Safely discussing what cannot be said out loud

Abstract

The context: An online, doctoral course on contemporary Roman Catholic (hereafter RC) magisterial teachings on sexuality. Students, nearly all of whom were RC and employed professionally by that Church, worked in four different countries. The pedagogical purpose: My aims were multiple: to foster reflection on the Church's null curriculum, which consists of those ideas, topics, sources of wisdom, and perspectives on sexuality withheld from consideration and incorporation into moral argument; to force students to think critically about different sides of an argument, nurturing in them empathy for other viewpoints and the recognition of competing interests; and to create a safe space in which students can give voice to ideas which do not conform to prevailing cultural or ecclesial ideologies. Description of the strategy: It involved writing “in character” in various fictional scenarios. In a threaded discussion assignment, students were initially to pretend to represent the Vatican when articulating two traditional arguments against the recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling rendering same-sex marriage constitutional. Then, they were to “change hats,” and in response to one of their classmate's summation of the best of magisterial arguments, present the best of alternative insights, presently not incorporated in official RC teachings. For their final paper, students role-played again. In this scenario their local RC bishop asks each for his/her help identifying new issues he might bring to a Synod on the Family in Rome. In their “letter,” students were to identify topics that given their particular geographical context needed to receive different or expanded attention by Rome. Why it is effective: Challenging church teachings can be (mis)perceived as disloyal. One's stance toward official teachings about sexuality in several Catholic dioceses functions as a litmus test for one's “suitability” for church work, fueling fears among theological students about job security and future vocational prospects. The fictional nature of these oblique teaching tactics reduces such fears. It enables students to imaginatively try on arguments with little risk. It eases concerns about the confidentiality, especially of written work shared online. Assignments that invite attention to what has not yet received sufficient attention underscore the positive aspects of developing tradition, while at the same time revealing as perhaps not fully unwarranted current normative conclusions.