More Points on Behemoth Sideways Cross

Talk of people: more points have surfaced as to the imprudence and dysfunction of this behemoth sideways cross.

The stench of fresh-ground mulch (surely that of the felled sideways cross!) is forever associated with talk of people. It makes nothing literally ill, which is a good reminder.

Not sure if a someone close is going to soon or ever halt the talk of others. Nothing becomes sick inside when others are mentioned, and it is one person after another. Yes, this habit stinks.

So in a call, there was some mention of others in a fair aspect, such as someone in the hospital. Good, can pray for that person. In this it is not so much about the actual person as about need, suffering, compassion for, and prayer. But then it moved into talk of a person involved, and tone of voice as well as words described this person's perceived behavior. Yes, it did sound rude, etc. Then talk of another person who dealt with the now-viewed rude person. Perhaps it is so. Nothing wasn't there to know, and if there would be another perception.

The point of the problem is that after the call, all afternoon the image of the now-rude person permeated nothing's shoveling of smelly mulch. Nothing did pray for the accused. It knows the person, and now may always have in mind the criticisms levied by the caller, when it sees that person or thinks of the person.

Of course nothing tried to change the subject and was finally successful. A question may be asked: Why did nothing need to hear about the other's very negative encounter? It made no difference to hear the details spoken of a scene in which nothing was not present--other than to inject nothing's thoughts. Could have sufficed to have asked for prayer for the situation--or, for the caller to have prayed privately for the person since the encounter was private between the two of them. Telling nothing about it was hardly necessary and instead stank.

So, talk of people tends to cloy [Old French encloyer: drive a nail into]. Made nothing sick all afternoon, and took effort to try to get the talk of another out of the mind. Created a form of resentment to the one who talked of the other, for the negativity. It was not a life or death warning of a dangerous person, after all! Nothing prayed for the person and the caller, although prayer breathed not in the caller's comments. What if the person being told these things was not a person of prayer? What then?

Another point came soon after. A homily was sent for comments. The writer had included in the homily three references to specific persons. One was a particular, known group in the Church; the other two were known writers in the Church and were quoted. Nothing considered that it is trying to not talk of people nor to listen to or read of talk of people.

In the case of something publicly preached, when it leaves the path of Scripture in examples which talk of particular persons, the listeners' minds can be led off, out of control of the speaker. Invariably, the minds go in whatever direction the mention of the person/s elicit in the individual memory banks. The listeners can be influenced, also, and led to read that which might not be good to read, or to carry bias against groups perceived not liked by the speaker.

Nothing's mind immediatlely went off from the homilist's point to note that the speaker did not like a certain Church group. Nothing considered the group, and it appreciates much of the good work of the group--although recognizes that the group's individual members sometimes utilized strong tactics but have been toned down by the Church. Then nothing considered the names mentioned of the particular persons and accompanying quoted writings. Immediately one name turned the key in the memory bank to a person whose writings have been exposed by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith as having grave issues in content. The other name is associated with a time period in the Church of leading the flock on shifting sands. While the actual quotes used were not heretical, the mind left the homily and began processing the particular references. The mind was long gone.

Then the mind wondered why a speaker would use these, and realized that this has been a niggling strain, creating a general guardedness to the person. All could be avoided if there was no mention of particular persons or groups. We can simply make our points based on Scripture, saints, or generalized examples.

We must learn to think and speak like Jesus.

Even in the next experience of nothing's afternoon, the contents of a conversation were told to a large gathering of listeners. Ironically, it was a breach of confidence--even if the particular names were not used of the people who'd had conversation with the speaker. The speaker no doubt thought it a good example to back up the points being made. Instead, the points are forgotten and the talk of people stands out. What they said, what he said, and the gist that what they said was foolish and brought out their hypocrisy when they were condemning others for being hypocritical. Ironically, this very breech echoed the confessional warning that breech of confidentiality constitutes grave matter in sin.

The points being spoken could have been made without talk of the persons' private conversation. Would their conversation be used as an example if the (nameless) subjects being spoken of were sitting in the group? In this type of instance, does it matter if their names were given or not? No. We still were led into a voyeur situation.

We do not see in ourselves how easy it is to slip into talk of people and the ways in which it can destroy our messages, how it can harm other people's thoughts--or at least fill their minds with other than what is holy and good. Often it is just senseless. Yes, without sense.

While shoveling mulch, nothing was able to make amends for having the tongue-jerk reaction of the day before, spouting out a name of someone when talking with the neighbor. This time, nothing did not mention people but kept it at encouragement of the neighbor to persevere in getting construction errors corrected. Thanks be to God for the chance to make right nothing's wrong. God does give us these opportunities; we must offer a fresh breath.

Asking someone for prayer for a person is another matter. Even so, the motives must be kept pure, for sometimes people say they are talking of others because they want someone to pray for the person/s. A little discernment can uncover our own motives or if there is some other agenda underlying a prayer request. Heart-felt sincerity one can detect by asking the Holy Spirit to detect any impurities or dysfunctions [sideways crosses!] in self or the situation. We can also simply say, if to much information is being given: "You don't need to explain more. I will pray for the person/situation. God knows and will let me know if I need to know more."

Nothing has been praying through the night for someone whose mother has asked, with heart-felt sincerity, for prayer for her beloved son. The effect of this request and appropriate information shared of the situation is entirely different. Goodness and mercy abound when asked to pray for someone, out of genuine intent. It is like the vast wake created by the lone duck on the very still waters of Lake Immaculata this morning. Yes, one can discern holy talk of others when the soft ripple spreads wide out of deep stillness. In those instances, private information exchanged can assist, widen and deepen the prayers. God bless you and Mary keep you--friend who asks for prayers for the loved on! Am praying even more so from the expression of the circumstances!