So, at the risk of doing just that myself, Arroyo is out of control. I couldn’t believe what I saw when I flipped to his EWTN show hoping for Catholic NEWS! Thank God for BustedHalo, which truly gives a voice to everyone and ridicules no one.

Enduring the four years of the pastor who forbade the singing of any songs with the word “bread” in them would have been funnier, except that it was very clear that he was willing to disband the choir and fire the (unpaid volunteer) music director and organists to enforce it. (And yes, in case you are wondering, Holy Thursday without Pange Lingua is pretty lame…)

And we are headed into a major war over the new translation of the mass into English…

There are, however, more legitimate reasons why on might comment under an assumed name. One goes right to the heart of the instant discussion.

I know Catholics who have church related jobs would never dare comment under their real names, for fear of endangeing their positions.

A big problems behind the culture wars in the church and the lack of civility and, yes Christianity in these discussion is the disparity of power between the two “sides”. We, on what me called the “left” are not in a position to have an equal exchange of ideas with our brothers and sisters on the right.

A certain overreaching by the “right”, stems from an imbalance of power between the “left” and the “right”. One side, the right, has all the big guns, or at least the big threats on its side.

For instance, a sincere and practicing Catholic who is a politician might take a position supporting the appointment of Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Most Catholics, even if they did not support that position would not equate the politician’s stance with a renouncement of his faith, but if he was in the wrong place at the wrong time a bishop might deny him the Eucharist for having done so. I suppose he has the force of his argument, his eloquence and the power of public relations to support his side, but, in the meantime, he’s been, in effect, excommunicated from his church. That’s a tough one to counter.

Too many on the right are not satisfied with a mere exchange of ideas wherein they argue that their opponent’s opinion is merely incorrect. They actually question the opponent’s fidelity to the faith, in the course of even the smallest of issues, but wheeling in the “O” word. You’re not just wrong, you’re not Orthodox, i.e., a heretic.

I don’t see people on the left, even when they strongly disagree with the opinion of right wing Catholics, doing this. The other side goes right away for the “nuclear option”.

Maybe that’s because the right potentially has the option potentially available to them and the left does not. Maybe if the left could have opponents on the right silenced, removed from their position, denied the right to teach and write, denied communion, or just cowed by the potential of a deluge of digitally organized opponents crying “Unorthodox, unorthodox! Unlcean!, unclean!”, they would use it too.

On the side issue of the right-left liberal-conservative terminology, I think Dawn’s 7/13 9:27 comment is correct. Most people who think about it very far recognize that the terms don’t have scientific precision–liberals are not necessarily generous, conservatives do not necessarily conserve, American conservatism has a large component of classical liberalism, etc. Yet there are socio-political realities “on the ground,” so to speak, in which the terms have a definition which most people recognize.

A voter can certainly vote against a candidate who supports capital punishment because of that support, but he or she should do so for the right reason, not because of a mistaken belief that capital punishment is always evil or sinful, because it simply is not. I have come to believe that capital punishment is generally not necessary in the Western world with the development of “supermax”-type prisons where it’s basically impossible for a truly dangerous person to escape and threaten others. I also believe that life imprisonment allows for at least the possibility of true repentance and conversion to Christ in the heart and soul of dangerous criminals, even if the great majority perhaps don’t repent or convert before they die.

In short, capital punishment is not intrinsically evil or forbidden by Church teaching, while abortion is. Let’s all try to represent the Church accurately.

This is the truest paragraph in the article. I stayed away for a long time, in large part because I didn’t want to associate with people (on both sides), who would rather be right and alone than merciful and among many.

However, many of the above comments exemplify the attitude of hate that makes me question whether I am in the right place.

We two pro-lifers ended up having a very friendly discussion on the matter.

Here’s the link for the curious: http://insightscoop.typepad.com/2004/2009/05/father-james-martin-sj-responds.html

Peace,
James Martin, SJ

These terms are even more meaningless in the Catholic context. As the pope notes in Caritas in Veritate, there is a single Catholic social teaching, undivided, and connected. You cannot oppose abortion and dismiss social justice, and vice versa. It is one thing to disagree on political strategies, but another altogether to dismiss the teaching. And here is the difference in the blog post to which you linked: Fr. Martin disagrees with the political strategy, he does not defend abortion. But Fr. Sirico defends torture, at least when the US does it. See the distinction?

Charity requires not only love for one’s enemies (or, opponents), but also just plain clear thinking. As a fairly recent revert, I’m seeing first hand how Christians and nonChristians, Catholics and nonCatholics, liberals and Conservs, etc. are far more alike in the general inability to fight a fair fight than they are different. Yes, the infighting has to stop, but so does the illegitimate blarney aimed against nonChristians/Catholics. Some stuff that’s especially childish on “our” side:

1) Describing all abortion clinic escorts as “lesbians”. I was one of those escorts for a few years; while the percentage of gay women escorting is probably a bit higher than in the general public (say 10% instead of <5%), by no means is it everybody who does excorting. But, of course, that’s not the point. Calling all clinic escorts “lesbians” is a way to hate them in an especially enjoyable way. Not Christian. Also, intellectually sloppy. And, it means women (many married, with kids) who are escorts a handy set of reasons to continue believing that “Catholics hate women.” Way to witness, folks (not).

2) Attacking women working for women’s welfare (who may or may not assume the label “feminist”) as “angry”. Anyone reading the minutes from the last few week’s examiniation at the Vatican of global slavery issues, as well as anyone with any experience in emergency room treatment or social services, knows that women have plenty to be angry about. Sneering at someone as “angry” who has been raped, beaten, denied fair employment, denied education is an especially ugly way to make sure women continue to stay away from Catholicism in droves. And, it’s cruel. And intellectually sloppy.

The only way I came back to Catholicism was by ignoring most Catholics, and going back to the source. IMHO one of the most feminist forces in this world right now is the Catholic Church; what’s amazing is how few Catholics understand this, or why advocating for women is an essential part of the charity spectrum, or why indulging in hateful rituals like condemning all “angry” women as somehow unimportant or disposable or ridiculous is about as unChristian as it gets.

Not a complete list.

First, you made an open comment. That, to me, suggests the discussion should be in the open. Second, what “editorial stance” is there on Vox Nova? Seriously, it would do well for you to actually know what you are talking about instead of just using words to sound like you are making a point. There is no “editorial stance.” Third, you claim you have biases, so it is appropriate for you to use it; but that, again, goes against what you write — the problem with biases is they close one off from the insults they use on others… When someone claims the bias of “conservative” the term “liberal” has connotations with it. Now, since you claim a “liberal-leaning” bias, I would suggest, in all charity, you defend your claim or you do apologize and take it back — you can’t just make up claims, say you don’t have to be sorry, and then think that answers everything — when it just proves the spirit which you denounce in others is in you. Seriously, VN is not “liberal leaning” because VN is outside of the categories of “conservative” and “liberal” as Catholics should be. I would recommend you read what Dr. Peter Casarella has to say about the terms here: http://www.nplc.org/commonground/casarella.htm . As long as you look within the secular “left” and “right” or “conservative” and “liberal” you have already shown yourself to be thinking and acting in ideologies outside the Church.

Other than that, I’d second Eileen’s point about Fr. Martin’s impugning the broader social consciences of pro-life activists. (Amy Welborn, in one of the links above, picks it apart quite nicely.) *That* was truly unfair, even if came with a veneer of civility. And, coming from a respected authority like Fr. Martin, it has the potential to truly damage the prospects for honest debate.

Perhaps the first step towards civility would be if everyone agreed to pick on someone their own size.

I find it interesting that a post against “name calling,” uses typical rhetoric “liberal-learning” [actually, "liberal-leaning"] for sources the authors apparently do not like, which nonetheless, is not true.

I won’t apologize for using the term “liberal-leaning” in an article about civility, because William Doino and I characterize ourselves as writing “from a conservative perspective,” so we’ve made our personal biases clear. My understanding is that “conservative” and “liberal” are not generally considered offensive terms unless misapplied. They’re not deliberately inflammatory in the vein of, say, “radical right-wing,” “fascist,” “pinko,” or “nutroots.” The reader is free to assume that what William and I consider “liberal” may be what he or she considers “moderate” or even, in the parlance of the (what I would call liberal) mainstream media, “objective.”

As to your second point, it seems William and I have personally offended you via our passing characterization of your Vox Nova group blog, which was obviously not our intent. I was trying, via the modified “liberal-leaning” rather than simply “liberal,” to acknowledge that, while Vox Nova’s overall editorial stance strikes me as liberal, you make an effort to publish a range of viewpoints. But that strikes you as inaccurate, please let me know via http://www.thrillofthechaste.com/contact.php and we can continue this dialogue via e-mail.

Making assumptions that he didn’t really believe in Church teaching would *not* be reasonable, but some of Fr. Martin’s remarks came across as extremely uncharitable and sabotaging to fellow pro-life Catholics.

If you’ve been in the pro-life movement for any length of time, you’ll be aware of the friendly fire we get all the time, often from people who should know better. An example from my country of Canada:

Bishop Henry of Calgary, Alberta, was invited to give the opening address to the provincial pro-life conference. He said that he looked forward to the day when the movement would be really pro-life, and if it was really pro-life, there’d be sessions about worker job safety, not just abortion.

His speech was extremely hurtful to Catholic pro-lifers, and scandalized the Protestant and Mormon attendees.

Fr. Martin’s remarks about many pro-lifers only caring about life until birth, and his criticism of some unnamed bishops of turning the gospel into only being anti-abortion are exactly the sort of uncharitable sabotage that his opponents then turned on him. What was the benefit of saying these things that would only serve to widen the distrust between fellow Catholics? Fr. Martin didn’t intend harm, I’m sure, but he was just as intemperate as Arroyo who brought in the Herod epithet.

I mentioned Bishop Henry’s story with a larger purpose, because it has a happy ending. Lots of people reacted very badly to Bishop Henry, accusing him of not being really Catholic. Others, however, calmed their tempers, and showed charity and forbearance, even though they’d felt attacked by the bishop.

Today, Bishop Henry is known as Canada’s most outspoken bishop in defence of the unborn, and predictably comes in for all sorts of friendly fire himself. An imprudent or uncharitable remark is not the end of things, and doesn’t need to met in turn by lack of charity.

Fr. Martin’s further responses have shown that he is not an enemy, and even if he had been, he would still demand charity.