[Music]
Well, last couple weeks there's been a
lot of talk in our culture around moral
issues prompted by uh the Bruce Jenner
transformation and also the debate
around gay marriage. And what I've
discovered is that an awful lot of this
conversation is marked by confusion, by
the lack of making the right
distinctions. And here I go back to one
of my great mentors, manior Robert
Sakalowski, who taught me a Catholic few
years ago, who said in one of those sort
of lapidary remarks, it strikes you
immediately as right. He said,
"Philosophy is the art of making
distinctions."
In other words, what brings together
Plato, Aristotle, Lach, uh, Aquinus,
Vickinstein, Haidiger is a gift for
distinguishing this idea from that,
distinguishing this profile, this aspect
from that, uh, clearing up muddy water
thereby. As I say, I think around these
moral issues today, there's an awful lot
of muddy water that comes from not
making the right distinctions. There are
two areas I want to focus on in this
little
presentation. Confusion regarding love
and hate and confusion regarding
tolerance and
intolerance. What I'd like to do in the
spirit of Sakalowski is to make some
distinctions I hope are clarifying in
this regard. Um, look at love and hate.
First of all, what's it mean to love?
Well, in the great Catholic tradition,
love is not an emotion. Love is rather
an act of the will. To love is to will
the good of the other as
other. Hatred, therefore, is to will
evil for someone. It's to will something
bad for another. Now, given that
distinction, when are we called upon to
love? The answer is always in every
circumstance. When is hatred called for?
The answer is never under no
circumstances. Is there hatred out
there? Absolutely. Are there people who
are willing evil for others? Yes,
indeed. It happens all the time. Has
hatred surfaced in the recent debates
around transgenderism and and uh gay
marriage? Yes, it has. Real hatred has
surfaced. My point is once we understand
the terms, right, we're never called
upon to hate. We are always called upon
to love. Jesus said we must be perfect
as our heavenly father is perfect. Well,
who is God? God is love right through.
Are we called upon to love even the ISIS
murderers? Yeah. Yeah. How? Absolutely.
Unconditionally. We're called upon to
will their good. Period. End of
argument. Were our ancestors called upon
to love Hitler and his Nazi u
colleagues? Yeah. Yes. How? Absolutely.
Unconditionally, perfectly. To love is
to will the good of the other. There's
never a time when we're not supposed to
do that. Jesus says, "Love your
enemies. Bless those who curse you. Pray
for those who maltreat you." So to bring
into our present day debates, let's say
you are completely opposed to what Bruce
Jenner
did. Does that mean you hate Bruce
Jenner? No, you should never hate him.
You you should love him. How?
Unconditionally. Absolutely. Suppose
you're you're opposed to gay marriage on
principle. Does that mean you hate
people that are involved in gay
marriage? No. No. On the contrary, you
love them. How? Perfectly, absolutely,
unconditionally. So I hope that's clear
the call what love is and then the call
to love. But here's the distinction I
want to make. Second distinction I want
to make
is criticizing someone's moral choice is
not necessarily tantamount to hate. And
that's where there's a lot of confusion
in the conversation today.
If someone speaks out against, let's say
what Bruce Jenner did, they speak out
against gay marriage, they're often
accused of hating transgendered people
or hating those involved in gay
marriage. Now, can an argument be used
sometimes as a subtrauge? Can it be as a
vehicle for real hatred? Yeah, I suppose
it can.
That's never called for ever. But it
doesn't necessarily mean that you are
hating someone if you mount an argument
against their moral uh choice. How come?
Because it can be precisely an act of
love. If one is really convinced that
let's say gay marriage is morally
objectionable, it's actually willing the
good of the other to speak out against
it. So, I I hope that distinction helps
to clarify that not everyone who's
opposed to certain moral moves is a
hater. See, here's part of the problem,
too, with that. And it's happened
because we've we've lost largely a sense
of objective morality. Once that
disappears, there's no objective ground
for your moral position. Then, if you're
opposed to me, all I've got to rely on
are psychological categories to explain
your opposition. Right? I can't say,
"Oh, you're opposed to me because you
have a legitimate argument you're making
appealing to objective values." If that
has evened, all I've got left are the
psychological categories of he likes me
or doesn't like me. Obviously, he hates
me because he's arguing against me. No,
no. I can argue against your moral
position precisely as an expression of
of love. You know, something came to
mind recently. I read an account of a
debate between two Princeton professors,
uh, both wellknown, Cornell West and
Robert George. They're on opposite sides
of the gay marriage question of Cornell
West favoring it, Robert George opposed
to it. What I loved about their exchange
was they actually argued with each
other. What I mean is they appealed to
evidence. They made um uh arguments.
They drew premises from conclusions.
They answered
objections. Both these men, by the way,
are very fond of each other. They're
friends. Neither one accused the other
of hating. They engaged in a real,
objective, rational, moral
argument. And maintain their friendship
all the way through it. They're a bit
like Chesterton and um and GB Shaw. May
their tribe increase. I would say here's
the other area now I think we need to
make a distinction in regard to
tolerance and
intolerance. It's very interesting to me
how those terms have kind of morphed
over the the
years. Today tolerance seems to amount
to not just acceptance but
celebration. If I'm anything less than
celebratory in regard to, let's say,
what Bruce Jenner did or with gay
marriage, then I'm insufficiently
tolerant of those two things. Well, see,
in point of fact, the word toleration
implies an acceptance of something that
you don't like. Right? If I'm tolerating
you, it doesn't mean I'm celebrating
you. It means there's something about
you I don't like, but I'm putting up
with it. Right? To tolerate is to put up
with something. So in our system for
example, I'm called upon legitimately to
tolerate a whole range of religious
views that I find objectionable,
erroneous, maybe even bizarre or
dangerous. But yet in this, I think
rightly configured political situation,
I tolerate them. I accept them for all
kinds of reasons. Respect for individual
dignity, to avoid civil strife. There's
all kinds of reasons. But toleration
does not imply, should not imply
celebration. So the trouble is that if
you're anything shy of that in regard
to, let's say, gay marriage, you're
accused now of being intolerant. Well,
see, that doesn't follow at all. Uh, in
fact, toleration
implies I got something against a point
of view, but I'm willing to accept it
for other reasons. So I think that would
help to clarify too that we should be
careful in throwing around um the
accusation of
intolerance. Just a last um remark I go
back to again Thomas Aquinus my great
intellectual hero. Very often when
Thomas is addressing a an issue
especially a thorny issue he begins with
that little Latin word
distinguo. I distinguish. And I think
some distinctions, some
clarifications would be very helpful in
the present day moral conversation.