Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label hypocrisy. Show all posts

Monday, January 21, 2013

On Reactions

I'm a hypocrite; I wish I wasn't, but I am. As much as I would like others to be more sensitive to my feelings and how easily bruised I am at the moment (emotionally speaking, of course,) I currently have not ability to do the same for others.

Last night, hoping to find a sympathetic ear in mum, I was venting to her about something someone said to which I would have liked my reply to be, "Oh, so you've recently lost your father? I'm so sorry," as a reaction to - to put it bluntly - a little bit of emotional dumping after I (hoped I'd) made it plain that I didn't have the energy to talk to people. Instead mum reminded me that I don't have to take on other people's problems, but listening to them might be helpful for both of us. Even though she's correct - I don't have to take on other people's emotions - I didn't want to hear it. I made this quite clear with my body language and then, when she tried to hug me, I turned away. Understandably, this hurt mum a lot. I wish that I was aware enough to have stopped hurting her before I started. However, when she told me that she was hurt by that action of mine, I went and made her wound worse.

I have been opining to a few people about others' lack of awareness of the emotional well-being of those around them. Then I go and cut mum down. I wish I could take back what I said and, especially, that I could take back the way I said them. Although I'm not going to pretend that mum's words and actions didn't hurt me, there is little excuse for me acting the way I did in retaliation. My reaction, though informed by my own fragility did not take into consideration mum's; neither was it consistent with my expectations of other people.

May I always remember:
But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because you shut the kingdom of heaven against men; for you neither enter yourselves, nor allow those who would enter to go in. (Mt 23:13, RSV)

Monday, December 31, 2012

"That's not my spirituality", the Mass and Life Issues.

Written last year (2011) for a class called "Ministry of Social Justice"


Spirituality is the concrete manner of living out one’s faith in Christ. Being ordered to Christ, it draws on - in different ways and to different degrees - the three transcendentals; namely, Goodness, Beauty and Truth. These find expressions through the living of the evangelical counsels of Poverty, Chastity and Obedience.

Each person is drawn in a particular way to serve God and neighbour and, in justice, called to render to both what is due to them. Now, the most fundamental right of God is to be worshiped, and loved above all else. The most fundamental right of the human being is life from conception until natural death. The right of God to be worshiped and loved is ultimately inherent. The right to life is contingent only on conception; that is to say, creation as a human being. The two biggest justice issues facing us today, and always, then, are the right-worship of God and the respect for human life at all its stages. We will look, briefly, at the main injustices that ‘spirituality’ is used to excuse and how an appropriate understanding of spirituality can be used to combat injustice in these two areas. We will therefore discover that, although spirituality may be used to excuse a lack of interest in these justice issues, there are some issues which, as a matter of justice, it is impossible for a Christian not to have participate in.

Although there are many ways of expressing personal devotion to God, the public worship of the Church is something given to us by God, through Her (that is, the Church), to be expressed as laid down in the rubrics of the given Rite. For the Latin Rite of the Church, the Holy Liturgy takes two forms, the forma ordinaria and the forma extraordinaria. Although some are drawn to the beauty or the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite, for the purposes of this reflection, we will look at the Ordinary Form of the Mass because it is by far the most attended form of the Mass in Australia.

It seems that many people interpreted the Liturgy implemented by Pope Paul VI, wittingly or unwittingly, in terms of what some have called the ‘Spirit of Vatican II’, or in a hermeneutic of rupture. In doing so, they come to insist that it is what makes people feel good which ought to guide the liturgy. At the extreme end of this, we see evidence of so-called ‘Clown Masses’, or Masses where the Celebrant is sitting on the floor in front of a coffee table to ‘celebrate Mass.’ In the less extreme, there are parishes in this archdiocese which substitute one of the four (at the time of writing) provided  Acclamations of Faith, or the Sanctus, or other parts of the Mass with other verses or hymns or songs that are - arbitrarily - deemed ‘more appropriate.’ In justice, the rule “Say the Black, Do the Red” ought to be followed.

That is not to say that in all cases, the words to be said by the Priest cannot be changed as a pastoral consideration. However, this ought only be done where the rubrics provide, namely, where it is written “in these or similar words.” In cases where it is pastorally prudent, the expression of the faith of the community is allowed at these time during the Sacrifice of the Mass. Moreover, the Mass itself can have “legitimate variations and adaptations” according to the needs of “different groups... provided that the substantial unity of the Roman rite is preserved.” (Sacrosanctum Concillium 38) This same paragraph, however, continues to assume that the rubrics will be followed, for it says that these adaptations “... should be borne in mind when drawing up the rites and devising rubrics.” (Ibid.)  In short, the expression of a group’s spirituality can be expressed either when the rite which they celebrate is being drawn up, or when the rubrics allow. To change the parts of the Mass, however, where there is no scope in that rite to do so, is a grave injustice against God because correct worship, as expressed by the Church, is due to Him at all times. This, then, is not something a Christian can choose to have an interest in; it is not a matter of interest. Therefore, in the worship of God, it is imperative that every Christian worships God in the way that He has laid down through His Church.

In the same way, interest in what is often called the ‘pro-life issue’ is not something that can be a matter of interest for Christians. As with Liturgy, the various expressions of involvement in the promotion of life may vary between individuals, groups or peoples; nonetheless, there are boundaries to this. No Christian can ever choose to be anti-life because Christ Himself is the Life (Cf Jn 14:6). The difference, however, between acting justly towards God where it is most called for, by His very Nature, and acting justly towards men where it is called for by their very nature is this: the Church has not given us clear, solid manner to act justly in the cause of Life. There are no rubrics for protecting Life from unjust Death.

As an aside, I have chosen to capitalise Life and Death here because I am referring both to the natural and super-natural realities that these terms can be used to refer to. Although it could be said there a rubrics for protecting supernatural life from supernatural death, this is only true in regards to the Sacraments. While these create and sustain supernatural life within us, such life can easily be lost through human actions which are not subject to rubrics.

The way one is involved in protecting Life will depend very much on one’s spirituality. For example, if one is drawn primarily toward the transcendental Truth, one might be called to defend life through writing or speaking out against injustices against Life such as abortion, adultery, the degrading of Holy Matrimony, or euthanasia. If one is drawn to Goodness, one might seek to counsel those in danger of Death or those promoting what Blessed John Paul II called the Culture of Death. This might be done through sidewalk counselling, pastoral care for the aged, disabled or otherwise disadvantaged; it might be done through running retreats like Rachel’s Vineyard or supporting Rachel’s House of Hope. For those drawn to beauty, it might consist activity in for the promotion of Life might take the form of promoting beautiful Liturgy, designing pamphlets containing information about programs such as those mentioned above. It is rare, indeed if it happens at all, that  one is drawn only to one of the transcendentals. Therefore, it is likely that one will be involved in the promotion of the Culture of Life in a number of different ways or, at least, in a way that combines the elements mentioned here above. However, the very nature of the human being demands that Life is respected in both its natural and supernatural forms.

It can be seen that in at least some justice issues, interest therein matters not. In the two areas that are most often subject to unjust behaviours, it can be seen that there is room for expressions of spirituality, but no scope for ignoring the issues. That is to say, God always deserves to be worshiped according to the norms laid down by Holy Mother Church; and Life, both natural and supernatural, is always due to all humans at all times by their nature and the gratuitous gift of God.

Thursday, November 29, 2012

plea for reverence

As some of them are still aware, I still check out what the Tumblr Catholics are up to every now and then.
So, a shout out to all of you; you're all, always, in my prayers.

Scrolling down Jess' tumblog, I cam across this post from a convert who is in the RCIA program; her name is Olivia. I've just copy-pasted the Original Post here. Since all my block quotes are italicised, I have changed what Olivia had in italics to this font instead.

Please, please, please heed what she's saying. Please. For the love of God. No, really, for the Love of God Incarnate, under the form of Bread.
I’ve been sitting here for a good 5 minutes trying to think of a good way to lead into what I want to talk about….I’ve come to the conclusion that there is no easy way to say this.
We, as a people, as a Catholic people, are irreverent towards the blessed Sacrament. We are irreverent towards JESUS. I know what you’re thinking. Olivia, you’re not even Catholic yet, what could you possibly know about the Eucharist. 
Well I will tell you what I know. I know that Jesus IS the Eucharist. I know that when I wake up on Sunday morning (or any morning I get to go to Mass) I’m going to a celebration. I’m going to experience the meeting of Heaven and Earth. I’m going to witness the most intimate of all encounters with Christ. I’m going to be in the presence of Jesus Christ, my friend, my savior, my love, my Father, my everything.
What is it that people don’t understand? It is physically painful for me at Mass to watch SO MANY people casually walk through the communion line, casually receive the Eucharist, casually consume it, and casually walk back to their seats. RECEIVING THE EUCHARIST IS NOT SOMETHING TO BE DONE CASUALLY. Do you realize that when you walk in that procession you are walking towards the living God? The creator of you, of the universe? You are walking towards He who suffered for you. He who weeped for your soul. He who gave his life so you could live more abundantly?!
Please, my dear friends, I am begging you, think about that next time you go to Mass. It is not your priest saying to you “body of Christ” it is Jesus offering his body to you just as he offered it to the disciples at the Last Supper.
I fear for the day we answer for our irreverence  Again I beg you, spend time contemplating the Real Presence. I pray that it is your prayer for the Eucharist to become as real to you as your priest standing before you. Realize my brothers and sisters that when you go into a Church you are in the literal presence of Jesus Christ.
Heavenly Father, who is an endless font of Mercy, look upon your people with compassion and love. Help all of us to become aware of the reality of the Eucharist and of your REAL PRESENCE. Help each one of us to grow in reverance towards your most Holy body and blood.
[original post, here]

Other Tumblr Catholics you should check out:

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Difference

People don't come up to one and exclaim, "I hear you're becoming a lawyer!" "... a doctor!" "... an engineer!" or "... a hairdresser!" Yet, in the past fortnight, I have had no less than four people say to me, "I hear you're becoming a nun!" Then, predominately, once I've explained that I am still discerning that, and I ask that the statement of my apparently-impending nunhood not be repeated, I am told "But it gives such hope to people!" or am asked "Why do you think you get to be treated differently?"

Why doesn't the thought of good Catholic lawyers, doctors, engineers and hairdressers give people hope in the same way the thought of another nun reportedly does?

Also, if one would not go around discussing unconfirmed marriage plans, then why do people go around discussing unconfirmed consecration plans?

I don't want to be treated differently: I want to be treated the same.

Tuesday, November 29, 2011

A Pro-Life Defense of Truth, by sword-meets-rose

Pro-life advocates argue that elective abortion unjustly takes the life of a defenseless human being. In support of this conclusion, pro-lifers cite both scientific and philosophic evidence. Nonetheless, some people ignore the evidence pro-life advocates present and argue for abortion based on self-interest. That is the lazy way out. If we care about truth, we will courageously follow the facts wherever they lead. But there are pitfalls. Here are five common mistakes people make arguing for abortion

Mistake #1: Confuse objective claims with subjective ones (or confuse claims about ice cream with claims about truth).

When pro-life advocates say that abortion is morally wrong because it takes the life of a defenseless child, they are making a particular type of claim. Specifically, they are making a moral claim about the rightness or wrongness of abortion.

Many people, however, misconstrue the kind of claim the pro-lifer is making in order to respond to one they like better. Consider the following responses to the statement, Abortion is morally wrong.

• “That’s just your view.”

[...]

• “Don’t force your morality on me.”

[...]

1) Relativism is self-refuting—it commits intellectual suicide. [...]

2) It is impossible for a moral relativist to say that anything is wrong, including intolerance. [...]

3) It is impossible to live as a moral relativist.
[...]

• “I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I still think it should be legal.”

[...]

Mistake #2: Attack the person rather than refute the argument. (Ad hominem fallacy)
[...]

Mistake #3 : Assume what you are trying to prove.

[...]

Mistake #4: Confuse functioning as a person with being a person.


[...]

Mistake #5: Disguise your true position by appealing to the hard cases.

[...]

VI. Summary and Conclusion:

[...]
The whole thing is availiable here.
(source and author)

Thursday, November 17, 2011

What Hypocrisy?

Everyone who reads my other blog Kelly Thinks (a little more often) knows how much I respect the consistency and un-hypocrisy of the pro-choicers who choose to debate me.
Or, at least, how much I would if any of them were either consistent or un-hypocritical.

One of the most common objections that may be merited as real objections (there are many that cannot be merited as such) against pro-life arguments is that we never cite unbiased material.

Now, perhaps I have jumped the gun a little and the citations made to me by pro-choicers recently have not been hypocritical. Or, perhaps, they cannot be blamed for their hypocrisy. Perhaps stfuhypocrisy is really just a fan of irony; maybe stfuprolife is actually interested in non-biased material, even if it happens to show data that turns out to be in favour of not killing children.
Maybe, even though stfuprolife says that they “don’t need to know the difference between pro-life and anti-choice” and that they can “respect a pro-lifer”,[source] they just chose to have that name out of irony. Or something.

However, I think one of these two situations is much more likely: either these people don’t care that they’re being hypocritical because if we post information that only they can agree with, and they post information only they can agree with, then any undecided person only has access to one type of information. Or, with all the honesty that they can manage, the pro-choicers who have recently sent me links and citations believe that everything they send to me, the definitions that they choose to use and the reports that they choose to cite are all completely unbiased.

Here’s the thing: they aren’t.
The following is a link as part of a reply that I was recently sent by stfuprolife. The link to what they said is above.
A fetus is not a child.  It is not a person.  It is simply a potential person.  It is human, but not a human being.  It cannot be an individual if it’s not a separate being, it is depending and residing within someone else’s body.  So by definition, logic, and fact, a fetus simply cannot be considered an individual human being..