A divided blog

 

 

I used to read Bishop Kenneth Povish (†) in our local *Catholic newspaper, and if I am remembering correctly, he would often divide his column into sections, covering various, unrelated topics. Since there is so much I'd like to cover today, I'm going to make an attempt to imitate his model.

Christian Behavior

As Christians, since we are human, we, too, can struggle with liking people who are not likeable, but Jesus was very clear when he said:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemies, and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your heavenly Father, for he makes his sun rise on the bad and the good, and causes rain to fall on the just and the unjust.'"

Trump's press secretary, in defending him for proudly saying, "I hate my opponent and I don't want the best for them. I'm sorry," said he was being "authentically himself."

How sad that his default is to be authentically unchristian. We should not be celebrating what he said. Do not defend the indefensible by praising his frankness, as if it excuses such blatant disregard for the words of Jesus.

Free Speech

I have always been proud that a hallmark of being American is being able to speak your mind. It is not a freedom people in other countries are always guaranteed. To take this away from us by censoring us is a great loss, and a tremendous danger. It lifts my spirit to see so many people finally standing up against the censorship we are currently experiencing. Restricting speech to only what a leader wants to hear is a characteristic of dictators and one we must be very careful not to support.

A Word of Hope

Sitting in Mass the other day, it occurred to me how beautiful it is that even though so many of us are frustrated by the darkness beginning to envelope our nation on so many fronts, we still find it within ourselves to come and worship God. We still hope in our Creator and his ability to overcome evil. We still count on his love and strive to love others as we ought. People of faith cannot give up. They must bring their faith to a world in pain, knowing that God continues to be with us in the struggle.

The Father never left Jesus in his darkest hours, but gave him the courage and strength to endure what he did, so that his light would penetrate the darkness and bring hope to the world.

Forgiveness

Do not be hard on yourself if you are struggling with forgiveness. It is a process. Speaking the words, "I forgive" can be a starting point for many,  but if it is taking you some time to reach the ability to forgive, that's okay. 

When our ability to forgive is lacking, we can ask God for help. He will step in and bring forgiveness and peace, where we may be struggling. He can do what we might not yet be able to.

I hope your day is filled with the peace of Christ.

Janet Cassidy

Email me at:  jmctm2@gmail.com

janetcassidy.com
https://www.facebook.com/reflectionsinfaith/
https://www.youtube.com/@janetcassidy 

*The Catholic Times/The Catholic Weekly (I had a column in The Catholic Times)

 

Is this misplaced "delight"?

 

 

Back in July I wrote a *post about the couple caught on camera at the Coldplay concert. I took the side of not publicly mocking them for their scandalous behavior, quoting a blogger who said, "saints treated sinners like wounded members of their own body. They were grieved, not scandalized."

I still support my position, recalling how Jesus reacted to the Woman Caught in Adultery:

"Let the one among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her.”  John 8:7 

"Then Jesus straightened up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you? She replied, “No one, sir.” Then Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” John 8:10-11 

Notice Jesus did not laugh at her. Her didn't humiliate or shame her like the scribes and the pharisees who put her right in the middle of the crowd.

This came up for me again after hearing the popular Christian activist say, "We should delight in the fun [of the moment they were caught on camera.]" 

The same Christian activist, in his podcast, went on and on about shame and how he thought it was great that they got caught so as to bring their sin to public judgment. He also referenced our "all-seeing holy judge who calls us to righteousness" and that "God is always watching us. That God is always judging us."

The God I believe in isn't breathlessly waiting to catch me in my sin so that he can shame me. The God I believe in wants to catch me doing good. Yes, he holds me accountable for my sins, and he knows what I'm doing, but he's not waiting to pounce. That's not a loving God. 

If your spouse, or your adult child, were caught in public in an immoral situation such as the couple on camera, I hope that you would not "delight in the fun" but grieve in their woundedness. 

Why would we ever celebrate someone's shame and sin? 

That's not what Jesus did when he caught the woman in adultery. 

Of course adultery is shameful, but these harsh words of the podcaster,
". . . the memes are hilarious . . . they deserve [to have] their reputation wrecked. They should repent. These people are the lowest of the low," are a far cry from a true Christian response.

I'm thankful that our God is a God of mercy and love because we aren't perfect. The harshness reflected in the activist's words directed at the individuals (not just their sin) was in itself shameful.

Who hopes for the ruin of others due to their sin?

Our sins are not private, because they do affect others (even when done in secret.) I know the activist was trying to make this point. However, his glee in their getting caught was disgusting.

Be careful that someone does not "tickle your ears" so that you jump on a bandwagon that, in actuality, reveals your own dark judgments against people who think, live and act differently than you.

Helping others recognize sin is one thing. Condemning them is another. 

Let's leave the judging to God.

Janet Cassidy

Email me at:  jmctm2@gmail.com

janetcassidy.com
https://www.facebook.com/reflectionsinfaith/
https://www.youtube.com/@janetcassidy 

 

*https://janetcassidy.blogspot.com/2025/07/will-you-be-stone-thrower-coldplay-and.html#comment-form 

Does this make sense to you?

 

Ever since the death of Charlie Kirk, I have been trying to put my finger on what it was about his approach that bugs me. At times, there was a thread of truth in what he was saying--and at times, not-so-much--but, particularly his humiliation of others and his arrogance didn't set well with me. Something was off.

It goes without saying that his assassination was tragic and we need to pray for his family, and certainly not bash the person he was. I certainly hope you are not among those who have celebrated his death. 

I'd like to share an excerpt of a post I came across. Even if you are sick of all the media surrounding Charlie Kirk, please take a moment to read this. I think it's a good dissection of his approach.

I don't know anything about this blogger, so I can't, in general, recommend her or her opinions, but this particular post is good. I've edited her post for space and relevancy to my point. 

Please take the time to read this. It's important.

Excerpted from Rachel Hurley's post:

". . . Charlie Kirk wasn’t someone who was looking for honest debate. He was a political operative spreading hate and divisiveness. When you show his fans his racist, sexist or bigoted rhetoric - they defend it by saying “That’s not (racist, sexist, bigoted) - it’s true.” And that was his goal. 

 

The whole “Prove Me Wrong” setup that made Kirk famous wasn’t really about proving anyone wrong. It was about creating content. Kirk mastered a specific type of performance that looked like debate but functioned more like a carefully orchestrated show designed to make his opponents look foolish and his positions seem unassailable.

 

The basic formula was simple - set up a table on a college campus, invite students to challenge conservative talking points, then use a combination of rhetorical tricks and editing magic to create viral moments. What looked like open discourse was actually a rigged game where Kirk held all the advantages.

 

First, there’s the obvious setup problem. 

 

Kirk was a professional political operative who spent years honing his arguments and memorizing statistics. He knew exactly which topics would come up and had practiced responses ready. 

 

Meanwhile, his opponents were typically 19-year-old students who wandered over between classes. It’s like watching a professional boxer fight random people at the gym - the outcome was predetermined.

 

Kirk used what debate experts call a corrupted version of the Socratic method. Instead of asking genuine questions to explore ideas, he’d ask leading questions designed to trap students in contradictions or force them into uncomfortable positions. He’d start with seemingly reasonable premises, then quickly pivot to more extreme conclusions, leaving his opponents scrambling to keep up.

 

The classic example was his approach to gender identity discussions. Kirk would begin by asking seemingly straightforward definitional questions - “What is a woman?” - then use whatever answer he received as a launching pad for increasingly aggressive follow-ups. If someone mentioned social roles, he’d demand biological definitions. If they provided biological definitions, he’d find edge cases or exceptions to exploit. 

 

The goal wasn’t understanding or genuine dialogue - it was creating moments where students appeared confused or contradictory.

 

Kirk also employed rapid-fire questioning techniques that made it nearly impossible for opponents to fully develop their thoughts. He’d interrupt, reframe, and redirect before anyone could establish a coherent argument. This created the illusion that his opponents couldn’t defend their positions when really they just couldn’t get a word in edgewise.

 

The editing process was equally important. Kirk’s team would film hours of interactions, then cut together the moments that made him look brilliant and his opponents look unprepared. Nuanced discussions got reduced to gotcha moments. Students who made good points found those parts mysteriously absent from the final videos.

  

What’s particularly insidious about this approach is how it masquerades as good-faith debate while undermining the very principles that make real discourse valuable. Kirk wasn’t interested in having his mind changed or learning from others - he was performing certainty for an audience that craved validation of their existing beliefs.

 

The “Prove Me Wrong” framing itself was misleading. It suggested Kirk was open to being persuaded when the entire setup was designed to prevent that possibility. Real intellectual humility requires admitting uncertainty, acknowledging complexity, and engaging with the strongest versions of opposing arguments. Kirk’s format did the opposite.

 

This style of debate-as-performance has become incredibly popular because it feeds into our current political moment’s hunger for easy victories and clear villains. People want to see their side “destroying” the opposition with “facts and logic.” Kirk provided that satisfaction without the messy reality of actual intellectual engagement.

 

The broader damage extends beyond individual interactions. When debate becomes about humiliating opponents rather than exploring ideas, it corrupts the entire enterprise of democratic discourse. Students who got embarrassed in these exchanges weren’t just losing arguments - they were being taught that engaging with different viewpoints was dangerous and futile.

 

Kirk’s approach also contributed to the broader polarization problem by making political identity feel like a zero-sum game where any concession to the other side represented total defeat. His debates reinforced the idea that political opponents weren’t just wrong but ridiculous - a perspective that makes compromise and collaboration nearly impossible.

 

The most troubling aspect might be how this style of engagement spreads. Kirk inspired countless imitators who use similar tactics in their own contexts. The model of setting up situations where you can’t lose, then claiming victory when your rigged game produces the expected results, has become a template for political engagement across the spectrum.

 

Real debate requires vulnerability - the possibility that you might be wrong and need to change your mind. Kirk’s format eliminated that possibility by design. His certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine.

 

The tragedy of this approach is that college campuses actually need more genuine dialogue about difficult political questions. Students are forming their worldviews and wrestling with complex issues. They deserve engagement that helps them think more clearly, not performances designed to make them look stupid.

 

Kirk’s assassination represents a horrific escalation of political violence that has no place in democratic society. But it’s worth remembering that his debate tactics, while not violent, were themselves a form of intellectual violence that treated political opponents as objects to be humiliated rather than fellow citizens to be engaged. . ."

 

Does this make sense to you? 

 

Janet Cassidy

Email me at:  jmctm2@gmail.com

janetcassidy.com
https://www.facebook.com/reflectionsinfaith/
https://www.youtube.com/@janetcassidy