Rev. Robert F. O'Toole, S.J., president of the Gregorian University Foundation and professor emeritus at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, addressed in October a large and varied audience at St. Charles Preparatory School.

His presentation (featured below) was in the school's annual Borromean Lecture series sponsored by a 1961 St. Charles alumnus, Robert J. Dilenschneider, a nationally known public relations executive and author who now works in New York.

The Lecture:

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES AND CIVILITY

Who can deny the lack of civility today? In the presence of the entire Congress, Representative Joe Wilson shouted at President Obama, "You lie." In the semi-finals of the U.S. Open, Serena William and in the finals, Roger Federer both had discourteous meltdowns; and religious concerns, even though they might well be quite valid, are not always handled civilly.

In addressing the question of civility, we do best to start with a description of the reality in which we find ourselves; at the same time, let’s be reflecting about the reasons for this lack of civility. There are reasons to be upset and angry. Terrorism has entered our lives and led to the deaths of thousands of people and war on two fronts. Nor are we really sure that Islam is open to religious and civil tolerance or to a mutual respect and esteem of others and their religious traditions. Presently the media is telling us that we are out of the recession, but the global financial crisis is still affecting everyone, especially the poor. Moreover, are we really out of the recession? Neighbors, friends and even family members have seen their investments and retirement funds lose as much as 30% or more of their value; true, the market has improved, but the recovery is just getting under way. At the end of August, the jobless rate in the U.S. was 9.7%. The housing market has improved, but the government stimulus plan is coming to and end. California, New Jersey and other states had significant problems in passing their fiscal budgets, for their revenues could not cover their expenditures. Since 2007 the FDIC has seized 70 banks. Perhaps, the most irritating reality is that the majority of those who caused the world's financial problems has shown no remorse for their failure and are now even benefiting financially from the various national and other efforts at recovery. Likewise discouraging is the reality that the problems with the structural issues with American high finance are still there; a program of real reform is needed to restore full confidence and ensure a system that works for all levels of the economy So, let's admit it; it is no surprise that people are on edge; in fact, our present age has been described as "the age of rage."

Are today's comedians on TV a mirror on our society? There is little self-deprecating humor or the wholesome humor due to creative and patient study of the inconsistencies and funny aspects of human life but rather denigrating and crude abuse of others and their weaknesses or supposed ones.

Fortunately, the vast majority of people do not want to be dominated by even these hard financial times or to revel in a lack of esteem and appreciation of others; for all that is achieved by so doing, is a lack of esteem for ourselves and disappointment in failing to be the kind of persons we should be. Thanks to those who have been influential in our lives, we know that there is a better way of responding to these challenges and of being civil, courteous and polite to everyone we encounter. This civility calls for a true respect and a growing trust in the other person and an appreciation of his or her point of view even though we see it as erroneous and far from the truth.

Our Catholic, Christian stance toward the other finds its roots in the Bible message. Surely the Sacred Scriptures were written centuries ago and the expectations of how human beings were to interact with one another were different and not as refined as we think they should be today. Nonetheless, the civility which most of us treasure and view as essential for peaceful and efficient interaction in society flows from the Bible's message. Also, although the Bible is concerned about religious truths, the principles that it offers can be applied to civility in our personal and professional lives.

We are told in the Old Testament that we human beings, both male and female, are created in God's image and likeness (Gen 1:27); each human being has an inherent dignity which comes from God himself. So, looking down on anyone or failing to appreciate how God is in him or her isn’t the right approach. Rather, in the back of our minds we hear St. Matthew’s description of the last judgment of the nations, of everyone, and how what we do to the least of our brothers and sisters we do to Jesus (25:31-46). This portrayal of the last judgment should come to us as no surprise since our main commands are to love God and our neighbor. Love of one another was Jesus' command, and he could say of himself, "There is no greater love than this: to lay down one's life for one's friend." There is no reason why we should not see our discussion-partner as a friend. Even if we might hesitate, for one reason or another, in doing that, seeing the image of God in the other and listening to Jesus' call to love still direct what our stance toward any dialogue-partner should be. This being the case, courtesy, thoughtfulness and good manner, that is civility, should characterize all of our interactions with others.

Theoretically, in a discussion all the participants are seeking the truth and want to do what is right. Perhaps, one of the most impressive characteristics of Catholicism is that we are committed to be faithful to our religious tradition but at the same time are determined to remain open to the whole of creation so that we move toward the total truth God is communicating to us. We can all say, "Amen" to that; however, isn't it true that we all come to a discussion or argument shaped by our numerous experiences of life? Hopefully, most of this shaping has been positive; but honestly we know that is not totally true of who we are as we enter a civil discussion with someone. Everyone brings baggage, but not everyone is aware of the baggage he or she bringing. Of course, it is always easier to determine the baggage that our dialogue partner or partners have; but until we have reached an accepting and mutually respectful relationship, there is not much that we can do about that. On the other hand, we can do quite a bit about trying to get in touch with the negative baggage, even prejudices, that we are bringing to the discussion. It takes humility and courage to deal with one's negative baggage; once we have done so, we are much more honest dialogue partners. If I am unwilling to do so, St. Matthew (7:5) has some strong words for us, "You hypocrite! Remove the plank from your own eye first, then you will see clearly to take the speck from your brother's or sister's eye."

Not only should we be willing to listen carefully to our dialogue partner; it can prove most helpful to civility to work at understanding the other's position. The old adage is, "Don't judge the other until you have walked a mile in her or her shoes." Our effort to do so, immediately gives us some distance from the position that we may be defending most vigorously and provides a different perspective from which to consider what the other is thinking and why. There is no guarantee that we will be won over to her or her position, but it might well create in us a healthy and compassionate stance toward the other that will certainly improve the relationship we are establishing with them. Paul has something to say on this point, and his words to the Philippians are particularly striking, "Never act out of rivalry or conceit; rather, let all parties think humbly of others as superior to themselves, each of you looking to the others' interests rather than to his own. Your attitude should be that of Christ, "Though he was in the form of God, he did not deem equality with God something to be grasped at. Rather he emptied himself and took the form of a slave."

Please do not misunderstand me; I am not advocating that civility demands of us that we do not try to establish the truth. On the contrary, in any discussion we should make every effort to arrive at the truth; what I am claiming is that we should do this in a courteous and polite, a civil manner. The odds are that if we try to arrive at the truth in a very aggressive and offensive manner, our possibility of getting there is lessened considerably. However, situations can become quite complicated and what we are not able to achieve in one context, we might be able to do in another.

Let's take an example from Paul who very forcefully interacted with Peter at Antioch in Syria. Without any attention to the Jewish dietary laws Peter was eating with Jewish and Gentile Christians; however, certain individuals came from James, Jesus' relative, and arrived at Antioch. This led Peter and the other Jewish Christians to stop eating with the Gentile Christians and to eat by themselves. Paul was upset with Peter because his behavior was not true to the truth of the gospel and interacted with him in a very strong manner and even speaks of the hypocrisy of the Jewish Christians. Paul says to Peter, "If you are a Jew living according to Gentile ways rather than Jewish ways, by what logic do you force the Gentiles to adopt Jewish ways" (Gal 2:14, cf. vv. 11-14).

In this brief but compelling interaction, you may think that Paul was not particularly civil with Peter. The times were different, and different civil behavior was part of the culture, but please do not judge this interaction too rapidly; for if you are a Christian and your mother is not Jewish, Paul is arguing for you. You and I would have been second-class Christians who were not permitted to eat with the first-class Jewish Christians unless we kept the Jewish dietary laws. Paul recognized that such behavior was not true to the gospel message and that Peter’s behavior was not logically consistent. Our challenge is to represent the truth as best we can but to do so in a way that is civilly and social acceptable to modern times and to how Christians should interact with others, today.

One New Testament writer is concerned that the Church work out its disagreements in a civil and peaceful manner and provide examples of this. I am speaking of St. Luke who wrote both his Gospel and the Acts of the Apostles. His main example of this is in the Acts of the Apostles, chapter 15. One of the major questions facing the early Church was how should Gentile Christians be allowed to enter the Church. We have already considered the question of the observance of the Jewish dietary laws, but an even more important discussion related to circumcision. Many Jewish Christians were convinced that Gentiles had to be circumcised in order to become Christians and were teaching this. So, Paul and Barnabas went up to Jerusalem to get this matter settled by the whole Church. Peter speaks first and points out at the end of his speech to those gathered in the house of centurion Cornelius that God showed his approval of the Gentiles entering the Christian community without being circumcised by granting them the Holy Spirit just as he had done to the Jews at Pentecost. So, God made no distinction between the Gentiles Christians and Jewish ones but through faith purified the hearts of both. James, Jesus' cousin and the then head of the Jerusalem church, explains that Peter’s words agree with the words of the prophets and compromises with the directive that the Gentile Christians are to be asked only to abstain from anything contaminated by idols, illicit sexual unions, the meat of strangled animals and eating blood, but nothing further. The assembled Christians agreed with this decision, and a letter to this effect is sent to the church in Antioch. Luke pictures a courteous, polite and mutually respectful discussion of the problem and of what God and the prophets have revealed about the matter and how the Christian community can address such an important question in a loving and fraternal manner and hit upon a solution which will prove agreeable to everyone concerned. Luke's implication is that when in the future the Church addresses similar important questions its members do as was done in this meeting.

Even though our experience may be somewhat limited, we are all aware that discussions do not always flow so smoothly. When we feel that we have been treated unjustly in a discussion, there is the natural tendency to get even, to even go back to the early Jewish law of "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth." However, St. Matthew (5:38-42) cites Jesus as saying "But what I say to you is: offer no resistance to injury, When a person strikes you on the right cheek, turn and offer him the other. If anyone wants to go to law over your shirt, hand him also your coat as well." Jesus calls us to a stance toward our neighbor, our dialogue partner, which obviously cannot be easily achieved; but his directive has more possibility of advancing our discussion than does getting even which will not bring about a better and more accurate exchange of ideas but rather make enemies.

Personally, I have never been very satisfied by the adage, "Agree to disagree." I guess like many I am convinced that the truth is there and through reasoning together in a civil and courteous manner we should be able to arrive at it. During the recent presidential election, I was involved in a truly vigorous debate with my four living sisters. The topic was should one vote in a presidential election considering one issue, no matter how important it may be, as the deciding factor or not. I was strongly against such a position, and the discussion went back and forth for months. Neither side gave much ground; and finally I had to write them, "Let's agree to disagree on the matter." We did not arrive at the ideal, determining what the real truth was or winning the other over to our opinion. However, through our polite, courteous and sometimes vigorous exchange of ideas we achieved what is perhaps the greatest benefit of civility, our respect and esteem for each other and a more profound appreciation of the integrity of each of us in dealing with an extremely important question. Our civility was a recognition of the image of God and the presence of Christ in each other and a living out of the command of loving the neighbor.

Today, we face many difficult challenges, but being civil is the best way to address them and carries out of the biblical message. Thank you.

Dennis J. Cavello, principal of St. Charles Preparatory School, left, with Fr. Robert O'Toole, S.J., prior to Borromean Lecture.