
The Akron Beacon Journal has been running a series on the polarization of America, often featuring stories where the bridge is crossed and people on opposite sides come together.
One story last week in particular caught my eye.
It seems that the Planned Parenthood clinic in Akron, like a lot of abortion providers, has a small but devoted group of protesters who keep vigil outside the center. Words are often exchanged between the protesters and the clinic workers, and they are, as you can imagine, hardly friendly ones.
One day a pickup truck lost control in front of the clinic and struck one of the abortion foes on the sidewalk outside, breaking one of the woman’s vertebrae.
The nurses from the clinic sprang into action. They called 911, and one of them cared for the woman while awaiting the ambulance, keeping her from going into shock. Another went down the street, where the woman’s husband was shopping, and informed him of the accident.
And then they sent her flowers in the hospital. (You can read the story here.)
The story intrigued me for many reasons, not least the fact that I, too, once kept vigil outside an abortion clinic and thought the worst of those who worked there.
But this tale rang like the parable of the Good Samaritan: in each case someone despised as outside the Law, a moral alien, comes through and acts with kindness and charity. It made me realize that I was wrong to assume that someone associated with such evil as abortion must be devoid of all goodness. For surely if these women were truly evil they would have mocked the accident victim, whom they would have perceived as an enemy, instead of coming to her aid (let alone sending her flowers.)
I realized that these women are primarily nurses, that abortion is only a small part of what they do; the bulk of their work is probably providing prenatal care for poor women. And I realized that in presuming knowledge about their attitudes on abortion I was wrong, assuming a knowledge that I did not have; for all I know they may consider abortion a tragedy, an unfortunate necessity.
That is, like most Americans (and humans) they may well be consequentialists, willing to accept certain evils as justifiable, given the situation.
I thought, too, about President Obama’s address, a couple of weeks ago, to the grieving community of Newtown in the wake of that town’s horror in the aftermath of the massacre of its children. The President had tears in his eyes, and immediately antiwar and antiabortion critics accused him of faking compassion. After all, how could he be sincere if he did not grieve over the children killed by his drone attacks? Or those killed by abortion?
But that too is presuming knowledge that one cannot possibly possess.
For all we know the President grieves for the children killed in his drone attacks, but views their deaths as collateral damage, an unintended and necessary consequence in his just war to defend the nation against terrorists. He may console himself by noting that if he adopted the strategy of his predecessor – bombing the hell out of their villages, and then initiating an American invasion – not only would there be more dead children, but dead American troops as well.
I have been a harsh critic of the drone wars; I am not defending this analysis, only noting that it is possible that this is how he sees it.
It seems less likely that Mr Obama grieves those killed by abortion. But does that mean he is murderous? Or only that -like most who defend abortion- he is blind, unable to recognize his shared humanity with the unborn?
It is unfortunate, but we live in a time when it is increasingly popular to assume that one’s political or religious enemies are not just wrong but evil, devoid of all human good.
This tendency is but one manifestation of the human proclivity to tribalism.
It is interesting that while our names for “primitive”, ie, preindustrial and preliterate, peoples is nearly always what their neighbors called them, and is often unflattering (“Sioux” meant “snake” in Ojibwa, for example). But it is almost universally true that what they call themselves means “The People”, or “The Real People”. Those who are not in the tribe are by implication “Not the Real People”.
Early European explorers in North America frequently commented on the warmth of native communities, on the way they cared for one another, were gentle with their children, and shared all things.
But they also commented on the way that they would torture captives, from very similar tribes, creatively intensifying their suffering for pure entertainment. As Not Real People they were outside the sphere of compassion.
This is pretty universal among humans; peoples identical, or nearly so, to outsiders hate one another with a passion. Think of the Ukrainians and the Russians, for example. To anyone not of the Tribe they are indistinguishable in language, cuisine, religion and music. But there is a long history of mutual hatred. And Israelis and Muslim Arabs? Both worship the God of Abraham, refrain from pork, circumcise their sons, and observe fasts and feasts. And can anyone distinguish between Jewish and Arab pita bread or kabobs?
But when the Other is a different color, or has differently shaped eyes? Then any recognition of common humanity is even harder to see. Indeed, it is not uncommon, as we saw all too recently in the US, to question the humanity of “other” races. (In truth, of course there is one race, the human one).
And unborn children, at the very early stages when most abortions take place? These are truly alien; they don’t look human yet, they do not communicate, they do not do much that is recognizably human.
Yet human they are; for what other species can they be? But as they are not of our “Tribe” they are easily dismissed (and dismembered).
For tribalism is not just a matter of the preliterate; what is nationalism but sophisticated tribalism?
Against this tendency, so amenable to brutishness, there are various trans-nationalist solutions, from Islam to Buddhism to Marxism to Catholicism. Humans being what they are, though, even these anti-tribal entities easily become quasi-tribes: it is the Faithful vs the Infidel, or the member of the True Church vs the Heretic, or the Revolutionary vs the Reactionary.
And among modern Catholics there is the “orthodox Catholic” vs the merely “nominal” Catholic; (“orthodox Catholic” being a misnomer, of course; they are as selective as any faction within the Church). Within this sectarian view the Church is not the inclusive”here comes everybody” of tradition- sinners and all- but “We, the Righteous”.
Paradoxically, the proponent of a universal faith becomes a quasi-gnostic elitist.
Catholicism, for all that, stands alone as the best and most realistic hope of truly transcending tribalism. As anyone who has had the privilege of worshiping at St Peter’s in Rome- as I have- can testify, the witness of people of every color and language praying together is powerful indeed.
For the Church is the Mystical Body of Christ, and it is Christ who, as we were reminded on the Feast of the Theophany, has sanctified all of Creation by His Incarnation, remaking the broken world and remaking the icon of Christ in the human soul. His birth in a cave sanctified the earth, His baptism, the water, His speaking, human communication. And His birth, all of humanity.
And it is He who prayed that all would be One in Him, reconciled with the Father, in a world made whole, a world made new.
This implies a universal solidarity, and at the least it should mean refraining from the demonization of our enemies. They may not be evil, just mistaken. After all, there are very few who are given over wholly, or almost wholly, to evil, just as there are few that are truly holy.
Most of us are a mixed up mess of conflicting aspirations: desiring goodness and virtue, but full of selfishness and fear and moral blind spots, with both noble and sinful inclinations.
I realize that I say this with a history for all to see of fiery words and a certain fierceness in intellectual battle. I hope, though, that I never cross the line in demonizing my enemies of whatever stripe.
And if I do I trust that you, dear readers, will be quick to correct me.

That’s an important and well written idea. Thanks.
Assume the good..when at all possible.too often we are looking to assume the worst.like you say..rarely are people as evil as we would paint them to be and like them to be so that our decision to dismiss them comes easier.people want to oversimplify things so they are more easily decided upon and we are more quickly made comfortable about our decisions.unfortunately we must continue the work of discernment and compassion daily..unsure of whether we are right or wrong.sometimes all we can do is ensure our hearts are governed by Gods charity.
After I read your post, I went and prayed Prime with my family. The psalms were part of Psalm 9, Psalm 10 and Psalm 11 (vulgate numbering). We prayed that God “break the arm of the sinner and the wicked and avenge his evil doing without pardon.” We prayed that the “wicked be wiped out in the land” We proclaimed that the portion of the wicked is “fire and brimstone and scorching wind.” We begged God to save us because “the godly are wanting” and “Everyone’s lips are deceitful, they speak with a double heart” We asked God to protect us “from this generation” where “The wicked strut boldly about for haughtiness is multiplied among the sons of men.”
I think one problem is our tendency to force everything in to a dichotomy: A person must either be completely evil, or be completely free from culpability for their evil deeds. Evil people can have natural virtues, and may have many, but that does not change the fact that they are not cooperating with grace when performing evil actions.
This president is objectively an evil man. Does he have natural virtues? I think so. But I also know that God is giving him the grace not to perform the evil he is doing and he is not cooperating with it. Since barring a miracle of God, we can not see the souls of men, we must judge men by their actions, and I do not believe it is our place to excuse their actions.
We have no idea what the motivation of the nurses was at Planned Parenthood (either good or bad), but we do know they are instruments of evil, and that if they cooperated with God’s grace they would not do what they do. That said we should never forget that all men have souls which have been redeemed at a great cost, the death of God. We should also never forget where we came from (usually a fairly evil life) and where we would be without the grace of God.
I believe the topic of “demonizing” the enemy is one very difficult to navigate. There is a fine line between when the need to instruct the ignorant becomes the need to admonish the sinner. I think acknowledgment of natural virtues within the person you are speaking about helps keep “demonization in check” but it is hard not to appear to be demonizing when the deeds of men are so wicked, unless of course we lie about the wickedness of the deeds, or we pretend they were not given a conscience, or finally we pretend that God does not give the grace not to do heinous things.
As for Catholicism being the only real hope, I do agree. That is why I think we must work for the conversion of the world to Catholicism and the promotion of the reign of Christ the King under the temporal authority of His Vicar on Earth, the Pope. There is no natural solution even for natural problems when you are dealing with fallen humanity.
What does it mean to be an “evil man”?
I think that is the big question, and while I do not have a precise answer, I think Daniel goes too far when he says an evil person is “devoid of all human goodness”. If that is the case than there are no evil people – even in hell. Contrary to many theologians I do not believe that there is a purgatory in reverse for hell to remove any goodness in a person. If you had a father’s love for a child, you still have that love, even in hell. However, that love does not mean the damned person is not evil.
Men are evil, because they do evil actions of the most heinous type. For example oppression of the poor seemed to be the common denominator of the wicked in today’s Psalms. But also destruction of innocent life would have to rank there as well. The key is that we are ALL given a conscience by God, to know these evil things. If you really do not know that it is wrong to kill an unborn child, or rescuers coming to the scene of a drone attack, you are either insane (as I believe the man in Newtown was) or you have so perverted your conscience that you can no longer see. This is not being mistaken. This is fully culpable. Ruining your conscience does not excuse sin.
Fr Benedict Groeschel once said “You can go to Hell imitating the vices of the saints.” I think you can say the same about living the vengelful Psalms.
Since the Church recommends in the strongest terms for me to pray as I did today, I will have disagree with you, and since Fr. Groeschel prays the same prayers I do, I would have to assume he would disagree with you as well.
Daniel Nichols: Great Fr. Groeschel quote, and great application.
Well , I know Fr Benedict, and is is inconceivable that he would read those psalms as a scriptural literalist. It is equally incoceivable that he would think anyone outside the circle of compassion. Indeed, it was his compassion for the most despised- clerical sex abusers- which, however badly stated, caused his retirement from public life…
Daniel,
I think you are assuming something in my posts that is not there. First, I mentioned the Psalms because it spoke of the wicked as being much more numerous then you seem to think in your post. It was not only a very stark difference in tone, but also seemed very different in principle (which you seem to acknowledge by your dismissal of the “vengeful psalms”). I never said that anyone was beyond compassion, and I explicitly maintained the opposite in my posts. On the other hand when you imply that there exist men “devoid of all human good”, you seem to be implying that very thing ie that there are people beyond conversion.
Second, when a religious (including Fr. Groeschel) prays for God to wipe the wicked from the land, first he is doing it primarily to protect the poor and oppressed. Second, he is not saying how it is to be done. God wills the conversion of the sinner and not his death. If God chastises the wicked, I hope that chastisement will lead to their conversion (I also pray with David that God would “chastise me in HIs MERCY). However, I will not pretend there are not wicked people in the world, and I certainly won’t excuse heinous crimes against humanity by assuming that the perpetrators of these crimes are acting for noble reasons. Those nurses have a conscience. They are not insane, or without the use of reason. To help a mother kill her own child is supremely perverted. And finally, I guarantee that Church does not want the Gloria response at the end of those “vengeful” Psalms to be replaced by “Just Kidding”.
“Natural virtues” refer to the sort of things that Christ said even the pagans have: they love those who love them. In this case, the nurses cared for a woman who was perceived to be an enemy. Is that just “natural virtue”, easily dismissed?
Daniel I do not believe natural virtues are so limited. When a mother or father dies protecting their child, there is a self sacrifice involved. When a soldier dies protecting his comrades – again self sacrifice and natural virtue. I happen to be a nurse, and I know that any nurse will treat anyone, no matter how evil they are or if they are their enemies. It is called protecting your license in some (natural prudence). In others it is just being willing to do the job they signed up for (natural virtue). In still others it is a chance to serve Christ in their fellow man (supernatural virtue). As I said, I have no idea what their motivation was (and neither do you). Does it give me hope for them? Of course grace builds on nature. But it doesn’t mean they are not instruments of evil. It does not mean that when they help to murder an unborn child, their behavior is not murderous. I believe they are evil. Do I believe they can convert and be great Saints? Of course. Do I pray for their conversion? Of course. Do I believe they are just “mistaken” if by that you mean not culpable – no way. They were given a conscience, and for whatever reason they are not listening to it.
Everybody is both good and evil. But what I see, repeatedly, is that those who complain the most about the evils of tribalism, are themselves extremely guilty of tribalism. I am almost to the point of believing that those who preach tolerance are the most intollerant, bigoted people I have ever met.
I can name the very day when I went from being a liberal, tolerant Catholic to being an evil homophobic child moleser- March 2, 2002.
Without changing a single belief, overnight I went from being part of civilization to being hated by the very people you stick up for.
Am I tribalistic now? YES. But only because I have been forced out.
I agree with this. Tribalism should only be called an “ism” if it’s an artificial emotional construct.
We don’t call American Indians “tribalists”; we call them “tribes”.
I am not sure what stock to put into Seeber’s comments. He was the one that threw this at me (“Why would anybody be proud of leaving behind Christ and God? In fact, without God, what is there to be proud of?”), and when I called him on it he said nothing, let alone ask me about what I said (when I reality I agreed with him…). Amazing the things that can be found in the combox of blogs… People say things to others as if they know them, and say things that they would never say to another person in “real life”. That’s fine, though. I’ll just keep racking up those rewards (Mt. 5:11-12). Cheers! :-)
I didn’t say I am a follower of the person “Seeber”. I said, “I agree with this”. I think it’s clear to what the demonstrative “this” referred in my original comment.
Hey, Latin Lover: I wasn’t replying to you. (?)
It was heterophobic atheists who took over Multnomah County Council and turned my position of being for civil unions from being pro-gay to homophobia overnight. I have never met an atheist who. Can give adequaate reason for this.
Atheists are the ultimate tribalists, excluding 2 million years of culture from the human race.
Wait. You are a homophobic child molester? WTF?
Exactly
This is the best post you have ever written. At least of those i have read.
Thank you!
Obama voted against the partial birth abortion ban in Illinois. I’m pretty sure he doesn’t grieve about children killed in abortions.
That said, I really liked your article.
Any nuance on that “partial birth abortion ban”, or is none needed?
No, Justin, none is needed.
Partial birth abortion is when the baby is made to come partially out of the birth canal, and then killed, usually by being stabbed with a sharp object in the head.
I’m trying to see how we can “nuance” Obama’s vote against prohibiting this act, but it’s not coming to me. Maybe you had something specific in mind?
“The President had tears in his eyes, and immediately antiwar and antiabortion critics accused him of faking compassion.”
I don’t think it was fake compassion, I think it was real compassion that, in the face of all the evils he advocates, revealed the hypocrisy of his position. I think it’s fair and important to point out that hypocrisy.
Beautiful piece. The point can’t be overstated. Tribalism is antithetical to true Catholic spirit. We need tribes — I think it’s important to have group identities on various levels, and to be committed to those identities — but the tendency to dehumanize and dismiss those outside our tribal boundaries must ruthlessly be resisted.
I love my enemies, but they are still my enemies.
“I love my enemies.” Really? You do? Why, you make it sound so easy. I envy anyone who can truthfully say he does just that.
I suspect a great many people say it without truly grasping what it entails. Often I think people say it when it would be truer to say, “I acknowledge the requirement of Christian morality to love my enemies.”
I had the same response to worshiping in St Peter’s. I saw a lot of mindblowing things in Italy. That one was particularly forceful.
Beautiful post. Modern polarities make it hard to remember that our struggle is not against flesh and blood; I’ve had to fight my own tribalist impulses again and again these last few years. It’s always good to hear a friendly exhortation to keep on.
“Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”
I disagree with this article for the simple understanding that Willful ignorance is very different than ignorance.
It is hard for me to believe abortion providers and support staff could be more ignorant then willful ignorance when it is clear in Church teaching that all who participates in abortion is making a willful act to kill that child. Despite any preconceive notions of good, there is a choice to kill the child. They are not innocent unless they are mentally incapable, put in direct coercion such as under a gun, or they honestly do not understand that the child is alive. But nearly every single medically trained American professional have none of the above exemptions.
I agree as many that it is important to value the person who is our enemy because they are God’s children. However, that is far from the sentimental leeway offered by this articled and further expanded by the comments. Thus, I cannot agree with this article. It is for the good of the victims and the providers that we strongly stand our ground and demonstrate that the value of human life still exists in this world.
This was a great statement of a really prevalent problem. Young, idealistic and radical Catholics like me fall into it without realizing their mistake; older Catholics can drift into it, too. I appreciate this plea that we be careful. God bless you.
“He may console himself by noting that if he adopted the strategy of his predecessor – bombing the hell out of their villages, and then initiating an American invasion – not only would there be more dead children, but dead American troops as well.”
Wow. Clear which tribe you belong to. An otherwise excellent article marred by Bush Derangement Syndrome. Let it go.
And just what part of what I said is not true?
And your remark about “Bush Derangement Syndrome” makes it clear which tribe you belong to; the Republican tribe wants us to forget that W was ever president, that he presided over two disastrous wars and oversaw the collapse of the economy. They did not even mention him at the convention! The nation was traumatized by the Bush/Cheney years, and yes that is precisely the way they prosecuted their wars.
And I have been very critical of Obama and his drone wars and am not a member of that tribe either. My “tribe” is the tiny one of Catholic radicals…
Wow, way to deny your B.D.S. by making up more lies and half-truths about Bush. Brilliant!
Lies and half-truths? Such as? You suffer from Bushnesia..
Lovely. I’ve never read your blog before but found this post linked through New Advent. Solid food for thought, so thanks.
“They may not be evil, just mistaken.”
Human beings are never evil. We were created by God. It is our actions that are evil and our actions are our choices. Most of the time evil is done as a perceived good. Those nurses perceive themselves as doing good. It is very rare for someone to choose evil and fully understand what it means. For most of our sins we will not know what it mean until the general judgement.
There’s a great deal of relativism here. Tribalism exists, of course. But some of the “others” you use as examples are, in fact, real groups. For example, there are such thinks as orthodox Catholics and nominal Catholics. I don’t need to know the inner dialogue of nancy pelosi or governor cuomo to know they are catholic in name only. It’s no different than recognizing a person with blonde hair as a blonde.
Nazi prison employees might have had other duties at their fealty camps. They might have worked in the infirmary healing their fellow aryan guards injured in the line of duty. They may have worked as a janitor, electrician or mason. Maybe they only worked on repairing the xyclon b gas lines occasionally, and did other work the rest of the time. Maybe they genuinely felt Jews weren’t persons, and not of their tribe. Just mistaken right? We don’t want to be tribal.
No one needs to be without sin to be able to state things as they are. It’s not tribalism to point out that abortionists are killing babies and are savages. It’s not tribalism to call pelosi what she is, an accomplice to infanticide. It’s not tribalism to call heretics heretics. And those crimes should be demonized. To say otherwise is to say truth doesn’t exist, or worse, doesn’t matter.
Death camps sorry
“It’s not tribalism to point out that abortionists are killing babies…”
True.
“…and are savages.”
False. That is exactly what tribalism is. That’s like a perfect definition by example of what tribalism is.
We may at times, with great care and humility, judge actions and states of affairs as good or evil. We can never judge souls. And it is a simple category error to conflate a person’s actions, intentions, or beliefs with his nature. Such category errors spread confusion and lead to hate and so should be diligently avoided.
Sorry only savages kill babies. Merely an observation for those whose eyes work
savage[ sav-ij ]
adjective
1. fierce, ferocious, or cruel; untamed: savage beasts.
2. uncivilized; barbarous: savage tribes.
The dictionary thinks baby killers are savage.
Every word of that definition except “cruel” is either a tribal epithet or a dehumanizing term, especially the part where is says “beasts” and the part where it says “tribes.” So according the definition you cite “savage” is 100% a tribalistic word.
Well if you all are right and it is fine to label those participating in evil as murderers and savages, may I then condemn all those self-styled “orthodox Catholics” who justify Hiroshima, defend torture and aggressive wars similarly? I think it equivalent, and also do not understand their -in the face of clear Church teaching on such matters- rejection of the obvious. But I also know them as persons and see their (albeit selective) compassion and goodness. That is “relativism” only in the sense that moral blind spots are near universal and I choose to err on the side of mercy rather than judgement.
Danilel,
You might not be able to, but I will. :) Pelosi and Santorum are equally guilty of nominal Catholicism. And do not get me started on GW and Obama. BTW I also consider myself a part of the small tribe of Catholic Radicals, and I won’t let off nominal Catholics who consider themselves a part of my tribe either. (For those who may take that last sentence in the wrong way, I would never accuse Daniel of nominal Catholicism, however there are some who consider themselves radical Catholics, who dissent on essential doctrinal issues – Nominal Catholic, no matter how often they quote the prophets or the psalms on the wicked oppression of the poor.)
I agree with Mccardle, but could be educated. ” Bombing the hell out of their villages” is not a criticism I found from reading the NYTimes. A newspaper article of reference would be helpful.