Saturday, December 10, 2011
Thursday, December 1, 2011
Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia
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.
Propaganda and Lies: The Accusation that We View Homosexuality Like Pedophilia
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.
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'
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.
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: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'
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.
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.
Saturday, November 19, 2011
TFTD: This Catholic's View on the Abortion stance of Ron Paul
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.
TFTD: This Catholic's View on the Abortion stance of Ron Paul
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)