by Carl V. Bibeau
"What the world needs now, is love, tough love. That’s the only thing that there’s just too little of."
Let’s say one wanted to lavish trust on someone. With no prior evidence indicating that a person was worthy of trust - indeed quite the contrary - would it be prudent to write a letter of reference which would represent someone as trustworthy for a delicate and responsible position?
Can simply expecting the best of someone (by holding out a laurel) be a realistic strategy to turn bad behavior around? Perhaps we should revisit the woeful results of Neville Chamberlain’s diplomacy toward Adolph Hitler for a clue to answer this question.
Indeed, an even more apt example already exists within the Catholic Church’s recent history with regard to the pedophile scandal. It came to light a few years ago, that a significant number of bishops, knowing that subordinate priests were pederast offenders, simply reassigned them to fresh parishes, hoping for the best outcome - hoping that affirmation, that a show of trust in a new situation, would rectify prior bad behavior.
It has come to my attention that a bleeding heart, optimistic mindset is in operation in order to rationalize the honors about to be bestowed upon Alleged President Obama. The theory goes that, by reaching out with unconditional love via bestowing the honorary degree, Notre Dame wishes to initiate a change of heart in Barry. It’s not unlike the rationale that a bastard who grew up as a ghetto child, acts out as an adult, merely because he wasn’t loved enough when he was growing up. Therefore, all he needs to rectify his thought process, is to show him that we think he deserves respect for his viewpoint. This would supposedly enable him to perceive our worldview, and soften his heart.
After all, everyone KNOWS the Catholic Church couldn’t possibly be honoring Obama for his track record of supporting abortion "rights." Anyone who perceives this (the privilege of giving a Commencement Address and the receipt of an honorary degree) as a scandal, must need their extremist right wing heads examined. Their trespass on private property must necessarily be interpreted as aggressive, confrontational and ultimately dangerous. At the very least, it’s considered to be in extremely poor taste.
As a result, the faithful Catholic rank-and-file are arrested for witnessing for the worth and sacredness of the life of the babe in the womb because of their presence on Church property. Hello? Catholic hierarchy, remind us again who is Church? Did you not catechize us to realize that "it’s not a building, it’s the Catholic Community itself?" Instead of referring these ethics cases to a Court of Canon Law, where they belong, the Notre Dame Authorities, are employing the services of secular law enforcement to remove what they consider to be a nuisance. Did not the Sanhedrin also employ the secular Roman Authority to do their dirty work?
Every year, another Catholic Institution of Higher Learning selects a high profile dissenter to give their Spring Commencement Address. Several years back, the USCCB issued a warning that persons publicly holding to doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching should not be honored thusly. Now, the penultimate violator is about to be honored by a Catholic University with arguably the highest recognizable profile. Yet, the best that the bishop, whose jurisdiction includes the offending University, can do is boycott the ceremony. He even stated disapproval of Catholics attempting conscientious witness for human life in the womb to be on campus addressing this impending egregious affront. More than 70 bishops nationwide have said, "No-no-no!" ...on paper. What a scathing rebuke!
Sunday’s Gospel Reading (John 15:1-8) addressed the evidence of discipleship - FRUITS. "No more than a branch can bear fruit of itself apart from the vine, can you bear fruit apart from me."
Does a "well-meaning bystander" attach or re-attach a branch to the Vine with an optimistic hope that the graft will take, merely as a result of the good wishes or affirmation of that bystander?
"What the world needs now, is love, tough love. That’s the only thing that there’s just too little of."
Let’s say one wanted to lavish trust on someone. With no prior evidence indicating that a person was worthy of trust - indeed quite the contrary - would it be prudent to write a letter of reference which would represent someone as trustworthy for a delicate and responsible position?
Can simply expecting the best of someone (by holding out a laurel) be a realistic strategy to turn bad behavior around? Perhaps we should revisit the woeful results of Neville Chamberlain’s diplomacy toward Adolph Hitler for a clue to answer this question.
Indeed, an even more apt example already exists within the Catholic Church’s recent history with regard to the pedophile scandal. It came to light a few years ago, that a significant number of bishops, knowing that subordinate priests were pederast offenders, simply reassigned them to fresh parishes, hoping for the best outcome - hoping that affirmation, that a show of trust in a new situation, would rectify prior bad behavior.
It has come to my attention that a bleeding heart, optimistic mindset is in operation in order to rationalize the honors about to be bestowed upon Alleged President Obama. The theory goes that, by reaching out with unconditional love via bestowing the honorary degree, Notre Dame wishes to initiate a change of heart in Barry. It’s not unlike the rationale that a bastard who grew up as a ghetto child, acts out as an adult, merely because he wasn’t loved enough when he was growing up. Therefore, all he needs to rectify his thought process, is to show him that we think he deserves respect for his viewpoint. This would supposedly enable him to perceive our worldview, and soften his heart.
After all, everyone KNOWS the Catholic Church couldn’t possibly be honoring Obama for his track record of supporting abortion "rights." Anyone who perceives this (the privilege of giving a Commencement Address and the receipt of an honorary degree) as a scandal, must need their extremist right wing heads examined. Their trespass on private property must necessarily be interpreted as aggressive, confrontational and ultimately dangerous. At the very least, it’s considered to be in extremely poor taste.
As a result, the faithful Catholic rank-and-file are arrested for witnessing for the worth and sacredness of the life of the babe in the womb because of their presence on Church property. Hello? Catholic hierarchy, remind us again who is Church? Did you not catechize us to realize that "it’s not a building, it’s the Catholic Community itself?" Instead of referring these ethics cases to a Court of Canon Law, where they belong, the Notre Dame Authorities, are employing the services of secular law enforcement to remove what they consider to be a nuisance. Did not the Sanhedrin also employ the secular Roman Authority to do their dirty work?
Every year, another Catholic Institution of Higher Learning selects a high profile dissenter to give their Spring Commencement Address. Several years back, the USCCB issued a warning that persons publicly holding to doctrine contrary to Catholic teaching should not be honored thusly. Now, the penultimate violator is about to be honored by a Catholic University with arguably the highest recognizable profile. Yet, the best that the bishop, whose jurisdiction includes the offending University, can do is boycott the ceremony. He even stated disapproval of Catholics attempting conscientious witness for human life in the womb to be on campus addressing this impending egregious affront. More than 70 bishops nationwide have said, "No-no-no!" ...on paper. What a scathing rebuke!
Sunday’s Gospel Reading (John 15:1-8) addressed the evidence of discipleship - FRUITS. "No more than a branch can bear fruit of itself apart from the vine, can you bear fruit apart from me."
Does a "well-meaning bystander" attach or re-attach a branch to the Vine with an optimistic hope that the graft will take, merely as a result of the good wishes or affirmation of that bystander?
NO. The branch itself must assent to attachment to the Vine first, after which the Community of Believers looks for fruit (which is the evidence of attachment), and then even tests the quality of said fruit.
Indeed, sincerity of intention to change could even be considered a prerequisite for trust.
John the Baptizer didn’t believe the Sadducees and Pharisees as they came forward to be baptized. He challenged them to "give some evidence that they meant to reform (Mt. 3:8). Similarly, Paul advises the Church not to promote a new convert too quickly, "lest he become conceited" (1Tim 3:6).
Presentation Ministries - One Bread, One Body - May 10, 2009
_________________________________________________________________
permission granted to reprint or disseminate electronically in its entirety with credit of authorship, and link to http://laying-the-groove.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment