





We in the
One seemingly obvious point which is nevertheless overlooked at times is that truth is truth. This fact allows for Catholics to recognize what is true in other religions, philosophies, ideologies, etc., while rejecting what they find to be false. We share, in common with the rest of Christianity, belief in Jesus Christ: his incarnation, death, and resurrection. Judaism and Islam also profess belief in one, personal God. Even with those who are unaffiliated with a particular religion, we share reason and are thus able to come to mutual understanding of certain principles.
Recognition of these commonalities is one step towards dialogue and unity. Another point which is useful is the importance of the ways in which we attempt to achieve unity. Unity and division are opposites, so we would need to first be clear on what exactly we agree on and where our divisions are, so that we may begin with what is common, address what is different, and if possible, eradicate the divisions and bring about unity.
But how are divisions eradicated? Through mutual love and understanding. How are love and understanding fostered among people? This is an important question and worthy of serious thought.
A big component of authentic love and understanding is the involvement of free will. Let us first consider understanding. I think Plato had it right when he said in the Republic that one cannot simply pour knowledge into the head of another but that the other person must come to knowledge of the Good on his own. Our role in education is to help others turn toward the light. This necessarily involves the consent of their will. Respecting free will means recognizing the possibility that the other will not choose what we judge to be right. But if we hope for authentic understanding, this is something we have to deal with by patiently persevering and remaining in relationship in hopes that we will someday have the unity for which Christ prayed.
The importance of free will in love is hopefully obvious. God created us with free will in order that we could be able to love him in a real way. If he had created us to love him without giving us free will, we would be like robots and our love could not really be called love because it would be something forced on us, or programmed into us. Love must be chosen for it to be real. Still, this makes for the possibility of choosing against what is good, beautiful, and true. So, if we desire authentic unity and not merely the appearance of unity, we must recognize that this means working through differences and allowing others to ultimately come to understanding of truth on their own. This is not to say that they come to understanding or faith without grace, but only that their cooperation is essential.
It seems that the best framework for this authentic unity which includes love and understanding is in human relationships. It is here that we find trust, and the opportunity to be open with each other about our beliefs without fear of judgment. (It is important to note here that many confuse judgment and disagreement. Challenging another’s beliefs or behavior is not the same as judging the state of that person’s soul.) This environment of trust and openness is very important to unity because only when we are honest with each other are we able to have conversations which lead to mutual understanding.
What sort of society allows for the possibility of the type of dialogue needed to foster authentic love and understanding? It seems that a theocracy would not be that society; if people are obliged to believe something under penalty of the law, many problems arise. First, this structure seems to prohibit critical examination of one’s beliefs because any disagreement would be viewed with suspicion and could amount to treason. This would cause fear in those who doubt and because of that fear they would likely be discouraged from voicing their concerns. An ignored or unvoiced division is a division that is allowed to remain. Only when it is brought to light can it be addressed and bring about understanding.
Our current pluralistic society is theoretically (and paradoxically) the most conducive to unity. It allows for the possibility of people expressing their beliefs without the fear of legal persecution. In this framework, there can be discussion and dialogue between people of different faiths and faith traditions and people with no faith tradition (unless you call atheism a sort of faith). Through this dialogue, we may come to understand each other’s beliefs and reasoning behind those beliefs. We may even find that our understanding of our own beliefs is enhanced through this exercise.
While as Catholics we believe that our faith contains the fullness of truth, this does not bar us from living in relationship with those who do not share our faith. If we truly desire “that all may be one,” we must recognize that this open and honest dialogue is essential to unity and therefore, we must be open to understanding what others believe and willing to engage in dialogue with them.
This chapter made me literally "lol" more than once, so I will share it :cD
G.K. Chesterton's essay from Tremendous Trifles, entitled "On Lying in Bed":
. . . . .
Nowhere did I find a really clear space for sketching until this occasion when I prolonged beyond the proper limit the process of lying on my back in bed. Then the light of that white heaven broke upon my vision, that breadth of mere white which is indeed almost the definition of Paradise, since it means purity and also means freedom. But alas! like all heavens, now that it is seen it is found to be unattainable; it looks more austere and more distant than the blue sky outside the window. For my proposal to paint on it with the bristly end of a broom has been discouraged--
never mind by whom; by a person debarred from all political rights-- and even my minor proposal to put the other end of the broom into the kitchen fire and turn it to charcoal has not been conceded. Yet I am certain that it was from persons in my position that all the original inspiration came for covering the ceilings of palaces and cathedrals with a riot of fallen angels or victorious gods. I am sure that it was only because Michael Angelo was engaged in the ancient and honourable occupation of lying in bed that he ever realized how the roof of the Sistine Chapel might be made into an awful imitation of a divine drama that could only be acted in the heavens.
The tone now commonly taken toward the practice of lying in bed is hypocritical and unhealthy. Of all the marks of modernity that seem to mean a kind of decadence, there is none more menacing and dangerous than the exultation of very small and secondary matters of conduct at the expense of very great and primary ones, at the expense of eternal ties and tragic human morality. If there is one thing worse than the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals. Thus it is considered more withering to accuse a man of bad taste than of bad ethics. Cleanliness is not next to godliness nowadays, for cleanliness is made essential and godliness is regarded as an offence. A playwright can attack the institution of marriage so long as he does not misrepresent the manners of society, and I have met Ibsenite pessimists who thought it wrong to take beer but right to take prussic acid. Especially this is so in matters of hygiene; notably such matters as lying in bed. Instead of being regarded, as it ought to be, as a matter of personal convenienceand adjustment, it has come to be regarded by many as if it were a part of essential morals to get up early in the morning. It is upon the whole part of practical wisdom; but there is nothing good about it or bad about its opposite.
. . . . .
Misers get up early in the morning; and burglars, I am informed, get up the night before. It is the great peril of our society that all its mechanisms may grow more fixed while its spirit grows more fickle. A man's minor actions and arrangements ought to be free, flexible, creative; the things that should be unchangeable are his principles, his ideals. But with us the reverse is true; our views change constantly; but our lunch does not change. Now, I should like men to have strong and rooted conceptions, but as for their lunch, let them have it sometimes in the garden, sometimes in bed, sometimes on the roof, sometimes in the top of a tree. Let them argue from the same first principles, but let them do it in a bed, or a boat, or a balloon. This alarming growth of good habits really means a too great emphasis on those virtues which mere custom can ensure, it means too little emphasis on those virtues which custom can never quite ensure, sudden and splendid virtues of inspired pity or of inspired candour. If ever that abrupt appeal is made to us we may fail. A man can get use to getting up at five o'clock in the morning. A man cannot very well get used to being burnt for his opinions; the first experiment is commonly fatal. Let us pay a little more attention to these possibilities of the heroic and unexpected. I dare say that when I get out of this bed I shall do some deed of an almost terrible virtue.
For those who study the great art of lying in bed there is one emphatic caution to be added. Even for those who can do their work in bed (like journalists), still more for those whose work cannot be done in bed (as, for example, the professional harpooners of whales), it is obvious that the indulgence must be very occasional. But that is not the caution I mean. The caution is this: if you do lie in bed, be sure you do it without any reason or justification at all. I do not speak, of course, of the seriously sick. But if a healthy man lies in bed, let him do it without a rag of excuse; then he will get up a healthy man. If he does it for some secondary hygienic reason, if he has some scientific explanation, he may get up a hypochondriac.