Arnobius of Sicca

I Told You So…

2012-01-20T17:54:00.001-08:00

"As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD." (Joshua 24:15)

Back in June of 2011, I wrote a post entitled "The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action." Today I see in the news that HHS Secretary Sebelius has gone on to show that the Obama administration is without question hostile to the concept of religious freedom in America.

The announcement essentially states that religious groups are obligated to provide contraceptive coverage (including abortifacient contraceptives) to employees, even if the religious groups believe contraception and abortifacient drugs are intrinsically evil and may never be supported.

Instead, religious groups are given until August 2013 to comply with this requirement.

As Archbishop Dolan put it:

“In effect, the president is saying we have a year to figure out how to violate our consciences,”

and:

“To force American citizens to choose between violating their consciences and forgoing their healthcare is literally unconscionable.It is as much an attack on access to health care as on religious freedom. Historically this represents a challenge and a compromise of our religious liberty."

Since such an obligation forces religious groups to choose between serving God and obeying an unjust law, we are forced to become criminals because of the state.

Unfortunately, if this edict is not overturned, we will have to oppose the government of the United States by refusing to obey. No government has the authority to compel a person to participate with evil. If the United States takes this road, this nation will have joined the ranks of totalitarian states who use force and fear to compel people to violate what they believe God requires them to do.

That an administration should so flagrantly ignore the freedom of religion without an immediate outcry and call for the firing of Sebelius is chilling. No it doesn't mean we're going to see "Goose stepping Nazis marching in Washington." I doubt we'll see gulags or other concentration camps in America. But it does mean that we have gone from a nation that says "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" to a government saying we have one year to turn our backs on God and obey the state.

I think it should be pretty clear that at this time the Obama administration is the greater of the evils when it comes to the elections, and I pray he is defeated.

Otherwise, I truly fear what our nation will become.

Waterboarding and Torture

2011-12-10T11:25:00.001-08:00

Introduction

Certain Catholic bloggers have been either challenging or annoying the internet (depending on your views) as of late with the discussion of waterboarding and Republican candidates for President. The issue of contention in these articles and comments are varied. The problem I have however with the whole debate is the fact that neither side really makes a reasoned argument.

Basically put, the argument is as follows:

Waterboarding is torture.
Torture is condemned by the Church
Therefore Waterboarding is condemned.

However those who disagree generally reject point #1, and that is the valid point of attack. If the premise is false, then the argument collapses.

However, instead of establishing the truth or falsehood of the claim, people on both sides seem to beg the question. They assume that it is torture or it isn't and the entire debate is spent rebutting those who disagree, whether candidate or blogger or person who comments on the blog. The problem is, if the argument is assumed proven without proving it, the whole argument goes nowhere.

So my thought is, why not start at the beginning and look at the whole issue to begin with and see where exploration leads us?

Preliminary Thoughts Before Beginning

I want to make clear at this point that while I attempt to use logic and reason and the teaching of the Church, I do not claim magisterial authority for my conclusions. If the Church ever makes a formal statement which contradicts what I reason here, I will submit to the decision of the Church and not claim she is in error.

The point of this article is to attempt to explore the issue which is under such dispute and perhaps help people like myself who are morally troubled by waterboarding but want to understand the teaching of the Church on the matter.

I intend to look at this in two parts. In the first part, the objective definitions. In the second part, what we must consider in light of what we know and what is ambiguous.

Undisputable: The Catholic Church Condemns Torture

First, we need to recognize that it is not even an issue for debate that the Catholic Church condemns torture as intrinsically evil (always wrong regardless of circumstances). The Catholic who decides that waterboarding is torture but thinks it is justified anyway holds a position in opposition to Church teaching. Therefore, the person who wants to justify waterboarding must establish that it is not torture.

PART I: OBJECTIVE DEFINITIONS

Definition of Torture

Socrates always began by defining his terms, rather than by just discussing the right and wrong of an issue. This is a wise thing to do, because all too often people use the same word and mean different things. The result is talking past each other with no progress. We need to understand what a thing is before we can get around to classifying it.

So let's begin with the Oxford English Dictionary and (since this is a Catholic blog) augment it with definitions from Church decrees.

The Concise OED defines torture as, the action or practice of inflicting severe pain as a punishment or a forcible means of persuasion. Such a definition makes a good start, but there is a potential issue of equivocation here and that is over "pain." Is pain to be understood as physical pain only? Or are issues such as psychological pain (the infliction of fear etc.) also considered to be torture? Without clearing this up, any dispute on the issue is doomed to failure.

The United Nations defines Torture as:

"any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions."

Under such a definition, it is not any pain and suffering which is incidental to lawful actions (people suffer for being in prison but that isn't automatically torture) but severe pain and suffering which is intentionally inflicted.

To increase our understanding from the Catholic perspective, the Catechism of the Catholic Church #2297 further expands the definition. It is false to limit torture to physical pain, as it declares:

Torture which uses physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred is contrary to respect for the person and for human dignity.

So, now we have physical and moral violence. Blessed John Paul II, in Veritatis Splendor #80 also includes mental torture as equal to physical torture. From this, we seem to reach a definition of torture we can use:

the action or practice of using physical, mental or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.

What seems to follow from all of this are the following:

Motive doesn't matter. Blessed John Paul II spoke of torture as intrinsically evil – which means there can be no motive which can justify the use of it to claim it is good.
It is not limited to physical pain. If I use psychological means to terrorize a person, it is just as much torture as using the rack.
However the pain is deliberately inflicted and is considered severe as opposed to accidental pain or mild.

I think we do have some problems of ambiguity here unfortunately which will come clear as we discuss waterboarding, and that is the question of where does the pain (physical, mental or moral) become "severe" and where does it become "deliberate."

Definition of Waterboarding

This definition is harder because it is an emotionally charged word. Ask an opponent to define it and you get something that sounds like it comes straight out of the propagandistic distortions of the Spanish Inquisition. Ask someone who favors the use in interrogations and it sounds like a mild inconvenience. So what we need to do is find a definition which is as free from propaganda as we can manage.

There are almost no sources out there which seem to be free of bias one way or another, and that is a problem when we want to understand what it is before classifying it as torture or not-torture.

Unfortunately many definitions beg the question by automatically calling it torture or by denying it is torture when that is the issue under investigation. This one (from duhaime.org's legal dictionary) seems to come the closest to balanced to use as a starting point:

A criminal investigation interrogation technique whereby a person suspected of having or withholding relevant information is blindfolded and bound on their back, sometimes with the face covered with porous or nonporous material, and subjected to water poured over their mouth and nose such as to simulate drowning and to thus, under duress, elicit information.

So the technique uses "duress." Duress is defined (Concise OED) as:

noun threats, violence, etc. used to coerce a person into doing something.
Law constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.

That sounds deeply troubling right here. Even if not torture, it is at least using coercion to gain information. Then there is also the issue of simulated drowning which makes use of fear and/or discomfort. Again, depending on whom you ask it is either an intense use of fear or else is not intense enough to qualify as "torture."

Who Defines?

And that's the problem. We don't have any objective means of determining whether this use of discomfort meets the criteria of "severe." A conservative can point to a liberal account and accuse them of bias and propaganda. A liberal can do the same of a conservative account. Both sides seem more focused on pushing their view than establishing the truth objectively.

It does no good to say "most nations think it is torture." That's an argument from numbers (a logical fallacy). Most nations seem to think abortion is right for example. So regardless of what people think, it is important to find an authoritative source to settle the disagreements

The Church can authoritatively define the issue here of course (though only Catholics recognize this truth), but as deeply as I search, I find myself unable to find a definitive Church statement that can settle the issue one way or the other.

PART II: WHAT WE MUST CONSIDER IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE KNOW

Now, does that mean that since we do not have a definitive statement governments are free to use waterboarding if they choose?

I absolutely reject that notion. This is the "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy. Since the Catholic Church understands that it is only when ignorance is invincible (that is, impossible to learn the truth) that it is not sinful, we are certainly obligated to search to the best of our reasoning what the truth is.

Making Use of the Four-Square

I think here the use of the Four Square in a way similar to the way Dr. Peter Kreeft has done in terms of abortion is useful here. We can have two sets of either-or questions to create four possibilities.

First, Is Waterboarding Torture? It either is, or it isn't.

Second, do we know this?

This gives us four possible answers:

It is torture and we know this.
it is not torture and we know this.
It is torture and we do not know this.
It is not torture and we do not know this.

The ramifications of these four possibilities are:

In cases 1, 3 and 4 we would be in the wrong to make use of waterboarding. However, since an action can be wrong even if it is not torture, case #2 does not mean waterboarding is "right."

In case #1, waterboarding must be condemned as torture. There is no way around it.

In case #2, waterboarding is not torture, but that does not mean it is automatically right. It merely means the debate about it being right or wrong is a topic other than torture.

In case #3, we are doing wrong and if our ignorance is vincible, we are condemned for not looking into the issue enough.

In case #4, we are reckless in acting without knowing the truth.

With cases #3 and 4, Dr. Kreeft has used a good example with a hunter seeing movement in the bushes. Does he fire before determining what causes the movement? If he does and he kills another person, he is guilty of manslaughter at the least. If not, he was reckless and merely got lucky.

So, in three out of the four cases the accepting of waterboarding would be wrong. The fourth would merely shift the focus of the debate.

Here is where the reader, whether Catholic or a non-Catholic person of good will must consider well. If you consider waterboarding to be acceptable, you will need to be able to answer for your decision before God.

Conclusion: Where I Personally Stand

I want to make clear that while I believe my opinions below reasonably follows the Church teaching, I don't want people to think I am equating my personal belief with Magisterial teaching. I accept the Church as mother and teacher and if she should decide that I err, I would accept her teaching with obedience, grateful that she has made clear the issues that I find difficult to understand.

However, this is the conclusion I draw which my conscience tells me I must follow and it is a conclusion which I believe safely fits within the teaching of the Catholic faith. Because it is an issue of conscience, I believe it would be wrong for me to go against this.

With this out of the way, I think waterboarding is torture and therefore something Catholics should not support. Because it seems to make use of fear and discomfort, because there is the risk of injury (physical or mental) or death I believe that it meets the criteria of "severe pain or suffering."

This has ramifications. If a candidate supports the use of waterboarding, it means that I must not support such a candidate except in the case where there is a greater evil to be opposed.

I do believe the issue of abortion is an issue of greater evil of course. The torture of a thousand persons a year is a grave evil to be sure, but the sanctioned murder of a million unborn children a year is an even greater evil.

So, when it comes to choosing between two pro life candidates, the one who opposes waterboarding is to be preferred over the candidate who supports waterboarding. However, if it comes to choosing between a candidate who favors abortion and opposes waterboarding and a candidate who opposes abortion and favors waterboarding, the first candidate is the greater evil and must be opposed.

However, in such a case, if the second candidate is elected, we must oppose any attempts to implement or further implement that grave evil. We cannot be silent when it comes to an intrinsic evil. I believe there would be a proportionate reason to vote for such a person to block a pro-abortion politician from becoming President, but we would have to recognize that such a vote would have to recognize that abortion is a greater evil and not that waterboarding is "not evil."

Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia

2011-12-01T10:24:00.001-08:00

Introduction to the Category

There is a war against the Christian faith in general, and against the Catholic Church in particular. In the eyes of those who consider us enemies, we are a foe who must be opposed and isolated, if not eliminated. These foes employ differing methods of attack and different tools, sometimes spiritual, sometimes physical. One tool constantly employed in the West against us is the tool of propaganda.

The propaganda used is to make us seem hateful people seeking to harm who will not accept our views. We are accused of trying to force our views on others. Many labels are applied to us: Racist, sexist, homophobic, small minded, bigoted etc. We are also called the antichrist, anti-Bible, Works alone, worshippers of Mary and other labels.

However we reject these labels as false and having nothing to do with our beliefs. Those who hate us tend to refuse to ask whether the charges are true, and merely repeat them as a mantra that seems irrational to question.

It reminds me of a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII. He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners. So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace." Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This is often the case today. People are told we are people filled with hatred and error to the extent that people will think we are lying when we try to explain that this propaganda is false and try to explain what we truly do believe.

Articles in the Propaganda and Lies category are intended to deal with gross misrepresentations of what we believe done with the intent of discrediting us when we teach the truth of Christ.

Introduction

Homosexuality is a controversial topic in the West. This is why I feel obligated to deal with it, though I would rather deal with other subjects. In the West today, it is seen as a sexual preference just as valid as heterosexuality, and those who dare question that assumption are viewed as irrational or as suffering from "homophobia."

Christian values, once respected, are now treated as evidence of bigotry. There are angry people out there who accuse us of being responsible for those thugs out there who attack homosexuals because of what they are. They consider our message inflammatory and inciting acts of violence. If we did not claim homosexuality is wrong, the argument goes, people would not perform acts of violence against them. It doesn't matter that the Church commands that persons with homosexual tendencies must still be treated as persons. Because some thugs do violence, we must be to blame.

Such people fail to distinguish between different groups of course. The Westboro Baptist Church and the Catholic Church are thought to share the same hatred for persons with homosexual inclinations. It is a lie of course, but the charge remains unquestioned. What we as Catholics believe is often grossly misrepresented to make us seem hate-filled.

The Propaganda: Accusing us of Believing Homosexuality is the Same as Pedophilia

One common inflammatory bit of propaganda is the accusation that we see homosexuality as no different than pedophilia or bestiality. Because we cannot distinguish between these things, it is obvious we must be blinded by hatred.

This is a gross distortion of the truth when it comes to this issue, though I don't doubt that some Christians through either a poor choice of words or a lack of proper understanding of the Christian faith do express it this way.

Defining Reductio ad absurdum

Actually, the truth behind the propaganda is that this is a reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity) and not an allegation.

Now a reductio ad absurdum is a logical tool which exposes the flaws in an argument. It works this way. It takes Position [A] which is put forward as a justification for behavior. The person challenging [A] brings up the point that if [A] is true, then situation [B] must also be true. But since [B] is either absurd or offensive, we can't accept [A] as a valid position.

A Look at the Real Argument

Now in this case, what we have is an argument that homosexual inclinations exist, and it is unjust to expect people not to act on them. It is considered a sexual inclination no different than heterosexual inclinations. This will be our Position [A].

This is where the reductio ad absurdum comes into play. A person looking at this argument can validly point out, "Ah, but pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia are also sexual inclinations. If we accept that because homosexuality is an inclination and it is unjust to prevent people from expressing that inclination, we can also apply the same argument to pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia."

Note this does not say that homosexuality is no different than pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia. It merely shows that the "inclination" argument justifies far more than just homosexuality. Since there are natural and unnatural inclinations, the person who wants to justify the homosexual inclination as natural needs to demonstrate why the homosexual inclination is natural.

In other words, they need to prove the inclination is natural and morally acceptable, and not merely assume it is.

Defining Red Herring

The Red Herring fallacy introduces a new tangent unrelated to the original issue under dispute. It is done to derail the original argument and lead those arguing to a different topic. We need to be aware of the common Red Herring which will be often used when we explain the above reductio ad absurdum.

The Red Herring of the "Consenting Adults" Defense

At this time, some will argue that since homosexuality involves consenting couples while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia do not. Therefore the comparison is wrong.

This is a Red Herring fallacy. The issue being discussed is not consent, but whether or not the inclination is natural. Pedophiles, necrophiles and zoophiles can never act on their inclinations except in their fantasies – but most people would recognize that the existence of those tendencies are unnatural whether they are acted on or not.

Actually, the "consenting adults" argument merely deals with the issue of whether an act is a crime, not whether it is a morally acceptable act. Adultery between consenting adults may not be illegal, but most people would consider it morally wrong.

So to claim that homosexuality involves consenting adults while pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia merely says such an act is not a criminal act and says nothing about whether it is a moral act.

Conclusion

It should be clear at this point that the reductio ad absurdum used to refute a defense of homosexuality is not an act of homophobia seeking to equate homosexuality with pedophilia, zoophilia and necrophilia. Rather it points out the defense is flawed and justifies a lot more than the person defending homosexuality would want, therefore the defense must be abandoned as failing to justify homosexuality.

The person of good will should recognize that even if they disagree with the Catholic Church over the issue of homosexuality, it should be clear that the attack on us that we are homophobic and think there is no difference between homosexuality and pedophilia is a gross distortion used as propaganda to demonize us.

To continue to repeat the "Christians believe homosexuality = pedophilia" propaganda is to speak falsely about us.

TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'

2011-11-29T14:56:00.001-08:00

Introduction

A friend brought to my attention the campaign being used by certain homosexual activists to attach the name of Rick Santorum to a rather repugnant substance. This article was conceived while reflecting on the utter hypocrisy of the action from people who claim to champion "tolerance."

The Scenario

Case #1: Homosexual activists try to stamp out the teenage use of "That's so gay!" (used as an equivalent of "that's bad") as an intolerant statement.

Case #2: Homosexual activists seek to promote the term "Santorum" as a neologism involving some pretty disgusting things as revenge for Rick Santorum speaking out against homosexual acts as a moral wrong. They are so successful that the #1 and #2 Google hits for "Santorum" [at the time of this writing] involve this repugnant action, and it is not until the #3 hit that we are directed to any entry about Rick Santorum himself (the Wikipedia entry).

It is an interesting contrast. In the first case, people are seeking to eliminate a pejorative meaning to a word commonly associated with homosexuality. In the second case, the same people are seeking to create a pejorative meaning for a name belonging for a man they despise.

Now, if I were to campaign to make a pejorative meaning to "homosexual" (such as, "Oh man, I stepped in some homosexual… it's all over my shoes!"), I have no doubt that this action would be widely denounced (assuming anyone actually reads the site) as hateful.

So why is it that such people who campaign against "That's so gay" as being intolerant also make use of intolerance when it suits them?

Definitions

These people certainly do not practice what they preach. If they did, they would recognize that, if it is wrong to give the term "Gay" a negative term, then it reasonably follows that it is wrong to give other terms a negative connotation.

Given that the term 'Tolerate' means:

allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

It seems that the person who claims tolerance is a virtue must accept the existence of views they disagree with. Otherwise, they are not tolerant. They are hypocrites, defined as:

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

The Syllogism

SYLLOGISM:

[Tolerance] [Allows the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (All [A] is [B])
Some [Homosexual Activists] do not [Allow the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (Some [C] is not [B])
Therefore Some [Homosexual Activists] are not [Tolerant] (Therefore Some [C] is not [A])

I use the weaker [Some] and not the stronger [No] in recognition of the fact that some activists have human decency and do not act like these barbarians. The use of [Some] limits the argument to certain people and does not attempt to lump all people into one category.

This courtesy is unfortunately not returned, as it is common to see Catholic teaching compared with being no different than the Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful activities.

The Inescapable Reasoning

The accusation of hypocrisy on the part of these activists is just and cannot be denied.

Since Tolerance is the virtue preached by these activists, but they will not apply to others what they demand for themselves, we can reasonably conclude that these activists claim a moral standard to which their behavior does not conform. Since that is the definition of hypocrisy, those activists are hypocrites.

Absolute Values, Absolute Truth

There is only one way to attempt to escape the charge of hypocrisy, and that begins with recognizing that tolerance is not a universal value, but it is relative to an absolute truth. Since one can refuse to tolerate something on the grounds that it is, by nature, dangerous to others and therefore cannot be permitted to exist without causing harm, one can attempt to argue that the Christian opposition to homosexuality is harmful to others.

Universal truths would be true in all times, for all people in all circumstances. So if it is universally true that I cannot murder a person arbitrarily, it would be true a thousand years ago, now, and a thousand years from now. It would be true whether I lived in America, Afghanistan or Australia and whether I was rich or poor. Asian or Caucasian etc. Even if some cultures utterly rejected this truth, it would not change the fact that it is universally true.

This is why Tolerance cannot be a Universal Truth. If it was, one would have to give equal tolerance to the Jews and the Nazis who persecuted them. It would have to give equal tolerance to the view that child molestation is wrong and to the views of NAMBLA.

Sane people recognize that these views cannot co-exist. If it is wrong for the Nazis to persecute the Jews, one cannot tolerate the view of the Nazis. If child molestation is wrong, the views that it is acceptable cannot be tolerated. The person who tries to tolerate both views would have to be overlooking some serious issues.

This is also why Islam and Christianity cannot both be true. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the fulfillment of Revelation, then the claim of Islam that He was merely a Prophet but lesser than Muhammad must be false. Likewise, if the claim of Islam be true, then Jesus cannot have been the Son of God.

The point is, truth cannot contradict truth. So if one view is seen as truth, a view which contradicts it cannot also be truth.

"Tolerance" and Truth

What this comes down to is this. If Christians say that homosexual acts are wrong, and certain activists say homosexual acts are morally acceptable, both views cannot be seen as true. Both must demonstrate why their views are true. Christianity has done this, and one can look up the teachings on the matter. Those who reject the Catholic teaching as being false need to demonstrate why it is false and provide reasons for why their view is true.

Yet this is exactly what is not done. It is argued that the Catholic teaching is "intolerant," without showing why homosexual acts need to be tolerated as morally acceptable behavior. Instead, logical fallacies are used, notably the appeal to fear and pity, to lead one to think that if Gay "marriage" is not made law, the Westboro Baptist Church and people murdering homosexuals will become the norm; and that the denial of the "right to marry" means homosexual persons will be forced to live alone without love. We are told that we must either sanction "gay marriage" or else sanction the "persecution" of homosexuals.

The Position of Catholics Must Be Distinguished From Popular Distortions

It only makes sense to invoke the Westboro Baptist Church or those people who assault homosexuals against the position of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church accepts their actions as valid. If they do not, the comparison is invalid.

Of course since the Catholic Church condemns treating persons as less than persons, this sort of argument is a slander. Blessed John XXII wrote in 1963:

158. It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.

So the right thinking Catholic recognizes that even though we must condemn homosexual behavior, we must still treat the person with homosexual tendencies as a person and not as a sub-human who may be mistreated. However, one can still believe homosexual behavior is wrong without contradicting the view that persons must be treated as persons:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

In other words, persons are to be treated with respect as persons even though we must oppose homosexuality as wrong. There is no justification to the accusations of "homophobia" or bigotry against us, and to say our beliefs are wrong requires one to prove what beliefs are right and why. Otherwise it is an ipse dixit claim.

Conclusion

This is the dilemma for the activist which rejects the Christian moral teaching and calls us "intolerant."

On one hand, if one wants to invoke Tolerance as an absolute value, they must either tolerate the views they disagree with (including us Christians) or else be labeled Hypocrite.

On the other hand, if they want to avoid the hypocrite label while condemning our view as wrong, they must stop hiding behind the label of "tolerance" and acknowledge that universal and absolute truths exist and are knowable, and they must demonstrate the truth of their claims and not claim that their views must be true on the account that they reject our views.

If they will not, if they will simply continue on in personal attacks, using labels like "homophobe," "bigot," or "intolerant," then we can see that such activists are motivated by emotion and hatred, not by reason and logic and that they are guilty of the behaviors they accuse us of possessing.

TFTD: This Catholic's View on the Abortion stance of Ron Paul

2011-11-19T09:35:00.001-08:00

A good, even handed approach to describing Ron Paul's position can be found HERE. For a summary of his positions, see HERE. Of course all Catholics should read Evangelium Vitae which will be referred to often in this article, for it shows the great evil of abortion and how it must be opposed at all levels.

Introduction

Ron Paul is mentioned by some Catholic bloggers (and commentators on Catholic blogs) as being the ideal candidate for President. Much is made of his being personally pro-life, and his voting against Federal legislation is explained as believing the Federal Government has no such authority to regulate the issue of abortion, and it is really an issue for the individual states to deal with.

While I am underwhelmed by his views, I am more troubled by Catholics who seem to think his views are satisfactory. They are not. While Ron Paul lacks the hypocrisy of Mario Cuomo's infamous "personally opposed but…," he seems to fail his moral obligation based on a false understanding of law and authority.

Now I do not doubt the sincerity of Ron Paul in his emphasizing in campaigning for President that he believes abortion is wrong. It is reported he left the Episcopalian Church over the issue of abortion. The problem is, if one recognizes a law is evil, one is obligated to overturn or (if this is impossible) at least seek to limit the harm of the evil law.

Unfortunately this is what Ron Paul has failed to do.

The Role of Law and Government

What is most troubling when it comes to certain Catholics supporting Ron Paul's views is that his views of Libertarianism seems to overlook what the law is for and what the government is obligated to do. Now since Ron Paul is a Baptist, it is understandable that his understanding of law and government is not going to follow the Catholic stance. However, the Catholic does need to be aware of the Catholic understanding of law and what we must do in regards to law.

St. Thomas Aquinas speaks of law as follows:

[A] law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

—Summa Theologica (I-IIa. Q 92 a. 1)

Since every law has the aim of being obeyed and the proper effect of the law is to make those to whom it is given, good, it seems to follow that those who are lawgivers must make laws which are just and strive to overturn laws which are unjust at whatever level they are legislating: the local level, the state level and the federal level.

To fail to do this is to fail to be a good lawmaker.

Blessed John Paul II pointed out in Evangelium Vitae #20:

To claim the right to abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, and to recognize that right in law, means to attribute to human freedom a perverse and evil significance: that of an absolute power over others and against others. This is the death of true freedom: "Truly, truly, I say to you, every one who commits sin is a slave to sin" (Jn 8:34).

So we can see here that the law which permits these evils is a threat to human freedom and must be opposed.

Ideology and Doing Right

While Mark Shea calls Ron Paul, "one of the only people in Congress whom I would call an honest man" I would have to question this assessment (To clarify, Shea does disapprove of some of Ron Paul's stances so it should not be said he is pro-Ron Paul). By saying this, I don't mean to call Ron Paul a liar of course. Rather I mean that because of his ideology, he avoids doing what is right and seems to avoid the hard questions he needs to ask… perhaps because taking the right stand would call his ideology into question, perhaps because he is blinded by a false ideology into thinking it trumps the issue of abortion. At any rate, his views of abortion are modified by his views of the authority of the government to make laws.

He believes that the Federal Government has no authority to make laws on abortion, so he has voted against restricting of minors being transported across state lines to have an abortion, making it a crime to harm a fetus during the commission of a crime etc. Both of these votes do show a disregard for the importance of the family and the legal acknowledgement of the fetus as a person.

The problem is, the Federal Government is making laws about abortion, and therefore he is obligated to act on his principles that abortion is wrong at the Federal level.

Blessed John Paul II has said:

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. "Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action".

As far as the right to life is concerned, every innocent human being is absolutely equal to all others. This equality is the basis of all authentic social relationships which, to be truly such, can only be founded on truth and justice, recognizing and protecting every man and woman as a person and not as an object to be used. Before the moral norm which prohibits the direct taking of the life of an innocent human being "there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the 'poorest of the poor' on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality we are all absolutely equal".

—Evangelium Vitae #57

If the Federal Law permits the evil of abortion, lawmakers of good faith are obligated to eliminate or at least slow down the evil to the best of their ability. Blessed John Paul II has also written,

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

—ibid #73

In failing to seek limits to abortion at the Federal level, he is failing in his duty as a lawmaker and taking part in making it possible for abortion on demand to remain legal.

Why Catholics Cannot Accept His View that Abortion is a State Issue

The problem with Ron Paul's views is that if the Federal Government has no authority to pass laws on abortion, the individual states have no authority to pass these rights either and the attempt to push the decision about abortion to the state level is an evasion of the issue.

Again, Blessed John Paul II has said:

The real purpose of civil law is to guarantee an ordered social coexistence in true justice, so that all may "lead a quiet and peaceable life, godly and respectful in every way" (1 Tim 2:2). Precisely for this reason, civil law must ensure that all members of society enjoy respect for certain fundamental rights which innately belong to the person, rights which every positive law must recognize and guarantee. First and fundamental among these is the inviolable right to life of every innocent human being. While public authority can sometimes choose not to put a stop to something which-were it prohibited- would cause more serious harm, it can never presume to legitimize as a right of individuals-even if they are the majority of the members of society-an offence against other persons caused by the disregard of so fundamental a right as the right to life. The legal toleration of abortion or of euthanasia can in no way claim to be based on respect for the conscience of others, precisely because society has the right and the duty to protect itself against the abuses which can occur in the name of conscience and under the pretext of freedom.

—ibid #71

So his position is really an evasion of his duty as a member of Congress and is seeking to shift the issue to the states where a certain number of states decide it is legal while others decide it is not. Admittedly, we would then have the possibility of 50 winnable battles in comparison to the tyranny of the Supreme Court which absolutely refuses to question Roe v. Wade and it's legalization of abortion of demand (an issue I had with Doug Kmiec in the 2008 election cycle), but the problem is that Ron Paul seems to think the problem will be solved simply by a strict constitutionalist point of view that puts the onus on the state.

In contrast, the Catholic point of view holds that the right to life needs to be respected at all levels of government and it is an obligation for the Federal Government to protect the right to life and for lawmakers at the Federal level to act to protect this right.

It is similar to the pre-Civil War stance that states could decide for themselves whether to have slaves or not to have slaves. Such a view overlooked the fact that if slavery was wrong, no state could legitimately keep slaves. Likewise, if abortion be wrong, no state can legitimately legalize abortion.

Conclusion

Time will tell whether Ron Paul gets the nomination for president (I doubt it myself – but then again, in 2008, I expected Hillary Clinton to get the nomination over Obama). If he does, we'll have to decide about his positions in relation to Obama's positions. However, in terms of the primaries I am inclined to think he is an unsatisfactory choice for the nomination for president.

If Obama were to receive a failing grade on the issue of abortion, I think it safe to say that Ron Paul can at best be given a D- as his grade. Given how strongly the Church speaks about the obligation to defend the right to life, we can't really think of him as anything more than a "better than nothing (but not by much)" response to the current culture of death.

On Discrimination and Persecution against Religion in America

2011-11-17T10:30:00.001-08:00

Preliminary Notes: Accident and Essence

Since I will use the terms below, I should very briefly explain them. Essence is what a thing is. A triangle has three sides and three interior angles which total 180°. If the shape has more or fewer sides than three or the interior angles do not equal 180°, then you do not have a triangle.

Accident are qualities a particular thing has but are irrelevant to the essence. I can have a green cardboard triangle. I can have a chromed sheet metal triangle, but the color or the materials do not make a thing a triangle.

In the issue of racism, properly speaking a human being is a human being regardless of gender, ethnicity or skin color. Gender, ethnicity or skin color are accidents of the essence of human being. Whether the person is male or female, dark or light, Asian or Caucasian is irrelevant to whether the person is a human being. So a person should not be treated as less than a person because of the accidents of appearance. Neither should they receive benefits on account of the accidents.

Introduction

One attitude I have encountered over the years as American Law and Government becomes more hostile towards religion is the argument that since the treatment of religion in America is not like the treatment of religion in China or the former Soviet Union, it means the Church is not persecuted in America.

Thus when people speak out against the actions of the American government and use terms like "persecution" it is easy to be dismissive and say, "you're not persecuted… people aren't locking you up!"

The Fallacy of the accident

This is a metaphysical fallacy – The fallacy of the accident – which Peter Kreeft (See Socratic Logic 3e page 110) describes as either treating something accidental as something essential (for example, racism wrongly assumes the accident of skin color is essential in determining whether a person is to be treated as human) or treating something essential as accidental (such as denying that there is any difference between heterosexual coitus and homosexual sodomy since both can result in orgasm).

A common demonstration of the fallacy of the accident is:

Cutting people with a knife is a crime.
Surgeons cut people with knives.
Surgeons are criminals.

(The accident of cutting people with knives depends on the essence of why a person is cutting you with a knife, to heal or to harm).

In our case, the argument that there is no persecution in America works this way:

Communist China persecutes religion by imprisonment, torture and executions
The United States does not imprison, torture or execute people on religious grounds
Therefore the United States does not persecute people on religious grounds.

In this case, the accident of how persecution is carried out in Communist China (imprisonment, torture, execution) is confused for the essence of discrimination itself existing (the unequal treatment on the basis of religion). Since the degree of persecution is greater in Communist China, a degree which is less is argued as not being persecution at all.

That would be like a triage nurse in the Emergency Room saying that because the patient's pain level is not at 10, the patient is not in pain.

Persecution and Discrimination Defined

To clarify issues, we ought to begin with the definition of Persecution and Discrimination

Persecute: 1. subject to prolonged hostility and ill-treatment. 2. persistently harass or annoy.

Discriminate: make an unjust distinction in the treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, sex, or age.

—Oxford English Dictionary

The two concepts are very similar. The state discriminates when it treats one group of people less fairly than others because this group is different. The state persecutes when it treats a group hostilely or harasses them. Ill treatment can vary from unequal treatment under the law to active coercion.

In America, the Catholic Church can be said to be treated unequally under the law on the grounds that the First Amendment is ignored when it comes to State interference in compelling Church institutions to either act against their beliefs or else discontinue their services. The political elites in America are treating those who act on religious convictions with hostility. Our institutions have been ordered to act contrary to what they believe God requires of us and have needed to seek justice in the courts to try to protect ourselves from what the government has no right to do to begin with.

Lest anyone attempt a tu quoque and say we are hypocritical because we discriminate as well, we utterly deny the charge. Catholic hospitals do not refuse to treat non-Catholics or sinners. Catholic schools do not refuse to teach non-Catholics. Catholic orphanages do not refuse to let non-Catholics adopt or refuse to take in non-Catholic orphans.

We merely insist that our institutions, being based in the Catholic faith, be allowed to carry out our mission according to the way we believe God calls on us to behave. Those who come to a Catholic institution and insist on making us behave in a way we call sinful are not being discriminated against when we refuse. Rather they are discriminating against us by trying to force us to act in a way we call sinful.

Now the state can make unjust decrees that it enforces through legal, physical or financial coercion. However, such decrees are not binding laws in our eyes because the state has no authority to force us to do something that God forbids.

Conclusion

The degree to which the United States makes use of coercion to comply or face repercussions when it demands Catholic institutions to follow the Government commands may not be to the extreme of China or Afghanistan, but this does not mean that the coercion does not exist. It does exist and it is unjust because even if one rejects our claims to be the Church established by Christ to teach with His authority, this coercion does violate the US Constitution.

To borrow from Pastor Niemöller, they are coming for us first. You may not speak out because you are not Catholic. However if one stays silent during these early and less extreme violations of our rights, you may find that eventually, "Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me."

Apologia: Religious Faith Free of Government Interference

2011-11-15T19:13:00.001-08:00

Introduction

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

—The First Amendment (Emphasis added)

America was founded with religious freedom recognized as a primary right. The state can neither compel people to belong to one faith, nor to persecute a faith because of what they believe.

Vatican II Document, Dignitatis Humanae, speaks of religious freedom in this way:

2. This Vatican Council declares that the human person has a right to religious freedom. This freedom means that all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits.

The two stances are remarkably similar – the State does not have the authority to force a person or a group to do what they believe is morally evil.

Unfortunately, the modern stance of the US Government and the political elites is one which seeks to compel the Catholic Church and the institutions affiliated with her to participate in behaviors she finds contrary to what she believes to be right.

CREDO: Right Belief and Right Practice

Doctrine is what is professed by the Church as believed, and denial of the doctrine is to deny what we believe to be true. A person who denies the Trinity cannot be said to believe what the Catholic Church believes, even if he or she is a part of the Catholic Church. Indeed, throughout the centuries, holy men and women have been martyred because they would not deny what the Church professes to be true and would not agree with what the Church teaches is false.

This point must be understood. Even under the threat of punishment, we cannot go against what we believe.

In the Catholic view, we can know of God through Divine Revelation and through reason. Through reason, we can grow in understanding about why the commands of the Lord are as they are and understand what reasonably follows from what we believe.

We believe God is all powerful, all knowing and perfectly good. From this we recognize that His moral law is not based on an imperfect understanding of human nature and is not arbitrary (it isn't a case of "whatever God feels like is good"). God is perfectly good and His moral law reflects His goodness. God's law also reflects what is good for persons. He does not command us to do what is harmful for ourselves and does not forbid what is good for us.

Because our Lord has made it clear that to love Him is to keep His commandments, we who profess to love the Lord must obey Him. It isn't a matter of merely following rules legalistically. When you love a person, you act in a way which has the good of that person in mind. The beloved can forgive actions done which are offensive. However, a habitual contempt for the good of the beloved demonstrates a lack of love.

We believe that right practice (orthopraxy) depends on right belief (orthodoxy). For example, a person who believes people are nothing more than cogs in a machine to serve a higher purpose will treat persons differently than those who believe people need to be treated with dignity and cannot have this dignity taken away for the sake of expedience.

From this we can see that Catholics – at least those with a proper understanding of the faith – believe that to love God is to behave in a way that is in keeping with what He commands, and that to act in opposition to His commands is not only to treat God wrongly but also are harmful to ourselves.

Non-Catholics may disagree with us and claim we have a wrong understanding about what God intends. However, it cannot be denied that under the Constitution, Catholics and Catholic institutions are free to act according to what we think right. We harm none by refusing to take part in abortion, homosexual "marriage" and other things we believe to be against what God commands. We do not violate anyone's rights. Rather, those who come to a Catholic group and insists we accommodate their demands against what we believe violate our rights – especially when they take us to court to force us to act against our faith.

Moreover, we do have the right as American citizens to seek to reform our nation and to reach out to others to teach them why our beliefs are true, just as every other American citizen does.

The US Government and Political Elites Are Behaving In A Way That Contradicts the Constitution and our Inalienable Rights

Now, our rights are being infringed upon. A Catholic individual, a Catholic school, a Catholic hospital are no longer protected when it comes to living according to what our conscience demands. Catholic institutions are told that they must take part in things we call evil or cease to function. Moreover, members of the political elites are speaking out against us, claiming our beliefs are harmful and must be opposed.

Governor Andrew Cuomo, when asked about the arguments against homosexual marriage, replied, "There is no answer from the opposition. There really isn’t. Ultimately, it’s, ‘I want to discriminate.’ And that’s anti-New York. It’s anti-American." He has also been on record as saying, "The laws would have to be paramount, and would have to be paramount to your religious beliefs."

That's chilling. Either Cuomo misspoke or he is saying that law trumps religious belief. I have found no evidence of the former (no clarifications or retractions). If it is the latter, then it is Cuomo who is anti-American, because it is he who violates the First Amendment, not us.

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D.-Fla.), chair of the DNC, describes beliefs that the informed Catholic holds protecting the personhood of the unborn as, "an extreme and radical step." She says that it is, "divisive, dangerous, and destructive laws which would cripple a woman’s right to choose, limit access to birth control, and put the lives of women with difficult pregnancies at risk."

There is no respect for our rights here. Instead the motives for our beliefs are characterized as being motivated by hatred and by wanting to deny women their "rights." Essentially the constitutional guarantees of our religious freedoms in America are being undermined, and the political elites are misrepresenting our motives to permit their violations of our freedom.

In the name of "fairness" we are treated unfairly. Apparently all people are free to live out their lives in accord to what they believe to be right – unless those beliefs are religious beliefs which say certain actions are immoral.

Absolutes and Relativism

I've gone over this theme before, but it is important: If there are no absolutes, then there is nothing wrong with Catholics living as we do without interference. However, if there are absolutes, and we Catholics are in the wrong, then we are justified in demanding that proof be shown to us that we are in the wrong and how this truth is known.

But if our accusers want to do this, they must be honest. We are not "homophobes" because we believe homosexual acts to be wrong. We are not "misogynist" or "anti-women" because we oppose abortion and contraception. We believe that both homosexual persons and unborn infants must be treated as human persons with the rights belonging to all persons.

We condemn the view which says a person with homosexual tendencies may be treated as less than a person, but this does not mean we must support and promote homosexual acts as being morally acceptable acts.

Extremism, By Nature, Is Not the Norm

Our accusers must be honest and recognize that the extremist does not represent the Catholic position. The person who assaults persons with homosexual tendencies and the person who shoots abortionists does not act in accord with the Catholic faith, but AGAINST the Catholic faith. So it is either ignorance or dishonesty to label such persons as being inspired by our beliefs – such a person clearly overlooks the prohibition against murder for example.

The extremist, by definition, is: "a person who holds extreme political or religious views" according to the Oxford English Dictionary. To label the Catholic position as extremist, is to declare a knowledge of what the norm is. The norm is the standard and the further one deviates from the norm, the more extreme it is.

So to call us "extremist" means the accuser claims to know the truth (eliminating the claim of relativism) and then is obligated to prove their claim of what is the truth that we deviate from.

Our Guilt is to be Proven, Not Assumed

The fact is the US Constitution lists freedom of religion as part of the Bill of Rights. If one wishes to argue that the Catholic faith is an ideology which is harmful to others, then it falls to that person to prove the charge. Our rights cannot be taken away until we are proven guilty of a crime for we are innocent until proven guilty. Yet people like Cuomo assume our guilt is proven and the state can compel us to act in a way our religion forbids.

We are accused of hatred and bigotry as our motives for opposing homosexual "marriage." However, nobody actually looks to see if these are our motives. In fact we explicitly reject this accusation as slander.

Our detractors dismiss our reasons and our faith, ipse dixit, as being without merit – but they cannot be bothered to learn our reasons. They merely assume that because our views reject theirs we must be motivated by hatred.

Is it reasonable or just to condemn us out of ignorance? Is it just to lump us together with those who commit crimes without investigating whether we share their beliefs and motivations?

Not only is it unjust, it is actually bigotry. The same sort of bigotry which assumes all Hispanics are "Illegals," that assumes all Jews are "misers" and all Blacks are "dishonest." An entire group is accused of possessing a trait on account of a few people who fit that trait.

Conclusion

The Constitution of the United States gives us freedom to live as we feel obligated to live in the Freedom of Religion. Yet today, the government and political elites would deny us our rights and would compel us to do things we have believed to be immoral far longer than the United States was a nation. Not only do they infringe our rights, but they refuse to listen to our defense, insisting we must be motivated by bigotry because we believe their views to be wrong.

Americans will need to ask serious questions about justice and who is really being deprived of it. The charge of being "anti-American" and the charge that we are dangerous because we consider homosexual acts to be immoral and personhood to begin at conception are unjust charges.

However, since the freedom of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, the charge of "anti-American" and "dangerous" does not apply to us, but rather to those who would restrict our rights to practice our faith and operate institutions according to our faith.

Postscript: Can This Apologia Be Applied Against Us as Well?

Some may argue that we do not practice what we preach, that we demand rights for ourselves and deny them to others. We would reject this as a false charge. We do not argue that homosexual persons should be denied the rights due all human persons. We do not demand they be denied the rights they possess in the Constitution. Rather we say certain actions are not rights to be recognized (abortion, homosexual "marriage") but the demand of recognizing a self-gratification now in vogue by misusing titles.

Homosexual persons can of course marry a person of the opposite gender. But if our beliefs (that marriage is between a man and a woman) are true, then the whole concept of Homosexual "Marriage" is an oxymoron.

On the other hand, religious freedom is not a self-gratification in vogue, but a right which the Constitution recognizes that all people are entitled to. Denying us this right is not denying us a privilege but denying us what is our due.

In other words, we deny nobody their rights by saying homosexuality and abortion are wrongs and refusing to accommodate these wrongs by having our religious institutions take part in them. But people who do force us to accommodate what we believe to be wrong or else close up our institutions are denying us our rights.

Reductio ad absurdum: Latin, English and Spanish at Mass

2011-10-30T10:59:00.001-07:00

(Preliminary Note: This article is not written to take a doctrinal stand on anything. Rather it is a reflection for people to consider what our motives are when we express dislikes over certain things.)

I've encountered in the region I live in a certain group of people who object to Spanish being used at Mass to reach out to the Hispanic members of the community. They say things like, "We're in America. They should speak English."

Many people of this group also champion the use of the 1962 missal, and saying that the Mass should be said in Latin.

Very well.

If we accept as a given their claim that the Latin is the best language for the Mass, we can argue the following:

Major Premise: The closer the Mass is to Latin, the better it is.

Minor Premise: Spanish is closer to Latin than English is.

Conclusion: Therefore, a Spanish Mass is better than an English Mass.

Now I am sure that nobody (I sure don't) would accept the conclusion of this argument. But this is the point of a reductio ad absurdum. It points out the problematic conclusions one could draw if one accepted an argument at face value.

Now, I'm not going to accuse these individuals who dislike Spanish within the Mass as being racist. God knows what is in their hearts. I don't. However, I do believe that these individuals are dogmatizing what is mere preference for them. They prefer the old Latin Mass because that is comfortable for them. They prefer English over Spanish because that is comfortable for them.

Such individuals need to remember that those who speak a different language than we do are just as much members of the Catholic Church as we are, and they take comfort in hearing the Mass in their own language just as much as we do.

I don't write this to condemn any individual. I merely ask every person to consider in their heart whether their attitudes show love for their brothers and sisters in Christ.

Is Voting 'None of the Above' the Least Evil Choice for 2012?

2011-10-15T10:43:00.001-07:00

What if they gave a war and nobody came?
Why, then, the war would come to you!
He who stays home when the fight begins
And lets another fight for his cause
Should take care:
He who does not take part
In the battle will share in the defeat.
Even avoiding battle will not avoid battle.
Since not to fight for your own cause
Really means
Fighting on behalf of your enemy's cause.

—Bertolt Brecht

Introduction

In my last article I wrote about my revised maxim of voting based on what seems to reasonably follow from Church teaching. My conclusion was that we needed to discern which was the least evil before deciding to vote for the opposition party vs. not voting or voting for a Third Party. That article was more of a general principle to consider. This time, especially in light of recent evidence of hostility to the Church, I think it is time to ask whether it is true that voting for a third party/no party is in fact the least evil.

I started off with this controversial poem because I believe it does illustrate the issue which must be considered when choosing how to vote in 2012. I am not saying that whoever votes for a third party or declines to vote is guilty of refusing to fight. Rather, I am saying we must consider whether such a vote will result in a greater evil.

Catholics always need to remember that a mindset of always voting for Party [X] is not a proper attitude. Party views change over time and must always be reevaluated in light of the unchanging truths given to us by Christ.

Caveat

This kind of article runs the risk of being perceived as being motivated by partisanship because it will judge the reality of the Political Parties. Nowadays, labels of conservative or liberal are slapped on everything as a substitute to thinking. However, this article is an attempt to work philosophically using the reality of the political situation and the teachings of the Church in search of an answer.

I am NOT trying to claim that the conclusion I reach is one which is binding under the pain of sin however. Rather it is a case of, "Given what we know, what seems to be the least evil?"

Also, please keep in mind I am primarily thinking of the Presidential election. Some Congressional and local elections may have the same considerations. Others may have candidates who differ from the norm of each political party (There are Pro-Life Democrats out there and Pro-Abortion Republicans for example).

Depending on who the Republicans nominate (it seems a foregone conclusion that Obama will again be the Democratic nominee), the situation may change from what I am exploring in 2011, as there will be a specific candidate to evaluate.

Ultimately this article will conclude with a statement that I do not know what is the least evil (so that will save you some time wading through it) but it is my hope that when it comes to making such a decision, this article will give the person some things to consider.

And, as always, this blog should never be interpreted in a way that is in opposition to the Magisterium of the Church. The reader who wants to use this article to refute Bishop X uses this article wrongly.

Four Voting Choices for 2012

For Catholics in 2012, we essentially have four options for the Presidential elections. These are:

A vote for the Democratic Party
A vote for the Republican Party
A vote for a Minor Party
Declining to vote

Hopefully we shall add some clarity as to how we should consider them as options.

The Reality of the Two Party System

The United States is effectively a two-party system. Yes we do have minor parties, and yes we did have a situation where one political party became extinct and was replaced by another once. However, barring a major upheaval, the person elected to the presidency in 2012 will either be a Democrat or a Republican. Not a member of the Reform Party, Green Party, American Independent Party or a Libertarian. This is because far too few American voters will vote for a third party.

Therefore a vote for a minor party or not voting will not change the outcome without massive dissatisfaction with the system which does not appear to be present at this time.

However, a third party vote can play a "spoiler" role. In the 2000 elections, Ralph Nader running on the Green party ticket split the Democratic party vote. If those 97,488 Green Party votes in Florida had gone to Al Gore instead of to Ralph Nader, Al Gore would have been elected regardless of issues with hanging chads and butterfly ballots (Gore lost Florida by 537 votes).

What we can learn from this is that so long as we have a two-party system, a liberal voting for a third party or not voting will benefit the Republicans and a conservative voting for a third party or not voting will benefit the Democrats. An undecided voting for a third party or not voting will merely reduce the voting pool by 1.

So, to sum up:

The US is essentially a two party system
We will continue to be a two party system unless there is such a wide level of disgust against both parties that a third party seems to be a good alternative.
Voting for a third party or not voting will not change the fact that, unless there is a (currently non existent) wide level of disgust with both parties, either a Democrat or a Republican will be elected to the presidency in 2012.

The Lesser of TWO Evils

We can see from this that the statement "lesser of two evils" is still true even if one should vote for a third party. We need then to look at the positions of the two parties in relation to Church teaching. It seems to me there are four basic positions a party can have. This list is done from the perspective of best to worst.

The party agrees with the Church on both intrinsic issues and lesser issues.
The party agrees with the Church on intrinsic issues but not lesser issues.
The party disagrees with the Church on intrinsic issues but agrees on lesser issues.
The party disagrees with the Church on both intrinsic issues and lesser issues.

Now there can be differing degrees of agreement (from lukewarm to fervent) and disagreement (from indifference to hostility). So if both parties were in category #1, a fervent support would be superior to a lukewarm support and if both were in category #4, indifference would be a lesser evil than outright hostility.

Now, I think we can agree that neither party falls into category #1 (party agrees with the Church on both intrinsic issues and lesser issues). Nor does either party fall into category #4 (The party disagrees with the Church on both intrinsic issues and lesser issues). So it seems that the Democratic Party and the Republican Party will either fall into category #2 or #3. Category #2 is superior to #3 – not because the "lesser" issues are unimportant, but rather because the intrinsic issues are so important that to fail to be with the Church is disastrous for the nation.

What are the Intrinsic Issues?

The Church teaches the following are vital, and cannot be denied without dehumanizing people and creating an evil society (evil meaning a severe lack moving away from the good):

The fundamental right to life from conception to natural death.
The recognition of the heterosexual family as the building block of society.
The freedom to practice one's faith free from government coercion.

To deny #1 would be to claim that one person has the right to arbitrarily end the right to life of another person and that some lives are worth less than others. To deny #2 is to weaken the basic building block on which society is based. To deny #3 is to claim that the government has the right to coerce a person to act against what they believe is right.

So, in practical terms, a party which supported abortion on demand, euthanasia and the like would be violating #1. A party which sought to give the same standing to homosexual "marriage" and other non-family sexual relationships as to the traditional family would be violating #2. The party which sought to interfere with institutions run by a religious group or to institute policies which force a person to choose between his beliefs and his livelihood would be violating #3.

With this in mind, we can look at the two big political parties and see where each party falls.

This is Where the Risk of Being Accused of Being Partisan Comes into Play

(Again, I want to make this clear: It is not that other issues are unimportant, but rather because the intrinsic issues are so important that they cannot be ignored or made out to seem less important than, say, immigration or health care reform).

I think this is where a person who dislikes what I have to say will find an excuse to accuse me of partisanship, so let me again clarify that I am not writing with the perspective that disagreeing with me is sinful. I am writing from the position that based on Church teaching, while there is not a good and a bad, there is a worst and a less bad when it comes to the positions of the two parties, and we need to acknowledge this to make an informed decision on how we should vote.

I think it is obvious that the Obama administration is not only opposed to the Church on these intrinsic issues, but is actually hostile to the Church on these issues. In the four categories I mentioned earlier, the Democratic Party, so far as national office goes, seems to be defined as #3: The party disagrees with the Church on intrinsic issues but agrees on some lesser issues.

So how does the Republican Party fare on the issues? They generally seem to be anywhere from lukewarm to moderate in favor of the Church position on these issues. Yes, their support is far less than it should be, and they seem to be half-hearted about defending these issues. In some states (New York for example), the party is actually in opposition to the Church on these issues. However, we can be sure that the Republicans will not introduce new legislation which increases these evils.

The Republican candidates do seem to be in opposition of varied levels to some of the social teachings of the Church. I was certainly appalled watching the Republican debate hearing the major candidates seeming to take positions which were against the Church understanding on justice. However, on the intrinsic issues, the Republican Party at least gives them token support in contrast to the hostility of the Democratic Party. So, we would most probably put them right on the edge of group #2. Their support is not so low as to claim they are opposed to the Church teaching on intrinsic issues, but they are not fervent supporters.

This leaves us with this assessment of the two parties:

The Democratic Party is strongly hostile towards the teaching of the Catholic Church on intrinsic issue and agrees with the Church on some lesser issues.
The Republican Party gives lukewarm support for the Catholic teaching on intrinsic issues and tends to disagree on some lesser issues.

Lukewarm support is better than active hostility, so it seems that of the two parties, the Democratic Party is the greatest evil in the 2012 Presidential elections at least.

Therefore one choice is eliminated as being acceptable for Catholic voters.

~~A vote for the Democratic Party~~
A vote for the Republican Party
A vote for a Minor Party
Declining to vote

Now we must ask about the remaining three choices.

Is the Third Party or Not Voting An Acceptable Choice?

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

—Attributed to Edmund Burke

Again, like it was with the Bertolt Brecht poem, I am not saying that the Third Party vote or declining to vote is the equivalent of good men doing nothing. Rather I am saying all must consider the consequences of their vote and form their conscience with the teaching of the Church.

So if we recognize that a party which is expressly hostile to the Catholic Church on these issues is the greater evil, and if we recognize that the third party or non-vote will not change the fact that the 2012 elections will either put a Democrat or a Republican in the White House, it seems that the Catholic pondering such a vote must consider whether his vote will promote the least evil or whether it will help enable the greater evil to be elected.

Now of course, the person does not intend the bad end of allowing the greater end of allowing the worst candidate to be elected. If they did will such an end, that would be sinful indeed.

But to be honest, it truly is a hard call in making a decision for 2012. The American political scene is truly wretched for Catholics. There is no "good" party to vote for. Rather we merely have the choice of which is the least offensive choice – which is the least harmful to the state of souls in America.

As a personal opinion, I believe the option to decline to vote is not acceptable to Catholics. That is essentially a state of good men doing nothing. This would leave us with either the option of voting for a third party or voting for the lesser of two evils. This eliminates another choice and leaves us with two.

~~A vote for the Democratic Party~~
A vote for the Republican Party
A vote for a Minor Party
~~Declining to vote~~

Some Considerations in Voting for a Third Party (Personal Opinions to follow)

One argued reason to vote for a third party, in light of the fact that it tends to benefit the opposition seems to be to send a warning to the party that it must change its ways or lose support. I think (again, personal opinion here) that such a response is valid on those occasions when a candidate adopts a position which is in opposition to Church teaching (in California, we've had elections where both parties were pro-abortion and I've felt obligated to vote for a third party). When this is not the case I think (personal opinion) we need to be very cautious in taking this route.

It's long been a dream of mine that for one election, all Catholics refuse to vote for the two main parties to send them a warning that our vote counts. However a priest I once knew gave a response which reflects the sad truth of American Catholics. To paraphrase, he said Catholics aren't a bloc. They're as divided as the rest of the country so this could never happen.

Sadly, I think he was right. So the idea of sending a message to a party will likely never be effective barring an unforeseen upheaval in this nation.

So ultimately, I believe there is only one valid reason to vote for a third party in 2012, and that is the reason of conscience. For some people, conscience simply forbids them to vote for the Republicans. If an individual's conscience convicts them that they would do evil in voting for either party, then they must follow their conscience rather than do what they think is evil… but they must be sure their conscience is formed in harmony with Church teaching (this last part is not personal opinion).

The Catholic Task is Not Done on November 6th 2012

However, whether one chooses the Republican Party as the least evil choice or whether one feels they cannot vote for either major party in good conscience, our task is not over on November 6th 2012 (Election Day). Whichever party wins in 2012, we are obligated to stand and speak out about what the nation must do and must reject. If the victorious party goes the wrong way on an issue, we are obligated to voice our objections and not merely say, "Hey I voted, that's enough."

Arnobius' Maxim of Voting Revised for 2012

2011-10-11T08:43:00.001-07:00

Preliminary Note: I never claim binding authority for myself. I believe my original maxim and this updated one reasonably follow from Church teaching and reflect things we are called by the Magisterium to keep in mind when forming our decisions. Of course this article mainly applies to a situation like America's (effectively) two-party system. A nation with multiple parties and coalitions would probably have a different set of criteria to consider.

Introduction

Back in the 2008 elections, I wrote an article dealing with an attitude among some Catholics which invoked conscience to vote for the party they preferred even though that party promoted policies explicitly condemned by the Catholic Church. That maxim was, I believe, what reasonably followed from the Catholic obligation to obey the Church and the Catholic obligation to never disobey our conscience when it condemns something. To sum up, I had said that if one political party holds a view which the Church condemns and the other holds views which an individual's conscience cannot allow them to vote for the other, then in order to reconcile these views, one could vote for a third party or decline to vote but could not vote for the party promoting views the Church condemned.

It made sense for the time. In 2008, the dispute was essentially based on whether or not the Catholic could vote for the pro-abortion, fetal stem cell research, gay "marriage" party. I think it still applies for voters who are choosing between these two parties.

A New Situation

However, in 2011, we see a few Catholic bloggers who oppose both parties as equally rotten and argue that the proper attitude is to vote for a third party or not at all. We also see some opponents of these bloggers who claim that to act this way is to throw the election over to those who support the greater evil by taking away votes from the only party with a chance to oppose them.

It was this new perspective which leads me to reconsider the former maxim I drafted to take into account this new dispute.

The Issue of Double Effect

In considering the two sides of this dispute, we need to consider the principle of Double Effect.

Briefly, Double Effect deals with the situation where an action intends a good result but has an unintended and undesired negative effect which cannot be avoided. Catholic teaching holds that the negative effect must be unintended and that the intended good must outweigh the unintended bad. This is why the Church permits a hysterectomy (removing a diseased or damaged uterus which cannot safely undergo pregnancy) with the unintended bad effect of removing the woman's fertility but condemns the sterilization of the woman (directly intending to remove the woman's fertility). The first views the loss of fertility as an undesired effect which would be avoided if possible. The second directly intends the loss of fertility.

In terms of the debate of not voting for one of the major parties vs. the risk of allowing the greater evil to become elected is essentially a dispute over Double Effect.

So:

The intended good is to obey conscience by not voting for candidates who are considered to have immoral positions.
The unintended bad effect is that the greater of two evils may benefit from a split votes.

The moral dilemma is then to balance out the obligation to follow conscience vs. the preventing the greater evil from taking effect.

Voting and Morality

Voting is not a neutral act. It is a moral act in which we are obligated to use to achieve a greater good or oppose a greater evil. We need to consider the ends our vote is intended to achieve and whether the unintended negative consequence outweighs that intended good. Certain actions are intrinsically (by their very nature) evil and can never be done. The Church authoritatively teaches abortion is a grave evil:

The deliberate decision to deprive an innocent human being of his life is always morally evil and can never be licit either as an end in itself or as a means to a good end. It is in fact a grave act of disobedience to the moral law, and indeed to God himself, the author and guarantor of that law; it contradicts the fundamental virtues of justice and charity. 'Nothing and no one can in any way permit the killing of an innocent human being, whether a fetus or an embryo, an infant or an adult, an old person, or one suffering from an incurable disease, or a person who is dying. Furthermore, no one is permitted to ask for this act of killing, either for himself or herself or for another person entrusted to his or her care, nor can he or she consent to it, either explicitly or implicitly. Nor can any authority legitimately recommend or permit such an action' (Evangelium vitae #57)

So it seems to follow that not only are we never to vote for a candidate who supports this grave evil, we cannot permit the grave evil to become possible by our inaction either.

On the other hand, since we are never to support evil actions, what are we to do if the other party also seems to support evil? Especially since they seem lukewarm on the issues of Life? After all, Blessed John Paul II also pointed out:

Christians, like all people of good will, are called upon under grave obligation of conscience not to cooperate formally in practices which, even if permitted by civil legislation, are contrary to God's law. (ibid #74).

An Attempt to Find a Solution to the Impasse

Conscience is not infallible. It must be formed with the teaching of the Church in mind and it requires us to inform ourselves to the facts to avoid making an error by wrongly interpreting the situation or how the Church teaching is to be applied.

There are times when Catholics must vote for a lesser evil to avoid the greater evil. Blessed John Paul II gave an example:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects. (ibid #73)

In this case, we can see that voting with the intent of limiting the evil of abortion is not a cooperation with evil. If we can't abrogate an abortion law, we can certainly vote to limit its effects. Lukewarm opposition to abortion is superior to no opposition.

Finding the Least Evil

So it seems to follow that when it comes to voting for a third party or not voting, we are obligated to consider the consequences of such an action. Is it, in fact, the least evil?

That is the hard decision to be made. Since we may never do what our conscience condemns and may never refuse to do what our conscience commands, we are obligated to inform our conscience through the teachings of the Church and to educate ourselves on the consequences of our action or inaction. Conscience is not sentiment. It is not a matter of like and dislike. Conscience is the interior voice which says I must or must not do.

The Arnobius' Maxim of Voting Revised

So with these points in mind, I would reformulate the maxim on voting as follows:

We must never vote for a candidate who openly supports a position condemned by the Church if an alternative exists.
We must never vote in violation of our conscience.
We must always form our conscience to be in line with the teaching of the Church.
We must be informed so as to recognize the greatest evil and the least evil and act accordingly in casting our vote.
Finally, whomever is elected, we must not ignore their lesser evils but instead make it known to them the importance of rejecting those evils.

Final Caveat

Again, I do not claim binding religious authority for this maxim. Rather I write this as what I believe is a summary of Church obligation on this subject. I certainly submit to the authority of the Magisterium of the Church and nothing I write should be given an interpretation against the lawful teaching authority of the Church.

TFTD: What Might the Saints Think About Those Who Defy The Bishops in the Name of the Faith?

2011-10-04T07:14:00.001-07:00

St. Ignatius of Antioch speaks about the importance of the bishop and the relation of the faithful with him:

CHAPTER VIII.--LET NOTHING BE DONE WITHOUT THE BISHOP

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

CHAPTER IX.--HONOUR THE BISHOP.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

—Ignatius of Antioch [50-117 AD] Epistle to the Smyraeans

It makes me wonder how this early Martyr for the faith and disciple of St. John the Apostle would react to the open contempt some Catholics are showing to the Bishops, while claiming to be authentically Catholic.

Are there bishops who have disappointed in their service? To be sure. Even so, when the bishop acts in his role as a bishop and not offering a private opinion, he is acting as a successor of the apostles.

We should certainly keep in mind what Christ has said concerning those whom He has sent:

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me.”

(Luke 10:16)

TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'

2011-10-01T18:38:00.001-07:00

Anyone ever notice that the most intolerant people out there are the people who champion tolerance?

When it comes to dealing with views they dislike, they are perfectly willing to spew invective demonizing their opponents and seeking to prevent themselves from operating any sort of "public" ministry (such as hospitals and orphanages) because of their "intolerance," even though tolerate itself means:

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

We have a denial that there are any sort of absolute moral right and wrong. Therefore opposition to certain acts are claimed to be arbitrary and imposing beliefs on others – which is seen as morally wrong….

Wait… what?

If there is no sort of moral absolute in terms of right or wrong, then there is nothing right about being tolerant and nothing wrong about being intolerant. Indeed, under the rhetoric of "tolerance," and protecting people from those who are "pushing their views on others," they are in fact intolerant and pushing their views on others.

America should wake up and realize that a major religion which has often praised America for the religious freedom which allowed her to practice her faith unhindered now feels she must prepare for a growing wave of religious intolerance in America. This growing wave is not from fundamentalist anti-Catholics, but from the policies of the United States government.

Archbishop Dolan writes:

The federal Department of Justice has ratcheted up its attack on the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) as an act of bigotry. As you know, in March, the Department stopped defending DOMA against constitutional challenges, and the Conference spoke out against that decision. But in July, the Department started filing briefs actively attacking DOMA’s constitutionality, claiming that supporters of the law could only have been motivated by bias and prejudice. If the label of ―bigot sticks to us—especially in court—because of our teaching on marriage, we’ll have church-state conflicts for years to come as a result.

So let's cut to the chase here. If tolerance is the rule of the game, you'll tolerate us as we try to bring to the attention of the world the teachings of Christ making sober, reasoned appeals as to why our view is correct. If you believe we are morally wrong in our stance, then you are just as obligated to show the objective basis for your position as we are for ours.

The person who refuses to do either is certainly behaving hypocritically. The government which refuses to do either is behaving in a tyrannical manner.

TFTD: St. Benedict on Humility

2011-09-27T22:39:00.001-07:00

In light of the high profile cases of conflict between priest and bishop, I was struck by the relevance of this passage from The Rule of St. Benedict concerning the humility of the monks:

The fourth degree of humility is that he hold fast to patience with a silent mind when in this obedience he meets with difficulties and contradictions and even any kind of injustice, enduring all without growing weary or running away. For the Scripture says,

"The one who perseveres to the end, is the one who shall be saved" (Matt. 10:22);

and again

"Let your heart take courage, and wait for the Lord" (Ps. 26[27]:14)!

And to show how those who are faithful ought to endure all things, however contrary, for the Lord, the Scripture says in the person of the suffering, "For Your sake we are put to death all the day long; we are considered as sheep marked for slaughter" (Ps. 43[44]:22; Rom. 8:36).

Then, secure in their hope of a divine recompense, they go on with joy to declare, "But in all these trials we conquer, through Him who has granted us His love" (Rom. 8:37).

Again, in another place the Scripture says, "You have tested us, O God; You have tried us as silver is tried, by fire; You have brought us into a snare; You have laid afflictions on our back" (Matt. 5:39-41).

And to show that we ought to be under a Superior, it goes on to say, "You have set men over our heads" (Ps. 65[66]:12).

Moreover, by their patience those faithful ones fulfill the Lord's command in adversities and injuries: when struck on one cheek, they offer the other; when deprived of their tunic, they surrender also their cloak; when forced to go a mile, they go two; with the Apostle Paul they bear with false brethren (2 Cor. 11:26) and bless those who curse them (1 Cor. 4:12).

Now I recognize that not all religious orders follow the Rule of St. Benedict. I also recognize that the diocesan priests are a different matter than religious priests. However, when we have these cases of high profile disputes between priest and bishops, I find myself wondering what the saints of past centuries would think of the defiance against the lawful Church authority.

Reflections on the Moral Responsibility in Determining the Lesser of Two Evils

2011-09-22T17:49:00.001-07:00

How are we to determine the lesser evil when it comes to voting when both candidates fail in some aspects according to the teaching of the Catholic Church?

Preliminary Note: A couple of weeks back, when the Republican Debate was on CNN, I found myself morally troubled by some of the candidate's positions in terms of the Catholic teaching on social justice. Since then, I was thinking of the whole concept of the lesser of two evils and how we need to view our faith in relation to the political parties. While we're still over a year away from the elections, it is important for us to remember how we need to unite ourselves with Christ and what we need to consider in discerning what is a lesser evil.

Introduction

To be honest I found myself with misgivings with some of the Republican candidates . Their stands on certain issues of social justice seems to fall short of the Catholic teaching on social justice (not merely the liberal buzzword either).

On the other hand, Obama's position on abortion and homosexual "marriage" and religious freedom not only falls short of the Catholic position, but is utterly in opposition to the moral teachings of the Catholic Church. He actively supports things which the Catholic Church must call evil if she is to be faithful to the teachings of Christ.

So what is the candidate to do when, even if we should like some of the views of one candidate, his views are contrary to the teachings of the Church in critical ways?

We CANNOT Just Freely Vote for Whoever We Might Prefer

Ultimately, we must realize that in cases where neither political party is in line with the Catholic teaching, we are NOT free to simply vote for who we might otherwise prefer. Certain actions are more harmful to individuals and to the state as a whole than others. In other words, you can't vote for Mussolini just because the other party can't make the trains run on time for example.

If we are to endure the lesser evil, we must discern the greater evil that must be opposed.

It might be good to refer to a fundamental insight from Aristotle's Rhetoric (Book 1 Chapter 7):

A thing which surpasses another may be regarded as being that other thing plus something more, and that other thing which is surpassed as being what is contained in the first thing. Now to call a thing 'greater' or 'more' always implies a comparison of it with one that is 'smaller' or 'less', while 'great' and 'small', 'much' and 'little', are terms used in comparison with normal magnitude. The 'great' is that which surpasses the normal, the 'small' is that which is surpassed by the normal; and so with 'many' and 'few'.

So, when it comes to discerning the greater evil, it means it will do more evil than the lesser evil.

On Greater and Lesser Evil

We need to distinguish something first of all. To say [A] is worse than [B] does not mean [B] is not evil. It is simply to say that when being forced to choose between [A] and [B], [A] will do more harm physically or spiritually and therefore needs a more urgent effort than [B] if we cannot choose a selection which gives us neither evil.

In terms of Church teaching and politics, this means we recognize that both [A] and [B] run afoul of Church teaching, but [A] is a greater evil which we must witness against. We must still oppose [B], but if it is impossible to have neither [A] nor [B] we must stop the greater evil first.

The Culture of Death

We must oppose the mindset that some human life is not worth protecting.

Abortion and Euthanasia are actions which come from the view that some life does not have value and is better off ended. The unborn or the infirm/elderly are seen as not possessing life which is worth preserving. Politicians who support these "rights" and enshrine them law are guilty of moving society in a direction which treats certain life as being without value.

So before we could label a candidate who supports abortion as a "lesser evil," there must be a case where candidate treats even more lives as having no value. For example, a candidate who supports infanticide would be a greater evil than a candidate who only supports abortion. However I would absolutely reject the idea that wanting to reduce the dollar amount given to social programs is a greater evil than saying the unborn and the elderly possess lives not worth protecting and sanctioning the arbitrary ending of these human lives.

Proportionate Reasons

We need to remember another Catholic teaching. Even if one does not directly do an evil act (which is always forbidden) we can still have moral responsibility if our act aids an evil act, making it possible. The more essential our action is to the performing of an evil act, the greater the justification is required to avoid culpability in sin.

For example, the gas station attendant who pumps gas into any vehicle that comes along is less responsible for supplying gasoline to a van which drives women to an abortion clinic than the driver of that van who willingly takes the women to that clinic or the owner of the building who rents space to the abortion clinic.

If we know that our actions will cause evil, we are obligated to oppose this evil and not enable it. When it comes to voting for a candidate, Catholics must realize that a vote for a person who supports a thing the Church teaches is evil is an action which allows the politician to make this evil legally sanctioned by the government.

So it follows:

The person who votes for a candidate BECAUSE he supports that evil undeniably sins.
The person who votes for a candidate IN SPITE OF his support for that evil is obligated that he must justify his vote before God, and the greater the evil, the greater the justification must be.

Archbishop Chaput, when he was in Denver, wrote in 2008:

9. What is a “proportionate” reason when it comes to the abortion issue? It’s the kind of reason we will be able to explain, with a clean heart, to the victims of abortion when we meet them face to face in the next life — which we most certainly will. If we’re confident that these victims will accept our motives as something more than an alibi, then we can proceed.

That's a strong indictment. He's saying that abortion is such a great evil, that to vote for a candidate supports abortion requires such a strong reason that we will not be ashamed to explain it to Christ at the final judgment.

So the person who claims that they are justified to vote for a pro-abortion candidate has to give justification. It's not enough to say you're voting for pro-abortion candidate [A] because you're opposed to candidate [B] because of his position on Social Security.

It's human life at stake with abortion.

Conclusion

Catholics need to stop thinking in terms of, "Well neither candidate is fully Catholic so I am free to vote for whoever I want." We have the somber duty to reject (vote against) the greater evil while challenging the lesser evil to change their ways.

It is clear that right now, abortion is the gravest evil facing America because it is an evil which decides some human lives are not worth living. If you want to vote for a pro-abortion candidate, you MUST be able to justify your position by pointing to the greater evil you think is a greater than the slaughter of over 1 million unborn children EVERY year in America.

Think of it. Catholics must think of the unborn as human lives – not subhuman lives which mean less than adults. So we must recognize that abortion is not merely one issue of many.

When Election Day 2012 comes around, we are all obligated to seriously consider these things and remember our vote has moral consequences which we must answer for before God.

Is this beginning the 5th year already?

2011-09-22T09:37:00.001-07:00

I just noticed that today marks the beginning of the 5th year of the Arnobius of Sicca blog (completing the 4th anniversary today). I must say I never expected this to last more than a few months. A friend of mine suggested I take up blogging as something to do when I was on disability with a work-related injury. I really thought 2011 would be the death knell of the blog, because I did not have time to write consistently.

Sometimes its embarrassing to go back and read the earliest entries in 2007. I tended to be somewhat flippant back then and willing to bash the US bishops. Hopefully I've gotten better over the years. I think the study of philosophy and logic have allowed me to at least be more structured since then. Ancients like Socrates and Aristotle; Patristics like St. Augustine, St. Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria and the site's namesake; Medieval writers like St. Thomas Aquinas, and modern writers like Popes Benedict XVI, Blessed John Paul II, Peter Kreeft, Msgr. Ronald Knox and many others have inspired me to write about the importance of the truth and the fact that the truth is with the Catholic Church.

One big change of the past year is abandoning Xanga for Blogger. I decided the Xanga community made it too easy for abusive persons to dominate a column, and too difficult to control their activities. Xanga seemed to be willing to turn a blind eye towards these abusive persons.

Writing on Blogger has been more peaceful. While there are not nearly as many comments, the ones which do come generally seem more sincere – even the ones from people who disagree with me, who are generally much more polite than the ones on Xanga.

So the blog is still here, even if I don't write as much as I used to, dealing with different topics which seem relevant in defending the Church and looking at the attacks against her and why they don't debunk the Church. Whether from atheists, the government, political groups, non Catholics or dissenters within the Church, the Church does stand in opposition to the world and must say "this is not right."

Who can say what will need to be addressed in the next year and what my obligations will require?

Thanks to all my followers and those who stop by the blog.

God Bless.

URGENT: USCCB Action Alert on Conscience Protection

2011-09-17T06:58:00.001-07:00

Please check out and take action at this link on an action alert concerning the (lack of) freedom of conscience for religious groups in the latest Health and Human Services directives.

The USCCB writes:

On August 1, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued an "interim final rule" that will require virtually all private health plans to include coverage for all FDA-approved prescription contraceptives, sterilization procedures, and related "patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity." These are listed among "preventive services for women" that all health plans will have to include without co-pays or other cost-sharing -- regardless of whether the insurer, the employer or other plan sponsor, or even the woman herself objects to such coverage.

Concerned Americans have until September 30 to send their comments to HHS.

Thoughts on Fr. Pavone–Updated

2011-09-13T17:01:00.001-07:00

Update: Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters, has a good analysis of the situation HERE. We should keep Fr. Pavone and his Bishop in our prayers.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

There has been news going about that Fr. Pavone of the Priests for Life has been restricted by his bishop to ministry within his diocese. Fr. Pavone has been obedient to this order, though differing reports indicate he may appeal to Rome (I cannot confirm this independently).

What I find problematic is that there is already an "it's about the money" response, similar to one which went about during the incident with Fr. Corapi.

Remember this is rash judgment at the very least to begin speculating about whether someone has done wrong. Let us first be patient and learn the facts before we say either, "I knew Fr. Pavone was no good" or "Yet another case of a bishop suppressing a good priest."

After all, it might turn out neither accusation is true.

Partisan Secularism

2011-09-09T10:50:00.001-07:00

I've been thinking about the concept of the "Separation of Church and State." In theory, it means the government gives neither favor nor hindrance to any religion. Yet, in practice it means that the state silences religion when it comes to the matters of public affairs and shows favor to secularism which is antagonistic to religion.

So essentially, in America, we have a view which says institutions which believe in God should have no say in speaking on issues involving legislation while those which either deny the existence of God or else treat it as unimportant are allowed to interfere to the extent they choose without restriction.

So when one considers this, we can see that we have a legal system in America which stands the first amendment on its head. Churches have to be careful about speaking out on abortion or gay marriage lest they suffer tax penalties for "lobbying." Yet non-religious organizations can lobby without concern.

I find it interesting that one common response I've seen in comboxes is the concept that since we're not treated like religion is being treated in China, we're not being treated wrongly. Such a view is an either-or fallacy.

Either Religion in America is [persecuted like it is in China] or it is [not treated unfairly]. (Either [A] or [B]).
Religion in America is not [persecuted like it is in China] (Not [A])
Therefore it is [not treated unfairly]. (Therefore [B])

The error of such a view is that one need not reach the levels of persecution in China to treat religion unfairly.

What is overlooked is that in modern times, religion is viewed as yet another institution when it comes to denying the existence and authority of God (it is not given any special heed) on one hand but treated as "pushing their views on others" when it comes to speaking out on the problems of society.

Essentially this means that a secular group is permitted to seek to influence others but a religious group is not.

When one view is permitted to act and speak freely but another is not allowed to do the same, we call this unjust and showing partiality. We call it partisan.

Yet this partisanship and partiality exists in America today. Religion is not free. This doesn't mean we're overtly persecuted (as some atheists have mockingly used as a straw man). However, it does mean the state has shown itself to show partiality to secularism – giving them a free range to speak and act while restricting how churches may speak out on issues concerning the nation. When secular institutions which favor homosexual couples adopting children and restrict religious institutions which say this is wrong, this is in fact partisan behavior in favor of secular beliefs.

This is why I believe America is no longer a free nation in terms of religion. Yes, I am free to write this blog, yes there is Catholic radio and TV out there which can broadcast without interference. However, when the state shows partiality to one side it follows the other side is either hindered or not given the same rights.

Reflections on Modernism

2011-09-04T17:42:00.001-07:00

The simpleton believes everything,

but the shrewd man measures his steps.

The wise man is cautious and shuns evil;

the fool is reckless and sure of himself. (Proverbs 14:15-16)

Introduction

Occasionally, when I write about traditionalist dissent, I get questions about why I write about this instead of modernist dissent. After all, isn't it a bigger threat to the Church than traditionalism? That kind of a question demonstrates just who is being threatened by heresy. "The Church" isn't threatened by heresy. We already have Christ's promise on this.

The threat of heresy is to people within the Church. Each one is a tool in the hands of Satan to deceive people. However, a skilled workman doesn't use a hammer for everything. He uses the right tool for the right job. Unfortunately, the devil is a skilled workman in seeking to deceive people. As a result, every heresy is a grave threat to people within the Church. So is every schism and every error because "using the right tool for the right job" is how the devil seeks to deceive the individual to reject the Church and ease the individual's mind from thinking about that fact or by thinking they are right to do so.

However, even though I have been writing as of late about errors which can deceive those trying to be faithful to the Church, it doesn't mean I think Modernism is less harmful. It can be terribly harmful. However the ones it harms are a different group of people than the people harmed by Traditionalist dissent.

The Difference between Modernist Error and Traditionalist Error

I am inclined to think that the difference is this. For those people who recognize that Christ made the Church necessary and that it is His will that we heed it, the idea that the Church has no authority is not likely to deceive him, but they may be deceived by those who claim to know the Church teachings better than they and claim there is a discrepancy.

What is commonly known as Modernism is more likely to snare those people either totally ignorant about their faith or those who dislike a certain Church teaching and would like an excuse to reject the authority of the Church either in part or totally.

With this in mind, let us take a look at the muddled waters of Modernism.

Grappling with a Definition of Modernism

One of the problems with defining Modernism, properly called, is that people often don't attack what is properly modernism but either an entirely different error or something which is not even an error at all. So before one can say Modernism is a grave threat to the Church, one has to be aware about what Modernism actually is.

The Oath Against Modernism of St. Pius X

Actually, a good place to begin is with the oath of St. Pius X, which was required for all who were involved with teaching and spiritual direction. The text affirms certain things all Catholics are to hold and rejects certain attitudes and theories which are contrary to the faith. What I find significant about this Oath is that the things affirmed and the things rejected revolve around whether God reveals things to man and whether man can know these things with intellect and reason.

Here is the text of the Oath:

THE OATH AGAINST MODERNISM Pope Pius X Given by His Holiness St. Pius X September 1, 1910.To be sworn to by all clergy, pastors, confessors, preachers, religious superiors, and professors in philosophical-theological seminaries.

I firmly embrace and accept each and every definition that has been set forth and declared by the unerring teaching authority of the Church, especially those principal truths which are directly opposed to the errors of this day.

And first of all, I profess that God, the origin and end of all things, can be known with certainty by the natural light of reason from the created world (see Rom. 1:90), that is, from the visible works of creation, as a cause from its effects, and that, therefore, his existence can also be demonstrated.

Secondly, I accept and acknowledge the external proofs of revelation, that is, divine acts and especially miracles and prophecies as the surest signs of the divine origin of the Christian religion and I hold that these same proofs are well adapted to the understanding of all eras and all men, even of this time.

Thirdly, I believe with equally firm faith that the Church, the guardian and teacher of the revealed word, was personally instituted by the real and historical Christ when he lived among us, and that the Church was built upon Peter, the prince of the apostolic hierarchy, and his successors for the duration of time.

Fourthly, I sincerely hold that the doctrine of faith was handed down to us from the apostles through the orthodox Fathers in exactly the same meaning and always in the same purport. Therefore, I entirely reject the heretical misrepresentation that dogmas evolve and change from one meaning to another different from the one which the Church held previously. I also condemn every error according to which, in place of the divine deposit which has been given to the spouse of Christ to be carefully guarded by her, there is put a philosophical figment or product of a human conscience that has gradually been developed by human effort and will continue to develop indefinitely.

Fifthly, I hold with certainty and sincerely confess that faith is not a blind sentiment of religion welling up from the depths of the subconscious under the impulse of the heart and the motion of a will trained to morality; but faith is a genuine assent of the intellect to truth received by hearing from an external source. By this assent, because of the authority of the supremely truthful God, we believe to be true that which has been revealed and attested to by a personal God, our Creator and Lord.

Furthermore, with due reverence, I submit and adhere with my whole heart to the condemnations, declarations, and all the prescripts contained in the encyclical Pascendi and in the decree Lamentabili, especially those concerning what is known as the history of dogmas. I also reject the error of those who say that the faith held by the Church can contradict history, and that Catholic dogmas, in the sense in which they are now understood, are irreconcilable with a more realistic view of the origins of the Christian religion. I also condemn and reject the opinion of those who say that a well-educated Christian assumes a dual personality-that of a believer and at the same time of a historian, as if it were permissible for a historian to hold things that contradict the faith of the believer, or to establish premises which, provided there be no direct denial of dogmas, would lead to the conclusion that dogmas are either false or doubtful. Likewise, I reject that method of judging and interpreting Sacred Scripture which, departing from the tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See, embraces the misrepresentations of the rationalists and with no prudence or restraint adopts textual criticism as the one and supreme norm.

Furthermore, I reject the opinion of those who hold that a professor lecturing or writing on a historico-theological subject should first put aside any preconceived opinion about the supernatural origin of Catholic tradition or about the divine promise of help to preserve all revealed truth forever; and that they should then interpret the writings of each of the Fathers solely by scientific principles, excluding all sacred authority, and with the same liberty of judgment that is common in the investigation of all ordinary historical documents.

Finally, I declare that I am completely opposed to the error of the modernists who hold that there is nothing divine in sacred tradition; or what is far worse, say that there is, but in a pantheistic sense, with the result that there would remain nothing but this plain simple fact-one to be put on a par with the ordinary facts of history-the fact, namely, that a group of men by their own labor, skill, and talent have continued through subsequent ages a school begun by Christ and his apostles. I firmly hold, then, and shall hold to my dying breath the belief of the Fathers in the charism of truth, which certainly is, was, and always will be in the succession of the episcopacy from the apostles. The purpose of this is, then, not that dogma may be tailored according to what seems better and more suited to the culture of each age; rather, that the absolute and immutable truth preached by the apostles from the beginning may never be believed to be different, may never be understood in any other way.

I promise that I shall keep all these articles faithfully, entirely, and sincerely, and guard them inviolate, in no way deviating from them in teaching or in any way in word or in writing. Thus I promise, this I swear, so help me God. . .

The Anti-Modernist oath is a good oath (I would take it without qualms if asked) in rejecting attitudes which are contrary to our faith in Christ and our belief that He protects His Church from error. The Oath requires the Catholic taking it to affirm certain truths and reject certain errors.

In the paragraphs of this oath, it requires the faithful Catholic to hold the following:

God can be known from reason and from the evidence of creation.
The acceptance of Divine Revelation
The Church was established by Christ with the primacy of Peter.
The doctrine of faith handed down to us by the Apostles continues with the same meaning and the same purpose. Doctrines do not evolve from one thing to another.
Faith is an intellectual assent, not a sentiment.

It also requires Catholics to reject certain mindsets:

That we must reject the view that the Catholic faith requires us to hold contradictory positions between faith and science.
Interpretations of Scripture contrary to tradition of the Church, the analogy of faith, and the norms of the Apostolic See.
That the teacher of the faith must put aside the belief of the supernatural origin of the faith and reject all authority of the Church in interpretation.
The denial of the divine in Sacred Tradition, claiming that the teachings of the Church are merely a school of thought developed by the Apostles.

We can see from the Oath against Modernism that Modernism is a denial of the supernatural revelation and thus a denial of the fact that the Church has her authority from Christ.

What Modernism is NOT

Unfortunately, nowadays, Modernism is used by certain critics of the Church to mean, "to the left of me politically." This is especially annoying because the Catholic teachings are beyond "left" and "right." In fact Liberalism and Conservatism need to be judged by Church teaching and not vice versa.

To put it bluntly, if a Catholic claims that a Church doctrine is "too liberal" or "too conservative," that statement displays an error in understanding the nature and authority of Church teaching.

Even if it were true, which needs to be established as true, that all Modernists are liberal (all [A] are [B]), it does not mean that therefore all liberals are modernist (all [B] is [A]). Therefore it would be an error to say that because Bishop So-and-So takes a position on social justice that a member of the laity thinks is motivated by liberal politics, it means this bishop is a modernist.

(Even if All [A] is a Part of [B], it does not automatically mean All [B] is a Part of [A])

Most of the throwing of "Modernist" around as an epithet involve issues which have nothing to do with actual Modernism. American Bishops who speak out on social issues are called "Modernist." Vatican II is sometimes accused of being "Modernist." Such comments betray an ignorance not only of what Modernism is, but also on what the Catholic Church actually believes on the subject of social teachings.

Since Modernism is a rejection of the Divine origin and authority of the Church and a rejection that her teachings will be protected from error, a person who is to be accused to be accused of Modernism would need to display signs of rejecting the authority of the Magisterium and the denial that the Church teaches with divine authority unchanging truths.

So, the following could be examples of Modernism:

To deny the Catholic belief of the soul being directly created by God on the grounds that Evolution "proved" human consciousness developed over time would be an example of a Modernist error.
The denial that Jesus Christ knew He was God and worked miracles on the grounds that "Science proves miracles can't happen" is also a Modernist error.
Because things tend to progress from simple to complex, the early Church was not hierarchical and sacramental but these things were added over time is another type of the modernist error.

However, the following would not be examples of Modernism by themselves:

Accepting Evolution within the parameters defined by the Church.
A Bishop speaking about social injustices in America.
A Vatican II statement saying the state does not have the authority to coerce what people must believe.

The difference is the first group shows a rejection of the Catholic teachings and authority. The second group does not.

So ultimately, Modernism is a rejection of the beliefs and teachings of the Church, whether overtly or through subtle undermining.

Why Modernism is Dangerous and to Whom

Modernism is a dangerous error of course. However, it is dangerous to a different group of individuals than radical traditionalism. Radical Traditionalism is an error dangerous to people who accept the authority of the Church and are troubled by the current rebellion within her. Modernism, on the other hand, is dangerous to people who are ignorant about their faith, to people looking to find a reason to disobey a Church teaching they don't like, and to people who excessive reliance on the Scientific Method in situations where it is not authoritative.

So the person who would want to find a reason why they could contracept, to the person who is so uninformed about the faith that they believe the educated modernist must know better than they or to the person who believes the scientific method can solve everything, Modernism can indeed form a stumbling block to the true faith.

Modernism is also dangerous to the faithful in a way. Because there are still people out there who claim that Jesus "walked on a sandbar," people who claim that the feeding of the 5000 was nothing more than a big Potluck dinner and people who claim that the prohibition against contraception was the invention of priests, it becomes easy to suspect any Catholic who expresses the faith in a different way.

In that case, I would remind people that "a little knowledge is dangerous," and it is rash judgment to accuse the Church of being "soft on modernists" until one is sure they fully understand what Modernism is and whether the disliked person is actually guilty of Modernism. Since it is the magisterium, not the private individual, who has the authority to make this decision, it is the Magisterium which decides whether there is an error and whether it is an error of modernism.

Defenses Against Modernism

Modernism is an error, but it is not one destined to triumph against the Church. The person who seeks to be faithful to the Church established by Christ and obedient to those to whom He entrusted the responsibility and authority of leading it, can avoid the errors which lead to heresy or schism. We do need to remember certain things.

First of all, we must remember that Christ protects the Church He established and protects her from teaching error. Second, we must remember Christ gave the authority to the Pope and those Bishops in communion with Him the authority to bind and loose.

If we lose faith in these things, the devil has deceived us into disobedience.

We should also keep in mind the following points:

The Church teachings are neither conservative or liberal and are not to be judged as being right or wrong depending on whether they are viewed by an individual as too liberal or conservative.
Our personal interpretations of Church teachings can err and does not outweigh the Magisterial authority.
The Bishop, Priest, religious or member of the laity who misuses or acts against Church teaching is not evidence of the whole being affected.
Remembering that there is no dividing line on which the Church was right and then became wrong. The Church was not wrong before Vatican II and right after, Nor was she right before Vatican II and right after. The same teaching is consistently taught from the Magisterium.

If we remember these things, placing our faith in Christ as protecting His Church, we will neither be deceived by Modernism nor by the fear that the "whole Church" is affected by Modernism.

So in conclusion, if we would be protected from error which would threaten our salvation we must remain within the Church, obedient to the Magisterium and recognizing that the authority and protection given her by Christ remains with her today in the Magisterium.

TFTD: Brief Thoughts on the Movement to Recall the Youcat

2011-08-23T10:07:00.001-07:00

There's a movement out there to "recall" the Youcat on grounds that it's filled with errors which will mislead the youth.

Having been working my way through it, and comparing it to the arguments of those who oppose it I'd have to say this:

I'd rather have the youth inspired by the Youcat than by the attempts at theology of those who oppose it.

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

2011-08-18T09:50:00.001-07:00

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

Since we have heard that some of our number (who went out) without any mandate from us have upset you with their teachings and disturbed your peace of mind… (Acts 15:24)

Preliminary Note: This article does not have any specific blogger in mind when writing this. Nor am I judging the state of any person's soul. I am merely stating that certain behavior is wrong, whether the person who holds to such beliefs does so sincerely or not.

Introduction

There are a growing number of Catholics who were perhaps once less informed and less diligent in their faith and have been granted the grace to seek to grow in their faith and to be more steadfast. They recognize that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ and seek to grow more faithful. Yet we do see disputes on the internet. Certain bloggers say that true Catholics must heed [X] while others say [X] is a modernist heresy. This leaves the Catholic seeking to be faithful in a quandary. What are they to make of these disputes?

The Mark of the Counterfeit Catholic

I firmly believe we have a sure sign which shows us whose presentation of the Catholic faith is counterfeit: If the blogger or writer sets himself or herself as a judge of the Magisterium, they are not authentic, but counterfeit.

Christ Gives the Church His Authority

It is undeniable for anyone who would be authentically Catholic that Jesus Christ linked Himself with His Church. He placed His Church into the hands of the Apostles with Peter as the visible head of the Church, saying that what they bound on Earth would be bound in Heaven (Matt 16:19, Matt: 18:18). He made clear that those who rejected them rejected Him (Luke 10:16), and that if any would not listen to the Church, they were to be treated as a tax collector (Matt 18:17).

Since He said these things and also told us that if we love Him we will keep His commandments (John 14:15), and that if we keep His commandments we will abide in His love (John 15:10) it follows that in order to follow Christ, we must follow the Church.

Finally, Jesus provides us with a graphic example of being tied to His Church in Acts 9:

¹Now Saul, still breathing murderous threats against the disciples of the Lord, went to the high priest

²and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, that, if he should find any men or women who belonged to the Way, he might bring them back to Jerusalem in chains.

³On his journey, as he was nearing Damascus, a light from the sky suddenly flashed around him.

⁴He fell to the ground and heard a voice saying to him, “Saul, Saul, why are you persecuting me?”

⁵He said, “Who are you, sir?” The reply came, “I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting.

Note He did not say, "Why are you persecuting my people?" He said "why are you persecuting me?" An attack on Christ's Church is an attack on Christ.

In short, Jesus established a Church in which those to whom He entrusted it were to have the authority to govern it and to teach, and made clear that a rejection of those to whom He gave this authority was a rejection of Him.

The Arrogance of Those Who Judge the Magisterium

Yet in spite of this testimony, we have certain people and groups who claim to be authentically Catholic and yet dare to say that recent popes have taught error and that the Bishops in communion with the Pope are not to be listened to. Such people have the arrogance to make themselves an authority and an arbiter between God and His Church, declaring themselves to be in the right and the Church to be in the wrong. They say this even though Jesus Christ promised that the Gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would always be with His Church (Matt 28:20).

This arrogance is not simply found in the sedevacantists (those who deny we have a valid Pope) and the SSPX. We see many out there who argue one can be a faithful Catholic and reject Vatican II. We see people out there who accuse modern Church teachings to be "modernist" simply because it does not square with their personal readings of the individual who judges the Church.

Ironically, such persons become little different than the liberal dissenters who deny the authority of the Church to teach on matters on sexual morality. They pick and choose what is "authentically" Catholic and judge the Magisterium based on this arbitrary decision.

I would now like to discuss certain statements which can be seen as giant warnings of counterfeit Catholicism.

1) "I'm Not Disobedient. I'm Being Faithful to Past Popes and Councils."

Consider this statement a giant red flag. Such a person claims that the current Magisterial teaching on a subject is contrary to past teachings of the Church. However, such a person is making an assumption which needs to be proven: That he or she correctly interprets the Patristics, the Popes and the Councils while the current Magisterium does not.

This is essentially a Catholicized form of the Private Interpretation which certain Protestants rely on and is essentially a "No True Scotsman" fallacy:

No TRUE Catholic Holds [X].
The Magisterium holds [X].
Therefore the Magisterium is not truly Catholic.

No matter what attempt a person may make to show why this individual is wrong, the individual will reject it as not being "truly Catholic."

What such things ignore is twofold: That he properly understands the past teachings in context and that he properly understands the current teaching. If the individual errs on even one of the two, any judgments he makes on whether a current magisterial teaching is valid must be flawed.

Even without such a consideration, Catholics seeking to be authentic can justly ask the person judging the Magisterium the following:

On What Basis Do YOU Claim the Authority to Authentically Interpret Church Teachings Against the Church?

The Popes can point to their succession from Peter and the Bishops can point to their succession from the Apostles. The individual claiming to judge the Magisterium can do neither.

Blessed Pope John Paul II had pointed out the errors which leads to this sort of mindset:

4. The root of this schismatic act can be discerned in an incomplete and contradictory notion of Tradition. Incomplete, because it does not take sufficiently into account the living character of Tradition, which, as the Second Vatican Council clearly taught, "comes from the apostles and progresses in the Church with the help of the Holy Spirit. There is a growth in insight into the realities and words that are being passed on. This comes about in various ways. It comes through the contemplation and study of believers who ponder these things in their hearts. It comes from the intimate sense of spiritual realities which they experience. And it comes from the preaching of those who have received, along with their right of succession in the episcopate, the sure charism of truth".(5)

But especially contradictory is a notion of Tradition which opposes the universal Magisterium of the Church possessed by the Bishop of Rome and the Body of Bishops. It is impossible to remain faithful to the Tradition while breaking the ecclesial bond with him to whom, in the person of the Apostle Peter, Christ himself entrusted the ministry of unity in his Church.(6)

(Ecclesia Dei #4)

It is an important point. The Magisterial teaching of the Church did not freeze in 1962. Nor did it freeze in 1870 or the end of the Council of Trent. Tradition is LIVING. Our understanding grows. The Church has never said [X] before Vatican II and then [Not-X] after Vatican II. The Church will never deny she is the True Church. However, she will grow in understanding as to what this means in terms of the power of the state and decree that the state does not possess the authority to force men to do what these men believe to be evil.

2) "History Shows Past Popes Have Had to Be Corrected"

This is deceptive. Certain Popes have of course had personal moral failings, but they have NEVER been corrected when it came to making a formal teaching on faith and morals. This applies to personal writings. Pope Benedict XVI wrote Jesus of Nazareth as a private person. He wrote Caritas in Veritate as the Pope.

Essentially this is the "We had to destroy the village in order to liberate it" statement. To defend a personal view of what the Catholic faith is, it ends up denying the authority of the Pope and the Bishops in order to do so.

We can then apply a reductio ad absurdum to their claim:

If the Vatican II and Post-Vatican II Magisterium fell into error, how do we know the Pre-Vatican II Church didn't?

If Christ failed to protect the Church after 1962, what assurance do we have He protected the Church before 1962?

3) "Church Teaching [X] is not ex cathedra and therefore is not binding"

This one is probably the most dishonest argument and one which actually supplies ammunition to anyone (Atheist, Protestant, Modernist) who wants to attack the authority of the Church. Because it attempts to limit binding teaching to the infallible definitions and claims anything else is not binding, anyone who wants to attack a Church teaching can simply demand to see an ex cathedra (from the Chair) declaration. In fact certain dissenters have made use of this in trying to deny the authority of the Church teaching on contraception ("Well, Humanae Vitae wasn't infallible so I don't have to obey it!").

This sort of view is a distortion of Church teaching. The infallible definition is a strict definition used to make a specific statement about what must be believed. However the infallible declaration is not the only way the Church teaches. In fact the Church calls it an exercise of extraordinary (extraordinarius, from extra ordinem ‘outside the normal course of events) Magisterium. The Church uses the infallible declaration in rare circumstances when she thinks it is necessary.

However, the Church has never taught that the Ex cathedra is the sole method of teaching.

Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Church teaches in official documents, one cannot reject it on the grounds it isn't ex cathedra.

Moreover Vatican I in 1870 decreed:

2. Wherefore we teach and declare that, by divine ordinance, the Roman Church possesses a pre-eminence of ordinary power over every other Church, and that this jurisdictional power of the Roman Pontiff is both episcopal and immediate. Both clergy and faithful, of whatever rite and dignity, both singly and collectively, are bound to submit to this power by the duty of hierarchical subordination and true obedience, and this not only in matters concerning faith and morals, but also in those which regard the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world. (Pastor Aeternus Chapter 2)

This brings us to the Catechism of the Catholic Church which teaches:

2033 The Magisterium of the Pastors of the Church in moral matters is ordinarily exercised in catechesis and preaching, with the help of the works of theologians and spiritual authors. Thus from generation to generation, under the aegis and vigilance of the pastors, the "deposit" of Christian moral teaching has been handed on, a deposit composed of a characteristic body of rules, commandments, and virtues proceeding from faith in Christ and animated by charity. Alongside the Creed and the Our Father, the basis for this catechesis has traditionally been the Decalogue which sets out the principles of moral life valid for all men.

So we can see that the teaching authority (the Magisterium) of the Church is ordinarily carried out in the catechesis and preaching – NOT in ex cathedra statements. Yes that is the highest level of teaching (See #2035). But it does not negate the others. Even in "merely" disciplinary matters the Church is to be heeded with docility:

2037 The law of God entrusted to the Church is taught to the faithful as the way of life and truth. the faithful therefore have the right to be instructed in the divine saving precepts that purify judgment and, with grace, heal wounded human reason.⁷⁹ They have the duty of observing the constitutions and decrees conveyed by the legitimate authority of the Church. Even if they concern disciplinary matters, these determinations call for docility in charity.

I believe this adequately shows that the appeal to ex cathedra alone is a denial of the full authority of the teaching authority of the Church.

Basically the person who uses this argument to deny Church authority in fact makes use of the fallacy of bifurcation: Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding]. However, if there is an option other than these, then the either-or is a false choice. Since the Church makes clear that it is NOT Either [Ex Cathedra] or [Not Binding] we can see such an argument shows the one who employs it is making a false statement (whether knowingly or not) about the authority of Church teaching.

Of course the fact that such a person makes a false statement shows he or she is not qualified to judge the Magisterium.

We can actually take the "Where does the Bible teach Sola Scriptura?" argument and apply it to these would-be judges and ask:

What ex cathedra statement teaches that only an ex cathedra statement is binding?

Conclusion

Jesus said, "I am the vine, you are the branches. Whoever remains in me and I in him will bear much fruit, because without me you can do nothing. (John 15:5)" Since we have already seen above that Jesus links His authority to that of the Church, it follows that without His Church we can do nothing. This is not because of any special property the Church has in her own right – it is solely because the Church receives her authority from Christ who sends the Church forth (see Matt 28:18).

Because of this, when one rejects the Church in a matter where she claims authority, such a person cannot claim to authentically represent the Church and the Catholic seeking guidance should recognize that such a would-be teacher is in fact peddling a counterfeit Catholicism.

Parenthesis: Does the Arnobius of Sicca Blog Practices What it Preaches?

I certainly do my best to do so. I claim no authority whatsoever to judge the Magisterium. Individual bishops may concern me at times and I may at times struggle to understand the teachings of why the Church acts as she does. However, I want to make it clear that I never want this blog to be viewed in opposition to the Magisterium. If (GOD FORBID) I should ever make a statement which seems to be contrary to the teaching of the Magisterium (I assure you this would never be deliberate), then please go with the Magisterium and do not invoke me as a source against it.

I believe I personally have no authority to bind and loose, and this blog exists to point to the authority of the Church as well as to defend the teaching authority from those who reject it.

If I seem to claim any other source of authority for myself in any of my writings (past, present or future) I apologize for writing unclearly.

TFTD: The ME Magisterium

2011-08-15T09:59:00.001-07:00

Preliminary Note: Obviously, I'm not saying ANYTHING a priest or bishop does must be right. However, when the Pope or bishop teaches authoritatively, even if not ex cathedra, we are bound to obey. I think there is a great deal of confusion about this.

Introduction

In a past blog, I mentioned offhand that I thought the work Father Elijah by Michael O'Brien was mediocre. As I struggled to reread it last night, I've decided it is about as wretched and dubious as the Left Behind books, although in a different way. The reason I have come to this conclusion is because the author presents the Church (whether intentionally or not) as being good or bad depending on whether the Church follows his views. In the book, the Pope and certain bishops and priests are shown to be good people. The rest are portrayed to be bad people, being cowardly, or acting out of malice. In this work of fiction (which needs to be stressed. It's not a doctrinal work) These good priests and bishops fit a mindset which O'Brien approves of. The rest are either part of a cabal or are under pressure from a cabal which seeks to subvert Church teaching.

It's a mindset which also appears on certain Catholic blogs. There is a heroic minority, loyal to the Pope (usually) in the face of a widespread attempt to subvert the Church.

I find a tendency to "Either-Or" thinking here. Either a priest or bishop is flawless OR he is someone to be rejected. Such a view has no place for the concept of the man afflicted by original sin, who can make errors of judgment without being a heretic maliciously plotting the downfall of the Church.

The Danger of Overconfidence in Our Own Righteousness

I guess what I fear about this kind of thinking is that it is easy to fall into the error. It can lead towards the idea that our idea of the Church is the right one, and the Pope and the Bishops and the Priests stand judged on whether they live up to our ideals. There is also a tendency to make everything wrong within the Church out to be a case of organized malice. Modernist priests and nuns are seen as proof of a conspiracy to remake the Church into some sort of liberal social group.

Then when the Magisterium of the Church does something we dislike it is taken as proof of the Church being under the influence of these individuals and their philosophy. Reception of the Eucharist in the Hand? Mass in the Vernacular? Altar Girls? Bishops condemning injustice in American Immigration policies? Obviously the Church must be under the influence of the liberals and modernists!

This mindset is ironically very similar to that of the liberals within the Church, who believe that we are proof that the Church is under the influence of radical conservatives who are seeking to subvert the true Spirit of the Church. Thus the Magisterium gets accused by both sides of being tools of the other side.

I'm inclined to think the problem within the Church is actually something along these lines. We confuse our preferences with Church teaching, and if the Church teaching goes against what we think is best, well it must mean the Church is wrong:

Ultimately we need to remember something. Christ is the head of the Church. He has entrusted to the Successor of Peter (Matthew 16:19) and to the College of Bishops in communion with him (Matthew 18:18) and He has promised that the gates of hell would not prevail against the Church (Matthew 16:18) and that he would be with the Church always (Matthew 28:20). The Church will not err when it comes to a matter involving our salvation.

Individual Flaws in a Flawless Church

This doesn't mean that the individuals within the Magisterium will always behave in a manner which is flawless. Remember, the Apostles ran away when Jesus was arrested. Peter's personal behavior in Galatia needed to be rebuked by Paul (Galatians 2:11-14). That doesn't mean the Apostles were never again to be trusted. It means the Lord chose men who were sinners – like we all are – with the task of carrying out His mission in bringing the message of salvation to the whole world.

Yes, we can have embarrassing incidents where the Pope kisses the Koran not realizing his actions will be misinterpreted. Yes we can have scandalous incidents, such as bishops kicking things under the table (like the sexual abuse scandals) or ignoring liturgical abuses – hoping these things will go away if ignored. It's not wrong to be troubled by these things.

Since the bishop is supposed to be the witness to the faith, since he is supposed to be the successor to the Apostles, we should be able to look to him as a source of strong teaching. However, we need to distinguish between the Bishop who teaches authoritatively and the individual who wears the mitre making a bad judgment or actually sinning.

A bad judgment does not automatically mean a heretical priest or bishop. Nor does a sinful action on the part of the priest or bishop.

I think I should also point out that just because the Pope, Bishop or Priest acts in a way which we dislike does NOT automatically mean he is a heretic or exercising bad judgment. We have to recognize the possibility of our own misunderstanding of Church teaching. We have to recognize that some members of the Magisterium may intend to do right, and make an error on the best way to act in following Church teaching.

Conclusion

But let us not fall into the mindset that because some have caused scandal that the whole is corrupt. Especially let us not fall into the mindset that we cannot fall into error. We can and do. Jesus Christ gave us a Church which does have the authority to teach and which the Holy Spirit prevents from teaching error.

If we forget this, we can be deceived into deifying our own likes into dogmas and judging the legitimate authority by our authority.

We must always pray to be protected from error… both ourselves and those who have been entrusted with the position of leading the Church.

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

2011-08-02T09:10:00.001-07:00

Preliminary Note:

It is not my interest to defend Bishop Hubbard and claim everything in Albany is hunky-dory. It is my interest in speaking out against what seems to be a growing distraction among Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church – a distraction which seems to set aside Magisterial authority whenever one does not like the political implications of what is said.

Whenever Catholics judge a teaching from their political slant instead of judging a political view from Church teaching, there Catholics have lost their way.

Those of us who seek to be faithful to the teachings of the Church need to realize that dissent isn't something which only happens to others. The Pharisees were pious men, seeking to be faithful to the teachings of the law, but their views were not in keeping with the holiness God calls us to.

I don't say any specific Catholic is guilty of this, but I do say all of us are obligated to examine our consciences daily and examine our political views to see if they are contrary to the teachings of the Church.

So any reader who thinks I am indicting any specific Catholic interprets me wrongly.

With Growing Concern

One thing the whole budget squabble brings home is that Cafeteria Catholicism isn't only a liberal thing. Conservatives may not dissent over moral issues, but I think the issue of the social teachings of the Church are overlooked. Moreover, I think that like liberals, conservatives also make use of the genetic fallacy, with both writing off the statement of a bishop because he is identified with a disliked political stance.

For example, Bishop Hubbard's July 26 statement to the House of Representatives is derided by some bloggers on the grounds that he is a liberal who did not act against Governor Cuomo in some of his public sins. Maybe that accusation of liberalism is true, maybe it is not (one thing I've learned from the blogging experience is we don't always know what goes behind the scenes). Either way, that does not mean his statement is false just because he is accused of being liberal.

In fact, I find his three points to be in keeping with the Church teaching as a whole:

Every budget decision should be assessed by whether it protects or threatens human life and dignity.
A central moral measure of any budget proposal is how it affects “the least of these” (Matthew 25). The needs of those who are hungry and homeless, without work or in poverty should come first.
Government and other institutions have a shared responsibility to promote the common good of all, especially ordinary workers and families who struggle to live in dignity in difficult economic times.

In other words, budget cuts can't disproportionately affect those in need of our help. If a cut will prevent those from receiving what is needed to survive, it is not a budget which protects human life and dignity. I don't see anything in these points (or in the whole statement) which was not stated in Caritas in Veritate.

What we need to remember is this: There can be debate over what the best means are to be faithful to the social teaching of the Church. There can't be debate over the Social Teaching of the Church.

We need to avoid the error of reductionism. Just because socialistic programs in government may share certain points with the Catholic Social Teaching, it does not follow that the position spoken of by a Catholic Bishop is "nothing but" support for a socialistic program.

Now, I am not saying it is evil to be conservative (I'm sure most liberals would label me as one for example, and I think Obama's regime has been disastrous for the moral and religious state of this nation).

However, I am saying it is evil to ignore Church teaching on a subject.

Each person will have to look to the teaching of the Church and their own political views and see if there is a need for conversion .

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

2011-07-28T10:07:00.000-07:00

Antichrist 1. Person who will appear in the last days in fulfillment of apocalyptic prophecies to destroy the church and slaughter the saints of God. 2. Spirit of opposition to Christ as expressed in persecution of Christians or restrictions on the free expression of Christian faith.

Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

Thought For the Day

I'd been reading some apocalyptic Christian fiction (the wretched Left Behind and the mediocre Father Elijah). The general presentation of the Antichrist is a sort of charismatic liberal type who makes some modest proposals which leads the world to a Black Helicopter UN dominated world where Christians are targeted if they hold to their faith. Many nominal Christians, in this view, are deceived and led to apostatize.

Now there's nothing necessarily wrong with this view. It merely reflects the concern over deep moral errors the world is falling into in this time. It also reflects the interpretation of 1 John where the antichrist is said to deny Christ. Liberals seem to negate Christ as anything more than a good teacher for example.

Yet, would such an Antichrist really be anything more than a physical threat? The Christian trying to be faithful would most likely immediately spurn the message. Some might compromise out of fear and then be sorrowful. But would such an antichrist be a threat to the salvation of Christians?

But in reading these works, I was struck with this thought. What if the Antichrist isn't a Obama-like liberal but is instead a conservative? What if his message isn't some sort of terrifying Fascist/Communist monolith, but is instead a conservative who merely wants us to "burn a pinch of incense" at the altar of expedience, to compromise our faith slightly. To perhaps encourage the faithful to side with a view that appeals to our conservative beliefs but goes against Church teaching. What if those who refused to go along with this sort of a view were the ones singled out and attacked as standing with the liberals?

Wouldn't that be a danger to many men and women trying to be faithful? That they might be tempted to compromise slightly – especially if they were convinced the Church was filled with corruption?

Now this Thought for the Day may be completely without merit. But I do think it is a danger to assume that the only threats to the faith come from the political Left. Any view, whether Conservative or Liberal, which runs contrary to our faith is to be rejected. None of us should think that "Because I am not [X], I will not be deceived."

Let us remember the warning of St. Paul:

¹²Therefore, whoever thinks he is standing secure should take care not to fall. (1 Cor. 10:12)

Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference

2011-07-25T09:05:00.001-07:00

One of the more irritating things I come across in the Catholic blogosphere is the amount of confusion there is over Doctrine vs. Preference. We see many people throw around the accusation of heresy about things which are not in fact heretical. There is no obstinate post-baptismal denial about some truth the Catholic faith. There is no defiance against Church teaching. Rather the person who throws around the accusation is elevating his or her preferences to the level of doctrine, saying in effect, "I'm right in my practice of the faith. You do something I disagree with. Therefore you're heretical (or blasphemous or any other invective)."

Thus people who like Marty Hagen hymns, people who receive the Eucharist in the hand, people who don't have problems with the Ordinary form of the Mass tend to be labeled as anything from heretical to being deceived about the "true" faith.

If one prefers the Gregorian Chant, reception of the Eucharist on the tongue or the Latin Mass of the 1962 missal, fine. These are elements of Catholicism and so long as they are done from a perspective of what helps them enter a peace of mind to focus on God, that is good.

However, once it becomes an attitude of "I am superior to you!" or "anyone who disagrees is not an authentic Catholic" it is no longer good, but rather it becomes an attitude of pride.

Remember, we're not talking about people who dissent from Catholic moral teaching here. We're not talking about the Cafeteria Catholic who claims that they are allowed to disobey the Church when she teaches about what we must and must not do. We are talking about people who fly into a rage because the music director plays Shine Jesus Shine at Mass.

It might not be more than annoyance, but some people go so far as to accuse the magisterium of "heresy." Such a view is dangerous indeed. Once we make ourselves the judge of what the Church can and cannot teach, we separate ourselves from the Church when our views part ways from the Catholic teaching.

So let's remember something here…

We aren't the Pope.

So just because we dislike a thing aesthetically does not make such a thing "wrong." We have no authority to bind what the Church looses, nor the authority to loose what the Church binds. If a person feels more comfortable to receive the Eucharist in the hand, and the bishop has permitted it in his diocese, you have no right to look down on that person. Likewise, if we prefer something which the magisterial authority of the Church decides may no longer be done, the proper attitude is obedience, not defiance.

Otherwise we become guilty of true dissent… having a beam in our eye while focusing on the splinter in the eye of another.

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

2011-07-24T20:36:00.001-07:00

libel

[Arnobius of Sicca note: Ugh… I meant "Libel" but typed "slander." Edited to fix]

■ n.

1 Law the publication of a false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation. Compare with slander.

† such a statement; a written defamation.

1 Law defame by publishing a libel.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Introduction

I've been forcing myself to read the novel Left Behind (I figure I should be aware of famous works, even if I think they are in error), which is a story about the so-called Rapture. As I do so, I am reminded of a theme among certain Protestants (often repeated) which is an act of libel against the Catholic Church. That is the claim that Catholics believe we earn our salvation by doing "good works," and we are "owed" salvation if we do enough regardless of whether or not we believe in Christ.

Such a statement is so much repeated, especially among certain Evangelicals and Fundamentalists, that many would be surprised to learn we do not believe this at all.

That's right… one of the major arguments used to denounce the Catholic Church is a complete falsehood.

Some Evidence

Let's not get into an argument about whether I am "deceived" about what the Catholic Church really teaches. We'll do this by pointing not to my own writings, but to what the Church herself says about justification, grace and works.

In terms of Justification:

1992 Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. Its purpose is the glory of God and of Christ, and the gift of eternal life:⁴⁰

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from law, although the law and the prophets bear witness to it, the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: since all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, they are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as an expiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God's righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins; it was to prove at the present time that he himself is righteous and that he justifies him who has faith in Jesus.⁴¹ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

We believe when it comes to Grace:

1996 Our justification comes from the grace of God. Grace is favor, the free and undeserved help that God gives us to respond to his call to become children of God, adoptive sons, partakers of the divine nature and of eternal life.⁴⁶

1997 Grace is a participation in the life of God. It introduces us into the intimacy of Trinitarian life: by Baptism the Christian participates in the grace of Christ, the Head of his Body. As an "adopted son" he can henceforth call God "Father," in union with the only Son. He receives the life of the Spirit who breathes charity into him and who forms the Church.

1998 This vocation to eternal life is supernatural. It depends entirely on God's gratuitous initiative, for he alone can reveal and give himself. It surpasses the power of human intellect and will, as that of every other creature.⁴⁷ (Catechism of the Catholic Church)

When it comes to merit, we profess:

2007 With regard to God, there is no strict right to any merit on the part of man. Between God and us there is an immeasurable inequality, for we have received everything from him, our Creator.

2008 The merit of man before God in the Christian life arises from the fact that God has freely chosen to associate man with the work of his grace. the fatherly action of God is first on his own initiative, and then follows man's free acting through his collaboration, so that the merit of good works is to be attributed in the first place to the grace of God, then to the faithful. Man's merit, moreover, itself is due to God, for his good actions proceed in Christ, from the predispositions and assistance given by the Holy Spirit.

2009 Filial adoption, in making us partakers by grace in the divine nature, can bestow true merit on us as a result of God's gratuitous justice. This is our right by grace, the full right of love, making us "co-heirs" with Christ and worthy of obtaining "the promised inheritance of eternal life."⁶⁰ The merits of our good works are gifts of the divine goodness.⁶¹ "Grace has gone before us; now we are given what is due.... Our merits are God's gifts."⁶²

Nor is this merely a late change as some might accuse. The Catechism of the Council of Trent of the 16th century says:

For the grace of Christ is seen to abound more, inasmuch as it communicates to us not only what He merited and paid of Himself alone, but also what, as Head, He merited and paid in His members, that is, in holy and just men. Hence it can be seen how such great weight and dignity belong to the good actions of the pious. For Christ our Lord continually infuses His grace into the devout soul united to Him by charity, as the head to the members, or as the vine through the branches. This grace always precedes, accompanies and follows our good works, and without it we can have no merit, nor can we at all satisfy God. (emphasis added)

I believe this evidence should be enough to demonstrate that we believe our justification, grace and merits come from God and (if one follows the links) even the good we do is made possible by God.

I think it should be clear that the person who claims the Catholic believes God "owes" us anything on the grounds we "earn" our salvation by doing works slanders or libels us (depending on whether the accuser speaks or writes). We have no belief whatsoever about doing [X] amount of works or saying [Y] number of prayers will guarantee us Heaven. We believe God calls us to be faithful to Him and carry out His commands out of love for Him. Christ has said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments" (John 14:15). In a relationship of love, a person doesn't ask "How much do I have to do?" The person who loves does what he or she does as an expression of love.

The Implication

Now the person who repeats such a claim may not be acting with malice. He or she may sincerely believe what is said against us.

That does not let the individual off the hook however. To repeat a claim without finding out if it is true is unjust indeed. If I should repeat that Jones is a murderer simply on the grounds I have been told this, I am to blame for repeating a slander if Jones is innocent.

There's also another serious implication here: Protestantism has at least one false premise in its rejection of Catholicism.

Think of it. One of the reasons of the rejection of the Catholic Church was the belief that the Church put a person on an endless and futile quest to do "enough" to earn salvation. Yet we don't believe what we are accused of. Thus one justification for breaking away is… unjustified. In placing Sola Fide in opposition to "Works Alone" a straw man fallacy is committed.

The Catholic Church Holds [X]
The Anti-Catholic presents the Church as holding [Y] (a distortion of [X])
Position [Y] is attacked.
The illusion is The Catholic Church has been refuted on [X]

The truth is, the attack on [Y] is irrelevant. The Church teaching is [X] and it is [X] which needs to be examined.

To continue to accuse the Church of [Y] is to slander or libel the Church, whether through malice or negligence.

negligence

■ n. failure to take proper care over something.

† Law breach of a duty of care which results in damage.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action

2011-07-20T19:26:00.001-07:00

So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause

—Revenge of the Sith

(This is what happens when you try to post the linked article to Facebook)

An article was written on a Catholic blog concerning a Catholic couple being sued for refusing to allow their business to host a reception for a Homosexual "marriage." It's an excerpt from a longer article found here.

The couple stated:

“We have never refused rooms or dining or employment to gays or lesbians,” they wrote. “Many of our guests have been same-sex couples. We welcome and treat all people with respect and dignity. We do not however, feel that we can offer our personal services wholeheartedly to celebrate the marriage between same-sex couples because it goes against everything that we as Catholics believe in.”

So it's come to this. A Catholic who tries to keep to his faith and stand against what he believes to be immoral can now be sued for standing up against the state. I'm sorry but this sort of a thing is against everything I ever was proud about to be an American. Nazis can march on Skokie, Illinois. Klansmen can burn a cross on public land. Artists can show desecrated religious icons and all is well. But let a Christian seek to make a stand for what we believe and this is what happens.

We should pray for our nation, that the courts and the lawmakers see this and recognize that if this is allowed to go forward, we can no longer consider ourselves to be a free nation, but rather we can be said to be at best partially authoritarian.

It is also alarming that this sort of acceptance of losing our freedoms spreads further. Facebook censors this article from being posted. It is acceptable for people to post anti-Catholic material from pro-homosexual links, but this – which is simply a news article – is blocked because it is now determined we are not free to speak out on what is right or wrong. Think of it. This is not a Fred Phelps kind of article using slurs against homosexuals. It merely reports that Catholics are being sued for standing up for their faith. So it seems that speaking out against immoral acts is no longer permissible in society and perhaps it will soon be forbidden by law as well.

It is a sad thing. Our Bill of Rights once gave us the freedoms to do what our consciences obligated us to do. Now, we have favored classes which may never be questioned and certain beliefs that may never be questioned.

Yes, I know that Jesus did tell us:

²²Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

²³Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. (Luke 6:22-23)

However, that does not mean those who do this to us do right to persecute us.

Very well. I will follow the example of St. Thomas More and be faithful to my nation insofar as my nation does not ask me to disobey my God, for I must obey God instead of man if the laws of the nation are in conflict with Him, and I pray I will not falter if God calls on me to suffer for my faith and that He give me the grace to press on. Perhaps I worry for nothing. I am nobody important. But then, neither was this couple.

Just know that the injustice is not being done by the Catholic couple with a Vermont inn. It is being done by those who would deny us the right to follow our conscience and obey God.

On Dissent: Fundamental Issues in Understanding Church Teaching

2011-07-19T08:41:00.001-07:00

Introduction

²⁵You say, “The LORD’S way is not fair!” Hear now, house of Israel: Is it my way that is unfair, or rather, are not your ways unfair?

²⁶When a virtuous man turns away from virtue to commit iniquity, and dies, it is because of the iniquity he committed that he must die.

²⁷But if a wicked man, turning from the wickedness he has committed, does what is right and just, he shall preserve his life;

²⁸since he has turned away from all the sins which he committed, he shall surely live, he shall not die.

²⁹And yet the house of Israel says, “The LORD’S way is not fair!” Is it my way that is not fair, house of Israel, or rather, is it not that your ways are not fair?

³⁰Therefore I will judge you, house of Israel, each one according to his ways, says the Lord GOD. Turn and be converted from all your crimes, that they may be no cause of guilt for you.

³¹Cast away from you all the crimes you have committed, and make for yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. Why should you die, O house of Israel?

³²For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone who dies, says the Lord GOD. Return and live! (Ezekiel 18:25-32)

For one outside the Church, or for one inside the Church who does not understand a certain teaching, it is easy to be led astray by the concept of "If the Church would change its teaching on [X], things would be better." Other times, the Church stands accused of hating people who live in opposition to their teachings.

Such views demonstrate a fundamental error. Before we can ask "Why doesn't the Church change the teaching on [X]," we must first act whether the Church believes she even can change the teachings.

With this in mind, we need to address some fundamentals which show the problem with the objections to Church teaching and demands that she change. Understanding these will help us to see why the Church believes she cannot change and also to see why dissent is unacceptable for one who professes to believe what the Church teaches.

Principle #1: We Believe Christ is the Head of the Catholic Church

While certain anti-Catholics deny we are even Christian, and many non-Catholics believe we mix human error in with Christ's teaching, Catholics do believe Christ is the head of the Church. Therefore what the Church can make decisions on depends on what Christ has commanded. If the Church believes Christ has commanded a thing, we cannot forbid it. If the Church believes Christ has forbidden a thing, we cannot permit it.

This is an important point because regardless of whether a person accepts or rejects the claims of the Catholic Church, we believe that we cannot do otherwise and still remain faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ.

This is why the Catholic Church will never permit "Gay Marriage" or Remarriage if a person who is divorced still has a valid marriage. We believe to sanction things which God has forbidden is to be doing evil.

Principle #2: We Believe Christ Entrusted His Church to the Apostles and their Successors

We reject the notion that any person can determine what is good and evil on their own authority. We believe that Jesus Christ entrusted His Church to His Apostles and gave them the authority and the responsibility to carry out His Great Commission. We believe that it was to them who were given the authority to determine what is and is not in keeping with the teachings of Christ – and that He protects His Church from teaching error on what we must do to be saved.

When one recognizes this as a Catholic belief, one can see that the Catholic individual who says "I disagree" has no authority whatsoever impose their vision on the Church in defiance of the Magisterium. Yes individuals within the Church (including bishops) can fall into error when they deviate from the teaching of the Church. It does not follow that the Church as a whole errs when one bishop does.

Moreover, one cannot place the vox populi in opposition to the magisterium and say, "The people all agree on [X] and the Bishops disagree. Therefore the bishops are wrong!" That's an argumentum ad populum fallacy (Just because 50%+1, 75% or 99% of a people believe [X] does not make [X] true). Since we believe the authority within the Church comes from Christ, we must realize that the responsibility to determine whether a view is compatible with Christ's teaching falls on the magisterium, not on us.

Principle #3: A Person Running Afoul of Church Teaching is NOT the Fault of the Church

Many people who find themselves at odds with Church teaching often use the argument of, "God wouldn't want me to suffer so the Church is wrong in insisting on [X]."

The woman who wants to be ordained a priest, a person divorced where the marriage was valid, the couple wanting contraception, the woman who thinks she "needs" an abortion, the person with homosexual tendencies who wants "Gay Marriage" often accuse the Church of being bureaucratic, of being heartless, of being "homophobic," of being "anti-woman." These are actually ad hominem attacks. They assume that the individual is in the right, and the Church is "horrible" for not giving them what they want.

The fact of the matter is, the person who finds himself or herself in opposition to the Catholic teaching is not there because the Church put that person there. The individual has chosen a thing in opposition to what the Church believes she is obligated to do to be faithful to Christ.

Msgr. Ronald Knox makes this point impressively clear, when he wrote:

Here is another suggestion, which may not be without its value – if you find yourself thus apparently deserted by the light of faith, do not fluster and baffle your imagination by presenting to it all the most difficult doctrines of the Christian religion, those which unbelievers find it easiest to attack; do not be asking yourself, "Can I really believe marriage is indissoluble? Can I really believe that it is possible to go to hell as the punishment for one mortal sin?" Keep your attention fixed to the main point, which is a single point – Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed truth? If you can, all the rest follows; if you cannot, it makes little difference what else you believe or disbelieve.

(In Soft Garments, pages 113-114).

If the Church is the final repository of revealed truth intended by Christ, then to fight against the Church is to fight against Christ (See Acts 9:4-5). If she is not this final repository, it is irrelevant what she says to begin with. However, since Catholics do believe that the authority of the Church is given to her by Christ, the person who is at odds with the Church teaching truly needs to consider on what basis they are so certain they are in the right and the teaching authority of the Church is in the wrong.

Principle #4: Either the Church of Christ or A False Church

Thus the dissenting Catholic has to come to terms with this. If the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, then she must be heeded. If she is not what she claims to be she is either incredibly deluded or a monstrous fraud. Thus the dissenter stands judged either way:

If the dissenter believes The Catholic Church is Christ's Church, then at the Final Judgment they can be asked, "Why did you not heed her?"
BUT, if they believe the Catholic Church is not Christ's Church, then at the Final Judgment they can be asked, "Why did you remain within her?"

The anti-Catholic is in error, but at least is acting in according to what he or she believes in rejecting the Church. Remember, the Catholic Church believes her magisterium is protected from error in teaching on faith and morals – in other words, we believe she will not lead people to damnation by teaching falsely on issues of salvation because God protects her from teaching error. Now since these issues of morality which some dissent from do pertain to salvation, we must conclude that either this is true and the dissenter is in error or else the Church teaches falsely about her very nature.

Principle #5: The Dissenter Has No Justification For Rebellion. Their Dissent is Merely A Refusal to Accept They Are Doing Wrong

One day as he was teaching the people in the temple area and proclaiming the good news, the chief priests and scribes, together with the elders, approached him and said to him, “Tell us, by what authority are you doing these things? Or who is the one who gave you this authority?”

He said to them in reply, “I shall ask you a question. Tell me, was John’s baptism of heavenly or of human origin?”

They discussed this among themselves, and said, “If we say, ‘Of heavenly origin,’ he will say, ‘Why did you not believe him?’ But if we say, ‘Of human origin,’ then all the people will stone us, for they are convinced that John was a prophet.”

So they answered that they did not know from where it came.

Then Jesus said to them, “Neither shall I tell you by what authority I do these things.” (Luke 20:1-8)

The contradiction for the dissenter is that they deny that the Church has the authority to teach as they do on an issue they disagree with while giving themselves the authority to go against anything they dislike. We have the right to question the authority they cite in rejecting the authority of the Church, and not merely accept their conclusion ("The Church is bad!").

A dissenter may say, "God doesn't want me to suffer. The Church teaching makes me suffer. Therefore the Church is acting against God" I say that is a misstating of the issue. God doesn't desire the destruction of the sinner, but that he or she will repent (See Ezekiel 18:25-32). If we accept that the Catholic Church is the Church Christ willed and gave authority to (and if one does not accept that, the question immediately comes up, "Then why remain within her?"), then we certainly need to consider the possibility that we are in the wrong, not the Church.

The principle of dissent essentially claims that when a person is at odds with the Church, it is the fault of the Church, that the Magisterium is wrong and the dissenter is right. But to make such a statement requires something more than mere feelings. It requires a demonstration why we should accept their claims.

Yet, the dissenter does not offer any justification why we should hold their view to be true. Rather, we see the appeal to pity fallacy. An example is shown about how some person is doomed to a life of loneliness if the Church forbids "Gay marriage" or refuses to grant an annulment when the previous marriage is valid. We can see it when a person claims some poor mother is doomed to have to care for too many children because the Church condemns contraception. Or that the Church dooms a woman to give birth to a deformed child or a rapist's child because she condemns abortion.

All of these cases are used to appeal to a person's sense of pity, but not one of them answers the question of how it follows that the Church teaching is wrong. One can make an appeal to pity to act against any obligation ("Your putting my son in prison means he won't be there to support me. If only murder wasn't outlawed, you wouldn't put him in prison!"), but it doesn't make the prohibition wrong just because someone puts himself at odds with the law and has to suffer the consequences.

Principle #6: Just Because The Dissenter Does Not See the Reason for a Church Teaching Does Not Mean There Is No Reason

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

— G.K. Chesterton “The Drift from Domesticity”. Brave New Family. Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53

The Argument from Ignorance Fallacy essentially argues that because one is not aware of anything to disprove a position it means the position must be true. The problem with such a position is that it presumes that because one is not aware of an objection to a view it must mean there is no valid objection to the view. GK Chesterton points out that the existence of a thing which we do not understand the reason for does not mean there is no reason. We cannot assume that our ignorance about why a thing is as it is justifies making a change.

We can presumably look into the reasons for a thing and see why a thing is done. From the knowledge of the reasons, we can judge whether a law is justified or arbitrary for example. Moreover we can also take the reasons for a thing existing to judge our own reasons for wanting it removed. Once we know why the Church teaches [X], we can look at our motives for dissenting from [X] and perhaps discover that our motive is not some high minded "principle of the thing," but rather a desire not to be inconvenienced or a fear of the consequences for our actions.

Principle #7: Vincible Ignorance Means We Are Responsible For What We Do Not Know

The Church teaches there are two types of ignorance, Invincible Ignorance or Vincible Ignorance. Invincible Ignorance means it is impossible to learn something no matter how much we study. For example, it is impossible right now to learn whether life exists in outer space. We have found no evidence, but that lack of evidence covers only a small portion of the universe. The result is, no person can learn the definite truth about life in outer space, no matter how much they study because it is impossible to discover this information at this time. As a result the person who does not believe in extraterrestrial life is not to be blamed for his belief if he turns out to be wrong. You can't be held responsible for what is impossible for you to learn.

Vincible Ignorance however is a matter where we could learn the truth if we had bothered to look. If I am a hunter and I see movement in the bush, I could take the time to determine whether the target is a deer or another hunter. If I fire on the movement without checking and kill another hunter, I acted out of ignorance, but my ignorance could have been corrected if I had bothered to take the time to learn.

Because Catholics believe that Christ is the head of the Church and that He protects the Magisterium from error when they teach on issues of salvation (again, if one denies this, we can ask "Why remain within the Church?"), and because they do not keep such teachings secret, we cannot claim it is impossible to know what God wills in terms of what we are to do to behave in accordance with God's will. The internet allows us to access the official teachings of the Church. The catechism is online. The Code of canon law is online. Papal Encyclicals are online (also here). This isn't the 12th century where many could not read and books were expensive. Regardless of how well the Vatican may adapt to the Internet, we can't say that the true teachings of the Church can't be found. We can't say that because we don't know the reason for the Church teaching, we don't have to follow it. We can learn!

If we refuse to learn, we have nobody to blame but ourselves.

Conclusion: What Every Catholic Must Recognize To Be Faithfully Catholic

¹⁴“Now, therefore, fear the LORD and serve him completely and sincerely. Cast out the gods your fathers served beyond the River and in Egypt, and serve the LORD.

¹⁵If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.” (Joshua 24:14-15)

Ultimately anyone who finds themselves struggling with a decision of morality needs to recognize that with Original Sin, with our fears and our emotions, we can be led astray if we rely on ourselves. We need to realize that as Catholics, we have been given the grace to be a part of the Church Christ willed, and that He gave the authority to carry out His mission. The Church is not merely a human institution inventing all sorts of laws in a mad quest for power.

Always we need to remember what Msgr. Ronald Knox wrote:

Can I trust the Catholic Church as the final repository of revealed truth? If you can, all the rest follows; if you cannot, it makes little difference what else you believe or disbelieve.

If we believe the Catholic Church is what she claims to be, it follows we can accept what she teaches. If one rejects this principle, it makes no sense to even remain in the Church as she would have no authority.

Cuomo Supports Bull Connor Over MLK? Thoughts on Law and God

2011-07-15T08:45:00.001-07:00

But Peter and the apostles said in reply, "We must obey God rather than men."

—Acts 5:29

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I'm not a scholar, I don't know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can't you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

—A Man For All Seasons

Introduction

There is some buzz in the media about Laura Fotusky, the woman who resigned rather than take part in issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples in New York. Some support her. Others speak contemptuously about her. Those who dismiss her generally take the point that the law is the law and people who will not follow said law have no business being in government.

The problem is, such a position seems to presuppose a view that whatever the government says, goes. But is this really a valid position?

The Statement of Cuomo

"The law is the law. When you enforce the laws of the state, you don’t get pick and choose which laws. You don’t get to say, ‘I like this law, I’ll enforce this law. I don’t like this law, I won’t enforce this law.’ You can’t do that. So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position."

—Governor Andrew Cuomo

Reductio ad Absurdum

reductio ad absurdum

■ n. Philosophy a method of proving the falsity of a premise by showing that its logical consequence is absurd or contradictory.

– origin Latin, lit. ‘reduction to the absurd’.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

The problem is, we can make a reductio ad absurdum to show the flaw in his position. "Bull" Connor, Commissioner of Public Safety in Alabama was enforcing the law when he targeted blacks demonstrating for human rights and was infamous for the use of fire hoses and dogs against demonstrators. If Cuomo is right, then Connor is unjustly condemned by history. After all, Segregation was the law, and as Cuomo said, "So if you can’t enforce the law, then you shouldn’t be in that position."

We can put this into a Syllogism by taking the statement, "if you can’t [enforce the law], then you shouldn’t [be in that position]." We can then restate this as a positive:

If you do [Enforce the Law], you should [be in that position] (If [A] then [B])
Bull Connor did [Enforce the Law] ([A])
Therefore Bull Connor should [be in that position] (Therefore [B])

If you find that syllogism repellant (and you should), you can then see that Andrew Cuomo's statement must therefore also be repellant because it actually can be used to justify anything the state wants to do.

That's how the reductio works. If [A] then [B]. [B] is offensive or absurd. Therefore we should reject [A].

The reason Cuomo's statement is dangerous and offensive is the authority of the state is not the judge of what is right and wrong. Right and wrong is outside the ability of the state to decree. History is full of regimes who have made it legal to do horrific things, and we do not consider those who carry out such laws to be justified.

The Nuremberg Defense

Indeed, we know that the "Superior Orders" defense (also known as the Nuremberg Defense) of "I was just following orders," is rejected. Indeed, Nuremberg Principle #4 states:

The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to him.

So in this case just because a law is made, it does not excuse the person from making a moral choice in opposition to a law, if it is unjust.

Therefore, before we can accept Cuomo's argument, it requires the establishment of the fact that "Gay Marriage" is in fact a just law which should be obeyed. Thus the supporters for "Gay Marriage" can't simply say they don't want to force religious views on others. They are in fact forcing secular sectarian views on others by forcing them to accept "Gay Marriage."

Legal Positivism and Just Laws

An unjust law is no law at all.

—St. Augustine. On Free Choice Of The Will, Book 1, § 5

The concept of what makes a law binding on us comes down to two possibilities:

Whatever the State decrees is to be obeyed because the state decreed it.
The obedience to a law supposes that the law is just and an unjust law lacks authority.

This is the difference between Legal Positivism and the Christian view of law. Legal Positivism holds that "The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry." (John Austin). In other words, whether or not the law be good or bad is irrelevant to the issue of whether it ought to be obeyed.

One begins to see the dangerous view of Governor Andrew Cuomo. Law is to be obeyed because government has authority to govern, regardless of whether a law is good or bad. American History is full of examples of unjust laws which people of conscience felt they had to oppose: the Fugitive Slave Act, Jim Crow laws and the like were to be obeyed and the person who defied such laws on grounds of conscience was a plain and simple lawbreaker – his beliefs that the law was unjust is irrelevant.

Under Legal Positivism, Martin Luther King Jr. (hereafter identified as MLK) was a felon and his civil disobedience could not be justified.

On the other hand, the Christian view of law recognizes human authority as being rooted in the authority of God. The state exists for the protection of the people, which presupposes justice. Our rights come from outside the state. If they come from within the state, then the state can take the rights away.

Under the Christian view of law, MLK was justified in opposing an unjust set of laws, when he pointed out:

Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

—Letter from a Birmingham Jail

This gives the lawmaker like Cuomo a dilemma. If one must obey any law because it is a law, then MLK is in the wrong. However, if MLK was right, then Cuomo is wrong.

Thomas Aquinas and Law

In the Summa Theologica (cited by MLK), St. Thomas Aquinas writes:

On the other hand laws may be unjust in two ways: first, by being contrary to human good, through being opposed to the things mentioned above - either in respect of the end, as when an authority imposes on his subjects burdensome laws, conducive, not to the common good, but rather to his own cupidity or vainglory - or in respect of the author, as when a man makes a law that goes beyond the power committed to him - or in respect of the form, as when burdens are imposed unequally on the community, although with a view to the common good. The like are acts of violence rather than laws; because, as Augustine says (De Libero Arbitrio i,5), "a law that is not just, seems to be no law at all." Wherefore such laws do not bind in conscience, except perhaps in order to avoid scandal or disturbance, for which cause a man should even yield his right, according to Matthew 5:40,41: "If a man. . . take away thy coat, let go thy cloak also unto him; and whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two."

Secondly, laws may be unjust through being opposed to the Divine good: such are the laws of tyrants inducing to idolatry, or to anything else contrary to the Divine law: and laws of this kind must nowise be observed, because, as stated in Acts 5:29, "we ought to obey God rather than man."

—Summa Theologica I-IIa Q. 96 Article 4.

So Is the New York Law Just?

For the Christian, the "Gay Marriage" law is unjust on the following grounds:

It goes beyond the authority of any government to declare that marriage can be between two persons of the same gender.
This law is in opposition to the Divine good.

Because we ought to obey God rather than men, we must call this unjust and cannot support the government in this action.

This is not "Imposing Beliefs"

As citizens of this nation, Christians have the same rights as others to make our voices heard and shape the laws according to what is right (Hat tip to blogger Anthony Layne for making this point so well). Because we do believe we must obey God rather then men, we cannot "go along" when the state mandates something which God condemns. Because we believe there is real and knowable truth and good, we must call our nation to be aware of this.

Conclusion: God Gives Us Freedom. Cuomo's View Makes the State All Powerful

We must oppose all politicians who seek to impose their will on the state, even if they wrongly think it just, if what they seek to impose goes against the natural and divine law. We may suffer persecution for this. However, let us be clear that the state does not have the authority to enact such a law and they are unjust if they do persecute us.

Yes, we must obey God rather then men. However, the state does evil when they force us to make that choice to begin with. This is why we must rise up and condemn Cuomo's statement as being a dangerous infringement on our right to do as we ought to do.

Master, Don't You Care if We Drown?

2011-07-09T11:27:00.001-07:00

³⁵On that day, as evening drew on, he said to them, “Let us cross to the other side.”
³⁶Leaving the crowd, they took him with them in the boat just as he was. And other boats were with him.
³⁷A violent squall came up and waves were breaking over the boat, so that it was already filling up.
³⁸Jesus was in the stern, asleep on a cushion. They woke him and said to him, “Teacher, do you not care that we are perishing?”
³⁹He woke up, rebuked the wind, and said to the sea, “Quiet! Be still!” The wind ceased and there was great calm.
⁴⁰Then he asked them, “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” (Mark 4:35-40)

One thing which seems to be growing again in the anti-Bishop hysteria in certain segments of the Church is the belief that the Church is falling away into corruption because the Pope, the Curia, the Bishop or the Pastor is doing something the individual dislikes or is failing to do something the individual would prefer to be done.

We see the dissenting priest or nun or politician speaking or acting in a way which is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Church and we panic. We accuse our leaders of corruption and ask God why He does not do anything to save His Church. Some have, throughout history, jumped ship believing she is being steered into shipwreck. Others behave as if God has forgotten us.

Christ's question to His disciples is the same question for us. "Do we not yet have faith?"

Do we not yet realize that Christ promised to remain with His Church? Do we not yet realize that Christ promised the gates of Hell would not prevail against it? Are we so without faith that we think that the ship as she exists is sinking and will be destroyed?

Yes, some clergy, some religious and some laity will fail to do as they ought, doing harm and causing scandal. Yes we are called to preach the word and correct those in error (lovingly of course) and to pray for those who have fallen astray. However, the Church is in the hands of Christ who has promised to protect us. At the moment of his choosing, he will rebuke the wind and the sea, he will rebuke the disobedient and the heretical and the persecutor.

We must never act as if we have nothing to do but lounge around and wait on Christ. He has given us our task to carry out (Matt 24:46) and we need to keep at it for when he returns.

Thoughts on Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities

2011-07-08T10:33:00.001-07:00

Introduction

The modern view of freedom tends to look at it as if any attempts to restrict what we want to do as a sin against our "rights." Thus pornography and violent video games become "artistic" and any attempt to restrict access to these things become a "violation" of our rights.

The view that we have a "right" to do whatever we want is insanely self-destructive. If freedom is to be understood as the "right" to do whatever we want without restrictions, it means we have no right to object to whatever we might view as harmful or repugnant because it "forces our views on another person."

Yet most people would recognize things like child pornography to be offensive and most people would see this as something which nobody has a "right" to. (Those who say otherwise are not considered to have a reasonable opinion), which indicates that not all rights are "acceptable," and some restrictions are reasonable.

"Consenting Adults" is a phrase which Shows Restrictions

The term "consenting adults" for example is a term which shows there are restrictions on "freedoms."

The people involved must have reached the age of majority where they are considered competent to make responsible decisions and consider the consequences.
The people involved must freely consent.

Neither a willing minor nor an unwilling adult can take part in such an act. The minor is not considered competent to be able to give informed consent and a person cannot be coerced to do something which they find offensive.

This means we have an absolute restriction: A person's freedom to do a thing is limited if the subject of the act is unable or unwilling to give consent. Pedophilia then would be condemned because even if the child should consent, we do not consider the child to be able to give consent as required.

However, once we recognize this, we can challenge the principle of abortion. If the unborn is a human person, he is unable to give consent to being aborted. Thus, "Consenting Adults" is a clause which indicts abortion.

Defining Persons Selectively

Some say in response to this, "Well the fetus is not a person." This leads us then to ask, "Who defines what is and is not a person?"

We have, in history, some examples of the government defining some as being less than human. Pre-Civil War America considered African Americans as less than fully human and less capable than whites to reason and think clearly and thus could be enslaved. Nazi Germany treated certain groups (Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others) as subhuman who could be enslaved or exterminated and practiced the extermination of those who were considered mentally or physically unfit.

We can now look back on these times with disgust and with horror, recognizing that a government does not have a right to decree certain Homo sapiens as being less than human, and such a law cannot change what a person is. A law which denies the personhood of the Homo sapiens goes against reality, against nature.

Human Rights and Gender

Of course there are some differences which are unavoidable. All human persons are male or female regardless of race, age, belief or sexual preference. Both are fully human and both have the rights of a human being, but the two are not the same. Because both are fully human, one may not be treated as superior or inferior to the other on account of gender.

Gender is not inconsequential however. Human biology impacts how each interacts. The woman can give birth. The man cannot. This leaves us with two principles:

Differences in gender does not mean that this is all they can do. (A woman is not limited to ONLY being a mother for example)
BUT since these functions are a part of nature, they cannot be ignored or suppressed.

Race and sexual preferences are not the same as gender. Race does not change the fact that one is a Homo Sapiens. Sexual preference does not change the fact of the actual gender.

Marriage, Gender, Race and Sexual Preference

Biologically, the sexual act involves the reproductive organs of two persons, one of each gender. Acts which do not involve both the male and female reproductive organs is nothing more than sodomy.

Marriage, until the latest usurpations by government, has always been recognized as a family unit joined together by a man and a woman in a permanent sexual relationship which has at least the potential for future offspring and is formed together for that intent (If the man or woman is infertile is irrelevant. Offspring is accepted as a natural part of the married life. Infertility caused by age or infirmity cannot be helped but does not make the man any less a man or the woman any less a woman).

Restrictions on marriage due to race (or ethnicity) is an unnatural restriction. A Homo sapiens male of one ethnicity and a Homo sapiens female of another ethnicity are able to form this permanent sexual union with the potential of having children.

However, sexual preference is NOT an unnatural restriction. Between people of the same gender, there cannot be a sexual act, only sodomy. There cannot be the potential for future offspring and such a union cannot be formed with acceptance of this motive.

Thus we can see it is a false analogy to compare the restriction of "gay marriage" with the unnatural laws forbidding people of different ethnicities to marry. The fact is, governments have no right to declare an ethnicity "less than human" and have no right to deny the difference between gender. Marriage predates government as a basis for society and a government which attempts to change what marriage is through law goes outside of their authority.

Truth and Law

Aristotle defined Truth and Falsehood saying:

To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.

This is a principle which demonstrates that since a thing is what it is and cannot be what it is not, truth cannot be relative. If a living being is a male, it is true to say this being is a male and false to say it is not a male. If it is wrong to murder, we speak falsely if we say it is not wrong to murder. We cannot abolish the laws of nature, such as the law of gravity. Nor can we abolish biology.

That which IS cannot be declared IS NOT by a government. That which IS NOT cannot be declared IS. This is not a case of "forcing beliefs on another." It is recognizing reality. A government which attempts to pass laws contrary to what is true is in fact the one which is trying to impose their beliefs on another.

Legal Positivism

Legal Positivism is the concept that the only legitimate sources of law are those written rules, regulations, and principles that have been expressly enacted, adopted, or recognized by a governmental entity or political institution, including administrative, executive, legislative, and judicial bodies. In other words, what man defines as law is the only source of law and truth, morality, natural law and other sources are irrelevant. The problem is of course that whatever laws man invents on his own authority man can undo. So if man creates the freedom of speech, he can undo that freedom.

This is why the Declaration of Independence states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The rights which all men possess do not come from the government but from the Creator – which means they are rights which come from outside of us and cannot be taken away from us. Quite frankly, legal positivism is inimical to the concept of rights and freedoms which our nation was founded on.

Ipse Dixit and Law

Yet legal positivism seems to be the philosophy of the American Government today. There is no longer a sense of understanding what IS true with government seeking to reflect that truth. Rather we have a government fiat declaring what we must do… with the only source of authority being the government saying so. Truth is no longer relevant. Rather we have coercion. Effectively the government says "We have decreed it so it is right. If you refuse to comply, we will take actions against you."

Ipse dixit is a claim which only has the fact that a person said it as its authority. In America, we often rely on ipse dixit as the source of authority for a "right." The Supreme Court said abortion is a "right." Therefore it is. However, when one realizes that the Supreme Court once ruled "Separate but Equal" was legally acceptable and accepted Internment camps for the Japanese, we can see that the Supreme Court is not a credible source of authority to justify a legally binding position as just or true.

The problem is, of course, that since governments can and do make unjust laws we can and must judge such laws based on a proper understanding of justice. In speaking out against unjust laws which some favor, we are not attempting to "force views on others." We are saying the government does wrong and goes beyond its authority when its laws go against the rights (with corresponding responsibilities) given us by our Creator. If members of the public, if lawmakers believe that the Christian view of good and evil is wrong, that does not make it wrong simply by their declaration that they disagree with Christian belief. Rather it falls to them to prove their point and not merely say "I disagree. Therefore what I say goes."

Conclusion

Since we have recognized that certain restrictions do exist in terms of rights and on the other hand that the state does not have the authority to declare certain things as right we can see that the issue of right and wrong is not an issue of the government saying so, but rather we judge the acts of an individual or a government as right or wrong depending on how it matches up to the truth which we can know but cannot change.

As Christians, we believe that God is good and what is right is a reflection of His goodness and also is what is good for us by our very nature. The government may decree something which goes against what God calls us to do, but we must repudiate what the government says which forces us to disobey God. We believe that the government has no right to impose laws on us which force us to choose between God and our lives or livelihood. The government which does so may appeal to force to accept compliance but we are obligated to obey God rather than men and continue to preach God's commands and message of salvation to the whole world.

We must preach in season and out of season, even if men hate us for speaking the truth of good and evil. They may malign us, using slanders against us. But we must recognize that God wants the salvation, not the destruction of sinners. So we must continue to preach the truth to the world.

I Have to Say I am Inclined to Believe SOLT's Account

2011-07-07T16:15:00.001-07:00

SOLT issued this statement. Fr. Corapi responded with this statement.

With all due respect, I have to say I find SOLT's account more credible, while Fr. Corapi's statements on the issue have been frequently contradictory and self serving, saying some very uncharitable things as an ad hominem attack against those who investigate him.

He's just another dissenting priest at this point. Really it would be best to stop giving him publicity – and to practice what I preach, this will be my last statement about him barring something serious being brought to the public.

Please pray for Fr. Corapi and all priests.

Comments Are Disabled.

If We Do Not, Why Should They? Thoughts on Accusations Against the New York Bishops

2011-07-02T17:48:00.001-07:00

Preliminary Note

I quote one blogger in this article. I do not write this article as a blasting of the author. Rather, I found his statement to be a concise and articulate stating of what is troubling many frustrated Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church and are feeling like they're being left out on a limb. A person who sees this article as an act of judgment of any specific person misunderstands what I am trying to say.

Nor is this article a defense of Cuomo and the New York Legislature. What they did was reprehensible and must be opposed.

Also, this article in no way advocates a "seamless garment" seeking to say that this issue isn't important or that we need to put equal emphasis on Social Issue [X].

We in the Church need to defend the moral teachings of the Church and, if necessary, admonish the sinner. However, in speaking out on this topic we are obligated to be charitable and recognize the bishops are on our side, not the other side, even if we would prefer a more direct action.

Please keep the above in mind when tempted to send in an angry response.

Introduction

With the aftermath of the legalization of "gay marriage" in New York, the scapegoating seems to be in full swing. During the months leading up to this travesty, I was fully aware that the bishops of New York were opposed to the legalization of "gay marriage." Yet now that the bill became "law," there are many who place the blame on the bishops that this did happen to begin with.

Yes, the bishops of New York are being blamed for failing to stop the bill from becoming law, and as this goes it becomes less charitable as the idea passes from blogger to commentator.

The Internet being what it is, a blogger can say [X] which may actually be quite reasonable. However, some comments become more radical and less charitable in repeating what is said, going from the blogger's "I'm disappointed with how the thing turned out," to the commentator's "The bishops are a bunch of incompetent cowards." The former can be considered charitable. The latter certainly cannot.

The point is, the charity towards the shepherds of the Church is greatly diminishing, and all of us are called to consider what we are saying and whether it is just to do so. Are we engaging in a respectful making known of our concerns to a successor to the Apostles? Or are we behaving in an unjust fashion?

Considering One Argument Against the Bishops

One blogger (whom I follow and mostly like what he has to say) writes, "The Bishops could not be that serious about stopping gay marriage or else they would do something serious about it." It's a comment I find symptomatic of the problem. Such a statement strikes me as typical of the dissatisfaction and frustration. What he calls for is the bishops to bring sanctions against the politicians who cause this scandal

Now I understand and can sympathize with this frustration. There are many politicians out there who publically act in contradiction to what their Church teaches. At least JFK said that if he felt there was a conflict between his faith and his duty as president, he would resign. Catholic politicians today seem to have no problem ignoring their faith if there is such a conflict, and it is a real problem which needs to be addressed.

Unfortunately the quote above indicates a problem we have within the Church, and that is an indication that the bishops are to be deemed acceptable only to the extent that they act as we would like. The general sense of the argument (I've heard it often over the years) above can be restated as:

If the Bishops were [serious about stopping Gay Marriage], they would [inflict sanctions] (If [A] then [B])
The Bishops did not [inflict sanctions] (Not [B])
Therefore the bishops are not [serious about stopping gay marriage]. (Therefore Not [A])

This is a logically valid form called modus tollens. Since the form is correct, we need to look at the premises to see if they are true or false. Valid is not the same as true. If the form is valid, but the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven to be true. So how can the premises be false in this case? The answer is, if there are more valid options than considered, then it can be said that [B] is not a condition of [A].

If [B] is not the only valid option, or if the bishops were serious but ineffective about stopping "gay marriage" then the above claim is not proven to be true.

How This Argument Can Be Used In Error

So let's see how this form can be used in other contexts (please note, I am not saying the examples below are the equivalent to the issue of the New York bishops. Rather I am pointing out examples where [A] is wrongly linked to [B]):

If Pope Pius XII was [serious about helping the Jews], he would have [excommunicated Hitler].
Pope Pius XII did not [excommunicate Hitler].
Therefore Pope Pius XII was not [serious about helping the Jews].

This argument is rejected by those who know what Pope Pius XII actually did. Indeed he was concerned that acts which would not only not save the Jews [Hitler was openly contemptuous of the Church] but would incite Hitler to target even more Jews. One can see in this case that [A] is not dependent on [B].

Or:

If the Catholics actually [accepted the Bible], they would [accept Sola Scriptura].
Catholics do not [accept Sola Scriptura]
Therefore Catholics do not actually [accept the Bible].

The fact that we reject the idea of Sola Scriptura does not mean we reject the Bible. Rather, we think Sola Scriptura is a man made doctrine of the 16th century never held by the early Christians. This argument assumes as true something which needs to be proven.

Or:

If God [exists] there would be [no evil] (If [A] then [B])
There is not [No Evil] (Not [B])
Therefore God does not [Exist] (Therefore Not [A])

No Christian would accept this. The belief of free will means man can refuse to follow God, and if he refuses to be obedient to God, he can bring harm to others.

The point is, these examples say "No" to the question: Does [B] follow from [A]? Thus the conclusion is not proven. Therefore, before we can accept this argument (that the bishops are not serious), it must be demonstrated that [causing sanctions] is necessary to [be serious about protecting marriage] and not assumed to be true.

The Unspoken Assumption

What troubles me is this sort of a statement is an act of judgment, treating the bishop not as a successor of the Apostles but as a coin in a vending machine. We put in a coin and get the desired result: "If the bishop had only done [X] we wouldn't be in this mess!"

So here's my problem. If we who profess to be faithful Catholics cannot be respectful to the office of the bishop, how can we even begin to expect those who are public dissenters to be respectful to the office of the bishop when he seeks to teach on faith and morals?

Now I do believe that enforcing Canon 915 is something we should do. I believe that encouraging the bishop to enforce canon 915 is a good thing to do. Doing so is not being disrespectful to the bishops. Canon 212 does recognize the laity making their needs known in a respectful (the key word) manner.

However, there is a difference between letting the bishop know, "We will be fully behind you if you carry out your mission and enforce the doctrine of the Church" and being uncharitable in making one's needs known

That difference is the difference of respect for the office of the bishop and the person who holds it vs. the disrespectful attitude towards the office and person of the bishop which seems to show up every time the State acts in defiance of the Church.

The Challenge

So let me ask my fellow Catholics, who do their best to be faithful to the Magisterium, to consider some questions. Please note, I am not asking these questions from a position of superiority ("I am better than you because I do these things and you do not") but rather as questions which convict me when I read the Scriptures and Patristics in comparison to what I feel in my heart when I read the news. I know the answer I should give, but, mea culpa, sometimes that comes after the first act of anger.

Do we love your bishop as a fellow brother as well as the shepherd over us? Or do you judge him?
Do we pray for him? Or do we condemn him?
Do we support him? Or is our support conditional on whether he follows our agenda?
Do we want those people acting against Church teaching (Obama, Cuomo etc.) to be saved? Or condemned?
Do we judge other Catholics for falling away from Church on sexual issues while rejecting the Church on other issues (Social Justice)?

I am not arguing for some "Seamless Garment" saying these issues are not important unless we first commit to [X], [Y] and [Z]. I am saying that if we want others to follow the authority of the Church, we need to practice what we preach and follow such authority ourselves. Otherwise we make a poor example to whom the dissenter can say, "Why should I listen to you? You don't respect the authority of the bishop either?

Nor do I say if we treat the bishop with respect, the dissenters will too (free will means a person can choose to disobey Christ's Church). Rather I say, if we think obedience to the bishop is so important for the dissenters to comply with, then let us practice what we preach.

Even So...

2011-06-26T07:02:00.001-07:00

In light of my last post about the troublesome anti-bishop mentality in America, some may be wondering about my thoughts on the bishops concerning the fiasco in New York where Catholic Andrew Cuomo has enthusiastically signed gay "marriage" into law (I hope to write more directly on this topic later). Edward Peters, for example makes a good case for canonical action against Governor Cuomo. It is certainly a serious public act in defiance of what the Church believes is right, and indeed, I do hope that the bishops of New York will take action.

However, the question is: what if they do not? Would this not prove the point of those who accuse the bishops of corruption? Well, no. Moreover, that is the wrong question to ask. This is not a case where the bishops of the United States can take collective action. Nor can the bishops of New York State as a whole take action. If you read the documents of the Council of Trent (among others) you can see that the bishop in Diocese [A] does not have the authority to act against a person in Diocese [B].

Ultimately it is the bishop of Albany who has the authority to take action – even though we might wish Archbishop Dolan had jurisdiction (We've had a similar issue a generation ago with Mario Cuomo not being under the jurisdiction of Cardinal O'Connor). So we should be praying for Bishop Hubbard to make a wise decision concerning this issue of public scandal.

But there is always the question of "what if he doesn't?"

Well, that would be unfortunate indeed, though I believe my points I made in the previous article (linked above) would hold to be valid. We would need to be careful that we have all the facts before issuing any objection and not assume that because no public action took place that no action took place.

This isn't an argument to justify inaction. I believe that under canon 212, we do have the right and the responsibility to make our concerns known in the face of such a scandal.

A bishop ultimately has to render an account to God for the way he shepherds his diocese, and an affront like this is surely something which requires shepherding. However, even if a bishop fails to act as he should it is not just to accuse all bishops for the inaction of one.

So I would say faithful Catholics should be prayerful and respectful, recognizing that just because action does not take place immediately or publicly does not mean "the bishops" as a whole are corrupt. As for Bishop Hubbard of Albany, our first thought to be to pray for him to do the right thing in light of the grave scandal and the salvation of Governor Cuomo's soul, and not to whip out a stopwatch and say after a short period, "he did nothing… that proves the bishops are corrupt!"

With Great Concern: Thoughts on the Anti-Bishop Mentality among Some of the Faithful

2011-06-25T11:44:00.001-07:00

Introduction

The recent civil war on the internet which has erupted among Catholics brings to my attention that it is actually a symptom of a deeper problem, and that is the growing issue of division among some Catholics seeking to be faithful to the Church.

¹²I mean that each of you is saying, “I belong to Paul,” or “I belong to Apollos,” or “I belong to Kephas,” or “I belong to Christ.”

¹³Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul? (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)

One mindset seems to believe there is widespread corruption among the hierarchy of the Church, and very few can be trusted to do the right thing. This isn’t merely an attitude of arrogance – the “do what I think is right or you’re a modernist heretic” mindset. There are also those individuals who do look at the remaining dissention within the Church, who rightly recognizes that it is a bad thing, and think it must have a cause among those who lead the Church. They then think that if the bishops were doing their jobs rightly, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.

What disturbs me most about this mindset is that it seems to be a spirit of dissention which confuses the lawful authority of the office of the bishop with the individual who holds it. If the individual falls into sin, makes a bad choice or even makes a different choice from the one we would personally like, it seems that there are some who would dare to say we can ignore their authority as a bishop.

A Personal Experience

I recall encountering this mindset for the first time in the lead up to the 1996 elections when Pat Robertson was going about with his Christian Coalition and trying to form a group for Catholics (I think it was called Catholic Alliance). One bishop, citing canon law, made a statement reminding the faithful that no group could call itself Catholic without the approval of the Church, and this group had not even sought approval from the Church.

I recall bringing this up at the campus (I was doing my Masters degree at this time) group Human Life Concerns where certain members were trying to encourage all of us to join Catholic Alliance. In response, one of the members made a dismissive response saying the bishop in question was “totally liberal” and we didn’t have to listen to him.

I was deeply troubled by this because it was a bishop who was exercising his office to clarify what the Church position was (not his own opinion) on this subject and he was treated dismissively because this individual had a low opinion of this bishop and “the bishops” in general.

A Fallacy of Bifurcation

An underlying problem with the mindset is the dividing the issue into two areas – but the two areas are not mutually exclusive. This is the mindset of either [A] or [B]. Either we can side with the person in defiance of the bishop, or we can side with “corruption within the Church.” The reason this is a false argument is that it is possible that one can say neither [A] nor [B]. I can for example deplore the dissent among certain priests, religious and laity and also reject the claim that we can disobey a bishop and still be faithful Catholics.

The Bishops are Successors to the Apostles

The problem I have with the antipathy towards the bishops by those who claim that they are faithful to the Church is that it ignores a rather crucial part of the Church teaching, and that is the bishops are not employees of the Church but are successors to the Apostles. Vatican II points out:

27. Bishops, as vicars and ambassadors of Christ, govern the particular churches entrusted to them (58*) by their counsel, exhortations, example, and even by their authority and sacred power, which indeed they use only for the edification of their flock in truth and holiness, remembering that he who is greater should become as the lesser and he who is the chief become as the servant.(169) This power, which they personally exercise in Christ's name, is proper, ordinary and immediate, although its exercise is ultimately regulated by the supreme authority of the Church, and can be circumscribed by certain limits, for the advantage of the Church or of the faithful. In virtue of this power, bishops have the sacred right and the duty before the Lord to make laws for their subjects, to pass judgment on them and to moderate everything pertaining to the ordering of worship and the apostolate. (Lumen Gentium)

So, when the bishop acts as the head of his flock, he is to be heeded by those under his care. That is inescapable. Refusal to obey the rightful authority of a bishop means one is dissenting against what they dislike. St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letter to the Smyrnaeans, writes:

Chapter VIII.—Let Nothing Be Done Without the Bishop.

See that ye all follow the bishop, even as Jesus Christ does the Father, and the presbytery as ye would the apostles; and reverence the deacons, as being the institution of God. Let no man do anything connected with the Church without the bishop. Let that be deemed a proper Eucharist, which is [administered] either by the bishop, or by one to whom he has entrusted it. Wherever the bishop shall appear, there let the multitude [of the people] also be; even as, wherever Jesus Christ is, there is the Catholic Church. It is not lawful without the bishop either to baptize or to celebrate a love-feast; but whatsoever he shall approve of, that is also pleasing to God, so that everything that is done may be secure and valid.

Chapter IX.—Honour the Bishop.

Moreover, it is in accordance with reason that we should return to soberness [of conduct], and, while yet we have opportunity, exercise repentance towards God. It is well to reverence both God and the bishop. He who honours the bishop has been honoured by God; he who does anything without the knowledge of the bishop, does [in reality] serve the devil. Let all things, then, abound to you through grace, for ye are worthy. Ye have refreshed me in all things, and Jesus Christ [shall refresh] you. Ye have loved me when absent as well as when present. May God recompense you, for whose sake, while ye endure all things, ye shall attain unto Him.

—St. Ignatius of Antioch, Letter to the Smyrnaeans

From the earliest days of the Church, the importance of the Bishop was recognized. Acting in harmony with the bishop is seen as good. Acting against the bishop or without him is deemed wrong. This is something to keep in mind. Do we carry on the practice of faithful Catholics when we reject the authority of bishops we dislike or disagree with?

Rights and Duties of the Faithful

At this point some may accuse me of saying that all the faithful should shut up and mindlessly obey the Church. I would in fact reject this accusation. The Church does indeed speak on what we are to do in terms of dealing with difficult situations.

Canon Law brings out that we the faithful of the Church have rights and duties in terms of our relation to the Church. We are to obey the lawful authority of the Church, but have the right and at times the obligation to make known our needs to those entrusted with our spiritual health.

Can. 212 §1. Conscious of their own responsibility, the Christian faithful are bound to follow with Christian obedience those things which the sacred pastors, inasmuch as they represent Christ, declare as teachers of the faith or establish as rulers of the Church.

§2. The Christian faithful are free to make known to the pastors of the Church their needs, especially spiritual ones, and their desires.

§3. According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons. (Code of Canon Law)

So the Church does not say “Shut up and take it,” in response to problems within the Church. However, we are to obey the pastors who act in the role of ruling the Church, and when we must make known our needs and concerns we must do so in a manner which is reverent and dignified.

Thoughts on Galatians Chapter 2

Members of the SSPX I have encountered love to cite Galatians 2: 11-15 to justify their disobedience to the Pope. They claim they are like St. Paul withstanding St. Peter to his face on an issue where they claim the Pope is wrong. Others use this to justify opposing their bishop, claiming they are following the example of St. Paul. There is a problem with this however.

Let’s look at the passage from Galatians 2:

¹¹ And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.

¹² For, until some people came from James, he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.

¹³ And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.

¹⁴ But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, “If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?”

St. Paul is calling to mind a flaw in St. Peter’s behavior, not his teaching. His personal actions warrant a rebuke. St. Paul is not disobeying St. Peter because this is not an issue of obedience. So it cannot be used to argue that we can defy the bishop when he acts as head of his diocese.

St. Thomas Aquinas and Correcting a Superior

St. Thomas Aquinas brings forth an excellent exposition of what the correction of a superior entails:

I answer that, A subject is not competent to administer to his prelate the correction which is an act of justice through the coercive nature of punishment: but the fraternal correction which is an act of charity is within the competency of everyone in respect of any person towards whom he is bound by charity, provided there be something in that person which requires correction.

Now an act which proceeds from a habit or power extends to whatever is contained under the object of that power or habit: thus vision extends to all things comprised in the object of sight. Since, however, a virtuous act needs to be moderated by due circumstances, it follows that when a subject corrects his prelate, he ought to do so in a becoming manner, not with impudence and harshness, but with gentleness and respect. Hence the Apostle says (1 Tim. 5:1): "An ancient man rebuke not, but entreat him as a father." Wherefore Dionysius finds fault with the monk Demophilus (Ep. viii), for rebuking a priest with insolence, by striking and turning him out of the church. (Summa Theologica II-IIa Question 33: Article 4)

The act of correcting a superior requires charity, gentleness and respect. Angry, rude and disrespectful accusations are not a part of such a charitable correction. St. Paul demonstrates the attitude which St. Thomas Aquinas discusses. He is not rude and abusive. He brings the facts of where Peter goes wrong in his personal behavior, but does so respectfully.

Recognizing that Our Way is not the Only Way

Another problem to be aware of is that just because we have a preferred solution to a problem does not mean only our situation is right. I may personally prefer that our bishops punt the dissenters out so hard that they bounce on landing. However I need to recognize that, because the Church acts with the mentality of saving those who are in dissent from her, the Bishop may have a valid reason for undertaking a different action than we do.

The Need to Recognize the Possibility of Personal Error and Partisanship

We must also recognize that before judging a bishop we must be certain we have all the relative facts. If our understanding is flawed, our conclusion will be flawed as well. It probably reflects our original sin, that it is easier for us to think someone else errs than that we err.

Likewise we need to recognize that a similarity between a Catholic position and a political party plank does not mean that the bishops are “liberal” or “conservative.” We need to realize the one who is partisan may be us.

If we do not realize this, we run the risk of dogmatizing our personal beliefs and mistaking them for the beliefs of the Church.

You Cannot Draw a Universal Conclusion from a Limited Sample

Another problem is the tendency to argue from the bad decisions of certain bishops that the whole is corrupt. Now there are bishops who do wrong and do disagree with the teaching of the Church. However, it does not follow that all bishops are bad because of this.

To have a valid argument which makes a universal conclusion, one needs a universal premise (All [A] is [B]). If you don’t have this Universal premise, you cannot draw a universal conclusion. To make an argument about the whole, you have two options.

You can either say:

All [A] is [B]
All [B] is [C]
Therefore All [A] is [C]

Or you can say:

All [A] is [B]
No [B] is [C]
Therefore No [A] is [C]

Any other valid form of argument can only speak of “Some,” not the whole. Even that requires one universal statement (Either “All [A] is [B]” or “No [A] is [B]”) to go with the limited statement (“Some [B] is [C]” or “Some [B] is not [C]”) to make a valid conclusion (Therefore some [A] is [C] or Therefore some [A] is NOT [C]).

Otherwise, the argument cannot be said prove its point.

So to apply this to the case of the Church, if one wants to say that ALL Bishops are bad, or to say NO bishops are good, that person has to establish universal premises and show that the premises are true

Begging the Question

This brings us to our next error to consider. This is the failure to establish that a claim is true, but merely assume to be proven what needs proof:

The Church is falling into error by doing [X].
If the Church wasn’t in error, she wouldn’t do [X]

We call this Begging the Question because we can ask, “On what basis do you say [X] is wrong?” Or “On what basis do you say the Church is doing [X]?” If [X] isn’t wrong or if the Church isn’t doing [X], then the argument doesn’t work.

If someone tells me “All Bishops are corrupt,” I have a right to ask that be proven. I don’t have to take your word for it. We can look at the Church teaching on [A] and see if it is being violated by the bishop (as opposed to being handled differently than we would like).

I suspect this is why so many “appeals to Rome” against some Bishop fail. The allegation is made, the Church looks at it and recognizes that the accuser does not realize their allegation does not establish real wrongdoing.

Confusing Partisanship with Doctrine

We also need to be aware that just because a bishop formulates a response for his diocese which seems to come close to a political plank for one of our parties does not mean the bishop is acting out of sympathies for one party or another. The Catholic Church opposes abortion. Not because the Catholic Church is “right wing” but because the Catholic Church believes that the unborn children are human beings. The Catholic Church does not oppose the anti-immigrant laws in America because they favor the Democratic Party, but because they believe these actions go against the obligation to treat each person as a child of God.

We have to judge the political parties by Church teaching, not Church teachings by political ideology. We also have to recognize that the rejection of one extreme does not mean the acceptance of the other extreme. For example, the rejection of pure socialism is not an endorsement of laissez faire capitalism, and the rejection of laissez faire capitalism is not an endorsement of socialism.

Overlooking our own lack of knowledge and potential to err

One thing I’ve learned over the years is that there are many who assume the Church teaches a thing when she does not, or does not realize that their own views are far stricter (or far more lenient) than the Church teaching.

I’ve personally experienced people hear me say [A], then reason “If [A] then [X]. If [X] then [C]. Therefore he supports [C].” I then get accused of holding [C] when I actually reject [C]. The false accusation is based on the assumption that premise [X] follows from holding [A] without checking to see if I actually agree that [X] follows from [A].

This also happens in the Church. For example some argue:

If a bad priest appears to unchecked in a diocese, it means the bishop is doing nothing.
If the bishop is doing nothing, it means he sympathizes with the bad priest.
Therefore the bishop is corrupt/heretical etc.

The problem is, just because we don’t see a response does not mean an absence of response. If we do not know how the proper procedure, if we are focused on punishment while the bishop is focused on redemption, then it is possible that we can judge a bishop out of ignorance.

So the question is first, do we know all the facts of the case? If we do not, educating ourselves is necessary.

Conclusion

The anti-magisterial attitude among certain Catholics is a danger which needs to be recognized. Yes some bishops do wrong and need to be corrected. However, others do not do wrong but are accused of being wrong because the individual thinks a case should be handled differently. Also the whole is often judged on the failings of a few.

I don’t feel we need to justify a bishop who does wrong through choice or through a mistaken judgment. However, we do need to realize that it is entirely unjust to judge the whole on the basis of what we think is correct, without verifying that our knowledge is correct.

Nobody wants to admit their knowledge is lacking on a topic important to them. For those who seek to be faithful Catholics, having to admit not knowing is difficult — it’s as if we feel we are admitting we are less faithful than we thought. But that simply isn’t true.

Once we realize we don’t know a thing, we can begin to learn. However, so long as we stubbornly cling to thinking we know all there is to know about a situation, the result is clinging to error. It is dangerous for a person to assume he is not blind and therefore is allowed to judge.

⁴⁰Some of the Pharisees who were with him heard this and said to him, “Surely we are not also blind, are we?”

⁴¹Jesus said to them, “If you were blind, you would have no sin; but now you are saying, ‘We see,’ so your sin remains. (John 9:40-41)

Viciousness

2011-06-22T16:12:00.001-07:00

Jesus said to his disciples:
“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing,
but underneath are ravenous wolves.
By their fruits you will know them.
Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles?
Just so, every good tree bears good fruit,
and a rotten tree bears bad fruit.
A good tree cannot bear bad fruit,
nor can a rotten tree bear good fruit.
Every tree that does not bear good fruit will be cut down
and thrown into the fire.

So by their fruits you will know them.”

—Today's Gospel Reading

I've noticed that blogs written by people who believe Fr. Corapi did wrong to leave the active ministry have received a lot of comments by his supporters. Let's be frank. These comments are vicious ad hominems which attack the bloggers for being judgmental – and ironically they themselves are judging the motives of the bloggers, the bishop, the religious superiors of Fr. Corapi's order, accusing them of all sorts of things.

It is something which comes to mind when I consider today's Gospel reading. If such comments reflect the fruits of Fr. Corapi's ministry, what does it say of the tree? (Now keep in mind I have no idea what percentage of those following Fr. Corapi's new activities behave in such a way, so I will not say all are guilty or even most. They might turn out to be a small minority behaving in a way which is not approved of by Fr. Corapi).

So let's look at this.

If it is condemnable to judge the actions of Fr. Corapi it is also condemnable to judge the actions of those who write about him. Yet there are a certain portion of his supporters who angrily attack anyone who dares say Fr. Corapi is in the wrong to do as he did, accusing the bloggers of bad will.

I must call this hypocrisy. You who condemn judging. Do you judge? What gives you the right to judge in return? Why are they wrong to do so and you right to do so?

Moreover, do you judge the whole Church as being in error except for your tiny little corner of it? Is that not the kind of judging you condemn in those who believe Fr. Corapi is in the wrong?

Are you sure you do not have a beam in your eye, while trying to remove the mote in the eye of another?

Now, if you truly believe that Fr. Corapi is in the right and those thinking he did the wrong thing are in error, if you truly believe the bishop who began the investigation against him did so from bad motives, then demonstrate how this is so in a factual manner. Those who criticize Fr. Corapi's leaving active ministry can point to real wrongs he did (regardless of whether or not he is innocent of the charges of misconduct). Can you do the same without relying on Fr. Corapi's ipse dixit?

So let us behave like civilized individuals. Both those who believe he did wrong and those who did not are essentially people who try to be faithful Catholics, and do stumble at times. This vicious sort of attack of a bishop and of bloggers is unworthy behavior of those who claim to follow Jesus Christ.

Let us behave in a way of Christian brotherhood even when we disagree, lest we supply the enemies of the Church with ammunition while we turn on each other.

Uncivil War

2011-06-20T17:37:00.001-07:00

It's somewhat sad seeing the split, between Catholics who try to be faithful, over Fr. Corapi. It seems there are two positions.

Fr. Corapi is a wonderful person who is being grossly mistreated by the Church.
Fr. Corapi is a self-promoting egoist who abandoned his vocation when the going got rough.

I think both positions are guilty of partisanship. Group #1 tends to focus on the bashing of the US bishops. Group #2 tends to focus on the bashing of those who criticize the Magisterium.

The problem is, partisanship does not bring us to the truth. This current dispute only serves to deepen mistrust between those Catholics who seek to be faithful. People on the same side are (theologically speaking) shooting at each other – a Civil War.

One thing I think causes confusion is the overlooking of the fact that there are two issues – issues which are being blending into one.

The two issues are:

Fr. Corapi either did or did not engage in misconduct towards his accuser.
Fr. Corapi either did wrong or did not to wrong in terms of his leaving the active ministry of the priesthood in favor of becoming a private pundit.

This leaves us with four possibilities:

He did engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
He did not engage in misconduct and he did wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
He did engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.
He did not engage in misconduct and did not do wrong to leave the active ministry to become a pundit.

This would make him one of the following:

A knave looking out for #1
Rash by bailing out instead of trusting God
Cutting his losses and getting out
Heroically continuing his mission the only way he can

Of these, only one can be considered honorable. The other three do not reflect well on his character.

Since we do not know whether he is guilty or innocent in terms of misconduct (SOLT has not yet determined the credibility of the accuser… and no longer can now that he has left the ministry of the priesthood), the only thing we can ask is whether he did right or wrong in leaving his ministry. Now I admit that I do not know the proper procedure or whether he is following it, so I really cannot at this time determine his guilt or innocence in leaving the active ministry… though I do recognize that the Church has the right and the responsibility to assess both issues.

I would say this however. Regardless of whether or not the current policy of automatic suspension until the truth is found is unjust [which is cited by Fr. Corapi and his defenders], we cannot justify doing wrong in response to wrong being done. So I must say I must disagree with those bloggers and commentators who claim he is justified simply because they think the policy unjust.

I think we need to remember not to engage in rash judgment on one hand and not justify wrong being done in response to doing wrong.

Thus I ask that we who seek to be faithful Catholics stop this Civil War and instead do our best to learn the truth before making accusations.

Reflections on Fr. Corapi's Statement

2011-06-17T21:35:00.001-07:00

Father John Corapi announced today that, "I am not going to be involved in public ministry as a priest any longer."

He says he has been falsely accused, and perhaps he has been. I neither know him nor his accuser well enough to make an informed judgment. So let me make clear that I do not operate on the assumption he is guilty. That would be a rash judgment on my part to do so. For that matter, I do not operate on the assumption his accuser is lying – for the same reason.

Having been falsely accused myself (of something entirely different), I know the pain that an unjust accusation can cause a person, and how hard it can be to actually let go, no matter how badly you want to forgive. So it is quite possible he is innocent and the embittered tone comes through pain.

Yet, even acknowledging this, his statement deeply troubles me.

If I understand him correctly, it seems he is unwilling to give up speaking and writing even though he is suspended from doing so as a priest. He says, "Through writing and broadcasting we hope to continue to dispense truth and hope to a world so much in need of it."

Fr. Corapi seems determined to continue in speaking on topics as a private individual. As an American with freedom of speech, he has that right. The Church will not abduct him in the middle of the night.

However, his past authority is through his being an ordained priest speaking as a priest. Now, he signs off his statement with "John Corapi (once called “father,” now “The Black Sheep Dog”)." It seems he will essentially be one more voice in the blogosphere, with no more authority to his words than any other pundit. His personal knowledge and holiness may serve him well in this task, but the fact remains he will be nothing more than one more man with an opinion.

Fr. Corapi writes:

I shall continue, black sheep that I am, to speak; and sheep dog that I am, to guard the sheep—this time around not just in the Church, but also in the entire world. I am, indeed, not ready to be extinguished. Under the name “The Black Sheep Dog,” I shall be with you through radio broadcasts and writing. My autobiography, “The Black Sheep Dog,” is almost ready for publication. My topics will be broader than in the past, and my audience likewise is apt to be broader. I’ll do what I can under the circumstances.

Father Corapi seems to have no faith in being vindicated in time, writing, "I cannot give a lengthy explanation of what has transpired, but I can tell you that the most likely outcome is that they leave me suspended indefinitely and just let me fade away."

Names like Padre Pio, Cardinal Henri de Lubac and Cardinal Yves Congar flit before my mind as I read his statement. These were priests who fell under suspicion and underwent years of hardship, being silenced before being ultimately cleared of the charges brought against them. Sometimes religious superiors seeking to "err on the side of caution" do in fact act imprudently at times – a sad consequence of original sin.

Yet Padre Pio, Cardinal de Lubac and Cardinal Congar submitted to the demands of their superiors and did not go and publicly announce a parting of ways and a continuing of a personal ministry.

Fr. Corapi is continuing on, as he says, and bearing no ill will towards the Church. I certainly pray this is true.

However, his statement seems to be embittered… the writings of a man who feels betrayed and is trying to keep his anger under control as it eats away from within.

As I said above, I can relate to this, having been falsely accused before.

However, I know from this experience that when the anger eats away at you from within, it will consume you if it is not mastered. I also know I am too weak to master the anger. It is only through prayer that peace can come.

Thus each day, I find it necessary to pray the Litany of Humility:

O Jesus! meek and humble of heart, Hear me.
From the desire of being esteemed,
Deliver me, Jesus.

From the desire of being loved...
From the desire of being extolled ...
From the desire of being honored ...
From the desire of being praised ...
From the desire of being preferred to others...
From the desire of being consulted ...
From the desire of being approved ...
From the fear of being humiliated ...
From the fear of being despised...
From the fear of suffering rebukes ...
From the fear of being calumniated ...
From the fear of being forgotten ...
From the fear of being ridiculed ...
From the fear of being wronged ...
From the fear of being suspected ...

That others may be loved more than I,
Jesus, grant me the grace to desire it.

That others may be esteemed more than I ...
That, in the opinion of the world,
others may increase and I may decrease ...
That others may be chosen and I set aside ...
That others may be praised and I unnoticed ...
That others may be preferred to me in everything...
That others may become holier than I, provided that I may become as holy as I should…

I do not know the state of Fr. Corapi's conscience. Nor do I pretend to know his ultimate motives. But I do pray that he act with patience and wisdom, and not from wrath.

The Intolerant Tolerance

2011-06-02T09:06:00.001-07:00

Introduction

Recently, in the news, there have been reports of certain politicians seeking to ban “discrimination” against homosexuals by prohibiting discrimination on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation. One effect of such a law would be to force Christian institutions out of running adoption agencies, unless they go against what they believe to be right and commanded by God.

The interesting thing about it is this sort of action is done in the name of Tolerance. To oppose allowing people to do certain things on the basis of marital status or sexual orientation is called Intolerance and those groups practicing what is labeled “intolerance” is to be opposed and the groups who practice it are not to be… tolerated.

What it Means to Tolerate – or to be Intolerant

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

—Inigo Montoya, The Princess Bride

Let's start with the actual definition of the term. Tolerate is defined as:

tolerate

■ v.

1 allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

2 endure (someone or something unpleasant) with forbearance.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

It's a significant point. One tolerates something which they do not like and allows it to exist without interference. The contrary would then be Intolerance:

intolerant

■ adj. (often intolerant of) not tolerant of views, beliefs, or behavior that differ from one’s own.

(Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.)

So from a strict definition, anyone who refuses to allow the views, beliefs or behavior different from one’s own to exist without interference is intolerant.

Catch-22

They [La Prensa] accused us of suppressing freedom of expression. This was a lie and we could not let them publish it.

— PJ O'Rourke, Holidays in Hell (quoting a Sandinista Official [Nelba Blandón]).

The irony shows up when one considers the opposition to groups labeled as Intolerant. Such groups are to be opposed in their beliefs and laws are proposed or passed which seek to force such “intolerant” groups to either change their views or cease to function in a certain sphere of influence.

Such opposition cannot be considered to be allowing the existence without interference, and in fact seeks to reduce their ability to operate in public while practicing their views.

This is of course the definition of Intolerance however. If Tolerance is to be an absolute value, then those who champion tolerance are in fact intolerant and must be opposed.

Looking at the Real Issue

This is what happens when slogans and propaganda replace rational discourse however. Tolerance and Intolerance are in fact labels to promote one point of view and vilify another. What we need to do is to look behind the labels and see what is actually being championed.

Let's consider the following groups, for example (especially chosen for their repugnance):

Pedophiles
Terrorists
Serial Killers
Nazis
Rapists

If it is true that All Intolerance is Wrong, then it follows that any attempt to interfere with the groups listed above is wrong.

However, I think any sane person however would reject the idea of the rights of the groups listed above to practice without restriction. Indeed, we would consider anyone who thinks their behavior right to be morally or mentally disordered.

That's where the problem lies. If there is something which is recognized as always wrong, not merely wrong in certain circumstances, then it follows that one ought never to tolerate that which is always wrong.

So the real issue which masquerades behind the label of tolerance is an assumption that a certain moral view is correct, and those who disagree with it are morally wrong in doing so. The person who labels another’s beliefs as intolerant is actually saying they think the person’s beliefs are morally wrong.

On Moral Rightness and Wrongness

To say an action is morally right, morally neutral or morally wrong is actually to appeal to some sort of absolute which transcends culture. Genocide was not morally right in Nazi Germany from 1933-1945 just because the society leaders accepted it. Ethnic Cleansing was not right when it was practiced in Bosnia after the breakup of Yugoslavia.

We condemn these actions, not because the Nazis or the Serbs were intolerant, but because they were doing something – targeting racial and religious minorities for persecution – which we condemn as always wrong.

So if accepting the activities of a group as being morally acceptable or morally neutral is required in some cases (such as ethnic or religious minorities), and not right in other circumstances (tolerating pedophiles) it means one group is doing something unobjectionable and another is doing something wrong.

This requires us to ask, what makes an act right? On what authority is one group to claim that [X] is an absolute good or evil?

Authority and Reason

To the Christian, the belief that there are acts which can never be justified and some acts which are good is obligatory. We believe that God has structured the universe where Good reflects His nature and evil contradicts it. Also, Good is beneficial to us while Evil harms us. We believe that good and evil can be known by all individuals and this knowledge is distinct from our passions and wants. Our knowledge of good and evil can be deadened by indulging our passions and ignoring our conscience.

The Christian stance on good and evil is not a mere “the Bible says so” stance. Saint Thomas Aquinas pointed out (Summa Contra Gentiles I: Chapter 2, #3) that it does no good to point to the Bible as an authority if someone does not accept the Bible as authoritative, and we must make use of natural reason to justify what we believe.

That of course cuts both ways. If someone says “I reject Christian teaching and believe we must do [X] instead,” then it is not enough for them to insist on it from their own say so (called ipse dixit – claiming the truth of something based solely on their own say-so). They must also make use of natural reason to justify their authority.

Practicing What is Preached

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—GK Chesterton

Failure to understand why Christians believe as they do does not make Christians bigoted, but it does make those who use the labels bigoted by failing to consider why they feel they must act as they do.

I think this is important to stress here. If Christians are accused of imposing their views on others (as is done on issues such as abortion or Gay “marriage”) then it follows that those who would try to force their views on Christian institutions are guilty of the same – they are hypocritical if imposing values they disagree with is something to be considered wrong.

Thus the person who invokes the propaganda term of tolerance as a reason for opposing Christian values is not practicing what he preaches. To paraphrase Peter Kreeft, if they practice what they preach, they’ll stop preaching. However, if they think issues like abortion and homosexual acts are morally acceptable and those who disagree are morally in the wrong, they must recognize that moral absolutes do exist and they must offer their own defense as to why their values are correct.

They must let those arguments face the challenges of those who disagree instead of stooping to ad hominem attacks, calling those who disagree with them “racist,” “homophobe,” “intolerant,” and the like.

Otherwise such opposition to Christian beliefs can be justly called both hypocritical and intolerant – in the true sense of the word.

If Christ's Church is not the Catholic Church then Where is it?

2011-05-15T13:12:00.001-07:00

Preliminary Note I: This is not an Article to Bash Protestants. It is an Article dealing with an Anti-Catholic Smear

Please also note that this article is not intended to paint all Protestants as believing this. Not all Protestants are anti-Catholic.

Nor do I wish to speculate on the percentage of Protestants who actually believe this. Since Protestant denominations have different beliefs, it is difficult to say "All Protestants believe [X]" except when [X] is something very generalized. If (I'm speaking as a hypothetical example here, not an actual Statistic) 75% of Protestants believe [A], and of them 75% believe [B] and of this subgroup, 75% believe [C] and of that subgroup 75% believe [D], you wind up with the problem that slightly less than 32% of them believe [A]+[B]+[C]+[D]. This means 68% can say "I don't believe that!"

This is important to remember when reading the testimony of certain individuals who have converted (or reverted) to Catholicism who describe what their denominations taught. I want to make clear I am not saying that all Protestants hold to what these men have experienced. I merely use these as examples to show that some do hold these beliefs.

Remember, the task of this article is looking at the claim itself and what is wrong with it. Obviously, I am not intending to lump together those who do not hold this belief with those who do. If it ever appears I am making such a point, please recognize that it is poor phrasing on my part.

Preliminary Note II: Limiting the Topic Under Consideration

This article does not attempt to deal with those Eastern churches not in communion with Rome, known collectively as the Orthodox Church. These churches share with the Catholic Church a belief in the ancient nature of the Church, in the Sacraments, in the hierarchical nature of the Church and Apostolic Succession. Instead, the dispute there is over whether the See of Rome was intended to be the head of this Church. Since these issues of dispute are different from the intent of this article, those issues are simply outside of the intent of this article.

Instead, this article deals with the argument that there was the original church of the New Testament which was replaced by the Catholic Church.

Introduction: A Look at the Charge

Among the slanders against the Catholic Church out there, one tends to be popular with those not well informed about Christian history and that is the claim that there once was the true Christian church which existed, and this church was supplanted by the Catholic Church which began later and introduced all sorts of paganized and man-made doctrines.

The most common variant claims that the Catholic Church was an invention of the government of the Roman Empire to control Christianity or otherwise sided with a "false" Church against the "real" Christians. Under such an argument, it is claimed that a Roman Emperor (usually Constantine, but not always) established the Catholic Church, which mixed Christianity with paganism and man-made doctrines.

The so-called "true Church" is then said to have vanished or gone underground in the face of the Catholic Church or else was never intended to be a visible Church to begin with.

Former Evangelical David Armstrong describes his experience this way:

Many Protestants (particularly evangelicals) date the downfall of the early Church at 313, with the conversion of the Roman emperor Constantine and the subsequent "paganization" of institutional Christianity. Others will place this alleged calamitous event around 440, with the beginning of the papal reign of Pope St. Leo the Great, who - in the eyes of many Protestant historians - was the first pope in the full-blown jurisdictional sense (however that is defined by these same historians). Still another school of thought believes that the derailing of the young Christian Church occurred soon after the last Apostle's death and the cessation of the writing of New Testament books, around the year 100, or else sometime during the course of the second century A.D. at the latest.

A certain portion of non-Catholics still accept this argument unquestioningly. They point to Catholic doctrines they reject, claim they were invented (without credible citation of when) based on the assumption that the first Christians could not have believed what the Catholic Church teaches, so it must mean that the Catholic Church supplanted the earlier Church.

Such a charge reflects the bigotry of the one who repeats it – it presumes that the Catholic Church is an evil institution formed out of malice with the intention of corruption of the "true" Christian message for whatever motive is alleged. This kind of slander operates under the following assumptions:

The "original church" was a group of independent small communities based on the Bible alone.
The Catholic Church teaches things which do not mesh with this assumption of the "original church."
Therefore the Catholic Church was an invention or a corruption in competition with the "original church."

These assumptions are never questioned and those who hold to the beliefs never bother to check the truth of the claim.

The Argument from Ignorance fallacy

Because the Catholic response, pointing out the lack of evidence, is often termed (wrongly) an argument from ignorance fallacy, I believe we should first discuss what this fallacy is before moving on. This fallacy argues from a lack of evidence (that the accuser is aware of one way) that the opposite must be true:

There is no proof for [X], therefore [Not-X].
There is no proof against [X], therefore [X].

Logically, premises must express claims of knowledge. "Nothing logically follows from nothing, i.e. from no-knowledge" (Kreeft, Socratic Logic 3e p86). So one cannot say "Something" is proven from "Nothing."

However, if one makes a charge but cannot back it up with evidence we can say that the charge is unproven. In this case, pointing out the lack of proof is not an argument from ignorance fallacy.

I bring up this fallacy to distinguish it from the valid question of asking If the Catholic Church did supplant the so-called "True Church" then where is the evidence that this occurred? This question is not an argument from ignorance ("Well, I don't know of any evidence supporting this true Church so therefore the Catholic Church must be true.") Instead it is taking a charge ("The Catholic Church replaced the 'true Church'") and asking "How can you justify such a claim?"

We are under no obligation to accept such charges credulously after all.

Considering the Problems with the Claim of the "True Church was Supplanted."

One thing which is seldom considered with this charge is that it immediately throws doubt on the veracity of Christ – even though most of the proponents of this argument do not consider this. Essentially, if this argument is true, it makes the promises of Christ false.

Christ has made certain statements about His protection of His Church which do not admit to a counterfeit obliterating it. (I use the NAB and, if necessary, also the KJV as a preemptive defense against the charge that the NAB wording does not justify the citation of the verse). For example:

Matt 28:20 "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age." (The KJV uses "unto the end of the world")
Matt 16:18 "upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of the netherworld shall not prevail against it." (The KJV uses "the gates of hell")
John 20:21 “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, so I send you.”

These verses demonstrate a permanence to the Church and Christ's presence with it. So if it vanished until Luther (or Wycliffe or Tyndale – claims do vary here) "rediscovered" the truth, then we can see that Christ either could not or did not keep His word.

Considering the Problem with the Claim of the Hidden or Underground Church

Now, when it comes to the idea of an underground or hidden Church ("The evil Catholic Church drove it underground and it stayed hidden until the Protestant Reformation"), we do have the right to ask "What happened to it?" For example, prior to the legalization of Christianity in AD 313 we do indeed have works written by early Christians defending their faith against Paganism and heresies, appealing to the legal authorities of the time to treat them justly (See St. Justin Martyr's First Apology for example). Yet, if the Catholic Church forced the "true Church" underground as some argue, we can validly ask why the "true Church" did not continue to do so against this new foe.

Some will argue that the Catholic Church destroyed all the "true Church" writings… an admission that there is no evidence to justify the claim of the "true Church." This becomes dubious when we consider the writings known to exist from historical Christianity prior to AD 313 when Christianity was legalized.

During the times prior to Constantine, the Roman Empire attempted to destroy all the Christian writings but failed to do so. Certainly there are mentions of lost works out there, but other works of these authors do exist, and excerpts of lost works also exist as quotations in the writings of others (Eusebius, for example, has quoted lost works of previous Early Christian Fathers).

So we have to ask two questions:

Where are the writings of the "true Christians" protesting the encroachment of these changes?
If the writings were destroyed, why do we have no record of these mass burnings?

I find the second point significant. After all, when the Catholic Church went after heresies, they had published their condemnations. Yet, assuming a malicious Catholic Church, we can see no condemnation or action against these supposed "true Christians." Isn't that odd? Instead of using propaganda to slander a threat, they say nothing.

This objection is not an argument from ignorance. An allegation is made, and we wish to see the credible evidence if we are to accept it. The argument from ignorance is made by the accusers who say that because there is no evidence, the evidence therefore must have been destroyed.

Blessed John Henry Newman wrote on this absence of any original Christians speaking out against this "invented Church" and the absence of any proof of the destruction of said evidence:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-Nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.'

(The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, if this "true Church" was destroyed or forced underground, the destruction was so total as to destroy all parts of its existence AND also destroyed all evidence of the existence of the destruction.

That isn't a reasonable accusation. That is a "tinfoil hat" conspiracy theory.

Also, we should remember that Jesus commanded His disciples with the Great Commission. If this "true Church" was underground, it was so well hidden that it seems it utterly failed to obey the teachings of Christ which it did obey before the legalization of Christianity.

If the Charge is True, When Did It Happen?

⁵⁷Some took the stand and testified falsely against him, alleging,
⁵⁸“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple made with hands and within three days I will build another not made with hands.’”
⁵⁹Even so their testimony did not agree. (Mark 14:57-59)

One thing which makes it difficult to accept such accusations is that the accusers themselves cannot agree on when the Catholic Church was allegedly created. This actually becomes a dilemma for the accusers.

The earlier the alleged corruption or replacement, the more instances we have of beliefs held my Catholics and non-Catholics alike being proclaimed by this so-called "false Church."
On the other hand, the later the alleged corruption or replacement, the more "uncomfortable" doctrines must be placed as held by the "true Church" yet are rejected today.

Let's look at some of the events within the history of Christianity which become uncomfortable to the one who argues that the Catholic Church replaced the true Church. There are three general breakdowns of the periods suggested:

At the time Constantine Legalized Christianity
At some time after Constantine (Some time between the 5th and 11th century)
At some time before Constantine (Some time between AD 100 and AD 313)

Let us look at these and the see the problems with the claim.

1) Constantine's Time?

Some try to argue that this was done during the reign of Constantine (reigned AD 306-337 [AD 313-337 over entire Empire]). The claim was that with the legalization of Christianity and the outlawing of paganism, it became advantageous to become Christian and many pagans joined the Church and either brought over their corrupted beliefs or else the Catholic Church is accused of implementing these "corruptions" to gain the support of Paganism.

This claim is utterly unhistorical. While Christianity was legalized with the Edict of Milan in AD 313, the outlawing of paganism did not take place prior to the reign of Theodosius in AD 391. Constantine did proclaim the legalization of Christianity, but this still left Christianity a minority for many years. It also overlooks how the classical Paganism of the Roman Empire was utterly failing to appeal to the spiritual needs of the people (as Julian the Apostate [reigned AD 361-363] found out when he attempted to reinstitute paganism).

Moreover, we must consider the Council of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine merely wanted a settlement, though he leaned towards the heresy of Arianism (some of his descendants and successors to the throne would openly advocate it). So it seems that if a Church established by the Empire existed as alleged, it would hold to these heresies rather than condemn them.

That's not all. The Council of Nicaea also made pronouncements on certain things called invention by some non-Catholics, such as the clergy and Sacraments… which demonstrates that as of AD 325, these things were in the Church and were in the Church long enough to require correction of abuses caused by some individuals.

So the dilemma is: If the Council of Nicaea was called by a false Church, then it had no authority to condemn Arianism (Arius took his views from his personal interpretation of Scripture). However, if it was the true Church, then it means that those denominations rejecting the Sacraments and Clergy cannot claim to be practicing the true faith.

Don't Forget Who Approved the Canon of Scripture

If we are to use Constantine as a baseline, then we must remember it was the Catholic Church who formally declared the canon of Scripture which we still hold today (73 books), reaffirming them in Councils of Rome (381), Hippo (393), and Carthage (397).

Let's not forget that there were disputes over whether James, Hebrews, 2 Peter, 2+3 John, Jude and Revelation should be accepted as Inspired. There were disputes over whether the Didache, 1 Clement and the Shepherd of Hermas should be accepted as Inspired. It was these Councils submitted to the Pope for approval which gave us the approval for the Scriptures today.

If the Catholic Church supplanted the true Christians during the reign of Constantine, then we have a Bible which was approved by a so-called "false church" and we have no way of knowing if any books are inspired or not.

2) Later than Constantine?

Some denominations recognize the first seven Ecumenical Councils (the Seventh was in AD 787) and the Patristic Period and try to allege that the supplanting happened later. Some even go so far as to say it was the Middle Ages when this happened.

Former Independent Baptist (who has returned to the Catholic Church), Michael Matthews describes the belief known as the "Trail of Blood":

According to this view, during the Middle Ages the Catholic Church went off into apostasy and idolatry, while all the "Bible-believers" went underground. These "real Christians" formed all the groups that were so viciously persecuted by the "Papists". Today's Baptists are all descended from those groups, and so were never part of the "Harlot of Babylon".

The problem with this is that before the time of the Middle Ages, it becomes impossible to deny that the Church was hierarchical, sacramental and all the rest of the things that many denominations call "innovations." So if this "apostasy" happened in the Middle Ages, the true Church would still have these elements so often denied by those who make this accusation.

Also, since one variant of the the allegation is that the Catholic Church was established by the emperors to control Christianity, we need to be aware that the Pope was the one who stood firm against the heresies embraced by the later emperors. Arianism (it did not die once condemned at Nicaea – in fact, briefly Rome stood alone against a tide of people falling to the Arian heresy), Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Iconoclasm etc. All of these were embraced by the emperors in Constantinople, and all of them were opposed by the Roman Catholic Church.

Medieval Heresies Not Early Protestantism

Also, the view which Matthews was taught has a problem that the medieval heresies opposed by Catholics were not "Bible Christians" as some allege. For example, the Cathar/Albigensians, sometimes called Bible Christians by those ignorant of history, believed in two gods, one good, one evil. They believed matter was evil, and therefore having children was also evil. Fornication was considered less evil than marriage because marriage had the intent of having children. Sodomy was considered superior than natural intercourse because it could not result in children.

People like Wycliffe, Hus and Tyndale are often cited. However they were condemned for different errors, NOT because they were Bible Christians. Their origins are far later than the time period argued for "original Christians." They had different beliefs, sometimes contradictory beliefs which shows they did not have a common set of beliefs passed on from "original Christians."

3) Earlier than Constantine?

Some groups, recognizing the Early Church Fathers do speak of a visible, hierarchical and sacramental Church attempt to argue that there was a great apostasy early on. Therefore, the Early Christian Fathers who speak of a Church which was Catholic were apostate.

Former Fundamentalist Carl Olsen described an encounter with a former pastor when he announced he converted:

Our conversation began quietly enough. I gave him a little background and told him we were going to enter the Catholic Church in the spring. Slowly his intensity level grew, and finally he began to attack the "Romanist" Church, with its needless "ritual and pomp" and its "unbiblical traditions and false teachings." He railed against the "organization" and "hierarchy" of the Church. "You think the Church is an organization, and it is not. It is spiritual and has no physical organization. Early Christianity was simple. It didn't have organization and was never meant to have it."

"That's not what we find in the book of Acts and in the Church Fathers," I replied.

He laughed. "Much of the early Church was in apostasy. Most of the Church Fathers were apostates. Besides, their writings are not inspired and infallible."

—(This Rock #9 vol.6 June 1998)

The problem with the attempts to date the apostasy of the Catholics to before AD 313 in favor of a simple Biblical Church is that one cuts out many of the beliefs which are held by the allegedly apostate Church as well as those who call her apostate. The term "Trinity" did not appear before AD 181. St. Augustine, so often cited by Luther and Calvin, lived in the Fifth Century AD. The Gnostics, the Sabellians, etc. were condemned by this allegedly apostate Church.

Essentially this belief Olsen describes is another example of the argument from ignorance fallacy. Because something was not mentioned by the same term we hear today, it is claimed the thing was a later invention.

Such a claim is like saying that mailing letters through the post office did not happen before the 1990s because there was no mention of the term Snail-Mail before then. The problem of course is that "Snail mail" was a term later developed to distinguish the traditional system of mailing letters from e-mail.

It is also a No True Scotsman fallacy. Anything early which does not fit the conception of the early Church is automatically categorized as "apostate." Therefore no attempts at rebuttal will be accepted.

Did the Catholics Die for their Faith while the "True Christians" Hid?

Another problem with the argument that the apostasy was early in the history of Christianity is this: Prior to the legalization of Christianity in AD 313, during the Arian Barbarians attacks on Catholics, during the Moslem invasions and so on, many Catholics chose to embrace Martyrdom for preaching the faith rather than to stay silent and live.

Where were these "true Christians" who certainly had the same choice? Did they simply go underground, pretending to be Catholics, allowing the "errors" to spread unchecked? If so, how is this a witness for the faith? That the Catholics thought their faith in Christ was worth dying for, while the so-called "true Christians" hid during the same time does not speak to the credit of these "true Christians."

Considering the Problems with the Claim of the Invisible Church

In defense against these objections, I have seen some claims made as to the Invisible nature of the Church. Generally speaking the Church is denied to be a unified visible Church, but rather is the conglomerate of faithful everywhere.

Nelson's New Christian Dictionary (which strikes me as a source which tries to be as even handed as possible) speaks of the belief of the Invisible Church as:

Universal church comprised of living and dead believers as well as those who are not official members of any denomination but whose names are known to God.

The problem with this view is that it contradicts Scripture as to the role of the Church carrying out His commands. The Church is to be the Light of the World which is not hidden under a basket and to be the city on the hill which cannot be hidden (Matt 5:14-16). The Church is commanded to preach the message of salvation to the whole world (Matt 28:19-20), to bind and loose (Matt 16:19, Matt 18:18) and to forgive sins (John 20:23). Moreover, The Church is to have an authority where, if one will not heed the Church, they do not heed Christ (Luke 10:16), and if one will not heed the Church, they are to be treated like the tax collectors (Matt 18:17).

The problem with the argument of the Invisible Church is, it cannot be the Light of the World, the City of the Hill. It cannot preach the good news, and none can appeal to it.

It should be noted that to argue that these commands were merely directed to the Apostles and not the Church means we have a break between the Apostles and the faith of today.

The Quandary This Claim Creates

Any attempt to accuse the Catholic Church of persecuting or imposing itself over the "true Church" creates a quandary for the one who would argue it.

If the original Christians disappeared until Luther or Tyndale or Wycliffe rediscovered what was really meant, it means Christ was either in error or lying when He said he would be with the Church until the end of the age.
If the original Church was hidden so that we can find no trace of it, it means these true Christians utterly failed to carry out the Great Commission and instead surrendered the field to an impostor for over a thousand years.
If the original Church was invisible, then we have false passages in the Bible which equates listening to the Church to listening to Christ, and we have Apostles demanding obedience – which requires a visible and authoritative Church.
If the original Church is the Catholic Church, then Jesus' words must be remembered: "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me" (Luke 10:16)

Conclusion

Ultimately, the "true Church" claim is a phantasm. There is no evidence to justify it, while there is evidence that the early Church was visible, sacramental, hierarchical and claiming to be carrying on the work of the Apostles. To accept such a claim would be to abandon all the commonly held Christian beliefs.

The argument claiming that the Catholic Church usurped authority is a circular argument. It takes as proven the claim that the early Church could not believe what the Catholic Church teaches. Therefore it must be corrupt. Why? Because the early Church could not believe what the Catholic Church teaches.

But the premise is the conclusion. It assumes as true what it needs to prove and ignores the fact that it has not been proven. It's like the old adage about law:

If the Law is on your side, hammer on the law. If the facts are on your side, hammer on the facts. If neither is on your side, hammer on the table.

In this case, neither the Bible nor Christian history supports the claim that the Catholic Church supplanted the early Church. However, we can point to both to justify what the Catholic Church believes.

Since the "supplanting" argument is shown to be without evidence to support it, one is obligated to set aside one's fears and suspicions and ask oneself if they have perhaps misunderstood the Catholic Church, and perhaps need to find out what she truly teaches.

Recommended Reading

For those wanting some access to Patristic writings but don't want to shell out the $200-$500 it costs for the reprinted 38 volume Early Christian Fathers set (which is the fullest version currently available in English I am aware of but not the best version. The American editors (under Philip Schaff) of the 19th century take a strongly anti-Catholic view and presume the "corruption" theory), there are some good books which are much less expensive which can introduce the reader to how the Early Christians viewed the Church:

Upon this Rock by Steven K. Ray
The Early Papacy by Adrian Fortescue and Alcuin Reid
Faith of the Early Fathers (3 volume set) by William A. Jurgens

Dead Fish, Live Fish and the Bald King of France: On Asking the Right Questions First

2011-05-09T08:41:00.001-07:00

The story goes that King Charles II posed this question to the Royal Society:

"When a live fish is thrown into a basin of water the basin water and fish do not weigh more than the basin and water before the fish is thrown in whereas when a dead fish is employed the weight of the whole is exactly equal to the added weights of the basin water and fish."

In other words, why does a dead fish weigh more than a living fish?

The members of the Royal Society debated the phenomenon and prepared several theories but found them unsatisfactory. Finally, someone proposed testing the theory and found out that dead or alive, the weight was increased by the weight of the fish. Thus the question began from an unquestioned but faulty premise.

Another interesting question is whether a question has meaning. Bertrand Russell raised up the statement, "The Present King of France is Bald." In such a statement, is it true or false?

Actually, it is neither. Present day France is a Republic and has no King. Therefore the question is meaningless because the original premise (The Present King of France) on which the question of whether or not he is bald is not true.

Both examples show that there is a need to determine what is the primary issue in an assumption which needs to be investigated. It is meaningless to determine why a thing is until we can determine whether a thing is.

In other words, does the question assume a premise something which needs to be considered in itself?

Applying the Issue to Anti-Catholicism

Of course, Arnobius of Sicca not being a Science blog, I'm sure the reader recognizes I have a different focus in mind in bringing up these points. Yes, my interest is one of determining truth, especially when the questions asked are ones which are asked in a way which are essentially "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" format.

Let's consider certain assumptions which show up in questions asked which have this format:

Why does the Church oppose Science?
Why does the Church oppose Scripture?
Why does the Church worship statues?
Why does the Church want divorced people to suffer?
Why does the Church make it policy to cover up child abuse?

In all these questions, it is assumed that the accusation is true when in fact it is the accusation which needs to be investigated. If the Church does not oppose science, does not oppose Scripture, does not worship statues, does not want divorced people to suffer and does not make it official policy to cover up child abuse then the question is as meaningless as asking whether the Current King of France is bald.

The Fallacy of the Loaded Question

The anti-Catholic questions are essentially the Fallacy of the Loaded Question. The questions assume a condition exists. For example, with the Have you stopped beating your wife yet? it presumes two things:

That you are married
That you have beaten your wife before the question was asked.

Both presuppositions must be true for the question to have any meaning.

Yet all too many people start with the assumption that the presuppositions are true. Yet they often do this because they reason that because the Church does not accept doctrine [X], they must be opposed to the thing the doctrine is about. For example, because the Catholic Church rejects Sola Scriptura, some assume that therefore the Church must oppose the Bible.

This brings us to our next fallacy to consider.

The Fallacy of Bifurcation

The fallacy of Bifurcation assumes that either one of two conditions must exist. Either [A] or [B]. The Church does not support [A]. Therefore it must support [B]. However, the rejection of [A] does not mean support for [B]. It merely means the rejection of [A]. For any further discussion, one must investigate what the Church teaches on subject [X] which the questioner rests options [A] and [B] on.

So for example, if one says, "Either the Church accepts [Sola Scriptura] or [Rejects the Authority of Scripture]," we need to realize that the rejection of [Sola Scriptura] does not mean [Rejects Authority of Scripture]. We would instead have to investigate what the Church does believe about Scripture and why she holds it.

When one looks into what the Church believes on [X], one may find that instead of being an exclusive choice between [A] and [B], the Church actually holds [C].

This would make the attack on the Church unjust and unwarranted.

Conclusion

Ultimately any question about why the Church acts as she does must be grounded with "What does the Church believe?" before one can move on to "Why does the Church believe this?" Otherwise, one has a meaningless question.

Thoughts on the So-called Plain Sense of Scripture and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

2011-04-26T07:01:00.001-07:00

²⁰Know this first of all, that there is no prophecy of scripture that is a matter of personal interpretation, ²¹for no prophecy ever came through human will; but rather human beings moved by the holy Spirit spoke under the influence of God. (2 Peter 1:20-21)

¹⁵ And consider the patience of our Lord as salvation, as our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, also wrote to you, ¹⁶ speaking of these things as he does in all his letters. In them there are some things hard to understand that the ignorant and unstable distort to their own destruction, just as they do the other scriptures. (2 Peter 3:15-16)

Introduction

In my last article on the subject, I shared some objections as to why Catholics do not accept the concept of Sola Scriptura — that it is a manmade doctrine not to be found in Scripture. This time I want to discuss an assumption which is held by some proponents of Sola Scriptura, which holds there is a “plain sense” of Scripture apparent to all who read it, and therefore a Church which can determine what is a correct interpretation is unnecessary.

This is not a reasonable claim. When one considers that the Bible was written by individuals who wrote thousands of years ago, as a member of a different culture, it is quite likely that to read it as if it was written by a 21^st century author is to read it in a sense which was never intended.

Preliminary Comments

The reader should be aware that just because I reject the concept of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture, it does not mean I reject the authority of Scripture. As a collection of writings written by individuals passing on the Revelation which God gave them and inspired and protected the authors from error in doing so. Scripture “is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness,” (2 Tim 3:16).

However, it does not follow from this that the Bible was ever intended to stand alone or to be interpreted by itself.

Thus, anyone who interprets my article as denying that the Bible is inspired or authoritative interprets it wrongly.

I don't doubt that some non-Catholics will disagree and perhaps dislike what I write. Please keep in mind that any comments which I deem offensive (whether personal attacks or anti-Catholic attacks) will not be approved. Please be civil in any expressed disagreement.

What “Plain Sense” Is.

“Whatever is against the plain sense of the written word, or which gives countenance or encouragement to sin, we may be sure is not that which the Lord has spoken.¹

—Matthew Henry

So what is this Plain Sense? It is essentially rooted in Literalism, which is defined by Nelson’s New Christian Dictionary as, “Interpretation of biblical texts in straightforward and nonsymbolic language, using the literal meaning of the original words.²” So if the Bible says God created the world in seven days, the Bible means exactly that. Any attempt to claim that the Bible never intended to give an “eyewitness” account tends to be accused of trying to “explain away” what the Bible says.

The claim of a “Plain Sense” of Scripture is that the meaning of Scripture is obvious to all who read it, and thus a Church is unnecessary and has no authority to insist on a binding interpretation. Moreover, exegesis and interpretation is not needed since any person who reads the Scriptures in good faith will understand the proper meaning, and only those who do not approach the Scriptures in good faith would insist on a different meaning.

If that kind of thinking sounds problematic, that’s because it stems from a logical error which will claim that “if YOU disagree from ME, it’s because YOU are in error.”

No True Scotsman Fallacy

This is known as the No True Scotsman fallacy, which is used in this case to negate all views of the Bible contrary to one’s own by labeling it as not being authentically Christian. It works like this:

All True Christians will accept that a certain Bible Verse means X.
Jones doesn’t think this Bible verse means X.
Therefore Jones is not a True Christian

Under such a fallacy, any attempts to question the major premise or any counterexamples will be labeled as not being "a true Christian."

To employ a silly example, what if I claim that Jesus stating, “My kingdom does not belong to this world” (John 18:36) means He is an alien and if you do not agree you are not a real Christian and read the Bible out of context. How do you refute that? Such a claim refuses to consider any rebuttals by claiming they must be false because they disagree.

Caveat: This does not mean Scripture is Subjective

Because the above point can be misunderstood, I want to make this clear: The meaning of the Bible is not subjective. What makes it seem subjective is the multiple personal interpretations all claiming to be correct.

There are right and wrong interpretations of the Bible, and the issue is: Who has authority to make a binding interpretation?

My objection to “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” is it essentially makes any individual who claims it into his own Magisterium, disguising his or her personal interpretation as the “inspiration of the Holy Spirit.”

An Example of the Pitfalls with Personal Interpretation

In St. Augustine’s work Reply to Faustus the Manichaean, we see in book 22, how Faustus (a member of the Manichaean heresy) reads the Old Testament and interprets it:

4. These books, moreover, contain shocking calumnies against God himself. We are told that he existed from eternity in darkness, and admired the light when he saw it; that he was so ignorant of the future, that he gave Adam a command, not foreseeing that it would be broken; that his perception was so limited that he could not see Adam when, from the knowledge of his nakedness, he hid himself in a corner of Paradise; that envy made him afraid lest his creature man should taste of the tree of life, and live for ever; that afterwards he was greedy for blood, and fat from all kinds of sacrifices, and jealous if they were offered to any one but himself; that he was enraged sometimes against his enemies, sometimes against his friends; that he destroyed thousands of men for a slight offense, or for nothing; that he threatened to come with a sword and spare nobody, righteous or wicked. The authors of such bold libels against God might very well slander the men of God. You must join with us in laying the blame on the writers if you wish to vindicate the prophets.³

Faustus personally interprets the Creation account and the Torah on the sacrifices in a literal sense, taking what he thinks is the plain sense of Scripture. Those familiar with Scripture will be able to recognize the Scriptural events he speaks about. Because of this interpretation, Faustus and the Manichaeans think that the God of the Old Testament cannot be the same as the God of the Prophets and the New Testament.

Now before anyone fires off an angry response here, let me make clear I do not claim that those who believe in “Plain Sense” and “Personal Interpretation” believe in the Manichaeism that Faustus did. Rather I use this example to demonstrate that a person who interprets Scripture for himself with what he or she thinks is the "plain sense" can very easily go wrong, and if such a person makes use of the No True Scotsman fallacy, it can assume everyone else is wrong rather than consider the possibility of personal error.

Guided by the “Spirit”

In response to this, some argue that the proper understanding is done through Guidance by the Holy Spirit. In this, it would be argued that interpretations not done under the influence of the Spirit were wildly inaccurate. This defense would claim that the Spirit reaches out to people of good faith and helps them to understand what Scripture means. Therefore it can be said that Faustus was not guided by the Holy Spirit, but those who follow the “Plain Sense” are.

The appeal to the Holy Spirit is another defense mechanism of the “Bible Alone” which is commonly invoked against the example of the false interpretation. But there is a problem with the assertion. How do we know who is deceived and who is not? Or, more chillingly, how does the individual who is certain they are right know they are not deceived?

Faustus, like Arius, Nestorius and others were probably sincere in their belief that Jesus was less than God, and sincere in believing they were inspired while those who disagreed were deceived. They certainly appealed to the Scriptures sincerely – yet they were in error. So who determines what is right?

The problem is, this is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy, and argues that whoever deviates from a chosen interpretation is not guided by the Spirit. Regardless of beliefs, anyone can use this fallacy and say "This interpretation is not the same as mine. Therefore it must be false."

Get enough different groups all using the fallacy and contradicting each other and you have a problem. If you have several denominations that hold contradictory views and all of which claim to have the true interpretation of Scripture and all of them appealing to the Bible, to whom are we to approach to determine which view is in contradiction to what Jesus taught His disciples?

If two or more groups say contrary things, they cannot all be right. However, just because one contrary is wrong does not mean the other is right. If one person says “All [A] is [B]” and another says “No [A] is [B]” both can be wrong if it turns out “Some [A] is [B].” Thus we can’t choose who is right simply on the basis of identifying group [B] as wrong.

Self Contradiction in Practice

Thus, the problem with an appeal to a Plain sense of Scripture which therefore requires no Church is that it is a self-contradiction. This claim is in itself a claim to have the personal or denominational authority to make a binding interpretation of Scripture (which they deny to the Catholic Church). In other words, the person appealing to the Plain Sense of Scripture in judging others who disagree with him is creating his own Magisterium — and one based on the argument that if you don’t agree with [X] you are reading the Scriptures wrongly.

The Data of Divisions

The existence of numerous denominations, all calling themselves Protestant, demonstrates this problem. If there is a plain sense of Scripture obvious to all who seek it in good faith, we should expect to see evidence of such a claim in the unity of all groups who claim to rely on the Bible Alone: all pointing to the Bible should hold to the same teaching if the teaching is “plain.”

Yet this does not happen. If people disagree with a pastor or reverend and their take on Scripture, they are free to just go elsewhere to where someone teaches what they agree with.

Now I won’t go into the “20,000+ denomination” debate which annoys certain Protestants. This seems to be mainly a dispute over what a denomination is. Certain groups consider three different offshoots of Presbyterians as three different denominations. Others consider them one denomination. Without a mutual agreement on what denomination means, such arguments are worthless.

Setting that aside, however, we can say that when one has Lutherans, Reformed, Methodist, Presbyterian, Anglican, Non-Denominational and others, each claiming there is a plain sense of Scripture while appealing to their own belief as being what that plain sense is supposed to be, we can see that this is evidence against a Plain Sense.

A thing cannot both be [A] and [Not-A] at the same time and in the same context. If two statements about a thing contradict, they can’t both be right, but (if they both share a fundamental misinterpretation they share) both can be wrong.

A Brief Preliminary on "Agreeing on the Important Things"

While this is a topic worthy of a post itself (which I hope to get to later), I will touch briefly on the defense sometimes offered that these different denominations agree on "important things." The argument is, the differences are less than the agreements, and the agreements are what is discovered from the plain sense. The differences are over “minor” issues.

The reason this is a problem is, denominations do not say these differences are minor issues. Baptists who say Baptism is important and Calvinists who say it is a mere symbol are saying contradictory things about the necessity of Baptism. Denominations disagree on whether abortion or divorce is permissible or not… and a growing number of them are deciding not to contest the issue at all, merely saying nothing to avoid controversy.

So when it comes to the "Agreeing on the Important Things" argument, what we have is a reduction of Christianity to the Lowest Common Denominator, where people who insist on other issues as being important are accused of focusing on trivialities. Certain denominations (the Anglicans and Presbyterians for example) are divided over the concept of homosexual marriage. This does not mean that homosexuality is unimportant compared to what they agree on. Jesus said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments. (John 14:15)" He also said "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. (Matt 7:21)"

So we can say that the issue of obedience to His commandments is not optional, and therefore when two denominations dispute whether or not an issue is "important" either one is denigrating something important or elevating something trivial.

Actually, the "Important things" defense is another example of the No True Scotsman fallacy:

There is no contradiction on major beliefs between denominations.
Belief [X] is disputed between denominations.
Therefore Belief [X] is not a major belief.

Any uncomfortable dispute between denominations is explained away by this argument. The problem is, it waters down the faith to the level of the group which believes the least.

The Question to Be Asked

Thus we have the problem with the claim of Personal interpretation in a nutshell. How can we know who has the correct interpretation when two groups disagree and both claim to have the guidance of the Holy Spirit?

Hence, Catholics ask: When two or more denominations disagree over the plain sense of Scripture, to what do they appeal to settle who is right?

It cannot be the Bible — because this is what is being disputed. Two parties with no other authority but the Bible can each accuse the other of interpreting it wrongly and will not accept the other's citation as a refutation of their belief. Clearly in such a case, having an inerrant Bible alone is not of much use if people cannot agree on the meaning.

That is the problem: if one accepts The Bible Alone, there is nothing to judge between two disputing views to determine which is correct. Thus we have an impasse — if one accepts The Bible Alone and Personal Interpretation.

This is why the Catholics emphasize the fact that the teachings of the Apostles are passed on in both the writings of Sacred Scripture and in Sacred Tradition. We believe Jesus established a Church under the headship of the Apostles and that when one reads the Bible, when one considers Sacred Tradition, one has to view it in context of the faith which is passed consistently from generation to generation. A person who views Scripture apart from how it was interpreted since the times of the Apostles does not read Scripture correctly.

The denial of the claim that Jesus established His Church and protected her from error is to effectively kick out the support for a reasoned belief that the Bible is inerrant, and that “All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.⁴”

This is because: If we do not know who has the authority to interpret, how can we know whose teaching, refutation, correction and training for righteousness is correct and whose is in error?

¹Henry, M., & Scott, T. (1997). Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary (Dt 18:15).

^² Kurian, G. T. (2001). Nelson's new Christian dictionary : The authoritative resource on the Christian world. Nashville, Tenn.: Thomas Nelson Pubs.

^³Schaff, P. (1997). The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Vol. IV. St. Augustine: The writings against the Manicheans and against the Donatists. (273).

⁴ Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Board of Trustees, Catholic Church. National Conference of Catholic Bishops, & United States Catholic Conference. Administrative Board. (1996, c1986). The New American Bible : Translated from the original languages with critical use of all the ancient sources and the revised New Testament (2 Ti 3:16). Confraternity of Christian Doctrine.

Bifurcation and Accusation

2011-04-12T10:36:00.001-07:00

Let's consider this argument:

Polly is either a [Cat] or a [Dog]. (Either [A] or [B])
Polly is not a [Dog]. (Not [B])
Therefore Polly is a [Cat]. (Therefore [A])

This sounds reasonable, right?

But what if Polly is actually a parrot? In such a case, this argument would be untrue because it fails to consider that other options exist.

I bring this example of logical fallacy up because it seems to be common in today's debate on moral and political issues in an "Either with us or with the enemy" mindset. If one extreme is not true, the other extreme must be true.

Thus we see homosexual activists label whoever believes homosexual acts are wrong support the "persecution" of homosexuals. Whoever opposes Pastor Terry Jones in his burning of the Koran must therefore think Islam is as good as Christianity.

Contradictory and Contrary Statements

Such an argument confuses Contradictory statements with Contrary Statements.

A Contrary statement would be: It is Either Hot or Cold.

A Contradictory statement would be: it is either Hot or not Hot.

With contrary statements, there is the possibility of it being neither one or the other – that is — both can be false. With contradictory statements, only one can be true, and one must be true.

Denouncing False Accusations

Opposition to a certain belief is not endorsement of the opposite. Opposition to homosexual acts is not favoring the persecution of homosexuals. Opposing Pastor Terry Jones is not thinking Islam is equally valid with Christianity. Opposing Democrats does not mean one supports Republicans. Opposing remarriage when a prior marriage is seen as valid is not "wanting people to suffer." The Church not excommunicating a dissenter does not mean supporting the dissent.

See the principle here?

When a person says [Not B], it is wrong to accuse them of supporting [A]. Saying [Not B] merely means opposition to [B]. Saying such a person supports [A] on these grounds is to put words into their mouth without the right to do so.

Discernment is Necessary

Now of course we need to distinguish between bifurcation and real dilemmas. Sometimes there are really demonstrably two choices. Either 2+2 is 4, or 2+2 is 5.

Either 2+2 Is [4] or is [5]. (Either [A] or [B])
2+2 is [4]. ([A])
Therefore 2+2 is not [5] (Therefore not [B])

In such a statement, we are not reasoning from what is not to what is. Rather we are taking what is and excluding what is not.

Likewise, if the Catholic Church teaches that we must believe "Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human" to hold what the Church teaches, anyone who holds that "Jesus is a mere man" is not holding to what the Catholic Church teaches.

Either The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] or [Jesus is a mere man] (Either [A] or [B])
The Catholic Position is [Jesus Christ is fully God and fully human] ([A])
Therefore [Jesus is a mere man] is not the Catholic position. (Therefore Not [B])

The difference is again, we take what is true [A] and therefore reject [B] since A ≠ B, while Bifurcation argues that [Not B] means [A]

In short, we must discern whether an "Either-Or" situation does accurately limit the situation to two choices where the acceptance of one means the rejection of the other, or whether one claims the denial of one means the acceptance of the other.

"Either homosexual acts are wrong or they are not wrong" does limit accurately to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [Not A])
"Either one supports gay marriage or they are homophobic" does NOT accurately limit to two possible choices. (Either [A] or [B]).

The first does accurately divide. The second does not.

Conclusion

It is important to recognize the fallacy of Bifurcation because it can easily be used to twist things around to either sanctify one's own position or demonize an opponent. With the recent rhetoric in the media over "gay marriage," over political agendas and other things, we need to be on guard. The Christian needs to especially be on guard as moral issues under attack will often be used to demonize us based on the claim that because we don't support [B], it must mean we support [A] – even though [A] is also against our beliefs as Christians.

Musings on an Email Received

2011-04-10T17:15:00.001-07:00

It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

— G.K. Chesterton

We should be tolerant towards our fellow men, whatever be their mistakes, provided their mistakes be not injurious to the common good, or to the peace of society. But such tolerance does not oblige us to admit that their mistakes are not mistakes. Truth excludes error. And he who wants the truth will not get it by tolerating error. Tolerance does not mean that one must agree that the ideas of others are right when he believes them to be wrong.'

— Fathers Rumble and McCarthy. (Radio Replies vol. 3. Page 52)

I received an email I have seen come and go during the years, which makes the rounds on "Whether a Muslim can be a Good American." The anonymous author of the piece argued they could not, listing several grounds, largely based on how Islam is a foreign religion with foreign loyalties.

I felt a sense of déjà vu when reading these statements – These statements were commonly used up to 1960 (and are still used by a minority today) as reasons to claim that a Catholic could not be a good American.

I feel no need to defend Islam, which I believe to be contradictory to the Revelation of Christ and therefore false.

However, it is disturbing that some individuals cannot distinguish between the error of Islam and the people who practice it and whom we are commanded to love by our Lord even if some of them hate us. It is not acceptance of Islam as equal to Christianity to state that we must treat persons who believe in Islam the way God commands us to.

As Christians, we are forbidden to bear false witness against our neighbors. Therefore we must determine whether an accusation is true, not merely assume the worst of those who do not share our faith.

Arnobius of Sicca

I Told You So…

Waterboarding and Torture

Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia

TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'

TFTD: This Catholic's View on the Abortion stance of Ron Paul

On Discrimination and Persecution against Religion in America

Apologia: Religious Faith Free of Government Interference

Reductio ad absurdum: Latin, English and Spanish at Mass

Is Voting 'None of the Above' the Least Evil Choice for 2012?

Arnobius' Maxim of Voting Revised for 2012

TFTD: What Might the Saints Think About Those Who Defy The Bishops in the Name of the Faith?

TFTD: Bigotry By The 'Tolerant'

TFTD: St. Benedict on Humility

Reflections on the Moral Responsibility in Determining the Lesser of Two Evils

Is this beginning the 5th year already?

URGENT: USCCB Action Alert on Conscience Protection

Thoughts on Fr. Pavone–Updated

Partisan Secularism

Reflections on Modernism

TFTD: Brief Thoughts on the Movement to Recall the Youcat

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

TFTD: The ME Magisterium

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

TFTD: What If The Antichrist Isn't What We Expect?

Thought For The Day (TFTD): Confusing Doctrine and Preference

Works Alone: The Protestant Claim that Slanders and Libels Catholicism

The Sooner We Realize America Is No Longer Free, The Sooner We Can Take Action

On Dissent: Fundamental Issues in Understanding Church Teaching

Cuomo Supports Bull Connor Over MLK? Thoughts on Law and God

Master, Don't You Care if We Drown?

Thoughts on Freedom, Rights and Responsibilities

I Have to Say I am Inclined to Believe SOLT's Account

If We Do Not, Why Should They? Thoughts on Accusations Against the New York Bishops

Even So...

With Great Concern: Thoughts on the Anti-Bishop Mentality among Some of the Faithful

Viciousness

Uncivil War

Reflections on Fr. Corapi's Statement

Recommended Article: The Establishment Clause

The Intolerant Tolerance

If Christ's Church is not the Catholic Church then Where is it?

Dead Fish, Live Fish and the Bald King of France: On Asking the Right Questions First

Thoughts on the So-called Plain Sense of Scripture and the No True Scotsman Fallacy

Bifurcation and Accusation

Musings on an Email Received