In this post, I will continue to analyze the guidelines for civil discourse advanced by FAN. As in the previous post, I consider whether or not it is possible to adhere to these guidelines while engaging in political activism.
The proposed principals for civil discourse include the following:
Call policy makers to their sense of integrity in faith and values and to respect those values.
In the role of mediator or conflict specialist we nurture a party’s sense of integrity, we initiate discussion regarding faith and values. That is one of our roles.
As political partisans, however, we frequently forfeit this opportunity, especially when we become allied with groups or individuals antagonistic to faith. When our political allies hold a hostile view toward faith, we tend to compromise our profession of faith for fear that we will alienate those allies.
For example, in the FAN healthcare webinar discussion, callers grounded in faith expressed concern that FAN was allied with political actors openly antagonistic to faith. FAN downplayed callers’ concerns but, in retrospect, the concerns brushed aside were legitimate.
When we look back and analyze the healthcare legislation, we find issues of conscience were sacrificed in deference to political expediency, concerns regarding costs were later proved valid, and backroom deals with special interest groups and unions fouled the integrity of the process.
In a recent news release, Cardinal Daniel DiNardo, speaking for the US Conference of Catholic Bishops, captured the same dynamic:
Others did grasp the seriousness of the issues we were attempting to address. Yet other priorities, in our judgment, led them to accept an inaccurate reading of the proposed legislation. They gave credence to analyses by those who were likewise dedicated to minimizing important concerns so as to pass the legislation.”
This situation arises all too frequently when we become a passionate advocate; allies demand we walk paths that do not honor faith-based principles. When we join with individuals or groups who reject faith-based values or when we join with individuals actively hostile to faith, our profession of faith is all too often sacrificed.
This situation would create a dilemma for Francis, as his entire life was a profession of faith. When we strive to live up to his legacy we must ask, at what point must we step away from political allies who show antipathy toward faith? Can there really be a political “marriage of convenience” that allows us to ignore such issues?
Use terms or a vocabulary of faith to unite or reconcile rather than divide.
Vocabulary, as mediators are well aware, can be used to deceive as well as to unite. Mediators and conflict specialists realize that only intense, facilitated discussion that dives below the surface to unearth and reveal true intentions can secure unity. The choice of vocabulary alone does not bring about unity.
In the political realm, for example, the vocabulary of faith may not always unite; it may cause division. One current example is the phrase “social justice.” Some fear the phrase is code for Marxism; they fear the vocabulary of faith is being used for the purpose of political deception; they fear that an anti-religious political ideology, such as Marxism, is being slipped past naïve congregations in the form of faith-based activism; they fear such activism supports Marx more than Jesus. When this distrust takes shape, when fear and division arise, the vocabulary of faith, by itself, no longer possesses the power to unite.
A political activist thus faces the burden of correcting the misuse, intentional or unintentional, of the language of faith. The activist must publicly and noisily separate himself from those who use faith to achieve clandestine political goals. They face the challenge of defining their vocabulary carefully so they do not suffer the consequences of distrust.
A mediator or conflict specialist recognizes that volatile emotions, such as fear or anger, are triggered by buzzword phrases such as “social justice.” He anticipates from the outset that he will need to actively promote clarity. He does this by helping the parties explore their actual intentions in detail and by exploring the precise terminology they use to express those intentions.
At a recent event I attended, a priest who was being honored for his work in the community joked about how his father, upon hearing of his son’s social justice activities, called him a communist—and, upon hearing of the award he was to receive, proclaimed he now was certain his son the priest had become a communist.
Thus, even between family members, the language of faith can become conflated with fears of destructive anti-religious political movements. However, one cannot blame the father for being wary or confused, as union members highlighted in the news for mob tactics and socialist rhetoric were in attendance at the awards ceremony. The actual situation sent confusing messages.
A mediator, being familiar with conflict, recognizes the importance of language and proper framing and realizes how important it is to work past vocabulary that triggers fear, anger, and suspicion to establish a relationship based on transparency, collaboration, and compassion. A mediator or conflict specialist facilitates the search for precise descriptions of intent, thus short-circuiting negative emotions that often attach to labels and slogans.
Franciscans, as mediators or conflict specialists, have an opportunity to explore the previous misuse of faith language in order to heal division that exists within the larger faith community and among Catholics in particular.
However, when FAN joins hands with political actors who manipulate the public discussion with deceptive faith language, their ability to resolve conflict and reconcile parties using the vocabulary of faith is compromised. Thus, FAN, in the role of political activist, may not be able to abide by this guideline for civility in discourse; if they cherish this axiom, they may need to shift roles to that of a mediator or conciliator or conflict specialist.
In the next installment I will continue the analysis of the guidelines for civil discourse.
St. Francis: Mediator or Political Activist? Series Posts
- Part 1
- Part 2
- Part 3
- Part 4: Civility in Discourse
- Part 5: Facilitating Engagement & Dialogue
- Part 6: Resurrection Politics and Rules for Radicals
- Part 7: Immigration Reform
- Part 8: Beyond Corruption and Deception
The healthcare debate opened wounds, damaged unity. How do we use mediation-style processes to heal wounds and restore trust?
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/catholic-bishops-cha-wounded-church-unity-with-health-care-endorsement/
John Paul Lederach is one of the foremost thinkers in the world of peacemakers. His book Moral Imagination is a classic. He teaches at Notre Dame for the Kroc Institute.
http://www.beyondintractability.org/audio/john_paul_lederach_at_acr/?nid=6728
When our allies in a political cause are unions that transcend the boundaries of civil discourse and instead resort to threats and intimidation, can we continue as political activists? Or should we step away and become peacemakers?
http://biggovernment.com/libertychick/2010/05/20/seiu-storms-private-residence-terrorizes-teenage-son-of-bank-of-america-exec/