Tolerance: a necessary but dangerous virtue
Towards a "Civil Ethics" in Times of Crisis
Bartomeu Bennassar
Dedicated to the intolerant Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump
The title itself may perhaps risk being misunderstood at first glance.
In this reflection, I would like to make this statement understandable, however, acknowledging the connotations and complexities it certainly includes.
In times of democracy, the key word can be tolerance; therefore, it is appropriate to define it from the outset so that, amidst the complexities, we do not lose sight of its essence or become fixated on aspects that stray from what is truly intended. It is necessary to clarify this so that "civil ethics" (the experience and formulation of morality in and by a secular, democratic, and pluralistic society) is correct.
In a positive sense, it can be said that it is the virtue or attitude that promotes and includes respect, acceptance, openness, magnanimity, dialogue, nobility, peace, patience, understanding, reconciliation, forgiveness, rights, and freedom... Freedom is, indeed, a condition for tolerance and a natural consequence of tolerance. Freedom, democracy, pluralism, tolerance—names that are not identical but inseparable.
Dictionaries speak of the disposition to accept, allow, or tolerate in others a way of thinking, believing, and acting that is different from our own, even if we do not like it.
Freedom and tolerance go hand in hand. Historically, it was asserted that "liberalism is a sin," and so was the regime of tolerance. Today, we do not say that freedom is a sin, but rather the opposite, but we do criticize the economy that, in practice, favors unequal and unjust freedoms, that is, individualistic and unsympathetic liberalism. Currently, we affirm that tolerance is a virtue, but... we immediately discern a potential danger. Unfortunately, in Spain, we are now experiencing things that are already old in neighboring countries. This delay allows us to look at ourselves in the mirror of our neighbors so that we are not dazzled by seemingly flawless virtues without any harm or danger. Tolerance has gone from being considered an absolute evil, then a lesser evil, to being magnified as an absolute good. We have just abandoned intolerance, which was considered a manifestly Catholic virtue, in service of the truth against all error and any heretic; We have just embraced the concept of religious freedom—tolerance has always been intertwined with religious background—at the Second Vatican Council; and as soon as we begin to implement it... we are already warning about the dangers and pitfalls.
I believe that this approach contributes to a necessary but clarified moral "rearmament" and a clear and decisive "civil ethics." (It should not be confused with "moral majority" or similar terms, which in the United States often refer to religious-based groups, primarily but not exclusively evangelical and fundamentalist, and right-wing, conservative, and authoritarian social and political movements that are very intolerant.)
1. Tolerance: a dangerous virtue?
In what sense can we say that tolerance is a dangerous virtue?
Is tolerance dangerous because it can unjustly introduce and allow intolerance of one group towards another? The power of the strongest against the weakest...; because it can "bless" evil with the veil of silence and the guise of patience and resignation; it can become cheap pacifism and comfortable passivity; it can tolerate any dictatorship.
Is moderation—a word always praised as a virtue—the path, however long, to justice? Doesn't it hide irrational fears? Doesn't it make the path impassable with a "that's good enough"?
Doesn't prudence sometimes hide deep crises of powerlessness or neglect? At least, phrases like these can be attributed to prudence: "Leave it alone!" "Don't get involved!" "It's not the right time!"
Patience—part of tolerance—does not encompass the full spectrum of personal and social behavior when confronted with the time necessary for the growth of individuals, institutions, and things.
Struggle and, indeed, sensible impatience, are also appropriate.
The question of unity does not solve either the problem of the truth that is the foundation of genuine unity, nor the question of sincere love. Everything can lead to a very harmful neutralism, eclecticism, skepticism, and indifferentism (relativism, arbitrariness...).
Does social peace or the pact and consensus (more secular terms) demand tolerance at any cost? The necessary, well-founded peace cannot make us forget the facts or the culpable actions—but not the name of the sinner—so that history does not repeat itself in a bloody manner. Turning the other cheek, as the Gospel teaches, does not imply silent acceptance of wrongdoing, nor complicit passivity in seeing one's brother being hurt, nor the distant and insensitive advice to resign oneself to the situation.
Doesn't tolerance—by expressing the opposite—demand the death of dissenting communication in the sea of silence? Wouldn't that be a moral regression? Tolerance is often a form of domination disguised as concessions, privileges, or exceptions—motivated by pity or a sense of obligation, or simply out of fear or resignation. The majority group, or the stronger one, organizes society more or less as it sees fit. The dominant group is then considered tolerant for "allowing the other group to live." The other group, the weaker or smaller one, is considered tolerant for "allowing the dominant group to organize itself as it sees fit."
Is this really the true virtue of tolerance?
The tolerance that governs society as a whole, and the granting of specific privileges, can, depending on the circumstances, be shown to be partisan, restrictive, disdainful, even oppressive, to the point of stifling the voices of minorities. It can also manifest itself as respectful, liberal, accepting, compassionate—benevolent, even docile. It can also take the form of a weak, submissive, evasive, hypocritical, indifferent attitude, wavering with the prevailing winds of opinion. For this reason, I strongly doubt that tolerance, in and of itself, is a sound principle for fostering healthy and just coexistence. Tolerance is undoubtedly a good principle for individual behavior... Perhaps one could say that it means "being Jansenist (intolerant) with oneself and Jesuitical (tolerant) with others." Intolerance, it is true, produces horrific results, leading to the most brutal violence, wars, the most savage acts of contempt, and the most fanatical dictatorships.
2. Fanatical intolerance.
Intolerance and fanaticism share many common elements, although they cannot be considered the same thing. They are similar, coinciding in many points, and their effects can easily be cumulative and multiplicative. Fanaticism consists of an attitude of ideological domination over others, based on pathological, almost sacral or mystical, and visceral, irrational stances, employing despotic, tyrannical, aggressive, and violent means. Fanaticism adds a note of "missionary" zeal, an almost sacred fervor, and a strong propensity for violence to intolerance. For this reason, in this section I have described intolerance as "fanatical." It disrupts and corrupts pluralistic and democratic social coexistence, and consequently, any attempt at civil ethics.
Fanaticism adds to intolerance the inevitable element of violence, victimhood, and bloodshed. This process begins with the denigration and discredit of the victim, and with the exaltation of the fanatic as a messianic savior. Fanaticism (and, logically, the fanatic) is, therefore, theologically blasphemous, psychologically domineering, and morally intolerable. We are already familiar with the causes of fanaticism: the external pressure (sometimes very subtle) exerted by large political parties and the Church on individuals and small groups triggers these fanatical dynamics. Are we, as women, moving towards a kind of stupid, passive, uncritical tolerance—could we even call it a form of fanaticism?
3. Fanatical tolerance?
However, I don't think we need to assume tolerance as the almost sole value, but rather focus on the contradiction between lived tolerance and asserted intolerance. The principle and practice of tolerance, as formulated by Enlightenment thinkers, is only possible within the bourgeois class...; thus, it can easily result in a compromising, "bourgeois" behavior, one that placates consciences and, more seriously, perpetuates unjust systems. Tolerance is a good principle for maintaining things as they are.
The theoretical stance of tolerance gives us a democratic position of peoplehood, coexistence, and equality...; but, in fact, this stance favors those who can be "more tolerant" than others, "more equal than others," that is, it favors the strongest, those who can look down on things and people.
I don't want to think of tolerance as a virtue exercised only by those who have no other choice but to practice it, that is, by those at the bottom, enduring the actions of those above. Nor should tolerance be confused with impotence, weakness, "loyalty," or servility. Nor should intolerance be confused with immaturity, lack of critical thinking, fleeting impatience, or conspicuous displays of adolescent independence...
Therefore, it is not strange that someone might morally—and also evangelically—advocate cutting and breaking rather than uniting and tolerating.
This is a more combative, less easy morality. The tendency towards homogenization, the concrete that levels all structures, standardization, is very problematic. We must confront it.
The true "game" of life and coexistence is not played on the field of tolerance, which may be a legal norm and a norm of tranquil peace, albeit debatable, but rather on the field of positive, perhaps intolerant, intolerable decisions...
We can listen to what Paul affirmed about speaking the word at the right time and the wrong time, opportunely and inopportunely, with intolerant tolerance.
I have not come to bring you any kind of peace, but a war, to change and transform humanity and the world. Tolerance cannot condone, hide, or mask the continuation of wrongdoing or injustice. Tolerance cannot allow evil to go uncorrected, nor can it leave situations that violate human rights and the rights of peoples unchanged. Therefore, tolerance must be accompanied by transformative efforts and struggle. This possibility of exercising tolerance, or of experiencing tolerance from different perspectives—a concept enshrined in law or the constitution—is embodied in free, secret, and periodic elections. But it is also important to understand that tolerance implies and requires a willingness and capacity for negotiation and compromise. And the stronger party should be the one most willing to compromise. Numerical strength or majority rule is not the best criterion for a tolerable social order. A society becomes livable when its members strive to understand each other, to recognize each other's rights, to empathize with one another, and to support one another.
4. The challenge of Christian tolerance.
Everyone who promotes peaceful coexistence today deserves support. Everything that fosters harmonious living should be supported. Intolerance leads to violence and can result in nuclear holocaust. Therefore, tolerance seems to be the way to ensure that humanity does not become a threat to itself, or that we do not collectively create a living hell on earth. But we must go beyond mere tolerance. The true challenge for every citizen, and especially for Christians, lies not in simply tolerating others, but in valuing them, in embracing fraternity. Knowing how to lose, to sacrifice oneself for others—this ultimate expression of tolerance—is essential to the Christian life and a sign (and a source of power) of a new society. It is a remarkable and perhaps unsettling sign in a world and a society that teaches us to be competitive and aggressive, to be winners, to maximize profits, to triumph, to dominate. The value and practice of knowing how to lose, of self-denial, of giving without expectation of reward, of selfless service, of total commitment, of acknowledging mistakes, of accepting failure, of renouncing fame, success, and power—this is the path to Calvary and death on the cross. Christian tolerance is not merely about accepting or tolerating others; it is about allowing oneself to be taken in by others and dedicating oneself to their well-being. It is interesting to note the sensitivity of Father Carles Cardó—and it should be ours as well—when he asks that "intolerance, which has caused so much devastation, be replaced, not simply by tolerance—a term that implies judging the other as flawed—but by respect and, if we are Christians, by love." Was Jesus tolerant or intolerant? Were the early Christian communities uncompromising? The answers lie in the synthesis of both attitudes: tolerance and intolerance, both directed toward the ultimate good: life and the life of God for humanity.
5. Tolerance: constant stress.
It is true that tolerance could refer to attitudes ranging from minimal behavioral standards—which border on indifference and skepticism—to the highest ideals that verge on heroism and martyrdom, involving selfless dedication to others, even to perceived enemies. Along this spectrum, a range of positions can be found, constituting the diverse richness of this virtue we have identified as "dangerous," due to the potential for confusion. At one extreme, indifference, apathy, social conformity, and skepticism would not fall within the definition of tolerance. Tolerance means learning to coexist, to collaborate with diverse and divergent individuals, to accept differences, to recognize others, to relativize one's own ideas, institutions, and projects, to alternate periods of silence and marginalization with times dedicated to dialogue and visible action, to fight against hegemonic power structures for a more equitable society... Tolerance is not incompatible with the constant tension between the moral ideals offered by certain groups or churches and the minimum standards required by the State, as O. González de Cardedal expresses: "For us, civil ethics arises as a result of the constant tension between the highest moral ideals (which, based on their own worldviews, are desired and actively pursued, whether political, social, or religious) and, on the other hand, the minimum moral standards that the State must provide to society, so that, by accepting and living by them, it can remain a human society." Nor does tolerance require renouncing one's own thoughts, attitudes, or religious beliefs, nor missionary activities. Tolerance does not demand social consensus as the only or best way to seek truth, nor does it deny that dissent, opposition, conscientious objection, and disobedience can be forms of social contribution to building a democratic society. This is what O. González de Cardedal, representing the Church, states: "Generous and truly inclusive tolerance for all does not mean for the Church renouncing its explicit witness and sacred mission, even if the institutional and political channels through which it previously carried out its evangelizing work are no longer available. For the Church, social consensus is not the ultimate source of truth. In specific cases, it may maintain a complete disagreement, even when the majority opinion is otherwise."
6. Pluralism and tolerance in disguise.
I have emphasized the inherently contradictory and often militant aspects of tolerance to avoid the superficiality that comes from talking too much about a tolerant society, because in practice it is very rarely so, or so that, as I have already stated, those in power of all kinds can more easily be intolerant under the guise of what is preached and blessed—and thus manipulate.
The same applies to pluralism, a topic and issue relevant to our discussion. Talking about pluralism in our society can ideologically mask the homogenizing and uniformity-promoting tendencies of society and culture. This is a trap that we must be careful not to fall into. We could distinguish between tolerance and pluralism. The former would be the correct ethical attitude for living and coexisting in a pluralistic society. However, pluralism also refers to this stance that accepts and promotes the coexistence of all, without excluding or subordinating different social groups (social pluralism), different political and partisan forces (political pluralism), different worldviews and religious beliefs (ideological, cultural, religious, and moral pluralism).
It is not surprising that Christian thought opposes all forms of monolithism, "monotheism," and uniformity. The one and only Triune God is the radical antidote to any homogenizing, standardized, sweeping, and leveling assertion about society. Where plurality exists, there is a real possibility for differences and a real possibility for exercising moral freedom.
Pluralism, then, or the tolerance of plurality, does not have to degenerate into the relativism of those who spin wildly in all directions without any orientation or organization, without any projects or roots in hope or love. Pluralism, or the tolerance of plurality and difference, means a positive kind of relativity, one that implies and is expressed in relationships, and is therefore never absolute, but always relative to, or connected with, something else. Pluralism is neither monotheistic monolithism nor a demonic, chaotic, or uncooperative relativism. Hence the moral effort to eliminate—intolerantly—the systems and ways imposed by autocratic regimes: war, the arms race, economic and social inequalities, terrorist totalitarianism, etc. Is there any room for tolerating what everyone considers intolerable? Hence also the moral effort to cultivate a source of originality, to maintain personal and cultural differences, creativity, and enrichment—social, personal, and ecclesial. This is respect for genuine pluralism and a keen awareness of not imposing one's own views. Nor can social or ecclesial expediency serve as a standard for pluralistic tolerance. If, as K. Rahner says, "it is evident that the current pluralism within the Church, far from being a phenomenon to be avoided, has a clear positive meaning,"12 it is also evident that this pluralism cannot be a neutral universalism, nor an abstract ideal, nor a manipulated and confused unity. As E. Schillebeeckx, applying this to the magazine "Concilium," aptly stated: "A magazine like 'Concilium,' with its mutual and patient approach, would be a rather poor platform, a kind of theological supermarket, in which, without any specific orientation, religious perspectives would be offered like merchandise from various countries." After the euphoria of the "pluralism slogan," we should delve deeper, without resorting to new dogmatism, into the boundaries of "Christian pluralism." One cannot play with the Gospel—not even in the political sphere—in such an ambivalent manner.
7. Active, preferential, partisan tolerance.
We must acknowledge and confess that pluralistic tolerance can lead to chaotic, complacent, or even repressive situations. For those individuals or groups who feel secure in their current position, pluralism and tolerance seem to represent nothing but chaos. For those who see differences as a positive thing and unjust inequalities as a negative one, tolerance can mask a great deal of complacency and a lack of commitment to changing unjust realities. For others, pluralism can degenerate into "repressive tolerance" (Marcuse) when real intolerance is disguised by maintaining the formal aspects of tolerance. True pluralism and healthy tolerance are rooted in differences, conflicts, disagreements, tensions, as well as complementarities, commonalities, shared roots, and peaceful coexistence.
Promoting a tolerant pluralism—within the Church, between different churches, and beyond—to enable a rich, healthy, and democratic coexistence does not exclude the struggle to revitalize, advance, correct, and improve society and the Church. Perhaps it would not be amiss to recall at least the rights of personal and group moral conscience, even of erroneous conscience. The right to discussion, criticism, opposition, dissent, and disobedience. The key to understanding and living this shift in an evangelical way—that is, moving from obeying those above to obeying those below—lies in the fundamental conversion needed today: moving from the words "Whoever listens to you, listens to me" (Lk 10:16) to these other words (Mt 25:40). In this second phrase lies the true meaning of listening and obeying. This second phrase reveals the depth, urgency, and power of dissent and disagreement. Christian pluralism and tolerance are valid—they are virtuous—to the extent that they foster the development of a new humanity. In the social and political sphere, it translates into the ongoing struggle against despotism—as it was originally—against an absolutist ideology, and against the perpetuation of privileges held by individuals or dominant groups. Tolerance means formal democracy, but it means much more: emancipation, participation, genuine democracy, equality, social justice, and fraternity. For all these reasons, it speaks of preferential or discriminatory tolerance in favor of the vulnerable—even more so if they are minorities struggling to change an unjust and discriminatory society. Undoubtedly, this attitude and action can be called just, moderate, transformative intolerance. If tolerance implies and is explained by freedom, then when freedom is truly lacking, the path of tolerance translates into active social liberation. When a tolerant society produces economic and social marginalization and marginalizes ideologically dissenting groups, this marginalization is a clear indictment of a society that needs the marginalized groups to lead it—even through forceful means—towards higher and broader levels of genuine, tolerant coexistence. The greater the misery of some and the more imminent the danger of nuclear war—just to recall two scandalous facts—the more special care must be taken, never enough, not to confuse tolerance with permissiveness towards privileges and the privileged who maintain and live off the power they wield in the face of the appalling misery and dreadful resignation of those suffering from hunger and the threat of nuclear war. Tolerance then becomes the ideal atmosphere for totalitarianism and fascism.
For this very reason, tolerance must take sides. Tolerance, as a goal never fully achieved, is intolerant towards the obstacles that block or make difficult the common path for everyone and the project of a new coexistence.
In the Lord's vineyard, interpretations of the parable of the weeds and the wheat (the parable of tolerance) have been restrictive, primarily focusing on members of the church, that is, those within the fold, and on doctrinal matters; then "discipline" (intolerance) has seemed advisable and effective, even leading to the Inquisition. Will those who advocate replacing patience with anti-heresy repression continue to gain ground? Witch hunts, the requirement of a "certificate of purity of blood" (neo-scholastic purity of blood), censorship, prohibitions, scrutiny of writings, theologians, and theological doctrines, and the renewed inquisitorial mentality and style—these are not signs of either human or evangelical health. The growing power of a centralized, absolute monarch does not foster the advancement of freedoms and responsibilities, nor the unique strengths of individuals, intermediate groups, or Christian communities and churches.
Impartiality is often discussed, and we have also spoken about social consensus. Impartiality, even as an ethical stance of the so-called "impartial observer," must be subject to constant scrutiny and critique impartiality and bias towards the party that, with the supposed impartiality of that moment, circumstance, or system, suffers the most from the attacks of the other party. In this way, and only in this way—paradoxical as it may seem—can a tolerant ethic claim (and it is logical that it should aim for) universal validity.
The maturity and mutual acceptance of people and their values do not come from a superficial consensus of opinions or through self-serving or unequal social agreements. Moving beyond divisive and antagonistic pluralisms towards an attempt at a pluralistic integration of ethical perspectives, social organizations, and moral actions can promote dynamic forces within the community and can be an important—ethically significant—moment of social communication. In this way, social consensus or political agreement, overcoming opposing partisan positions, justifies and supports civil ethics, because it upholds rational and tolerant pluralism. However, it must be borne in mind that a majority—simply because it has a majority of votes—does not imply greater truth. Nor does a minority—simply by being a minority—possess more truth or goodness.
Following this path, a good "negotiator" would be the best philosopher or theologian. If social consensus or consent (political or ecclesiastical) is established as the goal of all efforts towards coexistence, then dissent or social disagreement will be seen as the great evil, the worst antisocial attitude to be eradicated. The dissenter becomes a very sick person, a stubborn individual with no rights, a worthless parasite; not only a social danger but the most dangerous public danger, that is, public enemy number one.
Many names and issues are discussed or merely touched upon in these pages. Others have been left out. To recall some, these might serve as examples: uniformity, fundamentalism, intransigence, coercion, proselytizing, sectarianism, authoritarianism, exclusivism... on one hand; A complacent and complicit accommodation, marked by shame and embarrassment; a dissolution of identity, fragmentation, total indifference, opportunism, neutralism, and a suspicious and self-serving permissiveness that is pleasing to those in power... On the other hand: reconciliation, welcome, communion, solidarity, thought, reason, books, enlightenment... for every attempt to overcome fanatical intolerance with a living, dialogic, "missionary," hopeful form of tolerance.
May these pages be understood, first, as a call to attention against the despotisms of those in power—political, social, ecclesiastical, etc.—in favor of tolerance, freedom, and democracy, for the building of a pluralistic, respectful, and tolerant society and church. The utopia of respect and tolerance. Second, as a call to attention against blind obedience masquerading as virtue, against dictatorships, and against the "tolerated" plundering and exploitation of the weak, in favor of preferential intolerance, disobedience, and the struggle for justice, for the building of a more enlightened, dialogic, and egalitarian society and church. The utopia of clarity, critical thinking, and justice.
Bartomeu Bennassaar Vicens
