Love The Sinner, Hate The Sin?

[Amppax]

Missy mentioned this, and because she said it much better than I:

[quote][color=#282828]This is fair. I'm still trying to find that tender balance between completely avoiding the issue entirely (wrong) and sitting people down and saying they're participating in something gravely disordered, etc. ad nauseum (unwise, if you're hoping to open their heart).[/color]

[color=#282828]I'd been convinced in the early years of my reversion that unless you were out there stating explicitly that xyz was a mortal sin and they needed to repent, you somehow weren't "doing enough."[/color][/quote]

So, what is the balance? How do we love someone in serious sin? This is something that's been coming up for me a lot recently, and, like Missy, I'm looking for the balance.

Also, this doesn't seem much like a debate, which is why I put this here, but Mods, if this is more of a debate, y'all feel free to move it.

[Sister Marie]

I think "loving the sinner, hating the sin" has less to do with what you say or do and more with what is in your heart and mind (and therefore effects the "how" of what you say and your actions).

I try to ask myself some questions when I have the forethought before engaging someone who is struggling in sin. Is what I want to say meant to hurt or shame the person into doing the right thing? or is it meant to give them the freedom to do the right thing? Am I too angry at the sin to be able to say anything helpful to the sinner? Do I want them to feel bad? In my mind or heart, have I already judged the person, stereotyped them, or lost sight of who they are besides the sin? If any of those things are in my mind and heart, which sometimes they are if I am truly honest with myself, then I know that most things that will come out of my mouth won't be loving or helpful. Even if I'm right, my words and actions could push someone even further from the truth.

However, if when I search my heart I can see this person as a unique human being... If I'm still able to accept their goodness along with their sinfulness, their personal complexity along with the truth of right vs. wrong... If I want them to choose to do the good out of love for God or out of a response to his love... then I know that most of the things I will say to the person will come out as loving and kind and will be a dialogue that will allow that person the space and the resources to FREELY choose to examine their life and be open to conversion.

If I know that I cannot offer a person the truth without my agenda and/or feelings overshadowing it, I know that God will find someone who can help them while I work on myself - on charity, humility, and compassion. None of us are called to be Saviors... thank God! Yes, we are called to preach the truth and guide others to it, but that doesn't mean that we have the personal responsibility to right every wrong that we encounter. Sometimes we have to acknowledge our own shortcomings and allow someone else to help that person who is better able than we are - so that they won't be pushed further away by our well meaning but poorly exercised help.

It should be about the sinner and not about me. The goal is always to be an instrument for the other to come closer to God... if I'm going to be a hindrance I think it's better to trust God will care for His sheep.

[Papist]

We need to love first. In the past, my problem was I felt it was my responsibility to deliver the sinner from his ways. After many frustrating and unproductive encounters, I came to realize I was trying to convince him what he does is right/wrong. I have learn to not tell him what to do or not do, but rather what I do or not do and why. By doing this, it helps take the focus off the person you are talking to and reduces the chance he will get defensive when you are talking about yourself.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Sister Marie' timestamp='1335746141' post='2424990']
I think "loving the sinner, hating the sin" has less to do with what you say or do and more with what is in your heart and mind (and therefore effects the "how" of what you say and your actions).

I try to ask myself some questions when I have the forethought before engaging someone who is struggling in sin. Is what I want to say meant to hurt or shame the person into doing the right thing? or is it meant to give them the freedom to do the right thing? Am I too angry at the sin to be able to say anything helpful to the sinner? Do I want them to feel bad? In my mind or heart, have I already judged the person, stereotyped them, or lost sight of who they are besides the sin? If any of those things are in my mind and heart, which sometimes they are if I am truly honest with myself, then I know that most things that will come out of my mouth won't be loving or helpful. Even if I'm right, my words and actions could push someone even further from the truth.

However, if when I search my heart I can see this person as a unique human being... If I'm still able to accept their goodness along with their sinfulness, their personal complexity along with the truth of right vs. wrong... If I want them to choose to do the good out of love for God or out of a response to his love... then I know that most of the things I will say to the person will come out as loving and kind and will be a dialogue that will allow that person the space and the resources to FREELY choose to examine their life and be open to conversion.

If I know that I cannot offer a person the truth without my agenda and/or feelings overshadowing it, I know that God will find someone who can help them while I work on myself - on charity, humility, and compassion. None of us are called to be Saviors... thank God! Yes, we are called to preach the truth and guide others to it, but that doesn't mean that we have the personal responsibility to right every wrong that we encounter. Sometimes we have to acknowledge our own shortcomings and allow someone else to help that person who is better able than we are - so that they won't be pushed further away by our well meaning but poorly exercised help.

It should be about the sinner and not about me. The goal is always to be an instrument for the other to come closer to God... if I'm going to be a hindrance I think it's better to trust God will care for His sheep.
[/quote]If I could figure out WHERE to put this I would post it permanently on PM.

[LaPetiteSoeur]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' timestamp='1335747373' post='2425001']
If I could figure out WHERE to put this I would post it permanently on PM.
[/quote]

Maybe pinned to the top of open mic? Or to debate table

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

St Paul "Speak the truth whether you feel the timing may be right or not."(words to that effect.) I guess the truth is not to crucify but humbly rebuke, the person may or may not accept the rebuke, that is between the person and God, the person may or may not ask questions why it is wrong. To say you think something is wrong whether the timing is right or not is good and holy , to not say could actually be sinful. But i guess than there is being prudent in the way we rebuke and to just mention it than let it go, the person may ask why immidiatly or at a future time which is more appropriate for them. And even if they don't and the sin continues you can mention it to them again at a later date and ask whether they would like to talk about it with you. And if this person is causing you to sin also, you must consider that you have to tell them the problem or risk loosing your own salvation. Jesus tells us "it is better to go into heaven with half your body than into hell whole." in corporation with other gospel parables like the samaritan,the worker in the orchard, to forgive 70 times 7 times , a line in the sand ... there is a limit as to how much each of us can take and this vairies from person to person Jesus' understands this. And whether one can take less or more does not make one less or more holy,infact i'm sure in our pursuit for greatness when we can only take less has caused much un-needed hell and torture. But than also anyone of us whom are little could be called to greatness at anytime but the Lord will never give us more than what we can handle our pride can and does though. And also many little works in ones life amount to a great work surely, for a forrest without the forrest floor and only towering oak trees is incomplete and that eco-system will not survive and if it does barely.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

one time i suspected a friend to be in a state of mortal sin in the form of a grave disorder(habitual mortal sin) and than he actually boasted of it to me and i didn't admonish his sin/humbly rebuke/alert him that i was uncomfortable with that(or however one is to say it) , and slowly i began to hate him and than consequently fear him and he lived in the flat beside mine and i started not being able to sleep in my bedroom because his bedroom was on the otherside of my bedroom wall. I guess if one can't tell the person possibly out of fear of hypocricy due to ones own state of sin it becomes very difficult, but we must believe if where hitting those pews and confessing our own sins that we are not hypocrites because we are acknowledging our own failings. Though a priest told me sometimes people aren't ready to change which i understand, but i still feel in accordance with St Paul that i must say something if reasonable suspician is at hand without accusing just questioning/asking, and if definate not crucifying or damning to hell.

Edited April 30, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[MissyP89]

Thanks for starting this thread, Amppax!

To give a more concrete example: I have a friend who is transgendered. For matters of simplicity, I'll use "he" as that is the pronoun he asks people to use now.

He lives down in the Bible belt and was raised by loving parents, neither of them Christian. Since his transition, he's been called a monster, demon, and all kinds of things ... every experience he's had with Christians has been negative and hate-filled. As you can probably imagine, he has a very bad taste in his mouth now about all things Christian.

And then there's me. Not too long ago, he confided that I was the only Christian he knew to treat him with love and respect during his coming out and transition.

It did my heart good. That's what I'm after – to be a loving and safe presence to people who need it.

Yet I've always felt like somehow I've done wrong by not sitting down with him and saying, "I think this is wrong, and here is why."

I never felt that conversation was appropriate. I am the sort that prefers to keep my mouth shut, be a good listener, and pray. But at times I feel this self-pressure that in order to be a "good Catholic" I need to be quipping doctrine to everyone that crosses my path, because hiding the truth is [i]also [/i]a sin...

So here we are. Right now, I think Papist idea is a great one. I've never considered it before, but it's definitely something I can get behind.

[Gabriela]

I can totally relate to MissyP89. I think my generation (I'm 32) and those after it are having to really seriously consider how to deal with this "Hate the sin, love the sinner" issue, because society is demanding more and more that we live "tolerantly" with openly, unabashedly, defensively sinful people. As an academic, I am surrounded by gay men. Two of my four closest friends are gay men (the other two are straight women), and my favorite professor is a gay man. I love all of these men deeply. They are wonderful, gentle, loving people. But because of an incident with another gay male friend that happened some 10 years ago, I live in constant fear that these men I now love will eventually ask me if I "approve" of their lifestyle. I would then feel obligated to explain that I think it's sinful and unnatural, that it harms society, but that my incessant gossiping and judgmentalism and criticizing is also sinful and harms society (though not unnatural, I think...? ;-). I would have to explain how I love them anyway, because I'm just as wretched a sinner as they are. The only difference is that I recognize my sins as such and am repentant for them. They are not. But in that, they're no different than most [i]straight[/i] Americans. Ten years ago, I lost my friend trying to explain these things, because he didn't hear anything after "sinful and unnatural". I mourn the loss of his friendship, and regret having hurt his feelings, but I said what I believed. Considering that, despite his sinful lifestyle, I still loved him and wanted to be his friend, I don't feel I was wrong to say what I said. I would have been wrong to lie about it in order not to hurt his feelings and maintain our friendship. That, I think, is a worse betrayal than honestly answering a friend's very serious question. It is a painful irony to me, though, that despite his insistence that his homosexual lifestyle deserved "tolerance" and "acceptance" by all, he was unwilling to tolerate my views enough to continue our friendship, even though I went far beyond "tolerance" and "acceptance" of him [i]as a person[/i]: I loved him completely.

Given the sense of entitlement in the culture of rights in which we live today, I think such conversations are likely more often than not to end the way that one did. And that's a scary thing, when you love a person. But I figure, if I ever have to have such a conversation again, I will do the same as I did 10 years ago: that is, try to gently explain the complexity of the Christian ability to genuinely love a person even when one does not approve of the things they do. I think that we all do this every day: My roommate leaves a wet towel on the floor, which annoys me no end, but I love her anyway. My son smacks another kid in the face, which is cruel, but I love him anyway. My neighbor blasts music at 2 in the morning, which is inconsiderate, but I love him anyway. My friend divorces her abusive husband, but I love her anyway. My 15-year-old unwed cousin has an abortion, but I love her anyway. Half my students are on birth control, but I love them anyway (mostly, except for the REALLY insufferable ones! ;-).

If my gay friends can't understand how that works, or can't "tolerate" my views, then I guess our friendships will have to end. I'll be sad. They'll probably be angry. But considering that we both would have simply stood by what we believe, and that what I believe would have allowed the friendship to continue in love, while what they believe would not have, I don't think that there is any way anyone could fairly construe the disintegration of our relationships as my doing.

So, though I live in fear of losing my friends, I think they know better than to ask such questions of a pious Catholic (whom, I'm pretty sure, they [i]also[/i] love). And given that I'm a pious Catholic, I'm pretty sure they know very well already what I think of their lifestyle. What need have I to bring it up? If I bring it up to them, am I not then also obligated to bring up every sin to every sinner I meet? Should I start harassing my advisor when she misses Mass on Sundays? Should I start pointing out to my officemate that her eating habits are immoderate? What an insufferable gadfly I'd become! I would much rather just be the pious Catholic that everyone knows is a pious Catholic, the one who appears to love and get on well with everybody in spite of their annoying and sinful habits. That, I think, is much better witness to the unconditional love of Christ than bringing up everything they do that they already know I think is a sin.

One thing does worry me, though: When my gay friends talk about their partners, I don't cut the conversation short or change the subject or squirm uncomfortably. I engage with them in the conversation, just as if I were talking to a straight friend who is having problems with a significant other. With a straight friend, I would be genuinely concerned for her happiness and fulfillment in her romantic relationships. So am I concerned for my gay friends. But sometimes, in engaging in these conversations with my gay friends "just as if I were talking to a straight friend", I wonder if I am not implicitly condoning their homosexual relationships. On the one hand, I want them to be happy and fulfilled. On the other hand, I know they never will be in such relationships. But they keep trying, so I keep trying to help, at least until they see for themselves what I already know (not likely to happen anytime soon—barring a miracle, of course). In this I consider my actions similar to those of a mother who allows her child to stubbornly persist in something that she knows is wrong for him so that he can learn it is wrong for himself, because she knows that if she tells him it's wrong he will only persist more stubbornly. But presumably, no good mother would silently stand by as her child persisted in serious sin... hence my conflicting feelings about this behavior...

Personally, I find it highly hypocritical that Americans decry the sin of homosexuality so loudly, while silently letting so many others pass, simply because (I presume) they are lower on the nation's political agenda. But I also find it highly hypocritical that, in the nation where so many preach tolerance as the greatest good, so many people are incapable of maintaining friendships with anyone who disagrees with them about anything, or disapproves of anything they do. I have dual American and Israeli citizenship, and in Israel, people of all walks of life and all political and religious persuasions eat together, play together, and even argue together (actually, [i]especially[/i] argue together—it's the Israeli national pastime) without in any way weakening their bonds of friendship. It's beautiful, really. And I wish to God we could manage to do it here, too.

In sum, MissyP89, if you're as openly Catholic as your friend is transgendered, then trust me, he [i]already knows[/i] what you think. So unless he asks, what's the point of bringing up [i]that particular sin[/i]?

That's what I think, anyway. O, wise Phatmassers, please correct me if I am wrong!

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i liked most everything you said miri up untill the trust me part how is it the person already knows? Most outside of the faith are oblivouse as to what the church actually believes and even some within the church. I understand your fear of loosing your friendships but as you said if these people are so tollerant than why can they not tollerate your catholic beliefs, almost sounds like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode, which i fear for you will happen eventually whether or not you have your sneakers on or tap-shoes.

[Gabriela]

[quote name='Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye' timestamp='1335776357' post='2425122']
i liked most everything you said miri up untill the trust me part how is it the person already knows? Most outside of the faith are oblivouse as to what the church actually believes and even some within the church. I understand your fear of loosing your friendships but as you said if these people are so tollerant than why can they not tollerate your catholic beliefs, almost sounds like a ticking time bomb waiting to explode, which i fear for you will happen eventually whether or not you have your sneakers on or tap-shoes.
[/quote]

It's certainly true that most people outside the Church don't know what we DO believe, but I think most Americans know very well what we DON'T believe. The world loves to give us negative publicity. I've yet to enter into discussion with an American who doesn't know that the Catholic Church is against contraception, against abortion, against divorce, against homosexuality, against Against AGAINST.

Furthermore, I have found that people who are opposed by some group typically know much more saliently than the unopposed that that group opposes them. Because they feel that opposition directly, personally impacts them. We pay much more attention to such things. And if I'm generally right about that, then people living "alternative sexual lifestyles" are even MORE likely to know the Catholic Church's views on those lifestyles. So, unless MissyP89's friend is living under a rock (which I think most transgendered people are not doing), then I'm sure he's aware of at least the most publicized ([i]negative[/i]) Catholic doctrines.

I did not say my friends are tolerant. I said only that they are good, kind, loving men, and that the world they live in expects and preaches tolerance for homosexuals. And, I think, so do they. I also said I think it would be hypocritical for someone who expects tolerance from others not to himself grant that same tolerance. Which, so far, my current friends have not done. It's the friend from 10 years ago who turned out to be a hypocrite. Hopefully, my current friends are more open-minded than he... I think they are, of course, otherwise I would not be their friend. It's just that, when you've had an experience with a gay friend like I had, you kinda' always worry... You know?

Edited May 1, 2012 by Miri

[cappie]

“Hate the sin, but love the sinner,” is a quote from Mahatma Ghandi, not Jesus Christ. Some sinners are so deep in sin, that if you reveal the extent of their sinfulness, they despair of ever reaching spiritual health. I spoke to a man once who had despaired, because his priest had convinced him he was going to hell, and the man reasoned that if he was going to hell anyway, it didn’t matter what he did on the way down. People without hope have no reason for virtue. Shall we minimize sin? By no means! But didn’t someone important say that laws were made for people and not people for laws? What good is it if orthodoxy is vindicated, but all the sinners are lost?

As I said in another post, We invariably start off with "Thou Shall Not Have Sex" instead of "Thou Are a Beloved Creation of God," or "Thou Art a Full Member of the Community," or "Thou Have Much to Bring to the Church." To what other group is the "Thou Shall Not" our opening line? We are all "loved sinners," as my friends the Jesuits like to say, but people--especially young people, especially people on the margins, and especially young people on the margins--should be reminded of the "loved" part before the "sinner" part.

[Amppax]

Thanks Father! I've always heard the phrase attributed to St. Augustine. That's a good point though. So what I'm seeing here is that we are dealing with a person (a sinner) and thus love should be our fundamental approach; and at the same time, we should not disregard the truth, however, emphasizing love is key. 1 Corinthians 13 and all. I like that, brings me a lot of clarity.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

only love can change a heart, when jesus' calls us to love even our enemies i believe he is telling us that his love through us in prayer,fasting,good words and good works than that person can change without these it is much harder for the person to change. And also silence to sin is a sin against the holy spirit if i'm correct ? Alerting people to your stance on sin is not intollerance, crucifying them is. And installing in them the hope of heaven through Jesus' love for us in faith must be paramount to the chance of hell,though that chance is there and that discussion i do not believe should be fully avoided. We hope as christians that all souls goto heaven but surely we should not be so ignorant as to be a bunch of hippies on this matter, without preaching damnation to anyone and causing serious trauma which can infact increase sin, though still i have been lead to believe that hell,judgement,death and heaven are the four last things to remember before confession. But than i think i agree with Fr.Cappie, possibly you are leaning towards the St Liguori approach that some are indominately ingnorant and will only ever be able to drink milk which is true but is indominatable ignorance on the increase due to a generation being brainwashed by t.v. fantasies. But than again maybe a fast ball straight down the alley is sometimes the sollution a simple "Do you believe a murderer should suffer consequences for his crime,and what if he murdered your mother or father or brother or sister or best friend.?" Surely i can not believe the whole world has turned into a bunch of simple goat herders whom have the education of a 6 year old.Except in matters of Goat herding which they are number 1. I like this thread. But than you have to start with the milk, and everyone knows if you murdered there mum or possibly baited there pet dog most are gonna probably wan't justice, but than sin is also a great mystery with an intricate web of ins and outs that i wouldn't try and feed to a non believer str8 off the bat or even a lapsing or lapsed christian. Though in saying that in my mind i'm a renoud "eat the stupid hamburger you litte so and so" at times, but am working on it, i wasn't always that way though and have had less success with those outside of holy roman catholic church since trying to be the hamburger king, so be careful one does not become a hamburger nazi.

Onward christian souls.
JESUS is LORD.

Edited May 1, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and i guess as an earthly example if that murderer pleads guilty and is truely repentent and want's to give his best effort to change and amends his or her life than the judge will have mercy and he or she will escape(in the u.s.) the death penalty or in the commonwealth, life in prison. When addressing the prospect of Hell full understanding must be considered also that change is bitter to the taste and hard to swallow and outside of a miracle can take time. And jail can be exruciating, the loss of freedom and can turn green wood into dry wood very quickly and due care needs to be taken. Which i have only recently started to learn. All this is just my opinion and without due prayer,sacraments,examining of concience(which i believe is not soley the realm of what to confess.) and studying the holy word , don't acccept my word as absolute truth or quote it. When it comes down to it i'm just a man with an opinion and of no position of authority,that would be Jesus' whom will reveal to you personaly and communanly in the holy roman catholic church. More than likely i only ever have half the story, if that.