Communication Among Parents and with Children

I. Introduction

Communication is a deep need, the deep need of the whole human being, the most important need of a human person, and already in infancy this need puts down its roots. Each one of us has very deep experiences of communication with our own parents and little by little this evolves and is consolidated with groups of friends, in social relationships, in engagement and in the new life of the family. We can therefore consider, as Chiara rightly said, that the family as a whole is an excellent school, where more than in other environments, we learn to communicate. Even more, we learn together to communicate – parents and children, man and woman.

II. Trinitarian Basis of Communication – Love

The relationship that exists among the members of the family is necessarily in the level of being and should not only in the level of words. We find the divine root of this aspect in the very life of the Most Holy Trinity, where each one of the Three Persons exists for the others, the Father is father in His generating the Son – communicating all to Him; the son in His being the expression of the Father; the Holy Spirit is the manifestation of the spiritual being of the Father and the Son. The Father is father in his being, if he is related to a son and vice versa. And this relationship of love the relationship par excellence is love.

There is an inescapable relationship between communication and love, but also between love and communication. In a couple you communicate out of love, but it is through love that you can truly communicate. No psychological technique can effectively teach us to communicate if we don¹t want it, neither can it teach us to love if we don¹t believe in love.
III. Jesus Forsaken and Mary Desolate: Models of Communication

Let me start first with what we know. The One who communicates love, or reveals to us the being of the Father and the Holy Spirit as love is Jesus Forsaken. His Being is therefore the one that opens to the mystery of who we really are, our being as image of the Trinitarian God whose three divine persons, has as its center, communication of love among one another. As such Jesus Forsaken is not only The Communicator who communicates to us the Trinity but also the model, the way through which we could learn how to communicate. Not only, Mary, the first disciple of Jesus, is also the one who identifies herself, at the foot of the cross with Jesus forsaken are models of what we are talking about.

Chiara, explains how Jesus Forsaken and Mary are very much linked to communication.

Jesus’ cry on the cross: “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” (Mt 27:46). The great communicator, Jesus, who had attracted crowds, finds himself not only betrayed and ignored by his followers, but abandoned also by his Father, whose closeness had always sustained him.”

So, the first important point that Chiara wants us to understand and to love Jesus forsaken, who seemed to be a failure as far as communication is concerned, yet through that abandonment He communicates to us who he is, who the Father is and their relatioship of love, the Holy Spirit.

Chiara continues. . .

“Having taken upon himself our limits, our errors, our separation from God and from our fellow human beings, he offered himself to experience all this to heal the serious wound of our disunity.”

“And he cried out. He cried out at the abandonment of his Father, and yet with a strength that was more than merely human, he abandoned himself to the Father again. In so doing he paid the price of our unfaithfulness, reuniting us as sons and daughters to the Father and as brothers and sisters to one another. Thereby he worked as a divine Mediator (medium) and communicator.”

Something similar happened to Mary.

“For Mary as for Jesus there is a culminating point: it is her desolation, her abandonment. When Jesus from the cross indicates John who represents us all saying: “Woman, this is your son” (Jn 19:26), these words resound as a kind of substitution. Mary goes through the trial of losing Jesus not only through his death, but also because someone else is taking his place.

She accepts this. And with this new “yes” at the foot of the cross in giving up Jesus, she becomes the mother of us all, acquiring the motherhood of countless men and women.”

Through her desolation we become one with her, she communicates to us her motherhood.

Mary Desolate is the epitome of Motherhood. We have always perceived her desolation as the fulfillment of God’s plan for her life, in a climax of love and suffering that is beyond words.

“There at the foot of the cross Mary becomes the mother not only of Jesus but of his Body which is the Church. She is the universal mother who binds together all people, her children, with her love, making them brothers and sisters to one another, as earthly mothers in their own way also do. She is the mother of unity, the bond of unity with all her children, because it was in her desolation that she acquired her spiritual maternity.”

For this reason we have always connected Mary Desolate to communicatio, this aspect of love which is indispensable for reaching unity, making her the protectress of our various forms of communication.

Now this is clear in our minds, we are in front of an important and complex topic: “Communication among spouses and with your children”. I have asked the help of Bepi Milan and Michele De Beni, in this talk where they gives us clarifications, some suggestions and even some examples in this regard.

Scholars of human communication have identified some rules of communication, some guiding principles of communication,

IV. Principles in Communication

a. First guiding principle

We are all social beings and therefore, communicative beings. We cannot not communicate. This is what the first rule says. In every circumstance, in every situation, when ever and where ever we are among ourselves or with others, when we behave, manifests a message, manifests a communication, manifests an influence on the other that can be a positive, or a non-positive – a negative educational influence. Everything is behavior, all is communication, we can’t not communicate: this is the first law. Every action or non-action that we do or not do communicates. We are by nature social and communicative beings, whether we like it or not.

i. Its effects:

1.

On the basis of this principle then it is not right, to speak of ‘incommunicability’, or of ‘a society of incommunicability’ or ‘the family as a place of incommunicability”. When we say something, we communicate, but our silence also communicates something. Instead of thinking that there is incommunicability in my family, it is more certain, more correct to state that there is difficult communication in my family; that there is problematic communication, that presents some problems

What does it mean? It simply means that every behavior of ours communicates: our words, silence, the orders we give our children, paying attention or being disinterested, our hurriedness, our calmness, the way we keep the house, our presence or our absence, our social commitment. Everything communicates, all this communicates, all this says something to our children, all this has an influence, all this can be educational or negatively educational. The same is true to them. Sometimes, we have to listen to their silence, because in silence, they want to communicate something. We have to listen to what they are not saying.

Therefore, in front of difficult communication, let’s not pull back – - let’s not hide, let’s not be overcome by resignation, let’s not consider ourselves defeated, but let’s seek with humility. Like Jesus Forsaken and Mary Desolate, our model let us continue to love even if this difficulty stays for some time. Mary stood by the cross, we also, in these situations could stand by and embrace this suffering of seeming incommunicability.

2.

An important thing to note is this: we not only communicate as single persons, as individuals, but our reciprocity communicates, as husband and wife you communicate even in how we say our words, how we act and we even communicate even in your silence , as mom and dad, common a good loving relationship communicates.
This atmosphere that your build among you and that goes beyond us, communicates. This Jesus amongs us, communicates, if live the conditions that makes His presence evident, which is mutual love.

Are there some teachings that we can draw from this first rule?
(We can’t not communicate)

b.

First teaching

Since everything communicates, it is necessary to reduce and if possible to remove, all uncontrolled behaviors, the involuntary ones, those casual ones (they all communicate). Let’s uproot all those behaviors dictated by nervousness, disappointment, hurry, superficiality. In our linguo, we have to die from our “old man” and put live our “new man”. There are some bad areas in our personality that we are unconscious about it.

Therefore as parents, your have to be present to ourselves, responsible, aware of the influence we exercise through communication. In communicating therefore we have to impart the virtues that we acquire by loving, by living the new men: the cardinal virtues of justice, temperance, prudence and fortitude; or the other virtues and human values. The values, the virtues and fruits of living mutual charity.

c.

Another guiding principle which Bepe Milan want us to understand is the verbal and non-verbal communication. Verbal is when we communicate by Words, non verbal is when we communicate by actions, our gestures, our attitudes, our body language, motions, the tone of our voice etc.

These two modalities – verbal and non-verbal – should not be contrary to one another Rather they should become allies, they should integrate between them so that communication may launch non-ambiguous messages, not obscure messages, not in contradiction with each other, but clear, transparent messages.

Often instead, as we know, in our communication there is incoherence. This is part of our nature: St. Paul would somehow admit it. He said: Rom 7:15 I do not understand what I do; for I don’t do what I would like to do, but instead I do what I hate.

I remember a song which borders into sarcasm, from a group called ASIN which says: Salita, puro lang salita, ganyan ka kaibigan kulang ka sa gawa. Some years ago, some religious sarcastic song, states: “Banal na aso, santong kabayo, natatawa ako.” “Sermon ang almusal.” Papa don’t preach!

In Italian they say: “Between saying and doing there is a wide sea” or “We preach well but we not to practice what one preaches, that is we speak well but we misbehave. In these cases there are negative consequences for those who undergo this contradictory and wrong communication. I can say for example to my son, “Do not watch TV” but then I’m the first to abuse it, I can be the first to be TV dependent. Or we could be unconscious in saying “Huwag kayong sumigaw!!!!” in a shrieking voice.

i.

There is a contradiction between saying and acting, this contradiction hurts, there is a contradiction between verbal and non-verbal messages. In synthesis parents are asked to live sincerity, authenticity, to be what they say. Many words refer to deep values, strong concepts, but they are existential modalities, ways of being that are demanding. These too are pedagogical values, which, in the contraposition between being and seeming, between appearance and reality, they must show what we are, our possible existential unity (our unity) because if we are authoritative educators, we have to put into action this existential authority between saying and doing.

1.

In our world full of lies from advertisements, parents and educators should be people – we say – true to their word, and therefore our pedagogy should be authentic, sincere, a witness, through transparent communication, and for this reason, it should be a credible and authoritative communication because there is unity between saying and doing. More so, what is important are the values of: authenticity, congruence, to know how to be. This is what matters. Our being. All our words and actions follow our being, as to who we are, our identity. Our basic identity is love and to be loving, created in this Trinitarian image whose essence, and core is charity. We have to be true to our basic nature. Either we are loving or we are not. We are not in this basic identity – love, then our words and actions would always be dichotomized. This unity between our being, our words and actions is very important.

2.

Let’s think for a moment of a teenage son, who is undergoing an identity crisis. His question is on the level of identity “Who am I? Whom do I desire to be? What is the purpose of my life? A question that relates to all his life but is especially strong during adolescence; These questions are in terms of “being” It would be a betrayal of his expectations, a betrayal of his basic needs if in this delicate passage, which is adolescence, we gave him answers not in terms of being but in terms of having and appearing and more so when our answers remain only in the level of words which are unauthentic and does not correspond to our actions.

Texting, level of words… . . .

d.

To be aware of the horizontal and vertical modes of relationships in communication.

In a family, although all of us are equal in terms of our dignity in front of God, in terms of authority and responsibility its members are not equal. The relationships that we establish in our communicating are of two fundamental types: they are symmetrical which I would call horizontal and asymmetrical which we might call vertical.

i.

Horizontal (Symmetrical) relationships are those among people that manifest the same power, the same power in their communication, therefore there is equality, an equality in the possibilities between these interlocutors: the relationship between husband and wife should be equal, the relationship among educators – teachers -, the relationship among young boys and girls in the same class, for example, the relationship among co-workers. Here there is parity. There are things that parents should talk about only among themselves as father and mother.

Here the instruments of unity are very useful (except the colloquium): The communion of souls, for example between husband and wife; or the communion of experiences, moment of truth. A colloquium by its nature is done with somebody who has more experience and more maturity. Doing the instruments of unity as we all know could foster the unity between husband and wife not only in the level of plans and projects but on the level of being so that they could be one as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. In fact without this unity in the level of the divine, physical intimacy and union falls short of the sanctity of the union between and wife.

1.

In this we could distinguish between two typical levels of communication: one is more superficial and limits itself to aspects of normal daily routine. Another instead is deeper, through which the couple try to compare their own interior experiences. This second type of communication, a more mature dimension of married life, is the more difficult to achieve. We could call this the gut level communication which usually happens when we have communion of souls.

2.

Through deep communication the couple tries to enter into intimacy. Here, sufficient means and time are useful so that communication can be effective and achieve its main aim which is not only to establish links, but to reach an understanding, a deep unity between the couple.

For this reason communication must often be nourished and revived by getting away from routine, from deception, from superficiality, from fear or from the self deception that we are controlling the other person.

V.

Let’s look at some typical ways of communicating and some typical difficulties of non – communication and pseudo communication.

We all have the need to love and be loved. And when there is unity between spouses, there is “heaven on earth”. When we are in love, and that love is returned, we feel as if we have everything. We are happy. In a certain sense, communication is easy, it doesn¹t take a big effort or a particular will. We can say that in this case, in falling in love, communication feeds itself.

a. (Heaven)
There is a first relationship called confirmation (let me use this difficult word!), but now I will explain it. In answer to the question “Who am I for you?” or “Who are you for me?” I answer, “You exist! You are important to me! I look at you with attention, with availability. I welcome your way of being, I welcome you. I confirm you”. The confirmation – this relationship – in this case is a yes, a yes said to the other one, and we can say this to the other one in many different ways, in an infinite number of ways. We could say they are ways of loving. So then confirmation is an immediate yes. This is a first type of relationship.

Some difficulties in communication are born at the moment when one of the two partners begins to perceive a certain disproportion between what he or she gives and what they receive or think they receive in exchange from the other partner. Perhaps this partner doesn¹t notice any problem, perhaps they don’t know how to show their love or they don¹t express it in an adequate way. Then spontaneously questions arise like: “Why isn¹t he speaking to me? Why doesn¹t she look at me? I haven¹t done anything wrong. Why didn’t he ask my view in this case? Why does she take her parents’ thoughts and opinions into consideration more than mine?”

i.

The first difficulties in communication are born from a series of these kind of misconceptions or presumptions which one of the two experiences when they discover something in the other which no longer responds to their needs or demands. Therefore, at this point, if we don¹t clarify our differing points of view, our trust begins to waver. We don’t feel understood by the other person like we did before. We perceive a kind of betrayal of the idealisation that from either husband or wife.

In that moment, we live the sensation of no longer being in harmony like before. We see our expectations, our illusions, our dreams tottering. It is like going into a kind of closed room with no means of escape. These are the first signals and they are always the first, even after 20 or even 30 years, which tell us that there is something that is not clearly expressed and not clearly understood of the other, in spite of good faith, and the good will to communicate. It is important to pick up on these definite signals because through them we can learn the first and basic rule of communication which is that of expressing with sensitivity how it is a necessity for us to share our needs with the other person.
This experience of opening up to your partner is necessary for the survival of the communication itself. So how do we begin? By reassuring your partner, your husband, your wife, of your trust and of your good will. However in the second place, by presenting your point of view with great respect and with a great trust in the capacity of the other to understand, and above all trusting in our own capacity to understand the point of view of the other.

What happens?

In moments like these, moments that we could call magic, but also dramatic, it can happen that each one was expecting something to change in the other person, but no-one was ready to speak about it sincerely. An eventual crisis can be avoided with a rebalancing of expectations. Often we have absurd and illogical types of expectations in relation to your partner. On the other hand it is true that the disillusionment of eventual expectation can be the signal that there is a lack of attention, or a real disengagement in one of the two in relation to the other. The truthful recognition that there really are moments in which both, or one person in particular, have created a great deception, by betraying the expectations of the other, is really an important moment.

What the spouse could do is to admit his/her disengagement in communication, and a recognition of one’s own difficulty in putting oneself back on the path towards the other.
It is clear that the process of communication can become steady again when there is a real and sufficient effort made to understand and to change so as to go towards meeting the requests of the other person.

ii.
This could have positive results if they meet on the deeper level, the gut level, or as we could say they could have a moment of truth with their responsible, if they are both living the ideal. If not, they could also have the communion of souls, and start to communicate first on the level of feeling and express what they really feel, angry, confused, challenged, napahiya, embarrassed, etc and from their in charity lead themselves towards the path of love and reconciliation.

On the other if no attention and love is given, this could lead to a very negative result.

b.

It can happen that when faced with some problem, the couple is afraid of confrontation and so it does not choose the way of aggression, but the way of flight. In this case both of them try to protect their relationship by avoiding every occasion of divergence, for example, blaming their own dissatisfactions on other things – their relations, the state, the sick society, groups of friends. They accuse others for the lack of success which is not their lack of success, but our own lack of success in communicating as a couple.
In certain cases they try to avoid communication and a comparison of ideas, by disguising possible difficulties, by trying to limit the intensity of their own relationship and not entering much into intimacy. So for example communication is relegated to neutral messages, to superficial messages, about day to day routine, about the children, school, career, friends, politics, in laws – all external things which can not touch this couple which is afraid of destroying itself, or of entering into a deeper intimacy. It is a means of denying each other the possibility of having a deeper exchange of their own experiences, of their own difficulties. It is a refusal to share their their own vitality with each other, their own need for love. In this way they block that authentic communication which is the basis for reciprocal trust and reciprocal growth. It is as if we took away from ourselves what we needed hoping to be happier.

You can understand what a contradiction this is, and how we pay for it in terms of happiness over a long period. Although seeking love, in this case the couple seems to show a type of fear of love, by running away from occasions for communication and for the love they are desperately seeking. In these cases you can see clearly the risk and the commitment that love asks for, but at the same time we try to keep our special “you” at a distance by distracting ourselves from everything that is at the true centre of love.

This type of disengagement that the psychologists call “the fear of intimacy” can happen a little at a time. There is a massive reduction in the time and in the quality of communication, which is kept alive by a pseudo communication based around events or facts that don’t touch on the feelings of the couple. In this case we have people taking it in turns to speak, who while they are speaking of something, are sending out deeper messages which do not relate to the superficial level of communication, but relate to the way they see each other, they criticize the other, they accept the other, they ask him or her to change, they reject the other, but neither of them has the courage to show this to the other.

Let us follow this example, Turning to her husband she says: “I think I¹m elegant”, (Sa palagay ko maganda naman ako.” OO, naniwal ako na maganda ako.” Honey, bakit di ko naririnig sayo maganda ako. Para sa yo maganda ba ako? Do you not think that I am beautiful?” The wife here is in the level of her being, or we could say in the gut level because it is what she thinks about herself as a woman.

The husband hearing it could just be remaining in a superficial level, and he answers: “Sige na nga, ikaw a pinakamagandin babae sa mundo!” You are the most elegant woman in the world.”

At this point the wife says to herself, therefore at an unexpressed level of communication: “Even when you say it, you don’t say it.”

From this example you can understand how probably the expression of the husband doesn¹t correspond so much to a sincere compliment as to a more hidden and disparaging message which could be put like this: “I’m saying what you want to hear me saying so that then you will leave me in peace.” Deep down this was the message. In this case there are two opposing messages: one is the formal positive confirmation, the other is disparaging and the cause of a possible conflict.

I’ll give you another example which could throw light on this form of contradictory communication. Albert, but it could be any one of us, is alone at home. He gets a telephone call from a great friend of his that he hasn’t seen for a long time who is going to be in the area because of his work. Albert, knowing that his wife Elizabeth would be happy about this, invites him to dinner, but when Elizabeth comes home, they have a big row. Both of them, and this is the most interesting thing, admit that they agree on the fact that they have to offer hospitality to their friend, but why is it then that in practise they are not in agreement and are fighting?

What is stopping this couple from being in agreement? Is it the fact of inviting or not inviting their friend to dinner? No, it isn’t because both of them admit that they are agreed on this. On other occasions the couple had had rows over things that were more or less futile like this, in fact, in their opinion, even more futile. There was one thing however upon which they were definitely not in agreement but which they had not clarified and which they never had the time or the courage to clearly express to one another: who had the right to take a decision without consulting the other beforehand. This is the deep level of communication upon which they had not clarified their positions.

In the example I have reported, both Elizabeth and Albert were right and wrong. Neither of them had ever clarified the level of power and freedom that one of them could exercise in relation to the other. They were in agreement about the decision to be taken, but not on the way that they were living their relationship and on the rules governing when one person could exercise power over the other. In this case their communication demanded a deeper clarification of and openness towards the needs of each of them, something which they hadn’t had the possibility of doing.

The negative result of a wrong exercise of power could hurt the children.

The father would unconsciously intent to have just a bit more power than the mother, or vice-versa. A possibly negative competitive escalation may be formed, that can, with disputes, with jealousies, with fights as to whom takes over command, instead of collaboration, dialogue, solidarity, common commitment. This competitive escalation can create great discomfort in the family: the basic atmosphere becomes an atmosphere of discomfort, where psychological violence is manifested, violence that leaves a mark. The children can become victims of this violence, of these battle fields, they can become scapegoats or the bullets that the parent s throw at each other in this contention.

Therefore discomfort, disorientation, anguish, difficulties can be the effects of this wrong relationship among equals, of this dysfunctional relationship between the parents. It is often present. And the children may very well think this is the way to live, the way to fight and they can take on this way of life as theirs, as an existential modality. Therefore it is important that parents should make dialogue prevail, make solidarity, the capacity to overcome difficulties, prevail. Certainly difficulties exist among us because we are different, but difficulties are here for us to overcome. We have to make what’s positive win, we have to make the values of dialogue, of solidarity, of mutual love win. There is conflict, but conflict is the spring-board to make us conquer something more beautiful, deeper.

It is evident that these are examples but they give us some flashes which can introduce us into a second passage, a second difficulty, the one that is called in technical terms “the dead end in communication”. The dead end in communication is reached when you are not able to understand in depth the needs of the other person.

Not only are you not able to understand in depth the ideas of the other person, but not even to change your preconceived ideas of one another. We have jealously guarded them within ourselves and never shown them to the other person. Therefore not having cleared them up, they remain as prejudices, like little bombs ready to explode if they are not defused in time with sincerity and with deep mutual welcoming.

This attitude, little by little, can lead to more or less accentuated forms of closure without the possibility of clarifying the deep motives of each person’s lack of agreement.

The second type of relationship is the one the scholars call refusal or negation, but these are negative concepts that however… are too negative with respect to the type of relationship we are referring to. I’ll explain better: “Who am I for you?” or “Who are you for me?”. “For me you are wrong! – this is a refusal relationship – You are wrong. I’m not in agreement with you! You are not working. You could work harder. We say, in a certain sense, a ‘no’ to the other one but on the basis of facts, this ‘no’ to the other one like “You can do better”, this ‘no’ can be right, can be pertinent. It is the ‘no’ of the educator, it is the ‘no’ of education. In my opinion it is still a relationship of confirmation because the other is a ‘you1 and I begin this fight (I prefer to use this term)… It is a fight with the other, a fight “with him”, a fight “for him” (in education there is a “for him”), at times a fight “against” him, because each one of us needs also to be guided, needs to be helped, needs to be urged, to be contradicted sometimes.

This is the second type of relationship.

This is how you reach the dead end in communication. Each one builds little by little, a castle, a type of mental barrrier within which he or she is entrenched and takes refuge, but doesn¹t intend to come out in the open. When you reach this alienating stage of communication, it is not the communication in itself that is mutilated but the fact of not considering your own partner to be worthy, as a person, of our attention, overlooking completely his situation, his calls, his feelings. We find ourselves before true and real attempts at depersonalisation, where the partner is denied the right to be considered, to be listened to, or helped in his difficulty. It is as if he were to continuously receive this message: “I don’t care about anything that has to do with you. I’m not interested in your life. Our relationship does not exist. I can do without it, I do not need you.”

[I will give you another example, which I have called the "example of the denial or negation of the other". This is almost a denial of the other person's right to exist, to have their own personality, their own capacity to be themselves.

Carlo,(but each one of us is Carlo) is always claiming that Giovanna (and each one of us is Giovanna), always wants to do things her way. If he wants peace in the family, he has to always leave every decision up to her.

Giovanna denies that this is the case. On the contrary, she strikes back, blaming Carlo for not having any spirit of initiative and of not being capable of taking a decision. She claims that she is the one who has to bear the responsibility of her husband. Carlo argues back, emphasising that it is she, Giovanna, who never gives him the possibility, and moreover blocks him with all her strength with her mania for planning everything and for having everything revolve around herself, without respecting the patterns and the needs of other people.

In decision making yung isa, hindi nagpapasali, o yung isa hindi nakasali. OK, pero hindi ako nakasali sa desisyon na yan. Bahala ka dyan. Sagot naman nang isa, hindi ka naman nagpapasali e. Ikaw na lang palagi ang nagdecide. Di ikaw ang bahala.

At this point you can understand that the discussion becomes heated and there is an endless escalation of mutual accusations which become more and more serious. Giovanna blames Carlo again for always having been, right from the time that they were engaged, too easy going, “too good”. Carlo says, yes, that he has always been like this and this in turn infuriates her, and gives her this great grudge toward Carlo. Each of them, in their own ways, are sending messages of mutual devaluation to the other, which comes from their own incapacity to face each other realistically, and understand each other’s needs and the characteristics of each one’s personality, without however wanting to change it, but recognising each other with each one’s own characteristics.

This third type of important relationship the dead end communication – I talked so far about those of confirmation and refusal – the third type of relationship is ‘disconfirmation’, that is the opposite of confirmation. It means; “You, for me, do not exist” “I for you do not exist” “Who am I for you?” “Who are you for me?” “For you I do not exist, you for me do not exist, for me it is as if you did not exist, you are worth nothing for me”. This is a relationship of indifference, of absence, even if we are close, ‘elbow to elbow’, 24 hours a day. This is obviously the most negative relationship.

In communication only the confirmation type is acceptable (we need this yes said by the others) and sometimes, we need this fight (to fight with the other not to destroy but to build). Disconfirmation, instead, should be eliminated from our human relationships, because according to a great psychiatrist – Ronald Laing – the most grievous, the most awful suffering we can inflict on a human being is to leave him in the indifference which gives him the maximum of freedom but also the maximum of solitude. This is a diabolic suffering, a great suffering. This is disconfirmation: “You do not exist! I, for you, do not exist!”.

This is the dead end in communication, in the darkness of our hearts which have become stone, and it is in this precise moment that we have to succeed in catching a glimpse of the light in the darkness too, calling out to our will to love. Love too has its great, sublime truth, because it can choose in any case to communicate in spite of obstacles, aggression and seeming non-communication.

On this journey, difficulties, like the marks on our gold ring, are an integral part of our being in communication. Very often they are the means by which the couple rebuilds their harmony as a couple. If we find ourselves at a zero level in communication, let us never forget that we can start again, learning from the play of light and shade, that light can win out over darkness, love over indifference, life over death. From the suffering of no communication, from feeling ourselves abandoned, communication can start over. It is here perhaps, that the beseeching for love, expressed in that “why” cried out to our own partner, can be transformed and rise beyond suffering, like an invocation of love. It is a passage that we have to grasp, so that this invocation of love, expressed as a cry of very acute, piercing suffering; this dramatic passage which in the space of a second can be changed into tragedy, can also contain in itself the miracle of a resurrection through forgiveness and mercy which goes beyond the closed circle of death and lack of communication. It is not only the ideal of faith or of unity which can speak of forgiveness, but also psychology today is completely drawing towards forgiveness, from a scientific point of view, as one of the great structures of communication.

When we are reconciled with each other, we experience the sensation that with forgiveness we place ourselves beyond resentment and wounded pride, touching the heart of our authentic selves. We discover likewise that to forgive and to be forgiven is a great gift which gives us the possibility of placing ourselves back in the happy cycle of communication. Something marvelous happens in these moments where both partners take a step of extraordinary quality from an impersonal, cold and hostile land to a place where we each know that we can rely on the other. It seems that each one says to his or her beloved, “I am sure that you will understand me. Every day I meet people of stone, but you welcome me, and you free me from fear.” In this way love becomes living mercy, the indescribable, extraordinary way through which even communication can be relit. It is ready to dissolve and melt hearts when these become of stone and to trust each other, to confide in one another again, to rely once more on each other.

This is the beginning of a marvelous chapter which involves the listening that we give to one another and the reconfirmation of the trust that we have placed in each other. “This is how I see myself”, “This is how I see you.” “This is how I would like you to be.” “This is how I would like you to love me.” Freed from fear, communication is able to go along the often hidden, and most intimate ways of the beloved person. “I know that you are listening to me and you are attentive to my deepest desires and you give all this to me generously, without measure and this moves me, it gives me faith in your love once again. Look, I too feel ready, ready to love.” And love is what gives back life to communication. It is perhaps the greatest moment in the rebirth of communication, the moment of the discovery of intimacy as a form of trust and of openness to the other, so much so that we have put this openness and this trust at the end. Usually in the books on psychology, openness is put as the starting point of communication. Openness is a conquest. It is not only a point of departure. We know that one of the most powerful messages of communication is the message of acceptance and confirmation that one person receives from another person.

Therefore, it is more than ever evident that being in communication is a fundamental role. It is the fundamental role that guarantees the loving and intimate security of the couple, so much so that we can say that man and woman can only truly experience each other as a gift to each other in a climate of acceptance and of trust .

With this perspective it becomes always more important to give the right amount of time and lots of attention to communication, above all to the quality of communication, to coming out into the open, to patience, to respect, to esteem, to reciprocal encouragement as the means of intimate fusion of two people who want to constantly strain towards love. Let us remember however that communication is the necessary way, the natural way for love, but love in its turn is the indispensable condition which gives meaning, solidity and dignity to our being in relationship.

Let us go now to horizontal relationship with regards to the children.

Asymmetrical or vertical relationships are those where — not because of human diversity, but because there is a difference of function, of role, of experience, of age – there is a difference of power, an imbalance. This relationships are for instance, the one between parents and children: it is obvious there is a diversity.

In this relationships, (where there is disparity) the rule, the task is that of reducing, attenuating the initial distance, the initial imbalance, so that the son (or daughter) may gradually acquire autonomy, more independence. In psychology they say a wider psychological space of free movement. The error in these asymmetrical relationships lies in rigidity, in getting stuck with this unbalanced situation, which at the beginning is natural (this distance does exist), but then it becomes negative if this imbalance becomes fossilized, gets stuck. The task of education – this is important – is to help the other person to grow up, to overcome the phase of attachment and of depending on us, and to favor the natural separation that frees the other one and makes him an adult. Adult means to have grown up.

In synthesis the task of the parent here is to make the child become a parent! It is the task of the father to make the child become mother or father. It is the task of the mother to make the children become mothers and fathers. This can be stopped from happening in many ways, making mistakes: with overprotection (that is excessive protection) or with disinterest, with authoritarianism (abusing our saying no, no, no) or with permissiveness (that is the abuse of our saying yes, yes, yes, which at time resembles indifference). These modalities, at times in opposition among themselves, do not respect the characteristics of the authentic interpersonal relationship, they leave the child in a difficult situation, without an authoritarian guide, without a guide deserving of trust, with the possibility that this will increase the discomfort of the child.

Discomfort, difficulty – and that may be expressed in many different ways: at times with aggressiveness against oneself, at times with aggressiveness against others, because discomfort is often unleashed in the form of wrong aggressiveness.

The authentic parent, on the other hand, transforms the asymmetrical relationship, that initial distance into a larger and larger capacity to dialogue: he lets the child speak, makes his self-esteem grow, makes him more and more capable of being a protagonist, able to project himself personally, he makes him become an adult. Dostojevskyj, the great Russian writer says, “Sons will become fathers of their fathers.” However, I repeat, we have to help our children to become fathers, we have to help students to become teachers, we have to help patients to become healthy, otherwise we will betray the task of these asymmetrical relationships that have the duty to make the other become adult.

Along these lines, we have to recall the techniques given to us by Chiara: to love everyone, to see Jesus in the other, to be the first one to love, to serve and to make oneself one. I would add that we should remember that we have four kinds of dialogue, and the fourth is to make dialogue with men and women of other convictions. Sometimes the children could have other convictions even in terms of religion. Chiara suggests that even within the family we have to apply the four dialogues.

There are three kinds of attitude

Among the most important attitudes there are: Unconditional acceptance of the other person, our child, his uniqueness, his diversity, his originality, his merits and his defects. “To accept”, to accept the other person, from the Latin “accipere” that means to take with oneself, to take upon oneself, to contain, to embrace. To accept has the same root as to conceive, to give life to something new. At the point when I accept the other, in a certain way, I also generate, I give life, it is an act of conception.

A second important attitude with a bit of a difficult word is: empathy, which is the ability to take part in the other person’s world, the ability to walk in his shoes (in other languages, in other cultures say, to wear his clothes, to put on his moccasins, to enter under his skin …) because among us human beings there is this capacity to participate in the other person’s world yet remaining ourselves, maintaining the “interpersonal distance”. “I am I and you are you but we can go over this reciprocal bridge”. This understanding – namely empathy – this “empathic silence”, the scholars say, implies, requires the “art of listening”, an art that nowadays is not very fashionable. I will not talk about it any more but listening is important. Empathy helps us to understand, and therefore to have – and this is important – the right requests, the right expectations towards my son or my daughter because I put myself in their place. Neither should these expectations be too high (if they were too high we force the other person to fail, to make mistakes…) nor too low (if they are too low it is like telling him “you are not worth anything for me”), but the right expectations, pertinent expectations because I understand, because I place myself in his place…

Another point. It is important to educate him, to help him face difficulties by
knowing how to give him the necessary support and, especially, (because I understand) by using the therapy of success (which means to make him experience success, make him feel it is worthwhile) above all when he or she is going through moments of discomfort, of hardship. The therapy of success is to know how to praise him, to highlight the positive, telling him or her you are OK…, you can make it, you can overcome the obstacle. Often our children need this kind of communication that becomes therapeutic, becomes helpful.

I would like to conclude – I’m about to finish – with two suggestions that seem important to me. I spoke of the “educational fight” education is this beautiful, marvelous fight. I remember Jacob’s fight (Gen. 32) in the Bible. The fight with a mysterious angel who shows up at night, but it is God. God who, in a certain sense, in order to solicit Jacob’s commitment, gives him the impression that he wins. God lets him win over Him in this fight during the night: Jacob in fact finds himself at the end of this mysterious fight as a winner and he manages to get from God His blessing. God gives him a name, a name for his people (Israel). He managed to make it, he won, he obtained success. However in this fight God leaves His mark, leaves a deep mark, because Jacob is wounded and he will limp all his life. This is an indelible memory of a very strong relationship, of an authentic encounter that has left a great inheritance and has left a mark. A strong sign of this encounter, of this very deep friendship.

The authentic relationship in education, also the relationship parents-children, leaves some marks – luckily – leaves some beautiful wounds, because each one of us cuts deeply into the other, calls him by name, gives him a name, writes on the other a story. Each of us writes a story that may develop: each one of us can tell himself, can narrate himself, because someone first knew how to write something in his soul.

The second suggestion. I go very far, as the Bible does. Plato, that great thinker, talks about education and he talks of the educator as one who writes in the other person’s soul This is very beautiful. I quote a sentence by Plato, “In a talk I wrote (even in those times there was writing, but think of us today with the computers, with Internet,…) – there is much that is superficial. Only the word of the educator can really be written in the soul, his word about what’s right, about beauty, about good, only in this word is there clarity, fullness and seriousness; the educator -this is important – understands that these words must really be his own, as if they were his own children and he knows his speech – if ever he tried it – he carries it within himself. The speech of the educator is in himself and with this speech the educator writes in the other person’s soul”.

From this writing in the soul, through witness, testimony we say, (“testimony” means to bring a text), through this, through the authentic word, the attitudes I talked about, through this comes the strength of true educational authority, the educator’s authority, the parent’s authority. Authority means “to be authors”. Therefore everything comes into play. To be authors of the speech within us that will then write something in our child and then he will become author of himself starting with what we are able to write in his soul.

Allow me to say in conclusion, that we are all here because someone, I obviously refer to Chiara, knew how to write in our souls, to be mother to us, and to be mother of something great inside-us, something great, that at the same time commits us to a task: the task to be ourselves – also as volunteers – men and women, fathers and mothers of ourselves and of humanity.

In concluding , what is most important in communication is our constant communication with God. Like Mary and Jesus who were always united with God the Father and the Holy Spirit, if we also live this, our communication will be perfect with our family and with many other families.

Am Mijares

“Save the Lebanese Civilians Petition”

Zenit.org reports that Archbishop Antonio Franco, our former apostolic nuncio in the Philippines, now in Israel and apostolic delegate in Jerusalem and Palestine, wrote a letter to Catholic ordinaries of the Holy Land, dated July 17, in which he expressed the closeness of Catholic communities worldwide.

The letter reproduces in an annex the words the Pope spoke last Sunday at the Angelus. The archbishop recalled that the Holy Father prayed for the victims and reminded “political leaders of the need and urgency to return to the path of reason and dialogue.”

In this war, the Lebanese civilians are asking for signatures in their appeal for peace! Let us join them. Click the petition page and sign. Another petition for ceasefire is in this page. Thank you!

Prudence of CBCP?

Amidst the “loud and repeated lamentations from many sectors of Philippine society” and a “deep dissatisfaction and frustration among a good number of people of goodwill, about the recent CBCP Pastoral Letter entiled ‘Spherding and Prophesying in Hope’, dated 9 July 2006: a bishop blogged that the over-all guiding principle that ruled it was prudence.

I really pray it is not false prudence. What is false prudence? I quote from Chiara Lubich a lay catholic considered also to be a theologian:

“What ruins some souls is a false ‘prudence.’ They call it prudence, but it’s a human prudence, and it springs up every time the divine surfaces. It has the appearance of virtue but is more aggravating than vice. It does not want to shake anyone up. It lets the rich go to hell (“you already have your reward,” cf. Lk 6:24) by not enlightening them. Who knows what might hap­pen? It lets the neighbors beat each other up, and even kill, because someone might accuse you of meddling in other people’s affairs. You could even end up as a witness in a trial. Why bother to get involved? It advises moderation to the saints, lest something happen to them.

It isolates us. This prudence cuts us off, clamp­ing us in like a vice, because it’s born of fear.

It’s especially scared of God. If he were to become too active in the world, through his faithful children, God could incite revolution; and those children’s lives could be ruined, like Christ’s; they could end up hated by the world, as he was.

It’s a counterfeit virtue. I think it’s planted or fertilized by the devil. He can do a lot of business in that climate. There once lived a man who had none of it. That was Christ Jesus. When he went out to preach, at the first lesson they wanted to kill him, there and then. “But he went straight through their midst and walked away” (Lk 4:30).

Look at his life with the eyes of this sort of prudent person and you would call the whole thing an imprudence. Not just that: If these prudent persons were logical in their reasoning, they would draw the conclusion that his death, his crucifixion ,.. he asked for it … with his imprudence.

I don’t believe there’s a word spoken by Jesus that does not jar against these people. That is because God and the world are a complete an­tithesis. Only those who are able to emerge from the world to follow in the footsteps of Christ can make humanity hope for anything.”

Chiara Lubich

Man is a man of dialogue

An editorial of Vera Araujo, a Brazilian sociologist, in New City Magazine concludes: “Connection with a living community is needed in order to break the chains of solitude. Society will then emerge enriched and prepared to set new objectives of peace for itself.” This statement is not only true sociologically or even only psychologically but also ontologically. Peace could be attained if man is at peace with himself and with other men.

Man is a “being in dialogue”.

Dialogue seems to be for man a necessity to break the “chains of solitude,” which destroys man in his very essence. In fact dialogue is not only as aspect in the nature of man having social identity but it appears to us that dialogue is a necessary constitutive dimension of man if we consider the ontological identity of man as communion. Communion needs dialogue and dialogue is for communion. It affirms that man is true to himself if he is in constant dialogue not only with God, in prayer, but also with other man.

The trinitarian image of God imprinted in man need tobe expressed in constant dialogue with other man. What we mean is not only a dialogue of the intellect but of the whole man. To love one’s neighbor as oneself is realized in dialogue, communication that leads to communion. If in the trinity the Father is in the Son and vice versa, man’s ontological identity is to be in dialogue to be in love with each other as the Father and the Son the Holy Trinity. In fact Jesus prayed: “that all maybe one, as you Father and I are one.” God’s glory in man could only be expressed in this mutual love of men towards one another in dialogue of love.

We want peace? Let us be true to our own identity. We want to be true to ourselves? Love one another! We want to be true to the image of God in us? Maintain mutual love.

Man’s nature has to be seen through a trinitarian ontology.

Man could only know himself in communion

Gaudium et Spes, the Constitution of the Church in the Modern world, a document of the Second Vatican Council could shed more light on “who man is”. It says, “God did not create man as a solitary, for from the beginning “male and female he created them” (Gen. 1:27). Their companionship produces the primary form of interpersonal communion. For by his innermost nature man is a social being, and unless he relates himself to others he can neither live nor develop his potential.” (n. 12)

“Male and female” should not be interpreted in purely sexual perspective but on the ontological identity of man. Man is interpersonal, social and “unless he relates himself to others” he could only be less a man. The I-thou relationship, explained below by my previous blogs, seem to be therefore essential to man as individuum. His individuality in fact is fully revealed only in communion with others.

It is in communion with God in prayer that man could find his very basic and radical identity. The same document clarifies: “The truth is that only in the mystery of the incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. For Adam, the first man, was a figure of Him Who was to come, (20) namely Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.” (n. 22)

Objectively it is only through Christ, than man’s identity is fully revealed, and makes him as who he is. Outside this anthropology which is basically Christian, man fails to know truly who he is. It is only in the perspective of the revelation of Christ, the incarnate-love of the Father that man realizes his own dignity as a being fully loved by His creator, to whom, and through Christ, reveals the vocation to love. Anyway it is through Christ that the world, including man is created. (Jn. 1:1 ff)

By its nature, love, charitas, agape itself is communitarian and if it is in this light than man realizes is relational identity, i.e., in loving for loving is basically relational, that man becomes truly who he is. He is created under his image and likeness which is Trinitarian since the very essence of the trinity is charitas, love, agape. This is the imprint of the Trinitarian God in man’s nature.

Subjectively it is in prayer that this relationship is realized. The experience of love which is also union with the Creator, the God-Love enlightens man of who he is makes him what he is supposed to be. For me, man’s ontological identity of communion is expressed subjectively in this “locus” of prayer, where he is in communion with the Thou. Prayer is as explained, is not only a moment of silence, but this ontological relationship which could be expressed in action, in doing whatever the Creator wills to his created. If man stays in this “locus” twenty four hours by twenty four hours a day, then the divine plan is revealed in Him, his vocation which is fundamentally placed on the basis on this loving relationship. It is here that the “ought to be” of man is realized, subjectively (some could call it a vocation) and it is also in the “locus” that man could daily actualize this true vocation and identity.

His life then becomes a life of communion of love and life, a never static identity but always in a journey, a disclosure of the divine plan, a “golden thread” where man experience a very personal love of God, and in remaining in this love, by doing and actualizing his will according to the lights of the I-Thou relationship, man becomes a person. This process, personalizes man. His personality is always never frozen, but an unfolding of the beauty of his personal life.

In a sense, we make our own identity, how? – in loving communion with God and neighbors; where?- in this locus of communion of love, which I call prayer. By remaining in this communion through prayer (in its radical meaning and not only its ritualistic one).

Here man’s identity – a relational loving relationship with God and his neighbors, is placed in the background of a relational ontology.

Is there still hope in our country?

Amid the noises of off beat media which rather would satisfying the palate of sensational intellectual curiosity, the CBCP again made a statement with clarity and decisiveness. Rather than concentrate more on rather politically explosive statements, they concentrate more on their shepherding and prophesying in hope, to guide Filipinos towards right moral principles of politics and its morality.

What my friend wrote me, seems to be shared by many. He said: “Somehow, I find our situation hopeless. This nation has become a nation of idiots! Look at the majority of Filipinos. Ill-educated, malnourished and stupid. Many don’t even exercise their common sense. It’s pathetic. Law and order has broken down. There is a breakdown of trust in society. Our culture has become a culture of entertainment. Even those in the left do not even know what they are fighting for. They have become kidnappers and bandits. Look at the public discourse in our society. No depth! Ang babaw! Next year election na naman. And the . . . poor will vote the movie stars na naman.”

“Shepherding and Prophesying in Hope” is the title of the latest pastoral letter of Pastoral concerns. Is true shepherding, real catechesis and formation the solution? My friend is right in writing the individual bishops should “implement real, sustained, focused catechetical programs aimed at a real moral recovery in society,”

In fact the statement dedicated more space on catechism regarding the social doctrines of the church and its mission to evangelize and to prophesy which should be done with hope!

There was no CBCP split over second impeachment case vs Arroyo. Theirs was a clear assessment and statement. Although they are “undoubtedly for the search for truth.” and “in all sincerity [we] respect the position of individuals or groups that wish to continue using the impeachment process to arrive at the truth,” they ”are not inclined at the present moment to favor the impeachment process as the means for establishing the truth. For unless the process and its rules as well as the mindsets of all participating parties, pro and con, are guided by no other motive than genuine concern for the common good, impeachment will once again serve as an unproductive political exercise, dismaying every citizen, and deepening the citizen’s negative perception of politicians, left, right and center.” This means what is important is first to purify intentions, i.e., “a genuine concern for the common good.” When this is reasonably assured then the “present moment” is ready. It could be a true and authentic political act, for the common good of the “polis” (or city from which politics takes its root). Personally, impeachment is still ruled by numbers game according to party affiliations rather than a “genuine concern for the common good.” When? frankly, I don’t know.

Among the concerns, impeachment was only the third concern. Priority was given to family life, the living cell of any society: “We are deeply troubled by attempts to legislate or make as state policy ideas that tend to weaken or even destroy cherished religious values regarding the nature of life, the nature of marriage as union of man and woman, child bearing, the values formation of children, etc.”. The others were known: charter change, and extra-judicial killings both from the extreme left and from the extreme right.

But are we really without hope as a people? Filipinos will always have hope but we also need more formation, more catechesis, more change of minds, hearts and perhaps more love and prayer

We could also ask ourselves the same questions our bishops asked at the start: “Do we ever encounter Jesus who is the very reason for our being Christian? How do we encounter him? Does this personal encounter change our life, our life in the family, our life in the community, our life in society? If we believe in Jesus and love Him, have we become better persons, better Christians, better citizens? Have we become better followers or disciples of Jesus? Has the fact of being Christians made our society become more peaceful, more fraternal, more just?” All of us, in one way or another could give our own answer.

Perhaps the most encouraging statement is that our bishops “see what many of our people, priests and religious, but lay men and women especially away from the limelight and the glare of publicity are doing quietly to put into practice what they understand Christian social concern means.” Are we one of them?

 

I-Thou relationship is nourished and fulfilled in Prayer

The best way for man to express his fundamental identity, as image and likeness of God who is Trinity, is to express his rationality and his relationality. Normally man uses his common sense and the capacity to judge so as to put forward his rational nature, but many times, man fails to form good human and harmonious with his fellow men. This is more true when it comes to the relationship with the Creator. It makes man less of a man since he is becomes less of what he is supposed to be.

A tree which is not rooted on earth has no foundations, lungs that are not exposed to oxigen could hardly breath, wings without the wind could not fly. Man without this basic relationship with God is less than a man.

Any man, whether he is a buddhist, muslim, jew or christian longs to have a certain relationship with the absolute, with his origin, with his Creator. Man then has always the capacity for this and this is expressed profoundly when man prays. It is no wonder that in Christianity Jesus would advise to pray always.

Prayer is not only a time that we set aside, nor an activity that one has to fulfill according to his/her religion. Prayer is when we become what we truly are, it is there that we are at home with the Trinity. To be at home is always good our nature. In fact, nature tends always to be “homesick” of its origin and prayer brings us back to this origin. It makes me who I am.

A man who does not pray becomes less than a man.

To invoke or not to invoke the “separation between church and state”

It is easy to invoke the separation of the church and state when the interest of one is defended. This is true when “Malacañang and its allies” took issue against the bishop of the Diocese of Caloocan for engaging in “partisan politics” in violation of the Church-State separation principle.

First of all this separation can never and should never be absolute since both the Church and state deals with the same human being. The object of the service of both the church and the state is man. One could not divide man, he is a whole entity and therefore in as much as the good of man is purported to be end of the state the church has not only the right but also the obligation to intervene.

The president of CBCP clearly said in this regard: “The church cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice.”

The Catechism of the Chuch states in n. 2245: “The Church, because of her commission and competence, is not to be confused in any way with the political community. She is both the sign and the safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.” So the next paragraph continues: (No. 2246) “It is a part of the Church’s mission ‘to pass moral judgments even in matters related to politics, whenever the fundamental rights of man or the salvation of souls requires it. The means, the only means, she may use are those which are in accord with the Gospel and the welfare of all men according to the diversity of times and circumstances.’”

Certainly the good bishop of Caloocan has passed a moral judgment and it is his right to do so, and therefore we need to respect his filing of impeachment complaints against the president. The same catechesis even states “the Church respects and encourages the political freedom and responsibility of the citizen.” (n. 2245)

Let me just continue with the summary of the same article:
Number 2254 says: “Public authority is obliged to respect the fundamental rights of the human person and the conditions for the exercise of his freedom.”

Instead, what Gloria and allies should do is to look for the truth or falsehood of these complaints rather than destroy the credibility of the complainant.

Number 2255″ “It is the duty of citizens to work with civil authority for building up society in a spirit of truth, justice, solidarity and freedom.”

The good bishop is well aware of all these and therefore had in a way spearheaded this quest. A congressman in Surigao, Pichay was more reasonable in advising the president to stay calm in this pursuit to investigate the good bishop.

Number 2256 states: “Citizens are obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order. “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Here of course, the good bishop’s conscience has to be respected.

Lastly, number 2257: ” Every society’s judgments and conduct reflect a vision of man and his destiny. Without the light the Gospel sheds on God and man, societies easily become totalitarian.”

In fact maybe because of this light, the good bishop fears that our state is leading towards totalitarianism which is the beginning of our destruction again as a nation .

Let us be calm and be reasonable in our quest for truth. The truth will set us all free!