I love word play.
Initially the wording of the title of this post captured the denotative meaning of what I was after but carried militant overtones that I found off putting. “Rules of Engagement” is the literal phrase used in military settings to dictate how one is to behave when encountering the enemy. This is very nearly in direct opposition to the nature of the conversations within which I want to be engaged.
Then it occurred to me that “engagement” is also the word used to describe the period of time shared by a man and woman prior to and in preparation for their marriage. It is a time of mutual love, ongoing discernment, and preparatory excitement.
Bingo! My hope is that these “Rules of Engagement” serve as a dialogical framework within which I can explore ideas, share values with others, and ultimately transform my combative heart into an engagement of love with others as we live our lives and prepare ourselves for the eternal wedding banquet with our Creator.
In a spirit of sacramental love, they are rules for me, but not for thee. I obligate myself and no one else.
I will do my very best to adhere to them and ask others to hold me accountable when I don’t. I invite any one to join me in this discipline, but it is an invitation without expectation.
I am a strong proponent of live and let live. If these rules don’t work for you and you choose to engage in conversations and relationships under different premises (or under no premises), I will do my best to respect your choices. I may choose not to engage further if the circumstances of our exchange don’t seem fruitful, but I will work to do so without judgement. I will hold you in prayer in hopes that we find ways to engage more fruitfully in the future.
Caritas Ante Omnia - Charity above all things
Victory is growing in mutual understanding, not defeating each other
Phenomenological lens. I will definitely explore this more in dedicated posts in the future, but I am a huge proponent of the phenomenological school of philosophy and Catholic personalism in the spirit of Edmund Husserl, St. Teresa Benedicta of the Cross, and Pope St. John Paul the Great.
Sapientia, Humilitas, et Venia - Wisdom, humility, and forgiveness
Honoring the teaching authority of the Magisterium. The Catholic Church is the longest-lived and largest human organization to have ever existed. If one is to assert the authority of any human institution, you would be hard pressed, with any reasonable metric, to be able to exceed the weight of human experience brought to bear on any consequential topic than that of the Catholic Church. One can certainly disagree with the Magisterial teaching of the Church, but the onus is on the person disagreeing to make their case.
Other appeals to authority are acceptable, but likely to be far less compelling than the authority of the Church. Even though many governmental, business, social, scientific, and academic institutions find their origins and/or significant influence in the Catholic tradition, they are too often politicized and or monetized in ways that grossly distort the ways that they assert their “authority”. One can make appeals to these institutions to support an argument, but the point would be better served by backing it up with additional uncontested information (see 3d below)
For any active and honest observer of the Catholic Church, the tension in the above two points is blatant and obvious. The Church is nothing if not political. By its very nature as a human organization focused on the interrelationships of the “polity” that makes up its membership, Catholicism is a roiling kettle of competing interests extending over two millennia. The extremes of those interests have been blunted by time, the sheer mass of humanity that participates, and ultimately the guidance of the Holy Spirit. One can claim the Church is all about money, but they must confront St. Francis of Assisi and the many orders that have sprung from his example. One can claim the Church is all about power, but then you must confront the cross as the defining symbol of the faith. Greed, pride, lust, etc. are all abundantly present with the Catholic Church and its members, but it is an institution constantly working to identify, address, heal from and repent for these shortcomings (archive link) almost by definition.
What about when the Church falls short of who it claims to be and what it claims to value? Catholicism holds at its core the need for gratitude (Eucharist) and forgiveness (Reconciliation). Everything we have is a gift from God. Our best posture in life is that of gratitude. When we fall short as individuals or as an institution of expressing that gratitude through lives of holiness, the best posture is penitence. The call for forgiveness is not a demand made on a world that it must deliver as absolution, rather it is a call from humility acknowledging that the Church and the individuals that claim her are imperfect. We should and do acknowledge that in our imperfection we are called to acknowledge our sins and seek forgiveness.
Oppugna Ideam, Celebra personam - Attack the idea, celebrate the person
Recognize the value and dignity of every human person.
Begin with an assumption of good intent.
Steelmen are better than strawmen.
Seek factual assertions that are uncontested. Sometimes the greatest insight is hidden in plain sight. There is information whose veracity no one is contesting. This provides the best foundation for mutual understanding and intellectual insight.
Dialogus Omnes Mutat - Dialogue is the sharing of ideas where both parties are open to being changed by the exchange.
I reserve the right to change my mind. That right includes these Rules of Engagement.
The antidote to bad ideas is not censorship but asserting better ideas. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Agora or Fora? - Gathering Place or Marketplace of Ideas
I anticipate adding the capacity to comment at some point. I want that process to be as open and uncensored as possible. This creates two problems…
Off topic comments. This is a range. It can be as simple as someone taking a discussion far enough afield from the main point of the conversation that it becomes a distraction. The other end of the spectrum is blatant spam with links to the less savory corners of the internet. I am inclined to appreciate the former as an opportunity to expand conversations into new directions while abhorring the latter. Because there is a range of possibilities in between, human judgement with all its biases is at play. I am not yet sure how to deal with that completely.
Comments that stand in opposition to the Rules of Engagement stated here. Too often, “hate speech” is employed as a label for speech that simply contradicts one's own ideas. I am inclined to let all speech stand (see 3b above). However, the impulse of many participants in online fora is to disregard many of the values that I have articulated here. I imagine a community driven voting system where registered users can “down vote” (or flag?) comments as standing in tension with any of the stated “Rules” but the person flagging the comment would also identify the “rule.” This is not a punishment, but rather an acknowledgement that my goal in this endeavor is to seek personal growth through the framework stated here. I want to maintain the best signal to noise ratio while allowing for the maximal freedom for others to participate and share their thoughts and reflections. This last point is likely “To Be Continued…” based on further reflection.
Let the conversation begin! What are you most excited to discuss on Cathartus? Share your thoughts in the comments below.