Civility, “Progressives,” “Conservatives,” and MOJ: Part I

Along with Fr. Araujo (here), I’d like to thank John Breen (here) and Steve Shriffrin (here and here) for exposing wounds that have been festering below the surface for a long time.  As the Fifth Anniversary of MOJ approaches, it seems to me that this projects long term viability and flourishing – at least in the manner it has been conceived – depends on healing these wounds. 

Like John, I have long been frustrated by an MOJ author who often posts the work of others with no commentary or personal engagement with the material.  I too am left wondering what inferences to draw from the material and why it was posted.  Was the post merely informational or was the MOJ author attempting to communicate something by the post?  Steve S. seems to take the later view:  “[I]n my view most of the contributors to this site take a different view from the positions implicated by [X's] posts.”  What are the views implicated in X’s posts?  Why are they important to our project?  IMHO, genuine dialogue on these matters would greatly enhance our undertaking. 

Unlike Steve, I don’t see an uncivil personal attack in the criticism of X’s “posting practices.”  It seems to me such comments fall squarely within the legitimate realm of professional criticism – the type of criticism one might make in responding to an article, reviewing an article or book for a peer reviewed journal or press, or reviewing someone’s scholarship for tenure purposes.  In this forum, such constructive criticism takes places much more quickly and publicly, but that is the nature of the blog enterprise.  One downside to the blogging world is that one may post in haste and when frustrated.  Errors in tone and civility are bound to happen in such instances, but I encourage us to trust each other and engage in dialogue both publicly and privately.  Rather than making Rick and Mark play policemen, I propose that the one who feels hurt by a post email or call the author and that the two of them work it out.  After discussion, the author might revise the post, apologize publicly, apologize privately, or decide to leave things as they were.  In the past when someone has been offended by something in my post, I have heard about it through a third person and not directly, and, therefore, I could only guess as to what was bothering the offended, why, and what response would be appropriate.  Direct communication and the assumption that we are all acting in good faith will go a long way I suspect.

Come Holy Spirit and heal these wounds!