The Immorality of Suspicion by Fr. Paul

Another terrific article by Fr. Paul.  A must read.

Editorial (01/27/10)


The Immorality of Suspicion

The amount of damage done to souls, to priests, to parishes, to apostolates because of loose tongues is impossible for any human mind to calculate. One of the components of uncharitable speech is, very often, suspicion. Perhaps the suspicions arise from pride, or insecurities, or whatever, but we’ll leave that aside and in this week’s article, we shall focus on the question of suspicion itself.


(But before I do, I simply cannot restrain myself from praising the huge numbers who attended the March for Life, either in D.C. or on the West Coast. Watching today’s communists, who occupy political office in the USA, pillage the wealth of America, I have observed the hypocrisy of their positions regarding “health care” and abortion. Some politicians claim to be against abortion personally but would never impose that upon their constituencies, yet they are personally in favor of communist-style “health care” and will impose it upon their constituencies even when they shout aloud the very solid reasons for which they object to it. Leave it to a politician to be hypocritical. Yet many are politicians who are not in politics…)

That said, let us now examine the problem of suspicion. Suspicion is matter of grave sin against the cardinal virtue of justice. Suspicion is always a matter of “opinion,” and never of certainty; and it is always an opinion based on scant evidence; so we define suspicion. As soon as someone asserts their suspicion as a matter of absolute certainty, they are bearing false witness. For this reason alone, conspiracy theorists suffer from a moral imperfection.

Let me give an example. I once knew a man so riddled with suspicion, that he asserted with absolute certainty that the Pope and nearly all of the Bishops were Freemasons. That history has had a few Freemason clergy is beyond a shadow of a doubt. But for this man to assert such a sweeping judgment in such contingent matter, with no other evidence than his anger against the hierarchy, is a grave sin against truth, let alone justice. Yet for the persistence and constancy of such rash judgments, I guess, he probably considers his opinion as absolutely certain.

But we can distinguish three things which might fall under the description of “suspicion,” and not all earn an equal moral evaluation.

First, there is the wicked man who judges wickedly of others with scant evidence; this is the case of only rash thought or casual speech. This type of man is simply stupid if not Kantian, wrapped up in a world of his own construction. He is a hopeless case, until he first addresses the malice of his own character, and will respond only with malice to anyone who reproaches the rashness of his uncharitable judgments.

Second, there is the same man who goes a step farther and acts upon his judgment. From his rash judgment he proceeds to hatred, wrath or envy; he may be in a position to judge, sitting in civil jurisdiction, or an ecclesial tribunal, or even in a vocations office in a position to judge another’s case, and, filled with some contempt for the person whom he judges, he judges unjustly and untruthfully. This is matter of mortal sin according to St. Thomas Aquinas (IIaIIae, 60, 3, r.); I think it is aggravated when one usurps the authority to judge another so, authority he does not have, yet still perpetrates great evil upon his victim. This might happen, for example, among peers in a professional setting, or even among siblings.

Third, there is something which is superior to suspicion, and it is the man of experience who, having true experience in some matter, quickly ascertains the truth of the matter even when little evidence has come forth. Now, the man who says our dear Pope is a Freemason has no experience in either Freemasonry or matters Papal, so he does not qualify. But examples are such as a mom who immediately intuits that her child has something on his conscience, or a cop who has searched many a car in dirty parts of the city, or a salesman who has learned the difference between a decided purchaser and one who will ask lots and purchase nothing, or again a spiritual director who has dealt with many souls in many diverse situations.

This third case is not suspicion for a few reasons. First, because the character is not poisoned with malice, or hatred, or wrath. Second, because the small bit of evidence of the person before him joins a much more ample school of evidence purchased in the hard school of experience. Third, because he is not hard of judgment, and will allow himself to be surprised if the current case is unlike the others. This third case is therefore best not called suspicion but perspicacity, wisdom, keen or acute discernment, quick wit. Again, it never occurs in a malicious character.

How often I have preached about the evils of slander and gossip. I don’t know what more to do; the more I encourage charity in speech, it seems the more tongues around me wag. My efforts are repaid by the loose tongues of men, and other persons lacking discernment who listen to them, relishing the suspicious talk of suspicious men. I have often wondered if by preaching often about charity in speech, I have enraged demons of slander and suspicion from whose damning hands my preaching has saved one soul or another by God’s grace, and so they focus their rage on me. Ah, but perhaps that’s only a suspicion.

You can go to Fr. Paul's web site by clicking Here .  If the article does not load, check his archives.