Showing posts with label ipse dixit. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ipse dixit. Show all posts
Monday, April 3, 2023
Wednesday, May 29, 2019
Ipse Dixit: Just Because You Say it Doesn’t Make it So
But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and a jackass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas. [Luther is quoting Juvenal here. The phrase means “thus I wish, thus I order, my will stands in place of reason.”] We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges.—Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter (1530) [#]
The result of this is a mindset that makes the Reformers and critics into the judge and jury of their disputes. They insist their views of the Church are right, they insist their interpretation of the Scriptures and Church documents are right, and any who say otherwise show they are in error by the fact that they disagree.
However, we must disagree all the same because making these claims are not the same thing as proofs. They are simply bare assertions and we do not have to accept bare assertions. We must (if we’re wise) insist on their showing either their evidence for the claim or their authority to teach in a binding manner. If the person replies with a bare assertion and/or an insult, we have a right to be dubious.
Catholics profess that the Church established by Christ, which Scripture tells us about, was the Catholic Church, under the headship of St. Peter and his successors. This is testified to by history and the writing of the Church Fathers. Not just in the West, but in the East too:
And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.”—St. John Chrysostom, Homily on John LXXXVIII
As a result, whoever wants to argue that the Church has taught error has to prove it. If they want to teach by authority, they have to demonstrate that they have the authority to teach in a binding manner. Just because you think the Church erred doesn’t mean she did, or that it means she lost her mandate, or that it gets passed on to you. So, simply asserting that “the Church is wrong,” doesn’t make it so.
So, if someone wants to argue there is a break in Church teaching, where something was taught in contradiction to the Church teaching today, they need to demonstrate that it is so, and that their understanding of both past and present teaching is correct in doing so.
For example, certain critics of the Church today argue that St. Pius V taught that the Mass of 1570 was established infallibly and forbade any change. Therefore, they argue that the Mass of 1970 was invalid and heretical because St. Paul VI implemented a changed Mass. But the part of Quo Primum that they cite [§] refers to forbidding any person other than the Pope from changing or overruling the implementation of the 1570 missal.
But the Missal was changed. Changes were made by Popes in 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (many changes to the rubrics). Then Ven. Pius XII (1951 and 1955) made changes that required changes to canon law, permitted some use of the vernacular, and completely revised Holy Week. Finally, it was revised in 1962. So, before 1970, the Missal of St. Pius V had been substantially changed—and none of the Popes involved believed they were violating Church teaching in modifying the Missal. It’s evidence that this interpretation of Quo Primum by critics is not proof, but merely another ipse dixit claim. Their rebellion against the Church and rejection of the Ordinary Form of the Mass is founded on a baseless assertion.
This is pretty much how it goes in every attack on The Church (as opposed to individual sinners or regions falling into error). The condemnation of the Church is based on the personal interpretation of Scripture and Church documents over the teaching of the Church while refusing to consider the possibility of their own error. But that’s how the heresies of history formed. The ancient heresiarchs interpreted Scripture in a way contrary to the understanding of the teachings of the Apostles from the beginning. I don’t doubt that they were sincere and thought they were helping the Church. But they did not have the authority to teach and they did not prove that the Church deviated from the teaching the Apostles passed on from Our Lord.
The modern anti-Vatican II or anti-Francis Catholic is no different. They draw conclusions at odds with Church teaching, rejecting the authority of the Church and making ipse dixit statements, treating them as “proof” that the Church remains in “error” until it acts the way they imagine was a golden age in the Church.
These things should always be rejected.
____________
[#] As a standard disclaimer for my non-Catholic readers, I don’t write this article to attack non-Catholics today and respect and try to follow the Church on Ecumenical issues. I cite the 16th century Reformers as a “You are the man” (2 Samuel 12:7) moment by showing that the super Catholics at odds with the Church are behaving in the same manner as the 16th century Reformers that they hate.
[§] “We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”
Friday, December 23, 2016
Thoughts on the Errors of Combox Warriors
Introduction
There seems to be a slew of errors going around on social media which feed on a misrepresenting of the interviews with Cardinal Burke over the dubia. Like always, I’m not accusing him of supporting those actions done invoking his name [†]. I’m opposing errors from those I call “Combox Warriors” (Catholic battling in social media over Church matters, viciously attacking those who disagree). These errors stem from the refusal to consider they might have gotten something wrong in comparing what they think follows from what they think the Pope says with what they think previous Church teaching means. In other words, the attacks on the Pope depend on the ipse dixit claims of his critics who need to prove what they assume is true.
So let’s look at some of the problems with their claims.
How is it that X Isn’t a Teaching, but Y is, When Both are Taught at the Same Level?
One of the claims used to deny the teaching authority of Amoris Lætitia is to say it isn’t a teaching because it is only an Apostolic Exhortation. The problem is, these critics also insist that this Exhortation is wrong because it “contradicts” (a point to be proven, not assumed) Familiaris Consortio. But there is the problem. Familiaris Consortio is also an Apostolic Exhortation. So, if Amoris Lætitia is not a teaching because it is “only” an Apostolic Exhortation, then logically one must concede that Familiaris Consortio is not a teaching either.
In other words, you can either accept the authority of both or reject the authority of both. But to accept one and reject the other on these grounds is irrational.
There’s No Facility for Removing a Pope from Office
Another problem comes from Combox warriors quoting St. Robert Bellarmine out of context (we’ll talk more about that below). The argument is that when a Pope is a manifest heretic, he is no longer the Pope. It is claimed that the Pope’s teachings “prove” he is a heretic (or will be soon). Therefore, it is argued that he’s not the Pope. So, who determines whether the Pope has crossed that line? Cardinal Burke thinks it can be done but “It would have to be members of the College of Cardinals.” The problem is, there is no competent tribunal to judge him. No valid council has ever deposed a sitting Pope. In fact, the Code of Canon Law (#1404) tells us, “The First See is judged by no one.”
Indeed, the cause of the Great Western Schism came about because a majority of cardinals deserted Pope Urban VI and elected an antipope (Robert of Geneva, aka Clement VII) in his place. Later, to try to correct the confusion, cardinals called a council at Pisa [*] and tried to depose both the Pope and the antipope and “declared” a new person Pope (antipope Alexander V). In all of this, the Church regards the true Pope to have been Urban VI and his successors.
The Council of Constance declared that a Council had the authority to depose a Pope (the Haec Sancta Synodus decree), but this decree was never approved by Gregory XII (the legitimate Pope of the time) nor his successor Martin V, so it is not considered a magisterial teaching. Therefore, it cannot be invoked against Pope Francis. The point is, despite whether one, four, or even all 121 of the cardinals under the age of 80 want to depose the Pope, there is no valid means they can use to do so.
Before a Pope could be removed from office because he was a “manifest heretic,” we would need one of two things to happen:
- The Pope would have to issue a decree defining how a Pope could be removed.
- A Council called by a Pope would have to decree on how a Pope could be removed—and the Pope at the time of the Council would have to approve that declaration.
In other words, the Church has no ability to force a Pope from his office, and will not get one unless a Pope enacts such an ability through his authority. So long as there is no such authority granted, we can trust in God to remove such a Pope—and I deny any Pope past or present fits the condition of manifest heretic.
Let’s Talk About St. Robert Bellarmine’s Opinion [§]
Earlier, I mentioned the passage of St. Robert Bellarmine that critics of the Pope cite to say a Pope can be removed. The arguments I have seen run along the lines of pointing out that he is a Doctor of the Church and therefore his writings are official teachings of the Church. This is not true. The text in question actually discusses 5 opinions. What’s not normally quoted is the fact that the first view rejects that the Pope can be a heretic in the first place:
The first is of Albert Pighius, who contends that the Pope cannot be a heretic, and hence would not be deposed in any case: 806 [Hierarchiae Ecclesiasticae, bk 4, ch. 8.] such an opinion is probable, and can easily be defended, as we will show in its proper place.
However, he says that because “the common opinion is to the contrary, it will be worthwhile to see what the response should be if the Pope could be a heretic.” Note that phrase, “if the Pope could.” He’s not assuming it happens. He’s making a speculative, “What if that’s wrong?” Of those four opinions He rejects three of them:
- That the Pope can be deposed the instant he falls into even personal heresy.
- That the Pope can’t even be deposed for manifest heresy.
- [St. Cajetan’s opinion] That if the Pope falls into manifest heresy, he can and should be deposed by the Church.
After analyzing and rejecting these, he supports the following:
Now the fifth true opinion, is that a Pope who is a manifest heretic, ceases in himself to be Pope and head, just as he ceases in himself to be a Christian and member of the body of the Church: whereby, he can be judged and punished by the Church. This is the opinion of all the ancient Fathers, who teach that manifest heretics soon lose all jurisdiction, and namely St. Cyprian who speaks on Novation, who was a Pope in schism with Cornelius: “He cannot hold the Episcopacy, although he was a bishop first, he fell from the body of his fellow bishops and from the unity of the Church.” 819 [Bk 4, epist. 2]. There he means that Novation, even if he was a true and legitimate Pope; still would have fallen from the pontificate by himself, if he separated himself from the Church.
Bellarmine, Robert (2015-05-22). On the Roman Pontiff. (De Controversiis Book 1) (pp. 309-310). Mediatrix Press. Kindle Edition.
Unfortunately, the term “true opinion” is misunderstood today. It’s a philosophical term which refers to an opinion which is held for reasons that are true, as opposed to arbitrary preference, but many wrongly think it means “fact.” So, this isn’t Church doctrine, and St. Robert Bellarmine doesn’t think it is either.
I would sum up this chapter as follows: While not defined, it is probable to believe that the Pope can’t be a manifest heretic, and therefore can’t be deposed. But, if he could be a manifest heretic (which is debated), members of the Church don’t depose him—he’d merely stop being Pope because he’d stop being Christian. (Many of Pope Francis’ critics who cite the Saint’s opinion actually seem to misinterpret it as #1 and #3 which he actually rejects.)
That being said, St. Robert Bellarmine’s treatise was never turned into the official teaching of the Church. As pointed out above, the Church has no defined way to remove a Pope, so this cannot be used by cardinals or councils to depose a Pope.
Popes Honorius I and John XXII
Two Popes who have been mentioned as “proof” of Popes being heretics are Honorius I and John XXII. The problem is, neither Pope proves anything in the case at hand, and it is unjust to claim Pope Francis is in the same situation.
Honorius I was condemned at the Third Council of Constantinople, 42 years after his death, because, in a letter to Sergius, Patriarch of Constantinople, he seemed to privately hold the heresy of monothelitism. But there is a dispute as to whether he disagreed with Our Lord having two wills (heterodox) or disagreed with the idea of Our Lord having two wills in conflict. Regardless of which was true, he is considered as having failed to carry out his duty by evading the issue instead of confronting it.
If it was true he privately held heresy, his case does not show a Pope can be deposed for heresy. He died in office and a later Pope confirmed the sentence of the Council. Nor can his evasion be equated with Pope Francis refusing to answer the dubia. Honorius I sought to evade an answer. Pope Francis insists the teaching is clear, but some people want excessive clarification. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the Pope, there is no evidence that he is seeking to evade a debate.
Pope John XXII is (wrongly) portrayed as a Pope who taught heresy. That is not an accurate accusation. The issue was whether those who die see the Beatific vision immediately or not until the Final Judgment. At this time, the issue was not decided. What John XXII did was give homilies (which are not an occasion for infallibility) holding the former position. The controversy is over whether he was defining doctrine. He was not formally corrected, but was persuaded to change his opinion on the subject.
The accusations of heresy came from a group called the Spiritual Franciscans whom the Pope ruled against. The issue was over whether his condemnation of the idea that, “Christ and his apostles had no possessions whatever.” Seeking to discredit the Pope, they accused him of teaching heresy. However, this was not a defined doctrine and the Pope was not teaching. It was not until his successor, Benedict XII, that the issue was defined. Since heresy is “ the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith” and John XXII did not deny anything, let alone obstinately, we don’t consider him a heretic.
Conclusion
It’s not my place to judge the intentions of the cardinals who are troubled by the Pope, and I won’t accuse them of bad will. Cardinal Burke did explicitly say Pope Francis was not a heretic, so it would be unjust to put those words in his mouth.
Unfortunately, some Catholics on social media are using his words to justify their attacks on the Pope. These attacks have long been based on their own readings of what they think the Pope says, contrasted to what they think the Church said previously. In doing so, they have two prove two things:
- That they have interpreted the Pope according to his intention.
- That they have interpreted previous Church teaching according to the understanding of the magisterium today.
In fact, these “combox warriors" show they understand neither correctly. Quotes from both are lifted out of context to show they are “contradictory.” These are the same tactics used by the critics of Vatican II and every Pope from St. John XXIII forward. I won’t lump all these critics together (there are variations), but we have to realize that some of the most abusive attacks come from people who have long seated grudges against the Church and refuse to consider the possibility that they could have gotten it wrong.
It’s my hope that by discussing some of the more common claims, this article might show that the arguments of such “combox warriors” are flawed and leading people astray by deceiving them into thinking the Church is in a state of error. It is only by recognizing the possibility of our own error when disagreeing with the magisterium that we can avoid spreading dissent while thinking we are in the right.
__________________________
[†] One wishes the combox warriors would give the Pope the same consideration.
[*] This gathering was condemned in the Lateran V Council.
[§] Permissions to quote sections of the recent translation of this work was given by Mediatrix Press. The volume in question can be found HERE. (To get to the relevant chapter, go to Book II, Chapter XXX) I’ve copied the footnotes to the text in brackets after the number for readers who want to make sure nothing is overlooked.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
Thursday, June 11, 2015
Tuesday, June 10, 2014
Monday, June 9, 2014
Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents
[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.
In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)
I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.
Introduction
Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."
It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.
Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?
It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.
That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth
Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?
That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.
The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.
Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.
For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.
The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.
The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.
Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching
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. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)
Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:
- Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
- The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
- Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]
The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.
If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!
So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.
The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)
The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after. It must be found. It must be followed.
The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."
But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.
When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.
Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.
That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.
Conclusion
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.
If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.
Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.
Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents
[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.
In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)
I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.
Introduction
Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."
It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.
Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?
It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.
That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."
Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth
Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?
That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.
The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.
Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.
For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.
The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.
The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.
Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching
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. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)
Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:
- Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
- The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
- Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]
The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.
If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!
So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.
The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth
“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)
The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after. It must be found. It must be followed.
The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."
But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.
When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.
Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.
That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.
Conclusion
Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)
Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.
If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.
Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.
Tuesday, October 23, 2012
Reflections on Truth, Christian Morality and Challenges by Relativism
Relativism: the doctrine that knowledge, truth, and morality exist in relation to culture, society, or historical context, and are not absolute.
Absolute: a value or principle regarded as universally valid or able to be viewed without relation to other things.
Absolute Relativism?
Among some who reject Christian teaching, whether as a whole or in part, there is an argument offered that there is no absolute truth. Therefore there is nothing to require us to behave in a certain way, as everything depends on perspective. The problem is, people who argue this way create a self-contradicting argument. The claim that there is no absolute truth, by the nature of its claim, assumes this claim is absolutely true – which cannot exist according to the claim. The claim that everything depends on perspective assumes something which is true beyond all perspective.
The argument is faced by this dilemma:
- If [There is no absolute truth] is true in all times, places and circumstances then there is an absolute truth.
- If [There is no absolute truth] is not true in all times, places and circumstances, it means the claim is not absolute and there can be absolute truths.
The point is, everybody believes in some absolute truth (even if it is the claim that "there are no absolutes"). If they truly did not, they could not dispute anything. The fact that we recognize that something is wrong indicates we believe there is something which is always true. Once we recognize that, we can question this kind of skeptic, "Why must we accept your claim to the absolute truth? What is the basis for it?" Once we have a recognition that absolute truth does exist (in some form), we can inquire what is the truth when there are different claims as to what the truth is.
Now this is a crude form of relativism which subconsciously assumes what it tries to refute. Mostly it is claimed in such a bold statement by people who have more enthusiasm for their position than reasoned consideration (in other words, don't assume all relativists think this way). However, even more restricted forms of Relativism hold to assumptions that cause problems for those who assert them.
Moral Relativism
Let's look at a popular claim made by some who reject Christian moral teaching: That there are no moral absolutes. Some supporters of this claim think it gives them an escape route because the claim is a claim to truth outside of morality – it gives them an opportunity to make an absolute statement that is not a self contradiction.
We can however show that such a view is not actually believed in an absolute way by the proponents by the behavior of these proponents.
- If there are [No Moral Absolutes] then [everything is permitted] (If A then B).
- Not [everything is permitted] (Not B)
- Therefore there are not [No Moral Absolutes]. (Therefore not A)
The major premise points out that if there are no moral absolutes, then everything can be legitimately done in at least some circumstances. That would mean in some circumstances it is permissible to rape or commit genocide or to own slaves. If these things are never permissible, then we have shown that there are at least some moral absolutes.
Once we have shown this, it becomes clear that the dispute with Christian moral values is not a denial of moral absolutes, but rather a claim that some Christian moral values (usually concerning sexual morality) should not be binding. That claim, however, must not be accepted at face value (that's a logical fallacy called ipse dixit [literally ‘he himself said it’]). Just as Christianity offers justifications on why its moral teachings are true, those who reject Christian morality must also offer justifications on why their claims on morality are true.
Common Logical Fallacies Used in the Attack on Christian Morality
However, that is exactly what is not done. We either see the ipse dixit claim, giving us no rational cause to accept, or else we see them offering tu quoque or ad hominem fallacies.
For example, when Catholics speak against the current restrictions on religious freedom in America, some reply by bringing up medieval history when some believed that a minority religion could be restricted. That would be a tu quoque (literally 'You also!') attack, because a person behaving inconsistently does not mean what is said is false or that the past behavior of some justifies the current behavior of others). If you think it was unjustified then, it is certainly something that cannot be argued to be justified now.
An example of the ad hominem (literally, 'against the person') would be the people who use terms like "homophobic" or "war on women" or "extreme right (left) wing" and the like. It attacks the person making an argument and tries to indicate that the person has a repugnant quality, therefore what he says can be rejected. For example, if I attempted to argue that "People who support moral relativism are a bunch of stupid liberals," this would be an example of the ad hominem attack, because that label does not disprove the argument.
What it comes down to is that the current attacks on Christian morality are not based on a rational, logical argument but rather a set of assumptions which, when examined cannot stand. Thus these arguments cannot be said to refute Christian morality because the premises are not true and you cannot have a proven conclusion if the premises of the argument are not true.
Conclusion
Of course, it does not mean that because an argument is fallacious that a conclusion is automatically false (for example. "All 2s are blue. All 3s are brown. Therefore 2+3 is 5" has false premises , but 2+3 is 5). However, showing these attacks against Christian morality do not prove what they claim allows us to say that the justification for Christian morality still stands, and perhaps people should consider what those justifications are instead of claiming ipse dixit that Christian morality is false.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)