St. Paul's admonition in Sunday's second reading packs a wallop. It's a reminder to me that any progress made in the spiritual life is a work of God, and to Him goes all the glory. The moment I take any credit - wham!! Return to "Go", do not collect $200. Actually, it'd be more like "Return to God", do penance.
Another form of spiritual pride is believing one is better than someone else - remember the parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector, where Jesus described the actions of the two men while praying in the temple? The temptation to elevate one's self is alluring, because it provides a sense of assurance that our path is the narrow one, all the while giving superficial credit to God. It is also very easy to fall into this trap, sometimes without even realizing it. The idiom "Pride goeth before fall" is so true, and the fall can be subtle. Landing face first in humiliation, however - that part isn't so subtle.
To me, the proper attitude ought to be giving thanks to God for the gift of faith, and a sincere admission of my shortcomings and daily failures to utilize all the grace God continually showers upon me. It's not so much a "there but for the grace of God go I" approach - although that comprises a portion of the mentality - but more "the good I do is of God and His grace, and all else is a reflection of my sinfulness". God is not concerned with how I compare myself to others - He cares with how I stack up against myself, from one moment to the next. God does not rank us like college basketball teams. Each one of us is #1 in His poll - the question is, is He #1 in ours? And if I'm swelled with spiritual pride, then it's not God who's in the top spot, but me.
St. Paul recognized the danger of spiritual pride - it is so so easy to stray from the narrow path. The example of the Hebrew nation wandering in the desert - he said they were a warning for his generation - and for ours as well. Fortunately for us, we also have the heroic examples of the saints - their humility, their demonstrations of charity, their lives of virtue, their obedience to the Church. They were humble because they recognized the truth - that without God, they were nothing. But with God, they could do everything. A metaphysical paradox - by emptying themselves of "themself", they created room for God. Spiritual pride crowds God out, and then we become nothing once more.
The name-calling in the Church reflects spiritual pride, to a degree. Progressive Catholics, Fundie Catholics, Rad Trads, and so on. I'm guilty of it from time to time - although in the case of many well-known progressive Catholics (like McBrien, Chittister, et al), I call them as such because that is how they identify themselves, and that is truly what they are - they wear the badge with a sense of ironic honor. Organizations like Call-to-Action, Catholics for Choice and the like describe themselves as progressive, so calling them as such is not an insult. But that term - and the others I've mentioned - are often hurled as pejoratives designed to stifle meaningful conversation between individuals, or when a person perceives their viewpoint or position as being threatened. You see this a lot in comments section of articles and blog posts. Yes, that's right! Spiritual pride can even rear its ugly head in a blog of all places! Whouda thunk it?!?
If an ordinary everyday Catholic individual is wrong about a position on Church teaching, then it's best to just call them out for being wrong (and to give the benefit of the doubt that perhaps their error lies in ignorance of Church teaching, until thoroughly demonstrated otherwise) rather than label them a progressive, or a Modernist, or what have you. The same goes in the other direction, too - calling Catholics zealots, righteous nuts, holier-than-the-pope types and so on. It's been known to happen - even to me!
It's not prideful to defend Church teaching - in fact that's a humble thing to do, because more often than not, the defender gets attacked. But said defense becomes a matter of spiritual pride when the teachings of the Church are used as a measuring stick, or as a phylactery enhancer.
I bring all this up, because it happened to me last week - in dishing it out and getting it back. A coworker (a Catholic, which is important to the story here) and I got into an argument over a customer-related issue. He forwarded an email to me that he had sent to the owner of a packaging distribution company we both represent - we're employed by the same company, but our employer has allowed the sales staff to also represent a packaging distribution company that does non-competitive business. Anyway...
Here's my coworker's email, forwarded to me without any explanation:
X (pkg distribution company owner),
Something was just brought to my attention. A pallet of stretch wrap was delivered by [X's company} to a company, the name of which, I will keep silent on. [...] I remember a while back that we had a similar problem with [another customer] relative to the same situation.
X, I hope that this was a mistake. Further, I hope that it is not still happening with [another customer]. If it is, please take me off this account. I am very honest and ethical and this type of stuff bothers me greatly.
Here was my response:
Why are you telling me this? This is none of my business.
To which he responded:
You never cease to amaze me. What do you mean it's none of your business. You're a sales rep. for this guy and you are suppose to be Christian! Obviously, this guy is cheating his customers. In other words, he is stealing. If you are one of his sales reps. you should know this so that you are on guard for your customers. Do you sell any stretch wrap by the pallet from him? If you do, you have a moral obligation to verify that he is not cheating your customers. If you look the other way or remain silent and he is cheating your customers, you are equally guilty. Don't put your pocket book in front of morality.
This may sound uncharitable, but knowing you these past years and your lukewarmness or neutral stance to many things - I kind of expected that you would respond this way.
My initial reaction was one of shock - so I responded back:
You're asking me to pass judgment on X on the sole basis of your email, which you sent to me without any forward or intro, like "FYI Larry - I'm having some trouble at an account regarding stretchwrap and you may want to check out any customers that are buying it." That would have been better than just forwarding me the email you sent to X (which I doubt he's aware of...it could be argued you are close to crossing the line of detraction CCC 2477). Instead, you expect me to jump on the bandwagon and accuse X of willfully cheating and stealing...without hearing his defense or side of the story. It is not obvious that X is cheating your customer. That's a form of rash judgment, and I'm not going to go there. I'm more inclined to believe the manufacturer is the guilty party here, and I'm even willing to give the benefit of the doubt (which is the Christian attitude, by the way CCC2478) that this is an honest mistake. The best thing for you to do is to get all the facts and work it out with X, and get it resolved with your customer. Which is why it's none of my business.
I've been selling for X for 6-7 years, and I've never had an issue with material with any of my customers. I used to sell pallet loads of machine stretchwrap to [my customer] for years, and there was never an issue. I see no conflict in selling for X and still being Christian. Now, if he's involved in illegal and unethical practices, then I'd be forced to stop selling for him. But there's no evidence of that.
I know my moral obligations, thank you very much. You're not in a position to lecture me.
This may sound uncharitable, but knowing you these past years and your lukewarmness or neutral stance to many things - I kind of expected that you would respond this way.
That sounds uncharitable because it is. You seem upset that I'm not automatically taking your side. Because you are upset, you attack my character, and to me, that's uncharitable. My response in this instance is neutral because I don't have all the facts in order to make a qualified informed decision. You interpret my stances "to many other things" as lukewarm or neutral because I prefer to keep them private, which has nothing to do with this circumstance anyway. Unless you are an interpreter of souls, I don't believe you are qualified to remove any specks from my eye.
In reading my response, I noticed a couple places where I displayed spiritual pride in varying degrees - citing the Catechism, telling him he's not in a position to lecture (when I did that very thing to him), and the last sentence was unnecessary. I can see how those parts of my email appear that I'm getting defensive. Which I wasn't, but I recognize how that interpretation could be made. At the time, I looked at this response as merely an attempt to look at the situation logically and rationally. I didn't see the basis of my coworker's assertion that X was "obviously cheating", because I didn't have all the facts.
If I had this to do all over again, I would've written a much shorter email and ignored my co-worker's personal comments.
My coworker did respond to me, and I didn't save the email. But there were two parts that I recall. Below is how he started his email:
HEAR NO EVIL! SEE NO EVIL! SPEAK NO EVIL! That's you, Larry. And since you quoted the "new" catechism, let me quote the Bible. "Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no', and all else is from the devil."
Then, later in the email, he wrote:
I'm not upset because you don't agree with me. There are a lot of things you don't agree with me on. For instance, you are a liberal Modernist (a sin) Catholic, while I am a traditional faithful Catholic. Does that make me mad? No, not really.
At that point in the email, I realized we were no longer discussing the issue of the packaging distribution company's owner and his alleged 'cheating', but rather the level of my Catholicity. The 'measuring stick' approach I mentioned earlier. Although I did laugh at his declaration that I am a liberal Catholic. I've been called many things, but never that!
And I haven't regaled you all with this story to cast a poor light on my co-worker. After all, everyone is on a spiritual journey, and not everyone is in the same place on the path. I've used this story as a means for reflection on my own actions, a lesson from which I hope to learn how to act with true charity.
He concluded by saying he wasn't going to discuss this any further, and that he will pray for me. I responded back thanking him for his prayers, and that I'll pray for him too - I mean that sincerely. And I know he's praying for me too. Which I appreciate - I need all the help I can get!
I've learned one thing (at least!) from this tete-a-tete: I need to examine my faith life much more closely, and pray on certain aspects of it. Such as, what are the blind spots in my faith life? Where am I exhibiting spiritual pride? Am I taking any credit for progress made in my spiritual journey, credit that is rightfully due to God?
In any circumstance, it's possible to recognize where and how God is calling us to a deeper love for Him and a greater reliance on His grace. For me, it was being called something I'm not - a liberal Modernist Catholic. Something in my words or actions have led him to believe I match that description. Perhaps it was a reminder that, as St Paul says, I ought to take heed lest I fall. Not a bad thing to reflect on during Lent.
My initial reaction was one of shock - so I responded back:
You're asking me to pass judgment on X on the sole basis of your email, which you sent to me without any forward or intro, like "FYI Larry - I'm having some trouble at an account regarding stretchwrap and you may want to check out any customers that are buying it." That would have been better than just forwarding me the email you sent to X (which I doubt he's aware of...it could be argued you are close to crossing the line of detraction CCC 2477). Instead, you expect me to jump on the bandwagon and accuse X of willfully cheating and stealing...without hearing his defense or side of the story. It is not obvious that X is cheating your customer. That's a form of rash judgment, and I'm not going to go there. I'm more inclined to believe the manufacturer is the guilty party here, and I'm even willing to give the benefit of the doubt (which is the Christian attitude, by the way CCC2478) that this is an honest mistake. The best thing for you to do is to get all the facts and work it out with X, and get it resolved with your customer. Which is why it's none of my business.
I've been selling for X for 6-7 years, and I've never had an issue with material with any of my customers. I used to sell pallet loads of machine stretchwrap to [my customer] for years, and there was never an issue. I see no conflict in selling for X and still being Christian. Now, if he's involved in illegal and unethical practices, then I'd be forced to stop selling for him. But there's no evidence of that.
I know my moral obligations, thank you very much. You're not in a position to lecture me.
This may sound uncharitable, but knowing you these past years and your lukewarmness or neutral stance to many things - I kind of expected that you would respond this way.
That sounds uncharitable because it is. You seem upset that I'm not automatically taking your side. Because you are upset, you attack my character, and to me, that's uncharitable. My response in this instance is neutral because I don't have all the facts in order to make a qualified informed decision. You interpret my stances "to many other things" as lukewarm or neutral because I prefer to keep them private, which has nothing to do with this circumstance anyway. Unless you are an interpreter of souls, I don't believe you are qualified to remove any specks from my eye.
In reading my response, I noticed a couple places where I displayed spiritual pride in varying degrees - citing the Catechism, telling him he's not in a position to lecture (when I did that very thing to him), and the last sentence was unnecessary. I can see how those parts of my email appear that I'm getting defensive. Which I wasn't, but I recognize how that interpretation could be made. At the time, I looked at this response as merely an attempt to look at the situation logically and rationally. I didn't see the basis of my coworker's assertion that X was "obviously cheating", because I didn't have all the facts.
If I had this to do all over again, I would've written a much shorter email and ignored my co-worker's personal comments.
My coworker did respond to me, and I didn't save the email. But there were two parts that I recall. Below is how he started his email:
HEAR NO EVIL! SEE NO EVIL! SPEAK NO EVIL! That's you, Larry. And since you quoted the "new" catechism, let me quote the Bible. "Let your 'yes' mean 'yes' and your 'no' mean 'no', and all else is from the devil."
Then, later in the email, he wrote:
I'm not upset because you don't agree with me. There are a lot of things you don't agree with me on. For instance, you are a liberal Modernist (a sin) Catholic, while I am a traditional faithful Catholic. Does that make me mad? No, not really.
At that point in the email, I realized we were no longer discussing the issue of the packaging distribution company's owner and his alleged 'cheating', but rather the level of my Catholicity. The 'measuring stick' approach I mentioned earlier. Although I did laugh at his declaration that I am a liberal Catholic. I've been called many things, but never that!
And I haven't regaled you all with this story to cast a poor light on my co-worker. After all, everyone is on a spiritual journey, and not everyone is in the same place on the path. I've used this story as a means for reflection on my own actions, a lesson from which I hope to learn how to act with true charity.
He concluded by saying he wasn't going to discuss this any further, and that he will pray for me. I responded back thanking him for his prayers, and that I'll pray for him too - I mean that sincerely. And I know he's praying for me too. Which I appreciate - I need all the help I can get!
I've learned one thing (at least!) from this tete-a-tete: I need to examine my faith life much more closely, and pray on certain aspects of it. Such as, what are the blind spots in my faith life? Where am I exhibiting spiritual pride? Am I taking any credit for progress made in my spiritual journey, credit that is rightfully due to God?
In any circumstance, it's possible to recognize where and how God is calling us to a deeper love for Him and a greater reliance on His grace. For me, it was being called something I'm not - a liberal Modernist Catholic. Something in my words or actions have led him to believe I match that description. Perhaps it was a reminder that, as St Paul says, I ought to take heed lest I fall. Not a bad thing to reflect on during Lent.
