I find I have much more in common with people of any mature religious perspective than I do with people who aren’t religious at all. I think either you get it, or you don’t, and their are people in both those categories who want to get it, or who don’t.

Hope I’m welcome, and if not, please accept my respectful apologies!

I’ve met Sedavacantists that are so nasty that they create a new definition for “Anti-Catholic”. I’ve met Atheists that are so nasty they make you shake in your boots for even believing in God and they won’t let you have a word in edgewise just to shove onto you their views of the Crusades. I’ve met Protestants that aren’t quite as nasty but they can still surprise you to no end. How? Sometimes good. Sometimes bad. Sometimes in a “whoa” way that reaches into nastyness. I’ve met nasty feminists and good feminists. It seems they’re various types in every camp.

What we need is a book called “How to Heal After Shaking in Your Boots From anti-religion Nastyness”. Yes?

“Want to know how to win a culture war? Don’t fight one. The soul of our nation has been marred from a perpetual state of culture war. In an Orwellian twist, each camp relies on conflict with their supposed enemies for the perpetuation of their own existence. The culture warrior’s clout, influence, fundraising, and organizing is based upon real or perceived attacks from the other side. These ‘threats’ and boogeymen are their oxygen, and without them, they die.

The biggest fear of those leading the culture wars is not an attack from the other side or the threat of losing ground on their issues — it is common ground. Culture wars require a clash of incompatible ideologies; common ground acknowledges differences but finds practical shared goals. Practical shared goals mean people and parties with different ideologies can both ‘win.’ When culture wars are fought, the only people who win are those who build their careers off them.

Culture wars inevitably have causalities…. Reasonable people may differ on how best to accomplish [a specific] goal, and I welcome a rigorous … debate about it, but …[w]e must work together to find common ground.

For too long the[re has] been a contentious and ultimately divisive debate between simplified and polarizing positions. [There] has been an ideological clash in which each side has sought dominance through shouting their position out louder and longer than the other side. There are code words, buzz words, and shibboleths to identify those on your team and to protect your side from intrusions by the enemy. The trenches have grown deeper and the barbed wire fences higher while little has been done to advance any solutions or provide opportunity for real dialogue.

…….[D]emonstrate how sensible common ground can bring people together.

[S]earching for common ground can lead to higher ground, in ways that both sides of the debate can embrace without compromising their core principles. It could lead to genuine progress….

….Who could be against any of that?

We have a great opportunity to advance our shared values and common goals at a crucial moment.”

Again, I have edited out all the politics, specific topics, etc., from this piece by Jim Wallis in today’s “Sojomail”. Jean

You wrote:

“dissent about issues that go beyond the essential, core values/beliefs of our faith.”

I agree with that. There are some beliefs that are vital to us as Catholics. And others are more open to interpretation. But even if someone does not agree with us or the Church, we should still be respectful of his/her opinion. What I find particularly inappropriate is when one Catholic calls another Catholic a heretic or something like that. Not only is it insulting and arrogant, but who are we to judge? That black and white or absolutist way of thinking scares me.

dee

What I love, KC, about your critique of the media is that you told us you yourself work in the media. **Your** daily life is spent within the media community and, thus, you can work (my guess from reading you is that you already do) to build a lack of tolerance for incivility within the media community, thus shaping its own internal culture, which might in turn influence its products. Controversy, gossip, anger, as you noted, sells and why would media workers look for other “sellers” unless that content became dissonant with the rest of their lives?

So it is very cool to read you, KC, in that context. I think we can never do enough to support those voices that dissent from ***within***. The dissenters may be wrong on a given topic but an environment that is accustomed to and desirous of internal dissent is – I think – an environment that is more likely able to self-correct as it evolves.

Which makes me a real fan of the voices of Sandra Schneiders IHM and Laurie Brink and Father John Caropi (talk about the full spectrum). These are not voices from the wilderness. These are voices from our own Catholic pastures and, with their “insiders’ knowledge and view, they make us look at ourselves.

Julia, thank you for wanting company in your prayers: “Please pray for Wisdom, Charity, Love and do everything for Him who created you. He is our Creator and we are His creatures…we would do well to remember that”. You have mine. Jean

The reason I am more inclined to hold the media accountable is that these are not examples just seen by a few, but words heard or read by thousands of people (or even millions, if the source is popular enough). I think that “great power involves great responsibility” and the media, in recent years, has taken the power but not the responsibility.

The other reason is that so many people (not everyone, of course, but too many anyway) come home not to spend time with their families, go out and volunteer, read a good book, garden, relax, etc., but to turn on, tune in and drop out. They listen to the radio on the way to work, read Us Weekly at the dentist, watch “Survivor” and “American Idol” and “Jon and Kate” every night, read the newspaper with their coffee, skim TMZ and Perez Hilton at work … if you’re (general you) being overwhelmed by a particular culture — in this case, one built on ratings that come from controversy, gossip and anger — and have no refuge from this, (general) you will find yourself drifting into those patterns even unconsciously.

We’re such an incredibly media-focused culture, that I do think the media needs to become something more than what it is and set an example. But I do think you’re right, that these patterns were there and the media has simply picked them up and fanned the flames. Maybe I’m holding the media to a higher standard than the rest of us (or not giving individuals enough credit to produce their own vitriolic drama).

I’m definitely in agreement that we’re lucky to have people like Sr. Julie, who are working to turn that trend into something more civil and respectful and peaceful, though!

I too have to turn off Catholic radio sometimes because my jaw hurts too much from gritting my teeth. And it’s too bad that I don’t know of many alternate sources, because I enjoy learning, but not having to worry if my blood pressure meds need to be upped. I feel sort of caught between a rock and a hard place, inasmuch as I’m what you might call a liturgical conservative, theological moderate, and mostly political liberal. Since I don’t belong in any one niche, and I struggle with this, charity amongst all parties would be particuarly appreciated!

here’s to peace!

I think this is an interesting point. As Jean said, the hate put forth by some members of the Catholic media is no better and no worse than the hate put forth by members of Protestant media. This seems to extend far beyond just religion on the Internet — there’s a sense of anonymity on the Internet that leads some to embrace their inner nastyness rather than their inner goodness. They forget that the people on the other side of the screen are still people, and they forget that they are responsible for their actions because they can easily swap identities.

Hate is present in political circles as well — go to any news-related Web site that allows comments, and people from both ends of the political spectrum say some of the most hateful, horrible things to each other, falling on personal attacks rather than actually debating the issue. And the political pundits on the radio and television are nearly as bad, again, from both ends.

I don’t think it’s “the Internet” to blame, exactly, as much as the fact that the average person suddenly has an anonymous forum with no censor or filter where they can say nearly anything they want with no consequences to their reputation or standing in their offline community. And I think that the fact that this platform came about at the same time that our U.S. society is trending more toward cynicism and polarity is simply bad timing, but timing that has meant that most of these anonymous comments and arguments reach a level of hate that is simply ridiculous.

In my experience, it’s “media culture” that drives this sort of thing (I’m saying this as someone who works in the media, not just blaming the popular scapegoat). Controversy raises ratings and gets you in the news, so media personalities attack each other to draw in viewers and make more money. And people, addicted to television, radio, bloggers, etc., see this example, and use that to anonymously spread the cruelest of thoughts and statements on the Internet.

Unfortunately, when personal ambition and success are so highly valued in the U.S. and the West in general, and the role models who are the most ambitious and successful (politicians and celebrities) can also be the most verbally disrespectful and hateful toward others and espouse such cynicism, it’s not really surprising that the “rank and file” fall behind them. How many people in the U.S. were raised with the idea that the president was the pillar of the country, the person to try and be most like? And when was the last time anyone saw a clean presidential campaign? Mud-slinging has long been a part of public discourse in the U.S., and these are our examples.

This is, unfortunately, prolific in every area of the media, including religious media, if the basic values people should embrace (kindness, love, generosity, morality) are taken for granted/ignored, and the outrageous behaviors are “rewarded” with more attention and popularity.

And as Jack pointed out, it’s up to those of us who see this problem (and those of us who were once part of the problem and have since seen the error of our ways) to speak out against it and show people that more civil discourse and respect for everyone, even though we may disagree, is possible.

Fate decreed that I re-encounter (and eventually re-entered) the Catholic Church through a very orthodox community when I was on disaster service during a national disaster. We all acknowledged upfront that “my yankee feminist liberalism” was a constant challenge to their “south Louisianan traditional conservatism” and, in acknowledging that we were all doing our best, we found our way to a very civil and genuine dialogue that has stretched us all in directions we never could have anticipated. My closest spiritual friend – “my spiritual brother”, who I met when he was my local counterpart in running a large disaster shelter – made a four month silent pilgrimage to 20 abortions clinics (he prayed only at night when the clinics were closed and carried no sign: he walked 20 miles at a stretch, hauling only a to-scale cross on small wheels). When asked why by a reporter, he responded only, “Because someone did it for me”. As his friend, I know the private story that led him to make that pilgrimage: outrageous, unreliable behavior in his marriage that led his wife of many decades to refuse to raise another child with him because she questioned her ability to raise those they already had, should she need to do so alone. My story in response is that, twenty years, I worked for six months as office assistant/nurse in an abortion clinic. My “because” is that – on my “real” job – a tiny infant had been fatally abused by its father and my agency (child protection) had failed to protect the child. In my grief and despair and because I was estranged from my own Catholic upbringing and source of solace, I choose what seemed “the lesser of two evils” in the face of such a tragic failure and in the mind of a young woman with a strong moral framework but nowhere to go when humans and our systems failed miserably. In my grief, I concluded that the lesser of two evils was the prevention of unwanted babies who might later be brutalized. I saw ugly protests and
I physically protected some patients from horribly abusive, hateful protesters.

In sharing our stories, this man and I – “natural enemies” in the political world, people who – discovered a deep commonality: we were both doing our best within the context of our frail human hearts and minds… and we both wanted, to the core of our beings, to do better… and we both understood that we could only do better if we opened our eyes and ears to God’s other children, which includes those whose beliefs and experiences we most do not want to hear. Four years later, and not without some pain, we “spiritual group” daily, in person, by phone, by letter, sometimes just through the awareness that the other has also been today at Mass, in the tabernacle, reading Fulton Sheen or Henri Nouwen or a daily bit of the new translation of “The Imitation of Christ” (and as I said yesterday sometimesby going to confession one after the other because we have “let unwholesome talk” – gossip, vitriol, judgment – come from our mouths). And each of us has been forced – through deep friendship, through agape, through seeing the face of Jesus in each other’s face – to listen with the ears of a friend whenever and wherever these issues arise because the “enemy” – for me, the anti-choice person and for him, the person who struggles mightily with the dual claims of Life and Privacy – now wears the face of Jesus and we love that face, we understand that face, we trust the inherent goodness of that face.

So, to go back to my point: through this deep friendship, I am as aware of the animosity directed toward the more conservative community (“the EWTN crowd”) as I am aware of the animosity directed toward the progressive community (the women’s ordination crowd) and I find it equally ugly and unChristlike, despite the sometimes more genteel presentation of the ugliness about “the EWTN crowd”.

You wrote: “Alas, the days of Fulton Sheen and his zeal for the True Faith and Her teachings are over. His elegant penmanship and angels that erase the blackboard don’t get ratings any more.”

That leads me to this question: who are the Catholic writers, at both ends of the continuum and in between, who are writing today with respect and Christian fraternity for all members of the Church?

Jean

That being said, like deerose, I don’t buy the idea that there is no hate like Catholic hate. At points in the article, I think the authors have and axe to grind. As much as I am disturbed by the un-Catholic sentiments expressed in some Catholic media outlets, I do believe that some of this is reactionary to the way the Church is portrayed in American media and society. There is a strong anti-Catholic bias in American media and culture. The supposed hate in question is no different than that expressed by the 700 Club or other Protestant radio and television shows. It’s emblematic of the Christian media movement. Alas, the days of Fulton Sheen and his zeal for the True Faith and Her teachings are over. His elegant penmanship and angels that erase the blackboard don’t get ratings any more.

With all of that said, I have yet another point–and my final one. The Holy Catholic Church is huge. Her members are diverse and unique. When the less than charitable or kind are speaking out, it falls on the rest of us who are more charitable and kinder to speak up. If we don’t present a more level headed perspective, aren’t we being as sinful as they are? At least they are openly defending the Church and Her position on issues–even if we have different positions than the Church. Those of us to shrink to the back and simply complain about what we see and hear aren’t doing any kind of service to the public at large or Holy Mother Church.

I, too , continue to read A Nun’s Life specifically and very concsciously because it is an environment in which kindness and respect are the rule. Just as I opt out of real-life gatherings, communities and friendships in which is acceptable to make others into “unwelcome guests”, I opt out in the virtual world as well. In this age of communication and information, I think we might want to consider tossing these few among Mother Goose’s wonderful words “Sticks and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me”. It was never really true, and the Gospels have always warned us away (I am thinking of Ephesians 4).

After our priest gave an amazing retreat on “gossip” (which does not, I think, require that the topic of our uginess be someone we know in person), my clostest spiritual friend and I agreed that we would go to confession, one after the other to the same priest, whenever we allow gossip to take over our conversation and friendship. A few humiliating episodes – in which we acknowledged and exposed to our priest – that our beautiful friendship was a source of ugliness as well as all its good was enough to make us work very hard to hold each other accountable. We fail but we try.

Sister Julie, thanks for keeping this a place of kindness and respect. Jean

I’m glad that someone finally (or maybe other people are and I just haven’t seen the stories) spoke out about the issue. While I want to be the eternal optimist and have everyone “just get along,” I know that isn’t possible. As deerose said, our church “has over one billion members. We are never going to agree on everything. And we probably shouldn’t.” That’s so true. But, we’re never going to be able to move completely forward with all sides “fighting” each other and refusing to respect others opinions. I don’t think that’s the kind of church Jesus had in mind. I’d love for people to stop focusing on what other Catholics are supposedly doing wrong and instead focus on growing together as a Church.

Deerose, “We are never going to agree on everything. And we probably shouldn’t. I’m not sure that would even be healthy.” Since the foundation of the Church we have had multiple, often conflicting voices, within the Church. Yet we’ve found a way to hold them in dynamic tension with one another. True, we’ve drawn some lines (good or bad) as to what is really not part of the Church. But I think we can sustain disagreement and even dissent around issues that go beyond the essential, core values/beliefs of our faith.

It is both interesting and disturbing how broaching the topic of women’s ordination can spark such outrageous responses. I also find it frightening that a deacon would threaten to kill you and burn down your house because of this subject. Some men, often those at the highest levels within our Institution, and even some women, are VERY threatened by the idea of women’s ordination.

I have seen Raymond Arroyo on TV. If one does not agree with him, he can issue some very hostile replies. In my opinion, he often shows little respect for those not “on his side”. I have no idea about James Martin. I have never heard him speak. I did read his book, however, and enjoyed it.

Admittedly, there is a lot of Catholic-spawned (and other) verbal abuse out there in the media. But I personally disagree with the comment that “there is no hate like Catholic hate.” Many other groups during the course of history, and to the present day, have behaved in a much more hateful and violent manner than Catholics.

The Catholic Church has over one billion members. We are never going to agree on everything. And we probably shouldn’t. I’m not sure that would even be healthy. But we can respect each other. And to me, that would be the goal to the behavior we sometimes see on Catholic blogs.

dee

God Bless,

Thomas

Yet, I’m afraid that though this article hit the nail on the head, it’s not something new. I myself have found to be uncharitable towards my brothers and sisters in Christ. It wasn’t until I lent my ear to the Holy Spirit speaking through St. Paul that charity must be the hallmark of all our actions. After I became more docile to the virtue of charity, I have been able to look at others, whether they agree with me or not, with more patience and compassion.

Oftentimes, I see other Catholics being moved by a new-found zeal after returning to the Catholic faith and tending to focus solely on what aspect of the faith brought them back, be it the Church’s social teachings or her mystical tradition. But, in my experience, it seems that it’s a phase that lasts about 3 to 5 years, for I notice that the same Holy Spirit that introduced them to that aspect of the faith, continues working in them and His fruits sooner or later start to manifest.

I think that the Internet has brought a lot of people back to the Catholic faith and what we see now are the growing pains of the “new faithful” (paraphrasing Colleen Campbell) coming of age. It won’t be too late, I believe, when most Catholics on the Internet will spouse charity towards their neighbors are their hallmark. Not because humans are like this, but because I believe that the New Evangelization has already begun and it’s nobody’s doing, but the Holy Spirit’s.

Thanks for posting this article. I, too, have been distressed by the virulent, even hateful arguments coming from all corners of our Catholic family, and must admit to being drawn into these destructive debates from time to time. I say “destructive” because the objective of the argument is often self-promotion, at the direct expense of the other. I’m afraid the authors were right when they wrote that “venting serves only our pride – nothing else.”

I admire your dedication to making this a safe and welcoming space for all, and I hope each of us can do the same, wherever we go.

add me to the ranks of those willing to self-monitor and watch out for the well-being of others in this forum. if we all seek peace and charity, that is what we will find.

I like how your closing statement for this blog post :

“I’m going to take a good look at who I chose to follow in my social media world and make sure that the dominant tone is charity — no matter how clever or intelligent the media source might be.”

–> I am going to follow your lead on this objective as it is worthwhile to be alert to what is being projected in social media for your consumption and reflection.

And I’m also going to be vigilant about ensuring that A Nun’s Life is a welcome, hospitable place for all visitors.

–> Veni Sancte Spiritus ~ May the Holy Spirit be with you and guide you always.