A Sensible Life

Tag: culture

  • Gratuitousness

    Gratuitousness

    The post-enlightenment world in which we live tells us that man is essentially an individual animal; that he is on this earth to serve his own needs and desires and to act to ensure his survival and that of his progeny.  His relationship and interaction with others takes the form of a series of social contracts.  These social contracts impose certain duties upon him and give him certain rights.  However, he does not give freely, he does so with the hope (or rather, the expectation) that he will receive something in return.

    Christianity and the Catholic Church vehemently reject this notion of man in isolation self-interestedly seeking his own advantage and engaging with others only to the extent that (a) his forced to do so or (b) such engagement serves his purposes.  We are called to a radically different approach to our life in the world.  As Pope Benedict states in Caritas in Veritate, “the earthly city is promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and communion. Charity always manifests God’s love in human relationships as well, it gives theological and salvific value to all commitment for justice in the world.”

    So we if we are to engage in this earthly city in a fully human way, in a manner that lifts us above the nature of other animals, we are to live gratuitously.  This principle of gratuitousness lies at the heart of all understanding of man’s relationship with man and hence must underlie all discussion of the manner in which we create and execute those institutions and ideas that give form to man’s interconnectedness with man:  families, communities, economic systems, systems of governance.

    What does it mean to live gratuitously?  Simply said, to live gratuitously is to give freely, according to the needs of others and according to our ability and responsibility to give.  This gratuitous living, then, requires a life of reflection; a life spent seeking to understand others, their needs, desires, hopes and fears and also seeking to understand ourselves our own capabilities and responsibilities.  Interestingly, as one seeks to understand and live this idea of gratuitous giving, one begins to see a corollary human trait, trust.  As we empty ourselves in the care of others we come to realize our dependence upon others for our needs.  So, in this way of living I am called both to give freely and to receive freely.  My relationship with my fellow man becomes one of mutual self-giving.  This life of relationship differs fundamentally from the enlightened notion expressed at the beginning of this piece, the notion of isolated individuals entering into social contracts.

    The exploration of how we should live this idea of gratuitousness serves as one of the main themes of A Sensible Life.  Our current economic and political realities are rife with examples of how we are not living gratuitously.  With a little digging we can find some examples of things we are doing well.

  • Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    Political Labels (Defining our Terms)

    I recently heard on the Mike Gallagher show an interview with Jonah Goldberg of the National Review. I usually agree with much of what Mr. Goldberg has to say. In this particular interview (June 5), however, I took strong exception to one of his points. Mr. Goldberg made the statement that it is only liberals who indicate a desire to stop using labels to identify political positions. They do this, he said, because they are opposed to taking a principled stand on any issue.

    I think Mr. Goldberg is only about half correct. While it is true that much of the political discourse in this country avoids (intentionally or unintentionally) any principled stand on a particular issue, it is not true that only individuals of one political persuasion tire of the use of labels in our conversations in the public square.

    Mr. Goldberg may also be correct in his assessment of certain individuals’ tendency to hide behind labels in their desire to avoid substantive debate. I think it more likely, however, that many of us in our interactions in the public square use labels out of laziness. We find it easier in the brevity of our communications to use a word or two to describe ourselves or our opponents than to truly describe our own position or their position.

    The reality is that we frequently don’t know what the “one-worders” mean! Really, what is a liberal? What is a conservative? Let’s define our positions! What are we interested in? What is our hope for our economy? Our country? Our culture? Perhaps we’ll find that our positions are not that far apart. Certainly we will find that there are issues about which we strongly disagree but at least then we can have a conversation about the merits of the various positions on those particular issues.

    Chesterton said in What’s Wrong with the World that , “I suppose most conservatives are conserving the traditions of the last revolt.” Chesterton would not have defined himself as a conservative and had some not so complimentary things to say about those who did so this quote should be understood in that context. What I believe he rightly points out here, though, is the truth that conservatism itself is subject to a definition that rests on a shifting foundation. What is it that conservatism purports to conserve? Let the conservative define his position, define what it is he wants to conserve. Let the liberal define his liberality. As I see it, the problem with the liberal “movement” is that it is not liberal.

    I’ll save my definition of terms for another day. Until then, I resolve to speak in full sentences. If I use a label for someone or some ideology, I will make sure folks know what I mean by it…