Respect for Each Other in a Polarized Community - Fr. Ron Rolheiser

Respect for Each Other in a Polarized Community - Fr. Ron Rolheiser

2009-11-15

We live today in a highly polarized world and within highly polarized churches. In this, we are not unique. A certain degree of polarization exists within every community and is normal and healthy. However the bitterness, mean-spirit, and lack of respect that characterizes much of our political, ecclesial, and moral discourse today is not normal and is far from healthy. And we shouldn’t delude ourselves in thinking that it is healthy or, worse yet, in the name of truth or justice or God, try to rationalize our lack of respect for those who think differently than we do. We aren’t holy warriors, just angry people with a highly selective compassion.

Perhaps labels like liberal and conservative don’t accurately name the various tribes we invariably divide into today, but, as an over-generalization, these names still work. We are bitterly divided, liberal from conservative, conservative from liberal, and instead of seeing ourselves as one community caught in a common struggle, we talk rather in terms of “we” and “them”, like warring tribes. There’s no longer a common
plural.

More seriously, we are no longer capable of even having a respectful conversation with each other. It is rare today to have a discussion on any sensitive political, moral, or ecclesial issue that does not degenerate into name-calling and disrespect. Empathy, understanding, and compassion have become highly selective, ideological, and one-sided. We listen to and respect only our own kind. Moreover, neither side has a monopoly on this, liberal or conservative. What is sadly manifest too, on both sides, is a certain hypersensitivity, an over-seriousness, a paranoia about the other, an anger, a joylessness, and the lack of a sense of humor.

Conservatives tend to justify this by pointing to the gravity of the issues they are defending: abortion, family life, traditional marriage. These, they point out with all the proper gravity, are serious issues and liberals are so compromised that there really is no room for meaningful talk. The truth being defended is eternal and allows for no compromise, so what’s the purpose of dialogue?

Liberals return the favor: Why discuss something that is rationally self-evident, simply a question of human right, and has long since been enshrined in democratic principle? These issues need not even be discussed. Moreover, in liberal circles, there is all too frequently an intellectual disdain for what is judged to be narrow intolerance stemming from religious fundamentalism. Liberals, despite considerable rhetoric to the contrary, have little genuine desire to have a real conversation about issues like abortion, gay marriage, and family values. For them, just as for the conservatives, these issues already have a clear moral conclusion. Why talk?

Strong convictions are not a fault, but what is distressing is that this unwillingness to be open to respectful dialogue on sensitive issues is generally as prevalent within church circles as it is in political ones.

In church circles we are meant to hold ourselves to a higher standard: to meet viciousness with graciousness, anger with compassion, opposition with understanding, slander with no retaliation, intolerance with patience, and everything and everybody with charity. For the most part, this isn’t happening. Sadly, inside of church circles, our conversation about sensitive issues basically mirrors the harsh and one-sided rhetoric we hear on the more strident talk shows. The results are the same: the converted preach to the converted, hearts harden rather than soften, positions become even more bitter and entrenched, and we drift further apart from each other in our churches and in our politics.
At a time when misunderstanding, anger, intolerance, impatience, lack of respect, and lack of charity are paralyzing our communities and dividing the sincere from the sincere, it is time for us, followers of Jesus called to imitate his wide compassion, to reground ourselves in some fundamentals: respect, charity, understanding, patience, and gentleness towards those who oppose us. It’s time to accept too that we are all in this together, one family within which everyone needs everyone else.

There is no “we” and “them”, there’s only “us”.
Biblical scholar, Ernst Kaseman, once suggested that what’s wrong in both the world and the church is that the liberals aren’t pious and the pious aren’t liberal. How true. It’s rare to see the same person leading both the peace-march and the rosary. Liberals are better at one, conservatives at the other. Each has its own models, its Mel Gibsons and Michael Moores, patron saints of piety or justice. What’s needed is a patron saint for both.

Perhaps we might look for that in Dorothy Day, someone whom both sides, liberal and conservative, respect and recognize as a saint and who is soon to be canonized by the church. She was both pious and liberal, a woman equally comfortable leading a peace-march or leading the rosary. She was also able to stand up strongly for truth, for life, and for justice, without bracketing what has to be forever fundamental within all relationships and discourse - charity, respect, wide compassion, and a sense of humor!

Trying to understand

A person going by the handle "John T Hutt" posted the following in the threads of the Antigonish story on the CBC website:

TM4321 wrote: "....who is to say that foregoing an active sexual life is "abnormal", or that it is "abnormal" to control one's passions."

Tim, you have unintentionally hit the nail on the head. The entire problem has been caused by culture of sexual libertarianism that exists in the priesthood. For the most part, secular society controls the expression of "abnormal" passions. In fact most people in the wider world perform some sort of self-diagnosis and seek help if their passions are harmful to themselves or others. The problem with the Catholic Church is that the relatively normal passions of homosexuality have for cultural reasons bled over into the profoundly abnormal passions of child abuse.

I am trying to understand what he is saying. Any opinions?

Working in "virtual" fields to produce a harvest of faith

While participating in the threads of the CBC website news story about the appointment of Bishop Brian Dunn as Bishop of Antigonish, a gentleman who identified himself by the nom des plume, "nonreligious" posted the following to me.

To Fr. Moyle
To expand my previous post, my repeated abuse as an altar boy occured in 1973 on northern Vancouver Island. I remember the person wanting me to keep quiet and telling me God would heal all wounds. I dared not tell my parents, mostly out of fear and confusion, and because I felt they would not believe me. I had been taught that God was always right. I was nine at the time.

For those who have not walked in our shoes, which is most of you, trust me when I say that you lose all grasp of reality and have it replaced by something that is foreign. It's like you initially know it's not right, but after time it starts to feel that way. And you learn to deal with it any way you can under the circumstances. It never mattered to me that it involved a person in a position of trust and faith. I could have cared less. What mattered was that it made me feel taken advantage of, sick to my stomach, and I couldn't do anything about it.

As I matured I realized that child abuse surpasses all boundaries of authority, religion. Most males are sexually aroused by visual stimulation at the outset, much less often emotionally. It's human instinct and greed. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Fine Fr. Moyle that you make comparisons to other segements of society. What exactly is your point? I submit your point is self-serving in attempt to justify that "it ain't that bad". I also submit that if you have time to post here, then you certainly have time to put thought into developing meaningful protocol within your faith to deal with pedophilia, and put into place methods of recovery for people like me. I could have used something like that post-1973. After all, your organization has a lot of money. Are you ready to step up?



I responded as follows:

Nonreligious: You have more than earned the right to write as you do. Please allow me to offer my prayer that you find peace in your life. I hope too that you have gone to the police to report your abuser. IF he is still alive, he needs to be made to take responsibility for the wounds he inflicted upon you.

I continue to do all that I can to rid the priesthood of such perverts. I have reported those whom I found out about to the police and to the Church authorities so that they would be punished and kept away from potential victims.

I defend the church. I do not defend those who have acted as predators. If I believed that even half of the allegations made in these threads were true, I would have left the church and the priesthood long ago.

Again sir, my promise of prayers and respect to you.

Fr. Tim Moyle


Shortly there after, "nonreligious" posted the this response.

To Mr. Moyle:

To a man and religion aside, I appreciate your response and kindness. If you are who you say you are, what you have said is more than I've ever heard from anybody in the RC. Just didn't expect to find it on a CBC blog. But I'll take you for your word. I've never been back to the Port Hardy area since we left in 1974. My parents nor family still do not know about my abuse to this day. I'm 46 now.

I've managed to carve out a nice life, full of wonderful people and yes I have found peace. It was a long road and I inadvertently hurt others along the way when I didn't understand what happened and why I was prone to violent outbursts. The abuse took many years to fully process and understand, and cost me one marriage. I reckon there were 40 to 50 episodes I guess. I still remember the man's face unfortunately. It happened on a military base, and sad to say within the confines of the church buildings.

I did not go to the police. This might sound strange, but at nine-ten years old, it never crossed my mind. Far too many years have passed to think about charges, and honestly I'm not interested. Thank you Mr. Moyle. You sound like a decent honest person.

Best regards
T.R.

So, participating in these threads CAN open up people to the healing presence of Christ, and maybe, just maybe, we can bring souls back to God through clergy participation in these threads. I am left again to wonder why it is that I seem to be among a VERY SMALL number of clerics who make use of this opportunity to put forward the true arguments of faith.

Please pray that soon I will be only one of many who work in these virtual fields.

Again the battle rages on the web pages of the CBC

The announcement of Bishop Brian Dunn as new bishop of Antigonish has set off another firestorm of allegations against God, the Church and priests within the comments threads of the CBC new website. Join the fray and help defend the Church we love and serve.

Fr. Tim

Just a little humor that tickles a priests' funny bone.

Forgive me for saying this, but there are times that I can really relate to "Fr. O'Malley".

An Irish priest by the name of Father O'Malley, was transferred to a small rural community in southern Ontario .

As he arose from his bed one morning. It was indeed a fine spring day in his new Canadian parish. He walked to the window of his bedroom to get a deep breath of the beautiful day outside.

He then noticed there was a jackass lying dead in the middle of his front lawn. He promptly called the local police station......

The conversation went like this:

"Good morning. This is Sergeant Jones. How might I help you?"

"And the best of the day te yerself. Dis is Father O'Malley at St. Ann 's Catholic Church. Dere's a jackass lyin dead in me front lawn."

Sergeant Jones, considering himself to be quite a wit, replied with a smirk,"Well now Father, it was always my impression that you people took care of
the last rites!"

There was dead silence on the line for a long moment........................

Then Father O'Malley curtly replied:

"Aye, 'tis certainly true; but we are also obliged to notify the next of kin."

A site from University of Edinburgh which attempts to answer questions of faith.

A site from University of Edinburgh which attempts to answer questions of faith.


http://almightyanswers.blogspot.com

Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide: Why Not?

A ccording to some surveys, three-quarters of Canadians would favour the legalizationof euthanasia. Above all, they fear one day becoming a burden and having their lives unduly prolonged in suffering.

Given the immense confusion surrounding euthanasia, it is reasonable to question these statistics and some unreliable surveys. It is more than likely that the majority of citizenswould change their minds if they were properly informed.

However, a very effective lobby is manipulating words and emotions in order to promote euthanasia and assisted suicide. For example, some erroneously use the phrase “passive euthanasia” to describe the withdrawal of futile medical treatment.

The need to dispel confusion by returning words to their true meaning has become urgent. It is also important to recognize euphemisms for “euthanasia” and “assisted suicide”: voluntary interruption of life… active aide in dying… hastened death… physician assisted death…

To begin with, it is important to clarify the distinction between euthanasia and the refusal of aggressive treatment (see Quick Answer no. 3). When death is imminent and inevitable, it is perfectly legitimate to refuse medical procedures which are disproportionate to the desired results or too burdensome for the patient and his or her family.

But what is euthanasia? Euthanasia is the intentional killing of someone, with or without his or her consent, either by act or omission. By killing the person, one seeks to eliminate all aspects of that person’s life including the pain, suffering or humiliation of being in need of help. The person who commits euthanasia must intend, for whatever reason, to kill the other and must cause his or her death.

In the case of assisted suicide, a person kills himself or herself with the help of another person who provides him or her with the means to carry out the act.

As we discuss these topics, we cannot limit ourselves to abstract principles and laws. We have to be aware that this is literally a question of life and death. If we are attentive to the natural law – a law embedded in the conscience of every human being, which commands us to protect life and not to kill – we will understand the need to reject euthanasia and assisted suicide as symptoms of the ideology of death. This is the only reasonable choice we can make as a society if we are to build our future on a culture of life and uphold a truly humane civilization in our country.

This shared responsibility requires each of us to present a vision of respect for human life and dignity in a largely secularized public arena. We need to speak up with conviction, founding our reasoning on natural arguments. Together, we must build a social barrier against euthanasia and assisted suicide.

The “quick answers” presented here provide appropriate responses to common arguments put forward by proponents of euthanasia and assisted suicide. In conclusion, a Christian perspective on the delicate issues of suffering and death will help those who wish to better understand the unalterable dignity of the human person.


download a PDF copy of this excellent booklet from the COLF (Catholic Organization for Family Life) at the following website:

http://www.colf.ca/mamboshop/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=200&Itemid=209