Denver Catholic

15 DENVER CATHOLIC | JUNE 27-JULY 10, 2015 L ast week, I wrote a piece on Bruce Jenner's transformation into Caitlyn Jenner. I argued that the manner in which Jenner spoke of his transition refl ected a Gnostic anthro- pology, which is repugnant to a Biblical view of the human being. I didn't say a word about Jenner personally; I urged no violence against him/her; I didn't question his/her motives. I simply made an observation that the moral and spiritual context for transgenderism is, from a classically Christian standpoint, problematic. Not surprisingly, the article garnered a fair amount of attention and inspired a lot of commentary, both positive and neg- ative. Among the negative remarks were a number that criticized me for fomenting "hatred" against Jenner and against the transgender community. Though I've come to expect this sort of reaction, I fi nd it discouraging and the fruit of some pretty fundamental confusions. My great mentor Robert Sokolowski long ago taught me--in one of those lapidary remarks that strikes you immediately as right and important- -that philosophy is the art of making distinctions. He meant that what brings together Plato, Aristotle, Augustine, Aquinas, Kant, Hegel, and Wittgenstein is a gift for clarifying how this di• ers from that, how one aspect of an idea profi les itself against another, how seem- ingly similar concepts are in fact distinct. What strikes me so often as I listen to the public conversation regarding moral issues is the incapacity of so many to make the right distinctions. Some of the muddiest water sur- rounds the concepts of love/ hate and tolerance/ intoler- ance. In the spirit of Sokolowski, I would like to make what I hope are some clarifying di• erentiations. For the mainstream of the Catholic intellectual tradition, love is not pri- marily an emotion, but an act of the will. To love, Thomas Aquinas says, is to want the good of the other. Consequently, hatred is not primarily a feeling, but desiring evil for another, positively wanting what is bad for someone else. Given this, when is hatred called for? When is hatred morally permissible? The simple answer: never. God¥is¥nothing but love, and Jesus said that we are to be perfect, as our heavenly father is perfect. This is precisely why he told us to love even our enemies, to bless even those who curse us, to pray even for those who maltreat us. Does this mean that our forebears were obliged to love Hitler and that we are obliged to love ISIS murderers? Yes. Period. Does it mean that we are to will the good of those who, we are con- vinced, are walking a dangerous moral path? Yes. Period. Should everyone love Bruce/Caitlyn Jenner? Absolutely, com- pletely, unconditionally. But here is where a crucial distinction has to be made: to criticize someone for engaging in immoral activity is not to "hate" that person. In point of fact, it is an act of love, for it is tantamount to willing good for him or her. Once the sense that there is objective good and evil has been attenuated, as it largely has been in our society, the only catego- ries we have left are psychological ones. And this is why, in the minds of many, to question the moral legitimacy of trans- genderism is, perforce, to "attack" or "hate" transgendered people. A very real danger that fl ows from the failure to make the right distinction in this regard is that moral argument evanesces. If someone who disagrees with you on an ethical matter is simply a "hater," then you don't have to listen to his argument or engage it critically. Just a few weeks ago, two Princeton faculty members, Cornel West and Robert George, had a public debate regarding same-sex marriage, West argu- ing for and George against. What was so refreshing was that both men, who are good friends, actually argued, that is to say, marshalled evidence, drew reasoned conclusions from premises, answered objections, etc., and neither one accused the other of "hating " advocates of the rival position. May their tribe increase. Distinctions are called for, further- more, regarding the word "tolerance," which is bandied about constantly today. Typically, it has come to mean acceptance and even celebration. Thus, if one is anything shy of ecstatic about gay marriage or transgenderism, one is insu† ciently "tolerant." In point of fact, the term implies the willingness to countenance a view or activity that one does not agree with. There are lots of good reasons for this toleration, the most important of which are respect for the integrity of the indi- vidual and the avoidance of unnecessary civil strife, but it by no means implies that one is obliged to accept or celebrate those perspectives. Thus, one should certainly tolerate the right of a person to become transgendered without feel- ing, at the same time, obliged to exult in that person's choice. The ethical conversation has become, in the last fi fty years, extraordinarily roiled. It would serve all of us to adopt an intellectual instinct of Thomas Aquinas. When he was confronted with a thorny question, he would typically begin his response with the comment "distinguo" (I distinguish). Love, Tolerance, and the Making of Distinctions Four simple themes of Laudato Si' Father Robert Barron is founder of the global ministry, Word on Fire, and rector of Mundelein Seminary in Illinois. He is the creator of the award winning documentary series "Catholicism." Guest Column FATHER ROBERT BARRON T he second encyclical of Pope Fran- cis, titled¥Laudato Si': On the Care of Our Common Home, is a lengthy and ambitious 184-page letter that covers a lot of ground. The Holy Father touches on everything from the invasiveness of technol- ogy in our daily lives to climate change to a very specifi c mention of the increased use of air conditioning. He even makes an unexpected and wel- come reference to St. Thérèse of Lisieux and her doctrine of the "Little Way." While the more specifi c points are covered well in many summaries already published, here are four simple themes that can serve as a quick frame- work for understanding the fi rst Papal encyclical on ecology. 1. EVERYTHING IS CONNECTED The Holy Father uses words such as connection, interrelation, unity, relationship and harmony dozens of times throughout the encyclical, thus promoting the idea of an "integral ecol- ogy" that brings together an "ecology of nature" with an "ecology of man." Using St. Francis as an "example par excellence" of living out an "integral ecology," the pope notes that our "rela- tionship with the environment can never be isolated from our relationship with God, and with others." Additionally, Pope Francis underlines that every single person on earth is con- nected by the very fact that we all inhabit the earth, which is our "common home." The encyclical itself is addressed to "all people," every single resident of earth, and it seeks "a new dialogue about how we are shaping the future of our planet." 2. WE ARE BROKEN The root of the problem that we com- monly face together, the pope states, is disunity. "Human life is grounded in three fundamental and closely intertwined relationships: with God, with our neigh- bor and with the earth itself," the pope writes. "These three vital relationships have been broken, both outwardly and within us." He called this rupture "sin", and he said the cause is "our presuming to take the place of God and refusing to acknowledge our creaturely limitations." The Holy Father repeatedly mentions "excessive anthropocentrism," which gives rise "to a wrong understanding of the relationship between human beings and the world." 3. THE EARTH CRIES OUT When man breaks his connection with God, neighbor and creation, he eventually does injury and violence to himself, others, and to the earth. In the nearly poetic introduction to the letter, Francis writes of the earth as our sister: "This sister now cries out to us because of the harm we have infl icted on her by our irresponsible use and abuse of the goods with which God has endowed her." Instead of caring for the earth, which is our "home," we have made it "look more and more like an immense pile of fi lth," the pope writes. Then there is the social destruction. Pope Francis points to several signs of "real social decline, the silent rupture of the bonds of integration and social cohesion." "The human environment and the natural environment deteriorate together; we cannot adequately combat environmental degradation unless we attend to causes related to human and social degradation," he states. 4. A CALL TO CONVERSION "The external deserts in the world are growing, because the internal deserts have become so vast," the pope writes, quoting Pope Benedict XVI. "For this reason, the ecological crisis is also a sum- mons to profound interior conversion." In a powerful statement on what the pope terms "ecological conversion," the Holy Father calls all Christians to allow the "e• ects of their encounter with Jesus Christ [to] become evident in their rela- tionship with the world around them." "Living our vocation to be protectors of God's handiwork is essential to a life of virtue," he asserts. "It is not an optional or a secondary aspect of our Christian experience." Karna Swanson is the general manager of Denver Catholic, www.DenverCatholic.org. Manager's Column KARNA SWANSON

• Cover