People say our society is getting increasingly polarized, but is it true? We have heard the rhetoric and the vitriol, but is this just what improves ratings? If it bleeds, it leads? Is this so-called “culture war” really just fought among leaders and the media, or is polarization a fact that touches the rest of us? Further, is this polarization also happening among American Catholics? If so, how can we heal?
CATHOLIC DIVISION IN THE U.S. EXPERIENCE
As Holly Taylor Coolman discusses in her essay in Polarization in the US Catholic Church: Naming the Wounds, Beginning to Heal, polarization and conflict are not the same thing. Conflict is a problem with positions or ideas that necessarily gather people to resolve whatever is at the root of the dissonance; they depend upon what they share in common to navigate their differences. Polarization is a matter of two opposing (rather than different) ideas organizing the whole of an existence. Think about the pattern iron filings form as they are arranged by the two poles of a magnet. When people are polarized, they define themselves against the other pole. The poles determine everything. In a situation of conflict, it is commonality that organizes debate. In one of polarization, difference organizes it. In fact, polarization often prevents the healthy conflict groups need in order to move past what divides them. Although conflict can be healthy, polarization never is.
Which brings us to the differences among today's Catholics as we compare them to the past. Previously, the divisions were a “Catholic problem.” When Italian Catholics were frustrated that their traditions were being looked down upon by their coreligionists, at least when they left their ethnic ghetto they were reminded how much they shared with other Catholics; they were, in fact, very different from non-Catholics. Now the axis is political and runs not just through our parish or diocese but through the whole of American life. From divisions of Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish, we are now, as Catholics, grouped into a liberal or conservative binary, a binary that is reinforced in our jobs, leisure, home life, political commitments, and more.
FACTORS FOR A POLARIZED CATHOLICISM
I want to lift up two important factors that continue to increase and sustain polarization among American Catholics: an increasing sense of individual moral authority and parish choice. Beginning with individual moral authority, as William D’Antonio and his team demonstrate in American Catholics in Transition, Catholics are increasingly saying that the final moral authority on an issue is not the bishops or the bishops and laity together, but only with the individual involved. For example, in 1987, 31 percent of Catholics said that the moral authority concerning divorce and remarriage lies with individuals alone. By 2011, that figure rose to 47 percent. As Phillip Hammond discusses in Religion and Personal Autonomy: The Third Disestablishment in America, this individualist shift is present even in more conservative traditions. With a greater sense of their own moral authority, both progressive and conservative Catholics can feel more at home in political identities as Republicans (eschewing teaching on the death penalty or government assistance for those in poverty) or Democrats (minimizing teaching on abortion or assisted suicide).
Parish choice also feeds into polarization. Sociologist Tricia Bruce’s Parish and Place: Making Room for Diversity in the American Catholic Church examines the recent increase in personal parishes; that is, parishes canonically designated for a particular population (e.g., Vietnamese Catholics) rather than a particular territory. While many personal parishes serve ethnic groups, they increasingly serve Catholics desiring a parish that celebrates the Latin Mass or places the social mission of the Church at its center. People are choosing parishes based on identity. These personal parishes can isolate—or contain, depending on the perspective—Catholics on the ideological margins. This makes parishes more homogenous, leaving Catholics with parishes that act as ideological echo chambers.
To heal our polarization we need charity. We need to grow charity in ourselves, in our parishes, and in our world.
VISIONS FOR A POST-POLARIZED CHURCH
Clearly there are formidable challenges to moving toward a more unified Church. The way to heal this is to end polarization qua polarization, shifting it into political diversity. In this way, we can transform what we are experiencing as a weakness into a strength, a move toward appreciating what Michele Dillon calls the “interpretive diversity” of our faith in her Postsecular Catholicism: Revelance and Renewal. Rather than having poles and opposition organizing American Catholic political discourse, we can listen to the ways Catholics of varying political stripes use both their experiences and Church teaching to navigate the vagaries of our complex social world. In this way, we can move from a sense of derision to interdependence; we’ll see the value in perspectives that differ from our own and use these to move toward a common ground rooted in our faith. Here are six things I’d suggest for getting there.
Building relationships.
We aren’t doing too well on the relationship front. Robert Putnam, a sociologist of social capital, writes in Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community that when Americans were asked how many close friends they had in 1985, the average number was three, with the most common answer being two. By 2004, the average number of close friends fell to two, and the most common response was zero. Zero. We’ve lost our social embeddedness. Strengthening our interpersonal connections and trust may help our sense of social trust as well.
Being uncomfortable.
However, just strengthening our interpersonal relationships alone could exacerbate polarization. As I said above, we tend to socialize with others like ourselves, be it according to politics, race, age, income, and more. Try also to be around those who are different from you, crossing social boundaries when the opportunities arise. The more you are around those with different experiences, the more you will hear different perspectives. Hearing those new perspectives from friends and acquaintances will make you more empathic and understanding of strangers whose opinions might diverge from your own.
Starting with what is held in common.
After we strengthen our relationships and add more diverse connections to these, we are ready to begin productive conversations. Whether these conversations are informal between two people or carefully coordinated at a parish or diocesan level, they need to begin with what the parties have in common. These commonalities might be more general—a sacramental vision of the world—or more specific—a commitment to lower abortion rates. Imagine if a small group of ideologically diverse people at a parish led a committee that would constantly guide the parish back to the shared mission whenever events began to rock the community. Making explicit what everyone has in common allows for everyone to regroup and go back to what is foundational when disagreements arise.
Recognizing the differences between disagreeing with principles and disagreeing with the prudential application of those principles.
Our conversations will have disagreement. Disagreements can be incredibly productive both for better understanding another perspective as well as for coming up with effective solutions. It is critical in these discussions to know exactly what we are disagreeing about. For example, in a discussion about how a parish might help reduce the local abortion rates, some might propose political efforts to criminalize abortion, while others may find that inappropriate. Further conversation will, I believe, reveal that it is a disagreement over means, and not a disagreement over the dignity of the human person. Encountering disagreements with goodwill will help illuminate the true nature of the conflict and keep conversation centered on the common project.
Dialoguing rather than debating.
Too often we debate. There is nothing wrong with a good-natured sparring of ideas. But debates have sides; one side wins and the other loses. For a Church in need of healing, debate is not an appropriate method. We need to opt for dialogue. People dialoguing hold their desired outcomes loosely, believing there is more wisdom in the room than their own. Dialogue helps us to understand a different perspective, even while we don’t agree with it. We will come away with a better sense of the concerns and discernment of others. Dialogue emphasizes process and allows for loose ends.
Care. Really.
If we do everything else well, but ultimately don’t care, there is slim chance our efforts will bear fruit. Belittling others or otherwise getting snarky undermines any preceding work. Holding tight to a personal, rather than a shared, agenda will derail the project. Being invested in one another as people and as co-creators as well as working together in great hope, faith, and imagination are critical to healing. “Losing” with humility—acknowledging the possibility that the Holy Spirit can work in ways beyond our comprehension—helps us to maintain communion when we are disappointed with an outcome.In short, to heal our polarization we need charity. We need to grow charity in ourselves, in our parishes, and in our world. Charity will help to rebuild the personal and social trust that has slowly eroded. It will take hard work, a lot of patience, an anticipation of setbacks, and a long-term vision. Ultimately, charity will move us from one another’s throats to one another's hearts. Let’s roll up our sleeves and begin to breathe easy and love deeply.
Maureen K. Day is an associate professor at the Franciscan School of Theology and is the editor of Young Adult American Catholics: Explaining Vocation in Their Own Words.
This article excerpt was originally published in the National Catholic Reporter (November 30, 2018) and is reprinted by permission of NCR Publishing Company. www.NCROnline.org
To read the full article visit: bc.edu/c21polarization