Tag: Communication

Calumny vs. Detraction

Your armory of good words, probably has two excellent but almost forgotten and rarely used ones, subtle, clear, and strong:

Calumny: 1. a false and malicious statement designed to injure the reputation of someone or something. 2. the act of uttering calumnies; slander; defamation.

Detraction: 1. the act of disparaging or belittling the reputation or worth of a person, work, etc. 2. the taking away of a part, as from quality, value, or reputation.

   Both have to do with damaging a person’s reputation. The difference is that calumny achieves it by a falsehood, and detraction achieves it by a truth.
   Calumny seems clearly to be wrong, since it involves spreading a falsehood with the intent of damaging someone’s reputation.
   Detraction is also wrong, although less obviously. There are those who might claim that it can never be wrong to tell a truth, but this is not always the case.
   For example, if you once said or did something which was very personal and private, whether good or bad, it is not necessarily correct for another person to publicize it, making it a matter of common knowledge-especially if the intent is to destroy your good name and reputation.
   We are all less than perfect. Everyone is not entitled to know everything about each of us without sufficient cause or reason.
   If someone has repeatedly done something seriously wrong or dangerous to another person or the public good, there may well be adequate reason to reveal it. But, if not, the very revealing of the wrong or danger may be itself a wrong!
   Everyone is entitled to a reasonable degree of privacy and to his or her good name, and to violate it requires an adequate cause.

   This isn’t about an examination of conscience or a private confession. A wrong remains a wrong, whether known or not. But, everyone need not know everything about another, whether right or wrong.
   Today, where huge quantities of true and false information are easily available to us through the various media, there seems to be a great emphasis on a “gotcha” mentality—a kind of almost indecent haste to unearth anything that could be used to discredit another, whether justifiable or not!
   Of course, some grievous matters may need to be revealed for the common good, but not everything, always.
   In examining our individual or collective conscience, we need to a remember that there is such a serious fault (wrong; sin) as calumny. and there also is a subtler fault (wrong; sin), also serious, detraction. 
  We can’t excuse ourselves because of ignorance, that we didn’t fully realize the implications of what we were doing.
   We’re supposed to know the laws of the land in which we live and obey them. Ignorance does not excuse us from breaking them and paying the penalty.
   We’re presumed to be familiar with the customs and tolerances of the society in which we live and respect them. Ignorance does not excuse us from ignoring them and being treated accordingly.
   We’re supposed to seek and discern God’s will for us and follow it. Ignorance does not absolve us from our responsibility.
   We’re also supposed to clearly speak the language of the society in which we live. So, be sure your vocabulary includes these two clear and powerful words and that you wield them well!


22 August 2021

Prizing and Praising and Blessing

Prizing (to prize) means to estimate the worth or value of something, to value or esteem it highly.

Praising (to praise) means to express approval or admiration of something, to commend, to extoll.

   There’s no praising without prizing. We can’t sincerely express admiration and extoll something or someone if we don’t actually value and esteem that thing or person.
   Praising without prizing is a dishonest, false, and fraudulent thing to do.
   If you’re singing along in church, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow”, it presumes you really mean it, that you have a genuine appreciation of some of the wonderful works of God and value and appreciate his mercy and love.
   Good praising needs good prizing, and good prizing means first seeing and then appreciating, valuing, and esteeming.
   Good prizing needs sound values, needs open eyes and ears and mind and heart—but it doesn’t necessarily need an open mouth! That’s the praising part—that comes later.
   In the hustle and bustle of modern life and the myriads of obligations and requirements of our jobs, our families, and, in general, modern living, it’s easy to become blind and deaf to the works and actions of God in the whole world, in that small part of it where we live our lives, and in our very life itself.
   Taking time to see, to hear, to think, to reflect, to appraise, to prize, and to praise is at least as important as taking time to eat, to drink, to rest, to exercise, to care for health, to work, and to earn money.
   Prizing and praising are key ingredients of praying—in fact it’s pretty much what praying is all about. Praying isn’t just providing God with a shopping list of our concerns, hopes, fears, woes, and wants.

Blessing (to bless) usually means to consecrate, sanctify, make holy or to request God to bestow a good upon a person, place, or thing.
   In church Latin usage, to bless is “benedicere”. “Bene” means good or well; “dicere” means to speak.

   When we say grace before eating, we say, “Bless us, O Lord, and these thy gifts…” However we also pray (e.g. in Daniel 3), “Bless the Lord, all you works of the Lord…”
   “Bless the Lord” can’t mean to ask God to bestow some good thing upon himself—but it can mean to speak well, in some way
   Actions speak louder than words. Any creature and all creation can “speak well” about God by manifesting him through the beauty and the wonder of his work in them.
   In this sense, to bless God means to display and show forth the work of God in us, to “bespeak”.
   Paradoxically, “bespeaking” doesn’t involve words at all. It’s means allowing the wonder of the work of God and his goodness to be seen through our lives.
   This brings us back to prizing and praising. Praising, like bespeaking, is not so much a matter of words at all.
   If the quality of our lives, our behavior, and our dealings with others are aligned with the designs of our maker, we are showing forth, bespeaking, blessing, and praising God.
   Contrariwise, if the way we live and act and treat others is not in accord with the will of God and his designs in our creation, we’re not bespeaking, blessing, or praising God at all.
   Be good—you don’t have to say a word!


30 May 2021

At Home on the Range

No, this is not about the song
   It’s about how comfortable we are about where we seem to find ourselves—or others choose to situate us—on the various ranges or scales that we use to describe and measure our appearance, behavior, popularity, feelings, skills, etc.
   Here’s a notorious example: skin color—classifying people on a range from Black to White (which actually is a range from dark to light).
   Nobody is at either extreme. Nobody’s skin is 100% black or dark, and nobody’s skin is 100% light or white.
   We all may know many so-called “black” people who are paler than some so-called “white” people, and many so-called “white” people who are darker than some so-called “black” people.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides skin color—physiognomy, dress, behavior, ethnic origins, family, social status, education, wealth, etc.
   Just think about what we’re trying to get at—and how confusing it gets— when we classify people on the “conservative-liberal” range, or the “young-old” range, or the “smart-dumb” range, or the “weak-strong” range, or the “good-bad” range, or the “rich-poor” range.
   Whatever range we’re using to describe ourselves or another, there’s one common factor to them all: nobody is at the extreme of any range; no one is 100% anything!
   In other words, we all have and may display to some extent a bit of both: I may be fairly liberal about somethings and conservative about others, know a lot about somethings and little about others.
   And, of course, as we change and develop, our position on any of these ranges shifts, more towards one extreme or the other—sort of like the way the mercury moves one way or the other in a thermometer.

   Here’s another contemporary example: sexuality—classifying people on a range from heterosexual to homosexual.
   Nobody is 100% at either extreme—or exactly in the middle (e.g.. “bisexual”). Nobody is only and exclusively attracted to others of the opposite sex and never, ever attracted to the other—and vice-versa.
   When we use a range or scale like that to describe one another, we’re really thinking about all kinds of factors besides sexual attraction and/or behavior—physiognomy, dress, mores, cultural standards, affects, etc.
   With this range, there are key factors which strongly influence our reactions and judgements—our standards of morality and, or based on, our religious formation.
   A strong influence in the shaping of standards of morality and religious formation until fairly recent times, especially in Western societies, is sometimes identified as Jansenism (based on the writings of a 17th century theologian, Cornelius Jansen).
   This movement, rooted in Augustinian theology, emphasized original sin, the fundamental sinfulness of the human condition, and the need for divine grace. It inspired a very rigorous moral theology, especially in sexual matters.
   For example, I can remember being taught as a child in catechism class that the sixth commandment (about adultery) forbade, under penalty of mortal sin, “impure” thoughts, feelings, desires, and actions.
   I was terrified by what, in retrospect, I later realized were bad religious teachings.
   A moral to all this: be aware of the range of views regarding most matters and beware of believing your judgement about the right point on any range is the only legitimate, unbiased one. (Alas, we’re not infallible!)


23 May 2021

Loaded Language

Recently Frank Bruni wrote a thoughtful opinion article for The New York Times called “Stop It With ‘Gun Control’. Enough Already”. Its subtitle was “Language matters. This language doesn’t help.”
   He considered “Gun Control” as “an example of the loaded language that often shapes our discourse on important matters.”
   His point was that “how we write and talk about any issue that engenders passionate disagreement” is “inevitably consequential”. Although his main example was the difference between speaking of Gun Control vs. Gun Safety, he gave a few other examples of what he considered loaded language:
   – Illegal Aliens vs. Undocumented Aliens.
   – Pro Life vs. Pro Choice.
   – Gay Marriage vs. Marriage Equality.
   Sometimes, although we may not realize it, we may be using religious, theological, and canonical language that is loaded also.
   Maybe once upon a time, the language may have been perfectly respectable and clear, but as times change, customs change, and words change, the same language can become “loaded” in the sense of engendering passionate disagreement.
   At present, there is disagreement about translations of the Bible, especially whether they are discriminatory.
   For example, translating St. Paul’s opening words on the Areopagus: Traditional translations usually use “Men of Athens” whether it was an all-male audience or not. But some modern translations, presuming it was a mixed audience, use “Athenians”.
   In any case, for us, nowadays, “Men” usually means just adult males.
   With the changing usage of words, sometimes we find that the word we need doesn’t exist. For example, we shouldn’t apply exclusively masculine or feminine words to describe the Creator. But, we don’t have any good alternatives for using “he”, “him”, or “his” when referring to God.

   Sometime there are solutions. We can use “brothers and sisters” instead of just “brothers” if a message is directed to everyone, not just to men.
   Translations are not the only challenges regarding using words that have evolved and changed in meaning or usage.
   People were once identified as black, brown, red, white, or yellow—a very racist mentality. Now a popular usage is “people of color” for everyone who is not “white”. It’s really no less racist an expression, although it’s meant to be not racist at all!
   Race is a word that implies a different species—and there is only one human species.
   We refer to LGBTQ people meaning everyone who is not . . . heterosexual? normal? not-different? We don’t have an good opposite word in this and many cases.
   The obvious opposite of “Pro Life” is “Pro Death”. The opposite of “Pro Choice” is something like “Pro No-Choice”.
   If one’s definition of marriage involves two people intending procreating children, then it’s difficult to consider a same-sex relationship as a marriage. But, anybody can be a partner with anybody else in a civil union, which doesn’t imply procreation.
   The Order of the Holy Sepulchre includes men and women. What to call the women members? In English usage (England that is) a title of distinction for a woman is “Dame”. But, in some places (U.S. for example), “Dame” sounds like slang and “Lady” sounds better. However, any woman can be called a lady; it’s not an honorific title at all.
   “Words, words, words.” Be very careful how you use them, especially the loaded ones!


11 April 2021

For the New Year

If you’re thinking about resolutions, here are some thoughts about thinking:

THINK (Look before you leap!) Do I think before I react:
 – when I read an email or newspaper or magazine or book?
 – when I listen to somebody else in person or through the internet or on the radio or TV?
 – when I watch a movie or video or play?
 – when I chat, gossip, criticize, praise, or advocate?
 – when I go to a rally or sporting event or assembly or religious service?

THINK CRITICALLY (Does it make sense?)
 – Is what I see or hear fact or fiction?
 – Does it make sense based on what I have experienced or know or believe or have been taught?
 – Does it stand up to testing? What would happened if it were put into practice?

THINK FREELY (What am I afraid of?)
 – Do I just echo or relay other people’s ideas or words?
 – Do I trust my own judgements?
 – Do I know enough about what I’m talking about?
 – Do I have the courage to face the consequences of what I say or do?
 – Am I afraid of disagreement or negative reaction or criticism or dismissal?

THINK REALISTICALLY (“Beautiful dreamer, wake unto me”)
 – Do I confuse the impossible ideal with the real?
 – Do I remember that living in the flawed human situation includes me, too?
 – Do I remember that it’s “better to light one candle than to curse the darkness”?
 – Does practice make perfect or just make us better or neither?

THINK OUTSIDE THE BOX
 – Do I realize that there never has been, is, or will be a person exactly, 100 percent, like me?
 – Do I realize that I may have to face or deal with a situation that in some ways is different from everybody else’s knowledge or experience?
 – Do I realize that no one, short of God, knows all the right answers?
 – Do I realize that just because something never happened before doesn’t mean it cannot happen now?
 – When I come up with a new idea or recommendation or proposal for a solution to a problem, do I carefully explore its consequences and test it out before I decide if it’s right or good?
 – Can I live without other people’s recognition or approval or esteem or applause?
 – Can I live with other people’s criticism or misunderstanding or rejection or condemnation or ostracization?

THINK HUMBLY
 – Do I realize or sometimes forget that I am a creation?
 – Do I remember to seek to discern the designs and will of my creator?
 – Do I have a fixed set of values? If so, what is their source?
 – How do my thoughts, word, and deeds stand up in relation to my fundamental values?
 – Do I remember that even those who explain, teach, or preach about the designs and will of God have their limitations and imperfections?
 – Is “God help me!” part of my mind set?


3 January 2021

Listen to the Voice of the Lord

“I’m not Moses. I’m not Jesus. I’m not Mohammad. I’m not some special person who can hear the voice of God.”
Wrong! You know why? Did you notice you didn’t say “listen”, you said “hear”? Hear involves ear. Listen means more than that.
– You can listen with your whole body or some part of it. That’s probably the first thing you did when you were born. You felt things—being handled, pain, cold, warmth, contact, security—much later on you learned a word for the experience: “love”.
Love is still something that best communicates through one’s whole body even though we tend to use words to signal that we’re communicating it. (And, sometimes we only “say” it.)
– You can listen with your eyes. Often a component of a vacation is to spend time “seeing” things of great beauty. Whether a work of human artistry or divine, it needs no words to communicate, even to overwhelm us.
The challenge of our too busy lives is to make time to truly “see”, to contemplate, celebrate, wonder, delight, and give thanks for the beauty of the works of creation that ever surround us. (That includes people, of course.)
– You can listen with your nose. It’s part of the richness of our response to fragrance and bouquet, whether food or drink, flowers or fields, or the perfume of another.
– You can listen with your palate, so to speak: the contentment and delight of a taste of something directly a work of the creator or a further embellishment of it through human ingenuity.
It’s curious that when we really want to celebrate something good or great, when we have something that prompts our gratitude and gladness, we usually listen with all our faculties—and usually it involves a celebration with food and drink!
Thanksgiving day is a great example!

Does the Lord give voice in the usual sense of the term? Does he talk to us directly? Do we hear words? Does he speak?
Possibly, but not frequently or usually.
As we were just reflecting, there are myriad ways to “listen” to the voice of the Lord besides using our ears. But he can and does sometimes use words as well.
In the Bible, there are many incidents of encounters with a mysterious someone which turn out to be direct communications from the Lord. The one encountered is often described as an “angel” (from the Greek word for a “messenger”.)
They’re often considered to be, in effect, apparitions of God.
Usually we associate listening to the voice of the Lord with listening to the voice of others—prophets, apostles, evangelists, preachers, and others whom we consider reliable, god-fearing, and honest.
What is their experience like? How do they listen to the voice of the Lord? We can only presume that it’s something like ours. How do we
listen to the voice of the Lord?
The Lord does communicate with us, and at times in a more direct way then through the created world and other human beings. That’s what we mean by the action of the holy Spirit.
Often in ways hard to explain, there is a growing insight or conviction about something in our minds and hearts that we suspect is of God. Sometimes we find ourselves in situations where our responses to others even surprise us. We may even speak words that we listen to ourselves.
We don’t always get it right, but at times we do hear the voice of the Lord. Ah, but, when we do, do we listen?


15 November 2020

Words, Words, Words . . .

The meaning of words and the use of words are constantly shifting, changing, and evolving, for better or for worse.
Remember the 1939 epic movie, “Gone with the Wind”? There was a controversy whether the censors would approve it for general release and showing in movie theatres.
Why? Well, in a climactic scene toward the end, Rhett Butler (played by Clark Gabel) leaves his desperate and distraught wife, Scarlett O’Hara (played by Vivien Leigh), who pleads with him to stay, claiming what will she do without him.
His famous reply was, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn!” The use of that last word was prohibited by the 1930 Motion Picture Production Code!
Today the whole issue seems curious. First, because “damn” now is regarded as a fairly common, mild expletive. Second, because censorship of speech or scenes seem archaic—the current practice, in effect, is almost “anything goes.”
One result is that for a modern audience, that final, farewell scene doesn’t have the force, shock, and dramatic impact that it had in 1939. That means that the final impact of the film is substantially different for 2020 viewers.
A similar observation can be made about a lot of our familiar religious language. We use many words that belong to earlier, much earlier, generations and whose original meaning, force, and impact are substantially different—sometimes to the point of being misunderstood or almost unintelligible—for people of our day.
It’s tough to make a lot of our traditional religious language understandable not only because the meaning of the words has shifted but also because the underlying mentality, customs, and values of the people who use these words has changed also.

For example, St. Thomas Aquinas (1225- 1274), after the rediscovery of the works of Aristotle (384-322 BC)—preserved by Iberian Muslim scholars who had translated his works into Arabic—used some of Aristotle’s ideas and concepts to illuminate Christian beliefs.
Thomas’s philosophy and theology in pre-Vatican II days was at the core of seminary formation, and its vocabulary was still in use (Latin words translated from the Arabic, translated from the Greek).
Take two important concepts derived from Aristotelian philosophy: “substance” and “accident”.
For For Aristotle, “substance” referred to the essence of something, usually what we mean by the word we use to name it—e.g., a car may be of any size, shape, color, make, décor, value, or the like, but it still is a “car”.
For Aristotle, “accident” referred to the non-essential or secondary aspects or properties of something—e.g., human beings may be tall, short, dark, light, male, or female, but all are equally human beings.
St. Thomas is famous for his explanation of “transubstantiation,” using these concepts to try to help us understand the mystery of the presence of Christ in the Eucharist.
Martin Luther (1483-1546) called “transubstantiation” a monstrous word for a monstrous idea. To say the least, for him “transubstantiation” was way out-of-date.
We face similar challenges. By now, Luther’s explanations and language are also somewhat out-of-date and bewildering, along with Thomas’s and Aristotle’s.
We’re still believers, but it’s hard to find the right words, understandable words, to explain our beliefs!


20 September 2020

Traduttore, Traditore

traduttore is Italian for “translator”.
traditore is Italian for “traitor”.

It’s a great expression. It sums up so much so concisely and unforgettably. It calls attention to the tremendous challenges of effectively and correctly translating from one language to another.
Within the same language, it’s possible to mistake one word for a similar other (that’s the play on words in the title above).
Every language has words or phrases without an exact one-word-to-one-word equivalent to another. (That’s most of what we mean by “idioms” — and if you mistranslate idioms are you an “idiot”?)
There also can be a translation problem within the same language, since — like all things — languages change, develop, and evolve with the passage of time.
I have a vague childhood memory of a meaningless lyric, “Flat Foot Floozie (with a Floy Floy)”. Now I know it was the title of a 1938 song. “Floozie” was slang then for a sexually promiscuous woman, and “floy floy”, for a venereal disease.
Sometimes you may have had difficulties understanding Shakespeare — he used a lot of contemporary slang, too!
From the ridiculous to the sublime, how about understanding and translating the Bible and other documents of the Church?
Most of the Jewish scriptures (“Old Testament”) were written in Hebrew, but some parts were in Greek.
The Christian scriptures (“New Testament”), as we have them, are in Greek, although many biblical scholars hold that some may have been translated from an Aramaic original.
The early Church spoke, wrote, and prayed in Greek, the common spoken language of the Greek and eastern Roman empires.

Latin, the common language of the Romans, began to be used instead of Greek for church liturgy, law, and official communications from the fifth century.
From ecclesiastical history, we know that many of the early divisions of the one Church were rooted in ethnic, cultural, and, especially, linguistic misunderstandings.
Translating key theological expressions from the Greek into the Latin was challenging and sometimes inadequate. Thanks be to God, in the ecumenical climate of the latter 20th century, most of these linguistic misunderstandings, inadequate translations, and theological controversies have been resolved.
The Church of Rome took over 400 years to switch finally from Greek to the Latin vernacular language.
It took it over 1,500 years to switch entirely from Latin to the various spoken vernacular languages of the modern world.
“Traduttore, traditore” — translation is always challenging. For example:
– Regarding translating the Bible into English, some still favor familiar Elizabethan English usages (e.g., the King James Bible), even if dated, over contemporary English.
– Regarding translating the Mass into English, some favor fidelity to Latin style and structure (i.e. our current text), even if less intelligible to the majority of present-day speakers of English.
The proud construction of that tower, later known as Babel, was really seriously punished by God: “Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that no one will understand the speech of another.” (Ge 11:7).


13 September 2020

Cor ad Cor Loquitur

St. Luke, in the Acts of the Apostles, describes the coming of the Spirit primarily as a miracle of communication:
“And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.” (Acts 2:4).
That would be astounding, since the apostles, the blessed Mother, and the others there were not linguists, Their native language was Aramaic, their ancient religious language was Hebrew, and perhaps they had a smattering of Greek since that was the “lingua franca” of their world.
But, as St. Luke adds, even more astounding was the fact that everybody who heard them speak heard them speak in their own particular language—and all this simultaneously!
It’s physically impossible to speak several languages simultaneously. But, the miracle was that each listener understood them as though they were speaking each one’s native language. They communicated effectively with everyone.
Communication is not merely a matter of the words themselves. It involves gestures, expressions, tone of voice, emotions. a kind of total projection of one person to another.
We can communicate without words at all! How often a hand movement, a smile, a tear, a touch, or an embrace speaks more than any word.
In case your Latin is not too good (or non-existent), the title above, an oft quoted expression, means, “Heart Speaks to Heart.”
The heart, of course, is the symbol of love, of the place where the fullness of love abides. And, love is the most powerful force in the world, the very essence of God.
With words or without words, but with love, we can powerfully communicate. Words may help, of course, but we can manage without them.

Often we tend to rely more on the head than on the heart, with verbal more than non-verbal communication.
We’re inundated with torrents of words most of the time. We’re constantly wrestling with their rightness or their wrongness, their truthfulness or falsity, and weighing their nuances.
But, the most powerful and effective communication is love—not speaking about love, not saying “love”, but loving!
It’s astounding—miraculous!—how powerfully you communicate when you really and truly love.
Love can involve wonder, thanksgiving, pleasure, satisfaction, and joy—it also can involve acceptance, endurance, patience, forgiveness, and even pain and sacrifice.
It takes courage and strength to love well. It can require sometime almost more than we’re capable of, almost superhuman strength! And Jesus is commanding us, his followers, to do it, to “Love one another as I have loved you!”
We can’t do it, it demands too much. True, sometimes it does, usually it does. To totally and completely love means to give of yourself and yours until there’s nothing left to give, including your life itself.
But, with the coming of the Spirit, with the infusion of divine presence, life, and love into our lives, with the help and grace of God empowering us, all things are possible.
The Pentecost experience wasn’t just for that small band of believers. It is repeated daily in your life and mine. The Spirit, the force, the strength of God’s love empowers you, too.
May your life always communicate love!


31 May 2020

Speaking with Tongues of Fire

When the time for Pentecost was fulfilled, they were all in one place together. And suddenly there came from the sky a noise like a strong driving wind, and it filled the entire house in which they were. Then there appeared to them tongues as of fire, which parted and came to rest on each one of them. And they were all filled with the holy Spirit and began to speak in different tongues, as the Spirit enabled them to proclaim.
Now there were devout Jews from every nation under heaven staying in Jerusalem. At this sound, they gathered in a large crowd, but they were confused because each one heard them speaking in his own language. They were astounded, and in amazement they asked, “Are not all these people who are speaking Galileans? Then how does each of us hear them in his own native language?”

Traditional religious art depicts this scene and the metaphors describing it very literally, usually with a shaped small flame over the heads of each of them.
From St. Paul we learned that some of the early Christians aspired to have this gift of the Spirit and began to “speak in tongues”—in the sense of unintelligible language—and sometimes another person, with a gift of interpretation, would “translate” what was being said.
In contemporary times, some pious charismatic Christians similarly aspire to “speak in tongues” the way the Bible appears to depict it.
To understand fully the story of Pentecost in the Acts of the Apostles one needs to recall the story of the Tower of Babel in the book of Genesis. The builders of the tower were so presumptuous in their pride that they sought to construct it high enough to reach heaven, the abode of God.

God punished them by confounding their communication. They began to speak in different languages and could no longer understand one another. (That’s why we call unintelligible speech “babbling”.)
At Pentecost, the promised fullness of the Holy Spirit was given to the disciples—new dynamism, energy, vital force, power. Their new spirit was astoundingly effective.
Their speech had fire—a metaphor not in the modern sense of a destructive consuming force but in the pre-modern sense of a blazing energy providing light to see by, warmth to defend against the cold, and a focal point to bring people closer together around it.
The miracle we celebrate at Pentecost was a miracle of communication and solidarity. Somehow, empowered by the fullness of the power of God, which is love, the message of the disciples was understood by everyone together, even though they were otherwise divided by different ways of speaking.
Tradition has it that St. Francis of Assisi taught his followers, “Preach the Gospel always, and, if necessary, use words.”
A similar thought is succinctly stated by “Actions speak louder than words.”
We may have a rich and sophisticated vocabulary, we may be confident public speakers, we may even know many a trick and art of rhetoric, but . . . as St. Paul beautifully put it:
“If I speak in human and angelic tongues but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.” My tongue may be wagging and my words may be flowing, but it’s through the power of my love that I really communicate.


23 June 2019