Pro-Life, Pro-Dialogue
An interesting item via Amy Welborn, regarding a debate on abortion–to mark the Roe v. Wade anniversary–between Peter Kreeft of Boston College, for the pro-life side, and philosopher David Boonin of the University of Colorado, for the pro-choice side. The debate took place at the University of Colorado’s Boulder campus and was sponsored by the school’s Thomas Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought.
Some 300 people packed the room, and 300 others listened outside, according to the Catholic News Agency report. Father Kevin Augustyn, pastor of St. Thomas Aquinas Parish, (yes, those are their real names) said: “The Aquinas Institute for Catholic Thought is basically our arm for outreach to both Catholic students that come to us, and the university at large. We’re trying to engage an important secular university with the Catholic faith. How do you do that? You begin with dialogue, and what we have in common, and we believe reason is on our side.”
Question: Could–and should–a similar event be held at a Catholic university?
No, it’s not the right context.
Apologetics is an outreach to those who don’t yet believe. In mission territories it may be necessary to bracket revelation and assume, generously, a level playing ground, like Paul in Athens.
A Catholic university isn’t Athens.
Hello David (and all),
While I have never worked in a Catholic institution, I would be dismayed to learn that events such as these are not already going on at Catholic universities. As I have suggested in earlier threads here, I think all university students, and perhaps especially Christian students including as Catholic students whose churches oppose abortion, should know the very best arguments in favor of both the pro-abortion rights and the anti-abortion rights positions. (I refuse to use the terms “pro-choice” and “pro-life”.) Students whose churches teach them to oppose abortion should know these arguments so that they will be better prepared to respond when they are challenged for their opposition to abortion. Equally important, exposure to these arguments gives them evidence that those who disagree with them on this question may have principaled reasons for disagreeing. I suspect that all of us who participate in this blog are tired of hearing both pro-abortion rights and anti-abortion rights people simply demonized. As a professional philosopher who remains anti-abortion rights, studying and teaching the best pro-abortion rights arguments has helped me appreciate that the pro-abortion rights position can be defended by interesting arguments that intelligent people of good will find persuasive. And while I don’t know of any cases where students of mine changed their minds and became anti-abortion rights, many of my students have informed me that they have much more respect for the anti-abortion rights side after they have studied the best philosophical arguments on each side.
Hello again all,
I thought I should post this comment separately. I think the students at the University of Colorado are particularly fortunate that Professors Kreeft and Boonin are the interlocutors at this event. Again emphasizing that I am anti-abortion rights, I think Boonin’s book “A defense of Abortion” should be required reading for all serious students of the abortion question. Not only does Boonin give an especially clear statement of the most compelling arguments for a pro-abortion rights position, but his book is unique in this literature for treating the best anti-abortion arguments seriously and respectfully. Chris Kaczor has authored an equally good book defending the anti-abortion position, but unfortunately Chris has had difficulty getting this book into print. (If I can ever get a regular academic appointment!) I look forward to an opportunity to teach both books.
Kathy, thanks for your parsimonious reply (seriously). You put it out there well. But I always chafe at the counterpoint of Athens and Jerusalem (and John O’Malley indicates that Tertullian was far more nuanced than his famous rejoinder let on). My follow-up question is whether Catholic universities are Jerusalem, and wheher they shouldn’t be Athens, too, by definition. And was Jerusalem really the Jerusalem of Heavenly City lore? People need convincing everywhere, whatever their baptismal condition. IMHO.
So I’d side with Peter’s comments.
PS: As for terminology, I dislike them all, but tend to use parallelism for fairness, and thus I use pro-life with pro-choice, and the “antis” together in some configuration.
Could: probably not
Should: yes
Nothing is more firmly held in the scientific community than the theory of evolution, and yet public universities host debates on evolution versus special creation (or evolution versus intelligent design) all the time. They resist efforts to get them to teach creationism or intelligent design, but they are willing to debate it.
Shielding students in a university setting from the “pro-choice” versus “pro-life” debate strikes me as unhelpful to the students, who are already encountering the debate outside of school and will have to deal with it even moreso after graduating.
No matter how committed the Catholic university may be to a particular position, preparing their students to deal with it by giving them canned arguments rather than exposing them to real debates between proponents and opponents isn’t educating. It’s indoctrinating.
We could have such a debate at Notre Dame. The question is, are “debates” actually the most helpful way to get at the issues.
I’ve said before, but repeat, that how we understand “apologetics” is not univocal. Similarly, how we understand a “Catholic University.”
So folks strating points are their perceptions of these.
That said, I note the Colorado U. process was called “dialogue,” not debate.
As we saw on the CNN Democratic debate last nighjt, therecan often be acrimony and personal attack.
Dialogue assumes mutual respect, listening and exposition.
One of the issue here is how intelligent and inquisitive one perceives the audience to be. Many times, the sheilding of students is pushed to avoid “confusion”, an argument that I think is unfortunate.
Good points about “debate” and “dialogue.” I mistakenly refrred to the dialogue at one point as a debate. Cathy-or anyone else–do you know of something similar at a Catholic university?
David,
On college party weekends we had “Aquinas races,” where you had to run balancing The Complete Works of Aristotle in one hand and the Bible in the other. Athens + Jerusalem = The University of Paris, where you could get out there and have real debates about real questions, deriving various conclusions from commonly held principles.
I think we should assume the Bible in every discussion at a Catholic university.
(I use pro-choice and pro-life, by the way. Except for the all-out pro-aborts and the clinic bombers and fellow travellers: the antis.)
Not offhand, David. Around January 22, people bring in the prominent pro-life speakers (sometimes).
Here’s what I think the problem is: a big debate is like a football game. People show up to root for their “team.” Flash, and certainty, and wit are at a premium. And very few people are in an intellectual or emotional position to think about the issues.
It seems to me that whatever you call it, the event in Colorado was more like a debate than a discussion.
Everybody in ethics has taught, at one time or other, the “Introduction to Moral Problems” course. It’s kind of the equivalent of a cheezy 1960′s movie–”If it’s Tuesday it Must Be Belgium.” Suzanne Pleshette (RIP) is on a two week whirlwind tour of Europe. If its Tuesday it must be abortion, if it’s Wednesday, it must be euthanasia, if it’s Thursday it must be war. Some anthologies include articles on “opposing sides” that don’t actually address the same issue. So I like taking one issue–a complicated issue–euthanasia–and moving systematically through the material so people get a sense of how to approach complicated moral and legal questions systematically. We start with ethical theory–how are we going to evaluate actions–and we end with law and policy. That seems to work well in a classroom setting; I’ve taught it to both undergrads and grad students, with appropriate modifications..
I don’t know what would work well in a public event–especially on highly controversial issues like aborton.
Kathy: Please tell me these races were preceded by heavy drinking. And assure me there is no video on the Internet. (your emoticon here!)
So what’s wrong with the University of Paris being a model here in the US of A? And when you say “assume the Bible,” I have to say: 1) Why does assuming the Bible mean we can’t have such a dialogue at a Catholic University and 2) “Assume the Bible” is a bumper sticker that means everything and nothing. People have lots of assumptions. No?
David,
Actually I was usually studying and turning in early on party weekends. Though I’d stay up till 2 for a good q and a.
There’s nothing wrong with the U of P being a model of collegial disputation. But I guess they also had Lombard. Until they had Thomas.
In other words there was a) a limit to the range of opinions and b) a shared heritage. All of which our modern Catholic debates tend to have, but the limit tends to be a) whatever is most secularist and b) the New York Times.
Perhaps that’s too strong…
By assuming the Bible, I mean at minimum
-There’s a creator, who lives
-We’re responsible to that creator
-Within a community
-Of love
-In Christ
(The Holy Spirit is obviously the subtext of points 2, 3, 4 and 5 above. And 1, in a different way.)
The Bible implies relationality in ethics. It’s not a tabula rasa. We’re not a blind lady holding a set of scales. That’s one implication of the bumper sticker slogan.
Kathy, yes, I’d say your characterization above is a bit strong, and I’m not sure I’d agree with your characterization of the uniformity of the past. Your laundry list on “assuming the Bible” is admirable, but is also one that could be embraced by any number of institutions with whom you (and I) would be in strong disagreement. It gets tricky. Dialogue helps, if it can be done, as Cathy noted, with the right context and constructive presentation.
Hello Cathleen (and all),
“Everybody in ethics has taught, at one time or other, the “Introduction to Moral Problems” course. It’s kind of the equivalent of a cheezy 1960’s movie–”If it’s Tuesday it Must Be Belgium.” Suzanne Pleshette (RIP) is on a two week whirlwind tour of Europe. If its Tuesday it must be abortion, if it’s Wednesday, it must be euthanasia, if it’s Thursday it must be war. Some anthologies include articles on “opposing sides” that don’t actually address the same issue.”
I agree wholeheartedly. I have led a number of applied ethics courses and my students and I have learned the hard way that anthologies in applied ethics are frequently really bad. I think part of the problem is that editors select readings they think will be easy to teach, rather than pieces that are of high quality. And in many cases the issues are so new that there isn’t a quality literature out there. There’s been so much discussion of abortion over the last four decades that there is now a well developed and high grade literature on the moral question of abortion, though I think you won’t find much of it in most anthologies.
On the other hand I had a disastrous experience three years ago leading an applied ethics course where we did a unit on same sex marriage. There was only a single anthology I could identify at the time that discussed ssm, and the anti-ssm pieces in the anthology were so bad that some of the Christian students in the class thought I was trying to attack their faith by teaching such lame arguments for a position to which they were personally committed. I’m not teaching ssm again until I find some quality literature against aam.
” So I like taking one issue–a complicated issue–euthanasia–and moving systematically through the material so people get a sense of how to approach complicated moral and legal questions systematically. We start with ethical theory–how are we going to evaluate actions–and we end with law and policy. That seems to work well in a classroom setting; I’ve taught it to both undergrads and grad students, with appropriate modifications..”
I’d like to try your approach someday, but I need a regular job first. Maybe with Boonin’s and Kaczor’s books?
Peter,
You wrote: “I’m not teaching ssm again until I find some quality literature against ssm.” IMHO, that’s like waiting until you find some quality literature against, say, evolutionary biology. Don’t hold your breath!
Michael
David,
I think “debate” is a often more honest word than “dialogue.” In a debate, the disagreements (which, after all, exist) are allowed free play and scope. The cards are on the table. Everyone knows where everyone stands on, eg, the literary merits of Mansfield Park. So the discussion can actually be about Mansfield Park.
Forgive me if this is wholly off the point, but I’m stymied about why 600 people would want to hear a theological dialogue about abortion at this late date. Secularists and religionists have already solidified their thoughts and teachings about abortion on theological/ethical grounds, and there is nothing new to say here, either on a secular or a Catholic campus.
I see more interesting developments in what science is uncovering re: fetal development.
NPR recently featured an abortionist who declined to perform abortions after 21 weeks because medical evidence now shows that the fetus probably can feel pain. (She may have had other grounds; I came into the show late.)
Babies born prematurely and surviving at earlier and earlier stages of development have also pushed people in the direction of, if not banning abortion, at least restricting it.
Because elements in the Church have been so strident about this issue, most people I know just laugh when I bring up the topic of abortion. As far as they’re concerned, I’m a Catholic sympathizer, and what I say is “tainted” by what they see as the Catholic agenda to force women to crank out babies regardless of circumstances, health status, etc.
In fact, the aforementioned abortionist noted that the goal of the pro-life movement was to ultimately ban all forms of artificial birth control, which strikes me as overly paranoid and untrue.
The Supreme Court has given states wide latitude in restricting abortion and placing waiting periods, parental consent and the like on the books. It was discussed on an earlier thread that most states have some restrictions on abortion now.
It’s not the total ban on abortion that would signify the moral victory for the Church that some might want. But it shows an incremental willingness to weigh the humanity of the fetus in the abortion equation.
Re: the original question – should such a debate/dialogue take place on a Catholic campus – I have mixed feelings about it. I do see that it is problematic to present the two sides in such a way that they appear to be morally equivalent alternatives. Perhaps if the pro-life speaker could have the last word in each exchange …
Hello Jean (and all),
“Forgive me if this is wholly off the point, but I’m stymied about why 600 people would want to hear a theological dialogue about abortion at this late date.”
Since Kreeft and Boonin are both professional philosophers it’s likely the debate was more over philosophical arguments pro- and anti- abortion rights. But I appreciate your puzzlement. We do know a great deal more about fetal development now than we did before and the more we know the more most of us seem to favor at least restricting abortion.
Two reasons I think there’s still such interest in these sorts of debates: First, despite the popularity these days of applied ethics I’m continually amazed how many people I know who are very well educated, many times at the Ph.D level, are unaware of the serious philosophical arguments about abortion, and when they learn about them they have newfound respect for the side they disagree with even if they don’t change their own stance. Second, and more ominously, one of the most important pro-abortion rights arguments maintains that everything we are learning about fetal development is simply irrelevant to the moral question of abortion. These people admit that from the point of conception, a fetus is a living member of the human species. And they claim that unborn humans and newly born humans are not persons and consequently have no rights to continued life. So even if we now know that a fetus almost certainly feels pain after a certain stage of development, they claim it doesn’t matter.
Needless to say this is not what I think.
I’d like to see a Catholic university host a debate on the pros and cons of one-issue voting. That’s a matter of prudential judgment, timely, important, and would raise a lot of relevant issues.
Jean, I think–and the surveys show–that most people are conflicted about abortion. They also feel left out of the either/or choices and simplistic arguments offered by either side. They are trying to think more deeply about an issue that will likely affect all of us at some time or another. Moreover, there is actually precious little dialogue (I find) that can take place among people–freinds, family, colleagues, whatever. It’s so hard to talk about abortion, because of the complexities, because of the passions on both sides, and because so many of one’s interlocuters may have had an abortion or been otherwise affected by such a decision. It’s not like nattering on about politics. So I think people would be attracted to an event where a couple of really smart sane types could speak informatively.
I’d be interested in seeing surveys that ask, “Are you conflicted about abortion?” and the majorities that answer “yes.”
Getting back to the question, though.
Catholic universities aren’t beginning from human narratives. They’re beginning with revelation, which involves human experience but isn’t limited to it.
Revelation includes God’s experience: what God wants creation to be like, and what the possibilities of the new creation are. That’s the foundational data.
It seems to me that the real questions Catholic universities should be asking are light years past these settled questions. We shouldn’t be wasting time with these settled questions. We should be dealing with questions of economic justice, peace, rehabilitation of criminals, education, medicine–all kinds of ethical questions that have nothing to do with angst and everything to do with possibility.
I don’t want to beat this to death, but there is a big difference between debate and dialogue.
Debate is about an adversarial process in which one tries to “win”, be it on your debating team, the adversarial court process or the debates like we sawe last night among the Democrats in Soutrh Carolina.
Dialogue is about exposition, patient listening and understanding perspectives, It emphasizes process of groups understanding and appreciating other poinst of view, even if it strengthens their own perspevtive.
Hence, I findthe assertion that debate is “more honest” to be at best gratuitous.
Part of the problem is the rather up and dfown practice of dialogue in the our Church, which often suffers when it acts as if dialogue is about imposing a viewpoint.
As to the abortion issue, the radio tonight indicated that in this rather Catholic state, a bill insuring”choice” has been introduced in our State Senate and has the support of more than two-thirds of our State Senators.
It won’t pass this year, the leguslative session is too short and packed. but in 2009?
So much for “settled issues.”
The value education of our folk is indeed vital and the method issue raised here, I submit, was well undertaken in Boulder.
Thanks for the thoughtful replies.
I guess I’m just not persuaded that debate or dialogue between Catholics and the larger community is going to do much. There may be some people who will come to appreciate the Church’s teaching on abortion as part of a larger “piece.” And it may make people less paranoid about Catholics and their “agenda.” But is that a step in persuading people to amend the Constitution to conform with Church teaching? I doubt it.
Within the Catholic community, I like the idea of debating/discussing not just single-issue voting, but perhaps the effectiveness of many Catholic responses to abortion, from standing on the corner with giant-sized photos of aborted babies, to peaceful capitol-steps demonstrations, to working in alternative pregnancy clinics, adopting children, participation in Project Rachel, etc.
The question I’m interested in is how and why people change their minds–not the big conversion stories–St. Paul–but ordinary people.
Anybody seen any books or articles on this topic?
Any psychologists out there?
Cathleen, are you talking about conversion to Catholicism in general or conversion to Catholic teaching about abortion?
If you want to read some convert stories, you can go to the Coming Home Web site.
I parsed out some of those stories in my own tale of conversion and struggle a few years ago in the pages of Commonweal (subscribers only, I fear):
http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/article.php3?id_article=1072
Abortion is something I’m still working on. I’m more pro-life than I used to be, and even though I’ve never had an abortion, I’ve been told by many many Catholics that I’m still way beyond the pale as far as Church teaching is concerned, and it’s one of the many reasons I no longer take Communion.
For instance, I still have knee-jerk reactions against wholesale bans on abortions where women’s health is truly at serious risk. E.g., a woman becomes pregnant and finds that a med she’s taking to control a serious physical or mental illness would cause severe fetal abnormalities.
I offer this only as an example where some of us are still see gray area, not as an invitation to start a debate about why it would be wrong for the hypothetical woman above to have an abortion.
I have to agree with Kathy, at least in terms of what would take place at a Catholic college in an exchange of views over abortion, that “debate” would be a more honest term than “dialogue.” The same would be true in most places if the topics were creationism versus evolution. When there’s virtually no chance that either side is going to change its position, it seems to me it’s a debate, not a dialogue. That doesn’t mean it has to be uncivil, or that it’s not worthwhile or informative, or that some in the audience might change their positions. But when you take your position because “God said so” (against abortion, in favor of creationism) I don’t see how you can have a “dialogue” with your opponent.
Of course the expression “dialogue” first of all puts the discussion within the category of “arguably true or false.” Which no responsible Catholic ethicist would agree to regarding abortion.
Then there’s the problem that “dialogue” immediately limits the discussion to reflections on human experience, pre-empting any properly-so-called theological input.
So in proposing a “dialogue” about abortion, you’ve already framed it in such a way that Catholic universities would be unable to participate, much less host.
What I’ve found in discussing abortion is that a) no bright line between un-human and human has ever been proposed, and b) no one I’ve ever spoken to would propose the same solutions to the same problems if “born” children were involved.
I’ve also been rather amazed at the lack of the use of the words “sin” or “temptation”–sin being something you do, that you think is wrong, because of other reasons which seem important. Temptation being arguments addressed to your intellect or appetites that incline you to sin. Abortion being something many people do or facilitate even though they think it is wrong.
Lastly, I’m surprised how many people think that the termination of pregnancies increase the opportunities in life for women more than men.
Kathy, have you read Glendon’s Abortion and Divorce in Western Law?
If so, what did you think about it?
No. Why?
Cathy, the Edge.org has an annual question that it asks of eminent (supposedly) folks, and this year it was “What have you changed your mind about and Why?” I follow these things in my research on conversion, but I have to admit I was put off by the number of entries and their length. This is one of those times a book would be much better.
Still, there is a lot of good raw material in there: http://www.edge.org/q2008/q08_index.html
The Pauline conversion is the paradigm, but it is also misleading: the vast majority of conversions are crock pot processes, not microwave cooking. As much head leading to heart. Perhaps the same with other fields of conviction.
PS: Jean: “Many Catholics” will always tell you you’re beyond the pale for something. I’d advise finding a good spiritual director, if possible.
Kathy,
There is no bright line between childhood and adulthood, but no one would deny that some humans are unequivocally children and others are unequivocally adults. Also, Orthodox Jews do draw a bright line between the time a fetus is a potential human and an actual human person–birth. However, they approve of abortion in strictly limited circumstances, which proves you don’t have to believe human life (personhood) begins at conception to oppose abortion.
I would imagine the reason sin doesn’t come up is because debates on abortion are primarily public policy debates (to what extent should the law control when abortions are permissible), and once you argue that something should be outlawed because it is a sin, you’ve lost the argument.
It would be interesting to have a dialogue (not a debate) between Catholics and Orthodox Jews on abortion, since they are almost entirely in agreement, and yet have different premises.
I think it is a very fine book by a woman whom the Magisterium obviously thinks very highly of on the proper relationship of law and morality on the question of abortion. You might find it very interesting.
I was thinking, changing your mind about a fundamental aspect of your convictions. I think some of it involves what you think is the central case and what you think aberrations are. For example, I know a few people who have left the Church because of the sex abuse crisis. The central case for them is a church that fundamentally is unworthy of loyalty, because it fundamentally doesn’t care about children–only clerics. What some Catholics see as an aberration they see as knit into the fabric of the church’s way of organizing itself.
That example (sadly replicated in my experience) gets at whether one changes one’s mind due to a feeling of betrayal or whether one is drawn in a positive way to something else. I think the former makes it easier to justify a change of heart–this was done to me, a decision forced upon me. The latter may (just a hypothesis) require more soul-searching, and a sense of regret for being the agent of one’s own metamorphosis. Justifications are harder in the latter case, though we often seek to construct them.
Cathy,
Thanks for the tip.
However, it doesn’t seem exactly to the point of this particular question, which is not so much about the Church and public policy as about the mission of a Catholic university and the character of intra-Catholic discussions.
David,
I think in some sense, they are related. We tend to be drawn positively to something else if it gives us something that what we have isn’t giving us.
I also think there’s a combination of ad hominen considerations and issue oriented considerations in changing one’s mind on an ethical issue. It takes a very disciplined mind to be repelled by a person, not not be repelled by his stance.
So that’s why I worry about debates. People who are true believers tend to like “nuclear arguments” –it shores up their conviction. But people who are still making up their minds can be repelled by the very certainty that attracts true believers. The political debates.
Kathy, I think Glendon’s book is a good way to start a discussion rather than a debate over the question of abortion and the law.
People who are TRUE believers don’t need to shore up their convictions. New believers probably often do. But true believers might feel impelled (by grace? by neurosis? who knows?) to share the truth they’ve found.
I’d like to point out, by the way, that this conversation has devolved (as usual) into “what’s wrong with the way the conservatives discuss things” rather than answering the questions asked.
My bad: Let me amend my last sentence: “I think Glendon’s book is a good way to start a discussion rather than a debate over the question of abortion and the law AT CATHOLIC UNIVERSITIES.
Who said anything about conservatives?
Kathy, I don’t think this thread has gone off track. I’ve found it very informative. I do think that when one situates herself in the prophetic camp of true believers, as it seems you do, you will be stuck defending your redoubt when it comes to discussions about the role of the university versus the pulpit, or dialogue and debate, or Athens and Jerusalem. I think that many, if not most of us, encounter people at various points on the spectrum, and that includes so-called conservatives.
I really do think the question about how people change their mind applies to debates about many topics, and to speakers across the political spectrum–if you’re not sure about animal rights, you may find yourself with lots of questions–and the adamant “an animal is equal to a human being” stance isn’t going to help you change your mind.
“We, the undersigned, believe in our own hearts that, for us, all men are probably created equal.”
“Fourscore and seven years ago, according to my own personal belief system…”
“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the importance of having a three day symposium on racism sponsored by the Pew Charitable Trusts on the topic of Now.”
“People who are TRUE believers don’t need to shore up their convictions.” Is that supposed to be a positive or a negative? I’d guess from the other comments that you would regard being a TRUE believer as a positive, Kathy. I’m not so sure.
There is a difference between saying that there is no truth and admitting in respectful humility that I may be wrong, or even that the Church may be wrong. Openness to dialogue is not relativism. But for it to be real dialogue, and not just a spouting of platitudes, both sides have to be open to the possibility of new understanding, even if infinitesimal.
I believe in the mutuality of faith and reason, that my faith has nothing to fear from reasoned arguments. God may be beyond reason, but not in contradiction to reason.
Am I a “true believer?” I have a deep and abiding faith in God, but I don’t see that as a merit — it’s a grace. I have a deep and abiding faith in the Catholic Church, but I am clear not to confuse the Church with God. The Church can, has, and will continue to make mistakes. I trust the promise of Christ that we will not be abandoned, that we will not err on the fundamental questions. I guess I’m not so sure that abortion is one of the fundamental areas where we are protected from error.
But even in those areas, I think there’s a room for debate and dialogue. I’d be happy to see a debate of any of the fundamentals Kathy assumes on a Catholic campus:
-There’s a creator, who lives
-We’re responsible to that creator
-Within a community
-Of love
-In Christ
The fact that the school presumes the answer doesn’t preclude the debate/dialogue. I would hasten to add, at this juncture, that “how” the debate is conducted may be as important as “if” it is.
Maybe part of the problem is that these debates don’t just prepare Catholics to argue against pro-choice positions. They expose the fact that many Catholics are themselves pro-choice, and appear on both sides of the debate, with resulting acrimony.
Eileen,
I think that a “true” believer has a firm confidence in the belief.
I’ve spent several years as a professional ecumenist. I had so many enjoyable encounters with people who think differently from me. I think it’s been especially wonderful when people have the honesty to say, “You know, I think we actually differ on certain points.”
I sat at a Christian prayer service with a Muslim man not long ago. There were parts of the service where he just sat quietly, and frankly there were parts where I just sat quietly. Not that it was the most wacky Christian prayer service I’ve ever attended but there were some things beyond my belief.
Anyways, I’m glad he didn’t sing along with Jesus Shall Reign. I sure wouldn’t mind if he changes his mind about that some day, but for now, we differ. He knows where he stands, and I don’t mind standing next to him as he generously stands quietly.
Why not accept the reality of the different situations that present themselves? A Catholic college is not beginning from level pasture in its ethical grounding. We’ve been to the mountaintop. We’ve got the beatitudes and the cross and the Eucharist and a grand storehouse of thought. So why not say what we see?
Especially when the stakes are very very high and the matter is very very urgent.
Speaking of which, someone ought to remind Jim Wallis that this is considered to be the speech of a peaceful man:
“We have also come to this hallowed spot to remind America of the fierce urgency of Now. This is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy. Now is the time to rise from the dark and desolate valley of segregation to the sunlit path of racial justice. Now is the time to lift our nation from the quicksands of racial injustice to the solid rock of brotherhood. Now is the time to make justice a reality for all of God’s children.
It would be fatal for the nation to overlook the urgency of the moment. This sweltering summer of the Negro’s legitimate discontent will not pass until there is an invigorating autumn of freedom and equality. Nineteen sixty-three is not an end, but a beginning. And those who hope that the Negro needed to blow off steam and will now be content will have a rude awakening if the nation returns to business as usual. And there will be neither rest nor tranquility in America until the Negro is granted his citizenship rights. The whirlwinds of revolt will continue to shake the foundations of our nation until the bright day of justice emerges.”
(Obviously I’ve said too much already so there it is. Thanks for the interesting question, David.)
Kathy, these quotes that you recite were not always accepted as universal statements of truth. I try to imagine what form of government we would now have, if, instead of going out to the colonies and actively persuading them of the merits of a constitutional form of government, the founders had simply and repeatedly quoted the text of the document verbatim. Persuasion through debate is not the antithesis of belief. Indeed, the lack of persuasive ability — the ability to defend one’s position by answering the doubts and outright rejection of it by others — is usually seen as a sign of the weakness, not the strength of that position. Personally, I think the Church has more to lose than gain by participating in such a debate, or discussion, or what have you, but for a different reason: Acknowledging that those who oppose the Church’s doctrinal position on abortion have principled and reasoned bases for doing so is too much of an admission that the Church’s position is not the result of inevitable logic, and therefore, not a fair basis for legal coercion. I think, at this point in time, the Church is proceeding on the basis that there is more to lose from being perceived as having made such an admission than there is to gain by trying to persuade others that it is correct.
I’ve argued, in forthcoming essay, that King is in fact the gold standard of American prophetic rhetoric in this century. He pulled it off, in my view, in a way that no one following him has done. I think 1) he stands WITH the nation he’s chastizing, not only against them (so the indictments are not in the mode of the oracles against the nations, but more in the mode of the Oracles Against Israel; and 2) he offers a positive vision of what a redeemed world might look like. Lots and lots of would be prophets don’t do that. Moreover, if you read his autobiography, he emphasized self-criticism and humility (e.g., his steps in preparation for civil disobedience).
For those who are interested, I found his Crozier Theological Seminary paper on Jeremiah very interesting; it’s available online.
Barbara,
I’m not saying that there couldn’t have been educative value in having a symposium in the mid-60s on the pros and cons (equal footing, equal time) of civil rights.
I’m saying it wouldn’t be held at Howard.
When I have enough time to go back and look through civil rights history, I’ll figure out if you’re correct, but I take it you have no basis in fact for making such an assertion.
King’s authority and appeal, derived in part from the fact that he challenged us to live up to our own ideals. The Declaration of Independents, Bill of Rights, Constitution, post-Civil War civil rights amendments, were not just his creed — they were and are indisputably ours collectively. He considered himself to be a part of, and believed in, that collective us. I am just thinking out loud, but a Christianity that denounces secular society or emphasizes separation is a lot less able to use his example to good effect.
Here’s the URL for King’s Crozier Theological Seminary paper on Jeremiah:
http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/publications/papers/vol1/481124-The_Significant_Contributions_of_Jeremiah_to_Religious_Thought.htm
I think Cathleen has raised some interesting questions about the conversion process. It seems clear that conversion to Catholicism, or continuing conversion to a deeper faith within Catholicism, does not always parallel conversion on the question of abortion.
I’m interested in the ways in which prophets such as King spur an individual’s or a group’s conversion process.
(But these are probably topics for a different post . . . )
Tke a look at John Allen’s piece on the wee k of Christian Unity in Rome this week,
The value of dialgue (though some think it precludes theology) is hopeful if we have more faith in the Spirit – and maybe less in our own precoceptions.
At any rate, I noted this in the hope we could have a thread on “eschatological shalom..”