Also like Prof. Dacey, I believe that the human person is what merits respect. For us, not discussing a point of disagreement is not respect. Respect is holding each of our fellows to the same standard to which we hold ourselves, and discussing disagreements openly, honestly and as intelligently as our abilities will allow. (Listen to the brief segment from Dr. Dacey’s interview under customer Len Nobs’ customer review at http://www.amazon.com/review/product/1591026040/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1).
What is it that you see Prof. Dacey wants us to do differently? I think that I see an increase in discussion along the lines Dacey is talking about, but maybe I am becoming more atuned to the topic.
Certainly people are holding clergy publicly accountable for chilid abuse.
I think the Internet is gradually changing communications (my children get their news online rather than the nightly network news).
Anyway, I’m not sure if Dacey is pushing for individual initiative or encouraging a groundswell of collective effort.
To the extent that any of us is refraining from honest criticism of opinion, he’d like us to stop refraining and engage the discussion. A person and his opinion are not the same thing.
Individual initiative and collective effort are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, the one feeds the other. This is a false choice.