Last fall, I joined the moderating staff1 of the Facebook group Catholic Social Thought, Politics, and the Public Square. That I have yet to go out of my way to recommend this discussion group to my friends, given how many of them are conscientious and politically-engaged Catholics, might be seen as a sign that I don’t think participating in the group would be a good use of their time and energy. The group, at its worst, can be rather inhospitable, but some very good conversations happen there, and most importantly I still believe in its mission. My main intention in writing this is to remind myself of why I do this, but If my reflections on my time in the group happen to persuade you, dear reader, that this group is worth a shot, I would welcome your participation.The Medium
The most obvious difference between this Facebook group and the various debate forums I participated in as a teenager is the lack of anonymity. Yet in my mind, the far more significant difference is that Facebook is not designed as a medium for debate. There is no quote function, old posts and comments are hard to find, and, most glaringly of all, the portion of my computer screen dedicated to the text of people’s posts and comments is only about a quarter of my screen’s width. Comments only a few short paragraphs in length can sometimes seem like impenetrable walls of text, while “clever” one-liners or hot takes get the expected applause. As a medium for intellectual debate, in which arguments and counter-arguments are carefully examined and picked apart, Facebook fails utterly.
But on the other hand, if you are interested in the other person precisely as a person with a wealth of knowledge and complicated personal experiences and you want to understand their perspective on a given topic better, then Facebook’s sub-thread system works well, and you’ll eagerly click to “see more” or “continue reading.”
The Mission
It’s a good thing, then, that the group is not oriented toward fostering traditional debates. Rather, the group guidelines are meant to encourage what Pope Francis calls a culture of encounter. Members are encouraged to participate not in such a way as to win an argument, but to engage the holy in the other. If a person feels as if a conversation is not moving in a productive direction, the guidelines encourage them to disengage as they feel appropriate, and others are encouraged to assume that a person who hasn’t replied to their comments isn’t actively avoiding their no-doubt-devastating argumentation, but rather, is preoccupied with their other, more pressing duties (and what duty is less pressing than arguing in Facebook comment sections?).
The guiding principle of the group is to respect each other’s narratives. That phrase, when I first read it, did not seem to be written in my native language, but I came to grasp its meaning soon enough. Group members need to respect the way other people understand themselves. Statements along the lines of “you can’t be transgender and Catholic,” or denunciations of, for example, all Libertarians or all Communists as heretics are not allowed. All claims about what the Church teaches, or what is “truly” Catholic should be backed up by a citation to a relevant Church document.
This rule is not intended to obfuscate Church teaching or discourage people from explaining and defending it, but rather, to prevent people from using the magisterium as a cudgel. This is supposed to ensure that people who hold minority or even fringe perspectives can have a space to explore the resources of the Church’s tradition without being browbeaten or harassed for not accepting everything the Church teaches, or for not fitting into someone else’s overly-narrow view of what it means to be Catholic.
The group’s founding was inspired by the 2012 election, in which both vice presidential nominees, Joe Biden and Paul Ryan, were Catholic, and the Church’s relationship with the partisan divide briefly took center stage as Catholics debated the extent to which Paul Ryan’s hawkish fiscal policies were compatible with the Church’s social teaching. The lesson I take from the group’s origin is that, theoretically, either Joe Biden and Paul Ryan (or, more likely, people who sympathize with one or the other) could have the space to explain themselves and how they understand their policies in light of the Church’s teachings. Before we throw mud at fellow Catholics across the aisle, we should try to understand them on their own terms, and the group is intended to facilitate this.
The Mundane
This lofty purpose is easily forgotten in the day-to-day workings of the group. Most of my time in the group is spent checking and approving submitted posts and monitoring discussion to make sure things don’t get out of hand.
Discussions in the group often take on the same tenor as arguments that could be found anywhere else on the web, or, dare I say, cable news. In this predominantly left-wing group, any article about Paul Ryan will see half a dozen comments about Ayn Rand2 for every comment that even briefly entertains the notion that Paul Ryan intends to serve the common good (a notion that I once found much easier to hold). Discussions of Trump overwhelmingly (and understandably) skew negative. When right- and left-leaning members do clash, the exchange often sounds like the repetition of talking points. In the discussion of mainstream politics, I rarely see attempts by either side to step outside their own biases to understand others beyond what they need to win an argument.
When the battle lines are not so clearly drawn, though, conversation is possible. A recent discussion of how the Church should engage indigenous religions and superstitions (prompted by a story about a summit of exorcists in Rome dedicated to this topic) saw various group members bringing forward what they understood of beliefs and practices in different parts of the world. No particular conclusions were drawn from the conversation, but all who participated seemed to walk away with a greater appreciation of others’ insights and the complexity of the issue.
Genuine trolls are rare, and generally dealt with on sight. It’s usually pretty obvious when someone comes in with the intention of stirring up trouble. But behavior that falls short of the guidelines is a frequent temptation even for well-established members. When discussing a topic for what seems like the thousandth time, it’s all too easy to fall into familiar patterns of argumentation rather than encountering the other person as a child of God.
I’m no paragon of the guidelines, either. One of the first things I was told about moderating was that I should see it as a ministry, but it’s a piece of advice I often forget. When someone says something controversial, I sometimes find myself exasperated at the extra work the subsequent conversation might give me, when a more ideal response would be to welcome the new perspective and try to bring it into conversation with other members and especially with the principles of Catholic social teaching. Too often, I find myself valuing a superficial peace in the group over the possibility for the kind of encounter that the guidelines are supposed to enable.
I had hoped that participating in the group would provide me with insights into how to bridge the partisan divide within the Church. I'm sorry to report that I have little good news on that front. But something that my participation has made clear to me that I think is not well-enough understood is the degree to which the divide within the Church is not simply a matter of disagreement, but of hundreds of insults and resentments which have only compounded over the years. Online discussions will have little direct impact on policy, but our words still matter. The way we treat each other (even when talking in the abstract about the "other side) matters. With every exchange, we can either deepen the divisions, or look for the good in the other.
1 “Staff” might be an overstatement. At the moment, I’m the only moderator other than the group's founder.↩
2 Every time someone on the Left mentions Ayn Rand or the Koch brothers, or someone on the right brings up Saul Alinsky or George Soros, I die inside just a little.↩
No comments:
Post a Comment