A Call for Civility
A bipartisan group of lay Catholics has issued a statement (text here) entitled “A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Public Life.” The statement reads, in part:
As Americans we acknowledge deep divisions over some policy issues;
and recognize that some, who are active in political life and who
differ with the Church’s teachings on certain issues, such as,
abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, and the justification
for war, air their differences in public and criticize the Church for
these teachings. Others, for political and even ecclesiastical reasons,
seek the public embarrassment of politicians whose public positions
differ with Church teachings through the public refusal of the
sacrament of Holy Communion or public admonition by the Bishops.
To right this wrong, we should observe the following principles.
- As Catholics we should not enlist the Church’s moral endorsement
for our political preferences. We should do this out of respect for our
fellow Catholics of equally good will but differing political
convictions and our interest in protecting the clergy from being drawn
into partisan politics to the detriment of the Church’s integrity and
objectivity.
- As lay Catholics we should not exhort the Church to condemn
our political opponents by publicly denying them Holy Communion based
on public dissent from Church teachings. An individual’s fitness to
receive communion is his or her personal responsibility. And it is a
bishop’s responsibility to set for his diocese the guidelines for
administering communion.
- Catholic politicians who advertise their Catholicism as part
of their political appeal, but ignore the Church’s moral teachings in
their political life confuse non-Catholics by giving the appearance of
hypocrisy.
- Bishops, and all involved in the leadership of The Church,
should not permit The Church to be used, or appear to be used, as a
partisan, political tool.
- As Catholics we must learn to disagree respectfully and
without judgment to avoid rudeness in expressing our opinions to those
whom we suspect will disagree with us, or in reacting to others’
expressions of opinion.
- As Catholics we need to keep in mind the common humanity that
we share with those with whom we disagree. We must avoid seeing them as
“the enemy” in a life-or-death, winner-take-all political contest.
- As Catholics we should never lose faith in the power of reason
- a unique gift from God to mankind – and we should always keep
ourselves open to a reasoned argument. In this spirit we should defend
our views and positions with conviction and patience, but without being
obnoxious or bullying.
- As lay Catholics we should not pass judgment, and should avoid
public statements that undermine the authority of the Church’s leaders.
American Catholics know who their Church leaders are: their Bishops,
Archbishops, and Cardinals.
Thoughts?
It strikes me that:
=civility calls for opposing trash talking talking heads like Coulter, limbaugh, Franken, etc.
-civility means really .listening to others instead of thinking up “answering” them while they’re speaking;
=-civility does not rule out consructive critisism of any mortal including hierarchs. Sacralizing “authority” undermines public discourse!
I was with the statement until the last bullet. How can one express a reasibed opinion opposite to that of a bishop and not in some sense undermine his authority?
Maybe we should ask what it means to “undermine an authority”. In particular we should ask: just what does “authority” mean. It seems to me that much of the controversy revolving around Vatican II centers on the meaning(s) of “authority”, and the reason we are
so often tempted to be rude to each other and to the bishops is because we disagree about the nature of the hierarchy’s authority. Whatever it is.
Newman warned against the next stage in promoting wrong thinking – the call that we must be polite and gentlemanly and not contradict lest we cause hurt feelings.
I’ll agree with Ann. That last point seemed quite broad and reflexively loyalist. Then again, bishops do get hammered mercilessly at times. And I wouldn’t want to be in league with Phil Lawler on this issue–here is his comment, which is the tamest of those found at the CWNews site:
“The main organizers of the “Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate” are friends of mine, with whom I’ve collaborated on other projects in the past. I know them to be dedicated, loyal Catholics.
Nevertheless, in this effort I think they are wrong– in fact, demonstrably wrong.
First, they argue: “An individual’s fitness to receive communion is his or her personal responsibility.” True. That’s quite clear in the Code of Canon Law, #916. But the previous canon, #915, stipulates that those “who obstinately persist in manifest grave sin, are not to be admitted to holy Communion.” [emphasis added] The Eucharistic minister– the priest– has the canonical duty to prevent scandal by denying Communion in egregrious cases. We could argue, perhaps, whether politicians who support legal abortion are guilty of “manifest grave sin.” (I’d take the affirmative side in that debate.) But the notion that the individual alone has the right to determine his fitness for Communion simply does not square with canon law.
Second, the statement released yesterday calls upon lay Catholics to respect the judgment of their bishops. But in this case– specifically, on the question of whether pro-abortion politicians should be denied Communion– American bishops disagree. To accept the policy put forward by some bishops means rejecting the stand taken by others. Even to support the stand of the US bishops’ conference, leaving each bishop to set policy within his own diocese, means dismissing the arguments of those who think the episcopal conference decided wrongly. Neutrality and deference are no longer viable options.”
Well done, Mr. Gibson – you made my point. Following up a bit on the denial of the Eucharist via c. 915, I think we can distinguish between a discipline norm and “condemnation.”
On a different note, the philosophical role of empathy could be an important connection to make to this piece. Edith Stein defines empathy as an act in which foreign experience is comprehended, or an in-breaking of another into our consciousness.
Appropriating the idea of empathy – careful consideration of another’s ideas – seems to be an important part of “civility.”
The only that gives me pause is the first one. While, as eloquently put back in 2006 by Sen. Obama, as people of faith we have to be able to express our political positions on the basis of reason, which is also mentioned in another bullet statement of this document, and which should not be news to any reasonably well-informed adult Catholic, this particular article seems to be advocating for a naked public square.
I would add a more down-to-earth requirement for Catholics running for public office and identifying themselves as Catholics, whether you take the Church’s side or not , like John Kerry in ’04, do not take every opportunity to demonstrate your religious illiteracy! It is okay to say, “You know, in terms of what the Church teaches about “X”, I am not sure, but Archbishop Burke can probably give you a horrifyingly detailed canonical answer to your query.”
Apart from that I think it rather good.
The last point would be totally laughable if it wasn’t so ludicrous! The hierarchy would like nothing better than for the rest of us to “ … not pass judgment, and .. avoid public statements that undermine the authority of the Church’s leaders.” All one has to do is look at the causes of the sexual abuse scandal to see that secrecy, failure to raise questions and issues, and to assume the best of intentions on the party of the clerical culture are totally detrimental to the health of the church. Ditto for many of the positions around sexual matters.
The best thing the laity CAN do is to regularly hold leadership’s feet to the fire. If what is trumpeted as bein “authoritative” doesn’t pass the “smell test” then it needs to be challenged in any and all venues.
I can’t help but notice that one (and only one) of the principles is descriptive rather than prescriptive:
“Catholic politicians who advertise their Catholicism as part of their political appeal, but ignore the Church’s moral teachings in their political life confuse non-Catholics by giving the appearance of hypocrisy.”
All the other principles use some form of prescription such as should, must, need to.
This principle is also unique in being the only one that is undoubtedly coming from the right. (The last one is a candidate but not indisputably; in the American context often it’s the conservatives who do the most bishop-bashing.)
So I’m reading this document as basically a leftish platform of non-interference of the Church in politics on moral issues. It’s encouraging not only the absence of rancor but also the absence of values-based discussion–again, a victory for the left.
What do you call the debate on torture if not a debate about values, Kathy? Who’s been driving that discussion?
Yes, that’s a values-based discussion–one on which you and I are on the same side, by the way.
But do you really think that this statement is about arguments over the death penalty or torture or welfare funding?
I have a problem with equating “pro choice” with “pro abortion”. I don’t know too many politician who are pro abortion. I do know of politician who are pro choice and that leaves the moral decision in hands of the individual. I’m not sure their are anymore abortions now than before Rowe vs Wade. It’s just that in those days because of the unsanitary conditions, the mothers died as well as the fetus. Next, Canon Law was written by men and not by God. I think these canons were written to protect the individual so that no one had the right to make someone’s personal sin public. I think It’s stretch to say that every pro choice politician is pro abortion, and in mortal sin.
This statement is analogous to the Catholic Common Ground Initiative’s ideal. I am still sympathetic to the ideal, but less sanguine about the possibilities, for rhetorical reasons as well as pragmatic reasons.
In essence, the statement calls for reasoned discussion–the language of casuistry or practical reason. It tacitly rules out prophetic rhetoric, which is generally not polite. But some people think prophetic is justified by certain evils.
You can’t argue with a prophet. You can’t plead for civil moral discussion; they think there is no basis for moral discussion until you accept the point of view which serves as the focus of their prophecy.
Your rhetorical options when facing someone committed to prophetic discourse are very few. Basically, you can ignore them (what most people do most of the time) or you can make fun of them (Colbert and Stewart).
This group at least should get some consideration. If one looks at it as working document to dialogue then it could be a beginning. For example, one might suggest that the last point might be modified saying that one should not publicly criticize the hierarchy until an attempt is made to contact the bishop in an effort to solidify the matter.
We should not dismiss this effort so easily. Contrary to what some have said here it seems more right than left to me. I may be ignorant but except for Keating I do not recognize anyone.
Peter Steinfels wrote about this group last year. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/14/us/politics/14beliefs.html?_r=1&n=Top/Reference/Times%20Topics/Subjects/P/Publications&oref=slogin
The fact that neither the left nor the right agree with the group might indicate its value. I have to applaud it as a way to begin the dialogue. I like very much that it is against candidates exploiting their religion to get votes.
This group should be given a chance.
The entire statement is written in prophetic discourse!! There are no reasons given, no underlying stratum of reason justifying all these “shoulds.”
There’s only the (very prophetic) claim that “these actions will burden one’s personal conscience and endanger the peace of Christ’s Church.”
“A victory for the left”?
I don’t see much of anybody sticking up for it on either end of the spectrum. I do find it interesting that a call for civility results in this much rancor.
Like I said, Jean–I’m not optimistic.
So do I Jean. It is easy and likely to be noncontroversial to call for civility provided one says nothing in particular and says it very well (I was thinking of W. S. Gilbert here).
What rancor? I’m simply analyzing the rhetoric and finding it leans waaaaaay left. It’s about abortion, and how to keep abortion out of the coming general election.
It’s one of those partisan calls for non-partisanship.
Oh, well, I am such a moron sometimes.
I thought those double exclamation points and your pointing out how the document isn’t what it pretends to be (i.e., is disingenuous and dishonest) might have meant you felt some rancor.
I think Kathy’s coments were waayyyy right – so where does that get us, except the usual partisan bickering. Blech!!!
Double exclamation points, in this case, represented incredulosity at the right’s being called the “prophetic” side. In American religious circles, prophetic is almost always a left claim. There is supposed an appeal to one’s sense of truthiness in the vision of a hopeful future. A progressive vision.
This statement makes appeals in that direction, just as, as I’ve mentioned before, the often excellent television show West Wing did when, in its final season, it deliberately took abortion out of the picture so everyone could have a rancor-less campaign.
I’ve tried to make this point before, but these attempts to minimize the importance of the right’s point of view by calling people names has no progressivising (sp?) effect on the electorate. It’s not at all helfpul to the left, even in its own game plan. Take people seriously and you might have a chance of a decent conversation. Call them uncivil and you will miss the swing vote by a country mile.
It doesn’t seem to me the document is about how to keep abortion out of the upcoming election. It’s more about how to keep the Catholic Church from being roped into appearing to endorse or condemn particular candidates.
So far, it is only the “pro-choice” movement that has succeeded in getting this to happen. But let’s not forget that the American Bishops and the current pope (and his predecessor) are very much opposed to the Iraq war. How would it be if the left enlisted a few bishops to start talking about denying communion to supporters of the war?
Or how about denying communion to governors who sign death warrants? (It seems to me an excellent case could be made for the latter, by the way.)
Or what about denying communion to legislators who authorize or permit “enhanced interrogation techniques”?
Then we could have the left, with its bishops, battling the right, with its bishops. It sounds like a prescription for disaster.
Kathy,
I see nothing in the document that says “abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, and the justification for war” cannot be discussed as issues. All I see is a caution that bishops and priests should not be enlisted in political battles.
I would say the teachings of the Church on abortion are crystal clear to basically everyone, but how many people know the position on the Church regarding the death penalty, the Iraq war, unfettered capitalism, or even torture? The “pro-life” movement has already won the endorsement of the Catholic Church in a way that the anti-death penalty movement, the anti-war movement, and torture opponents have not. So I don’t see that you have anything to complain about. And do you honestly think this document is going to have any effect whatsoever on anything at all?
David,
There are serious power brokers among the signatories.
By the way, did you happen to notice that there was one title in the hierarchy missing?
Perhaps one difficulty with calling for civility at all is that one implies that some (other) people are less than civil. Is anyone in favor of incivility?
Joseph:
Exactly. who could possibly disgree.
The bottom line issue is if you can’t stand the heat – stay out of the kitchen.
“Your rhetorical options when facing someone committed to prophetic discourse are very few. Basically, you can ignore them (what most people do most of the time) or you can make fun of them (Colbert and Stewart).”
Or you can crucify them.
Cathy Kaveny, one of the questions it seems to me you have not addressed is the use of prophecy in a constructive way. For example Luke 6.27-38 is very prophetic. Should that be made fun of or ignored also? Some feel that those verses are the only politics a Christian should be involved in. Does prophecy play any role in your approach?
Pardon me for probably violating the call for civility, but who the heck cares what these people think?
Wow . . . Catholic power brokers
How about a group of Catholic plumbers and steamfitters issue a public statement on canon law on a slick web site, how would that go over?
Bill, I think the operative Gospel passage for interpreting the statement is Matthew 10:16.
Uh oh. That wasn’t very civil either…
Bill, I’m talking about a certain type of radical prophetic indictment. I think this type of prophetic indictment can be justified, on occasion–as a type of moral chemotherapy, targeting a moral cancer in a community. It has an important role, but also a limited role.
Whether it is justified or not, it functions rhetorically to constrain conversation –so you always have to weigh the costs against the benefits. I believe, and have argued, there are criteria for when it’s appropriate in political discourse. I have a paper coming out from a conference last year at Michigan comparing King’s I have a dream speech with Frank Pavone’s open letter to Michael Schiavo.
Whether a particular person invoking prophet rhetoric should be listened to, ignored, or mocked depends upon two factors 1) are they right on the merits 2) are they rightly invoking prophetic rhetoric.
What it does not pay to do in my view, is go over and over the same issues with a prophet.
There is a longstanding rhetorical tradition of prophetic discourse in the English-speaking world. , which has been particularly important in Protestant countries such as the US. See Bercovitch’s The American Jeremiad.
Whether they are right on the merits, according to whom? Rightly invoking, according to whom? There are much better, objective criteria for judging prophecy. A nice treatment can be found in Thomas H. Greene, SJ, Weeds Among the Wheat: Discernment: Where Prayer and Action Meet.
But since this thread is about the statement and not about prophecy, I wonder what people make of the omission of the Pope from the list of the Catholic Religious Leaders of.Americans. I don’t think I’m being excitably suspicious in thinking that this was deliberate and meaningful.
Kathy,
How do you judge people’s public statements? According to common human reason, I presume. Why is that difficult to grasp? Or were you thinking the pope should adjudicate? Or were you thinking along morally relativistic lines? Anyway, one reason to exclude the pope is that he has traditionally stayed out of politics during a country’s election season. What do you suspect? A rejection of his authority? As you can probably tell, I think your hermeneutic of suspicion is in too high a gear.
Kathy, my strong sense is you don’t know the relevant literature on prophetic rhetoric; what’s more, I don’t think you’re interested in having a real conversation about it. I think you’re interested in scoring points. Period.
Back to my original point about the irony of rancor on a thread about civility:
I’ll buy that calls for civility often simply mean “shut up.” My grandma was a master at this. Whenever arguments about how short my skirts could be became heated, she’d say, “If you can’t keep a civil tongue in your head, young lady, this conversation is OVER!”
And then I had to remove the duct tape which I’d used to hike up my hem three inches.
What I gather (though I may be way off base because I haven’t been in the Catholic family long enough to know know exactly what the “fightin’ words” are) is that “civility” and “common ground” are construed by some as some sort of code for the liberal agenda.
Just like I construe “family values” as code for a whole conservative social construct.
Can anybody who’s not already p***ed off parse this out for those of us who are clueless? Or if I’m the only one, you can drop me a line at home.
Grant, what I suspect is that there is a very interesting convergence of two polarities.
First, the American diplomatic community is growing in its concern with the diplomatic and ecclesial strength of the current Holy Father relative to national churches. This is a perennial tug of war in the Church, and historically has tended to favor the bishops in the US. So this is an appeal to the bishops (on the eve of a very historic meeting) to be Americans first, ultramontanes not at all.
Secondly, we’re entering an election year in a bipartisan country, and while some public Americans probably think the likely coming brouhahas unseemly, others–this is, yes, suspicious–would probably like to swing the Catholic vote in the Democrat’s favor. I really don’t think this degree of politicking is unheard of or unexpected on any side.
Cathy,
As usual, an enlightening, charitable reading of your opponents. Well done.
Jean,
I never get p***d off, regardless of the rhetoric. Yes, many of us on the other side of the abortion/communion issue see the “common ground” rhetoric as code for a liberal agenda.
For the forty plus years after JFK, there has been an active effort by Catholic politicians to create a clear separation from politics and the faith. In the first decade or so, this didn’t create too many problems, frankly because the differences between liberal and conservative Americans when it came to basic moral issues wasn’t all that great. Teddy Kennedy and Richard Nixon agreed on the abortion issue in 1970. The American left has increasingly drifted away from these common values. Nonetheless, the idea that it was “rude” or “uncivil” to address “political” questions on any religious basis continued – at least on the left. I say on the left, because I don’t recall a similar angst over incivility when the Berenger brothers were in their prime, and cadets at the Air Force Academy had to step around the pools of fake blood (or it may have been animal blood) that certain catholic religious sisters poured on the steps of the cadet chapel – but that’s another story.
For the last 20-30 years I think Catholics have gotten used to this artificial separation between anything “political” and their faith, just as they ignore whatever is inconvenient about Church teaching or doctrine. We like to stay in our comfort zone. We have become a people who prefer the Church of Make-Nice.
Almost more than a liberal agenda, I think the calls for civility are to promote an elitist agenda. It shouldn’t surprise us (although it disappoints me) to see Frank Keating’s name on this. The calls for accountability for political positions and for the Church to more boldly assert itself, although inspired by JP II and B XVI, are primarily coming from many of the faithful themselves. The elites, including politicians and many of our bishops, are used to, and prefer the old boy’s network where influence and power are the coin of the realm, and we just don’t let “uncivil” talk about nasty religious stuff interfere – let’s go to another black-tie event.
Although there is a lot in this statement to agree with, it is pretty clear to me that the aim is to get those uppity ant-abortion nuts to get back in their church basements.
The document is so subtly crafted, when I read it the first time, I didn’t even realize it contained a plot to overthrow the pope.
I’m reminded of the Mark Twain quote: “There is something fascinating about science. One gets such wholesale returns of conjecture out of such a trifling investment of fact.” (Substitute the appropriate word for “science.” Exactly what the word should be is left as an exercise for the reader.)
This statement recalls, for me, something of what Tony Judt means when he calls Albert Camus a “moraliste.” Judt means that while Camus correctly and incisively criticized much of the politics of his day, he rarely gave concrete political options. Yet what he said remained important to say because he saw some things more clearly than his contemporaries.
Some of this statement responds to the general feeling that partisan bickering in the US is infecting Catholic discourse as well. More importantly, however, this statement attempts, I think, to skate a fine line between fidelity and integralism. This is a difficult task, and should not be denigrated.
What I mean is this: one might be pro-life, that is, one might think that abortion is truly a moral evil, and yet decide to vote for a candidate who is pro-choice. Why? For a number of reasons: (1) you might doubt, deeply, the candidate’s sincerity on the issue; (2) you might make a prudential judgment that, given the Supreme Court makeup, Roe v. Wade will be overturned with a pro-choice candidate, and that that candidate is more on your side on other issues (poverty, war, health-care, environment, etc.). I’m sure there are other examples, but these would be anti-integralist arguments that one cannot draw an easy line from a doctrine of the Church to a political position being considered “faithful” or “unfaithful.”
In terms of leaving out the Pope: I read the statement a bit more innocently. After all, if one is going to recognize the hierarchy of bishops/Cardinals, etc., then leaving out the Pope cannot be related to a denial of ecclesiastical authority. I believe that the emphasis on the bishops relates to the American context where some bishops, in the last election, were very involved in political issues. The Pope was not and so was not at issue. Tensions in these cases are usually (and never more so than today) between Bishops and their dioceses and politicians. Does this make sense Kathy?
Having said all that (and too much, I admit), there are some tensions in the statement: “Bishops, and all involved in the leadership of The Church, should not permit The Church to be used, or appear to be used, as a partisan, political tool.” Some think that the denial of communion (or its threat) functioned in this way in the last election and thus made the Church seem a dupe of the Republican party and a move toward integralism. Yet it is not always easy to distinguish between “be used” and “appear to be used.” A Bishop’s stand on a particular moral-theological issue can be a principled stand that nevertheless makes it “appear” that the Church is being used.
In addition, there is some tension between statements that suggest Bishops should not use communion to discipline Catholic politicians and the final statement naming Bishops as our leaders. Yet here, I think, the tension can be resolved. One need not disagree with the Bishop’s moral and theological position to think that same Bishop’s politics naive or errant. If Bishops choose to enter the political realm, they are as open to political criticism as anyone else. This is not a denial of their authority to withhold eucharist, but a question as to the wisdom of doing so. We might add that Catholics ought to conduct this criticism with respect, but then, Catholics ought to conduct all criticism with respect.
2-cent (my rap name)
Dang! Why aren’t I getting invites to these black-tie events?
You’d think, as a liberal and a Catholic and a liberal Catholic at that, I’d be moving in more exalted circles. But the only party invite I got was to last year’s chili supper for the prolife Dem candidate over in Owosso.
I did get to rub shoulders with Sen. Debbie Stabenow at the Ingham County Fair a couple summers ago, but I left my tiara to home.
Fun reading:
Wiki on Gallicanism: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallicanism
A few last thoughts from me on this:
we’re not further along than after Law blasted Benadin and the common grlound initiative.
I thought about that since I sent off my annual contribution to NPLC this week and I urge those who beleive in civility in these matters to do the same, since you cannot really dialogue with those who think they have the Truth here.
I’d finally posit that supporting common ground is much like supporting the common good.
Unfortunately, like Cathy, I’m not optimistic that folks will race out to so.
It has been clearly articulated by the Catholic Church lately that Catholic voters are free to vote for candidates who are “pro-choice,” as long as they are voting for them in spite of that fact, not because of it.
It seems to me that, given that clarification, abortion is just one issue among many for Catholics, and not THE issue, as some “pro-lifers” would like.
If it should happen in some election that things get reversed and a “pro-life” liberal Democrat runs against a “pro-choice” conservative Republican, I wonder how many “pro-life” conservatives would vote for the Democrat and how many “pro-choice” liberals would vote for the Republican. In other words, how many “pro-life” and “pro-choice” voters are one-ssue voters?
In any case, as I have said previously, the only point I see being made in the document is that the Church shouldn’t allow itself to be roped in to partisan politics. That seems to upset the conservatives here, but what if bishops started speaking out against the Iraq war, or the death penalty, or torture, and chastizing Republican candidates by name? Then conservatives or “pro-choicers” might begin to see the wisdom of the Church staying out of partisan politics.
David,
Certainly, the exclusion of the pope in the list of Church leaders is purposeful. These are smart people, and they wouldn’t leave it out without a reason. What is your take on it? I don’t buy Grant’s, but you may.
Jean,
Too bad for you – they are just peachy events.
Just look at the rhetoric – bishops “using” communion to “embarrass” politicians and to “aid” partisan political. It assumes bad faith.
Moreover, what does it mean for the Church to be “objective”? If it means that you judge based on facts and not feelings – I am all for it, but what they really mean is to maintain an appearance of detachment – that’s not real objectivity. Yes – “Go out to all the World and preach the Gospel in an inclusive way that doesn’t embarrass anyone and aid anyone’s partisan political agenda – and above all be objective.” And since when is the Church’s “integrity” undermined by holding fast to its moral teachings?
David,
I am almost always faced with the voting dillema of having a pro-choice person being closest to my views – such is life in the Great Commonwealth.
I just vote for a third party – or I write in myself.
Kathy,
Ah yes, Gallicanism–Is this another American blaming the French? So cliche!
Seriously, I don’t think Gallicanism is the issue (although “American Church” does raise a red flag). I think “subsidiarity” is a more likely candidate. The Pope is not particularly involved in these issues, so why bother him? He has books and encyclicals to write; the issues here are with the bishops, not the Pope, and the last paragraph is, lest we forget, an acknowledgment of their authority. If you like, I can endorse an ammendment: “and, of course, the Pope, though he is not involved in these particular issues at present.”
To all: Is civility a genuine political virtue or is it the equivalent of playing chess, noticing that you are losing, and asking for a draw? (ok, I did that at a tournament once–it didn’t help then either).
Civil and best regards,
Tony
Tony,
What is the basis for saying that the Pope is uninvolved?
Kathy,
“Uninvolved” perhaps overshot; what I mean is that the issues in the last election were mostly between American Bishops and politicians or US citizens–so, I believe, the document addresses those issues. Moreover, the nasty rhetoric against bishops is what they seem to be calling a moratorium on in that last section. Again, the Pope was not being hit with that since he wasn’t the one denying people communion or getting involved at that level. In other words, I think the context dictated leaving the Pope out, not a Gallican conspiracy.
Tony
It strikes me as curious that there is no reference to Communion being the physical presence of God. And thus the Holiest of Holies. Or is that too religious?
I some one were running amok machine-gunning people to reduce over-population, would a condemnation be an interference with the gunner’s rights? We are, after all, talking about killing people, however little they may be. Even Peter Singer, grandson of holocaust victims, remarked that if he believed that fetuses were human beings, he would join in storming the abortuaries.
Cathy Kaveny: I am just checking back in, and should you get back to this thread again, I am interested in your perceptive points about prophecy. I will explore it on my own. But I wonder if there is a distinction between prophets of “the word” (for want of a real phrase/category)–that is, the Jeremiahs, real or false, who are berating us for our shortcomings–and prophets “of action,” perhaps, that is, prophets who show us the right way, and at the same time show up our faults, by living a radical life. I think of Francis of Assisi and Dorothy Day, to mention a couple of easy examples. I would like to think of the Catholic Church in that sense a bit more. I think one would play into the other.
Absolutely correct Gabriel. No one wants to address this in terms of the true presence and what it says about Catholics’ belief in It, and the damage that is done to that belief when we so cavilierly dispense with objections as mere political posturing.
Canon lawyer weighs in on the document:
http://www.canonlaw.info/2007/11/civility-yes-but-fairness-and-accuracy.html
To the best of my knowledge, unlike the gunner trying to solve the population problem, none of the “pro-choice” candidates are actually killing people (or fetuses). Also, it’s interesting to note that abortions increased in the 1970s, leveled off in the 1980s, and decreased in the 1990s. How well does that correlate with “pro-life” and “pro-choice” presidents? Not well at all.
I think in the past it hasn’t much mattered who was president, in terms of the impact on abortion, and unless the Supreme Court can be manipulated to overturn Roe (which looks unlikely), I doubt that future presidents will have much of an impact either. (And we don’t really know what would happen if Roe get’s overturned.)
I would like for somebody to explain to me how full compliance with the civility document would muzzle the “pro-life” movement. They can still speak on the issue all they want. The only thing they can’t do is enlist bishops to help them denounce particular politicians.
The bishops are certainly free to speak on the issue of abortion as well, but what can they honestly say about voting other than, “You can’t vote for Hillary Clinton (or Rudy Giuliani) BECAUSE they are ‘pro-choice,’ but if you want to vote for them for other reasons, in spite of their stand on abortion, that is permitted.” So basically the Church’s impact on the election (if it had any) would be to prevent people who are “pro-choice” themselves from voting for “pro-choice” candidates. I doubt that the “pro-choice” people will listen.
Also, one more thing. Is anyone currently running for president opposed to ALL abortions (including in cases of rape, incest, the life of the mother, and severe genetic abnormalities)? I don’t know for sure, but I suspect most or all of the “pro-life” candidates do not go as far as the Catholic Church. Shouldn’t the American bishops point out that those candidates are in favor of taking innocent lives, too, but just fewer of them?
David, the use of prophetic rhetoric has a long and honorable heritage in American politics–thanks to the Puritans. It’s been used by both liberals and conservatives–it’s a form of radical rhetoric, an attempt to get back to the root values of a particular community. Read Jame’s Darsey’s brilliant book The Prophetic and Radical Rhetoric in America for a nice survey.
We Catholics, like rabinic Judaism, tended toward more causistical or reasonable forms of rhetoric in our moral thought until the time of the Second Vatican Council. As John O’Malley has argued in Four Cultures of the West, that was a “prophetic” council in terms of its rhetoric.
What’s happened, in my opinion, is that the left appropriated prophetic language in the 70′s and 80′s, and the right thereafter. JP II”s culture of life v. culture of death language tapped into, and to some degree, was transformed by an already existing prophetic strand of rhetoric deeply embedded in American political consciousness.
What I learned from many years on the Common Ground initiative is that the project of reasonable discourse itself was suspect from those who think that the situation requires prophetic rhetoric.
So I’m not surprised that prophets would resist and suspect the call to civility and rational discourse in the statement–the logic of the two forms of rhetoric suggests as much.
I don’t think it’s possible to argue people out of their sense of the need to respond prophetically. I think what happens, over time, is people become disgusted with self-proclaimed prophets, and there’s a backlash against them. Read Leslie Tentler’s history of the contraception debate in America, and the story of what happened in Massachusetts.
If you email me your mailing address, I will send you a couple of things I’ve published on this.
Is it just me, or is the statement badly written?
Check out the sentence with which Nixon’s long quote begins, starting with “As Americans…”
I’m pretty sure I understand what that sentence is trying to say, but that’s not because of good writing or standard use of punctuation.
Kathy,
I had a similar response. The second bullet point (which the canon lawyer linked to in David Budiash’s post excoriated) could at least give an indication regarding the relation of its second sentence to its third.
Tony
Kathy,
It is badly written.
Better, but still not great prose . . . .
As Americans we acknowledge deep divisions over some policy issues. We also recognize that some who are active in political life and who differ with the Church’s teachings on certain issues—for example, abortion, stem cell research, the death penalty, and the justification for war–air their differences in public and criticize the Church for these teachings. Others, for political and even ecclesiastical reasons, seek the embarrassment of politicians whose positions differ with Church teachings, arguing that they should be publicly admonished by the Bishops or even publicly refused the sacrament of Holy Communion.
I thought there would be dashes.
By the way, what assumptions–or reasonings, if such they are–underlie the claim that what people who want bishops to deny Communion to certain politicians are seeking to embarass the politicians?
(is)
Precisely, Kathy – as I said above, this statement presumes bad faith.
David,
This bifurcation of “politics” from “religion” makes no sense. First, the concern about it seems only now, that life issues are the basis, to be a problem. Catholics, including Catholic religious and clergy, have regularly gotten involved in politics for years.
Although the abortion problem has many dimensions, ignoring the fact that politicians and political action are an important part of the equation is nonsense.
Sean,
Hear is the Christian political platform.
Luke 6″27“But I say to you that listen, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. 29If anyone strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from anyone who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. 30Give to everyone who begs from you; and if anyone takes away your goods, do not ask for them again. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you. 32“If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. 33If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. 34If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. 35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return. Your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. 36Be merciful,
just as your Father is merciful.
37“Do not judge, and you will not be judged; do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven; 38give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together, running over, will be put into your lap; for the measure you give will be the measure you get back.”
As Garry Wills write:
“Anyone claiming to practice a “Christian Politics” other than that is a usurper.”
Bill,
Wills is calling people names in the name of turning the other cheek. He’s judging everyone who does not agree with him about the supreme value of non-judgmentalism. Can you not see the contradiction?
The same internal contradiction is evident in the statement, which presumes bad faith on the part of bishops who exercise their legitimate authority regarding Eucharistic discipline–all in the name of civility.
Kathy, there were no priests in Paul’s community and bishops do not have authority over the Eucharist. The Lord’s Supper belongs to the people. The bishops, if truth be told, have been generally corrupt since they sold out to Constantine. Look at Augustine using the Emperor to force other Christians to think his way.
The word bishop means overseer or supervisor or leader. Jesus very clearly stated that his leaders first mark is humility not by living as kings in immense mansions.
Did Paul call Peter a name when he corrected him about food and circumcision. Peter had the humility to see the truth. That is what the bishops need. We need more Pauls to authenticate the message of the bishops.
Bill,
Yes, you keep saying these things. And people keep writing books about them. But when I read the Acts of the Apostles, I see the esteem for Peter and James on almost every page of the first half (before Paul becomes the focus of the story).
Peter, the first among the apostles, and James, the bishop of the local Church–these were the men from whom Paul gladly received “the handclasp of friendship” that convinced him that all his labors were not in vain. That connection with the authority of the Church was a vital motive force in his ministry.
But my main point is, the statement contradicts itself internally, by its incivility.
This whole thread is a waste of time.
Militant orthodoxy in all its forms push the notion that the faith teaches is the Truth, and it has already been clearly written down for us somewhere by people appointed by God to do so, and it is your job as the faithful to be an uncompromising beacon and protector of that truth in its most blunt and unvarnished form because niceness, politeness, encouragement or civility simply create little shadows where complacency, appeasement and error can occur.
I got that message.
What more can be said?
Who said that message?
And, is characterizing it in that rough way, beginning with the expression “militant orthodoxy,” nice, polite, encouraging or civil?
Either we’re all in this together or we aren’t.
I wonder if Jean has been reading the same thing I have, “The Closing of the Western Mind,” a work whose thesis I hasten to say I don’t wholly I agree with, but which this thread (and the one below on lapsed Catholics) certainly seems to echo: the stultifying effect of the quest for orthodoxy, which overwhelms every other consideration, including the possibility that one might actually be wrong about something that, after all, is by conventional means completely unknowable.
I wonder if this is how Jerome and Augustine sounded to those who held differing doctrinal positions.
Who has been discussing doctrinal positions? (Except with Bill, I mean.)
What this thread is about is: civility. What constitutes it and who is supposed to be abiding by it.
Why are people continually bringing up–and marginalizing, by the way, a highly uncivil act–doctrinal orthodoxy?
Are we in this together?
No, my response wasn’t civil. That’s for leftish pantywaists who can’t have a values-based discussion.
Jean, isn’t this where you usually say that I’m being mean to you and calling you a bad Catholic, so you just give up trying to talk? Do I have the timing right?
I’m all for civility. Perhaps if everyone would give it a try, and stop a) namecalling and b) accusing people of namecalling that they aren’t doing. For crying out loud.
I keep trying to draw the discussion back to the statement, which, you may remember, is the subject of this thread.
Are we in this together? No we’re probably not –at least if “this” means pushing a common agenda for civil society by common and coordinated political means. So why pretend we are?
Kathy, there would much affection for the bishops if they were like Peter and James. They are not generally. More like monarchs who want to solidify power. During and Post Constantine they were not as powerful as people fought Augustine, Jerome and Athanasius as they saw their power grabs. Later on the bishops became the full dictators they are today.
Would that you could show some leaders like Peter and James.
Cathy,
By “this,” I mean Christianity.
Ooops, uncivil remarks crossed in cyberspace.
Kathy, you yourself said this wasn’t about civility: “It’s about abortion, and how to keep abortion out of the coming general election. It’s one of those partisan calls for non-partisanship.”
In other words, the whole call for civility is a smokescreen for quelling the correct and orthodox view.
Plus you said a lot of other stuff I didn’t understand about prophetic rhetoric, noted that the Pope wasn’t included in the list of authorities in the church, and argued Scripture with Bill about Ss. Peter, Paul and John in an effort to support the hierarchy. All of which I more or less ignored as off the whole civility and what “civility” might be code for.
Now if what I said entirely misrepresents whatever it is you’re trying to say, you can clarify it if you want. But that is honestly what I got out of your posts.
Oh, I see what you mean–no one’s ever disagreed over what being “Christian” means and requires over two thousand years.
Kathy, you’ve never said I was a bad Catholic, and I’ve never accused you of saying I was a bad Catholic.
I have called myself a bad Catholic many times. I used to think better a bad Catholic than not a Catholic at all.
I am revisiting that notion.
I did not grow up in the stereotypical large Catholic family. I have only one younger brother, and my principle sin with regard to him appears to have been that I ignored him more than fought with him.
There are times when I get a warm and fuzzy feeling reading dotCommonweal. On those occasions when the thread goes something like this
Nah-Uh!
Uh-Huh!
Nah-Uh!
Uh-huh!
I feel like I am living amidst one of those big families with over-vexed siblings running around in the halls. Civility is not really the mark of a health family.
Oops, I mean healthy family.
Jean,
“I am revisiting that notion.”
If I had anything to do with that, I’m sorry. Not just because it’s millstone-city for me, but because, well, I’m sorry.
I do think that you’ve said that I was calling you a bad Catholic, but that’s threads and threads ago. There was that time you seemed to think I was accusing you of Wicca, though, more recently.
Shall we chalk it up to Halloween and move on?
Cathy,
In context, I was saying that we are all responsible for encouraging all of us. It’s not just lefties agreeing with one another and marginalizing orthodoxies, or righties building bonfires, as they often do. I just don’t think the thing to do, for anyone, is to build a smaller Church in our own comfort zone. And if not, then we’re all responsible for encouraging one another.
But we do agree, Kathy, that the statement is a misfire.
Yeah, show me a civil family and I’ll show you a family where the father keeps everybody in line with a belt.
Which goes back to my earlier question, which was whether civility, to some, seemed like a disguised attempt to shut people up, which Sean affirmed.
I can buy that notion–and I cited a personal experience that showed I could–but nobody seemed to want to offer evidence that the folks who proposed civility were trying to do shut anybody up.
Kathy did offer a rhetorical analysis in which she concluded the call was “leftish” and devoid of “values based” discussion.
But that’s not really evidence.
Nah-uh!
“We are all responsible for encouraging all of us.”
Yes. But the key is what kind of encouragement–encouragement to continue in the path one is pursuing, or encouragement to repent and reform.
If A calls B a minion of the culture of death because they favor reducing abortion rates by measures other than legal prohibitions, well . . . that is indeed a type of encouragement . .. encouragement to repent. Same if B tells A that s/he is myopically focused on one issue, and only cares about children before they’re born, that is a type of encouragement. . . . to repent.
Neither A nor B are likely to appreciate that form of encouragement.
So what I would say to Jean’s question is that people who think abortion is the prophetic issue of this time are likely to view attempts to contextualize it, to be careful that we talk about it nicely, as an attempt to water down the claims so that they are easier to ignore. It’s a moral outrage–and it deserves full blown rhetoric of outrage.
Cathy, perhaps you should start a thread on the prophetic role. I find it intriguing that you said Vatican II brought back prophetic action back into the forefront of our attention whereas theretofore it was not the focus of councils. Or something like that.
At the time of Jesus the prophetic concerns of Jesus seemed to be the downtrodden which was the poor, the widowed and women. His call seemed to be a call to all for repentance or metanoia. On the other hand the Scribes and Pharisees were more concerned about reestablishing the privileges of religion and its status.
Today we have one side wanting to establish religion in the legislature while the other side is more concerned about justice. And both sides are adamant about their positions. Would that be a fair description?
Cathy,
The parallel disjunctive prophetic voices A and B don’t exist in every abortion discussion. For example, I have never called you a minion of the culture of death.
You don’t seem able to recognize that people can disagree with you on whether abortion is the greatest issue, and so imposing and so widespread that it dwarfs every other issue by a wide margin, and yet not be letting go with both barrels.
The encouragement that I would like to see afforded to me by ye my fellow Christians of the Commonweal variety, is not to decide a priori that there is no room at the discussion table for anyone with my convictions.
In response to a previous posting on the rhetoric of Vatican II by Cathy K., I would add that John O’Malley’s Four Cultures of the West views Vatican II’s rhetoric not primarily as prophetic, but as humanistic and consensus-oriented. It falls largely under the category of epideictic, which seeks to persuade and build bridges, than to condemn (O’Malley’s prophetic culture) or to argue (O’Malley’s academic-professional culture). The classic example, of course, is the opening paragraph of Gaudium et spes: “The joys and hopes of the world are the joys and hopes of the Church” (paraphrase).
Such consensual, invitational, and dialogical rhetoric is not the final word for O’Malley–prophets (Culture 1), professors (Culture 2), and performers (Culture 4) all have their necessary contributions to make–but it is clearly his first word when it comes to the Council.
This rhetoric is also that of the Catholic Common Ground Initiative, whose successes and limits Cathy has well pointed out.
Grant, it’s going in circles of accusation, most of them ludicrously unfounded. Pronounce on intellectual abilities? Huh??
If you’re talking about what I think you’re talking about a) I meant “blind spot,” not intellectual inadequacy, which I would assume is obvious because b) anyone would have to be stooopid to suggest intellectual inadequacy in the person in question.
I trust I make myself obscure.
I don’t doubt her brains. How could anyone?
So. About the statement. People are suggesting that it’s beloved of no one. I would be interested in hearing more about what in it is unappealing to the left.
Good lord, Kathy.
You said this: “You don’t seem able to recognize that people can disagree with you on whether abortion is the greatest issue, and so imposing and so widespread that it dwarfs every other issue by a wide margin, and yet not be letting go with both barrels.”
Yes. I teach moral theology. And law. At Notre Dame. And I’ve never, ever, run across that position in my entire life. Thank you so much for enlightening me.
No one here has called you a minion of the culture of death. That’s a straw man, Cathy.
Anyone want to talk about the statement?
Look, Kathy, this statement isn’t about you personally. My typology wasn’t about you personally. Academic ethics, and rhetorical analysis is about arguments and rhetorical strategy. I wasn’t trying to make you A. I was considering conflicting types that generated the perceived need for statements of the sort issued. The types are reflected in many editorials and statements throughout the country.
Not going to reinvent the wheel. For specific citations to culture of death rhetoric, see my Gianella Lecture at Villanova Law School (2006).
Kathy,
I don’t know what happened to my comment, but I was pointing to your style of rhetoric, which isn’t helping advance this discussion. I think you’ve said your piece.
This thread has run its course.
I agree the thread has run its course. But I do hope on the subject of Vatican II as prophetic or dialogue alla O’Malley can be discussed in a new thread here.
Incidentally, at a historical conference at Fordham a year before the Sex Abuses Scandal put a stopper on Ex Corde, I asked O’Malley about the fear in Catholic Colleges and he said it was immense and intense. “Everyone is afraid to say anything”, he told me.
Meanwhile I am scurrying to get O’Malley’s book.
Jean,
I think the best evidence of this is that in all the years that Catholics who could be called left wing were very active in politics – be they liberation theologians, pacifists, anti-war activists and the like – their opponents never used “civility” as a reason to oppose them – or even to shut them up. If they were opposed or even censored, it was because of the substance of what they were doing and saying, not a supposedly “neutral” principal like civility.
Beginning in the early 70′s through even today many Catholics, including many Catholic clergy and religious participated in speech and actions that were at least as “uncivil” as anything that has been done or proposed by pro-life advocates (e.g. destroying property etc.) No one said anything about civility – Why?
Like you said, when you can’t deal with the issue, just call your adversary mean, or rude, or uncivil, and you don’t have to deal with him.
Cathy,
Fair enough. Sorry for taking your comments personally.
I can’t remember whether I have told this story on dotCommonweal before.
Years ago, when personal computers were becoming popular but before we all had Internet access, there was an online service calld Prodigy, which (among many other features) had “Message Boards” devoted to just about any topic you could think of. There was a Roman Catholic board that I participated in quite a bit, and the exchanges there were sometimes less than models of civility. People were always bemoaning the fact. Once, when things got particularly rancorous, someone wrote the usual “isn’t it awful” message, and someone else replied, “If you think THIS is bad, you should see what goes on over on the PET CARE Board!”
The editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal and discussion and links at Instapundit have taken up questions about the Iraq war or counterterrorism most recently waterboarding with considerably less bombast and more analysis than Commonweal. When my son smiles at me and asks me about how these topics are handled here, I tell him that (for me) there is a lot of variance in the value of the articles. That doesn’t detract from the other articles. We can all read from a lot of other sources. Not to touch Shakespeare’s cloak but one can accept that ‘North by northwest you are as insane as any other man.’ Let me credit you for bringing up the topic.