Ipse Dixit and Illogic

Ipse dixit: an assertion made but not proved

 

One of the interesting things I have noticed about the attacks on Christianity in general are the claims which are made without proof.  Things get repeated over and over, but when the claims are investigated, there is no valid proof for the claim.

Indeed, it appears that often instead of a proof for an unsubstantiated charge, instead an evasion is employed to put the burden on those they disagree with.

I'd like to discuss some of these tactics which commonly appear on the internet debates.

The Double Standard

Christianity of course has proofs for its claims, under the proper understanding of the term (demonstrate by evidence or argument the truth or existence of.)  Not all may accept the arguments in favor of the Christian view of course.  However, when one limits "proof" to scientific evidence, and argues therefore Christianity cannot be proven true, how is one to respond?

The Double Standard is important to remember here.  If one argues that Scientific evidence can't establish the existence of God, therefore it is probable God does not exist, one is justified in applying the same standard to the atheistic claim: Can we establish the claims of atheism to be true by scientific evidence?

I've found in general that the atheist will then be forced to admit that their argument is not based on scientific evidence, but on arguments which they believe demonstrates what they believe.

The problem is twofold:

1. If the claims of Christianity are to be held to scientific evaluation, then so must those of atheism… and we remain at the level of neither claim being established.  Therefore atheism cannot be established as being "true" or "most probable" Ipse dixit.
2. If atheism rests on the claim of arguments of probability and argued propositions, then Christianity must also be evaluated by the same standard.  Can the claims of atheism be established as proven?  If not, then ipse dixit applies again.

The problem is, the double standard in attacking Christianity demands scientific proof to establish the existence of God, but declines to provide such for the truth of atheism.  This is a double standard.

Ipse dixit in this case is the claim that "there is no proof for God, therefore atheism is more probable."  It is claimed, but it is not proven.

Shifting the Burden of Proof

This is a popular fallacy in internet debate.  The general strategy works this way:

1. Debater makes a claim ("God does not exist")
2. Another person questions the claim ("On what basis can you claim this?")
3. Debater insists that questioner prove their point ("Well, then prove God does exist.")

The reason this is not a valid tactic is that the debater in this case is not offering any proofs for the claim (ipse dixit), but is demanding the person questioning it disprove them.

Some of the cheap ways used to shift the burden of proof are:

• "You can't ask someone to prove a negative."  (Answer: If you are so foolish to state a universal negative, that is your problem.  You've still made a claim which needs to be proven.)
• "The person making the greater claim has the burden of proof." (Answer: Really.  So if you argue we need to kill a million people, and I say we need only maim 500,000 people, only you have to prove your point, and not I?)
• "You can't prove what you believe either." (Answer: You made the assertion, so it is the reasons for your claim that are immediately relevant.)

Statements like these abound on the internet to be sure.  The problem is they are used as an evasion of providing proof.  This leads us to the next area of fallacy.

The Red Herring

The Red Herring is the introduction of material which seeks to derail the topic of the debate by introducing a claim and demanding it be dealt with, even though it is not the topic of the debate to begin with.

For example, if we are discussing Stalinist persecution of Christians, and someone chimes in with "What about the inquisition?" the answer is "what relevance does this have to the topic?"  If we are debating the problem with the policy of the Stalinist state, an event which took place 400 years prior is not relevant.  It could be relevant if we were debating whether or not the state had the right to restrict religious freedom in general, but if this was not the topic, the introduction of the new claim is merely a distracting tactic.

Of course not all counter examples are indeed Red Herrings. 

The topic of religious persecution is a popular one on the internet.  It does require paying attention to what is the topic.  If someone is discussing the Spanish Inquisition and I respond with "What about Stalin?" that is indeed a red herring and a tu quoque, because whatever Stalin did has no bearing on whether or not the Inquisition was a thing which should have been done. 

However, if someone says "Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history," using the Crusades and the Inquisition as examples, and I counter with the Civil War, WWI, WWII, Stalinist purges, Mao's actions in China and so on as examples of bloodshed done for secular motivations, I am not using either the Red Herring or the tu quoque, as I am responding to the thesis ("Religion is the cause of the most death and destruction in history,") with valid counter claims (secular wars and persecutions) which challenge the accuracy of the thesis.

The person employing the Red Herring is in fact seeking to evade the question of the debate by misdirecting it.  So when we are considering an example, we ought to consider first of all whether it is relevant to the topic at hand.

The tu quoque fallacy

Often used with the Red Herring, the tu quoque seeks to shift the blame or the focus by claiming that the other person is being hypocritical.  It differs from the double standard when it is has no bearing on the discussion.  For example:

Father (To teenage daughter): You shouldn't smoke

Daughter: Why not?  You do!

Whether or not the Father smokes is not relevant to whether or not one should smoke.  For all we know the Father is hopelessly addicted and doesn't want his daughter to go through the same problems he has.  Even if there is a case of hypocrisy, this doesn't change the issue in question of whether or not it is true.  Even if a person in question is hypocritical (a member of the clergy speaking of chastity while keeping a mistress) it does not affect the validity of what he is promoting or denouncing.

You'll often see the Spanish Inquisition invoked on the discussion of religions being persecuted by the secular state for example.  The Spanish Inquisition was indeed a blot on history, and there is no need to defend it (though it is important to refute claims about it which are false). However, the existence of the Inquisition is irrelevant to whether the secular state has authority to restrict religion.

(If you're arguing that the Inquisition is bad then it isn't a counterexample to the claim that state interference with the Church is bad.  It actually says either both are wrong or both are right.  However, one can condemn Stalinist oppression of religion without saying the churchmen involved with the Spanish Inquisition were right).

The tu quoque proves nothing, and is merely a cheap tactic to distract.

The Ad Hominem

The ad hominem can be blatant ("you are a tool," "you are narrow minded," you're a fascist!" and so on) or it can be more subtle, attacking the person because of the position he holds ("David Berlinski must be a fundamentalist because he supports Intelligent Design"  [Berlinski is actually a self-professed "agnostic Jew"]) but the tu quoque essentially ignores the argument and attacks the person making it.

It is popular of course.  Political columnists like Molly Ivans, Maureen Dowd and Ann Coulter have employed it to mock those who disagree with their views (humorous to the person who agrees, annoying to the one who does not).  The problem is, when you recognize the ad hominem in their writings, it still may be funny (again, it depends on your preferences), but it proves exactly nothing.

I find that when people get to the ad hominem attack, even if they may sound impressive or intimidating, have merely demonstrated they have no answer for your argument.  The ad hominem refutes nothing and proves nothing.  It merely demonstrates the person's hostility to a position, and depending on the level of extremity shows the character of the one making the attack.

Conclusion: The Emperor Has No Clothes

When one strips away the logical fallacies like this, the ipse dixit becomes clear.  They are employed as a distraction away from the claim which is made, but not proven.  The claim is made repeatedly, but never proven.  Distractions are made to put those who object on the defensive.  Over time it becomes widely accepted.  Even so, "The emperor has no clothes" and the statement remains unsupported.

As GK Chesterton once said, "Fallacies do not cease to be fallacies because they become fashions."  If it is popular to attack fundamentalists, for example, this does not make the attacks on the claims of fundamentalists "right."  If a movement which favors homosexual marriage labels those who oppose as "homophobic" it is still an ipse dixit making a statement without backing it up.

Of course we who are Christians need to be careful not to make use of these errors ourselves against those we debate.  It is emotionally satisfying to apply a sarcastic ad hominem.  It feels satisfying to remind the atheist of Stalin when he goes on a tirade against Christianity.  But, if we apply logical errors to attack others rather than to establish what we believe we are not proving our own point.  Instead we are causing scandal by making it appear that we have no basis for our beliefs.

Unfortunately it is easy to fall into the traps of illogic.  We are not only people of intellect, but also of emotion.  Nobody wants to look foolish.  So we can respond in annoyance, in anger.  We can misunderstand the subject of the argument and fall off track.

However, we need to remember that when we defend Christianity, using errors like these fail to show the truth of what we believe.  We can appear as petty and vindictive as those who use them to attack our faith.  We should remember the wisdom of CS Lewis and his "Apologist's Prayer"

From all my lame defeats and oh! much more
From all the victories that I seem to score;
From cleverness shot forth on Thy behalf
At which, while angels weep, the audience laugh;
From all my proofs of Thy divinity
Thou, who wouldst give no other sign, deliver me
Thoughts are but coins. Let me not trust instead
Of Thee, their thin-worn image of Thy head.
From all me thoughts, even from my thoughts of Thee
O thou fair Silence, fall, and set me free.
Lord of the narrow gate and the needle's eye,
Take me from all my trumpery lest I die.

Unquestioned Assumptions

Preliminary Note

It is not my intent to cause an argument over who wronged who and who was more unjust during the 16th and 17th century.  Nor do I believe that the abuses by one group justifies wrong behavior by another group.  Nor does this article intend to speak against the author of the blog I saw the comment in.  Rather, I saw the comment and was reminded that people still believe this to be fact so I thought it should be addressed.

I do deal with some of the negative actions of Protestantism during the 16th and 17th century.  This isn't a case of seeking to cast Protestants in a negative light, but rather to point out that many unquestioned assumptions constantly repeated are in fact false.

Proper dialogue requires the consideration of what happened on both sides.  If a Catholic only looks at the reported evils of the Protestants without verifying them, if a Protestant only looks at the evils of Catholics without verifying them, and neither considers what actually happened, the result is going to be self-righteousness, as well as spreading misinformation.

Introduction

On another blog, I saw a statement made in passing which was clearly not made in malice, but remained offensive nonetheless.  In essence, it referred to the history of Protestantism and its members who died: so people could be free to worship in their own churches and have their own Bible.  This kind of thing does irritate me.  Why?

Essentially, because it is not true yet is repeated as true.

Freedom to worship in their own churches?

From the perspective of history and of theology this is patently false.  Men like Luther had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, he claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  He was never in danger of persecution, given that he lived in a region which supported him (He appealed to German nationalism which made him popular with German princes who wished to rebel against the Emperor).

Meanwhile Zwingli arose in Switzerland, had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, he claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  This view did not coincide with Luther's view (Baptism and Eucharist were two areas where they widely diverged).  He attempted to force Catholic cantons in Switzerland to convert by blockade, which resulted in war, and led to his death.  He was no martyr.

The Anabaptists had ideas of what "pure" Christianity was supposed to be, and when the Church said he erred, they claimed the whole of the Church was in error.  This view did not coincide with Luther's or Zwingli's view.  (Notice a trend here?)  They persecuted Catholics and non Anabaptist Protestants in their lands while they were dominant and were persecuted by Zwingli and later by Calvin and the Church of England.

Henry VIII rejected the authority of the Pope when he was denied an annulment.  He declared himself the head of the Church in England and persecuted Catholics who remained loyal to the Pope.  The Church of England would also persecute the Puritans and Anabaptists.

However, none of these groups or men could be said to have fought for the freedom of religion.  Rather they fought for the dominance of their own religion.  In all of these states, Catholics did not have the right to worship in their own churches.  Indeed, in England, they made the attendance at Anglican churches mandatory.  Catholic churches were looted and burnt.  Monasteries were sacked.  Convents were forced open, and the religious thrown out in the streets.  Nuns were even sometimes forced to be married in some cases.

This doesn't mean that Catholics always behaved in an exemplary fashion in response.  It was a period of intense division and hostility.  I've not discussed those issues to avoid distractions and tu quoque recriminations.  Since the claim was made that Protestantism means people were free to worship in their own churches, we need to look at the history which shows this view to be a myth. 

Our own Bible?

The myth is that Luther discovered a Bible hidden away in a storeroom of a Monastery and read it on the sly, discovering Catholicism was wrong.  The truth was less glamorous.  While a Catholic Priest, he was assigned the duties of teaching Scripture at his university (which shows the Bible was not hidden away), and gradually moved away from the Catholic teaching, which seem to have been based on abuses which certain individuals did in regards to indulgences.

He was not the first person to translate the Bible into the vernacular.  There were several versions of the German Bible which existed before Luther was born.

Likewise, the Catholic Church had never forbade the laity to read the Bible, though it did condemn certain translations as being filled with mistranslations and error.  Also, in certain regions, where a heretical interpretation of the Bible was being put forth as authentic (The Cathars in France for example), the laity was forbidden to read their version of the Bible.

We need to remember something here.  It is false to say that prior to the Reformation people were not allowed to read the Bible.  More accurately, prior to the Printing Press, few Bibles were available (they had to be copied by hand, which is how all our sources of the Scripture were passed down to us), and there was little literacy.

The rise of the printing press did lead to wider distribution of books, and to literacy becoming more useful to the common man, and so the Bible was more widely distributed (the first book Gutenberg printed was the Bible).

The second problem I have with the claim that Protestantism was carried out so we might have our own Bible.  The irony is many people who use this claim don't know the origin of the King James Version, also known as the "Authorized Version."  Authorized by whom?  Essentially, this was the Bible which was to be read in the churches, not the Geneva Bible

The Bible which was popular among the early Protestants was not the KJV.  It was not Luther's Bible.  It was the Geneva Bible.  However, those Protestants in England who favored the state control of the Church did not like the Puritan tone the Geneva Bible took.  The KJV was issued largely to counteract the opposition to authority which the Geneva Bible had.

Another interesting fact was that in England, in 1579, a law was made requiring every home to own a Bible.  The KJV succeeded the Bishop's Bible which succeeded the Great Bible, which succeeded Tynsdale's translation which was banned in England in 1530.

Notice a trend here of law mandating what Bible should be read?

Unquestioned Assumptions and Bearing False Witness

There is a certain amount of anti-Catholic propaganda which still circulates, even among those Protestants who are not anti-Catholic themselves.  Whether it is alleged that the Spanish Inquisition had killed 65 million people (Spain at the time had perhaps nine million people), or whether it is alleged that the Bible was locked to keep people from reading them (there were Bible chains yes, but that was to keep people from stealing pages in a time when books were rare) there are many accusations which are false but unquestioned.

Such claims do go against the commandment against bearing false witness.  False Witness is not only deliberate lies.  It also includes the repeating of comments which we assume are true without actually verifying they were true.  If one repeats something which is false, without checking the truth of what one says, one does slander even if one does not intend to.

Unfortunately, both sides have done this.  I've seen anti-Catholic literature on one hand.  On the other hand, I've seen anti-Protestant literature.  Both seem fraught with partial quotes which make context impossible, with works impossible to verify as sources (whether improper citations or out of date material which no longer is extant.  It's one of the reasons I insist on finding an original source if possible to see such statements in context… if they even exist… before reporting it as fact).

What is to Be Done?

Ultimately, charity to our neighbor requires that we investigate a negative claim before we repeat it.  If we wish to bear witness to Christ, it obligates us to be sure our words are true before we repeat them.

Analysis of Cardinal Rigali and the Health Care Bill

Source: CNSNews.com - Top Catholic Cardinal Says 'No Way' Catholic Members of Congress Can Support Senate Health Care Bill That Funds Abortion

I know some people are going to miss the point and accuse Cardinal Rigali of waffling on the issue, so I thought I'd link this article here because of the great clarifications it makes.

Cardinal Rigali was asked if it was mortal or venial sin to vote for a pro-abortion bill.

Rigali replied:

“People have to follow their conscience, but their conscience has to be well-formed,” said Rigali. “And you have to make sure that when it is a question of doing something that has a provision, if it has a provision in it for abortion, then this is absolutely wrong by every standard and not by the standards of the Catholic Church as you see here today.  It’s the standards of Christian, standards of the natural law.

“Everyone is called. Yes, no, any bill, any bill that has abortion in it is in our opinion to be rejected,” Rigali continued. “But keep in mind that health reform as such is a wonderful, wonderful thing. But a bill that includes it, there’s no way in the world that it can be supported and if it comes down to that.  Once again we have the coming down as we examined in other questions. If it comes down to that, then we would urge, urge, a rejection because health reform is necessary, it has to be reformed, and it can’t be killing.”

Some people will claim he is not giving a straight answer on the question, but the truth is, he is giving us the information we need.

1. Conscience must be well formed
2. Abortion is absolutely wrong, and can never be supported
3. Health Care Reform is good
4. However, Health Care Reform which supports abortion can never be supported, and must be rejected.

From this, we can reason:

• A person with a well formed conscience knows abortion can never be supported
• The Senate Bill has abortion support
• Therefore a person with a well formed conscience can never support the Senate abortion bill.

Fr. Sirico, in this article offers an excellent commentary on this, which is well in keeping with the teaching of the Magisterium:

“When you ask if something is a mortal sin or a venial sin, you’re asking a question with regard to the individual act,”

“When we’re talking about the broad morality of the thing, we’re talking about as it exists in natural law,” he said.  Abortion and funding abortion violate the natural law and are gravely immoral. But for a person to commit a mortal sin, Sirico said, three conditions must be met: the act must be gravely wrong, the person must know it is gravely wrong, and the person must deliberately choose to do it.

“So, the reason the cardinal seemed like he wasn’t answering the question directly is because you can’t judge this along every congressperson, because it depends on their individual knowledge and their individual act of free will,” Sirico said.

“And so, it is grave, and if a person knows that it’s grave, and acts upon it freely, they may have committed a mortal sin,” he said.

Of course with the Church giving strong notice of the grave evil of abortion, the claims of not knowing it is gravely wrong is shrinking drastically.  Vatican II has taught, in Gaudium et spes #16:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

If one claims to be a Catholic, then it stands to reason that one must follow what the Church teaches with authority.  On the issue of abortion, the Catholic Church is quite clear:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator. (Gaudium et spes #27)

and

For God, the Lord of life, has conferred on men the surpassing ministry of safeguarding life in a manner which is worthy of man. Therefore from the moment of its conception life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes. (Gaudium et spes #51)

A Catholic who would claim invincible ignorance to the teaching of the Church must confess gross ignorance not only to the teaching of the Church, but also gross ignorance to the knowledge of the authority of the magisterium, if they would ignore the teaching of the bishops speaking out on abortion in America.

A Catholic Politician knowing that the Church teaches abortion is gravely evil, and knowing this freely chooses to vote in favor of laws protecting or expanding abortion rights does indeed seem to be guilty of mortal sin.

So Rigali is pointing out that a Catholic who believes abortion is acceptable to vote for does not have a well formed conscience, and if he knows that abortion is condemned as evil and supports it all the same with this full knowledge, they are knowingly cooperating with a grave evil.

That's mortal sin.

So what are we obligated to know, and what is invincible ignorance?

Thomas Aquinas makes this distinction:

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

So, to be invincible ignorance, it would have to be something which a man is unable to know, even through the study which was available to him.  If he could have found out, if he had bothered to look, it is not invincible, but vincible ignorance.

Could a Catholic Pro-abortion politician find out about the grave evil of abortion?  Certainly.  He only needs consult the magisterium.  Is he bound to know it?  He is, if he would be an informed Catholic in relation to his task of making laws.

So by failing to learn what he is bound to learn, the Catholic pro-abortion politician is committing a sin of omission, and by acting in a way contrary to how he is required to act, he is performing a sin of commission.

Now, not knowing (As Fr. Sirico pointed out) just how responsible each politician is for his or her own ignorance, we cannot say definitively who is guilty of mortal sin.  All we can do is to instruct and to remove ignorance, so that those who do not know the truth might choose truth over error.

If the person is instructed, and chooses to remain in their error to do evil, then they will answer to God for it.

Nonsense Challenges

There are certain challenges thrown against the nature of God which, while of no real intellectual value themselves, seem aimed at throwing certain Christians into a quandary which they don't know how to answer, with the evident hope that such a question will cause a person to lose faith. I handled one of these questions over a year ago, and I thought it was time to handle another.

The question bandied about is:

"Can God make a Square Circle?"

Let's start with a few definitions here:

Square: a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.

Circle: a round plane figure whose boundary consists of points equidistant from the centre.

Round: having a curved surface with no sharp projections.

Angle: the space (usually measured in degrees) between two intersecting lines or surfaces at or close to the point where they meet.

† a corner, especially an external projection or internal recess

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Now, when comparing things to a square, things like a rectangle or a rhombus have  some of the characteristics of a square, but not all of them.  The rectangle has four right angles, but not four equal straight sides.  A rhombus has four straight sides , but not four right angles.  Other shapes like a parallelogram are four sided plane figures, like a square but lack the four equal straight sides and four right angles.

Likewise, a variant of a circle is the oval, which is rounded, but the boundary points are not equidistant from the center.

So, what's the Point here?

What this indicates here is that if we have a rhombus, a rectangle or a parallelogram, we do not have a square.

Likewise, if the object we have is an oval, we do not have a circle.

The nature of a circle or a square is based on it having certain characteristics.  If we alter these characteristics, we no longer have a circle or a square.

If we add a side, we no longer even have something in this class.  We have a pentagon, not a square.  If we remove a side, we have a triangle, not a square.  If we alter one of the sides of a square so it is no longer straight, it is no longer a square.

So too, if we add a straight side to a circle, it is no longer round.  If we add an angle to a circle, it is no longer round.  If it is no longer round, it is no longer a circle.

The Law of Non Contradiction

The Law of non contradiction, commonly stated is: It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.  So, for example, a table cannot be made entirely of wood and entirely not of wood at the same time.

So if something is round, it cannot at the same time be square (because if round is true, then straight is false).  If something is square, it cannot be round at the same time (because if straight is true, then round is false).

The Application

If God creates something in the shape of a square, we call it square because it meets the characteristics of what we call a square.  If what He creates is not in the shape of a square we do not call it a square.

Ultimately the question is phrased to lead people to either claim God "cannot" do something. or else to try to trick them into the position of having to explain how God can do the impossible.  However, it is nothing more than a wordplay, which ignores the fact that a circle and a square have certain things in their own essence which are contradictory to the other (a round object cannot have a straight side.  A straight side cannot be rounded), in order to create an illusion of limitation.

It is because of this that the question is sheer nonsense.

Reflections on Fruits

Two men, a priest and a skeptic were walking down the street.  The skeptic was complaining about the problems of religion, arguing it helped nobody.  "It doesn't change a person's behavior, so what good is it?"  The priest said nothing until he walked past a dirty unkempt individual.  "Look, soap didn't change that person's appearance, so what good is it?"  The skeptic objected.  "That's not fair.  Soap could help him, but he just didn't use it."  The priest nodded.  "And that's my answer to you as well."

—Origin Unknown

The Question

I recently received a question, expressing concern for the state of the Church, about the concept of "By their fruits, you will know them."  Given the troubles in the Catholic Church, I was asked, is it possible that these are the fruits which indicate this is not God's Church? 

The Consideration

The verses which seems important to consider are largely from Matthew.  The first is from Matthew 7:

^15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ^16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? ^17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. ^18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ^19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ^20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

In context, we see Jesus is speaking of individuals, and is speaking of hypocrisy and of false prophets.  People who may invoke the name of God, but their actions do not follow what they claim to hold.  The sound tree vs. the bad tree.

The second verse comes from Matthew 12, when Jesus was accused of doing his miracles through demons:

^33 “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. ^34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ^35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

In both cases, Jesus is speaking of the behavior of individuals.  Those who show good fruits cannot be called evil, while those who show evil fruits cannot be called good.

The Analysis

With each individual within the Church, the question is whether or not the person hears God's message and keeps it in his or her heart.  If he does, he will bring forth good fruit.  If not, he will bring forth bad fruit.  Since the verse was applied to an individual and not to the Church, it seems to be taking it out of context to apply the verse to the Church, unless it can be established that the person bearing bad fruit is doing so because he is following the true teaching of the Church.  Otherwise, to claim "Person X is a Catholic, and he is doing bad things, therefore the Catholic Church is bad" is in fact a post hoc fallacy.

So if "Sister Mary Loony," or "Father Harry Tik" is saying or doing things which shows bad fruit, we need to analyze whether or not the Catholicism they teach is in fact in line with the teaching of the Pope and those in communion with him.  If it is, the accusation is valid.  If it is not, then obviously it is unjust to blame the Church for those who teach their own views instead of the Church.

Remember in Matt 12:15, Jesus spoke of false prophets: People who teach a false teaching and present it as God's.  Reading the Prophets in the Old Testament, we see many incidents of false prophets who sought to teach a message not from God.  They claimed that God would not forsake Jerusalem to the nations because His temple was in Jerusalem, and to let Jerusalem fall would show God to be weak.

The true prophets however spoke the truth, that God would not tolerate the wickedness of His people, and they would be held to account for their sins (Ezekiel is very powerful in this respect)

The Application

Certain things, such as art, architecture and music do reflect the influence of faith in a society.  A society which practices its faith will be more inclined to produce works of deep spiritual meaning, while a society which does not, will be less likely to produce people who are inspired to create.

It would be false however to think that the Western decline in ideas of art is due to the Church being in decline, unless one can make a case that the Church itself is responsible for the decline in its official teaching (as opposed to people who imposed their own interpretation on to what the Church has taught).

Indeed, when we look at the path of Western society, we see a tendency against God and faith and towards secularism.  In other words, a society which is rejecting Christ and is marginalizing faith.

Does the Church embrace this?  No, in fact it is setting itself in opposition to this secularism, and calling for a return to Christ, making Him the center of our lives individually and in society.

So it cannot be said that The Church is the cause of this aesthetic collapse.

Nor can it be said to be the cause of any moral or spiritual collapse.  These collapses are caused by man moving away from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

The Church cannot compel the individual to obey however.  It can only teach what is, and to speak out against what is false.  But as Humorist Dorothy Parker once remarked (and was wrongly attributed to Mae West): "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." If people will not listen to the Church, and will reject its authority, there is not much one can do to make them listen.

The Obligation for US as Individuals to Bear Witness

This is of course where those of us who claim to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church come in.  We are indeed called to transform our culture by our living witness to Christ.  Perhaps this means preaching.  But not all of us are called to preach, but all of us are called to bear witness.

The primary way we can do this is by our actions.  As St. James has said in chapter 2 of his epistle:

^14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ^15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, ^16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? ^17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

^18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

If we, if you as an individual or I as an individual, are not showing our faith by our works, are failing to bear witness to the world.  Yes, many non-Christians and many people who reject all concepts of religion are scandalized by our behavior, who profess the belief in Christ but by our works seem to show nothing but bad fruit.  Who is to blame in such a case?

We are.  We are whenever we fail to bear witness to the faith we have within us by living our lives according to that faith.  I know the faults I have to work on, and I don't always succeed in the struggle against them.

Sinners in the Church… are Us

we need to remember Matthew 7 when we see sinners within the Church:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

When we pass judgment on what others are failing to do for the Church

All of us are obligated to remove the log in our own eye, and whether or not "the other guy" removes the speck from their eye does not change the obligation we have before God.

If we want the Church to show good fruits, we need to start with ourselves.  If we are offended by the behavior of others, are we ourselves exemplary in our own behavior?

If our objection is others promoting error, are we speaking out for the truth?

If we do not, we fall into the category of the hypocrites Jesus spoke out against.  "the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get" is a sentence I would not want applied against me, but Christ has told us, this is how we will be judged.

Not Judging Does Not Mean Staying Silent

This does not mean we need to be silent against evil of course.  As the book of Ezekiel, chapter 33, has related:

^The word of the Lord came to me: ^2 “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman; ^3 and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; ^4 then if any one who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. ^5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. ^6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

So, the question to be directed against those who wonder if the Church has bad fruits, on account of her members, is: Does the Church warn against the sword on the land?  Does it speak out against the evils the land is committing?

Note, I did not say "Does the individual priest or layman."  It is quite possible for individuals to fall short of their obligation before God.  But does The Church as a whole fail to teach?

Actually no.  it stands up against the evil of the world, it condemns the evil, and tries to lead us to the good.

Conclusion

Now, if I lie to you the reader about what the Church teaches, or if I fail to understand what the Church teaches, is this the fault of the Church?  Or is it my own fault?

This is ultimately what we need to consider about whether "The Church" produces good fruits or bad.

1. Who has the authority to teach for the Church? (As Catholics, we hold it is the Magisterium)
2. Who is responsible for following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church)
3. Who is responsible for not following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church without obeying the teaching of the Church)
4. When is "the Church" (In contrast to the individual) responsible?  (Only if the individual does evil because he follows what the Church teaches, and not his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches)
5. Is the Church responsible for a misunderstanding? (Only if it fails to teach properly)

Ultimately, to demonstrate "the Church" has bad fruits, it has to show that the actual teaching of the magisterium, properly understood, is the cause of these bad fruits, avoiding post hoc and straw man fallacies.  It requires a knowledge of what the Church has taught, in context, and a demonstration that this evil was intended by the teaching of "the Church," as opposed to overzealous or overlax individuals who distorted or misinterpreted it.

Affirming a Disjunct, Denying the Conjunct and the Abortion Debate

While I thought this was kicked under the carpet when the 2008 elections ended, I have seen some bloggers and commentators make use of the following reasoning:

1. We can either oppose abortion or we can reduce the need for abortion by helping women
2. Pro-lifers are opposing abortion
3. Therefore they are not helping women in need

Affirming a Disjunct
This is a variant of the false dilemma fallacy known as Affirming a disjunct:

• Either p or q
• p
• Therefore not q

Why is this a logical fallacy?  Because premise #1 is false in declaring we can either do p or q, but not both, or in assuming that because one has done one choice, he or she has set him or herself against the alternative.
Anyone who has seen the crisis pregnancy centers staffed by pro-lifers knows this is a false accusation which seeks to label the opponents as being insensitive.
Denying the Conjunct
Radical anti-abortion supporters (which is different from being pro-life) sometimes use the counterpart to Affirming a Disjunct, known as Denying the Conjunct:

1. You cannot both demonstrate in front of abortion clinics (p) and support abortion (q)
2. You are not demonstrating in front of abortion clinics (not p)
3. Therefore you support abortion (q).

This logical fallacy is also how Randall Terry calumniated Bishop Darcy over the Notre Dame incident.  It is a similar error, assuming that there is only one solution to be labeled Pro-Life.
What is getting lost with both forms of the false dilemma  is that the first group assumes that any focus on one approach must ignore the other, while the second group assumes only their way is right.
The Catholic Church of course rejects both errors. 
When it comes to the first case, Yes indeed we need to aid mothers to be in distress, but that does not mean we must neglect the ending of legalized abortion.  The call of the Christian is to do both.
The second error false because one can be opposed to abortion without taking part in all forms of opposition.  I disagree with Terry's version of how to act, but that does not mean I want abortion to remain legal.  Rather I believe his view is imprudent at best, and most probably counterproductive (his own version tends to alienate, not encourage women to seek other options)
What Is To Be Done
Quite simply, we must do both.  We need to work to end legalized abortion, and we need to assist women in need so they can choose other options.  If a person argued that all we need to do is to end Roe v. Wade (which is in fact not argued) then yes, this would be a limitation, and a weakening of what we are obligated to do to what is "easy."
However, this also applies to the person who says we need to only focus on the aiding the woman and need and leave abortion in place as legal.  It fails to act against a very real evil, and simply works on symptoms and not the disease itself.

Is Christianity Arrogant?

It's a phrase flung about by non-Christians, skeptics and atheists, that the claims of Christianity are "arrogant."

Arrogant is defined as "having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities," It can also be seen as claiming for oneself more than one has a right to.  If one states what is, it is not arrogance.

Now to conclude that Christianity is arrogant, one has to consider some things.  Christianity claims that God can be known, in part, through reason.  That which is not known through reason can be known by revelation.  It claims that what it teaches is through revelation as His will.

Is this arrogance?  Only if it is not true.  If what they claim is in fact true, it is no arrogance to claim it, but rather humility. 

The irony is, to claim that Christianity is arrogant, it presupposes that the one making the accusation of arrogance knows whether or not God exists, and that He did not say what Christians claim He taught.

So, the question is: On what basis can this accusation be made.

If they can't back up what they claim, isn't that… arrogance?