The dictionary provides the following four definitions:
1: capacity to endure pain or hardship : endurance , fortitude , stamina
2 a: sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one's own b: the act of allowing something : toleration
3: the allowable deviation from a standard ; especially : the range of variation permitted in maintaining a specified dimension in machining a piece
4 a (1): the capacity of the body to endure or become less responsive to a substance (as a drug) or a physiological insult especially with repeated use or exposure
Indeed we often heard the word "tolerance" as a goal in the fight for rights in the women's movement, the african american movement, and the GBLT movement. Is "tolerant" however, the attitude that we really want? Is that really the goal? I'd say that's where we are now. My sexual preference, is an "allowed deviation" from the norm. What the Gay Community wants is equality. Just like how a woman or an african american walks down the street and we do not give it a second thought, we want the same for the Gay Community.
In a recent article, Bishop Tobin composed a ficticious interview with President Obama, which in my opinion was rude, and insulting to the President. Certainly a less sarcastic way could have been found for the Bishop to excercise his Ministry as chief shepherd. The following is the link to said article:
http://thericatholic.com/stories/1894.html
This week, the Bishop wrote his weekly column in response to the many Catholics in Rhode Island who agreed that the tone of this article was inappropriate. Not backing down from his defense, the Bishop argued that his "interview" was not at all "un-christlike", as he was defending the moral order and Christ Himself would have acted no different. He goes on to say;
"And that should be the mission of the Church today. Sometimes as Catholics we’re hesitant to challenge the immoral behavior of others, including public officials, because we don’t want to appear judgmental or uncharitable. Our society urges us to be “tolerant” of other people and their behavior, even if it’s objectively wrong. But it’s precisely because we love others that we should never tolerate immoral behavior. As Archbishop Charles J. Chaput of Denver has written so well, “Tolerance is not an end in itself, and tolerating or excusing grave evil in a society is itself a grave evil . . . And it is not a Christian virtue.” (Render Unto Caesar, p. 145-146) "
There's that magic word again. Is "tolerance" the cowards way out from not having to become unpopular by calling someone out for public immorality? If my neighbor were to kill someone I would not simply be "tolerant" of his situation and look the other way.
Certainly the topic of Abortion is clear cut in Catholic teaching, and certainly the Bshop has a responsibility to be clear about church teaching, however the fact of the matter is there are other issues in our nation which deserve more attention. The average American sitting in a pew is not worried about funding Planned Parenthood in Mexico (an organization that is geared towards helping people responsibly raise families and assisnt in STD control, Abortion is only a portion of the work they do). They are worried about much more immediate concerns.
Despite the President's "not so Catholic" view on Abortion, upon his election the Holy Father himself called it, "a choice that unites." That was the first and most important step in fixing our nation...unity, and the Pope recognizes that. From there we can move onee issue at a time. Weather legal or not, abortions will continue to happen. Organizations like planned parenthood will make sure that they are happening in a way that is not going to harm the mother.
I am not condoning it, I myself share in the belief that Abortion is wrong. as an issue that will never effect me in my life, I tend to not rally about it. Is that me being "tolerant" according to any of the definitions shared above? I think it's me being realistic. At this moment in time the President is dealing with much more immediate, realistic, and serious issues that are effecting you and me. Issues that will put roofs over peoples heads, and putting people back to work. Issues that will gain health care for those of us who do not currently have access to it.
Big issues that effect the everyday person, yet that are governed by world-wide moral, objective laws are complex. Perhaps there is no ultimate answer, but no matter how we feel, or what our stance is, or what our belief is, it does not give any of us the right, on either side, to be rude and uncharitable. If we feel the need to criticize a stance, then I believe we have a moral duty to do so.
"Tolerance" is NOT turning our heads to immoral behavior. Those dictionary definitions above apply very much to the meaning of the word "tolerant" The criticism is that to insult the President publicly is not the appropriate form of expressing a dissenting belief or opinion. Just like to attack an abortion clinic is not the way to express a "Pro Life" belief. Just like calling a gay man a "faggot" is not the way to express your feelings about homosexuality. These are all innappropriate ways to express our beliefs.
The Church has a stance that Homosexuality is an "intrinsic disorder", and the Church has published an entire, almost condescending, letter regarding "Pastoral Care to the Homosexual Person." At least the Church encourages Pastoral Care, and isn't out right rude. To attack the President openly in such a forum is not going to accomplish anything, except get people worked up, weather it be in a blog, or the countless letters that flowed into the Chancery.
To mistakenly use words like tolerance, and to be uncharitable do not do anything to help anyone's position. Pope Benedict felt that his election was a choice of unity...perhaps we as a Church, a State, and a Nation should look mre towards unity and less towards division. Does that involve ignoring morral injustice? No. Does it perhaps involve tolerance and maturity? Most Definately.
No comments:
Post a Comment