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.
A powerful (I thought) video, from the "CatholicVote" people.
I see Mirror of Justice as a place where we are making a shared effort to move beyond the comforts of an echo chamber into the hard work of conversing across profound differences. For me this is a miracle and a source of tremendous hope not only for the future of the church, but for the future of our world. My hope lies not in the fact that we always understand each other, but in the fact that we keep trying—and that at several points on our common journey, moments of difference and misunderstanding have become an opportunity for deeper (and at times off-line) conversation.
In response to your thoughts, Michael S., I wonder if our mission of exploring Catholic legal theory might call us to something beyond the “legitimate realm of professional criticism.” It seems that if we are going to leave room for the Holy Spirit to heal, and if the mark of what it means to be Christians is our love for each other—“by this everyone will know that you are my disciples” (Jn 13:35)—then we may want to emphasize in a particular way how our love for each other can shape the contours of our criticism and critique.
Here are a few questions that I find helpful before responding to someone with whom I disagree in both personal and professional contexts. Have I really made space inside myself to listen profoundly, letting go of my own agenda, perceptions, judgments, and ego in order to enter as much as I am able into this person’s perspective? Am I just reacting, or have I taken the time I need to let this perspective enter into me, and perhaps even change how I see things? In considering how this person expresses him/herself, have I given him/her the benefit of the doubt, reading his/her words with a generous, magnanimous eye? Have I done everything I can to appreciate what else might be going on in this person’s personal/professional life and the impact it might be having on how he/she expresses him/herself? In the context of continued disagreement, in what ways can I thank this person for how he/she has challenged me to grow, and helped me to articulate my own perspective in a way that is more sensitive, loving, and appreciative of difference?
When I went to mass this morning, I was touched by the Alleluia verse taken from Ephesians 1:17-18, “May the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ enlighten the eyes of our heart that we might see how great is the hope to which we are called.” It seems like this might be the greatest gift we could hope to receive on our fifth birthday.
This article, in the Washington Post -- about Holy Rosary Church in D.C., and its role in the life of the Italian community there -- is a great read. (I had a long conversation with the author while she was writing it.) It reminds me of subject(s) that has come up from time to time on MOJ (and is also relevant to the "urbanism"-related work of the lovely and talented Prof. Nicole Stelle Garnett), namely, (1) what is the role of religious institutions (like churches) in providing the infrastructure for the kind of community in which genuine flourishing can take place, and (2) what is the role of law in sustaining (or undermining) such institutions (and so, by extension, such communities)?
Here is a link to America Magazine's inaugural issue, which includes a selection of letters and memos to our new president, including my own small blurb about hopes for healing the wounds of division, including the discord over abortion law and policy.
