Do something more Catholic sometimes
Every now and again a post at Vox Nova will initiate serious discussion and argument among contributors and readers. That’s a splendid affair. Other times, a post will generate caustic and spiteful rhetoric. That’s a squalid affair. But the latter is not the most discouraging scenario, in my opinion. Rather, I find relentless debate to be an occasion of sadness. For example, a recent post on a McCain ad saw two or three readers spend the better part of four to five straight hours bickering at and arguing against certain points raised by Vox Nova contributors. Debate is good, but let’s not overdo it. This is a Catholic blog, after all, and we recognize that there is more value in spending time with family and friends, doing your job when you are at work, practicing your faith, or reading a book. Spending five hours continuously checking to see who replied to your last comment interspersed with crafting (what you believe to be) the perfect, impenetrable response is not a good habit to develop. Step away, serve others, and worship the Lord. It’s a blog. We’ll be here tomorrow, eager to hear your thoughts. I guarantee that what you offer then will be more profound and edifying.
Comments are closed.
Good points. Thanks
Exactly right!
I agree with what you’re saying, but seriously…
For example, a recent post on a McCain ad…
This is a Catholic blog, after all…
…a post will generate caustic and spiteful rhetoric…
I can’t imagine why your post would have generated caustic and spiteful rhetoric. It didn’t really have anything to do with Catholicism, it introduced the tone by using spiteful language, and the usual Vox-Nova contributors started right in with the name calling and vitriolic behavior. All this in an observation from someone who doesn’t even “support” McCain.
In a preverse way, posting can be an impetus to Catholic ‘activities’, ie, Confession.
Really . . . and Vox Nova contributers didn’t engage in the same sort of behavior? Did you send them an internal email chiding them in the same way? It’s just the readers who did this? Hardly.
Did you send them an internal email chiding them in the same way?
As a matter of fact, he did (though I wouldn’t call either message “chiding”).
One of the reasons I read VN frequently is because I know that I can expect two things: first, nearly universal adherence to the Magisterium among discussion members, and two, a wide variety of thoughts on how to implement Magisterial teaching in politics & culture.
It’s the combination of these things that attract me to VN. Whatever my disagreements with people like MM, Michael I., MZ & Mark D., I know that we’re all joyfully profess orthodox Catholicism, and it’s fascinating to hear their thoughts on how to bring our common Faith to bear on matters of public policy.
Incidentally, it’s precisely because of our vast common theological ground that I can focus at times on the mode of discourse employed, rather than the substance of the discussion… I see great merit in the conversation between orthodox Catholics with varying political persuasions. Again, that’s why I love reading VN.
Chris
I’m glad you are able to recognize the first point, since that is, I think a very big point so many people do not understand. I wish they did. It would, I think, help in all the discussions.
Chris brings up an interesting point with the phrase “adherence to the Magisterium.” I wonder if this could have its own thread? What does adherence mean? How much can we criticize? How do we disagree? What should we be compelled to believe? The reason I bring up these questions is because I am a young Catholic who has received degrees in Theology from a Catholic college and a Protestant university, giving me exposure to two very different ways of doing theology. I see most of my friends leaving the Church. What role does the magisterium have in our lives as Catholics?
Chris,
Thank you for the very kind compliment.
Please understand that I pick on “conservatives” only because I was one myself for many years (and still am, in many ways, despite my internet antics).
Please understand that I pick on “conservatives” only because I was one myself for many years…
So was I.
What does adherence mean? How much can we criticize? How do we disagree?
I did a post on my own blog about this… I’ll see if I can give my own take on it…
Yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theater: $.02
Berating the stampeding hordes: $.01
Basking in moral superiority over the stampeding hordes: priceless
Chris brings up an interesting point with the phrase “adherence to the Magisterium.” I wonder if this could have its own thread? What does adherence mean? How much can we criticize? How do we disagree? What should we be compelled to believe?
I agree with MJO that the questions he raises would make an interesting thread, and I am looking forward to Michael J. Iafrate’s thoughts. Does it make sense to compel belief at all (if it is even possible)? Where do you stand as a Catholic if you live obedience to all the moral teachings of the Catholic Church and freely and fervently believe all its doctrines except, say, the infallibly defined dogma of the bodily assumption of Mary?
As Chris and Henry say very well above, I think that there is a great deal of promise to what Vox Nova is intended to do. As Catholics we’re not supposed to have a Sunday-only faith, and yet there is a great deal of room for debate in how out Church’s teachings are best applied to our political structures and our culture. And so it’s good to have a forum for open debate by serious Catholics from a whole range of viewpoints on these issues.
The difficulty, however, with such a forum, especially when some of the main writers are, shall we say, rather spirited in their opinions, is that it’s easy to descend very quickly into questioning one another’s Catholicism, and accusing people of being “cafeteria Catholics”, “Republicatholics”, “sixties liberal Catholics”, “Americatholics”, “Calvinists”, etc. and accusing each other of “not caring about the unborn” or “not caring about the born” or of professing that “blessed are the poor — let’s keep them that way”.
Not only is it hard to maintain a high tone on such subjects, but once anyone takes the low road (or develops a reputation for doing so) if becomes increasingly tempting for everyone to head straight to that level — and people become hesitant to give their “opponents” views a charitable consideration, since they’re so used to things becoming acrimonious.
If such a forum is going to maintained with any success as something other than a Catholic political fight club, it must be done with a very conscious effort to keep and demand a high tone — something which may at times be helped by avoiding diving too deep into the tactical considerations of whatever political eruption is ongoing at the moment. (Which, in a sense, should not be hard — given that if there’s one thing that we’re generally in agreement on it’s that no one political party or politician is a true “Catholic natural”.)
If such a forum is going to maintained with any success as something other than a Catholic political fight club, it must be done with a very conscious effort to keep and demand a high tone — something which may at times be helped by avoiding diving too deep into the tactical considerations of whatever political eruption is ongoing at the moment.
Darwin, I truly appreciate your remarks here. It something that has been a growing concern for me, individually, as I read back through the comments that I have left whose contents sometimes descend to the low level you eschew. All of the contributors at VN have been discussing this behind the scenes the past few days, and we are, I think, determined to heighten the tone and deepen the thought at this blog. But it begins with us, not our readers, and we recognize that.