Disputatio

A couple of years ago, Fr. James Martin, SJ, a well-known Jesuit, wrote a book called, “Building a Bridge: How the Catholic Church and the LGBT Community Can Enter Into a Relationship of Respect, Compassion, and Sensitivity”.  Over the last several years, Fr. Martin has made a special mission outreach to folks who would align with the LGBT Community, people who, with respect to the Catholic church, are often seen to be on the “periphery”.  Fr. Martin has become somewhat controversial due to some of his statements and actions of support for the LGBT community, and in particular, this book.

After he was invited to speak at a university in the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Archbishop Charles Chaput was asked to step in.  How Chaput chose to respond was very important.  Recognizing that he didn’t have jurisdiction over the religious order that had invited Martin to speak, and rather than dismissing Martin outright, Chaput decided to engage Martin.  He recognized that a lot of people follow Martin and pay attention to him.  He read Martin’s book and wrote an article in the archdiocesan newspaper in which he five areas of concern in Fr. Martin’s ideas, both from the book and other places.

“Father Martin has sought in a dedicated way to accompany and support people with same-sex attraction and gender dysphoria. Many of his efforts have been laudable, and we need to join him in stressing the dignity of persons in such situations.

At the same time, a pattern of ambiguity in his teachings tends to undermine his stated aims, alienating people from the very support they need for authentic human flourishing.”

Rather than dismissing Fr. Martin, he engaged his ideas in a public, direct, and charitable way.  He sought to affirm what he could affirm in Fr. Martin’s ultimate mission, which was to affirm the innate human dignity of every human person, especially those with same-sex attraction, and also to affirm to others, often relegated to the peripheries, that God is Love, and more to that, God passionately loves them. 

But he then outlined five areas of ambiguity that concerned him about Fr. Martin’s statements and writing — ambiguities that Archbishop Chaput felt compromised Fr. Martin’s stated mission.  His outreach to Martin wasn’t condemnatory; rather, he was offering a helping hand in obedience to Truth. Chaput’s engagement served as a corrective and provided people in his archdiocese and elsewhere with some tools needed to engage Martin’s ideas themselves.

(Note: Fr. Martin issued a response clarifying some points, which was also published in the archdiocesan newspaper.)

This is effectively a “disputatio”

This form of engagement has its root in what is called the “disputatio”, or “disputation”.  This was a formal method of engagement over particular questions that developed in the medieval universities of Europe, often by Dominicans, between a Master (professor) and students.

Robert of Sorbonne, who founded the Sorbonne university in Paris, recommended it as part of his Rules for Study in the 13th century (Rule #5):

This exercise is even more profitable than study for it has as its result the clarifying of all doubts and the removing of all the obscurity that study may have left. Nothing is perfectly known unless it has been tried [chewed] by the tooth of disputation.

The formal method of disputatio presumed two or more participants debating a topic with a mutual love of getting at the truth, without any self-interest or pride.  This is very difficult to do today as it’s very easy to become personally invested in an opinion, however ill-formed, and become defensive when that opinion is challenged.  I plead guilty to that!

But there is a broader and deeper goal of disputatio that I would like to focus on primarily — the engagement with ideas in order to get at the truth.

Bad or heretical ideas are often bound up with true ideas.  Ambiguous ideas lack clarity.  It is said that heresies are often the product of a kernel of truth that has been ripped out of its proper context and then allowed to grow, like a cancer. It is the job of disputatio, then, to sort of rescue the truth — to cut it out with surgical precision and, through preaching, re-unite it with the fullness of truth.

Aquinas is our model

A lot of Aquinas’ work is this form of engagement with ideas.  These ideas were things that were the product not only of what other people were talking about, but they were also the product of Aquinas’ own contemplation about a topic.

Aquinas was keenly interested in the “universality of truth” — the fact that all truth comes from God (indeed, was incarnate as a person, Christ, second person of the Trinity).  Truth is valuable, therefore, where-ever it is found. Aquinas routinely cited ideas not only of fellow Christians (like Augustine), but also from others outside of the Catholic faith.  He cited Jews, Muslims, and the pagan Greeks (Plato, Aristotle). He cited them not only to dispute them, but in some cases to affirm them.

Pope St. John Paul II praised Thomas’s approach to truth in his encyclical, Fides et Ratio (44), 

“St. Thomas was impartial in his love of truth.  He sought truth wherever it might be found and gave consummate demonstration of its universality.”

In other words, Aquinas didn’t let fallen people get in the way of truth and sought it vigorously, both as an evangelization tool and as a way to teach other Catholics.

I like to think the root here goes even deeper in our Order.  Think of Dominic’s engagement with the Albigensian inn-keeper, someone easily dismissed as a heretic.  But Dominic saw something deeper in the inn-keeper’s soul.  He saw a restless heart, like his own, yearning for truth, a love Dominic shared.

Let’s drill into the methodology behind formal disputatio in a bit more detail.

Never, Rarely, Always

I find the method best summarized by Fr. Philip Neri Powell, OP:

The Master (professor) would give a lecture on some topic and then take questions from the students and other Masters. Once asked, the question would be answered first with a list of objections to the Master’s real answer. So, if the Master’s real answer was “Yes,” he would begin by stating what all the “No” answers would seem to be.

After this, the Master would provide a sed contra, or a “to the contrary,” a general answer to the objections that served to lay the foundation for his own answer to the original question. 

Once the sed contra is announced, the Master would answer with a respondeo, the “I respond that.” Here he pulls on the foundational principles taught to his students, employing basic logic, metaphysics, common sense, and additional authoritative sources. 

The Master used to a scholastic technique summarized by three principles:  Never deny, Rarely Affirm, and Always Distinguish.  Never, Rarely, Always.  Never, Rarely, Always. Again, from Fr. Philip:

Never deny: this principle presupposes charity in requiring the responder to take seriously the objections made to any answer he might give; that is, by never outright denying a conclusion, the Master presumes the good will of the objector and averts any attacks on the person. By disallowing the outright denial of an opponent’s premise or conclusion, the ‘never deny’ pushes us in charity to recognize that even an assertion erroneous on the whole may contain some partial truth. 

Rarely affirm: this principle frees the Master from the traps in the objections that might inexorably lead him to conclude that the objection is correct. It also serves to push the argument beyond merely polite agreement and force the debaters to explore areas of disagreement that could lead to a better answer. 

Always distinguish: this principle allows the Master to accomplish the first two principles while still giving him plenty of room to disagree with the objections. By requiring the Master to carefully parse his words, this step in the argument recognizes the limits of language and logic when discussing any truth and acknowledges that there is some hope of finding better and better definitions. 

So, in practice, you will hear those who use this method say things like, “If by X, you mean Y, then X” or “I would distinguish between X and Y” or “You are right to say X, but X does not necessarily entail Y” and so on. The goal is to parse proper distinctions with charity until there is some clarity with regard to the use of terms and their place in the argument. 

Practical Steps

Stepping this back a little bit, in practice, unless you’re in an academic setting, our model for disputatio is obviously going to be less formal than what Fr. Powell describes.  I would say it can be done with the following steps.  This can be done whether you’re engaging directly with someone, reading something, or contemplating some idea.

1. Pray.  Let the Holy Spirit be your guide here. The devil is the father of lies and detests clear thinking

2. Listen to or read the arguments. Identify the primary assertions and read them multiple times to make sure you understand them

3. Rephrase the points as questions — this allows you to articulate the point yourself to demonstrate that you understand it

4. On each point or question, identify the ambiguities

5. Apply the technique: Never deny, Rarely Affirm, Always Distinguish.  Make Distinctions.

6. If you can’t respond to a point, admit you need to study/pray about it more

7. Be willing to summarize a response concisely for the purpose of preaching

Necessary Dispositions

• Charity toward the other — don’t presume bad faith.  I find if I can make a distinction regarding an ambiguous idea that presents a charitable interpretation, I accept that unless I am told otherwise.

• Humility — be aware of what you don’t know.  Truth is larger than you are.

• Obedience to authority.  Respect topics that aren’t “de fide” but involve prudential judgment
  • Science and Medicine, although not infallible, rely on evidence and scientific consensus based on peer review in order to be taken seriously

• Bias — don’t let your cultural or political biases get in the way of listening

• Trust — God is a God of truth.  Allow yourself to be challenged with something that makes you uncomfortable. God isn’t going to abandon you. Even today I find myself having insecurities about things., but I try not to let it keep me from being a little adventurous.

Objections

There are many objections I’ve encountered to disputatio (several of which I have raised myself and thought about). I want to go through what I would rank as the top 5.

1.) Bad ideas have no value.  Why should I let them take up space in my brain?

Response: To the contrary, it may sound counter-intuitive, but bad ideas have value.  Aquinas, commenting on Aristotle’s Metaphysics, paraphrased Aristotle on this point (See 2566, Commentary on Lesson 9): 

we must respect both parties, namely, those whose opinion we follow, and those whose opinion we reject. For both have diligently sought the truth and have aided us in this matter. Yet we must “be persuaded by the more certain,” i.e., we must follow the opinion of those who have attained the truth with greater certitude.

Bad ideas have value insofar as they allow us to draw distinctions between them and good ideas, so that we might follow what is right.  I would suggest that bad ideas have more value than ambiguous ideas, and it’s our job to disambiguate ambiguous ideas.

2.) I don’t have time for all of this.  There are so many things out there. 

Response: I recognize this, for sure.  Bad ideas, ambiguous ideas, are everywhere in our culture.  In social media, in our news media, yes even in your favorite news media.  Our Rule speaks about discerning “the signs of the times”, and the preacher must discern “the signs of the times” and how to preach to that.  So you have to make priorities. What is most relevant in your communities?  In our culture?  If people are talking about something, maybe we should pay attention.  What does the Holy Spirit want you to do?

3.) Some people do, in fact, operate on bad faith and ill-will.

Response: Yes, I recognize this, too. This is where I find that separating the person from the ideas they’re spreading helps me to engage the ideas themselves, even if I don’t respond directly to that person.  Chances are other people are talking or thinking about it.

4.) This is too academic.

Response: The method was developed as an academic exercise, that is true.  However, it can be a model for thought.  One need not always turn it into an hour-long exercise, but maybe you can train your brain to make distinctions so that it becomes easier.  I recognize this doesn’t come easily to everyone, but it takes practice.

5.) I just want to preach the truth.  Who cares about all this other stuff?  

Response: Disputatio is a method for not only discerning what the truth is, but also preaching it.  And preaching it in a way that directly engages the ideas that are out there as well as the people who are spreading them.

Conclusion

Is there a place for disputatio today?  I am passionate about this idea — this helps us resist the currents that compel us to wallow in half-baked ideas and ad hominem attacks.  News and social media survives on distorting truth and blurring ideas in order to pit ideology against ideology; to keep people feeling outraged about one thing or another, dismissing each other as contemptible and evil.

I’m an optimist — I have my insecurities, but I am excited with the idea that we can use the principles and techniques of our fathers in order to combat the heresies of our day and find the truth there.