“Some recollections may vary” said the Queen recently in response to a small problem. I think it is fair to say that those four words can neatly summarise so many of our interpersonal conflicts.  A lawyer has the following notice on his desk: ‘There are three sides to every story: yours, mine, and the facts.’ 

The problem is that we can twist the truth in our own minds, we can tell ourselves falsehoods because we can’t always discern the truth within ourselves. In practice our thinking is so affected by our desires and passions that we can twist the truth, be economical with the truth.

In the Seven Storey Mountain, Thomas Merton noted that we have become marvellous at self-delusion: "I think that if there is one truth that people need to learn in the world, it is this: the intellect is only theoretically independent of desire and appetite in ordinary, actual practice. It is constantly being blinded and perverted by the ends and aims of passion, and the evidence it presents to us with such a show of impartiality and objectivity is fraught with interest and propaganda. We have become marvellous at self-delusion..."

It is so hard to listen for the truth in our relationships. Because we don’t want to hear it. We would rather convince ourselves of a lie, be economical with the truth. It is hard to always be honest with ourselves. And we rush to defend ourselves. It is all to do with self-justification. We call on the inner lawyer to find out where the other is wrong and why I am right!  My stubborn will stops me listening to the other!

G.K. Chesterton says that “when we really love truth we love even the unpleasant truths.” That is not easy if he is talking about ourselves.

The first two videos deal with aspects of the truth. When there is so much shouting in the world we need to discern carefully between truth and falsehood. The second video is about ways to discern that truth. 

Interpersonal relationships are not addressed specifically in the talks, but that is the practical background to all that is said. In Book II, Chapter 2 of The Brothers Karamazov, quoted in the talks, the holy man Zosima makes a speech to Fyodor Pavlovich where he says that the path to virtue is through honesty with oneself. Whoever lies to himself, he says, is unable to perceive the truth around him. So he warns: “Never lie, and above all, never lie to yourself.”

When our inner lawyer is at work I suggest we fire him (or her), and get a better lawyer, the Advocate, the Holy Spirit to help us discern the truth of a situation. The Spirit’s services are free of charge. The Spirit shifts the terms of the debate. It is not about right or wrong it is about what brings love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. 

“Since the Spirit is our life,” says St Paul, let us be directed by the Spirit.” 

I hope you find the talks helpful,

Fr Brendan

A wise old monk should be stationed at the gate of the monastery. 

He should know how to listen to people and also how to speak to them; his age should prevent him from wandering about. 

The porter will need to have quarters near the gate so that those who arrive will always find him present to answer their call. 

As soon as anyone knocks or a poor person cries out, he should respond “Thanks be to God!” or “Bless me!” 

Filled with the gentleness of the fear of God, he must quickly respond in the warmth of charity.

“Constant contamination by deceptive language can end up darkening our interior life.” And he quotes Dostoevsky to make his point: “People who lie to themselves and listen to their own lie come to such a pass that they cannot distinguish the truth within them, or around them, and so lose all respect for themselves and for others. And having no respect, they cease to love, and in order to occupy and distract themselves without love they give way to passions and to coarse pleasures, and sink to bestiality in their vices, all from continual lying to others and to themselves.” The Brothers Karamazov, II, 2, quoted by Pope Francis.

-----

“One who reads only from the book of the text without giving attention to the book of experience, risks being drawn into fundamentalism, attracted to meanings that are out of context both in a literary sense and with reference to the readers own situation. Ultimately such decontextualised reading leads either to stupidity or to eventual alienation. Too much concern for objectivity hardens the heart and genuine receptivity declines. 

On the other hand, one who reads only from the book of experience is prone to becoming too subjective. It’s easy in such a blinkered activity, pursued without rigourous crosschecking to read only what confirms-ignoring what contradicts or challenges one’s long cherished beliefs or invites one to change.” Michael Casey

-----

“Whoever, then, thinks that he understands the Holy Scriptures, or any part of them, but puts such an interpretation upon them as does not tend to build up this twofold love of God and our neighbour, does not yet understand them as he ought.” St Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.36.40

-----

“[Romano] Guardini showed me the importance of el pensamiento incompleto, unfinished thinking. He develops a thought but only takes you so far before he invites you to stop to give space to contemplate. He creates room for you to encounter the truth. A fruitful thought should always be unfinished in order to give space to subsequent development. With him I learned not to demand absolute certainty is in everything which is the sign of an anxious spirit. His wisdom has allowed me to confront complex problems that cannot be resolved simply with norms, using instead kind of thinking it allows you to navigate conflicts without being trapped in them.”

“Like John Henry Newman, I see the truth lying outside us, always beyond us, but beckoning to us through our consciences. It is like a kindly light we reach not normally through reason but, in Newman’s words, “through the imagination, by means of direct impressions, by the testimony of facts and events, by history, by description.” Newman was convinced, as I am, that in embracing what often appears at first sight to be contradictory truths and trusting in the kindly light to lead us, he will eventually come to see the greater truth that lies beyond us. I like to think that we do not possess the truth so much is the truth possesses us, constantly attracting us by means of beauty and goodness.”  Pope Francis, Let Us Dream, p.56

In order to be truthful

We must do more than speak the truth.

We must also hear truth.

We must also receive truth.

We must also act upon truth.

We must also search for truth.

The difficult truth.

Within us and around us.

We must devote ourselves to truth.

Otherwise we are dishonest

And our lives are mistaken. 

God grant us the strength and the courage 

To be truthful.

Michael Leunig, from The Prayer Tree

Lord, make us instruments of your peace. 

Help us to recognize the evil latent in a communication that does not build communion. 

Help us to remove the venom from our judgements. 

Help us to speak about others as our brothers and sisters. 

You are faithful and trustworthy; may our words be seeds of goodness for the world: 

where there is shouting, let us practise listening; 

where there is confusion, let us inspire harmony; 

where there is ambiguity, let us bring clarity; 

where there is exclusion, let us offer solidarity; 

where there is sensationalism, let us use sobriety; 

where there is superficiality, let us raise real questions; 

where there is prejudice, let us awaken trust; 

where there is hostility, let us bring respect; 

where there is falsehood, let us bring truth. 

Amen.

Words of Pope Francis, inspired by the so-called Prayer of of St Francis of Assisi (January 2018)

Evaluate the reliability of information.

by Michael Baumann

https://www.elementsoftruth.ca

Almost nothing you know or believe about the world is based on your own experience. Almost everything you know or believe about the world you know on trust.

Consequently, it is up to you to assess the reliability of information presented to you. Here is a list of eight questions you should ask: four regarding the information source and four regarding the information itself.

1. What is the quality of the information channel?

Did the information reach you through a peer-reviewed publication, a monograph by a professor, a textbook, an edited secondary publication, an encyclopaedia, a lecture, a presentation, a face-to-face conversation, a newspaper article, a TV broadcast, a blog, a YouTube video, or a social media post? You must gauge the quality of the information according to the quality of the information channel.

2. Who is the primary source of the information?

Is the primary source a specialist scientist, a generalist expert, a civil servant, a professional in the relevant field (an accountant, physician, banker, or lawyer), a journalist, a teacher (at a university, high school, or elementary school), a friend, a co-worker, a person "in-the-know", a politician, a salesperson? Is the author of the information competent? What are her credentials? What is his record?

3. Is the primary source of the information independent?

Who is paying the primary source’s bills? Taxpayers, a newspaper, a television station, a business, a political party, or an interest group (e.g. the pharmaceutical industry, the tobacco industry, the petroleum industry)? Follow the money.

4. What is the intent of the communication?

To encourage, to enlighten, to inform, to educate, to test, to self-aggrandize, to calm, to convince, to confuse, to mislead, to deceive, to enrage, to panic? Cui bono? Who benefits from the communication?

5. How was the knowledge obtained?

Through original research (e.g. from theory, laboratory experiments, field studies), through records research (a meta-analysis, a literature review, an exploratory review), from anecdotes, from hear-say, by guessing, as folk wisdom?

6. Does the information appear to be accurate and complete?

Is the information current? Has someone pre-selected the information for you? Has contradictory information been considered? Have inconsistencies been addressed? Have alternative interpretations been explored?

(The New York Times boasts: "All the News That's Fit to Print". It is the editors who decide on the fitness of a story. And fitness is defined by information content, entertainment value, and possibly an agenda. Editors not only determine what you read, they also determine what you do not read.)

7. Can the information be independently validated?

Was the communication peer reviewed? Are references cited and available? Are research hypothesis, experimental design, data collection, and data analysis (for instance), described in enough detail that you could replicate the results, at least in principle?

8. Does the information appear to be unbiased?

Are the results statistically significant? Is the effect size statistically relevant? Are the logic of the argument and the conclusions valid?

Thinking in general makes most people uncomfortable. Judging the reliability of information requires you to think. It is your duty as a citizen to think and be well-informed

Reflect on a recent argument or disagreement.

Did I distort, exaggerate or twist things in order to win my point? Was I even aware of it?

Is Thomas Merton right to say we have become marvellous at self-delusion?

"I think that if there is one truth that people need to learn in the world, it is this: the intellect is only theoretically independent of desire and appetite in ordinary, actual practice. It is constantly being blinded and perverted by the ends and aims of passion, and the evidence it presents to us with such a show of impartiality and objectivity is fraught with interest and propaganda. We have become marvellous at self-delusion..."

Seven Storey Mountain, Thomas Merton