Any Catholic who has been involved with Internet discussions knows that they can often become quite heated. Topics both serious and mundane are debated ad nauseum, and often personal attacks flare up even in supposed “Catholic” circles. This confrontational aspect of Internet discussions is often lamented, but I do not think such debates are completely irredeemable. It is only through debate that ideas are properly formed and developed; I know that my own views and opinions have been largely formed over the years by engaging with others who do not agree with me.

However, I too often see a line that is crossed that I believe moves from profitable debate to dangerous sin. It is the practice of disparaging someone’s intentions instead of just challenging his viewpoint.

For example, a while back a bishop decided to suppress the Latin Mass in his diocese due to fears of the spread of the swine flu (via communion on the tongue). One can strongly disagree with this action (as I did) and can argue why such an action is both unnecessary and against the traditions of the Church. However, I actually saw the following statement made at another forum:

“I think he was looking for a way of suppressing a liturgy he finds obnoxious, over the objections (indeed, the specific directions) of the Holy See.”

This clearly crosses the line from legitimate disagreement to what I would call “spiritual murder”. Why do I use such a strong term? Because such a statement accuses the person in question of not just making a bad decision, but of willfully rejecting legitimate traditions and authority in the Church. This is tantamount to accusing him of rejecting the Church, which is the same as rejecting Christ. And rejecting Christ is spiritual death.

Unfortunately, this reading of people’s intentions happens all too often, and it is especially common in religious and political debates. If one disagrees with us, we assume the worst intentions on their part; after all, if they don’t agree with us, they obviously have bad intentions, right? Yet the truth is that often other people simply see things differently with the best of intentions or that they are just plain ignorant of all the facts.

Now, does this mean that no one has bad intentions? Of course not. Due to our fallen natures, all of us have bad intentions at times (and yet we always want people to assume the best of intentions from us). I would argue that it is much better to assume good intentions and be wrong than to assume bad intentions and be right. What does it hurt if we assume someone has good intentions for their misguided actions? We still can oppose their actions vigorously, and our arguments will actually be stronger for focusing on the ideas being promoted, not the people who promote them.

We are supposed to judge ideas, not persons. It is God who will judge a person’s intentions, for only He can truly read their hearts.

Subscribe to my RSS feed