Insanity: The Case of Catholics Who Defend Torture

Preliminary Note

This article is not going to deal with the allegations of the Senate Report on CIA torture and whether or not they are true. I’ve seen some people try to sidestep the real issue by questioning whether the report is accurate. As I see it, that’s a red herring. Regardless of whether or not this report is accurate, that doesn’t change the issue of whether torture should be done at all. This article is going to deal with that second issue. If torture is evil, then whatever nation uses it is doing evil—and that includes the United States.

Introduction

There is a certain insanity going around the internet—or, for their sakes, I hope it is insanity—concerning the release of the Senate report on torture and the CIA. I call it insanity because the action is essentially Catholics openly rejecting the teaching of the Church. Mind you, these are not the typical dissenting Catholics who reject the Catholic teaching on abortion and contraception and teach that people need not listen to the Church. These are people who openly profess their belief in and obedience to the Church who are saying that torture, which the Church condemns as intrinsically evil (that is, never can be considered morally acceptable under any conditions), is justified against the enemies of the United States.

The Catholic Cannot Be Considered Faithful In Defiance of Church Teaching

This is where the individual Catholic has to make a choice. Either he recognizes that the Church teaches with the authority of Christ, and is protected from teaching error, or he denies that authority—at least on some issues—and makes himself or herself the authority which judges the Church.

The Catholic who professes to be faithful knows that when the Church teaches on a matter of faith and morals, even when the Pope does not teach ex cathedra, the Catholic is supposed to give assent to the teaching of the Church. We can see that taught in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, #892:

892 Divine assistance is also given to the successors of the apostles, teaching in communion with the successor of Peter, and, in a particular way, to the bishop of Rome, pastor of the whole Church, when, without arriving at an infallible definition and without pronouncing in a “definitive manner,” they propose in the exercise of the ordinary Magisterium a teaching that leads to better understanding of Revelation in matters of faith and morals. To this ordinary teaching the faithful “are to adhere to it with religious assent”⁴²² which, though distinct from the assent of faith, is nonetheless an extension of it.

So, when the Church condemns something in a source like the Catechism, we are to give our assent (express agreement) to this teaching. If we don’t, we’re not being obedient to the Church teaching, and if we condemn others for being disobedient to Church teaching, we show ourselves to be hypocrites. Now, it is good to explain the why of a Church teaching, but right off the bat, we have to make a fundamental choice.

The Catholic Defending Torture is Rejecting Church Teaching

The defense of torture tends to take three basic forms (which can be embellished by name calling and emotional rhetoric). All of them involve a rejection of Catholic teaching. These three basic forms are:

1. What was done was not torture.
2. We have to do this to keep Americans safe.
3. What we do is not as bad as what they do.

The first of these denies that the Church has the authority to define what is and what is not torture. In the Catechism (#2297), the Church describes torture as "physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.” The individual Catholic does not have the right to define it in a more convenient way.

The second promotes an idea of pragmatism which the Church utterly repudiates. In the Catechism (#1789), the Church declares, "One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” Yes the government is required to protect her citizens from harm. No, the government cannot choose to use evil means to do so. All the arguments that state that because we haven’t had a major terrorist attack since 9/11/01 are irrelevant. If torture is evil (and the Church teaches it is), then we cannot use it as a means to let good come of it.

The third argument is sheer moral relativism. It replaces good and evil with the concept of “Not as bad as . . .” Basically it says, "I’m not as bad as a terrorist. Therefore what I do is acceptable.” The Problem is, whose standards are you going to measure yourself against? Pope Francis? George W. Bush? Obama? Kim Jong-Un? Josef Stalin? Adolf Hitler? As long as you use someone worse than you as your standard, you can basically justify whatever the hell you want. And that’s what is happening. Say on Facebook that torture is evil and people will say that what we do is not as bad as what ISIS does, so we shouldn’t complain.

But the problem is, just because what ISIS does is grossly evil does not mean that what we do is not evil. The difference between ISIS and what the US has been accused of is not the difference between two extremes. It’s a difference of degrees—ISIS is willing to tolerate more to achieve their goals than the US is, but both are willing to make use of "physical or moral violence to extract confessions, punish the guilty, frighten opponents, or satisfy hatred.”

But, if we use what benefits us as a sign of what is good and compare ourselves to someone who is worse, what basis would we have to complain if ISIS said, “We’re not as bad as Josef Stalin or Adolf Hitler”? They would be using the same argument, but in their own favor. Without an objective moral standard that says “torture may never be done,” the only standard is the morality of the individual. History is full of people who believe this . . . and we look back on them with horror and disgust. 

Basically, none of these arguments are compatible with Catholic teaching. If we believe that God exists, and that certain things are always evil, we must not do those things. If we have done these things, we must repent and turn away from them if we would have God forgive us.

Conclusion

For the Catholic, we cannot let our political ideology get in the way of our faith. If we believe that the Catholic Church was given the authority to bind and loose by Christ Himself, we have to accept that the Church has the authority to bind and loose what we can do—always protected from teaching error in things concerning our salvation. If we reject that, it makes very little sense to remain in the Church.

If something is condemned as wrong by the Church, we do not have the right to say it is morally good. That includes abortion, and it includes torture. We who claim to be faithful Catholics must be faithful to all the teachings of the Church, not just those we like. Otherwise, we’re just cafeteria Catholics, just like those who reject the Church teaching on contraception and abortion and so-called “same sex marriage."

We must also realize that we will be judged for what we do, and we will be judged for leading others astray. As the Catechism points out (#2283), "It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death. The misuse of God’s name to commit a crime can provoke others to repudiate religion."

Will God judge us for causing people to repudiate religion because we are so foolish as to reject the Church teaching on a subject where even the irreligious can see evil is being done?

Think about it.

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

The SSPX Problem in a Nutshell

Pope Benedict XVI has been seeking to return the SSPX to full communion with the Church.  The problem is not with the Pope or the Bishops.  It falls squarely on the SSPX.

Illicit bishop Fellay has made a statement which is quite alarming when one considers the implication:

The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no.

He goes on in a self-serving way making personal attacks and assuming as proven what needs to be proven true, but we have a real problem here.

For the record, the SSPX, according to Fellay, recognizes that…

1. The See of Rome is the See of the Pope
2. That the Pope has supreme power
3. That the Pope is the last authority (no appeal beyond) and necessary.
4. Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith

BUT…

…They STILL refuse to obey.

If they accept the above points, they cannot claim that Rome is "Modernist."  If Rome is "modernist" then quite frankly Christ failed His promise to be with the Church always and the problem is not over the teaching of ecumenism, but the claim that Christ is God.  If Christ failed to protect His Church then He either lacked power to protect it or lied… either would make the Catholic claim about God false.

It takes a special kind of blindness to take that attitude.

Indeed, Christ had something to say about this kind of attitude.

Matthew 18:17

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.  If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Luke 10:16

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

The SSPX certainly needs our prayers, but they cannot in any way be considered faithful if they share Fellay's attitude.

The SSPX Problem in a Nutshell

Pope Benedict XVI has been seeking to return the SSPX to full communion with the Church.  The problem is not with the Pope or the Bishops.  It falls squarely on the SSPX.

Illicit bishop Fellay has made a statement which is quite alarming when one considers the implication:

The key problem in our discussions with Rome was really the Magisterium, the teaching of the Church. Because they say, "we are the pope, we are the Holy See" – and we say, yes. And so they say, "we have the supreme power," and we say, yes. They say, "we are the last instance in teaching and we are necessary" – Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith, and we say, yes. And then they say, "then, obey." And we say, no.

He goes on in a self-serving way making personal attacks and assuming as proven what needs to be proven true, but we have a real problem here.

For the record, the SSPX, according to Fellay, recognizes that…

1. The See of Rome is the See of the Pope
2. That the Pope has supreme power
3. That the Pope is the last authority (no appeal beyond) and necessary.
4. Rome is necessary for us to have the Faith

BUT…

…They STILL refuse to obey.

If they accept the above points, they cannot claim that Rome is "Modernist."  If Rome is "modernist" then quite frankly Christ failed His promise to be with the Church always and the problem is not over the teaching of ecumenism, but the claim that Christ is God.  If Christ failed to protect His Church then He either lacked power to protect it or lied… either would make the Catholic claim about God false.

It takes a special kind of blindness to take that attitude.

Indeed, Christ had something to say about this kind of attitude.

Matthew 18:17

"If he refuses to listen to them, tell the church.  If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector."

Luke 10:16

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

The SSPX certainly needs our prayers, but they cannot in any way be considered faithful if they share Fellay's attitude.

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

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

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

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

Introduction

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

The Mark of the Counterfeit Catholic

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

Christ Gives the Church His Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arrogance of Those Who Judge the Magisterium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ecclesia Dei #4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis:

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

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

Moreover Vatican I in 1870 decreed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

Signs of Counterfeit Catholicism

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

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

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

Introduction

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

The Mark of the Counterfeit Catholic

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

Christ Gives the Church His Authority

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Arrogance of Those Who Judge the Magisterium

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Ecclesia Dei #4)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pope Pius XII warned in Humani Generis:

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

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

Moreover Vatican I in 1870 decreed:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

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

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

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

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

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

With Growing Concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFTD: Cafeteria Catholicism Isn't Only Liberal

Preliminary Note:

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

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

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

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

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

With Growing Concern

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Dissent: Fundamental Issues in Understanding Church Teaching

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(In Soft Garments, pages 113-114).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: What Every Catholic Must Recognize To Be Faithfully Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

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

On Dissent: Fundamental Issues in Understanding Church Teaching

Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(In Soft Garments, pages 113-114).

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion: What Every Catholic Must Recognize To Be Faithfully Catholic

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

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

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

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

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

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