A Response to Prof. Kaveny

Professor Kaveny's response did not respond to - and perhaps confirms - what I pointed out about her conduct.  She is behaving hypocritically by engaging in the very behavior for which she condemns others.

During the 2004 campaign, Dean Roche argued in the New York Times that pro-life Catholics could and indeed should vote for John Kerry despite the fact that – in Dean Roche’s words – “History will judge our society's support of abortion in much the same way we view earlier generations' support of torture and slavery - it will be universally condemned.”  Picking up on Roche’s equating abortion with slavery, Professors George and Bradley published a careful, logically rigorous, point-by-point refutation of Dean Roche's claim that pro-life Catholics should vote for John Kerry.  Roche and George/Bradley used argument for their respective positions.  They did not insult their intellectual adversaries.  They did not call them names.  They did not accuse them of being dupes.  They did not resort to caricature.  Both pieces were attempts at persuasive argument.  Since I rarely if ever engage in partisan political discussion on MOJ (if someone wants to know my reasons for this, I’ll be happy to oblige in a separate post), I’ll refrain from saying who I think was more persuasive.  In contrast to Roche and George/Bradley, Professor Kaveny, instead of engaging the arguments of George and Bradley in a scholarly and responsible way, wrote an abusive reply in which she even sank to calling her opponents names – “Rambo Catholics” and “bullies.” She continues to refuse to apologize for her misconduct or even acknowledge it.  The most she is willing to say is that her reply to George and Bradley was "heated." 

Why is this important today, two years later?  Because, in her recent Commonweal article in which she calls for a new civility - a new rhetoric, Kaveny continues to call her now unnamed interlocutors names even as she condemns them (without evidence) of name calling and demonizing.  If Professor Kaveny cannot see that her tactics violate the civil discussion she wants, perhaps it is because, to use her own words, “You can’t argue someone out of a culture war mindset – on either side.”

In an effort to turn the tables on me, she professes to be "saddened that Catholics like Professor Scaperlanda can't see how deeply hurtful" it was to people like her that unnamed "prominent conservative Catholics" were suggesting at the time that voting for pro-abortion candidates was a mortal sin.  This tactic of Professor Kaveny's will not substitute for either (1) an acknowledgment that her reply to George and Bradley was an example of the sort of abusive rhetoric she now condemns, or (2) an argument to show that it wasn't.  Indeed, this "rhetorical strategy," as Professor Kaveny would label it if it were to be used by an intellectual adversary against her, merely compounds her offense.

I hope that readers will go back and read Kaveny’s 2004 response to George and Bradley to judge for themselves whether I have accurately portrayed that response. (Rick has provided links to all the relevant documents)  I also hope that readers will go back and read George and Bradley's critique of Roche so that they will be able to evaluate for themselves the credibility of the following claim by Professor Kaveny:  "I thought then, and continue to think now, that the rhetorical strategy Bradley and George used was not a helpful way to conduct a discussion of complicated issues involving prudential judgment. It shuts down conversation, it doesn't open it up." 

Kaveny goes on to say "I didn't know ­-- and still don't know -- how one can effectively protest what one believes is an attack on one's fundamental integrity as a Catholic."  I have a suggestion for Professor Kaveny. But since this suggestion also applies to me (and all who profess to be Catholics and/or scholars), I will state it in the "I" form.  When I encounter serious arguments by serious scholars with whom I disagree, I should not hurl abuse at them or call them names.  I should try my best to answer their arguments (just as George and Bradley answered the arguments advanced by Mark Roche).  If I can formulate a credible answer, then there is no need for name-calling.  If I can't, perhaps I should consider the possibility that my opponents are right.