by Ray Voet

Sixty years ago, Father G. was staggering around the altar while saying Mass. My father looked at him and muttered that he must have been hitting the sacramental wine. After Mass, we learned Fr. G. had had a heart attack on Friday, and had left the hospital on Sunday morning to do his job of presiding at the Sunday Mass.

This was one of the very few times I found my father to be in error. Dad had a dislike of drunkenness, as the result of observing intemperance in his family. I understood his concern and dislike. Very early, a negative association of alcohol was imprinted in his amygdala, perhaps not in his hippocampus, so the association was subconscious. He never learned the social graces involved in imbibing.

"Jack Hughes" or "J’Accuse" was the accusation of the French Revolution. Many of those who made the accusations lost their heads at the guillotine, renamed after French physician J.L. Guillotin, (1738–1814), who urged its use as being more merciful for commoner and royalty. Accusations often backfire upon the accuser, especially during the French Revolution.

Early on, I learned that those making accusations focused upon those "sins or faults" that they were most familiar with. The errors are based upon the fears and shame of the accuser. I learned to listen to the accusation and to then consider the implications, the source within the individual. Often, the preacher, the politician, or the prosecutor has first hand knowledge of a personal kind about the accusation. I recognize this in my own persona.

My studies in the psychology of propaganda — which can be positive or negative — in the fields of politics, media, and religion, have taught me to become aware of both or of the several sides of a story. Carl Jung, psychologist, noted that "So much religious practice seems to be designed to prevent people from having a truly religious experience." Good religion is the embrace of compassion with the "other," which is the matrix teaching of all the great spiritual movements. I may cite Karen Armstrong, author of A History of God, and texts of several other authors.

In politics, religion, and perhaps education, often there is a need to present only one side of the equation. There is a fear that the individual will discover an alternate view. Many have found the need to read the "banned" information, the books and materials that some authority has deemed incorrect. I find that if one cannot generate a good argument for either side of an argument, one does not know the subject very well. It is not agreement nor disagreement, it is knowing and understanding the subject. When teaching or presenting opposing views, one may need to explain why and how one has a personal viewpoint. This is not always politically correct in many fields. Fear may prevent elucidation or explanation of a concept of personal importance.

In science, terms are usually precise. Theories often have a mathematical base. Many confuse the term "theory," which describes a working model with high probability in reality, with the postulates or the heuristic models proposed for exploration. Often, our words are not well defined.

From Roger Dick, March 13, 2005, homilist at St. Joan of Arc, Minneapolis: "I’m fascinated by the power and the limitations of language. There are things which just cannot be said. They can be hinted at, suggested, implied, alluded to. Sometimes we can only speak indirectly, by analogy, comparison, contrast, overstatement, understatement, symbol, allegory, metaphor, synecdoche, metonymy."

I offer terms to consider when reading or listening to a discourse: traduce, slander, calumniate, vilify, defame, asperse, malign, disparage, detract, scandal, libel, backbiting, criticism, derision, cynicism, anathematize, scurrility, sarcastic, satirical. These are some of the words or descriptions one must be careful of using or implying, for they may reflect upon the user. Political commentary is too often ad hominem — attacking the person, not debating the concepts. By their words, one may know them! Some words may be valid, some may be invective. Use your intellect!

In our illiteracy, we confuse information with knowledge, opinion with judgment. Information is of empirical facts, knowledge is awareness of those facts. Opinion arrives from personal feelings and beliefs, judgment requires information, facts, knowledge, and the law — the laws of society, of nature, of legal codes. These laws may or may not be valid in all cases.

"The greater a person’s sense of guilt, the greater his need to cast blame
on others." — author unknown