True and false offense

Subject: True and false offense

In a comment I stated that "Offense taken is not prima facie evidence of offense given." I would like to elaborate on this, using a couple of concrete examples.

Let us first consider those who say that they suffer great pain by the words "Our Father, who art in heaven..." and substitute "Our God, who art in heaven; or, in a similar vein, in the creed, instead of saying "...for us men and for our salvation..." they say "...for us and for our salvation..."

Now I do not doubt that there is suffered an anguish here, and I'd like to explore that. In these cases and those which are similar, there is a refusal to understand what is contained in the words of the creed and the greatest prayer, and an adherence to the particular error, preferring their own opinion over the deposit of the faith. In other words, there is no possible offense offered, and the individual taking offense is only demonstrating their own stubbornness in preferring their own opinion over that which is true.

Now there is also the case where offense is rendered, but without realizing it. To demonstrate, I will use the same example. The person who refuses to call God Father, is attempting to correct the very name God has given us whereby to know Him. The person who changes the inclusive language of "for us men and for our salvation" (ie: all mankind), in substituting the exclusive language of "for us and for our salvation" (ie: we gathered here only), is committing an error of great magnitude, since the creed explicates what we believe.

In sum, often people do not understand that they are giving offense, and people take offense where none is given. In both cases it is truth that is offended against by error, and as Leo XIII said, error has no rights.

For a moment, I’d like to consider the lot of a patient in the hospital. Let us assume that the doctor orders a drug to be administered by injection; the patient needs a shot. The CNA, who takes temperature and blood pressure every few hours does not administer the medication, but the nurse does. Is this an insult to the CNA? No, and it would be absurd to take it as such. Is it an insult to the nurse that the doctor must place the order for the injection? Of course not. No one would question that the CNA, the nurse, and even the doctor are of equal dignity as persons, but one would be a fool to consider them to be the same in their professional responsibilities; there is a hierarchy of authority and work, and without it, the entire system of care would collapse.

Now let’s consider what was offered by the deacon as an “offense” against the laity, and ask if it actually is. In this hospital of souls known as the Church, the Church experimented with extending a specific task to a group which had never done it before, and now has announced that the experiment will not continue. There is a division of labor, and there are reasons for this division of labor. Now to believe that it is somehow an affirmation that one group is better than another, based on a division of labor, is to read into said division that which is not there. I will grant you that there may be clergy who think they are better than laity, just as there are doctors who are jerks and think they are better than nurses; but equal dignity of persons is what we adhere to, while recognizing that there are different tasks proper to different vocations. Abuse does not negate the necessary use.

By insisting that we were being “slapped in the face” by the Church in this ruling, the Deacon demonstrated a profound lack of understanding of this ruling. On the other hand, to take the time meant for a homily, and instead, deliver a very strong statement exalting his personal opinion above and against that which the Church has ruled, did two things. First, as an officer of the Church, he spoke not as a deacon of the Church, but as an individual who had crossed a line between himself and the Church (because he spoke for himself, not the Church). Second, he deprived the faithful of a homily explicating the scriptures and how to live them. I find it remarkable that there is so much talk of justice, but so much injustice to the faithful, ie: failing to render what is due.

So, in this recent situation, there is a twofold case of offense taken; on the one hand, but those deeply offended and hurt by the deacon’s words, and on the other, those offended and hurt by what I did, or, more to the point, by what they understand and think that I did, and their perceptions of the motives with which it was done.

In comments, motives have been attributed to me which simply are not so. Those who know me, understand this. We are constantly exhorted to be open to and docile to the promptings of the Spirit, and to do what the Lord asks of us. In my prayers for our beloved Deacon (who is a remarkably good speaker, by the way), I begged the Lord for what is best for the Deacon; and the answer was rather terrifying. You may not believe that the answer which I acted on was from God, and I certainly questioned it as well. The reason I mentioned those who know me, is I do not think it was my own choice for the very simple reason that is was as out of character for me, as joyful obedience would appear to be for Deacon, may God bless and assist him.

I will offer the suggestion that anyone who was not offended by the Deacon’s words and actions, doesn’t understand the magnitude of the offense committed, which is certainly forgivable. If I am wrong on this, I stand open to correction.