Dear Blogosphere:
Good day.
Allow me to introduce myself.
I am a Roman Catholic. I am in my second half-century. I spent most of my first half-century away from the Church, so I am, as some say, a "revert" rather than a convert.
Anyway, I intend this blog to be my private way to mouth off, I mean my earnest and selfless attempt to make the world a better place, especially regarding what I regard to be the important issues.
My Catholicism is going to be central to this blog. To clarify: I am committed and orthodox (a serious Catholic though not a very good one). This means I strictly follow the teachings of the Church in all moral questions, which for me includes all social questions, which includes everything about family, politics, peace, etc.
Regarding the name I am using and the title of this blog, here is what it's for: It's my committment to the principal that, in order to be in a moral position (i.e., to avoid hypocrisy) and to be clear-minded enough to be fair and objective, one must follow the command of Jesus Christ: To first take the beam out of your own eye before you criticize your brother for the mote in his eye.
As a Christian, I regard these words not as advice but as peremptory orders. No, I don't expect to follow them perfectly, but I state that insofar as I do not, I will be at fault.
I believe the rule applies to everyone, Christian or not; orthodox or otherwise. I believe that the Beam and Mote principal describes a universal moral and psychological principal which affects all humanity whether they know it or not.
Here is the central text to this principle; Matthew 7:1-5:
1 2 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
Now, for me, the "judgement" referred to is not simply honest disagreement, even if you are challenging others morally and not just about honest errors. This "judgement" which we must eschew is characterized by an attitude of pride--specifically, of taking a position of moral superiority. I see two moral problems with this. First of all, if we truly condemn another fellow sinner, by which I mean not just say they are wrong but take to ourselves the divine prerogative to judge them beyond all doubt, and to take a position of contempt and dismissal, we are assuming first a degree of certain knowledge of their true intentions that in fact only God can have. Second of all, we are assuming an uncharitable position, more concerned with condemning them than with their correction and redemption. Both these are intuitively wrong to me on the surface. To a Christian, this position is mortally sinful; we are usurping God's knowledge and His mercy.
Okay. Now this has been clear to me for decades. Even in my apostate years, the principle was sound
But only very recently, just a year ago, a brief remark by a friend of mine--a Catholic woman who is nearly 20 years younger than me and is far my senior in the Faith--clarfied the second part.
For all those decades, I heard the words that after you have taken the beam from your own eye, you will see clearly to remove the mote (speck; whatever) in your brother's eye, without taking much note of them. Then you will see clearly? Just a figure of speech, I thouhgt. But my friend pointed out that Jesus (as usual) meant exactly what he said. If we are harboring some fault of our own, and have not repented of it, it will in fact cloud our judgement and perception. A simple example: If we have someone close to us who is too defensive when we try to complain about some conduct of theirs, well, the truth is not everyone is willing to be criticized. But very often, they get defensive because their heart is full of some pain or other due to some kind of injustice they feel has been done to them, and they get too angry to listen cooly. Whether we have contributed to their pain or not, it is far more effective to be honest with ourselves first; to set aside our own hurt and anger and listen to them first; try to understand their position, and make clear to them that we hear them and respect their views and feelings, even if we may disagree with them. Not only will they be far more likely to really hear our complaints if they are made to feel their own position is finally understood and respected (which can take a long time if there is a lot of pain involved). But not until we have paid enough attention to them can we criticize them in such a way that they can take our criticisms seriously. Without first earnestly examining our own perception--checking our own eye for beams--we will be unable to actually even perceive their difficulties with any accuracy. My friend who pointed this out to me does anti-abortion counselling. These counsellors in the Church are carefully trained to first show their concern for the feelings and needs of the women they counsel. Otherwise it becomes highly unlikely to get through to them at all. "They have to believe that you care before they will care what you believe," she said.
Finally, it's not true that if you are a sinner yourself you cannot talk to others about their sins. Jim Brown, the football player turned actor, had a business (I don't know if he still does) mediating violent disputes between gang members (and possibly other groups; I don't know). I saw part of a special on this. There was an astounding scene of him with two opposing groups of gang members in a room actually being able to calm their murderous rage (there had been murders between them, even of relatives) and make peace.
Later an interviewer asked him about one obvious question: He has been violent himself in the past; has even assaulted family members. How can he talk to others about their violence. Gently, cooly, he remarked that he certainly does not deny his violent past nor pretend it does not matter.
He said that if you try to do that, to "correct" people and come across "rightous", you will get nowhere. Why should you? They can tell you don't respect them. Why should they listen to you?
So. Let me see if I can wind this up with an example. Peace is an issue I'd like to address. Iraq and Lebanon are obvious topics; Iran, North Korea--you probably know the drill already. I believe many critcs of Israel and the USA--especially of George W. Bush and his supporters--are unfair and dangerously mistaken. I could rush forward with a long tirade about this right now. (Writer's block is not my problem. Writer's excess is.) But justice AND peace can be better served.
What I really need to do is consider the criticisms more fully; take the time to listen; set aside my impatience at their apparent injustice and irrationality and my anxiety about the danger and injustice they seem to promote, and try to deepen my understanding of the concerns of the critics. Then, insofar as there are genuine criticisms that can be aimed at Bush and at Israel, to do so. Now of course there are those whose irrational prejudice and malice will not be allayed by this. But then I will be in a far more credible position to call them on it. There are those who can be reached. It's surprising how, especially after a delay, some truly hardened positions can be changed.
And there's yet another step of the same principal: Even when I am taking their sides, before I criticize Bush or Israel, I need to examine myself; check myself for prejudice, malice, self-rightousness, lack of charity.
By the way, "first" does not always mean chronologically first, though that's a good safe approach. What it really means is that it has to be first in priority. Justice, honesty, charity, must come first, and I do not believe I can simply automatically trust my good intentions. Not ever. It will require a real committment to try as best I can for humility. "Don't be rightous", as Jim Brown might say it.
And, dear readers, I do not believe I can trust your good intentions automatically either. Be prepared; I reserve the right to call you on it not just when you are honestly mistaken, but when I think you might in fact be yielding to anger, prejudice, or some other moral fault. I cannnot expect you to take me seriously if I do this with a "rightous" attitude.
Now I can explain fully the name of this blog, and my chosen username. I'm sure many of you have guessed. "Forest and Mote" acknowledges that I have not just a log but a whole forest in my eye, and I need to be diligent about clearing it out if I am to accomplish the purpose of this blog--which really is to try to make a contribution. I am "LogEyed Roman"; "Roman" becuase I'm Catholic, of course; and "LogEyed" to acknowledge up front that I personally, and not just my "side" on various issues, have many chronic faults and shortcomings that need to be not only worked on but, above all, fully acknowledged. When I don't do this, I fall into prejudice and injustice. I will in fact do this. I only hope that, with God's help, I do enough brush clearance so that my contribution is on balance more positive than negative.
Very sincerely yours,
LogEyed Roman
July 27, 2006
Good day.
Allow me to introduce myself.
I am a Roman Catholic. I am in my second half-century. I spent most of my first half-century away from the Church, so I am, as some say, a "revert" rather than a convert.
Anyway, I intend this blog to be my private way to mouth off, I mean my earnest and selfless attempt to make the world a better place, especially regarding what I regard to be the important issues.
My Catholicism is going to be central to this blog. To clarify: I am committed and orthodox (a serious Catholic though not a very good one). This means I strictly follow the teachings of the Church in all moral questions, which for me includes all social questions, which includes everything about family, politics, peace, etc.
Regarding the name I am using and the title of this blog, here is what it's for: It's my committment to the principal that, in order to be in a moral position (i.e., to avoid hypocrisy) and to be clear-minded enough to be fair and objective, one must follow the command of Jesus Christ: To first take the beam out of your own eye before you criticize your brother for the mote in his eye.
As a Christian, I regard these words not as advice but as peremptory orders. No, I don't expect to follow them perfectly, but I state that insofar as I do not, I will be at fault.
I believe the rule applies to everyone, Christian or not; orthodox or otherwise. I believe that the Beam and Mote principal describes a universal moral and psychological principal which affects all humanity whether they know it or not.
Here is the central text to this principle; Matthew 7:1-5:
1 2 "Stop judging, that you may not be judged.
2
For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.
3
Why do you notice the splinter in your brother's eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?
4
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me remove that splinter from your eye,' while the wooden beam is in your eye?
5
You hypocrite, 3 remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother's eye.
Now, for me, the "judgement" referred to is not simply honest disagreement, even if you are challenging others morally and not just about honest errors. This "judgement" which we must eschew is characterized by an attitude of pride--specifically, of taking a position of moral superiority. I see two moral problems with this. First of all, if we truly condemn another fellow sinner, by which I mean not just say they are wrong but take to ourselves the divine prerogative to judge them beyond all doubt, and to take a position of contempt and dismissal, we are assuming first a degree of certain knowledge of their true intentions that in fact only God can have. Second of all, we are assuming an uncharitable position, more concerned with condemning them than with their correction and redemption. Both these are intuitively wrong to me on the surface. To a Christian, this position is mortally sinful; we are usurping God's knowledge and His mercy.
Okay. Now this has been clear to me for decades. Even in my apostate years, the principle was sound
But only very recently, just a year ago, a brief remark by a friend of mine--a Catholic woman who is nearly 20 years younger than me and is far my senior in the Faith--clarfied the second part.
For all those decades, I heard the words that after you have taken the beam from your own eye, you will see clearly to remove the mote (speck; whatever) in your brother's eye, without taking much note of them. Then you will see clearly? Just a figure of speech, I thouhgt. But my friend pointed out that Jesus (as usual) meant exactly what he said. If we are harboring some fault of our own, and have not repented of it, it will in fact cloud our judgement and perception. A simple example: If we have someone close to us who is too defensive when we try to complain about some conduct of theirs, well, the truth is not everyone is willing to be criticized. But very often, they get defensive because their heart is full of some pain or other due to some kind of injustice they feel has been done to them, and they get too angry to listen cooly. Whether we have contributed to their pain or not, it is far more effective to be honest with ourselves first; to set aside our own hurt and anger and listen to them first; try to understand their position, and make clear to them that we hear them and respect their views and feelings, even if we may disagree with them. Not only will they be far more likely to really hear our complaints if they are made to feel their own position is finally understood and respected (which can take a long time if there is a lot of pain involved). But not until we have paid enough attention to them can we criticize them in such a way that they can take our criticisms seriously. Without first earnestly examining our own perception--checking our own eye for beams--we will be unable to actually even perceive their difficulties with any accuracy. My friend who pointed this out to me does anti-abortion counselling. These counsellors in the Church are carefully trained to first show their concern for the feelings and needs of the women they counsel. Otherwise it becomes highly unlikely to get through to them at all. "They have to believe that you care before they will care what you believe," she said.
Finally, it's not true that if you are a sinner yourself you cannot talk to others about their sins. Jim Brown, the football player turned actor, had a business (I don't know if he still does) mediating violent disputes between gang members (and possibly other groups; I don't know). I saw part of a special on this. There was an astounding scene of him with two opposing groups of gang members in a room actually being able to calm their murderous rage (there had been murders between them, even of relatives) and make peace.
Later an interviewer asked him about one obvious question: He has been violent himself in the past; has even assaulted family members. How can he talk to others about their violence. Gently, cooly, he remarked that he certainly does not deny his violent past nor pretend it does not matter.
He said that if you try to do that, to "correct" people and come across "rightous", you will get nowhere. Why should you? They can tell you don't respect them. Why should they listen to you?
So. Let me see if I can wind this up with an example. Peace is an issue I'd like to address. Iraq and Lebanon are obvious topics; Iran, North Korea--you probably know the drill already. I believe many critcs of Israel and the USA--especially of George W. Bush and his supporters--are unfair and dangerously mistaken. I could rush forward with a long tirade about this right now. (Writer's block is not my problem. Writer's excess is.) But justice AND peace can be better served.
What I really need to do is consider the criticisms more fully; take the time to listen; set aside my impatience at their apparent injustice and irrationality and my anxiety about the danger and injustice they seem to promote, and try to deepen my understanding of the concerns of the critics. Then, insofar as there are genuine criticisms that can be aimed at Bush and at Israel, to do so. Now of course there are those whose irrational prejudice and malice will not be allayed by this. But then I will be in a far more credible position to call them on it. There are those who can be reached. It's surprising how, especially after a delay, some truly hardened positions can be changed.
And there's yet another step of the same principal: Even when I am taking their sides, before I criticize Bush or Israel, I need to examine myself; check myself for prejudice, malice, self-rightousness, lack of charity.
By the way, "first" does not always mean chronologically first, though that's a good safe approach. What it really means is that it has to be first in priority. Justice, honesty, charity, must come first, and I do not believe I can simply automatically trust my good intentions. Not ever. It will require a real committment to try as best I can for humility. "Don't be rightous", as Jim Brown might say it.
And, dear readers, I do not believe I can trust your good intentions automatically either. Be prepared; I reserve the right to call you on it not just when you are honestly mistaken, but when I think you might in fact be yielding to anger, prejudice, or some other moral fault. I cannnot expect you to take me seriously if I do this with a "rightous" attitude.
Now I can explain fully the name of this blog, and my chosen username. I'm sure many of you have guessed. "Forest and Mote" acknowledges that I have not just a log but a whole forest in my eye, and I need to be diligent about clearing it out if I am to accomplish the purpose of this blog--which really is to try to make a contribution. I am "LogEyed Roman"; "Roman" becuase I'm Catholic, of course; and "LogEyed" to acknowledge up front that I personally, and not just my "side" on various issues, have many chronic faults and shortcomings that need to be not only worked on but, above all, fully acknowledged. When I don't do this, I fall into prejudice and injustice. I will in fact do this. I only hope that, with God's help, I do enough brush clearance so that my contribution is on balance more positive than negative.
Very sincerely yours,
LogEyed Roman
July 27, 2006
posted by LogEyed Roman at 1:06 AM
0 comments
