Hurrah!!! Thank you Francis. Evidence that it is a good idea. I can even make the case that both conservatives and liberals should like the idea (though they might implement it differently).
Thanks, Valerie. We do not need to think about compassion as giving in. We can have compassion for someone and still decide that they should be in prison. Or for a less drastic example, I can say no to my daughter, comfort her in her disappointment, and help her learn to name her emotions.
Cindy, Many thanks. I am an academic, so it is fun simply to write and think. But it is equally fun to talk with people about what we have written. I am glad you found it helpful.
Almut...during the last election I almost lost a life-long friend because I would not vote for a certain candidate. For her, it was the only way to end abortion, and for her, that was the "be all to end all issue." She accused me of not caring about murdering babies, and a lot of other things. I tried to explain exactly what you write about here. If you care about people (from conception to grave), you will want to love them and be a light in their lives. If your goal is that people "come to Christ," you will make Christ attractive to them, not making people do what you want by force. Who wants that? So in your mind you have saved unborn babies but rejected those unborn babies once they become thinking people. She doesn't buy it. Our friendship remains, but it is because we agreed not to talk about it.
I hear you, Linda, thank you for sharing your story here. Indeed the issue you describe is the one issue who has separated the country so much and often even friends, as you so well describe. It is a shame how it is talked about in the public square and it is indeed a shame that the current president did not had a better answer. He should have just spoken his heart: "I am catholic and personally opposed to abortion especially in late terms. Thus I am not pro abortion but pro access. I think by the way that most of the country shares this opinion. It is not on us to make those difficult decisions for each woman but to grant them freedom and to trust them to do the right decision for themselves." Many people have difficulties to hold this contradiction and to understand how one can personally not choose abortion but politically vote for abortion access. And others who don't understand that one can be pro access but not pro abortion. In the end it is an ethical issue and ethical issues cannot be decided by law. Blessings to you and your friend. I hope to write some more on this issue here soon.
Linda, Thank you for this touching story. I am glad you are still friends. It used to be that one could care for another person and work closely with them, even though there was profound disagreement on some issues. This was thought of as the civilizing aspects of real politics.
And real religion calls us to compassion for all, as you point out. Including the compassion for your friend that I read between the lines in your comment. Only then can we truly hear them, even, or especially, when we think they are wrong.
It hasn't been easy because hurt was caused and we now know each other better in ways we may have not wished for. (LOL). But people should be able to disagree and still love each other and that's my heart. Thanks, Chuck!
Again, you have offered beautiful thoughts on a very thought provoking subject. We are most definitely on the precipice of a potentially dangerous time. Your words bring sanity to an otherwise chaotic situation. Thank you both!
It all comes down to not depending on the government for support and eventual control doesn’t it. The work of the government should not be doing that at all then, but it needs to be addressed at community levels instead.
I often say the opposite of codependence isn't independence, it's interdependence. You've applied the concept beautifully here at a national level. I'm amazed at how much personal work it takes for one human being to embrace interdependence. How do we help human beings do this at scale?
Kelly, Thanks for the triangulation of codependent, independent, and interdependent. I would like to hear more about it. Oddly, we all are already interdependent, even (and perhaps especially) hermits. We evolved as social animals and are by nature social.
But you have asked "how do we do this well?" Monastic orders have an extensive process they call "formation." Almut and I have proposed in our recent book (Taking Moral Action) that this process can be used as a model for moral formation. We also suggest the German/British/American tradition of Bildung as another model. And of course we find some of the concepts of Kierkegaard central to both these models. It is all in the final chapter on Moral Formation.
Still, I don't think this answers your question because you ask how to do it "at scale." Liberal Arts colleges have tried to do Bildung at scale, but I am not sure they succeed. And they might not be thought of as really "at scale" given their small size.
We have been pondering doing a book-club-style reading-group of our book here on substack. Your question would likely be one of the central ones we would address in the discussion.
I hadn't made the connection between you and Almut. Thanks for making it clear! The two of you are having exactly the kind of conversation that humanity needs at this point. I suppose my angle on the formation question is that we all started out interdependent, but interdependence hurt. So we started to try to control the pain with either codependence or independence. Then when we discover we have done this, we spiritually bypass the work of healing by swinging to the opposite extreme, and still avoiding interdependence. I've got a chapter about it in my upcoming book. I feel like the three of us are all circling down the same drain. 😊
Thank you both for these wonderfully insightful, thought-provoking, heart-balming reflections on Interdependence Day. Almut, we welcome and appreciate your wise observations. Your words resonate with many people’s feelings here. They matter. Thank you. And thank you, Chuck, for these lovely reminders. It is so important for everyone to know we are not alone.
Ha - great minds! Here's my post from last year on Interdependence Day: https://open.substack.com/pub/almostnamedgrace/p/interdependence-day?r=25qkxh&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
Serendipity. How interesting!
Hurrah!!! Thank you Francis. Evidence that it is a good idea. I can even make the case that both conservatives and liberals should like the idea (though they might implement it differently).
Thank you Almut and Chuck. An encouraging, thoughtful, and wise message to absorb.
The test of all great religions is how they frame and implement compassion for the community. But not just “their” community.
Beautifully said.
Thanks, Valerie. We do not need to think about compassion as giving in. We can have compassion for someone and still decide that they should be in prison. Or for a less drastic example, I can say no to my daughter, comfort her in her disappointment, and help her learn to name her emotions.
Beautiful commentary from both of you! Thank you for sharing your insights.
Cindy, Many thanks. I am an academic, so it is fun simply to write and think. But it is equally fun to talk with people about what we have written. I am glad you found it helpful.
Almut...during the last election I almost lost a life-long friend because I would not vote for a certain candidate. For her, it was the only way to end abortion, and for her, that was the "be all to end all issue." She accused me of not caring about murdering babies, and a lot of other things. I tried to explain exactly what you write about here. If you care about people (from conception to grave), you will want to love them and be a light in their lives. If your goal is that people "come to Christ," you will make Christ attractive to them, not making people do what you want by force. Who wants that? So in your mind you have saved unborn babies but rejected those unborn babies once they become thinking people. She doesn't buy it. Our friendship remains, but it is because we agreed not to talk about it.
I hear you, Linda, thank you for sharing your story here. Indeed the issue you describe is the one issue who has separated the country so much and often even friends, as you so well describe. It is a shame how it is talked about in the public square and it is indeed a shame that the current president did not had a better answer. He should have just spoken his heart: "I am catholic and personally opposed to abortion especially in late terms. Thus I am not pro abortion but pro access. I think by the way that most of the country shares this opinion. It is not on us to make those difficult decisions for each woman but to grant them freedom and to trust them to do the right decision for themselves." Many people have difficulties to hold this contradiction and to understand how one can personally not choose abortion but politically vote for abortion access. And others who don't understand that one can be pro access but not pro abortion. In the end it is an ethical issue and ethical issues cannot be decided by law. Blessings to you and your friend. I hope to write some more on this issue here soon.
Agree!
Linda, Thank you for this touching story. I am glad you are still friends. It used to be that one could care for another person and work closely with them, even though there was profound disagreement on some issues. This was thought of as the civilizing aspects of real politics.
And real religion calls us to compassion for all, as you point out. Including the compassion for your friend that I read between the lines in your comment. Only then can we truly hear them, even, or especially, when we think they are wrong.
It hasn't been easy because hurt was caused and we now know each other better in ways we may have not wished for. (LOL). But people should be able to disagree and still love each other and that's my heart. Thanks, Chuck!
I like both these posts.
Hurrah! Thanks, Fr. Don, for the encouragement. I have learned a great deal from you over the years and am grateful for your presence.
Again, you have offered beautiful thoughts on a very thought provoking subject. We are most definitely on the precipice of a potentially dangerous time. Your words bring sanity to an otherwise chaotic situation. Thank you both!
It all comes down to not depending on the government for support and eventual control doesn’t it. The work of the government should not be doing that at all then, but it needs to be addressed at community levels instead.
Chuck- I appreciate this piece, especially the canoe photography at the top. Hope you’re well this week? Cheers, -Thalia
I often say the opposite of codependence isn't independence, it's interdependence. You've applied the concept beautifully here at a national level. I'm amazed at how much personal work it takes for one human being to embrace interdependence. How do we help human beings do this at scale?
Kelly, Thanks for the triangulation of codependent, independent, and interdependent. I would like to hear more about it. Oddly, we all are already interdependent, even (and perhaps especially) hermits. We evolved as social animals and are by nature social.
But you have asked "how do we do this well?" Monastic orders have an extensive process they call "formation." Almut and I have proposed in our recent book (Taking Moral Action) that this process can be used as a model for moral formation. We also suggest the German/British/American tradition of Bildung as another model. And of course we find some of the concepts of Kierkegaard central to both these models. It is all in the final chapter on Moral Formation.
Still, I don't think this answers your question because you ask how to do it "at scale." Liberal Arts colleges have tried to do Bildung at scale, but I am not sure they succeed. And they might not be thought of as really "at scale" given their small size.
We have been pondering doing a book-club-style reading-group of our book here on substack. Your question would likely be one of the central ones we would address in the discussion.
I hadn't made the connection between you and Almut. Thanks for making it clear! The two of you are having exactly the kind of conversation that humanity needs at this point. I suppose my angle on the formation question is that we all started out interdependent, but interdependence hurt. So we started to try to control the pain with either codependence or independence. Then when we discover we have done this, we spiritually bypass the work of healing by swinging to the opposite extreme, and still avoiding interdependence. I've got a chapter about it in my upcoming book. I feel like the three of us are all circling down the same drain. 😊
Thank you both for these wonderfully insightful, thought-provoking, heart-balming reflections on Interdependence Day. Almut, we welcome and appreciate your wise observations. Your words resonate with many people’s feelings here. They matter. Thank you. And thank you, Chuck, for these lovely reminders. It is so important for everyone to know we are not alone.