By Fr. Glenn Jones:
Not infrequently we see politicians “eating their own” with criticism whenever one of their party members reaches out to the other side, or even to be seen with someone controversial. Case in point: Senator McCarthy (Rep.) at the recent state dinner at the White House with the controversial Hunter Biden in attendance. “Bad enough with Joe, but with Hunter, too?!!”
Well, if you’re going to have to vet every single person at every single gathering you attend, you just as well stay home. Such stories of snubbing those with whom one disagrees cannot help but remind us of the Gospel: “[Jesus] sat at table in the house, behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Jesus and his disciples. And when the Pharisees saw this, they said to his disciples, ‘Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?’ But when [Jesus] heard it, he said, ‘Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. Go and learn what this means, ‘I desire mercy…’” (Matthew 9:10-13)
This isn’t necessarily to equate one side or the other with “sinners”, but rather to stress the point that entrenched isolation in one’s own position without dialoging does little good; wars start with less. But we see lots of this these days in social media especially, and the reader can block opinions of the other side and bask in the false comfort of an unchallenging echo chamber of his own thoughts and positions if he’d like. But … somewhat limiting, don’t you thing? What if you’re actually wrong? … or what if there are points which the other side brings up that you failed to consider? Then you’ve lost out on not only an opportunity to learn, but also to be more reasoned; you may even (gasp!) change your mind. How can someone who refuses to listen to reasoned arguments be considered credible?
But, of course, “reasoned” is a key word there; there are plenty of very un-reasonable arguments out in the land. For instance, media outlets are becoming increasingly infamous for selective omission (or even distortion) of fact and headlines. Recently the news has been replete with stories about Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter and subsequent revelations of possible “shadow-banning” (essentially censorship) of various opinions or political sides conducted due to concerns of misinformation, “hate-speech”, etc.—the “You can’t falsely yell ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theatre” argument. And now others are pointing out that even these revelations seem to be one-sided—selected to damage one political side over others.
And thus the long-argued determination of limits on free speech come into play, and, if there are limits, then the essential question to the gatekeeper—the final authority of what is “fit to print”.
It’s not an easy question. As we are taught in high school science classes, everyone comes into an experiment or situation with some bias, and thus the danger of data being biased as well—perhaps by rejecting some outlying data points or information that are actually of vital importance. The classic example that Catholics hear (ad nauseum, really) is the Church’s treatment of Galileo and his promotion of the heliocentric model of the solar system.
But one cannot forget that even that which may seem to be long “settled science”, too, can often be wrong when greater knowledge or data comes to be known—the age/beginning of the universe, for example. (And we still can’t seem to even figure out if eggs, coffee and wine are good or bad for us!). Thus true science and true fact-finding should never be closed absolutely; it recognizes always the possibility of error, bias, etc., and remains ever open to discussion so that a truth may be more greatly approached, error be increasingly discarded.
That’s what’s so engaging about Plato’s philosophical dialogues in which Socrates debates often smug interlocutors via questioning, forcing them to realize the contradictions in their presuppositions. But in those dialogues Socrates always enters the debate with (at least apparent) sincere and amiable questioning rather than simply declaring the other person an idiot—not infrequent in our day and age. We ought remember that graciousness is the princely virtue which opens up relations and relationships, while rudeness engenders immediate antagonism, impeding advances of knowledge/wisdom or paths to truth that may otherwise be enjoyed.
The word “philosophy” means “love of wisdom”, and whence comes wisdom except from that which is true? Yet as we know, truth is often distorted by those seeking power, wealth, notoriety or agenda. Such nefarious stratagems lower the human person (not to mention one’s honor), and divert the self and others from that which is the true good and beneficial.
Actively advancing untruth is enforcing a type of bondage upon those who act upon it. But as Jesus declared, and has subsequently been emblazoned on countless university buildings and public buildings: “You shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” (John 8:32) Thus, let us be open to knowledge and promoters of that which is true. The Christian believes that God IS truth, and so the seeking of any and all truth brings us closer to God, for Jesus also said: “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.” (John 14:6)
Editor’s note: Rev. Glenn Jones is the Vicar General of the Archdiocese of Santa Fe and former pastor of Immaculate Heart of Mary Catholic Church in Los Alamos.
