Many years ago I was listening to a discussion about incarceration. One person was arguing that we put people in prison as a form of punishment. The other person was arguing that prison is meant for rehabilitation. I listened for quite some time before I realized that phrasing the question as either/or limited the discussion and the possibilities. The issue wasn’t really a case of two polarities. I realized incarceration could serve both purposes. Further, there could be a third reason, simply to protect society.
With my ears tuned to arguments in the form of either/or as a result of that, I began to find many instances where this occurred. The phrase “pro-choice” is an example of either/or thinking in a more subtle way. It implies some people are in favor of freedom of choice while others are opposed to choice. But choice and freedom are not absolute goods. We can make bad choices and we can use our freedom in harmful ways. Making choice an absolute good, as an either/or question, eliminates the need to discuss which choices are good and which are bad.
Often we see the same confusion with the question of censorship, either you agree with censorship or you agree with freedom of expression. It may not be quite so simple. One could agree with both. This would require discussion about when and under what circumstances censorship would be the best choice, or when freedom of expression is legitimate and when it is not.
To be, or not to be, tolerant, that is the question, or so it often seems. One might think that even the Bible supports this when it states, “Judge not, that you be not judged.” (Matt 7:1.) But then later, in the same Gospel, it states, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” (Matt 18:15) How are we to “tell him his fault” without judging that a fault exists?
If we read the context around the quotations we understand that “judgment” is a complex issue. Sometimes we are called to judge some things, and sometimes we should refrain from any judgment. We can judge behavior when it is necessary and right to do so (as in the second quote above), but we should never judge people, that is, the condition of their soul (Catechism of the Catholic Church #1861). When we judge behavior, we are judging whether or not an action is morally sinful in an objective sense, what theologians call material sin. We are not judging subjectively whether or not a person has actually committed a sin, what theologians call formal sin. Only God can judge that. The Church has always taught, as did Jesus with His whole life and death, that we are to separate the sin from the sinner, to love the sinner while detesting sin.
But even when it comes to judging behavior, we are cautioned against rash judgement. As the Catechism of the Catholic Church says: “To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbour’s thoughts, words and deeds in a favorable way” (Catechism #2478). So, we should be tolerant, “insofar as possible” and yet we need to judge when it is necessary and right to do so. Clearly, to judge or not to judge is a complex question, not a simple either/or.
Jesus demonstrated that these either or questions can be traps and we are not to fall for them. When asked whether it was lawful to pay taxes to Caesar or not, He did not fall for the trap, but demonstrated that the flaw was in the reasoning of those who questioned Him (Matthew 22: 17-22).
Whether we should be tolerant of a particular behavior or not depends on many variables. It’s not a matter of always being tolerant of people and behavior or never being tolerant of people and behavior, even though that is how some issues are presented. The either/or argument for tolerance is often used to try to trap Catholics in discussing our Church’s stand against homosexual behavior.
These very comments of mine could become just another example of either /or thinking if I didn’t point out that some issues really are of the either/or variety. That is, it’s not simply a question of either using either/or arguments or not using them. There are times when it is appropriate, and necessary, to put questions in the stark choice of either/or. Since adultery is always a grave moral evil, to phrase the choice as “either adultery is always wrong or it is not”, is a correct way to state the choice because there is no other alternative. Therefore, it is crucial to differentiate between issues that are clearly either/or and those that are not.
We may desire simple choices, but either/or thinking does not always serve truth and justice. This can be frustrating and confusing at times, and it requires our patience, humility, and trust in God. We may be called to take positions on some issues or to make judgments, but, God willing, we will judge the issues or behavior, not the people. Instead of merely tolerant, we will be loving and truthful toward them.
