Anger, Charity, And Blogging

Some bloggers and commenters remind me rather of her…

 

I tend not to intervene in other bloggers’ controversies, or at least I do so only when it is necessary to make a general point.

In this case, I will limit myself to the general points, and avoid names, facts, and circumstances. Please keep them away from your comments, too.

My two cents on the matter of controversy are as follows:

1. Every soul has infinite value. Every soul is, in fact, more important than the entire universe. But this does not mean that I have to like everyone. Some people I won’t like, either because I am human or because they are not very likeable. What I will know, is that to God the soul of every bastard (dead or alike) is more important than the whole universe. But a bastard is, after all this, still a bastard. I generally put it this way: when a pig dies he does not become a lamb, he merely becomes pork. It is important that we keep the facts in mind if we are to judge the world around us in a way that allows us to make good choices and work in a sensible way towards our salvation. Therefore, it behooves each and everyone of us to decide who are the lambs, and the pigs. We can’t make the pigs to lambs just because we love luv fantasies. But yes, we must always have in mind the infinite value every soul has for God, and strive to wish for everyone the same graces and blessing we wish for ourselves. I wish salvation even to Stalin, the ueber-bastard, but do not even think of not calling him “bastard” for that. 

2. Righteous anger is good. Very good, even. This blog is fully in favour of righteous anger. If something makes you angry because you see the Church you love wounded, strike very hard, my lad (or: my gal). We are not the Church Pussyfooting. We are the Church Militant.

I seldom have any problem in seeing whether the person who has just used the flamethrower on the net has done so out of personal vanity or out of sincere love for the Church. I trust most of my readers can make the same judgment, because otherwise they would not be reading this blog.

3. beware of the “charitable” troops. In my experience, those who make appeals to charity are, very often (but not always; again, in time one learns to assess the person) only looking for their own satisfaction: the petty pleasure of playing nanny, and kindergarten teacher, and installing themselves on the moral high ground. 

The attitude is self-defeating. To accuse another blogger of being “uncharitable” (or “intolerant”) fails to pass the very text of charitable behaviour (or of tolerance) that it pretends to impose. Besides, it is also my experience that those easily calling for “chariteee” in others seldom practice what they preach. The sane attitude here lies, if you ask me, in considering that good Catholic hearts comes in many versions, and some of these are more easily inflamed than others. Good for them, I add. Therefore, if one is not a good Catholic heart, the issue is the latter, not the anger; but if one has a good Catholic heart, God bless his anger, and may He reward him richly for it.

Having said that, I think a blogger, of all people, can be asked to reflect a moment or three before he writes, because he writes with a view to influencing others. If he were to see that what he has written was too coloured with anger, he should amend or cancel without further ado. If the episodes happen often, he should consider the way he blogs, because his credibility could be seriously affected. Personally, I never cancelled one angry blog post, nor did I ever ask others to cancel a message I have posted by them. I think twice before I write. After that, it is quod scripsi, scripsi. It is better not to write until one can do it in a reasonably angry way (as I have done on more than one occasion) than to write and send the message “never mind what I blog…”.  

4. “Charity” is misunderstood. To slap a person you love because he has just blasphemed is charitable, and may the slap impress itself in his soul far longer than on his cheek. Conversely, to allow him to remain in error or to go on with his behaviour is uncharitable, though perfectly accepted in nicety-obsessed England. An angry blog is more likely to be authentically charitable to his own reader than the nanny’s one. By the by, “charitable” bloggers always remind me of Pride and Prejudice’s Mary Bennet; who, poor girl, is not very smart, but has a great need to take the moral high ground, because her sisters are beautiful. Yes, I know, an “uncharitable” remark. But one fitting the fictional reality of the novel. 

So, that’s that.

I thought it had to be said. “Uncharitable” as it may seem to Mary Bennet.

Mundabor