The Attacks on the Church Escalate

In an extremely perverse move, the ACLU is suing the Catholic bishops on the grounds that their directives on following the Church teaching on abortion endangers the life/health of women.

Think about it. They're not suing a hospital for discharging a woman who still needed medical care. They're suing the Catholic bishops for teaching that a Catholic institution has to operate according to Catholic moral principles, and if they will not, they cannot call themselves a Catholic institution.

The case still needs to be watched. More details are needed to determine precisely what resolution the plaintiff wants.

However, the Catholic Church knowing direct abortion is never permissible cannot comply with any demand that she permit her hospitals to perform them.  Since we must choose to suffer evil rather than commit it, the Church may face unjust consequences for refusing to obey an unjust judicial decree.

More and more Lincoln's words, which I have cited over the years seem prophetic:

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Hypocritical because Americs claims to be a nation which respects freedom and liberty but is perfectly willing to interfere with Constitutional rights which belong to groups unpopular with the political and media elites.

This is a time to pray for our nation, that it may repent of its injustice, and pray for our bishops, that they will not falter.

The Attacks on the Church Escalate

In an extremely perverse move, the ACLU is suing the Catholic bishops on the grounds that their directives on following the Church teaching on abortion endangers the life/health of women.

Think about it. They're not suing a hospital for discharging a woman who still needed medical care. They're suing the Catholic bishops for teaching that a Catholic institution has to operate according to Catholic moral principles, and if they will not, they cannot call themselves a Catholic institution.

The case still needs to be watched. More details are needed to determine precisely what resolution the plaintiff wants.

However, the Catholic Church knowing direct abortion is never permissible cannot comply with any demand that she permit her hospitals to perform them.  Since we must choose to suffer evil rather than commit it, the Church may face unjust consequences for refusing to obey an unjust judicial decree.

More and more Lincoln's words, which I have cited over the years seem prophetic:

As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it, "All men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read, "All men are created equal except Negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some other country where they make no pretense of loving liberty - to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, without the base alloy of hypocrisy.

Hypocritical because Americs claims to be a nation which respects freedom and liberty but is perfectly willing to interfere with Constitutional rights which belong to groups unpopular with the political and media elites.

This is a time to pray for our nation, that it may repent of its injustice, and pray for our bishops, that they will not falter.

Propaganda

I came across an article while checking out the news this morning. Basically it involves people who have gotten a so-called "gay marriage" in one state and wants a divorce in a state that does not recognize such relationships as marriage.

What struck me as I read this was the rhetoric used by the proponents of this "gay marriage."  The statements like:

"[T]o be in a state that doesn't recognize you as a human being, or recognize you for who you are, for who you love, it's hard... I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen."

...show the propaganda against the reality of marriage being between one man and one woman... portraying it as looking down on people with same sex attractions.

In logic, we call this the Straw man fallacy.  The caricature of an argument which is attacked to make it seem as though the whole position is without merit.  Supporting traditional marriage is not to refuse to recognize a person with same sex attraction as a human being.  Nor is it treating them as a second class citizen.

Rather it is based on the fact that the family which raises children is the building block which society is based on. It is where the child is instilled with the teachings enabling them to build up society.

Reduce marriage to sex and emotional bond and you're destroying that building block. But you don't hear that or other reasons as to why same-sex couples can't be married.

Instead, we get appeals to pity... "the mean state (or Christians) treat us as less than human second class citizens just because we love each other."

That is biased, misleading language used to promote a political cause or point of view... the definition of Propaganda.

Propaganda

I came across an article while checking out the news this morning. Basically it involves people who have gotten a so-called "gay marriage" in one state and wants a divorce in a state that does not recognize such relationships as marriage.

What struck me as I read this was the rhetoric used by the proponents of this "gay marriage."  The statements like:

"[T]o be in a state that doesn't recognize you as a human being, or recognize you for who you are, for who you love, it's hard... I'm not treated like the neighbors next door. I'm treated like a second-class citizen."

...show the propaganda against the reality of marriage being between one man and one woman... portraying it as looking down on people with same sex attractions.

In logic, we call this the Straw man fallacy.  The caricature of an argument which is attacked to make it seem as though the whole position is without merit.  Supporting traditional marriage is not to refuse to recognize a person with same sex attraction as a human being.  Nor is it treating them as a second class citizen.

Rather it is based on the fact that the family which raises children is the building block which society is based on. It is where the child is instilled with the teachings enabling them to build up society.

Reduce marriage to sex and emotional bond and you're destroying that building block. But you don't hear that or other reasons as to why same-sex couples can't be married.

Instead, we get appeals to pity... "the mean state (or Christians) treat us as less than human second class citizens just because we love each other."

That is biased, misleading language used to promote a political cause or point of view... the definition of Propaganda.

Judge Not?

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.  (Matt 7:1-5)

There are two things, moreover, in which we ought to beware of rash judgment; when it is uncertain with what intention any thing is done; or when it is uncertain what sort of a person he is going to be, who at preset is manifestly either good or bad. If, therefore, any one, for example, complaining of his stomach, would not fast, and you, not believing this, were to attribute it to the vice of gluttony, you would judge rashly. Likewise, if you were to come to know the gluttony and drunkenness as being manifest, and were so to administer reproof as if the man could never be amended and changed, you would nevertheless judge rashly.

--St. Augustine, Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount #61.

One line of attack against the moral teaching of the Church is the use of Christ's statememt on not judging others.  The general argument is along the lines of:

1) Jesus said not to judge.
2) But by saying homosexuality (or another sin) is wrong, you're judging.
3) So you're going against what Jesus said by saying homosexuality is wrong.

The problem is, using that line of reasoning, you couldn't condemn Nazis or rapists or murderers either. That's absurd of course, so it demonstrates that the argument is flawed.

Moreover, Jesus also said, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23). Obviously one cannot forgive and retain sins without judging. Therefore Jesus cannot be interpreted in the sense of being unable to say an act is morally wrong.

What we have here is the fallacy of equivocation -- the using a word with a different meaning than intended.  An example of this would be:

1) Nothing is better than a diamond.
2) A cheap rhinestone is better than nothing.
3) Therefore a cheap rhinestone is better than a diamond.

The Equivocation is in the word "nothing."  In the major premise, it is used to mean the diamond has no rival to exceed it in value.  In the minor premise it is used to mean it is better to possess something than not to possess anything at all.  The result is a false conclusion.

The concept of judgment also has multiple meanings:

▪the ability to make considered decisions or form sensible opinions.
▪an opinion or conclusion.
▪a decision of a law court or judge.

Now it is reasonable to assume Jesus is not condemning making considered decisions or sensible decisions.  Nor, when considering John 20:23, can we think Jesus was denying the authority to decide questions of law.

However we can jump to unreasonable conclusions about the motives or ultimate destiny of a person who sins.  We can't know that a murderer is irredeemable and doomed to Hell.  We don't know that the suicide deliberately acted with full knowledge and free consent and is thus damned.  We don't know if a person died unrepentant. We don't know if a person who is holy now will perservere or not.

Ultimately what we don't know is the role of grace granted by God to others and what the ultimate choices of free will result in at the end.

So I can't say Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi are doomed to damnation because of the evil they did... not because we can't know that things are evil, but because we can't know whether or not they will repent. Our obligation is to pray for them, not write them off.

If we couldn't judge whether acts were wrong we would never be able to obey Christ when He said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

This is why the Church can speak of sin and the danger to the soul and not disobey Christ.

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Judge Not?

Stop judging, that you may not be judged. For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you. Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.  (Matt 7:1-5)

There are two things, moreover, in which we ought to beware of rash judgment; when it is uncertain with what intention any thing is done; or when it is uncertain what sort of a person he is going to be, who at preset is manifestly either good or bad. If, therefore, any one, for example, complaining of his stomach, would not fast, and you, not believing this, were to attribute it to the vice of gluttony, you would judge rashly. Likewise, if you were to come to know the gluttony and drunkenness as being manifest, and were so to administer reproof as if the man could never be amended and changed, you would nevertheless judge rashly.

--St. Augustine, Our Lord's Sermon on the Mount #61.

One line of attack against the moral teaching of the Church is the use of Christ's statememt on not judging others.  The general argument is along the lines of:

1) Jesus said not to judge.
2) But by saying homosexuality (or another sin) is wrong, you're judging.
3) So you're going against what Jesus said by saying homosexuality is wrong.

The problem is, using that line of reasoning, you couldn't condemn Nazis or rapists or murderers either. That's absurd of course, so it demonstrates that the argument is flawed.

Moreover, Jesus also said, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained." (John 20:23). Obviously one cannot forgive and retain sins without judging. Therefore Jesus cannot be interpreted in the sense of being unable to say an act is morally wrong.

What we have here is the fallacy of equivocation -- the using a word with a different meaning than intended.  An example of this would be:

1) Nothing is better than a diamond.
2) A cheap rhinestone is better than nothing.
3) Therefore a cheap rhinestone is better than a diamond.

The Equivocation is in the word "nothing."  In the major premise, it is used to mean the diamond has no rival to exceed it in value.  In the minor premise it is used to mean it is better to possess something than not to possess anything at all.  The result is a false conclusion.

The concept of judgment also has multiple meanings:

▪the ability to make considered decisions or form sensible opinions.
▪an opinion or conclusion.
▪a decision of a law court or judge.

Now it is reasonable to assume Jesus is not condemning making considered decisions or sensible decisions.  Nor, when considering John 20:23, can we think Jesus was denying the authority to decide questions of law.

However we can jump to unreasonable conclusions about the motives or ultimate destiny of a person who sins.  We can't know that a murderer is irredeemable and doomed to Hell.  We don't know that the suicide deliberately acted with full knowledge and free consent and is thus damned.  We don't know if a person died unrepentant. We don't know if a person who is holy now will perservere or not.

Ultimately what we don't know is the role of grace granted by God to others and what the ultimate choices of free will result in at the end.

So I can't say Barack Obama or Nancy Pelosi are doomed to damnation because of the evil they did... not because we can't know that things are evil, but because we can't know whether or not they will repent. Our obligation is to pray for them, not write them off.

If we couldn't judge whether acts were wrong we would never be able to obey Christ when He said, "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15)

This is why the Church can speak of sin and the danger to the soul and not disobey Christ.

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

Musings on the Church and Social Justice

When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist.

--Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop

The concern for the poor is a dual edged sword for the Church. When she cares for the poor, she is praised. When she challenges people to consider their behavior and obligations to the poor, she is considered to be naive, out of touch and unrealistic at best or leaning towards socialism at worst.

And admittedly, some in the Church do lose sight of the Christian obligation and try to reduce the Church teaching to a political or economic way of thinking.  Things like liberation theology are a distortion of the Christian belief.

Unfortunately, some falsely reason:

1) Either Socialism or Capitalism
2) The Pope is not speaking of Capitalism positively
3) Therefore, the Pope is pro-Socialism.

The problems with this assumption is that not speaking of capitalism positively does not mean speaking in favor of socialism. It can merely mean that the Pope is speaking against abuses in capitalism and calling for a change of heart.

The Church social teaching is not about embracing ideologies. It is about reminding people that Christians are obliged to live their faith in all aspects of their life.

People today get offended by Pope Francis speaking about the waste and lack of concern for others. But they forget that in 1937, Pope Pius XI wrote (in an encyclical condemning Communism):

But when on the one hand We see thousands of the needy, victims of real misery for various reasons beyond their control, and on the other so many round about them who spend huge sums of money on useless things and frivolous amusement, We cannot fail to remark with sorrow not only that justice is poorly observed, but that the precept of charity also is not sufficiently appreciated, is not a vital thing in daily life. We desire therefore, Venerable Brethren, that this divine precept, this precious mark of identification left by Christ to His true disciples, be ever more fully explained by pen and word of mouth; this precept which teaches us to see in those who suffer Christ Himself, and would have us love our brothers as Our Divine Savior has loved us, that is, even at the sacrifice of ourselves, and, if need be, of our very life. Let all then frequently meditate on those words of the final sentence, so consoling yet so terrifying, which the Supreme Judge will pronounce on the day of the Last Judgment: "Come, ye blessed of my Father . . . for I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink . . . Amen, I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren you did it to me."[33] And the reverse: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink . . . Amen, I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least. neither did you do it to me."[34]

(Divini Redemptoris #47).

It's the same message, 76 years before Pope Francis wrote Evangelii Gaudium (in fact, only a year after he was born).  There have been huge upheavals in the political and economic landscape since 1937, but Pope Pius XI wrote what was true then and is true now. People can sin in ways involving the economy. Some in ways always wrong (like the injustices of Communism). Others in ways that misuse the system for personal gain.

Unfortunately people either want to coopt the Church teaching into looking like an endorsement of their partisan views or treat it as if the Church was deceived into endorsing "the other side."

That's happening again. Communism is largely irrelevant today and Capitalism exists even in Communist nations to some extent. So the Pope doesn't need to speak against Communism's wrongs.  Capitalism is alive and well, so when it goes wrong, the Pope would be remiss to be silent on these wrongs.

The Church teaching is not politically motivated. It is concerned with our relationship with God and neighbor -- relationships which should be our highest priority in life.  If we think of these teachings as political, perhaps we should think about where we stand in our relationships with God and neighbor.

Musings on the Church and Social Justice

When I feed the hungry, they call me a saint. When I ask why people are hungry, they call me a Communist.

--Dom Helder Camara, Brazilian archbishop

The concern for the poor is a dual edged sword for the Church. When she cares for the poor, she is praised. When she challenges people to consider their behavior and obligations to the poor, she is considered to be naive, out of touch and unrealistic at best or leaning towards socialism at worst.

And admittedly, some in the Church do lose sight of the Christian obligation and try to reduce the Church teaching to a political or economic way of thinking.  Things like liberation theology are a distortion of the Christian belief.

Unfortunately, some falsely reason:

1) Either Socialism or Capitalism
2) The Pope is not speaking of Capitalism positively
3) Therefore, the Pope is pro-Socialism.

The problems with this assumption is that not speaking of capitalism positively does not mean speaking in favor of socialism. It can merely mean that the Pope is speaking against abuses in capitalism and calling for a change of heart.

The Church social teaching is not about embracing ideologies. It is about reminding people that Christians are obliged to live their faith in all aspects of their life.

People today get offended by Pope Francis speaking about the waste and lack of concern for others. But they forget that in 1937, Pope Pius XI wrote (in an encyclical condemning Communism):

But when on the one hand We see thousands of the needy, victims of real misery for various reasons beyond their control, and on the other so many round about them who spend huge sums of money on useless things and frivolous amusement, We cannot fail to remark with sorrow not only that justice is poorly observed, but that the precept of charity also is not sufficiently appreciated, is not a vital thing in daily life. We desire therefore, Venerable Brethren, that this divine precept, this precious mark of identification left by Christ to His true disciples, be ever more fully explained by pen and word of mouth; this precept which teaches us to see in those who suffer Christ Himself, and would have us love our brothers as Our Divine Savior has loved us, that is, even at the sacrifice of ourselves, and, if need be, of our very life. Let all then frequently meditate on those words of the final sentence, so consoling yet so terrifying, which the Supreme Judge will pronounce on the day of the Last Judgment: "Come, ye blessed of my Father . . . for I was hungry and you gave me to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me to drink . . . Amen, I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren you did it to me."[33] And the reverse: "Depart from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire . . . for I was hungry and you gave me not to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me not to drink . . . Amen, I say to you, as long as you did it not to one of these least. neither did you do it to me."[34]

(Divini Redemptoris #47).

It's the same message, 76 years before Pope Francis wrote Evangelii Gaudium (in fact, only a year after he was born).  There have been huge upheavals in the political and economic landscape since 1937, but Pope Pius XI wrote what was true then and is true now. People can sin in ways involving the economy. Some in ways always wrong (like the injustices of Communism). Others in ways that misuse the system for personal gain.

Unfortunately people either want to coopt the Church teaching into looking like an endorsement of their partisan views or treat it as if the Church was deceived into endorsing "the other side."

That's happening again. Communism is largely irrelevant today and Capitalism exists even in Communist nations to some extent. So the Pope doesn't need to speak against Communism's wrongs.  Capitalism is alive and well, so when it goes wrong, the Pope would be remiss to be silent on these wrongs.

The Church teaching is not politically motivated. It is concerned with our relationship with God and neighbor -- relationships which should be our highest priority in life.  If we think of these teachings as political, perhaps we should think about where we stand in our relationships with God and neighbor.

TFTD: Political Critics

I see it reported that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have begun to disparage the Pope over his Apostolic Exhortation. Now it is understandable that non-Catholics might not understand the Catholic teaching on different subjects. However it is sad to see people judging a Papal statement from the perspective of political ideology.

Christianity is not a political platform. It is not an economic policy.  It is about the love of God for each one of us and His plan of salvation. Not everything about it fits in with what human beings find most economical or politically expedient.

Because Christianity is about our salvation and because the Pope is the successor of Peter, head of Christ's Church, it stands to reason that when the Pope speaks about the moral issues that involve political or economic issues we should take heed of whether our actions or attitudes put us in opposition to Jesus Christ.

Jesus told us (Mark 8:34b-38)

“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Our political and economic gain do not outweigh our need for salvation. While capitalism is not intrinsically evil, it can be practiced in an immoral way. Those practices must be rejected by any person concerned with following the Lord.

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: Political Critics

I see it reported that Sarah Palin and Rush Limbaugh have begun to disparage the Pope over his Apostolic Exhortation. Now it is understandable that non-Catholics might not understand the Catholic teaching on different subjects. However it is sad to see people judging a Papal statement from the perspective of political ideology.

Christianity is not a political platform. It is not an economic policy.  It is about the love of God for each one of us and His plan of salvation. Not everything about it fits in with what human beings find most economical or politically expedient.

Because Christianity is about our salvation and because the Pope is the successor of Peter, head of Christ's Church, it stands to reason that when the Pope speaks about the moral issues that involve political or economic issues we should take heed of whether our actions or attitudes put us in opposition to Jesus Christ.

Jesus told us (Mark 8:34b-38)

“Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake and that of the gospel will save it. What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.”

Our political and economic gain do not outweigh our need for salvation. While capitalism is not intrinsically evil, it can be practiced in an immoral way. Those practices must be rejected by any person concerned with following the Lord.

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: Corporations Have No Rights?

On the CNN newsfeed, I saw an editorial claiming that individuals have rights but corporations do not. Therefore corporations like Hobby Lobby should not be able to get an exemption from the mandated contraception/abortion coverage since such rights only extend to the individual practice of religion -- which the author seems to interpret as worship.

But that's too narrow. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key words in this case are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The free exercise of religion involves all aspects of a person's life... including the right to go into business.

If corporations founded by religious believers may not be run according to the religious convictions they hold, this is a restriction on the free exercise of religion.

Moreover, if religion is merely a right of individuals, then it follows that freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition of grievances are also individual rights.  That means organized social justice groups, the New York Times, unions and organized protests are also restricted.

That means Elizabeth B. Wydra has the individual right to opine on religious freedom but neither CNN (which published the linked article) nor the group she represents has that right.

Ridiculous? Of course. But that is what follows from her argument.

What we have here is not an appeal to reasonable constitutional law. We have partisan behavior seeking to abuse the laws and courts to compel a group to support a behavior the author approves of but they oppose.

Usually we call that fascism.

TFTD: Corporations Have No Rights?

On the CNN newsfeed, I saw an editorial claiming that individuals have rights but corporations do not. Therefore corporations like Hobby Lobby should not be able to get an exemption from the mandated contraception/abortion coverage since such rights only extend to the individual practice of religion -- which the author seems to interpret as worship.

But that's too narrow. The First Amendment reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The key words in this case are, "prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The free exercise of religion involves all aspects of a person's life... including the right to go into business.

If corporations founded by religious believers may not be run according to the religious convictions they hold, this is a restriction on the free exercise of religion.

Moreover, if religion is merely a right of individuals, then it follows that freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly and petition of grievances are also individual rights.  That means organized social justice groups, the New York Times, unions and organized protests are also restricted.

That means Elizabeth B. Wydra has the individual right to opine on religious freedom but neither CNN (which published the linked article) nor the group she represents has that right.

Ridiculous? Of course. But that is what follows from her argument.

What we have here is not an appeal to reasonable constitutional law. We have partisan behavior seeking to abuse the laws and courts to compel a group to support a behavior the author approves of but they oppose.

Usually we call that fascism.

TFTD: Judgmental

One irony I see on the Internet is how the people most critical of the Church as judgmental and intolerant are actually judgmental and intolerant themselves when faced with different views in conflict with their own.

Whatever the cause they promote, they will not tolerate a view which contradicts it.  If they favor so-called "gay marriage", they will not permit a view defending marriage between one man and one woman.  In fact they attack the view with as much force as they have the power to use.  Certainly they will bully and intimidate. If they can, they will try to impose sanctions against those who hold other views.

Likewise the issue of abortion. The supporter will not accept the right of the view of the opponent to exist, seeking to bully and intimidate their opponent into silence.

What makes this mindset dangerous today is the corrupted political mindset which justifies any tactic used in favor of a position and any form of harassment against opponents.

What makes this kind of mindset alarming is history is full of regimes that used these tactics and eventually became a one party system when one part of the spectrum had the tools available to silence their opponents.

With that in mind, we should consider the current situation in America. People who publicly hold the views of Christian morality do risk loss of their jobs and perhaps risk legal action -- both of which have happened with businesses which won't recognize "gay marriage", hospitals which won't do abortions and pharmacists who won't sell abortifacient drugs.

That's just America. Canada and England can prosecute people for hate speech if they defend the Christian view of marriage.

But there is a difference between Christian morality and the opposition to it. Credible Christian leaders don't behave like their opponents. Blessed John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have never used slurs or insults in teaching. They have never threatened or bullied or sought to silence their opponents. Small extremist sects have done so, but small extremist sects don't represent the whole.

Yet their opponents have used all these tactics against Christians. This leads me to ask, Who is judgmental? Who is intolerant? Who is a threat to the freedom to do what is right?

Not the Christians.

TFTD: Judgmental

One irony I see on the Internet is how the people most critical of the Church as judgmental and intolerant are actually judgmental and intolerant themselves when faced with different views in conflict with their own.

Whatever the cause they promote, they will not tolerate a view which contradicts it.  If they favor so-called "gay marriage", they will not permit a view defending marriage between one man and one woman.  In fact they attack the view with as much force as they have the power to use.  Certainly they will bully and intimidate. If they can, they will try to impose sanctions against those who hold other views.

Likewise the issue of abortion. The supporter will not accept the right of the view of the opponent to exist, seeking to bully and intimidate their opponent into silence.

What makes this mindset dangerous today is the corrupted political mindset which justifies any tactic used in favor of a position and any form of harassment against opponents.

What makes this kind of mindset alarming is history is full of regimes that used these tactics and eventually became a one party system when one part of the spectrum had the tools available to silence their opponents.

With that in mind, we should consider the current situation in America. People who publicly hold the views of Christian morality do risk loss of their jobs and perhaps risk legal action -- both of which have happened with businesses which won't recognize "gay marriage", hospitals which won't do abortions and pharmacists who won't sell abortifacient drugs.

That's just America. Canada and England can prosecute people for hate speech if they defend the Christian view of marriage.

But there is a difference between Christian morality and the opposition to it. Credible Christian leaders don't behave like their opponents. Blessed John Paul II, Benedict XVI and Francis have never used slurs or insults in teaching. They have never threatened or bullied or sought to silence their opponents. Small extremist sects have done so, but small extremist sects don't represent the whole.

Yet their opponents have used all these tactics against Christians. This leads me to ask, Who is judgmental? Who is intolerant? Who is a threat to the freedom to do what is right?

Not the Christians.

TFTD: Distorting Christ

Certain dissenters who want the Church to change the teaching entrusted to her make much of the statement "God is love." It is presumed that any Church "rules" interfering with what they call "love" is against Christ.

Christ, however, said "Your sins are forgiven," and "Go and sin no more." His words indicate there are evil acts which He can forgive and we are to seek to stop living in sin.

The dissenters essentially say, "there is no sin." That effectively makes Jesus nothing more than a nice guy teacher, denying His bringing us salvation.

TFTD: Distorting Christ

Certain dissenters who want the Church to change the teaching entrusted to her make much of the statement "God is love." It is presumed that any Church "rules" interfering with what they call "love" is against Christ.

Christ, however, said "Your sins are forgiven," and "Go and sin no more." His words indicate there are evil acts which He can forgive and we are to seek to stop living in sin.

The dissenters essentially say, "there is no sin." That effectively makes Jesus nothing more than a nice guy teacher, denying His bringing us salvation.

TFTD: God Cares About the Church He Established

I think in dealing with Catholic concerns about the direction the Church is going in, we have to remind them that God has a role to play, and it is not only in the hands of human members.

I think the trilemma is an important thing to keep in mind here. Let us demonstrate it by creating two sets of categories.

1) Either God exists or He does not.
2) God either cares about His Church or He does not.

This leaves us with the following:

1) God does not exist (if He does not exist, whether or not He cares about His Creation is irrelevant).
2) God exists and cares about His Church.
3) God exists and does not care about His Church.

Now, with options 1 and 3, the direction the Church is going in doesn't matter. If God doesn't exist, there is no direction for the Church to go in. If God exists, but does not care about what happens to his Church, then it is pretty irrelevant what direction the Church goes in... since He does not care.

However, if God exists and does care about His Church, it stands to reason He will look after it and protect her. That means He won't permit the Church to teach error in matters involving salvation.  He will not let the gates of Hell prevail against the Church.

So why all the fear? Unless a Catholic denies God exists or believes God does not care for His Church, he or she should have faith that the Pope isn't going to formally teach error or change Church teachings.

That isn't some sort of "papalotry" claiming the Pope can do no wrong. That's faith in God that He will be keep His promises out of love.

TFTD: God Cares About the Church He Established

I think in dealing with Catholic concerns about the direction the Church is going in, we have to remind them that God has a role to play, and it is not only in the hands of human members.

I think the trilemma is an important thing to keep in mind here. Let us demonstrate it by creating two sets of categories.

1) Either God exists or He does not.
2) God either cares about His Church or He does not.

This leaves us with the following:

1) God does not exist (if He does not exist, whether or not He cares about His Creation is irrelevant).
2) God exists and cares about His Church.
3) God exists and does not care about His Church.

Now, with options 1 and 3, the direction the Church is going in doesn't matter. If God doesn't exist, there is no direction for the Church to go in. If God exists, but does not care about what happens to his Church, then it is pretty irrelevant what direction the Church goes in... since He does not care.

However, if God exists and does care about His Church, it stands to reason He will look after it and protect her. That means He won't permit the Church to teach error in matters involving salvation.  He will not let the gates of Hell prevail against the Church.

So why all the fear? Unless a Catholic denies God exists or believes God does not care for His Church, he or she should have faith that the Pope isn't going to formally teach error or change Church teachings.

That isn't some sort of "papalotry" claiming the Pope can do no wrong. That's faith in God that He will be keep His promises out of love.

Deceiving the Faithful?

Two years ago, I asked what if the antichrist wasn't a liberal as is usually portrayed in Apocalyptic fiction. What if he turned out to be someone seeking to deceive the faithful into rejecting the true Church and the Successor of Peter?

Back then, I asked this in a speculative sense of what if we end up looking in the wrong direction? Now, I find myself wondering if it would explain the discontent among some faithful Catholics with Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope with the protection from teaching error in matters of faith and morals and he has the authority:

Not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman Pontiff. (Pastor Aeternus)

Yet we do have Catholics who stood up for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI who treat the Holy Father with suspicion and doubt. It makes me wonder, if a conservative anti-pope appeared, would many be tempted to follow this anti-pope?

And might some be tempted to follow a conservative antichrist who sounds very holy, but makes small corruptions that lead people to emphasize ideology over the faith?

Pope Francis does do things differently than his predecessors, and it is natural to be surprised on occasion. But when people question his orthodoxy, that is a temptation to make oneself the measure of the Church.

That is essentially a victory for Satan to separate a person from the true Church out of pride.

Deceiving the Faithful?

Two years ago, I asked what if the antichrist wasn't a liberal as is usually portrayed in Apocalyptic fiction. What if he turned out to be someone seeking to deceive the faithful into rejecting the true Church and the Successor of Peter?

Back then, I asked this in a speculative sense of what if we end up looking in the wrong direction? Now, I find myself wondering if it would explain the discontent among some faithful Catholics with Pope Francis.

Pope Francis is the legitimate Pope with the protection from teaching error in matters of faith and morals and he has the authority:

Not only in matters which belong to faith and morals, but also in those that appertain to the discipline and government of the Church throughout the world; so that the Church of Christ may be one flock under one supreme Pastor, through the preservation of unity, both of communion and of profession of the same faith, with the Roman Pontiff. (Pastor Aeternus)

Yet we do have Catholics who stood up for Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI who treat the Holy Father with suspicion and doubt. It makes me wonder, if a conservative anti-pope appeared, would many be tempted to follow this anti-pope?

And might some be tempted to follow a conservative antichrist who sounds very holy, but makes small corruptions that lead people to emphasize ideology over the faith?

Pope Francis does do things differently than his predecessors, and it is natural to be surprised on occasion. But when people question his orthodoxy, that is a temptation to make oneself the measure of the Church.

That is essentially a victory for Satan to separate a person from the true Church out of pride.

TFTD: Missing the Point

A fellow parishioner once complained that our Pastor never spoke about homosexuality or abortion. I was tempted to reply, "Why? Are you a homosexual abortionist?" (Thankfully God gave me the gift of prudence not to do so).

The comment wouldn't have been flippant though. It points out a problem with Catholics. That problem is focusing more on judging others than on asking ourselves where we stand with God.

Remember the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”  (Luke 18: 9-14.)

All of us are sinners, but sometimes we miss the point in judging ourselves against the sins of others instead of against who God calls us to be.

To be sure, practicing homosexuals and abortionists do need to be warned about their sins. But so do we. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (#14) reminds us:

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

If the abortionist or the practicing homosexual repents, but we remain self righteous, they will be saved and we will not.

Let's keep that in mind when the Pope, Bishop or pastor seems to hit close to home instead of talking about "them."

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: Missing the Point

A fellow parishioner once complained that our Pastor never spoke about homosexuality or abortion. I was tempted to reply, "Why? Are you a homosexual abortionist?" (Thankfully God gave me the gift of prudence not to do so).

The comment wouldn't have been flippant though. It points out a problem with Catholics. That problem is focusing more on judging others than on asking ourselves where we stand with God.

Remember the Parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector:

He then addressed this parable to those who were convinced of their own righteousness and despised everyone else. “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector. The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’ But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’ I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”  (Luke 18: 9-14.)

All of us are sinners, but sometimes we miss the point in judging ourselves against the sins of others instead of against who God calls us to be.

To be sure, practicing homosexuals and abortionists do need to be warned about their sins. But so do we. The Vatican II document, Lumen Gentium (#14) reminds us:

All the Church’s children should remember that their exalted status is to be attributed not to their own merits but to the special grace of Christ. If they fail moreover to respond to that grace in thought, word and deed, not only shall they not be saved but they will be the more severely judged.

If the abortionist or the practicing homosexual repents, but we remain self righteous, they will be saved and we will not.

Let's keep that in mind when the Pope, Bishop or pastor seems to hit close to home instead of talking about "them."

Scripture texts in this work are taken from the New American Bible, revised edition © 2010, 1991, 1986, 1970 Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Washington, D.C. and are used by permission of the copyright owner. All Rights Reserved. No part of the New American Bible may be reproduced in any form without permission in writing from the copyright owner.

TFTD: Missing the Main Point

There was much said on the airwaves, in print and online about the glitches on the Obamacare website and the number of people either dropped from coverage or having their rates jacked up.

While these show the lack of prudence and perhaps honesty about the ACA, these are somewhat of a distraction.

Even if the website worked flawlessly and nobody had their rates jacked up, we still have heathcare where Christian employers still have to pay (through a shell game) for abortion and contraceptive coverage against the teachings of their faith.

Let's not forget this in the media circus currently in play.

TFTD: Missing the Main Point

There was much said on the airwaves, in print and online about the glitches on the Obamacare website and the number of people either dropped from coverage or having their rates jacked up.

While these show the lack of prudence and perhaps honesty about the ACA, these are somewhat of a distraction.

Even if the website worked flawlessly and nobody had their rates jacked up, we still have heathcare where Christian employers still have to pay (through a shell game) for abortion and contraceptive coverage against the teachings of their faith.

Let's not forget this in the media circus currently in play.

Reflections on the Either-Or Fallacy

Introducton

One of the fallacies that plague America is the either-or fallacy (also called "black and white" or bifurcation." If one does not support A, he must support B. You can plug in any number of opposed concepts. Conservative:Liberal, Capitalism:Socialism and others are viewed as opposites and the only two choices to make.

I've noticed that this fallacy shows up a lot in a tendency to assume that A and B are truly contradictory and one must be endorsed. It is presumed that if a person speaks against a thing, he must endorse the other.

However, it is quite possible that both can be false. For example, if someone said "either Nazism or Stalinism" one could legitimately speak against one as immediately relevant to the situation without automatically endorsing the other.

It is also possible to support something that is similar to a plank in a party platform without endorsing the party or its platform.

Ultimately the problem is to pigeonhole a statement into one of a limited number of factions and assume the speaker endorses the faction with all the assorted baggage.

Absolutes vs. Multiple Options

Before moving on, we need to distinguish something. Not all either-or situations are fallacies. Some things truly either are or are not true. If A is true, it cannot be not true in the same way and same time

Thus, if Catholicism is the Church established by Christ, it can't be said it is not the Church established by Christ. Or, if rape is always evil, it can never be said to be not evil.

That's simple reason. It can't be raining and not raining in the same place and time. I can't, at the same time, have and not have a hundred dollar bill in my hand.

Contradictory vs. Contrary

So, if two statements contradict, they can't both be true, but one must be true. (A vs. Not-A). However, we need to realize that we can have opposed statements where both are false. For example, saying "either rain or snow tomorrow," prevents it from being both, but the statement overlooks the option of clear weather.

So when getting to the truth, we must be clear on whether opposing statements contradict or are merely contrary.

Statements by the Church and Interpretation

The Church gets constantly attacked by people who use this fallacy. If the bishops speak in favor of immigration reform, the Church is portrayed as being opposed to any restrictions at all. If the Church speaks on the evil of abortion, she is accused of being anti-woman.

When Pope Francis says of the Church, "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible," that does not mean the Church can never speak on these issues... as many inside the Church and out took it to mean. (In fact, the Holy Father went on to say, "But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.")

The problem was faulty reasoning, not the Pope's words. His statement was reduced to an either-or statement: either the Church speaks on this subject or does not... as an absolute statement. Instead, he intended to express a view on this topic that he won't solely speak on these issues, but when he does, it must have a frame of reference in mind.

Conclusion

Ultimately, our obligation is to determine whether our interpretation is correct before we try to draw conclusions from what was said. If we use faulty assumptions, our conclusions will not be reasoned ones.

Reflections on the Either-Or Fallacy

Introducton

One of the fallacies that plague America is the either-or fallacy (also called "black and white" or bifurcation." If one does not support A, he must support B. You can plug in any number of opposed concepts. Conservative:Liberal, Capitalism:Socialism and others are viewed as opposites and the only two choices to make.

I've noticed that this fallacy shows up a lot in a tendency to assume that A and B are truly contradictory and one must be endorsed. It is presumed that if a person speaks against a thing, he must endorse the other.

However, it is quite possible that both can be false. For example, if someone said "either Nazism or Stalinism" one could legitimately speak against one as immediately relevant to the situation without automatically endorsing the other.

It is also possible to support something that is similar to a plank in a party platform without endorsing the party or its platform.

Ultimately the problem is to pigeonhole a statement into one of a limited number of factions and assume the speaker endorses the faction with all the assorted baggage.

Absolutes vs. Multiple Options

Before moving on, we need to distinguish something. Not all either-or situations are fallacies. Some things truly either are or are not true. If A is true, it cannot be not true in the same way and same time

Thus, if Catholicism is the Church established by Christ, it can't be said it is not the Church established by Christ. Or, if rape is always evil, it can never be said to be not evil.

That's simple reason. It can't be raining and not raining in the same place and time. I can't, at the same time, have and not have a hundred dollar bill in my hand.

Contradictory vs. Contrary

So, if two statements contradict, they can't both be true, but one must be true. (A vs. Not-A). However, we need to realize that we can have opposed statements where both are false. For example, saying "either rain or snow tomorrow," prevents it from being both, but the statement overlooks the option of clear weather.

So when getting to the truth, we must be clear on whether opposing statements contradict or are merely contrary.

Statements by the Church and Interpretation

The Church gets constantly attacked by people who use this fallacy. If the bishops speak in favor of immigration reform, the Church is portrayed as being opposed to any restrictions at all. If the Church speaks on the evil of abortion, she is accused of being anti-woman.

When Pope Francis says of the Church, "We cannot insist only on issues related to abortion, gay marriage and the use of contraceptive methods. This is not possible," that does not mean the Church can never speak on these issues... as many inside the Church and out took it to mean. (In fact, the Holy Father went on to say, "But when we speak about these issues, we have to talk about them in a context.")

The problem was faulty reasoning, not the Pope's words. His statement was reduced to an either-or statement: either the Church speaks on this subject or does not... as an absolute statement. Instead, he intended to express a view on this topic that he won't solely speak on these issues, but when he does, it must have a frame of reference in mind.

Conclusion

Ultimately, our obligation is to determine whether our interpretation is correct before we try to draw conclusions from what was said. If we use faulty assumptions, our conclusions will not be reasoned ones.

On Pharisees and Reaching Out to Sinners

“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. *Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:28-31).

I think what troubles me the most about the new conservative dissent against the Pope is how much it is based on the fact that he is reaching out to the public sinners with compassion, rather than judgment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Church should be liberal (and, for that matter, neither is the Pope). But as I see how many Catholics columnists -- even those I ordinarily approve of -- taking an attitude of disappointment, annoyance, even anger -- against the Pope, I find myself struck with a sense of deja vu. It's a sense that here in the 21st century we're seeing the same attitude that the New Testament described in the First century -- that there are a group of religious people, seeing the (real) sin of people being reached out to, but can see no further than their sin.

Now Jesus knew the prostitutes and tax collectors were sinners. He also knew the Scribes and Pharisees did not commit the sins they did. But that wasn't the important part. The important part was Jesus loved both the Pharisee and the tax collector and wanted to save them both. 

To do so, He took different approaches based on what each needed to hear. To the prostitutes and tax collectors, his approach began with the love of God... letting them know God loved them and wanted them to turn back and seek the Lord.

To the scribes and Pharisees however, he needed to shake them out of their idea that because they didn't sin as the prostitutes and tax collectors did, they didn't need to repent.

In Mark 2:16-17, we have this interesting exchange:

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus heard this and said to them [that], “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

They were scandalized because Jesus did not deal with them as they thought he should.  Instead, He engaged them where they were. He chose to dine at the house of Zacchaeus. He told the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11).

Now we know these lessons. But do we take them to heart? I wonder.

I mainly wonder how we might react if Jesus said to us, "The liberals and the homosexuals are entering the kingdom of God before you."

That would probably be as shocking to us as “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you" was to the Pharisees.

I think of these things as Catholics are scandalized by Pope Francis. In the time since he became Pope, he has spoken gently to those estranged from the Church and admonished us who might be too complacent about our relationship with God.

But speaking to those estranged gently is not to sanction their sins. Jesus ate with sinners. But He didn't say it was OK to remain in their sins. Prostitutes and tax collectors may have been entering the kingdom before the pharisees, but that doesn't mean they remained prostitutes and dishonest tax men.

Likewise, Pope Francis calls sinners with compassion. But he doesn't say they can remain sinners.

Pope Francis seeks to emulate Jesus Christ. When we respond, let us be careful not to emulate the Pharisees.

On Pharisees and Reaching Out to Sinners

“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’ He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went. The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go. *Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you." (Matthew 21:28-31).

I think what troubles me the most about the new conservative dissent against the Pope is how much it is based on the fact that he is reaching out to the public sinners with compassion, rather than judgment.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying the Church should be liberal (and, for that matter, neither is the Pope). But as I see how many Catholics columnists -- even those I ordinarily approve of -- taking an attitude of disappointment, annoyance, even anger -- against the Pope, I find myself struck with a sense of deja vu. It's a sense that here in the 21st century we're seeing the same attitude that the New Testament described in the First century -- that there are a group of religious people, seeing the (real) sin of people being reached out to, but can see no further than their sin.

Now Jesus knew the prostitutes and tax collectors were sinners. He also knew the Scribes and Pharisees did not commit the sins they did. But that wasn't the important part. The important part was Jesus loved both the Pharisee and the tax collector and wanted to save them both. 

To do so, He took different approaches based on what each needed to hear. To the prostitutes and tax collectors, his approach began with the love of God... letting them know God loved them and wanted them to turn back and seek the Lord.

To the scribes and Pharisees however, he needed to shake them out of their idea that because they didn't sin as the prostitutes and tax collectors did, they didn't need to repent.

In Mark 2:16-17, we have this interesting exchange:

Some scribes who were Pharisees saw that he was eating with sinners and tax collectors and said to his disciples, “Why does he eat with tax collectors and sinners?” Jesus heard this and said to them [that], “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do. I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

They were scandalized because Jesus did not deal with them as they thought he should.  Instead, He engaged them where they were. He chose to dine at the house of Zacchaeus. He told the woman caught in adultery, “Neither do I condemn you. Go, [and] from now on do not sin any more.” (John 8:11).

Now we know these lessons. But do we take them to heart? I wonder.

I mainly wonder how we might react if Jesus said to us, "The liberals and the homosexuals are entering the kingdom of God before you."

That would probably be as shocking to us as “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you" was to the Pharisees.

I think of these things as Catholics are scandalized by Pope Francis. In the time since he became Pope, he has spoken gently to those estranged from the Church and admonished us who might be too complacent about our relationship with God.

But speaking to those estranged gently is not to sanction their sins. Jesus ate with sinners. But He didn't say it was OK to remain in their sins. Prostitutes and tax collectors may have been entering the kingdom before the pharisees, but that doesn't mean they remained prostitutes and dishonest tax men.

Likewise, Pope Francis calls sinners with compassion. But he doesn't say they can remain sinners.

Pope Francis seeks to emulate Jesus Christ. When we respond, let us be careful not to emulate the Pharisees.

Something to Keep in Mind About the Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Something to Keep in Mind About the Media

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarification on Where I Stand

Introduction

I was asked recently about my stance on Pope Francis and the controversial second interview and whether I held the position that everything the Pope says or does is unquestionable.

This was cleared up in the conversation, but it struck me that perhaps others who read this blog might have similar questions about the position I hold. So, let's see if I can clarify where I stand.

Popes and Obligation

Not everything a Pope says is intended to be binding on the faithful. When he intends to teach, we are of course called to obedience. But when he speaks as a private theologian (for example, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his Jesus of Nazareth books), this is not a matter of binding teaching.

Now Pope Francis did not give his second interview with the intention of teaching the Church, so we are not obligated to see what he said as a new teaching that binds us. (This is the typical media error).

However, that doesn't mean we can write off these private theologian moments as holding the same level of truth as any idiot with a blog. The Pope is an educated theologian who has the good of the Church in mind.

So, in cases like this, we are obligated to assume good will on the part of the Pope, and not act like he is rejecting Church teaching. When statements are made which seem confusing or troubling to us, we need to try to consider who he is speaking to and what he is trying to say to the intended audience.

Above all, we need to show respect. Sometimes, when speaking as a private theologian or when intending to teach the Church, he speaks in a way which can be misunderstood. It is grossly disrespectful to presume he intends to teach contrary to what the Church holds, or to presume he is ignorant of Church teaching.

Popes and Options

Now, when the Pope intends to teach X, we cannot hold Not-X as a belief. However, when the Pope teaches X, there are different ways to carry out X. These ways must be in keeping with the moral teaching of the Church of course, but it does not mean all Catholics in a region are obligated to subscribe to a particular form of political platform (though, again, they cannot support a political platform that goes against Church teaching).

For example, Catholics are required to protect the sanctity of life. But that doesn't mean everyone is obligated to show up in front of abortion clinics.

So, when the Pope teaches us about caring to the poor, we are not free to be indifferent to them.  However, we are free to use different means to care for them which are compatible with the Church teaching.

Conclusion

Ultimately, when the Pope intends to teach the faithful, obedience is required, whether by ex cathedra or by the ordinary magisterium (see Humani generis #20). But when he speaks as a private theologian, respect is required, even if one should disagree with that which was said.

Clarification on Where I Stand

Introduction

I was asked recently about my stance on Pope Francis and the controversial second interview and whether I held the position that everything the Pope says or does is unquestionable.

This was cleared up in the conversation, but it struck me that perhaps others who read this blog might have similar questions about the position I hold. So, let's see if I can clarify where I stand.

Popes and Obligation

Not everything a Pope says is intended to be binding on the faithful. When he intends to teach, we are of course called to obedience. But when he speaks as a private theologian (for example, Pope emeritus Benedict XVI and his Jesus of Nazareth books), this is not a matter of binding teaching.

Now Pope Francis did not give his second interview with the intention of teaching the Church, so we are not obligated to see what he said as a new teaching that binds us. (This is the typical media error).

However, that doesn't mean we can write off these private theologian moments as holding the same level of truth as any idiot with a blog. The Pope is an educated theologian who has the good of the Church in mind.

So, in cases like this, we are obligated to assume good will on the part of the Pope, and not act like he is rejecting Church teaching. When statements are made which seem confusing or troubling to us, we need to try to consider who he is speaking to and what he is trying to say to the intended audience.

Above all, we need to show respect. Sometimes, when speaking as a private theologian or when intending to teach the Church, he speaks in a way which can be misunderstood. It is grossly disrespectful to presume he intends to teach contrary to what the Church holds, or to presume he is ignorant of Church teaching.

Popes and Options

Now, when the Pope intends to teach X, we cannot hold Not-X as a belief. However, when the Pope teaches X, there are different ways to carry out X. These ways must be in keeping with the moral teaching of the Church of course, but it does not mean all Catholics in a region are obligated to subscribe to a particular form of political platform (though, again, they cannot support a political platform that goes against Church teaching).

For example, Catholics are required to protect the sanctity of life. But that doesn't mean everyone is obligated to show up in front of abortion clinics.

So, when the Pope teaches us about caring to the poor, we are not free to be indifferent to them.  However, we are free to use different means to care for them which are compatible with the Church teaching.

Conclusion

Ultimately, when the Pope intends to teach the faithful, obedience is required, whether by ex cathedra or by the ordinary magisterium (see Humani generis #20). But when he speaks as a private theologian, respect is required, even if one should disagree with that which was said.

Aut Deus aut homo malus re-revisited

CS Lewis' aut deus aut homo malus (either God or a bad man) argument demonstrates that Jesus can't be is merely a good man . Since nobody thinks Jesus is a bad man, and he can't be a (merely) a good man, there's only one choice left.

But some atheists try to deny the argument, claiming it is an either-or fallacy. The reason that argument fails to refute Lewis is it ignores the fact that there are three choices and one must be rejected.

So here's another syllogism to prove one choice must be eliminated:

1) No [good man] [claims to be God] (no A is B)
2) [Jesus] [claims to be God] (C is part of B)
3) Therefore [Jesus] is not a [good man] (therefore C is not part of A)

This supports CS Lewis' argument because it shows one can't say Jesus is a good man -- good men do not claim to be more than they are. But for a mere human to claim to be God is to claim to be more than they are.

Moreover, Peter Kreeft points out that if Jesus intended to speak figuratively, it makes him a bad teacher (everyone misinterpreted him then) and eliminates the "good man" claim.

Thus we have two choices left:

1) if he spoke truthfully, he must be God.
2) if he did not speak truthfully, he must be a bad man.

So, if he can't be a good man, and nobody thinks he is a bad man, what's left?

QED.

Aut Deus aut homo malus re-revisited

CS Lewis' aut deus aut homo malus (either God or a bad man) argument demonstrates that Jesus can't be is merely a good man . Since nobody thinks Jesus is a bad man, and he can't be a (merely) a good man, there's only one choice left.

But some atheists try to deny the argument, claiming it is an either-or fallacy. The reason that argument fails to refute Lewis is it ignores the fact that there are three choices and one must be rejected.

So here's another syllogism to prove one choice must be eliminated:

1) No [good man] [claims to be God] (no A is B)
2) [Jesus] [claims to be God] (C is part of B)
3) Therefore [Jesus] is not a [good man] (therefore C is not part of A)

This supports CS Lewis' argument because it shows one can't say Jesus is a good man -- good men do not claim to be more than they are. But for a mere human to claim to be God is to claim to be more than they are.

Moreover, Peter Kreeft points out that if Jesus intended to speak figuratively, it makes him a bad teacher (everyone misinterpreted him then) and eliminates the "good man" claim.

Thus we have two choices left:

1) if he spoke truthfully, he must be God.
2) if he did not speak truthfully, he must be a bad man.

So, if he can't be a good man, and nobody thinks he is a bad man, what's left?

QED.

Judging the Pope

I have quoted this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church many times over the years:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 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;

— 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.

It's clear that the Catechism, being defined as a sure norm for the faith, makes it beyond a doubt that judging others of possessing moral fault without sufficient foundation is condemned.

So, when the Pope gives an interview, which some people find unclear, the troubled reader is required to find out what the Pope intended to say -- not assume the Pope spoke error, wittingly or no.

The burden of proof is on showing that the Pope's intended message is in error. NOT for the Pope to be required to prove his innocence.

Unfortunately, there are a certain set of bloggers who do judge the Pope who presume that any misunderstandings must be the fault of the Pope. Some say he spoke wrongly. Others say he spoke unclearly. But without a sufficient foundation to base this judgment on, it is rash judgment.

So how do we avoid rash judgment? We can do this by looking at other statements the Pope made on the topic. Do you really think he's indifferent on abortion and homosexual acts? We know he spoke out against both in Argentina and as Pope.

So, if the Pope has taken a strong stand in the past on moral issues and spoke less clearly in an interview, which view is more probable?

1) That the Pope was misunderstood and actually still is a "son of the Church" (his own words) on Catholic moral teaching?

2) That the Pope changed his mind on these issues?

The reasonable answer is #1. #2 is Rash Judgment.

Judging the Pope

I have quoted this section of the Catechism of the Catholic Church many times over the years:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. 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;

— 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.

It's clear that the Catechism, being defined as a sure norm for the faith, makes it beyond a doubt that judging others of possessing moral fault without sufficient foundation is condemned.

So, when the Pope gives an interview, which some people find unclear, the troubled reader is required to find out what the Pope intended to say -- not assume the Pope spoke error, wittingly or no.

The burden of proof is on showing that the Pope's intended message is in error. NOT for the Pope to be required to prove his innocence.

Unfortunately, there are a certain set of bloggers who do judge the Pope who presume that any misunderstandings must be the fault of the Pope. Some say he spoke wrongly. Others say he spoke unclearly. But without a sufficient foundation to base this judgment on, it is rash judgment.

So how do we avoid rash judgment? We can do this by looking at other statements the Pope made on the topic. Do you really think he's indifferent on abortion and homosexual acts? We know he spoke out against both in Argentina and as Pope.

So, if the Pope has taken a strong stand in the past on moral issues and spoke less clearly in an interview, which view is more probable?

1) That the Pope was misunderstood and actually still is a "son of the Church" (his own words) on Catholic moral teaching?

2) That the Pope changed his mind on these issues?

The reasonable answer is #1. #2 is Rash Judgment.

The Pope Six Months Later

Shortly after his election as Pope, I wrote an article on how the Pope would be judged on people's personal preferences of what the Pope should be.

About six months later, I believe my point has been proven. We have a Pope who is unconventional according to the behavior of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. However, when Pope Francis speaks, I see a Pope who is challenging us Catholics not to be complacent instead of condemning our opponents.

Unfortunately, certain conservative Catholics -- and not just "rad trads" -- are taking offense with his unconventional style.

To this, I find myself thinking this:

It's one thing to desire the Pope to speak on certain subjects. That's natural. But to consider him a disappointment (or worse) because he doesn't match our preferences? That's being judgmental and making ourselves the arbiter of what is authenticly Catholic.

Think about it. If we act churlishly when the Church challenges us, how can we serve as a witness to the Church when she challenges the world?

The Pope Six Months Later

Shortly after his election as Pope, I wrote an article on how the Pope would be judged on people's personal preferences of what the Pope should be.

About six months later, I believe my point has been proven. We have a Pope who is unconventional according to the behavior of Bl. John Paul II and Benedict XVI. However, when Pope Francis speaks, I see a Pope who is challenging us Catholics not to be complacent instead of condemning our opponents.

Unfortunately, certain conservative Catholics -- and not just "rad trads" -- are taking offense with his unconventional style.

To this, I find myself thinking this:

It's one thing to desire the Pope to speak on certain subjects. That's natural. But to consider him a disappointment (or worse) because he doesn't match our preferences? That's being judgmental and making ourselves the arbiter of what is authenticly Catholic.

Think about it. If we act churlishly when the Church challenges us, how can we serve as a witness to the Church when she challenges the world?

Blogs to Consider

I wanted to write about how certain kinds of Catholic blogs have a troubling approach to Pope Francis' comments, but every attempt I have made seems to lack charity. So they'll never see the light of day.

So here are two blogs that succeeded where I have failed.

ZENIT

Tracy Trasancos

Blogs to Consider

I wanted to write about how certain kinds of Catholic blogs have a troubling approach to Pope Francis' comments, but every attempt I have made seems to lack charity. So they'll never see the light of day.

So here are two blogs that succeeded where I have failed.

ZENIT

Tracy Trasancos

Thoughts on the Pope's Second Interview

Thus far, the mainstream media seems to pay little attention (as of yet) to the Pope's second interview -- probably because there wasn't much to misrepresent. A few commentators on the Internet seem to have missed the point however, either implying or accusing that the Pope is guilty of outright relativism.

That's understandable though. A few statements in there initially gave me a WTF? kind of reaction, almost looking as if the Pope took a relativist view of truth, when he said:

" Everyone has his own idea of good and evil and must choose to follow the good and fight evil as he conceives them. That would be enough to make the world a better place."

Rereading the interview, I don't think that is a correct interpretation.

What the Pope is talking about is that all individuals are obligated to seek out the truth. See, a lot of people take an argument from silence approach to conscience -- "I don't feel anything wrong so it must be OK."

But that isn't conscience. Conscience says "I must do X" or "I must not do Y." Conscience can be wrongly informed,  yes. But the erroneous conscience still commands the person who does not know better.

But too many people are willing to rationalize away their conscience out of fear, expedience, ambition or other reasons. But what if  Germans in Nazi Germany had heeded this when they were told to do evil?  What if the woman considering abortion listened to her conscience instead of her fear?

The Pope is speaking to an atheist, not to a practicing Catholic. The atheist does not have an understanding of the complete truth as Catholics do. He can't say, "listen to the Church," because they don't recognize the authority of the Church. But he can appeal to the conscience because that is at least a common point of reference.

But the thing is, conscience requires one to seek and follow the truth. The man or woman who does not seek out whether they err are doing wrong. The person who, through no fault of their own, does not realize the importance of Christianity won't be condemned for that. But he or she will be judged if they refuse to seek out what is true.

As Catholics we should understand this, and not bash the Pope for trying to help an atheist begin to see his obligations.