The Voice of Sanity Part III

This article of Dr. Sanity is the last of three parts, and I highly suggest reading the first two parts. Part Two of her series on denial has a great chart.

In this Age of Narcissists, and now moving into a second level of that Age, I feel impelled to repeat her good stuff here.

APRIL 17, 2006

STRATEGIES FOR DEALING WITH DENIAL - Part III

In this final essay, I will discuss strategies for dealing with denial in one's self and in others. I apologize in advance for the length; but bear with me because I think this is an important topic.

Part I is here. 
and Part II is here.

At the center of all psychological denial is a hidden agenda. That agenda is usually not completely conscious--meaning that the denier has not thought through the issues surrounding his denial; and may not even be aware of what his motivation is in asserting something is true when it isn't; or false when it isn't.

Denial need not be absolute and completely cut off from reality. Even among alcoholics and drug users there is a varying level of awareness of their problem. Some accept that they are in jail or sick because of their substance use, but yet are still not willing to do anything about it. Some may recognize some facts about their drinking (like that they get put in jail), but completely deny the impact of those facts on themselves or their families; or the future implications of continued drinking or drug use (e.g., that they are killing themselves and will die).

The hidden agenda or underlying motivation behind the denial is very frequently related to the potential adverse consequences that could ensue if the denial were eliminated and reality acknowledged. That is where the unnacceptable feelings, needs, and thoughts come in. The denier (or part of him) has made an unconscious decision that awareness of certain feelings, needs, or thoughts is more threatening to his sense of self than the act of denial.

As an example, consider a person who develops a chronic cough. He might rationalize to themselves that his cough is because of a lack of humidity in the air; or because he has a slight infection; and most certainly is not a result of his smoking habits. He could go see a doctor, but doesn't, telling himself he is fine. As the cough gets worse, he become even more creative in his thinking about it (or not thinking about it) and is "too busy" to see a doctor; or tend to minimize the symptom even as it worsens.

This strategy of ignoring the problem goes on for some time--maybe months. The person may next fail to notice that he is losing weight and looking a bit drawn-out. The rationalizations now even include benign explanations for the specks of blood that can be seen in the cough. Finally, after much resistance, a loved one firmly intervenes--or the person faces the truth, confronts the issue-- and schedules an appointment. After a few tests, lung cancer is diagnosed. The prognosis is very poor because the cancer has already progessed to advanced stages during the months of denial.

Why would such a person deny the symptom to begin with? Because by denying the symptom, the person can pretend that everything is normal. Early on, when the symptom is new or minor, this possiblity may even be true. But as the evidence accumulates that something is very wrong; the person has now entered a phase of magical thinking and/or fantasy where he effortlessly pretends to himself that everything is as he wishes it to be. Eventually, the individual may become totally psychologically invested in believing that nothing is wrong ("lalalalala I can't heaaaar you"), and reacts (or overreacts) with anger and rage toward anyone who questions his view of things.

The entire act of denial was initiated to begin with by the psyche for a good psychological reason-- to temporarilly supress awareness that something was wrong--while the person struggled with the effort to face that possibility.

That awareness was so frightening, that a temporary psychological bargain evolved into a binding contract that allows the person to suspend cognition and reason so that he is able to ignore any knowledge or evidence that alters his fantasy reality.

Unfortunately, if the person really does have a cancerous process going on within them, it is completely unaffected by the psychological bargain made by the psyche. There are certain rules that govern the progression of cancers and they will be in force, whether or not the person is aware of them or not. Hence, the denier has made a short-term pact to feel better at the expense of his long-term health. In the case of this type of cancer, he has chosen to enjoy a period of relative complacency and blissful ignorance at the cost of catching the cancer earlier when it might be more treatable. In the long-run his unconscious choice is a very bad one.

But the reality is that some people in denial prefer the lethal consequences of their denial as long as they don't have to question their own motivations, beliefs, and ideologies.

Those individuals, groups, or nations who live in the world of deep denial are practically untouchable by reality or rational argument. They go through their daily lives secure in the knowledge that their self-image is protected against any information, feelings, or awareness that might make them have to change their view of the world. Nothing--not facts, not observable behavior; not the use of reason, logic, or the evidence of their own senses will make them reevaluate that world view.

All events will simply be reinterpreted to fit into the belief system of that world--no matter how ridiculous, how distorted, hysterical or how psychotic that reinterpretation appears to others. Consistency, common sense, reality, and objective truth are unimportant and are easily discarded--as long as the world view remains intact. As discussed in Part II, there are countless strategies --rhetorical ploys and logical fallacies--that can be used to keep the truth at bay.

Identifying the underlying motivational factors are important to understand the phenomenon of denial; the reasons why denial is used; and the overally psychology of deniers--whether they are individuals, groups, or even entire nations. There are limitations to this kind of analysis, however; and it is that exposing a motivation or even a hidden agenda in denial is not the same thing as a rational argument or analysis of what the denier is saying or arguing.

In a therapeutic relationship (i.e. therapist /patient) theoretically, a person in denial and the therapist collaborate and work together to discover the underlying problem. Even when very motivated to change, it is often the case that the denier exhibits a great deal of resistance to the idea that he or she is in denial.

In real life (not a therapeutic or professional relationship) we all have to deal with people in denial, and getting a person to accept that he or she is in denial is even more problematic. Unless there is a serious crisis in the person's life, there is little or no incentive for a person to emerge from the comforting cocoon of denial and rationalization--particularly when the consequences of doing so are more threatening to the sense of self than remaining ignorant or oblivious to one's true motivations.

What the psychiatrist does when a patient uses any psychological defense to interfere with treatment is to interpret the defense.

In psychiatry, particularly in psychoanalysis, the psychological defenses --especially the immature ones such as denial and projection --often stand in the way of a person being able to understand the source of their dysfunction and to deal with reality. These unconscious mechanisms act to protect the individual from reality by distorting that reality.

That is why I sound like a broken record and talk about DENIAL, PROJECTION and PARANOIA (see here and here for example) over and over again. Each time I observe such defenses, I work to get those who are using them to be conscious of what they are doing. Only then can they change their behavior.

Ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Noone can make anyone face a terrible truth they wish to avoid. One of the purposes of this blog is to "shine a psychological spotlight" on the maladaptive responses to the realities of our world.

(My choice of photo-stm)

A crisis may stimulate self-analysis and make the person more open to reflection and insight; but waiting for a crisis to happen, especially when someone's denial threatens your own well-being, is frustrating and irritating, to say the least. Also, those who have to deal with people outside of a therapeutic alliance, have neither the patience or desire to wait for the hoped-for epiphany in the denier.

Sometimes a crisis occurs (e.g. the events of 9/11) that should shake everyone out of their complacency for all time--but sadly, even that horrible day was not enough to open the eyes of some.

We have discussed the many faces of denial; i.e., the different psychological mechanisms used to facilitate and maintain an avoidance of a painful truth or reality; and we have discussed some of the cognitive tricks that are used to pretend to the rest of the world that one's fantasy is reality. What are the consequences of denial--both the positive (and there must be positive ones) and the negative?

THE CONSEQUENCES OF DENIAL

Positive consequences of denial include:

• In the short-term, psychological denial can help a person maintain their sanity--which would be threatened by awareness of a painful truth or reality
• In the short-term, denial can help a person function day to day
• In the short-term, denial can prevent a person from having to acknowledge painful thoughts, feelings or behavior and help them maintain their worldview from unacceptable reality

In the short-term, defenses--even denial-- may be creative, healthy, comforting, and coping. While they may strike observers as downright peculiar, in the short-term, they may be adaptative. Denial is a way to integrate one's experience by providing a variety of filters for pain and mechanisms for self-deception. It creatively rearranges the sources of conflict so that it becomes manageable.

Some negative consequences of denial include:

• In the longer-term, denial requires continued compromises with reality to maintain the pretense that "Everything is fine!" or "If only X would happen, everything would be fine!" Eventually, delusional thinking, along with paranoia and the inevitable conspiracy theories begin to take the place of rational thought in those who deny reality for long periods of time.

• The denier must then place the blame for the unacceptable reality on someone else and that leads to increased conflict between deniers and non-deniers. Efforts to maintain their denial consumes them and will lead them to escalate their anger and rage as their denial becomes untenable and ever more obvious.

• The denier will begin distort language and logic to rationalize and justify their behavior. Eventually, cognitive strategies and rational argument will be abandoned altogether by the denier, because those strategies are not sustainable and are unable to convince others; at which point the person in denial will simply refer to his feelings or emotions as the sole justification.

• The denier will feel justified in acting out against those who threaten the peacefulness of their fantasy.

• Problem solving and decision making will deteriorate as the entire focus of energy becomes the maintenance of the denial. In place of rational alternatives, excessive emotionality in general; and specifically anger and rage escalate toward those who are "blamed" for the reality that does not conform to the denier's worldview.

• In the end, interactions with those in denial are characterized by the denier's frequent smugness; sense of superiority; arrogance; belittlement of alternative views; and undiluted hatred toward anyone or any idea that questions their worldview.

In order to deal with someone who refuses to acknowledge reality or truth, there several basic approaches.

GET YOUR OWN HOUSE IN ORDER!
First, when confronting denial in others, your own house must be in order. In other words, if you are to have any hope of convincing someone else that they have a problem, you must be able to honestly and objectively assess any personal issues you yourself are carrying around that could cause you to distort reality.

In psychiatry, we call this process insight and self-awareness.

What do you look for?
• Hidden motives for your own behavior or beliefs
• Hidden agendas or ideologies that underlie your own thinking; or any thing in your own life that might facilitate distortion of reality or truth.
• Know yourself! Everyone has vulnerabilities, sensitivities, biases etc. These are not contraindicators for confronting denial in others--you don't have to be perfect; just honest with yourself.

Considering all the different vulnerabilities, sensitivities, and biases all human beings have, it actually requires a considerable effort of will to remain in touch with reality.; as well as a continual and conscious effort at a committment to truth. This is fundamental to personal honesty and integrity. Obviously this is not easy, and we are all prone to those self-deceptions that spare us from unpleasant truths about ourselves.

One of my frequent commenters, "Oh Bloody Hell" left a quote from Isaac Asimov on the Part II thread which is particularly relevant here:

"What I'm doing, really, is to look at things as they are. It's what you must do. Forget your ideals, your theories, your notions as to what people OUGHT to do. Consider what they ARE doing. Once a person is oriented to face facts rather than delusions, problems tend to disappear. At the very least, they fall into their true perspective and become soluble."

So many people look at the world through glasses that filter unacceptable thoughts, feelings and reality; and hence they are only able to see what they want to see, instead of what is (and no, that does not depend on the meaning of the word "is").

Again, this does not require perfection--you don't even have to have "pure" motives--just conscious ones that help you to understand why you think and/or feel a certain way. Then you will be open to recognizing the truth and what is. Then you will have a choice in your actions.

If you are lucky, your scrutinized motives, beliefs, wishes, and desires will not seriously conflict with reality. But, if they do, then you must face the music.

Reality is completely indifferent to your feelings, wishes, or your unresolved issues.

DEALING WITH OTHERS IN DENIAL
Once you have applied some self-awareness and know your own limitations--or, as the philosoher Eastwood has said, "A man's gotta know his limitations."-- then you can begin to appreciate the magnitude of the task that lies ahead for someone who is chronically in denial about reality.

The second step in the process is to accept the fact that there are positive rewards for the person in denial (at least in the short-term), and that the psychological defense that you would like them to abandon is actually a creative strategy designed to help them keep their sanity and their sense of self and worldview intact.

You have two choices at this point. You can engage the denier in rational argument in the hopes of breaking through their denial; or you can work around them and let them suffer the consequences of their denial. The second strategy may be the best in some cases, but is obviously more difficult if your own fate is tied to theirs. Let's discuss engagement first.

Just because you wish to engage the denier in argument does not mean that you have to allow them to abuse you or threaten you (this has been an issue several times on this blog--while I want to engage people, I don't have to put up with their abuse). That means that the first principle of engagement is

• Limit Setting - you must make sure that the rules of engagement are followed and that what you are seeking is a rational discussion of issues; not a name-calling session where the person who screams the loudest or speaks with the most swear words considers himself the "winner".
Once the limits are set; be prepared for the person in denial to ignore them.

If you still want to engage, then the second principle is:

• Redirection - where you point out what the rules are again and only respond to the rational argument thatmight be buried in all the emotion. Gently (or at least as respectfully as you can--remember, it is your choice to engage them) point out to the person that they are avoiding the point by using such and such a rhetorical ploy or logical fallacy, etc. You can then challenge them to use a rational argument or present their premises and any evidence to support them. This is as close as you might get to "interpreting the defense". Either they will come back more appropriately and logically, or they'll ignore you; or they'll simply abandon the argument. Limit set and redirect as often as necessary.

If you can get the person back on the topic, and expressing his perspective honestly:

• Give constructive feedback (but not in a condescending tone). You can say something like, "that's a good point; let me see if I can counter it."

• Be ready then, to present your own rational perspective, with whatever evidence or facts you have available that might help them begin to question their own irrational beliefs; or even their own honesty.

• Be ready to point out the specific errors in logic; or fallacies and/or rhetorical ploys in their own arguments. Call them on it and ask for objective evidence from that that you would consider. Make sure you know what these fallacies and ploys are!

• Be willing to acknowledge when they have a point..

• Try as much as possible to engage them with what really exists--not what either of you would like to exist.

• Ask them for specific suggestions on how to deal with the problems you can both agree on. Be ready to give your own specific suggestions.

• When applicable, don't solve their problems for them; or shelter, protect or help them avoid the consequences of their denial --unless those consequences also impact you. If that is the case, understand that by letting them off the hook, you have encouraged them to think that their worldview is correct and yours is not.

• Have some standby information to direct them to that they can read on their own time that may help them to face the problem.

• Don't give into the temptation to call them names or to do unto them what they might be doing unto you…unless, of course, you are human; then in that case once in a while it might help your own mental health.

As you can see from the above list, it is quite difficult and time-consuming; as well as frustrating and endlessly repetitive to engage a person in denial.

Sometimes you may think you have put an issue to rest and successfully argued your point; only to discover that later the denier will bring up exactly the same slogans or mantras that you had previously and painstakingly countered!

That is why the level of denial is important to ascertain. Some people simply need to be nudged or reminded of certain facts--e.g., seeing a movie like United 93, which can bring back the reality of the events of 9/11 which may have slipped from conscious awareness simply from the everyday vissictitudes of living one's own life.

At the other end of the spectrum are those people, groups, and nations committed to the denial of reality the way others are committed to truth. Their entire sense of identity is dependent on a certain view of the world and they would rather die than relinquish that view.

If you want to continue with the challenge of engaging someone in denial, you must recognize that moments of epiphany and breakthroughs in insight are few and far between. In therapy, you can wait for months and even years for people to confront their own denial and understand the motivations that underlie their own unhappiness--but that is in therapy, where they presumably come to see you to get well and/or happier.

Unless the person you want to engage is a loved one, engaging a person in denial can be a thankless task. As I said in Part II, "You can lead a denier to reality, but you can't make him/her drink think."

As I said earlier, ultimately, an individual must CHOOSE to deal with reality. Neo-neoconhas written about her own journey in her excellent series, "A Mind is a Difficult Thing To Change" which I highly recommend (click on the link and go down her right sidebar to access those posts).

Finally, what do you do if you conclude that you must find a way to ignore or work-around people in denial because you are at risk due to their behavior?

Let me return to my own major motivation for blogging: my observations of the psychological denial --particularly after 9/11--and increasingly psychopathological responses of the left (including many in the Democratic Party) to the war on terror. My hope when I started blogging was that I could offer a unique perspective on the problem and by "shining a psychological spotlight" on the dysfunctional behavior, I could help those with an open mind to to come to grips with the critical issues of our time--Radical Islam and the threat to western civilization.

I remain hopeful that there are many people out who can be motivated to do exactly that. I don't expect them to all think exactly the same as I do about the current situation in the world; nor do I expect them to agree with me on what to do. Surely, reasonable people can differ on these points and amicably work together to come up with optimal solutions.

But what I do expect is some fundamental agreement on what the reality is.

The left's current concensus view on terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, the war on terror and Freedom is flatly wrong and cannot be justified by the facts that are out there. Their rhetoric is designed to obfuscate and deny objective reality --which they don't even believe in to begin with (or, they believe in it until it become threatening then they seek refuge behind postmodern political rhetoric). The motivation for their continual Bush/Republican bashing is simple: Bush is the current symbol of their demise--the fly in their utopian ointment; the light shining in their darkness; or, to be more precise, the symbol of the end of their ideology.

How do I know this? Since Bush's election at the millennium, things have been going very badly for the left. As the real world presses in on them, their voices have become more shrill and hysterical; their rage is escalating out of control. No longer do most of them even bother to argue their points logically; they simply loudly denounce any idea or person who threatens their worldview; or deliberately and with the ruthless finesse of all tyrants and thugs, simply attempt to supress all dissenting opinions.

9/11 did not wake them up; rather it forced them to openly move toward what they have supported surreptitiously all along--the elimination of free speech in the name of political correctness and multiculturalism; a dictatorship where the pseudo-intellectual, politically correct priesthood rule; and complete control over the lives of others (for their own good, of course). Since their objectives dovetail nicely with those of the Islamic terrorists, they have made common cause with them and have not lost many opportunities to enable and encourage them, even as they denounce America and the principles of freedom and democracy.

They pretend their actions are motivated from love and peace and patriotism; but this is only how they rationalize it to themselves. Their self-deception and denial is simply stunning in its sweeping grandiosity and self-righteousness betrayal of the good.

Gerard Vanderleun has a post up about the eerie appropriateness of the recently discovered "Judas gospel". The money quote:

Treason, done with the kiss of "my personal freedom," proves that you do not really hate your country, you love it. You are, in the final analysis, your country's best friend. In these "new" old tales about Jesus we read that Judas betrayed the Son of God because Jesus told him to do it. Really? Or did his betrayal come, not from any request that may or may not have been made, but from humanity's persistant lust to sin freely and without even the thin penalty of remorse? Was this final treason done because this sin had been secretly blessed by God, or for the sheer dark thrill of asserting the self at the expense of life in the light?

"I betrayed my friend, because he gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for him."

"I betrayed my country because it gave me the freedom to do so. Feel my love for it."

Black is white. Hate is Love. Slavery is Freedom. Treason is Loyalty. That last phrase fits right in to the secular catechism, doesn't it? All it needs to become holy writ is an avatar, a solid historical personage with the power to turn darkness into light, lies into truth, and betrayal into something that was, in the final analysis, "all good."

Saint Judas, step right up to the Gates, ring that bell, and don your halo -- you the man.

Careful observation and analysis of behavior is what I do for a living. I am very good at it. My patients tend to get well for the most part. I am not always correct and I have a great tolerance for ambiguity and doubt. I can be convinced that I am incorrect because I accept my own humanity and its limitations. But if you want to convince me, you will have to give me some compelling argument that is rational and which conforms to what I observe in the real world. Calling me names and threatening me (try reading my email for a week) just will not do it; and, quite frankly, only confirms my premises.

If you can look in the mirror and truly know yourself, including all those hidden motives and agendas and unresolved issues in life which we all must grapple with; you can gain some control over your own life; make choices and attack problems based on a clear view of reality. Yes, people may still make the wrong choices, or screw up in dealing with the problems even when they are aware of their own unconscious conflicts. Human beings are not perfect.

But when denial distorts or obscures reality, we are far more likely to make the wrong choices and ignore the serious problems. Our energy becomes solely focused on maintaining and nurturing the denial as we get angrier and more out of touch with reality all the time.

As long as the left continues to live in the world of denial and play their rhetorical games and use their non-logic to justify the unjustifiable; to tolerate the intolerable; and support the unsupportable; then I will continue to blog and expose their motives and hidden agendas; and do everything I can to prevent them from regaining political power.

This means that no matter how badly I think of the current crop of Republicans--and I do think very badly of them--when the alternative is the Party of Denial, better known as the Democrats and the loud lunatic fringe that they cater to; then the Republicans are going to get my vote every time. Where once I had the luxury of voting for third party candidates (e.g. libertarian), the stakes are far too crucial now to waste my votes.

There is hope, however that the cocoon of denial may finally be breaking up. Those who are still rational on the left have come together around the "Euston Manifesto," which is a manifesto that, among other things says it stands for democracy; for human rights; and for freedom. It refuses to apologize for tyranny; and rejects the knee-jerk anti-Americanism that has become the hallmark of leftist politics. One can only ask, what took so long ?

At any rate, the Euston Manifesto may represent the left's first small steps back toward the real world.

More Goodies from The Voice of Sanity--II

 SEPTEMBER 03, 2004

A Lesson in Narcissistic Rage

Let me give a mini-lecture. Here are some characteristics of a Narcissistic Personality Disorder:
A pattern of grandiosity, need for admiration, and lack of empathy;
A narcissistic individual is grandiose in their sense of self-importance and exaggerates their achievements and talents. He expects to be recognized as superior without achieving any great accomplishments; A narcissistic individual is preoccupied with fantasies of his brilliance as well as his unlimited success or power. He fantasizes about beauty or ideal love;
A narcissistic individual believes that he is "special" or "unique." He feels that he can only be understood by or should associate with other special or high status people;
A narcissistic individual requires excessive admiration and is on a constant search for
admiration;
A narcissistic individual has a sense of entitlement. He has unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment and expect others to automatically comply with his wishes;
A narcissistic individual takes advantage of others to achieve his own ends and uses others without regards to the feelings of others;
A narcissistic individual lacks empathy and does not identify with the feelings or needs of others; A narcissstic individual is envious of others and believes that others are envious of him;
A narcissistic individual shows arrogant or haughty behaviors or attitudes and does not care who he offends. (emphasis mine)

A narcissistic injury occurs when someone defeats or criticizes the narcissistic individual. The narcissist may not show it outwardly, but he is haunted by criticisms and defeats. When a narcissistic injury occurs, the narcissist begins to feel empty, degraded, and humiliated and he is capable of retaliating with narcissistic rage. His reactions constitute disdain or defiant attacks.

What we witnessed last night at midnight --if you bothered to stay up you heard it; if not, you heard it this morning on the news--was an outbreak of narcissistic rage from John Kerry who simply cannot believe that anyone could possibly question anything the candidate has said or done in the past. See Here and Here for details.

From the NY Times:

"For the past week, they attacked my patriotism and my fitness to serve as commander in chief,'' Mr. Kerry said. ``Well, here's my answer. I'm not going to have my commitment to defend this country questioned by those who refused to serve when they could have and by those who have misled the nation into Iraq.''

So there you have it. That's the best that Mr. Kerry can do. He has reached deep within his soul and...found it empty. In a time of world chaos, where there is a current war against an impacable enemy who doesn't care about the number of innocents they murder and who would destroy millions of Americans if they had the chance, John Kerry is obsessed with a war he was in 35 years ago. While the Republicans concentrated on an agenda of promoting freedom and liberty and NEVER ONCE CALLED INTO QUESTION MR. KERRY'S SERVICE IN VIETNAM (his behavior since then was, of course, fair game), Mr. Kerry called the President and Vice President "liars", and suggesting that they were only in it for their own personal gain; even condoning his supporters comparing Bush to Hitler and worse.

You see, Kerry's sense of entitlement knows no bounds. His unreasonable expectations of favorable treatment has been fully nurtured by a timid press, reluctant to question Kerry's fantasies of brilliance. Noone is permitted to question him or his achievements. But he seems to think that he can question their honor and motivations with impunity. In his arrogant and haughty behavior toward his fellow Vietnam veterans, he has demonstratedthat he could care less who he offends. He needs admiration so very much that he simply can't bear a few months where some of his less than admirable behavior over the last 30 years is examined (his frightening "sensitivity" on this issue makes you wonder how he would have fared over the last three years with the level of rage, hostility and denunciations which have been relentlessly directed at President Bush. One suspects he would have completely fallen to pieces the first time France didn't like what he did).

There is nothing more important to John Kerry than to make sure his image as an heroic Vietnam vet is protected.

And yes, there is nothing more important to John Kerry than...John Kerry.

and 

 SEPTEMBER 07, 2004

Enabling Behavior For Terrorism

In psychiatry--and particularly addiction medicine--we talk about people who "enable" addicts. Enabling refers to any behavior or action that assists the addict in the continuation of their addiction. Enabling can be either intentional or unintentional, but enabling behavior allows the addict to continue their destructive behavior. An example of enabling behavior is a man or woman who, although they verbally disapprove of their spouse's drinking, repeatedly will go out and purchases alcohol for him/her. Frequently enablers tell psychiatrists that they "only want to help" or that they are "afraid" of what will happen to them if they don't do the things that help the addict (e.g., the addict will beat them up or hurt them in some way).

From this site about Alcoholism, an interested person can find out if his or her behavior makes them an enabler. Here are a few questions that one might ask:
1. Have you ever "called in sick" for the alcoholic, lying about his symptoms?
2. Have you accepted part of the blame for his (or her) drinking or behavior?
3. Have you avoided talking about his drinking out of fear of his response?
4. Have you bailed him out of jail or paid for his legal fees?
5. Have you paid bills that he was supposed to have paid himself?
6. Have you loaned him money?
7. Have you tried drinking with him in hopes of strengthening the relationship?
8. Have you given him "one more chance" and then another and another?
9. Have you threatened to leave and didn't?
10. Have you finished a job or project that the alcoholic failed to complete himself?
Of course, if you answered "yes" to any of these questions, you at some point in time have enabled the alcoholic to avoid his own responsibilities. Rather than "help" the alcoholic, you have actually made it easier for him to get worse.
If you answered "yes" to most or all of these questions, you have not only enabled the alcoholic, you have probably become a major contributor to the growing and continuing problem and chances are have become effected by the disease yourself.

I would like to propose a corollary use of "enabling"--to refer to those individuals who intentionally or unintentionally behave in such a way as to encourage terrorists and terrorism.

Asking the same questions can be revealing:
1. Have you ever made excuses for terrorists or terrorism ? 
2. Have you ever accepted part of the blame for the terrorist's behavior? Examples: after 9/11 the Left responded by demanding that we look at the "root causes" of terrorism and there was a chorus of "America's policies are to blame". Or, for more indepth discussion go here, here, and here, and here)

3. Have you avoided talking about terrorism--even avoided using the word "terrorist"--because you are afraid of the response terror groups might have or just because it is politically correct? 
Let's see if we can identify all the words being used for "terrorist" (except, of course, the word "terrorist") - rebel, insurgent, militant, militia, guerrilla,freedom-fighter, minutemen(a la Michael Moore), hostage-takers. It is totally breathtaking the amount of effort that is being expended to AVOID using the "T" word. It has become the new political correctness. Is there any doubt that it enables murderers? RantingProfs has some good analysis.

4. Have you bailed a terrorist out of jail, or paid his legal fees?
5. Have you provided financial support or aid to terrorist groups or regimes that support terrorism?
6. Have you loaned money to terrorists or regimes that support terrorism? Well, we have seen this over and over again. Germany releasing the Islamofascists involved in 9/11 because we wouldn't permit access to a key witness in our custody; our own Supreme Court saying that they are entitled to the same priveliges and legal options as citizens of the US (there can be reasonable debate about this issue, but there is no doubt that this kind of decision--IN THE MIDDLE OF A WAR--only helps the enemy and enables them to continue to harm us); Our own foreign policy prior to 9/11 consisted of giving money to the Middle Eastern dictators (Egypt comes instantly to mind); the people in this country who unwittingly gave money to charities that purported to help muslim/palestinian children etc. etc.

7. Have you marched in solidarity with terrorists, even to the point of participating in acts or encouraging acts of terrorism against others?
ANSWER, United for Peace and Justice ; this letter to Glenn Reynolds is a good example; and numerous other organizations that probably actually believe in their mottos.

8. Have you given terrorists or regimes that support terrorism "one more chance" and then another and another? This one is so obvious that it requires only two words: United Nations

9. Have you threatened to be tough with a regime that supports terrorism and then weren't? 
Every European country comes to mind; US policy for decades also was a textbook example of waffling behavior in this area. At least we seem to have stopped for the most part.

10. Have you finished something like a project or job for a terrorist or a terrorist regime who wasn't able to finish himself? 
France supporting the development of the Iran nuclear plants is one example; Companies that continue to support the oil industry in Saudi Arabia (they don't have the technical expertise in the country); continued financial support for dictators (and the US has had its share of guilt in this behavior).

As you can see, there are many Terrorism Enablers around. Some of these people truly don't have a clue that their behavior is not all sweetness and light and that it encourages the exact opposite of what they think it does (e.g., some of the innocent groups--like the Episcopal Church--who are members of "United for Peace and Justice"). These "Do-gooders" are usually completely deluded about the nature of the terrorist and often cry that we must "try to understand" why the terrorists are angry at us and want to kill us. They believe that with enough soul-searching we can discover how to change ourselves and the terrorism will then cease. They are the same "useful idiots" who said the same things about communism and socialism in the last century as communist and socialist regimes murdered millions and enslaved even more. They are the pacificists and the genuinely good people who continue to maintain a denial so intense that they cannot see that they are supporting Evil.

A second kind of Terrorist Enabler is an individual or group engaging in enabling behaviors for manipulative reasons and for personal gain--primarily because it is financially or politically beneficial for them in the short run. They are deluding themselves as they appease the terrorists or the regimes that support terrorism so that they can earn a few more bucks from them; or politically benefit from opposing efforts to stop terrorists. In truth, they cynically doubt that the terrorist are really "all that bad", and believe that by befriending them, they can have the best of both worlds.

And then there is the third kind of Terrorist Enabler. This kind is as morally reprehensible as the terrorists themselves because their motivation is one with the terrorist. They do their enabling because they gain sadistic pleasure from the acts of death and destruction that terrorism involves, yet since they don't directly participate in these actions, they consider themselves not responsible. They know that they are supporting terrorism and terrorist regimes, and that is why they behave the way they do. They hate freedom and indivudality; they hate their own country and desperately wish for its destruction. For them I have no sympathy and I feel nothing but the same contempt and revulsion that the subhuman terrorists engender within me.

So, are you an enabler? Is the newspaper you read or the TV station you tune into; or the actor/singer/comedian you idolize an enabler of terrorism? If you think this doesn't matter, you are fooling yourself--just as the woman who buys the alcohol for her alcoholic husband is fooling herself. Someday in a drunken rage, he will beat her up--even kill her. Her efforts at appeasement are folly and they only encourage the very thing she fears.



All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing

-Edmund Burke 

God bless Dr. Sanity, wherever she is.....

Lies and Misdemeanors

Deceit at every level of society seems to be stalking the land, like a giant with big boots. More and more, I am meeting people who have chosen freely to live in lies, and create sins which are misdemeanors, especially in their families.

Some young people have become so jaded and cynical that they think that all people lie and that it is ok to lie.

Some very old people have become so weary that they, too, think most people lie.

I am being told this by men and women of various levels of society. Few now believe in truly "good people", stating to me that everyone is out for themselves and so on.

Sad, sad that our society now lacks the cohesiveness of trust.

I find this trend troubling, especially among the young and the elderly. One should not be going into life jaded and one should definitely not be leaving life with cynicism.

Cynicism is a sin. It stems from two sources: hatred and pride.

Because the cynic has no grace, he or she believes that all people cannot attain nobility or greatness.

Because the cynic hates humanity, he or she hates goodness to the point of not believing goodness is possible.

Of course, the cynic has no relationship with God.

Recently, I found myself in a discussion with middle-aged people younger than myself. I was shocked at the level of cynicism revealed, and the number of lies people said, when I knew the truth of the situations they were sharing. Why people lie is mainly to avoid suffering.

Lying makes one feel safe, defended from the truth, and protected from suffering.

Truth brings clarity, but frequently, suffering.

Misdemeanors include rudeness, infidelity, malice and slander. How common these sins have become actually had saddened me, especially when I have witnessed the loss of Faith because of the lack of common courtesy.

Courtesy is politeness based on mutual respect for the dignity of individuals. The cynic, the liar, cannot be courteous. He or she cannot see the value of the other persons around them.

The courteous person is elegant, long-suffering, compliant when he or she can be. The courteous person thinks of others first, and self second. The courteous person is gentle and kind.

This ability to be courteous is fast disappearing from families. The reason may be gross individualism, relativism, or even narcissism.

But, I think the main reason that in a post-Christian society, there is no shared framework for respect.

When people no longer see themselves as brothers and sisters in Christ, what is left can be brutal.

I am sorry that I have to witness the death of truth, even among some who claim they are Christian.

I am sorry that I have to witness the growth of cynicism, lies and misdemeanors.

Future

http://www.afr.com/business/agriculture/billionaires-beef-up-in-bush-20150710-gi8qlk

The more I read about the shrinking of the middle class through debt and gross consumerism, as well as unemployment, and the more I read about the fast growing underclass completely dependent on the government, the more I am reminded of the old story The Time Machine.

Those with gobs of money seem to be buying up land in many areas, They will control the food supplies.

I predict, and I have thought this for a long time, that in the end, after financial chaos, there will be two classes-the mega-wealthy privileged, who belong to Bilderberg et al, and a slave class.

What I saw in Europe was the sadness of the middle class, from which most of us online have come, as they see their rights and status slipping into the ocean of big interests. In America, people pretend they have money by using credit, and have slipped into la-la land regarding their personal financial futures.

The American Dream was never a reality, but a progressive fallacy based on the isms of Americanism, materialism, consumerism. My intelligent wealthy friends are not in debt, have sold their investments, and are buying land. Why? They know the value of land, and the not-so-future need for access to food supplies. They can see the take-over of a few multi-national companies and they are nervous about this government's ability to control OWG interests.

Big is in, small is out.

The easiest examples to see must be the almost total lack of Ma and Pa shops of any kind. Yesterday, a friend of mine and I had to go through my old neighborhood on our way to a restaurant. He is much younger than I am and we had worked on moving my books in the afternoon.

Time for dinner at a new Middle Eastern place brought us through the streets which in the 1950s and 1960s were choc-a-bloc with all the shops necessary for baby-boomer parents-small independent shops and businesses, now all gone--all but one barbershop.

In two generations, small entrepreneurs, once the backbone of America business, have disappeared.

More than that, the good, old work ethic has been swept away as well.


Up and down those blocks were large houses of large families of children of Catholic and Lutheran parents, playing ball, swimming in the local pool, now gone, going in and out of each others' houses and walking to school.

That middle class and lower middle class groupings have contracepted themselves into extinction.

Churches have been decimated and at most daily Masses, I am one of the youngest in the pews, at 66!

The frenetic seeking for comfort has destroyed the middle and lower middle class ability to wait until one has the money to buy something, to put children before goods, to be content with small.

Catholics wanted to be Americans first and Catholics second--this lack of family life and the lack of a cohesive communities are results.

Bargain hunting is now the main entertainment for many people....and garage sales sell things people have bought in knee-jerk compulsive buying.  When I speak to people about frugality or simplicity of life, except for the few, most do not understand the language of temperance.

Less is more. But, the middle class has forgotten this. This class will be forgotten in the future, as a failed experiment growing out of the prosperity and new trade, family banking systems and businesses of the great boom of the birth of the bourgeoisie.

This demographic change will affect the Catholic Church, which historically in America, was made up of the lower middle class and the lower upper classes, not the middle class until the 20th century.

We were a Church of the poor and the wealthy who knew what noblesse oblige was all about. That concept went the way of gross greed and gross capitalism based on gross individualism.

Result: an underclass stuck dependent on the socialist system the Founding Fathers never dreamed of and would decry; and the institutionalized greed of the mega-wealthy.

I shall not see this future of master and slaves, as the process will escalate only after many other changes, which will give power to the few who have been planning this destruction of Christian lifestyles, but this cultural scenario has all happened before in pagan times. Now, that we are in the great time of the Neo-Pagans, one cannot expect either a work ethic or noblesse oblige.

The Church keeps us from the worst errors a civilization can endure and still continue. Without the Church, no family is protected, children are not protected, women are not protected, and the general communal spirit which brings people to work together in simplicity and sharing falls away, decays, and dies.

"See how they love one another" cannot merely be a dream but a reality in the face of the shock of the future, to make a pun out of a famous book.

God will allow us all to be purged of sins, all sins, and purified. Thanks be to God for these times in which we live, but saints are more necessary than ever.

My view of the future of the Church is that God will raise us mighty saints in these times-men like Bernard, Dominic, and Benedict, and women like Etheldreda, Mechthild, Catherine.

I may not see these great saints, but for the Church to survive in the future, families could be these great souls for the benefit of the universal Church.

Exciting but trying times ahead. From today's Lauds:

Habakkuk 3 The Lord will appear in judgement In spite of your anger, Lord, have compassion. Lord, I heard what you gave me to hear, and I was struck with awe of your work. In the midst of the years, bring it to life; in the midst of the years you will make it known. When you are angry, you will remember your mercy. God will come from Theman, the holy one from the mountain of Pharan. His glory has covered the heavens and the earth is full of his praise. His brightness shall be like light itself, rays shining from his hands – there is his strength hidden. You went forth for the salvation of the people, for salvation with your anointed one. You made a way through the sea for your horses, in the silt of many waters. I have heard you, Lord, and my stomach churns within me; at the sound of your voice my lips tremble. My bones rot away, my steps stumble. I will rest and be quiet on the day of tribulation and let it overtake those who have invaded us. For the fig will not flower, the vines will not fruit, the work of the olive will be lost. The fields will yield no food, the flocks will be cut off from the sheepfold, there will be no cattle in the stalls. But I will rejoice in the Lord, take joy in God my saviour. The Lord God is my strength. He will make me as sure-footed as the deer. He will lead me up to the heights. Glory be to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit, as it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be, world without end. Amen. In spite of your anger, Lord, have compassion.

The Virtue of Compassion

Compassion must be the most misunderstood virtue in today's world.  It is increasingly obvious that few people in America have true compassion. The train wreck out East a few months ago created chaos, and witnesses noted that some passengers were walking over those who were injured. A lack of compassion....Lately, we saw a minority woman pleading with violent demonstrators not to wreck her business, as she was a single mom who had worked for years creating a decent lifestyle for her children...the business was torched anyway...a lack of compassion.

Narcissism stops the growth of personal virtue. Narcissistic societies reward narcissist and not the compassionate. One of my great-grandmothers, who came from Bohemia, lived in St. Louis. During the depression, my mother, who is 87, but was then a little girl, remembers her grandmother feeding tramps on the back porch, tea and sandwiches, without being able to speak with them as they only spoke English and she only spoke Czech---compassion.

Justice and mercy must grow out of compassion. We call Mary the "Mirror of Justice" as she gave us the Saviour, and as her humility reflects the clarity of justice and mercy of God. She is, as we say in the litany, prudent, faithful, merciful, just, wise....She, as the Model of Humility, reflects compassion.

But, over the past three generations of the passing on in families of gross individualism, the lack of virtue training in children, the ideal of getting rich, staying single, and having fun, the lack of teaching the needed moral framework of sacrifice and the Ten Commandments, has led to an increase in narcissism to the point where it is no longer considered either a psychological or an illness.

Even the word sacrifice is considered offensive and nasty.  A good friend of mine once said that he never considered sacrificing or doing penance, or mortification, as he saw that as unnecessary for humans. We talked about it for awhile and then I realized that he had chosen his single lifestyle in order not to engage with anyone or their problems. He had created a little bubble of narcissistic comfort and no one would pop this bubble, if he could help it...not even God. lad


Actually, the virtue of compassion comes after one has been stripped of one's own sins in the Dark Night, when one has come to the patience of humility, when one sees that one is part of the stream of the love of God flowing out into the world. Pride stops compassion. Arrogance nails it to the Cross. Gross selfishness mocks it.

Compassion makes one vulnerable, open, at the disposal of others, be it one's husband, baby, children or the larger community. Without compassion, there can be no community, no real family life, no holy marriages.

Purgation first, then one finds out the truth of one's self, that one is a sinner just like everyone else--this is the first step.

Then, the acquiring of humility through this purgation, which allows one to love God, because one is grateful for salvation and for the constant love of God.

Then, compassion for others, the result of loving them in God and with God.

We do not have the ability to be freely compassionate without the love of God flowing through us into the world.

But, compassion is not gooey love, but tough love. Real compassion cares not only for
bodies but for souls. I remind readers of my many posts on the  corporal and spiritual works of mercy. There was a man who spoke with compassion and with tough love. This man was Fulton J. Sheen. He captured the imagination of a generation with his unfailing honesty,  and his ability to speak the truth to millions in an attractive, intellectual, yet compassionate manner.

He was not liked by many of his fellow bishops, who wanted a comfortable life, and who chose faux-compassion by supporting abortion and birth-control, as well as the cozy false American dream.

Many people will go to hell because they refuse to pop their bubble of complacency and comfort. They chose a false heaven on earth and forfeit the real deal of everlasting joy with those to whom they could have shown compassion.

More later....

and here is a repost on narcissim, which kills or prevents the growth of compassion

In psychology, there is a part of the underdeveloped person who falls into the category of being narcissistic labelled "narcissistic awe".  Narcissistic awe may be described as the judgment of the narcissist who sees the parent or adult as either completely good and wonderful or completely bad. The person is incapable of seeing someone as a good person with faults and flaws.

This type of view is found among those with a narcissitic personality disorder. That person cannot see adults in authority as anything but in black and white terms.

A healthy child grows up realizing that his parents are good people but imperfect. He will not either demonize nor idolize the adult.

Now, I have been watching many people in the traditional camp of Catholicism turn against this present pope. They have demonized him to the point of denying any good in this man. Some of their judgment is based on faulty media reports, but some is based on the problem of  "narcissistic awe".

Those who blame this pope for the evils of other priests and for the evils of the Church are exhibiting the downside of the "cult of personality", which, imo, grows out of  "narcissistic awe." In other words, these people adore one pope unrealistically and hate another one unrealistically.

Popes, and, indeed, the Church of the past are idealized, into persons and institution which never really existed. I have written on the false romanticizing of the past concerning the Church before, but now I am writing about the root cause-narcissistic awe.

Very often, people who seem religious fall into this cult of personality growing out the inability to look at the adults in their lives realistically. One young person I know was abused as a child, but instead of demonizing the parent, she has fallen into deceitful idolization of that parent. She could not face her own pain, and her adult life reflected deceit in other relationships.

This may seem both impossible and amazing, but her own narcissism will not allow her to see the emotional truth of the situation.

So, too, with the pope blasters, who cannot see him as an imperfect man, chosen by the College of Cardinals, to be the pope. That he deserves the respect of office seems obvious.

Because of the decay of the healthy family, there seems to be more narcissists about than in the past. And, many of those in the Church are into papal blasting on a daily basis.

Time to look at narcissistic awe as the root of this cult of personality gone wild and on the negative side at this time in history.

to be continued....and see these posts

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-forgotten-past-has-been-romanticized.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/05/memoricide-and-memory-continued.html

helpful reminder of an unfortunate truth...

http://themindunleashed.org/2014/09/7-things-need-know-co-existing-narcissists.html

Yet, Another Community Posting

I keep changing the perimeters for the "last post" on community, but I believe I have helpful hints for those who are able to create pods and community.

See previous posts with tag.

Several new points...

1) When I was in community all those years, those who were in charge exhibited these characteristics-and they were all lay people, remember: a) their marriages were strong and in order; b) they were completely orthodox and not heretical or schismatic in intent; c) their kids were "in order" and all practicing.

2) A maturity of spirit was sought by each person; in other words, each person wanted to be holy, and serve God, which is why they were in the community.

3) There were common goals, such as the building of the community and the maintaining of it. Community came first, families second, and this ideal brought many, many extended families into the community.

4) Marriages came out of the community. Young people had common goals and common way thinking like Catholics.

5) Most of us knew how to live in large families and sharing was not hard.

6) Egos were set aside; no one could have their way of doing something but a common way.

7) Consumerism was not an issue. Eating, dressing and maintaing lovely homes were simplified on purpose.

I am beginning to think that the lack of family life in the past two generations-Gen X and Millennial, contribute to the problem of starting communities.

Garrigou-Lagrange Again

One of my readers asked me recently about the connection between malice and egoism. I think one reason why this question is in the mind of those who use the Internet is that the language of many Catholic bloggers and tweeters has become more and more vitriolic.

One friend has suffered terrible name-calling in public in blogs and on twitter. Of course, this is not, absolutely not, Christian behavior.

Anything which is an attack on a person is serious sin.

Therefore, what we are seeing in public are fights of egoism, descending into malice. Sadly, those who are narcissists and believe the sun rises and sets on their little worlds, cannot always understand the maliciousness which pops out of gross egoism.

Here is Garrigou-Lagrange on this connection. More later..

Since original sin, we are born without sanctifying grace and charity, with our wills turned away from God, the supernatural last end, and weak for the accomplishment of our duties even in the natural order.(3)

Without falling into the exaggeration of the first Protestants and the Jansenists, we must say that we are born with a will inclined to egoism, to inordinate self-love. This is called the wound of malice; (4) it often manifests itself by a gross egoism, against which one should guard, an egoism that mingles in all man's acts. It follows that the will, which has become weak by reason of its lack of docility to God, no longer has absolute power over the sensible faculties, but only a sort of moral power or persuasion to lead them to subject themselves.(5) Doubtless after baptism, which regenerated us by giving us sanctifying grace and charity, this wound, like the others, is in the process of healing; but it also reopens by reason of our personal sins.

The principal defect of the will is the lack of rectitude, called self-love or inordinate love of self, which forgets the love due to God and that which we should have for our neighbor. Self-love or egoism is manifestly the source of all sins.(6) From it are born "the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes, and the pride of life." (7) The sensible appetites, which are no longer firmly led, incline man to thoughtlessness, feverish eagerness, fruitless agitation, selfish search for all that pleases, flight from all that is painful, nonchalance, discouragement, in which he sees that his will has lost its strength, and to all sorts of bad examples. (8)

It is clear that self-will, which is defined as that which is not conformed to the will of God, is the source of every sin. Self-will is extremely dangerous because it can corrupt everything; even what is best in one may become evil when self-will enters in, for it takes itself as its end, instead of subordinating itself to God. If the Lord perceives this will in a fast or a sacrifice, He rejects them because He sees therein a divine work accomplished through pride in order to gain approbation. Now, self-will is born of self-love or egoism; it is strong self-love that has become imperious.

Catholic Narcissism Three And Last

A healthy Catholic is one who recognizes that he has gifts and talents from God (not from the self) and that God created him to do something in this world. I have posted Blessed John Henry Cardinal Newman's prayer on one's role in the world just recently. Here it is again.

The Mission of My Life

God has created me to do Him some definite service. He has committed some work to me which He has not committed to another. I have my mission. I may never know it in this life, but I shall be told it in the next. I am a link in a chain, a bond of connection between persons. He has not created me for naught. I shall do good; I shall do His work. I shall be an angel of peace, a preacher of truth in my own place, while not intending it if I do but keep His commandments. Therefore, I will trust Him, whatever I am, I can never be thrown away. If I am in sickness, my sickness may serve Him, in perplexity, my perplexity may serve Him. If I am in sorrow, my sorrow may serve Him. He does nothing in vain. He knows what He is about. He may take away my friends. He may throw me among strangers. He may make me feel desolate, make my spirits sink, hide my future from me. Still, He knows what He is about.

A healthy Catholic has a balance of kindness, sensitivity, empathy, capableness, good aggression or energy, creativity, and a sense of self as being made good in and with and through God. A healthy person is honest about one's self and about others.

But, what has happened to many Catholics, especially trads, is that they have fallen into a passivity and a depression and even a passive-aggressiveness about the Church.

So, instead of working hard in the Church Militant and instead of working with grace in the purification of self, they leave all responsibility for their sin at the feet of priests. I wrote about this yesterday and before.

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/05/judge-yourselves.html

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/05/the-sins-of-fathers.html

Now, the root of this is narcissism, again.  When one focuses on the sins of those in authority, one falls into the narcissistic awe state described in the previous post. But, one decides, in the false demonization of the authority, to become passive, or even passive-aggressive concerning one's own sins. Instead of facing one's imperfections, one either blames the authority figure or attacks the authority rather than looking in the mirror.

If one is angry enough, one becomes depressed, as depression can be a result of suppressed anger.

Such is the case of those who leave the Church either on the left or on the right.

Those on the left blame the Church for not being made in their image and likeness, demonizing the horrid Church for not accepting contraception, ssm, or marriage, divorce and remarriage without annulment.

Those on the right blame the Church for not being the idealized perfect parent and go off and create a new one. These people cannot accept sin or failure among members of the clergy and want only a perfect clergy.

Yes, we should pray for perfection in our clergy, but we should not get angry is some are not.

I have met many depressed trads. They concentrate on people rather than on Christ. They concentrate on the sins of the hierarchy rather than praying and doing penance for such men.

They choose to demonize some and idolize others. The real priests, who are men trying to become holy, will not even stand up to such scrutiny. And, when a priest is seen as not quite perfect, those involved in narcissistic awe begin to demonize him as well.

Anger and depression about the Church may result in actually leaving the Church and become schismatic, as one looks for perfection in other people rather than looking towards Christ.

The anger can turn husband against wife and wife against husband. It can lead people to accept false private revelations in search of a place of utopia on earth by constructing cults.

The Church is now, as a good priest told me yesterday, "two churches"--those who want to make the Church into something of their own idealization, either right or left in nature, and those who accept and love the real Church.


I suggest reading my identity series as well...here is the last one.

http://supertradmum-etheldredasplace.blogspot.com/2014/04/loss-of-identity-part-10.html

What we see in society is, sadly, repeated in some members of the Church. Pray to God to be a mentally and emotionally healthy, mature human being, which are synonyms for "holy".