I say that not as a criticism of the Church, but as a recognition that it can be useful to compare notes on where one's morals and conscience may be out of line with what others think they should be. Ultimately you are responsible for the state of your own soul, but a lot of thought has gone into this and a lot of human experience -- millennia, in the case of at least the Aristotelian parts of the Church's thinking, as well as some of the scriptural interpretations. Therefore, I asked D29 for a resource we could look at and discuss.
There's a lot there, and some of it is specific to things like marital status, so I thought we might at least initially concentrate on one of the regular concerns that bring us all together here at the Hall: the public square. I notice at once that they subtitle this, "Loving one's neighbors in the public square," an area where it is immediately obvious that many Americans might consider their conscience.
When have I allowed that strong feeling tocause me to say or think something unkindabout another person? Specifically:• On social media: When has my engagement with(or about) those with whom I disagree failed torecognize their dignity as persons created in theimage of God?• In conversations: When was I so focused onwinning an argument that I failed to genuinelylisten? When was my choice of wordsuncharitable? When did I paint others indisrespectful ways or engage in personalattack?• In my day-to-day perceptions and attitudes: Whenhave I made assumptions about or failed togive the benefit of the doubt to those withwhom I disagree? When have I presumedothers’ intentions or experiences before evenhearing their stories or experiences? Whenhave I valued my political affiliation or partymore than my identity as a disciple of Christwho is called to model love and charity, evenin civil discourse?
I have occasionally suggested that Twitter was disastrous to American public discourse, because its character limits were just enough to say something biting or snide but not nearly long enough to discuss an issue in depth. There's a broader point they're getting at, though, as to how we ought to behave towards each other in the public square.
3 comments:
I thought it an excellent site. I have tried both the first and the last examples.
Interesting. Yet I am a firm believer that competition finds the best in things, or is the best sorter of what is best. This includes in the realm of ideas.
"• On social media: When has my engagement with
(or about) those with whom I disagree failed to
recognize their dignity as persons created in the
image of God?"
I would argue that being animated or even somewhat harsh may not be at all a failure to "recognize their dignity". I would be offended should someone think me beneath a good online squabble. Yes, brutality or harshness goes beyond that, but contesting strongly- to analogize- as one would in sport, say jostling in front of the net in hockey- I expect forcefulness and utmost competition in the moment- but then a willingness to shake hands at the end of the game. I think too many people take the forcefulness itself to be "undignified" or lacking a recognition of ones dignity. I think that's misplaced symapthy.
We have Christ's example of how to be forceful, truthful, and uncompromising while still recognizing human dignity. I'm not claiming to be any good at this, but I do try to test my conscience frequently when I find myself in quarrels. We are to forgive our enemies, not just when we think they weren't all that bad but also when we legitimately discern that they were unspeakably awful--otherwise what we really mean by forgiveness is not believing that the offense was all that bad, more of a technical infraction. When we're confronted with a sin whose horror we genuinely feel, it's easy to say, "Oh, now, THAT is unforgiveable."
Forgiving doesn't mean condoning, but it does mean not indulging in rancor or enjoying someone else's misfortune out of spite.
It's helpful to imagine that the person we're quarreling with is someone we care deeply about and would normally be tempted to excuse. If your darling had done this thing, would you be approaching the quarrel differently? Trying harder to look for extenuating circumstances, perhaps, or testing your sources to be certain you didn't get the story wrong?
Above all, online, I try not to personalize an argument. The quarrel should be about an issue or a policy, not an identity. There's a big difference between arguing that a proposed law will have an unintended or unjust effect and asserting that one's interlocutor must be a selfish, stupid, or hateful person for supporting it. No doubt sometimes he is a selfish, stupid, or hateful person for supporting it, but that's off limits.
Post a Comment