You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

You Literally Bet Your Life: Thoughts on Pascal's Wager

Read more »

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

Credo: What Follows From Belief

In this day and age, it is common to encounter members of the Church who, while professing belief in the Church, seem to think that they are free to decide whether or not to follow the moral teaching of the Church.

That kind of thinking is a contradiction in terms.

To be a Catholic in anything more than a nominal sense is to recognize the role Jesus Christ intended for His Church... to preach the Gospel to all the nations, to bind and loose, to forgive sins and so on.  This isn't an advisory role. Jesus tells His Apostles: "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23).

The Church speaks with Christ's authority. Not because she usurps it, but because Christ gives her the authority to carry out His mission.

Thus, the "Cafeteria Catholic" has a dilemma:

If one believes what the Church teaches about herself, such a person must recognize that what she teaches concerning morality comes from Christ's authority.  Remember Luke 10:16... "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me."

However, if one rejects this claim of authority, there is no plausible reason to remain in the Church to change her teaching. Such a belief professes that the Church has no authority to impose anything, and the logical consequence is that there is no sense to try to stay, let alone change anything.

The "Cafeteria Catholic" approach is morally and intellectually dishonest approach where the person ignores the significance of what they profess to believe.

There are two things to be aware of when reading the above.  First, this isn't to be interpreted as a "let's clear the deadwood out of the Church" mindset.  Because we know the truth of the Church, encouraging people to leave is the wrong attitude. The purpose is to get all Catholics to recognize that dissent is a rebellion against God, not a faction. It is an attitude of conversion, not judgment.

Second, we must not think of this as THEY have to change. No doubt, the scandalous behavior of public dissenting Catholics must be challenged. But the obligation to follow the teaching of the Church applies to us as well. Not all dissenters are "liberal."  Many conservatives have been offended by certain social teachings of the Church, some going as far as to accuse the Pope of Marxist leanings.

If we who recognize the truth of the authority of the Church choose not to follow teachings we dislike because they go against our political preferences, we are not witnessing our faith and obedience to Christ... we're merely witnessing hypocrisy.

TFTD: Boomerang

One form of the attack on Christian moral values is an attack of negation. The general attack is along the lines of:

● The Christian belief has [alleged flaw]
● Therefore the Christian belief should not be held.

The irony is that, if followed to the end, it actually negates the attacking position.

For example, the argument claiming that opposition to abortion or homosexuality is imposing their views on others will, if taken to the end requires us to recognize that the promotion of abortion or homosexuality is also an imposition of views on others. If the imposition of one's views is grounds for rejection, then we must also reject the promotion of these behaviors.

Another example comes from the atheist claiming that the belief in God has no scientific basis. Because (they argue) that it is irrational to believe in something with no scientific basis, it is irrational to believe in God.   However, the statement that God does not exist has no scientific basis either.  Therefore, it is irrational to believe there is no God.

In both cases we see an attempt to silence the Christian belief on the basis of a perceived flaw... a flaw which the attacker's argument has. A boomerang which strikes the attacker.

There is another thing to be aware of. The alleged flaw in the Christian belief is not the reason for the Christian belief.  These attacks actually attempt to avoid looking into the reasons for the Christian moral teaching.

Because the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, we certainly have the right to question the claim. We can meet the accusation of "Christianity is flawed and therefore can be rejected," with "Show me where and how it is flawed."

If the accuser is a person of good will and willing to learn (as opposed to one shouting slogans), we have an opportunity to bear witness to the truth.

TFTD: Boomerang

One form of the attack on Christian moral values is an attack of negation. The general attack is along the lines of:

● The Christian belief has [alleged flaw]
● Therefore the Christian belief should not be held.

The irony is that, if followed to the end, it actually negates the attacking position.

For example, the argument claiming that opposition to abortion or homosexuality is imposing their views on others will, if taken to the end requires us to recognize that the promotion of abortion or homosexuality is also an imposition of views on others. If the imposition of one's views is grounds for rejection, then we must also reject the promotion of these behaviors.

Another example comes from the atheist claiming that the belief in God has no scientific basis. Because (they argue) that it is irrational to believe in something with no scientific basis, it is irrational to believe in God.   However, the statement that God does not exist has no scientific basis either.  Therefore, it is irrational to believe there is no God.

In both cases we see an attempt to silence the Christian belief on the basis of a perceived flaw... a flaw which the attacker's argument has. A boomerang which strikes the attacker.

There is another thing to be aware of. The alleged flaw in the Christian belief is not the reason for the Christian belief.  These attacks actually attempt to avoid looking into the reasons for the Christian moral teaching.

Because the onus of proof is on the person making the claim, we certainly have the right to question the claim. We can meet the accusation of "Christianity is flawed and therefore can be rejected," with "Show me where and how it is flawed."

If the accuser is a person of good will and willing to learn (as opposed to one shouting slogans), we have an opportunity to bear witness to the truth.

Tablet Thoughts: Thoughts on anti-Catholic attacks

Introduction: The Form of the Attack

One of the attacks against the Catholic Church, whether from non-Catholic believers or from unbelievers is the citation of certain texts to prove their claims. Whether it is a case of citing Scripture to argue Church teaching contradicts it or whether it is the citation of a Church document from a previous century to portray the Church in a bad light, we have cases where the anti-Catholic tries to use texts as proof of their claims.

Begging the Question

There's a problem however. That the cited text actually means what the anti-Catholic claims it means. Or that the Church teaching being attacked is actually what it is accused of being. To be a valid challenge, we need two conditions met:

1) The text cited must be taken in context, and
2) The belief challenged must actually be what the Church teaches.

Unless you have both, you don't have a case.

So the problem with these attacks is that they assume they are showing proof when they actually need to prove they met these conditions.

These attacks are an example of the begging the question fallacy.

The Personal Interpretation Assumption

One of the red flags is when someone assumes that they have the ability to know the meaning of a text written centuries before in a different language in an entirely different culture just because of the "plain sense" they claim they see.

It's actually a bad mistake to assume that people of a previous century always think in the same way as 21st century Americans. We have an entirely different political structure, technology, cultural influence etc. Things seen as serious attacks on society then seem harmless now (and vice versa).

The result is things can be expressed in one era in a way which is harder to understand in another because we don't share their experiences. It is then foolish to presume that just by reading the text without seeking to understand context can give us a proper understanding of what is meant.
Context please?

This is why I tend to roll my eyes when an anti-Catholic slings quotes, whether from the Bible or from Church documents. The problem is not that things were said. Rather the problem is whether the citation actually is properly understood as intended and properly cited against Catholic beliefs.

For example, it makes no sense to try to cite the Biblical texts forbidding the worship of images against the Church because Catholics don't worship images. A person who worships a statue of Mary or a crucifix sins in the eyes of Catholic teaching.

Understanding What One Opposes

The attempts to attack what one opposes cannot do any good unless one understands what one opposes. This means that the person who would denounce the "evils of Romanism" needs to understand the Catholic teaching, not merely denounce what he or she thinks it means.

We can also ask the challenger to prove what level of authority the Church authority intends to teach. Not everything the leaders of the Church say is made as an infallible statement (free of error). So one can't claim that two Church teachings contradict and disprove infallibility unless they can demonstrate both statements were intended to be infallible -- and it is the Church (not an indivifual) which has that authority to declare what they intended to teach.

Conclusion

The important things to remember in all this are:

1) the anti-Catholic person is not an authority when it comes to what the Church intends to teach in one of her documents.

2) the anti-Catholic person has an obligation to prove his or her accusations are true and not just expect us to accept it as proven.

3) accurate knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches is required before any attack on that teaching can be accepted as true. Not hearsay and rumor.

I write this article because it is so common to see attacks on the Catholic Church where Scripture is taken out of context, Church documents are taken out of context, Church teachings are grossly misrepresented -- and the resulting mess is presumed by the attacker to be proved... when the mess needs to be proven in the first place.

We wouldn't tolerate uninformed people to make uninformed statements on law or medicine. Why should we tolerate these uninformed statements when made about our faith?

Tablet Thoughts: Thoughts on anti-Catholic attacks

Introduction: The Form of the Attack

One of the attacks against the Catholic Church, whether from non-Catholic believers or from unbelievers is the citation of certain texts to prove their claims. Whether it is a case of citing Scripture to argue Church teaching contradicts it or whether it is the citation of a Church document from a previous century to portray the Church in a bad light, we have cases where the anti-Catholic tries to use texts as proof of their claims.

Begging the Question

There's a problem however. That the cited text actually means what the anti-Catholic claims it means. Or that the Church teaching being attacked is actually what it is accused of being. To be a valid challenge, we need two conditions met:

1) The text cited must be taken in context, and
2) The belief challenged must actually be what the Church teaches.

Unless you have both, you don't have a case.

So the problem with these attacks is that they assume they are showing proof when they actually need to prove they met these conditions.

These attacks are an example of the begging the question fallacy.

The Personal Interpretation Assumption

One of the red flags is when someone assumes that they have the ability to know the meaning of a text written centuries before in a different language in an entirely different culture just because of the "plain sense" they claim they see.

It's actually a bad mistake to assume that people of a previous century always think in the same way as 21st century Americans. We have an entirely different political structure, technology, cultural influence etc. Things seen as serious attacks on society then seem harmless now (and vice versa).

The result is things can be expressed in one era in a way which is harder to understand in another because we don't share their experiences. It is then foolish to presume that just by reading the text without seeking to understand context can give us a proper understanding of what is meant.
Context please?

This is why I tend to roll my eyes when an anti-Catholic slings quotes, whether from the Bible or from Church documents. The problem is not that things were said. Rather the problem is whether the citation actually is properly understood as intended and properly cited against Catholic beliefs.

For example, it makes no sense to try to cite the Biblical texts forbidding the worship of images against the Church because Catholics don't worship images. A person who worships a statue of Mary or a crucifix sins in the eyes of Catholic teaching.

Understanding What One Opposes

The attempts to attack what one opposes cannot do any good unless one understands what one opposes. This means that the person who would denounce the "evils of Romanism" needs to understand the Catholic teaching, not merely denounce what he or she thinks it means.

We can also ask the challenger to prove what level of authority the Church authority intends to teach. Not everything the leaders of the Church say is made as an infallible statement (free of error). So one can't claim that two Church teachings contradict and disprove infallibility unless they can demonstrate both statements were intended to be infallible -- and it is the Church (not an indivifual) which has that authority to declare what they intended to teach.

Conclusion

The important things to remember in all this are:

1) the anti-Catholic person is not an authority when it comes to what the Church intends to teach in one of her documents.

2) the anti-Catholic person has an obligation to prove his or her accusations are true and not just expect us to accept it as proven.

3) accurate knowledge of what the Catholic Church teaches is required before any attack on that teaching can be accepted as true. Not hearsay and rumor.

I write this article because it is so common to see attacks on the Catholic Church where Scripture is taken out of context, Church documents are taken out of context, Church teachings are grossly misrepresented -- and the resulting mess is presumed by the attacker to be proved... when the mess needs to be proven in the first place.

We wouldn't tolerate uninformed people to make uninformed statements on law or medicine. Why should we tolerate these uninformed statements when made about our faith?

Tablet Thoughts: Incredulity, Speculation and Open-minded Thinking

GK Chesterton once said that an open mind was like an open mouth... it was intended to be closed over something solid. What he meant was the purpose of an open mouth was to close it around food and the purpose of an open mind was to close it around truth.

You don't want to your mouth to admit disease or poison into your body and you don't want your mind to permit error into your mind. So the concept of the "open mind" is not accepting any idea as valid as any other, but assessing each idea to see if it is true or not.

Modern society seems to make two errors when it comes to an open mind.  One is incredulity. The other is speculation.

To be incredulous is to be "unwilling or unable to believe something."  To be speculative is to be "engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge."

Neither behavior indicates an open mind. The incredulous person refuses to consider whether a thing is true.  The one who speculates does not give enough consideration before accepting a thing as true.  They aren't opposites however. One can be incredulous because of a speculation they have previously formed.

The open minded person,  in contrast to the incredulous or speculative types, seeks to learn what they can about what is true. He or she recognizes when his or her knowledge is lacking and does not think this lack of knowledge means that the idea can just be accepted or rejected. "I don't know" means "I must learn more" to the open minded person.

Open minded thinking doesn't mean never reaching truth.  Rather, it means that once we recognize something is true, we're no longer free to accept error on that subject.  Once we realize [X] is true, all other considerations which revolve around [X] must recognize that truth.

Unfortunately, the incredulous person begins with the assumption that [X] is impossible and therefore can never happen -- he or she thus refuses to consider any theory that argues [X].

The problem is, many people simply hold "X is false" based on conjecture and assumption.  While one can reject something based on reason (for example, identical twins having drastically different levels of happiness show a fatal flaw with astrology), many simply hold their assumptions without questioning if they are true.

Let's consider the concept of life in places other than Earth. Personally,  I'm agnostic on the subject. An argument based on the huge number of star systems claiming such life must exist is speculation. But on the other hand, it's foolish to claim such life can't exist because we haven't found it yet. That's incredulity.   We can't know it does exist unless we find it, but we can't know it doesn't exist unless we explore every planet in the universe. The only open minded approach is to say, "I don't know, but I will consider credible evidence if it appears."

Some might wonder if the above example would justify agnosticism in considering the existence of God. I would say "not really." If aliens exist,  that is a matter of physical existence and physical proof. But the concept of God is supernatural. Literally "above nature." You can't use science (by nature aimed at the physical universe) to prove the existence of the supernatural -- that's like expecting a microscope to prove astronomy.

Aha! you might say.  "Without physical proof, it means you can't prove the existence of God, but can only speculate!"

To which I reply, "Prove you love your spouse or child."  See, things exist that do not have a material existence we can scientifically study. You can say you love someone,  that you are thinking a thought, but if the only proof that exists is physical proof, then only things with physical existence can be proven. If only things which can be physically be studied exist,  then none of our thinking, reasoning,  etc. exist.

The thing is, despite the claims of 'freethinkers,' the denial of Christianity is not an open-minded act of rationality.  It is incredulity formed by speculation,  a refusal based on a too hasty assumption made without proof.

Tablet Thoughts: Incredulity, Speculation and Open-minded Thinking

GK Chesterton once said that an open mind was like an open mouth... it was intended to be closed over something solid. What he meant was the purpose of an open mouth was to close it around food and the purpose of an open mind was to close it around truth.

You don't want to your mouth to admit disease or poison into your body and you don't want your mind to permit error into your mind. So the concept of the "open mind" is not accepting any idea as valid as any other, but assessing each idea to see if it is true or not.

Modern society seems to make two errors when it comes to an open mind.  One is incredulity. The other is speculation.

To be incredulous is to be "unwilling or unable to believe something."  To be speculative is to be "engaged in, expressing, or based on conjecture rather than knowledge."

Neither behavior indicates an open mind. The incredulous person refuses to consider whether a thing is true.  The one who speculates does not give enough consideration before accepting a thing as true.  They aren't opposites however. One can be incredulous because of a speculation they have previously formed.

The open minded person,  in contrast to the incredulous or speculative types, seeks to learn what they can about what is true. He or she recognizes when his or her knowledge is lacking and does not think this lack of knowledge means that the idea can just be accepted or rejected. "I don't know" means "I must learn more" to the open minded person.

Open minded thinking doesn't mean never reaching truth.  Rather, it means that once we recognize something is true, we're no longer free to accept error on that subject.  Once we realize [X] is true, all other considerations which revolve around [X] must recognize that truth.

Unfortunately, the incredulous person begins with the assumption that [X] is impossible and therefore can never happen -- he or she thus refuses to consider any theory that argues [X].

The problem is, many people simply hold "X is false" based on conjecture and assumption.  While one can reject something based on reason (for example, identical twins having drastically different levels of happiness show a fatal flaw with astrology), many simply hold their assumptions without questioning if they are true.

Let's consider the concept of life in places other than Earth. Personally,  I'm agnostic on the subject. An argument based on the huge number of star systems claiming such life must exist is speculation. But on the other hand, it's foolish to claim such life can't exist because we haven't found it yet. That's incredulity.   We can't know it does exist unless we find it, but we can't know it doesn't exist unless we explore every planet in the universe. The only open minded approach is to say, "I don't know, but I will consider credible evidence if it appears."

Some might wonder if the above example would justify agnosticism in considering the existence of God. I would say "not really." If aliens exist,  that is a matter of physical existence and physical proof. But the concept of God is supernatural. Literally "above nature." You can't use science (by nature aimed at the physical universe) to prove the existence of the supernatural -- that's like expecting a microscope to prove astronomy.

Aha! you might say.  "Without physical proof, it means you can't prove the existence of God, but can only speculate!"

To which I reply, "Prove you love your spouse or child."  See, things exist that do not have a material existence we can scientifically study. You can say you love someone,  that you are thinking a thought, but if the only proof that exists is physical proof, then only things with physical existence can be proven. If only things which can be physically be studied exist,  then none of our thinking, reasoning,  etc. exist.

The thing is, despite the claims of 'freethinkers,' the denial of Christianity is not an open-minded act of rationality.  It is incredulity formed by speculation,  a refusal based on a too hasty assumption made without proof.

Tablet Thoughts: The Need for Truth in Assessment

Doing a search in Catholic for kindle books, I noticed there were a few titles written with the intent of "saving" us from the Catholic Church. One of these books claimed to be able to teach us how only Jesus saves, not the Church.

The problem is, any educated Catholic already knows this. While the Church was established by Christ and carries out His mission on Earth, we don't think that the actions of the Church which are for the salvation of mankind come from the ipse dixit declaration of the Church.

Instead we believe that the Church can perform these actions only because Christ has given her the task and the authority to carry out that task (see Matt 28:19 for example).  Faith in Christ is a prerequisite to being a Catholic.

Now I appreciate the fact that these individuals are doing what they do because they believe that we Catholics are in spiritual danger (though I disagree with their identified source of this danger).

But, if these people want to save us from dangers, you'd think they'd know what the actual dangers were.  This is like warning us to get off the roof before we fall, when in fact we're standing on the ground floor... their warnings are completely misdirected.

If their opposition to Catholicism was valid, they should at least know what we actually teach... otherwise,  how do they actually know we are teaching error?

To use another analogy, can you imagine someone trying to practice medicine with no knowledge of the condition of the patient? How could he or she hope to make a correct diagnosis or prescribe the right treatment?

That's what it's like for a Catholic to be told about the so-called errors we "believe."

Catholics don't worship Mary.  We don't believe we can earn salvation. We don't think the Pope is sinless. We don't deny the authority of Scripture. We don't worship statues.

We believe the Church has her authority from Christ, and we recognize that without Him, there could be no salvation.

However, we reject sola scriptura as man made tradition which cannot be found in the Bible -- making them self contradictory.  Because we believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ,  we must reject whatever is contrary to the consistent teaching of the Church.  We have faith that Christ keeps His promise to protect His Church and remain with her always.

Those who would dialogue with us need to throw out whatever was learned from Lorraine Bottner or Dave Hunt or Jack Chick or Harvest House.  Instead, they need to learn what we believe and why. Whether they speak from ignorance or from malice, they do speak falsely about us.

If they would "save" us, let them learn what we need to be saved from...

...they might learn that we're not in error to begin with.

Tablet Thoughts: The Need for Truth in Assessment

Doing a search in Catholic for kindle books, I noticed there were a few titles written with the intent of "saving" us from the Catholic Church. One of these books claimed to be able to teach us how only Jesus saves, not the Church.

The problem is, any educated Catholic already knows this. While the Church was established by Christ and carries out His mission on Earth, we don't think that the actions of the Church which are for the salvation of mankind come from the ipse dixit declaration of the Church.

Instead we believe that the Church can perform these actions only because Christ has given her the task and the authority to carry out that task (see Matt 28:19 for example).  Faith in Christ is a prerequisite to being a Catholic.

Now I appreciate the fact that these individuals are doing what they do because they believe that we Catholics are in spiritual danger (though I disagree with their identified source of this danger).

But, if these people want to save us from dangers, you'd think they'd know what the actual dangers were.  This is like warning us to get off the roof before we fall, when in fact we're standing on the ground floor... their warnings are completely misdirected.

If their opposition to Catholicism was valid, they should at least know what we actually teach... otherwise,  how do they actually know we are teaching error?

To use another analogy, can you imagine someone trying to practice medicine with no knowledge of the condition of the patient? How could he or she hope to make a correct diagnosis or prescribe the right treatment?

That's what it's like for a Catholic to be told about the so-called errors we "believe."

Catholics don't worship Mary.  We don't believe we can earn salvation. We don't think the Pope is sinless. We don't deny the authority of Scripture. We don't worship statues.

We believe the Church has her authority from Christ, and we recognize that without Him, there could be no salvation.

However, we reject sola scriptura as man made tradition which cannot be found in the Bible -- making them self contradictory.  Because we believe that the Catholic Church is the Church established by Christ,  we must reject whatever is contrary to the consistent teaching of the Church.  We have faith that Christ keeps His promise to protect His Church and remain with her always.

Those who would dialogue with us need to throw out whatever was learned from Lorraine Bottner or Dave Hunt or Jack Chick or Harvest House.  Instead, they need to learn what we believe and why. Whether they speak from ignorance or from malice, they do speak falsely about us.

If they would "save" us, let them learn what we need to be saved from...

...they might learn that we're not in error to begin with.

Demagogues: American Morality by Mob Rule over Reason

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Psalm 29: If a wise person disputes with a fool, there is railing and ridicule but no resolution.

Christianity, to be precise Christianity that believes the moral commands have divine authority and are not merely customs, receives a lot of flak from a certain portion of the Western World, especially in America.  A certain segment of the population essentially denies some or all of the moral law as having authority. The portion of the moral law this group rejects is labeled as being nothing more than an innovation imposed on everybody by a small minority.  Those individuals who object to changes in the law based on this allegation are attacked as intolerant.

This allegation is that it is based on the claim: "There is nothing wrong with [X].  People who think there is something wrong with [X] are pushing their beliefs on others."

It rather reminds me of the definition of the term, Dramatic Irony:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

It is irony because the claim that "There is nothing wrong with [X]" is itself a statement of belief on morality.  Moreover, the disapproval expressed against people who "push their beliefs on others" is also a statement of belief on morality.  If pushing beliefs on morality on others is wrong, then it follows that condemning people for not sharing the denial that [X] is wrong… are wrong.

If [no values should be pushed on others] is absolutely true (true in all situations, times and places), then it follows that [tolerance] is a value  that cannot be pushed on others, because tolerance is seen as a value in modern America.

However, if one wishes to deny that tolerance cannot be pushed on others, that means that some values can be insisted on for all times, places and situations.  That means the person who wants to include the values they prefer and exclude the values they dislike must show the basis of their claims as to what criteria determine absolute values from mere opinions.  Otherwise these champions of "tolerance" are being hypocritical.

In a reasonable world, when there are differences in moral views, discussion and exploration into what moral views are true, and people of good will would all seek to follow them.

But this is exactly what doesn't happen.  Instead we see an assertion that [X] (such as abortion, homosexual acts, or contraception) is morally good or at least neutral.  When that assertion is challenged, the response is not a reasoned defense, but instead an ad hominem attack which accuses the questioner as being judgmental or bigoted.

That isn't a defense of the assertion or a refutation of the challenge.  That is merely the act of a demagogue, who seeks to sway the population by appealing to desires and emotions, committing distortions to sway the audience.  The person who attempts reason is usually mocked or attacked (verbally or sometimes physically).

Now consider who acts like a demagogue?  is it a Pope who speaks about how certain acts are contrary to what God calls us to be and are harmful to us if we practice these acts?  Or is the demagogue the person who spews out slogans like "War on women!", "Homophobe!", "Right Wing Extremist!" and the like?

The people who say it is the Pope who is the demagogue are a large portion of the problem in America today.  The rest of the problem comes from the people who accept what "feels" right without asking what is true.

Demagogues: American Morality by Mob Rule over Reason

Demagogue: a political leader who seeks support by appealing to popular desires and prejudices rather than by using rational argument.

Psalm 29: If a wise person disputes with a fool, there is railing and ridicule but no resolution.

Christianity, to be precise Christianity that believes the moral commands have divine authority and are not merely customs, receives a lot of flak from a certain portion of the Western World, especially in America.  A certain segment of the population essentially denies some or all of the moral law as having authority. The portion of the moral law this group rejects is labeled as being nothing more than an innovation imposed on everybody by a small minority.  Those individuals who object to changes in the law based on this allegation are attacked as intolerant.

This allegation is that it is based on the claim: "There is nothing wrong with [X].  People who think there is something wrong with [X] are pushing their beliefs on others."

It rather reminds me of the definition of the term, Dramatic Irony:

a literary technique, originally used in Greek tragedy, by which the significance of a character’s words or actions are clear to the audience or reader although unknown to the character.

It is irony because the claim that "There is nothing wrong with [X]" is itself a statement of belief on morality.  Moreover, the disapproval expressed against people who "push their beliefs on others" is also a statement of belief on morality.  If pushing beliefs on morality on others is wrong, then it follows that condemning people for not sharing the denial that [X] is wrong… are wrong.

If [no values should be pushed on others] is absolutely true (true in all situations, times and places), then it follows that [tolerance] is a value  that cannot be pushed on others, because tolerance is seen as a value in modern America.

However, if one wishes to deny that tolerance cannot be pushed on others, that means that some values can be insisted on for all times, places and situations.  That means the person who wants to include the values they prefer and exclude the values they dislike must show the basis of their claims as to what criteria determine absolute values from mere opinions.  Otherwise these champions of "tolerance" are being hypocritical.

In a reasonable world, when there are differences in moral views, discussion and exploration into what moral views are true, and people of good will would all seek to follow them.

But this is exactly what doesn't happen.  Instead we see an assertion that [X] (such as abortion, homosexual acts, or contraception) is morally good or at least neutral.  When that assertion is challenged, the response is not a reasoned defense, but instead an ad hominem attack which accuses the questioner as being judgmental or bigoted.

That isn't a defense of the assertion or a refutation of the challenge.  That is merely the act of a demagogue, who seeks to sway the population by appealing to desires and emotions, committing distortions to sway the audience.  The person who attempts reason is usually mocked or attacked (verbally or sometimes physically).

Now consider who acts like a demagogue?  is it a Pope who speaks about how certain acts are contrary to what God calls us to be and are harmful to us if we practice these acts?  Or is the demagogue the person who spews out slogans like "War on women!", "Homophobe!", "Right Wing Extremist!" and the like?

The people who say it is the Pope who is the demagogue are a large portion of the problem in America today.  The rest of the problem comes from the people who accept what "feels" right without asking what is true.

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

Big Bird and German Catholics: Morning Musings on Propaganda

Read more »

TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

TFTD: Damnant quod non intellegunt (They condemn what they do not understand)

 

Dammant quod non intelligunt – They condemn what they do not understand.  These words of wisdom by Cicero are important to consider when witnessing the modern American political discourse.  All too often we see rhetoric which condemns a position while that condemnation demonstrates no comprehension of what they oppose.

A couple of days ago, someone posted the following comment on Facebook.

"[A]ll of us need to put a stop to the 'Republican WAR ON WOMEN'. I can NOT, I am mean [sic] I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican."

Which made me think of a comment made by GK Chesterton:

"It is not bigotry to be certain we are right; but it is bigotry to be unable to imagine how we might possibly have gone wrong.

—G.K. Chesterton in The Catholic Church and Conversion

I think this points out the dangers of the ideology being forced on us today.  The people who cannot comprehend why we believe what we do respond by ad hominem attacks condemning those they disagree with. 

GK Chesterton wrote once, in the article, The Drift from Domesticity:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, "I don't see the use of this; let us clear it away." To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: "If you don't see the use of it, I certainly won't let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it."

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.

I think it is a valid point.  I can understand why a Blue Collar Catholic or a Feminist might support the platform of the Democratic Party.  I believe their reasoning is faulty and leads them to a wrong conclusion, but I do understand the point their reasoning comes from.  I can also understand why certain Conservatives might be tempted by the Ayn Rand concept of Objectivism (a wrong turn in the concept of objective truth), even though I believe it is also wrong.  It is by understanding what they do think, I can also understand where they go wrong.

But when someone who opposes the Republican platform says, "I can not understand why ANY woman would be a republican," shouldn't such a person step back and ponder the issue before condemning it?  How do they know their knowledge contains all truth and no part of untruth?

Essentially this mindset argues that (to put it in a valid form):

1. Everything I understand is true (All A is B)
2. I do not understand [X] (No C is B)
3. Therefore [X] is not true. (Therefore No C is A)

Even if the major premise is true (doubtful), that does not mean Everything that is true I understand (all [B] is [A]).  There can be gaps in the knowledge, and if there are gaps, there can be things which are true and you do not understand.  So it is foolish to think that because you do not see a reason a thing can be so, it follows that it cannot be so.

One can say, "I understand what they claim, but reject it as false."  One can say, "I do not understand, and so I need to explore more."  One can say, "I understand what is claimed and I accept it as true."  These three responses can be wise.  But to say, "I do not understand, so I think it is wrong" is not the act of wisdom, but the act of a fool.

This is one of the problems of modern thinking.  Nobody seems to recognize Socrates' maxim, The unexamined life is not worth living (Plato, Apology 38a), which is a pity  Responding to the question at his trial as to why he cannot just be quiet and stop teaching to save his life, he says:

Now this is the hardest thing to make some of you believe. For if I say that such conduct would be disobedience to the god and that therefore I cannot keep quiet, you will think I am jesting and will not believe me; [38a] and if again I say that to talk every day about virtue and the other things about which you hear me talking and examining myself and others is the greatest good to man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you will believe me still less.

Plato. (1966). Plato in Twelve Volumes, Vol. 1 translated by Harold North Fowler; Introduction by W.R.M. Lamb. Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd.

In other words, Socrates believed he was obligated to continue to examine himself and others as the greatest good to man, and the life which failed to do so was not worth living – not an endorsement of suicide but a commentary on the quality of life of the person who does not do so.  All of us are called to search for the truth and to absorb it into our lives. 

To refuse to accept truth and to refuse to reject error on the grounds of not understanding, is foolishness.

TFTD: Reflections on an Anti-Catholic Commercial

Propaganda on TV

Today, while watching the History Channel, I came across a rather offensive commercial from a group called the "Freedom From Religion Foundation."  It featured a fallen-away Catholic accusing the Bishops of distorting the issues by claiming it was a religious freedom issue.  She stated that it was an issue of power and the bishops were trying to impose their views on others.

Now I don't think that the FFRF believes what they say at all, but they hope to sway the uninformed to believing their propaganda.

What annoys me the most about this group's commercial is the brazen lack of reason and logic in their message.

The issue is, Catholic Bishops are speaking out saying the Government has no right to mandate that Catholic institutions or businesses do something they believe is contrary to what God demands.  Those who oppose the Catholic Church says they must obey the government mandate, except for a definition so narrow that it prevents the Catholic Church from carrying out the works of charity she performed far longer than the United States has existed.

Such Propaganda Justifies Whatever the Government Wants to Do

Think about it.  The Catholic bishops are accused of politicking and forcing views because they oppose government interference with Catholics doing what is right before God.

By such reasoning, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders would be guilty of forcing their views on Southerners because they dared to oppose an unjust law.

Catholics in the United States need to be aware that the cultural elites and the current Administration of the United States of America are making war on us and restricting our beliefs.

What are the ramifications of this Attack on Religious Freedom?

No, it isn't like persecution in China or fundamentalist Islamic nations – and probably won't be unless Americans allow the government to get away with this over a long period of time.  But they are calling us bigots, homophobes, etc.  They are attempting to force us to yield to government policy.  So Americans of good will need to ask themselves something.

How far will you let the government go when we refuse to comply with Government attempts to force us to do evil?

It is not a polemical question.  Faithful Catholics are being forced to choose between God and State.  If we choose to obey God, the government will take legal action against us.  Fine our institutions certainly.  Perhaps we might begin to see them treat some of our hierarchy as disloyal later on.  Perhaps Catholic parents teaching their children the faith will be portrayed as being the same as racial extremists teaching their children propaganda?  Perhaps they'll decide children need to be protected from Catholic parents?

It's hard to speculate of course because it is difficult to assess the limits conscience places on the current administration and at what point people will say "Enough!"

A Warning to Americans of Good Will

Americans of good will do need to keep in mind that if the government is not stopped now, then any future government (whether Democratic, Republican or Third Party) can also use the power of government to coerce other people to do what they believe is wrong.

To borrow from Pastor Niemöller, they are coming now for us.  You may be silent because you are not Catholic or perhaps because you favor contraception coverage.  However, once you let the government come for us, there is nothing to prevent them from coming for any other group who holds a position they dislike.

TFTD: Reflections on an Anti-Catholic Commercial

Propaganda on TV

Today, while watching the History Channel, I came across a rather offensive commercial from a group called the "Freedom From Religion Foundation."  It featured a fallen-away Catholic accusing the Bishops of distorting the issues by claiming it was a religious freedom issue.  She stated that it was an issue of power and the bishops were trying to impose their views on others.

Now I don't think that the FFRF believes what they say at all, but they hope to sway the uninformed to believing their propaganda.

What annoys me the most about this group's commercial is the brazen lack of reason and logic in their message.

The issue is, Catholic Bishops are speaking out saying the Government has no right to mandate that Catholic institutions or businesses do something they believe is contrary to what God demands.  Those who oppose the Catholic Church says they must obey the government mandate, except for a definition so narrow that it prevents the Catholic Church from carrying out the works of charity she performed far longer than the United States has existed.

Such Propaganda Justifies Whatever the Government Wants to Do

Think about it.  The Catholic bishops are accused of politicking and forcing views because they oppose government interference with Catholics doing what is right before God.

By such reasoning, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights leaders would be guilty of forcing their views on Southerners because they dared to oppose an unjust law.

Catholics in the United States need to be aware that the cultural elites and the current Administration of the United States of America are making war on us and restricting our beliefs.

What are the ramifications of this Attack on Religious Freedom?

No, it isn't like persecution in China or fundamentalist Islamic nations – and probably won't be unless Americans allow the government to get away with this over a long period of time.  But they are calling us bigots, homophobes, etc.  They are attempting to force us to yield to government policy.  So Americans of good will need to ask themselves something.

How far will you let the government go when we refuse to comply with Government attempts to force us to do evil?

It is not a polemical question.  Faithful Catholics are being forced to choose between God and State.  If we choose to obey God, the government will take legal action against us.  Fine our institutions certainly.  Perhaps we might begin to see them treat some of our hierarchy as disloyal later on.  Perhaps Catholic parents teaching their children the faith will be portrayed as being the same as racial extremists teaching their children propaganda?  Perhaps they'll decide children need to be protected from Catholic parents?

It's hard to speculate of course because it is difficult to assess the limits conscience places on the current administration and at what point people will say "Enough!"

A Warning to Americans of Good Will

Americans of good will do need to keep in mind that if the government is not stopped now, then any future government (whether Democratic, Republican or Third Party) can also use the power of government to coerce other people to do what they believe is wrong.

To borrow from Pastor Niemöller, they are coming now for us.  You may be silent because you are not Catholic or perhaps because you favor contraception coverage.  However, once you let the government come for us, there is nothing to prevent them from coming for any other group who holds a position they dislike.