Once Upon a Time, I Was Emotionally Manipulated

Once upon a time, I met a girl.  She lived across the hall from me in the dormitory, but she was the kind that has a circle of friends as exciting and outgoing as any drama queen or diva could want.  I did my thing and she did hers and although we had two classes together, we hardly ever spoke.

For sanity's sake and maturity's sake and humility's sake, I won't say too much about her specifically.  One day, we began to study together.  That is – we got together to do the tedious homework together.  Soon, we began hanging out more.  We began going to class together.  Very soon, we were "besties."

Christmas Break came and went and we hardly spoke.  Well, she had a job and a whole, complicated social life waiting for her there.  When we got back to school, we picked up again quickly!  We did live just across the hall after all.  Soon enough, people began asking her where I was if she went somewhere alone.  I laughed when she told me, thinking in the back of my mind that no one ever asked me the flipped question – no matter.

I was still trying to find my identity.  At home, after years and years of trying to find a place I belonged, I had locked myself away inside.  All personality and personal identity were gone.  I was what I could be to people, which almost sounds like what they say is important – the difference you make to people.  Whether that measure is true or not, I tried it.

Once upon a time, I was emotionally manipulated.  I thought I would find myself in devotion to her.  Her stronger and constantly up and running personality sometimes drowned me out or tired my own personality.  I prayed – steeled myself and went on.  My weaknesses caused problems.  My lack of wisdom, strength, love was what separated us.  If I was only better, everything would work out.

She was not the only one who has taken advantage of me, nor was she the only one at that very time.  I carefully work on knots in certain threads so they cannot tear me apart again.  If my own personality and assumptions helped to fuel otherwise harmless people, so be it.  They still had a choice.

Finally, someone began to see me as myself.  I was no longer her shadow.  Those others who had tried a similar task had been haughty – seeing it as some kind of duty to help me as one far wiser and higher above me – or had simply and plainly used me.  Some of them were easier to shrug off than others, depending on how much effort I had expended to save the relationship from the terrible twister we were pulled into.  A few girls made an effort to know and want me as an individual separate from her – and to them I am truly grateful.

Finally, someone began to see me as myself.  He actively sought me and wished to know me.  He saw me, and he saw her.  Distinguishing between us was easy for him.  He knew and trusted me.  He didn't criticize me nor fuel me, and he didn't pretend to be wiser and know all and have the solution – he simply listened and agreed when I was right.  I began to realize that what I felt, thought, wanted was important and even valid.

This is not a love story.  There is a love story, and if I were to tell it, it would begin something like that.  But this is not about the incredible man that found me when I wasn't trying to be found, although he had a profound effect on the ending of this story – with help from the example of other friendships I was developing during this time.

I began to realize that what I felt, thought, and wanted were important and even valid.  If I thought something was senseless, I didn't necessarily have to do it just because I was her friend and she wanted to.  If she wanted to do something, she could as well do it herself as needlessly drag me along.  She did not like this new thought, I would imagine.  Who would, after a long period of having a faithful companion?  I had been with her through very thick and very thin, and I had put up with a lot of low moments, and even been willing to go out of my way to give her companionship when I would have been wiser to refuse her, or to lose faith in friends on her behalf.  But friendship does not necessitate this level of dog-loyalty.

With that, I suppose, and the time I put my foot down and remained friends with an "enemy" (and my increasing interest in someone other than herself), she got a little anxious.  If anyone were to ask me what happened between us that we should go from so close to hardly ever speaking seemingly between semesters, I would tell them that they would have to ask her.  It wouldn't be caginess or an attempt to avoid drama, although drama is greatly to be avoided when possible.  I simply cannot say for sure what finally brought it all to an end.  We tried to discuss it a few times – she told me she didn't like how I was acting and how it made her feel.  I apologized and tried to explain that I was not deliberately trying to hurt her – that I was only looking for a little independence.  I don't think it made much difference – I don't think she really listened.

And then she told me that sometimes friends need distance and so she would give me space.  Because it was always me, my fault.

Once upon a time, I was emotionally manipulated.

It is not fun and it can be severely damaging to your mental health.  Your reality becomes twisted.  You can't disprove her ridiculous claims and you can't prove your righteousness.  You begin to question your own reasoning – maybe he's right.  After all, you can't prove he's not.  Your world now revolves around him and his feelings.

Please read the following article.  Without even realizing it, you may be stuck right now.  Or you may be the manipulator.  The key to not being a manipulator is openness to being wrong, to the possibility that you're hurting someone, and remembering that you do not own the rights to another person – thoughts nor feelings nor presence.  If you seem to be in a relentless fight to maintain a healthy relationship and doubt your position in the relationship constantly (and especially if you feel isolated from other people or your other relationships are failing), something is wrong.

Do not mistake yourself.  If you are friends with an emotional manipulator, do not convince yourself that they will change with love and support and a little prayer.  Sadly, you cannot fix them.  They cannot admit the problem, so there is no healing.  You're better off giving them some space and refusing to let them treat you that way.  And if anything, they are better off too.

But if you have been manipulated, remember that they aren't diabolical.  They are lost.  They are broken.  Even though you can't fix them and you should not put up with their behavior, they deserve your compassion.  One person who manipulated me was by all appearances being manipulated by her mother.  Another person who used me was broken and looking for healing.  Forgive and go on as best you can.

As I read the following article, I remembered instances of all eight of these symptoms.  I think my only criticism of the piece is that it sounds bitter and hates the manipulator a little too wholeheartedly: http://theunboundedspirit.com/8-ways-to-protect-yourself-from-emotional-manipulation/

Morality Clause in Cincinnati Archdiocese

The situation in the Oakland Diocese is a tricky one.  Reports say that the changes to the contract school teachers have to sign stem from the recent lawsuits involving moral violations.  Last year, for example, unmarried teacher Christa Dias used in-vitro fertilization to get pregnant and was then fired.  [More examples of dismissals from Cincinnati.com.]  The new morality clause addresses possible future disputes along the same lines:

The revised contracts forbid teachers from -- among other things -- living together or having sex outside of marriage, using in-vitro fertilization, a gay "lifestyle," or publicly supporting any of those things.

and:

The language reads, "Such conduct or lifestyle that is in contradiction to Catholic doctrine or morals includes, but is not limited to, improper use of social media/communication, public support of or publicly living together outside marriage, public support of or sexual activity out of wedlock, public support of or homosexual lifestyle, public support of or use of abortion, public support of or use of a surrogate mother, public support of or use of in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination, public membership in organizations whose mission and message are incompatible with Catholic doctrine or morals, and/or flagrant deceit or dishonesty."

Many, including teachers who will be expected to sign this contract for the coming year, are outraged and feel that the Church is being intolerant and ignorant.  "Homosexuality," some are crying, "is not a lifestyle!"  Teachers are outraged that, in order to teach, they should have to sign something that would ask them to turn against their LGBT family and friends.  Teachers are not being asked to sever relationships with LGBT family and friends, but some, such as a first-grade teacher Molly Shumate, do not see a distinction.  Shumate's son is gay and, she says, if he finds a partner, she will be in "the front row with the biggest bouquet."  The spokesman for the archdiocese explained that nothing new is expected from the teachers; rather, what is already expected is now clearly spelled out in the contract – there can be no surprises.  Cincinnati.com quoted Rich Leonardi, parent of two children in archdiocese schools: "The Archdiocese is right to be focused on that.  We need to establish some parameters.  Denying or muddying those things leads to scandal. … And given the amount of embarrassment and scandal … I think it's a good idea."

In all the uproar, most who object do not see why a Catholic school should be allowed to fire anyone for these issues.  Some see it as an irrelevant Church driving people away, and others critique that the schools do not require the same standards of their students and their students' families as they are now requiring of their teachers.  Some teachers, such as Shumate, have walked away from their jobs rather than sign the contract, and others will sign for the paycheck but only grudgingly.

But as Leonardi also pointed out, parents send their children to these schools for a Catholic education.  Even non-Catholic families pick these schools because they appreciate the values a Catholic school offers – values that the Church teaches and promotes.  If the faculty and staff speak, aloud or by example, against these values, the school has the obligation to fire them.  As Schumate said, teachers do not work at Catholic schools for the money.  If they are teaching, then, at a Catholic school for the values, they contradict themselves for objecting to the step taken by the diocese to protect those values.

Teachers like Shumate take issue with the "negative" response to homosexuality, but although they have the sympathy of many Catholics and non-Catholics alike, they demonstrate a severe lack of knowledge about Catholic social teaching.  Roger Rosen, a French and Latin teacher, shows concern for LGBT students: "How do I look at a gay student in the eye and tell him he's just as important as everybody else but I'm not allowed to support him as much as I would like? How does that make him feel?"  The Church does not claim that homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice" and does support homosexuals – and many have likewise been pointing to Pope Francis and asking the archdiocese, "What would Pope Francis do?"  However, the Popes (and yes, Pope Francis as well) continue to uphold that engaging in homosexual actions is immoral [for Biblical agreement, see 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and 1 Timothy 1:8-10].  When the diocese requires its teachers to not support a homosexual lifestyle, this is not the Church saying that homosexuals should be left alone and ignored or despised; but rather, that teachers must instruct their students in Catholic teaching (which they should themselves understand or else direct their students to someone who does) and they should love all equally and without judgment, but they should not encourage or give approval to a homosexual lifestyle (as explained at length by the Church).

Shumate's problem with the new contract is ultimately that she either does not fully know the teachings of the Church or she refuses them, in which case she is not actually Catholic.  She is obligated to support and love her son, but she is also obligated to advise him not to marry another man.  The teaching may be a hard pill to swallow but a more in-depth study of the Church's position may help to remove the sting.

These schools require their teachers to adhere to Church teaching but do not reject students based on the student's or the student's family's beliefs or background – easily excused.  Students come to the school to be instructed, and in addition, are not responsible for the choices of their parents, siblings, or extended family.  And the Church encourages anyone, regardless, to learn about the Church and the values it upholds.  Teachers are hired at Catholic schools to teach and instruct the students in these values.  If they fail to do so, the school may dismiss them.  Anyone that teaches by word or deed that extramarital sex or in-vitro fertilization is perfectly acceptable clearly does not fulfill the needs of a Catholic school.  There are secular schools for teachers to teach at and many Catholic teachers who are looking for openings.  I would advise recently graduated education majors from Franciscan University of Steubenville to stick around Ohio for a while.

May a Catholic school fire teachers over immorality, even though it is politically taboo?  The objective of a Catholic school would seem to give them this prerogative.  Renee, a commenter on the article on Cincinnati's WLWT website, said: "If the catholic schools were solely funded by private dollars, I'd have no problem with this morality clause. Since, however, some of the catholic schools in the area continue to exist solely because of tax payer funds (i.e. voucher system), I question the legality of the morality clause."  She amended later:

"I didn't say the schools are run solely based on the voucher system. I said, some of the schools exist (i.e. are able to continue to keep their doors open) solely because of the voucher system.

 "Approximately 70% of the students attending one of the eight catholic inner city schools are doing so on a voucher. For one of the schools, I know for certain that it's more than 80%. While the schools aren't run "solely" based on the voucher system, they sure as heck wouldn't all still be open without voucher funds."

According to Renee, since Catholic schools are dependent on money that the government gives children to go to school, a Catholic school should be politically correct.  She is probably correct that many Catholic schools would close if families could no longer afford to send their children to the school of their choice; however, the Catholic school is not via the voucher system directly funded by the government.  The government gives the money to a family, not to the school.  It is indeed a private institution.  If the families choose to send their children to a Catholic school, the government is not dishing out money to a Catholic school.  A lot of money comes from the government and ends up somewhere else – but the somewhere else is not consequentially a government funded organization.

The Human Rights Campaign has sent a letter to the Vatican and hope for an audience with Pope Francis, and their billboards ask, "Would Pope Francis Sign the New Catholic Teacher Contract?"  Although Pope Francis has stunned the world with his "revolutionary" acceptance of homosexuals, Pope Francis also knows the need for a solid Catholic education, and praises it's importance today:

Again and again, the Church has acted as a mediator in find­ing solutions to problems affecting peace, social harmony, the land, the defence of life, human and civil rights, and so forth. And how much good has been done by Catholic schools and uni­versities around the world! This is a good thing. Yet, we find it difficult to make people see that when we raise other questions less palatable to public opinion, we are doing so out of fidelity to precisely the same convictions about human dignity and the common good. 

Francis, like his predecessors, would most likely acknowledge the need for an authentic Catholic education, and stand behind the duty that Catholic schools have to offer this education.  He would also, no doubt, encourage dialogue, and he may even try to clear up misunderstanding about the Church's teaching on education and homosexuality and so on.  Shumate said, "He's the one I would want some guidance from;" but most likely she expects to him to say what she wants to hear and would not be guided by his "guidance" if it contradicted her decision; for, after all, by walking away from her job and supporting her son's possible future gay marriage, she knows "in her heart" she is doing the right thing.

Sources and further reading:

– Quoted from in this article:

• CNN
• WLWT
• Cincinnati.com

Huffington Post

NBC

The Raw Story

Advocate.com

The Cardinal Newman Society

The Catholic World Support

Catholic News Service

Recent progress:

SFGate

Two Promises an Author Should Make to His Readers

When you are writing, remember to make a difference with your writing.  There are different ways to do this but certain techniques, perhaps, should be avoided.  Look over this article from "Writers Write" and consider it.  Even if you are not a writer, this tip will help readers as well.

http://writerswrite.co.za/the-authors-promise-two-things-every-writer-should-do