Polarity in the Church today

[OneSheep]

Do it ourselves.
We’re not all teachers or prophets, or we’re not meant to be, but we’re all witnesses.

Yes! We are all here to help form the Kingdom.

By that I mean being conscientious about seeing the good in those we have differences with, and not in a “bless their hearts” kind of way.

That is quite poignant. Do you see a means by which parishes can foster such “seeing the good in those we have differences with”?

 

[blackforest]

Everything seems to be so politically charged now. Political identity trumps Catholic identity.

Dag nabbit! Somebody posted an excellent summary of an actual study that proves this very point. I have no idea how to mine the archives of CAF to find it, and no memory of who shared it.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

We are of course called to forgive, there is nothing about judgement that negates forgiveness.

She asserts that all-important point that we can judge actions but not people.

The bar for judging others as people is set far to high for us mortals to meet. "Let whoever is without sin . . . "

 

[ConcernedConvert]

The difficult thing today, well it’s probably always been this way, and s that judging actions looks to some like judging people.

For instance, my brother recently cheated on and divorced his wife of 10 years. Because I was the one who called this action out as wrong, and held him to a higher standard in his actions, my family has labeled me judge mental. They, of course utilized the verses noted above, out of context, to try to show me that we cannot judge and must accept things the way they are.

 

[blackforest]

I face this with the abortion issue, as well. “Are you judging women?” Actually, I’m not qualified. I do know that abortion is wrong. I don’t know what was going on with each woman when she made the decision. Unless she was cackling, “Die, baby, die!!!” she probably wasn’t an evil person. Just desperate.

 

[PetraG]

That is quite poignant. Do you see a means by which parishes can foster such “seeing the good in those we have differences with”?

I think it is catching…for instance, if we talk about others as if they could be eavesdropping, the talk doesn’t get into even “bless their hearts” gossip quite so easily. (And let’s face it: friends who are biting their tongues are the same as having the target eavesdrop in person. We’re all only human.)

 

[OneSheep]

I face this with the abortion issue, as well. “Are you judging women?” Actually, I’m not qualified. I do know that abortion is wrong. I don’t know what was going on with each woman when she made the decision. Unless she was cackling, “Die, baby, die!!!” she probably wasn’t an evil person. Just desperate.

What your post is demonstrating, to me, is an understanding that comes from experience. What is needed is experiences (and insights) such as your own shared with other people, especially sharing with those who are quick to condemn those who identify abortion as wrong.

And while abortion itself is not a source of polarity in the Church, the act of a person who politically supports legalized abortion receiving Eucharist is truly a polarizing issue.

What, at the parish level, might be a means of building bridges between those who want to allow, and those who want to disallow, those people who politically support abortion to receive Eucharist?

 

[PetraG]

I face this with the abortion issue, as well. “Are you judging women?” Actually, I’m not qualified. I do know that abortion is wrong. I don’t know what was going on with each woman when she made the decision. Unless she was cackling, “Die, baby, die!!!” she probably wasn’t an evil person. Just desperate.

This is why parishes support Rachel’s Vineyard retreats–that is, because they’re not sitting in judgment. I heard a nice homily once that posed the question: What do we do to make the choice for life easier? Not just in the first year, but the whole time a child is being raised by overwhelmed parents? If someone has made that choice (to have an abortion or to help someone procure one), how do we get them to repent and get beyond it and feel as accepted by us as they are by God?

For instance, my brother recently cheated on and divorced his wife of 10 years. Because I was the one who called this action out as wrong, and held him to a higher standard in his actions, my family has labeled me judge mental. They, of course utilized the verses noted above, out of context, to try to show me that we cannot judge and must accept things the way they are.

What did your brother say to you when you talked to him? He may think you’re right…that is, even if he had an invalid marriage, what he did was not the right way to end an attempt at marriage that was not going to work. I would not worry about what your family is calling you but only asking, “If this situation comes up again in my life, is there anything I could do to handle it better?” That’s never a bad question to ask, whether everybody else on the outside is cheering us or trying to get us to shut up.

 

[bassmansteiny]

Sadly this is the world we live in today. I blame it on social media. Don’t get me wrong, social media is a great asset. However, it seems people say and do things online they wouldn’t say or do in person. We are all guilty of this to some degree. Now I believe that is being carried over into the real world.

I believe we do need to stand up for our values and what we believe in. However, we can do it in a way respectful of each other.

I always liked the format that Steven Crowder uses on his ‘Change My Mind’ episodes of his video podcast. He sets down with people of opposing views and beliefs, talks to them in a calm and friendly tone. Backs up his statements with evidence and/or facts and ask the people he is talking to do the same. Maybe his mind or the others is changed, at the minimum hopefully it makes the person consider the opposing point of view.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Oddly enough he responded well. He has different beliefs on divorce and remarriage, as do the rest of my family. They are Protestant and don’t have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does.
However, he knew the cheating was wrong and knew that I was trying to hold him to be the best version of himself as a father, and as a man as lined out by Christ and the church. He didn’t agree with it, but I think he knew my intentions were good.

 

[PetraG]

Oddly enough he responded well. He has different beliefs on divorce and remarriage, as do the rest of my family. They are Protestant and don’t have the same beliefs as the Catholic Church does.
However, he knew the cheating was wrong and knew that I was trying to hold him to be the best version of himself as a father, and as a man as lined out by Christ and the church. He didn’t agree with it, but I think he knew my intentions were good.

If you admonished him without breaking the relationship, I wouldn’t worry too much about what the rest of the family thought. The main thing is that you reminded him what he knew in a way that he could hear, even if he didn’t change his course. I think it is only what you’d hope he would do for you: that is, it was not an act in judgment, but rather was meant as a spiritual work of mercy. It doesn’t have to be successful to be faithful to what your role was in the situation.

This is an example, by the way, of how people with very different views can communicate in a meaningful rather than a shallow way without getting combative or defensive. You get done, and both of you still see the person in the other. You haven’t reduced the other person to what you think is the worst thing they’ve ever done. You can accept feedback whether or not it is offered in a way that is easy to hear. You don’t have to both arrive at the truth when it is all over, either. That’s a process for all of us; we try to have the same mercy on them that we hope for ourselves, because we know from experience that we can be blind or weak while rationalizing our actions. I think we may see that better when we imagine talking to a gang member than we do in actually talking to our own family. Maybe it is because our families really know what we’re like, and that can make us feel pretty vulnerable?

 

[OneSheep]

I think it is catching…for instance, if we talk about others as if they could be eavesdropping, the talk doesn’t get into even “bless their hearts” gossip quite so easily. (And let’s face it: friends who are biting their tongues are the same as having the target eavesdrop in person. We’re all only human.)

These are also good insights. So how could you see parish leadership fostering such opportunity for talk?

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

The media has not created polarity. What they do is report on the polarity that exists between people in the Church who have different points of view.
There is a myth that has been created by politicians , both conservative and liberal, that the media is biased.
Actually, I don’t think the media cares about much else than selling newspapers, or TV or radio advertisement time for their news programming.
Their bottom line is the story itself, not which side of the political line is being written or reported about.
Now some of the networks lean left, i.e., MSNBC, or right, i.e, Fox, but the big three networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC tend to just report on what is going on.
For example, when an election happens, they report about who won the election. There are no conservative results or liberal results. There are just the results.
As for judgement. It is up to God to judge us. Not for us to judge others.

 

[OneSheep]

the big three networks - CBS, NBC, and ABC tend to just report on what is going on.

If you show me an article on any controversial topic, I will show you the bias from those sources. It may be subtle, and it may even be inadvertent, but it’s always there.

I am intrigued by the observation of John Gable of allsides. He accurately describes what has happened with the free flow of information and opinion. We go to the sources of information and opinion that we agree with; and therefore surround ourselves with this like-mindedness. We don’t expose ourselves to the experiences and grievances of the “other”, only have in mind our own grievances and those who share our opinions and experiences.

There is a truth to this, correct?

 

[blackforest]

What, at the parish level, might be a means of building bridges between those who want to allow, and those who want to disallow, those people who politically support abortion to receive Eucharist?

Tough question. I think the answer become clearer when somebody openly and actively campaigns for abortion rights, (lookin’ at you, Pelosi and Biden), and then expects to receive Eucharist. That’s as absurd as Obama drone-bombing a bunch of countries and then receiving a Nobel Peace Prize. Human rights violations of any sort go against both Catholic teaching and what Nobel had in mind with his award.

On the other hand, Catholics who thoughtfully struggles with the abortion issue should leave that decision to their confessors.

So that’s my own personal take on allow-vs.-disallow. Your post is about how to bridge that gap between Catholics who disagree on the issue.

My answer? I don’t know if it’s our job to do so. Instead, our job may be to challenge the underlying assumption is that we as lay people have some fundamental right to influence how Church hierarchy addresses this question. To be clear, we very much don’t.

American Catholicism, especially, is weird. I see this dynamic play out every day on CAF. And I argue that this is the source of the polarity mentioned in the original post:
We take our otherwise laudable, red-blooded advocacy for principles like free speech, democracy, and consumer choice . . . and we try to apply these principles to an ancient Church in which they’re entirely irrelevant.

The Church is here to clarify and guide us in the Truth. It is not a democracy. Our complaints about Synod X or Encyclical Y are largely irrelevant and not for us to try to influence. (I’m looking at you, Father Martin and Lifesite).

Am I making sense? I’m suffering from Mom Brain this morning and having a hard time articulating things . . . .

 

[OneSheep]

My answer? I don’t know if it’s our job to do so. Instead, our job may be to challenge the underlying assumption is that we as lay people have some fundamental right to influence how Church hierarchy addresses this question. To be clear, we very much don’t.

I don’t see the purpose of addressing the polarity as a means of influencing hierarchy. The purpose of addressing the polarity is to help build communion, to take down the barriers between people of differing ideology, culture, or other divisions.

We take our otherwise laudable, red-blooded advocacy for principles like free speech, democracy, and consumer choice . . . and we try to apply these principles to an ancient Church in which they’re entirely irrelevant.

If I remember right, there was somewhat a consensus model in the early Church, that’s pretty democratic. And except for Paul’s issue with the Corinthians, I don’t recall any prohibition of speech. Consumer choice? A person who wanted to leave the community could do so, which is still the same today. They shared goods in community.

Besides, the institution changes, and has changed a great deal. Society changes, correct?

So, let’s say we want to address the polarity around the issue of the death penalty. Part of the objective may very well be that the Church wants to “bring into the fold” those who feel alienated by current teachings. Would it be prudent to address that somehow at the parish level? If so, how?

 

[QwertyGirl]

Because I was the one who called this action out as wrong, and held him to a higher standard in his actions, my family has labeled me judge mental.

I would have just labeled you a buttinski. Why one ever feels compelled to weigh in on someone else’s marital issues is always a mystery to me. Also, I find it hard to understand why the whole family has an opinion on what clearly should have been a private conversation between two people. Sounds like disrespect on several levels, out at least lack of healthy boundaries.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I think people see the bias they want to see.
From the standpoint of making money off of selling newspaper or selling broadcast ad time, it would make no sense for the medium to be biased as this country is about 50/50 on most issues. Why alienate part of the people who would buy your product.
To me, it is like a football broadcast.
When your team is doing well, you probably like what the commentators are sayings.
But when your team is behind, you think the broadcasters lean towards your opponent.
I think all the commentators want is an exciting game that will keep people watching.
As for a newspaper account of the ball game, the facts are the facts. You can’t spin a 42-0 loss. “We wound have won, but the refs were conservatives and they kept calling holding on our linemen…” Come on, man! LOL

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Are you serious? With this logic, we should avoid any (name removed by moderator)ut into problems throughout the world, due to trying to not be nosey… heaven forbid we try to help our brothers and sisters (literal and figurative) reach eternal life.

 

[QwertyGirl]

With this logic, we should avoid any (name removed by moderator)ut into problems throughout the world, due to trying to not be nosey

Not so. Discerning between being nosey and genuinely helpful is where the effort needs to be placed.

 

[ConcernedConvert]

Yes, and when someone comes to you with problems, big problems that due in fact effect not only his family but our entire family, we should take a stand for what is right.
Divorce is contagious, it doesn’t simply impact the two adults involved. The Catechism is clear on the this.