no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

The CWR Blog
c
To criticize someone for engaging in immoral activity is not to "hate" that person; in point of fact, it is an act of love
June 16, 2015 12:49 EST
Fr. Robert Barron
Are you able to distinguish between these two men?

Last week, I wrote a piece on Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn Jenner. I argued that the manner in which Jenner spoke of his transition reflected a Gnostic anthropology, which is repugnant to a Biblical view of the human being. I didn't say a word about Jenner personally; I urged no violence against him/her; I didn't question his/her motives. I simply made an observation that the moral and spiritual context for transgenderism is, from a classically Christian standpoint, problematic.

Not surprisingly, the article garnered a fair amount of attention and inspired a lot of commentary, both positive and negative. Among the negative remarks were a number that criticized me for fomenting "hatred" against Jenner and against the transgender community. Though I've come to expect this sort of reaction, I find it discouraging and the fruit of some pretty fundamental confusions.

My great mentor Robert Sokolowski long ago taught me—in one of those lapidary remarks that strikes you immediately as right and important—that philosophy is the art of making distinctions. He meant that what brings together Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein is a gift for clarifying how this differs from that, how one aspect of an idea profiles itself against another, how seemingly similar concepts are in fact distinct. In executing these moves, the great philosophers made muddy water clear. What strikes me so often as I listen to the public conversation regarding moral issues is the incapacity of so many to make the right distinctions.

Some of the muddiest water surrounds the concepts of love/hate and tolerance/intolerance. In the spirit of Sokolowski, I would like to make what I hope are some clarifying differentiations. For the mainstream of the Catholic intellectual tradition, love is not primarily an emotion, but an act of the will. To love, Thomas Aquinas says, is to want the good of the other. Consequently, hatred is not primarily a feeling, but desiring evil for another, positively wanting what is bad for someone else. Given this, when is hatred called for? When is hatred morally permissible?

The simple answer: never. God is nothing but love, and Jesus said that we are to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect. This is precisely why he told us to love even our enemies, to bless even those who curse us, to pray even for those who maltreat us. Does this mean that our forebears were obliged to love Hitler and that we are obliged to love ISIS murderers? Yes. Period. Does it mean that we are to will the good of those who, we are convinced, are walking a dangerous moral path? Yes. Period. Should everyone love Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner? Absolutely, completely, unconditionally.

But here is where a crucial distinction has to be made: to criticize someone for engaging in immoral activity is not to "hate" that person. In point of fact, it is an act of love, for it is tantamount to willing good for him or her. Once the sense that there is objective good and evil has been attenuated, as it largely has been in our society, the only categories we have left are psychological ones.

And this is why, in the minds of many, to question the moral legitimacy of transgenderism is, perforce, to "attack" or "hate" transgendered people. A very real danger that flows from the failure to make the right distinction in this regard is that moral argument evanesces. If someone who disagrees with you on an ethical matter is simply a "hater," then you don't have to listen to his argument or engage it critically. You are permitted, in fact, to censor him, to shut him down.

Sadly, this is what obtains in much of the public arena today: the impugning of motives, the questioning of character, and the imposition of censorship. Just a few weeks ago, two Princeton faculty members, Cornel West and Robert George, had a public debate regarding same-sex marriage, West arguing for and George against. What was so refreshing was that both men, who are good friends, actually argued, that is to say, marshalled evidence, drew reasoned conclusions from premises, answered objections, etc., and neither one accused the other of "hating" advocates of the rival position. May their tribe increase.

Distinctions are called for, furthermore, regarding the word "tolerance," which is bandied about constantly today. Typically, it has come to mean acceptance and even celebration. Thus, if one is anything shy of ecstatic about gay marriage or transgenderism, one is insufficiently "tolerant." In point of fact, the term implies the willingness to countenance a view or activity that one does not agree with.

Hence, in the context of our wise political system, each citizen is required to tolerate a range of opinions that he finds puzzling, erroneous, repugnant or even bizarre. There are lots of good reasons for this toleration, the most important of which are respect for the integrity of the individual and the avoidance of unnecessary civil strife, but it by no means implies that one is obliged to accept or celebrate those perspectives. Thus, one should certainly tolerate the right of a person to become transgendered without feeling, at the same time, obliged to exult in that person's choice.

The ethical conversation has become, in the last fifty years, extraordinarily roiled. It would serve all of us to adopt an intellectual instinct of Thomas Aquinas. When he was confronted with a thorny question, he would typically begin his response with the comment "distinguo" (I distinguish).



Fr. Robert Barron is the founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and the Rector/President of Mundelein Seminary. He is the creator of the award winning documentary series, "Catholicism" and "Catholicism:The New Evangelization." Learn more at www.WordonFire.org.

Pap Pap Loc: Etna, PA

A great post. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

:thumbup:

no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

A little esoteric for many people but i am glad you found it food for thought. Now how do we explain it to the liberals who apparently totally believe that any thoughts that are not just like theirs are hate speech, nothing more, nothing less?


SWMBO

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

This is certainly true. I believe that most folks won't/don't take the time to ponder the difference. To most, disapproval = hate and approval = love, an "all or nothing" philosophy. This can really be seen in most folks views of Islam and the followers of such. They make no distinction between those who TRULY believe in the precepts of Islam - and those who use it as a means to an end. They ALL must die a horrible death and that's pure hate.

I am constantly amazed by the number of people I meet, who have certain "ironclad" beliefs - who cannot explain WHY they believe that way and/or have ever given it any thought. They have an "it is what it is because it's always been thus" attitude and don't see the need to THINK about, well, pretty much anything. When challenged, they can scroll through the internet - and find someone else's explanation or rationale - and show you that saying "see there?!".

Children, when presented with an unfamiliar food, often "hate" it right off. When forced to taste it anyway and find that they DO like it - are reluctant to admit such, preferring to stick with the "I hate it!" stance. This recalcitrance to change one's mind when presented with evidence suggesting a need to do so, is apparently present at, or shortly after, birth in human beings. The ability to "reason" is what, allegedly, separates us from animals, but for some reason, most humans couldn't be bothered to do much "reasoning", preferring to act on "knee jerk" emotions. So, if a thing makes you feel the slightest bit bad - the "thing" IS bad and that's the end of it.

amvaap

Your post was interesting. I differ somewhat in my understanding of Yahweh ( God ) than you do however. Limiting Yahweh ( God ) to be only able to love is overlooking the fact that throughout scripture there are instances of God exhibiting and voicing hate. Scripture says that God hated Essau while he was still in the womb. The difference is that "hate" just like vengeance is RESERVED for God. As a follower of Yahweh ( God ) my obedience is required and I gratefully give that obedience because of what was done for me on the cross. God hates sin, so I hate sin. God is perfect, but I can't be perfect, I can ONLY be perfected IN Christ whom Yahweh ( God the Father) sees when he looks at me and who someday he will make me like. Justice is Gods, Love is Gods, Hate is Gods, Everything is Gods. I can just follow him in humble thanks and adoration knowing that I have been set free from hate, because He can do it much better than me and it's reserved for him anyway. He is sovereign, I am not.

Unclet Loc: Amarillo, Tx

Still reading and absorbing, but I like it.
:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

PoppaGringo Loc: Muslim City, Mexifornia, B.R.

It is a lot to contemplate, but after meditating, and if one has an open mind it is well worth the time and effort to reach a logical conclusion as to its veracity.

Pap Pap Loc: Etna, PA

Actually that is what I thought all along I just couldn't put it in such nice language. :-)