Showing posts with label Catholic Virtual Wars Series. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Catholic Virtual Wars Series. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

Catholic Virtual War Series - Table of Contents


*


I close out 2014 with this post which serves as a table of contents for a series I have worked on, and which is a work in progress.  Some which were not part of the original series, like Rash Judgment, have been renamed and labeled for the series.

I shut down my comments some time ago since I do not have time to monitor them and the spam filter does not eliminate all spam.  People these days hold most discussions in social media anyway.  So, older discussions may be in some of these but comments should not be operational for anything new.





*Picture at top is an isolation of the girl with a black eye in Normal Rockwell's painting, "Shiner"



COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG HAVE BEEN DISABLED INDEFINITELY.

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Saturday, August 2, 2014

Catholic Virtual Wars 12: Mocking and ridicule of bishops - a failure in communication…




There are lots of ways to try to change the hearts of bishops where one thinks change is needed.  Some feel certain bishops are going out of their way to hinder the use of the extraordinary form Mass. In some dioceses, this may be true.  But, one sure way to fail at driving change, is to publicly mock and ridicule, "the bishops." It doesn't matter if it's done in a general way, or by name.  Such behavior will lead only to a self-fulfilling prophecy when those bishops, and ordinary people, think all traditionalists are cranks who can't seem to find 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 if it was taped to the inside of the 1962 hand missal.  St. Francis de Sales makes the point:

One of the most evil dispositions possible is that which satirises and turns everything to ridicule. God abhors this vice, and has sometimes punished it in a marked manner. Nothing is so opposed to charity, much more to a devout spirit, as contempt and depreciation of one's neighbour, and where satire and ridicule exist contempt must be. (St. Francis de Sales, Introduction to the Devout Life)

How much more offensive to God it must be when the target of contempt is a bishop?  Oh, people inform me all the time that St. Thomas Aquinas said we can fraternally correct a prelate, even in public, if what he says or does presents a danger to the faith.  But, I wonder how many have read it in context of all that he wrote on the subject?  And, kvetching is not fraternal correction. Aquinas lays down some boundaries that are somewhat inconvenient to the trigger-happy.  When composing or sharing something online we should also be mindful of canon 1373.

If you want to compound the failure in communication, simply gin up the  crowd-anger by mixing in other complaints in a condescending and abrasive manner on passionate subjects like Communion-in-the-hand. Hit a triple by showing public scorn for particular bishops by including the most undignified pictures of them in the narrative; and, don't forget to present every word and action in the most unfavorable light. Toss out the traditional practice of making excuses for others to protect their dignity. In this way opinion of them is lowered in the eyes of others.  Consider how Our Lord treated Judas.  St. Augustine points out something worthy of pondering...:

Of this patience Himself afforded and showed an example, when, before the passion of His Body, He so bore with His disciple Judas, that ere He pointed him out as the traitor, He endured him as a thief; and before experience of bonds and cross and death, did, to those lips so full of guile, not deny the kiss of peace.


One can advocate for more extraordinary form Masses or ending Communion in the hand, or any other subject that brings out strong emotions, but it ought not be made with all the tact of bison in a ballroom.  In fact, the more sensitive the issue, the greater the need for restraint in how it is discussed - if progress is desired.  If we want people to hear what we have to say on these topics, we have to cease the condescension, mockery, ridicule, and abrasiveness. It's not necessary. In fact, it is counterproductive, no matter how entertaining it may be to the choir. When we die, God won't ask us how well we entertained others; but, He might have something to say about our sins against charity. Venting is not a virtue; it's a vice.  More from St. Francis de Sales:

A brave man can easily bear with contempt, slander and false accusation from an evil world; but to bear such injustice at the hands of good men, of friends and relations, is a great test of patience.

Read that whole section from St. Francis de Sales. It will have you heading into Adoration to meditate rather than desiring to commiserate at the usual watering holes that leave you feeling hopeless, bitter, and angry.  See also what St. Alphonsus says about anger.

How to advocate for a good cause


Bishop Athanasius Schneider has been traveling the world, and writing books,(1) discussing how we can increase reverence for the Eucharist interiorly and exteriorly.  He does so in the most respectful way, very mindful of the dignity of those he addresses and speaks about.  His is a mission love - love for God that is manifest in the dignified way he speaks about the subject, about his concerns, and about people.  Anyone who has heard Bishop Schneider speak can sense that love.  He is not abrasive; he does not put on airs; he does not make use of put-downs and ridicule.  He explains and teaches, constantly proposing with gentleness and meekness. Sometimes he is firm on a point, but his most firm expressions are gentle and loving.  Knowing Bishop Schneider from his visits to Detroit, I can attest that his gentle and meek manner has everything to do with the fact that he is aware people have a free will and can accept or reject what he teaches.  This is prudence in action.

If you want to help Bishop Schneider, then follow his gentle and meek way of advocating.  If you want to harm his mission and cause a good many bishops, priests, and people in general to reject the discussion altogether, and turn against it, then go ahead and mock and ridicule them publicly.

I've seen people use Bishop Schneider's interviews and quotes to browbeat other Catholics over Eucharistic reverence.  I've seen people use the words of Cardinal Burke likewise, as well as Pope Benedict XVI.  I've never heard any of them speak the way that I see others sometimes quote them.  All this does is get people to tune out what they have to say. It never ceases to amaze me that anyone would think that quoting them in vinegar-laced airs would convince others to hear their words. It is so contradictory and unorthodox to promote reverence for the Eucharist or, for the EF Mass, by abrasive and condescending means.

Let's all remember to pray for our bishops and priests.  Where our public, and private, respectful discussion cannot make headway, prayers can.  We have to be mindful, that what God doesn't will, He permits.  If the thing we want doesn't come when we want, despite respectful discussion and prayer, then it is best to leave it in God's hands.

"We can have the most beautiful liturgy in the world, and not have love... It's just for show.... As we seek our way forward...not to be angry and embittered, but people filled with the joy of the Gospel, in love with Our Lord Jesus, and sharing that with our brothers and sisters..." - Archbishop Alexander K. Sample at first Pontifical Mass in EF as Archbishop of Portland. 

Refrain from anger, and forsake wrath.
    Do not fret—it leads only to evil.
Psalm 37:8



When will they learn?




More Catholic Virtual War Series posts:



(1) Both of Bishop Schneider's books, now in English, can be purchased here, including his latest book, Corpus Christi.


COMMENTS ON THIS BLOG HAVE BEEN DISABLED INDEFINITELY.

For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Tuesday, January 14, 2014

Catholic Virtual Wars 10: What Aquinas really said about fraternal correction of prelates...



So, you have probably read or heard that St. Thomas Aquinas says that we can correct our bishops, even in public.  I'll bet you haven't seen the rest of what the Angelic Doctor said on the subject.  He is often quoted thus:

It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly.

However, people stop there, without studying all that the Angelic Doctor said on the subject of correcting a prelate.  If all of us spent as much time with our noses in the Summa as we do perusing Catholic commentary about current events, we might actually become holy witnesses for the faith.  Some of what is out there is downright disturbing and a danger to any soul humbly pursuing holiness and virtue.  There's nothing like adding water in a gas tank to make it go nowhere fast. One such spiritual danger is the sport of bishop-bashing.   Paul rebuked Peter just once, not daily.

If you think members of today's episcopacy are more plagued with problems than bishops of past centuries, you don't know your Church history.   It was just a few decades ago that it took weeks or months for us to learn what a pope said, and it was only periodic that something was deemed worthy to disseminate more publicly. Now, a bishop can't burp without someone tweeting it. As one of the priests at my parish recently pointed out: Who knows what seemingly outrageous things popes did or said outside of official business that would have scandalized us if the technology we have today, had been in place then?

So, what does Aquinas really say?


After explaining that we may not correct a prelate as a matter of justice, but only as an act of charity, Aquinas says (emphasis mine in bold):

"...a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Timothy 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with themonk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church."

St. Thomas is telling us that we can slay a priest with the sword of our tongues!  We get to engage in fraternal correction, but we do not get to do it our way; rather, it has to be done God's way. This does not involve mocking bishops and making them the butt of disrespectful jokes and commentaries, even when we believe them to be in error.

In discussing this with some solid, orthodox, holy and spiritually mature priests I know, I was reminded about how David had the young Amel'ekite slain after he took credit for dispatching Saul (who had tried to kill David). Upon hearing the young man claim he ended Saul's misery, David tore his shirt then ordered his death, saying:
“Your blood be upon your head; for your own mouth has testified against you, saying, ‘I have slain the Lord’s anointed.'" (2 Sam 1:16)
If you have read the life of Saul in the Old Testament, you will know he was no saint. Nonetheless, he was anointed by God.

Going back to Aquinas on fraternal correction of prelates, in responding to Objection 2, which points to Paul rebuking Peter, Aquinas writes:

To withstand anyone in public exceeds the mode of fraternal correction, and so Paul would not have withstood Peter then, unless he were in some way his equal as regards the defense of the faith. But one who is not an equal can reprove privately and respectfully. Hence the Apostle in writing to the Colossians (4:17) tells them to admonish their prelate: "Say to Archippus: Fulfil thy ministry [Vulgate: 'Take heed to the ministry which thou hast received in the Lord, that thou fulfil it.' Cf. 2 Timothy 4:5." It must be observed, however, that if the faith were endangered, a subject ought to rebuke his prelate even publicly. Hence Paul, who was Peter's subject, rebuked him in public, on account of the imminent danger of scandal concerning faith, and, as the gloss ofAugustine says on Galatians 2:11, "Peter gave an example to superiors, that if at any time they should happen to stray from the straight path, they should not disdain to be reproved by their subjects."

That paragraph above had the sentence often quoted in isolation, in full context. And, it must be taken in the context of the other points made by St. Thomas, namely to be respectful in carrying it out.  In his reply to Objection 1, which used Exodus 19:12 as justification to not correct a prelate, he makes this clear and points out the distinction:
It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

You would be hard pressed to find any place in the section on fraternal correction of prelates, where Aquinas allows us to speak in such a way as to make them look like buffoons, even when they may be in error.   Quoting one more time, from his main answer in Article 4:

When a subject corrects his prelatehe ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect.
Something should be said here about encouraging people to speak with impudence, harshness and disrespect.  All it takes in this media driven era, is lots of hits to encourage someone to do more of the same.  I try to avoid sources that poke fun of bishops and mock them, especially on a frequent basis for this reason, but sometimes things come to my attention.  On the other hand, I have shared some critiques of something a bishop said or done, when I felt it was written with due respect for the office.  These are usually done dispassionately and devoid of name-calling, and entertaining put-downs. Those critiques appeal to reason, not just of the reader, but hopefully of the bishops themselves, rather than appealing to emotions and feelings.

Don't read a sentence in the Summa in isolation



If five people used a sentence or two in isolation, you can see that different conclusions could be drawn by each. We now know there is an acceptable form, to God,  of fraternal correction of prelates. We also know of ways to engage in it that are offensive to God (and thereby worthy of Sacramental Confession).  This may be vague, but Confession can be a discernment aid.


Sometimes when I have criticized a priest or bishop publicly, or even in conversation with others, I take the matter to a trusted priest in Confession and let him pass judgment on what I said, how I said it, even when I think I am in the right. Of course, building virtue is dependent on how honest you are with the priest and this takes serious reflection and being honest with oneself.  Time in Adoration is the best place to cool off and do an examination of conscience.  Using Sacramental Confession in this way is how you learn. Of course, this is dependent on finding not just a solid, orthodox priest, but one who is spiritually mature and holy.  There's a difference.  A priest who knows the faith well and celebrates a good liturgy is not necessarily spiritually mature in terms of virtue.  The best thing to do is ask God to help you discern the best possible confessor available, then trust him.

Read the entire section on Fraternal Correction in the Summa, several times.  Then, put it aside and come back to it again later.  Review it a few times yearly.  Share the link with others when you see isolated quotes.

Summa tips


Reading the Summa can be intimidating.  Here is a useful, simple aid on the structure

For those who like detail, the New Theological Movement has one

Also, the language in the Summa may make things difficult to understand, especially for those of us without background in philosophy.  However, don't be afraid to go back to the old habit of using a dictionary. Many are online, including philosophy encyclopedias.  That said, even if you understand the words, but struggle putting it together, just say a prayer and read it slowly a few times.  Put it away and come back to it later.  Sometimes, it's best just to let the one thing go and keep going as it may have no ill effect on the thing you are trying to glean from the passage.  

Comments are closed. 



For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Friday, September 20, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars 09 "Orthodoxy without Charity is Not Christianity"



I found a really great section in a sermon by Servant of God, John A. Hardon, SJ that is worth quoting. But, a little lead-in first.

In the seven or so years that I have been blogging, I have gone from feeling angry and outraged at all the problems I see caused by members within the Church -- things that I believe have caused others to go astray. I've spoken about the internal disquiet, also known as, "noise" in the spiritual life that is caused when we dwell in problems -- any kind of problems, including those in the Church.  Our natural instinct may be to fight this kind of evil with the proverbial angry fist, but we might be giving in to our fallen nature.

In my own self, I recognized many years ago that something seemed out of balance with that approach -- the one that is bitter and angry each day at the many perversions of Catholicism that can be found in our parishes, in our Catholic schools, in books and media, and within our dioceses.  What I have come to understand, through the example of solid, orthodox priests in my life during these recent years, is that everything we do must be moderated or tempered by virtue.  Trust me, that is not a popular subject. It doesn't generate hit counts the way the outrage of the day does, sadly.

This understanding isn't limited to my experience with virtuous priests; it comes from prayerful reflection. It comes from studying the lives of the saints in a more wholesome way, taking into account how they interacted with others most of the time, not the one time they threw out a perfectly good put down or hauled off and belted someone.  I hardly think Saint Nicholas wants to be remembered most for punching the heretic Arius; or, Saint Jerome would want to be imitated in the bad side of his choleric temperament.

It's much more fun to talk about what everyone else is doing that is contrary to Church teaching than to spend time studying topics like meekness and gentleness.  Jesus instructed us to be meek and humble of heart in imitation of him (Mt 11:29).  Putting it to practice (and recall that practice does not mean proficiency, but working at it), we might actually learn how to confront problems in a way that is most likely to win the hearts of others.

Think of a time when someone confronted you about something, and they were right, but their mode was so off-putting, that you didn't want to hear it.  Many faithful Catholics push others away, though their message is good and sound.  Their mode or style fails them as their approach has all the delicacy of an axman going after a cluster of trees on Monday morning.

I was thinking of a good analogy, and this might help make the point.  The mixture of vinegar and oil make the salad taste well.  In the same way, knowledge of our faith must be mixed with virtues in practice. In this way, the sum of our faith is most palatable to others.

As I watch Catholics on the web engage one another, mindful of my own un-virtuous contributions at times, I can't help but think we must spend much more time studying the virtues.  In this Catholic Virtual War series (click and scroll) I have hit the point many times that it's not enough to know the dogmas and doctrines of the faith; we have to teach it in  a way that is led by the virtues.

Without further delay, here is something I want to share from the archives of Fr. Hardon's writings.  This comes from a sermon: The Essence of Christianity: Loving the Unlovable.



Orthodoxy without Charity is Not Christianity 
We are living in the most convulsive age in human history. We are living in an age, our century, where there have been more martyrs for Christ than all the nineteen hundred years from Calvary put together. Yet, as deeply and as terrifyingly as our Faith is being challenged let’s make sure we know what Christianity really is. Of course we must believe. We must be orthodox believers. We must believe that Christ is the living God who became Man. We must believe that His mother is the Mother of God. We must believe that Jesus Christ is on earth in the Holy Eucharist. We must believe how the Bishop of Rome is the Vicar of Christ. 
We call that orthodoxy. But I want to be very plain, orthodoxy is not enough. One of my favorite phrases is “orthodoxy without charity is not Christianity”. 
In other words, we must have, dear God, a strong, dare I say it, heroic faith in our day. When bishops are openly declaring, “I, I am the Vicar of Christ”, we’d better have a strong faith. But faith, otherwise known as orthodoxy is not enough. It must be faith joined with selfless charity. And that my friends, that is what will convert, and I hope you agree with me, a paganized America. 
Once a Christian nation, millions have lost their faith in Jesus Christ. But if we’re going to retrieve these lost Christians, some sadly, members of our own family, people who are nearest and dearest to us, we must not only believe strongly, we must love selflessly, and of the very ones who don’t love us. It is then faith combined with Christ-like charity that will convert. And how our country needs re-conversion beginning with the two capitals of paganism in America. You may be surprised. They are Chicago and Detroit. 
Lord Jesus, make us channels of your grace to others. Deepen our faith in you as our God; our trust in you as a source of all the strength we need in today’s unbelieving world. But above all, dear Jesus, give us something of your selfless love so that like you, we too, may be willing to lay down our lives for those who do not love us, because in loving them we will be communicating grace from you through us to them, because dear Jesus, only faith and love can convert a sinful world. Jesus, we love you. Out of love for you we want to love those who do not love us, because in loving them we are showing how deeply we love you who died on Calvary out of love for us. Amen. 
In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.


For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Saturday, September 14, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars 08: Giving context to use of the sword in defending the faith





I may seem redundant on certain points in my Catholic Virtual War series (click and scroll for all posts in the series).  One point, is the face we put on the Catholic faith for others to see, especially others who may be looking closer at Catholicism, and those whose faith may be weak and shaken. People's faith can be shaken by error, as those of us who were subject to shoddy catechesis of the past 50 years know too well.  But people's faith can be shaken by the less than virtuous acts of others when they are subject to a trail of discontent, complaint, and focus on scandals.

As the old saying goes, the Church is not a museum for saints, but a hospital for sinners.  So, those sinners can come in many forms, from those who embrace certain heresies to those who defend the faith with utter contempt for others.

After learning that a particular blog, known for it's corrosive comment box, shut down comments, I posted something on Facebook in a comment that I want to share. It was the basis for this post.  Some minor grammatical corrections were made.  I'm also adding some white space:

I learned the "lesson of the sword" not long after starting my blog, and continue to get burned when I forget about it.  
We often use the sword to defend Jesus by cutting off the ear of others who don't understand, or are so deep into error they can't be won by any other means than by prayer and reason. That's the pitiful part about Catholics who set out to teach other Catholics just how "bad" things are by mocking others in error and giving rise to sometimes objectively grave contempt for others.  
When did you ever see Pope Benedict mock or take jabs at others like Hans Kung?  No, he meets with people in private trying to use reason. When it doesn't work, he doesn't go out and have fun at the man's expense for the entertainment of others. He leaves it to prayer, mindful that we can force no one to accept the truth, but we can always push them further away from it.  
The sword St. Michael used was aimed at Satan. We can use it to root out evil in ourselves, but risk offending God by using it to root out the evil in others.

When we use sarcasm, harshness, stridency -- not only do we have little chance of changing the mind of our target, but we cause collateral damage in ways not visible to us.

Something else I have learned, and I am often guilty of this, is to not apply this standard to both those who are in error, and those who use stridency to defend the faith.  It goes both ways.

Maybe we can all make use of the sword, but using it mainly to circumcise our own hearts.  We defend the faith best when we defend the faith not just by sharing the knowledge we gain, but by doing so with the virtues in practice.

Pray for others before speaking to them, or about them


The most orthodox, tradition-minded, virtuous priests I know have always counseled me to pray for someone else first before addressing them with a concern or confronting them.  If we must talk about something they say in public, because it addresses something they have in the public domain, then we should also pray for them before doing so.  This has a way of softening our hearts so we do not speak with stridency and impudence, which risks doing more harm than good.


Are there not times for harshness?

Might there be a time to speak harshly to others?  Yes. But we have less risk for offending God if we follow a general rule to speak harshly when all other attempts have failed, especially privately.  And, it would seem that insolence in a rebuke is something best left for peer-to-peer, and authority figure to subject.  St. Thomas Aquinas gives us the guidelines for fraternal correction, including that of a prelate, as an act of charity, and we should read and digest this over and again (careful not to cherry pick something in isolation).

In response to the first objection on correcting a prelate, where it was argued that no one could touch the mount and the ark in the Old Testament without being punished, and those signify our prelates today, Aquinas says:


It would seem that a subject touches his prelate inordinately when he upbraids him with insolence, as also when he speaks ill of him: and this is signified by God's condemnation of those who touched the mount and the ark.

So, it is all in the, "how," we do it (and "when" if you read the full section on fraternal correction).



More to consider from the saints



St. Alphonsus:

"Still, as we know, there are times when it seems absolutely necessary to answer insolence with severity. Occasions do occur when we may resort to righteous anger. But this we must remember: It may sometimes be expedient - speculatively speaking - to answer someone severely; but in practice it is very difficult to do so without some fault on our part....
Gentleness is even more important when we correct others.  Corrections made in anger often do more harm than good, especially when the person corrected is also excited.  In such a case, the correction should be postponed. If we correct others when we are angry ourselves, our correction will always be mixed with harshness, and the person being corrected will, consequently, ignore our admonition. 

 St. Bernard:

He chose a humble virgin, from whom he might come forth meek and humble of heart, to display a most necessary and salutary model of these virtues for all mankind.  


Here are some related things taken from a really great page with quotes from saints on anger:


St. Francis of Paola:
Take pains to refrain from sharp words. Pardon one another so that later on you will not remember the injury. The recollection of an injury is itself wrong. It adds to our anger, nurtures our sins and hates what is good. It is a rusty arrow and poison for the soul. It puts all virtue to flight.
St. Teresa of Avila:

Be gentle with all and stern with yourself. 

St. Francis de Sales:

If, when stung by slander or ill-nature, we wax proud and swell with anger, it is a proof that our gentleness and humility are unreal, and mere artificial show.
Correction given in anger, however tempered by reason, never has so much effect as that which is given altogether without anger;for the reasonable soul being naturally subject to reason, it is a mere tyranny which subjects it to passion, and whereinsoever reason is led by passion it becomes odious, and its just rule obnoxious. 

St. Thomas of Villanova

”Dismiss all anger, and look a little into yourself. Remember that he of whom you are speaking is your brother, and, as he is in the way of salvation, God can make him a Saint, notwithstanding his present weaknesses. You may fall into the same faults or perhaps into a worse fault. But supposing that you remain upright, to whom are you indebted for it, if not to the pure mercy of God?”

St. John Chrysostom

”Nothing is more powerful than meekness. For as fire is extinguished by water, so a mind inflated by anger is subdued by meekness. By meekness we practice and make known our virtue, and also cause the indignation of our brother to cease, and deliver his mind from perturbation.”

Pope Saint Gregory the Great:

There are two methods to subdue anger. First, that before a person undertakes to act, he places before his mind the contumelies and sufferings which he will likely encounter, and, by reflecting on the shame borne by our Saviour, prepares himself to bear them patiently. Secondly, that when we behold the excesses of others, we direct our thoughts to our own excesses, by which we offend others. This consideration of our own faults will lead us to excuse those of others. For a person who piously considers that he also has something which others must bear patiently in him will be easily disposed to bear patiently injuries he receives from others.” 

And from that classic work, the Imitation of Christ:

The humble live in continuous peace, while in the hearts of the proud are envy and frequent anger.


There are so many more I wanted to quote, so go to this page and read them all.





For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars - 07: A powerful witness to potential damages of stridency




I was deeply moved by a blogpost last week written by Leticia Adams which underscores that certain aspects of a "style" can harm a given cause.  Stridency, harshness, insolence - it all tends not to be productive; it's more like kicking a hornets nest then wondering why everyone is buzzing about.   Sometimes, it corrodes relationships the way rust corrodes metal.

Leticia's post took a lot of courage to write. She could have looked inward and left her learning there, but she doubled down and shared her experience.   Like any classic read, she shows where she was,  where she shifted, and why.

In the end, we see that life as a Catholic is truly a journey through life. Sometimes we move big boulders out of our path, as well as stones. Often, it's a matter of just getting the gravel and sand swept up.  That's what learning about virtues does - it helps us to clean up the walk is easier.  And, when you get the little things, it helps with the big.

I would not want to reduce her excellent post down to a brief quote. Go read: Getting on my own nerves at the blog, Catholic Stand.




For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Tuesday, September 10, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars: 06 - But I was scandalized...

Taking of Christ, Caravaggio, c. 1602


Have you been offended and scandalized by things others in the Church have done?  This post may offer a few helpful thoughts.

This Catholic Virtual War series is aimed at people who want to probe the teachings of the Church more deeply on the virtues - those things that guide our responses to that which we encounter; it is not for those looking for a quick read.  If you don't have time now, bookmark it and come back later.

For the purpose of this post, I want to set aside discussion of the sex abuse scandal, which is in a league of it's own, and with another set of principles to be addressed.

This post has more to do with the scandal many are feeling from a failure by members of the Church to fully and properly pass on the faith since the 1960's, and hindering families who tried to keep the faith, and whose children were lost to nonsense being pedaled as Catholicism. It also has to do with persecution from within the Church.  It is along this line that I want the discussion to proceed.

As with all posts in the Catholic Virtual War series, I will allow comments that do not name names or organizations, and that do not give away so much information as to make it virtually known.  We can raise the bar by talking about positions, principles, and underlying philosophies, not people.




Introduction: Jesus, wounded by His Disciple


Saint Augustine, in his discussion, "On Patience," has had me reflecting over and again on this passage since I found it some years ago:

This patience the Lord taught, when, the servants being moved at the mixing in of the tares and wishing to gather them up, He said that the householder answered, Leave both to grow until the harvest. That, namely, must be patience put up with, which must not be in haste put away. Of this patience Himself afforded and showed an example, when, before the passion of His Body, He so bore with His disciple Judas, that ere He pointed him out as the traitor, He endured him as a thiefand before experience of bonds and cross and death, did, to those lips so full of guile, not deny the kiss of peace. All these, and whatever else there be, which it were tedious to rehearse, belong to that manner of patience, by which the mind does, not its own sins but any evils so ever from without, patiently endure in itself, while the body remains altogether unhurt.

Jesus endured that kiss, just as he does our own, so many times, not wanting to give the offender and his offense away.  

Judas was a priest - a man with a vocation and chosen by Jesus.  Like each of us, Judas also had a free will and he chose to exercise it in a way that caved to his own concupiscence in the form of greed.  He then caved to the sin of despair; rather than entrust himself to the mercy of God and pick up his cross, he hung himself on a tree.  One lesson we get from this is that, just as most Apostles were loyal while imperfect and sinful, a small number will be imperfect and act with great evil.  Some will repent and some will not.


Priests and bishops have a free will and they do not always use it well.  The most orthodox, holy, and tradition-minded priests I know have told me the most merciful thing to do is to pray for them (yes, mercy is needed for them, just as we hope God will have for us).  I was counseled to never talk about them in a negative way without first spending much time before the Blessed Sacrament on their account, and entrusting them and their faults to Mary, and first exhausting all private ways of expressing my concern, even unto writing to the Vatican.  This "time out" before Jesus always had a calming effect on me and, over time, took me from what was probably a form of anger-turned-to-hatred, into genuine love and concern for their souls.  Dwelling in the faults of others is not Catholic because it is not Scriptural (Jn 8:1-11).


This doesn't  mean we should not work for what is right in the Church when we think bishops and priests are in error, or not doing enough to protect the lambs from wolves.  Often times, we see the damage more than they do because we are on the battlefield where casualties are piling up.  This is why I believe there is a disconnect at times between the laity and the bishops.  They need to put their ear to the ground more and listen to the stories from wounded Catholics, many of whom continue to have salt poured in those wounds. The anger spills out on to the internet.  That said, we can't be a people who act on anger and wounded-ness. We have to apply the Gospel and virtues always, even when it is not convenient or fashionable to do so.

No way to cover it all in one post... 


In this series, we will eventually probe the topics of anger, including righteous anger, using the Summa.   But we will also explore hatred, which can happen when anger becomes sinful.  We will also do a deep dive on fraternal correction of others, including prelates and superiors. All of these things require in-depth study. So, they are for another set of posts. I ask you to hold discussion of that for a later time.

Scandalized to the point of open wounds and anger


In a discussion elsewhere, a woman explains how she has been wounded by scandals in the Church.  Here is my response to her.  Her story is like the story of many, and with the vacuum of sound Catholic teaching over the years we were not simply left without knowledge of the more obvious truths of the faith, but we were left unequipped with knowledge of the virtues and how to be guided by them.  As I said in another post: Trying to teach the faith without applying the virtues is like trying to drive a car with square wheels.

My answer, copied below, between the asterisks (with a few corrections, sub-headings, and additional thoughts), should not be construed as a response to any specific situation or type of situation.  It is laying out some general, Catholic principles that can be used as a discernment guide in the future.  Some issues are complex and require digging into other principles - things I hope to get into in this series as time goes on (you can always click the label at the bottom under the social media buttons to find other posts in the Catholic Virtual War series).

This information is intended for use by readers to look inward, not at all those other people.

A reminder from the beginning of my post, the context is not clerical sex abuse.



*******

Wounded

You, like I once was, are a wounded Catholic - wounded by scandals at the hands of others who should be leading us.  Sometimes, I wish our bishops would ponder this a little deeper in their own discernment of how to proceed when people alert them of yet another scandal about to take place in their diocese, or at the hands of a Catholic politician, etc.

I too was scandalized for years.  I was first led into scandal by Catholic priests, religious, and "youth ministers" that I trusted to pass on to me, Catholicism. I looked for bread but was given stones.

I was scandalized a second time by it all.  That is, when the cloud of ignorance was lifted and I learned the truths of the faith.  This led to a deep anger, one that made me bitter and hate-filled towards those who offended me, and at those who led so many others into scandal.

At the same time, I noticed joy on the faces of the very solid, orthodox priests at Assumption Grotto who would provide me with catechetical instruction, spiritual direction, and serve as my Confessors.  I didn't understand how they could be so joyful with all the misery that was in the Church.  It would take time for me to grasp that they knew far better than I just how grave the situation was, and that they lived through more persecutions and injustices than I could possibly know.  They were not in a state of panic, anxiety, or outrage. They showed interior peace that intrigued me and caused me to want to understand how it could be so for them.  In time I would learn from their example, and their counsel, that disquiet is not a fruit of the Holy Spirit, nor is a pre-occupation with the faults of others.

A priest teaches how we should respond to injustice


My pastor, in his Monday Night Catechism, which he teaches most years and is open to all (and may be coming soon again) told us a story from when he was a boy.  He was talking about the virtues.  He was wrongly accused of something at school and punished.  He said something I paraphrase here that was unexpected to me and it stayed with me: "Even though I was innocent of that offense, I was guilty of other offenses."  He then proceeded to teach us about that part of our Catholic faith that helps us to cope with injustices [and how to offer up these sufferings]. That some of those injustices could come at the hands of other Catholics, even from members of the hierarchy, should be no surprise.  Jesus was persecuted from within the establishment of his day. These things will always be with us and it is not that they happen in our lives; it's how we respond to them. That is what God is looking for. [Nothing happens without his willing it or permitting it.  This reminds me of the other point my good pastor made about his boyhood experience: He said these were opportunities to practice and sharpen our practice of the virtues.  This is why God wills or permits these things, so we can strengthen what is weak in ourselves.]

We students asked the good pastor if this meant we should not speak out when justice seemed to demand it.  He offered some distinctions, which I thought were helpful.  One that I recall was that we could talk about the faults or offenses of another without falling into sin, but only with those who have a need to know. He helped us to further distinguish this by saying that this usually meant someone with the authority to do something about the thing we are concerned with.  I don't recall the example he used, but I have used something like this:  If you see the kid next door throwing a wild party with drinking, drugs, orgies on the front lawn, etc., while the parents are away, then you are justified to tell the parents when they return.  You are justified to call the police and tell them.  But one would not be justified to go on the internet and tell the world that this went on, with enough detail to know who did what.  This is what we call detraction, and it is gravely wrong to reveal the sins or moral failings of another without a just cause, and to those who do not have a need to know.  "Need to know" can be debated, certainly, but before revealing any moral wrong committed by another, one has to give it careful weight and not act with a doubtful conscience (look that expression up if you have not heard of it).

The priest explained that when others may be harmed by the thing in question, it is reasonable to warn others, and in many cases, a duty.  This too has ground rules, and reading Aquinas can give us those boundaries.  We can't just throw things out to the wolves that will lower someone's reputation in the eyes of others, if they have no need to know.  And, that is where serious discernment must take place - not about generalities, but about specifics and details.


The proper metric


Because we see a manner of handling a problem on the nightly news or a leading magazine, it does not make that manner right.  The standard for Catholics is our Catholic faith, not what is popular in any given age, to do.  TV and news is full of scandal about the lives of the celebrities.  These things are not in harmony with Scripture.  This is why I say that even certain, popular journalism styles are not necessarily the best way to present the faith. If those styles violate virtues or or involve vices, then they are out of harmony.

This gets in to a kind of consequentialism, where the ends justifies the means.  We believe we have a right to put something out there because our aim is to restore a good where evil has come about.  Every single thing we do to try to root out that evil, must be devoid of evil. Evil cannot be used to right a wrong.  The more virtuous the approach, the more pure it is, and the more pure it is the more God-pleasing it is.

Not leading the little ones into scandal 


There are lots of ways to lead others into scandal, some not so obvious.

One reason we don't advertise the faults of others is because that exposure could needlessly scandalize souls who are not equipped to handle the information.  One way to illustrate the point is this way:  What if a neighbor tells his friend, the man next door, that his wife had a drunken orgie in the yard, while he was away on business, and it is told to him in front of his 5 and 12 year old children?  No one in their right mind would do that, right?  A person exercising prudence would wait to speak to the man alone, if he felt it was necessary to reveal this to his friend.  Why? To not scandalize the little ones.

Likewise, there are people - teens and adults - often standing nearby, but not visible in cyberspace - whose faith is very fragile and weak.  When a scandal is thrown out without thought about who might be watching or listening, and their capacity to handle that information -- people whose faith is weak -- they could throw in the towel.  I've been contacted by a person recently who told me that talk of all these scandals in the Church has really scandalized her to the point of wanting to leave the Church.  It's not the first time I've heard from such people.   Most of the time, they won't tell you.  I continue to talk to her, and others like her, whose delicate faith is challenged by these things.  In our quest to get the road paved, we seem not to think about who we might run over in the process.  If we lead someone to leave the Church because of things we said, that they didn't need to hear or need to know, who do you think will be accountable on Judgment Day?  These you cannot count when you just put something out there on the web.

I want to offer something from St. Dorotheus, Abbot, which I noted from the June 4, 2013 Office of Readings, 2nd reading.  This is precisely what my pastor was talking about the lesson I shared earlier. This is a partial quote (with my comments in brackets):


ON SPIRITUAL PEACE 

"The man who finds fault with himself accepts all things cheerfully - misfortune, loss, disgrace, dishonor, and any other kind of adversity.  He believes that he is deserving of all these things and nothing can disturb him. No one could be more at peace than this man.But perhaps you will offer me this objection: 'Suppose my brother injures me, and on examining myself, I find that I have not given him any cause. Why should I blame myself?'
Certainly if someone examines himself carefully and with fear of God, he will never find himself completely innocent. He will see that he has given some provocation by an action, a word, or by his manner [and sometimes, despite an examine, a provocation can still be hidden to us]. If he does find that he is not guilty in any of these ways, certainly he must have injured that brother some how at some other time. Or perhaps he has been a source of annoyance to some other brother. For this reason, he deserves to endure the injury because of many other sins that he has committed on other occasions."

*******

The Cross



Salvador Dali, Christ of Saint John of the Cross, 1951



Just remember who did this to Him. I'm not talking about the one who betrayed Him, those who handed Him over; those who put the nails into His hands and His feet or divided his garments, or thrust the spear into His side.  I'm talking about me and you.  We made these wounds.  Who was more innocent than Jesus and undeserving of such persecution and punishment?  Can we possibly say that the pain we feel on account of the injustices we have received at the hands of others, including at the hands of other Catholics, even priests and bishops, is greater than that for which we are responsible? (reminder from earlier, the context is not clerical sexual abuse).

I suppose when I have exhausted an extensive search for lies and falsehoods in my own life, I can then turn my attention to all those other people.  For now, I need to get my own house in order so I can stop wounding and scandalizing others by my less than Catholic behavior.

Please pray for me, and pray for those who cause you pain.


*post edited at 12:30 with clarifications and corrections.


For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Sunday, September 8, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars 05: Students of Prudence



 In everything a prudent man acts with knowledge, 
but a fool flaunts his folly (Prov 13:16)


Prudence.

I don't know why, but that term has always gotten under my skin.   Maybe it reminded me of prunes or something, I don't know.

That word annoyed me until I began to question what it meant, interiorly, back in 2005.   It seems to me I was engaged in various Catholic forums at the time, sometimes defending the faith vigorously, with stridence; or, before I came to really comprehend that there are many ways to disagree with others, but some ways are more productive than others; and during a time when I dwelled in the pain of my new found knowledge of why so many Catholics were no longer seriously practicing; and, before I realized that publicly exposing scandal (or giving it broader exposure than it already has) and talking about the faults of others in the name of defending the faith, was nothing more than making the wrong kind of mess.

Perhaps my annoyance comes from something else. I know that some have withheld the truths of the faith -- priests and bishops from their flocks, parents from their children, and friends from one another -- all under the comfortable and all-encompassing umbrella of "prudence."   That's called false-prudence and it is much like false-charity.  It doesn't mean the word is bad; rather, it is how people use the word that is bad, just as some hide behind charity for the wrong reasons.  Of course, no one else can read the soul of another, so we should never judge motive (Mt 7:1-3).

For those who want to pursue holiness, prudence is for them what the playbook is to a ball player on the football field. Many rules need not be written, for those who know the game.  Who would try to throw a pass down the field from their own 10 yard line on 4th down in the first quarter?

There are times when prudence tells us not to speak, even when another is in need of the truths of the faith.  You might have been acting on prudence when you sensed that someone was approaching information-overload and decided to stop for the day and pick it up another time.  To continue might push them away or cause them to lose interest. Even God does not reveal to us the depth of our own ignorance all at once, lest we fall to despair.  Prudence might also tell you that, having exhausted all other approaches first, it's time for "tough love." Only an imprudent fool would "go nuclear" on the first attempt to help someone along in understanding something.  So, as you see, it involves discernment and that discernment, or judgment, takes many things into account before acting.

God, who seems to either have a sense of humor or a desire to make us work to learn, decided to make prudential judgment a vague thing to most of us.  Understanding it requires humility and patience.  It can also mean taking a less exciting path in dealing with something.  In our communication it could mean holding our tongues when we would rather speak, or speaking when we would rather be silent.

I recall asking the priests at Assumption Grotto often about prudence because I did not understand it.  When a situation would "blow up," I began to wonder if my handling of the matter was imprudent.  Not having a grasp on it, I would ask my confessor.  Even today, imprudence often leads the way to the Confessional for me.

We must always be students of prudence to be good imitators of Christ. We should pray for the grace to obtain this virtue and to study it more deeply so we can be guided by it  We need to think about how we apply this virtue in our activities online.  And, just because we choose an anonymous handle does it let us off the hook in God's eyes.

There is so much more to learn about prudence, but we will take it up in another post.  Below are some good definitions to start with

Prudence in the CCC


You can find discussion of prudence under the virtues in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC):
1805  Four virtues play a pivotal role and accordingly are called "cardinal"; all the others are grouped around them. They are: prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. "If anyone loves righteousness, [Wisdom's] labors are virtues; for she teaches temperance and prudence, justice, and courage."64 These virtues are praised under other names in many passages of Scripture. 

1806  Prudence is the virtue that disposes practical reason to discern our true good in every circumstance and to choose the right means of achieving it; "the prudent man looks where he is going."65 "Keep sane and sober for your prayers."66 Prudence is "right reason in action," writes St. Thomas Aquinas, following Aristotle.67 It is not to be confused with timidity or fear, nor with duplicity or dissimulation. It is called auriga virtutum (the charioteer of the virtues); it guides the other virtues by setting rule and measure. It is prudence that immediately guides the judgment of conscience. The prudent man determines and directs his conduct in accordance with this judgment. With the help of this virtue we apply moral principles to particular cases without error and overcome doubts about the good to achieve and the evil to avoid.




Fr. Hardon on Prudence


There are two definitions we should look at in Fr. Hardon's Modern Catholic Dictionary:  Prudence and Imprudence. The latter helped me to understand it a bit better. 

Prudence:

Correct knowledge about things to be done or, more broadly, the knowledge of things that ought to be done and of things that ought to be avoided. It is the intellectual virtue whereby a human being recognizes in any matter at hand what is good and what is evil. In this sense, it is the moral virtue that enables a person to devise, choose, and prepare suitable means for the attainment of any purpose or the avoidance of any evil. Prudence resides in the practical intellect and is both acquire by one's own acts and infused at the same time as sanctifying grace. It may be said to be natural as developed by us, and supernatural because conferred by God. As an act of virtue, prudence involves three stages of mental operation: to take counsel carefully with oneself and from others; to judge correctly on the basis of the evidence at hand; and to direct the rest of one's activity according to the norms determined after a prudent judgment has been made. (Etym. Latin prudentia, foresight in the practical order; from providentia, foresight, directive care, providence.)

Imprudence (part of this is in a picture in my sidebar)

Sins against prudence that are either by defect or by excess. Sins by defect against prudence are: rashness, which acts before due consideration has been given; thoughtlessness, which neglects to take the necessary circumstances into account; and negligence, which does not give the mind sufficient time for mature deliberation. Sins by excess against the virtue of prudence are: imprudence of the flesh, which eagerly seeks means that gratify self without regard for the means that are required by God; astuteness, which looks for devious means for attaining one's goal; and undue solicitude about the temporal future with resulting neglect to provide for eternity and the needs of the soul. (Etym. Latin improvidentia, want of foresight; imprudentia, lack of foreseeing in the practical order.)



For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.

Thursday, September 5, 2013

Catholic Virtual Wars 04: Clericalism, Blogger Infallibility, and Tools for Arguments




I need to tie up some loose ends with this post after reading comments, emails, and other material out there.

Un-virtuous is as the un-virtuous do, starting with me. 


One thing I would like to point out about the Catholic Virtual War series is that I don't pretend to be infallible.  One person, in my post on Strident Catholics, pointed out in the comments that she felt I had been strident in the past on this blog.  I know I have.  Now some have accused me of this simply for bringing up a controversial issue where good Catholics can disagree (and it gets ugly when one side feels there is no such room).  Stridency has to do with the "how" we discuss any controversy.  I can disagree with someone who takes a different position on a number of hot button issues without being so angry as to border on hating someone.  That's when our words take a more hostile turn,  and that is entirely unproductive.

I neglected to explain well enough in my previous posts that my ability to speak on any of the three subjects thus far comes from real experience, not from others, but from myself and my own imperfections in this regard.   Anyone who knows me personally, has probably seen my choleric temperament at work.  I can be downright abrasive at times,  though it is nothing like what it was when I first got a clue that there were better ways to handle things.  I still fall, but as Jesus taught me, I pick my cross back up, and keep moving.  Yes - we are our own crosses because looking inward can be very painful and it can cause us to lose focus.

Back in the 90's I witnessed skilled negotiators work through a very difficult situation.  These negotiators had with much training in anger resolution.  I was in awe at how they could calm and defuse an angry participant and get them to move forward into something more productive than simply complaining about problems and leaving their colleagues in a state of hopelessness and despair.  They did it in a way that allowed the person to keep their dignity - the same way a good coach would tell a player to shake off a bad play - perhaps with some firm instruction followed by a pat on the helmet. A good coach knows of the potential for a player to go out on the field dwelling in the schooling they just got.  Yes, I know, sometimes a coach has to lay into a player, but that's not what good coaches do day-in, and day-out. Any coach who has to do that is a lousy coach.

These negotiators were not just skilled in defusing anger, they were skilled in bringing out the best in various personalities, from the most over involved to the most least involved; from the loudest, to the quietest; from the sniper to the one who was passive aggressive, and the list goes on.  They were good at something else: Tempering the bad qualities in the various kinds of personalities you would see in any crowd trying to solve problems.

It was then that I began to get a clue that my desire to throw in a good zinger in the midst of a heated discussion was only self-serving for me, and entertaining for others.  I'm not infallible so I still fall to that, and have, at times, even on this blog.  It is from years of working at my own flaws that I write about these things on this blog, so it is no secret to me that I am just as guilty as anyone else of committing sins against good and effective communication.   I have the benefit of training, so it is even more disappointing to me when I realize I crossed a particular line.  Sacramental Confession is helpful and my own blogging has been the subject of my trips to the box more times than I can count.  We should all make use of the sacrament for this kind of thing, even if only to build virtue (even in the absence of grave matter).  It's humbling.

We can all have the greatest of intentions and the best possible argument, but we can derail it all with just one expression that then causes everyone else to take their eye off the ball.  It's kind of like the football player who gets hit for penalty after penalty.  He would argue he is playing good football and he probably has a lot of sacks or a lot of yardage and touchdowns.  But his inability to control his actions can lose the game.  The tail wags the dog in such cases. His teammates know there is nothing helpful about going from "First and Goal" to "4th and Long" no matter how well the opponents kneecap got re-arranged.

In a like manner, well-intentioned Catholics can have a lot of truth yet cross a line in how they convey it.

A Question about Pope Francis on Clericalism


A question was asked at the beginning of a comment that I could not post because, while it didn't name names, it may as well have given them.  The conversation would undoubtedly had turned to talking about those persons and their particular works rather than principles.  Critics jump on a bandwagon to criticize the persons and supporters come to their defense.  That's when a lot of humble people, there to discuss a deeper underlying issue just disappear.

Below I quote the opening two lines of the comment.  I thought was a valid question, given that it was in the quote I used from the address of Pope Francis in my post on "Messy Catholics." That post was made because I sometimes see people exploiting the Holy Father's edict to "go make a mess."  I thought it would be helpful to look at his words in the context of his full address, and to see what we might get from his words, and not get.

Amid all this indignation about the way certain prelates have not received the high respect that's their due, has the word "clericalism" come up yet? Yes, Pope Francis clearly states he wants it eliminated. 
I wanted to share that because I had also seen that in many com-boxes and other places online.  I have a simple answer to this.

Who was the Holy Father addressing, if not clerics and seminarians? Let the clerics and seminarians do an examination of conscience on clericalism and let the lay people concern themselves with what pertains to them.

Does this mean lay people should not discuss clericalism, what it means, what it looks like, and how it can be reduced and eliminated?  Absolutely not.  But what good is it to simply poke a finger in the eye of clerics with a hit-and-run criticism using the Holy Father's words?  And, I'm not referring to the question that was asked.  If you have some thoughts that might help clerics see and understand clericalism then offer something in a productive way, with examples, and without sarcasm and stridency.

Tools for Good Communication and Discussion


There are many sources out there that show how to advance dialogue and de-escalate anger in a discussion.  By reading those things you learn what kinds of things act as fuel.  What might Catholics online learn from some of these sources?

I still say that many an orthodox Catholic, with very good intentions, has gotten themselves alienated by the way they point out problems.  There is a Catholic radio station I listen to which does not neglect to talk about things like the Church's position on contraception - on a regular basis I might add.  I've even heard them talk about the need for bishops and priests to speak out more on this and other things; about the awful statistics showing the state of the Church; and about the failures that have led to all of this.  They may not focus on the scandalous aspects, but a heavy focus on that has potential to shatter the faith of those whose faith is weak.

How I have heard them present that material is matter-of-factly, without sarcasm, without stridency, without leaving listeners feeling there is no hope left in the Church because the subject was neglected for so many decades.  They simply put the catechesis out there and they keep putting it out there for the humble to hear, and hopefully heed.  As I said, everyone has a free will and if you don't try to force something on someone through stridency, far more will choose to accept it, or at least think about what is said.  Stridency, while attractive to some souls, is to a delicate soul who is confused by all of the conflicting things they hear, noise that can push them right back out into a disinterest in their faith.  This is where we have to be careful in what we say that is pleasing to the choir because we may push other potential choir members off the risers.  The face we put on the faith that I keep talking about, is one that can bring others to Christ for it's beauty or push them away for it's ugliness.

We all know there is a time for tough love and it isn't every day of the week. It's used as a last resort and it is used after all other attempts have failed.  Dwelling in a hopeless, fearful, anxious way about the problems we all know have led to a decline in Catholic stats is like the ball team that begins to bicker among themselves when they are losing.  A good team knows that finger pointing at the one who dropped the ball, who struck out, who got picked off stealing a base - accomplishes absolutely nothing. The best team is the one that wants to forge ahead with each player remaining calm and focused on getting hits and catching fly balls.  If you have ever played sports and have witnessed a player having an off day, you will know what I mean about the uselessness of dwelling in what hasn't gone right.

Here are some useful sources for your online interactions, your household and work place.  Please note that because I link to these secular sources it is not an endorsement about everything you find there.  If there is something contradicting the faith in any one of these, please let me know as I had only time to do a quick scan.  Also, don't use these just for learning how to deal with others; use them to look inward, at your own communication skills.




There are many more.  In another post, I want to get in to some topics related to root cause analysis.  There are things there that can be helpful when discerning any situation.



For interesting news items I don't have time to blog on, check out my Twitter Feed: @TeDeumBlog

Te Deum Laudamus! Home

The obedient are not held captive by Holy Mother Church;
it is the disobedient who are held captive by the world!

- Diane M. Korzeniewski

Note: The recommended links below are automatically generated by the tool, so they are not necessarily related content.