Do Not Spit in Our Face and Tell Us It Is Raining: More Thoughts On Dissent

"Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining"

—Old Yiddish Saying.

 

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is not a Triumphalist "Love it or leave it" article.  I do not want people to leave the Church.  Rather I wish for them to consider the serious nature of rejecting Church authority.

A good article to consider can be found HERE.

An excellent book to read on the topic of conscience can be found HERE.

Also please keep in mind I am not talking about disagreeing with some wingnut priest or nun who teaches contrary to the Church or lives contrary to her teachings.  Nor am I talking about whether some priest or nun agrees or disagrees with Glen Beck or some other political commentator one likes or dislikes.  I am speaking here of dissent from the formal teachings of the Church on issues of faith and morals.

Introduction: Catholicism and Disagreement.  How it Differs From Non-Catholic Disagreement

One way that Catholicism differs from other Christian denominations is over the issue of dissent.  For example, the Protestant who dislikes how his denomination interprets Scripture can just go and begin attending services at another denomination which interprets Scripture as he thinks is right.  He'll still be considered a Protestant in good standing.  The Baptist and the Methodist may disagree on issues, but one does not think the other is any less a Protestant for being in a different denomination.

However, the Catholic who either begins to attend services at another denomination either breaks from the Church (formal schism) or merely lives in a way contrary to the Church teaching cannot claim that his or her actions are in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

The reason for this difference is that Catholics believe that there is a living Magisterium which continues to pass on the teachings of the Apostles, passing on the truth and rejecting error.  For Catholics, the faith is not a matter of personal interpretation, but involves objective truth, which cannot be in contradiction to other truths.  Since we believe that Christ is God, it follows that we must obey Him to be faithful to His call (John 15:10).

The Wedge of Dissent

Because dissenters cannot claim their actions are in keeping with the teaching of the Church, dissenting Catholics seek to place a wedge between Christ and the Catholic Church, saying that the Church is not doing what God wills, while the dissenter is doing what God wills.

Such a claim needs to provide proofs to justify how one can say the Church got it wrong for so long, but the dissenter figured it out on his own.

Now, it is one thing for a non-Catholic to believe the Church does not do what God wills.  I believe such a non-Catholic errs of course but, since he or she does not believe that the Catholic Church is established by Christ, the non-Catholic who thinks this way is at least practicing what they preach.

It is far less justifiable for the Catholic to believe in this way.  If we believe that God is the supreme authority in the universe whom we are obligated to obey, and that Jesus Christ, His Son, is one person of the Trinity, it follows that what Jesus teaches, we are obligated to obey.  Since we, as Catholics, believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and established that not listening to the Church is the same as not listening to Him (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16), the person who thinks they may ignore the teachings of the Church they dislike must asses their behavior as they seem to fall in one of these categories:

1. They do not understand what the Church actually teaches and rebel against a Straw Man
2. They do not consider the ramifications of their behavior
3. They do not believe what the Church teaches about her relation to Christ.

The rest of this article is intended to look at these motivations, and what logically follows from them in terms of doing what is right.

The Dissenter Who Acts out of Ignorance

There are certainly those who rebel against what they wrongly believe the Church teaches.  There are those who left the Church because they believe we "worship" Mary.  There are those who denounce the Church as cruel because they do not see why the Church teaches the way they do.

The problem is, such behavior is built on logical fallacy.  Those who impute to the Catholic Church something she does not believe are rejecting authority over the Straw Man fallacy: If the Church does not hold what the dissenter claims, the dissenter has no logical grounds in his attack.

As for those who do not understand what the Church teaching, they are under the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Just because this sort of dissenter does not understand why the Church teaches as it does, it does not mean the Church does not have a valid reason.  Certainly the person who would dissent from the Church is obligated to look into what the Church does teach, and not merely what the dissenter thinks the Church teaches.

All too often the Church has been accused of teaching it does not teach, simply because secular society uses a similar term and uses it in a different context.  Thus, when the Church speaks of Social Justice, she is often accused of being liberal.  When the Church speaks of moral issues, she is often accused of simply being "Right Wing."

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are what we call Contrary terms.  The Church cannot be both, but it can be "none of the above"  Indeed, if both political factions accuse it of being in the other faction, the odds are good it belongs to neither.

As a result some dissenters reject the Church teaching, not for what she teaches, but for what the dissenter wrongly believes the Church teaches.

In such a case, the dissenter will face God and be judged on what he or she could have known if the dissenter had bothered to check.  The person who would find it impossible to learn (called invincible ignorance) won't be judged for what they could not know.

The dissenter who could have learned but refused to do so will not get off so lightly. If the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established (and we Catholics do believe this), then it follows the Catholic has no excuse for his or her lack of knowledge of what is right to do.

Keeping this in mind, we have our first principle:

Before setting oneself in opposition to Church teaching, one should check and see what the Church actually teaches on the subject.  "I do not know," is NOT a valid principle for dissent.

Those who do not consider the ramifications of their Dissent

—Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

Many people who dissent do not do so because they think the Catholic teaching untrue.  Rather they never go beyond thinking the Catholic teaching is difficult.  The assumption is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), He doesn't want us to suffer difficulties, and therefore anything which inconveniences us must be against what God wills."

Think about the martyrs who died for the faith rather than to deny God.  Then think of this dissenting view again.  Since death is indeed suffering and is difficult, and we are indeed called to suffer death rather than to deny Him, we can see a huge problem with the assumption.  Either the martyrs were grossly insensitive to those they left behind or else the "God doesn't want me to suffer difficulties" concept is a misstating of what God wants for us.

—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. (Didache Chapter 1)

We need to realize that God wants us to be holy as He is holy (cf. Leviticus 19:2), and in His love for us, He wants for us to be with Him eternally.  However, some things which may seem good to us set us apart from God and will separate us from Him eternally if we choose to do them.  To love God means to keep his commandments (John 14:15), and as Catholics we believe that God established a Church in order to preach His word to the nations.

As human beings affected by sin, we need to recognize that we are prone to self deception, thinking of what we may want as the ultimate good.  To avoid this, we need to seek humility, to recognize that what may seem good to us personally may not be what God wants for us.

As Catholics we are called to accept her teachings as being bound in Heaven (Matthew 16:19), and that when we run afoul of the teachings of the Church, it is not the Church being mean, but us being self-deceived.

From this we have a second principle:

Before accusing the Church of being in the wrong, we must find out whether we are confusing our personal desires with God's will.

On Those Who Do Not Believe What the Church Teaches About Herself

Personally I find this position extremely illogical, even hypocritical.  The Catholic Church believes she is the Church established by Christ, and that she does have the authority to bind and loose.  If one does not believe this, then the ramifications are severe.  It would mean that the Church teaches falsely.  We can indeed use CS. Lewis' famous aut deus aut homo malus argument in this case [Please do not think I am comparing the Church with God here.  I am merely pointing out that accepting or rejecting her claims have logical consequences]:

Either the Church is what she teaches about herself, or she is a horrible fraud to be repudiated.

While I disagree with anti-Catholics, I recognize they are at least logically consistent.  Because they reject what she claims about herself, they believe they must oppose her.  The dissenting Catholic who remains within while believing she teaches falsely seeks the benefits of the Church while denying what the Church holds.

Such behavior would be hypocrisy.  To put it in a syllogism, we have:

1. [Faithful Catholics] Accept [All Church Teaching]  (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Dissenters] accept [All Church Teaching] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore No [Dissenters] are [Faithful Catholics] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

To get out of this dilemma, the dissenter has to deny the major premise and claim it is they who are faithful to Christ while the Church is "out of touch" or "bureaucratic."

Let it be noted, by the way, that these are merely examples of name calling, not refutations.

There are two problems: One is of logic, the other is of practicing what they preach.

The logical issue is that if one wishes to claim themselves correct and the magisterium in error (remember we are not speaking of what Fr. Harry Tik says in a sermon or what Sr. Mary Flowerchild says in some classroom, but of what the Church officially professes to believe), we need to ask, "On what basis?"

Unfortunately the dissenter tends to argue in a circle begging the question.

• Q: Why do you oppose the Church teaching on contraception? [Or abortion, or divorce, or social justice… ad infinitum].
• A: Because the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch!
• Q: Why do you believe the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch?
• A: Because if they were following Jesus they would have a different teaching on contraception!

See the problem here?  The dissenter believes the Church stand on an issue shows the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch.  It believes the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch because of her stand on that issue.  The problem is such a claim does not show the Church is wrong for making the stand that it does.  Rather it merely demonstrates the dissenter dislikes the teaching, and this is not a valid reason for denying the Church teaching.

There is also a problem with consistency.  If you believe the Church teaches falsely, then why the hell are you still in this Church?

I don't ask this facetiously.  If the Church teaches wrongly, and if we are to follow the truth and live according to it, why remain in a body which one thinks teaches wrongly?  For example, I am not a member of the Catholic Church because I like the architecture or the liturgy.  I'm not a person looking for a father figure and domination in my life.  No, there is one reason I remain within the Catholic Church despite the problems she has:

I believe what she teaches is true, and is taught with the authority of Christ who protects her from error.

If I believed she did not teach truly, I would be searching for someplace where I thought they did teach truly.  If I believed she did not have the authority to teach, I would be looking for the Church that did. I do not believe that Christ left us in spiritual anarchy where there are conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

This brings us to our third principle:

If one rejects the Catholic teaching that her formal teachings on faith and morals are without error, to remain within her is inconsistent, and possibly hypocritical.

Practice What You Preach

Since Jesus Christ has declared He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), and since we believe we are called to know, love and serve God (See CCC#1721), it follows that we must not live in error.  Rather, once we know something is true, we must live in accord with the Truth, and if we know something is false, we must cease to live by it.

Questions for the Would Be Dissenter

Because of this obligation to know, love and serve God, it means we must always seek to do His will.  Thus when it comes to dissent, the one who is at odds with the Church must ask some questions:

1) Do I understand the teaching I reject? 

Because we must recognize the possibility of our own errors, we need to ask ourselves if we truly understand the Church teaching which offends.  If one does not, one's dissent is based on ignorance and is not justified.

2) Do I understand the ramifications of rejecting a Church teaching?

To reject a Church teaching means one is either knowingly doing wrong, or else is believing the Church is wrong.  The first case is clearly sin.  The second requires the dissenter to answer the question of what use of reason or authority he or she uses to justify rejection of the Church teaching, and how the dissenter knows he or she does not err.

3) Do I consider the Church teaching to be wrong?  Or merely Difficult?

Jesus taught that His yoke is easy and His burden Light (Matthew 11:30), but it does remain a yoke.  We are not free to do whatever we wish:  We cannot use our freedom for the opportunity of the flesh (Galatians 5:13).  Sometimes we must choose a hard path, such as Martyrdom, rather than deny our faith (cf. 2 Tim 2:12).  Christ has told us "whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38).

Just because a teaching may be inconvenient does not give us the right to disobey it.  If it is from God, we must obey it.  This brings us to our fourth question.

4) Do I believe the Church has Christ as her authority to teach?

As Catholics, it is an article of faith that Jesus intended to establish a visible Church which has the authority to teach in His name and to bind and to loose.  If one accepts this, one who runs afoul of her teachings must remember it is far more likely that the individual errs than the Church.

However, if one rejects this (and if the Church is wrong in her belief that Christ protects her from error, this is a pretty big delusion on the part of the Church), to remain within the Church is to demonstrate an indifference to doing what is right. 

Conclusion: Don't Spit In Our Face and Tell Us It's Raining

Essentially the Dissenter is a person who refuses to obey and considers themselves in the right for doing so.  However, reason tells us that if such a person professes to believe what the Church teaches then he or she errs when breaking with what the Church teaches in faith and morals, and is obligated to study the teaching he or she dislikes to understand why it is taught.

However, if the dissenter rejects the belief that God protects His Church from error, and her teaching is merely an opinion then the dissenter is demonstrating an inconsistency in remaining in the Church that makes such a claim.

In both cases, the dissenter displays error:

1. In the first case, for claiming to believe the Church is protected from error while rejecting her teachings.
2. In the second case for remaining within a Church they believe claim teaches falsely when she claims to be teaching truthfully.

This is why I have titled the article as I have.  The dissenter who justifies dissent from the Church while remaining within her is not living according to their beliefs.  They spit in the face of the Church through disobedience then claim that it is raining in that they claim they are doing God's will in doing so.

The dissenter should consider the ground they are on:

^{24 }“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

^25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

^26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

^27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

On what basis are you certain your house is built on rock and not sand.

Do Not Spit in Our Face and Tell Us It Is Raining: More Thoughts On Dissent

"Don't spit in my face and tell me it's raining"

—Old Yiddish Saying.

 

Preliminary Disclaimer

This article is not a Triumphalist "Love it or leave it" article.  I do not want people to leave the Church.  Rather I wish for them to consider the serious nature of rejecting Church authority.

A good article to consider can be found HERE.

An excellent book to read on the topic of conscience can be found HERE.

Also please keep in mind I am not talking about disagreeing with some wingnut priest or nun who teaches contrary to the Church or lives contrary to her teachings.  Nor am I talking about whether some priest or nun agrees or disagrees with Glen Beck or some other political commentator one likes or dislikes.  I am speaking here of dissent from the formal teachings of the Church on issues of faith and morals.

Introduction: Catholicism and Disagreement.  How it Differs From Non-Catholic Disagreement

One way that Catholicism differs from other Christian denominations is over the issue of dissent.  For example, the Protestant who dislikes how his denomination interprets Scripture can just go and begin attending services at another denomination which interprets Scripture as he thinks is right.  He'll still be considered a Protestant in good standing.  The Baptist and the Methodist may disagree on issues, but one does not think the other is any less a Protestant for being in a different denomination.

However, the Catholic who either begins to attend services at another denomination either breaks from the Church (formal schism) or merely lives in a way contrary to the Church teaching cannot claim that his or her actions are in keeping with the teachings of the Church.

The reason for this difference is that Catholics believe that there is a living Magisterium which continues to pass on the teachings of the Apostles, passing on the truth and rejecting error.  For Catholics, the faith is not a matter of personal interpretation, but involves objective truth, which cannot be in contradiction to other truths.  Since we believe that Christ is God, it follows that we must obey Him to be faithful to His call (John 15:10).

The Wedge of Dissent

Because dissenters cannot claim their actions are in keeping with the teaching of the Church, dissenting Catholics seek to place a wedge between Christ and the Catholic Church, saying that the Church is not doing what God wills, while the dissenter is doing what God wills.

Such a claim needs to provide proofs to justify how one can say the Church got it wrong for so long, but the dissenter figured it out on his own.

Now, it is one thing for a non-Catholic to believe the Church does not do what God wills.  I believe such a non-Catholic errs of course but, since he or she does not believe that the Catholic Church is established by Christ, the non-Catholic who thinks this way is at least practicing what they preach.

It is far less justifiable for the Catholic to believe in this way.  If we believe that God is the supreme authority in the universe whom we are obligated to obey, and that Jesus Christ, His Son, is one person of the Trinity, it follows that what Jesus teaches, we are obligated to obey.  Since we, as Catholics, believe that Jesus Christ established a Church and established that not listening to the Church is the same as not listening to Him (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16), the person who thinks they may ignore the teachings of the Church they dislike must asses their behavior as they seem to fall in one of these categories:

1. They do not understand what the Church actually teaches and rebel against a Straw Man
2. They do not consider the ramifications of their behavior
3. They do not believe what the Church teaches about her relation to Christ.

The rest of this article is intended to look at these motivations, and what logically follows from them in terms of doing what is right.

The Dissenter Who Acts out of Ignorance

There are certainly those who rebel against what they wrongly believe the Church teaches.  There are those who left the Church because they believe we "worship" Mary.  There are those who denounce the Church as cruel because they do not see why the Church teaches the way they do.

The problem is, such behavior is built on logical fallacy.  Those who impute to the Catholic Church something she does not believe are rejecting authority over the Straw Man fallacy: If the Church does not hold what the dissenter claims, the dissenter has no logical grounds in his attack.

As for those who do not understand what the Church teaching, they are under the Argument from Silence fallacy.  Just because this sort of dissenter does not understand why the Church teaches as it does, it does not mean the Church does not have a valid reason.  Certainly the person who would dissent from the Church is obligated to look into what the Church does teach, and not merely what the dissenter thinks the Church teaches.

All too often the Church has been accused of teaching it does not teach, simply because secular society uses a similar term and uses it in a different context.  Thus, when the Church speaks of Social Justice, she is often accused of being liberal.  When the Church speaks of moral issues, she is often accused of simply being "Right Wing."

"Liberal" and "Conservative" are what we call Contrary terms.  The Church cannot be both, but it can be "none of the above"  Indeed, if both political factions accuse it of being in the other faction, the odds are good it belongs to neither.

As a result some dissenters reject the Church teaching, not for what she teaches, but for what the dissenter wrongly believes the Church teaches.

In such a case, the dissenter will face God and be judged on what he or she could have known if the dissenter had bothered to check.  The person who would find it impossible to learn (called invincible ignorance) won't be judged for what they could not know.

The dissenter who could have learned but refused to do so will not get off so lightly. If the Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus Christ established (and we Catholics do believe this), then it follows the Catholic has no excuse for his or her lack of knowledge of what is right to do.

Keeping this in mind, we have our first principle:

Before setting oneself in opposition to Church teaching, one should check and see what the Church actually teaches on the subject.  "I do not know," is NOT a valid principle for dissent.

Those who do not consider the ramifications of their Dissent

—Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

Many people who dissent do not do so because they think the Catholic teaching untrue.  Rather they never go beyond thinking the Catholic teaching is difficult.  The assumption is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:8), He doesn't want us to suffer difficulties, and therefore anything which inconveniences us must be against what God wills."

Think about the martyrs who died for the faith rather than to deny God.  Then think of this dissenting view again.  Since death is indeed suffering and is difficult, and we are indeed called to suffer death rather than to deny Him, we can see a huge problem with the assumption.  Either the martyrs were grossly insensitive to those they left behind or else the "God doesn't want me to suffer difficulties" concept is a misstating of what God wants for us.

—There are two ways, one of life and one of death, but a great difference between the two ways. The way of life, then, is this: First, you shall love God who made you; second, love your neighbor as yourself, and do not do to another what you would not want done to you. (Didache Chapter 1)

We need to realize that God wants us to be holy as He is holy (cf. Leviticus 19:2), and in His love for us, He wants for us to be with Him eternally.  However, some things which may seem good to us set us apart from God and will separate us from Him eternally if we choose to do them.  To love God means to keep his commandments (John 14:15), and as Catholics we believe that God established a Church in order to preach His word to the nations.

As human beings affected by sin, we need to recognize that we are prone to self deception, thinking of what we may want as the ultimate good.  To avoid this, we need to seek humility, to recognize that what may seem good to us personally may not be what God wants for us.

As Catholics we are called to accept her teachings as being bound in Heaven (Matthew 16:19), and that when we run afoul of the teachings of the Church, it is not the Church being mean, but us being self-deceived.

From this we have a second principle:

Before accusing the Church of being in the wrong, we must find out whether we are confusing our personal desires with God's will.

On Those Who Do Not Believe What the Church Teaches About Herself

Personally I find this position extremely illogical, even hypocritical.  The Catholic Church believes she is the Church established by Christ, and that she does have the authority to bind and loose.  If one does not believe this, then the ramifications are severe.  It would mean that the Church teaches falsely.  We can indeed use CS. Lewis' famous aut deus aut homo malus argument in this case [Please do not think I am comparing the Church with God here.  I am merely pointing out that accepting or rejecting her claims have logical consequences]:

Either the Church is what she teaches about herself, or she is a horrible fraud to be repudiated.

While I disagree with anti-Catholics, I recognize they are at least logically consistent.  Because they reject what she claims about herself, they believe they must oppose her.  The dissenting Catholic who remains within while believing she teaches falsely seeks the benefits of the Church while denying what the Church holds.

Such behavior would be hypocrisy.  To put it in a syllogism, we have:

1. [Faithful Catholics] Accept [All Church Teaching]  (All [A] is [B])
2. No [Dissenters] accept [All Church Teaching] (No [C] is [B])
3. Therefore No [Dissenters] are [Faithful Catholics] (Therefore No [C] is [A])

To get out of this dilemma, the dissenter has to deny the major premise and claim it is they who are faithful to Christ while the Church is "out of touch" or "bureaucratic."

Let it be noted, by the way, that these are merely examples of name calling, not refutations.

There are two problems: One is of logic, the other is of practicing what they preach.

The logical issue is that if one wishes to claim themselves correct and the magisterium in error (remember we are not speaking of what Fr. Harry Tik says in a sermon or what Sr. Mary Flowerchild says in some classroom, but of what the Church officially professes to believe), we need to ask, "On what basis?"

Unfortunately the dissenter tends to argue in a circle begging the question.

• Q: Why do you oppose the Church teaching on contraception? [Or abortion, or divorce, or social justice… ad infinitum].
• A: Because the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch!
• Q: Why do you believe the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch?
• A: Because if they were following Jesus they would have a different teaching on contraception!

See the problem here?  The dissenter believes the Church stand on an issue shows the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch.  It believes the Church is bureaucratic and out of touch because of her stand on that issue.  The problem is such a claim does not show the Church is wrong for making the stand that it does.  Rather it merely demonstrates the dissenter dislikes the teaching, and this is not a valid reason for denying the Church teaching.

There is also a problem with consistency.  If you believe the Church teaches falsely, then why the hell are you still in this Church?

I don't ask this facetiously.  If the Church teaches wrongly, and if we are to follow the truth and live according to it, why remain in a body which one thinks teaches wrongly?  For example, I am not a member of the Catholic Church because I like the architecture or the liturgy.  I'm not a person looking for a father figure and domination in my life.  No, there is one reason I remain within the Catholic Church despite the problems she has:

I believe what she teaches is true, and is taught with the authority of Christ who protects her from error.

If I believed she did not teach truly, I would be searching for someplace where I thought they did teach truly.  If I believed she did not have the authority to teach, I would be looking for the Church that did. I do not believe that Christ left us in spiritual anarchy where there are conflicting interpretations of Scripture.

This brings us to our third principle:

If one rejects the Catholic teaching that her formal teachings on faith and morals are without error, to remain within her is inconsistent, and possibly hypocritical.

Practice What You Preach

Since Jesus Christ has declared He is the Way, the Truth and the Life (John 14:6), and since we believe we are called to know, love and serve God (See CCC#1721), it follows that we must not live in error.  Rather, once we know something is true, we must live in accord with the Truth, and if we know something is false, we must cease to live by it.

Questions for the Would Be Dissenter

Because of this obligation to know, love and serve God, it means we must always seek to do His will.  Thus when it comes to dissent, the one who is at odds with the Church must ask some questions:

1) Do I understand the teaching I reject? 

Because we must recognize the possibility of our own errors, we need to ask ourselves if we truly understand the Church teaching which offends.  If one does not, one's dissent is based on ignorance and is not justified.

2) Do I understand the ramifications of rejecting a Church teaching?

To reject a Church teaching means one is either knowingly doing wrong, or else is believing the Church is wrong.  The first case is clearly sin.  The second requires the dissenter to answer the question of what use of reason or authority he or she uses to justify rejection of the Church teaching, and how the dissenter knows he or she does not err.

3) Do I consider the Church teaching to be wrong?  Or merely Difficult?

Jesus taught that His yoke is easy and His burden Light (Matthew 11:30), but it does remain a yoke.  We are not free to do whatever we wish:  We cannot use our freedom for the opportunity of the flesh (Galatians 5:13).  Sometimes we must choose a hard path, such as Martyrdom, rather than deny our faith (cf. 2 Tim 2:12).  Christ has told us "whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me." (Matthew 10:38).

Just because a teaching may be inconvenient does not give us the right to disobey it.  If it is from God, we must obey it.  This brings us to our fourth question.

4) Do I believe the Church has Christ as her authority to teach?

As Catholics, it is an article of faith that Jesus intended to establish a visible Church which has the authority to teach in His name and to bind and to loose.  If one accepts this, one who runs afoul of her teachings must remember it is far more likely that the individual errs than the Church.

However, if one rejects this (and if the Church is wrong in her belief that Christ protects her from error, this is a pretty big delusion on the part of the Church), to remain within the Church is to demonstrate an indifference to doing what is right. 

Conclusion: Don't Spit In Our Face and Tell Us It's Raining

Essentially the Dissenter is a person who refuses to obey and considers themselves in the right for doing so.  However, reason tells us that if such a person professes to believe what the Church teaches then he or she errs when breaking with what the Church teaches in faith and morals, and is obligated to study the teaching he or she dislikes to understand why it is taught.

However, if the dissenter rejects the belief that God protects His Church from error, and her teaching is merely an opinion then the dissenter is demonstrating an inconsistency in remaining in the Church that makes such a claim.

In both cases, the dissenter displays error:

1. In the first case, for claiming to believe the Church is protected from error while rejecting her teachings.
2. In the second case for remaining within a Church they believe claim teaches falsely when she claims to be teaching truthfully.

This is why I have titled the article as I have.  The dissenter who justifies dissent from the Church while remaining within her is not living according to their beliefs.  They spit in the face of the Church through disobedience then claim that it is raining in that they claim they are doing God's will in doing so.

The dissenter should consider the ground they are on:

^{24 }“Everyone who listens to these words of mine and acts on them will be like a wise man who built his house on rock.

^25 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. But it did not collapse; it had been set solidly on rock.

^26 And everyone who listens to these words of mine but does not act on them will be like a fool who built his house on sand.

^27 The rain fell, the floods came, and the winds blew and buffeted the house. And it collapsed and was completely ruined.” (Matthew 7:24-27)

On what basis are you certain your house is built on rock and not sand.

Morality Immaterial to Law? Thoughts on Legal Positivism

Introduction

Generally there are two approaches to law and the authority it holds:

1.   Law supposes the existence of that which is just and morally right, and depends on this to bind.

2.   Law is based on the power of the state to decree, and those who are subject are bound to obey.

With recent debates on abortion, on the nomination of Kagan to the Supreme Court and other issues of Law, I've noticed that there has been a number of comments (whether knowingly or not) which reflect the position known as Legal Positivism.  Certain laws are considered as being obligatory to obey whether or not one would argue that they are just or not.

What is Legal Positivism?

This position, attributed to John Austin (1790-1859), was described as:

“The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry.”

In other words, whether a law is or is not a law is entirely a separate question from whether a law is good or bad.  The only source of law is "positive law" which is simply "man made laws" and denies the concept of Natural Law.

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy describes the premises of this system as:

According to Bentham and Austin, law is a phenomenon of large societies with a sovereign: a determinate person or group who have supreme and absolute de facto power -- they are obeyed by all or most others but do not themselves similarly obey anyone else. The laws in that society are a subset of the sovereign's commands: general orders that apply to classes of actions and people and that are backed up by threat of force or “sanction.”

It is a dangerous belief.  If you separate law from the legitimacy of said law, you can, in effect, justify anything: Sharia, Nuremburg Racial Laws, Slavery and so on.  Obedience to the law becomes required, because government is the authority which determines what we can and cannot do, and opposing a law on the grounds it is unjust becomes irrelevant.  "Abortion is to be permitted because it is legal" is one of these types of allegations.  Because the Supreme Court decreed that abortion is a right, it is considered immaterial whether or not it should be a law.

Of course we don’t have to invoke the Nazis.  We can look at what we do in America.  For how many years did the government refuse to change laws on lynching or slavery or segregation?

Stare decisis: What’s mine is mine.  What’s yours is up for grabs

We already have the legal concept of Stare decisis (Lat. "to stand by that which is decided." The principle that precedent decisions are to be followed by the courts).  The problem is the assumption is based on the assumption that the prior interpretation of the law by the court is valid.  See Planned Parenthood v. Casey as an example of this.  It assumes Roe v. Wade was a valid decision, and therefore must be followed. 

Such reasoning begs the question that Roe v. Wade was right (which is very much disputed in America).  Before arguing that because it was decreed a right we cannot challenge it (which is often the appeal of the supporters of abortion rights), we should remember the Dred Scott ruling and Plessy vs. Ferguson were also assumed right and later overturned.  Essentially it showed that merely because something was accepted as a law, does not make it binding on these grounds, and that the courts can make mistakes.

However, under Legal Positivism, If it wasn't a valid or wise decision, then it is too bad.  It's a law and must be obeyed.

What Legal Positivism Ignores (and Martin Luther King Jr. was aware of)

The problem is, when one traces the origin of the law, the question arises: Why was it enacted to begin with?  If an unjust law was enacted in the beginning, why are we bound to follow it?

Legal Positivism is then a sense of begging the question.  The concept is: we must obey a law because it is a law.  The so-called Nuremberg Defense ("I was just following orders") assumes legal positivism.  [This is sometimes called the defense of Superior Orders].

Any change of laws becomes binding under this theory so long as the law is followed in the enactment of these laws.  Thus we see a problem.  If the justness or unjustness of a law is irrelevant to the following of the law, then we cannot sanction people like Martin Luther King Jr. when he organized against laws he felt unjust.  Nor can we approve of his defense, given in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, where he stated:

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority.

Instead, "Bull" O'Connor using his police dogs and fire hoses to break up demonstrations was merely undertaking an exercise in upholding the law.

(Hopefully, you’re instead asking yourself what gave the state the right to pass this law to begin with).

The Double Standard

Most people don't consistently advocate Legal Positivism of course.  Only when they run afoul of the law does it matter.  When one believes a law is unjust they generally want to overturn it, claiming it is an immoral and unjust law.  However, under Legal Positivism, one has no legal basis for doing so.  The best one can do is to say "if you don't like it, vote to change the law."  If the law comes from a source from where there is no appeal (the US Supreme Court decisions or from a totalitarian decree), or if the state has disenfranchised you from the right to vote, there is nothing you can do to change said law.

The practical effect of Legal positivism in America is a double standard.  When a party is in power, they point to a law and say "It must be followed because it is a law."  When out of power, they say "This law is unjust and must be changed."  What is ignored is what gives a law its power.  If it is the state, then it follows that rights and restrictions come from the state because of the assumption that law must be obeyed because it is law.  However, if the rights of the human person do not come from the state, then they cannot be removed by a decree of the state.

Thus we have the abortion debate in a nutshell.  Those who believe in abortion rights tend to argue from the position of legal positivism, while those who oppose abortion rights tend to argue that the rights of the human person come from outside the state, and the state has no authority to remove human rights from any human persons.

Conclusion: When Law and Justice Stand In Opposition

Any opposition to a law which says “This is wrong” is a judgment on moral grounds.  Such opposition assumes there is a higher standard to which law must conform if it is to be considered binding.  Generally, we believe that a law must be just (morally right and fair to all) to be obeyed. 

This means we have to practice what we preach.  If one claims that they have to accept abortion as a right because the state has decreed it to be a right, it is a package deal meaning there is no way to refuse anything else the state wishes to decree.  On the other hand, if we want to invoke a higher standard for judging the law, we must remain consistent and recognize such a standard always holds us accountable for our behavior.

In both cases, it falls to the proponent to show that their view of the law is justified.  Unfortunately, all too often we see people deny (without logical proof) that there are moral absolutes outside of us and then conclude the contrary view is true: that there is no moral standards by which the law is judged.

Not believing [A] does not disprove [A].  Nor does it make [B] automatically true.

Deus Vult! (Therefore the Church MUST be wrong): Reflections on Cafeteria Catholicism

Introduction

[Preliminary Note: In this article I am dealing with the attacks on the official teachings of the Church and not the actions of an individual who is in a Church office who does wrong in the application of what the Church teaches.]

In a past article I dealt with the issue of authority in the Catholic Church, and how the belief that the Church was established with the authority to bind and loose.  I asked then, why a person would want to belong to a Church which claimed this if they did not believe it, because if it was not true, it is a pretty monstrous claim.

Yet we do have a phenomenon within the Church which we know as "Cafeteria Catholicism."  The principle is a person accepts only those parts of the faith they believe in, and reject those issues (normally of morality, but sometimes on doctrine too) they disagree with.

In all of these cases, we see that the Church is claimed to be in the wrong when it disagrees with person X on their behavior.

Thus we see things like the Pope is called "cruel" for not allowing condoms to prevent AIDS.  We see the Church called cruel for requiring Catholics to behave morally, for opposing “gay marriage” and so on.  We see the Church position on contraception and abortion called "cruel" because it "forces" a woman to die in childbirth or have too many children.  We see the Church position on divorce and remarriage "cruel" because they insist that Christ forbids divorce if the marriage is valid.

In all of these cases, we see people claim “God must want me to do X "because I would be unhappy if I did not get my way.”   The enthymeme (unspoken assumption) of this argument being, "God wants me to be materially happy."  Thus we see people say in effect Deus vult! (“God Wills It!”) If the Church disagrees, then the Church must be wrong.

There is a problem in all of these cases, but the problem is not with the Church.

Anger  is Directed at the Church for doing what she believes she must do

Many of the stances the Church holds, she holds simply because she believes she must do so if she is to be faithful to Christ. She rejects certain positions set forth by the world, such as not accepting the use of condoms to “stop” the spread of AIDS; such as refusing to sanction the marriage between two individuals of the same sex; such as refusing to sanction remarriage if the first marriage was valid and both spouses are alive.

Now I have no doubt that many people think an “exception” should be made or the Church “policy” [a loaded term to make it seem like a merely human rule], and in many cases the emotion they feel is quite real.

All the sad stories about AIDS sufferers, Lesbians in Love [ever notice how it’s always two women who are used as an example… never two men?], divorced persons wanting to remarry have the same refrain: “The Church won’t let us do X!”

The problem with this tired old refrain is the Church believes she cannot change what she says because to do so would be unfaithful to God. Therefore, the demand for the Church to change is in fact a demand that the Church be unfaithful to what she believes God requires.

This is, in a word, selfishness.

A person may disagree with what the Church believes of course, but they can’t claim their view is “more Catholic” in doing so. Let’s go back to the premise of how Catholicism differs from other religions. We believe that the Catholic Church is the Church directly established by Christ with a visible head with the authority to bind and loose. This does not mean that the Church can go and abolish one of the Ten Commandments tomorrow. The Church believes her authority to bind and loose can only be used in service to God, and not independently of God.

The Misinterpretation of “God is Love" (and therefore He wouldn’t stop me from doing what I want)

One of the most annoying counterarguments against the Church is the taking out of context of “God is Love.” (from 1 John 4:16). Taken from the concept of we must love our brother, “God is Love” is turned into saying “God is Nice.” God, in this view, is non-threatening, He makes no demands. He only wants us to be happy here on Earth and is willing to bend His rules even though His silly Church won’t.

Excuse me, but this is not the God of the Bible at all. This is the God of Hallmark sentiments. It is actually a blasphemous view of God which negates what Christ did on the Cross for us.  It ignores the possibility of our being sinners.

God does indeed love us. When Adam and Eve broke away from God, God was under no obligation to bring salvation to us. Yet He did send His Son to save us. However, the message of Christ was not “An’ ye harm none, do what you will” (a popular Wiccan saying). It was “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). God loves us unconditionally to be sure. When one of us falls away, He desires to bring us back (see Luke 15:4). However the imagery God uses is that He goes out and brings back. We who sin are in the wrong place, and He goes to bring us back to the right place.

Love is not sentimentalism. Love seeks the greatest good for the beloved. Sometimes, it must be “tough love.” Love cannot sacrifice truth because no falsehood can be good, and no good thing can be false. So when the beloved wants something harmful, the lover must at times say “Because I love you, I cannot do X.”

The Church Has Other Motivations Than “Being Mean.”

Now, agree with the Church or disagree, at least accept that when the Church draws a line in the sand, it is not for the sake of being “cruel.” Rather it is because she believes that this is the right place as decreed by God.

Disagreement with the Church is therefore a rejection (whether intended or not) of the Church values and a demand she behave differently because what the Church believes is “not important” in relation to what the individual wants.  Thus the argument that the Church should permit condoms is a claim that continence is unimportant because we can’t help acting like crazed weasels in heat. The claim that the Church should permit remarriage if a spouse has been unfaithful is a rejection of the Church belief that if a marriage is valid, the Church cannot remarry a person already married. If the Church refuses to sanction homosexual “marriage” it is because she believes God has forbade homosexual acts.  If she condemns abortion as evil, it is not because she wants to control women.  It is because she believes the unborn child is a living human person.

All the appeals to emotion one wants to dredge up are irrelevant.  If God has commanded certain things are intrinsically evil (always wrong) then the Church may not make changes with them.

In all of these cases, we see the insistence that the Church act in defiance to what she believes God commands. This is not calling on the Church to become “more like Christ.” It is (willed or not) the non servium of the Devil saying “I reject the value you insist on!”

“But… God wants me to be happy!”

This is another argument which is thrown around, which makes God into a fuzzy Santa Claus. God desires us to be happy yes. However He knows that not all things we desire will make us happy in the light of the fact we possess an immortal soul. We were made for eternity with God. We were also made with free will. Because of this, we have the ability, but not the right, to behave in a way contrary to what He decrees.

Temporary happiness which will lead to separation from God for eternity is not something God wants for us.  God is good, and there is no evil or imperfection in Him. We, on the other hand, are imperfect and sometimes desire worthless or harmful things with the thinking it is a good thing. The wicked things will not bring us closer to God, regardless of whether it “feels” right or not. How many times have we seen children want what is harmful for them? They think the parent is “mean” because he or she will not indulge the child. However, sometimes the parent must refuse the child something which will not be good for the child.

Sometimes God must command we do not do a certain thing, much as we might want to. The Church, believing what Christ says about “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” must be faithful to what she believes God commands.

Misunderstanding what the Church Teaches

Not all dissent is born of defiance. Some is born out of ignorance. There are many times when a person does not understand why the Church holds a thing and thus claims what the Church does must be wrong. While the motive might be less willful, it does not excuse the person for rejecting what the Church holds.

GK Chesterton once wrote, in the article "The Drift from Domesticity" found in the book Brave New Family (Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53):

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 is an excellent point. “Reform for the sake of reform” is foolish. Before one can make a change, one must remember that one needs to understand the intent of the original position. Otherwise the result is “unintended consequences” and the like.

This is the difference between Vatican II and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” In Vatican II, the Church understood that there were some important beliefs of the Church being smothered in an attitude of clericalism (“let the priests do it”) and laity wrongly elevating certain customs to the level of dogma. In the “Spirit of Vatican II” we had some clergy and laity say, “I don’t see the sense of this… let’s get rid of it.”

However, before putting oneself in opposition to a Church teaching, one is obligated to find out what the Church teaches and why.

If one has a problem, one has to see why such a rule was made, rather than employing the "argument from silence" fallacy and assuming that because one does not know the reason for a rule it must be arbitrary.

By all means ask for help in seeking understanding.  But recognize the possibility of error in your own a priori assumptions as well.  If the Church is given the authority to bind and to loose and the Church is protected from teaching error (Look up Humani Generis #21: This is not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements), then the person who disagrees with the Church needs to ask whether the disagreement stems from the Church being fundamentally wrong or whether it stems from the individual being fundamentally wrong.

A Personal Example of Not Knowing Why

Here's a personal example.  Back in the late 1990s I was doing a paper on Charles Curran.  One of his arguments against the Church position on contraception was that because the Church position on money lending had changed, the position on contraception could be changed as well.  I couldn't find an answer to this question, though it sounded wrong.  For about seven years I could not find an answer to this quandary.

In the end I did find the answer.  Curran was making a fallacy of false analogy and misrepresenting what the Church had done.  The Church always condemned usury.  However, in the Middle Ages where wages were set by law, it was essentially impossible for a person to get out of debt.  Later when the structure of economics shifted from feudalism, it became possible for a person to improve their social standing and become wealthier.

Usury was condemned in both cases.  However, in Feudalism, any money lending was usury because it was impossible to pay back any interest.  Later, it was possible to pay back reasonable amounts of interest.  So there was not a change in doctrine.  Just a change in what was possible to pay back.

If I had relied on my own beliefs as being infallible, I might have felt I had to leave the Church.  Instead, I trusted the Church and, in time, learned why she did as she did.

The Fork In the Road: WHAT Do You Believe about the Church?

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.  (Joshua 24:15).

I don’t want people to misinterpret these next sections. I am not saying “Love it or leave it!” (Indeed I am praying the reader in this situation will not leave her). Rather I am appealing to all Catholics to recall what they are called to believe about the authority Christ gave His Church.

However, for all people who dissent from what the Church believes on certain moral issues, they must go back to the underlying fundamental principle:

We believe that the authority which the Church possesses comes from Christ Himself and cannot be used in defiance of what He wills. We believe that the obedience of the Church is required by God (see Matthew 18:17)

Aut verus Ecclesia aut diabolical (Either the true Church or Diabolical)

[Yes I did this through machine translation. Latin purists may have a better way to translate this. Feel free to suggest a correction].

So here is the fork in the road. So here is what the dissenter must ask: Do you believe the Catholic Church, under the headship of the Pope, has the authority to teach in God’s name and is protected from error in doing so?

Do you believe this or do you not?

If the answer is yes, then logically one must consider the possibility of being in error himself. If the answer is no, then the question is Why remain in a body you think is false?  To borrow from Joshua 24:15 above, if you will not accept the notion that the Catholic Church teaches through the authority of Christ, it is time to ask who does.

Anti-Catholics are, in this respect closer to the truth than the Cafeteria Catholic. Does this statement shock you?  They at least recognize that if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be then she is making a diabolical claim, even though they err in their conclusion.

However, if you believe the Catholic Church is wrong (or, in the case of Cafeteria Catholics, wrong in "some parts") then YOU must be prepared to justify the authority YOU invoke. I’m not a fan of ipse dixit.

The Problem of appealing to personal Mysticism over the Church: It starts in “Mist,” centers on “I” and ends in “schism.”

Ultimately most acts of dissent against the Church, most acts of refusing to accept the authority on an area is based on a form of focusing on the self. If I want it, it means God wants it. So if I want to marry another man, if I want to contracept or abort, if I want to divorce and remarry… then obviously God must want it too!

Such a view ignores the fact that we are tainted with original sin. As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:15, “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” We can, at times, do what is wrong and we can, at times, delude ourselves into thinking that we want is right. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has wrote:

It is strange that some theologians have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience. (On Conscience, 3)

If we have a weak and relativistic view of morality (the "mist") which centers on the self (the "I") the end result is usually a de facto schism even if one insists they are a perfectly good Catholic "where it matters."

Thus even if it "feels right" it does not mean it is right.

Conscience Must Be Formed

Conscience is not an infallible guide.  It must be trained.  A person living in a place which has never known Christ, might have a deformed conscience.  Vatican II has spoken on this, saying, in Gaudium et spes:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. (9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. (Emphasis added)

If we do not even look for what is right, we cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgment.  Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between invincible and vincible ignorance:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

Conclusion

So we are back at the crossroads.  Either the Church is what she claims to be or she is not.  If what she claims is true, then obviously, to do the work of God, one must do so in obedience to what the Church binds and looses.  If she is not, then it is senseless to demand the Church "change" when her teachings are based on an authority which one rejects as false.

However, one should remember the words of Christ as well in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

^8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

^9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

^These are not the words of a fuzzy, lax God.

^

Deus Vult! (Therefore the Church MUST be wrong): Reflections on Cafeteria Catholicism

Introduction

[Preliminary Note: In this article I am dealing with the attacks on the official teachings of the Church and not the actions of an individual who is in a Church office who does wrong in the application of what the Church teaches.]

In a past article I dealt with the issue of authority in the Catholic Church, and how the belief that the Church was established with the authority to bind and loose.  I asked then, why a person would want to belong to a Church which claimed this if they did not believe it, because if it was not true, it is a pretty monstrous claim.

Yet we do have a phenomenon within the Church which we know as "Cafeteria Catholicism."  The principle is a person accepts only those parts of the faith they believe in, and reject those issues (normally of morality, but sometimes on doctrine too) they disagree with.

In all of these cases, we see that the Church is claimed to be in the wrong when it disagrees with person X on their behavior.

Thus we see things like the Pope is called "cruel" for not allowing condoms to prevent AIDS.  We see the Church called cruel for requiring Catholics to behave morally, for opposing “gay marriage” and so on.  We see the Church position on contraception and abortion called "cruel" because it "forces" a woman to die in childbirth or have too many children.  We see the Church position on divorce and remarriage "cruel" because they insist that Christ forbids divorce if the marriage is valid.

In all of these cases, we see people claim “God must want me to do X "because I would be unhappy if I did not get my way.”   The enthymeme (unspoken assumption) of this argument being, "God wants me to be materially happy."  Thus we see people say in effect Deus vult! (“God Wills It!”) If the Church disagrees, then the Church must be wrong.

There is a problem in all of these cases, but the problem is not with the Church.

Anger  is Directed at the Church for doing what she believes she must do

Many of the stances the Church holds, she holds simply because she believes she must do so if she is to be faithful to Christ. She rejects certain positions set forth by the world, such as not accepting the use of condoms to “stop” the spread of AIDS; such as refusing to sanction the marriage between two individuals of the same sex; such as refusing to sanction remarriage if the first marriage was valid and both spouses are alive.

Now I have no doubt that many people think an “exception” should be made or the Church “policy” [a loaded term to make it seem like a merely human rule], and in many cases the emotion they feel is quite real.

All the sad stories about AIDS sufferers, Lesbians in Love [ever notice how it’s always two women who are used as an example… never two men?], divorced persons wanting to remarry have the same refrain: “The Church won’t let us do X!”

The problem with this tired old refrain is the Church believes she cannot change what she says because to do so would be unfaithful to God. Therefore, the demand for the Church to change is in fact a demand that the Church be unfaithful to what she believes God requires.

This is, in a word, selfishness.

A person may disagree with what the Church believes of course, but they can’t claim their view is “more Catholic” in doing so. Let’s go back to the premise of how Catholicism differs from other religions. We believe that the Catholic Church is the Church directly established by Christ with a visible head with the authority to bind and loose. This does not mean that the Church can go and abolish one of the Ten Commandments tomorrow. The Church believes her authority to bind and loose can only be used in service to God, and not independently of God.

The Misinterpretation of “God is Love" (and therefore He wouldn’t stop me from doing what I want)

One of the most annoying counterarguments against the Church is the taking out of context of “God is Love.” (from 1 John 4:16). Taken from the concept of we must love our brother, “God is Love” is turned into saying “God is Nice.” God, in this view, is non-threatening, He makes no demands. He only wants us to be happy here on Earth and is willing to bend His rules even though His silly Church won’t.

Excuse me, but this is not the God of the Bible at all. This is the God of Hallmark sentiments. It is actually a blasphemous view of God which negates what Christ did on the Cross for us.  It ignores the possibility of our being sinners.

God does indeed love us. When Adam and Eve broke away from God, God was under no obligation to bring salvation to us. Yet He did send His Son to save us. However, the message of Christ was not “An’ ye harm none, do what you will” (a popular Wiccan saying). It was “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). God loves us unconditionally to be sure. When one of us falls away, He desires to bring us back (see Luke 15:4). However the imagery God uses is that He goes out and brings back. We who sin are in the wrong place, and He goes to bring us back to the right place.

Love is not sentimentalism. Love seeks the greatest good for the beloved. Sometimes, it must be “tough love.” Love cannot sacrifice truth because no falsehood can be good, and no good thing can be false. So when the beloved wants something harmful, the lover must at times say “Because I love you, I cannot do X.”

The Church Has Other Motivations Than “Being Mean.”

Now, agree with the Church or disagree, at least accept that when the Church draws a line in the sand, it is not for the sake of being “cruel.” Rather it is because she believes that this is the right place as decreed by God.

Disagreement with the Church is therefore a rejection (whether intended or not) of the Church values and a demand she behave differently because what the Church believes is “not important” in relation to what the individual wants.  Thus the argument that the Church should permit condoms is a claim that continence is unimportant because we can’t help acting like crazed weasels in heat. The claim that the Church should permit remarriage if a spouse has been unfaithful is a rejection of the Church belief that if a marriage is valid, the Church cannot remarry a person already married. If the Church refuses to sanction homosexual “marriage” it is because she believes God has forbade homosexual acts.  If she condemns abortion as evil, it is not because she wants to control women.  It is because she believes the unborn child is a living human person.

All the appeals to emotion one wants to dredge up are irrelevant.  If God has commanded certain things are intrinsically evil (always wrong) then the Church may not make changes with them.

In all of these cases, we see the insistence that the Church act in defiance to what she believes God commands. This is not calling on the Church to become “more like Christ.” It is (willed or not) the non servium of the Devil saying “I reject the value you insist on!”

“But… God wants me to be happy!”

This is another argument which is thrown around, which makes God into a fuzzy Santa Claus. God desires us to be happy yes. However He knows that not all things we desire will make us happy in the light of the fact we possess an immortal soul. We were made for eternity with God. We were also made with free will. Because of this, we have the ability, but not the right, to behave in a way contrary to what He decrees.

Temporary happiness which will lead to separation from God for eternity is not something God wants for us.  God is good, and there is no evil or imperfection in Him. We, on the other hand, are imperfect and sometimes desire worthless or harmful things with the thinking it is a good thing. The wicked things will not bring us closer to God, regardless of whether it “feels” right or not. How many times have we seen children want what is harmful for them? They think the parent is “mean” because he or she will not indulge the child. However, sometimes the parent must refuse the child something which will not be good for the child.

Sometimes God must command we do not do a certain thing, much as we might want to. The Church, believing what Christ says about “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” must be faithful to what she believes God commands.

Misunderstanding what the Church Teaches

Not all dissent is born of defiance. Some is born out of ignorance. There are many times when a person does not understand why the Church holds a thing and thus claims what the Church does must be wrong. While the motive might be less willful, it does not excuse the person for rejecting what the Church holds.

GK Chesterton once wrote, in the article "The Drift from Domesticity" found in the book Brave New Family (Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53):

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 is an excellent point. “Reform for the sake of reform” is foolish. Before one can make a change, one must remember that one needs to understand the intent of the original position. Otherwise the result is “unintended consequences” and the like.

This is the difference between Vatican II and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” In Vatican II, the Church understood that there were some important beliefs of the Church being smothered in an attitude of clericalism (“let the priests do it”) and laity wrongly elevating certain customs to the level of dogma. In the “Spirit of Vatican II” we had some clergy and laity say, “I don’t see the sense of this… let’s get rid of it.”

However, before putting oneself in opposition to a Church teaching, one is obligated to find out what the Church teaches and why.

If one has a problem, one has to see why such a rule was made, rather than employing the "argument from silence" fallacy and assuming that because one does not know the reason for a rule it must be arbitrary.

By all means ask for help in seeking understanding.  But recognize the possibility of error in your own a priori assumptions as well.  If the Church is given the authority to bind and to loose and the Church is protected from teaching error (Look up Humani Generis #21: This is not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements), then the person who disagrees with the Church needs to ask whether the disagreement stems from the Church being fundamentally wrong or whether it stems from the individual being fundamentally wrong.

A Personal Example of Not Knowing Why

Here's a personal example.  Back in the late 1990s I was doing a paper on Charles Curran.  One of his arguments against the Church position on contraception was that because the Church position on money lending had changed, the position on contraception could be changed as well.  I couldn't find an answer to this question, though it sounded wrong.  For about seven years I could not find an answer to this quandary.

In the end I did find the answer.  Curran was making a fallacy of false analogy and misrepresenting what the Church had done.  The Church always condemned usury.  However, in the Middle Ages where wages were set by law, it was essentially impossible for a person to get out of debt.  Later when the structure of economics shifted from feudalism, it became possible for a person to improve their social standing and become wealthier.

Usury was condemned in both cases.  However, in Feudalism, any money lending was usury because it was impossible to pay back any interest.  Later, it was possible to pay back reasonable amounts of interest.  So there was not a change in doctrine.  Just a change in what was possible to pay back.

If I had relied on my own beliefs as being infallible, I might have felt I had to leave the Church.  Instead, I trusted the Church and, in time, learned why she did as she did.

The Fork In the Road: WHAT Do You Believe about the Church?

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.  (Joshua 24:15).

I don’t want people to misinterpret these next sections. I am not saying “Love it or leave it!” (Indeed I am praying the reader in this situation will not leave her). Rather I am appealing to all Catholics to recall what they are called to believe about the authority Christ gave His Church.

However, for all people who dissent from what the Church believes on certain moral issues, they must go back to the underlying fundamental principle:

We believe that the authority which the Church possesses comes from Christ Himself and cannot be used in defiance of what He wills. We believe that the obedience of the Church is required by God (see Matthew 18:17)

Aut verus Ecclesia aut diabolical (Either the true Church or Diabolical)

[Yes I did this through machine translation. Latin purists may have a better way to translate this. Feel free to suggest a correction].

So here is the fork in the road. So here is what the dissenter must ask: Do you believe the Catholic Church, under the headship of the Pope, has the authority to teach in God’s name and is protected from error in doing so?

Do you believe this or do you not?

If the answer is yes, then logically one must consider the possibility of being in error himself. If the answer is no, then the question is Why remain in a body you think is false?  To borrow from Joshua 24:15 above, if you will not accept the notion that the Catholic Church teaches through the authority of Christ, it is time to ask who does.

Anti-Catholics are, in this respect closer to the truth than the Cafeteria Catholic. Does this statement shock you?  They at least recognize that if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be then she is making a diabolical claim, even though they err in their conclusion.

However, if you believe the Catholic Church is wrong (or, in the case of Cafeteria Catholics, wrong in "some parts") then YOU must be prepared to justify the authority YOU invoke. I’m not a fan of ipse dixit.

The Problem of appealing to personal Mysticism over the Church: It starts in “Mist,” centers on “I” and ends in “schism.”

Ultimately most acts of dissent against the Church, most acts of refusing to accept the authority on an area is based on a form of focusing on the self. If I want it, it means God wants it. So if I want to marry another man, if I want to contracept or abort, if I want to divorce and remarry… then obviously God must want it too!

Such a view ignores the fact that we are tainted with original sin. As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:15, “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” We can, at times, do what is wrong and we can, at times, delude ourselves into thinking that we want is right. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has wrote:

It is strange that some theologians have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience. (On Conscience, 3)

If we have a weak and relativistic view of morality (the "mist") which centers on the self (the "I") the end result is usually a de facto schism even if one insists they are a perfectly good Catholic "where it matters."

Thus even if it "feels right" it does not mean it is right.

Conscience Must Be Formed

Conscience is not an infallible guide.  It must be trained.  A person living in a place which has never known Christ, might have a deformed conscience.  Vatican II has spoken on this, saying, in Gaudium et spes:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. (9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. (Emphasis added)

If we do not even look for what is right, we cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgment.  Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between invincible and vincible ignorance:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

Conclusion

So we are back at the crossroads.  Either the Church is what she claims to be or she is not.  If what she claims is true, then obviously, to do the work of God, one must do so in obedience to what the Church binds and looses.  If she is not, then it is senseless to demand the Church "change" when her teachings are based on an authority which one rejects as false.

However, one should remember the words of Christ as well in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

^8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

^9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

^These are not the words of a fuzzy, lax God.

^