In Randall Jarrell’s Pictures From an Institution, one of the characters says there are thirty hours in every day, “if only you know where to look for them.” Lucky man. I guess I don’t know where to look. I’ve never found more than about eighteen useful hours and normally far fewer than that. What I find myself forced to do — what you undoubtedly find yourself forced to do — is to undertake some things and let others slide. We aren’t clever enough to find those thirty hours, and we aren’t saints who can bilocate, thus being in two places at once and getting twice the work done. Worse, when it comes to choosing which tasks we will tackle, the choosing often is done for us. Our own preferences are subordinated to the demands of family or school or workplace. Even in the workplace our freedom is circumscribed. The enjoyable tasks must take second place to the daily routines.
These thoughts come to mind as I review old e-mail messages I have received. Having intruded myself into the public forum, I find that people feel free to ask me to give a seminar here or attend a conference there. Usually I have to turn down the invitations, not having discovered those thirty hours. I wish I could accept every invitation that came my way, but that wouldn’t be possible even if I forswore doing any Catholic Answers work other than public speaking.
Normally inviters accept a declination with good graces. They understand the constraints. But not all of them. Some just won’t take “no” for an answer. This is especially the case with folks associated with Catholic fringe groups; they think every challenge to debate must be accepted because a declination implies a mental or moral lapse. A negative answer can’t be based on reasonable considerations, such as not having the time (or not wanting to give encouragement to fruitcakes). To decline a challenge is to condemn oneself — sometimes literally. “Please debate the issue so that your soul may not be condemned.” That’s how one woman phrased it. Another said, “Your refusal to respond to the challenge leaves one to suspect that you are not as confident about your position as you would have others believe.” That comes about as close to a catch-22 as a quondam debater is likely to get. If you decline an invitation, it must be because you think you’ll lose. What other reason could there be?
Such notions make me wonder whether these people have families, jobs, and lives outside of their fringe groups. It never seems to occur to them that, while the issue itself may be worth debating, their standard-bearer may not be. Debates take much preparation — much more than a lecture — and, after a while, by necessity you find you must discriminate. Will a debate on this topic, with this opponent, help people understand the faith? If so, accept, other duties permitting. If not, decline. This strikes me as a sensible approach — but folks on the fringe keep sending those e-mail messages . . .