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

For Part I, click here.

In one post Steve S. says “that the differences on this site are too raw…”  In another post, he argues that more “progressives” be added as MOJ authors in order to “sustain discussions of what Catholic progressives should think about various issues.”  In response, I offer some comments and observations.

First, too much in our world is politicized and polarized with divisions drawn between left and right, liberal and conservative, progressive and traditionalist.  One of my hopes (perhaps a pipe dream) is that MOJ can back away from these labels, allowing us to dialogue, debate, and fight without this peculiar partisan baggage that weighs us down and makes us suspicious of each other.  After all, even though we each have idea-ologies, our primary commitments no matter how strained in individual cases and our source of blog unity lies in a set of relationships and not in ideas:  “for God so loved the world that he sent his only son…” (John 3:16) and “you are Peter (Kephas), and upon this rock (Kephas) I will build my church” (Matthew 16:18).  We have much to fight and argue about without being weighed down by labels that tend to obscure our primary commitments and source of unity.

Second, I agree with Steve S. that some of “the differences on this site are raw” and that over the years this rawness has been displayed by MOJ authors (including me) from multiple perspectives.  I would suggest that this rawness is a sign (in me at least) of a lack of faith, a lack of hope, and a lack of charity.  Although we fight, dialogue, and debate about important things on this site, we (I) need to remember constantly that we are arguing primarily about penultimate matters at most.  When I am graced (and it is a grace) with faith, hope, and charity, all rawness disappears even when arguing over highly sensitive and contentious matters, so I pray that God grace us with faith, hope, and charity as we pursue this common project.

Third, a question for Steve.  Steve would like more “progressives” added as MOJ authors to help “sustain discussions of what Catholic progressives should think about various issues.”  What do you mean by this?  Do you mean more discussion of topics important to “progressives”?  Would you like to see more blogging on immigration, poverty, or the environment for instance?  Or, do you mean what you literally say a discussion of “what Catholic progressives should think.”  The latter is, I think, a dangerous entanglement of ideology and religion.  At OU, I meet, as you might expect, a number of people who label themselves “conservative Christians.”  When the circumstances are right, I’ll challenge them asking them why they want to intertwine their ideological commitment with their ultimate commitment.  Some of us will be more conservative and others more liberal for various reasons, but these are, as I suggested above, at most penultimate and contingent commitments.  For me, the question is what should Catholics think about various issues?  Thinking about it this way – from my ultimate commitments - causes me discomfort at times because it forces me out of my ideological comfort zone.

Fourth, and finally, MOJ balance.  Of the 18 people Steve cites as having blogged on MOJ in the last quarter of 2008, I count between 9 and 11 who either did vote for President Obama or who would have seriously considered it but for his extreme position on abortion.  Is this the type of balance you are looking for Steve?  If so, I think we have it.  If not, would you clarify.