Me? Given his age, I'm willing to cut him some slack. I also realize he simply may be trying to examine the complexities of the topic at hand, rather than following the post-modern tendency of wanting to reduce all topics of discussion to a Tweet. But that's me. Unless a person makes it clear he stands for evil, or she celebrates that which is ungodly, I'm willing to allow for more than a few second chances. I'm certainly not going to take the witness of a friend, relative, or third cousin twice removed that this or that person is a filthy, rotten person. Nor am I going to limit this to folks I like. I'll even go so far as to avoid assuming all lawyers, politicians or car salesmen are liars. I'll try to assume the best take on what people say, and give them a second chance when they may have spoken wrong.
Why? Because there is no optional section in the Catechism. Sometimes if you buy a game, there will be an 'optional section.' This is for extra rules that might make the game more challenging, but you need not use them. There isn't a section in the Catechism that says 'optional rules.' So when you see Catholics arguing that the Catechism clearly says lying is wrong, or abortion is wrong, or we should help the widow and the orphan, look a little closer and you will notice this section in the non-optional teachings part:
"To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:
- Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved."