Posted by Diana on May 26, 19101 at 15:46:53:
In Reply to: Re: L'affair de Mello posted by Philip St. Romain on May 16, 19101 at 11:44:30:
: Well, thanks for sharing your experience of him, which seems to have been positive, as were many, many others' (present company included).
Yes, my experience was very positive, enriching,
and fun.
: Unfortunately, the Vatican wasn't evaluating whether or not he was a good person who gave very entertaining and provocative retreats and lectures. They were examining the content he expressed by word and pen, and, quite frankly, there are some problems there. Too bad he didn't live long enough to dialogue through this with the Church I know he loved.
Dialogue seems to be a key word here at sp recently. I am wondering if so much of what Tony conveyed could be limited to dialogue, in the verbal sense. Can a lover fully verbally dialogue about what happens in the intimacy of the marriage bed? Perhaps, that's why Tony relied so much on laughter to convey his message. It is through love and laughter that defenses are dropped. I wonder if it is possible to dialogue with people who do not have the same definitions for the same words. Perhaps, that's when the dialogue of presence arises or the 'dialogue' of laughter.
I've been reading more of Panikkar. He claims people may be inclined in three ways:exclusive (members of the Truth Club), inclusive (self-explanatory), and people who believe in parallel truths. Is it possible to ever really dialogue with people in the Truth Club? How could Tony have talked with people who seem to know all the answers? I think laughter would have been the only way.
I'm so thankful I had an opportunity to hear, really HEAR, things that Tony said. What a gift!
Diana