Fulton Sheen vs Imitation of Christ who is right?

  • Thread starter Thread starter frankpetrucci83
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frankpetrucci83

Guest
I made a gigantic leap forward in apologetics when I took the advice of Fulton Sheen who said “Don’t look at what a person says as much as WHY they say it”, it has helped me concentrate more on the psychological factors of a person’s belief. For example, I had a friend that was getting worked up over gay marriage even though she wasn’t gay. After talking for awhile, I pointed out that the real reason she felt that way had nothing at all to do with the issue but rather because her ex-boyfriend who was very anti-gay, did not take care of their child and she saw it as him not loving their child. She figured if this person cannot even know how to love his own child then what can he possibly know about love at all, therefore his opinion on homosexuality was due to a lack of love and therefore flawed. When I pointed this out, she was shocked because I was right. I had brought her subconcious thought process into her conscious mind and it gave her an opportunity to evaluate why she believed what she did. The downside to this is that analyzing a person’s motives can drive you crazy. THE IMITATION OF CHRIST says NOT to analyze a person’s motives. Our own motives yes, but it advises against analyzing the motives of others with the connotation that it leads to sin…how do I reconcile these seemingly two contradictory pieces of advice…following the imitation’s example does seem to be holier in practice, yet I can’t see Bishop Sheen’s advice being incorrect either.
 
Is it possible that it means not to analyze someones motives, but allow them to analyze it themselves and to inform us of what their motives are? That instead of trying to ‘figure’ out why they are saying something, ask them why they are saying it. That we can analyze our own because we know our minds and hearts, but to analyze another persons motives would require that we make a lot of guesses and assumptions.

It’s been a while since I’ve dusted off Imitation of Christ, I find it very slow reading.
 
in a nutshell, Fulton Sheen suggests to analyze motives by observing a person, he tells many stories of himself doing this very thing…for example, he reveals to a priest that the reason they complain about the church having money is because they have been stealing out of the basket, he reveals to a young woman who causes a commotion at her catechism classes that she in fact had an abortion, he reveals to an atheist that the real reason he doesn’t believe is because he is shacking up with a chorus girl…and in all of these examples the people admit he is right…the imitation of christ seems to reject this philosophy though, I cannot remember the exact quote it used but I remember it enough to make an impression on me, it definitely taught not to analyze another’s motives
 
Well, keep in mind that neither approach is a “doctrine.” It is an opinion, on both counts. That being said, I would probably lean toward Bishop Sheen, since I’m such a big fan of his and I know he had a top flight Catholic education in theology. Also, Imitation of Christ was written six centuries ago and people were quite different then. We are far more educated, in general, and may be able to analyze far better than the common man back then. Just a thought… 🙂
 
I wrote a story in which a character says,
“If somebody cannot be known in themselves they must be known by their acts.”
Click to expand...
You wrote:
I took the advice of Fulton Sheen who said “Don’t look at what a person says as much as WHY they say it”,
Click to expand...
Well, he’s right, but the problem is what Sheen is saying requires being in close communication with the subject person, which is what Sheen as a priest, did. He dealt with people one-to-one, face to face, and so he would eventually get to know the person themselves and not by their acts.

But we can’t do this with everybody in the world, certainly not people we never meet. Why did Hitler hate the Jews? To this day it is still a mystery. But nobody doubts his persecution of the Jews was evil.

And so, the Imitation of Christ says:
THE IMITATION OF CHRIST says NOT to analyze a person’s motives.
Click to expand...
………. Because we cannot know the motives of any but a few people we know intimately, but we must deal with a whole world of people.

There is no contradiction between Bishop Sheen and the Imitation of Christ. They’re talking about different things, one-to-one counseling on the part of Sheen versus “everybody else in the world” on the part of Imitation of Christ.
 
Different approaches for different situations or personalities. The Imitation of Christ was written for religious. Not everything in it applies to lay people, but many (including me) still find it extremely helpful.

Bishop Sheen was writing more for lay people; however, he had great gifts from God that many of us don’t have. Armchair analysis of our friends and neighbors often doesn’t work out well if we have our own planks in the way.

I suggest you read Imitation of Christ again to see if your memory is correct. It is usually a good idea for us to mind our own business and not ascribe motives to our others that may cause us to conclude things about them that are false. However, it the case of our own families and close associate, it makes sense to understand them as much as possible. Observing their behaviors and talking through issues with them are ways for both you and they to understand each other better and to help each other behave better.
 
Mrs_Sally said:
Different approaches for different situations or personalities. The Imitation of Christ was written for religious. Not everything in it applies to lay people, but many (including me) still find it extremely helpful.

Bishop Sheen was writing more for lay people; however, he had great gifts from God that many of us don’t have. Armchair analysis of our friends and neighbors often doesn’t work out well if we have our own planks in the way.

I suggest you read Imitation of Christ again to see if your memory is correct. It is usually a good idea for us to mind our own business and not ascribe motives to our others that may cause us to conclude things about them that are false. However, it the case of our own families and close associate, it makes sense to understand them as much as possible. Observing their behaviors and talking through issues with them are ways for both you and they to understand each other better and to help each other behave better.
Click to expand...
I would suggest that the two statements might not be contradictory. While Bishop Sheen had years and years of experience as a priest and Holy Spirit inspired insight, he’s perhaps saying to listen to what people are saying their motives/reasons are and not suggesting that we try to deduce or intuit their motives. and this is not in contradiction to an admonition not to analyze their motives. Analyzing motives, to me, seems to require a lot more probing, digging, and judging than what Bishop Sheen is suggesting.
 
bmullins said:
Is it possible that it means not to analyze someones motives, but allow them to analyze it themselves and to inform us of what their motives are? That instead of trying to ‘figure’ out why they are saying something, ask them why they are saying it. That we can analyze our own because we know our minds and hearts, but to analyze another persons motives would require that we make a lot of guesses and assumptions.

It’s been a while since I’ve dusted off Imitation of Christ, I find it very slow reading.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Especially here–“Instead of trying to 'figure’out why they are saying something, ask them why they are saying it.”

Bishop Sheen may have had a rare gift of insight or discernment, but, IMO, it’s a very, very, rare gift indeed, and far too many of us think we have it when we don’t. To suggest that we should be attempting to analyze each other’s motives, more often than not, is to put a razor in a monkey’s paw. There’s that saying—when you assume you make an *** out of you and me.

People’s hearts and minds are holy ground, and too often fools rush where angels fear to tread. “Instead of trying to ‘figure’ out why they are saying something, ask them why they are saying it.” Doing so in a considerate manner may spark some reflection on the other person’s part, and then that person may bring something out from inside for you both to talk over together. Just assuming you can reach into someone’s heart and grab their motives is usually to intrusively violate them, IMO.
 
I don’t recall this from I of C which I read a few years back. So I really cannot comment directly. Would it be possible for you to find this in Iof C and direct us to the exact reading?

Having said this, guessing here; could it possibly be refering to analyzing with an effort to condone or understand? In other words, even though we can sypathiize with a persons motives, we still must not allow these motives, in our mind, to sway us into condoning the persons conclusion. Therefore we should not analyze the motive iin this regard. Yet we learn the motive, sypathize, yet still condemn the behavior.

Again, just grasping at straws.
 
had an entire reply written, when my laptop shut off…so bear with me here…If you have ever watched the show House, you can see what I mean by analyzing people’s motives. It’s much the same way for me. It doesn’t really require alot of effort, and it’s actually fun. To me personally, it is no big deal if I am wrong, however people act as if you are wrong one time in your life about something like that, it is life or death. Even so, I rarely am wrong.

WHY NOT JUST ASK THEM WHY

well besides people lying, they usually don’t even know themselves, For example, I have a friend that I have known well for years. He is anti-catholic but does his best to hide it around me. Now the reason for this is because of his mom. (it’s highly more detailed than that, but unless the details are necessary, I am skipping them this time) If i ask him “why”, he is not going to say “because of my mom”, he is going to come up with some sort of rationalization that he made long after his subconcious mind used his mom as a reason
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
had an entire reply written, when my laptop shut off…so bear with me here…If you have ever watched the show House, you can see what I mean by analyzing people’s motives. It’s much the same way for me. It doesn’t really require alot of effort, and it’s actually fun. To me personally, it is no big deal if I am wrong, however people act as if you are wrong one time in your life about something like that, it is life or death. Even so, I rarely am wrong.

WHY NOT JUST ASK THEM WHY

well besides people lying, they usually don’t even know themselves, For example, I have a friend that I have known well for years. He is anti-catholic but does his best to hide it around me. Now the reason for this is because of his mom. (it’s highly more detailed than that, but unless the details are necessary, I am skipping them this time) If i ask him “why”, he is not going to say “because of my mom”, he is going to come up with some sort of rationalization that he made long after his subconcious mind used his mom as a reason
Click to expand...
I agree with this. I think part of the trick to it though is finding ways where you can help the person your talking to figure it out for themselves, instead of just reading their mind and jotting it off to them. You also don’t make a lot of friends if you get in the habit of reading into peoples intentions, even if you are right most of the time. If your subtle about it and help them figure it out for themselves it is also a much more effective way of getting to someone.
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
had an entire reply written, when my laptop shut off…so bear with me here…If you have ever watched the show House, you can see what I mean by analyzing people’s motives. It’s much the same way for me. It doesn’t really require alot of effort, and it’s actually fun. To me personally, it is no big deal if I am wrong, however people act as if you are wrong one time in your life about something like that, it is life or death. Even so, I rarely am wrong.

WHY NOT JUST ASK THEM WHY

well besides people lying, they usually don’t even know themselves, For example, I have a friend that I have known well for years. He is anti-catholic but does his best to hide it around me. Now the reason for this is because of his mom. (it’s highly more detailed than that, but unless the details are necessary, I am skipping them this time) If i ask him “why”, he is not going to say “because of my mom”, he is going to come up with some sort of rationalization that he made long after his subconcious mind used his mom as a reason
Click to expand...
What your need is to know or figure out everyone’s motives? If it doesn’t change how you react, what is your motive? Unless you are their spouse, parent, or spritual director, it just shouldn’t matter that much.

Take your friend. How would you react differently to him? You probably wouldn’t. You would contue to be friendly and to show him a positive example of a Catholic. As he asks questions, you answer them. Maybe in the end if he converts, he may speak of experiences with his mom with the priest. If he never acknowledges it to you, it doesn’t matter.

We should cultivate a sense of reticence about other people’s motivations. Of course, we care for them. Help them if they need it, answer their questions, but we don’t need to spend time as an amatur analyst or give them unsolicited advice based on our conclusions.
 
every isolated situation is different, what seperates a “pro” from an “amateur” is to not assume someone is doing something for the same reasons you would…so yes, I most certainly react differently after evaluating a person’s motives, for 1, people no longer get over on me…if you are nice person and like to see people happy, they can see that as an opportunity to use you…that is just one example

the reason you may have difficulty imagining how such info can help is because it requires thinking outside of the box for a solution…

For example, I was got into an argument with an atheist law student about God, once I determined his psychological motivator towards atheism, I quoted the parable of the good Samaritin, now although to us, it is a common parable referred to constantly, to him it would have special significance, since the person who was questioning Christ in the parable was a lawyer, and looking for a technical answer behind everything, instead of Jesus giving him a technical answer, he gave him a parable…

this was more effective than simply telling the law student “there is obviously a reason behind laws, and human law is just a deritive of God’s law”, although i may of been right, it would’ve not bore any pscyhological significance

Jesus uses the same technique when a woman yells after him to heel her child…he ignores her at first in order to draw out a stronger faith in her (this is the story where Jesus tells the woman he was only sent to the people of Israel)
 
on further reflection, the law student was able to better relate to the person Jesus was giving the lesson to, and this, even in a small sense, brought him closer to Christ…now this wouldn’t work for ANY lawyer or law student…but it was clear after conversating with this person that all of his heart and soul was put into human law, almost a type of idol for him
 
Jesus uses the same technique when a woman yells after him to heel her child…he ignores her at first in order to draw out a stronger faith in her (this is the story where Jesus tells the woman he was only sent to the people of Israel)
Click to expand...
The difference is Jesus was not analyzing her motives to know her heart, he knew her heart because He was God. He didn’t have to study her or attempt to figure it out, he already knew it. That is why the person above warned that the gift of discernment is more than just mental know how or acuity. It’s a spiritual discipline that should only be exercised by those with that gift. Now matter how smart we are or how knowledgeable of a persons actions, we can and do make mistakes because we use our own personal perceptions of how we would feel in their place.

We are not them. Their experience isn’t ours.
 
Well now and then don’t you wonder where someone is coming from and you try to see their side of the issue, why they said or did what. Its kinda like putting yourself in their shoes if you know enough about them, tho unlike Bishop Sheen my insight is probably not as good, you can tell a lot about how a person acts tho.
 
Luvtosew—

Yes, in my opinion, trying to put yourself in someone else’s shoes is almost always a worthwhile effort, if done with a willingness to step out of your own comfort zone and see things from another’s perspective.

I think it involves listening—really listening----and quieting our own mind; and using our imagination in a tentative, willing-to-be-corrected sort of way to try to put ourselves in the other person’s skin to feel what they feel, and see things through their eyes. But…we never really can be another person and know another fully, so even in our best efforts at this we need to be very cautious and not make assumptions. And then, as several other posters have noted, we tend to project our own **** onto other people without realizing it, and judge them to have faults that are really our own. “Take the log out of your own eye…”

My guess is that Frank was talking about doing something different, though, based on the examples he gave----it could be called imputing motives, or being an amateur analyst. IMO, it’s an uncharitable habit masquerading as a good thing, and the temptation to do it almost always should be resisted. Would any of us like to be “analyzed” by an atheist apologist trying to discern the “real” reasons why we stubbornly persist in believing in God?

I do believe some people, at some times, may be given a very rare gift of spiritual insight…I would guess the reason why the genuine gift is so rare may be because few of us have the depth of charity needed to handle the gift without mis-using it.

And then, apart from the spiritual gift, we have available to us therapists and psychologists, who are trained and experienced, and who people seek out as professionals.

Edit: I didn’t write s***, I wrote cr*p…boy, these are thorough filters. 😃
 
frankpetrucci83 said:
I made a gigantic leap forward in apologetics when I took the advice of Fulton Sheen who said “Don’t look at what a person says as much as WHY they say it”, it has helped me concentrate more on the psychological factors of a person’s belief. For example, I had a friend that was getting worked up over gay marriage even though she wasn’t gay. After talking for awhile, I pointed out that the real reason she felt that way had nothing at all to do with the issue but rather because her ex-boyfriend who was very anti-gay, did not take care of their child and she saw it as him not loving their child. She figured if this person cannot even know how to love his own child then what can he possibly know about love at all, therefore his opinion on homosexuality was due to a lack of love and therefore flawed. When I pointed this out, she was shocked because I was right. I had brought her subconcious thought process into her conscious mind and it gave her an opportunity to evaluate why she believed what she did. The downside to this is that analyzing a person’s motives can drive you crazy. THE IMITATION OF CHRIST says NOT to analyze a person’s motives. Our own motives yes, but it advises against analyzing the motives of others with the connotation that it leads to sin…how do I reconcile these seemingly two contradictory pieces of advice…following the imitation’s example does seem to be holier in practice, yet I can’t see Bishop Sheen’s advice being incorrect either.
Click to expand...
I would have to see Bishop Sheen’s words in context to answer, as using that as general rule does seem wrong to me. I suspect he was providing a type of example where that is effective. In general, it is best to respect people enough to focus on what they actually say, not what you think might be their motives. Remember also, Sheen was a confessor for most of his life, all confessors have to be a little bit better at “reading” people; maybe that had something to do with it.
 
Here’s the Bishop Sheen quote as well as the 2 part article to put it into context. the OP’s quote itself is about 1/2 way through the 2nd article.

renewamerica.com/columns/kralis/041101

In Chapter 14 of the Imitation of Christ, it starts this way: “Look to yourself, and beware of judging what others do. In judging others a person works to no purpose, often makes mistakes, and easily does the wrong thing.”

It would appear that Bishop Sheen and Imitation of Christ are speaking of two different things.

OP: if these aren’t the quotes you’re thinking of, well, speak up!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top