Polarity in the Church today

[CRV]

Please don’t put words in my mouth which I did not say - that is uncharitable.

I did not say their beliefs were based in emotionalism.

In fact I said they resort to emotionalism when responding to any amount of reasoning, explaining etc. which a Christian may put forth to explain their beliefs (and also there are people who are not Christian at all who also do not agree with the lifestyle either, just as there are some who do agree) - in light of the discussion of the conversation with OneSheep regarding trying to have conversations etc with these groups to explain how and why Christians do not agree with the lifestyle.

Lifestyle is completely different to the person. And it isn’t just the lifestyle of LBGTQI, but all cases of fornication/adultery/rape/bestiality etc. It is a choice whether a person chooses to be sexually active outside of marriage (between one man and one woman). All instances of sex outside of marriage between one man and one woman is against Church teachings and the beliefs of a lot of non-Catholic Christians.

 

[QwertyGirl]

I am sure you wouldn’t appreciate it if it was said that your responses were based in emotionalism. It is a dismissive thing to say. That is all I was saying.

 

[CRV]

And as OneSheep was saying that back in post #68 - “the person who listens accepts whatever comes, but there is no need for capitulation” - so I was using the responses from that lobby group as an example to illustrate the point that that isn’t the case. They are not accepting of the reasons we give, they don’t even want to listen to what Christians have to say about why we hold that position regarding the morality or immorality of various acts, instead any discussion is shut down by emotionalism ie by name calling in the hope of shaming the other - bigot, homophobic, racist, etc etc. When we are not against the person but the acts.

The discussion of polarity and my incorporating the LGBTQI group was but one example. I did mention adultery, fornication etc as well as abortion and euthanasia.

(ETA -we see the same appeal to emotions regarding abortion with : “its my body” or “why should I be forced to carry and go through the birth process to have this child which I dont’ want or in the case or rape, that was forced on me, that is a daily reminder of what he did to me” or even “no man is going to tell me what to do with my body”. And wrt euthanasia, the support for it is always along the lines “I don’t want to live like that/ I don’t want to suffer/ I don’t want to die in pain/I don’t want to be a burden” - all tied to feelings = emotionalism. Whilst these are understandable from a human perspective, it still doesn’t give anyone the right to take the life of another; and wrt euthanasia, palliative care needs to be further promoted and explained than what it is now. There is no need for pain with the drugs available now.)

But your statement that I was dismissive of them ie the person just illustrates perfectly what I am saying. They need to separate our stance on immoral sexual acts, from the person - love the sinner, hate the sin.

So again, I was not dismissing them, nor is it a dismissive thing to say. Please don’t try and ‘put the shoe on the other foot’ and attempt to guilt me into thinking what I said was dismissive of them - when I certainly have not, and as I have clearly explained to you.

 

[OneSheep]

Potentially, based on other posts in other threads and which is also logical. Costs involved in a parish supporting a single person compared to the costs involved in supporting a family - which will eventually occur as this couple will in most cases have children.

Would you say, then, that there is a fear of parishes or dioceses having inadequate resources? Are there additional ramifications, are you also thinking there might be more serious consequences due to lack of resources? This assuming, of course, that the Church would need to pay priests based on how many children they have, right?

Perhaps because you have a good heart. In the examples I gave, demonstrating the suffering of e.g. abortion is not enough to sway the majority of people from their decision or point of view. Because they are not interested in ‘seeing’. The same goes for the LGBTQI lifestyle choices, they are not interested in changeing, instead they want the world esp Christians to accept and support and approve that lifestyle - so no amount of reasoning, explaining, graphs, etc etc. will make any difference, because they resort to emotionalism.

Well, in the example I gave, it was awareness of suffering that would motivate me to behave differently. I’m wondering if there is also a suffering, or something of that sort, that might apply to these examples you are giving. “Who is suffering as a consequence of these actions?” With awareness, there is an appeal to the heart.

Even if you were to explain to people in an effort to relieve this anxiety, or provide reassurance to their concerns, I do not think this is going to change their point of view/mind to one of acceptance.

If a change is going to happen, it happens slowly and through prayer. I’m thinking of one priest who played a major role in changing my image of God, but he never talked about images of God. He was always very comfortable with God, it was obvious. He joked around a lot, even about God’s wrath. “God’s going to get you for that!”, he would laugh and say with a big smile on his face. I knew he had no fear in his relationship; it was the freedom, the peace that was infectious.

There is something, too, about just getting to know people of different opinions. Eating with them. It is so often that I hear about a liberal-identifying guy from California who ends up in some fairly rural conservative place in the Midwest, and he is amazed about their hospitality and welcoming love, regardless of whatever. And then, it is the love and fellowship that goes into the #1 spot, and all the rest becomes so much trifle. Polarity ends in many cases because the source of polarity becomes trivial in comparison to communion. Of course, this is only an example, not what should happen or what wlll happen, nor that it should involve capitulation.

 

[OneSheep]

Example the hostile backlash when the EF was being introduced in my parish - no amount of quoting Church documents, having the Archbishop answer questions, explaining what will happen, what will not happen - did not one iota change their point of view of those who were resisting the introduction.

Yeah, there is a lot of fear around use of the EF, that it can be looked at as a threat. Those are fears that can be explored, brought to light.

 

[AlNg]

Have I had good experiences with patriotism? No, that is, I have often felt dislike for the worldviews of those who expressed patriotism.

I don’t like the never ending American activism in foreign countries. The US has been involved in too many wars. Why not spend a little money in the US to help the homeless and to provide security to students as they attend school? Instead, Americans spend trillions to wage wars and supply troops overseas.

 

[CRV]

the Church would need to pay priests based on how many children they have,

I would think that their income should be sufficient to support the needs of the family, which as I’ve said was raised by other posters in other threads - and which is just plain logical.

it was awareness of suffering that would motivate me to behave differently.

Yes, but that is you. And I.

“Who is suffering as a consequence of these actions?”

Sticking with abortion for the sake of argument here, even if there is foreseen suffering either psychological or financial, those are not sufficient to justify the taking of an innocent life - their unborn baby.
But as I said, even if being aware and I’m sure some are (do not wish to state a percentage after all I cannot read minds), it doesn’t change their decisions because the other ‘reasons’ bear more weight in their decision making process and so take precedence over all else.

With awareness, there is an appeal to the heart.

That’s true, but as I said above, it isn’t enough to change the minds of a lot of people, because the other factors carry more weight in their eyes.

through prayer.

Agreed, but I’d also add fasting.

Those are fears that can be explored, brought to light.

They were at my parish - made no difference. Even when it was explained what would happen and what would not and that the OF and associated ministries would not change at all - and the EF has not affected it at all - still people refused to listen, accept, be reconciled to the idea/change/implementation of the EF, all after becoming aware - it made absolutely no difference.

They were not open and their hearts were hardened. So in these cases, prayer for them, and the only other option they left to us is that of Matthew 10:14 "If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. " ← in this case - just leave them be.

 

[EXdrinker]

I think people see the bias they want to see.

…or, not want to see as evidenced by those who cannot see it in the mainstream media.

 

[OneSheep]

Sticking with abortion for the sake of argument here, even if there is foreseen suffering either psychological or financial, those are not sufficient to justify the taking of an innocent life - their unborn baby.

The key point of awareness is the intrinsic value of the unborn child, which is what we can share and present, but with a gentle kindness. And what is to be listened to are the fears and anxiety coming from those who deny such intrinsic value, among many other issues.

That’s true, but as I said above, it isn’t enough to change the minds of a lot of people, because the other factors carry more weight in their eyes.

The “weight” can be explored. There are so many stories to hear.

They were at my parish - made no difference. Even when it was explained what would happen and what would not and that the OF and associated ministries would not change at all - and the EF has not affected it at all - still people refused to listen, accept, be reconciled to the idea/change/implementation of the EF, all after becoming aware - it made absolutely no difference.

Well, first of all, and I think you know this, but explanation does not ensure listening. If people do not have open minds and hearts, the explanation falls on deaf ears. Awareness did not happen, as you stated “their hearts were hardened”.

So we can look at “What hardened their hearts?”. This is where some exploration might be fruitful. More likely than not, fear, mistrust, perhaps even righteous indignation are involved. People have their stories, experiences with the projected “other”. But again, if the goal of such exploration has the appearance of changing people’s minds, it will have an underlying manipulation sensed. People can listen to one another with empathy, with open minds from both sides of an issue.

If the person wanting EF, for example, has his own heart “hardened” to acceptance of OF, then his own lack of acceptance will likely set the tone of the conversation (especially if he is initiating it).

Please tell me what it is about the EF that draws you, CRV.

 

[Sundiver]

Suspending one’s judgement is a very blissful way of life. It means you trust in God and root out fear from the heart. God is the eternal judge. However, occasionally we have to assess someone for our own defense, survival, or for the purpose of partnership in commerce, marriage, and etc… There is a huge difference between condemning and assessing someone.

Also, obviously we live in a dangerous world. Our religion, lives, and freedoms are threatened on every level of our existence. Somehow we need to find a balance between loving acceptance and survival.

 

[OneSheep]

Suspending one’s judgement is a very blissful way of life. It means you trust in God and root out fear from the heart. God is the eternal judge. However, occasionally we have to assess someone for our own defense, survival, or for the purpose of partnership in commerce, marriage, and etc… There is a huge difference between condemning and assessing someone.

Also, obviously we live in a dangerous world. Our religion, lives, and freedoms are threatened on every level of our existence. Somehow we need to find a balance between loving acceptance and survival.

Are you thinking that we cannot simultaneously lovingly accept a person, yet know from experience (or assessment) that we cannot trust them?

 

[Sundiver]

Are you thinking that we cannot simultaneously lovingly accept a person, yet know from experience (or assessment) that we cannot trust them?

I don’t know. This is very complicated. I get confused by the meaning of trust. It depends on what you mean by trust. What level are we talking about? I wouldn’t trust everyone with my life or hard earned money. For example. Would I go flying with a pilot who is drunk all the time? Definitely not. If you are walking in a dark ally are you going to trust someone who lunges out of the shadows? Anyone would be on their guard in that situation. I’ve had friends who have tried to get me to break the ten commandments and now I avoid them. I’ve had friends who decided to bully me at work. I’ve had my livelihood threatened by self serving people. Could I trust them again. I could if they changed their ways.
On most levels of our existence I respect the path each individual has chosen in their life. However, there are a lot of vague issues with that statement. I have been betrayed by people I thought I could trust. Most of the time I doubt I would expend the energy and resources to trust them again. I usually forgive and forget and try to move on. Everyone has this experience. So what do we do when that happens? Do we trust them again or do we try to avoid them for our own survival? There are people I forgive but I would never go near them again. They have some dangerous issues that I don’t have the talent or time to deal with. Maybe in the future I could deal with them. I have not come to any conclusions about this so I continue to pray about it and do the best I can.

 

[OneSheep]

Do we trust them again or do we try to avoid them for our own survival?

Well, for me, I go with my gut, and a little reasoning. Did the person repent? Has the person appeared to previously repent, but that turned out to be an incorrect appearance? I’m with you on this, trust has its logical limits.

There are people I forgive but I would never go near them again

If our forgiveness is deep enough, involving understanding to the point of “I could be that person”, then there is certainly a resulting acceptance of the person. However, this does not/should not necessarily effect our trust. I think we are seeing this from basically the same positions.

So, applying this to the thread, neutralizing polarity does not necessarily neutralize distrust. Trust develops in a different way, over time, in a mutual way.

 

[Sundiver]

As another dimension to this. I’ve encountered people who I can’t harmonize with, while at the same time I truly see the dignity of God in them. Maybe I’m deluding myself. However, this is usually where I maintain myself. This is perpetual bliss. Judging people takes a lot of energy and it is self destructive not to mention that God may judge us with the same measure.
It is difficult to reconcile the apparent dignity of God in someone and the way they act. I am at a great loss involving this. Most people don’t realize their full potential as far as I can see.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Those in the so-called “mainstream media” have nothing to gain by siding with one side of an issue or the other.
Those who write for newspapers, and those who report through broadcast mediums like television and radio, are there to present the issues as best they can and to allow those who read or listen to their stories to decide how they feel about the issues.
Those who already have a slant on the issues label those who write or broadcast the news, because they want those who write and broadcast to validate their views.
For example, those who are pro-life believe the media must side with them on this issue or they are biased.
And vice versa, those who are pro choice believe the media must side with them or they are biased.
It is all a part of the us against them divide that exists in the United States. If one side is right, the other side must be wrong. In 99.9 percent of the issues, the media is in between the two polarized sides of the political spectrum. Which is their job.

 

[CRV]

The key point of awareness is the intrinsic value of the unborn child, which is what we can share and present, but with a gentle kindness. And what is to be listened to are the fears and anxiety coming from those who deny such intrinsic value, among many other issues.

I agree. But experience here has shown that doing so does not have any impact and change the others decision to not go ahead with it - the numbers bear this out. Listening to the fears and anxiety of relatives of mine, even though they knew and acknowledge the value of another child, the financial issues took precedence.

I understand this ‘walking together’ business, which is fine is less important matters, but is not the path as Catholics we should be taking wrt abortion, ssm, euthanasia, co-habitation - all immoral activity. Whatever happened to spreading the Good News and God’s Gift of Salvation through the conversion of others?

There are so many stories to hear.

Listening is not going to change the morality of society - in their eyes it’ll just come across as acceptance or worse yet … approval.

Well, first of all, and I think you know this, but explanation does not ensure listening. If people do not have open minds and hearts, the explanation falls on deaf ears. Awareness did not happen, as you stated “their hearts were hardened”.

Exactly. As is the same wrt abortion/contraception/euthanasia etc etc.

So we can look at “What hardened their hearts?”. This is where some exploration might be fruitful. More likely than not, fear, mistrust, perhaps even righteous indignation are involved. People have their stories, experiences with the projected “other”. But again, if the goal of such exploration has the appearance of changing people’s minds, it will have an underlying manipulation sensed. People can listen to one another with empathy, with open minds from both sides of an issue.

Agreed. but the bottom line is - if people don’t want change, then no amount of dialogue or listening is going to have any effect on the matter at all.

If the person wanting EF, for example, has his own heart “hardened” to acceptance of OF, then his own lack of acceptance will likely set the tone of the conversation (especially if he is initiating it).

I’ll have to disagree with you here, OneSheep … based on the experience of the vehemence of those who are advocates of the OF who attended the meeting at my parish when the EF was being introduced. A lot of those who were in favor of the EF being introduced had previously only attended the OF, and so coming from that direction their hearts were certainly not hardened against it. Neither was mine.

Please tell me what it is about the EF that draws you, CRV.

All the things that I’ve mentioned and stated in many other threads.

 

[Annie]

Are you thinking that we cannot simultaneously lovingly accept a person, yet know from experience (or assessment) that we cannot trust them?

What does it mean to lovingly accept someone?

---

Why do you talk like a psychologist? Exploring feelings and fears, and all that gentle kindness.

This is an experience many parents have had. It is time for the child to go to bed. The child does not want to go to bed and gives reasons to the parents for his point of view. The parents respond with their own reasons for their point of view.

The dialogue gives the child the impression that he is “winning.” When the dialogue comes to an end and the parents --unconvinced and still in authority over the child-- tell the child to go to bed, the child loses his composure.

And this still happens among grown-ups.

The problem is that occasionally someone has to clear the temple of money changers. Someone has to arrest those who beat others up. Someone has to face the invading army and decide what to do.

So gentle dialogue and all that has its place, but it is not the only tool we have.

 

[EXdrinker]

Those in the so-called “mainstream media” have nothing to gain by siding with one side of an issue or the other.

Of course there is much to gain for the mainstream media in catering to the left. Prestige and honor by virtue signalling all the right things regardless of truth and morality. If you call a man a woman or a he a she because that is how that person wants to be identified but then call pro-life people anti-abortion rights that is bias against truth and morality. If this bias cannot be seen by you then you have a blindspot.

 

[Annie]

Those in the so-called “mainstream media” have nothing to gain by siding with one side of an issue or the other.

Some of them have written books about the bias in the media.

Just contrast the coverage of pro-life marches vs pro-choice marches.

Just look at how they talk about pro-lifers and religious people.

Just look at how they cover issues relating to homosexuality and transgenderism.

And look at all the studies showing that seven percent of journalists identify as Republican and the like.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

I do not know where you get your information, but when I read, I see the two sides of the abortion issue referred to as choice and life.
I have never heard one side referred to as anti-abortion. I think you may be a bit prejudiced against the media.
The thing is that the media is not supposed to be a cheerleader for one side or the other. They are there to present both sides of an issue and to let the reader or listen make up his or her mind on a subject.
Using sports as an example. Team X beats Team Y, 28-7, in footballl. There is no liberal or conservative slant. It is what it is. One team scored 28 points, while the other scored 7 points.
Now, if your team was the losing team, you may not like the score or the facts ( i.e., poor tackling, poor execution) that contributed to the score or you may choose to blame the referees or the weather or whatever. But the facts still are the facts.