Civility?

Michael P. posted today on the Catholic Civility organization.  I did not sign their statement, “A Catholic Call to Observe Civility in Political Debate,” which was issued last fall.  I also did not sign “A Catholic Response to the “Call for Civility,” which followed.  I’m all for civility in politics and every other arena of life, but one reason I did not sign the “Call for Civility” is its ambiguity, or at least my perception of ambiguity.  Among other items, the Call for Civility includes the following: 

1.      As Catholics we should not enlist the Church’s moral endorsement for our political preferences.

2.      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.

3.      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.

4.      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 to the first item, what does “moral endorsement for our political preferences” mean?  Does one violate the Call for Civility, for instance, if one argues that in Catholic teaching abortion is different in kind from issues such as elimination of poverty or even the death penalty?  It seems to me that this perfectly civil and reasonable type of argument could be seen as violating the pledge by enlisting the Church’s moral authority for one’s political preferences.

As to the second item, what does it mean for the Church to “appear to be used as a partisan political tool?”  Did Archbishop Chaput violate the Call when he said that those who support pro-choice candidates "need a compelling proportionate reason to justify it.”  If so, the Call, IMHO, is much too broad.

As to the third item, what does it mean to disagree “without judgment”?  All disagreements surely involve judgments.  That is, after all, what gives rise to the disagreement in the first place.  If, as would be a fair assumption, the “without judgment” calls for the partisan to refrain from personal attack or judgment of motives, then I am on board although the statement could be clarified to make the point more clearly.

As to the fourth item, what does “without being obnoxious or bullying mean”?  Calling someone a name – like “Rambo Catholic” or “baby killer” - seems obnoxious and uncivil to me.  These sorts of name calling don’t advance the debate and display a lack of respect for the other. But, I know several nice people who think it uncivil, rude, impolite, and obnoxious to speak of abortion as homicide, murder, or even the killing of an innocent human being.  Some of these folks take umbrage at the term “pro-abortion” while insisting on using the term “anti-abortion” instead of “pro-life.”

Before I sign off on “a Call for Civility,” I would want to know a lot more about the nature of the “incivility” that gave rise to the Call and more clarity as to what is meant by “civility.” 

Agree or disagree?  If you disagree, please do so civilly.  Thank you.