B, you indicated you would not mind another Horror Story, So here goes. When my son was in 5th grade he was having a hard time, Not with his studies, but with a couple of bullies. I could give background but it had to do with kids realizing ethnic differences. He was knocked down twice and we decided the situation was getting serious.
Our daughter was five. And I was little help. I was gone five days a week going around the state on a political matter, sometimes giving speeches three times a day. I could see Alice was getting in a pressure cooker. Finally she decided John had to change schools; but the public schools had some tight restrictions. There was a catholic school 6 blocks from our house. Alice had taught sunday school there 3 years and our daughter was baptized there.
We went to the school on a Friday and the two nuns who met us were most gracious. They said they would be delighted to have John there. I, Alice, and John were more than thrilled!! We raced around town to get his uniform{not an easy task}. Alice and John were completely different people. I was very happy.
Sunday afternoon the phone rang and the nuns said they needed to talk to us. When we got there they told us, almost crying, that the priest had said we hadn't contributed enougn money so John could not go to the school.
Alice went crazy [and so did John}. She got in one of our cars and drove away screaming. I spent two hours trying to find her. Finally she drove in the driveway and almost drove through the front of the house. She have never done this!!! I was almost lost at what to do. In desparation I called the Assit. Supt. of School, who had no reaon to like me because we had been on the opposite sides of so many issues!.He was a Baptist!!!!!! but said in a calm voice: John tell Alice not to worry, give me three hours. How he did it I don't know but within TWO hours he called back with the perfect solution.
I should mention, and this makes me look bad three of my coach friends came by. They were so angry they wanted to get the priest and beat the hell out of him. Of course they did not go but did call him and curse him out in the vilest terms.
The priest was so filled with_____I don't think he knew what was going on.
I quit my political workings and Alice out or sheer hate did not go to mass for 18 months. BTW John was an honor student got a masters degree and then, as I have told you , died a cruel death at 36.
O yes we still see the priest at functions. Most people politely appauld when he is introduced. But two of us don't!!
We all know Matthew, Chapter 25. Assuming for a moment this was the story of the two men's life, who would beon the right and who on the left. The Baptist Supt., living in a jungle of heresy, completely devoid of the warm arms of Rome; or the priest--his conceptions immaculate, and embraced in the arms of mother church. I guess the Supt. on the right and the priest on the left. Of course I don't know for sure and no one does, but honor me with a guess?
Anna, it is two in the morning here, so I may not be as rational as I hope I normally at least appear to be. Thanks for your comments. I'll look tomorrow and find references to probation.
ReplyDeleteI'm going to continue with my 'horror' stories but they are not keeping me from the church; but I do want to tell them before it's too late. Maybe it's therapeutic. the problem with Alice and me is we are just the opposite of what many think. We are not fighters. Yes we love a lively discussion but to quote my mother: Frankness, 90 percent of the time, is an excuse for rudeness. Alice and I have many faults but are seldom rude. We have always tried to follow Newman"s 'chair' analogy. This makes you an easy target. The liberal paper in our state said "Haynes is the best speaker in the state; he'll battle you to the end, but you'll still like him." See my weakess?
Some of you say " Go ask he or she something about catholiciism". But what if I embarass them or hurt them or appear obstinate. That's why I like "liberal catholic blogs" 90 percent of the time we're not rude.
My precious youngest grandson is sleeping with Alice and me and Bruty, our min-pin to night. Maybe that wll give any who reads this a clue. Anna, I think you are a spot...well a little more than a spot more conservative than Alice and me. But kindness trumps all. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteAnna, from national statures: "Those baptized persons who have lived as christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition AND A PERIOD OF PROBATION { emphasis added} should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the cathechumenate."
Let me emphasise the part of that quote that you left out:
"Those baptized persons who have lived as Christians and need only instruction in the Catholic tradition and a degree of probation within the Catholic community should not be asked to undergo a full program parallel to the catechumenate"
You seem to see "probation" as a sort of punishment/demotion for bad behavior or bad thoughts; I think the intent is that it be a common sense waiting time to make sure new "recruits" are genuinely interested in joining the community, and not doing something scandalous, like undercover expose reporting on Church practices, or doing something so spontaneous that they'll just change their minds again the next week.
If you think it might be therapeutic to tell all your horror stories, go ahead.
I don't know Newman's chair analogy; care to explain it? It sounds like you are worried that if you are frank with your questions, you will sound rude. And I think that's something worth worrying about. But I don't think it should stop you from asking questions completely. Think of it this way. It's true that "frankness" is often an excuse for rudeness. Someone feels or thinks something negative, and says or acts on that negative thing on the basis of "honesty" instead of rightly controlling themselves out of Christian charity.
But that simply doesn't mean that frankness is always rude. Honesty doesn't always conflict with charity. What matters is a proper consideration of the other person. You are worried about whether you will hurt or embarass them. It is good for you to consider whether what you say will hurt or embarass them. What you shouldn't do is *assume* that it will hurt or embarass them if you don't have good reason to think so.
Practically, there's ways to try to minimize the harm while asking difficult questions. When you're asking them, pay attention to the person you are questioning. Try to pick up on any cues that you may be pushing too hard, that they may be getting frustrated, and if you think that's the case, back off. Listen, really listen to their answers and try to see if there is any way it can provide you with the answers that you need, even if it doesn't seem so at first; don't be quick to assume that their answers are unsatisfactory.
In the end, I think if you are *trying* to be gentle, sincere, and charitable in your questions, then you will be ok. And you can only do the best you can do, you know?
Your situation reminds me slightly of those people who want to put their kids in plastic bubbles to keep them safe from all the dangers of the world. You think there is some risk of hurting people in asking questions - I say you should minimize the risk but not let it keep you in the bubble. Does that make sense?
And now that I've gone on and on about it, let me agree with you that "Above all, love each other deeply, because love covers over a multitude of sins."
Anna, by oversight I did not include the phrase you note. Still don't see the difference, but was honest mistake.
ReplyDeleteNewman's "Chair" analogy is from his definition of a gentleman. A gentleman is parallel to an easy chair in that the purpose of both is to put a person at ease. Not exact. May have missed phrase. Joke.
Will probably continue my stories. Please take no offence; they have nothing to do with you. Jack
Jack,
ReplyDeleteOh, to be sure, I didn't think you left that phrase out on purpose. I just think it helps put some emphasis, some context, on the "probation" phrase. "Probation" makes people think of convicts out of jail - a very negative context. Saying that candidates need instruction and a period of probation might sound a little like candidates need to toe a strict line, like they are assumed guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Saying that the candidates need a degree of probation in the community sounds (to me anyhow) more like they need a bit of a waiting period so that any obvious problems will show up. In the latter case, the emphasis is not on the personal holiness of candidate, but rather that the candidate isn't going to be doing serious damage to the community.
I was hoping this would reassure you somewhat.
Anna, you try so faithfully. Please comment on school story. I came to blogs to get answers.You respond.Others try at times. Probably last post. Worn out my welcome.Justified. "A tough case." Jack
ReplyDeleteJack,
ReplyDeleteThe school story was pretty awful. That priest had to be lost in his own world to think that it would be ok to refuse a student on the basis of money - and not even tuition, but money contributed to the church! It seems pretty obvious to me that he was failing to live out the gospel of Christ.
When it comes to comparing him to the Baptist superintendant, I wouldn't presume to judge the eternal salvation of either one. You are comparing the known sin of one man to unknown sins of another; there isn't any good way of doing that. However, although I don't think it's good to judge people's eternal souls, you may certainly judge their actions. The Baptist in this case displayed God's love, and the priest did not. The Baptist's actions are the one to emulate, not the priest's.
If you think the Baptist's beliefs are directly responsible for him behaving better than the priest, then you should consider adopting his beliefs. If, on the other hand, you think he lived out his beliefs better than the priest lived out his, then you should strive to live out your beliefs better than the priest did.
I read your posts from the 21st and the 22nd at the same time; then I responded to both in the comment boxes for the 21st. My comment on forgiveness was a response primarily to the school story.
And I still would recommend that. There's no excuse that I know of for it being ok for the priest to do what he did. He has sinned against you. You can choose to continue to be angry, to continue to hold it against him. Or you can choose to forgive him, to let it go. He doesn't deserve to be forgiven. No one who sins does. If you choose to forgive him, it must be out of the generosity of your own heart. And, in the end, I think it is in your own self-interest to forgive him.
Forgiveness can unleash a lot of healing. And it sounds to me like you could use a bit of divine healing.
Probably last post. Worn out my welcome.Justified. "A tough case."
It's your own blog, you can't wear out your welcome. :) If someone gets tired of hearing it, they can stop reading. I can't think of any good reason why you should stop posting unless you just want to for your own sake.
I wouldn't classify you as a "tough case", either. You're not an easy case, maybe, but you are sincere. You have honest questions and you ask them politely. We may not always know the answers to your questions, but it's very different from talking to someone who is rude or someone who just refuses to listen.
One more thing I want to say on this whole topic. Because of your personal, very negative, experiences with Catholics in the past, you don't trust them. You don't trust that the people doing the RCIA will be at all reasonable in their attitudes towards you; you expect the process to be demeaning because Catholics you have met in the past have demeaned you.
And that's not entirely unreasonable. People aren't ultimately reliable. The RCIA nun, the priest at your parish, there is no guarantee that they will treat you with the respect and love you ought to be treated with. If you decide to go through the RCIA process, the decision should not have anything to do with them and how they treat you. (Although if you find they are horrible, you can always try RCIA through a different parish). It's not people that you need to trust. It's God. If you go through the RCIA process, it should be God that you are doing it for, and our Lord that you are trusting to make it worth your while. The RCIA people are there to enable God's work - they may be better or worse at it, but the work is God's, not theirs. (This is something the RCIA teacher at my parish was telling me this morning, and I think it would be good if you could take his message to heart).
I am trying to say this gently. Let me know if anything I've said offends you or depresses you more.
this is alice. i wrote out your comment and took it to him. he was very pleased. he did want me to tell you he was not talking about the total lives of the priest or the supt.just wanting some comment on belief vs. action. thanks again. alice
ReplyDelete