|
Complex reality
Dear Editor,
Way back I was once cautioned about forms of nominalistic thinking. By the
term "nominalistic" my cautioner referred to a type of
thinking that sets up dichotomous categories, that takes complex reality
and oversimplifies it. Richard Gaillardetz' article ("Recovering
the Sacred Mystery," ML 24:7) casts all inadequate
thinking under the heading of "unitarian" theism. Then
he casts into the unitarianist Gehenna what he considers both sides of the
abortion debate, in his words, "both pro-life extremists and
pro-choice zealots." From the perch of spectatorship on Mount
Olympus such lazy distinctions of pro-life discussion might seem
objective. Beware of those bearing "gifts" of their own
middle of the road. They unwittingly go along in very un-Solomon-like
"objectivity" with the carving of the child of the womb. Reality
is complex. From a pastoral and a theological view, our pro-life people
are very un-extreme, compassionate, and caring people. Common ground
is important but cannot be made of nominalistic straw
that has no real basis in a very real world.
Rev Francis X. Meehan
Richard Gaillardetz replies:
I must confess to a certain dismay that in a lengthy two-part article, one
sentence should draw such a heated response. This is particularly
aggravating because my criticism was directed not toward the pro-life
movement itself but toward certain "extremists" within the
pro-life movement. It was certainly not my intention to reduce
all "inadequate thinking" to the "unitarianist
Gehenna" -- only those forms of inadequate thinking that start with
the fallacious assumption that God is an individual entity and build
an individualist ethos on that shaky theological foundation. I remain
perplexed by the fact that the author of this letter would assume
that a criticism of some "extremists" within a movement
must be construed as an attack on the movement itself. I wonder how inclusive
Fr. Meehan wishes to be when he refers to "our pro-life
people"? Does he include those who in the name of "pro-life"
murder abortionists or employ hateful epithets? I am sure he does not. But
if he does not then he is implicitly admitting that there are indeed
extremists with whom he would part company.
More importantly, however, I must take issue with the assumption implicit
in Fr. Meehan's observation that I write what I do from the "perch
of spectatorship on Mount Olympus." This is an ad hominem
comment unbefitting a man with Fr. Meehan's theological education. First,
I am a very strong supporter of our church's teaching on the objective
evil of abortion.
Second, my convictions regarding the objective evil of abortion are
grounded not primarily in theological positions arrived at
on "Mount Olympus" but in my experience as a father of
four young children who witnessed the miracle of their growth in the
womb. I am also a father who grieved the loss of another child of ours
to a late-term miscarriage.
I am no "distant spectator" when it comes to convictions
regarding the sanctity of life from conception to death! I am, however, a
theologian who believes, with Fr. Meehan, that "reality is
complex." Consequently, it is important to make a distinction
between church teaching and both theological arguments and pastoral
strategies that flow from that teaching. My one-sentence observation
was limited strictly to a criticism of the arguments and pastoral
strategies employed by some often vocal figures within the pro-life movement
whom I believe are unduly influenced by post-Enlightenment individualism. I am
somewhat surprised that Fr. Meehan believes that every member of the
pro-life movement is uniquely exempt from the cultural factors which I am
sure he would admit have at times affected the church in many other areas
of ecclesial life. Why is it that so many are eager to join with me in my
criticisms of certain aspects of our North American culture until the
criticism extends to members of the church itself?
—ML
| |