A New Year’s Resolution: Charity in Discussion

Over at Catholic Culture, Jeff Mirus writes about charity in discussion. I wish I had written it myself. I hope Mr. Mirus doesn’t mind that Pray Tell is quoting him in full. When Mirus writes “We dare not break the bruised reed or quench the smoldering wick … But I know I have done it. Have you?” I make his thought my own. Here’s hoping I and all of us can show more charity in 2012, for, to quote Mirus once more, charity in discussion could “easily be the most important thing we accomplish in 2012 and beyond.” Here’s to a great 2012 at Pray Tell.   — awr

Hilaire Belloc wisely wrote that the grace of God is in courtesy. Nobody likes being ignored, ridiculed, insulted or otherwise abused. Everybody appreciates being treated with respect and listened to as if his ideas matter. And while not everyone has good ideas, everyone’s ideas do matter. They give us clues to the personality, to the strengths and weaknesses of a particular character, and—perhaps most important—to the needs of a brother or sister in a family that ultimately belongs to God.When I reflect on my own interaction with critics over the past year, I recall those occasions when I was decidedly not conciliatory. And in surveying various discussion groups, including some consisting only of dedicated Catholics, I’ve overheard my share of vitriolic exchanges. We’ve come to expect a low level of social discourse in political discussion, led by political advertising and the verbal maneuvering of televised debates. But there is something wrong—something spiritually wrong—when the same problem afflicts religious discussions.

But the Christian’s call goes far beyond the mere appearance of courtesy. Our Lord requires of us a courtesy motivated by something deeper, namely charity. We all know this, yet again and again, as soon we find ourselves on opposite sides of an issue, we tend to plug our ears and hold our noses—when we should be opening our ears and biting our tongues.

Sometimes, of course, we find ourselves under deliberate and even malicious attack. At CatholicCulture.org, we receive numerous messages through our Contact form in which “unregistered visitors” simply open fire on the Faith, the Church and those who write for the site. Sometimes it is wisest to ignore such messages, especially if the nature of the correspondence and the available time suggest that we will not be in a position to make a positive impact. Similarly, there will be times when any Catholic will have little choice but to extricate himself as politely as possible from an unpleasant personal confrontation.

But often we are faced with disagreements caused by approaching similar questions from different directions or backgrounds, in which animosity, if any, is largely incidental. In such cases, both charity and good sense demand that we hold our fire long enough to understand the values and principles which have led to a contradictory statement. We need to determine, first, whether we’ve missed something significant in either our own thoughts or, as is quite likely, in our own brief comments on the subject at hand. Second, we must discover the strengths and weaknesses of this rival point of view so that we can address the comments reasonably, and even generously.

And third, precisely as a matter of charity, we are called to discern the motivation of our would-be opponent so that we can figure out whether there is something incomplete, weak or broken which cries out for help and healing. Who knows if Our Lord might choose to bestow a grace here through an unworthy servant—through you or me—if we can but hold ourselves open for the task.

This readiness to be used as a means of grace is admittedly difficult to maintain. We are proud, which translates into an excessive attachment to our own ideas, along with a corresponding contempt for contrary ideas and those who express them. And because we are proud, we are also very prickly, taking offense easily, and prone to unseemly distress when contradicted. We seem to be able to recognize the absurdity of such reactions only when we have no stake in the game.

Those of us with dogmatic personalities—and that includes many who take the Faith seriously in a hostile culture—have an additional spiritual hurdle, because we so often confuse our commitment to God’s principles with our own self-importance as God’s spokesmen. This can lead to a habit of self-righteous indignation, as if we must denounce others in defense of Christ, though to be sure He has already indicated His complete willingness to suffer disrespect in order to win hearts. This is usually a case of the servant not really following the Master.

Moreover, we have a tendency to assume that because we know we are right about some things—namely, the dogmas of the Faith—therefore we must be right about everything. But because we have the privilege of accepting the truths of Catholicism, it does not follow that our pastoral preferences are infallible, or our political insight, or our social theories, or our ability to separate truth from falsehood in other fields, or even our spiritual perception. Why then do we pronounce as Catholics on virtually everything under the sun with the same certainty which we ought to reserve for the most basic precepts of the catechism? How easily do all men and women assume the rightness of their own judgments! But in Catholics, who ought to know that they depend at all times on the most generous gifts of God, this belief in our own perfection is a particularly offensive fault.

Here’s a sobering thought: The next person to contradict us (or to contradict the Church) may actually be at an early stage of his own interior journey home. Now it just so happens that, for better or worse, in almost every discussion we ourselves represent home. A harsh word now may drive this person away. A good rule of thumb is that we need to know someone extremely well and have a pre-existing relationship with him if we are to be in any position to speak harshly, and then only as a last resort. We dare not break the bruised reed or quench the smoldering wick (Is 42:3; applied to Christ in Mt 12:20). But I know I have done it. Have you?

Therefore, as we begin a new year and consider our own resolutions, I’d like to recommend that we all strive to discuss the issues that animate CatholicCulture.org with greater charity. I don’t mean so much on the website itself, for we have precious little opportunity for discussion here, except for just a bit of it in Sound Off! or via email. I am referring instead to the deliberate and persistent cultivation of charity in our discussions with those who are not part of the CatholicCulture.org family.

Our purpose—the purpose of all those who take seriously the issues presented through CatholicCulture.org—is to enrich faith, strengthen the Church and form Catholic culture. These tasks are, inescapably, oriented toward others. None of this can be done without love and, in most cases, the first opportunity to show love is in how we talk with others.

Charity in discussion: This could easily be the most important thing we accomplish in 2012 and beyond.

Jeff Mirus

Other Voices

Please leave a reply.

Comments

18 responses to “A New Year’s Resolution: Charity in Discussion”

  1. Jonathan Day

    Bravissimo to Jeff Mirus, and thank you for sharing this wise and insightful essay. Words to live by!

  2. Thank you very much for sharing this here. Charity in discussion is definitely an important thing I can accomplish in 2012…

  3. Amen – I could not agree more and this is something I am taking to heart this year. (Although I got off to a rocky start…)

  4. Chris McDonnell

    I hope that all of us who contribute in any small way to discussions on Pray Tell in the coming year take this posting to heart. One of my favourite phrases used by Julian of Norwich is when she refers to “my courteous Lord” . We would do well to reflect on her words.

  5. “In necessariis unitas, in dubiis libertas, in omnibus caritas”
    “Unity in necessary things; liberty in doubtful things; charity in all things.”

    cited by Blessed John XXIII in Ad Petri Cathedram, 29 June 1959

  6. Just saying “Happy and Blessed New Year” as well as: “Thanks, Anthony. Regretfully, this plea with your endorsement comes a day late and a dollar short and rings hollow for many of us who’ve pleaded for editorial intervention that is just towards all in this forum.” My fellow Californian above, Dr. Ford, issued a very “august” and eloquent call for civility and equanimity on this forum and elsewhere quite a few months ago, apparently to no avail as witnessed by the commentary over recent posts by Dcn. Bauerschmidt and Chris McConnell.
    So, good luck with it all this time ’round.
    As they say over in the Isles, “Sorry to have bothered.”
    Ta ta.

    1. Charles,

      I would be sorry to see you go, but you must do as you see fit. FWIW, I have found Anthony to be very supportive personally, and while I found some of the criticism I received unfair or ill-thought out, that is the risk one takes in the wild and wooly world of the internet.

    2. Mary Burke

      Yes, here’s to a great year ahead on PTB, Father Anthony!

      Compliments on your role in the success story to date. And many congratulations to you personally, given that the top six of the most frequently commented upon posts were posted by you, with congratulations also to Rita and Fritz, the “runners-up.”

      It’s a wonderful site. Ad multos annos!

    3. Katherine Lapsley

      Thanks to the team here. With all due respect, I find Mr Culbreth’s view leaves a lot to be desired on a Christian site. There is always redemption. That’s the beauty of the Christian gospel. It’s never to late to take a different tack and a new turn on the journey.

      I have enjoyed dipping in and out of the conversations which I have found to be, by and large, stimulating and informative.

    4. Dr. Dale Rodriguez

      If you’re going to play in the realm of blogs you need skin as thick as a dinosaur.

      1. You may need skin turned to fossilized stone like that of a dinosaur, too.

  7. Jack Rakosky

    In the public mental health system where I worked, the rules of charity allowed everyone to express their own feelings and beliefs as long as they respected the rights of others to have different feelings and beliefs. For example, Person A could say that he was disgusted with EF Masses and would never attend one, but not say or imply that others should feel and act that way. Person B could well say in reply that some of her most cherished moments were at an EF Mass as long as she did not say that Person A should feel the same way, or had no right to feel the way he did.

    I found the charity rules of this culture much better than the civility rules of Academia or the charity rules in the Catholic Church. In Academia people often spent a lot of time trying to change or impugn each other’s ideas, and in the Church people often spent a lot of time trying to change or impugn not only each others ideas, but their feelings and behavior. In my experience both academia and the church had far too much unhealthy competition and lack of compassion.

    This blog needs to give people the opportunity to express their feelings and beliefs about things liturgical as long as they respect the rights of others to have different feelings and beliefs. Where else are people going to express their feelings and experiences? Certainly their bishops and pastors are not providing forums for this.

    People should be able to express their feelings and emotions about ideas, beliefs, practices without being told that they have no right to have these feelings and emotions. The proper way to respond to these emotions is to express one’s own feelings and emotions about those ideas, beliefs and practices NOT to express our feelings and emotion about the another person and their feelings and emotions.

    1. Jordan Zarembo

      Jack Rakosky on January 4, 2012 – 4:42 pm

      Jack Rakosky: In Academia people often spent a lot of time trying to change or impugn each other’s ideas, and in the Church people often spent a lot of time trying to change or impugn not only each others ideas, but their feelings and behavior.

      Thank you Jack for your very true observations. I speak of myself first when I say that I respect emotion as best I can, but I do not understand emotion within the context of belief and faith. In my mind, Mass is little more than a huge theo-liturgical puzzle in which word and movement create a universe in which to think, pray, and roam through the meaning of sacrifice and salvation in contemplation. I find this very exciting! Conversely, I have grave difficulty understanding “this prayer doesn’t speak to me.” I don’t know where this has come from, or where it is going. Should prayers impart emotional satisfaction? If the prayer is historically relevant, congruent with the Latin, and reasonably agreeable with English syntax, then why should emotion enter into the discussion? I may never understand otherwise.

      I have long thought that if I cannot understand the emotion of belief and faith, then I should not comment either on the mechanics of belief and faith or its numinous emotional side. Emotion cannot be respected or shared if one knows little about it.

  8. Gerard Flynn

    Hear, hear!

  9. Glenn McCoy

    To me, the beauty and value of Pray Tell is the opportunity for open dialogue. In the best of all possible worlds this would be a dialogue worthy of Martin Buber, in which we would all treat one another as beloved “Thou’s” and not mere things. But since our reality is at least occasionally imperfect, I hope we can do our best to be courteous without expecting Fr. Anthony’s “editorial intervention” to protect us from one another. True dialogue is a vulnerable enterprise, well worth the risk, but I do like the idea of all of us gently calling each other to courtesy as we go along.

  10. Andrew Cameron-Mowat SJ

    Reading this blog has been, for the most part, a most enlightening experience. Although the occasional bully comes along trying to polarize opinion, it seems eventually they either desist or “pick up their toys and go away”. To have a blog where honest opinion, often based on scholarly research, can be expressed without fear of being declared anathema, is actually quite rare and I for one am grateful to Fr Anthony for his courage and perseverance.

  11. Brigid Rauch

    Possibly this comment is off-topic, but here goes. Much of the ire is caused by the belief that there is one, single, best way to do liturgy. What if we allow liturgy to accommodate itself to the community? Then the question becomes, what is the best liturgy for this community? Better a well sung guitar Mass with high participation than a poorly done, poorly attended Chant Mass. By the same token, any guitar Mass is a Purgatory for some.
    To some extent we see this option in action already at many large parishes. Individuals who attended the 9:00 family Mass when their children were young find themselves migrating to other Masses as they age. We wring our hands over this self segregation, but do we worry about the fact that Franciscans, Jesuits and Benedictines all offer their own spiritualities? I would suggest that when we raise one form of liturgy above all others, we run the risk of extremism, and we lose opportunities. For example, I saw a well respected Men’s Latin choir disbanded because a pastor felt it failed to meet current norms. Now, a Latin choir as the sole music source for a large parish may be inappropriate. I know I would feel excluded. But what if an effort had been made to connect the choir with the Latin Mass community? It didn’t happen, apparently because the Latin choir was associated with one parish, and the Latin Mass is held at another. Here is a case where a little imagination and a lot of charity could have enriched an entire community.

  12. Jonathan Day

    Perhaps there is nothing new under the sun.

    This article from The Economist (there is a print essay and a separate audio interview with the author) makes a convincing case that Luther and the reformers used a 16th century form of social media to spread their message. But instead of blogs and tweets they used pamphlets, woodcuts and songs, all of which helped the reform movement ‘go viral’.

    As today, what started as a set of propositions for academic debate (the 95 Theses) quickly turned ugly. The linked article shows woodcuts from the reform side (second woodcut) and the counter-reformers (first woodcut), each group portraying the other as diabolical.

    The debate was essential, but the body of Christ is still suffering from its lack of charity.


Posted

in

by

Discover more from Home

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading