The scowlers

I could have entitled this post The Scowls. The furious looks. The dissatisfied men. Two angry men--Donald Trump and Tucker Carlson. Because they are angry. But why are they angry? What do they have to be angry about? They are two very wealthy men. They are privileged. They live in a rareified atmosphere that few will ever experience. They don't have to get their hands dirty. They can do what they want when they want. Tucker Carlson once worked for Fox News until he cost them more than they could reasonably defend. Ah yes, Donald Trump--well, what is there to say? He speaks for the common man, Donald Trump does. He knows what it's like to walk into a grocery store and pay through the nose for food. He knows what it's like to struggle to pay a mortgage. He knows what it's like to be a common everyday man or woman. 

I am simultaneously fascinated and repelled by their public displays of anger. Who are these men fooling? Certainly not me. When I look at these photos, I have to laugh. Can you imagine having to live with them? Wake up with them each day, looking at their sour pusses? Dealing with their feigned anger? Heaven forbid. And yet, people are drawn in by their theatrics. They believe their empty promises and lies. 

These two men come to mind whenever I need good examples of grumpy old men and scowlers. They've perfected the art of scowling. I'm not sure if Trump's scowling will net him a second term. Carlson has more to scowl about after his embarrassing interview with Putin and his debacle at Fox. But why doesn't their wealth make them smile? Since they're all about the money, I would have thought their money would have made them happy, much like Scrooge and Scrooge McDuck. 

Perpetually-angry people bring to mind the Aesop fable The Boy Who Cried Wolf. The shepherd boy kept 'crying wolf' (lying) about a wolf attacking his sheep, and the townspeople always rushed to help him.  But when he cried wolf once too often, they got tired of his false alarms. One day a wolf really did show up to attack and devour the sheep and the townspeople ignored his cries for help. Perpetually-angry people should realize that their constant yelling will make others lose interest and sympathy. Maybe some people like listening to the same manic complaining every day, but most of us don't. We learn to ignore them and their anger. As a friend of mine used to say to her husband (now ex-husband) when he yelled at her for trivial reasons--'I don't hear you any better when you yell'. I feel the same way. If you raise your voice to me, I quietly consider my options. I can tune you out while you're yelling; I'm a master at it from my schooldays. Or I can leave the room. I simply don't want to hear what you have to say. And that includes angry politicians and tv personalities and their nonsense. 

The need for kindness

I am losing faith in humanity's ability to be kind. I don't see much kindness anywhere, anymore. That may be the fault of the news media; it may be my fault for not searching out the good positive human interest stories. Part of me feels like giving up on the world and isolating myself from most of what is intrusive, unkind, aggressive and unnecessary. It may be counterproductive of me to seek 'away' from the world. In truth, perhaps my energy would be better spent trying to add more kindness to the world, because kindness is necessary in order for us to survive as a people. Without it, we will ensure our destruction. But even trying to add more kindness feels like a futile effort at times. I try to remain kind, but I can't shake the feeling of futileness that hangs over me like a heavy fog. 

I don't know that social media necessarily exacerbates the situation as I see it, but it doesn't help matters. Most of those I know on social media are decent people trying to live decent lives. And yet, some of them fall into the trap of commenting on one thing or another, and suddenly they are dragged into the trolling that goes on, that lives a life of its own long after the actual post they commented on has seen the light of day. Nowadays your opinion, if you have a reasoned one, gets lost in the severity of the response to it. You are told you should have an opinion, but if you do and it isn't the same opinion as the ruling majority in society (that have set themselves up as judge and jury), you are excommunicated. I have begun to say that the Catholic Church at least offers forgiveness for one's transgressions; that's more than the secular media and its supporters offer. You are 'labeled' and the label sticks. No forgiveness for you. This type of response merely forces those who are 'labeled' into a corner where they become even more stubborn and irascible. When I look at it objectively, it's easy to understand that when there is no kindness or attempt at understanding anywhere you turn, you choose your own survival (mental and physical) and the rest be damned. 

Not an uplifting post for a Monday morning, I know. But it is inspired by recent happenings around me. I have discovered that garden enthusiasts are not necessarily nice people; they can be unkind when it serves their purposes. Sometimes their behavior reminds me of what I saw in my former workplace, where some of the leaders harassed those they perceived as weaker than them. An unkind workplace; but now I see that the world outside its walls is also unkind. This particular situation does not affect me personally, but I don't like to see how the other party is being treated. Yet another example is from my former workplace, where a former colleague, who had a 'round' birthday together with another colleague, was not feted in the same way as her colleague; she was deliberately ignored in favor of the other colleague. You might think this does not go on in an 'adult' workplace; if you think so, I have a bridge to sell you. Another example is from my own life; I recently ran an ad on Facebook to promote my new garden book, and as fate would have it, several people responded with an 'angry' emoji. It wasn't quite clear to me why they were angry, and I commented on it in a general way, wondering if they were angry that I wrote a book or angry that I promoted it. I wished them all peace, whereby one of them actually responded in an angry way to my wishing them peace. His response made me understand that the world is truly a crazy place, full of angry people looking for ways to take it out on others. For more examples, you only need to take a look at the world news, with mass shootings in the USA and Europe, the war in Ukraine (and accompanying atrocities), the societal anger in the USA over so many things, and politicians who deliberately refuse to compromise and to take the higher road. Hatred, anger, and stubbornness prevail; they have won. I am not sure where it all will lead, but it's not anywhere good. 

Righteous anger and forcing change in the Catholic Church

I've written about the sex abuse scandals in the Catholic Church several times, the latest post being in October of this year: A New Yorker in Oslo: French clergy and the latest sex abuse scandal in the Catholic Church (paulamdeangelis.blogspot.com). I had a suggestion for how to force the Church to change, and that was to hit them in the pocketbook. Ordinary parishioners, men and women alike, should be angry enough to cease their financial support of the Church at least for the period of time it takes the Church to clean up the mess it's made globally. If the Church needs money, it can sell some of its Vatican treasures; that way it will learn the true value of behaving ethically and decently toward its faithful, be they young or old. 

A couple of days ago I read an online article by a former Norwegian Catholic who was outraged that more churchgoers weren't up in arms about the sex abuse scandals. He said he felt ashamed that more of them didn't vocalize their anger. I understand his anger. At the same time, he really has no idea how many Catholics are or aren't outraged by them. But he's correct that parishioners at least haven't vocalized their anger in their churches. He has left the Church and no longer considers himself a Catholic, unlike me. I will always be a Catholic even though I'm not always a regular churchgoer each Sunday. I keep hoping that the priests will talk about these scandals from the pulpit. So far, they haven't, and I'm not sure why. The victims of these crimes are not even mentioned in the prayers of the faithful. We could pray for them for starters. 

Some of the young priests who preach from the pulpit now seem to be more aware of the problems in society generally and are more willing to bring them up, and that tells me there's hope for change. A few of the older priests also seem aware, but most are not. I am not interested in listening to the same old spiel preached by many of the older priests who deliver company/party line without much insight or reflection. If I know they will have a particular mass I tend to avoid it. They are the types who preach that we should do this or that because that's how the Church wants it done, the Church meaning the Vatican and the men running the Church. They attribute many things to Christ that I doubt Christ would have stood for. I think they would be surprised that Christ would not be willing to look the other way in the face of the sex abuse scandals. Christ did show outrage when he saw that the temple was being used as a marketplace; he tossed the sellers out of the temple. He was angry, and his anger is characterized as righteous anger Righteous Anger - Catholic Daily Reflections (catholic-daily-reflections.com) 

"Jesus went up to Jerusalem. He found in the temple area those who sold oxen, sheep, and doves, as well as the money-changers seated there. He made a whip out of cords and drove them all out of the temple area, with the sheep and oxen, and spilled the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables, and to those who sold doves he said, “Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.”  John 2:13b-16

He lectured the Pharisees in ways that made them angry. He lost no opportunity to needle the Pharisees, who thought they were wonderful people simply because they followed church laws to a tee. In other words, justifiable anger was allowed. The definition of that type of anger can be discussed, but I certainly think that the sex abuse scandals qualify as the type of crime that can justify righteous anger in Catholic parishioners. After all, we are the Church; the Church is not the Vatican or the clerics in Rome. We have a huge say in how we want the Church to be; we have the power to force it to change. We should use that power. 

As Christians, we must be aware of what goes on around us and not sit back and accept all behavior in the Church simply because it is our Church. If we accept everything, what is the point of trying to recognize good and to do good? We can just stop trying to do so. We must learn to separate the wheat from the chaff--distinguish the good from the bad in all things, be they people, laws, behavior, or material things. The Vatican and clerics have no right to tell us how to feel or think. I think we've reached the point where there is too much passivity in the face of the bad behavior in the Church. People have lost their capacity for righteous anger and protest, willingly or unwillingly. Many become outraged about insignificant things (the loss of the Latin mass being one of them) and stay silent about truly significant things like the sex abuse scandals and the huge harm they have done to the Church. Those Catholics who only want to sweep these scandals under the rug and 'carry on' with the way the Church has always done things are true hypocrites who do not love their Church. 

We must learn to discern what is truly righteous anger and what is anger that will only harm us and others. The former is allowable, the latter is not because the latter often leads to mob rule, violence and vigilante justice. We don't want that. What we do want is justice for the sex abuse victims and punishment for their abusers; the punishments should be public trials in courts of law and long jail terms for the abusers and large financial payments to the victims. These scandals should cost the Church considerably. I've already set in motion my particular brand of punishment; I eliminated my regular monetary contribution to the Church. I will continue this until I see that the Church begins to open its doors to real discussions from the pulpit about these scandals, what they have done to the morale and faith of loyal parishioners, and what is being done about them. I think it is healthy for parishioners to exercise righteous anger and to stand up to what is wrong or evil in society and in the Church. I hope more Catholics begin to protest in this way, because the Church cannot continue on the path it's on without major changes if it hopes to survive. 

 

Trump and his anger

I googled 'why is Trump always so angry?', and these are some of the hits that were returned. I've read a number of them, and they are worth reading, even if the messages are unpleasant:

• https://www.chathamhouse.org/publications/twt/trump-s-angry-white-men#
• https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/may/16/living-in-an-age-of-anger-50-year-rage-cycle
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/11/03/obama-rips-hecklers-why-are-people-who-won-last-election-so-mad-all-time/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.9c56e8b98cdb
• https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/20/us/politics/trump-language-immigration.html

And finally--an article from a man who is rabidly anti-Trump:
https://www.gq.com/story/anger-management-in-the-age-of-trump

It's as though a rage hysteria (think 28 Days Later:  https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0289043/) has overtaken us as a nation. You might want to watch that film--it's quite scary. In any case, this focus on rage is not leading the nation anywhere good. We would be better served by men and women who were truly interested in sitting down to discuss the real issues and to find logical workable solutions. It can be done.

To forgive and move on

The Norwegian writer Niels Fredrik Dahl wrote an interesting article for this past Friday’s A-magazine (the weekend magazine for the newspaper Aftenposten) about the daughter of Anna Wahlgren, ‘a Swedish author, lecturer, child rearing expert and mother of nine’ as it says on her Facebook page. The daughter—Felicia Feldt—is angry at her mother and has published a new book that deals with her growing up years and how much she hates her mother. According to Feldt, her mother did not practice what she preached to the outside world—she partied hard, drank a lot, and was abusive to her nine children, among a number of other unpleasant behaviors. Her book has attracted a lot of attention; Anna Wahlgren apparently has no desire to comment on her daughter’s allegations.

Dahl writes, and I quote (translated from Norwegian)—‘We live with a mentality and in a time when reconciliation cannot happen fast enough. Anything else than mild, manageable grief and the desire to forgive is seen as a backward detour, an inadequacy. You are not allowed to be angry, to think about revenge, or to scream’. He ends his article by asking ‘What if you are Felicia Feldt?’

Indeed. What if you are? What if you are someone who is angry and bitter, who hates the person who mistreated you? What if you cannot forgive immediately? What right does society have to judge you? What if you bottle your anger on a daily basis because you know that society does not tolerate it or your grief? I think Dahl brings up some really interesting points. I am not sure if he is just referring to Scandinavian society when he says that we live in a time when reconciliation cannot happen fast enough or that intense grief or anger or the lack of a desire to forgive are seen as personal weaknesses. I applaud his bringing this topic up. It is about time that someone did. The past ten or so years in Norwegian society have convinced me that he is right. We are encouraged to forgive (no matter what), to communicate, to dialog, to negotiate, to not be judgmental, to not be angry, to smile, to ‘get beyond’ whatever it is that is bothering us, ad nauseum. Getting past the unpleasantness can also include the death of a loved one or our own illnesses. We should ‘get on with our lives’. But what if you cannot do all of these things? Or what if you cannot do them fast enough? And what is fast enough? Who can define that for another person? Who would dare?

I know from personal experience that forgiving a person who has wronged you can take many years. I had to learn the hard way that anger and hatred are valid emotions, that you cannot ignore them or sweep them under the rug. I had to learn to face my anger and hatred. I had to learn to understand that my inability to express anger as a child and teenager had ripple effects in my early adulthood—I was betrayed by someone who ought to have known better since he called himself a Christian. The fact that I loved and trusted this person did not seem to matter much to him. The lesson I learned, I am glad I learned when I was in my early 20s instead of in middle age. It would be harder to bounce back now. It took me years to learn how to forgive him. I didn’t understand what was involved in forgiving another person at that time. I honestly didn’t think it would be possible or that it would ever happen. It was possible and it did happen—albeit many years later—after a lot of reading about how to tackle anger, how to express it, when to express it, what forgiveness is, what it involves, and so much more. Anyone who thinks learning how to deal with negative emotions is trivial, is wrong. It does not happen overnight, no matter how much wishful thinking is involved. Society wants quick fixes for everything that is broken—with no mess, no fuss, and no drama. The question is how did it get to be this way, and why is this preferable to an honest reaction and to living as honest an emotional life as possible?