"This is a Rebellious People..."

Read more »

Let's Look at Things Differently...

Read more »

Seeing Clearly: Church Teaching and Politics

Read more »

When Christianity Stands Against Favored Causes

 

Introduction

The foundation of America was based on the premise that no person was naturally superior to another and that no group could coerce a person or group to do something they believed was evil. Of course, this premise also presumed some common sense responsibilities as well. If you believed a group believed the wrong thing (for example, believed that a religion taught error), you didn’t try to force that group to change because they had rights too. You simply didn’t associate with that group (either by leaving it or not joining it in the first place), and you used reason and politeness to explain the truth as you understood it, recognizing this as a civilized exchange that led to a greater understanding of what was true.

That’s not the case nowadays. Today we have favored causes and favored classes whose beliefs are given special treatment, imposed on all at the expense of those groups who believe they are wrong. It doesn’t have to be this way of course. It is possible that even if one way of thinking is recognized by a majority of a nation, that the minority can practice their beliefs without being hindered by the majority—provided they do not do harm on others. But that isn’t the way things are here in America. Here we take the all or nothing approach where if something is deemed favored, all must accept it.

Right now the denigrated class is Christianity—specifically Christianity which insists on moral values that the state has no right to alter. This is the belief in God who encounters the human person individually and as a group and teaches them the right way to live, and what acts are not compatible with this belief. It is reasonable that an institution that is established by a Christian denomination (like a University or a Hospital) will be run in accordance with the beliefs of this denomination and it will not act contrary to these beliefs. It is also reasonable that an individual who belongs to a religion (and takes it seriously) and owns a business will not run his business in opposition to what he believes. So a customer or an employee who wants a service which runs contrary to the religious beliefs of the employer should either do without or go to where the service can be provided—so long as it is not harmful to others. Otherwise that customer or employee is trying to violate the civil rights of the employer.

Now, if an employer does not have a philosophical basis, then the beliefs of the employee do not matter, and it would be unjust to take action against them because they hold a belief.

The History of Racism and Its Misapplication By Weak Analogy

The problem we have in America that is we have a legacy in this country of racism. It formally (that is, enshrined in law) extended from the founding of the country to the passage of the Civil Rights Act, and informally (that is, held by individuals and some groups, but not recognized as acceptable government policy) even today. It was an ugly legacy with dehumanizing slavery and then attempts to keep an ethnic group separate and oppressed. Most people today recognize it was a shameful part of our history.

Unfortunately, Americans have a habit of using the fallacy of weak analogy which looks at two events and assumes they are identical when the differences are actually more significant than the similarities. For example, some have actually tried to argue that the opposition to "same sex marriage" is the same as the racist laws which forbade interracial marriage and conclude that opposition to “same sex marriage” is also motivated by bigotry. The problem is, this analogy is weak because it has only one point of similarity, laws limiting who can be married, but many points of dissimilarity.

For example, the laws against racial marriage presumed that reproduction between a member of a Caucasian ethnic group and a member of an African ethnic group would end up “diluting” the “superior” Caucasian ethnic group. “Same sex marriage” cannot involve reproduction. So, right off the bat, this is a major difference. Another difference is that the shameful laws of racism in America were based on the belief that the people of African origin were less human than Caucasians, while the opposition to “same sex marriage” is based on the belief that some behaviors must never be acted on. I could go on, but these two examples show that the motivation for the two laws were entirely different. Sure there could have been people who took a moral prohibition and treated the person acting on it with hatred, but the hatred by some of people with same sex attraction did not cause the laws against “same sex marriage,” but hatred did cause the laws restricting African Americans.

The Begging the Question Leads to Self-Righteous Justification

This Weak Analogy leads to the fallacy of begging the question. This is where a proposition which needs to be proven is assumed to be true without proof. Opposition to abortion and contraception is assumed to be based on “controlling women,” when that’s the point that needs to be proven. Opposition to “same sex marriage is assumed to be based on “homophobia,” when (again) that’s the point which needs to be proven.

The Supreme Court of the United States made this fallacy when it struck down the Defense of Marriage Act (United States v. Windsor), assuming the motivation was intolerance, when that was the point to be proven. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The federal statute is invalid, for no legitimate purpose overcomes the purpose and effect to disparage and to injure those whom the State, by its marriage laws, sought to protect in personhood and dignity.” That the purpose was “to disparage and injure” is precisely what needed to be proven. Instead it was assumed to be true.

The Result Is The Attacking of Christianity For Opposing a Favored Cause

When Christianity opposes legitimizing something that is morally wrong, and that moral wrong is a favored cause, the result is that Christianity is accused of holding these views out of hatred and intolerance. Basically, the argument is:

• Nothing Good can Oppose X
• Christianity Opposes X
• Therefore Christianity is Nothing Good.

The problem is, the major premise (Nothing Good can Oppose X) needs to be proven, not assumed to be true. But because nobody is questioning the major premise, the conclusion is assumed to be true (falsely). This means that Christianity is viewed as a hate group that needs to be isolated from society, much as one would want to isolate a Klansman or a Neo-Nazi.

Conclusion

What we have now in America is a case where politicians and judges favor certain stances and promote them in law and judicial rulings. When they declare X good, they effectively declare those who oppose X to be enemies of the state. Because the favored causes today involve things that are morally wrong from the Christian belief, Christianity must be the enemy of the state. The problem is, the Constitution does not allow the government to decide Christianity is an enemy of the state. But so long as the branches of government set aside the Constitution to favor a cause, we can expect this attack to continue.

Reflection on Interpretation and Misinterpretation

Read more »

Fearing Pope Francis and the Synod

Read more »

Fearing Pope Francis and the Synod

Read more »

What Does It Matter?

Some who try to denigrate Church teaching they disagree with try to portray it as a small matter. The argument goes that issue X is minor and the only people to make a big deal out of it is a pendantic Church obsessed with minor details.

There are two problems with this however:

First, Christ Himself pointed out that:

The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones. (Luke 16:10)

So what does that say about a person who excuses his wrong by saying that it is only a small matter?

Second, just because someone downplays the importance something does not mean it is a minor thing. In the 1987 movie RoboCop, we saw a lawyer trying to downplay a criminal charge: "Attempted murder? It's not like he killed someone. This is a clear violation of my client's civil rights." The problem of course is that just because the criminal didn't do one crime doesn't mean he did no crime.

Likewise, some try to argue that because their action is not as serious a sin as X, it ought not to be considered a sin at all. That doesn't follow.

Either way, the person who makes excuses to reject the teaching authority of the Church tends to show themselves likely to excuse their violating other obligations.

What Does It Matter?

Some who try to denigrate Church teaching they disagree with try to portray it as a small matter. The argument goes that issue X is minor and the only people to make a big deal out of it is a pendantic Church obsessed with minor details.

There are two problems with this however:

First, Christ Himself pointed out that:

The person who is trustworthy in very small matters is also trustworthy in great ones; and the person who is dishonest in very small matters is also dishonest in great ones. (Luke 16:10)

So what does that say about a person who excuses his wrong by saying that it is only a small matter?

Second, just because someone downplays the importance something does not mean it is a minor thing. In the 1987 movie RoboCop, we saw a lawyer trying to downplay a criminal charge: "Attempted murder? It's not like he killed someone. This is a clear violation of my client's civil rights." The problem of course is that just because the criminal didn't do one crime doesn't mean he did no crime.

Likewise, some try to argue that because their action is not as serious a sin as X, it ought not to be considered a sin at all. That doesn't follow.

Either way, the person who makes excuses to reject the teaching authority of the Church tends to show themselves likely to excuse their violating other obligations.

Something to Keep in Mind About the Media

With the hubbub slowly dying down over the Papal interviews, it seemed like a good idea to discuss the past problems of the media misinterpretation of the Church.

The American media seems to be incapable of viewing the Church apart from seeing her as political factions and appears to seriously believe that someday there will be a Pope who agrees with them... or that someday a Pope will "realize" the Church is wrong and change things.

Way back when Veritatis Splendor was written (1993), the media scoured it in hopes of finding that Bl. John Paul II had lifted the condemnation on contraception. The same thing happened with Evangelium Vitae. The media was asking, "Did the Church change its teaching?"

In both cases, the encyclcals were strongly affirming of Catholic teaching.

During the papacy of Benedict XVI, the media took a different approach. Perhaps because by this time, the Internet was in full swing and information was instantaneous -- though comprehension was not -- the media was interpreting what the Pope said on their own.

Unfortunately, they were interpreting the statements according to their own perspective, often giving a political twist when none was intended.

Thus, encyclcals of Benedict XVI which spoke on the role of government in a moral society were interpreted as advocating centralization -- despite the attempts to explain otherwise.

When, in an interview, Benedict used a hypothetical example of a male prostitute with AIDS to illustrate a point of people beginning to think of moral consequences of actions, the media thought he finally "understood" and was changing Church teaching.  Despite the attempts to explain what was really meant, some people still think he "changed the teaching."

Likewise, when Obama was elected, the Vatican indicated it was a good sign for America. This was interpreted as an endorsement of his policies. It was nothing of the sort. Rather, the Church had been deeply concerned for decades with the racism in America and the fact that a black man could be elected was a sign of change in American attitudes.

So, with this background, it comes as no surprise that the media has given a wrong interpretation to the words of Pope Francis. They keep expecting the Church will someday "realize it is wrong," and make "reforms."  With that mindset, errors should be expected when the media reports on the Church.

Thus, when the media reports a "change" in Church teaching, our first assumption should be they probably got it wrong and not assume the Pope changed Church teaching.

Something to Keep in Mind About the Media

With the hubbub slowly dying down over the Papal interviews, it seemed like a good idea to discuss the past problems of the media misinterpretation of the Church.

The American media seems to be incapable of viewing the Church apart from seeing her as political factions and appears to seriously believe that someday there will be a Pope who agrees with them... or that someday a Pope will "realize" the Church is wrong and change things.

Way back when Veritatis Splendor was written (1993), the media scoured it in hopes of finding that Bl. John Paul II had lifted the condemnation on contraception. The same thing happened with Evangelium Vitae. The media was asking, "Did the Church change its teaching?"

In both cases, the encyclcals were strongly affirming of Catholic teaching.

During the papacy of Benedict XVI, the media took a different approach. Perhaps because by this time, the Internet was in full swing and information was instantaneous -- though comprehension was not -- the media was interpreting what the Pope said on their own.

Unfortunately, they were interpreting the statements according to their own perspective, often giving a political twist when none was intended.

Thus, encyclcals of Benedict XVI which spoke on the role of government in a moral society were interpreted as advocating centralization -- despite the attempts to explain otherwise.

When, in an interview, Benedict used a hypothetical example of a male prostitute with AIDS to illustrate a point of people beginning to think of moral consequences of actions, the media thought he finally "understood" and was changing Church teaching.  Despite the attempts to explain what was really meant, some people still think he "changed the teaching."

Likewise, when Obama was elected, the Vatican indicated it was a good sign for America. This was interpreted as an endorsement of his policies. It was nothing of the sort. Rather, the Church had been deeply concerned for decades with the racism in America and the fact that a black man could be elected was a sign of change in American attitudes.

So, with this background, it comes as no surprise that the media has given a wrong interpretation to the words of Pope Francis. They keep expecting the Church will someday "realize it is wrong," and make "reforms."  With that mindset, errors should be expected when the media reports on the Church.

Thus, when the media reports a "change" in Church teaching, our first assumption should be they probably got it wrong and not assume the Pope changed Church teaching.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IVc): Who Speaks for the Church?

The Series So Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III
13. Article IVb

Introduction

As I mentioned in Interlude III; I have come across in my research of those explaining Sola Scriptura, a tendency to contrast what they believe with what they say Catholics believe about Scripture. 

The arguments sometimes used are of the type that: because the Catholic Church believes [A], they cannot be considered infallible or even (on occasion) authentically Christian.  However, if the Catholic Church teaches [B] and not [A], then it is wrong to accuse them of believing [A].

Since I have found many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe written by recommended non-Catholic theologians, I thought I should make a statement about this discrepancy and making clear the issue of authoritative teaching.

Let’s begin with two issues of logic I think will be important to consider here, the Straw Man fallacy and the structural problem of drawing a conclusion from false premises.

On the Straw Man Fallacy

While I’ve referenced this fallacy before, I would like to remind the reader of the Straw Man. This is a fallacy where a person’s position, we’ll call it [A] here is misrepresented as [B]. The challenger to [A] then refutes [B] and then claims that he has refuted his opponent.

The problem is, the position was [A] and not [B], so the refutation of [B] has not refuted position [A].

On the Problem with False Premises

From here, we need to move forward to one of the principles of logic: If the Premises are False, and the Argument is Valid, then the Conclusion is Unknown. In other words, if the premises are false, even if the argument has a logical form which is correct, we cannot prove the conclusion is true from the argument because false premises do not prove truth (“You can’t get there from here.”) It is only if the premises are true and the argument is valid that we can say the conclusion is true.

So what?

So some of you might be wondering what this has to do with anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura vs. the authority claimed by the Church that I’m supposed to be getting into (and I admit, when I got into writing this series, I had no idea how long it would stretch out). Others, who have followed me for awhile are probably wondering where I am going with these preliminary definitions.

The importance is, just because someone says a thing about Church teaching does not make it so. If a person misrepresents what the Church teaches (willfully or accidentally — what needs to be recognized is the fact of misrepresentation, not the motive) then any “refutation” of that misrepresentation does not refute the Catholic teaching. Moreover, if these misrepresentations are used as premises in an argument against Catholic teaching it means that because the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be proven true.

Thus before attacking the Catholic position (or for that matter, any position), we need to be certain that the source used accurately understands and interprets what the Catholic Church believes.

Preliminary: Dissent from Church is Different than Denominational Disputes

One trend I notice is that sometimes a non-Catholic cites a dissident Catholic as an alternate view within Catholicism to support their view that the Church errs.  I don't think this is done with malice to present a distorted view (unlike the anti-Catholic vitriol which exists out there), but rather because there is a misunderstanding on the authority of the Church to teach for the faith vs. dissenting views where one claims the Church got it wrong.

If I understand it correctly, within Protestantism there are differing opinions on what is the right way to interpret the Bible for example.  Within Protestantism, there are different movements, including Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Non-Denominationalism, certain Mainline denominations, Liberal Protestantism (I'm talking about the school of thought, not Protestants who happen to be politically liberal) and so on.  However, a person writing about Protestantism in general could discuss different "movements," within Protestantism, and nobody would object to the idea that such a view is within the general umbrella of Protestantism even if they disagree with one or more of those views.

For example, Arminianism is in dispute with Calvinism on the role of Free Will. From what I have seen on internet articles, I get the feeling there is no love lost between them (and yes I freely admit my perspective is that of an outsider — which will lead to a point to consider below). However, people within Protestantism do not appear to view holding one or the other view as ceasing to be Protestant[1]. Instead, if someone cites a view one disagrees with the common reply is “They don’t speak for me,” and nobody accuses them of denying what is inconvenient.  Why?  Because we recognize the person who says this does not recognize said view as authoritative.

On Official Teaching vs. Dissent

Exactly, and the Catholic objection to the citation of a dissenter is, “They don’t speak for the Church.”

Since we believe that the Magisterium (the college of Bishops in communion with the Pope and never apart from him) has the authority to determine what is and what is not in keeping with the Catholic faith, anyone writing on the what the Catholic faith teaches (myself included) has credibility only through accurately explaining the magisterial teaching.

Therefore, if you have a theologian who claims to be a Catholic but teaches in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself, one cannot say the dissenter is teaching Catholic Theology, even if he is a Catholic teaching theology.  Fr. Küng has taught in direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches to be true.  As a result he has been stripped of their license to teach as Catholic Theologians. (I mention Küng by name because his book Infallibility? seems to be popular with non-Catholics who disagree with the Catholic teaching on the subject).

A good document to read on the subject of the role of the theologian within the Catholic Church can be found here.  The point is if, for example, Fr. Küng says one thing about Catholic teaching and the Pope formally teaches another, you don't have two views on Catholicism.  You have one right view (the Pope's) and one wrong view (Fr. Küng's).

Because of this, the person who cites the dissenting Catholic against the Magisterium does not have a case against the Magisterium. (Certain Protestant theologians who like to cite Fr. Küng against the Magisterium fall into this error).

Furthermore, It is the Magisterial Teaching and not the Non-Catholic's Interpretation of Church Teaching which is Authoritative

Since it is the magisterial teaching, not the interpretation from the outside, which matters, the same principle applies to outside commentator on Catholic teaching: it is only correct if his interpretation matches what the Church believes. 

Therefore, the denunciation of the Catholic Position cannot be considered proven true if it is based on a non-authoritative source which disagrees with the magisterium, or if the non-Catholic misstates or misunderstands the teaching as taught by the Magisterium. This includes the ex-Catholic who has left the Church. He does not bear special witness for having once been a Catholic unless his claims match what the magisterium teaches and intends with its teaching.

The Reason for this Explanation

The reason I bring this up is not to attack Protestantism.  Rather I want to point out that dissent differs from denominational disputes or differences of opinions.  Just because a person claims to be a Catholic does not make his views a valid opinion in challenging the Magisterium.  So if Fr. Küng says a thing on Scripture or Infallibility, if it contradicts the official teaching of the Church, it is not an alternate view, but an erroneous view.

Likewise the non-Catholic or the ex-Catholic who says something about the faith which we do not believe, then his statements are wrong whether he believes them to be true or not.

As a result, when it comes to determining the Catholic teaching on a subject, one looks to what the Church officially says and not how it might have been stated or misstated by a member within the Church.

Conclusion

The point of this (possibly repetitious) article is to make the reader aware of the fact that whatever the motive may be (good will or bad). A person writing about Catholicism can be in error if they misunderstand. Therefore any claims against the Catholic teaching needs to be investigated first of all to see if it is what we believe before assuming what is true.

---

[1] There is always an exception to the rule. For example, while I have heard Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Protestant, most Protestants would not accept that claim. I think they are right on this, and would not label these groups “Protestant.”

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IVc): Who Speaks for the Church?

The Series So Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III
13. Article IVb

Introduction

As I mentioned in Interlude III; I have come across in my research of those explaining Sola Scriptura, a tendency to contrast what they believe with what they say Catholics believe about Scripture. 

The arguments sometimes used are of the type that: because the Catholic Church believes [A], they cannot be considered infallible or even (on occasion) authentically Christian.  However, if the Catholic Church teaches [B] and not [A], then it is wrong to accuse them of believing [A].

Since I have found many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe written by recommended non-Catholic theologians, I thought I should make a statement about this discrepancy and making clear the issue of authoritative teaching.

Let’s begin with two issues of logic I think will be important to consider here, the Straw Man fallacy and the structural problem of drawing a conclusion from false premises.

On the Straw Man Fallacy

While I’ve referenced this fallacy before, I would like to remind the reader of the Straw Man. This is a fallacy where a person’s position, we’ll call it [A] here is misrepresented as [B]. The challenger to [A] then refutes [B] and then claims that he has refuted his opponent.

The problem is, the position was [A] and not [B], so the refutation of [B] has not refuted position [A].

On the Problem with False Premises

From here, we need to move forward to one of the principles of logic: If the Premises are False, and the Argument is Valid, then the Conclusion is Unknown. In other words, if the premises are false, even if the argument has a logical form which is correct, we cannot prove the conclusion is true from the argument because false premises do not prove truth (“You can’t get there from here.”) It is only if the premises are true and the argument is valid that we can say the conclusion is true.

So what?

So some of you might be wondering what this has to do with anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura vs. the authority claimed by the Church that I’m supposed to be getting into (and I admit, when I got into writing this series, I had no idea how long it would stretch out). Others, who have followed me for awhile are probably wondering where I am going with these preliminary definitions.

The importance is, just because someone says a thing about Church teaching does not make it so. If a person misrepresents what the Church teaches (willfully or accidentally — what needs to be recognized is the fact of misrepresentation, not the motive) then any “refutation” of that misrepresentation does not refute the Catholic teaching. Moreover, if these misrepresentations are used as premises in an argument against Catholic teaching it means that because the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be proven true.

Thus before attacking the Catholic position (or for that matter, any position), we need to be certain that the source used accurately understands and interprets what the Catholic Church believes.

Preliminary: Dissent from Church is Different than Denominational Disputes

One trend I notice is that sometimes a non-Catholic cites a dissident Catholic as an alternate view within Catholicism to support their view that the Church errs.  I don't think this is done with malice to present a distorted view (unlike the anti-Catholic vitriol which exists out there), but rather because there is a misunderstanding on the authority of the Church to teach for the faith vs. dissenting views where one claims the Church got it wrong.

If I understand it correctly, within Protestantism there are differing opinions on what is the right way to interpret the Bible for example.  Within Protestantism, there are different movements, including Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Non-Denominationalism, certain Mainline denominations, Liberal Protestantism (I'm talking about the school of thought, not Protestants who happen to be politically liberal) and so on.  However, a person writing about Protestantism in general could discuss different "movements," within Protestantism, and nobody would object to the idea that such a view is within the general umbrella of Protestantism even if they disagree with one or more of those views.

For example, Arminianism is in dispute with Calvinism on the role of Free Will. From what I have seen on internet articles, I get the feeling there is no love lost between them (and yes I freely admit my perspective is that of an outsider — which will lead to a point to consider below). However, people within Protestantism do not appear to view holding one or the other view as ceasing to be Protestant[1]. Instead, if someone cites a view one disagrees with the common reply is “They don’t speak for me,” and nobody accuses them of denying what is inconvenient.  Why?  Because we recognize the person who says this does not recognize said view as authoritative.

On Official Teaching vs. Dissent

Exactly, and the Catholic objection to the citation of a dissenter is, “They don’t speak for the Church.”

Since we believe that the Magisterium (the college of Bishops in communion with the Pope and never apart from him) has the authority to determine what is and what is not in keeping with the Catholic faith, anyone writing on the what the Catholic faith teaches (myself included) has credibility only through accurately explaining the magisterial teaching.

Therefore, if you have a theologian who claims to be a Catholic but teaches in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself, one cannot say the dissenter is teaching Catholic Theology, even if he is a Catholic teaching theology.  Fr. Küng has taught in direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches to be true.  As a result he has been stripped of their license to teach as Catholic Theologians. (I mention Küng by name because his book Infallibility? seems to be popular with non-Catholics who disagree with the Catholic teaching on the subject).

A good document to read on the subject of the role of the theologian within the Catholic Church can be found here.  The point is if, for example, Fr. Küng says one thing about Catholic teaching and the Pope formally teaches another, you don't have two views on Catholicism.  You have one right view (the Pope's) and one wrong view (Fr. Küng's).

Because of this, the person who cites the dissenting Catholic against the Magisterium does not have a case against the Magisterium. (Certain Protestant theologians who like to cite Fr. Küng against the Magisterium fall into this error).

Furthermore, It is the Magisterial Teaching and not the Non-Catholic's Interpretation of Church Teaching which is Authoritative

Since it is the magisterial teaching, not the interpretation from the outside, which matters, the same principle applies to outside commentator on Catholic teaching: it is only correct if his interpretation matches what the Church believes. 

Therefore, the denunciation of the Catholic Position cannot be considered proven true if it is based on a non-authoritative source which disagrees with the magisterium, or if the non-Catholic misstates or misunderstands the teaching as taught by the Magisterium. This includes the ex-Catholic who has left the Church. He does not bear special witness for having once been a Catholic unless his claims match what the magisterium teaches and intends with its teaching.

The Reason for this Explanation

The reason I bring this up is not to attack Protestantism.  Rather I want to point out that dissent differs from denominational disputes or differences of opinions.  Just because a person claims to be a Catholic does not make his views a valid opinion in challenging the Magisterium.  So if Fr. Küng says a thing on Scripture or Infallibility, if it contradicts the official teaching of the Church, it is not an alternate view, but an erroneous view.

Likewise the non-Catholic or the ex-Catholic who says something about the faith which we do not believe, then his statements are wrong whether he believes them to be true or not.

As a result, when it comes to determining the Catholic teaching on a subject, one looks to what the Church officially says and not how it might have been stated or misstated by a member within the Church.

Conclusion

The point of this (possibly repetitious) article is to make the reader aware of the fact that whatever the motive may be (good will or bad). A person writing about Catholicism can be in error if they misunderstand. Therefore any claims against the Catholic teaching needs to be investigated first of all to see if it is what we believe before assuming what is true.

---

[1] There is always an exception to the rule. For example, while I have heard Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Protestant, most Protestants would not accept that claim. I think they are right on this, and would not label these groups “Protestant.”