TFTD: Did They Ever Consider There Might Be an Answer?

Read more »

TFTD: Did They Ever Consider There Might Be an Answer?

Read more »

TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

TFTD: Two Minute Hate

In George Orwell's 1984, we see a propaganda tool called Two Minute Hate. The tactic is to portray a vilified person on TV spewing their hostility to the regime accompanied by sounds and images designed to irritate the audience. The result was it was impossible not to be affected in hating the identified enemy and corresponding favor of the regime.

Now while we don't directly have a counterpart today (yet?), I was struck by a thought when reading this part of the novel -- isn't it curious how we see a disproportionate number of stories in the news about the Westboro Baptists and pedophile priests whenever the Catholic Church makes a stand for what God teaches, such as the teachings on homosexuality and contraception?

It's as if people in the media want to discredit the Church to induce hate in a "this is what they stand for" message.

TFTD: The Memorial of St. Pius X

Read more »

TFTD: The Memorial of St. Pius X

Read more »

TFTD: Infant Baptism

In Judges 13, we see the story of Samson. His mother is told,

An angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her: Though you are barren and have had no children, you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to drink no wine or beer and to eat nothing unclean, for you will conceive and bear a son. No razor shall touch his head, for the boy is to be a nazirite for God from the womb. (Judges 13:3-4)

What strikes me about this passage is that God chose Samson before birth to be consecrated to God.

Pondering this, I thought of the challenges made against infant baptism. Basically, we are told that baptism is an act of faith which an infant cannot make. As I understand it, those who believe Catholics err think that only someone old enough to know what they are doing can seek to be a Christian.

But God did not tell Samson's mother to wait until he was old enough to make a decision. She was to begin preparation before Samson was born and continue to raise him in this way from birth.

So I find myself thinking, what if baptism isn't merely an act professing faith in God, but is an act dedicating the child to God from the beginning? In such a case, parents baptizing their child are bringing their child and promising to raise the child as a Christian as God calls them to do.

In that case, delaying baptism would be delaying obedience to God who said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."  (Luke 18:16)

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: Infant Baptism

In Judges 13, we see the story of Samson. His mother is told,

An angel of the Lord appeared to the woman and said to her: Though you are barren and have had no children, you will conceive and bear a son. Now, then, be careful to drink no wine or beer and to eat nothing unclean, for you will conceive and bear a son. No razor shall touch his head, for the boy is to be a nazirite for God from the womb. (Judges 13:3-4)

What strikes me about this passage is that God chose Samson before birth to be consecrated to God.

Pondering this, I thought of the challenges made against infant baptism. Basically, we are told that baptism is an act of faith which an infant cannot make. As I understand it, those who believe Catholics err think that only someone old enough to know what they are doing can seek to be a Christian.

But God did not tell Samson's mother to wait until he was old enough to make a decision. She was to begin preparation before Samson was born and continue to raise him in this way from birth.

So I find myself thinking, what if baptism isn't merely an act professing faith in God, but is an act dedicating the child to God from the beginning? In such a case, parents baptizing their child are bringing their child and promising to raise the child as a Christian as God calls them to do.

In that case, delaying baptism would be delaying obedience to God who said, "Let the children come to me and do not prevent them; for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these."  (Luke 18:16)

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

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

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

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

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

TFTD: Meaningless…

If a person believes in God in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of God to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person believes in Christ in a meaningful way, it is reasonable to expect that this person will seek to follow the teachings of Christ to the best of his or her understanding and ability.

If a person claims to be a Catholic, in a meaningful sense, it is reasonable to expect this person to recognize that the Catholic Church was established by Christ and teaches with Christ's authority, protected from teaching error on issues necessary for salvation.

Thus…

If one rejects the teaching and authority of God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Church Christ founded, such a person cannot claim to be a faithful Catholic in any meaningful sense of the term.

Once we realize this, when we look at the claims of those Catholics who deny the commands of God and Jesus Christ and/or the teachings of the Catholic Church are binding, what they claim to profess… is pretty meaningless.

TFTD: Church Teaching NOT Up for Grabs

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

(Luke 10:16)

I came across an opinion article from a badly misinformed writer on the conflict among Catholics during an Election year.  The annoying part of the article read:

Beyond secular politics, polarization in the church also includes tension about such things as the new Mass language, the ordination of women, the role of nuns, contraception, the nature of the priesthood and the role of laity. The very nature of the reforms of Vatican Council II is up for grabs. Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking.

That would be incorrect.  The nature of the reforms are not "up for grabs."  We need to recognize that the Catholic teaching is not an issue to be debated or voted on.  it is not something that would be changed if only the Church would bring in liberal bishops.  The truth is, faithful Catholics believe the Catholic faith was established by Christ with authority given to the apostles and their successors – the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (the Magisterium).

Basically, when there is a dispute over the proper interpretation of Catholic teaching, it is the Magisterium which has the authority to determine what is in keeping with the Catholic faith and what is not.  Not some modern theologian.  Not some married couple who decide they don't want to follow the Church teaching on sexual morality.

Not even a deceased cardinal who took positions on morality which were dubious at best has the authority to change the teaching on his own say so.

What we have in America is not a case of  "Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking."  The Bishops who stand with the Holy Father and teach the message of the Church can indeed speak out with authority.  Those members of the Church who contradict the consistent teaching of the Church have no authority whatsoever for their position.  The ex-priest promoting priestly marriage, the liberal politician supporting abortion, the businessman who tries to distort the Catholic position on social justice, they do not.

it is important to recognize these truths.  To be authentically Catholic, one must remember that the doctrinal and moral teachings cannot be reversed and they are not mere opinions of the Pope and bishops.

Like it or not, those people who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church are, according to what follows from the Catholic faith, in conflict with God.  If a person accepts the authority of the Church as coming from Christ, they need to be faithful to the teaching of the Church as coming from Christ.  If one rejects that, it is pretty foolish to remain within a Church which claims it as true.

So let's stop the nonsense of the Church teaching as being "up for grabs."  Those who remain faithful to the Church teaching will be faithful to Christ, while those who deny the Church teaching will be denying Christ.  This is not political debate, but recognizing the truth God calls us to live.

TFTD: Church Teaching NOT Up for Grabs

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

(Luke 10:16)

I came across an opinion article from a badly misinformed writer on the conflict among Catholics during an Election year.  The annoying part of the article read:

Beyond secular politics, polarization in the church also includes tension about such things as the new Mass language, the ordination of women, the role of nuns, contraception, the nature of the priesthood and the role of laity. The very nature of the reforms of Vatican Council II is up for grabs. Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking.

That would be incorrect.  The nature of the reforms are not "up for grabs."  We need to recognize that the Catholic teaching is not an issue to be debated or voted on.  it is not something that would be changed if only the Church would bring in liberal bishops.  The truth is, faithful Catholics believe the Catholic faith was established by Christ with authority given to the apostles and their successors – the Pope and the Bishops in communion with him (the Magisterium).

Basically, when there is a dispute over the proper interpretation of Catholic teaching, it is the Magisterium which has the authority to determine what is in keeping with the Catholic faith and what is not.  Not some modern theologian.  Not some married couple who decide they don't want to follow the Church teaching on sexual morality.

Not even a deceased cardinal who took positions on morality which were dubious at best has the authority to change the teaching on his own say so.

What we have in America is not a case of  "Inspiring leaders with vision and courage are sorely lacking."  The Bishops who stand with the Holy Father and teach the message of the Church can indeed speak out with authority.  Those members of the Church who contradict the consistent teaching of the Church have no authority whatsoever for their position.  The ex-priest promoting priestly marriage, the liberal politician supporting abortion, the businessman who tries to distort the Catholic position on social justice, they do not.

it is important to recognize these truths.  To be authentically Catholic, one must remember that the doctrinal and moral teachings cannot be reversed and they are not mere opinions of the Pope and bishops.

Like it or not, those people who disagree with the teaching of the Catholic Church are, according to what follows from the Catholic faith, in conflict with God.  If a person accepts the authority of the Church as coming from Christ, they need to be faithful to the teaching of the Church as coming from Christ.  If one rejects that, it is pretty foolish to remain within a Church which claims it as true.

So let's stop the nonsense of the Church teaching as being "up for grabs."  Those who remain faithful to the Church teaching will be faithful to Christ, while those who deny the Church teaching will be denying Christ.  This is not political debate, but recognizing the truth God calls us to live.

TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

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

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

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

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

TFTD: Pulling a Fast One

Chico Marx: I make you proposition. You owe us $200, we take $2000 and we call it square.
Groucho Marx: That's not a bad idea. I tell you ... I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer.

(Horse Feathers)

The tragic thing about the current battle of the Culture Wars being fought is the fact that one faction is being given leave to decide the terms without observers even questioning the fact that this faction is not impartial, not reasonable and not logical.

In the current debates about abortion, gay "marriage" and the HHS contraception mandate, we see the faction in favor attempting to introduce their views as both personal choices AND fundamental rights.  The traditional Christian views on these issues are rejected on the grounds that moral values are "relative" and can't be imposed on others.  At the same time, it is also claimed that these issues are fundamental rights and those who oppose them are opposed to the rights of women or persons with homosexual inclinations.

It can't be both.  If it morality is relative, a person can't be compelled to accept abortion, gay marriage and contraception.  But if these things are "rights," then morality can't be relative and the proponents of these issues are obligated to make a case for their attempting to legitimize them.

It is hypocritical to condemn Christians for "pushing their values on others," when believers oppose innovations made to the moral beliefs which contradict long held values while at the same time imposing these new "rights" on society in the name of "human dignity."

During this time, coming up to the elections, we need to be aware of these hypocritical double standards which demand that Christians place their moral beliefs on hold while pushing their own moral beliefs.  We do not need to be ashamed of our faith.  As Americans we have the same rights as anyone else to speak out on when the country goes in the wrong direction.

We are not the ones pushing beliefs on others.  They are pushing their beliefs on us, telling us to shut up when we speak out, telling us we are anti-woman or homophobic when we say the unborn are persons and marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

We need to stand up for the truth and not let the lies and propaganda pass unchallenged.  We cannot let them intimidate us into silence.

TFTD: Pulling a Fast One

Chico Marx: I make you proposition. You owe us $200, we take $2000 and we call it square.
Groucho Marx: That's not a bad idea. I tell you ... I'll consult my lawyer. And if he advises me to do it, I'll get a new lawyer.

(Horse Feathers)

The tragic thing about the current battle of the Culture Wars being fought is the fact that one faction is being given leave to decide the terms without observers even questioning the fact that this faction is not impartial, not reasonable and not logical.

In the current debates about abortion, gay "marriage" and the HHS contraception mandate, we see the faction in favor attempting to introduce their views as both personal choices AND fundamental rights.  The traditional Christian views on these issues are rejected on the grounds that moral values are "relative" and can't be imposed on others.  At the same time, it is also claimed that these issues are fundamental rights and those who oppose them are opposed to the rights of women or persons with homosexual inclinations.

It can't be both.  If it morality is relative, a person can't be compelled to accept abortion, gay marriage and contraception.  But if these things are "rights," then morality can't be relative and the proponents of these issues are obligated to make a case for their attempting to legitimize them.

It is hypocritical to condemn Christians for "pushing their values on others," when believers oppose innovations made to the moral beliefs which contradict long held values while at the same time imposing these new "rights" on society in the name of "human dignity."

During this time, coming up to the elections, we need to be aware of these hypocritical double standards which demand that Christians place their moral beliefs on hold while pushing their own moral beliefs.  We do not need to be ashamed of our faith.  As Americans we have the same rights as anyone else to speak out on when the country goes in the wrong direction.

We are not the ones pushing beliefs on others.  They are pushing their beliefs on us, telling us to shut up when we speak out, telling us we are anti-woman or homophobic when we say the unborn are persons and marriage is to be between a man and a woman.

We need to stand up for the truth and not let the lies and propaganda pass unchallenged.  We cannot let them intimidate us into silence.