Showing posts with label ignorance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ignorance. Show all posts
Thursday, March 4, 2021
Thursday, December 31, 2020
Tuesday, December 8, 2020
Sunday, January 26, 2020
Sunday, September 1, 2019
Saturday, June 8, 2019
Friday, January 25, 2019
A Little Knowledge is Dangerous
After New York passed its barbaric abortion law, Catholic Social Media attacked Cardinal Dolan for not excommunicating Cuomo. There were two problems with this. First, it’s not Cardinal Dolan, but the bishop of Albany (Bishop Scharfenberger) who has jurisdiction over Cuomo. Second, Excommunication for abortion is for those involved in the act of procuring [brings about, achieves] abortion. Canon 1398 states
A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication.
When it comes to the Catholic politicians that legalize abortion, the proper canon is 915:
Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.
In most cases, the individual is told by the bishop not to present themselves for Communion and the appropriate pastors are notified. Usually this is done privately. In rare cases (e.g. Sibelius, during the Obama administration), this is made public.
So, the attacks on the Cardinal Dolan were doubly wrong. First, because they demanded action from someone who could not perform it. Second, the action demanded was not the action that the Church applies. All excommunications involve grave sin, but not all grave sins have the penalty of excommunication. The bishops cannot arbitrarily go beyond the penalty set. This is a safeguard against abuse of power. Otherwise a bishop could excommunicate someone for any minor irritation.
This incident is an example of one problem in the Church. Many people do not know how the Church governs herself. The Church is not a tyranny (rule by the whim of one with dictatorial powers). She is governed by canon law which lists rights, responsibilities, and procedures. The Pope can amend canon law when needed (it is a human law, after all) to serve justice, but he doesn’t do so arbitrarily.
So, it is unreasonable for a Catholic to get angry with a bishop when the bishop doesn’t have the authority to do something through jurisdiction or the obligations of law.
So, the Catholic must ask whether he or she understands how the Church handles things in general and whether he or she has all the information needed to correctly judge what is going on. If the Catholic does not, he or she has no right to condemn the bishop.
If, however, a Catholic should do the required study, and remain concerned that wrong is being done, he or she has an obligation to convey that concern properly. As Canon 212 §3 puts it:
According to the knowledge, competence, and prestige which they possess, they have the right and even at times the duty to manifest to the sacred pastors their opinion on matters which pertain to the good of the Church and to make their opinion known to the rest of the Christian faithful, without prejudice to the integrity of faith and morals, with reverence toward their pastors, and attentive to common advantage and the dignity of persons.
Even if you’re concerned that a bishop made a “bad call,” you have the obligation to be reverent and respectful. That means no snide comments about “backbone” or insults. The bishops are successors to the Apostles and must be treated as such.
This is an example of why the adage, “a little knowledge is dangerous,” is true. A person ignorant of what the Church requires, accusing the Pope or bishop of doing wrong, is risking committing schismatic or heretical behavior because they don’t understand the responsibility and obligations of their office. They are effectively picking a needless “hill to die on.”
Understanding what the Church does and why is essential for assessing the actions of the Pope and bishops. Without that knowledge, those clamoring for “justice” are merely committing rash judgment.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Tuesday, September 4, 2018
Friday, December 26, 2014
TFTD: They Revile What They Do Not Understand
But these people revile what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals. (Jude 1:10)
A couple of days before Christmas, I was involved in a combox discussion on the issues over the satanic counter to the Nativity Scene in Florida. My own thesis was that the putting up a “religious” display with the intent of protesting religious displays was a self-contradiction. What struck me was a comment from one of the atheists. It was a tu quoque claim that the Bible was full of contradictions. Today, there seems to be a lot of atheists on Facebook and in the comboxes bashing Christianity over Neil deGrasse Tyson and his tweet in celebration of the December 25th birthday of Sir Isaac Newton (the actual tweet struck me as being more pathetic than offensive, apparently trying to imply Newton was more important than Christ).
Basically, the theme is that Christians are stupid for believing in God while blaming Christianity and religion in general for every crime in the history of humanity (denying the role of the atheistic ideology in the worst atrocities of the 20th century). These things are pretty tiresome, and fairly frustrating. The bashing is basically illogical and factually wrong. They would actually be easy to refute—if people took the time to listen and investigate whether what they say is true.
Ven. Fulton J. Sheen expressed things very well when he wrote:
“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.” (Radio Replies vol. 1)
Ven. Archbishop Sheen makes a good point. The Catholic Church is not really hated for what she teaches, but for what people think she teaches, and when people run afoul of the Church teachings, we are told that these teachings were made out of hatred of women, of people with same sex attraction, of divorced people, the poor, the rich, sexuality etc., simply because we have a teaching on the morality of certain actions.
People don’t even ask what we teach, let alone why we teach it. People assume that the worst possible portrayals of the Church in history are true, never realizing that even in past centuries there were people with ideologies and axes to grind who had no problems denigrating the Church to build up their own agendas. Because they know nothing of Catholic teaching and history, but assume the Church is capable of the worst, they assume that the horror stories they hear must be true and done out of sheer malice—never mind facts and the context of the times.
Sometimes I wish people couldn’t post on a subject online unless they could demonstrate they understood what they were bashing.
But we shouldn’t expect that. Our Lord did warn us that we could expect hatred from the world if we sought to be faithful to Him:
18 “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. 19 If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. 20 Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. 21 And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. 22 If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. 23 Whoever hates me also hates my Father. 24 If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. 25 But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’ (John 15:18-25)
So we endure hatred and try to reach out to the person of good will who wants to learn the truth, praying for all of them.
Monday, September 3, 2012
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):
- Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
- I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
- 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):
- Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
- I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
- 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)