Right and Righter

Time and time again, then time and time again... then a few more times, students in theology classes at the school where I teach wonder and ask about non-Catholics - do they have to adhere to Church teaching? Why? What if they don't agree with what the Church teaches?

Then we, as faithful, well-catechized, thoroughly formed Catholics trying to teach theology, become readily tempted to launch into argument.

I want to cite the Gospels and Acts, when Jesus vests authority in the apostles. I want to tell the story of Pentecost, the emboldening of these people to go and preach in Jesus' name. I want to tell the story of Peter, the rock on whom Christ builds His Church. I want to explore ecclesiology and unpack the realities of the Church. I want to throw down about the necessity of absolute truth. I want to invalidate relativism for the contradictory and shaky viewpoint that it is.

And there's the catch - our courses do all that. We hash out those pieces of the puzzle that validate the authority of our Church, that connect us to Christ, that explain our claims to authority and ability to teach in Jesus' name, that identify God as the source of Truth, revealed to us by Scripture and Tradition. We address those objections as part of the catechesis.

Yet this repeated objection becomes a road-block, a push back in the direction of revisiting that stuff. It drags us back toward arguments that we offered and discussed but ultimately must not sink in. In an infinitely long school year, they could be rehashed, but time is of the essence. We futily hope that our discussions will address their beefs.

This generation of youngens cannot wrap their heads around the idea that John Paul II is speaking truth to all people in The Gospel of Life. They can't believe that this man (the pope) and his advisers (the bishops) are composing advice that is based upon the absolute truth of God and directed toward - and useful and relevant to! - all people of good will.

In part, I think it's generational and teenage skepticism of authority. In part, a lot of my interaction with them suggests that they simply discount institutionalized religion on a count of the attraction of the "spiritual but not religious" fad. In part, I think many of them are disillusioned because the only religion they see is people practicing religion poorly - judgmentally, radically, intolerantly.

For whatever reason, they often will only get on board with the Church and her unpacking of absolute truth unless it happens to jive with their personal opinions.

When it comes to addressing these students concerns without rehashing previous days' worth of discussions, the issue has to be framed well.

I recently observed a colleague teacher emphasize dialogue to his students. Right on the money.

Many students have an image of the Church as "my way or the highway." True, our Church is one of all-or-nothing subscription. It's not a buffet; we're called to conscientious dialogue with truth. However, it's not meant to be so cold and militaristic. It's meant to be conversation, a what and why that unpacks the teaching to the heart and the mind. It's judgment of evil actions, affirmation of the goodness of people but condemnation of the stain of sin, whether social or personal.

When he asked me to chime in, I reframed the tension/conflict - it's not always a matter of you're wrong and we're right; it's often a matter of you and us are both right but we're righter.

Pro-choice advocates are right to value privacy and mothers'/women's rights. It's just righter to do so through a whole sexuality that embraces the completeness of marriage and a full understanding of sex rather than to encourage free sex, contraceptives, and abortion.

Death penalty supporters are right to advocate justice, law enforcement, and social peace. It's just righter to further those causes through life imprisonment and the opportunity for repentance.

Assisted suicide advocates are right to value the dignity of life, individual autonomy, and practicality. It's just righter to value life by understanding the fullness of suffering, the value of surrender, and the distinctions between passive and active means.

The tensions between the sides are full of friction, especially on these issues, but therein lies the challenge and the call: Christians are blessed with a beautifully cohesive and coherent faith, manifested beautifully in the consistent ethic of life - valuing life and its dignity and value in all forms from conception until natural death.

Our task is to manifest, in our actions and words, a faith that upholds the dignity of life. We must demonstrate the light and joy and the culture of life, amid the battle against a culture of death.

Ultimately, most people aspire to be part of a culture of life. Our dialogue, grounded in our understanding of Truth as delivered to us by Christ through Scripture and Tradition, must help everyone discover how we can help and hurt that force of good. And while we must discourage and condemn evil when we find it, we shouldn't assume evil in all our interactions.

We must find the good.

We can have dialogue in which both sides are right and seek the mutual illumination of conversation. Viewpoints of right and wrong can lead us to be dumb and dumber. Let's discover a context of right and righter, and let the One Who is Right shine.