What Is "detraction"?

[BarbTherese]

The problem about discussion sites can be that not only those with a right to know, but the whole world is open to personal information and reflections that we share about others and about their person and quite publicly in public forums.  To my way of thinking, it is fine to challenge what is stated in posts - but speaking against the actual poster on a personal level is something else even if it is the truth insofar as the person accusing is aware.

I dont think it is just to reveal what knowledge one may have of another even though such knowledge has come about through just and lawful means in the course of just and rightful occupation.  And in such an instance, it has potential to be quite serious to reveal such information.   For example, something may be made public about a person, but this does not per se justify it being repeated.

The best way to avoid the 'murky moral waters' of detraction is to speak to the subject alone, not against the person.

 

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04757a.htm

 

[Gabriela]

Is it detraction to reveal something uncharitable about yourself to others who didn't know it?

[Nihil Obstat]

I do not think it is possible to commit the sin of detraction against oneself.

[BarbTherese]

Seems to me under the definition of detraction, it is ok to reveal about yourself.  For those to whom you reveal it to go ahead and reveal it to others who did not know may be another matter.  Detraction strikes me anyway as 'murky waters' as moral theology can be.  If someone reveals something wrongful about themselves, it might be best to keep silent on the matter and treat it as confidential and according to the moral definition, this would depend on what is actually revealed.  Murky waters.

My experience (limited) is that those who do engage in gossip type matters usually have a rationilization why they are revealing it justifying their actions.

Edited December 21, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[tinytherese]

A thought I had is if something that someone did is affecting you and you need help coping. Since priests, therapists, and psychiatrists are bound to secrecy, wouldn't it be acceptable then?

[Nihil Obstat]

A thought I had is if something that someone did is affecting you and you need help coping. Since priests, therapists, and psychiatrists are bound to secrecy, wouldn't it be acceptable then?

 

Generally, yes. It is not sinful to reveal something if it is necessary to reveal.

[theculturewarrior]

I do not think it is possible to commit the sin of detraction against oneself.

 

As a disabled American I can say with confidence that it is even possible to slander yourself.  I can provide you with research that attests to this.  Detraction or not, the gospel forbids casting judgment.  The punishment prescribed by the gospel is prohibitive, and on a public forum, you have just a very tiny piece of the picture with which to make an informed judgment.

 

 

A thought I had is if something that someone did is affecting you and you need help coping. Since priests, therapists, and psychiatrists are bound to secrecy, wouldn't it be acceptable then?

 

 

 

Tell someone.  Your mental health comes first.

Edited December 22, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[Nihil Obstat]

The definition of the word detraction clearly implies that it is an act against another, separate person, and which involves a third party.

 

 

 

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ 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;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

 

[BarbTherese]

As a disabled American I can say with confidence that it is even possible to slander yourself.  I can provide you with research that attests to this.  Detraction or not, the gospel forbids casting judgment.  The punishment prescribed by the gospel is prohibitive, and on a public forum, you have just a very tiny piece of the picture with which to make an informed judgment.

 

 

 

 

 

Tell someone.  Your mental health comes first.

 

We have a right to protect our good name and reputation depending again on circumstances.  Certainly, if one does reveal something negative about oneself to others, that does not mean that those others have therefore a right to spread the information.  And even with first hand information about another, we do not have the right to sit in judgement on that other person nor to disclose what we know in the interests of 'truth' being known.  If I was in any sort of doubt, I would consult a priest as detraction can be extremely damaging to another.  No person has insight into the will and heart of another sufficient to pronounce any sort of rightful judgement whatsoever.    We are asked by The Gospel to completely refrain from any sort of judgement and with our own souls on the line "judge not, that you may not be judged". 

 

Moral Law or moral theology is sometimes very 'murky waters' and it can be difficult to discern what is rightful and what may not be so from one circumstance to another sometimes.  We can only act in accordance with our lights and where potential detration and the sitting in judgement of others are concerned, it is best to my mind to err on the side of caution and love of neighbour rather than drag the good name and reputation of another 'through the mud'.  I once wrote a poem, a line of which ran "and damned are those who sever good reputation from another, once taken -  gone forever".  Once a person has lost their good name and reputation, it can be impossible to near on impossible to restore it.

 

Where a person's mental health is concerned, it seems to me that this is absolutely sufficient reason to discose matters to a professional where our priests and doctors have a moral obligation not to disclose.  "Common sense is the guide of all the virtues" (St Albert, Ancient Rule of Carmel)

 

The right to a good reputation and being respected is inherent in our "exalted dignity" as persons.

 

 

Furthermore, the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World (Gaudium et Spes) reaffirms that human rights are the necessary conditions for human dignity:

there is a growing awareness of the exalted dignity proper to the human person, since he stands above all things, and his rights and duties are universal and inviolable. Therefore, there must be made available to all men everything necessary for leading a life truly human, such as food, clothing, and shelter; the right to choose a state of life freely and to found a family, the right to education, to employment, to a good reputation, to respect, to appropriate information, to activity in accord with the upright norm of one's own conscience, to protection of privacy and to rightful freedom in matters religious too.³⁵

Edited December 22, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[theculturewarrior]

The definition of the word detraction clearly implies that it is an act against another, separate person, and which involves a third party.

 

 

 

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ 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;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

 

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rC_MESoYmY

 

This video may *trigger* some people. Also, the language here is very grown up but I posted this because it describes the following question perfectly.  It is a comedian with OCD discussing her symptoms.  On the surface, these symptoms would be very confusing for most people who do not understand mental illnesses.  The quotation that you cite (from the Catechism?) does not seem to consider this.  Do you hold that the Church has no responsibility to reputations of people who suffer from OCD?

Edited December 22, 2012 by theculturewarrior

[theculturewarrior]

Nihil, I am looking at this way.  If I run into a crowded theater and shout FIRE!, then unless there really is a fire, I have sinned.  However, if everyone runs into a different theater and they shout fire, then the sin is theirs.  And usually, when you see kinds of things, the fire is imagined.

[Nihil Obstat]

Ok, but this is not detraction.

[HisChildForever]

I had a big problem with this when I worked retail. There's so much gossip and detraction in those environments.

[BarbTherese]

One can have the same experience in an Office environment.  Once Bipolar Disorder had onset in me, I continued to work for some years, but the moment it became known that I suffered Bipolar, I left that employment due to gossip/detaction about 'the boss's secretary'; consequently for about five years before leaving work altogether and going on the disability pension, i had quite a few jobs.  Back in those days, there was much false information re mental illness giving rise to stigma that prevailed in the general community.

 

Sometimes it's not much better these days insofar as false information is concerned.  I rarely will not disclose that I suffer a mental illness, and a few days ago, I did state it to another person in the office.  She commented "I never would have picked you as a person who suffered Bipolar".  When I asked her what would she would expect to see in a sufferer of Bipolar, her attitudes were formed on completely false information.  Just as the video previously posted previously does not at all even remotely reflect all who may suffer OCD or any other mental illness.  Not all suffer such bizzare and violent type of thoughts.  I certainly have never experienced them and Bipolar Disorder is the second of the two most serious of mental illnesses, the first being schizophrenia.  I also know very many people who are sufferers of MI.

 

It is a known fact in psychiatric circles that after the illness itself the next major hurdle in making a happy and contributing life in the general community is stigma and sometimes detraction.  Sufferers may need to face daily stigma and detration.  These are most often based on completely false information and stereotyping.  I have had a long 'fight' or struggle to be able to re-establish a good reputation in the various communities to which I belong and where my previous parish is concerned, this was impossible though I had been quite stable and well for a probably ten year span.  Shifting to another parish, I did not reveal Bipolar, only to our parish priest when he asked me to work in the office one day weekly and since he had known me for many years was happy to give me the opportunity.  People in this new parish are happy to accept me as a full member of the community, but I still have not revealed generally that I am a sufferer of mental illness, I am very afraid of stigma and detraction once more and being pushed to the fringe of the parish as possibly tolerated but not belonging.  Nowadays here in Australia, if one has an established period of stability, one can work (paid work) in the Public Mental Health system and such workers as peer workers are quite valued and apparently doing valuable work re fellow sufferers and in other areas as well.

 

 

 What I qutoe below is taken from an address by Cardinal Barragain, President of the Pontifical Council for Health Pastoral Care, Vatican City, during his visit to Adelaide, South Australia, for World Day of The Sick in 2006.  The document can be quite complex and medically based especially in the opening paragraphs.

 

The Church has a high theological opinion of sufferers : http://cathnews.acu.edu.au/602/doc/10wds2.htm "

"Therefore, once the mental illness has caused such a disorder as to take away from the mentally ill patient any responsibility for his actions, qualifying them as separation from the divine will -as a sin- the mental patient cannot separate from God. In other words, the image of God in him cannot be distorted. In this case his knowledge or his volitive option are no longer sufficient to motivate any human action that separates him from God. His bodily and psychic conditions do not allow him to commit a grave sin, given that in his state of disequilibrium he does not have that full knowledge and ability of assent required to sin.

If we approach the argument from this point of view, whereby the mentally ill patient does not have the knowledge or the faculty of full consent required to commit a mortal sin, his is not a deformed image of God, since that image can only be deformed by sin. Certainly, it is the suffering image of God, but not a deformed image. He is a reflection of the mystery of the victorious Cross of the Lord. Inspired by the image of the Suffering Servant of Yahweh (Isaiah 53, 1-7) we are drawn to a conscious act of faith in the suffering Christ."

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,This is not comprehensible to a secularized mentality; it is only understood within the context of Christian optimism, which stems from a reasoned faith that tells us how in such circumstances our obligations towards a mentally ill person, on one hand satisfy our duty to see the suffering Christ in the poor and less protected; and on the other hand the idea of seeing in the patient the love of God who has indicated him as his chosen one, in the sense that he shall not be separated from Him.

 

For those who do not suffer a mental illness, very often attitudes will be formed by detraction type information and other sources of false information that can go round in the general community and can contribute to false stereotypes of the sufferer of MI.  Such information and false stereotyping can make life very difficult to impossible for sufferers.   Our Catholic Faith will always or most always make us counter cultural to society. Sadly, the theological definition of a person suffering mental illness has not yet seeped into the general Catholic culture and consciousness.

 

I was advised by my spiritual director to not reveal generally that I suffer Bipolar to avoid both stigma and detraction.  But I am viewed by some as a 'good advertisement' for sufferers since nowadays I am quite stable and well - a contradiction to stereotypes of sufferers.  Most often I will reveal it, sometimes not and I try to weigh up prayerfully circumstances and likely outcome insofar as I am able - my director after discussion understands this.  It is of absolutely vital importance to sufferers generally that wherever we can we do try to break down stereotypes and correct false information still prevalent in our communities very often including in The Church - and stereotypes and false information that increase the burden and sufferings quite unnecessarily (as fasle information does) of those who do suffer MI.

 

At one point prior to stability onsetting in me, I was advised strongly to join the Anglican Church since Public Mental Health regard the Anglican Church as having more enlightened and accurate information re sufferers than The Catholic Church with more opportunties for a sufferer in the Anglican Church.  I refused to do so and was accused of having an irresponsible attitude towards my condition.

 

 

 

 

Edited December 22, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[beatitude]

I certainly have never experienced them and Bipolar Disorder is the second of the two most serious of mental illnesses, the first being schizophrenia.  I also know very many people who are sufferers of MI.

 

Off-topic, but this isn't true. I've worked in a psychiatric hospital and I've seen plenty of patients with bipolar disorder who were far more ill than those with schizophrenia, and plenty of other patients who didn't have either of these conditions and yet were more severely unwell than any of the patients who did. There is no way to tell just how ill someone is by the diagnosis they have. I can see that you're keen to put a stop to stereotypes, but be careful you don't accidentally end up perpetuating some more.