Once two brothers were sitting with Abbot Poemen, and one praised the other brother saying: "He is a good brother, he hates evil."
Father Abbot asked: "What do you mean he hates evil?"
And the brother did not know what to reply. So he said: "Tell me, father, what is it to hate evil?"
The father said: "That man hates evil who hates his own sins, and looks upon every brother as a saint, and loves him as a saint."
(Celtic Daily Prayer, Aidan Readings for June 27th, p. 430)
In the past week we have had the opportunity to watch the spectacle of people opining on the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Affordable Care Act. As with most political theatre, each side demonizes the other, accusing them of every sort of evil. There is never any attempt to see the good in the other, because it is more important in this arena to win over the other side, using whatever means necessary to do so.
On a more local level, I had the opportunity to meet with a parish and neighborhood group on a project proposed for a particular area of the city. Many people came, and that was good. A number of folks were not willing to accept an apology for past missteps, and the same number could find no good whatsoever in the diocese or its leader. It was more important to score the victory rather than find the solution to the problem.
These events of the past week reminded me of a time as an undergraduate when we were studying for our final examination in Medieval Philosophy. Most of the members of our study group were not philosophy majors, so the course itself was a challenge. The few of us who were philosophy majors did our best to help those who were not. As we were reviewing a particular argument of St. Augustine, one of my fellow philosophy majors wanted to debate whether or not Augustine was right or not on the particular point. My reply to him was that it was our task to first understand what Augustine was saying, to see if we fully grasp what he was saying in the text at hand. Once we do that, then we can turn to the question of whether the argument has merit or not.
Very often we fail in the most elementary aspect of philosophy and human interaction: we do not listen to one another, and we do not seek to truly understand what someone else is saying. We seek to ascribe the most malevolent intentions and interpretations of what another is saying in order to justify our own positions. In the medieval world the interlocutors employed a device known as "pious interpretation" to evaluating the argument of another. This device meant that we attempt to give the best possible meaning to what another is saying in order to be most fair to the other engaged in conversation with us. While this method may be unfair in the other direction of evaluation, it nonetheless captures well the point of the anecdote that began this reflection.
God has given us only one conscience for which we are qualified to examine and that is our own. And very often we do not do very well at examining the one to which we have sole competence to evaluate. Still, it is only in the realm of our own conscience where we can condemn evil with certitude. How different the world would be if we critiqued our own selves and regarded everyone else in the best possible light.
In the Ignatian exercise of the particular examen, we are encouraged to regard ourselves twice per day. At the beginning of the day we look ahead to the day before us. We examine our schedule of events and discern what God calls us to do in each moment of the day, making the commitment to be a faithful follower of the Lord Jesus in all things. At the end of the day, we are to review our past day and the resolutions we made earlier for each moment of that day. We then give thanks to God for the moments of success and fidelity, and we beg his pardon for those moments of failure and infidelity, once again resolving for the next day to walk ever more closely and faithfully with the Lord Jesus.
If we remain faithful to this schedule of morning and evening examination, we will achieve the aim of father abbot's advice above, and we wil transcend the culture of critique that only leads to hatred of others, conflict, and war.
7 comments:
Jude,
We are so glad you found us so amazing and different. Also sorry you thought of as second class citizens because we are definitely not that as you will find out as this struggle pursues. We thought all the time you were being honest and sincere with us but we are finding out that you were right in with the diocese as usual. You were so much like a politician, never answering a question or answering it with a joke. You will fit in good with the diocese. You are worrying about bad PR before September but with people like you representing it you are going to have more bad PR with going out and spreading total lies.
So sorry we wasted 2 hours of our time with you Wednesday night.19
onorbasJude,
We are so glad you found us to ent4rtaining, amazing and different. Also sorry you thought of us as second class citizens because we are definitely not that as you will find out as this struggle pursues. We thought all the time you were being honest and sincere with us but we are finding out that you were right in there with the diocese as usual. You were so much like a politician, never answering a question or answering it with a joke. You will fit in good with the diocese. You are worrying about bad PR before September but with people like you representing them you are gong to have more bad PR when you spread untruths like you did to us.
So sorry we wasted out 2 hours that night after we had a very busy day and rushed to the meeting.
We will be praying for you.
I thought nothing of the sort. I was trying to apologize and start the process anew, but many were not willing to accept it and move forward. That is very sad.
We cancelled the city planning commission presentation, and I have had Fr. John added to all future conversations about the project that he has previously been excluded from by others.
I also reached out to Les from the neighborhood afterward to set up other meetings and look at a collaborative dialogue process.
I'm sorry if that isn't good enough. What else would you like to see?
Jude
SFX has been hurt time and time again. People needed to vent that we were left out of the process again. You have to let people vent before you can more forward. I tired to get us to move forward with an action item list that Lisa had started. The issue is that we felt left out again by not allowing us or the neighborhood to give an insite to what we think the area should be used for.
You come back to this blog and slam us for not being nice or accepting your apology. How do you think it makes us feel when you come to this site and then tell us that we are difficult?
You are making mistakes by writing this blog statement. It's very much like you are two-faced. Want to do what is right by the neighborhood and the parish, but still going forward with the wishes to build the dorm.
I think we were very loud and clear. We are upset with you, the bishop and the project.
We are will to working with you, but you show that you don't want to work with us by posting this blog.
SHAME ON YOU JUDE.
I was willing to work with you but when someone goes behind my back and slams my parish then I have to think twice. You put yourself in a bad place.
Here is the full text of what I said about Wednesday night in this blog:
On a more local level, I had the opportunity to meet with a parish and neighborhood group on a project proposed for a particular area of the city. Many people came, and that was good. A number of folks were not willing to accept an apology for past missteps, and the same number could find no good whatsoever in the diocese or its leader. It was more important to score the victory rather than find the solution to the problem.
Was there an inaccuracy here? There were people who did not accept my apology, and there were people who see no good in the diocese or the bishop. and there were some who came just to throw stones and not seek a solution going forward. They were a distinct minority as most were there to move forward. That is not an indictment on the whole parish, and the fact that this is a public blog is not going behind anyone's back.
The fact that I heard the same sentiment from others in the neighborhood also means it's not an isolated sentiment.
To be clear, the process going forward on soliciting information from the parish and neighborhood is completely voluntary and led by the people in the community, not me. I am taking no leadership of this process at all. I have offered to be at other meetings to listen and hear what ideas have been generated. I offered a model of that process as a suggestion since it worked well in my parish at St. Therese Little Flower. If people want to do something else, that's up to you all. I'll follow whatever you all decide in terms of process. The only imperative I stated at the meeting is that we all need to find some solution for the old school building - a problem that was created by the diocese in total. The other problem the diocese created was putting forth a proposal without any input from the parish and neighbors.
I'm hoping we can correct the mistakes of the past, and if I'm not the best person for that process, that's OK. We can find someone else in the diocese to do it.
People are hurting Jude and you are the face of the bishop and they gave to you. If I remember you were sweating bullets at this meeting.
How would you feel if a developer came into your neighborhood right next door to your home and announced they were putting in an apartment complex with no input from you or your neighborhood friends?
There are people who are not going to forgive you and that is there right. There are others like me who were trying to move forward with a survey. I can't do much because I am a volunteer with the parish and can do only so much.
You over step your bound by venting in your blog. We found it and are unhappy with us you treated us in this blog. Yes, were are upset and will continue to be upset but we only want what is right for the neighborhood and the parish.
When you have two schools whose dorms are not at full capacity and one school renting out apartments to its employees you have to realize that this is not the answer.
The are other options that need to be looked out.
Accept that fact that we are angry and we are not going to stand for being step upon anymore.
Jude, I actually felt sorry for you on Wed. night, standing in for the bishop and taking the anger directed really at him. Not any more. You told us the project had been tabled, we could move our things back into Murphy Hall (darn, we sold half of it after the bishop told us to GET OUT), do some busy work and brainstorm what the parish and neighborhood would like to do the building. All lies. The project has not been tabled, with no heat or airconditioning, how can we meet in the building, and why should we waste our time doing surveys when the pedophile protector had already made the decision to go forward with demolition toward the dorm? And the only good PR the diocese will get will be when Robert Finn vacates the palace on 9th St.
Post a Comment