Reading What the Magisterium Says Critically

Introduction

I mentioned the other day that I had problems with certain bloggers who were Catholic—ones who presumed they had superior knowledge to the ones they criticized on whatever topic. One of my offhand comments could be summed up as "...and your qualifications to judge are...?" A person must know about the subject he or she is speaking about and also must know what the subject intended to say. Otherwise, the reliability of the critic is very much in doubt--even if he or she is knowledgeable in other areas.

I can say this because I have been there. In the early Xanga days of this blog, I was quite contemptuous of the American bishops. I thought they were largely idiots with a liberal bent. I bought into and spread that attitude. (Those articles have been no longer available ever since the original Xanga went defunct, and though I recovered my files, those particular articles will never see the light of day again).

My conversion of attitude came from a combination of reading Christus Dominus and witnessing the response of the bishops to the 2008 visit of Pope Benedict XVI. In these events, I was reminded that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles and I saw that the bishops were strengthened by the visit of the Pope—that they had been previously demoralized by their facing continuous dissent.

From that perspective, I found that many of their documents which I previously dismissed as worthless did have good things to say.  I recognized that my problem was I accepted what others said about the bishops without evaluating if what they said was correct.

I think it's a real issue to consider: the concept of critically assessing what members of the Magisterium say vs. what bloggers and news sources think they say.

Context

The first issue is context. When facing news reports or a blog speaking on what the Pope or bishops said on an issue, my first question is to ask "What is the context of what was reported?" The thing is, even news agencies and bloggers of good will can only quote so much. So they try to pick what they think is the most important part.

The problem is, the quote might require some more of the article to get the full sense of what was said. The news reporter or blogger might actually be editing in good faith. He or she might think that the quote represents the whole statement accurately.  But, if you ever come across a WTF? moment where a quote sounds bizarre, the odds are very good that something got left out.

Interpretation and Intention

Another part of critical assessment is making sure that the interpretation of what was said matches the intent of what the speaker or writer was trying to say.

It is a problem today that people try to interpret a statement based on what they believe.  But that's exactly the opposite of what we must do. When a person uses a term, we have to understand what it means to the writer/speaker.

Here's an example. When St. John XXIII wrote his encyclical Pacem in Terris, many interpreted what he had to say on the topic of peace as if he was supporting the Soviet meaning of the term because the Soviets spoke constantly about peace in a way that benefited them. But that wasn't what St. John XXIII meant.

Or consider how people interpret Matthew 7:1ff. People who don't want to have their behavior declared wrong interpret judging to mean saying something is right or wrong. But that's a meaning imposed by the reader. It would be wrong to blame the Scripture verses for a meaning not intended.

The thing is, we interpret a text or speech based on what  the speaker/author intends and critique it based on our own views. This means that before we critique, we have to make sure that we interpret correctly. Bad Interpretation, bad critique.

Conclusion

The thing we always have to remember is when we read an article written about a bishop or about the Pope, we have to consider whether the person who wrote the article has fully addressed what the bishop or Pope actually had to say about the subject or whether or not the author omitted something important—it doesn't have to be malicious omission.

We must also remember that even when we do see the quotes do exist in context, we have to ask whether the blogger commenting or the reader of the Papal statement has in fact interpreted the article as saying what the Pope intended it to say. If the critic or reader has not correctly interpreted the article or statement, then the criticism is starting from a false assumption. If the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven true.

Recognizing these things, we have to realize our responsibility as a reader to accurately understand what was actually said and what was intended before judging the Magisterium for doing wrong—it might turn out the fault is not with the Pope or Bishop after all.

Reading What the Magisterium Says Critically

Introduction

I mentioned the other day that I had problems with certain bloggers who were Catholic—ones who presumed they had superior knowledge to the ones they criticized on whatever topic. One of my offhand comments could be summed up as "...and your qualifications to judge are...?" A person must know about the subject he or she is speaking about and also must know what the subject intended to say. Otherwise, the reliability of the critic is very much in doubt--even if he or she is knowledgeable in other areas.

I can say this because I have been there. In the early Xanga days of this blog, I was quite contemptuous of the American bishops. I thought they were largely idiots with a liberal bent. I bought into and spread that attitude. (Those articles have been no longer available ever since the original Xanga went defunct, and though I recovered my files, those particular articles will never see the light of day again).

My conversion of attitude came from a combination of reading Christus Dominus and witnessing the response of the bishops to the 2008 visit of Pope Benedict XVI. In these events, I was reminded that the bishops are the successors to the Apostles and I saw that the bishops were strengthened by the visit of the Pope—that they had been previously demoralized by their facing continuous dissent.

From that perspective, I found that many of their documents which I previously dismissed as worthless did have good things to say.  I recognized that my problem was I accepted what others said about the bishops without evaluating if what they said was correct.

I think it's a real issue to consider: the concept of critically assessing what members of the Magisterium say vs. what bloggers and news sources think they say.

Context

The first issue is context. When facing news reports or a blog speaking on what the Pope or bishops said on an issue, my first question is to ask "What is the context of what was reported?" The thing is, even news agencies and bloggers of good will can only quote so much. So they try to pick what they think is the most important part.

The problem is, the quote might require some more of the article to get the full sense of what was said. The news reporter or blogger might actually be editing in good faith. He or she might think that the quote represents the whole statement accurately.  But, if you ever come across a WTF? moment where a quote sounds bizarre, the odds are very good that something got left out.

Interpretation and Intention

Another part of critical assessment is making sure that the interpretation of what was said matches the intent of what the speaker or writer was trying to say.

It is a problem today that people try to interpret a statement based on what they believe.  But that's exactly the opposite of what we must do. When a person uses a term, we have to understand what it means to the writer/speaker.

Here's an example. When St. John XXIII wrote his encyclical Pacem in Terris, many interpreted what he had to say on the topic of peace as if he was supporting the Soviet meaning of the term because the Soviets spoke constantly about peace in a way that benefited them. But that wasn't what St. John XXIII meant.

Or consider how people interpret Matthew 7:1ff. People who don't want to have their behavior declared wrong interpret judging to mean saying something is right or wrong. But that's a meaning imposed by the reader. It would be wrong to blame the Scripture verses for a meaning not intended.

The thing is, we interpret a text or speech based on what  the speaker/author intends and critique it based on our own views. This means that before we critique, we have to make sure that we interpret correctly. Bad Interpretation, bad critique.

Conclusion

The thing we always have to remember is when we read an article written about a bishop or about the Pope, we have to consider whether the person who wrote the article has fully addressed what the bishop or Pope actually had to say about the subject or whether or not the author omitted something important—it doesn't have to be malicious omission.

We must also remember that even when we do see the quotes do exist in context, we have to ask whether the blogger commenting or the reader of the Papal statement has in fact interpreted the article as saying what the Pope intended it to say. If the critic or reader has not correctly interpreted the article or statement, then the criticism is starting from a false assumption. If the premises are false, the conclusion is not proven true.

Recognizing these things, we have to realize our responsibility as a reader to accurately understand what was actually said and what was intended before judging the Magisterium for doing wrong—it might turn out the fault is not with the Pope or Bishop after all.

The Cart Before the Horse: Accusing the Church of Political Motivations

It is not that his Church tyrannously claims the right of forbidding to him a freedom allowed to others.  [The Catholic] must not say "My Church forbids it" – that is inaccurate.  What he must say is "God forbids it and my Church fortifies me in that belief."

—Msgr. Ronald Knox, The Beliefs of Catholics (page 158 Image Book version)

One of the real problems in America and the rest of the Western world is that the concept of democracy tends to override everything, and the view that everything has a political motivation.  The result is nowadays, instead of religion being viewed as some form of relationship with God, religion is seen as misogynistic, homophobic, autocratic… basically whenever the Church must say something is contrary to how a person who professes to be Christian must live, the response is to accuse the Church as having a malicious intent.

This sort of mindset plagues certain dissenters within the Church and ideologues outside the Church alike.  They see the disliked Church teaching as being politically motivated by people who must be intolerant – otherwise they would think like the dissenters and ideologues.  When the Church must condemn certain behavior as being outside what is part of being a follower of Christ, the result is to accuse the Church of meddling in politics.

This sort of view entirely misses the point of the Church's mission of evangelizing the world.

The Catholic Church has been around far before there was a United States of America.  It was established in the first century AD, a time when Europe was divided between the (relatively) civilized Roman Empire and the barbarian tribes of the North.  The Church condemned abortion then too.  They condemned use of medicines to artificially prevent conception.  In fact, while the Church teachings have become more refined in response to the innovations of technology, the basic premises have not changed.

The first century document, The Epistle of Barnabas,for example, states:

Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. (Chapter XIX)

It should be noted that this document, which shows the Catholic belief existed at this time, was far before the creation of the United States in 1776 (or 1787 if you want to count the implementation of the Constitution as the beginning), the establishment of the Democratic Party about 1800, the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.  In fact the Catholic teachings on these subjects existed far before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire.

The point of the above is not to make use of an argument from antiquity fallacy (this view is older therefore it is true).  Rather, it is to show how foolish it is to claim that the Catholic teaching and the actions of the Pope and Bishops are politically motivated when they remind us that modern attempts to legalize evil are still contrary to what God tells us to do.

When the Church does speak on issues which are "hot button" issues in the political sphere, we need to remember that her motivation is not to get a Republican in the White House or to pass a liberal agenda (the Church has been accused from both sides).  When the Church teaches, her motivation is to be faithful to Jesus Christ who commanded the Church to go out to the nations.  This includes warning the people of all nations to turn from evil and seek to good.

Some may deny that Christ established the Catholic Church, and we can't help it if some refuse to accept her teachings.

But it is foolish to claim that just because these opponents may be politically motivated, that the Church must be too.

The Cart Before the Horse: Accusing the Church of Political Motivations

It is not that his Church tyrannously claims the right of forbidding to him a freedom allowed to others.  [The Catholic] must not say "My Church forbids it" – that is inaccurate.  What he must say is "God forbids it and my Church fortifies me in that belief."

—Msgr. Ronald Knox, The Beliefs of Catholics (page 158 Image Book version)

One of the real problems in America and the rest of the Western world is that the concept of democracy tends to override everything, and the view that everything has a political motivation.  The result is nowadays, instead of religion being viewed as some form of relationship with God, religion is seen as misogynistic, homophobic, autocratic… basically whenever the Church must say something is contrary to how a person who professes to be Christian must live, the response is to accuse the Church as having a malicious intent.

This sort of mindset plagues certain dissenters within the Church and ideologues outside the Church alike.  They see the disliked Church teaching as being politically motivated by people who must be intolerant – otherwise they would think like the dissenters and ideologues.  When the Church must condemn certain behavior as being outside what is part of being a follower of Christ, the result is to accuse the Church of meddling in politics.

This sort of view entirely misses the point of the Church's mission of evangelizing the world.

The Catholic Church has been around far before there was a United States of America.  It was established in the first century AD, a time when Europe was divided between the (relatively) civilized Roman Empire and the barbarian tribes of the North.  The Church condemned abortion then too.  They condemned use of medicines to artificially prevent conception.  In fact, while the Church teachings have become more refined in response to the innovations of technology, the basic premises have not changed.

The first century document, The Epistle of Barnabas,for example, states:

Thou shalt not slay the child by procuring abortion; nor, again, shalt thou destroy it after it is born. (Chapter XIX)

It should be noted that this document, which shows the Catholic belief existed at this time, was far before the creation of the United States in 1776 (or 1787 if you want to count the implementation of the Constitution as the beginning), the establishment of the Democratic Party about 1800, the formation of the Republican Party in 1856.  In fact the Catholic teachings on these subjects existed far before Christianity was legalized in the Roman Empire.

The point of the above is not to make use of an argument from antiquity fallacy (this view is older therefore it is true).  Rather, it is to show how foolish it is to claim that the Catholic teaching and the actions of the Pope and Bishops are politically motivated when they remind us that modern attempts to legalize evil are still contrary to what God tells us to do.

When the Church does speak on issues which are "hot button" issues in the political sphere, we need to remember that her motivation is not to get a Republican in the White House or to pass a liberal agenda (the Church has been accused from both sides).  When the Church teaches, her motivation is to be faithful to Jesus Christ who commanded the Church to go out to the nations.  This includes warning the people of all nations to turn from evil and seek to good.

Some may deny that Christ established the Catholic Church, and we can't help it if some refuse to accept her teachings.

But it is foolish to claim that just because these opponents may be politically motivated, that the Church must be too.

Thought for the Day: Contradictions?

When it comes to all the people out there who love to point to so-called examples of contradiction in the Scriptures, or claims that the Church contradicts the Bible, has it never occurred to them there might in fact already be an explanation out there, which they might try to look up before posting?

Lord, To Whom Should We Go? Reflections on Mistrusting the Church

Read more »

Lord, To Whom Should We Go? Reflections on Mistrusting the Church

Read more »

Recommended: Article Rebutting Peggy Noonan

There is an interesting article where Peggy Noonan's WSJ articles on the Church and abuse are critiqued and shown to be in error, especially where she claims that the Church has done little and that only at the instigation of the media.

Given many people like to cite Noonan (using the fallacy of irrelevant authority) as a "Conservative Catholic" [arguing that she can't have an agenda]. I think the points made here should be considered.

You can see the article here.

A response to a conservative critic of Catholic Church | Spero News

Recommended: Article Rebutting Peggy Noonan

There is an interesting article where Peggy Noonan's WSJ articles on the Church and abuse are critiqued and shown to be in error, especially where she claims that the Church has done little and that only at the instigation of the media.

Given many people like to cite Noonan (using the fallacy of irrelevant authority) as a "Conservative Catholic" [arguing that she can't have an agenda]. I think the points made here should be considered.

You can see the article here.

A response to a conservative critic of Catholic Church | Spero News

Reflections on Obligation in the Church and Media

One of the main problems with the media coverage of the recent accusations against the Vatican is the unproven assumption that the Vatican not only knew of, but was indifferent to, the reports of abuse which they must have known of. This is a important error of assumption which needs to be examined.

Preliminary: The Difference Between ‘Ought’ and ‘Is’

So let’s start here as a preliminary. Media accusers seem to be making a profound error. This is the error over “ought” and “is.” Some of you may find discussions over linguistics to be dull. However, I think this needs to be stressed, as many of the attacks against the Church are based on the claim that the Vatican ought to have done X, but these attacks fail to consider what the actual events IS.

Ought can be defined as:

1      used to indicate duty or correctness.

†     used to indicate a desirable or expected state.

So one is correct in saying that Bishops ought to have reported abuse to the Curia and to the civil authorities. This is both the duty of the bishops and the expected state of affairs.

IS (the third person state of to be) can be defined as:

1. exist; be present

2. take place

3. having the specified state, nature, or role

So while ought indicates what is to be expected or required; IS indicates what has in fact happened. In order for OUGHT to equal IS, people must do what is required of them. I OUGHT to obey the laws on the speed limits. However, if I drive 70mph in a 55mph zone, what I ought to do is not what I actually do.

So how does this apply to the attacks on the Church? Quite simply, if the Bishop does what he ought in reporting abuse, then those he reports to are the ones to be held to blame if they do not do what they ought to do. However, if the bishop does not do what he ought (reporting the sinful priest), how can the Curia do what they ought to do? What the Bishop did (is) is different than what he ought to have done, and the expected state is hindered by the failure of the bishop.

This can work the other way. Prior to 2001, every accused priest (whose case was actually reported) was required to have an ecclesiastical trial. So the ought in this case is that the Church follows the rules it sets for fairness. Now the old rules did in fact need reforming, and they were reformed. However, one cannot change the rules in order to achieve a desired result. So when there were procedures which once took years to resolve, the Church was doing what it ought to have done in making sure the accusations were true, and making sure the penalty fit the action – provided that the bishops did their jobs in reporting it to them in the first place. If the Bishops did not do as they ought, how could the Curia do as it ought?

Analysis of the Media attacks

The media writes from the assumption that the Church willfully did not do as it ought to have done. This is the fallacy of equivocation in not defining what is meant by “the Church.” If one looks at the Church as a monolithic block, one looks at the Church wrongly. The Church is headed by the Pope in Rome, but the bishop is expected to be the episkopos (overseer or shepherd) of the diocese. He is expected to look after his people, looking after their spiritual well-being. This includes protecting them from the wicked among the ordained. Each diocese is made up of numerous parishes, with a pastor who is responsible for the well being of the people of the parish.

Understanding Subsidiarity

The Catholic Church, under the model of subsidiarity expects each part to handle things at their own level and the next level up intervenes only when there is a failure at the lower levels. Thus we see that the Pope does not deal with what liturgical music is used in a parish in California. Rather, his concern is over the whole Church. He could become involved in this hypothetical example if there was a significant crisis which affected the whole Church (say a popular hymn promoting a heretical teaching which needed to be stopped).

A chart of subsidiarity could look like this:

1. Pope (and the Curia) oversee the governing of the Church as a whole

2. Bishop oversees the governing of the Church in his diocese

3. Pastor oversees the governing of the Church in his parish.

If there is a failing in the parish, it is the task of the Bishop to correct it. If there is a failing in the diocese, it is the task of the Vatican to step in. Of course, there are different ways to handle a situation. Some are objectively better and some are objectively less good. Some of the individuals who are in the positions of authority are more competent and some are less competent.

An Analysis of Culpability

However, where condemnation is justified depends on the analysis of some things:

1. What was actually done in comparison to what one was obligated to do

2. What the person was obligated to know

3. What the motivation was for their acting

In other words the three things to be considered are, the act itself, the knowledge of the individual and the intent of the act. Each needs to be assessed. So let’s take a look at a hypothetical abuse case (I choose a hypothetical case instead of a real one because for purpose of analysis, we need to have a case where we know all the facts). Keep in mind that as a hypothetical case, I am not saying this is what happened in real life for any of the cases brought to our attention by the media. However, the principles I use here should be used to examine the media allegations. Only if the Vatican refuses to do its job can one say the “Vatican” did wrong. Of course this requires knowing what the Vatican is required to do compared to the Bishops and others.

Let us assume a case where a minor is sexually abused by a priest. The first step is to look at the bishop, right?

WRONG.

Obligations of the Victim

The first step is with the victim. If he or she does not report the abuse, then it is impossible for anyone who could take action to know this abuse takes place. So, if the individual stays silent instead of reporting it, we would have an act which was objectively wrong [failure to report makes it possible for a predator priest to continue victimizing others]. In such a case, we would have to look at the reasons for their actions.

Did they know they were obligated to report the abuse? If they did not know, and their lack of knowledge was reasonable [I would think this is a fair assumption. How many teenagers know what canon law is, let alone what it says], then their not reporting it due to ignorance could not be faulted.

Then there is the motivation for their inaction. Shame or fear or guilt are common tactics an abuser counts on to keep a victim silent. If the youth [wrongly] thinks it is somehow their fault, it is probable they will not recognize they are a victim, or even seek the help they need to recognize they were a victim.

On the other hand, if the victim stays silent because it seems too difficult to follow an obligation they know they have, this does hold some fault, as speaking out will protect others from being victimized. If a report is not made, the bishop cannot meet his own obligations on the matter.

Obligations of the Bishop

So let us assume that in the above case, when the victim does realize their obligation and does report it to the Bishop. Prior to 2001, the obligation to report it to the Vatican was limited to cases of solicitation in the confessional. After 2001, all cases were to be reported to the CDF.

Once the report is made to the bishop, he is obligated to investigate the claims and report it to the CDF if it is not immediately clear it is a false accusation. Now if the bishop does not report it (the act), the question is whether he knew of the duty. In this case, it seems unreasonable to assume the bishop would not know of the duty if he had been doing his job to begin with. So if a case was reported to him and if the case was credible, it seems a bishop could not claim invincible ignorance to his duties.

So when it comes to transferring a priest who was an abuser (which had tragically happened too often in the United States), we need to look at the motive. Did the bishop kick it under the carpet out of a motive such as careerism? Or did psychological experts of the time recommend that getting the priest away from the victim was the best solution? In these cases, the first obligation is wrong and condemnable. In the second, it would depend on whether or not the bishop acted in good faith. If the bishop at that time honestly and reasonably (for the time… we now know psychiatry erred on this) believed the psychiatrist was giving a professional medical verdict, his culpability might be considered lessened. If the bishop used the psychiatric evaluation as an excuse to transfer a predator priest to another diocese, knowing of recidivism culpability could be considered greater.

In other words, when considering the information the bishop had at the time he received the news was his actions, knowledge and intent in keeping with what was understood to be right?

In any case, the bishop always had authority to restrict or forbid a priest to practice their ministry for the good of the faithful. What he did or did not do would have to be assessed by the same standards.

Obligation of the Curia: Handling the Case

Let us assume that in this case, the obligations are met which require the case to be reported to the Curia and the bishop does so. What is the curia to do? Prior to 2001, it was the bishop who held the duty to handle the priest and report the results to the Vatican. After 2001, any reasonable charge had to be reported and the CDF would decide whether to take action itself or have the diocese take action. Prior to 2001, a trial was required. After 2001, a trial could be skipped if the evidence was overwhelming.

Now, ecclesiastical trials do take time, especially when one considers how small the Vatican curia are. For that matter, so do investigations of annulments sent to the Vatican. (See Morris West’s Shoes of the Fisherman for an example of how the pre-Vatican II Church was viewed on the subject). Evidence must be gathered, victims and accused must be interviewed, and a decision which is just must be made. Just for the accused and accuser alike. If it turns out the accused is innocent, he must not be punished. If he is guilty, the punishment must fit the crime.

For example: Was he a young priest who had a onetime fling with a 17 year old girl who was also interested in a sexual encounter with him? This is wrong of course, and even if the victim was willing, she would have been a minor and considered less able to make a decision. Or was he a predator, stalking youth and making many victims over a long period of time. Both are wrong of course. However the second case is far more serious than the first, and merits a harsher action… especially if in the first case the priest is deeply sorry for his act and in the second case the priest is unrepentant.

So before denouncing the Vatican for these things, we need to ask:

1. What were they made aware of?

2. What did they do in response?

3. How did that response match up to their obligation?

For cases where bishops did not report cases, the Vatican can hardly be blamed for this. In cases where they were notified, it requires us to know what was done to assess whether they did right or not.

This is where the media attacks on Pope Benedict XVI fall down. The review of the facts shows media attacks are based on the absence of information which is assumed to be indifference or squelching. Squelching a case (which the Pope has been accused of) is an action which requires evidence. Otherwise it is the argument from silence fallacy [We didn’t hear of anything, therefore nothing was done].

Before one can accuse the Vatican, the Pope or the CDF of blocking a case from moving forward, it must be proven. A case which took years prior to 2001 can move faster now. However, when it goes to trial (as I recall this was 20% of the cases), it can take time.

Obligation of the Church: Reforming Laws

Once it becomes clear that old laws are inadequate and have loopholes which the offenders can exploit, it becomes time to change those laws or rules. This is what happened in 2001 for example. It became clear that the old system allowed bishops to shift priests around without reporting it to the Vatican, so the new law made it mandatory to report the offender.

However, we must remember that just laws require time to draft. It is unfortunate that in a rush to punish the deserving we sometimes are tempted to skimp on justice in the name of “good.” However, in order to be good, a law must be just. This is why the Pope doesn’t just decree “OK, next person accused, send him to a monastery at the North Pole.” If a person is falsely accused, such a decree would be unjust.

The Catholic Church also has a mission of redeeming the sinner and calling them to repentance. If one seems truly repentant, the penalty necessarily differs from one who is unrepentant, and the Church, in her mission, must reflect the mercy and forgiveness Christ requires, without forsaking the justice Christ also requires.

Obligation of the Media: Accurately reporting

Peggy Noonan makes an error concerning the Catholic suspicion of the media. We are not angry that the media reported this at all.

We are justly angry over the attempts to smear the Pope by insinuating he willfully protected the guilty despite the evidence to the contrary. We are also justly angry over the fact that the media has portrayed the real cases of abuse and cover-ups as being more widely spread than the facts demonstrate.

This doesn’t mean the media has done no good whatsoever. In cases where certain bishops have been negligent, the media can do us a favor in bringing it to our attention. However, to be a real good, such media action requires a very different behavior from what has been shown so far. The media needs to understand what canon law teaches, and recognize that the Church governs itself with law, not arbitrariness. Getting a civil lawyer (often one who is suing the Church) to explain canon law is about as ridiculous as getting a Saudi Arabian lawyer to explain American Law.

The media is also obligated to report the facts without bias. Thus far, in media reporting of the abuse in 2002 and the recent attacks against the Pope, we tend to see agenda driven stories. Stories suggest the ending of celibacy or the admission of women priests as a required step for change. Calls for the “democratization” of the Church are common. The treating of dissenters from the Church as if they were objective commentators is also deceptive. Quite frankly, the media coverage of the Church displays a lack of interest or hostility to what the Church actually does. [This would be like asking one of these Tea parties to give an objective assessment of the Obama administration.]

The problem is the media cannot be objective if it approaches the story with an adversarial view. Being objective means reporting what is known. Being adversarial means challenging what one disagrees with or thinks is wrong. Now of course a reporter can disagree with the Church or think it ought to change. However, if the media brings these beliefs with it as an assumption behind the story, the story cannot be considered objective. The Church may have reasons why it cannot accept the personal beliefs of the reporter concerning important things. If the reporter does not consider this difference of view, his reporting will be flawed.

Conclusion

Ultimately the problem with the media coverage is not that they report that abuse happens, but that they draw unproven conclusions and present them as fact. As a result of media coverage, we are seeing polls where the majority seems to believe the Pope should be criminally tried, despite the fact that there is nothing more than unproven media allegations to base it on.

We Catholics are rightly angry at the jabs at the Church which claims to be objective reporting. One needs to be aware of their own biases when reporting. For example, I personally may not like Obama’s stand on Life and Moral issues, but this does not mean he can do nothing right. So when I write on moral issues concerning his administration, I do my best to keep my own political beliefs out of the analysis, hopefully succeeding and try to avoid writing on him when it does not involve issues which involve Catholic Moral Theology. [This is why I haven’t really commented on Tea parties and the like].

Ultimately, before writing the big exposé on the Church, the reporter and the media they work for needs to understand how the Church operates, reporting factually and not by misrepresenting the Church teaching or law.

If a priest or a bishop fails to do his duty towards what the Church requires, then yes report this and bring it to our attention. However, if the Church acts in a way different than the reporter would prefer based on his or her personal moral beliefs, to write a story without getting the facts straight is terribly unjust.

Reflections on Obligation in the Church and Media

One of the main problems with the media coverage of the recent accusations against the Vatican is the unproven assumption that the Vatican not only knew of, but was indifferent to, the reports of abuse which they must have known of. This is a important error of assumption which needs to be examined.

Preliminary: The Difference Between ‘Ought’ and ‘Is’

So let’s start here as a preliminary. Media accusers seem to be making a profound error. This is the error over “ought” and “is.” Some of you may find discussions over linguistics to be dull. However, I think this needs to be stressed, as many of the attacks against the Church are based on the claim that the Vatican ought to have done X, but these attacks fail to consider what the actual events IS.

Ought can be defined as:

1      used to indicate duty or correctness.

†     used to indicate a desirable or expected state.

So one is correct in saying that Bishops ought to have reported abuse to the Curia and to the civil authorities. This is both the duty of the bishops and the expected state of affairs.

IS (the third person state of to be) can be defined as:

1. exist; be present

2. take place

3. having the specified state, nature, or role

So while ought indicates what is to be expected or required; IS indicates what has in fact happened. In order for OUGHT to equal IS, people must do what is required of them. I OUGHT to obey the laws on the speed limits. However, if I drive 70mph in a 55mph zone, what I ought to do is not what I actually do.

So how does this apply to the attacks on the Church? Quite simply, if the Bishop does what he ought in reporting abuse, then those he reports to are the ones to be held to blame if they do not do what they ought to do. However, if the bishop does not do what he ought (reporting the sinful priest), how can the Curia do what they ought to do? What the Bishop did (is) is different than what he ought to have done, and the expected state is hindered by the failure of the bishop.

This can work the other way. Prior to 2001, every accused priest (whose case was actually reported) was required to have an ecclesiastical trial. So the ought in this case is that the Church follows the rules it sets for fairness. Now the old rules did in fact need reforming, and they were reformed. However, one cannot change the rules in order to achieve a desired result. So when there were procedures which once took years to resolve, the Church was doing what it ought to have done in making sure the accusations were true, and making sure the penalty fit the action – provided that the bishops did their jobs in reporting it to them in the first place. If the Bishops did not do as they ought, how could the Curia do as it ought?

Analysis of the Media attacks

The media writes from the assumption that the Church willfully did not do as it ought to have done. This is the fallacy of equivocation in not defining what is meant by “the Church.” If one looks at the Church as a monolithic block, one looks at the Church wrongly. The Church is headed by the Pope in Rome, but the bishop is expected to be the episkopos (overseer or shepherd) of the diocese. He is expected to look after his people, looking after their spiritual well-being. This includes protecting them from the wicked among the ordained. Each diocese is made up of numerous parishes, with a pastor who is responsible for the well being of the people of the parish.

Understanding Subsidiarity

The Catholic Church, under the model of subsidiarity expects each part to handle things at their own level and the next level up intervenes only when there is a failure at the lower levels. Thus we see that the Pope does not deal with what liturgical music is used in a parish in California. Rather, his concern is over the whole Church. He could become involved in this hypothetical example if there was a significant crisis which affected the whole Church (say a popular hymn promoting a heretical teaching which needed to be stopped).

A chart of subsidiarity could look like this:

1. Pope (and the Curia) oversee the governing of the Church as a whole

2. Bishop oversees the governing of the Church in his diocese

3. Pastor oversees the governing of the Church in his parish.

If there is a failing in the parish, it is the task of the Bishop to correct it. If there is a failing in the diocese, it is the task of the Vatican to step in. Of course, there are different ways to handle a situation. Some are objectively better and some are objectively less good. Some of the individuals who are in the positions of authority are more competent and some are less competent.

An Analysis of Culpability

However, where condemnation is justified depends on the analysis of some things:

1. What was actually done in comparison to what one was obligated to do

2. What the person was obligated to know

3. What the motivation was for their acting

In other words the three things to be considered are, the act itself, the knowledge of the individual and the intent of the act. Each needs to be assessed. So let’s take a look at a hypothetical abuse case (I choose a hypothetical case instead of a real one because for purpose of analysis, we need to have a case where we know all the facts). Keep in mind that as a hypothetical case, I am not saying this is what happened in real life for any of the cases brought to our attention by the media. However, the principles I use here should be used to examine the media allegations. Only if the Vatican refuses to do its job can one say the “Vatican” did wrong. Of course this requires knowing what the Vatican is required to do compared to the Bishops and others.

Let us assume a case where a minor is sexually abused by a priest. The first step is to look at the bishop, right?

WRONG.

Obligations of the Victim

The first step is with the victim. If he or she does not report the abuse, then it is impossible for anyone who could take action to know this abuse takes place. So, if the individual stays silent instead of reporting it, we would have an act which was objectively wrong [failure to report makes it possible for a predator priest to continue victimizing others]. In such a case, we would have to look at the reasons for their actions.

Did they know they were obligated to report the abuse? If they did not know, and their lack of knowledge was reasonable [I would think this is a fair assumption. How many teenagers know what canon law is, let alone what it says], then their not reporting it due to ignorance could not be faulted.

Then there is the motivation for their inaction. Shame or fear or guilt are common tactics an abuser counts on to keep a victim silent. If the youth [wrongly] thinks it is somehow their fault, it is probable they will not recognize they are a victim, or even seek the help they need to recognize they were a victim.

On the other hand, if the victim stays silent because it seems too difficult to follow an obligation they know they have, this does hold some fault, as speaking out will protect others from being victimized. If a report is not made, the bishop cannot meet his own obligations on the matter.

Obligations of the Bishop

So let us assume that in the above case, when the victim does realize their obligation and does report it to the Bishop. Prior to 2001, the obligation to report it to the Vatican was limited to cases of solicitation in the confessional. After 2001, all cases were to be reported to the CDF.

Once the report is made to the bishop, he is obligated to investigate the claims and report it to the CDF if it is not immediately clear it is a false accusation. Now if the bishop does not report it (the act), the question is whether he knew of the duty. In this case, it seems unreasonable to assume the bishop would not know of the duty if he had been doing his job to begin with. So if a case was reported to him and if the case was credible, it seems a bishop could not claim invincible ignorance to his duties.

So when it comes to transferring a priest who was an abuser (which had tragically happened too often in the United States), we need to look at the motive. Did the bishop kick it under the carpet out of a motive such as careerism? Or did psychological experts of the time recommend that getting the priest away from the victim was the best solution? In these cases, the first obligation is wrong and condemnable. In the second, it would depend on whether or not the bishop acted in good faith. If the bishop at that time honestly and reasonably (for the time… we now know psychiatry erred on this) believed the psychiatrist was giving a professional medical verdict, his culpability might be considered lessened. If the bishop used the psychiatric evaluation as an excuse to transfer a predator priest to another diocese, knowing of recidivism culpability could be considered greater.

In other words, when considering the information the bishop had at the time he received the news was his actions, knowledge and intent in keeping with what was understood to be right?

In any case, the bishop always had authority to restrict or forbid a priest to practice their ministry for the good of the faithful. What he did or did not do would have to be assessed by the same standards.

Obligation of the Curia: Handling the Case

Let us assume that in this case, the obligations are met which require the case to be reported to the Curia and the bishop does so. What is the curia to do? Prior to 2001, it was the bishop who held the duty to handle the priest and report the results to the Vatican. After 2001, any reasonable charge had to be reported and the CDF would decide whether to take action itself or have the diocese take action. Prior to 2001, a trial was required. After 2001, a trial could be skipped if the evidence was overwhelming.

Now, ecclesiastical trials do take time, especially when one considers how small the Vatican curia are. For that matter, so do investigations of annulments sent to the Vatican. (See Morris West’s Shoes of the Fisherman for an example of how the pre-Vatican II Church was viewed on the subject). Evidence must be gathered, victims and accused must be interviewed, and a decision which is just must be made. Just for the accused and accuser alike. If it turns out the accused is innocent, he must not be punished. If he is guilty, the punishment must fit the crime.

For example: Was he a young priest who had a onetime fling with a 17 year old girl who was also interested in a sexual encounter with him? This is wrong of course, and even if the victim was willing, she would have been a minor and considered less able to make a decision. Or was he a predator, stalking youth and making many victims over a long period of time. Both are wrong of course. However the second case is far more serious than the first, and merits a harsher action… especially if in the first case the priest is deeply sorry for his act and in the second case the priest is unrepentant.

So before denouncing the Vatican for these things, we need to ask:

1. What were they made aware of?

2. What did they do in response?

3. How did that response match up to their obligation?

For cases where bishops did not report cases, the Vatican can hardly be blamed for this. In cases where they were notified, it requires us to know what was done to assess whether they did right or not.

This is where the media attacks on Pope Benedict XVI fall down. The review of the facts shows media attacks are based on the absence of information which is assumed to be indifference or squelching. Squelching a case (which the Pope has been accused of) is an action which requires evidence. Otherwise it is the argument from silence fallacy [We didn’t hear of anything, therefore nothing was done].

Before one can accuse the Vatican, the Pope or the CDF of blocking a case from moving forward, it must be proven. A case which took years prior to 2001 can move faster now. However, when it goes to trial (as I recall this was 20% of the cases), it can take time.

Obligation of the Church: Reforming Laws

Once it becomes clear that old laws are inadequate and have loopholes which the offenders can exploit, it becomes time to change those laws or rules. This is what happened in 2001 for example. It became clear that the old system allowed bishops to shift priests around without reporting it to the Vatican, so the new law made it mandatory to report the offender.

However, we must remember that just laws require time to draft. It is unfortunate that in a rush to punish the deserving we sometimes are tempted to skimp on justice in the name of “good.” However, in order to be good, a law must be just. This is why the Pope doesn’t just decree “OK, next person accused, send him to a monastery at the North Pole.” If a person is falsely accused, such a decree would be unjust.

The Catholic Church also has a mission of redeeming the sinner and calling them to repentance. If one seems truly repentant, the penalty necessarily differs from one who is unrepentant, and the Church, in her mission, must reflect the mercy and forgiveness Christ requires, without forsaking the justice Christ also requires.

Obligation of the Media: Accurately reporting

Peggy Noonan makes an error concerning the Catholic suspicion of the media. We are not angry that the media reported this at all.

We are justly angry over the attempts to smear the Pope by insinuating he willfully protected the guilty despite the evidence to the contrary. We are also justly angry over the fact that the media has portrayed the real cases of abuse and cover-ups as being more widely spread than the facts demonstrate.

This doesn’t mean the media has done no good whatsoever. In cases where certain bishops have been negligent, the media can do us a favor in bringing it to our attention. However, to be a real good, such media action requires a very different behavior from what has been shown so far. The media needs to understand what canon law teaches, and recognize that the Church governs itself with law, not arbitrariness. Getting a civil lawyer (often one who is suing the Church) to explain canon law is about as ridiculous as getting a Saudi Arabian lawyer to explain American Law.

The media is also obligated to report the facts without bias. Thus far, in media reporting of the abuse in 2002 and the recent attacks against the Pope, we tend to see agenda driven stories. Stories suggest the ending of celibacy or the admission of women priests as a required step for change. Calls for the “democratization” of the Church are common. The treating of dissenters from the Church as if they were objective commentators is also deceptive. Quite frankly, the media coverage of the Church displays a lack of interest or hostility to what the Church actually does. [This would be like asking one of these Tea parties to give an objective assessment of the Obama administration.]

The problem is the media cannot be objective if it approaches the story with an adversarial view. Being objective means reporting what is known. Being adversarial means challenging what one disagrees with or thinks is wrong. Now of course a reporter can disagree with the Church or think it ought to change. However, if the media brings these beliefs with it as an assumption behind the story, the story cannot be considered objective. The Church may have reasons why it cannot accept the personal beliefs of the reporter concerning important things. If the reporter does not consider this difference of view, his reporting will be flawed.

Conclusion

Ultimately the problem with the media coverage is not that they report that abuse happens, but that they draw unproven conclusions and present them as fact. As a result of media coverage, we are seeing polls where the majority seems to believe the Pope should be criminally tried, despite the fact that there is nothing more than unproven media allegations to base it on.

We Catholics are rightly angry at the jabs at the Church which claims to be objective reporting. One needs to be aware of their own biases when reporting. For example, I personally may not like Obama’s stand on Life and Moral issues, but this does not mean he can do nothing right. So when I write on moral issues concerning his administration, I do my best to keep my own political beliefs out of the analysis, hopefully succeeding and try to avoid writing on him when it does not involve issues which involve Catholic Moral Theology. [This is why I haven’t really commented on Tea parties and the like].

Ultimately, before writing the big exposé on the Church, the reporter and the media they work for needs to understand how the Church operates, reporting factually and not by misrepresenting the Church teaching or law.

If a priest or a bishop fails to do his duty towards what the Church requires, then yes report this and bring it to our attention. However, if the Church acts in a way different than the reporter would prefer based on his or her personal moral beliefs, to write a story without getting the facts straight is terribly unjust.

Reflections on The Mob

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."(Mt 7:6).

Awhile back, I wrote about the mob (not to be confused with the Mafia) mentality turning on Richard Dawkins, who appealed to it against the Christians.  Currently, it is turning its hunger against the Catholic Church.

Seeing so many uninformed commentators posting on websites bashing the Church and accusing Catholics of defending sexual abuse, I thought it would be good to comment on some of the characteristics of the mob mentality sweeping the Internet

The Purpose of this Article

I don't intend to write this to attack any individual.  Most people who take part in mob mentality don't realize they are doing it.  Rather, I write this to my fellow Christians to help them deal with the attacks of the mob… which we Christians see opposed to us all too often.  If any individual reading this thinks what I say comes too close to home, remember that one can break free of the mob by refusing to follow what "everyone says" or "relying on the newspapers" to get the facts.  In other words, to investigate before attacking.

Characteristic #1: The Mob is Led by Appeals to Emotion, Not Reason

Usually an appeal to the mob is based on the appeal to emotion.  Some sort of horrible situation is either hypothesized, or a real situation (usually something which the target condemns anyway) is expressed as the norm which is approved of.  The emotion desired is that outrage over the issue as presented by the mob leader and disproportionate calls for action are the result.  Now, the one who feeds the mob may appeal to emotion by flattery, saying the members of the mob are clearly reasonable people and care about justice.  From there, the mob can be flattered into action along these lines:

1. You are clearly a reasonable person.
2. Those who disagree say you are wrong
3. Therefore they are saying you are unreasonable.

This is an appeal to pride.

This brings us to the second characteristic.

Characteristic #2: The Mob cannot be reached by logic but is easily swayed by Logical Fallacies

This cuts both ways.  The one seeking to feed the mob cannot get too cerebral or they will lose the mob.  So the message needs to be kept simple in a slogan like manner.  On the other hand, the one defending their position against the mob has nothing to exploit.  Appeals to reasoned arguments will not work.  Either the argument goes above their head or there will be an agitator [See below] twisting your words to a meaning you never said to begin with.

Logical fallacies do work however… for our opponents.  We ourselves should never consider using them.  The ad hominem is very successful used against us, as is the red herring.  Bulverisms are also effective.  Telling the mob that the argument is already proven in their favor will make them resistant to the facts showing them it is wrong.  "That's your opinion" is a common (and dishonest) tactic.

There was a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This shows the disadvantage the Christian has in defending the faith.  In order to sway the mob, we would have to appeal to logical fallacies that are intellectually dishonest.

This is shown in the spurious allegations against the Pope.  The simple slogan is "The Pope covered for abusers."  The rebuttal takes far longer to state than the accusation because it has to show why the premise is wrong and then show the evidence to the contrary.

Characteristic #3: Reason drops dramatically in groups

Peer pressure and other tactics can sway individuals who, when alone, might listen to reason.  "The mob" is stupid, but this doesn't mean individuals within it are stupid.  This often happens when one person thinks something isn't quite right, but peer pressure can make them doubt their own knowledge, and give into the groupthink [decision-making by a group as a whole, resulting in unchallenged, poor-quality decisions] of mobs.

Lynch mobs historically were influenced this way.  Individuals may have thought the act was wrong, but when the whole crowd is howling for vengeance, it is easy for the individual to be influenced into setting their own judgment aside.

This is also how the Nazis came to power.  Of course there were individuals who thought Hitler was wrong.  However, when what seems to be the whole country is supporting an injustice, it is very hard to stand against the crowd without beginning to wonder if it is you who are wrong.

Those who feed the mob prey on this.  The use of the appeal to numbers fallacy is often successful: "Everyone else knows of this injustice.  Why do you support those who are guilty?"

This brings us to the next characteristic.

Characteristic #4: The slogan cannot be questioned.  If you question it, you stand with the enemy

There is a work called Fuhrer Ex, of a Neo Nazi in Germany who eventually grew sick of the movement (because he could no longer believe what they held) and left it.  One of the key elements of the book was that certain elements were so often repeated, using false sources, that it was accepted as true.  When the author began to question some of the assumptions of the group (holocaust denial, applications of violence etc.) he was unable to convince them… indeed the propaganda he helped form was cited as an authority against his arguments, and he was accused of siding with the enemy.

This is commonly employed with the current attacks against the Church.  The accusation "The Pope covered for abusers" is a slogan which cannot be questioned.  If you do, you are defending the evil in the slogan, not showing the truth in their mind.

Any attempts to rebut such an accusation is met with the accusation that the debunker is making excuses, "playing the victim card" and so on.

It is depressingly effective.  Consider all those out there who post comments on the blogs accusing Catholic apologists of "defending child rape" on the grounds that they question the slogan.   Never mind the fact that the Pope was a strong force for reforming the Church system.  Never mind the fact that the slogans are not supported by the actual facts.  If you dare to defend the Pope, you are accused of defending the system.

"You're either with us or against us" (or a variant in wording) is the battle cry.  No, this wasn't just George W. Bush (though he was appealing to the mob mentality, to his detriment).  Any group which accuses a person who disagrees with them of being on the side of the enemy uses this argument.  But this argument ignores the crucial question: Is it right that I am with you?  Do I have to be on the opposite side if I oppose you?

The mob demands we answer "yes" to both questions.  The reasoned person answers "If your position is true, I will stand with you.  If your position is not true, I will stand where the truth is to be found."

Unfortunately, the mob sees this as supporting the other side.

Characteristic #5: Agitators help influence the mob

This isn't an argument of a conspiracy theory.  I'm not talking about some person with a nefarious plot to overthrow something.  The mob generally is headless.  It can be guided and influenced but it can never be controlled.  The mob can turn on the one who tries to use it.

Rather, I am talking about true believers in a cause who have a strong hatred of whatever they are working against.  This zeal leads them to attack what they see as an enemy.  They instinctively make emotional appeals to steer the audience to their position.  These people tend to be zealous, or even fanatical in their hatred.  They are certain they are right.  However, they differ from those who are speaking the truth in that they generally will use any tactic against their enemy, justifying it on the grounds that the enemy does worse.

For example, ex-Catholics who become anti-Catholics take whatever real or imagined wrong from the Church which offends them, and use their anger as a focus to attack the Church, certain that whatever wrong they suffered (or think they suffered) was not only deliberate, but malicious as well.  So they scour Church documents for words which will justify their hatred of the Church, giving them the interpretation they choose.  If you tell them their interpretation is wrong, you are accused of lying.  Or being stupid.

Agitators are good at twisting words.  If you use a vague analogy, they will distort it.  If you use one example to lead into another point, they will use the the example and misrepresent it as being your point.  Their tone will always be condescending and mocking you… obviously you must be an idiot if you disagree with them.  [This is why Christians should avoid sarcasm and mocking.  Yes these people can make us angry, but getting angry is to lose the argument].

They will always reduce their arguments to slogans however, and will not listened to reasoned argument.  Why?  Because they aren't here to discuss the truth.  They are here to attack people who disagree with their accusation which they interpret as denying their experience.

These can either be poor at what they do, in which case you can reduce them to silence, or they can be skilled enough to make an argument futile: you won't get a fair hearing for your position.  The agitator's clever phrasing will lead the mob to think he has won when in fact, he is doing nothing to answer your actual points.

Sometimes you have to suppress your desire to get in the "last hit" and walk away from those people.  A "last act of defiance" almost never comes off looking as good as you hope it would.

Dealing with the Mob

Arguing your case before the mob is like casting pearls before swine.  If you take a position which the mob has been told is wrong, it will be distorted and the distortion will be turned against you.  They will believe the agitator's distortion is true and no matter what you say, it will be the agitator's misrepresentation and not what you said that they will believe. 

Now the temptation is to sink to their level, slinging mud for mud and insult for insult.  However, such a tactic may win points with the "living in Mom's basement" crowd who enjoys an exchange of insults, but it won't actually prove the point we are trying to get across.  It won't actually convince them either, because what the Christian calls people to is contrary to the appetite of the mob.

Christians can't feed the appetite of the mob.  Nor should we want to.  What the mob wants too often is wrong in the eyes of the believer. Whether the mob wants a scapegoat or whether the mob wants us to bless its immoral actions, we can't give them these things.

However, there is a way which we can use.  That is remembering that the mob is not a faceless mass, but is made up of individuals with different motives and levels of understanding.  You can't speak to the mob.  You can only speak to individuals.  Only individuals can be turned from error.  The mob simply wants the bread and circuses, and will support whoever will feed their appetite.

All we can do is to speak to the individual, hoping they will listen to the truth and not to what agitators distort our position to be, praying they will leave the mob.  Because of this, we need to pray that we act in accordance with God's will and try our best to act as representatives of the King.

After that we can do no more (though we must be tireless in doing this task).

Finally, we must remember that Jesus has told us men would hate us on account of Him.  They will use whatever scandal (real or imagined) they can find to fuel their hatred.  We should remember Christ's words in such a case:

^22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

^23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. (Luke 6:22-23)

Reflections on The Mob

"Do not give dogs what is holy; and do not throw your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under foot and turn to attack you."(Mt 7:6).

Awhile back, I wrote about the mob (not to be confused with the Mafia) mentality turning on Richard Dawkins, who appealed to it against the Christians.  Currently, it is turning its hunger against the Catholic Church.

Seeing so many uninformed commentators posting on websites bashing the Church and accusing Catholics of defending sexual abuse, I thought it would be good to comment on some of the characteristics of the mob mentality sweeping the Internet

The Purpose of this Article

I don't intend to write this to attack any individual.  Most people who take part in mob mentality don't realize they are doing it.  Rather, I write this to my fellow Christians to help them deal with the attacks of the mob… which we Christians see opposed to us all too often.  If any individual reading this thinks what I say comes too close to home, remember that one can break free of the mob by refusing to follow what "everyone says" or "relying on the newspapers" to get the facts.  In other words, to investigate before attacking.

Characteristic #1: The Mob is Led by Appeals to Emotion, Not Reason

Usually an appeal to the mob is based on the appeal to emotion.  Some sort of horrible situation is either hypothesized, or a real situation (usually something which the target condemns anyway) is expressed as the norm which is approved of.  The emotion desired is that outrage over the issue as presented by the mob leader and disproportionate calls for action are the result.  Now, the one who feeds the mob may appeal to emotion by flattery, saying the members of the mob are clearly reasonable people and care about justice.  From there, the mob can be flattered into action along these lines:

1. You are clearly a reasonable person.
2. Those who disagree say you are wrong
3. Therefore they are saying you are unreasonable.

This is an appeal to pride.

This brings us to the second characteristic.

Characteristic #2: The Mob cannot be reached by logic but is easily swayed by Logical Fallacies

This cuts both ways.  The one seeking to feed the mob cannot get too cerebral or they will lose the mob.  So the message needs to be kept simple in a slogan like manner.  On the other hand, the one defending their position against the mob has nothing to exploit.  Appeals to reasoned arguments will not work.  Either the argument goes above their head or there will be an agitator [See below] twisting your words to a meaning you never said to begin with.

Logical fallacies do work however… for our opponents.  We ourselves should never consider using them.  The ad hominem is very successful used against us, as is the red herring.  Bulverisms are also effective.  Telling the mob that the argument is already proven in their favor will make them resistant to the facts showing them it is wrong.  "That's your opinion" is a common (and dishonest) tactic.

There was a biography (Soldat) of a German officer (Siegfried Knappe) who was a Russian prisoner after WWII.  He describes some of the attempts of the Russians to instill a sense of anti-Americanism in the prisoners.  So they were constantly bombarded with slogans that "Americans were for war, Russia was for peace."  Knappe reports that even there was no evidence for it, a person questioning it was often viewed as irrational by other prisoners.

This shows the disadvantage the Christian has in defending the faith.  In order to sway the mob, we would have to appeal to logical fallacies that are intellectually dishonest.

This is shown in the spurious allegations against the Pope.  The simple slogan is "The Pope covered for abusers."  The rebuttal takes far longer to state than the accusation because it has to show why the premise is wrong and then show the evidence to the contrary.

Characteristic #3: Reason drops dramatically in groups

Peer pressure and other tactics can sway individuals who, when alone, might listen to reason.  "The mob" is stupid, but this doesn't mean individuals within it are stupid.  This often happens when one person thinks something isn't quite right, but peer pressure can make them doubt their own knowledge, and give into the groupthink [decision-making by a group as a whole, resulting in unchallenged, poor-quality decisions] of mobs.

Lynch mobs historically were influenced this way.  Individuals may have thought the act was wrong, but when the whole crowd is howling for vengeance, it is easy for the individual to be influenced into setting their own judgment aside.

This is also how the Nazis came to power.  Of course there were individuals who thought Hitler was wrong.  However, when what seems to be the whole country is supporting an injustice, it is very hard to stand against the crowd without beginning to wonder if it is you who are wrong.

Those who feed the mob prey on this.  The use of the appeal to numbers fallacy is often successful: "Everyone else knows of this injustice.  Why do you support those who are guilty?"

This brings us to the next characteristic.

Characteristic #4: The slogan cannot be questioned.  If you question it, you stand with the enemy

There is a work called Fuhrer Ex, of a Neo Nazi in Germany who eventually grew sick of the movement (because he could no longer believe what they held) and left it.  One of the key elements of the book was that certain elements were so often repeated, using false sources, that it was accepted as true.  When the author began to question some of the assumptions of the group (holocaust denial, applications of violence etc.) he was unable to convince them… indeed the propaganda he helped form was cited as an authority against his arguments, and he was accused of siding with the enemy.

This is commonly employed with the current attacks against the Church.  The accusation "The Pope covered for abusers" is a slogan which cannot be questioned.  If you do, you are defending the evil in the slogan, not showing the truth in their mind.

Any attempts to rebut such an accusation is met with the accusation that the debunker is making excuses, "playing the victim card" and so on.

It is depressingly effective.  Consider all those out there who post comments on the blogs accusing Catholic apologists of "defending child rape" on the grounds that they question the slogan.   Never mind the fact that the Pope was a strong force for reforming the Church system.  Never mind the fact that the slogans are not supported by the actual facts.  If you dare to defend the Pope, you are accused of defending the system.

"You're either with us or against us" (or a variant in wording) is the battle cry.  No, this wasn't just George W. Bush (though he was appealing to the mob mentality, to his detriment).  Any group which accuses a person who disagrees with them of being on the side of the enemy uses this argument.  But this argument ignores the crucial question: Is it right that I am with you?  Do I have to be on the opposite side if I oppose you?

The mob demands we answer "yes" to both questions.  The reasoned person answers "If your position is true, I will stand with you.  If your position is not true, I will stand where the truth is to be found."

Unfortunately, the mob sees this as supporting the other side.

Characteristic #5: Agitators help influence the mob

This isn't an argument of a conspiracy theory.  I'm not talking about some person with a nefarious plot to overthrow something.  The mob generally is headless.  It can be guided and influenced but it can never be controlled.  The mob can turn on the one who tries to use it.

Rather, I am talking about true believers in a cause who have a strong hatred of whatever they are working against.  This zeal leads them to attack what they see as an enemy.  They instinctively make emotional appeals to steer the audience to their position.  These people tend to be zealous, or even fanatical in their hatred.  They are certain they are right.  However, they differ from those who are speaking the truth in that they generally will use any tactic against their enemy, justifying it on the grounds that the enemy does worse.

For example, ex-Catholics who become anti-Catholics take whatever real or imagined wrong from the Church which offends them, and use their anger as a focus to attack the Church, certain that whatever wrong they suffered (or think they suffered) was not only deliberate, but malicious as well.  So they scour Church documents for words which will justify their hatred of the Church, giving them the interpretation they choose.  If you tell them their interpretation is wrong, you are accused of lying.  Or being stupid.

Agitators are good at twisting words.  If you use a vague analogy, they will distort it.  If you use one example to lead into another point, they will use the the example and misrepresent it as being your point.  Their tone will always be condescending and mocking you… obviously you must be an idiot if you disagree with them.  [This is why Christians should avoid sarcasm and mocking.  Yes these people can make us angry, but getting angry is to lose the argument].

They will always reduce their arguments to slogans however, and will not listened to reasoned argument.  Why?  Because they aren't here to discuss the truth.  They are here to attack people who disagree with their accusation which they interpret as denying their experience.

These can either be poor at what they do, in which case you can reduce them to silence, or they can be skilled enough to make an argument futile: you won't get a fair hearing for your position.  The agitator's clever phrasing will lead the mob to think he has won when in fact, he is doing nothing to answer your actual points.

Sometimes you have to suppress your desire to get in the "last hit" and walk away from those people.  A "last act of defiance" almost never comes off looking as good as you hope it would.

Dealing with the Mob

Arguing your case before the mob is like casting pearls before swine.  If you take a position which the mob has been told is wrong, it will be distorted and the distortion will be turned against you.  They will believe the agitator's distortion is true and no matter what you say, it will be the agitator's misrepresentation and not what you said that they will believe. 

Now the temptation is to sink to their level, slinging mud for mud and insult for insult.  However, such a tactic may win points with the "living in Mom's basement" crowd who enjoys an exchange of insults, but it won't actually prove the point we are trying to get across.  It won't actually convince them either, because what the Christian calls people to is contrary to the appetite of the mob.

Christians can't feed the appetite of the mob.  Nor should we want to.  What the mob wants too often is wrong in the eyes of the believer. Whether the mob wants a scapegoat or whether the mob wants us to bless its immoral actions, we can't give them these things.

However, there is a way which we can use.  That is remembering that the mob is not a faceless mass, but is made up of individuals with different motives and levels of understanding.  You can't speak to the mob.  You can only speak to individuals.  Only individuals can be turned from error.  The mob simply wants the bread and circuses, and will support whoever will feed their appetite.

All we can do is to speak to the individual, hoping they will listen to the truth and not to what agitators distort our position to be, praying they will leave the mob.  Because of this, we need to pray that we act in accordance with God's will and try our best to act as representatives of the King.

After that we can do no more (though we must be tireless in doing this task).

Finally, we must remember that Jesus has told us men would hate us on account of Him.  They will use whatever scandal (real or imagined) they can find to fuel their hatred.  We should remember Christ's words in such a case:

^22 Blessed are you when people hate you, and when they exclude and insult you, and denounce your name as evil on account of the Son of Man.

^23 Rejoice and leap for joy on that day! Behold, your reward will be great in heaven. For their ancestors treated the prophets in the same way. (Luke 6:22-23)