Categories
Uncategorized

VANIER – ADDICTED TO BEING GOOD- THE PSYCHOPATHY OF HEROISM.

By Andrea Kuszewski Science 20We look at heroes and do-gooders as a special sort of breed; people who possess extraordinary traits of altruism, or self-less concern for the well-being of others, even at the expense of their own existence. On the other end, sociopaths also have an extraordinary set of traits, such as extreme selfishness, lack of impulse control, no respect for rules, and no conscience.As crazy as it sounds, there may be a closer link than than most people would think between the extreme-altruistic personality and sociopathic personality. Would it shock you to know that two people, one with the traits of extreme-altruism (X-altruism) and the other the traits of a sociopath, could be related? Even siblings? And that their personality traits are very similar, with only a few features to distinguish them? Research by Watson, Clark, and Chmielewki from the University of Iowa, “Structures of Personality and Their Relevance to Psychopathology”, present a convincing argument in which they support the growing push for a trait dimensional scheme in the new DSM- V to replace the current categorical system.Personality has consistently shown to be extremely heritable. However, the same genetic material arranged and weighted in a slightly different way, may at times express as vastly different phenotypes: the “extremely good” and the “extremely bad” individual. How is this possible?At a first glance, one would be compelled to put the sociopath and the X-atruistic person on opposite ends of a personality scale. After all, the chances of a serial killer running into a burning building to save a child are pretty slim, right? And wouldn’t a hero-type be one of the last people likely to break rules? WRONG!!!!Someone who goes out of their way to help others, even at the expense of their own welfare, is actually more likely to break rules than the average person. Think of Dr Ross from the early days of the TV show “ER”. He was constantly pushing limits, breaking the rules, throwing caution to the wind, all for the sake of the child-patient, even when it ultimately meant getting fired. On 9/11, after it was apparent that the buildings were about to collapse, teams of firefighters were called back, yet they disobeyed orders and pushed on anyway, only to perish in the quest to possibly save even one more life. Those are the actions of a hero, or an X-altruistic personality type. But consider the type of rule-breaking that the X-altruist engages in- would you classify it as criminal, or even unlawful? How does motive factor in?People whom we consider to be heroes (or X-altruists, as I am referring to them here), while among some of the most admired individuals, they possess many of the same traits as the sociopath. However, there is a fundamental difference in the motivation behind their actions that distinguish them from their nasty cohorts. Incidentally, that one difference is vitally important in determining if someone turns out to be the comic book hero or more like his archenemy.X-altruists are compelled to good, even when doing so makes no sense and brings harm upon them. The cannot tolerate injustice, and go to extreme lengths to help those who have been wronged, regardless of their personal relationship to them. Now, I am not speaking of the guy who helps an old lady cross the street. I am speaking of the guy who throws himself in front of a speeding bus to push the old lady out of the way, killing himself in the process. The average, kind, thoughtful person does not take these kinds of extreme personal risks on a regular basis.If you asked someone with an X-altruistic personality why they take the actions they do (and I have personal knowledge of at least one person like this), they would tell you that they couldn’t help themselves. When they are faced with that moment, they just act. Compulsively. Barely considering any other course. The lack the impulse control to stop themselves from doing “the right thing” when it comes to the welfare of others, yet ironically, it almost always results in some form of negative consequence for themselves. They have no problem breaking the rules when it means helping an innocent, yet they highly value the importance of obeying rules in other contexts. That’s crazy, you say? Now you’re getting the idea.The word “altruism” conveys images of people like Mother Teresa or Gandhi, passive, extremely self-less people. They are altruistic, sure. But the X-altruistic person is anything but passive or meek. They are often feisty, argumentative, independent, idealistic risk-takers and convention-breakers. Sound sort of like the sociopathic personality? Let’s take a closer look at some similarities and differences between the two.Sociopath:low impulse controlhigh novelty-seeking (desire to experience new things, take more risks, break conventionno remorse for their actions (lack of conscience)inability to see beyond their own needs (lack of empathywilling to break rulesalways acts in the interest of himselfX-altruist:low impulse controlhigh novelty-seekinglittle remorse for their actions (would “do it again in a heartbeat”)inability to see past the needs of others (very high empathy)willing to break rulesacts in the best interest of others, or for the “common good” (because it is the “right thing to do”)Both X-altruists and sociopaths have high impulsivity, need for novelty, and the tendency to break rules, but there is a fundamental difference in the motivation driving their behavior. Someone who is altruistic is always looking to the idealistic good situation, or the way things should be in a fair and just world. They are able to empathize- feel what the other person is feeling, or imagine themselves in another’s shoes. This empathy is the force that moves them to engage in heroic behaviors. They have a need to live in “a fair and just world”, and will go to great lengths to try and maintain that. They are driven by factors outside of themselves, externally motivated drives, such as aiding the plight of society or serving the “greater good”.The sociopath, on the other hand, is motivated by internal factors; selfish desires and the advancement of their own cause, rather than the causes of others or society as a whole. They don’t have the ability to empathize, so they see no logic in acting in any way other than selfishly, since they cannot imagine themselves in anyone else’s position. Everything they do is driven by their quest to satisfy their own needs, rather than (and often at the expense of) the needs of another person.If an altruistic person is able to empathize, and thus is motivated to help others, the X-altruistic person has too much empathy for others, driving them to break rules and put themselves in harms way in order to alleviate the suffering of others or bring fairness to the world. That extreme empathy, combined with a lower impulse control, the need for novelty, and an intolerance for injustice, is the trait formula of the X-altruistic personality. Because this type of person often engages in such extreme behavior that results in harm to self on some level, he earns a spot on the dysfunctional end of the personality scale, nearing psychopathology.Interestingly, these two type of individuals, the sociopath and the X-altruist, may appear similar in their displays of behavior, and at times, even confused for the other type. If an X-altruistic person is compelled to break rules without remorse in order to help a disadvantaged person, is may seem as if he is acting rebelliously, especially if the motives behind his behavior are not known. On the other hand, a sociopath may donate a large sum of money to a charity, a seemingly altruistic behavior, but his actions may have been motivated by his selfish need to appear better than or more generous than a colleague. The defining characteristic that separates the two personality types is their ability to empathize, either not at all or too much, which then drives the extreme behavior of each.So while the X-altruistic person indeed acts for the good of the people, he often violates laws, breaks rules, or otherwise causes ripples in the order of society. To be a good citizen, we are required and expected to follow laws at all times. But we can all agree that the world needs extreme heroes; they are the ones who consistently go above and beyond the call of duty, for self-less reasons, even when it could mean losing their job, receiving hefty fines, or even serving time in jail.But are they really criminals? Or do we need to bend the rules at times in order to allow for these types of do-gooders to continue on their path, bringing righteousness and justice to an otherwise corrupt world? Where do we draw the line between criminality and heroism?Here’s an even better question:How exactly do we support necessary rule-breaking for virtuous intent, yet punish malicious rule-breaking for ill-intent? Can it be done? Maybe someday we will be able to write public policy that actually serves the best intent of the people, even if it means that once in a while, some rules need to be broken in the process.I want to send a message out to all of those heroic, X-altruists out there, continually putting their butts on the line for our well-being: Thank you. The world is a better place because you dare to do good… even when it seems crazy to do so.*For more on the HEXACO Personality Inventory and how traits define psychopathology, look here. (this was added after posting the original article)

68 replies on “VANIER – ADDICTED TO BEING GOOD- THE PSYCHOPATHY OF HEROISM.”

Mother Teresa never did anything for the terminally ill: she did what she did for…Jesus. And for herself, of course. Because Teresa thought this would please said Jesus, and, in return, have him pleased with her. Mother Teresa used the terminally ill to feel good about herself, as Jean Vanier used intellectually disabled adults for his own, morally perverse ends.
The above article presents Mother Teresa as an ‘X-altruistic’ person, which, frankly, is uproariously hilarious, since this crone set aside the vast majority of her cornucopic donations to fund, not compassionate and up-to-date care for the dying, but for her religious houses worldwide. In other words, ‘to spread her sectarian, religious propaganda’.
The author of today’s blog article essentially differentiates ‘saints’ (X-altruists)’ from ‘sinners’ (sociopaths) by their motivation for action. Saints, it is said (or implied) act solely in the interests of others, whereas sociopaths act in the interests of self. BULLSHIT!
They each act in the interests of self.

Like

12.27: And you dear Magna have finally found the category of disordered personality you fit into. You reveal yourself in your words as a bullshitter tyrant, demolishing all decently good people, who, in admission of their own sinfulness and flaws, still put themselves out for the good and well being of others. Saint Theresa inspired amazing humanitarian responses worldwide to benefit many. But you, Magna, unable as per usual, have no ability to recognise such realities. You opt instead to spout your anti Catholic verbiage, all for one purpose only: not to initiate debate but to give yourself a sense of self importance. It is impossible to envisage you, so psychologically dysfunctional, looking beyond yourself to make a difference to others. You are, in essence, the typical narcissist: self comes first, consumed by your own ego. Thank God for the flawed Saints who didn’t hide behind closed doors anonymously but who went out, found Christ in the poor and lifted them up. You, Marge, put people down and trample them into the ground. As a daily examen, based on Ignatian Spirituality, a good question to ask at the end of each day is: how have I made a difference for the good of another human being? Be honest. Mother Teresa’s sisters work close by to our parish and what an amazing group of kind, caring and generous women. Amazing. They teach much about BEING CHRIST.

Like

10.43

I was too well brought up to call your post ‘drivel’, so I shan’t. But were I not so well raised, I should describe it as more than drivel: I should describe it as ‘protracted, ill-informed, misleading and paneqyric drivel’.

Mother Theresa raised millions, not for the poor, but for the contagion of her religious order around the world.

Looking after the poor was secondary to Teresa: it was her gimmick, and every fund-raiser needs one. These are facts, not ‘bullshit’. Teresa spent the bare minimum on the dying. Have you seen her celebrated ‘hospice’ in Calcutta? It’s a shithole. All those millions raised by this quack… and the poorest of the poor dying on palates, not on beds, and with the nuns reusing unsterilised needles for treatment. As for those in great pain, paracetamol ; nothing stronger. And it is useless to treat such pain. But hey! It all adds to Teresa’s kudos, because suckers like you fall for the illusion, and spread the word.

Teresa got off spiritually on the agony of people. She saw pain as a great gift, which is why she was positively miserly in her distributing pain relief to the dying.

Teresa was the principal of her cult of human suffering. She wallowed, not in love, but in the idealisation of pain. Her cult is a sick parody of Christ’s kingdom.

You’re a gullible fool. As gullible as those who donate money to Teresa’s racketeering order in the belief that it will be spent helping the dying. Less than 10% of anything you donate to these spiritual gangsters will be spent in this way.

Think on this, that is, if you can tear yourself away from that cheap, 1950s devotional pamphlet that had people wallowing in the gory wounds of Jesus in order to come over all fake piety and teary-eyed sentimentality.

(Just givin’ y’ an ‘eddicashun’, like. 😀)

Like

Magna I am very shocked that you would call Mother Theresa a crone, simply because this makes crones look bad, who can often be kind people.
Otherwise ignore the haters.

Like

This is what was referred to recently as Magna “skewering the ill informed myopics.”
Good one Magna.
MMM

Like

Ejucation is a great thing when used properly. Save my soul through navigating the chess board of life hi. We find the King through the kingdom not the kingdom through the King. Incarnation isn’t it. Anyway three Hail Marys y’all hi

Like

This article is eminently relevant to the ‘good’ priests who comment here. Sadly they are unlikely to have the insight to see that and will merely respond with fury.

Like

Anonymous 27th Feb 2020 — 7:25 am – Not this … again, Bp Pat? Two days in a row.
……..
No. This will enable a sensible discussion to develop.

Let’s have a who;e week on this – and the whole idea of a Canonised Sainthood.

Like

What an intricate piece of psychology. We are left to draw our own conclusions. It may help to identify the personality disorders we find in some people, indeed some commentators!! Need I mention the beast….? We are as human beings psychologically complicated entities and none of us achieves the near perfect expectation, if such is possible. We are each a mixture of light and darkness, of grace and sin, of bad and good, of life in its beauty and deadness of spirit. Sometimes our heroes and heroines, the ones we admire for their altruistic displays for the well being of others are the ones who often surprise and disappoint us. That is why I always have a suspicion or question over those we place on hugh pedestals of virtue and idealism. When they fall It’s an ignominious fall and is a huge betrayal of all who looked up to them for inspiration. Let us be aware that each of us has personal sinfulness which we need to bring to God’s mercy.

Liked by 1 person

@ 8:42am
Good post. I accept we are all sinful, some even broken; like myself at the moment. However, sinful people who do not display signs of malice, merely human frailties, are one thing.
Then there are sinful whom display malicious characteristics; dangerous and should not be allowed anywhere near a remotely vulnerable person – including animals. You get the picture
I sin all the time; just today I ate 2 bumper packets of Jaffa cakes after promising I would be good for Lent. hoverer; I could never, ever entertain the slightest of feelings in wanting to totally destroy another living creature (…getting your pennies worth or sticking two-fingers up to somebody is a frailty, is it not?). I am a broken, sinful creature, holding the capacity, only to devour a packet of Jaffa cakes in one sitting 🍪 🍪
(If anybody says they’re Cookies, I’ll rip your bloody head off and shove my fist down your neck 🤭).

Like

9.12: I agree. Psycho babble, yet, our Maggie finds it elucidating only for downing, mocking and condemning others, but SHOULD apply the framework of knowledge to diagnose his own twisted, manipulative and dangerous psyche. And what a twisted personality (one of many layers) he possesses!!

Like

10.48
‘OUR Maggie’? 🤔
I like that! 👍😀
Makes me feel wanted, at home.
Whoops! Here’s a song coming:
🎵Consider yourself at home. Consider yourself one of the family… I’m sure we’re going to get along. 🎵 👪

Like

The article is obviously well beyond Father’s comprehension. After all the only psychology he understands is ‘give your money to the church and it will help you after you’ re dead’.

Like

11.53
I know. 😀
We’d kill the bugger, if we were the bugger. 😈
Hang on. 😱 That doesn’t sound right. 🤔 We’d kill the bugger if…
Crumbs! 🙃 We’d be killing ourselves, then. That wouldn’t do. 😀

Like

Ine thing is very ckear: Magna will never be accused of being addicted to being or doing good: he’s a sad, twisted narcissist, wrapped up in his own luttle wirld if Magna, Magna, Magna. Yet, he has the audacity and miral brazenbess to castigate all who do good – priests, the excellently wonderful parishioners of parishes, the saints gone before us, religious women and men. There is evidence in practically every town, village and city of religious and many volunteers living the gospel of love, justice and compassion for the very people Jesus asks us to embrace. Magna, get out of your comfort zone beyond the laptop anonymity.

Like

1.29: Yes, Magna is in fire – not with a passion for truth or justice but in fire with pure vile, vicious hatred of all things Catholic. A horrid vengeful fool, jealous but deeply angered by being rejected as a seminarian. I think the multi level experience of rejection has crippled this nut’s emotional growth.

Like

11.56

Mother Teresa wasn’t addicted to doing good either.

Nor was Jean Vanier.

Their foundations were just money-laundering affairs… the currency being their own vanity, pride, and self-fulfilment. 😀

Like

1.34: Magna, you’re mad. What would you know about goodness? Your every utterance on thus blog gives you away as a reptilian, vicious creep. Your words make no incremental difference for the betterment of humanity. Your world consists of you and your mirror image, bereft of decency, respect, goodness, mercy. Thank God for the life of St. Mother Theresa and many like her for inspiring great humanitarian work all over the world. Her sisters who wirk in Ireland are greatly loved, respected and admired. But to believe this you need to witness it at first hand. That as a task, Maggie Slug, is beyond your capability. Continue to sink into your dark hole.

Like

No. There’s evidence in every town and village of the Roman church’s greed, abuse and oppression.

Like

1.59
Yes, a veritable ‘Who’s Who’ of paedophiles, paedophile /ephebophile protectors/enablers, (JPII), rabid anti-semites (John Chrysostom), murderers (Thomas More), exploiters of the poor (Teasy of Calcutta), etc is the RCC Pantheon of Cod Saints.
Every Catholic boy and girl should aspire to it, otherwise, as that anally retentive, prissy little prick, Dominic Savio, self-effacingly boasted: ‘If I am not trying to be a saint, I am doing nothing at all.’ (Would have had all soppy Catholic mums wiping away tears of self-indulgent pride with that savvy line. 😀)
The only requirement for joining this unholy bunch isn’t moral goodness, but an uncommon ability to pull the wool over people’s eyes. 😀

Like

Being a ‘Saint’ or ‘Holy’ is about being Human. All Holy are Saints – but not all Saints are Holy! (that does not include your old socks). The ‘noted’ Saints lead very interesting lives; look at Augustine for instance! (Augustine taught that the sin of Adam and Eve was either an act of foolishness followed by pride and disobedience to God or that pride came first…).
Being Holy is Not about being perfect, light shining out of your nostrils (thought I’d be polite here). We are all saints on a journey and journeys can sometimes be bumpy.
Being Holy means messing up – and if you don’t mess up, then you are Not Holy. But wait for it… Admitting that you have ducked-up and, acknowledging having done so — but with the all too essential caveat of learning from it! And openly, if needs must! — We must be open to learning from our mistakes. We are all on the road to Damascus and, occasionally, we will fall – no two-ways about it – but we must pick each other up—not just ourselves!
I am one of them people that if I nearly trip up on a busy street I actually burst out laughing at myself, but still feel embarrassed on the inside, but hey! If you can’t laugh at yourself… X
Ps Bishop Pat, I would like to thank you for your blog which has/is a little part of my healing journey, even if I do go on like an old lady sometimes. But sometimes having a sounding board is vital!
God bless

Like

6.23

Yes, Magna is a roaring beacon of hatred…for all that is NOT Catholic, but which has been allowed to pass for such by ‘hear no evil; see no evil’ fools like you.

Back in the day, you’d have said the same of JC in relation to Judaism.

What has you, and your cowardly kind, howling with frightened indignation is the realisation that your evil days are numbered; in fact, your number is up. For you, for Vanier, for Mother Teasy, and for all the putrid rest who have been dragging the Church through the moral gutter for so very long.

(Ack! Am just in m’ element, so I am. 😄)

Like

6.57: Now Margaret, don’t let those good, truthful priests or Catholics drive you to break your Lenten fast!! They all too easily press your destructive buttons. Fast, dear Margaret, and I’m not talking about fasting from fudgy sweets, gin, whiskey and all those dreaded medications that are prescribed for you (making you loonier by the day) but fasting from vitriol, hatred, anger, jealousy, envy, self righteousness, narcissism, pride…..You further degrade yourself with every comment. This day of Lent, may God be allowed to enter the wilderness of your life and guide you to springs of love, mercy and tolerance and all that is of CHRIST.

Like

The Pope has been taken Ill with the dreaded virus. He was seen coughing non stop yesterday and was touching people at his audience. He has had to cancel engagements today.

Like

Sorry to hear that, even though I don’t like the man as Pope.

At his age, the virus could kill him.

God have mercy on him.

Like

1.42: What, a miracle? Mercy from a spiritually dead man, Magna? Miracle. God bless our dear Pope Francis.

Like

Perhaps the stubborn man will now heed his police force and stop going too close to people and stop contact by handshaking and touching faces. He should have woke up when that old hag in the crowd pulled his arm and he had to scold her.

Like

Who is the patron saint of Cronovirus ? Oh dear, if it takes him off, and also Ratzinger, then what are we in for ? I suppose it would have to be an ethnic / third world / emerging world pope next time round ? Does the Vatican have a points based immigration system ?

Like

One or two posters today have described the blog article as ‘psycho-babble’. If only it were, we could all ignore it and turn over for another sleep. 😴

I agree with most of the article, but not with all of it. In particular, I disagree that there is an easy demarcation between saints and sociopaths in terms of behavioural motivation. When you think about it (and have the courage to be honest about it), Christians largely act from self-interest: their salvation after death. In this respect, they aren’t any different from sociopaths. The difference LIES, I think, not in motivation, but in the behavioural boundaries of each category : theoretically, sociopaths are much less likely than Christians to observe moral and legal boundaries in the pursuit of self-interest. But each category DOES act from self-interest.

Maybe Jesus should have stayed at home. Maybe all that talk about hellfire and damnation made it inevitable that Christians could never be truly altruistic ally motivated.

No need, then, of Dawson’s selfish gene, because Jesus himself planted the seed of self-interested survival in the Afterlife.

Perhaps atheists are on to something with their ‘good without God’ golden rule, eh? 🤔

Like

Indeed we are Magna!
The more I look at God and afterlife driven religion, the more ridiculous and damning become its results. Even making allowances for ethnic differences fomenting material and property disputes, religious beliefs act as a driver for many of the world’s current problems. The aggressive personality characteristics of strong minded individuals finds religious beliefs a convenient cover for personal ambitions.
MMM

Like

I remember the old blog when it was fun and interesting ie before Pat allowed you-know-who to take it over and ruin in and in so doing, drove away the wry and witty posters of three or four years ago.

Like

2.52

You, obviously, aren’t one of those ‘wry and witty posters’… otherwise we’d have been long shot of you. 😁

(Gosh! That was both wry AND witty. 😂)

Like

Most of the English ones. Strange goings on at them all – Wonersh, Allen Hall, Oscott. And, I think you can guess what the strange goings on are.

Like

Anonymous 27th Feb 2020 — 8:02 pm – Most of the English ones. Strange goings on at them all – Wonersh, Allen Hall, Oscott. And, I think you can guess what the strange goings on are.
………………………………………………………………
That’s always being said here– now say something that will back it, or be branded as a liar.

If anyone wants some real news about Allen Hall, or to visit it, there’s a series of three talks – by Fr John Hemer, one of the lecturers – being held there later this year. They look like a repeat of the talks he gave earlier in the year. The Internet has more details. I’d always highly recommend any talk by Fr Hemer.

Like

2.31: Another hater and liar. Go and discover a world beyond Magna’s viciousness and devastation of everyone. You moron.

Like

4.11pm: MMM – how far up your behind is your brain…Perhaps you should stay off your local bar stool. You are mutating into Magna Carta II!!

Like

I see the Holy Father is urging Catholics during Lent to give up trolling on social media. He says people should observe a fast not just of food but also of online insults in order for them to come closer to God during Lent. Lent is “a time to give up useless words, gossip, rumours, tittle-tattle ad speak to the Lord on first name terms”, said the Pope, appealing for more online decorum.

MC take note ?

But, even with a bit of restraint in the trolling department, I still think that + Pat does a great service throwing a light on what we all know is the hypocrisy, duplicity and rottenness of so many clergy and bishop and the institutional Church. One wouldn’t mind so much if they just admitted it, and tried to do things to their formation, their lifestyle, their culture etc. to address some of the egregious sinfulness that goes on in the ranks of the clergy. Hypocrisy is perhaps the greatest of them. So, + Pat, please keep doing what you do, imperfectly at times I know, but it is very valuable in keeping the feet of the Rev Fathers and the Lord Bishops to the fire. They read this, they note what is being said, they get it that through you and others we are able to see beyond the image that they like to portray. Who would want to live that compromised, unnatural and hypocritical life ? They must be very damaged men to want to continue doing so.

And no, before anybody says it, this is not trolling. It is simply saying it as I see it, and being honest about what I see. And, I see a lot, believe me, from my vantage point.

Like

8.07: You’re right. She, Mad Magna, is not a troll. She’s the perfect Bitch, contorted with rage, hatred and anger. Makes no difference to anyone. A sad, lonely, broken girl.

Like

Online, Anonymous, hurling insults, spewing hatred every day, ranting and raving? Of course you’re not a troll, Magna. 🤣

Like

Safeguarding is not just something which is controlled and ‘actioned’ in or from an office environment by the likes of those we have heard of during the IICSA inquiry, and those a little closer to home! Safeguarding is both YOURS’ and ALL’s responsibility to enforce; sometimes this means ACTIVELY stepping-in to defend those who may be more vulnerable or susceptible and need protecting. Roman Safeguarding policies, it would seem, are approached and dealt with from a wholly subjective and political mindset; on the other hand, anybody who has a human bone in their body – often non-Christians, too, would you believe! – may be more inclined to take the moral and objective approach (obviously subjectivity plays a part here too: emotions and disappointment spring mind!) and necessary subsequent actions usually urgently required to get the job done! Did not Jesus throw a wobbler in the fore-Court of the Holy temple? Did not Jesus continually display His frustrations over the chief priests and the Pharisees’ ways?! I could easily envisage Him banging his head against a wall on occasion. In raising the Alarm does not one have to activate the call-point leading to the deafening sound of ringing bells! How else does one ear of impending danger?! God gave us a mouth and a brain: let’s use them X

Like

… BTW I was not disagreeing with the introduction to this post, I was actually complimenting it! It is actually very accurate if I am am to tell you 😉 And you are all very welcome lol. Moral of the story: if you deliberately stand on a Hornets’ nest, then unfortunately, you will get stung — Love conquers all X
Ps My mother always taught me to carry pepper in my handbag — for years I would walk round with one of them big Italian ones…. As it turned out: Two birds with one stone 😉

Like

I am not going to comment on Mother Teresa. I’m not convinced her case is sufficiently similar to Vanier’s in her results.

I was never convinced by Vanier’s waffly prose (it doesn’t surprise me he had the sort of mentor he had). I was also never convinced because he only catered for a small number of severely affected cases (in a blaze of publicity) whereas there is also a need for Christians to assist those of their fellows who only have slight disabilities and have to cope with being self-reliant; he needn’t have necessarily done this himself but his not advocating and networking, to ensure this would get off the ground, and spread big, is noticeable; hence the lack of solidarity now.

Evidently the contrast between his clients and him (and fellow helpers whom he could target with less severe feelings of guilt as they were less “vulnerable”) had to be kept wide, for his own psychology.

The brownie point hunting in the article title is the first step down the slippery slope; I have seen it countless times.

Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s