Every month (week? day?) seems to present a new ecclesiastical controversy for Catholics to endure. It can be exhausting, even disheartening. I am amazed at how many Catholics express these feelings to me. In many of these exchanges—even though I grant that those involved likely do not intend it—a familiar scenario plays out. Some of the engagement seems to be informed by, and encouraging of, a “culture war” mentality.
As I have argued in my recent book and in the pages of America, the culture war metaphor is informing Christian engagement in society, and also within the church. This war imagery molds imaginations, leading ecclesial leaders to choose (at least, from the perspective of an outsider to church leadership, it appears they are choosing) to construct bastions between themselves and the “enemy,” or the “other.” This means lobbing verbal bombs from far away, questioning the other’s orthodoxy, setting syllogistic mines in essays for the other to stumble on, and seemingly seeking to undermine their interlocutors, whatever the cost.
Those holding disagreements should consider being seen together, in person, symbolizing to the world the unity maintained between them.
And the cost is great. As America’s editor in chief, Sam Sawyer, S.J., notes in a recent essay on polarization, these exchanges fail to witness to the profound and real communion shared among Christians, and they do not tend to deepen thought on extremely important questions, or to inspire faith.
Father Sawyer suggests that the remedy to situations where disagreements emerge “cannot simply be better arguments, better apologetics or better catechesis.” Instead, remedies “only have a chance to work if they can be applied within a framework of dialogue based on mutual trust.” To strengthen trust, he calls for “practices of communion” and commits America to foster these.
In order to deepen the conversation around Father Sawyer’s call for members of the church to cultivate “practices of communion” in the face of disagreements, I propose three practical guidelines for ecclesial leaders to consider, and for Catholic news outlets to assist in facilitating.
First, when disagreements emerge, before any accusations are made on Twitter or articles are published, those holding disagreements should consider being seen together, in person, symbolizing to the world the unity maintained between them. Going beyond the usual photo opportunities of annual conferences or official meetings, they could pursue extraordinary moments where they are photographed praying together or sharing a meal, symbolically united and holding up the church as Peter and Paul did before them.
[Related: “The language of war can inspire action—but it can also lead us astray”]
These moments could be a profound witness to the pre-eminent baptismal unity that exists among members of the body of Christ—a witness that I hear people longing for, all across the United States. News outlets like America could make it a point to showcase these acts of communion and, as a source of accountability for ecclesial leaders, challenge them to cultivate these moments of symbolic unity before, or in addition to, publishing their essays.
Second, once leaders witness to the world the unity they maintain through baptism, they would do well to consider talking in private, in order to clarify their positions. Even more, they should tell us, again through media, that they are doing so, as this assurance matters for believers.
By sitting down in private, searching for the good in another’s perspective and discussing the various positions they hold, our leaders honor their interlocutor. Sitting face-to-face provides each party an opportunity to elucidate their thoughts before false assumptions are made public. But these conversations cannot be an afterthought, like diplomacy once war has broken out. If Christians have an issue with a brother or sister, the Gospel calls them first to physically go to that person. This is all the more important in a polarized milieu, where sorted groups can impede intimate, nuanced dialogue, even in the church.
Sitting face-to-face provides each party an opportunity to elucidate their thoughts before false assumptions are made public.
Third, for the sake of catechesis and forming imaginations, those continuing to hold disagreements should come together, in a manner visible and audible to the world, and discuss these issues, either in person or on a podcast or with a facilitator. Again, Catholic media outlets are in a privileged position to foster these practices of communion between leaders. These dialogues can allow leaders not only to pursue greater depth of thought for the benefit of all, but also to do so in a way (hopefully) that images the respect necessary for members of the same church to maintain.
The church, and the world, especially today, need a different way modeled to us, one less saturated by the culture war mentality. To see our leaders sit next to someone with whom they disagree, listen intently to that person, seek the truth in his or her position, clarify distinctions and potential disagreements, and admit to what they learned from their interlocutor, can stimulate new forms of engagement in fractured times. The faithful (and others) navigate countless potentially divisive situations in their families, with their spouses and children, at work, and in parishes. We look to our leaders for a guiding example.
The faithful (and others) navigate countless potentially divisive situations. We look to our leaders for a guiding example.
One could argue that I have not followed my own advice, for I have called church leaders to consider public displays of unity in the face of disagreements without approaching them first to provide the same public show of unity. I hope, however, that my essay can be viewed as a hand extended to those who want to continue this conversation, even in person.
Others may say that what I prescribe is not practical. How could church leaders ever find the time or resources to come together regularly, in person, for this kind of encounter?
I recognize that it is not always practical. And as research shows, transcending polarization often requires concrete, repeated actions that do not always show immediate results. But how practical is it to see our churches emptying out because disillusioned Catholics are tired of the vitriol and divisiveness in the church, often intensified by our leaders? Those in ecclesial leadership, whom Christians trust to have a deep love for the church, ought to be willing to endure—nay, embrace—the impracticalities of this kind of exchange, especially if it leads to deeper unity between Christians.
Please, leaders of the church, help us imagine a different way. Especially when disagreements emerge, model for us practices of communion.
[Read next: “Catholicism, authentic communion and the way out of our polarization trap.”]
