Reticence, and Sirach 27,4-13, 28

[djames99]

Psychiatric journals speak of reticence as a fault, and among the parameters that define anti-social behavior. Those with mental illness and bi-polar illnesses on the termination of group testing by the evaluaters will speak of the average degrees of reticence remaining in the group, a zero value aimed for. Also, true or not, I have heard that there’s a common agreement within mainstream populace that the first unconscious concern in any first conversation between strangers is how much of a threat the other person poses. This last speaks of the state of our society today.

 Sirach also seems to hold that reticence is a positive position to adopt. It suggests a guarded approach in conversation, where today this would be seen as anti social. 

 Sadly, I've seen in Catholic Fraternities, where senior members have only analytical interest in a certain person, this after she has trusted to try to be social and open and had revealed her inner feelings and concerns. The person was clearly targeted and made to feel unwelcome within the group. A phenomena described in Rene Girard's writing on the scapegoating mechanism manifests itself in that environment.

(youtube.com/watch?v=LSzF2OG2ejI)

In contrast, others were treated in a trustful social way, and conversations were two way and mutual, with casual exchanges of information such has family life and innocent idiosyncrasies, with acceptance of nuisance personality defects, etc. A jovial nature all around.

So the questions arise,

Are we moving more into an untrusting and analytical world even within the Church.?

Are we unjustly attributing anti-social behavior to someone who deliberately desires to be withdrawn and guarded?. Is it justified given the state of this world.?

Is it justified to be permanently reticent in a Godless, dysfunctional social environment?

Are we expected to bear the brunt of permanent ostrisization for doing so.?

James