Catholic definition of friendship?

[Gordon_Sims]

No, I don’t think I would tolerate such a person, and who here is defending behavior like the kind you describe? I’d be interested in knowing how you could come to the conclusion that the OP’s friend is like this based on a short Internet post. Perhaps we need the OP himself to clarify. Why is this scenario not valid:

OP: I quickly realized that he blocked me off from every aspect of his life other than religion. We can’t talk about work, family or much of anything else other than religion.

He is excited to share the Catholic faith with someone who claims to be devout. He always brings the conversation back to discussions of the faith, which the OP believes is an attempt to block out every other aspect of life. The friend does it because the faith is important to him and the OP claimed it was important to him too.

OP: He has no problem talking about last week’s homily, this week’s Gospel, whether to say the Fatima prayer while praying the Rosary, etc., but as soon as I bring up any of the stuff we used to talk about he shuts me down.

How is shutting down to be understood? Does he say “I don’t care about that, stop bringing it up” or does he display a lack of interest in it and always comes back to discussions of the faith?

He typically ignores what I say and goes back to whatever he wants to talk about. He’ll occasionally say something like, “I don’t want to talk about that,” but it’s generally the blank stare for a few seconds followed by him talking about what Pope Francis said or some new insight he gleaned from some psalm or whatever. If I really push, I can sometimes get a one or two word answer about how his work is going, what his kids are up to, etc., but otherwise it’s the stare and redirect.

OP: It’s also impossible to talk to him about any problems anymore since all he’s able to do is get a sour look on his face and lecture me on forgiveness.

A “sour” facial look is a subjective interpretation. The OP wants to discuss problems (look at some of his other threads) and the friend tells him he needs to learn to forgive. That is a Christian tenet no?

Me: “Sorry I wasn’t here sooner. This guy on the highway looked like he was texting and was straddling the line, driving 20 mph under the speed limit. It was ridiculous!”
Him: “Do you really think that’s a Christ-like attitude? Jesus would have forgiven him, why can’t you? You don’t know what was in his heart…”

That’s just one example of the sort of things that have led to extended lectures on forgiveness. Not all problems are big, interpersonal problems. Sometimes the lawnmower won’t start. Kicking it in frustration isn’t something that should earn me a talk about Christ’s love.

OP: I finally asked him about the change and he said that, since we’re Catholics, we need to have a Catholic [sic] friendship.

He wants a deeper level of intimacy on an important topic with the OP that they share. He can get the ordinary stuff from everyone else and so can the OP. The hostility towards non-Catholic topics is being assumed. Until more details are forthcoming, I don’t think you can say that he views other endeavors and the people that engage in them as inferior but merely thinks they ought to pursue higher ideals.

I wouldn’t necessarily call it hostility. It’s him wanting to pigeonhole me into a specific role. Like I pointed out initially, we got along quite well prior to this. I don’t believe that playing cards or throwing darts together is harmful to our faith lives.

OP: All that other stuff–joking around, playing pool, talking about work, etc.–is for secular friends, not Catholic ones.

Did the friend say this, or is the OP providing interpretation? Assume he did say it. So what? He and the OP have a higher ideal in their Catholic faith and he believes they should pursue that. Aren’t they supposed to be helping each other grow in holiness? There seems to be this assumption that a friend is necessarily someone that you go out and socialize with and “have a good time” with and that’s the end of it. Perhaps he thinks it ought to be higher than that, I don’t know.

He said it. And, again, there’s no reason why you can’t help a friend grow in holiness while playing checkers or talking about work. I don’t see why someone would think having a devout Catholic friend means that all you can do is discuss the Bible and pray with them.

mommy k probably gave the best advice. If the OP still doesn’t like the friend’s behavior, then don’t hang out with him all the time. We don’t have any reason to believe he’s a bad person, and the OP can have a Catholic friend every once in a while when he does meet up with him.

I don’t think he’s a bad person. I don’t like how I’ve been segregated to a specific, narrow role. Because of our wife’s and our kids’ relationships, I’m stuck with seeing him regularly, even if I do cut back on the one-on-one time.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

I think the difference of opinion here comes from those of us who have had this tactic tried on us and those who have not. Do any of you who think this is OK actually have any friends like this? Do you do this to anyone? Well, if it is so Catholic and wonderful, why not? The reason is that after awhile, you do feel used, as if this person hounding you all the time is a theology vampire.** If you were a chef, and all someone ever wanted was your recipes or a doctor or lawyer and all they wanted to do was to pump you for stories from your profession, I tell you that it does get old and it does feel as if the person isn’t interested in you so much as what he or she can get out of you.** That does not change just because the topic is virtuous.

That is a perfect example and one I wish I’d have thought of. I actually have a friend who’s a chef. I make a point of doing my best to not discuss recipes with her. I also had a friend who’s a lawyer. I didn’t like the idea of pumping him for free legal advice so I traded my personal relationship for a mostly professional one. I wouldn’t feel right making someone feel as though the only interest I have in them is what benefit I can gain from their area of expertise.

 

[EasterJoy]

No, I don’t think I would tolerate such a person, and who here is defending behavior like the kind you describe? I’d be interested in knowing how you could come to the conclusion that the OP’s friend is like this based on a short Internet post. Perhaps we need the OP himself to clarify. Why is this scenario not valid:…

I don’t see any reason to invalidate what Gordon said in order to give his acquaintance some benefit of the doubt by validating some alternative explanation. Gordon* feels *that this friend is unilaterally dictating what he and this other guy are going to do together. He wants to know if it is OK, considering that the guy is unilaterally dictating that they talk about the Catholic faith all of the time, which is undoubtedly a profitable topic to talk about. The answer is no, it isn’t, not even then. If Gordon doesn’t like it, he ought to speak up and voice the reasonable expectation that one party in a friendship does not get to decide everything. Then they talk and compare notes on what each of them did, said, and intended.

Gordon does not necessarily have a choice about how often he sees this fellow. He just wants to know if it is OK to say, “Listen, I feel as if our faith is the most important thing in the world to me, but I have to tell you that I have never had another Catholic decide that he gets to entirely dictate the topic of conversation all of the time. My confessor doesn’t scold me as much as you do, my pastor doesn’t preach to me as unceasingly as you do, my friends who are priests and religious sisters and brothers don’t dictate that the topic of conversation never stray from religious thinkers the way you do. I love our faith, but frankly I don’t like how you’re using it. I have tried to let you know in less blunt ways, but now I’m being blunt: I’m going to talk about our faith when I feel like it, but otherwise if you won’t talk about what I want to talk about and I don’t want to talk about what you want to talk about, we aren’t going to be talking. I’m done with this.”

In my opinion, it is totally OK to say that.

I have known someone to do what Gordon’s acquaintance is doing because they’re excited to find a friend in the faith. In that case, if gentle requests to talk about something else do not get through, then it is OK to be more blunt. If they are only excited, that confrontation can have good results, because sometimes the message finally does get through.

Sometimes, however, the reason that this behavior arises is that the person has some kind of obsessive-compulsive relationship with religion. They have no one in their family who will talk about religion because there is no such thing as a small amount of religious talk with the person. I have known someone that literally everyone in the person’s family and circle has eventually refused to talk about religion with, and it turned out the person did have a mental health issue. The person was OCD, and the object for that person was religion. The cross is a real cross, but the person sometimes will not initially accept what the nature of the cross is.

If indulging it would cure it, I’d suggest that, but in this case I’d say that indulgence of this particular problem is more likely to have adverse consequences than not. The saint does not act like this; the obsessive-compulsive or self-centered person might. We all have some of the self-centered person or the obsessive-compulsive in us. It doesn’t do us favors when others let us stay in that place. That is why I’m not really encouraging Gordon to allow this person to do what they’re doing to him. If he wants to communicate that the relationship is not being handled in a way that is as Christian as his friend seems to imagine, that is OK. He can bear the wrong patiently, but in this case confronting it might actually do the fellow more favors.

 

[EasterJoy]

That is a perfect example and one I wish I’d have thought of. I actually have a friend who’s a chef. I make a point of doing my best to not discuss recipes with her. I also had a friend who’s a lawyer. I didn’t like the idea of pumping him for free legal advice so I traded my personal relationship for a mostly professional one. I wouldn’t feel right making someone feel as though the only interest I have in them is what benefit I can gain from their area of expertise.

Since you’re both “in the same profession,” it is kind of like being around someone who insists on “talking shop” all of the time. I don’t think that even two priests would consider a relationship that is one-sided as yours feels to you is a good idea. You might even want to talk to your own pastor about how to handle this. It is likely that someone has tried to do this to him on more than one occasion.

 

[underacloud]

He typically ignores what I say and goes back to whatever he wants to talk about. He’ll occasionally say something like, “I don’t want to talk about that,” but it’s generally the blank stare for a few seconds followed by him talking about what Pope Francis said or some new insight he gleaned from some psalm or whatever. If I really push, I can sometimes get a one or two word answer about how his work is going, what his kids are up to, etc., but otherwise it’s the stare and redirect.

Why not just use the same tactic back?

“I don’t want to talk about that”.

Eventually, he’ll either starve for conversation and discuss things that are mutually interesting, or the friendship will fizzle out.

I don’t think he’s a bad person. I don’t like how I’ve been segregated to a specific, narrow role. Because of our wife’s and our kids’ relationships, I’m stuck with seeing him regularly, even if I do cut back on the one-on-one time.

If things don’t improve, just explain to your wife that you don’t enjoy his company and stop going along with her to see them. Be polite but aloof whenever you do see him.

 

[EasterJoy]

Why not just use the same tactic back?

“I don’t want to talk about that”.

Eventually, he’ll either starve for conversation and discuss things that are mutually interesting, or the friendship will fizzle out.

If things don’t improve, just explain to your wife that you don’t enjoy his company and stop going along with her to see them. Be polite but aloof whenever you do see him.

He doesn’t have to cut the guy off. The main thing is to directly say those things that are being put off when said less directly, and then ignore the other man’s use of “drama,” such as sour looks, scolding, or lecturing that the other man might use as a way to test this boundary. Instead, Gordon might even encourage the other fellow to just be a good sport and talk about other things once in awhile. A non-dramatic, “I like talking about our faith some of the time, Fred, but I don’t feel that we need to do it right now” is sufficient. It is OK to be matter-of-fact and pleasant about it, too.

It is not as if anyone else is being roped into this all-religion-all-the-time extravaganza. If The Preacher is no fun to talk to, all Gordon has to do is to choose to socialize with everyone else there, instead. The Preacher free to sulk, preach impotently, or give up and join in an occasional conversation that is less religious in nature than he might like. Gordon, meanwhile, can be hanging with everyone else without a qualm, as happy as a clam.

Directly let the fellow know where your boundaries are, enforce them with the lowest amount of shunning and drama you can get by with, but accept no guilt trips. If a sense of humor can be brought into play, that is fine, too, provided it is kept gentle (and preferably more self-deprecating than otherwise).

 

[underacloud]

He doesn’t have to cut the guy off. The main thing is to directly say those things that are being put off when said less directly, and then ignore the other man’s use of “drama,” such as sour looks, scolding, or lecturing that the other man might use as a way to test this boundary. Instead, Gordon might even encourage the other fellow to just be a good sport and talk about other things once in awhile. A non-dramatic, “I like talking about our faith some of the time, Fred, but I don’t feel that we need to do it right now” is sufficient. It is OK to be matter-of-fact and pleasant about it, too.

“I don’t want to talk about that” is about as matter-of-fact as it gets, and can be said pleasantly. Perhaps “I’d rather not discuss that right now” is a more gentile manner. Moreover, it seems to fit the conversational style of this friend perfectly.

I’m not advocating rudeness. But it is not rude to stonewall or flat out refuse to be drawn into personal conversations that you do not wish to have. Nor is it rude per se to disengage from friendships that you do not enjoy.

 

[Mummsie]

OP, I’ve really appreciated all of the perspectives given on this issue.

If you hadn’t told me your friend was a guy, I would think you were talking about me. LOL. I can see myself in many of your friend’s responses. I, too, crave a Catholic friendship that allows for open discussion on our faith. It helps my faith tremendously. Right now CAF fills that role and that’s okay for now.

I have a friend (Catholic) who is quite negative and judgmental and often angry. When listening to her talk about an event that occurred, I almost can’t help myself from responding with some Catholic teaching. She’s on a roll and someone has to stay 'STOP". How many times can I listen to her calling someone names (not nice) over and over again? Though, I really don’t lecture her…just a short comment. That usually causes her to slow down and think a bit more before speaking.

I’m not saying any of your behavior deserves a lecture or even a 'STOP". I’m just relating how it is from the other side.

My advice to you is don’t be a victim. Either accept him for who he is, a sinner like the rest of us, or make a change. Only you can decide which way is right for you.

Praying for both of you.

God Bless You.

 

[Gordon_Sims]

“I don’t want to talk about that” is about as matter-of-fact as it gets, and can be said pleasantly. Perhaps “I’d rather not discuss that right now” is a more gentile manner. Moreover, it seems to fit the conversational style of this friend perfectly.

I’m not advocating rudeness. But it is not rude to stonewall or flat out refuse to be drawn into personal conversations that you do not wish to have. Nor is it rude per se to disengage from friendships that you do not enjoy.

I’ve tried, “Why don’t we talk about this instead?” but that hasn’t helped. I was talking to my wife about it and she would prefer that I keep making en effort with this guy. Several of her other friends have gotten caught up in parish/school politics so “we” are kind of on the outs with them right now (my wife’s crime being that we were out of town when things occurred so she wasn’t there to voice her support, which was taken as her voicing her dissent). As a result, she doesn’t want to rock the boat with this couple. I haven’t asked our priest for advice as of yet and we won’t have an opportunity to see them again until next week.

 

[underacloud]

Sounds like a tough one Gordon, but it’s good of you to make an effort for your wife’s sake.