Bigots: maybe they're not so bad?

Some people are harder to love than others. Bigots*, for example, can be pretty annoying, especially when their bigotry is aggressively expressed - in the form of rudeness, arrogance, confident assertion of ignorant claims, arguments that blatantly beg questions, hypocritical double standards, refusal/inability to listen, etc. (Certainly I don't like dealing with bigots: I prefer people who are intellectually interesting and intellectually interested - like my kids, for example.)

But there are also some things to be said in favor of the aggressive bigot: it's good to be passionate about what you believe, and it's good to be prepared to openly state what you believe and to at least attempt to defend it. Why is that? Well, to believe some claim just means to hold that that claim is true. And it is good to be passionate about the truth, to openly state the truth, and to attempt to defend the truth (although of course we should always remember that even claims which we sincerely and passionately believe to be true may turn out to be false).**

Of course, not everyone needs to passionately devote their lives to discovering speculative truths and to becoming extraordinarily knowledgeable (we all have our own 'things' in life with which we are specially occupied), but everyone has to at least live their everyday lives in light of certain beliefs (i.e., suppositions of truth), and, at least from time to time, ask themselves certain basic questions about the nature of the world and their own purpose in it. These are matters of practical, psychological, and moral necessity.

It's true that the passionate, aggressive bigot gets some things seriously wrong: she shouldn't be so arrogant, she should have the courtesy and consistency to also listen, instead of just telling others what she thinks and expecting them to listen to her, she should learn how to make arguments that make sense, etc. But we all have our own peculiar faults, we all act badly sometimes, and it is important to remember (note to self) that the basic tendency underlying the bigot's inept performance is a desire to live and promote the truth, and this underlying tendency is something that is fundamentally healthy and good.

Also, while she may be annoying, that in itself is not even a bad thing. People are often annoyed or offended unjustly, so it is always an open question, when someone is offended or annoyed, who is at fault: offender or offendee (or, of course, both)? That the bigot is not afraid to offend, then, shows her courage and devotion - not to the truth, unfortunately, but at least to what she thinks is the truth. And of course, again, she really should proceed with more circumspection, not forgetting that what she sincerely believes to be true might turn out to be false: For it is no small misstep, some mere peccadillo, to act as if whatever I believe to be true is simply the same as the truth. To act in this way is in fact to show great ignorance of and contempt for the truth.*** But the point remains that the bigot's courage and devotion would be good things - and could become good things -, if only she could learn to correct those faults which are vitiating them.


*My working definition of bigot: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. One can thus be a bigot who is well-loved, well-mannered, and never annoy anyone. But this kind of bigot I won't talk about here. It may also be worth pointing out that bigots are always people, before they are bigots - 'bigot' should never be thought of as exhaustively describing a real person's character and identity (as in, "all you need to know about Martha is that Martha's a bigot!").
**If one were to deny this by claiming, "actually, the truth doesn't matter," the question would still remain: "is that actually true, that the truth doesn't matter?" At this point someone might still say, "but I just don't care," and you might ask, "why not?" and who knows where it goes from there. In any case, most people are not wont to maintain that the truth just doesn't matter and that they just don't care about it (although they will maintain this often enough in regard to particular truths, even very important ones, provided they don't want the bother of having to honestly consider the case for such a truth and of subsequently possibly having to amend their lives in some way).
***This is true even in the case where what the bigot believes is in fact true. Someone who knows some truth and defends it, but in a bigoted way, abuses the truth: the truth should be treated with respect (sometimes even reverence) and presented to others accordingly. Bigotry is not about what you believe, it's about how you believe. (Of course, sometimes what you believe affects how you believe: for example, some people come to believe that the only way to make 'progress' (however defined) is by violence, so naturally they will come to express their beliefs in violent and irrational ways.)

Oh, Bluster!

People like to take positions. That’s easy. When they encounter opposition to a position they have taken, that’s when it gets interesting. That’s when you get some insight into their character (and often enough it's your own character that will be in question). Possible responses to opposition include ignoring, insulting, misrepresenting, etc. One response which is more promising is to try to ask some difficult questions of one’s opponent. This is a good thing, so far as it goes: it seems to indicate a willingness to openly, honestly examine the real nature of the controverted issue. Unfortunately, often such questions are merely rhetorical and also naïve (raising such questions is a common, sometimes effective, but never enlightening polemical strategy). And when those questions turn out to be not so difficult and one’s opponent easily answers them, one all-too-often-tempting option is to simply ignore the answers and to bluster on about the righteousness of one’s cause and that’s the point where one's personal character is revealed. So remember: You can bluster, but you can’t hide. Your bluster reveals you. So why not stop pretending? Why not go ahead and actually listen to what other people have to say?

(I was) Naomi's steward

I came across this picture of Naomi sleeping recently. At first it reminded me of her death and filled me with the pain of loss.

 The phrase "sleep in heavenly peace" came to me. (A small comfort.)

When she completed her earthly course in May of this year, Naomi was 2 years and 3 months old. This end to her earthly life was sudden and unexpected. One moment she was our wonderful, joyful, beautiful, funny little girl (daughter, sister, granddaughter, niece, cousin, friend, etc.), running and skipping, jumping and dancing, poking and joking, hugging and kissing, picking flowers, blowing bubbles, feeding our resident pheasant, sleeping every night in her bedroom across the hall from us (actually me, often enough, sleeping with her); the next her soul had departed and we had the devastating pain of holding her lifeless body before saying goodbye to that too, leaving us with only her favorite pink princess nightie lying in her empty bed.

Of course this has been terribly painful. We cling to the pictures and short videos and memories we have of Naomi.

But we also believe that Naomi is God's beloved daughter just as much as she is ours. It is simply a fact that it wasn't us who had the idea of Naomi, this precious unique individual, and then created her for ourselves - and this fact surely has consequences, whatever else you believe. We believe she was a blessing bestowed upon us by God. When this happened, when she was conceived in Theresa's womb and began her existence, she was placed under our stewardship. We were stewards. (See below*, excerpt from Chrysostom's commentary on the parable of the wasteful steward (Lk. 16).) But God has always been and will always be her Lord, and difficult as it is, we have to be content to accept the appalling strangeness of the mercy of God (to borrow a phrase). He created her for us, it is true, to be our daughter (sister, etc.); but first for himself, to be his daughter, to be a unique and precious part of his creation and an eternally blessed participant in his own divine life.

Contemplating the picture of Naomi sleeping, I thought of the host of those to whom St. Paul refers as 'sleeping,' who are now (somehow) with the Lord - and with Naomi, in that calm and bright holy night, which to us seems so silent. I thought of each time Naomi slept, and of the fact that each of her (and our) sleeps could have been her (or our) last on Earth: each time we enter the subconscious night of sleep - in a way analogous to death - we can never be entirely certain where we shall visit or to what we shall awaken...

For now we (who love her) must awaken to the absence of precious Naomi. This is often difficult. But we also believe that she has been granted an early passage to eternal rest, light, and joy, with Jesus, our holy mother Mary, and all God's saints. This too is one of God's gifts, and is a gift to us just as Jesus' death was a gift to us: "If I am lifted up from the Earth, I will draw all people to myself." First Jesus spoke these words (John 12:32); now Naomi too is among those drawing us up. Certainly, while Naomi was alive with us, we did thank God for his gift of her to us - as we thank him still for the gift of her life, and for Isaac, Nathaniel, and Tabitha - and we recognized the primacy of his Lordship over our stewardship (we might as well - it's not exactly optional). But while it is obviously not the gift we would have chosen, we believe that her death too is a part of the Lord's provision for us, a gift of God's merciful love, whereby he calls us to a greater perfection in accepting the gospel, in understanding who we are and how to be humble stewards of God's gifts, and in learning to trust in him as Lord, giver of life.

 

***

Silent night, holy night

All is calm, all is bright

Round yon virgin mother and child

Holy infant so tender and mild

Sleep in heavenly peace

*St. John Chrysostom: "An erroneous opinion, weighed down by mortal things, increases the reproaches due to us, and diminishes the good: such an opinion is to think that whatever we possess for the needs of life, we possess as lords; and thus we also grasp such things as if they were the most important goods. But the contrary is true: for in the present life we are not placed as lords in our own house, but as strangers and foreigners we are led where we wish not, and for how long we see not: who now has a secure place, in a short time becomes a beggar. Wherefore, whoever you are, know that you are the dispenser of another’s things, and that the rights over them have been conceded to you for a passing and brief time of use. Putting away from your soul, then, the arrogance of lordship, assume the humility and moderation of a steward." [Opinio quaedam erronea aggravata mortalibus auget crimina, minuit bona: ea vero est opinari quod ea quaecumque possidemus in usu vitae, possideamus ut domini; et ideo etiam opportune ea apprehendimus tamquam bona praecipua. Sed contrarium est: non enim nos ut domini in vita praesenti collocati sumus in propria domo, sed tamquam hospites et advenae quo nolimus ducimur, et quo tempore non putamus: qui nunc locuples est, in brevi fit mendicus. Ergo quicumque sis, noveris te esse dispensatorem alienorum, et quod transitorii usus et brevis tibi iura concessa sunt. Abiecto ergo ab anima dominii fastu, sumas humilitatem et modestiam villici.] (From Aquinas' Catena aurea in Lucam, c. 17, lc. 1.)

The Jesus Prayer

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

"Lord Jesus Christ, Son of the living God": The great mystery of our God, our creator and redeemer, who became man, conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary, in order to reveal to us most profoundly the face of God, and so to invite each individual in a unique way to become an active participant in the divine life of knowledge and love which orders and moves the whole universe. - There is one who enlightens every soul born into the world; he was the true Light.  He, through whom the world was made, was in the world, and the world treated him as a stranger.  ... the Word was made flesh, and came to dwell among us; and we had sight of his glory, glory such as belongs to the Father’s only-begotten Son, full of grace and truth. ... We have all received something out of his abundance, grace answering to grace. (John 1:9-16)

"Me, a sinner": Who, me? A what? Yes, me - and you too - a sinner. Someone who knows - no matter how vaguely or clearly - about what is true and good, about what really matters, about how best to live, about certain actions that I should and should not do, of the love I owe to God and to neighbor - but who often enough chooses not follow through on that knowledge. - Inwardly, I take delight in God’s law,  but I observe another law in my lower self, which raises war against the law of my conscience, and so I am handed over as a captive to that law of sin which my lower self contains. (Romans 7:22-23)

"Have mercy": that is, look with love upon my defects - and so, heal my wounds, restore my brokenness, sweeten my bitterness, correct my misunderstandings, enlighten my ignorance, give courage to my tremulous heart, enflame my tepid love. - Pitiable creature that I am, who is to set me free from a nature thus doomed to death?  Nothing else than the grace of God, through Jesus Christ our Lord. (Romans 7: 24-25)

Pope Francis' "Big Heart" interview

I started writing something about the 'Big Heart' interview (published in the Jesuit's America magazine) a while ago. Then I read this analysis: The phoney war in the Church: five linguistic thoughts on THAT interview. I think that Ches (the author) explains the problems quite beautifully and his article definitely deserves a read and ponder. The main issue which Ches addresses, and which I think many others have ignored, is: what do the words, the specific language, the pope used, taken in context, actually mean? What is their true significance, as uttered in the present world and in the present environment of competing ideologies? (And what vanity it would be to suppose that Pope Francis speaks pure gospel, in a way that simply transcends ideology.) Too many have decided to be 'charitable' by ignoring the world-historical and ecclesiastical-historical context of the pope's words and pretending that the best way to read him is in accordance with some presumption, of innocence/orthodoxy/liberalism/etc., so that the objective meaning of his words is so obscured by hermeneutical mists that all anybody can really do is to put the 'best' spin on it he can manage - that is, in accordance with however his conscience conceives of the 'best.'

The best way to read Bergoglio, however - that is, the way which accords with true charity, which is absolutely inseparable from truth -, is to see what substantive issues he has chosen to emphasize, which he has chosen to marginalize, and - unfortunately not a null category - which he has distorted using rather clearly identifiable ideological buzz-words (see article linked to above). Surely this kind of analysis is necessary for discerning how it is that the new pope is reading the signs of the times, and which banner - which basic conception of God and man and Church - he is undertaking to take up and march under. It is tempting to say, which ideology he wants to champion, Papa Bergoglio's extremely vague protestations against 'decadent' and 'bankrupt' ideology and in favor of 'genius' notwithstanding. And indeed, it is tempting to say this, to suggest that the pope's comments have an unfortunate air of ideological cant, precisely because of the squishy vagueness of these his protestations.