The name-calling, suspicion, and vitriol that characterize the written and spoken word among Catholics is nothing less than sinful. Augustine claimed that the greatest of all heresies was lack of charity. A few observations:There are great lessons for all in the above quotation from an address given to seminarians in Rome at the North American College. There has recently been a lot of talk about the bloggers meeting in Rome and I wonder if the above call to civility and courtesy will be the foundational hallmark of what it means to be a Catholic blogger. "Courtesy demands civility."
Never should we get ad hominem. "Don't listen to him - he's a heretic!" "She's not orthodox." "He's a right-wing fanatic." The presumption for the civil man is that each person is good, honest, and respectable. We may disagree with what he or she says or does, but we are always civil to the person. "I wouldn't let Sister talk to the RCIA - she's a heretical feminist!" No, she's not...she's a child of God and consecrated daughter of the Church, whose particular views on a given issue may be wrong - and need to be corrected - but she deserves our respect, and our words about her are always civil.
* Civility means no name-calling, no angry outbursts, no accusatory charges. We express our criticisms calmly, charitably, and respectfully.
* Civility also means that, when we have made our point and brought it to the proper authority, we let up, and trust the goodwill of those who have proper responsibility to take care of it. We do not then wage guerrilla warfare to accomplish our goal. The Most Revd Donal Wuerl wrote in a pastoral letter, "We cannot highlight evangelisation and then destroy its fondest hopes by the way we talk with or about one another." He wrote, "To enter a dialogue convinced that the others engaged in the effort are dishonest, deceitful, or intent on harming us negates the possibility of a wholesome outcome."
Friday, 15 April 2011
Priests for the Third Millennium: A Return to Civility
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
That's good and all Father Steel, but when one enters into debate with an unorthodox Catholic, that unorthodox Catholic will use deceit and lies to confuse the faithful.
How can one debate or dialogue with a child of God who is influenced by the devil?
We use reason, scripture, tradition and the magisterial teaching of the Church. We do this courteously. I'm not saying we don't tackle wrong teaching or not deal with heretical teachers; I'm saying we do this remembering the dignity of each one and so courteousness and civility displayed by the HF when he was here in England changed a lot of people's opinions about him. To debate wrong teaching is what we are all called to do but rudeness is not winning the day. This is written to myself as much as it is putting it out here for us all to consider! ;-)
I have been horrified by some of the comments, both by Catholics and Anglicans on the blogs of the ordinariate-bound priests. Your posting was a breath of fresh air, and much more in accord with the teaching of our Lord. To justify a move to Rome by slagging off the Church of England is not a step towards unity, but in fact hinders the reconciliation of our two churches.
I think slagging off the C of E or becoming a Catholic because of the C of E's present movements alone is not enough for someone to become a Catholic. For me, becoming a Catholic nearly two years ago was a positive move and not due to where the C of E was heading. Though I disagree with the present projectory of the C of E, it is not sufficient grounds for becoming a Catholic. We move because the Lord moves our consciences to move. But I realize that we all have human weaknesses and the Lord is patient with us all. Have a blessed Holy Week!
Post a Comment