Unyielding

Maasai man, Kenya.

It was John Pondoro Taylor who noted that when he lived in Africa, there remained members of one of the indigenous tribes to the region, I forget which one, who would come into Nairobi and walk through, carrying spears as they always had, ignoring its existence.

It had been their land before, and they were refusing to acknowledge the change.  

Admirable?

Stubborn?

Delusional?

All three?

I note this as earlier we noted that one of our resolutions was to be Honest, and another to be Authentic.

Those can come across as unyielding.  Or stubborn.  Or wacko.

And sometimes they really are.

But sometimes they are not, and are perceived as being so.

This gets back to a topic that we discussed recently, more than once actually, in regard to Fiducia Supplicans and also in regard to our lengthy post on the unfortunate change in domestic law over time. We noted there that some Catholic spouses who have opposed divorce and annulment refuse to acknowledge them. In the latter case, those people are truly poorly received with Priests reacting in horror to that thought.

I admire them.

That's because I'm skeptical that people don't lie to obtain annulments.  All the posts you see concerning the process are adamant that this doesn't occur, and that lairs are weeded out.  My problem is that if you've done a year or more of actual litigation work, that gets pretty difficult to fully accept.

This isn't really about that, but I'd go on to note that the opposite of being honest and authentic is that by and large most Christians fully accept divorce, even though Christ did not, and most Protestant denominations don't bat an eye about remarrying people, even multiple times.  

That's dishonest, if some thought is given to it.

But then, here's the problem.  How do you come across as honest and authentic without being a weirdo or a jerk?

Well, sometimes you cannot. But a lot of it is demeanor.  

I wouldn't, for instance, suggest running up and telling somebody you know to be divorced and remarried that they're living in adultery.  Indeed, that might assume a lot.  For instance, their first marriage may truly be invalid, and in their denomination, annulment might not exist at all.  You really don't know.  

By the same token, I wouldn't run up to a divorced/annulled and remarried Catholic, or a divorced and remarried Orthodox Christian, and say "hey, you are committing a fraud".

But, if asked to go to a second marriage, or third, or sixth, I would be inclined to say, "I'm sorry, I want you happy, but I believe that you can't be married more than once and I can't testify by my appearance that I think otherwise. . . I hope you understand, and I'll pray for you both."

Most of the time, an approach like that generally works.  Most people don't take offense, for example, to the LDS barring non-Mormon's to temple weddings. They shouldn't take offense if they do.  And most people don't take offense to Jews and Muslims not eating or serving pork, or Catholics not eating meat on Lenten Fridays, and the like.  People get curious about it, and may say some things in jest, but usually they're just disarming some surprise and disease by a serious belief.

There are exceptions, of course.

Extreme examples abound.  Instances of soldiers refusing to carry out immoral orders, or things of that nature.  One German officer by the last name of Homig, for instance, told his commanding officer that he could not carry out an order to execute civilians as he was a lawyer, a Catholic, and an Army officer. He went so far as to call in his subordinates and men together to inform them of his order.

Bold.

Most of us aren't asked to do that.

But we might be asked to do uncomfortable things of a lesser nature, and some won't be well recieved.