Polarity in the Church today

[Annie]

, I see the two sides of the abortion issue referred to as choice and life.

Newsweek: One anti-abortion advocacy group, the Pennsylvania Family Institute, claimed that medical professionals have pressured women to have abortions after a Down syndrome diagnosis.

New York Times: family planning funds under Title X to anti-abortion and faith based groups.

MSNBC: The health provider and advocacy group also says the anti-abortion group posing as a medical research procurement company

I could go on…

 

[OneSheep]

What does it mean to lovingly accept someone?

I think that it begins with forgiveness, when applicable. I think that we naturally lovingly accept people we hold nothing against. There are triggers that block our love and acceptance, like when we sense that someone is of a different “tribe”, like “liberals” or “conservatives” etc. If I strongly identify with one tribe, and do not see myself as being a member of the other tribe if my own circumstances were different, then I might see the other in a very polarized way. This is a hindrance to loving acceptance.

Exploring feelings and fears, and all that gentle kindness.

It’s what’s real, what is underneath. Opinion is at the surface, so superficial. “Tell me about your experiences with this, tell me about your pains and anxieties, your wants and loves” - those are what gets to the heart of the matter, right?

The dialogue gives the child the impression that he is “winning.”

Both the child and the parent are winning. The child is learning what it means to be respected, to be listened to, even if their wishes are not fulfilled. When there is room for negotiation, the parent can compromise as long as there is not a rule being broken, as rules give security to the child, right? The parent is modeling what it means to listen, and the child will learn to listen to their parents and other children through this modeling.

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.

I don’t see these as problems but necessities. We can still listen to, and respect, one another; that should be the first line of interaction when there are not circumstances that call for something forceful.

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

It depends on what you are trying to fix. For the topic of this thread, we aren’t going to solve polarity through the use of arrests, war, and angry violence, right?

 

[Annie]

There are triggers that block our love and acceptance, like when we sense that someone is of a different “tribe”, like “liberals” or “conservatives” etc

I always try to approach people as individuals, but I also know that some people in every group are not to be trusted. Some people actually are mean, even to people they have never met or don’t know well. Some people do have an agenda, and are underhanded about it.

The whole idea of tribalism seems to have been made too much of in one way and too little in another.

On the one hand, ideas people disagree with are put down to tribalism, and the people holding those ideas are not “heard.”

On the other, real problems caused by differences are ignored.

The child is learning what it means to be respected, to be listened to, even if their wishes are not fulfilled.

I don’t know about this. When a child goes crying to bed, I don’t think they are thinking, well, at least I was listened to and respected.

First, that wasn’t the aim of the child. Second, the final round went to the authorities (parents) in any case.

I feel like this happens all too often among adults. Everyone says what they have to say, and no one changes their minds. Some people still don’t get what they want, right or wrong, and are still angry about that.

Especially in an area where there is an authority, such as the Church, the whole process you describe seems thwarted in terms of what you think will happen.

I don’t see these as problems but necessities. We can still listen to, and respect, one another; that should be the first line of interaction when there are not circumstances that call for something forceful.

So either the issue is important or it is not.

In the end, unless people are willing to be reasonable and open minded, only force will work.

It depends on what you are trying to fix. For the topic of this thread, we aren’t going to solve polarity through the use of arrests, war, and angry violence, right?

No, and that shows the weakness of what you are saying.

Let me see if I can give an example, which I am making up. Say a parish comes into a lot of money. One group wants to use it to start a soup kitchen, the other to re-open the parish school. Both good things, but can’t do both.

The soup kitchen advocates are mostly retired, their children are grown. The school advocates are young, and they have young children.

They can listen and re-word the other sides all they want, but in the end, the soup kitchen people will win. They have resources, time, etc. The parents don’t have as much time, and they can see the good in the soup kitchen more than the soup kitchen advocates can see the good in the SK: they are not as adamantly opposed.

So, the situation is resolved by a type of force, “civilized” force, but force nonetheless.

 

[OneSheep]

I always try to approach people as individuals, but I also know that some people in every group are not to be trusted.

But since you approach people as individuals, you only mistrust when an individual has proven himself or herself untrustworthy from personal experience, correct, not based on what the media says, etc?

I don’t know about this. When a child goes crying to bed, I don’t think they are thinking, well, at least I was listened to and respected.

Not at the time, no, because the child is overwhelmed with emotion. But the lesson is still there, and is especially learned in negotiable situations.

I feel like this happens all too often among adults. Everyone says what they have to say, and no one changes their minds. Some people still don’t get what they want, right or wrong, and are still angry about that.

Especially in an area where there is an authority, such as the Church, the whole process you describe seems thwarted in terms of what you think will happen.

Only for those who do not have the patience to see avenues by which the Spirit can work in building awareness and reconciliation. The goal is to replace polarity with communion, and communion is very interpersonal.

“If truth is on your side, then there is room for hope.”

In the end, unless people are willing to be reasonable and open minded, only force will work.

You are addressing a different “end”, I think.

So, the situation is resolved by a type of force, “civilized” force, but force nonetheless.

Yeah, but usually there are a lot of other fiscal factors involved in the situation you are describing. Parishes with limited resources (the norm) are averse to schools bc, historically, schools end up competing for resources from the same pot of donors. So while the initial costs may be paid, the ongoing costs are the ones that create a lot of anxiety for pastors and church leaders.

In our diocese, there is also the overlay of expansion of ministry, especially with youth, being a liability. Our diocese has not filled the Director of Youth Ministry position for years, supposedly out of fear of expanding ministries that create more exposure to lawsuits. This fear is essentially a death sentence to the future of our Church, and needs to be addressed.

Again, you are addressing a different end. Even in the situation where there is a win-lose scenario, everyone can walk away at least knowing that they have been heard and appreciated, if it is done in a charitable manner.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

Annie, if you comb through the hundreds of publications or look at the many, many cable programs that are out there you can find an example of one thing or another.
As for Newsweek, I don’t read magazines.
I did not see the New York Times story you were referring to.
MSNBC is a cable network noted for its liberal viewpoint (Rachel Maddow), just as Fox News is a cable network noted for its conservative viewpoint (Sean Hannity), especially at night.
We live in a super politically correct time.
Instead of dwelling upon labels and this, that, or the other, I think it is much better to work on a dialogue between people of different viewpoints and opinions.

 

[JoeShlabotnik]

You could go on, but why?

 

[po18guy]

Judge?

No.

Admonish the sinner?

Yes.

 

[EXdrinker]

Joe, the New York Times has dozens of examples of calling pro-life groups anti-abortion. Please google this yourself to understand your claim of non-bias in mainstream news, Annie has given examples for which you could google hundreds more.

 

[OneSheep]

We live in a super politically correct time.
Instead of dwelling upon labels and this, that, or the other, I think it is much better to work on a dialogue between people of different viewpoints and opinions.

Yes, I agree. If others are referring to labels, we can admit they are there and address them. I think we can all agree that it is uncharitable to label a person or group in a way that they find offensive; such labeling only works against the goal of creating a deeper communion.

Judge?

No.

Admonish the sinner?

Yes.

From the article:

Latin verb monere meaning to warn, advise, or alert someone to a threat or danger. As such, its purpose is the good of another; it is an act of love and concern. To admonish the sinner is not to belittle or humiliate him, but rather to alert him to the danger of a sinful course of action. It is rooted in love, not pride. And thus St. Thomas enumerates fraternal correction among the acts of charity.

Another paragraph of note:

Still, the obligation remains for us believers both to admonish sinners and to accept admonishment ourselves. We must remember that the goal is not to tell others how terrible they are; this is, after all, a work of mercy. Neither is the goal to win an argument or to feel superior. Rather, the goal is to win the sinner back from a destructive path, to announce the forgiveness of sins available to all who repent. The goal is salvation. As such, to admonish sinners is to call lovingly to those in danger and draw them back from the edge of the abyss.

Thus admonishment, when done according to definition, is not polarizing, but is very charitable. These are great additions to this thread!

And while admonishment is important, in a group context such admonishment should probably be kept private, so as not to take away from the general goals of understanding and deeper communion.