" from a book, The Secret of Sanctity of St. John of the Cross, by Fr. Lucas of St. Joseph, O.C.D., Bruce, Milwaukee, 1962, pp. 41-46.  The priest was martyred in Spain in 1936.  Just a cautionary note, the quoted text appears on a defunct sedevacantist site and I could not find it elsewhere.


Reginald Garrigou-Lagrange, O.P.

This higher light produces benevolence, whereas rash judgment most seriously opposes this benevolent view....It should be clearly noted that rash judgment is not a simple unfavorable impression; it is a judgment. It consists in affirming evil on a slight indication; in reality a person sees two objects, but because of pride affirms that he sees four.

What he says about seeing four objects where there are only two is the very thing that makes me wonder whether people understand the difference between "objective" and "subjective". Is that sometimes the problem?   I would like to see some simple descriptions, perhaps with some benign examples (not hot-button issues please), to help others understand the difference between objective and subjective. 

St. Francis de Sales

I found it interesting how St. Francis de Sales broke down the various ways and reasons people would engage in, "hasty judgments".  Here are just two of the many interesting points he made:

We must proceed to rectify rash judgments, according to their cause. Some hearts there are so bitter and harsh by nature, that everything turns bitter under their touch; men who, in the Prophet's words, "turn judgment to wormwood, and leave off righteousness in the earth." (4) Such as these greatly need to be dealt with by some wise spiritual physician, for this bitterness being natural to them, it is hard to conquer; and although it be rather an imperfection than a sin, still it is very dangerous, because it gives rise to and fosters rash judgments and slander within the heart.

In that one, I believe that St. Francis is talking about one of the four temperaments. I get this from the fact that he says it is natural to them and hard to conquer.  Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in that paragraph he is discussing the choleric temperament.   Each of the temperaments has strengths and weaknesses.  The idea is to make use of the strengths and counter the weaknesses with the practice of virtues.  There are saints among all four of these temperaments, so none is better than the other.  Each of us will probably fit several of them, but one will be more dominant.

Others there are who are guilty of rash judgments less out of a bitter spirit than from pride, supposing to exalt their own credit by disparaging that of others. These are self-sufficient, presumptuous people, who stand so high in their own conceit that they despise all else as mean and worthless. It was the foolish Pharisee who said, "I am not as other men are." (5)

This reminds me of something St. John of the Cross wrote in the Dark Night of the Soul about beginners in the spiritual life:

AS these beginners feel themselves to be very fervent and diligent in spiritual things and devout exercises, from this prosperity (although it is true that holy things of their own nature cause humility) there often comes to them, through their imperfections, a certain kind of secret pride, whence they come to have some degree of satisfaction with their works and with themselves. And hence there comes to them likewise a certain desire, which is somewhat vain, and at times very vain, to speak of spiritual things in the presence of others, and sometimes even to teach such things rather than to learn them. They condemn others in their heart when they see that they have not the kind of devotion which they themselves desire; and sometimes they even say this in words, herein resembling the Pharisee, who boasted of himself, praising God for his own good works and despising the publican

I am curious as to what else we can find on rash judgment by other saints, or in documents.   Find some things, but be mindful that if any one person makes a bunch of consecutive comments some will not only end up in my spam folder, but I think people could pass them up.  So spread them out. 


Sept 6, 2011: 10:00 p.m.: Post edited for clarity on a few points, and the quote by St. John of the Cross at the end was added.  Also re-added the quote from James under Scripture section after it was somehow lost.

---

Before commenting Catholics in the Combox series, please read my notes and guidelines for contributing. We are avoiding "hot-button" issues and fingerpointing (not even veiled) so that we may focus on the topic,which is, "rash judgment", for this post.  As explained in my introductory post to the series, it is not just for comboxers, but for anyone involved in creation of new media and social media. 

All Scripture quotes cited by me are from the RSV-Catholic edition. The emphasis will be on St. Thomas Aquinas  and the Summa, found in it's entirety at New Advent, but other references will be included.

*Note: 12/31/14 - This post was renamed and relabeled to the Catholic Virtual War series

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Promo for "Catholics in the Combox" Series

Here's a great promo vid for my upcoming series: Catholics in the Combox  (which is not just for comboxers, but anyone using new media and social media too).  While it is a humorous way to look at how comboxes sometimes develop, we will use some challenging rules and guidelines to prevent this from  happening in the comment box for the series. 

I mean... there are a number of combox personalities in this clip, no?

I had promised in my introductory post to the series that I would probably have the first post out this weekend. But, I am responsible for print material for an archdiocesan-wide capital campaign at my parish and didn't realize one of my deadlines is approaching next week. That is a priority. In fact, I've burned a vacation day today to get caught up. It is a beautiful day to be on vacation anyway.

In the meanwhile, I just wanted to share that classic Three Stooges clip which I believe captures so well how some online conversations descend into chaos and nastiness.  Moe even cites a Scripture passage at one point. See if you can catch it.


We are going to experiment with this series and see if we can:

• Draw Catholics into the combox who would normally be at each other's throats.

• Get them to talk about the topic at hand (first one is forthcoming soon) without any hot button issues.

I keep using the word contributing because I am not looking for opinions.  I am looking to learn about what the Church teaches on some specific topics related to how we treat one another.  We are so busy dropping concepts and passages out there, that we rarely go beneath the surface to understand something deeper.  I am often so impressed by the awesome and thought-provoking quotes many of you find, whether it is from Sacred Scripture, the CCC, or the Fathers and Doctors of the Church, or  Popes and Saints.  I'm often amazed at what I learn from Church documents I had no idea existed.  

Of course, we must take care not to isolate quotes to suit our belief. We must read all quotes in context in order to complete the learning process. When we stop at one quote, that partial understanding often turns into a perverted or tainted understanding. What I am hoping to see, is for participants to spot those contextual things and offer the missing parts that give the quote proper context, and in a gentle and charitable way.  

I am hoping that priests reading will consider getting involved because of: A) what they bring to the table from their years of study and reflection , and B) what they can offer based on their experience in the confessional with some of these topics.  I have no doubts that this series will serve as a collective examination of conscience for anyone participating or reading.

Since I want to accumulate serious references to each topic I introduce for discussion, I am hoping you will encourage your readers to offer their comments in the respective blogposts too.


There is no way that I can find all of these things, so I am leaning on you for my learning and I hope you will learn from others too. 

I'm looking foward to this series, but duty calls me to work on the capital campaign material, so your patience is appreciated.  I leave you with this new twist on an old classic (watch to the end - LOL).

[I had to clean my screen of coffee spray after seeing that unexpected ending - ROFL]

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Catholics in the Combox: Read before you comment....

"Wait for me!" | 1903 | Sophie Gengembre Anderson

The first topic in the Catholics in the Combox series is in development.  In the meanwhile, please read this post so you know how to participate.  All posts in the series will be linked to this post to avoid repetition.

---

Sometimes we are so quick to fire off that comment we leave everyone else behind.  The next thing you know, no one left in the combox is talking about the original post and people are quarreling.

This series is about heightening our collective awareness of online behaviors - specifically how we interact with one another and talk about others. 

• Are we doing things that are not in harmony with Sacred Scripture and Church teaching?
• Are there virtues and other lessons we need to look at more deeply and apply?

We can discuss an issue like detraction, rash judgment, or prudence without introducing things that will cause the combox to get sidetracked onto other issues and away from the targeted topic.  

  

For the Catholics in the Combox series, I am applying a special set of rules, some of which were mentioned in my introductory post. I'm going to truly "moderate", not just filter out spam, so the combox discussion is productive and filled with valuable information for all of us.


General Notes:

For the Catholics in the Combox series only, this what you must do to participate in the combox:

• Read the post completely before commenting.  Comments which show clear signs that the post was not read, will be rejected.

• I have opened the Anonymous option to allow for more participation. You must sign your post with a name or pseudonym. I recommend first, hitting the enter key and signing the bottom then begin typing your message above that.  This way, you won't forget to sign it and I won't need to reject your comment.

• I don't mind one person having a number of contributions.  However, I would discourage a series of them in a row (besides, they sometimes end up in my spam folder).

Photo: Graham Loveland
These are not the kind of rabbit holes we want to avoid; rather, we want to avoid
combox rabbit holes. These are created when someone introduces a particular name or word
and the discussion gets sidetracked. 

Avoiding the creation of rabbit holes in the combox

We will not be including any of the following in our comments, not even veiled.  I'll have to make a judgment call because I want the post to stay on topic.

• Names of other people (as in, pointing the finger at them)
• Names of various groups/subcultures (i.e., democrat, republican, traditionalist, charismatic, protestantetc.)
• Labels (i.e., rad trad, neo-con, liberal, conservative, progressive, orthodox, happy-clappy, etc.)
• Political topics
• "Scandal of the day" type stuff
• Other topics, including Catholic ones not directly related to the specific topic.
• Current or recent events (i.e., Obama at Notre Dame, Fr. Corapi case, priest sex abuse scandal,)
• Unapproved private revelations/apparitions and general discussion about such mystical phenomena (a discussion on detraction does not require us to examine what takes place within a sub-group of Catholics. 

I know this is going to be a challenge for people, but we want the Catholics in the Combox series to be rich with discussion about specific topics. 

Is your comment not moderated? It could have been rejected

I will try to have comments moderated within a reasonable time. In some cases, it may take 8-10 hours if I am having difficulty on my iPhone approving them.   Email me at TeDeumBlog@gmail.com if you do not see it after that period and I will explain why I chose to reject.  My advice is to copy your comment to word or notepad if it is longer so you can paste and edit out that which resulted in rejection, then resubmit.


Good things to add to the Combox

If the subject is something like, Rash Judgment or Prudence, for example, here is what I would like to include in the discussion:

Quotes directly related to the topic from:

• Sacred Scripture (see my Catholic scriptural resources including Catholic RSV)
• Church docs (CCC, encyclicals/papal addresses, etc.)
• Church Fathers
• Church Doctors (especially the Summa)
• Other saints
• Noteable theologians and philosophers

The idea here is to develop a habit of going to these kinds of sources to seek understanding.  Don't limit yourself to Google.  Use the search tool at places like New Advent which has a huge online library.

Don't just comment; ask questions!!!

A truly wise person knows what questions to ask, and has the humility to "ask away". Such a wise person understands that the "teacher" will often be an unexpected person (Matt 23:12)

While I may link to a page on the Summa and quote it partially, it is good to read the entire linked Summa article before commenting. Read it slowly and more than once.  Learn to slow down.  The combox isn't going away so you can add your comment after you read other things.   If something goes over your head in the Summa, that's ok.  Ask a question about it in the combox.

Ask short, simple questions out there about what you are reading. If you read something in the linked Summa article and don't understand a particular sentence or line - quote it and ask what St. Thomas means by it. Paste the link in the combox so people can read it in context.

Use the dictionary if you cross a term or expression you do not understand. 

 Use a Dictionary of Philosophy for some terms too.

Final Note: Play nice!

It is my hope that Catholics who may otherwise be at odds with one another will engage in fruitful dialogue and come to a better understanding of how we can participate in the New Evangelization in the most God-pleasing way.

Boys Shooting Marbles | H. Armstrong Roberts

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Catholics in the Combox: Introductory Post

Sometimes the combox is like one giant pillow fight, and every now and then a fist lands in someone's kisser
Source: Pillow Fight in New York

I don't know about some of you, but it just seems like we Catholics in the new media and social media are always in one big pillow fight (or mosh pit).   I began to reflect on how we engage one another online and landed in the Summa for the first time in my life (here are some pretty good notes on how to read the Summa).  I got hooked.  I also got humbled.  Perhaps some day I'll be a Thomist; today I'm merely a new fan of the Angelic Doctor.  For now, I'd like to encourage you to join me on a journey to see what we can apply from his teachings, and the teachings of other saints and theologians, to our online activity.

I'd like to attribute this useful photo, so if someone knows the origin
please let me know.

This post series is not just for comboxers.  It's for bloggers, Facebookers, Tweeters, podcasters, vidcasters, and whatever else becomes popular in the next few minutes.  This is the first post in the, "Catholics in the Combox" series.  I hope to do one per week and I hope you will follow along and perhaps even share it with others.


Focus on behaviors  - not people, groups, sub-cultures, or organizations!

I want to spark discussion, but not just any kind of discussion.  I think one of the things that really gets us going is that we have lost the art of debating points and principles and are debating people.  We are getting quite personal in the process, expecting everyone to understand why we feel the way we do.   For that reason, this new post series I am doing will not point to people -  not even veiled.  The post series is strictly about behaviors.  Every one of us probably engages in these at various times without even realizing it, so there is no need to attach something to someone else.  Look inward as good Christians are suppose to do.   Therefore, in the combox for this series, I will not accept any comment which discusses people, groups, organizations or sub-cultures (trad, charismatic, progressive).  We aren't going to talk about specific events, news, or topics (liturgy, private revelations, etc.).  Rather, the focus must be on behaviors in general. 

Are we violating the 5th and 8th Commandments?

Many would agree that online, and perhaps offline, the 8th Commandment is being violated quite frequently.  I don't think it's willful as much as it is a manifestation of the lack of depth in our understanding of these things.  I wonder how many realize that there may also be violations of the 5th Commandment (see an Examination of Conscience based on the 10 Commandments here)?

Each post will feature a topic.  Here are just a few topics out of probably well over a dozen that are forthcoming:

• Catholics in the Combox: Anger and Righteous Anger
• Catholics in the Combox: Rash Judgment
• Catholics in the Combox: Detraction

We will look closer at some other things that are applicable, as well, mainly in the area of the virtues which I think are not well understood.


Practicing the virtues moderates effects of our fallen nature

For those of us born after a certain year, we weren't really taught about the virtues and what kind of role they play in countering vices.  For those born prior to a certain year, those things may have been taught, but then not reinforced for the past 40 or 50 years.  They were further eroded within our culture which seems to value irreverence towards fellow humans amidst conflict than virtue.  Snark draws cheers and it becomes a contest to see who can tell someone else off the best.  We've lost them, and we cannot divorce our zeal for truth from them.  Catholicism is not just about facts and drilling them into others.  It's about passing along those facts in ways that others will best receive them.  This means knowing something about the various audiences.  Without practicing all of the virtues, we are somewhat feeble in our attempts to win the hearts of others to Christ.  Unchecked zeal is like a washing machine with all the clothes on one side.  It rocks and knocks out of control until you stop it and if you don't get there in time it will "walk" far enough away from the wall to yank the hoses off leaving behind one big mess.

If we truly believe that God's grace working in us is what changes hearts, then we must work towards a level of purity in ourselves that will maximize the graces we have to use in winning others.  Often times, changing hearts is like growing crops.  You prepare the soil, plant the seed, you water, and you wait.  There are many other stages that come before we get to see it all come to fruition.  Agitate the soil to aggresively and you kill the seedling.  Fail to water it and you get the same result.  It's a balancing act.  The most important thing is - patience.

I must admit that in the past few weeks that I've had my nose in the Summa, I've been quite humbled.  I've also been prompted to hit the confessional, perhaps more than once as I began to understand  certain things that have been largely hidden from my understanding.   This whole blogpost series is an attempt to get each of us to look inward, not at all those other people. We can't change them; we can only change ourselves. We can influence others in good ways or bad ways.  How we communicate our position has everything to do with how others will receive it.  I once had a math teacher who thought everyone who asked her questions wasn't paying attention.  I liked math, but her constant condescension whenever I asked for help or struggled with something made me hate it.   Years later, figuring I could never do algebra, I got a good teacher who was patient and if I didn't understand it one way, would find several other ways to explain the same thing.  He did not presume to judge my lack of understanding in the worst possible light and his patience payed off.  I discovered I was pretty good at math and enjoyed it.

Your Help Needed

I don't have all the answers.  I'm as prone to human fallen nature as the rest of you.  I want to learn and that is part of what this is about.  I need all of you to contribute to the discussion. When I discuss a certain topic I hope you will share your favorite quotes from various saints and theologians who have something to offer on the subject.  I'll bring St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Ambrose, St. Alphonsus, St. Francis de Sales, Fr. John Hardon, SJ and a few others to the party.  I'm hoping you will be able to find other quotes from these and others so that when people find this post series, they will have much more to feed on from the combox than in the body of my post. 

I'm looking forward to putting our heads together and appealing to the saints to help us raise the bar in how we discuss all things Catholic on the web, and in person.   I'm hoping to hear from lay people, as well as from clerics, religious, philosophers, theologians and others.  For those who are not into commenting, you can send me an email and specify if it is just for me (leads, points, etc.) or if it is ok to post and how you want it signed. Send it to TeDeumBlog@gmail.com


The ultimate goal is to raise the bar in how we interact with one another online.  As Catholics, we are on display for the world to see.  Will they see us engaging in discourse in ways that are mindful of everyone's dignity?

Does this sound like a worthy pursuit to you?

I'll try to get my first post ready for next week. I'm not going to pre-announce the topic. I'll let that be a surprise (read that, I'm still thinking about what should come first). 

EDIT: Here is the first topic post:  01 Rash Judgment

This Combox

For now, in this combox, perhaps you can tell me what behaviors you find problematic in new media and social media.  Ah-ah-ah... but describe behaviors without referring to any person, group, sub-culture or organization!  That's the challenge!!!  Humor is welcome, labels and name-calling are not.  Let's not open rabbit holes up by bringing in side topics that are prone to side-track the whole discussion.  If you don't see your comment posted within a few hours, you can email me and ask about it. 

One more thing.  Don't just think before you post; pray before you post.  Really! Say a Hail Mary or some other appropriate prayer.

COMBOX NOTES:

I am opening up the anonymous option because not everyone wants to use an Open ID.  Please note, that if you use the anonymous option, the first thing you should do is sign your post with your name or a pseudonym, then proceed above that, to write your thoughts (this way you won't forget).  Hopefully, you can appreciate how difficult it is to respond to 15 different people all using "Anonymous". 

UPDATE: Here are my guidelines and rules for posting in the series.  Please read the post before contributing in future, Catholics in the Combox, series.

---

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church; it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.