Abstract.
The paper analyzes the rhetorical appeal of two texts through the prism of three classical modes of persuasion: Ethos (appeal to authority), Pathos (appeal to emotion), and Logos (appeal to logic). The two texts are intended for the same target audience, but they advocate different perspectives on the issue of same-sex marriages using distinct rhetorical techniques.
Introduction.
The two articles, ‘Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions’ developed by the Committee on Marriage and Family Life of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) and ‘A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage’ by Professor Daniel C. Maguire, a Catholic Theologian at Marquette University, delve into the contemporary debate of same-sex unions. The first one presents the conservative orthodox view of the Catholic faith on same-sex unions while the second article presents an unorthodox view that is more liberal and accepting. Both articles advocate a stance on the same issue and aim to spread their message. While using almost identical sources, such as interpretations from the Bible, both authors argue in different directions that do not directly rebut each other.
Comparative Rhetorical Analysis
Comparative Structural Analysis
Textual design deserves further consideration as it plays a crucial role in ensuring effective comprehension by the target audience. The first text is structured as a Q&A session with an introduction, conclusion, and recommendations for further reading. On the other hand, the second text’s structure is not as clear-cut as the first one. It begins with four introductory paragraphs before posing two questions: whether same-sex unions are marriages and what objections exist to same-sex unions. The author then proceeds to enumerate five objections to homosexuality before providing a conclusion.
After conducting a comparative analysis of the structure of both texts, it becomes evident that the first text has a more effective structure. It creates an impression of consistency and integrity throughout the text. Needless to say, when textual design is appropriate, the reader’s understanding of the text is more effective.
Additionally, the presence of a list of suggested readings adds credibility to the authors’ argument. It suggests that other authoritative figures and organizations share their opinion. The list of ‘Further Reading’ includes well-respected publications such as the Catechism of the Catholic Church, ‘Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World’ by Second Vatican Council, and ‘On the Family’ by Pope John Paul II. This can be interpreted as a classical appeal to authority. A similar function is performed by the Reference Section in the second text, but with less authoritative sources cited.
Rhetorical analysis of the article published by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB).
The first text establishes that the reflection on the issue will be done using reason and faith” according to the USCCB. In other words, the authors recognize Ethos as appealing to religious feelings and Logos as appealing to reason, with Logos being the predominant medium for conveying their message.
The authors begin by establishing a clear definition for discussion, which provides better structure and clarity for any debate. They define marriage as ‘a faithful, exclusive, lifelong union of a man and a woman joined in an intimate community of life and love’ (USCCB). This definition is supported by an appeal to Ethos through reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches that marriage should be a mutually loving union open to procreation. It should come as no surprise that the defense of heterosexual marriage has been a major thread in modern Catholic philosophy.
The answer to the second question is also based on an appeal to authority. The extensive quoting of Genesis and Ephesians adds credibility to the argument that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman. The answers to subsequent questions are based on an appeal to reason, where the effects on children, society at large, and marriage as a natural institution are analyzed. An appeal to authority is sometimes used to back up the argument.
Generally, this text features few rhetorical devices or illustrative language. It is written in a scientific style with well-structured logical arguments. When evaluating the appropriateness of such a style for the intended audience, it is necessary to admit that many modern-day Catholics prefer rational arguments in favor of traditional religious beliefs. Consequently, the text may appeal to many of them. The recent trend in Catholic philosophy is not to present any new theological arguments regarding homosexuality but to advance clear logical arguments against the legal acceptance of same-sex unions (Catholic World News).
Rhetorical Analysis of Maguire’s Article
The second text focuses on Ethos and Pathos as the main means of persuasion, although Logos is also used. A variety of rhetorical devices are employed in line with the primary persuasion strategy.
The author begins by pointing out that in the past, the Church was more accepting of homosexuality and even held liturgies to celebrate same-sex unions (Maguire). This is an example of an appeal to history, a rhetorical device often used for persuasion. However, from a logical standpoint, it is considered a classical fallacy. This type of device is also known as an appeal to tradition or normative appeal to history. It suggests that because something has been done in the past, it should continue to be done in the future. However, this way of thinking may not always be valid since circumstances change over time and what was once considered best practice may no longer be applicable (CriticalThinking.org.uk).
The article argues that discrimination based on sexual orientation is a form of heterosexism. It uses a rhetorical comparison to claim that heterosexism is just as harmful as racism, anti-Semitism, and sexism. However, the effectiveness of this approach must be analyzed. The author’s language and argument may not be suitable for the intended audience. In the first paragraphs, the author defends same-sex unions on the basis of equality and anti-discrimination. This perspective aligns more with secular critical thought than classical theology.
However, the author supports their argument by appealing to authority, stating that different sexual orientations are clearly part of God’s plan for creation. They also strengthen this argument by quoting Acts of the Apostles which grants no right to declare unclean anything that God has made. Additionally, the author continuously appeals to the reader’s emotions by declaring that discrimination and prejudices are sins. To reach a wider audience, they appeal to values common to all mankind, such as justice – arguing that condemning homosexual relationships that are more stable and exemplary than heterosexual ones is surely unjust” (Maguire).
He proceeds with another appeal to authority by quoting Father Andre Guindon, a Catholic theologian, and Mary Hunt. Both justify same-sex unions and advocate for greater acceptance of homosexuals and their relationships.
After justifying same-sex unions, the author argues that they can be regarded as marriages. The author suggests a definition of marriage as a unique and special form of committed friendship between sexually attracted persons” (Maguire). In any debate, it is important to provide a clear definition and establish a standard for judging the issue. Therefore, this rhetorical technique is effective.
Then, the author tests both heterosexual and homosexual marriage against the established standard. He demonstrates that in some cases, homosexual unions are more successful and lasting than heterosexual ones. Additionally, the author employs Pathos by using emotionally-charged adjectives to illustrate that homosexual unions can involve exclusive, committed, enduring, generous, and faithful love” (Maguire).
The author proceeds to discard popular objections against homosexual marriages. To justify this approach, the author employs Ethos and quotes St. Thomas Aquinas who believes that people should know the objections to any teaching they accept.
When dealing with the first objection, the author uses Logos to show that the Bible is more descriptive than prescriptive. Although the Bible states that all homosexual activity is evil and sinful, not everything written in it should be treated as a guide for action. The author cites examples of justification for slavery and male domination over females, both of which are found in the Bible.
When countering the second objection, the author employs Ethos and proposes that Catholics should follow three sources of truth: the hierarchy, theologians, and the wisdom and experience of the laity. It’s not enough to rely solely on the hierarchy.
Objections #3 and #5 are handled in similar ways by appealing to reason. The author demonstrates that popular beliefs are scientifically untrue. Regarding Objection #4, the author effectively employs a rhetorical device by presenting a false dilemma.
The fallacy of false choices, also known as the either/or” fallacy, only acknowledges two options from a continuum or other array of possibilities. Usually, one of these options is extreme. This fallacy is also called the “either/or” fallacy.
The author argues that children are better off being raised in a homosexual union than languishing in an institution or, worse, dying from neglect (Maguire). However, this argument only acknowledges two options and one of them is extreme, which definitely speaks in favor of the first one. There are many other options to consider such as improving the effectiveness of foster care or providing additional incentives for heterosexual couples to adopt.
In the concluding section, the author utilizes Ethos and Pathos to make his point. He appeals to universally accepted ideals such as justice, truth, and love. Additionally, he cites various Catholic philosophers and moral theologians.
Conclusion.
After giving a tough-but-fair evaluation of the effectiveness of both texts, it can be concluded that they are commensurate in terms of their effectiveness. This is because the texts rely on completely different modes of persuasion, making it difficult to judge which one is more persuasive for the target audience. Since the target audience is varied and dispersed, both texts use effective rhetorical techniques.
References
Catholic World News reported on the Vatican’s stance regarding same-sex marriage” on July 31, 2003. The article can be found at http://www.daily-meditations.org/SameSex.html. On May 25, 2007, this report was still available.
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) Committee on Marriage and Family Life published a document titled Between Man and Woman: Questions and Answers About Marriage and Same-Sex Unions” on November 12, 2003. The document was last updated on May 25, 2007. It can be accessed at http://www.usccb.org/laity/manandwoman.shtml.
‘Logical Fallacies: Appeal to History.’ CriticalThinking.org.uk. 2006. Retrieved May 25, 2007, from http://www.criticalthinking.org.uk/appealtohistory.html.
Maguire, Daniel C. wrote an article titled ‘A Catholic Defense of Same Sex Marriage’ on April 20, 2006. The article can be accessed through the following link: http://www.religiousconsultation.org/Catholic_defense_of_same_sex_marriage.htm. The article was last accessed on May 25, 2007.
Pope, Kenneth S. identified 18 types of logical fallacies in psychology in his article titled ‘Logical Fallacies in Psychology: 18 Types.’ The article was published in 2003 and can be accessed through the following link: http://www.kspope.com/fallacies/fallacies.php. The article was last accessed on May 25, 2007.
