Love the sinner, hate the sin... IS NOT CATHOLIC DOCTRINE

[DominusTecum]

It's very easy to say "I hate sodomites."  Or "I hate liberals."  It's very easy to hate both sodomites and liberals.  But we can admonish both while still retaining a deep-rooted love for their souls.

 

Precisely. Catholics must watch our words, this is the best solution. It would not be correct for me to say "I hate sodomites." I may hate their actions, working to spread institutionalized sodomy around the world, and I may hate their sin, the filthy acts they commit, but I certainly do not hate them themselves.

[orangemetal]

i've always taken "love the sinner, not the sin" to preclude "admonish the sinner"

 

Oh no ... admonishing the sinner is a work of mercy, not hate.

 

But it is possible to also develop a real hatred of the person as well; especially if that person is not someone you know very well, and their opinions or actions are especially obnxious to you.

 

It's very easy to say "I hate sodomites."  Or "I hate liberals."  It's very easy to hate both sodomites and liberals.  But we can admonish both while still retaining a deep-rooted love for their souls.

Lumen, what are you talking about? I didn't even say "hate". I was saying that in admonishing the sinner that you do love the sinner and hate sin. We must hate sin and we must love our neighbor.

[Mernoc]

Love the sinner, hate the sin when acted out more often than not becomes love the sinner accept the sin, there is no admonishing because people can't understand that sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind.

[Credo]

       The article falls into the same trap that the sodomites relish in, which is to say a man is not separable from his sin. This only breeds hopelessness on the part of the sinner who might legitimately wish to stop his transgressions.

[Mernoc]

There isn't a problem with Love the sinner, hate the sin.

The problem is that people misinterpret it.  This stems from a misunderstanding of love, in paticular what is now commonly referred to as tough love.  Through this incomplete understanding of love the phrase is effectually changed to Love the sinner, accept the sin.   

Tough love which is sometimes necessary is just that, tough.  It's hard work and more often as not results in arguments and people getting upset, however this difficulty is necessary and for our own good as it allows us to improve and become more virtuous and so as result better people.


Because it is hard work most people avoid it and prefer to take the easy road which avoids confrontation.  Sometimes it isn't possible to go around something, sometimes it needs to be confronted and defeated, this is the way it is with sin.  You can try to avoid dealing with it, you can try to ignore it but it will always come back and so you must conront it head on and try and overcome it.

It is this cowardly desire to avoid confrontation that has resulted in the ready acceptance of sin even among the ranks of the faithful, and look at the mess it has got us in.

[FlosCarmeli]

You can love someone by drilling them about how evil their actions are because you want them to gain eternal life, in a charitable drilling type of way.

[lumengentleman]

Lumen, what are you talking about? I didn't even say "hate". I was saying that in admonishing the sinner that you do love the sinner and hate sin. We must hate sin and we must love our neighbor.

 

There must have been a typo in your original post, then, because this is what you said:

 

i've always taken "love the sinner, not the sin" to preclude "admonish the sinner"

 

Did you mean to say: "I've always taken 'love the sinner, not the sin' to not preclude 'admonish the sinner'"?

 

Or, did you mean to say include instead of preclude?

 

Preclude: to prevent or exclude, to make impossible

 

 

[Paul]

The article falls into the same trap that the sodomites relish in, which is to say a man is not separable from his sin. This only breeds hopelessness on the part of the sinner who might legitimately wish to stop his transgressions.

I'm not sure it does - certainly we can separate ourselves from sin, but when we do sin, we shouldn't get the attitude that it's just, "Oh, well, I'm really a good person, and I can keep on doing what I'm doing and just forget about when I slip up and commit sin." Maybe that's part of why the lines for Confession are so short and the Communion lines are so long. Today being Corpus Christi, we're reminded, "Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.  But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.  For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's body."

The article's saying when we sin, we are sinners, and the ultimate consequence of that is Hell (unless we repent). Mortal sin, of course, makes us lose sanctifying grace, and when we're in that state, we don't merit anything. I don't think it was saying that we cannot escape sin, but that, yes, God will punish those who persist in sin without any sign of repentance or trying to give up the sin. Too often today we only hear of God's mercy and never of his justice.

[orangemetal]

 

Lumen, what are you talking about? I didn't even say "hate". I was saying that in admonishing the sinner that you do love the sinner and hate sin. We must hate sin and we must love our neighbor.

 

There must have been a typo in your original post, then, because this is what you said:

 

i've always taken "love the sinner, not the sin" to preclude "admonish the sinner"

 

Did you mean to say: "I've always taken 'love the sinner, not the sin' to not preclude 'admonish the sinner'"?

 

Or, did you mean to say include instead of preclude?

 

Preclude: to prevent or exclude, to make impossible

Hum, i'm sorry i thought preclude meant "to come before". What's the word i should have used?

[Sophia]

I see the point of the article, but I think it is too easy for a radical person to use this to justify their hatred and Pharisaical attitude toward other people.  If we are speaking of true charity, and of loving that person as we love ourselves, then the paraphrase is still true to the real meaning. 

 

Love the sinner, hate the sin when acted out more often than not becomes love the sinner accept the sin, there is no admonishing because people can't understand that sometimes you need to be cruel to be kind.

How does admonishment equal cruelty?  How do you define admonishment?  When someone says admonishment, does he mean a lynching, or does he mean taking that person aside and expressing his concern over the person's actions?  A saint can admonish the sinner without the sinner even knowing he is being admonished.  A saint can admonish with kindness because he is doing it for God and not for himself. 

 

 If one admonishes with cruelty there is often the chance that he will provoke the person to greater obstinacy and thereby he is not performing an act of mercy but an act of scandal.