Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

Trying to Have the Church Without Admitting Protection From Error

In the past, I talked about certain groups who claim that the Church today has fallen into error—usually done to defend themselves when they run afoul of a teaching they dislike. My usual response is that if the Church could be permitted to fall into error, then Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20 would be promises that Jesus either could not or would not keep. That would mean that He was not God, because God keeps His promises. But Jesus is God and He keeps His promises. Therefore the Church could not have fallen into error.

Counter-argument #1

It occurs to me, however, that some might want to defend their own position at the expense of the Church, arguing that this would be the wrong interpretation of these verses and therefore the reliability (and divinity) of Jesus Christ is protected… basically that the promises of protection means something different than what the Church thinks it means. Therefore when the Church speaks against what *I* think right, it must be in error.

But that argument won't work. When Jesus speaks of the Church, He speaks of a visible Church which teaches in His name and with His authority. If we have a dispute, we are to go to this Church. If we refuse to listen to this Church, we are to be treated as a tax-collector. That means the Church that speaks with His authority must be visible and we must be able to go to it with confidence—which indicates a Church that can be trusted to make the right decisions with His authority. That reasonably assumes a Church which is protected from error.

Counter-argument #2

Another attempt to defend one's position at the expense of the Church might be that the whole Church never goes entirely into error at one time, but no single part of the Church is especially protected all the time. Under such a view, Rome might be the champion of truth at one time, Constantinople at another time and Écône at a third. Therefore Rome could be right in Vatican I, but wrong in Vatican II.

But this can't work either. if any part of the Church can go into error, then we can never know for sure when it wasn't in error. If you think it was possible that Rome could have been in error during Vatican II? Then why not in Vatican I? Why not Trent? Why not Nicaea I for that matter?

The point is, if part of the Church can fall into error without us being able to know which part can be trusted to be protected from error, each part will simply assume it is protected from error during this dispute and the others are not (I mean, come on… does anybody approach a dispute with an attitude of Well, I'm probably the one in the wrong…?).  In such a scenario, the Church is going to wind up in constant division and become countless denominations. Once again, we would have no visible Church to turn to. It is only when we know that, no matter how rotten parts of the Church might become individually, the Church under the headship of the Pope is protected and we can know where the authoritative teaching of the Church—protected from error—can be found.

Counter-argument #3

Now, at this point, some Protestants might proclaim that the existence of the Bible means that we don't need to worry about a Church—we just need to follow the "plain sense" of Scripture.

But that doesn't refute the Catholic concern here—it is actually an example of why the protection from error in a visible Church is necessary. Right at the beginning of the Protestant Reformation you had the Lutherans, Zwinglians, Anabaptists and Anglicans. All of them proclaimed the Bible as their rule of faith and all of them used the Bible to justify their own positions and condemn the other three as being in error on important issues.

Each of these groups also split into multiple factions—each of them thinking themselves right and the others in error. Now I won't get into the arguments of how many denominations there are. "Over 10,000" is a number given by some Catholics, while some Protestants get offended by the use of that number and try to reduce it. The number of denominations is irrelevant. Even if the number of denominations had never gone beyond the four in the Protestant Reformation, that's still three too many—and that's if one of them was actually right to begin with (which is of course disputed).

And that's the point. Unless there is a visible Church with the authority given by Christ to determine where the true interpretation of His teachings lie, an inerrant Bible cannot be a guide—not because it is deficient, but because it could only be interpreted by fallible men and women. That is to say, men and women who can read and interpret it wrongly… and we can never know which ones. (Though it seems it never happens to be the person doing the reading and interpreting—apparently the Pope is the only person who is not infallible in this view).

An inerrant Bible needs a Church protected from error to interpret it from error, and the Church that can be protected from error must be visible and knowable. Otherwise we could never find it and never be able to know which interpretation was correct.

Conclusion

To insist on the point of the need for a Church which is known and protected from error is not some sort of "churciolatry." It is a reasoned understanding of God's promises to Peter and the Apostles… the gates of hell will not prevail against her and Jesus will be with us until the consummation of the world. Since the Popes are the successors of Peter and the promises were made to the Church with Peter at its head, it seems that it is entirely reasonable and faithful to Scripture to recognize the authority of the Catholic Church as this Church.

QED.

You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

Two Attitudes. Two Questions. Two Considerations

Two Attitudes

I have noticed two common attitudes towards religion who try to avoid thinking about it.

The first is the attitude of indifferentism. Indifferentism is basically the attitude that all religions are pretty similar and the differences between them are minor quibbles that don't matter as long as we are all "nice" to each other. (Never mind the fact that what qualifies as being "nice" differs from religion to religion).

The second is the attitude of skepticism. Skepticism also looks at all the religions and sees the differences. The attitude of the skeptic is to look at all the differences and say, "we can't know which one, if any, is true so it doesn't matter if we just opt out of choosing."

These two attitudes—two sides of the same coin—make a universal conclusion out of the differences. Either they are insignificant or insurmountable and therefore religion doesn't matter. Accept or reject religion as you like.

Two Questions

I think these two attitudes can be addressed by two questions. For the Indifferent, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally valid?

For the skeptic, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally unimportant?

Two Considerations

The fact that there are different religions and that they say different things is not a matter of indifference. If there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, then one cannot reasonably say that it doesn't matter what way is chosen. Indifference is a positive laxness that does not think that the differences mean anything. Therefore one is as good as another. But just because the indifferent person sees the differences as unimportant doesn't mean that the differences are unimportant. In the world of law, thinking differences are unimportant and ignoring them can get a person in trouble if the person enforcing the law discovers you chose the wrong understanding of what is right.

This also applies to following God—if God has made known how He wants His followers to follow Him, choosing any old way to act is acting wrongly. Consider the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16, or the rebelling of Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12). This was not a matter of indifference to God.

Dr. Peter Kreeft has used this example. Imagine a mountain with many roads going upwards. How do you know they all reach the top? The wrong path will not get you to the desired destination. So if one path is the path God has made (John 14:6) and the others are manmade, then the indifferent attitude that holds that one path is as good as another is a dangerous one indeed.

The skeptic takes an attitude of negative laxness. It too looks at the differences in the claims but, unlike the indifferent, the skeptic sees the contradictions and concludes that we can't know if any of them are true so we can safely ignore all of them. But when you think about it, does that attitude really make sense?

If you should go to a foreign country and are not sure what the traffic laws are, it would be foolish to head out on the road while thinking it doesn't matter if you choose to follow none of them. You would soon be before a judge. You couldn't plead "I didn't know so I thought it wasn't important!" The judge would ask why you didn't bother to at least try to seek out the rules.

Conclusion

Now you may ask me, "with all the competing views, how can I begin to find the right path?" (Now if you ask me personally, I'll try to save you some time and say, "It's the Catholic Church." But since I presume you meant, "How do I search for the right path…?" read on). The answer is, you need to seek out what is true—which means discerning what is true as opposed to what pleases you or what you want to be true.

A lot of people stop at "What gives me pleasure" and never asks whether what feels good is actually good. People get caught up in destructive relationships, alcohol, drugs, etc. They can't see beyond the pleasure and thus can't see that they are not searching for what is truth. Self delusion and fear of losing what is safe can often lead to never beginning the search.

The truth can be described as, to say of what is, that it is; and to say of what is not, that it is not is to speak the truth. So that's the first step. Looking for what is true by seeing if it is what it claims to be. When a claim is made whether about atheism, pantheism, paganism, monotheistic faiths and Christian denominations, the question "Is it true?" must be asked concerning the claims by the group and the claims made about the group (remember, people often speak falsely about what they don't know).

A search may take a long time. God calls a person on His time, not at your convenience. (And yes, I absolutely believe God exists and loves you personally regardless of whether or not you know Him yet). But the fact that a person has not yet encountered God doesn't give him or her the right to quit searching and just say, "Close enough, I'll just settle for this."

Just remember that it is never right to say "It doesn't matter which one I pick or even if I pick none of them." If you honestly seek the truth and pray to God to lead you to Him, you will eventually meet Him.

Two Attitudes. Two Questions. Two Considerations

Two Attitudes

I have noticed two common attitudes towards religion who try to avoid thinking about it.

The first is the attitude of indifferentism. Indifferentism is basically the attitude that all religions are pretty similar and the differences between them are minor quibbles that don't matter as long as we are all "nice" to each other. (Never mind the fact that what qualifies as being "nice" differs from religion to religion).

The second is the attitude of skepticism. Skepticism also looks at all the religions and sees the differences. The attitude of the skeptic is to look at all the differences and say, "we can't know which one, if any, is true so it doesn't matter if we just opt out of choosing."

These two attitudes—two sides of the same coin—make a universal conclusion out of the differences. Either they are insignificant or insurmountable and therefore religion doesn't matter. Accept or reject religion as you like.

Two Questions

I think these two attitudes can be addressed by two questions. For the Indifferent, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally valid?

For the skeptic, the question is:

How do you know they're all equally unimportant?

Two Considerations

The fact that there are different religions and that they say different things is not a matter of indifference. If there is a right way and a wrong way to do things, then one cannot reasonably say that it doesn't matter what way is chosen. Indifference is a positive laxness that does not think that the differences mean anything. Therefore one is as good as another. But just because the indifferent person sees the differences as unimportant doesn't mean that the differences are unimportant. In the world of law, thinking differences are unimportant and ignoring them can get a person in trouble if the person enforcing the law discovers you chose the wrong understanding of what is right.

This also applies to following God—if God has made known how He wants His followers to follow Him, choosing any old way to act is acting wrongly. Consider the rebellion of Korah in Numbers 16, or the rebelling of Aaron and Miriam (Numbers 12). This was not a matter of indifference to God.

Dr. Peter Kreeft has used this example. Imagine a mountain with many roads going upwards. How do you know they all reach the top? The wrong path will not get you to the desired destination. So if one path is the path God has made (John 14:6) and the others are manmade, then the indifferent attitude that holds that one path is as good as another is a dangerous one indeed.

The skeptic takes an attitude of negative laxness. It too looks at the differences in the claims but, unlike the indifferent, the skeptic sees the contradictions and concludes that we can't know if any of them are true so we can safely ignore all of them. But when you think about it, does that attitude really make sense?

If you should go to a foreign country and are not sure what the traffic laws are, it would be foolish to head out on the road while thinking it doesn't matter if you choose to follow none of them. You would soon be before a judge. You couldn't plead "I didn't know so I thought it wasn't important!" The judge would ask why you didn't bother to at least try to seek out the rules.

Conclusion

Now you may ask me, "with all the competing views, how can I begin to find the right path?" (Now if you ask me personally, I'll try to save you some time and say, "It's the Catholic Church." But since I presume you meant, "How do I search for the right path…?" read on). The answer is, you need to seek out what is true—which means discerning what is true as opposed to what pleases you or what you want to be true.

A lot of people stop at "What gives me pleasure" and never asks whether what feels good is actually good. People get caught up in destructive relationships, alcohol, drugs, etc. They can't see beyond the pleasure and thus can't see that they are not searching for what is truth. Self delusion and fear of losing what is safe can often lead to never beginning the search.

The truth can be described as, to say of what is, that it is; and to say of what is not, that it is not is to speak the truth. So that's the first step. Looking for what is true by seeing if it is what it claims to be. When a claim is made whether about atheism, pantheism, paganism, monotheistic faiths and Christian denominations, the question "Is it true?" must be asked concerning the claims by the group and the claims made about the group (remember, people often speak falsely about what they don't know).

A search may take a long time. God calls a person on His time, not at your convenience. (And yes, I absolutely believe God exists and loves you personally regardless of whether or not you know Him yet). But the fact that a person has not yet encountered God doesn't give him or her the right to quit searching and just say, "Close enough, I'll just settle for this."

Just remember that it is never right to say "It doesn't matter which one I pick or even if I pick none of them." If you honestly seek the truth and pray to God to lead you to Him, you will eventually meet Him.

Thoughts on Catholicism and Human Law

I would like to expand on something I wrote a few days ago concerning the concept of legitimate and illegitimate law. I hope in this day and age (unfortunately, you never know) most people would recognize that governments can and do create unjust laws (whether actual laws, judicial rulings and executive orders) which are made binding through force—not just in totalitarian nations, but right here in the US as well.

Realizing that even in the Western Nations (which are always held up as the paragon of freedom compared to the rest of the world, fair or not) the governments can and do create unjust laws is important. It shows that no state government is impeccable in creating laws (human laws, to distinguish from Divine Law and Natural Law)—even if our own party of preference is in command.

I think that with this understanding in mind, the Catholic perspective should be explored. A lot of accusations have been made about us, and we need to have a basic understanding on how the Church views the authority of the state and the human law it creates.

We're not anarchists. We don't hold that the adage, the government that governs best governs least. Nor do we hold that government is a necessary evil. When it works as it ought, government justly holds authority and must be heeded. On the other hand, Catholicism is not a proponent of Big Government. The authority of the state certainly has limits as to what it can do.

In the Catholic perspective, the purpose of government is ensuring the common good. However, the government is not itself the common good. It can only be a means to this end. The government does not have the authority to redefine what the common good is, and the burdens of the law must not be unequally proportioned—such as favoring your friends and harming your enemies. (See Summa Theologica I II Q 96 a4). Finally, the laws passed cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver.

This last point is important. While certain views of government exalt the power of the state, when the government decrees something it has no right to decree, the law it passes has no authority—much like if I were to pass a law that all the houses on my block have the obligation to pay me a 20% tax on their gross income. I would have no right to make such a law because I do not have the authority to even make a law. Maybe if I had my own private militia I could get away with it, but the law would have no authority on its own.

A government may decree a thing, but if the thing decreed goes beyond the authority of the government to decree, then the only way that the law can be binding is if the government uses force to carry out the law. There would be no moral  obligation to follow such a law.

When you see these principles, it becomes clear that sometimes the Church must necessarily be in opposition to certain acts of government but is not acting in a partisan manner in doing so.

The Church rejects the claim by a state that it can decide to change the definitions of what is good or evil. Thus when the state creates such legislation, she denies that the law has binding authority. If the law interferes with the ability to do good and avoid evil, then it is not a law at all. It is merely an act of coercion.

Thus the Church will challenge the state that decrees that it can make marriage anything other than between one man and one woman. The Church will challenge the state if it decrees that abortion is a "right." The Church will challenge the state if the state demands that employers violate their religious faith by paying for contraceptives.

When the state decrees such things, these laws lack the morally binding force that valid human law possesses. The government can use force to demand compliance—do it or be sued, locked up or dead.

Now while that threat of coercion may work on individuals within the Church, it doesn't work on the Church as a whole. The Church that recognizes the witness of martyrdom (which is not to be confused with the perversion of the term by those who blow themselves and others up to make a point).

Martyrdom in the Catholic sense says that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil—even to the point of dying rather than doing what God forbids. The Catholic faith, which says, " I would rather suffer as an innocent than to be guilty of doing what God forbids," does not accept the claims of the state to have the right to make good evil or evil good.

The reasons above also explain why the Church—contrary to the hopes of the media—will never permit abortion, woman priests, "gay marriage," contraception, or remarriage when the spouse of a pervious valid marriage is still alive. The Church is not an institution which arbitrarily makes up rules for Catholics to follow and can undo them whenever she likes. When God teaches us what is good or evil, the Catholic Church knows she does not have the authority to change that teaching.

When one understands these things, it becomes clear how the Church can be in opposition to the human laws of a government without being partisan. The Church can accept a government which seeks the true common good and does not seek to elevate itself to the greatest importance and does not seek to make laws it has no right or authority to make.

But it must seek to convert the government that seeks partisan gain for its supporters, that seeks to pass laws it has no right to pass.

This then is why the Catholic Church must sometimes be in opposition to our government.

Thoughts on Catholicism and Human Law

I would like to expand on something I wrote a few days ago concerning the concept of legitimate and illegitimate law. I hope in this day and age (unfortunately, you never know) most people would recognize that governments can and do create unjust laws (whether actual laws, judicial rulings and executive orders) which are made binding through force—not just in totalitarian nations, but right here in the US as well.

Realizing that even in the Western Nations (which are always held up as the paragon of freedom compared to the rest of the world, fair or not) the governments can and do create unjust laws is important. It shows that no state government is impeccable in creating laws (human laws, to distinguish from Divine Law and Natural Law)—even if our own party of preference is in command.

I think that with this understanding in mind, the Catholic perspective should be explored. A lot of accusations have been made about us, and we need to have a basic understanding on how the Church views the authority of the state and the human law it creates.

We're not anarchists. We don't hold that the adage, the government that governs best governs least. Nor do we hold that government is a necessary evil. When it works as it ought, government justly holds authority and must be heeded. On the other hand, Catholicism is not a proponent of Big Government. The authority of the state certainly has limits as to what it can do.

In the Catholic perspective, the purpose of government is ensuring the common good. However, the government is not itself the common good. It can only be a means to this end. The government does not have the authority to redefine what the common good is, and the burdens of the law must not be unequally proportioned—such as favoring your friends and harming your enemies. (See Summa Theologica I II Q 96 a4). Finally, the laws passed cannot exceed the authority of the lawgiver.

This last point is important. While certain views of government exalt the power of the state, when the government decrees something it has no right to decree, the law it passes has no authority—much like if I were to pass a law that all the houses on my block have the obligation to pay me a 20% tax on their gross income. I would have no right to make such a law because I do not have the authority to even make a law. Maybe if I had my own private militia I could get away with it, but the law would have no authority on its own.

A government may decree a thing, but if the thing decreed goes beyond the authority of the government to decree, then the only way that the law can be binding is if the government uses force to carry out the law. There would be no moral  obligation to follow such a law.

When you see these principles, it becomes clear that sometimes the Church must necessarily be in opposition to certain acts of government but is not acting in a partisan manner in doing so.

The Church rejects the claim by a state that it can decide to change the definitions of what is good or evil. Thus when the state creates such legislation, she denies that the law has binding authority. If the law interferes with the ability to do good and avoid evil, then it is not a law at all. It is merely an act of coercion.

Thus the Church will challenge the state that decrees that it can make marriage anything other than between one man and one woman. The Church will challenge the state if it decrees that abortion is a "right." The Church will challenge the state if the state demands that employers violate their religious faith by paying for contraceptives.

When the state decrees such things, these laws lack the morally binding force that valid human law possesses. The government can use force to demand compliance—do it or be sued, locked up or dead.

Now while that threat of coercion may work on individuals within the Church, it doesn't work on the Church as a whole. The Church that recognizes the witness of martyrdom (which is not to be confused with the perversion of the term by those who blow themselves and others up to make a point).

Martyrdom in the Catholic sense says that it is better to suffer evil than to do evil—even to the point of dying rather than doing what God forbids. The Catholic faith, which says, " I would rather suffer as an innocent than to be guilty of doing what God forbids," does not accept the claims of the state to have the right to make good evil or evil good.

The reasons above also explain why the Church—contrary to the hopes of the media—will never permit abortion, woman priests, "gay marriage," contraception, or remarriage when the spouse of a pervious valid marriage is still alive. The Church is not an institution which arbitrarily makes up rules for Catholics to follow and can undo them whenever she likes. When God teaches us what is good or evil, the Catholic Church knows she does not have the authority to change that teaching.

When one understands these things, it becomes clear how the Church can be in opposition to the human laws of a government without being partisan. The Church can accept a government which seeks the true common good and does not seek to elevate itself to the greatest importance and does not seek to make laws it has no right or authority to make.

But it must seek to convert the government that seeks partisan gain for its supporters, that seeks to pass laws it has no right to pass.

This then is why the Catholic Church must sometimes be in opposition to our government.

On Stereotypes

Read more »

On Stereotypes

Read more »

Thoughts on Law and Obligation: They're Not Always the Same

Let's start this article with a question:

Is a law to be followed just because it is a law (or court ruling)?

It would be tragic if this were presumed to be true because we have seen many harmful laws which have been implemented merely on the say so of the government—laws which were accepted unquestioningly by a majority of the people.

The Third Reich is the obvious example of such laws. The Nazi Party came to power legally and then legally (or through fait accompli) changed laws to what they wanted them to be.  if accepting a law on the basis of being a law (the technical term is legal positivism) is true, then it was not wrong for Germans to follow the laws of the Third Reich—something I suspect nobody would agree with. (if you're reading this, and you do agree, then do yourself a favor and keep quiet).

But we don't even have to "violate" Godwin's Law to demonstrate this. We can point to Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, the acceptance of slavery and segregation, forced relocations (Native American, Japanese). These were legal at one point in America.

So, let's go back to our question. Does the fact that a thing is a law mean that it must be followed?

1. If you answer "Yes," then you must accept the injustices a government that a government commits, and accept the claim that those opposing such a law (say, for example, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr.) are wrong and ought to be punished for law-breaking.
2. If you answer "No," then it means you recognize that the government can do wrong, and when it does, it must be opposed, and this opposition is legitimate.

I think of this Legal Positivism attitude when I hear certain politicians invoke the "right to abortion" granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases. The Supreme Court also affirmed the "right" to own slaves and the "right" to segregate. The Supreme Court may be the last stop when the political will is lacking to amend the Constitution, but we can see that history tells us that the Supreme Court has erred in the past—it is not infallible.

I think this demonstrates that government action cannot be the sole grounds of judging whether a thing is good or bad. If the Supreme Court, or Congress or the President does wrong, and the result of that wrong is a Ruling, or a Law, or an Executive Order, that result must be opposed with the intention of overturning the injustice.

Now of course, opposition cannot be rooted in "I don't like that policy! I want my policy!" (Which is what passes for political dispute today). Opposition must be rooted in the knowledge that some things are wrong—either always wrong, or wrong in circumstance (as an example: murder is always wrong. But in some contexts, like self defense, killing might be justified). This is not a matter of disputing what the percentage should be for the tax rate, where legitimate disputes can occur over what is best. This is a matter of "Does the government have the authority to decree that an evil is now good in a binding manner.

Some skeptics may face this point by denying we can know any thing is objectively wrong. But normally such skepticism is used with the intent of trying to justify doing a bad thing.  The fact is, we do know some things are wrong: The Holocaust, Ethnic Cleansing, Slavery, etc. We know that treating a human being as less than a human being is to be condemned regardless of where it is done or what century it is done.

Feigned or real ignorance is not a valid argument defense against the the fact that a thing is wrong. Yes, a person who truly does not know that a thing is wrong (for example a person who is insane) might have a defense against prosecution, but that does not mean that the act itself is not wrong. An insane man may not have deliberately chosen to commit murder, but that doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong.

But the person who feigns ignorance about the evil of a thing or a person who claims that good and evil is merely an arbitrary decision of the person who decrees it (many people who demand that the Catholic Church change her teaching fall into this category) does not have this defense, because we DO know things are wrong… even when we pretend not to know.

Think of it this way. The person who denies we can know what is truly good or evil will probably NOT think that way if I should steal his money (Hey, it's annoying writing articles on an Android tablet, I could use a laptop, and robbing you would help me get it quicker). Such a person, despite his claims that we can't know if a thing is good or evil, knows that it is wrong to deprive a person of his life or property at the whim of another.

We can see this in the skepticism used to defend the "right" of abortion. Roe v. Wade is essentially an Argument from Ignorance fallacy that claims that we cannot know where life begins, therefore we can't restrict the right to abortion. The problem is, a person taking action while not knowing whether it might harm another is at the least guilty of negligence and possibly manslaughter or even murder. When an action might cause harm to another, we are obligated to make sure it is safe to proceed before acting.

What is worse is the fact that some recent thinking in the defense of abortion holds that it probably is a person, but that is less important than the right not to be pregnant. In other words it effectively says it is ok to treat a person as less than human if it benefits me.

We've been down that road before. Here in America, we've treated Blacks, American Indians, Japanese and other minorities as being less than human for our own convenience. In other countries, Germans have treated Jews and Slavs as less than fully human. Serbs have treated Bosnians and Croats as less than fully human. Turks have treated Armenians as less than fully human.

The list goes on and on, each with government approval.

The only way to avoid such monstrosity is to recognize that law must be subject to truth, and when a government goes against what is true in its laws, it must be opposed.

There are graveyards filled with people because too many just decided that because a thing is a law, it must be acceptable.

Thoughts on Law and Obligation: They're Not Always the Same

Let's start this article with a question:

Is a law to be followed just because it is a law (or court ruling)?

It would be tragic if this were presumed to be true because we have seen many harmful laws which have been implemented merely on the say so of the government—laws which were accepted unquestioningly by a majority of the people.

The Third Reich is the obvious example of such laws. The Nazi Party came to power legally and then legally (or through fait accompli) changed laws to what they wanted them to be.  if accepting a law on the basis of being a law (the technical term is legal positivism) is true, then it was not wrong for Germans to follow the laws of the Third Reich—something I suspect nobody would agree with. (if you're reading this, and you do agree, then do yourself a favor and keep quiet).

But we don't even have to "violate" Godwin's Law to demonstrate this. We can point to Dred Scott, Plessy v. Ferguson, the acceptance of slavery and segregation, forced relocations (Native American, Japanese). These were legal at one point in America.

So, let's go back to our question. Does the fact that a thing is a law mean that it must be followed?

1. If you answer "Yes," then you must accept the injustices a government that a government commits, and accept the claim that those opposing such a law (say, for example, Rosa Parks or Martin Luther King Jr.) are wrong and ought to be punished for law-breaking.
2. If you answer "No," then it means you recognize that the government can do wrong, and when it does, it must be opposed, and this opposition is legitimate.

I think of this Legal Positivism attitude when I hear certain politicians invoke the "right to abortion" granted by the Supreme Court in Roe v. Wade and other cases. The Supreme Court also affirmed the "right" to own slaves and the "right" to segregate. The Supreme Court may be the last stop when the political will is lacking to amend the Constitution, but we can see that history tells us that the Supreme Court has erred in the past—it is not infallible.

I think this demonstrates that government action cannot be the sole grounds of judging whether a thing is good or bad. If the Supreme Court, or Congress or the President does wrong, and the result of that wrong is a Ruling, or a Law, or an Executive Order, that result must be opposed with the intention of overturning the injustice.

Now of course, opposition cannot be rooted in "I don't like that policy! I want my policy!" (Which is what passes for political dispute today). Opposition must be rooted in the knowledge that some things are wrong—either always wrong, or wrong in circumstance (as an example: murder is always wrong. But in some contexts, like self defense, killing might be justified). This is not a matter of disputing what the percentage should be for the tax rate, where legitimate disputes can occur over what is best. This is a matter of "Does the government have the authority to decree that an evil is now good in a binding manner.

Some skeptics may face this point by denying we can know any thing is objectively wrong. But normally such skepticism is used with the intent of trying to justify doing a bad thing.  The fact is, we do know some things are wrong: The Holocaust, Ethnic Cleansing, Slavery, etc. We know that treating a human being as less than a human being is to be condemned regardless of where it is done or what century it is done.

Feigned or real ignorance is not a valid argument defense against the the fact that a thing is wrong. Yes, a person who truly does not know that a thing is wrong (for example a person who is insane) might have a defense against prosecution, but that does not mean that the act itself is not wrong. An insane man may not have deliberately chosen to commit murder, but that doesn't change the fact that murder is wrong.

But the person who feigns ignorance about the evil of a thing or a person who claims that good and evil is merely an arbitrary decision of the person who decrees it (many people who demand that the Catholic Church change her teaching fall into this category) does not have this defense, because we DO know things are wrong… even when we pretend not to know.

Think of it this way. The person who denies we can know what is truly good or evil will probably NOT think that way if I should steal his money (Hey, it's annoying writing articles on an Android tablet, I could use a laptop, and robbing you would help me get it quicker). Such a person, despite his claims that we can't know if a thing is good or evil, knows that it is wrong to deprive a person of his life or property at the whim of another.

We can see this in the skepticism used to defend the "right" of abortion. Roe v. Wade is essentially an Argument from Ignorance fallacy that claims that we cannot know where life begins, therefore we can't restrict the right to abortion. The problem is, a person taking action while not knowing whether it might harm another is at the least guilty of negligence and possibly manslaughter or even murder. When an action might cause harm to another, we are obligated to make sure it is safe to proceed before acting.

What is worse is the fact that some recent thinking in the defense of abortion holds that it probably is a person, but that is less important than the right not to be pregnant. In other words it effectively says it is ok to treat a person as less than human if it benefits me.

We've been down that road before. Here in America, we've treated Blacks, American Indians, Japanese and other minorities as being less than human for our own convenience. In other countries, Germans have treated Jews and Slavs as less than fully human. Serbs have treated Bosnians and Croats as less than fully human. Turks have treated Armenians as less than fully human.

The list goes on and on, each with government approval.

The only way to avoid such monstrosity is to recognize that law must be subject to truth, and when a government goes against what is true in its laws, it must be opposed.

There are graveyards filled with people because too many just decided that because a thing is a law, it must be acceptable.

Thoughts on Accusations of Imposing Values

One thing I have heard is the accusation that Catholics are imposing our views on others who don't share them. It's wrong of us to do so, we're told.

To which my response is, "What the Hell do you think you're doing to us?"

It's not a flippant response. It's pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the accusation. If it is wrong for Catholics to seek to change the society that it shares with others that do not agree with us then it is certainly wrong for others to seek to change the society when we disagree with them.

So long as someone holds to a moral relativism that denies any absolutes, then any accusations made against us also applies to them. If we're in the wrong, then so are they.

But, if there are moral absolutes, real right and wrong where one side can be right in such a way as to mean following  one side is not an opinion, then those who oppose us have the same obligation to demonstrate the truth about their beliefs as we are. Moreover, we have the same right as they do to explain and defend our beliefs. We have the same rights to show people that what we believe is true.

No, we're not forcing opinions on people who don't share them. We're sharing what we believe to be vitally important and trying to show how it is true. People are not forced to accept what we believe. If they accept what we believe, it is because they too are convinced that what we believe is true.

If someone wants to deny us that right, claim that we have no right to live as we feel we are called to live, no right to teach what we know to be true; if they want to lie about our beliefs and try to deny us the right to live according to our beliefs, then it is they—not us—who force views on others.

They are what they accuse us of being.

Thoughts on Accusations of Imposing Values

One thing I have heard is the accusation that Catholics are imposing our views on others who don't share them. It's wrong of us to do so, we're told.

To which my response is, "What the Hell do you think you're doing to us?"

It's not a flippant response. It's pointing out the sheer hypocrisy of the accusation. If it is wrong for Catholics to seek to change the society that it shares with others that do not agree with us then it is certainly wrong for others to seek to change the society when we disagree with them.

So long as someone holds to a moral relativism that denies any absolutes, then any accusations made against us also applies to them. If we're in the wrong, then so are they.

But, if there are moral absolutes, real right and wrong where one side can be right in such a way as to mean following  one side is not an opinion, then those who oppose us have the same obligation to demonstrate the truth about their beliefs as we are. Moreover, we have the same right as they do to explain and defend our beliefs. We have the same rights to show people that what we believe is true.

No, we're not forcing opinions on people who don't share them. We're sharing what we believe to be vitally important and trying to show how it is true. People are not forced to accept what we believe. If they accept what we believe, it is because they too are convinced that what we believe is true.

If someone wants to deny us that right, claim that we have no right to live as we feel we are called to live, no right to teach what we know to be true; if they want to lie about our beliefs and try to deny us the right to live according to our beliefs, then it is they—not us—who force views on others.

They are what they accuse us of being.

Accusations Without Proof in America

The American Justice System holds two principles that I consider relevant to today's discussion:

1. Innocent until Proven Guilty
2. Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

These principles mean that guilt (not innocence) must be proven when an accusation is made and that the guilt must be proven to the extent that no reasonable doubts of the evidence or its interpretation exist in the mind of the person called to make the decision.  In other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser to establish that the guilt of the accused is clear and not that the accused must demonstrate that he is innocent.

The principles are good ones and are designed to prevent the conviction of someone based on false accusations and misapplied evidence – so long as justice is sought.

When justice is not sought, it becomes easy to turn the concepts into a mockery. Invalid evidence can be permitted and relevant evidence is rejected. This can result in the evils of the innocent being punished and the guilty set free.

This seems to be what is going on with how Christian moral teaching is being recast as bigotry today. The accusation is made that unpopular Christian teaching X is motivated by bigotry, and thus needs to be opposed. The practitioners of Christian teaching X are therefore bigots and can be ostracized, sued, prosecuted, etc.

Now if we applied the two principles of justice proclaimed by our Justice System to these accusations, we would recognize that the accusers are the ones with the burden of proof. They would have to demonstrate how the unpopular Christian moral teaching is rooted in bigotry. But that is precisely what is not done.

Take for example the Christian teaching on Marriage. The accuser makes the claim that "opposing same sex marriage is homophobia," for example. This is the point which the accuser is obligated to prove. But, instead of proving it, the accuser assumes it is proven and calls for action to be taken against the person who believes in and supports the Christian teaching on marriage – which does not accept same sex "marriage."

That's a dangerous idea. Imagine if I alleged that atheists were disloyal Americans because they could not be trusted to swear their loyalty to the country before God? I could seize on the fact of their disbelief in God and twist it to declare that because they couldn't swear sincerely before God (because they don't believe in God) that it meant they were actively disloyal towards America. Perhaps some atheists are disloyal citizens, but it doesn't follow from the fact of their rejecting oaths before God that they do so because of disloyalty. So if I were to claim, without proving, that all atheists who were unwilling to swear their loyalty before God did so out of motives of disloyalty, and got people to accept this without proof, I could bash all atheists who disagreed with my views even if they were not disloyal citizens.

People can recognize the injustice of my hypothetical (and to some extent historical) example above. But what is not apparent to many is that this is exactly the charge leveled against Christians who stand up for their beliefs today. It is assumed that Christians who stand up for the moral teaching of the Church do so with the motivation of intolerance. Since intolerance must be oppressed, says the unqualified statements of today, Christian teaching must be opposed. But when we look at the accusation, it doesn't hold together.

Q: Why is Christian teaching on marriage intolerant?

A: Because it rejects the legitimacy of same sex "marriage."

Q: Why is rejecting the legitimacy of same sex "marriage" wrong?

A: Because it is intolerant.

That's called Arguing in a Circle. The point to be proven (that opposition to same sex "marriage" is intolerant) is assumed to be true when the truth of the point is exactly what is under dispute.

The fact is, a thing can be opposed for many different reasons and not all of them are based on bigotry. Yes, the Westboro Baptists practice a hateful form of bigotry in their actions of opposing homosexual acts. But that's not the only motivation for opposing them. The entirety of Christians who believe that homosexual acts are wrong can only be condemned for holding the Westboro position IF, and only IF, the entirety of these Christians have the same views as the Westboro Baptists.

But in fact, the Westboro Baptists and their "God Hates F*gs" signs come nowhere near the teaching of the Catholic Church which decrees in the Catechism:

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, 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. (2333)

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. (2347)

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 566. [Emphasis added]

So, the Catholic who behaves like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is acting against Catholic teaching in behaving unjustly. It's one thing to say:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 568.

…and therefore reject sexuality being used outside of this context (it also rejects adultery, fornication, prostitution, mistresses, masturbation, divorce and remarriage, etc.)

It's quite another thing to say that we may do harm to those people with same sex attraction. The Catholic defense of marriage has nothing to do with the thugs out there who beat up people with same sex attraction. In fact, we condemn such behavior. It doesn't seek to deny that people with same sex attraction the same human rights others have. We say such behavior cannot be considered marriage.

We believe sexual relations can only be legitimately used in the concept of marriage between one man and one woman. We stand firm on this in the face of the polygamist, the adulterer, the fornicator and others. Even if they believe their behavior to be acceptable, we must say it is not.

However, we reject any claim that our beliefs are made out of malice or hatred for others, and we hold that no person can prove that our beliefs do have this malice and hatred. A just society will stop trying to persecute people for holding to our beliefs on the basis of a person claiming without justification that we act out of hatred.

Accusations Without Proof in America

The American Justice System holds two principles that I consider relevant to today's discussion:

1. Innocent until Proven Guilty
2. Guilty Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

These principles mean that guilt (not innocence) must be proven when an accusation is made and that the guilt must be proven to the extent that no reasonable doubts of the evidence or its interpretation exist in the mind of the person called to make the decision.  In other words, the burden of proof is on the accuser to establish that the guilt of the accused is clear and not that the accused must demonstrate that he is innocent.

The principles are good ones and are designed to prevent the conviction of someone based on false accusations and misapplied evidence – so long as justice is sought.

When justice is not sought, it becomes easy to turn the concepts into a mockery. Invalid evidence can be permitted and relevant evidence is rejected. This can result in the evils of the innocent being punished and the guilty set free.

This seems to be what is going on with how Christian moral teaching is being recast as bigotry today. The accusation is made that unpopular Christian teaching X is motivated by bigotry, and thus needs to be opposed. The practitioners of Christian teaching X are therefore bigots and can be ostracized, sued, prosecuted, etc.

Now if we applied the two principles of justice proclaimed by our Justice System to these accusations, we would recognize that the accusers are the ones with the burden of proof. They would have to demonstrate how the unpopular Christian moral teaching is rooted in bigotry. But that is precisely what is not done.

Take for example the Christian teaching on Marriage. The accuser makes the claim that "opposing same sex marriage is homophobia," for example. This is the point which the accuser is obligated to prove. But, instead of proving it, the accuser assumes it is proven and calls for action to be taken against the person who believes in and supports the Christian teaching on marriage – which does not accept same sex "marriage."

That's a dangerous idea. Imagine if I alleged that atheists were disloyal Americans because they could not be trusted to swear their loyalty to the country before God? I could seize on the fact of their disbelief in God and twist it to declare that because they couldn't swear sincerely before God (because they don't believe in God) that it meant they were actively disloyal towards America. Perhaps some atheists are disloyal citizens, but it doesn't follow from the fact of their rejecting oaths before God that they do so because of disloyalty. So if I were to claim, without proving, that all atheists who were unwilling to swear their loyalty before God did so out of motives of disloyalty, and got people to accept this without proof, I could bash all atheists who disagreed with my views even if they were not disloyal citizens.

People can recognize the injustice of my hypothetical (and to some extent historical) example above. But what is not apparent to many is that this is exactly the charge leveled against Christians who stand up for their beliefs today. It is assumed that Christians who stand up for the moral teaching of the Church do so with the motivation of intolerance. Since intolerance must be oppressed, says the unqualified statements of today, Christian teaching must be opposed. But when we look at the accusation, it doesn't hold together.

Q: Why is Christian teaching on marriage intolerant?

A: Because it rejects the legitimacy of same sex "marriage."

Q: Why is rejecting the legitimacy of same sex "marriage" wrong?

A: Because it is intolerant.

That's called Arguing in a Circle. The point to be proven (that opposition to same sex "marriage" is intolerant) is assumed to be true when the truth of the point is exactly what is under dispute.

The fact is, a thing can be opposed for many different reasons and not all of them are based on bigotry. Yes, the Westboro Baptists practice a hateful form of bigotry in their actions of opposing homosexual acts. But that's not the only motivation for opposing them. The entirety of Christians who believe that homosexual acts are wrong can only be condemned for holding the Westboro position IF, and only IF, the entirety of these Christians have the same views as the Westboro Baptists.

But in fact, the Westboro Baptists and their "God Hates F*gs" signs come nowhere near the teaching of the Catholic Church which decrees in the Catechism:

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, 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. (2333)

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. (2347)

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 566. [Emphasis added]

So, the Catholic who behaves like a member of the Westboro Baptist Church is acting against Catholic teaching in behaving unjustly. It's one thing to say:

2363 The spouses’ union achieves the twofold end of marriage: the good of the spouses themselves and the transmission of life. These two meanings or values of marriage cannot be separated without altering the couple’s spiritual life and compromising the goods of marriage and the future of the family.

The conjugal love of man and woman thus stands under the twofold obligation of fidelity and fecundity.

Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 568.

…and therefore reject sexuality being used outside of this context (it also rejects adultery, fornication, prostitution, mistresses, masturbation, divorce and remarriage, etc.)

It's quite another thing to say that we may do harm to those people with same sex attraction. The Catholic defense of marriage has nothing to do with the thugs out there who beat up people with same sex attraction. In fact, we condemn such behavior. It doesn't seek to deny that people with same sex attraction the same human rights others have. We say such behavior cannot be considered marriage.

We believe sexual relations can only be legitimately used in the concept of marriage between one man and one woman. We stand firm on this in the face of the polygamist, the adulterer, the fornicator and others. Even if they believe their behavior to be acceptable, we must say it is not.

However, we reject any claim that our beliefs are made out of malice or hatred for others, and we hold that no person can prove that our beliefs do have this malice and hatred. A just society will stop trying to persecute people for holding to our beliefs on the basis of a person claiming without justification that we act out of hatred.