Charitablility = Moral OR Satan's Silver Tongue?

On an episode of COPS once there was an incident involving two men.

One man was vulgar, uncharitable, and kinda hysterical

The second was calm, coherent, and sensible.

In short order it becomes obvious to the audience and on scene police that the uncharitable man attacked the calm man.

The uncharitable man is handcuffed and the calm man asked if he is okay.

Moments later the witnesses come out now that the scene is safe.

Turns out the hysterical, uncharitable man was innocently going about his business when randomly assaulted by the calm man…

Police had to switch who was cuffed…

Ah the effects of the silver tongue…

I have seen threads on here I will give a made up simplified version of how one I enjoyed reading went:

Charitable Poster: You said you hate red

Uncharitable Poster: No I did not ever say that I simply said I like Blue, I never said I dislike red because in fact I do not

CP: I am just repeating what you said and you said you do not like red

UP: I never said that stop lying! If I posted that quote me

CP: I dont know why you hate red, but you shouldn’t

UP: Stop bleep lying about me bleep (quotes to prove his innocence) see I never said it. If I did quote it or stop lying.

CP: you should not be hating red

UP: (epic hysterical uncharitability)

[End scene]

With this often from what I have seen the CP will slowly gain supporters and the UP will be repeatedly attacked on their supposed uncharitability.

The thing is in this instance the UP is maybe being uncharitable… maybe… but they are at least not sinning

The CP is literally and actively sinning (false witness anyone?) Against a victim and gains support…

So is charitability moral? Or Satan’s silver tongue?

100% it depends on the context of the situation in everyday life. Clearly a serial killer can be calm and collected any time. Whereas An Innocent Man convicted of a crime he did not commit would of course be hysterical and Seaman charitable angry and justifiably upset. So unless you have a specific example it totally depends on the context subject and the two people involved. You can obviously go in several different directions.

I am I suppose suggesting that in being “obsessed” with charitability a community such as here can give license to the serial killers while condemning the innocent.

So as the emphasis on charitability has become a tool far more effective at empowering sin and evil rather than a tool for being kind.

Kind of like knowing a “saint” who curses “like a sailor”

And knowing a swester vest wearing prim and proper “model citizen” who has many bodies in their basement…

Except it is that we burn the sailor and protect the killer :frowning:

Also in that Stryder had I responded to your post “stop being uncharitable” even though you were not I would have near almost guaramteed if we disagreed that you would become “under the gun” so to speak.

While between you and God when me and other posters “killed you” (metaphorically speaking) you’d be dying a martyrs death.

But since generally me and the others at least want to be moral… we should not want to kill martyrs.

If all whonare guilty were of true evil then the discussion would have no reason :slight_smile:

I’m not seeing in either instance that the op mentioned-either the one from the tv show or the made up one from the thread-how being cool, calm, collected adds up to being charitable.
In my view being charitable does not add up to starting trouble, lying, etc… In each of the instances mentioned the “charitable” person was simply quieter and while I love quiet that does not make them charitable. They were causing harm or violence to another in either a physical or verbal manner. Yes? I like blue and red and if you wish you may quote me on that. :slight_smile:

As you can see as I have proven from puzzledtoo’s quote above, puzzledtoo does indeed hate yellow.


A person is either more charitable or less so. We may genuinely love well or not so well. Since words are cheap anyway (people can claim whatever they want about themselves) it appears to me you may’ve misidentified the CP… as a CP.

AveO… I walked right into that one. For the record I do not hate yellow though in full disclosure I do have issues with a couple shades of purple. I find them quite offensive. Who knew a color could offend anyone? :slight_smile:

:thumbsup: hopefully my post generates some smiles.

As for purple, its position across the color wheel and its status as a complimentary color of yellow may show that you have a hidden prejudice against yellow. Seek a spiritual director at once! :wink:

Charitability is always moral. Why? Because love is always moral. What you define as charitability in your scenario above is in fact not charitability, it is politeness. Politeness can be motivated by love, or by malice (as per your example).

I think so too. I remember a priest that said Charity means love to God (roughly translated).

There are many caveats to this question and here is the biggest:

Say the calm, charitable person thinks A is a mortal sin.

The other uncharitable, rude person thinks A is not a sin and in fact a good thing.

From this Paradigm there can be no “winners” because each is convinced the other person is wrong and they are right.

Therefore, if a calm person is arguing for something that truly is a mortal sin, that would be interpreted as Satan’s silver tongue, and vice versa in both reverses.

So perhaps we need 3 sides to every story: Yours, Mine and the Truth

Charity is t theological virtue. This closes the issue for me.

I think the point of the OP is that ‘calm’ or ‘polite’ is misconstrued as ‘charitability’ and this standard is used as a weapon against those who are correct, but simply less refined in expression.

As far as I’m concerned, any truth is charity, so long as it’s not delivered with gleeful malice or enjoyment of the pain of it, etc, but even so, truth is truth, and is valuable no matter how it’s delivered.

As you could possibly guess from my grammar, I’m perfectly capable of both refined tact (truth) or calm malice (flowery insults), but I default to plainly stated truth, because flowers are so much work… :smiley: :rolleyes: :wink: :cool:

What you are describing is very very very common here.

This is fallen human nature…all of it. Typical, common, and why the world is such a crying shame of a mess. This is also why we need God. Every single one of us.

“Charitability” for the sake of gain is not charitibility. And yes, there are plenty of people who practice wickedly their “faith”. Even if at one moment in time, in order to gain… Still wrong, but people do it. Just for clarification, be aware that some people are not aware of how they hurt others, or their sin… so with everything we ought to be like Christ…“ffather forgive them for they know not what they do”.

^yes. Very much this.

This seems to be how half the posts go… ironically the posts like this seem to do the best :shrug:

Lol. Well done tho fyi :slight_smile:

What I am saying by this is that your bold here…

Is sort of a sin of scandal or near occasion of sin situation (not for you persay but as a giant community based ideology)

That because of this bold, you would empower the sinner and attack a victim based on this tiny fact alone.

(And I do not mean “you” necessarily, but the general sense in this idea.)

This is the point, I did not. I listed them that way to show how the seeming majority of charitability supporters would see them.

To show in an obvious way how the false impression of “charitability” empowers evil and has good people doing evil’s bidding.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit