When are we going to stop yelling at each other?
“Every kingdom divided against itself will be laid waste, and no town or house divided against itself will stand.” (Mt 12:25)
I haven’t posted as much in recent times, because many things have happened in our lives in the past few months: Policraticus and I happened to get married in the middle of a hurricane, I have been on extensive business travel, working on a Masters part-time, trying to publish a paper and I honestly got burned out from the Catholic blogosphere during the election cycle. The latter got to the point that it was hurting my spiritual life and my hope in decent and charitable dialogue with other Catholics.
That being said, I am not going to have time to write posts and read comments extensively until probably June when I finish my Masters, but I can somewhat follow the discussion that went on in my post regarding Cardinal DiNardo’s response to the Notre Dame “incident”, so to speak. I rejoice every time that a bishop defends the dignity of every person. I rejoice that our own Cardinal DiNardo has chosen to be outspoken about Notre Dame inviting President Obama and granting him an honorary law degree. I rejoice every time that our bishops speak sternly about the sins against undocumented migrants. I lament, on the other hand, when they are not as outspoken about torture and war. However, I will not fall into the trap of not rejoicing when a bishop speaks strongly about abortion and not about, say, health care or war. A pronouncement that defends life at any of its stages is always welcomed and a reason for rejoicing. I will not fall into the same trap that conservatives sometimes fall into when Democrats make a move that protect life and cannot recognize it as a victory for the pro-life cause, regardless of how small it may be. Liberals make the same mistake when they cannot come around to recognizing that, for example, former President Bush also happened to do things that ultimately helped the pro-life cause. Yes, he led an immoral war. He also allowed torture. That should make us, as Catholics, take things that either conservatives and liberals do with a grain of salt, but at this point, any small victory we can have in the pro-life cause should be a cause for rejoicing.
This country is not Catholic. The language that dominates the public sphere in this country is not Catholic; not even Christian. It is the language of the Enlightenment: a Lockean language of individualism that defines the individual prior to society. We need to wake up to this reality and stop naively thinking that the American culture that embraces abortion is somehow different from the American culture where virtue can be found: hard workers and people of good will who want to serve and help others. Liberals and conservatives, in the political sphere, differ only in the way that they interpret the individualism upon which this nation was founded. The former advocates, for example, the individual right to privacy while the latter focuses on, say, right to gun ownership.
Our friends at the Creative Minority Report recently flattered us by making us part of their March Madness brackets where they had us in the “Top 64 People Destroying Our Culture.” (Unfortunately, I heard we only made it to the Elite Eight.) I am assuming they meant American culture, but who knows? I wonder if they even know what they mean by culture or how they define culture. I don’t think they do. It is flattering, nonetheless, because as a member of Vox Nova, I am all for destroying the culture of death, consumerism, and individualism that pervades the American consciousness.
Folks, whether we like it or not, the dominant American culture is not Catholic. It is even far from thinking in line with Christian principles. What are we going to do about it? At this point, I will take any small victory I can take. I will take any pronouncement from the Magisterium that speaks for human life even if it doesn’t happen to satisfy my “personal expectations”. I will also take any move that protects the unborn from politicians with whom I disagree on those same life issues. In a culture that is not Catholic, I think we should rejoice in the small victories and keep fighting behind the scenes to make the Catholic voice louder than the individualistic voice. But we can’t do that if we keep yelling at each other.
Comments are closed.
Amen
AMEN ! and well said.
But we can’t do that if we keep yelling at each other.
And we can’t do it if we exclude from civility and a recognition of their human dignity people in public life. I’m sorry, but a call for Catholics to stop yelling at each other but no call to stop insulting the human dignity of the office and person of the President of the United States doesn’t cut it. Intra-denominational peace while disrespecting our country’s leader and those not of our faith doesn’t cut it.
Very true, and very well said.
But there are legitimate questions as to whether Cardinal Nardino is taking the right approach. As I quoted from The Tablet:
Is the Cardinal speaking out for life, or is he making an essentially political statement? Maybe a concerted campaign to educate Catholics about the Church’s teachings on abortion, in a way that would be meaningful and compelling, would do more to lower the abortion rate than trying to persuade people what to do in the political arena. When Catholic women continue to have abortions out of proportion to their numbers in the population, something is certainly wrong with the way the Church is communicating with its own members. I don’t see how this can be denied. If the Church is to make a case to all of America (including people whose own religious traditions are different on the matter of abortion), certainly it has to persuade its own members first.
while disrespecting our country’s leader and those not of our faith doesn’t cut it.
I don’t disrespect either President Obama nor people who are not Catholics (I have plenty of friends who are not Catholics). Stating the truth that contradicts the President’s views and that of non-Catholics does not constitute disrespect.
must nevertheless be regarded as tainted by evil and shunned accordingly,
That’s a stretch. Who is saying that Obama is tainted by evil or that he is supposed to be shunned? I actually voted for the guy. But I would not hesitate in pointing out how wrong he is in crucial aspects.
I personally think that he should have been invited to the commencement and then lectured by the President of ND prior to the event and also pointing out the flaws of Mr. Obama’s anthropology before introducing him at the ceremony. I think that would have been sweet. But a true prophet is required to do that who won’t worry about potential backfires.
Katerina,
State that the President is in contradiction to a truth (rather than THE truth). That does not require telling other persons (individual or corporate) how, when and where they can associate with him. Telling others to shun him is disrepecting the office and the person of the President.
Telling others to shun him is disrepecting the office and the person of the President.
If a bishop would have called for President Bush to have been “shunned” in the same way, I would have been just as happy and would not have considered it disrespectful.
Good post, Katerina, and hope we’ll see more from you!
Your analysis is spot on, and the only thing I take issue with is that you use the terms “liberal” and “conservative” in a way that only obfuscates the problem — which is, as you state, both sides are wedded to an individualism that prior to the common good. The problem with the CMR site is that they have taken sides in this “cousin’s war” and see to think that there is little difference between a Catholic site and a “conservative” site. The culture they seek to value is not Catholic culture, but Americanist culture — with its individualism, its social isolation, its materialism, its exceptionalism.
MM,
I agree… I meant self-proclaimed liberal and conservatives! And not necessarily Catholics, but just in terms of the political rhetoric that exists whether we like it or not!
Who is saying that Obama is tainted by evil or that he is supposed to be shunned?
Apparently the Catholic folks at Notre Dame University have no more respect for the Baptismal vows they renew every Easter than their invited Commencement Speaker this year has for the Presidential Oath of Office. At this moment in time, Barack Obama is the living incarnation of the glamour of evil. – Alan Keyes
The P.O.P.E. project: Prevent Obama from Proclaiming Evil (at Notre Dame) – Tom O’Toole, Renew America
Would Notre Dame invite Herod to speak – after he tried to kill Our Lady’s Son, and slaughtered the Innocents in Bethlehem? – Randall Terry
If Obama speaks at Notre Dame, it will be akin to the political and cultural rape of true Catholicity in America; it will cause scandal worldwide; and it will lead to the confusion and deception of the faithful around the world, and to more bloodshed. – Randall Terry
“President Obama, your presence at Notre Dame, a premier Catholic institution, is regarded by many good Catholics as scandalous because of your support of abortion rights, regarded by us as an intrinsic evil. In awarding you this degree, they experience Notre Dame as undermining essential, intrinsic Catholic dogma which upholds the dignity of human life. They believe that in honoring you or in giving you a platform to speak, the University of Notre Dame is selling her soul for who knows what: perhaps, at best, for the prestige and glory of having the president of the United States on campus ….” Rev. Hugh W. Cleary, C.S.C.
“President Obama has recently reaffirmed, and has now placed in public policy, his long-stated unwillingness to hold human life as sacred, and has brought the American government, for the first time in history, into supporting direct destruction of innocent human life.” – Bishop John D’Arcy
“Given President Obama’s utterly shameful record on life, how could a Catholic university honor him? . . . [Notre Dame] could have said that while they would welcome his contributions to the public debate over how to solve our economic crisis, his regrettable policies in favor of a culture of death make it impossible for them to welcome him.” – Brian Burch, President of CatholicVote.org
By inviting Barack Obama as commencement speaker, Notre Dame is telling the nation that the teaching of the Catholic church on this fundamental matter can be ignored. Lip service may be paid to the teaching on abortion, but it is no impediment to upward mobility, to the truly vulgar lust to be welcomed into secular society, whether on the part of individuals or institutions. By inviting Barack Obama to be the 2009 commencement speaker, Notre Dame has forfeited its right to call itself a Catholic university. It invites an official rebuke. May it come. Ralph McInerny (Notre Dame faculty member)
I have no idea what Kurt is arguing about.
A few unrelated remarks –
I would suggest that it is a great oversimplification to say that this country was “founded on individualism”. In fact, it’s not really true, and you even admitted as much in your your last post (that paper you wrote for a class). You choose to focus on thought surrounding the American founding that is individualist and condemn everything else that is spatially and temporally associated with it. I think you can do better.
Also,
President Obama is still pursuing President Bush’s “immoral war” – in fact, he’s expanding it with a huge troop surge in Afghanistan.
Where’s the outrage? Not only is Obama a pro-abortion, pro-embryonic-stem-cell, pro-homosexual-marriage, anti-Constitution President, he’s also a President who is willing to take this country to war, into the indefinite future.
Poli.-
Nor do I. Nor does anyone else.
Bravo!
Excellent post, Katerina!
I would suggest that it is a great oversimplification to say that this country was “founded on individualism”. In fact, it’s not really true, and you even admitted as much in your your last post (that paper you wrote for a class).
This country was not founded on the idea of natural rights and the individual’s primacy over communal bodies? I don’t think Kat’s use of “individualism” is an oversimplification in light of the fact that she referred us to her post where she unpacks what that word means.
President Obama is still pursuing President Bush’s “immoral war” – in fact, he’s expanding it with a huge troop surge in Afghanistan.
It’s true that Obama is continuing some of Bush’s military endeavors, especially in Afghanistan and Pakistan. However, you make the error in assuming (i) Iraq (which is what Kat is referring to) is on the same moral ground as Afghanistan; (ii) that Kat might think that they are.
Where’s the outrage? Not only is Obama a pro-abortion, pro-embryonic-stem-cell, pro-homosexual-marriage, anti-Constitution President, he’s also a President who is willing to take this country to war, into the indefinite future.
Well, there’s been no shortage of outrage here on the first two elements. Obama has not shown that he is “pro-homosexual marriage,” and most certainly it’s debatable whether or not he is “anti-Constitution” (this latter claim seems to turn on a legal and judicial paradigm of one’s choosing).
So really, I am not sure why you left a comment.
If a bishop would have called for President Bush to have been “shunned” in the same way, I would have been just as happy and would not have considered it disrespectful.
I would not have and would still find the Cardinal’s statement inappropriate if it was directed against President Bush. As a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, he has a Vatican passport. Given that, it seems he has neither a practical need for his other passport, let alone a principled attachment to it.
Thanks for this post! Excellent!
Search for MM’s use of the word “Leninism” in the thread, “Cardinal DiNardo’s take on the Notre Dame issue.”
Sorry, wrong thread.
Is there a Catholic position on being pro or anti constitution???
A few unrelated remarks –
So, if they are unrelated, how are they relevant to the post since obviously I did not (need to) address any of those issues?
Katerina sums up in this post what I thought Vox Nova was about from its beginning. I hope we will see more of her posts here – as well as more posts like her post here.
Is there a Catholic position on being pro or anti constitution???
MM, the Constitution is going to be added to the next edition of the Catechism as an appendix. Haven’t you heard?
Does it make you feel better to make fun of me? I hope so, so someone gets at least something out of this.
Many thanks to Katerina for her timely and thoughtful post. The issue of ‘tone’ and ‘volume’ on Vox Nova has long needed airing, but never more than in the aftermath of “l’affaire Notre Dame.” I don’t think I am alone in observing that the defining voices on ‘both sides’ found themselves totally incapable of understanding, without scorn, how someone might frame the issue in a different manner. (And isn’t it sad how regularly threads collapse into two mutually incomprehensible sides?)
I am convinced that the rampant contentiousness and unwillingness to give any quarter are driving away important voices. I think it is quite remarkable that conversations on Vox Nova are about 90+% male. Let’s note that it was Katarina that open this thread and RCM heartily endorsed her comments. And it is not only female voices missing in action. How about nuanced voices? How about ambivalent voices? How about both/and voices? How about the voices that don’t fit into the dominant ‘NCR binary’ of American Catholic life…those that resonate with ‘neither’ National Catholic Register Catholicism ‘nor’ National Catholic Reporter Catholicism.’ More than anything, how about the voices of those who often see public policy issues as close calls rather than grand battles between good and evil?
I suggest a reframing in two parts:
1. Let’s step back from the conservative-progressive binary to get in touch with the remarkable *similarities* among the most strident and contemptuous voices here:
…the penchant to burlesque the views of others, often with biting sarcasm, seeking to score by engaging the least plausible argument of others and by quoting the least credible spokesperson for the competing point of view.
…the insatiable drive to uncover inconsistencies, the perfect gotcha; no need to take you seriously if, aha!, there is dissonance between positions held then with values espoused now,
…the assumption that one’s own views are moderate and sensible, the benchmark for identifying contrasting views of others as extreme and shrill.
…the thrill of deconstruction, the extreme sport of subjecting competing worldviews to debunking, harassment, sabotage, contempt, and ridicule.
…the inability to soften communications, to admit overreaching, to say ‘I take your point,’ or ‘I hadn’t thought of it from that perspective. People in real life virtually *never* talk to each other face to face the way they ‘talk’ to each other on this blog. What does that tell us?
2. Let us *both* invite more and different people into the fray *and* hold our opinionated brethren to a higher standard of civility in discourse by focusing on:
…the recognition that the ‘irenic’ is not the enemy of the ‘prophetic’.
…the determination to fight ‘myside bias,’ the pervasive tendency to search for evidence to our working assumptions and to deconstruct alternate points of view.
…the commitment to cultivate open-mindedness, a willingness to actively search for evidence *against* one’s favored beliefs, plans, or goals.
…the cultivation of curiosity, stepping away from judgment long enough to appreciate the point of view of the other from his/her perspective.
…the willingness to play ‘what if,’ a revealing if exasperating exercise in which each of us imagines the implications of being fundamentally mistaken in *our* presumptions and judgments. ‘What if’ they have a point??
…the admission that each of us has feelings and cherished beliefs. With Holy Thursday just around the corner, perhaps we would do well to focus attention on the feelings we have hurt and the beliefs we have belittled.
How about the voices that don’t fit into the dominant ‘NCR binary’ of American Catholic life…those that resonate with ‘neither’ National Catholic Register Catholicism ‘nor’ National Catholic Reporter Catholicism.’
Are you talking here about the bloggers or the commenters? I think most if not all of our bloggers do not fit into either side of the “binary” you identify.
To the Kurt issue: The president is a human person, no small potatoes. But, for my part, his political identity is not the matter that requires we treat him (or her someday, I hope) with respect.
On the related issue of the constitution: This boggles my mind. I mean, whether or not it is a comparatively superior document to all other documents is a rather shallow criterion of esteem. It is not magical or canonical–it is a piece of literature like other documents and treatises and so on. It just so happens that for many of us it is particularly relevant piece of literature.
On the binary: The problem is that language requires that such distinction appear to be present to the unsuspecting or pig-headed reader. To be nuanced is in many Catholic circles to be a “pro-abort” (a title I have heard dropped about this blog several times). I fear, Katerina, that this binary is unavoidable as long as we speak in standard western parlance (and I know of no other alternatives). But you’re right, we can try harder.
Good post!
Sam,
You are right. Barack Obama is a human being, created and loved by God. From that factor alone he deserved respect and recognition of his human dignity. We do not show our respect for some parts of humanity by insulting others.
That being said, I do not see how Catholics, who believe as doctrine that the holiness of the sacrament of ordination allows a priest to stand in persona Christi and perform the most sacred act of our faith, validly confecting the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ even he has just walked over from the rectory from having committed a gross sin against some innocent person, but can’t see the President of the United States as a representative of our nation, our Constitution, and the democratic system of government.
Kurt,
You are going to have to explain the analogy you are trying to make to me more clearly.
As far as I can speak for myself (and you can see my own denouncement of clergy at my blog, most recently Fr. Maciel) I do not give any “bonuses” to humans who are in the clubs I am in (USA, Roman Catholic Church, Hispanic…). Persons are judged by their lives and the fruit of that life. The dignity they possess as humans made in the image of God is measured by nothing. But, as a matter of respect, they earn their stripes. Be it the Pope (we’ve had some real bums in the past), Bishop, President, and so on.
So, I guess I don’t see how your analogy grinds any metal here.
PS: Our government system is hardly democratic (without a lot of qualifiers) as a matter of fact.
Michael: With the NCR binary comment, I’m speaking principally of commentors rather than bloggers. But it often seems to me that VN bloggers are inclined to differential treatment of blog comments by ideology. That is to say, I regularly observe that the more progressive bloggers refrain from criticizing invective from that quarter, while the more conservative bloggers are remarkably tolerant of invective from the opposite field. Yet extreme comments of the opposite persuasion are routinely called out.
Sam: Please help me understand this sentence: “The problem is that language requires that such distinction appear to be present to the unsuspecting or pig headed reader.” Are you saying that it is pig headed to interpret much of our discourse here as locked into binary categories?
All: Anyone out there regard ‘tone’ and ‘volume’ at Vox Nova as a problem that cross-cuts theological and cultural camps? Can we have a conversation here on this topic?
But it often seems to me that VN bloggers are inclined to differential treatment of blog comments by ideology. That is to say, I regularly observe that the more progressive bloggers refrain from criticizing invective from that quarter, while the more conservative bloggers are remarkably tolerant of invective from the opposite field. Yet extreme comments of the opposite persuasion are routinely called out.
You may be right about that. Speaking for myself, I think this is because I tend to ignore comments unless I feel strongly about them one way or another.
On introspection, that’s true of me as well. Maybe it’s just human nature. Outrage stirs one to action (i.e., writing a response) more than agreement. Hence, when one comes across a comment from a differing ideological view that seems ill-considered, insulting, or just plain wrong, it’s very tempting and easy to fire off a response (and quite possibly to be intemperate in doing so). But when there’s an silly comment from a sympathetic ideological view, well, now it doesn’t seem quite so urgent to object.
Sam, for the record, when I referred to the Constitution, I meant more specifically the rule of law.
But hey, whatever.
Mike Mc: Sorry about that. The sentence was a ghastly piece of verse. What I mean is that while en exegetical reading (what Nietzsche called reading like a cow) will not abandon or require such binaries. Other readings will. And that seems unavoidable. I would say, however, that is one interprets every post on this site in terms of whether its my team or not, then, we have a problem.
Zach: That’s fine. It may help to say what it is you mean in the future or at least don’t capitalize it to draw it up a bit more loosely…
I seldom visit this site because……you’re always yelling at each other!!
Bush did not “allow” torture. He enforced the anti-torture laws and went even further to forbid, by executive order, the use of waterboarding.