On Catholic Imagination, Part 4: Art in the Ruins

Episode Topic: Art in the Ruins: Engaging Secular Culture

Join a Cambridge scholar and former Sons of Bill guitarist, a surf-instructor-turned-governance expert, and a missionary priest as they navigate secular culture. From “balancing the ship” of institutions to finding grace in pop music, this panel reveals how to engage the world with intellectual humility and bold faith.

Featured Speakers:

• Santiago Legarre, Universidad Católica Argentina
• James McFetridge Wilson, Cambridge University
• Patrick Langrell, Australian Catholic University
• Rev. Damian Ference, Borromeo Seminary

Read this episode's recap over on the University of Notre Dame's open online learning community platform, ThinkND: https://go.nd.edu/ced522.

This podcast is a part of the ThinkND Series titled On Catholic Imagination.

Thanks for listening! The ThinkND Podcast is brought to you by ThinkND, the University of Notre Dame's online learning community. We connect you with videos, podcasts, articles, courses, and other resources to inspire minds and spark conversations on topics that matter to you — everything from faith and politics, to science, technology, and your career.

• Learn more about ThinkND and register for upcoming live events at think.nd.edu.
• Join our LinkedIn community for updates, episode clips, and more.

Transcript

Welcome

Speaker 10 0:10

Hello, welcome to this wonderful panel. My name is Santiago and you will get today six for the price of three because in the first place you are going to listen perform the guitarist of the Rock and Roll Band Sons of Bill. I know you thought this was a good joke. Well, let me welcome him. This is James, our first speaker today, who he says two things. One, in his previous life he was the guitarist of this very celebrated band, and two. If there are no questions afterwards, he might be open to play a song for us. But let's first listen to him speak about Augustine Post critique and the future of literary studies. I know, I know.

Speaker 2 1:31

good afternoon everyone,

Augustine and Pride

Speaker 3 1:32

and thank you, Santiago for that, introduction. it's so wonderful to be back here at Notre Dame. uh, in, in my talk this afternoon, I, I want to take, uh, a step back, from this study of particular works of literature, and take a bird's eye perspective on literary studies as a whole, and, uh, think about some of the larger intellectual problems that the discipline is currently facing. the talk is animated by one of my overarching ambitions, which is to try and bring the secular and religious worlds into deeper conversation with one another. And so, um, my talk today is not merely directed towards the study of literature at Catholic institutions, but the discipline more broadly. I believe that our present moment is an opportunity for the Catholic tradition to not only, bring to bear its wisdom on contemporary problems, uh, but it can also perhaps help us reimagine, uh, what a bright and hopeful future for the discipline might look like. And so it's almost become cliche to speak of the crisis of the humanities. Uh, it's clear that declining enrollments and methodological disputes, uh, within the discipline are, calling scholars to reflect on fundamental questions regarding the significance in the future and importance of the discipline. In particular, I wanna focus on a growing movement, within the humanities, which is often referred to as post critique. post critique is an emergent discourse, uh, championed by literary scholars such as Rita Pelky and Eve Sedgwick, who are challenging the various postmodern and post-structuralist approaches to literature which have dominated the field since the late 1960s. And in her landmark volume, the limits of critique Fki sets her sights on what she terms following. Paul recor the hermeneutics of Suspicion. And while Marxist psychoanalytic, post-structuralist feminist and post-colonial approaches to literature may have different goals and methods in and of themselves, uh, they're all animated by what Fels, argues are guided by a pre absolved suspicion of the text as it is presented on the surface. Can everybody hear me okay? Okay. I was in a band, sorry. Gotta check. and as is well known, these various, suspicious approaches to literary criticism, emerge in the wake of, broader, late, modern philosophical suspicions regarding the early modern enlightenment conceptions of the human person. While philosophers, such as Descartes may have conceived of the human person as an autonomous, irrational subject, transparent to themselves and capable of disinterested knowledge, the so-called masters of Suspicion, Marx, Freud, Nietzche, all in different ways, challenged this vision of personhood in place of the autonomous subject. Each of these thinkers envisioned human beings as driven by powerful subterranean, irrational, and non-cognitive forces, which persisted beneath the surface of conscious awareness. These thinkers observed that the inner life and drives of human beings are not only opaque to others, but we are also fundamentally opaque to ourselves. As Nietzsche famously phrased it, we do not know ourselves, we knowledgeable people. We are most ignorant to ourselves. And following this philosophical, uh, legacy of suspicion, Fels argues that literary critiques since the sixties has largely been guided by an ambition to unmask the illusions of false consciousness, circumventing the self-evident meanings of a text to uncover the various normative assumptions, power derives, psychoanalytic drives and class dynamics which hide beneath the surface. And Loki was trained in critical theory and maintains its virtues. She argues that these deconstructive approaches are simply no longer attracting the, uh, readership or yielding the promised liberation that they had promised in prior decades. Towards the end of the limits of critique, she argues that literary studies simply needs to move on to let go of its unyielding commitment to suspicious reading and experiment with post-critical approaches. as, uh, as according to fel Post, critical reading is not merely another theory or method in a traditional sense, but is rather simply a reorientation, a, a space to reconsider the significance guiding assumptions and conceptual frameworks, which underwrite the discipline to use Fels language. Post critique is a placeholder, which allows a literary studies to take a moment to reconsider the foundational questions of why we read and why reading matters. And the chief aim of this paper is simply to explore what a post-critical approach to literary studies might actually look like in practice. For while Fels earnest appeal to move on from critique, critique may appear modest and relatively straightforward. The task of actually moving on has proven more intractable. As Tobias Ski recently observed after 10 years of intense debate, post-critical discourse is still quite far from having a method as distinct and operationalizable his word, not mine. As those developed under the banner of critique. Um, indeed while post-critical, discourse has arguably been quite successful in diagnosing contemporary problems, they've been relatively thin on offering any stable visions for the future. And so why should this be the case? Um, I think there's several reasons why literary studies has been unable to move on from suspicious forms of reading. I believe this hesitancy can partially be attributed to the language that frames the discussion, particularly the, uh, persistence of that infamously slippery prefix post. As we've learned from the last seven day decades of so-called postmodernity, I believe that any discourse that defines itself by what it's moving beyond runs the risk of never quite actually moving beyond it. It, um, there's a perennial temptation within critical circles to develop what I call an intellectual Stockholm syndrome, an unspoken commitment, and even devotion to the very object of our criticism. Prometheus, these critical discourses can begin boldly rebellious, but leave us permanently bound. Ironically, the nourishing the beast that feeds upon us. When I've taught about, uh, postmodernity in church context, I, I try to tell, uh, the parishioners to imagine a, uh, a clever kid in the back of, of a classroom, probably wearing an Iron Maiden t-shirt like I did in high school, who's clever enough to drive the teacher from the classroom in tears, but is not prepared to take over the class themselves. And, uh, it's a situation which has left the contemporary humanities and what can feel like an interminable Beckett play. We're all sort of nervously waiting in a teacher less classroom, slowly coming to grips with the fact that not only is the teacher never coming back, but the bell is never gonna ring. And, uh, but the second reason why I think it's proving so intractable is, is an unwillingness amongst, contemporary literary studies to face head on some of the deep conceptual incoherence and performative contradictions. Many scholars have argued are baked into the very grammar of postmodern discourse. Particularly worthy of reflection is the relationship between these postmodern approaches and the so-called modern subject they claim to be moving beyond for while critique may regard itself as a mode of reading that is liberated from the shackles of enlightenment derived philosophical fallacies and self deceptions. It's easy to overlook the extent to which these, these critical approaches remain within the horizon of enlightenment derived concepts for while critique may claim to call enlightenment notions of reason to the interrogation table, it could be argued that these critics learn their methods of interrogation from the very subject they interrogate to both the prophet Jeremiah. The sour grapes eaten by our fathers have set the children's teeth on edge. As Thomas FAU has argued, the hermeneutics of suspicion, which currently captivates literary studies is arguably simply another stage in an intellectual legacy of an early modern epistemological posture, which is axiomatic suspicious. A built-in subject object posture of scientific detachment, which has influenced contemporary inquiry far beyond the domain of the natural sciences. Indeed, the postmodern posture of ferocious, blistering detachment, which so troubles Fki could just as accurately be levied against Francis Bacon when he vowed to put nature on the rack and make it confess its secrets. But while it's easy to be cynical about the motivations of the contemporary humanities departments, anybody that's in a contemporary humanities departments knows there's reasons to be cynical. I think there are also good reasons why scholars have been cautious to offering any positive of visions for the future. The task of addressing a question is vast and intractable as how we read and why reading matters inevitably calls us beyond the shores of disciplinary concerns and into the murky waters of fundamental philosophical, anthropological and metaphysical questions. What sort of knowledge does reading offer? What are the epistemological assumptions that are underwriting scholar. What are the anthropological assumptions baked into our notions of poetic creation, transmission, and reception? If we can see that neither the reader nor the author is a rational, autonomous subject that David Card imagined, then what then is our operative conception of the humor person that's underwriting the discipline in any substantive answers to these questions, uh, will invariably have implications far beyond the domain of literary studies. And I'm certainly sympathetic with the hesitancy to answer them. While we may intend to address problems of literary studies as some discrete autonomous discipline, we may unknowingly find ourselves tugging at a Jenga piece that holds an essential place within a broader cultural consensus vision of what qualifies as knowledge, love, power, culture, scholarship, personhood, and even reality. And as any Jenga player knows, it's one thing to point at a Jenga plea piece that needs polling, and it's quite another thing to be the one who has to pull it. So while it's easy to be suspicious of literary studies. Their hesitancy to move beyond conventional orthodoxies. I, I believe this trepidation emerges, at least in part from a healthy awareness of what's at stake. We can't simply start pulling on Jenga pieces without threatening the integrity of certain cultural consensus parts of which we may not be ready to part with. As the great classroom of history has taught us, sometimes no teacher is preferable to the wrong teacher. so given these stakes, I'd like to consider what moving on might actually look like in a very brief, exploratory way. do we critically engage literature merely to unmask the illusions of consciousness or is something else at stake? Can we conceivably move beyond critique without abandoning it altogether? Is it true that if we're not actively critically disenchanting a text, are we necessarily allowing ourselves to be uncritically enchanted by it passively accepting unspoken prejudices, norms, and power dynamics which hide beneath the surface? The only alternative to a hermeneutics of suspicion on uncritical hermeneutics of faith, a blind or istic acceptance of canonical authority, and it's here I believe that Catholic scholars are presented with a rare opportunity to bring the unique depth and wisdom of our tradition to bear on the broader discussion. In particular, I believe we can address these, some of these fundamental questions by returning to Augustine and exploring how some of Augustine's lost, conceptual, and anthropological insights might not only help us address these questions on a foundational level, but can also help us draw our secular colleagues into a fruitful discussion addressing contemporary problems in terms that our postmodern colleagues might be able to not only understand, but perhaps even accept. In particular, I wanna focus on Augustine's concept of suburbia, the inborn spiritual pathology that's often poorly translated as pride. I believe that this anthropological concept, which lies the heart of Augustine's doctrine, of original sin. Might not only help literary studies move beyond the conceptual limitations of subjectivity, broadly speaking, but can perhaps aid the field in its search for a post-critical vision of how we read and why reading matters. Sorry, I'm missing a page.

Speaker 4 13:27

Another page for you.

Auden Williams Disenchantment

Speaker 3 13:28

Oh, oh, sorry. Um, now I'm sure that this claim is, uh, raising some eyebrows. and, um, I admit that the notion that contemporary literary studies might own up to Augustine's twofold darkness of sin and death may seem farfetched. after all, uh, it's difficult to imagine a grand narrative, more totalizing, normative Eurocentric, and subject to the abuse of power than the doctrine of original sin. Uh, and I think this abuse, this, uh, suspicion is warranted, given, popular conceptions of sin, which tend to conceive of it merely as a list of divinely ordained. ethical demands or a legal framework for assessing the metaphysics of personal guilt. Uh, but this superficial understanding of sin doesn't do depth to Augustine's, profound conception of the term sin for Augustine is not merely a list of moral infractions, but a profound diagnosis of the human psyche. One that I might add, share certain resonances with the postmodern insights. As previously mentioned, the heart of Augustine's understanding of sin is the notion of pride, super superb. As Augustine phrases, it is the first of the vices, the beginning, origin, and cause of all sins. It's the archetypal sin, which all sin other sins emerge as from a root, all sin originates in pride. For Augustine, so easy to forget this claim on the most basic level suburbia for Augustine simply speaks to the rivalry, self-orientation, which is endemic to the human condition. Human beings, according to Augustine, both their conceptions of reality and their inner motivations are not as transparent and objective as they appear. Rather to be a human, according to Augustine, is to be captivated by profound, self-oriented, self-justifying and self deceptive mythologies, which mask over the rivalry, jealous, resentful, ambitions hidden in the depths of the human heart. As John Cini describes it, suburbia attest to the human propensity to be addicted to illusions. To be human is to be pathologically captivated by obsessive pre rational, affective commitments, which blind us to realities about ourselves one another, and the world around us. And on the most basic level of analysis, this diagnosis of the human psyche shares residences with our postmodern forefathers. The masters of suspicion marks Freud and Nietzsche. Like Fre, like Freud, Augustine understood all too well that Descartes' rational autonomous subject was an illusion. And like Nietzsche, he knew that we do not know ourselves. We knowledgeable people. We are most ignorant to ourselves. I believe that recovering Augustine's anthropology of suburbia for contemporary literary studies need not require that we reject the hermeneutics of suspicion for some countervailing hermeneutics of faith, and nor does it require that we abandon our critical fact faculties for some uncritical acceptance of textual surfaces. Instead, I believe that recovering suburbia in a contemporary context not only expands upon post modernity's essential insights, but can ha perhaps also help resolve some of its deep incoherence. As John Cini continues, Augustine's notion of super can perhaps provide us with an even more primal hermeneutics of suspicion, a hermeneutic, which when applied to ourselves and cultural realities, unmasked the deepest sources of our hidden pretensions inner motivations and self deceptions. For while the postmodern critic may challenge the enlightenment notion of the modern subject in the breach, as many scholars before me have argued, these same critics tend to assume the modern role of the SU of the MO assume the role of the modern subject in practice. In contrast, Augustine offers us a more primal hermeneutics of suspicion by challenging the self transparent subject at its philosophical and existential foundations, incorporating the human propensity for self-justifying self-deception into the very structure and pattern of his thought in the simplest terms. While post maternity is sometimes described as a mode of thinking that is suspicious of everything but itself, Augustine turns this on its head and begins his philosophical awakening by applying the hermens of suspicion first and foremost, not to others, but to himself. Mehi Magna. I have become a great question to myself. And from this perspective, I think Catholic scholars are in a unique position to articulate a recovery of superb, not as a feat of epistemological arrogance, but as a healthy dose of Augustinian humility. One that does not require the feed AIC adoption of some totalizing metaphysical narrative as often is portrayed as the metaphysical bogeyman of postmodern nightmares. but al simply requires, um, a recovery of the essential mysteries and perennial questions in the simplest terms. I think as we approach texts with critical suspicion, Augustine invites us to simultaneously be suspicious of ourselves approaching texts with a modest awareness of our own limitations, our own self-justifying narratives and our hidden motivations. At the very least, the recovery of suburbia may help contemporary literary critics reflect on the question of whether their journal article offering a post-colonial deconstruction of Anne of Green Gables. Is animated by their hopes for international liberation or by their hopes for tenure at Brown. but all but all joking aside, I think that, uh, I think, uh, thanks for laughing. I'm at Cambridge and nobody laughs. I'm like, come on, throw me a bone. and all joking aside, on a Moose basic level, superb simply permits us to self-consciously reflects on our pre absolved commitments and assumptions and our engagement with text. To borrow the language of Vittorio Mji, it allows us to not merely critique a text, but to encounter a text, an encounter. Mji writes as always, personal and particular. It involves our whole selves by it. We are surprised, challenged called into question, acknowledged and transformed. But how might you ask? Does this vision of reading play out in terms of scholarship? well, we all might be familiar with, uh. The idea of having the scales lifted our from our eyes by a work of art. How do we articulate that in terms of data and research that that, that essential encounter of art that makes us all drawn to it? I think Rowan Williams has some insights into the matter about why reading matters to creatures who are captivated by profound self-oriented delusions in grace and necessity. Williams writes that by engaging the will and the intellect in an unforeseen pattern of coherence and integrity, art uncovers relations and residences in the field of perception that ordinary seeing and experiencing obscure or even deny. In a sense, it could be said that art dispossesses us of our habitual perception and restores to reality, a dimension that necessarily escapes our conceptuality and our control. It makes the world strange. And I think that that this Williams language about literature's power to dispossess the readers of their ordinary and habituated ways of seeing the world cuts to the heart of the present question most significantly. It offers us a vision of reading that challenges the postmodern dichotomy between reading as uncritical enchantment, or critical disenchantment as the great poet Auden phrased it in an interview with the Daily Telegraph. The poet's vocation is not to enchant the reader, but to disenchant the reader. Poetry should make you see, you see yourself and your world more clearly. The poet may use magic, but for the purpose of disenchanting, the reader of their illusions about themselves and the world. And I think that these quotes from Williams and Auden cut to the heart of what is missing and must be recovered by literary studies as creatures captivated by profound self-oriented illusions. Illusions, great works of art have a unique power to dis dispossess us, to disenchant us to make the world strange. To expose human beings and our prideful, self-oriented, self-justifying limited vision of things, but an even more profound sense. I believe that allowing a work of art to disenchant us of our illusions is the fruit of falling in love with it and falling in love with it precisely for its ability to reach us in a sacred dimension of our personhood that is beyond, in beneath our worldly games and captivating illusions of achieving, posturing and displaying. From this Augustinian perspective, our commitment to close and careful reading is animated first and foremost, not by our pre absolved commitment to judge by the hope of grace. It is a movement from reading as paranoia to reading as metanoia. It is a vision of reading that acknowledges our world needs transforming, but acknowledges that we too must be transformed. And so in closing, I just, uh, invite you to reflect on how recovering this simple Augustinian insight might transform the landscape and future of literary studies. What if we engage great works of literature, not merely to put them on the rack and make them confess their secrets, but in the hopes that they, by their grace might lead us to confess our own? Thank you.

Speaker 10 22:33

Well, we know by now that to be in this panel, you need to have done something extraordinary in your past life. We have the former guitarist of Sons of Bill speaking as a Cambridge scholar and making us laugh and laughing himself. And now believe it or not, the bar is high. I will call a former surf instructor to the podium. You, you may think this is a joke, but you can ask him later, and believe it or not, Patrick will talk to us about the role of artistic and cultural institutions in polarized societies.

Speaker 6 23:14

thanks for that Santiago. I, uh, I have taught friends how to surf in, uh, long Beach, long Island, and in Malibu, California, including actually at least two people in this room here today. and several of their one, one of whom has several kids. So I gave a group lesson too.

Speaker 10 23:29

That's very biblical. You have two witnesses. Good.

Speaker 6 23:32

Exactly. But, uh, I fear the opportunities for doing so out this way in one of the Great Lakes are a little, a little more limited. it's a, it's a pleasure to be speaking here at Notre Dame. I, myself, I'm a graduate, uh, of a university with the same name, uh, in the deep south, uh, in Australia where I'm from. Although there, we call it the University of Notre Dame, not Notre Dame over here.'cause we know how to pronounce French words. But in many other ways, you know, we're quite a, you know, forward looking, progressive nation down there. Uh, we're really, we're really ahead of the game. We're about 15 hours specifically ahead of the game, time zone compared to you guys. So if you're wondering who's gonna win the election next Tuesday, you know, just phone me up Sunday or Monday and I'll be able to tell you in advance what the outcome is. Uh, it's a great honor to be participating in the, the mothership of all, ethics conferences. The fall conference, I've, I've never been myself before, but I've only watched it, from afar for many years. I am Australian, uh, by birth, but I consider myself an honorary American. Having worked about a decade in the States, first in the Archdiocese of New York for several years, heading up Young Adult Outreach and then, uh, in Los Angeles, splitting my time at one point, in the communications office for Archbishop Gomez. And then in very different sort of environment, for a foreign affairs sort of center, left progressive think tank of. Globalists and ex-presidents and prime ministers and all governance folk wanting to change the world for the better. So having worked in quite different ideological climates and environments, uh, throughout a fairly tumultuous, and continuing so political period, I became, increasingly concerned about how you hold societies together when so many citizens are in such deep disagreement, with one another about fundamental beliefs and values. And now that's obviously a very, you know, macro, big concern. After a few years I started to sort of focus that concern, particularly at looking at smaller societies or communities, and that is within corporations and institutions across different sectors, banks, sale lines, retail, sports, art and culture media themselves, which were composed of the same members of society who hold and are committed to lots of different views, but are also committed to the central purpose of the place in which they work. Increasingly since about the 2010s onwards, lots of companies I found began picking sides or adopting public stances on what I call contested social and political issues. So this could be kin's issues concerning personal identity, gender, sexuality, DEI, race, abortion, marriage, immigration, you name it. Now, most of these issues are not directly related to what those organizations did on a daily basis. And so my concern grew as to what effect that was having on the company amongst its employees, for the company itself and its own standing in society and how it was actually achieving progress or not on the social or political issue in which that company took a position on. Uh, and so for the last three years, I've been reaching out over email, cold calling, essentially, the CEOs, chairs, presidents, university presidents, boards, and trustees of, most of the major companies and institutions in the us. UK and the EU in Australia, uh, wanting to meet with them then one-on-one to try to understand how they understand the expectation or the pressure for their institution to play a lead role in the various hot button issues of the day, as well as what effects it has on their company and whether due to the backlash they've received, there may be a better way of running organizations at the governance level. So CEO board of directors. So since then I've spoken with about three to 400 business leaders across the political and ideological spectrum. And I've then convened and facilitated roundtable discussions with them, uh, under Chatham House rule where I, you know, try to create a sort of safe space, for C-Suite execs to have good disagreement. That is, you know, the kind where you actually listen to someone with a different point of view and then try to constructively engage with them. Now at the, uh, at the popular or populist level of media and political discourse, this issue tends to be discussed under the banner of woke capitalism. And there are some benefits to that language. but there are a lot of limitations. And, um, I tend to characterize the issue of the challenge really facing those in leadership positions of different institutions. And I'll be focusing my remarks mainly on the cultural and artistic institutions. But the challenge is the same across different sectors as one about how to oversee and steward an incredibly complex institution in a world where everyone inside it seems to hold differing social views on those political topics. And how do you balance that ship without sinking it by getting entangled in a contested issue beyond the capacity of that core business. but I think it's helpful before I dive into sort of the arts to sort of see that this, uh, is a broad challenge, is a general feature of our age. One, which is marked by deep polarization and division with seemingly irreconcilable conflict over values and beliefs, along with decreasing trust and frustration, really with the traditional arenas of political and democratic activity and progress, and that in these conditions, it's not entirely unsurprising that many look to other institutions, so business, the arts, universities, the courts, media or sport to make up for or to achieve progress on some of the things which the political process has been ineffective in. Now, this goes somewhere, I think, to explain why since the 2010s and beyond, there's been a notable shift in different institutions self understanding that they shouldn't be primarily focused on their core, historical, good or purpose, but also by other more political or social goals. So for example, example, universities are not primarily for the sake of education and furthering understanding, but also achieving social change while growing the economic pie, creating the future worker media journalism is not primarily for reporting the news as it is and commenting on the issues the day, but advocacy and shaping society towards a better end. And the business private sector, it's not just about making money by creating valuable products and services and bettering the community which you're in, but by somehow serving all stakeholders, and improving the world and so on. Now, on the face of it, it may not seem, challenging and a lot of it depends on the particulars, but this general trend does present its own difficulties and risks, especially the further you get away from the core focus and the good that the institution is primarily built to serve. And the problem I tend to raise with the heads of these different institutions is that. When they move their institution to taking a public stance on a contested social and political issue that is not directly related to their core focus, they risk, they seriously risk polarizing their staff along those lines of difference, politicizing their institution because it's unexpected to take stances on other matters. And it ends up polluting public discourse by sort of distorting the incentive structures about how certain social issues are discussed. And I think that happens irrespective of whatever side of the debate they happen to land, although it usually is always just on the progressive side. And I think if they've gotten to the habit of doing that, like I said on previous occasions, and they should expect that there is gonna be an ongoing expectation that they speak out similarly on lots of other issues, and that they'll likely also experience tension, ongoing tension within their organization around those sorts of matters. So this grounds my advice and recommendation to them that institutions should exercise. The virtues of corporate restraint when it comes to expressing views on such matters, either explicitly in public statements or implicitly by engaging in certain operational activities and training out of respect for the diversity of views that exist within their own own organization and beyond it. Now, universities have obviously been dealt this reality, most harshly recently over here as well as in my country, and that's partially, I think, going to explain why many of them have begun to follow Harvard's example, which itself is a variation on an earlier position advocated for by the University of Chicago. Its Calvin Report back in 1967, basically, where it recommended that the university should restrain from offering a university level view on external matters, so as to foster academic debate, uh, and freedom. Now I've been workshopping this approach with leaders in other sectors, including, a fair number of those heading up the artistic. Cultural institutions in New York, Washington, DC and LA by spurring the collective imagination and creativity already present amongst, these individuals to conceive what the feasibility and benefits might be of a similar approach that could help their institutions. Now, these folks' jobs, these are folks like direct directors of museums, artistic directors within operas, ballet companies, chairs of trustees of 150 person sort of boards. they are not easy jobs today anymore. Gone. Uh, the days where all you sort of needed was, uh, you know, the institution needed was someone with a PhD in art history or music, and then a knack at finding a good curator or a good performer. Essentially, these days, they're required to be high stakes, culturally sensitive diplomats able to be communicating effectively with artists, donors, trustees, and activists, as well as also being expert fundraisers and commercially savvy operators. And institutionally, as I mentioned, as well before, the expectations surrounding museums, for example, has also been changing over the last few decades from a time when the focus was mostly on collecting and preserving and presenting to gradually being expected to be community facing, inclusive, reaching diverse audiences, engaged in the issues of the day, reckoning with cultural and colonial histories, and reappraising, the cultural canon. So it's all very, quite fraught now. Now, the challenges these leaders face and, and the merits of the approach that I outlined earlier, I think could be considered in light of a few recent high profile, high profile controversies that broke out in the performing arts and visual arts museum landscape in your country. and in mine, since the conflict in the Middle East began. So first a couple of cases in the visual arts sector, the museum sector in New York where I've just come from. So some of you may have visited the Noguchi Museum, which is in Long Island City, in Queens. Uh, it's a, an intimate meditative museum with a sculpture garden. It's built by the category defying sculptor Isam. Ngu. Now, it updated its stress code recently prohibiting employees from wearing political messages, slogans, and symbols now was reintroduced after several employees had been wearing the kafi for months. Uh, three employees continued to wear it after the new policy came into effect. And after several warnings, they were subsequently fired. So around two months ago, 60, people, including two thirds of the museum's own current workforce, as well as former staff and outside supporters, protested outside the museum. The museum released a statement soon after things blew up, expressing sympathy with critics, but defending its decision, stating that some forms of expression can unintentionally alienate segments of diverse visitorship. It can be seen as political and that the museum has a responsibility to foster an inclusive environment. Now, this brought about a few predictable responses at the time. One that wearing that was not a political, but it's a humanitarian statement. And that banning it was a political statement. Uh, and the others that such a code went against Noguchi's and the museum's values, and pressure is now being placed on its funding sources, including the Mayor Adams, Bloomberg Philanthropies, and Mitsubishi. The second one is the Brooklyn Museum, which is the second largest museum in New York, which is currently celebrating its, uh, bicentennial celebration. Since its founding now, it is a avowedly, and, and sort of self-described progressive institution, both artistically and administratively. You can go back all the way to its sort of 1999, uh, debate with Mayor Giuliani and Catholic sober. A very controversial artwork on the Virgin Mary. Its sort of more recent, hashtag me too exhibit problematic exhibit a few weeks ago. it also has an unseated land acknowledgement on the facade of its works and tries to incorporate anti-racist and anti-oppressive practices in all facets of its museum life. but none of that has stopped it from being a hotbed of activism for the last few months with the, the homes of both the director and pastor and the chair, Barbara Vogelstein, their homes being spray painted with red paint, from this. And this is a museum which, you know, has been facing budget cuts and lumbering along with an endowment of sort of smaller of than Harvard's by factor of, you know, sort of by factor of 4 0 7, who only knows how much smaller be compared to Notre Dame's endowment. But, um, and then in, uh, Sydney, more recently in the performing arts, we had two companies, the Sydney Theater Company, the Melbourne Symphony Orchestra, uh, which both had similar, instances recently, which have led to board members leaving budgets being cut. And significant cutback really on the performance of the institution. In all of these examples, the challenge is how do you build, sorry. How do you balance artistic expression and creativity with the many and varied views held across a community, including its audiences, funders, and backers, that it's short of getting any answer on that. It's only just a matter of time before another institution ends up on the front page of the New York Times. Now, I think a balance has said, needs to be struck. While we can all respect artistic freedom, I think it's reasonable and appropriate that that respect presumes certain expectations, boundaries, and responsibilities. And that's particularly the case where the expression of personal views on a contested issue risk distracting or detracting from the art itself, or damaging and discrediting the company that presents it. Now, some people often say here, well art is, you know, inherently political. It's inevitably disruptive. I think that would be right. There are some forms of artistic expression, which are more designed for the exploration of personal, social and political views than others. Festivals, special galas, dedicated events, as opposed to sort of standard performance settings, performances of standard repertory or guest soloists. And the classics, of course, the latter may also deal with political themes, but this is typically inherent in the performance itself. So my, uh, question to those looking to advocate and use the platform of the stage in such settings is, is this really the right time, manner and place for expressing personal views on contested issues? Uh, nonetheless, it's a bit of a, a gray area, and until recently, most performing arts companies and museums in Australia and the US have taken a generally permissive view or encouraging approach to artists speaking out in both their creative work and commentary alongside it on a wide range of matters and mostly advancing a progressive worldview. As the recent conflict in the Middle East exposed new fault lines and fractured progressive sentiment, particularly between generations. I guess the question is whether this laissez-faire approach is and should now be reconsidered, is it really fit for purpose in polarized times? So I'll just finish with saying, with one of the leading artistic and cultural institutions in the us, the Getty Trust Museum in Los Angeles, committing itself recently and then also encouraging others in the same sector to freedom of expression that doesn't shy away from a diversity of views. There's clearly much that can be built upon. And I think there's also massive goodwill amongst the creative community, both here in the us, and in Australia. And so I don't think division and difference need be a threat. It's also an opportunity for creativity, for exploring subtleties, building bridges, and alerting audiences to new possibilities. I think if any sector can do this well, it's the arts. It's for art is uniquely positioned to sort of model a form of cultural expression that can mend rather than exacerbating divides. And I think if any imagination can do that well, it's the Catholic imagination because it uniquely sees the intrinsic beauty of the arts and the appeal it has to every human person. Thank you.

Speaker 10 40:14

Thank you, Patrick, for a wonderful presentation. I know what you're thinking now. How will I manage to offer you yet another presentation with an extraordinary past life? But this is what you learn after 13 consecutive years of moderating at the Fall Cons Conference. I will give you now a person whose book has been read by Ethan Hawk. And the book is not called How to Fall Apart with a Hollywood Star, but it's on Flannery O'Connor. Furthermore, our next speaker invited Bruce Springsteen to his ordination, and when he was in first chair of the seminary, he wrote to Uma Torman. Neither Bruce turned up in the ordination, nor did Uma answer. Thank God. Maybe he wouldn't be a priest today. So now Father Damien is going to talk to us, not about those more interesting things that he can talk about in in the Hall, but about handling serpents. Perhaps you need to know how to handle serpents and drinking poison effectively, engaging secular culture as a Catholic father, Damian.

54 41:40

Thank you

Engaging Secular Culture

Three Conditions to Endure

Evangelizing Through Art

Speaker 7 41:46

button my suit coat. At the end of Mark's gospel, Jesus upgrades the 11 for their unbelief and hardness of heart before telling them, go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. Jesus informs his apostles that those who believe will be baptized and will be saved, and those who do not believe will be condemned. Then he tells them that certain signs will accompany those who believe they will pick up serpents, and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them. They will lay their hands on the sick and they will recover. There are certainly a variety of ways to understand this passage, but in this paper. I would like to interpret the serpents and the deadly drink as the secular culture in which we live, and I would like to show how Mar's Gospel offers us the way of effectively engaging secular culture as Catholics for the sake of transforming said culture without being harmed by it. In the Aristotelian to mystic tradition, virtue is defined by excess and deficiency too much or too little of something. When it comes to approaching the secular culture as a Catholic, it is common to either fall headlong into the sec sec secular culture and be corrupted by it, or to take on a fortress mentality and to avoid secular culture altogether, which is the antithesis of church being present and operative in those places and circumstances where she can become the salt of the earth as the Second Vatican Council teaches us. The first extreme is certainly worse, but both work against the Great Commission. My hope for this paper is to present a clear path forward for those who desire to engage the secular culture without being harmed by it. At the very least, such an approach will help create a culture of encounter, but the ultimate goal is to transform, heal, and redeem a culture with the light of the gospel. This paper has three major parts. First, I wanna begin with an overview of Mark's gospel, paying special attention to the way in which Jesus forms his 12 apostles, and then sends them out on mission. Second, I wanna show that the only way not to be harmed by handling serpents and drinking poison is by maintaining a deep and consistent prayer life. Life of the sacraments and life of community. And third, I want to offer some helpful examples of engaging the secular culture as a Catholic from my own experience as an evangelist. So first Mark's gospel as training and missionary discipleship Mark's Gospel begins not with a genealogy or infancy narrative or a prologue, but with the simple statement quote, the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, unquote. And the next 16 chapters follow that matter of fact style of presenting the good news of Jesus Christ to the reader without all the interesting details offered in the accounts of Matthew and Luke, for those of you who are Catholic or are part of a church that uses Electionary cycle, we are currently in Year B, which means that we have been hearing from the Gospel of Mark all year on most Sunday liturgies. The first chapter of Mark's gospel is a flurry of activity. John the Baptist fulfills the prophet Isaiah and prepares the way of the Lord and then baptizes Jesus in the river Jordan, where the spirit descends upon him, and we hear first of his beloved sonship. Next, he's driven out, driven out in the desert for 40 days, and before you know it, John is arrested and Jesus says, the time is fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand. Repent and believe in the gospel, and all this happens in the first 15 verses. Next he calls Simon and Andrew, James and John, and immediately they leave their nuts and follow him. Then Jesus gets to work first. He drives an unclean spirit out of a man while teaching in the synagogue. Next he heals Simon's mother-in-law who lay sick with a fever. That evening, he healed many who were sick with various diseases and cast out demons. The next morning he prayed in solitude and then moved throughout Galilee, preaching in their synagogues, casting out demon. Chapter one of Mark's gospel then concludes with Jesus healing a leper. You tired. Yet in chapter two, we are presented with more healing this time of a paralytic whose friends tear off the roof to get him close to Jesus. And then we hear that quote, those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. I came to call the righteous, not the righteous, not the righteous, but sinners, more healings and standing down unclean spirits occur in chapter three until Jesus appoints the 12 apostles, all of whom by the way, are sinners whom he desires to make righteous. So I wanna pause here because these 12 sinners that Jesus calls to himself will become saints in the foundation of his apostolic church, which means that they are us. So we need to pay close attention to the way in which Jesus forms the 12, because how he forms the 12 is how he forms us, the members of his body, the church of which he is the head. For the remainder of chapter four, he preaches parables to large crowds, but only explains his parables to the 12. He offers them images of a lamp and a mustard seed, and then shows his power by calming the sea, and they are filled with awe in his presence. Now, I promise you, I will not summarize each chapter of Mark's gospel this afternoon, but I do beg of you to allow me a few words about chapter five, verse one through 20. This is Jesus's first time in Mark's Gospel where he enters pagan territory in the land of the Enes. To me, this is the most Flannery O'Connor esque story in the New Testament as it's the only one as it's the one where Jesus meets a man possessed by demons. In the cemetery and proceeds to send those demons into a herd of 2000 swine as they jump off a cliff and die. It's also the gospel I request. I have requested to have read at my funeral mass. Amen. And outside someone's funeral mass. It's only read once a year on the Monday of the fourth week of ordinary time at a liturgy. It's true. Here's why I love the story so much. I read it as a microcosm of the entire gospel. Jesus, who is God made man enters into the land of darkness and death, and he does so without fear. The man who is possessed by legion, by the way, does anyone remember what his name is? He doesn't have one because he's you. He's me. So the man who is possessed by Legion stands for the whole human race, and he's the one Jesus comes to redeem. Jesus dries out the demons and heals the man and puts him in his right mind. And then he sends this restored man back to his family and friends to tell them about what the Lord and his mercy has done. In other words, the man becomes an evangelizer. He sent out to tell the good news he does what has been done for him, and the apostles witnessed the whole thing firsthand. They are learning on the job who Jesus is, the kind of power he has, and that he is not afraid of anything. A few verses later, he even brings a dead girl back to life. After five chapters of Jesus's teaching, driving out demons and healing people, he calls the 12 and then he sends them out to preach repentance, cast out many demons and anoint with oil to sick and heal them. They have been apprenticing him long enough that he entrust them to his ministry and they do it. The apostles return to Jesus. They told him all that they had done and taught, and he said to them, come away by yourselves to a lonely place. Rest a while. They're learning on the job from the master and doing well. But in this chapter, but in chapter nine, they encounter a dumb spirit that is too much for them, but not for their master. When they inquire about it, Jesus explains to them that some demons can only be driven out through prayer and fasting. Shortly before the last supper, Jesus directs the attention of his disciples to a poor widow who offers a preview of what is to come. He notes she out of her poverty, has put in everything she had her whole living being. In chapter 14, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it, gave it to them and said, take this, take. This is my body, and he took a cup. This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many, and the next day he literally pours out his body and blood on the cross at glg. Taking on death itself, and he wins. Death has lost its sting. Three days later, he has risen. Interestingly, Jesus doesn't appear to the 12 minus Judas. First he appears to Mary Magdalene and then to the couple on the road and then to the 11. And when he does, he up braids them for their lack of belief and hardness of heart because they did not believe those who had seen him as he, as he had first risen. And then he sends them out. And just as death hasn't harmed Jesus, nor will serpents or poison harm his apostles, I offer this summary of Mark's Gospel to give us the context for the line about handling serpents and drinking poison. In Mark's gospel, Jesus fears nothing and heals the sick, cures the leper, feeds the hungry, drives out demons, brings the dead back to life, and then he conquers death itself. Then in his resurrection, he entrusts that same power to his apostles. They went forth and preached everywhere while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by signs that attended it. Part two, sustaining Life in Jesus and His church as members of one Holy Catholic and apostolic church. The words spoken by Jesus to the apostles at the end of Mark's gospel are spoken to us as well to all the baptized, not just clergy and religious. The Second Vatican Council reminds us the lay apostate, however, is a participation in the saving mission of the church itself. Through their baptism and confirmation, all are commissioned to that apostate by the Lord himself. Even more evidence is offered in the dismissal, spoken at the end of every mass. Go in peace glorifying the Lord by your life, or go and announce the Gospel of the Lord. It can be scary, however, to go out as a missionary disciple, as we may think, I don't know enough, or I'm not strong enough, or I don't know what I'm doing. Join the club. Jesus does not call the qualified but qualifies those he has called. The truth is that none of us are worthy, but if we are tethered to him and his church, it will be enough. I wanna offer three conditions for being able to handle serpents and drinking deadly things. That is three conditions to engage secular culture without being harmed by it. They are personal life of prayer, the sacramental life, and a communal life of faith, prayer life. In Mark's gospel, we are told that Jesus in the morning, a great while before day rose and went out to a lonely place, and there he prayed and he makes sure that his apostles follow his example. And he said to them, come away by yourselves to a lonely place and rest a while. My bishop is about to publish his first pastoral letter. One of the highlights of the letter to all the faithful of the Diocese of Cleveland is a challenge to set aside 15 minutes every day for prayer. To go away to a lonely place without a phone, without earbuds, without any screens and pray. It's a simple request of my bishop and easier said than done. A personal prayer life is essential to the life of a mis missionary disciple. Making time every day to go to that lonely place, whether it's in a church or a chapel designated space in my home or on campus, where God can speak to our hearts and our hearts can speak to God's heart, is what makes a disciple a disciple. At the end of the day, we are made for friendship with God and just as we need to make time to be with our friends, so too, do we need to be deliberate and making time every day without distraction for God. If we are not not making time for conversation with Jesus daily, if we are not nurturing that friendship with the one who heals and drives out demons, if we are not resting daily in that lonely place of prayer, those serpents and poison will kill us Sacramental life. The Second Vatican Council reminds us that Christ is always present in his church, especially in her liturgical celebrations. He is present at the sacrifice of the mass under eucharistic species, sacraments his word, when the church prays and sings. Moreover, the council teaches every liturgical celebration because it is an action of Christ, the priest, and of his body. The church is a sacred action surpassing all others. In other words, the life of discipleship flows out of the liturgy and back into it, and as we've already covered it, the dismissal at the rites of mass. Pope Francis, perhaps more than any other modern Pope, has stressed the importance of frequent celebration of the sacrament of reconciliation to encounter God's healing mercy. He has also referred to the mass as the reception and the reception of frequent communion, in particular as a way of encountering God's love and mercy. Of course, John Paul ii Benedict 16th stood on the same ground. I mention all this because. Once someone has been faithfully initiated into the life of the church through baptism, confirmation, and Eucharist, the way to maintain and deepen one's identity in Christ is through encountering him repeatedly at mass and regular confession. Does one have to go to mass every day to be able to handle serpents and drink poison and not be harmed? Maybe not, but it doesn't hurt, and I would recommend that if you know you are about to encounter snakes and poison, go to mass more on this in the next section. Third, communal Life. As a church, we are part of one body made up of many parts. We are part of a church that is suffering militant and triumphant. We are a community of believers and there is a reason we gather together because we're two or three are gathered in my name. There I am in the midst of them. The Christian life is impossible to live alone. We need friends. We need people to walk with us and cry with us, and talk with us, and pray with us and go out to the world with us again. I refer to my bishop's new pastoral letter that will be published next month. In it. He asks that every Catholic in the diocese be part of some small group where the faith can be shared, where stories can be told, where support may be given and received. We live in a world where people are reporting alarming rates of loneliness, not just the elderly, but especially the young. As Drew Holcomb sings, you gotta find your people. Does anyone know that song? Okay. You will be able to handle serpents and you won't be able to handle serpents and drink poison without them. Finally, examples. In this final section of the paper, I wanna briefly offer a few examples that I've seen of handling serpents and drinking poison without being harmed for consideration. First in film, although Bishop Robert Baron is known as America's teaching bishop with the empire, that is word on fire, I still claim that some of his most important work in evangelization has been his commentary on film. Back when he was still a priest and seminary professor, he would make short YouTube videos on rated R films like The Departed Fargo in Grand Torino. People screen one of those films and then search for a commentary. Meet a smart priest who helps them think about what they saw and are grateful for his contribution and intrigued by his way of life. Theater. Back in 2007, I saw Spring Awakening on Broadway. I knew nothing about the show, bought cheap tickets at TKTS, the day of, and Jonathan Groff and Liam Michelle were new to me. If you are familiar with the musical, you'll know that it's a coming of age show, and the music is of the music is fun and catchy, but morally speaking, there are a lot of problems for the Catholic. However, one observation I made about the show is that none of the adults in the show know anything and therefore the young people are left to fend for themselves. When I share this insight with fans of the show, I have yet to meet one who recognized this lack of guides or mentors in the musical, and agree that young people need some wisdom figures to mature well fiction. As you heard in my intro, I am a Flannery O'Connor guy. I can't begin to tell you how knowing Flannery, O'Connor's fiction has opened doors for me with conversations with atheists, agnostics, lap ca laps, Catholics and the like, whether it be a conference online, in a coffee shop at a concert or in an airport. Knowing Flannery also makes people recommend their favorite fiction to me, which I am able to read and then engage in conversation. What do I have? Two minutes.

Speaker 4 58:40

One.

Speaker 7 58:41

One, okay. Finally, popular music Chapel, Rone. Anyone know her? H-O-T-T-O-G-O. Okay, so I went to her show in Cleveland. I reviewed her. Um, I, I wrote a little article for America Magazine, a a disenfranchised woman on the periphery who's a, a senior in high school in Cleveland. Wrote me a letter about it. I'll just, um, I, I brought the letter here. I'll just read you two sentences. I braced myself before I read it. Meaning your article, thinking about all the targeted opinions you might have about her. I underestimated you. I didn't think a priest could write about someone like her who was, as the Catholic Church would say, deserves to go to hell by how she lives in such a beautiful way. I didn't believe that anyone of the Catholic faith would understand why it's okay to listen to someone like her. I wanna thank you for your impact on my perspective. You made it easier for me to see God in a beautiful way. I am forever grateful to that. I wish you all the best and I will be praying for you. Thank you.

Panel Q & A Wrap

Speaker 10 59:43

Thank you, father Damien. What a wonderful panel we had. We have now a few minutes for any questions unrelated to the past lives of these gentlemen. Although, although if there is time, you may want to ask them or ask one of them to sing a song for us. I mean, father Damian, of course. Just kidding. James, for. For the questions I will ask you to kindly introduce yourselves, if you will, and to be concise even if you don't will, and to the speakers, if you can also be concise in your answers because I think we will have a few questions please.

Speaker 8 1:00:28

Michael Sullivan from Chicago, the sanctuary economy. Uh, this is directed primarily to you from Damian, but you know, to your, your own responses. okay.

Speaker 10 1:00:36

they told me I had this talk into this when I talked so I have it ready.

Speaker 4 1:00:40

It seems that what, when you're talking about Mark's gospel, Jesus was on offense. He was going against a king of darkness and he was liberating the people that were in that and he was using supernatural needs. How can we recover that sense of, within our Catholic culture, being able to do that? Because in a sense, secular culture really didn't have very much the long know. But oftentimes I think that when we encounter, but heal sort of timid, kind of timid. Whereas, what we see in that gospel is, you know, laying hands on the, on the sick and make it better and a kind of, robust.

Speaker 7 1:01:16

thank you for your question. I was in conversation about this yesterday. I have a new job as of three years ago. I'm the vicar for evangelization in the diocese of Cleveland. So the bishop has four vicars. He has this vicar general, um, judicial vicar, the vicar for clergy and, um, vicar for evangelization. When people ask me what I do, I said, well, these other three vicars, their job is to put out fires minus to set them, and it's playing offense. But I think as a church, especially in terms of downtown and institution, we've gotten, so we've actually gotten pretty good at playing defense and making sure that we have statements when something bad happens and we're able to respond quickly with a press release. But when it comes to actually tying the good news and going out and setting fires and being alive with the gospel that Jesus has risen. I don't know if we know how to do that very well. So I think we have a lot of work to do. But yeah, following Jesus's example and then the example of the apostles in Mark's gospel is a good place to start.

Speaker 10 1:02:14

Thank you. Yes, please. Pardon? Do they need a microphone to ask their question? No, no need. We're good. You can ask your question. You don't need a microphone? Just speak loud. Okay.

Speaker 2 1:02:29

Sorry. Yeah, sorry. So, Mr. James, thank you very much for your favor. So you mentioned Paul Ker at the beginning just because he couldn't term her of suspicion and um, so he's tried me as one of the best philoso person having like proposed an alternative to like a very smart alternative there, right? Suspicion he gambling however he was protest. So my, you know, of course that would be, you know, you have any thoughts about him and also what you think is, is uh, you know, Catholicism can. Specific sprinkler being, so,

Speaker 3 1:03:10

gosh. No, that's a good, it's a good question. yeah, it's a, it's a good question and a, uh, and a big one. No, and, and the, the whole hermeneutic tradition, you know, that, that, that, uh, you know, from, from truth and method through recor, has so much in it that's great and worthy of reflection. And looking at, I, I, again, I, I, I feel like so much t 20th Century philosophical discourse is forcing us to adopt new language, new terms, um, that sometimes obscure the power of our old ones. Um, which, uh, which, so that's why I, you know, we can thank Heidrich for that perpetuating the PhD in d industry at infinitum with new terms that we have to figure out what they mean. so that's why I think, I think going back to the, the fathers, I think the best, you know, the best, uh. I promise. for, you know, best way Catholicism can address it is just leaning into the catholicity of the vision and the catholicity of the Christian faith. And by going back to a figure like Augustine, who is someone who, everybody can somehow relate to and understand these core things, that we're not approaching it from a combative perspective, but drawing people in, you know, that as Catholics, there's no truth that we have to be afraid of. All truth is God's truth. So that's an advantage over, a world that has lots of, uh, commitments that they're unwilling to, to, to question for often reasons that are beneath the surface of our understanding. Is that, does, is that, is that helpful? I know that's really, I know that's really, really broad. but, but that's, that's, that's what I would say.

Speaker 10 1:04:40

Great. So I have right now 1, 2, 3 questions. I will please ask you to ask the questions first, the three questions, and then we'll have the answers to them start with you. Yes.

Speaker 9 1:04:52

Thank,

Speaker 10 1:04:52

thank you.

Speaker 9 1:04:53

Oh, so like it's different conference. Matthew Wilson. I'm a frequent listener to this with the bill. Um, my question was inspired by Patrick's presentation, but I think actually maybe of you might have something to say on it. And that's, you, you ended with that stating something that I think it's genuinely true that, that, that it's, it's more or less an article of faith that we're obliged as Catholic to believe in the integrity of being as by God. And, and, and therefore we have an obligation to openness, to truth, to, and also to the, that sort of strangely disinterested kind of erotic love that is for beauty. And yet, when I think of taking that to, into the world of woke capitalism, I could, I could imagine being greeted by QD responses. First one is like President Budweiser as he counting dollars to hear what you're saying. But his advertising staff, they're not, they're not just neutral secular people. Chances are they have a kind of gnostic vision of being itself as a kind of curse to be overcome by the power of the will. And so I'm just wondering whether the chops of just advocating for some kind of institutional neutrality is really the answer to as its growth state of our culture.

Speaker 10 1:06:20

Thank you. We have the next question, then the third, and then the answers, please. Sure. I'm Zena Gomez. I'm a, student actually at Kansas, at the University of St. Thomas. And my, uh, question is for Patrick. specifically about, you mentioned 2010 around that, that time, that was one of the iPhones versus the challenges of the technology advancing faster than we can adapt the team being to, uh, how we talk to each other. And so oftentimes these, social issues like spiral all become viral and then, become like fires. Like, so what, what Charact just do you see right now with, the way that technology advances to, compassionately engaging these difficult subjects? And is there a way to use in way, uh, as thank you, your question, sir?

54 1:07:21

I'm Joshua Schultz of philosophy at the sales university. Question kind of dovetails, but these, given that there's a kind of puritanism that comes along with polarization, where with the defense, have absolutism occur, what sorts of pitches are you making at this governance level that in climate effect, is it the loss of income? Is it return to core mission? Is it, uh, values of life? When we talk about, for example, welcoming a diversity of views, I'm kind of curious what has resonated with, uh,

Speaker 10 1:07:59

I guess you're asking questions and maybe we'll have time for one or more, two perhaps.

Speaker 6 1:08:05

Yeah. Thanks for collectively pulling all of those, together. The same, take a stab at all, of, So, yeah, I mean, you, you'll get pushback on the idea of neutrality from either this ends of the spectrum. folks on the, on the left, I know these terms left and right aren't sort of always perfectly helpful, but you get pushback from the left, from saying organizations if you're neutral, you're sort of, you're, you're being silent in the face of, you know, the, the pressing issues the day, uh, and, uh, and, and the right or what you were sort of pitching. I'm not saying it was a conservative thing, it was more essentially that we should be articulating a more, a more positive vision of what an institution is, is about. that's where I'd like to be. and that's where I think it needs to go. I see this step as a sort of middle step area that it, it's, it basically just recognizes that within any organizational society you have people who hold very different views and try to create some zone of, Almost a sort of a rolls in place, of, where we can be somewhat ignorant with what each of us thinks regards to highly contested matters that don't directly relate to what we're doing on a daily basis. If you're creating conditions for respect for those views that people hold within a company, that's a better place than trying to push an institution to express a view on a contested matter of which people inside it may hold different views. So, um, I tend to not use the word neutrality,'cause neutrality sounds like waving a white flag. That's why I sort of use language of restraint, which I think has more sort of a virtuous notion, packaged into it. on the second question, on technology and social media, that's undoubtedly a huge factor in the decay in general, in public discourse and argumentation. it's, uh, you know, John Hit has, has written quite a, quite well about this and is leading a, a very effective campaign against the social media companies. But there's no doubt that that has deteriorated our ability to talk with people, hold different points of views, um, and the different media platforms are all, in their own ways, vulnerable to, to corrupting, that, how to use it in, in a positive way. I'm, I'm, I'm not sure, that's a, that's a very good question. I'd be, try to find any forms of technology and, and, and media that actually enable you to, listen to a broad range of views, both in terms of the news that you consume. I think if there's ways to diversify our con news consumption, that would be a, a great thing. and just have exposure to, to, to the best arguments that have been thought and said on competing sides of issues. And I'm trained in philosophy and I'd like to think if I'm gonna study abortion or any other sort of controversial issue, I wanna read the best that's been said, uh, for it and against it, and then make up my mind through it. And so if there was a social media platform that could give you the best argument opposed to your view, I think you'd be enriched if you're able to, um, come across that you'd learn and, and develop your own views from. in terms of the sort of most effective, pitch or angle? I think, I think what I've found has been helpful is the recognition that if you ask someone how they would feel if they were in a company where their boss took, the company, and if you opposed to what they hold, how you would feel working that company, how you'd feel expressing your view with someone, with a peer, with your supervisor direct report. I think most people instinctively just feel immediately like, oh, I'd feel uncomfortable working in this sort of place. I dunno, wouldn't really wanna share my point of view. Uh, and if you can get most people to, to recognize that, then you can sort of say, well, what are the conditions from which, whoever's in the, the top position or whoever's in the bottom position, we can all feel that we're, we can thrive here in a company and work effectively with people across different lines. So I think the polarization dynamic is, is a, is a relatively new one that has not been top of mind. To a lot of corporate leaders, they tend to, they tend to act in concert, as a pack. in terms of what are the other my peer companies doing in the sector, what's the meet the likely media reaction, uh, what's the sort of the mood and zeitgeist? and so, that's generally been, the, the, the sort of the governance thinking. however, the backlash has obviously been extremely effective in, in making them realize that that can come with significant costs. So there's a, a reshift going on in the states towards, I think, generally a more balanced view on this. Australia's a bit further behind, even though we're so far ahead time-wise, we're a little bit behind culturally, and governance wise, but hopefully we can catch up to where things are here.

Speaker 10 1:12:25

Well, I, I leave you with this fantastic panel we had and with some information, uh, about the past lives of our speakers who perhaps. We'll be willing that as well over coffee and so, and if you get ing the of thank you very much.