Sunday, August 25, 2002
Dale: A Clash of Virtues.
Jack over at Integrity argues that the firestorm caused by Rod Dreher's WSJ article is the product of a clash between advocates of compassion and reason. In the former camp are those like Rod Dreher, Amy Welborn, et al who argue that no action has been taken to address the root of the problem, namely complicit bishops (I count myself a member of this group). In the latter group (the reason camp) are those who argue that what has been done (namely ZT policies) is imprudent, and that we are not, or perhaps not yet, in a position to judge whether the refusal to remove bishops is incorrect. Jack takes pains to point out that he does not regard those in the first category as irrational, and also makes clear that those in the second do not lack compassion, but I still think the description is flawed.
Rather, what we are seeing here is more explicable in classic Catholic terms: it is a clash between the cardinal virtues (justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance) and the theological ones (faith, hope and charity). Those of us in the first camp emphasize justice for the victims, prudence inasmuch as the scandal cripples the Church's Gospel mission, etc. Those in the second stress faith (sometimes going so far as to question that of the other side) in the ultimate triumph of the Church, the need for hope as expressed in renewed prayer, penance, and so forth.
The differing emphases to some extent result in the parties talking past each other. To those in the second camp, the members of the first sound harsh, abrupt and judgmental. To those in the first, people in the second sound pedantic and pietistic--"pray, pay and obey" reborn.
Who's right? Well, like Jack, I believe those who share my views on this are more correct, even though the other side raises good points. And they aren't called "cardinal" virtues for nothing, either: to have any real world meaning, the theological virtues have to be anchored on justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance. Otherwise, it simply sounds like pious sloganeering.
The solution? Well, speaking from the first side, I'd like to hear a little more outraged justice from the other side. A recognition that justice has not been done, that the status quo is not only unacceptable, it's annihilating the moral authority of the Church in America. Finally, I'd like to hear an acknowledgement that in criticizing the handling of the scandals, I'm not a bad/ignorant Catholic wounding my Church.
In return, I will pray more, do penance, look to the Cross with hope and perform charitable acts, and ask others to do the same. I've started already.
Jack over at Integrity argues that the firestorm caused by Rod Dreher's WSJ article is the product of a clash between advocates of compassion and reason. In the former camp are those like Rod Dreher, Amy Welborn, et al who argue that no action has been taken to address the root of the problem, namely complicit bishops (I count myself a member of this group). In the latter group (the reason camp) are those who argue that what has been done (namely ZT policies) is imprudent, and that we are not, or perhaps not yet, in a position to judge whether the refusal to remove bishops is incorrect. Jack takes pains to point out that he does not regard those in the first category as irrational, and also makes clear that those in the second do not lack compassion, but I still think the description is flawed.
Rather, what we are seeing here is more explicable in classic Catholic terms: it is a clash between the cardinal virtues (justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance) and the theological ones (faith, hope and charity). Those of us in the first camp emphasize justice for the victims, prudence inasmuch as the scandal cripples the Church's Gospel mission, etc. Those in the second stress faith (sometimes going so far as to question that of the other side) in the ultimate triumph of the Church, the need for hope as expressed in renewed prayer, penance, and so forth.
The differing emphases to some extent result in the parties talking past each other. To those in the second camp, the members of the first sound harsh, abrupt and judgmental. To those in the first, people in the second sound pedantic and pietistic--"pray, pay and obey" reborn.
Who's right? Well, like Jack, I believe those who share my views on this are more correct, even though the other side raises good points. And they aren't called "cardinal" virtues for nothing, either: to have any real world meaning, the theological virtues have to be anchored on justice, fortitude, prudence and temperance. Otherwise, it simply sounds like pious sloganeering.
The solution? Well, speaking from the first side, I'd like to hear a little more outraged justice from the other side. A recognition that justice has not been done, that the status quo is not only unacceptable, it's annihilating the moral authority of the Church in America. Finally, I'd like to hear an acknowledgement that in criticizing the handling of the scandals, I'm not a bad/ignorant Catholic wounding my Church.
In return, I will pray more, do penance, look to the Cross with hope and perform charitable acts, and ask others to do the same. I've started already.
