What Is "detraction"?

[BarbTherese]

For those who may like a summary of the social doctrine of The Church, it can be found here http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/social.html   It does list the rights of the human person quite concisely.

[HisChildForever]

TheCultureWarrior - We are to obey lawful authorities in all matters that are not sinful.  Would it be sinful not to reveal to authorities that a psychiatric patient with violent tendances has access to a weapon/gun - were I a psychiatrist  in the USA(or any psychiatrist anywhere), I would be consulting a moral theologian.  Also I dont know what the USA Disabilities Act has to say about such a circumstances (patient with violent tendances has access to a weapon).   I think here in Australia they have to make such a report - although I am not at all sure of this point in any way.  Other members may know.  It might be a good question to raise in Apologetics or Q and A.  I do know here in Australia that the homes of psychiatric patients can be searched for weapons if the authorities have cause and they don't seem to need much cause really.  A woman I know with MI hit a security guard in a hospital around the head with her handbag because of something he said to her she took unkindly.  Her home was thoroughly searched for weapons.

 

A psychiatrist can't violate confidentiality because his patient said "I have access to a gun." If you've interested look up [i]Tarasoff[/i] - this is the model mental health practitioners follow although it does vary state to state. The psychiatrist also can't consult a moral theologian, but he can consult a competent professional in the field of psychology/psychiatry so long as he protects the patient in the process (i.e. doesn't disclose the patient's name or other personal information). If you consulted a moral theologian and spilled confidential information on top of that you've violated the psychological code of ethics and are liable to lose your license.

[BarbTherese]

A psychiatrist can't violate confidentiality because his patient said "I have access to a gun." If you've interested look up Tarasoff - this is the model mental health practitioners follow although it does vary state to state. The psychiatrist also can't consult a moral theologian, but he can consult a competent professional in the field of psychology/psychiatry so long as he protects the patient in the process (i.e. doesn't disclose the patient's name or other personal information). If you consulted a moral theologian and spilled confidential information on top of that you've violated the psychological code of ethics and are liable to lose your license.

 

Thank you for clarification in your first sentence,   I am surprised that a psychiatrist is prevented by law to reveal to authorities that a patient with violent tendances has access to a gun for example - clearly an individual has put the common good in potential jeopardy. (Edit: I looked up Tarasoff as you suggested and it was in the USA I see.  Hence, I remain unsure about the laws applying in Australia).  It is of interest that the Royal Commission into child abuse here in Australia will be considering the seal of Confession - many are clamouring that it should not apply where a crime is involved.  Yet no discussion here about whether patient/doctor or lawyer confidentiality should also be broken in some instances.  Not to date anyway, in a quite general sense, of which I am aware.

 

Just wanted to add that by stating that a psychiatrist should consult a moral theologian, I did not mean in a particular case.  Rather that it would be wise for a Catholic psychiatrist to pre-empt moral issues likely to arise and to consult a moral theologian generally on matters that he or she may not be sure whether to act in a certain way is sinful or not and this was on my presupposition (at the time of posting) that psychiatrists in the USA are bound by the Disability Act and confidentiality and another presupposition I made was "in all instances".

Certainly Catholic psychiatrists would recognize the potential in their career of a patient with violent tendances having access to a weapon or weapons and should know how to act generally in accord with secular law and Catholic moral law.  Our Catholic Moral Law is always superior to secular law for a Catholic where the obeying of secular law would be a matter of sin for a Catholic.

I have no idea what moral law applies to psychiatry or psychology in the type of instance that is being discussed and don't want to drag the thread any more off topic ("detraction") than I already have.  A post into Apologetics (while unsure if Phatmass has such a forum) or into Q and A mighy bring an informed answer.

 

Edited December 23, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[Ed Normile]

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.

 

theculturewarrior, the Gospel only prohibits judgement on the persons soul, like saying you are going to hell for that. Only God can judge a soul. We are supposed to judge people and their actions and when we find those we should avoid due to their actions we should " shake the dust off our sandals " as we leave their company.

 

ed

[BarbTherese]

We are called to point out the Moral Law where it is transgressed, but not to judge the person.  If I say "What you are doing is a mortal sin" this is passing judgement on the person, since Mortal Sin automatically means that the person has acquired the judgement of Hell without repentance since The Church teaches that if a person dies in mortal sin, they have consigned themselves to Hell automatically if they fail to repent and before death.

In most instances the accurate statement is "What you have done constitutes grave moral matter and you might be in danger of mortal sin and the consequences are damnation of self to Hell"  Mortal Sin requires two other conditions to be mortal sin:

 

Grave Matter

Full Knowledge

Full consent

 

We cannot know with clarity and clear knowledge the heart and will of any other person at the actual time of an offence, hence we cannot judge them and know if they are in a state of mortal sin. "Judge not, that you may not be judged...........mercy will be granted to the merciful".  Did they have full knowledge and full consent at the actual time of committing grave matter?  Did they realize at the time of the offence that what they were doing was indeed grave matter and could consign them to Hell without repentenace?  Did they give full consent at that actual time to grave matter, accepting the consequences, and The Church does explain what full consent is not present.  We cannot know these things about another person and at the actual time of their moral lapse/grave matter.

 

 

1860 Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense, as can external pressures or pathological disorders. Sin committed through malice, by deliberate choice of evil, is the gravest.

 

We can get confused on this matter and state "mortal sin" when the accurate term is "grave matter"

 

In the life of Jesus, we have this incident:

 

 

[1] And entering in, he walked through Jericho. [2] And behold, there was a man named Zacheus, who was the chief of the publicans, and he was rich. [3] And he sought to see Jesus who he was, and he could not for the crowd, because he was low of stature. [4] And running before, he climbed up into a sycamore tree, that he might see him; for he was to pass that way. [Luke 19:4] [Latin] [5] And when Jesus was come to the place, looking up, he saw him, and said to him: Zacheus, make haste and come down; for this day I must abide in thy house.

[6] And he made haste and came down; and received him with joy. [7] And when all saw it, they murmured, saying, that he was gone to be a guest with a man that was a sinner. [8] But Zacheus standing, said to the Lord: Behold, Lord, the half of my goods I give to the poor; and if I have wronged any man of any thing, I restore him fourfold. [9] Jesus said to him: This day is salvation come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham. [10] For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

 

 

Rather than avoid a sinner, Jesus goes to dine with Him offering Him the opportunity of repentence - and he does repent.  Jesus Himself in the incident mentions nothing, but Zacheus knows that the crowd is murmuring against him because he is known to be a sinner.  If he had scoffed at all this, perhaps the response of Jesus may have been quite different. And it is a good point to ponder.  Would Jesus then have refused to dine with Zacheus?    Jesus did not avoid Zacheus because He was a well known sinner, rather he goes to dine with him, and His Presence is an offering to Zacheus of repentance.  But not because of what Jesus has actually said to him.  Zacheus must have been familar with what Jesus was teaching.  Whoever welcomes us, we should accept that welcome and depending on what then follows we may well need to "shake the dust from our sandals".

 

It is not to avoid sinners we are called, but in the footsteps of Jesus to seek out and to offer them an opportunity to hear The Gospel and to repent - and how one goes about this probably will vary from cirumstance to circumstance.  We need The Holy Spirit and His Gifts of wisdom and discernment.

The first and most important way we proclaim The Gospel and witness to it, is through the person that we are.

 

 

And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words: going forth out of that house or city shake off the dust from your feet.

[16] Behold I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves. Be ye therefore wise as serpents and simple as doves.

 

 

Sometimes a person may not be welcoming, does not want to hear what you have to say but to argue against it.  The Holy Spirit will inform when to move on and away, or when to be a little more persevering.  I know someone who initially had no time for Catholics and on discovering I was Catholic was highly critical, even sneering, of all things Catholic.  I continued to associate with this person and after some time she asked me about St Mary MacKillop and her life and then later asked me for a picture of her and still later asked me about the Rosary and how we pray it.    Nowadays she will happily listen to and speak about things Catholic and asks me questions - having lost her critical and sneering attitude, which all has given way to quite active curiosity and a relationship of mutual respect and esteem.  She is now obviously attuned to various religious teachings and sometimes aks me to clarify some point from the Catholic perpsective.  She has moved on from a quite negative stance to something more positive.

 

But I am speaking off topic once more.  I hold that The Holy Spirit leads where He may and sometimes a certain topic is raised in an Opening Post but leads elsewhere to other subjects.  However, it is best to stay on topic if possible.

 

 

 

Edited December 23, 2012 by BarbaraTherese

[theculturewarrior]

theculturewarrior, the Gospel only prohibits judgement on the persons soul, like saying you are going to hell for that. Only God can judge a soul. We are supposed to judge people and their actions and when we find those we should avoid due to their actions we should " shake the dust off our sandals " as we leave their company.

 

ed

 

Ed, any character judgment that you make against somebody is against their soul.  Thinking, free will, etc are all faculties of the soul.  Any character judgment that you make against the mentally ill is rash judgment unless you are that person's clinical psychologist or equivalent.  It takes years of training to figure me out.  Rash judgment displeases God.  Don't take my word for it.  Ask him yourself.  Open your heart to him in prayer.  If my mental illness is a moral defect, then may God punish me so severely that I am finally able to understand my sins, because this self-awareness is what I truly look for in life.

 

I've found only one thing in life that cannot be hacked.  It is someone else's abnormal behavior.

[theculturewarrior]

Furthermore, Ed, it is impossible to judge somebody's actions if you have never even seen them.  Judge somebody online in a severe way at the peril of your own soul.

[theculturewarrior]

One last thing, when the sin of rash judgment is committed, restitution must be made in order to obtain forgiveness, or when the restoration of maligned's reputation is impossible, restitution of donation to charity will do.  I am unemployed and taking donations.

[BarbTherese]

No matter who the person may be, nor one's personal opinion of them, I dont think there is every any right whatsoever to publically in any way whatsoever to call their reputation into question and thus effectively removing their existing good reputation insofar as one is able - claiming 'the common good' as motivation.  This is something that strikes me as extremely serious indeed to move against another's good reputation.

 

I wrote a poem once about being careful that 'the rubbish tin in one's own backyard doesn't explode' where a good reputation is violated by another.  In striving to act in the interests of the 'common good' and attacking the reputation of another - one could well find that in God's eyes, it is on oneself that judgement falls.  "Judge not, that you may not be judged". 

 

Or consider the parable of the Publican and The Sinner.  The publican states "I thank you Lord that I am not like this person" while "this person" (the sinner) says "Lord, I am a sinner, have Mercy on me".  The Lord favours the sinful person, the publican he rejects who is sitting in judgement on the sinner.

 

 If something is so serious that it needs to be publicly known, in one's opinion, then it needs to be drawn to one's priest or diocesan bishop's attention and it then becomes their moral decision to make the call whether to do something about it, or not to do something about it.

 

Edited January 14, 2013 by BarbaraTherese

[BarbTherese]

St Teresa of Avila in her own day had some who were stating nasty things about her and quite wrongly.  When her Sisters were disturbed by these false accusations, St Teresa replied that they did not bother her since she rather rejoiced that these others did not know ALL THE TRUTH about her. 

 

It works, thank you St TofA!  If someone says something nasty about me, true or false, and it comes to my ears, I reflect on what others do not know and thank The Lord indeed :dance: that they do not.  Man oh man! Then could they talk!!!   I think my reputation has been dragged through the mud so often, I have none left to be bothered about and a great Mercy and cause for rejoicing thankfully.   I had a weird dream last night, very weird.  When I woke, at first I regretted my life was not really like that.  Then I truly rejoiced to be a 'no one' in a wordly type of sense.

 

There is that poverty that amounts to lack of material goods freely chosen, but when The Lord decides to permit to be taken from you what you really hang on to and regard as prized possessions consciously or not, then you begin to know all about real poverty.  And when you can rejoice about loosing absolutely everything possible (materially, emotionally and spiritually, mentally)  including your own mind - all except life itself, maybe this just could begin to be the road to true poverty of spirit.