by Bishop Stephen Chow Sau Yan S.J.
It is known that a certain percentage of abuse victims will become abusers in their new relationships. It is a psychological defense mechanism, known as “emotional reactivity,” employed by abuse victims to strike preemptively. For example, when abusers abused them by shouting at them for no apparent reasons, they would in turn shout at their partners or juniors in their other relationships. They hoped that hitting out first would spare them from being shouted at, making the other parties victims. And the same dynamics can be adopted by victims of physical or emotional abuses.
Furthermore, the “victim identity” can also be used as power, as well as being attractive in its own way. Society is generally sympathetic towards victims but condemning abusers. And we prefer to stay with our familiar mentality than adopt a new mentality, including that of victims. In the light of this, we can understand why some victims are unwilling to forgive and let go, even when the situation has turned to their favor.
It is understood that whatever I say in the public domain might disappoint or upset some parties. When what I said did not match or fall short of their valued stances. This was particularly so when those who were hurt might be further hurt by my messages, though unintentionally. Some may have retaliated with the intention to shame and hurt me.
Should I hit back? Should I reinforce the vicious circle? “Those who are hurt, hurt.” A friend helped me see this miserable ‘karma.’ Rather than hitting and hurting them in return, what could I do?
Some of the accusations made against me upset me, especially when their judgments were subjective, and based on their own stances. But I have to remind myself that it was exactly when empathy was needed. Thinking and feeling for them who were disappointed and possibly hurt. That they were expressing their negative emotions behind their criticisms.
What is important in any society is that people should be able to feel that there is freedom of speech, even though what they say may not be objective or accurate. And that proper platforms are available for them to express their ideas and feelings, freely and safely. Eliminating such platforms can lead to deepen resentment, destructive cynicisms, and a sense of hopelessness. Then leaving will become a more attractive and viable option.
If I hit back at anyone who expresses negative emotions at me, I will only sink into a whirlpool of negativities, while reinforcing the vicious circles. I do not mean that I am a saint who will not feel offended by inaccurate or malicious criticisms. However, I know that I should not let myself ruminate on these negativities.
What I believe is that, in general, we need to take responsibility for the natural and legitimate consequences of our choices. I am willing to respect the negative emotions behind the criticisms aimed at me, even though I might not agree with some of them. And the Church should be a platform for people to express their hurts and pains safely.
In a September 2013 interview, Pope Francis commented that our Church should be the field hospital after battle. We are to heal the wounds first, not the other defects of the body. After healing the wounds, we can then look into the other problems. The ministers of the Church should be ministers of mercy above all.
Finally, I would like to suggest that it is advisable for our government to provide some safe platforms for people of different persuasions to express their pains, hurts, frustrations, disappointments, bitterness, even anger, without being afraid to step outside of the not-so-clear red lines. That they can experience their voices heard by relevant officials, which may or may not mean that they are acceptable.
Those who are hurt, hurt. So, please heal the wounds before we look into the problems.
+ Stephen Chow, SJ
