Fasting From “Hurtful Words” And the Modernist Ecumenical Framework

 

The question is:
What now counts as “hurtful”?
For if “hurtful” no longer means “contrary to truth and charity,” but rather “contrary to modern sensibilities,” then the phrase becomes a tool not of sanctification; but of doctrinal containment... 

Prologue: When Words Change, Doctrine Follows

There are phrases that sound innocent, even devout. “Fast from hurtful words” is one of them. 

The Imitator Of Leo in his Lenten message for 2026 says:

“Dear friends, let us ask for the grace of a Lent that leads us to greater attentiveness to God and to the least among us. Let us ask for the strength that comes from the type of fasting that also extends to our use of language, so that hurtful words may diminish and give way to a greater space for the voice of others.” 

At first glance, this sounds pious and harmless. A closer reading reveals how it reflects a Modernist, anthropocentric tendency that obscures the traditional Catholic emphasis on sin, reparation, mortification, and the primacy of conversion before God; this revelation is in no way surprising. 

 Fasting from “hurtful words”! No Catholic would object at first hearing. Indeed, Scripture itself commands us to guard the tongue. The saints practiced silence, meekness, and restraint in speech.

But history teaches us something important:

When theological language shifts, doctrine often shifts quietly with it.

In every age of crisis, words are softened before truths are surrendered.

Thus the question is not whether we should avoid sinful speech. That is unquestionable.

The question is:

What now counts as “hurtful”?

For if “hurtful” no longer means “contrary to truth and charity,” but rather “contrary to modern sensibilities,” then the phrase becomes a tool not of sanctification; but of doctrinal containment.

Let us examine this carefully.

I. The Traditional Catholic Meaning of “Hurtful Words”

In classical Catholic moral theology, words are morally evaluated according to:

• Truth
• Justice
• Charity
• End
• Intention
• Circumstances

As taught by Thomas Aquinas, speech is sinful when it violates truth or harms one’s neighbor unjustly.

Thus “hurtful words” traditionally include:

• Lies
• Calumny
• Detraction
• Rash judgment
• Blasphemy
• Obscenity
• Speech that causes scandal

These are sins against the Eighth Commandment.

Notice carefully:

• A word is not sinful because it causes discomfort.
• It is sinful because it violates moral order.

Our Lord spoke words that offended deeply:

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees.”

“You brood of vipers.”

These words wounded pride; but they were not sinful.

They were acts of truth and charity.

Truth sometimes wounds before it heals.

II. The Modernist Ecumenical Reframing

Within a Modernist ecumenical framework, the meaning subtly changes.

Sin is no longer primarily defined as:

• An offense against God,
• A violation of divine law,
• A disorder against objective truth.

Instead, moral language is reframed in relational terms.

How are we to understand the charge to abstain from “hurtful words” within the Modernist ecumenical framework? We get a clue from the Modernist Vatican Council decree on Ecumenism, of course! 

To promote “Christian unity”, the decree obliges Catholics to make

“...every effort to avoid expressions, judgments and actions which do not represent the condition of our separated brethren with truth and fairness and so make mutual relations with them more difficult” (Unitatis Redintergratio, paragraph 4) 

Among other requirements for the success of Ecumenism Catholics are urged to have: 

  …a change of heart; renewal of the inner life of minds; self-denial and an unstinted love… UR #7)

What is the clue here? That for ecumenical success:

• The terms “heretics”, and “schismatics” do not truly represent the condition of those they refer to; such persons have the right to the name “Christian.”

“Hurtful words” within the ecumenical framework mean:

• Words that assert exclusive truth claims.
• Doctrinal clarity that challenges other religions.
• Language that condemns error.
• Statements that disturb interreligious harmony.

The standard of judgment shifts from:

• Is it true? Is it just?

to:

• Does it feel inclusive?

This is not a small adjustment.

It is a theological relocation of moral gravity; from God to human perception.

III. Offense vs. Sin: A Critical Distinction

Traditional theology draws a clear line between:

• Scandal (leading another into sin)
• Offense taken (being disturbed by truth)

The preaching of the Gospel has always caused offense.

The dogmatic definitions of the Council of Trent contained solemn anathemas. Those condemnations were certainly “hurtful” to those opposed; yet they were acts of pastoral charity toward the faithful.

The Church historically understood:

• Clarity protects souls.
• Silence in the face of error harms souls.

But in a Modernist ecumenical climate, clarity itself is labeled “hurtful.”

Thus the danger emerges: people are this to be fasting not from sinful speech; but from doctrinal firmness.

IV. Charity Properly Understood

True charity, in traditional Catholic theology, is supernatural.

It wills the eternal good of the other.

That good is:

• Truth
• Grace
• Salvation

Sometimes that requires:

• Admonition
• Correction
• Naming falsehood
• Warning against error

A physician who avoids naming a disease to spare feelings is not charitable.

Likewise, a preacher who avoids doctrinal precision to maintain harmony may avoid “hurtful words”; but at what cost?

If silence permits error to spread, the greater harm has been done.

V. The Anthropocentric Drift

The deeper issue is anthropocentrism.

Traditional Catholicism is theocentric:

• God is the measure.
• Divine law is the standard.
• Truth is objective.

Modernist ecumenism turns toward anthropocentrism:

• Human experience becomes central.
• Harmony becomes the highest value.
• Dialogue replaces definition.

In such a framework, “hurtful words” increasingly mean:

• Words that disturb equilibrium.
• Words that insist on doctrinal boundaries.
• Words that proclaim exclusivity of the true Church.

But harmony without truth is fragile.

Peace without clarity is unstable. 

VI. The Proper Traditional Fast

From a perennial Traditional Catholic perspective, to fast from hurtful words means:

• Avoid lies.
• Avoid unjust speech.
• Avoid prideful harshness.
• Avoid speech rooted in anger.
• Avoid scandal.

It does NOT mean:

• Avoiding the proclamation of dogma.
• Avoiding necessary correction.
• Diluting exclusive truth claims.
• Silencing the condemnation of objective error.

The greatest harm words can do is not to wound feelings; but to obscure truth.

Summing Up: What Are We Really Fasting From?

If “hurtful words” means sinful speech; it is obvious why all must fast rigorously from it.

But when “hurtful words” begins to mean truthful speech that unsettles modern religious relativism and indifferentism, then the fast becomes dangerous. In that instance, people are no longer fasting from vice; but fasting from zeal. 

When zeal for truth grows cold, the wound is not emotional. It is doctrinal.

And doctrinal wounds strike not at harmony; but at eternity.