Dialogue, Public Life, and Compromise

In this post-election season, I have reflected on some of the previous posts as well as various goings on in the political world of public life in the United States. I am sincerely grateful for the various exchanges, sometimes passionate, about Catholics and their participation in public life that have recently appeared in MOJ. I recognize the importance of discussion and debate. These are crucial to public life.

However, there are times—especially in political life—where the debate and discussion lead to the need to make decisions about public life. Often times this means that there will likely be a compromise. I am not adverse to compromise—on some issues. For example, I might be able to compromise on the minimum wage. If it were ever to be introduced in public debate, I might be able to make a compromise on whether a particular sum of money is a “family wage.” I could probably enter compromises on tax matters that involve national debt. But there are some issues in our public life on which compromise eviscerates the very thing being discussed. I find this true in “debates” on some of the most pressing issues of our time when they deal with human life. When the right to life becomes subject to compromise, political and otherwise, then anything else we may hold dear is in peril.  RJA sj