Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“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.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

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"; 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 Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“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.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

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"; 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 Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Candy Bar Theology

^24 Several days later Felix came with his wife Drusilla, who was Jewish. He had Paul summoned and listened to him speak about faith in Christ Jesus.

^25 But as he spoke about righteousness and self-restraint and the coming judgment, Felix became frightened and said, “You may go for now; when I find an opportunity I shall summon you again.” (Acts:24:24-25)

One thing I have noticed in modern Christianity is the tendency of the believer to choose or not choose a belief based not on whether it is true, but on whether it is appealing.  Thus we hear the message of love, but believe the messages of obedience and judgment are left behind.

The Origin of the Term

In his insightful book, Socrates Meets Jesus, the character of Socrates speaks of the modern beliefs in Christianity as such:

Socrates: And I still don't know why you believe what you believe.

Bertha: I just do, that's ail. Maybe it's irrational, Maybe we choose to believe things and choose to do things for other reasons than rational reasons. Didn't you ever think of that?

Socrates: Like eating that candy bar, for instance?

Bertha: Yes. I think you're wrong when you teach that evil comes only from ignorance. That's rationalism. That assumes that rea­son always rules. It doesn't. It gets pushed around by the desires and the will sometimes.

Socrates; I think you are convincing me of just that. In fact, I think I have seen two instances of it just this morning— instances of something I disbelieved in until now.

Bertha: Two instances?

Socrates: Yes. Your candy bar and your beliefs. You choose both not because they are good for you, or because they are true, but because they are sweet. Your belief that God forgives but does not judge is rather like a candy bar, is it not? It Is a sweet thought, the thought that we have only half of justice to deal with when we deal with God, that God rewards goodness but does not punish evil—is not that thought sweet and desirable? And are you not attracted to it just as you are attracted to the candy bar? (Page 55)

How It Afflicts Christianity

The reason this afflicts [no, I did not mean to type "affects"] Christianity is that it focuses on one aspect of God, making it the whole.  When the Church insists on looking at God as both Love and Just, it is the Church which is accused of legalism or being hard hearted in relation to God instead of considering the possibility of a lax conscience of the individual.

Such a view of Christianity seems to make use of the following kind of reasoning:

1. [God] is [Good] (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Punishment] is [Good] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore [God] Does not [Punish] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

The problem is the assumption of the minor premise, that no punishment is not good.  This is begging the question because the minor premise needs to be proven, not assumed.  Now of course some punishment may be wrong because it is excessive or inflicted on the wrong individual.  However it does not follow no punishment is good.  Sometimes parents must correct their children.  Sometimes the state must incarcerate law breakers for their correction or the protection others.  We can argue more reasonably as follows:

1. [God] is [Just] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Punishment] is from [God] (Some [C] is [A])
3. Therefore Some [Punishment] is [Just] (Therefore some [C] is [B])

We can demonstrate the second premise from Scripture and Church teaching.  In both the Old and the New Testament, we see God speaking of punishment and warning of punishment as a way of calling the sinful man back to Himself.  So from this, the believer has to look at the major premise.  Do they believe that God is just or do they not?  If they believe God is both good and just, then it follows that if He punishes, He does so for reasons which are good and just.

If they don't believe God is good or just, then why follow Him?

"Does God really care about X?"

However, most people who do believe in God believe He is just and good.  It's just that they don't think their own behavior should be considered bad.  Because God is good and they don't think their behavior is bad, they reason that therefore God doesn't think the behavior they do is bad, but rather the "mean old Church" imposes this on people for whatever reason.

So we thus see all sorts of questions:

• "Do you really think God cares if I have sex with my girlfriend/boyfriend?"
• "Do you really think God cares if a married couple trying to be good uses contraception?"
• "Do you really think God wants me to be unhappy because my spouse was unfaithful to me and ran off with another?"
• "Do you really think God cares about homosexual acts?"

The unvoiced part of the objection is "This is really unimportant and only the Church thinks it is important.  Yet it is that unvoiced objection which must be proven.

The problem is, of course, you can justify any kind of behavior from this point of view:

• "Do you really think God cares if I offer sacrifice to an idol?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I participate in the Death Camps?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I apostatize from the Faith?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I steal from a rich man?"
• "Do you really think God cares if I eat of the tree of knowledge?"

The thing is, if an act is contrary to His will and we know it is contrary to what He decrees, we are obligated to do as He commands and are guilty if we defy Him.  If a thing is contrary to His will and we do not know it is contrary to His will, our guilt or innocence will depend on what we could know if we bothered to find out.

The Ultimate Satanic Deception

Ultimately the Satanic deception behind such a mentality is Do what you will.  If you think it is good, it must be good.  Good is made subjective to feelings.  Because a God who forgives but does not punish is a pleasing thought, we hide from the consideration of if a thing is good, and what the consequences are for disobedience for what God commands.  Thus we have the sweetness of a forgiving God and the sweetness of self-indulgence without the responsibility and the obligations to obey and the consequences of disobedience.

Conclusion

It is an act of tremendous arrogance to assume for ourselves what is good or bad depending on what we want to do instead of what we ought to do.  To decide that punishment and sin is only for things which do not involve us and fail to consider what we are required to do or what happens when we disobey is foolish indeed.  It is not based on what is true, but what is pleasing to us.

Reflections on Fruits

Two men, a priest and a skeptic were walking down the street.  The skeptic was complaining about the problems of religion, arguing it helped nobody.  "It doesn't change a person's behavior, so what good is it?"  The priest said nothing until he walked past a dirty unkempt individual.  "Look, soap didn't change that person's appearance, so what good is it?"  The skeptic objected.  "That's not fair.  Soap could help him, but he just didn't use it."  The priest nodded.  "And that's my answer to you as well."

—Origin Unknown

The Question

I recently received a question, expressing concern for the state of the Church, about the concept of "By their fruits, you will know them."  Given the troubles in the Catholic Church, I was asked, is it possible that these are the fruits which indicate this is not God's Church? 

The Consideration

The verses which seems important to consider are largely from Matthew.  The first is from Matthew 7:

^15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ^16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? ^17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. ^18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ^19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ^20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

In context, we see Jesus is speaking of individuals, and is speaking of hypocrisy and of false prophets.  People who may invoke the name of God, but their actions do not follow what they claim to hold.  The sound tree vs. the bad tree.

The second verse comes from Matthew 12, when Jesus was accused of doing his miracles through demons:

^33 “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. ^34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ^35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

In both cases, Jesus is speaking of the behavior of individuals.  Those who show good fruits cannot be called evil, while those who show evil fruits cannot be called good.

The Analysis

With each individual within the Church, the question is whether or not the person hears God's message and keeps it in his or her heart.  If he does, he will bring forth good fruit.  If not, he will bring forth bad fruit.  Since the verse was applied to an individual and not to the Church, it seems to be taking it out of context to apply the verse to the Church, unless it can be established that the person bearing bad fruit is doing so because he is following the true teaching of the Church.  Otherwise, to claim "Person X is a Catholic, and he is doing bad things, therefore the Catholic Church is bad" is in fact a post hoc fallacy.

So if "Sister Mary Loony," or "Father Harry Tik" is saying or doing things which shows bad fruit, we need to analyze whether or not the Catholicism they teach is in fact in line with the teaching of the Pope and those in communion with him.  If it is, the accusation is valid.  If it is not, then obviously it is unjust to blame the Church for those who teach their own views instead of the Church.

Remember in Matt 12:15, Jesus spoke of false prophets: People who teach a false teaching and present it as God's.  Reading the Prophets in the Old Testament, we see many incidents of false prophets who sought to teach a message not from God.  They claimed that God would not forsake Jerusalem to the nations because His temple was in Jerusalem, and to let Jerusalem fall would show God to be weak.

The true prophets however spoke the truth, that God would not tolerate the wickedness of His people, and they would be held to account for their sins (Ezekiel is very powerful in this respect)

The Application

Certain things, such as art, architecture and music do reflect the influence of faith in a society.  A society which practices its faith will be more inclined to produce works of deep spiritual meaning, while a society which does not, will be less likely to produce people who are inspired to create.

It would be false however to think that the Western decline in ideas of art is due to the Church being in decline, unless one can make a case that the Church itself is responsible for the decline in its official teaching (as opposed to people who imposed their own interpretation on to what the Church has taught).

Indeed, when we look at the path of Western society, we see a tendency against God and faith and towards secularism.  In other words, a society which is rejecting Christ and is marginalizing faith.

Does the Church embrace this?  No, in fact it is setting itself in opposition to this secularism, and calling for a return to Christ, making Him the center of our lives individually and in society.

So it cannot be said that The Church is the cause of this aesthetic collapse.

Nor can it be said to be the cause of any moral or spiritual collapse.  These collapses are caused by man moving away from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

The Church cannot compel the individual to obey however.  It can only teach what is, and to speak out against what is false.  But as Humorist Dorothy Parker once remarked (and was wrongly attributed to Mae West): "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." If people will not listen to the Church, and will reject its authority, there is not much one can do to make them listen.

The Obligation for US as Individuals to Bear Witness

This is of course where those of us who claim to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church come in.  We are indeed called to transform our culture by our living witness to Christ.  Perhaps this means preaching.  But not all of us are called to preach, but all of us are called to bear witness.

The primary way we can do this is by our actions.  As St. James has said in chapter 2 of his epistle:

^14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ^15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, ^16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? ^17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

^18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

If we, if you as an individual or I as an individual, are not showing our faith by our works, are failing to bear witness to the world.  Yes, many non-Christians and many people who reject all concepts of religion are scandalized by our behavior, who profess the belief in Christ but by our works seem to show nothing but bad fruit.  Who is to blame in such a case?

We are.  We are whenever we fail to bear witness to the faith we have within us by living our lives according to that faith.  I know the faults I have to work on, and I don't always succeed in the struggle against them.

Sinners in the Church… are Us

we need to remember Matthew 7 when we see sinners within the Church:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

When we pass judgment on what others are failing to do for the Church

All of us are obligated to remove the log in our own eye, and whether or not "the other guy" removes the speck from their eye does not change the obligation we have before God.

If we want the Church to show good fruits, we need to start with ourselves.  If we are offended by the behavior of others, are we ourselves exemplary in our own behavior?

If our objection is others promoting error, are we speaking out for the truth?

If we do not, we fall into the category of the hypocrites Jesus spoke out against.  "the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get" is a sentence I would not want applied against me, but Christ has told us, this is how we will be judged.

Not Judging Does Not Mean Staying Silent

This does not mean we need to be silent against evil of course.  As the book of Ezekiel, chapter 33, has related:

^The word of the Lord came to me: ^2 “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman; ^3 and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; ^4 then if any one who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. ^5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. ^6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

So, the question to be directed against those who wonder if the Church has bad fruits, on account of her members, is: Does the Church warn against the sword on the land?  Does it speak out against the evils the land is committing?

Note, I did not say "Does the individual priest or layman."  It is quite possible for individuals to fall short of their obligation before God.  But does The Church as a whole fail to teach?

Actually no.  it stands up against the evil of the world, it condemns the evil, and tries to lead us to the good.

Conclusion

Now, if I lie to you the reader about what the Church teaches, or if I fail to understand what the Church teaches, is this the fault of the Church?  Or is it my own fault?

This is ultimately what we need to consider about whether "The Church" produces good fruits or bad.

1. Who has the authority to teach for the Church? (As Catholics, we hold it is the Magisterium)
2. Who is responsible for following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church)
3. Who is responsible for not following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church without obeying the teaching of the Church)
4. When is "the Church" (In contrast to the individual) responsible?  (Only if the individual does evil because he follows what the Church teaches, and not his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches)
5. Is the Church responsible for a misunderstanding? (Only if it fails to teach properly)

Ultimately, to demonstrate "the Church" has bad fruits, it has to show that the actual teaching of the magisterium, properly understood, is the cause of these bad fruits, avoiding post hoc and straw man fallacies.  It requires a knowledge of what the Church has taught, in context, and a demonstration that this evil was intended by the teaching of "the Church," as opposed to overzealous or overlax individuals who distorted or misinterpreted it.

Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

Christianity Is Not Irrational Even if Some Christians Are

Through the perusal of the daily blogs I follow I occasionally see articles which are quite worthy of wincing over.  The author of these efforts makes a statement as a Christian, indicating what they claim is a Christian belief, and not a belief of the individual.  Unfortunately such individuals do not realize in doing so, they are making a "witness" for Christians which is scandalous.  Not scandalous in the sense that Christians need to challenge the world.  Rather I mean scandalous in the sense of "Christians believe that?  What a bunch of idiots!"

Now yes, the foolishness of God is greater than the wisdom of man but I am not speaking of these scandals.  Rather I am speaking of the foolishness of a man which is seen as the foolishness of Christians.

The issue I have is with certain Christians and their approach to science.

Christianity and Science

Historically, Christians have had nothing to fear from science, and indeed many of the earlier scientists were not only Christians, but priests or monks as well.  The idea was that God created the universe, and they sought to come to a greater understanding of the universe God made.

Now, beginning in the so-called "Enlightenment," we had a movement towards emphasizing reason alone, arguing that only that which we could observe could be considered true.  Unfortunately this false reasoning meant that certain scientists who accepted this view fell into the argument from silence fallacy, that because they did not have evidence of a thing it means it must not exist.

This view of science is of course wrong and must be challenged.

Unfortunately, some groups of Christians go the wrong way with this.  They seem to operate under this syllogism:

1. The Bible is true
2. Some claims of science contradict the Bible
3. Therefore Science is false

The problem is the major premise is ambiguous (in what way was it understood to be true?) and the second premise is false.  The conclusion is therefore not shown to be true.

I think this is important to stress because I have seen Christians lose their faith over this.  Once they become convinced Science does contain truth, they look at the second premise and therefore conclude that where Science contradicts the Bible, the Bible must be false… never realizing the problem the whole time was in their own personal interpretation of Scripture.

The Bible is indeed true and inerrant.  However, this does not always mean the individual interpreting it understands it correctly.  [The reason I reject the idea of personal interpretation of Scripture is that I have seen too many contradictory interpretations.]  Some scientists may reach conclusions which contradict either their understanding of the Bible or that of the one reading both the Bible and the writing of the scientist.

The Bible does indeed speak of Creation in a period of seven days, yes.  The Bible also often uses the number seven as a symbol of fulfillment (A Christian who believed God needed seven days to create the universe or that He was exhausted and needed to rest on the seventh day is limiting the power of God).  So a claim that a universe billions of years old contradicts the Bible really requires an investigation whether the one who holds seven literal days is reading the Bible as intended.

In regards to the claims of the scientists out there, the PZ Myers', the Richard Dawkins' and the like who claim that Science doesn't need God, therefore there is no God, what they claim is not claimed on the basic of scientific discovery, but on their own philosophical beliefs which goes beyond what Science itself can claim.

Christians who have faith in God do not need to fear science, though they need to assess the claims of the scientist to investigate whether a claim is based on science or what the scientist claims science teaches.

Christianity and Reason

Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once said that God is not contrary to reason, though He may be above reason.  I find this to be very profound.  Certain Christians fear a claim that indicates something is against God's nature because they fear it makes God limited.

It is like the dilemma of Socrates in Euthyphro:

"Is the pious (τὸ ὅσιον) loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" (10a)

The non Theist often argues that gods are subject to values.  Some Christians argue that Values are because God wills it (which opens up Christians to the question of "What if God told you to kill your child?").

The reasoning Christian recognizes this is a false dilemma.  Thomas Aquinas recognized that something is good because it reflects the good which God is.  Therefore good is neither outside of God, nor arbitrarily chosen by a "cosmic killjoy."

The claim of some Christians, seeking to protect the freedom of God, that God could do evil but chooses not to is based on a misunderstanding of what evil is.  Evil is not a positive force, but an absence of good.  So to say God could do evil is to say that God could be less than perfect.

Moreover this seeking to protect the freedom of God (based on a misunderstanding of how God is free) makes God's constancy and His boundless mercy no longer certain.  Because God could choose evil (under this idea), our only assurance He will not is "Well, He hasn't done it yet."

The Importance of Reason

I am not calling for the Rationalism of the Enlightenment of course.  That was an error based on the assumption that the human mind can know all there is to know.  Let it die recognized as the foolishness it is.

However, I am calling for the recognition that Christians do not need to be afraid of reason or science.  The Catholic Church does not require me to mindlessly follow without thinking.  Rather she calls me to understand what they teach so I might follow the teachings of Christ out of devotion and not because it is an arbitrary rule with no sense to it.

I wonder how many people have walked away from the Christian faith because either they did not understand the reasoning behind it or because they saw an irrational Christian and assumed from this that all Christians were irrational.

The Christian faith is not irrational.  We may not understand a reason for something, but this does not mean no reason exists for it.

If one is a Christian, do not fear reason and science.  If one follows reason and science, do not fear Christianity.  The individual should be certain their own understandings of Christianity or of science are not in error before arguing that either Christianity or science is "wrong."

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

Sources: Catholic Culture : Catholic World News Feature Stories : Bishop Martino's departure: did he jump or was he pushed?; http://wbcitizensvoice.com/pdfs/MARTINO_STATEMENT.pdf; http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090902/us_time/08599191996900

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

I found myself disappointed with the tone of this article by CWN discussing the resignation of health issues.  While they may ultimately have stumbled on some truth, I find the article guilty of hasty judgment and a priori assumption which ought to be eliminated before printing their conclusions.

The article in question makes two assertions which it claims to explore:

1. Whether Bishop Martino was forced out
2. Why he was forced out

It reminds me of an old Foxtrot comic by Bill Amend —

Student: OK, if the United States is here, then Iraq must be here

Teacher: Um, let's go back to that first "If"…

The issue in question is whether Bishop Martino was forced out.  If he was not, then the second assertion (why he was forced out) is without merit. Unfortunately, I find the case for the first assertion to be guilty of Hasty Assumption, and perhaps is guilty of a bifurcation as well.

The article states:

Did he jump or was he pushed?

That's the easy question. Bishop Joseph Martino was pushed into resignation at the age of 63. No intelligent observer can credit the official explanation: that Bishop Martino retired because of health problems. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness.

Lets put this into a syllogism:

1. The official reason was because of health problems
2. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness
3. Therefore Bishop Martino was forced out.

In terms of logic this is a non sequitur.  Whether or not the health of the Bishop was the real reason, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The bishop himself said regarding his retirement:

As I became more informed about the needs of the Diocese of Scranton throughout 2004, it became clear to me that, at the very least, something had to be done to halt the rapid financial deterioration of our Diocese. This situation had been caused by very high institutional expenses due to an excessive number of schools and parishes competing with one another and diluting Diocesan and parish resources. Even greater than the financial challenge of the Diocese was the fact that with so many schools and parishes, the clergy of the Diocese was not assigned in a strategic manner, with a view to leading a vigorous and successful New Evangelization of the Diocese, so dear to us all.

For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue.

The Diocese of Scranton needs to continue to respond to the call of our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, to engage in the New Evangelization. To do so, however, the Diocese of Scranton requires a Bishop who is at least physically vigorous. I am not that Bishop.

With this in mind, the syllogism of CWN also becomes a Straw Man argument.  Yes the Bishop did not say he was suffering from grave illness, but it does not follow from this that he was forced out.

CWN goes on to say:

Clearly Bishop Martino was under a great deal of pressure, and therefore it is not difficult to believe that he suffered from insomnia and fatigue: the only medical complaints that were mentioned in the press conference announcing his departure. But while those are serious problems, they are not ordinarily serious enough to compel a motivated leader to resign. And even if insomnia had risen to the level of a serious medical problem, the question remains: Why was the bishop under so much pressure-- the sort of pressure that could give rise to such serious problems?

This is a speculation here, which requires the ignoring of what the Bishop said: "For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue."  CWN does not know whether Bishop Martino was fatigued from the opposition he received in his diocese or not.  Lets face it.  Not all men can handle all situations sent there way.

In other words, whether or not CWN accepts their explanation, the Bishop stated that he was not able to carry out the job.  So if CWN wishes to make a case, they have to demonstrate more evidence for their case.  This link is not supported, and so their argument is not proven true.

CWN moves now into the territory of Begging the Question, in assuming as proven what needs to be proved.  They say:

If anyone had lingering doubts about the question of Bishop Martino's health, he had only to look carefully at yesterday's announcement from Scranton. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty's retirement was announced on the same day. The Dougherty departure, taken by itself, would have been completely unremarkable; at the age of 77, he was well beyond the ordinary canonical retirement age. But the fact that the two retirements were announced simultaneously leaves no doubt about what happened. It was a house-cleaning.

Again, let us place this into the form of a syllogism:

1. Bishop Martino resigned
2. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty retired the same day
3. Therefore this is a Housecleaning

There can be other reasons for such an incident, such as this scenario (this is my own looking at the facts for other reasons and should not be seen as my personal view of what did happen):

Bishop Dougherty was 77 and overdue for retirement.  Bishop Martino decides he can no longer continue as Bishop due to stress and fatigue.  The decision is made that since they will need to replace Martino, it is time to accept Dougherty's resignation as well.

You can see that if it happened this way, there is no sinister reason for such an action.  Now, CWN has not proven Bishop Martino was "pushed."  It is their speculation, just as the scenario I wrote above is speculation.

However, Canon Law has this to say on bishops resigning:

Can. 401 §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

§2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfilment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

In other words, both bishops resigning are legitimate from Canon Law.  Note that it requires the resignation to be offered to the Pope, and from this the Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation request.

However, CWN does go on, guilty of Begging the Question, saying as to why he was "pushed" (note CWN has not proven he was pushed):

Two different explanations have been put forward by informed observers. One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

The first explanation could in fact how Bishop Martino found himself in a situation where he could not cope with opposition from underlings which contributed to stress and crippling fatigue.

The second example, Cardinal Rigali, who was quite outspoken on life issues in Congress (which I pointed out twice in my blog) in a position of having to defend his orthodoxy (which many confuse with conservatism) when CWN is required to bring forward evidence he is not.  A Google search of Cardinal Rigali and abortion gives 122,000 hits — all of them showing his supporting the right to life.  Yahoo News speculates that Bishop Martino may have been let go because he was too Pro-Life.  The CWN article indirectly implies that Martino was pressured due to his orthodoxy being too much for other bishops.

Now let us consider this:

1. The Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation of the Bishop
2. Bishops Martino and Dougherty had their resignations accepted.
3. Therefore the Pope accepted their resignations.

Now, with this in mind, the CWN article creates a dilemma.  They claim Bishop Martino was "pushed."  The Pope accepts the resignation.  Therefore he was either complicit or he was deluded.  If the Pope was complicit, then logically he was guilty of condemning an innocent man.  If he was deluded, this means the Pope is rubber stamping everything… both are serious charges which require substantiation, as they are in effect an attack on the authority of the Pope.

This is especially serious as Canon 1390 §2 reads:

A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.

If CWN does not have a cause to accuse Cardinal Rigali, a case could be made that this article could be applied to CWN.

I especially think this case could be made when one looks at this statement by the CWN article:

(We might even ask, in passing, why Church leaders persist in offering such implausible excuses for the resignations of bishops. If no one really believes that Bishop Martino is too sick to carry on, why is that flimsy explanation offered to the public? Corporate leaders routinely offer vague, unsatisfactory reasons for a change at the top: it is a matter of "different styles of leadership," they might say, or a question of "conflicting visions." But those explanations, lame as they are, are not transparently false. Don't Church leaders attach any importance at all to the principle of that honesty is the best policy? Don't they worry about undermining their own credibility?) [Italics in original]

What have they asserted in this paragraph?

1. That Bishop Martino lied about his health
2. That the Church has another reason for releasing Bishop Martino
3. That Church leaders are lying about the reason for his resignation.

Combining this with the accusation that Bishop Martino was too conservative for Cardinal Rigali. we have four charges which need to be substantiated.  A fifth charge by logical conclusion was that the Pope was either a willing or unwitting participant in a unjust action.

There is a sixth charge one can make too: That Bishop Marino had some unspoken action which merited being forced out.

All of these conclusions can be drawn from CWN's article.  However they all presuppose that CWN is right that Bishop Martino was forced out.  This was the point they failed to prove however.

This does not mean that CWN is proven wrong.  They may have made a lucky guess (things can be true even if not proven true after all).  However, their argument is fallacious and therefore the conclusion CWN makes is not proven true from their argument.  To thus publish an article which directly states three accusations and can lead to three others logically, truth must be proven, and not accusations given wildly.

With these things considered, I think this CWN article is guilty of Rash Judgment.

On The Logical Errors and Rash Judgment In an CWN Article on Bishop Martino

Sources: Catholic Culture : Catholic World News Feature Stories : Bishop Martino's departure: did he jump or was he pushed?; http://wbcitizensvoice.com/pdfs/MARTINO_STATEMENT.pdf; http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090902/us_time/08599191996900

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

(Catechism of the Catholic Church)

 

I found myself disappointed with the tone of this article by CWN discussing the resignation of health issues.  While they may ultimately have stumbled on some truth, I find the article guilty of hasty judgment and a priori assumption which ought to be eliminated before printing their conclusions.

The article in question makes two assertions which it claims to explore:

1. Whether Bishop Martino was forced out
2. Why he was forced out

It reminds me of an old Foxtrot comic by Bill Amend —

Student: OK, if the United States is here, then Iraq must be here

Teacher: Um, let's go back to that first "If"…

The issue in question is whether Bishop Martino was forced out.  If he was not, then the second assertion (why he was forced out) is without merit. Unfortunately, I find the case for the first assertion to be guilty of Hasty Assumption, and perhaps is guilty of a bifurcation as well.

The article states:

Did he jump or was he pushed?

That's the easy question. Bishop Joseph Martino was pushed into resignation at the age of 63. No intelligent observer can credit the official explanation: that Bishop Martino retired because of health problems. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness.

Lets put this into a syllogism:

1. The official reason was because of health problems
2. The outgoing bishop openly acknowledged to reporters that he "clearly" was not suffering from any grave illness
3. Therefore Bishop Martino was forced out.

In terms of logic this is a non sequitur.  Whether or not the health of the Bishop was the real reason, the conclusion does not follow from the premises.

The bishop himself said regarding his retirement:

As I became more informed about the needs of the Diocese of Scranton throughout 2004, it became clear to me that, at the very least, something had to be done to halt the rapid financial deterioration of our Diocese. This situation had been caused by very high institutional expenses due to an excessive number of schools and parishes competing with one another and diluting Diocesan and parish resources. Even greater than the financial challenge of the Diocese was the fact that with so many schools and parishes, the clergy of the Diocese was not assigned in a strategic manner, with a view to leading a vigorous and successful New Evangelization of the Diocese, so dear to us all.

For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue.

The Diocese of Scranton needs to continue to respond to the call of our late Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, and of his successor, Pope Benedict XVI, to engage in the New Evangelization. To do so, however, the Diocese of Scranton requires a Bishop who is at least physically vigorous. I am not that Bishop.

With this in mind, the syllogism of CWN also becomes a Straw Man argument.  Yes the Bishop did not say he was suffering from grave illness, but it does not follow from this that he was forced out.

CWN goes on to say:

Clearly Bishop Martino was under a great deal of pressure, and therefore it is not difficult to believe that he suffered from insomnia and fatigue: the only medical complaints that were mentioned in the press conference announcing his departure. But while those are serious problems, they are not ordinarily serious enough to compel a motivated leader to resign. And even if insomnia had risen to the level of a serious medical problem, the question remains: Why was the bishop under so much pressure-- the sort of pressure that could give rise to such serious problems?

This is a speculation here, which requires the ignoring of what the Bishop said: "For some time now, there has not been a clear consensus among the clergy and people of the Diocese of Scranton regarding my pastoral initiatives or my way of governance. This development has caused me great sorrow, resulting in bouts of insomnia and at times a crippling physical fatigue."  CWN does not know whether Bishop Martino was fatigued from the opposition he received in his diocese or not.  Lets face it.  Not all men can handle all situations sent there way.

In other words, whether or not CWN accepts their explanation, the Bishop stated that he was not able to carry out the job.  So if CWN wishes to make a case, they have to demonstrate more evidence for their case.  This link is not supported, and so their argument is not proven true.

CWN moves now into the territory of Begging the Question, in assuming as proven what needs to be proved.  They say:

If anyone had lingering doubts about the question of Bishop Martino's health, he had only to look carefully at yesterday's announcement from Scranton. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty's retirement was announced on the same day. The Dougherty departure, taken by itself, would have been completely unremarkable; at the age of 77, he was well beyond the ordinary canonical retirement age. But the fact that the two retirements were announced simultaneously leaves no doubt about what happened. It was a house-cleaning.

Again, let us place this into the form of a syllogism:

1. Bishop Martino resigned
2. Auxiliary Bishop John Dougherty retired the same day
3. Therefore this is a Housecleaning

There can be other reasons for such an incident, such as this scenario (this is my own looking at the facts for other reasons and should not be seen as my personal view of what did happen):

Bishop Dougherty was 77 and overdue for retirement.  Bishop Martino decides he can no longer continue as Bishop due to stress and fatigue.  The decision is made that since they will need to replace Martino, it is time to accept Dougherty's resignation as well.

You can see that if it happened this way, there is no sinister reason for such an action.  Now, CWN has not proven Bishop Martino was "pushed."  It is their speculation, just as the scenario I wrote above is speculation.

However, Canon Law has this to say on bishops resigning:

Can. 401 §1 A diocesan Bishop who has completed his seventy-fifth year of age is requested to offer his resignation from office to the Supreme Pontiff, who, taking all the circumstances into account, will make provision accordingly.

§2 A diocesan Bishop who, because of illness or some other grave reason, has become unsuited for the fulfilment of his office, is earnestly requested to offer his resignation from office.

In other words, both bishops resigning are legitimate from Canon Law.  Note that it requires the resignation to be offered to the Pope, and from this the Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation request.

However, CWN does go on, guilty of Begging the Question, saying as to why he was "pushed" (note CWN has not proven he was pushed):

Two different explanations have been put forward by informed observers. One school of thought says that Bishop Martino was too rough in his administrative style. He was a bull in a china shop, constantly making new enemies, needlessly causing division, refusing to act in a collegial manner and respect the advice of his brother bishops. The other school of thought says that he was simply too conservative for the tastes of his brethren in the US bishops' conference-- and especially for his metropolitan, Cardinal Justin Rigali, who has emerged as the most influential prelate in America today.

The first explanation could in fact how Bishop Martino found himself in a situation where he could not cope with opposition from underlings which contributed to stress and crippling fatigue.

The second example, Cardinal Rigali, who was quite outspoken on life issues in Congress (which I pointed out twice in my blog) in a position of having to defend his orthodoxy (which many confuse with conservatism) when CWN is required to bring forward evidence he is not.  A Google search of Cardinal Rigali and abortion gives 122,000 hits — all of them showing his supporting the right to life.  Yahoo News speculates that Bishop Martino may have been let go because he was too Pro-Life.  The CWN article indirectly implies that Martino was pressured due to his orthodoxy being too much for other bishops.

Now let us consider this:

1. The Pope is the one who accepts or rejects the resignation of the Bishop
2. Bishops Martino and Dougherty had their resignations accepted.
3. Therefore the Pope accepted their resignations.

Now, with this in mind, the CWN article creates a dilemma.  They claim Bishop Martino was "pushed."  The Pope accepts the resignation.  Therefore he was either complicit or he was deluded.  If the Pope was complicit, then logically he was guilty of condemning an innocent man.  If he was deluded, this means the Pope is rubber stamping everything… both are serious charges which require substantiation, as they are in effect an attack on the authority of the Pope.

This is especially serious as Canon 1390 §2 reads:

A person who calumniously denounces an offence to an ecclesiastical Superior, or otherwise injures the good name of another, can be punished with a just penalty, not excluding a censure.

If CWN does not have a cause to accuse Cardinal Rigali, a case could be made that this article could be applied to CWN.

I especially think this case could be made when one looks at this statement by the CWN article:

(We might even ask, in passing, why Church leaders persist in offering such implausible excuses for the resignations of bishops. If no one really believes that Bishop Martino is too sick to carry on, why is that flimsy explanation offered to the public? Corporate leaders routinely offer vague, unsatisfactory reasons for a change at the top: it is a matter of "different styles of leadership," they might say, or a question of "conflicting visions." But those explanations, lame as they are, are not transparently false. Don't Church leaders attach any importance at all to the principle of that honesty is the best policy? Don't they worry about undermining their own credibility?) [Italics in original]

What have they asserted in this paragraph?

1. That Bishop Martino lied about his health
2. That the Church has another reason for releasing Bishop Martino
3. That Church leaders are lying about the reason for his resignation.

Combining this with the accusation that Bishop Martino was too conservative for Cardinal Rigali. we have four charges which need to be substantiated.  A fifth charge by logical conclusion was that the Pope was either a willing or unwitting participant in a unjust action.

There is a sixth charge one can make too: That Bishop Marino had some unspoken action which merited being forced out.

All of these conclusions can be drawn from CWN's article.  However they all presuppose that CWN is right that Bishop Martino was forced out.  This was the point they failed to prove however.

This does not mean that CWN is proven wrong.  They may have made a lucky guess (things can be true even if not proven true after all).  However, their argument is fallacious and therefore the conclusion CWN makes is not proven true from their argument.  To thus publish an article which directly states three accusations and can lead to three others logically, truth must be proven, and not accusations given wildly.

With these things considered, I think this CWN article is guilty of Rash Judgment.