Tablet Thoughts: Ugly Past History

What are we to make of ugly history? When we see the claimed barbarism of medieval Europe or the like, there are events in religious history which seems appalling by the standard of the 21st century.

It's mainly a problem because certain people try to attack the belief in God or the Catholic Church on the grounds that in the past, they didn't act like civilized 21st century human beings.

Such attackers assume that if God truly had revelations for His people or if He had established the Catholic Church,  then they should act like civilized 21st century human beings.

The problem with that argument is to make it is to answer it. They weren't civilized 21st century cultures. However, they were the cultures from which we gained our moral knowledge.

What is forgotten is that God doesn't just infuse knowledge into people which they instinctively follow. Instead, He gives His revelations to people who exist in time and in a certain culture. This time and culture has its own vicious customs that are contrary to God's will.

Now we believe that revelation ended with the death of the last apostle, but that does not mean that how Christ's teaching was to be applied was fully recognized in AD 100. Understandings of how to be Christian in a time of persecution would have different emphasis than in a time when it was legalized for example.

God, in His love and patience, works with each generation. What is true remains true, and where vicious customs run in conflict with God's will, He makes use of His prophets (before Christ) or His Church (after His ascension) to direct that generation back to Him.

Of course in each generation, the men and women sin. Sometimes it is in disobedience. Sometimes it is mistaking customs for God's teaching (see Matthew 12 for example). Humanity remains sinful. Popes were not protected from error when it comes to the civil administration of the Papal States.

This distinction is not special pleading. There are actions committed by members of the Church in past ages that strike us as troubling when we look at them from hundreds of years later.

But what we forget is that the development of our understanding of morality comes from the teaching which Christ gave His Church applied to new discoveries.

For example, the teaching of treatment of  peoples developed from the encounters with people in the New World and how colonizers treated them.

Unfortunately,  many assume that the mistreatment comes from the direct command of the Church in a fallacy of the undistributed middle: assuming that because some colonizers mistreated nations mistreated natives and because those colonizers were Catholic it means Catholicism caused the mistreatment. (The fact that colonizers mistreated and colonizers were Catholic does not show Catholicism was the cause -- A is part of B and A is part of C does not mean C must be part of B).

This is why we can say that even though there are sinful Catholics (even among those in authority), that does not justify claiming the Church does evil in her binding teaching. When they do evil, they act against what the Church teaches in regards to faith and morals.

The point of this reflection is to remind both Catholics and non-Catholics that the behavior of sinners in the Church and the old customs  or law enforcement of a more violent time do not mean the doctrine and moral teaching was a part of that behavior.

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.

Tablet Thoughts: Seminary Dissent Preceded Vatican II

It's a common theme among radical traditionalists that Vatican II led to problematic theories being taught in seminaries. Problem with that theory is that Ven. Pius XII mentioned this problem in 1950 in the encyclical,  Humani generis #13.

So, if this kind of mindset was going on to the extent that a Pope felt important to mention almost 20 years before the rebellion that exploded in 1968, it seems to be a post hoc fallacy to say Vatican II caused that rebellion.

Something to keep in mind when coming across someone denouncing a valid ecumenical council.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Tablet Thoughts: Seminary Dissent Preceded Vatican II

It's a common theme among radical traditionalists that Vatican II led to problematic theories being taught in seminaries. Problem with that theory is that Ven. Pius XII mentioned this problem in 1950 in the encyclical,  Humani generis #13.

So, if this kind of mindset was going on to the extent that a Pope felt important to mention almost 20 years before the rebellion that exploded in 1968, it seems to be a post hoc fallacy to say Vatican II caused that rebellion.

Something to keep in mind when coming across someone denouncing a valid ecumenical council.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/pius_xii/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xii_enc_12081950_humani-generis_en.html

Tablet Thoughts: False Prophets

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/just-as-if-a-miracle-has-taken-place-the-false-prophet-will-seem-to-rise-from-the-dead/

Reason I reject "visionaries" like this is it makes Christ a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that He would be with it always.

If the Church is supposed to begin teaching fundamental error as required, Christ cannot be with His Church always and protecting it from the gates of hell.

One cannot rationally accept these so-called messages and the teachings of Christ.

Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia

Tablet Thoughts: False Prophets

http://www.thewarningsecondcoming.com/just-as-if-a-miracle-has-taken-place-the-false-prophet-will-seem-to-rise-from-the-dead/

Reason I reject "visionaries" like this is it makes Christ a liar when He said the gates of hell would not prevail against His Church and that He would be with it always.

If the Church is supposed to begin teaching fundamental error as required, Christ cannot be with His Church always and protecting it from the gates of hell.

One cannot rationally accept these so-called messages and the teachings of Christ.

Ubi Petrus ibi Ecclesia

Tablet Thoughts: Conservative Dissent

(Tablet Thoughts are brief comments done on the tablet on the go.  By nature,  they have to be short and lacking the details of a full post. Spelling and formatting errors are more likely.)

I'm seeing a certain set of Catholic bloggers, for the most part seeking to be faithful, who take a rather anti-magisterial tone when their opinions or actions run afoul of the Church.

Now it is one thing to say "I disagree" when it comes to non-authoritive statements -- provided it is done with respect.

But if it is disrespectful or if it falls under a category where the magisterium has and uses the authority, disagreement becomes dissent.

In a matter of discipline (as opposed to faith and morals), one may respectfully ask for a change. However, if the magisterium decides otherwise, we must acknowledge their authority.

Otherwise, while the matter is probably lesser, we're not to different from the liberal dissent we decry.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar's The Office Of Peter is a good read at this time about the dissenting mindset.

Tablet Thoughts: Conservative Dissent

(Tablet Thoughts are brief comments done on the tablet on the go.  By nature,  they have to be short and lacking the details of a full post. Spelling and formatting errors are more likely.)

I'm seeing a certain set of Catholic bloggers, for the most part seeking to be faithful, who take a rather anti-magisterial tone when their opinions or actions run afoul of the Church.

Now it is one thing to say "I disagree" when it comes to non-authoritive statements -- provided it is done with respect.

But if it is disrespectful or if it falls under a category where the magisterium has and uses the authority, disagreement becomes dissent.

In a matter of discipline (as opposed to faith and morals), one may respectfully ask for a change. However, if the magisterium decides otherwise, we must acknowledge their authority.

Otherwise, while the matter is probably lesser, we're not to different from the liberal dissent we decry.

Hans Urs Von Balthasar's The Office Of Peter is a good read at this time about the dissenting mindset.

Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

Tutu's Tragedy: Denial of God's Authority in Favor of Error

Yesterday, Archbishop Tutu stated "I would refuse to go to a homophobic heaven. No, I would say sorry, I mean I would much rather go to the other place," and "I would not worship a God who is homophobic and that is how deeply I feel about this."

Such a statement reflects what happens when we forget the aim of Christianity and reduce it to being nothing more than a social action NGO by focusing solely on the immediate physical needs of individuals. 

The Christian is called to know, love and serve God. Christ makes obedience to His commandments a sign of loving Him (see John 14:15). Since His Church and His scriptures say that homosexual acts are wrong, the Christian is called to avoid those acts and to speak out to make others aware of the dangers of the path they are on (See Ezekiel 33:1-20). If we are silent, the sinner will die in his sins and we will be held accountable.

Tutu, by his statement, has effectively rejected the God who is goodness and love unless God will change His teaching to conform with Tutu's will. I'm sure he's being over rhetorical in saying he (like many Anglicans) rejects the Christian teaching on homosexuality, denying it is from God, but the problem is his rhetoric is a denial of God in one way or another.

Since the Scriptures and the Church do teach that homosexual acts are intrinsically wrong, Tutu is either:

1. denying that God is good or
2. denying that Scripture does authoritatively teach truth about how we are to behave.

In other words, Tutu either rejects God explicitly or rejects the authority of teachings he dislikes even when Christianity believes it comes from God.

Now, acts of violence against people on account of their sexual orientation (which seems to be the basis of his statement) is of course condemned and the acts of violence described in the article of course fall under that condemnation.  For example, the Catholic Church teaches:

2358 The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God’s will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord’s Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition. (Catechism of the Catholic Church, emphasis added)

However, the unjust actions some people perform against individuals with a same sex attraction disorder do not take away the fact that actions which are intrinsically wrong may never be justified.

That's the problem.  "Homophobia" is a pejorative label which seeks to vilify anyone who believes homosexual acts are morally wrong.  It is used to equate Christians who try to live as God commands with the barbaric thugs who actually kill or harm people.  It's like saying that all Muslims are terrorists based on the actions of some Muslim radicals.  Muslims can rightly be appalled by the immorality of the West without being terrorists and Christians can oppose homosexual acts as sinful without supporting violence against people with homosexual attraction.

So with Tutu, he uses the appeal to emotion to link apartheid and belief that homosexuality is wrong – basically claiming (without proof) that belief that homosexual acts are sinful have the same motivation as the appalling racism of apartheid.  But if the Christian teaching comes from God, then Tutu is indeed rejecting God… either by repudiating Him directly or by denying the authority of His Scriptures and Church.

"Very Well, Alone"

Read more »

"Very Well, Alone"

Read more »

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

TFTD: On Rash Judgment and Divisions That Harm the Church

A friend brought to my attention an internet war between Catholics on the subject on where the line must be drawn between keeping hidden a truth which would be harmful to somebody if ever found out and outright lying.  Now I don't intend this article to take sides in this argument.  Rather, I write this to point out a fundamental lack of charity which is going on.

What saddens me about this debate is that it is not an issue of faithful Catholics versus "Cafeteria Catholics."  This is a debate between two groups of faithful Catholics who are losing sight of the actual intent of any discussion – to find the truth.  Instead, we see Catholics from both groups dogmatizing a certain interpretation and condemning the other as heretical.

The problem is, neither view is condemned by the Church (so long as the view does not say lying is morally acceptable when used to avoid evil or do good) and neither is mandated by the Church.  This isn't like the issue of abortion where the Church points out that the unborn child is a person from the moment of conception.  On that issue, there is a solid line in which no faithful Catholic can cross over without falling into error.  Instead, we have a range of understandings as to to what extent one can conceal the truth from one who would do evil with that knowledge.

Because of this, I write to ask people to remember the either-or fallacy.

The main point to consider is this (also called the fallacy of black or white thinking).  It takes an issue and divides it into two camps… one presented favorably and one unfavorably.  It argues "If you don't support [A] it means you must support [B]."  The problem is, if there is a position [C] out there, then the argument that an opponent must favor some evil if he does not accept your position is dishonest and lacks the charity which all Christians are called to.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church (#2477-2478) reminds us:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

This means before one more Catholic blogger accuses another faithful Catholic of being heretical because he disagrees with said blogger, the question to be asked is: Does Church teaching contradict my opponent's position or does it allow different degrees on how the teaching is to be understood?

Again, this isn't an either-or issue like abortion.  Because the Church teaches that the unborn child is a person, no Catholic can take a stand which supports abortion (killing an unborn person).  This line is clear.

But other debates among the faithful of the Church are debates over whether situation [X] is on the right side of the line or not.  How does a Dutch citizen respond when Nazis show up at his door carrying submachine guns and asking "Where are the Jews?"  How does the undercover cop respond when a felon asks point blank, "are you a cop?"

These are not easy questions to answer.  Christians are forbidden to lie, we know.  An ancient Christian would be doing wrong if he replied "No" to the Roman soldiers asking the question "Are you a Christian?"  But what happens when someone demands to know something they have no right to know?  This is where the dispute exists.

This blog war is filled with rash judgment – many people are willing to assume bad will on the part of the other side.  But assuming bad will without evidence is the rash judgment which the Church condemns.

Both sides in a dispute where people disagree on how Church teaching is to be carried out need to look with charity towards their opponent and with a critical eye to their own position.  Respect and obey the Mother Church, but ask yourself if the position you hold is the Church position or whether it is the personal interpretation of what the Church teaches.

This is not to say that we should "give in to the other side" (that's the either-or fallacy again).  But when both sides in a dispute have a love for the Church, then the debate must be loving and charitable – where the goal is for everyone to reach a better understanding of the Church teaching and not to "defeat your opponent."

We Used To Call This Indoctrination…

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

 

—Adolph Hitler.  November 6, 1933

Introduction

My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).  While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.

The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools.  However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic.  It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality.  Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.

The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.

My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13).  After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman.  While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.

Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.

Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family

One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible.  They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament.  The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.

The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like.  He never condemned incest either.  Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument. 

So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person?  If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.

Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence."  The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility.  However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said.  For example, Matthew 19 tells us:

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.

What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.

Conclusion

So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not.  People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly.  Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).

If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.  But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.

Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.

People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose.  Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.

We Used To Call This Indoctrination…

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already... What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community.

 

—Adolph Hitler.  November 6, 1933

Introduction

My sister-in-law told me about an event called "Day of Silence" put on my a group called GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network).  While this information came too late for me to write about this as a warning before it happened, I can at least comment on this so people of good will can be aware of what can only be described as propaganda aimed at indoctrinating the youth.

The claimed purpose of this event is to protest against bullying in the public schools.  However, when one looks at the materials, what we see is a concerted effort to undermine the moral teaching authority of parents and their religious faiths through misrepresentation and bad logic.  It is intended to push a radical agenda which portrays "alternate sexual preferences" as merely a matter of taste and not morality.  Because this activity happens in schools, it aims its agenda at people who are considered vulnerable with no chance defending the family religious beliefs until after the fact.

The designed exercises seem aimed to presenting their views as true while pressuring youth who know what is right to cave in or keep silent.

My sister-in-law tells me she kept her son home from school on the day of the event (4/19/13).  After reading the material, I can only conclude she is a very wise woman.  While I only found out about this event after the fact, I still think it is good to write about this so that people may be aware of this in the future and consider how they might protect their children from overt indoctrination.

Because there is so much to consider, I will focus mainly on one area of attack which happens to be my area of expertise.

Undermining Religious Beliefs of a Family

One example of their tactics in indoctrination is to ask whether Jesus condemned homosexuality in the Bible.  They answer that Jesus did not condemn homosexuality.  They point out that these condemnations show up in Paul and in the Old Testament.  The intended conclusion they want to draw is that if Jesus was opposed to homosexuality, He would have condemned it by name.

The problem is, by this logic, Jesus never condemned bestiality, necrophilia, pedophilia or the like.  He never condemned incest either.  Come to think of it, He never mentioned consent either, so rape is theoretically OK by this argument. 

So are we to assume that Jesus was an "anything goes" type of person?  If we accept this kind of argument, we have to assume Jesus was in favor of all sorts of sexual behavior – behavior that promoters of homosexuality get extremely angry over when we point this out.

Actually the "Jesus never said anything about [X]… therefore [X] is ok" argument is a logical fallacy called "argument from silence."  The reason this fallacy makes the argument invalid is because silence neither proves support or hostility.  However, we can find out what Jesus thought about marriage from other things He said.  For example, Matthew 19 tells us:

He said in reply, “Have you not read that from the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female’ and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’?  So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, no human being must separate.” (Matthew 19: 4-6)

So what we see is that while Jesus never explicitly condemned homosexuality by name, he explicitly declares that God's intention (from the beginning [see Matt 19:8]) is for man and woman to be married in a lifelong relationship.

What this shows is we have people who are willing to misrepresent what Jesus taught in order to undermine the family beliefs and convictions.

Conclusion

So here's why you should be alarmed, whether you have children in school or not.  People who are willing to misrepresent what a person says in order to make a point are behaving dishonestly.  Even if one disagrees with Christian teaching on sexual morality, a person of good will should want to condemn a deliberate misrepresentation made in order to deceive someone (called sophistry).

If a group claims to want tolerance and dialogue, they should be open to seeking out the best possible representation of both sides to evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.  But if they misrepresent, if they use false arguments, if they intimidate in order to get young people to support their position then we do not have tolerance and dialogue.

Instead we have indoctrination and propaganda.

People of good will should be aware of the fact that this sort of event engages in unscrupulous tactics to push an agenda that parents have every right to oppose.  Parents who oppose such events should be supported, and schools who try to allow such events should be opposed.

Keep Perspective

There is one good reason to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that reason is that the Catholic Church is the Church which was established by Jesus Christ and acts with the authority which Christ has bestowed on her to bring people to Him.  Love of her artwork, her architecture and the beauty of her rituals are not reasons to be a member of the Catholic Church.

It is true that these things can and do elevate the mind to God and should not be scorned.  But if one should put so much focus on the beauty that they forget the purpose of the Church, then the attachment to these things can actually be harmful.

Now we need to remember the maxim abusus non tollit usum (Abuse does not take away [right] use).  The fact that some put excessive focus on these things does not mean they are worthless and should be discarded.  Rather it means that when the aesthetics of the Church are downplayed, a person should ask why this is.

Watching the past two and a half weeks since Pope Francis was elected, there have been a certain section of the Catholic blogosphere who has been scandalized by his actions.  It might seem asinine that some people are worried about the fact that the Pope isn't wearing the red shoes and some other traditional robes, but they are. Some have even accused him of doing things in Argentina (like washing the feet of certain outcasts) out of pride(!).

I think these are quite clearly warning signs that some people are missing the point of what the Church is existing for.

The Church is the sacrament Christ has made to bring His salvation to the world – and His Real Presence to the world in the Eucharist.  Pope Francis sees some of the trappings of the office as perhaps obscuring the message of salvation and so he forgoes these trappings to make the message more clear.

Now some people may disagree with how he handles these things.  Fair enough.  There were times when I cringed at how some of Pope Francis' predecessors did or stated things.  We don't have to like all the ways a Pope uses to express himself in teaching the faith.  But if a person does not like some of the means the Pope might use to teach the faith, that person still has to have a loving acceptance of the authority of the Pope and assume he is acting out of good will instead of judging rashly.

I do not write this to judge any individual.  Rather in the last few hours before the Easter Vigil, I ask readers to keep perspective and not to forget what the Church is for when the Pope acts in an unexpected way.

Keep Perspective

There is one good reason to be a member of the Catholic Church, and that reason is that the Catholic Church is the Church which was established by Jesus Christ and acts with the authority which Christ has bestowed on her to bring people to Him.  Love of her artwork, her architecture and the beauty of her rituals are not reasons to be a member of the Catholic Church.

It is true that these things can and do elevate the mind to God and should not be scorned.  But if one should put so much focus on the beauty that they forget the purpose of the Church, then the attachment to these things can actually be harmful.

Now we need to remember the maxim abusus non tollit usum (Abuse does not take away [right] use).  The fact that some put excessive focus on these things does not mean they are worthless and should be discarded.  Rather it means that when the aesthetics of the Church are downplayed, a person should ask why this is.

Watching the past two and a half weeks since Pope Francis was elected, there have been a certain section of the Catholic blogosphere who has been scandalized by his actions.  It might seem asinine that some people are worried about the fact that the Pope isn't wearing the red shoes and some other traditional robes, but they are. Some have even accused him of doing things in Argentina (like washing the feet of certain outcasts) out of pride(!).

I think these are quite clearly warning signs that some people are missing the point of what the Church is existing for.

The Church is the sacrament Christ has made to bring His salvation to the world – and His Real Presence to the world in the Eucharist.  Pope Francis sees some of the trappings of the office as perhaps obscuring the message of salvation and so he forgoes these trappings to make the message more clear.

Now some people may disagree with how he handles these things.  Fair enough.  There were times when I cringed at how some of Pope Francis' predecessors did or stated things.  We don't have to like all the ways a Pope uses to express himself in teaching the faith.  But if a person does not like some of the means the Pope might use to teach the faith, that person still has to have a loving acceptance of the authority of the Pope and assume he is acting out of good will instead of judging rashly.

I do not write this to judge any individual.  Rather in the last few hours before the Easter Vigil, I ask readers to keep perspective and not to forget what the Church is for when the Pope acts in an unexpected way.

Pope Francis and Rash Judgment

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

The news has come out that two of the individuals whose feet he washed at the youth prison happened to be female, and one of them a Muslim.  Traditional Catholics were horrified. 

I usually dread these kind of stories… not because I think Pope Francis did wrong (See here for Jimmy Akin's good explanation as to why the Pope did not), but because invariably somebody is going to get all up in arms about how the Pope is a heretic or somehow committing a terrible sin and it is so tiresome to have to explain the faith to someone who should already know better.

The long and the short of it is the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church and does have the authority to make decisions on how the Papal ceremonies are to be carried out.  Since the Pope did not make a change in Catholic Dogma or Doctrine nor change the Church teaching on faith and morals, he has not gone out of bounds in any way or sinned.

Sure, it might have been less startling if he had announced the change first, but he was not obligated to do so.

What Pope Francis seems to have done is seek to use Christ's example to show how he, as the Vicar of Christ, seeks to follow his Master's instructions – as the master, Christ showed how the Church is to be the servant.  Pope Francis seems to have decided to bear witness to how the Church is at the service of all – including felons and among those felons, including female Muslims.

There was no perversion of the Washing of the Feet by what He did.

Because there was no wrong done, and because we are required to look at the Pope's actions with charity and not assuming any moral fault on his part.

Otherwise there will be a scandal of Holy Thursday – and we will be the ones guilty of it.

Pope Francis and Rash Judgment

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.²⁷⁸ He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;²⁷⁹

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.²⁸⁰

The news has come out that two of the individuals whose feet he washed at the youth prison happened to be female, and one of them a Muslim.  Traditional Catholics were horrified. 

I usually dread these kind of stories… not because I think Pope Francis did wrong (See here for Jimmy Akin's good explanation as to why the Pope did not), but because invariably somebody is going to get all up in arms about how the Pope is a heretic or somehow committing a terrible sin and it is so tiresome to have to explain the faith to someone who should already know better.

The long and the short of it is the Pope is the supreme legislator of the Church and does have the authority to make decisions on how the Papal ceremonies are to be carried out.  Since the Pope did not make a change in Catholic Dogma or Doctrine nor change the Church teaching on faith and morals, he has not gone out of bounds in any way or sinned.

Sure, it might have been less startling if he had announced the change first, but he was not obligated to do so.

What Pope Francis seems to have done is seek to use Christ's example to show how he, as the Vicar of Christ, seeks to follow his Master's instructions – as the master, Christ showed how the Church is to be the servant.  Pope Francis seems to have decided to bear witness to how the Church is at the service of all – including felons and among those felons, including female Muslims.

There was no perversion of the Washing of the Feet by what He did.

Because there was no wrong done, and because we are required to look at the Pope's actions with charity and not assuming any moral fault on his part.

Otherwise there will be a scandal of Holy Thursday – and we will be the ones guilty of it.

Reflections on Dualistic (Either-Or) Thinking

One of the problems with American thinking is that it tends to be dualistic – either X or Y – when it comes to criticism.  If one criticizes X it is assumed that one supports Y and vice versa.  That is a problem in America where as of late it seems that neither X nor Y is in the right and both must be opposed.  So, for example, Americans are given the argument of: Either pro-"gay marriage" or "homophobic" and opposition to one is automatically seen as endorsement of the other.

This is why one sees the Matthew Sheppard case invoked as a justification of so-called "gay marriage" while opponents of this are vilified as supporting his barbaric murder.  The assumption is if one does not support "gay marriage" one must be homophobic.  But if one rejects both homophobia and "gay marriage," then the accusation is false.

Unfortunately, this dualistic thinking seems to show up in people who observe the Church as well, where a thing can be both-and instead of either-or.  Praise Pope Francis and his simplicity, for example, and it tends to come off as a rebuke of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his more formal liturgies – and vice versa.  It seems that not many people consider the possibility of both Popes doing what was right before God with different accents.  Neither one contradicted Church teaching nor lived in a way which demonstrated opposition to Christ and His Church.

Either-Or thinking can be fallacy if (among other things):

1. Neither Option is true (neither A nor B)
2. Both options are compatible (Both A and B)
3. There are more unconsidered options (I choose Option C)

In other words, we have to look at what is asked and consider whether A and B are contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false) and whether A and B are the only options to choose from (choose from only A or B).

This is a problem with how the political and media elites view the Church today.  They consider a certain policy to be essential for the good of mankind.  Thus any opposition to this policy must be considered hostile towards the good of mankind.  Thus the venom spewed against the Church over opposition to contraception, abortion and the like.

But the Church considers the good of man to extend beyond life on Earth and must look at our existence on Earth in light of our existence after death.  If certain behaviors will harm our life after death, it is reasonable she might oppose a behavior which may seem beneficial in the short term but harmful in terms of our ultimate goal.

Now some may object that this is imposing beliefs on a person who does not believe life extends beyond death.  But when one thinks about it, such an argument is actually an attempt by the person who does not believe life extends beyond death to impose their beliefs on the person who does.

If it is wrong to impose beliefs on others, then the person who attacks Christianity as "bigoted" is guilty of imposing their beliefs on others.  Why?  Because they argue Either-Or in such a way that one must be contradictory to the other.  If one argues "either you [tolerate views you disagree with] or you're [a bigot]" then under the argument they make, they must either tolerate the Christianity they dislike or accept the label of bigot.

Since they argue the either-or, they are caught up in the trap they make for the Christian.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not argue by the either-or fallacy (though some Christians do).  The Church recognizes that sin is contrary to following Christ and so every sin must be condemned as wrong.  But the Church also recognizes that Christ commanded that we go out to seek out the lost and tell them of the salvation Christ brings.  The individual sought out may accept or reject the message of salvation, but we're forbidden to just write off a person as being beyond redemption, and certainly the Christian who goes out to bring the Good News to people must consider his or her own behavior in presenting the Truth of Jesus Christ.

In other words, jerks exist among all groups of people – even among Christians.

So, we need to recognize that there is objective truth which we must live in accordance with to know, love and serve God.  Unfortunately, we need to be aware of the fact that some rejection of Christianity is the result of some Christians presenting the Christian message in a way that offends.  God knows the heart of the person and knows the motives for rejection of those who will not follow what He commands.  His judgments will take these things into account.

But despite the fact that some Christians are jerks in presenting the teaching of Christ, does not change the objective truth of His teaching of how we are called to live.

It would be an either-or fallacy to assume "Either [all Christians are nice] or [Christianity is false].

Reflections on Dualistic (Either-Or) Thinking

One of the problems with American thinking is that it tends to be dualistic – either X or Y – when it comes to criticism.  If one criticizes X it is assumed that one supports Y and vice versa.  That is a problem in America where as of late it seems that neither X nor Y is in the right and both must be opposed.  So, for example, Americans are given the argument of: Either pro-"gay marriage" or "homophobic" and opposition to one is automatically seen as endorsement of the other.

This is why one sees the Matthew Sheppard case invoked as a justification of so-called "gay marriage" while opponents of this are vilified as supporting his barbaric murder.  The assumption is if one does not support "gay marriage" one must be homophobic.  But if one rejects both homophobia and "gay marriage," then the accusation is false.

Unfortunately, this dualistic thinking seems to show up in people who observe the Church as well, where a thing can be both-and instead of either-or.  Praise Pope Francis and his simplicity, for example, and it tends to come off as a rebuke of Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his more formal liturgies – and vice versa.  It seems that not many people consider the possibility of both Popes doing what was right before God with different accents.  Neither one contradicted Church teaching nor lived in a way which demonstrated opposition to Christ and His Church.

Either-Or thinking can be fallacy if (among other things):

1. Neither Option is true (neither A nor B)
2. Both options are compatible (Both A and B)
3. There are more unconsidered options (I choose Option C)

In other words, we have to look at what is asked and consider whether A and B are contradictory (if one is true, the other must be false) and whether A and B are the only options to choose from (choose from only A or B).

This is a problem with how the political and media elites view the Church today.  They consider a certain policy to be essential for the good of mankind.  Thus any opposition to this policy must be considered hostile towards the good of mankind.  Thus the venom spewed against the Church over opposition to contraception, abortion and the like.

But the Church considers the good of man to extend beyond life on Earth and must look at our existence on Earth in light of our existence after death.  If certain behaviors will harm our life after death, it is reasonable she might oppose a behavior which may seem beneficial in the short term but harmful in terms of our ultimate goal.

Now some may object that this is imposing beliefs on a person who does not believe life extends beyond death.  But when one thinks about it, such an argument is actually an attempt by the person who does not believe life extends beyond death to impose their beliefs on the person who does.

If it is wrong to impose beliefs on others, then the person who attacks Christianity as "bigoted" is guilty of imposing their beliefs on others.  Why?  Because they argue Either-Or in such a way that one must be contradictory to the other.  If one argues "either you [tolerate views you disagree with] or you're [a bigot]" then under the argument they make, they must either tolerate the Christianity they dislike or accept the label of bigot.

Since they argue the either-or, they are caught up in the trap they make for the Christian.

Christianity, on the other hand, does not argue by the either-or fallacy (though some Christians do).  The Church recognizes that sin is contrary to following Christ and so every sin must be condemned as wrong.  But the Church also recognizes that Christ commanded that we go out to seek out the lost and tell them of the salvation Christ brings.  The individual sought out may accept or reject the message of salvation, but we're forbidden to just write off a person as being beyond redemption, and certainly the Christian who goes out to bring the Good News to people must consider his or her own behavior in presenting the Truth of Jesus Christ.

In other words, jerks exist among all groups of people – even among Christians.

So, we need to recognize that there is objective truth which we must live in accordance with to know, love and serve God.  Unfortunately, we need to be aware of the fact that some rejection of Christianity is the result of some Christians presenting the Christian message in a way that offends.  God knows the heart of the person and knows the motives for rejection of those who will not follow what He commands.  His judgments will take these things into account.

But despite the fact that some Christians are jerks in presenting the teaching of Christ, does not change the objective truth of His teaching of how we are called to live.

It would be an either-or fallacy to assume "Either [all Christians are nice] or [Christianity is false].

He'll Be a Great Pope… Provided He Does Exactly What We Want

Read more »

He'll Be a Great Pope… Provided He Does Exactly What We Want

Read more »

Pope Francis

Read more »