Does "tough love" work?

[Joe_5859]

I posted this as a rhetorical question in another thread, but in the interest of not veering off topic, I thought it best to start a new thread.

It seems to be a common conversation I keep coming across. * Person A says something quite blunt.

• Person B questions Person A’s method as being unnecessarily uncharitable.
• Person A says “Did you miss that part in the Gospel where Jesus made a whip and drove people out of the Temple”?

Many claim that this “tough love” is necessary for some people to be woken from their spiritual lethargy and embrace the Catholic Church. Has anyone actually witnessed such a conversion? I’ve only seen the opposite occur (where a pastor’s brusqueness leads people to leave the Church).

I don’t doubt that it could happen, but I have never heard anyone’s conversion story begin with them being berated. I would very much like to hear any stories to the contrary.

One final note: I’m not trying to argue that tough love is never okay, or that bluntness is not necessary at times. But I believe that these things can be done in a gentle way. (For example, when the Church excommunicates someone, they don’t send a bishop to their house to scream in their face “You’re going to hell! Repent, sinner!”)

I’m really not trying to start a fight. I’d honestly like to hear of people’s experiences that differ from my own.

 

[eelpis]

Serenelli was at last converted by St Mary Goretti, the thing she said to him was : Don’t, you’ll go to hell!

I think that St Padre Pio was quite tough with some of his penitents

I think that meekness is a lot more convincing than harshness, and I think we should leave “tough love” to the truly holy who don’t mix selfseeking with charity.

 

[Joe_5859]

Serenelli was at last converted by St Mary Goretti, the thing she said to him was : Don’t, you’ll go to hell!

Did she say it in an angry way, or in a gentle, matter-of-fact way? Or do we not know for sure?

 

[eelpis]

Did she say it in an angry way, or in a gentle, matter-of-fact way? Or do we not know for sure?

I think she said it out of concern for his immortal soul. He was stabbing her.

 

[Joe_5859]

I think she said it out of concern for his immortal soul. He was stabbing her.

Oh, that’s right. I blanked on that story for a moment. It’s all coming back to me now!

Thanks for the example.

 

[eelpis]

Oh, that’s right. I blanked on that story for a moment. It’s all coming back to me now!

Thanks for the example.

Another example of " tough love" from that story was when Serenelli came out of prison. He was converted by St Mary appearing to him giving him as many lilies from paradise as he had given her wounds.
He went to her mother to ask her forgiveness, Mary Gorettis mother said that since Mary had forgiven him and Christ had, she did so too.
On Christmas-day they recieved holy communion together, he the murderer, and she the mother of his victim.
Such forgiveness is “very tough love”.

 

[EasterJoy]

I posted this as a rhetorical question in another thread, but in the interest of not veering off topic, I thought it best to start a new thread.

It seems to be a common conversation I keep coming across. * Person A says something quite blunt.

• Person B questions Person A’s method as being unnecessarily uncharitable.
• Person A says “Did you miss that part in the Gospel where Jesus made a whip and drove people out of the Temple”?

Many claim that this “tough love” is necessary for some people to be woken from their spiritual lethargy and embrace the Catholic Church. Has anyone actually witnessed such a conversion? I’ve only seen the opposite occur (where a pastor’s brusqueness leads people to leave the Church).

I don’t doubt that it could happen, but I have never heard anyone’s conversion story begin with them being berated. I would very much like to hear any stories to the contrary.

One final note: I’m not trying to argue that tough love is never okay, or that bluntness is not necessary at times. But I believe that these things can be done in a gentle way. (For example, when the Church excommunicates someone, they don’t send a bishop to their house to scream in their face “You’re going to hell! Repent, sinner!”)

I’m really not trying to start a fight. I’d honestly like to hear of people’s experiences that differ from my own.

Well, it depends on what you mean by “blunt” and what person B means by “unnecessarily uncharitable”.

Let us say, for instance, that a certain person eats far more than he should. It would be blunt to say, “Your gluttony is a serious sin that could land you in hell.” Gluttony is a capital sin, but I don’t think anybody is going to change their eating habits based on a pronouncement like that. If, on the other hand, someone they always overate with said, “Look at us. What are we doing? This is gluttony. We need to stop”…well, this equally blunt statement might have a very different effect.

If a person is totally deluded as to whether what they are doing is right or not, and if the reminder came from someone they respected greatly and who rarely spoke in those terms, this could be a different story, too. Coming from someone who habitually berated others, though, I would not expect a conversion.

As for Jesus driving the money-changers out of the Temple, the primary goal was to stop the offending behavior immediately. It was done by someone who was normally gentle and unassuming, a model of holiness and humility. The person doing it also had an unassailable personal authority. There was no doubt that it was his place to do it.

If a pastor with a grouchy habit who could not be pleased by anyone were to take a group of teens to task for their behavior in church, they would probably chalk it up to his grouchiness. If, on the other hand, the same thing was done by a pastor who was well-known for his gentle and forgiving nature, they would know that it was not his nature, but rather the nature of the offense which prompted the severity of the correction.

I have seen the case many times where a person with a lot of self-control did not hide their anger when correcting a particularly grievous offense. This is when you see a big effect, when such a strong outburst is rare, and when the outrage is obviously well-placed.

 

[peregrinator_it]

I think the question of “tough love” is a matter of prudence. If you are really trying to reach a person, you must take into account their mindset, personality, circumstances, etc. and carefully discern what would be the best method.

I am with St. Benedict on this (as on most things.)

From the Rule (Ch. 2 On the Abbot, don’t have line #s):

“Let him understand also what a difficult and arduous task he has undertaken: ruling souls and adapting himself to a variety of characters. One he must coax, another scold, another persuade, according to each one’s character and understanding. Thus he must adjust and adapt himself to all in such a way that he may not only suffer no loss in the flock committed to his care, but may even rejoice in the increase of a good flock.”

and

(Chapter 64 On Constituting an Abbot)

“In administering correction he should act prudently and not go to excess, lest in seeking too eagerly to scrape off the rust he break the vessel. Let him keep his own frailty ever before his eyes and remember that the bruised reed must not be broken. By this we do not mean that he should allow vices to grow; on the contrary, as we have already said, he should eradicate them prudently and with charity, in the way which may seem best in each case. Let him study rather to be loved than to be feared.”

 

[EasterJoy]

I think the question of “tough love” is a matter of prudence. If you are really trying to reach a person, you must take into account their mindset, personality, circumstances, etc. and carefully discern what would be the best method.

I am with St. Benedict on this (as on most things.)

From the Rule (Ch. 2 On the Abbot, don’t have line #s):

and

(Chapter 64 On Constituting an Abbot)

Excellent citation!

 

[Joe_5859]

Good insights, Easter Joy and Peregrinator. Thank you both. We certainly need to exercise prudence in the way we respond to things.

 

[PraRFLEsEkHm]

Hi, again -

I believe that Priests have a responsibility, and that requires them, at times, to Judge.

Mat 16:18 And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.
Mat 16:19 And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

I also believe, that not always is it effective to be gentle and meek in the face of evil

Gal 1:8 But even if we or an angel from heaven should proclaim to you a gospel contrary to what we proclaimed to you,** let that person be condemned!**
Gal 1:9 What we have told you in the past I am now telling you again: If anyone proclaims to you a gospel contrary to what you received, **let that person be condemned! **
Gal 1:10 Am I now trying to win the approval of people or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be Christ’s servant.

and

Gal 3:1 You foolish Galatians! Who put you under a spell? Was not Jesus Christ clearly portrayed as crucified before your very eyes?
Gal 3:2 I want to learn only one thing from you: Did you receive the Spirit by doing the works of the law or by believing what you heard?
Gal 3:3 Are you so foolish? Having started out with the Spirit, are you now ending up with the flesh?

Now, granted - this is the Apostle Paul. However, He was performing the same function as a Priest, caring for his flock. Examples like this abound in Scripture, and for the same reasons - it was important to get across the message that certain behavior, certain beliefs, and certain practices WILL land you in hell.

Now - certainly, we (the flock) have no business doing or saying the things Paul, or a Priest can, and should sometimes do. But - the thread that started this thread was not about a lay person, or even a Deacon…but a Priest.

I simply fail to see how someone, who’s job it is to correct, teach, and shepherd his flock, can effectively do that without at times taking a stand and, yes, even thundering to his flock - this or that is EVIL and NOT acceptable behavior or thinking. That if you do this or that behavior or believe this or that to be true - you are NOT to take communion.

I’m not advocating that berating, belittling, or being continuously abrasive to people is a good or acceptable behavior. No. Especially not for a Priest and definitely not for lay people. I am saying that at times it is necessary and even effective to get people out of certain thinking patterns or behaviors.

As was said before here - occasionally ‘blowing up’ can have, and usually does have, the desired effect. If you constantly scream at your kids - they learn to live with it and it does no good. If you are mostly loving and gentle, then blast them for something - guaranteed they will remember that occasion.

Sometimes too - allowing someone to sit in their little pile of doody they made for themselves, and allow their conscience (or the Holy spirit) to go to work on them, is the best thing you can do for them. That is usually what ‘Tough Love’ is characterized as - letting them clean their own mess up, and suffer the consequences of their own actions.

Even if that means letting them run away from it - so they see that it isn’t the circumstances, or everyone else, but rather themselves that is the problem.

Just my perspective

Peace

John

 

[bpbasilphx]

Did she say it in an angry way, or in a gentle, matter-of-fact way? Or do we not know for sure?

Since he was trying to rape her, if she was sharp, I would understand.

 

[brigid12]

Well, as far as “tough love” working, it probably depends on the situation and the person. I know that I, personally, respond to 'tough love" very well and have all my life - I remember and respect and have paid attention to this sort of teaching all my life much more than warm-fuzzie type “love.” I usually didn’t like it **at all **at the time, but later on it has an impact that the friendlier type often doesn’t to me. It also has the advantage, if the a person is speaking to more than one person, to be what other’s listen and will learn from.

 

[wynnejj]

I suspect that Saint John Vianney, the patron saint of priests, would be a very good example. I once bought a book of his sermons and, I was surprised at his delivery. I struck me as “tough love” at the time, and something that would not go over very well in contemporary society.

 

[Joe_5859]

Did she say it in an angry way, or in a gentle, matter-of-fact way? Or do we not know for sure?

Since he was trying to rape her, if she was sharp, I would understand.

I know! I know! I wasn’t remembering the story when I posted my question! I retract it! Have pity on me, please!

 

[Joe_5859]

Thanks, PrayerfullySeekHim (I finally figured out your user name! ), for that great response. I think you are absolutely right that it matters who the person is. When that person (such as a priest or bishop) has a responsibility, that changes things.

Thanks Brigid12 and Wynnejj as well. It’s helpful for me to hear your (name removed by moderator)ut.

The more I think about it and hear responses on this thread and that other thread, the more I understand the role of tough love. I think what initially prompted me to be sympathetic to the OP in the other thread is that it irks me when people use Jesus with the money changers to justify being a general jerk. “Jesus wan’t nice all the time, so I don’t have to be nice either!” Of course, the more I read people’s responses, the more I realize that most people here aren’t doing that and they are not promoting that type of behavior.

 

[Joysong]

We might find some wisdom in the parable of the prodigal son in Luke 15. The Father did not hold his wayward son back from his own destruction, but freely and wisely let him go.

1. After a few days, the younger son collected all his belongings and set off to a distant country where he squandered his inheritance on a life of dissipation.

When he had freely spent everything, a severe famine struck that country, and he found himself in dire need.

So he hired himself out to one of the local citizens who sent him to his farm to tend the swine. And he longed to eat his fill of the pods on which the swine fed, but nobody gave him any.

Coming to his senses he thought, 'How many of my father’s hired workers have more than enough food to eat, but here am I, dying from hunger.

I have often seen that allowing a person who is hell-bent on a life of dissipation to experience their own squandor and hit rock bottom can be the moment of awakening that brings him to his senses.

We have a couple members in our family who are almost parasitic in the manner they use their parents. Had these parents demonstrated wisdom in withholding further financial support, these users might have been able to experience the consequences of their ingratitude, selfishness, and utter disregard for anything but their own pleasure of the moment.

 

[ncjohn]

I have often seen that allowing a person who is hell-bent on a life of dissipation to experience their own squandor and hit rock bottom can be the moment of awakening that brings him to his senses.

I remember hearing Scott Hahn comment once that God’s punishment for our sins is to let us wallow in them until we cry out in despair.

As to “tough love” the comment someone made previously about having the strength to let someone reach the point of cleaning up their own mess is probably as good a definition of it as I have heard. I have never, ever seen an outsider be able to berate someone into repentence or conversion.

If hard words are necessary, they can only come from someone whom the listener gives great credibility to. They will be ignored at best, and rejected fully at worst, if given by someone whom the listener does not see having their best interests at heart.

We should always, in accordance with the CCC, be ready to give the other the benefit of the doubt and only act when we know the facts and are in a position to make a positive difference.

Peace,

 

[Joysong]

Joe mentioned person A’s lame example of Jesus’s using a whip on the money-changers, which is sometimes the rationalization behind a harsh display of anger that is often unjustified. I offer a brutal explanation of the reason for Jesus’s white-hot anger.

The Passover was the greatest of all the Jewish feasts. It was the dream of every devout Jew, no matter in what land he stayed, to celebrate at least one Passover in Jerusalem. Astonishing as it may sound, it is likely that as many as two and a quarter million Jews sometimes assembled in the Holy City to keep the Feast.

There was a “temple tax’ of one shekel that every Jew over nineteen years of age had to pay so that the temple sacrifices might be carried out day by day. At that time, a working man’s wage was less than 4p per day; whereas the value of the half-shekel was 6p, equivalent to two days’ wages. For all ordinary purposes in Palestine, all kinds of currency was valid. But the temple tax had to be paid in Galilean shekels or in shekels of the sanctuary; other currencies were considered ‘unclean.’

So in the temple courts there sat the money-changers. If their trade had been straightforward, they would have been fulfilling an honest and a necessary purpose. But what they did was to charge one mu’ah, a coin worth about 1p for every shekel they changed and to charge another mu’ah on every half shekel of change they had to give if a larger coin was tendered. So if a Jew came with a coin the value of which was 2 shekels, he had to pay 1p to get it changed and the other 3p to get his change of three half-shekels. In other words, the money-changers made 4p out of him – and that, remember, was one day’s wage.

What enraged Jesus was that the pilgrims to the Passover who could ill afford it, were being fleeced at an exorbitant rate. It was a rampant and shameless social injustice – all in the name of religion!

Besides the money-changers there were also the sellers of oxen and sheep and doves. The law was that any animal offered in sacrifice must be perfect and unblemished. The temple authorities had appointed inspectors to examine the victims which were to be offered and charged a fee for inspection of 1p. If a worshipper bought a victim outside the temple, it was to all intents and purposes certain that it would be rejected after examination. A pair of doves could cost as little as 4p outside the temple and as much as 75p inside. We find bare-faced extortion at the expense of poor and humble pilgrims who were practically blackmailed into buying their victims from the temple booths, if they wished to sacrifice at all.

I think we can readily admit that Jesus had a serious motive for his anger, which can hardly be justified as excuses for our own minor indignations.

 

[Joysong]

ncjohn:

As to “tough love” the comment someone made previously about having the strength to let someone reach the point of cleaning up their own mess is probably as good a definition of it as I have heard. I have never, ever seen an outsider be able to berate someone into repentence or conversion.

I had to smile at your words, John, because they reminded me of a series I watched on EWTN from Fr. Emmerich Vogt, called “Eucharistic Principles of the Spiritual Life.” It was such a good series that I bought the CD from their Catalogue.

Father is well-known for his work with 12-step programs, and in one of the talks, he spoke about a young woman who said she was so honored that the macho sports star on campus actually chose her out of all other women to be the one to clean up his vomit after his drinking escapades. Now this may have been a moment of satire, I don’t know, but I never forgot the point he was making.

Your example is so very true; otherwise we are in danger of becoming an ‘enabler’ that effectually prevents any healing whatsoever.