Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.

Freedom to Express Your Views – Unless You Are Catholic?

There seems to be some shoddy reasoning going around the Internet regarding Catholics in the political arena.  Generally, the attacks are along the line that those who are Catholic either have no right to participate in the arena due to the sins of some of her members, or else that whenever the Church speaks out, it is imposing an ideological agenda on the rest of the nation.

Neither one of these ideas have any basis in reason, but are instead making an appeal to emotion, using charged words to frighten or anger people.  In the past, it was the "Catholic politicians are taking orders from Rome."  Now it is, "Catholic politicians don't have to listen to the Church, and if they are acting according to what they believe is right, it means the Church is controlling them."

Let's look at some of the errors of assumption.

PART I: "Clean up your own Mess first."

There are many variants of this attack.  Right now, it is the false reports of the cover-ups which are being thrown in our faces.  There have been others in the past.  The Galileo case was used for quite a long time when the Church spoke on the moral issues of science.

The main flaw with the argument is that even if the charges are just (and they certainly aren't in this case), it has absolutely no bearing on whether one should speak out on another related issue.  It's an ad hominem attack, akin to the defense lawyer seeking to remove the credibility of a mob informer by pointing out he is a criminal.  Very true, he is a criminal.  However, that has no bearing on whether or not his information is true.

It is also poisoning the well.  A negative example is used to poison the minds against whatever the opponent says instead of considering the facts of the matter.

Finally, it is a Red Herring, in that it actually is irrelevant to the case at hand.

So let's take a real example, the issue of Nancy Pelosi voting in a way which entirely defies Church teaching.  One person who agrees with Pelosi argues to the effect of, the Church should clean up its own mess before trying to tell others how to live.  That the Church may need to clean up a scandal is true.  However, it is entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand: Nancy Pelosi is a Catholic voting in a way which is in defiance of what the Church she professes to be a member of actually teaches.

Really, this kind of attack is just a cheap shot to appeal to the emotions of the audience.

PART II: "The Church shouldn't tell others how to vote."

This argument is essentially a straw man fallacy.  The Church isn't telling people how to vote.  Rather, the Church is saying that if one professes to be a Catholic they are required to live in accordance with the teachings of the Church.  Now a person may not be automatically excommunicated if they do not, but the Church can exact penalties aimed at bringing the erring Catholic back to the proper understanding of what Christian behavior.  Pelosi is free to go on voting to kill unborn infants of course.  The Supreme Court made it legal, and that is unlikely to change.  However, she does not have the right to call her behavior Catholic, and the Church does have the right to tell her, that she either follows Church teaching or change her religion.

Of course this brings us to another objection some pose: That the politician votes in order to represent the population which elected him or her, and therefore cannot do anything different.

This sounds nice of course, and Mario Cuomo exploited it back in the 1980s.  The problem was, Cuomo often did other things (like commute death sentences) against the will of the people who elected him… Cuomo, in those cases, because he felt them the right thing to do.  Let's not get sidetracked here on the issue of the Death Penalty and abortion.  In terms of this article, Cuomo invoked the will of the voters only when it suited him.

There is a third attack which is often used: The Church moral teaching is often treated as a narrow ideology, and when the Church opposes a certain policy (for example, so-called Homosexual marriage), Catholics are told that their view is pushing ideology on people who don't believe it.  [Cuomo also used this excuse when he made his "personally opposed but…" argument.]

The irony here is that we could easily use the same argument against the proponents of homosexual marriage.  It is something new which a small group of radicals are trying to foist on the people of a state.

Exactly who decides what is justice and what is ideology?  Unless there is an absolute we can look to, any person can label their opponent's position as "pushing their views on others."  So Muslims in certain nations oppress women, and the West is considered trying to push a decadent ideology on them.  South Africa in the apartheid era and China in terms of its dissidents today accused the West of interfering with their own values.   ALL of these examples were quite real.

So here is the flaw with the "pushing ideology" argument.  Unless there is a set of moral absolutes to begin with, everything is an ideology and the strongest can impose their will, while the others are suppressed.

Now this view may seem fine when it is your view on top.  The problem is, if anyone can use this argument, you have no argument if an Islamist government or a Fascist [in the sense of the philosophy of fascism, not what liberals label moderate conservatives as] government imposes their views on you.

Conclusion

The examples I gave in this article are quite common on the internet, and are being used to negate the rights of Catholics from practicing their freedoms of speech, religion and others, making use of logical fallacies and shoddy appeals to emotions to make people fear the old Nativist view of Catholicism as a power just waiting to take over America and make it a property of the Pope.

Personally, I'm tired of it.  If a person honestly thinks the Catholic Church is wrong on an issue, they have the right to use their freedom of religion and freedom of speech as well.  Such a person does NOT have the right to deprive Catholics of these rights.

Striking the Shepherd

Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written:

‘I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be dispersed.’ (Mk 14:27).

What are we to make of the attacks against the Pope which seems to be going on daily… yet not a single allegation has been anything more than post hoc fallacy and insinuation, brought on by a media which seems to have no knowledge of Church procedures and no interest in learning?

The truth is, as the Church defends herself from these attacks and these defenses are entirely ignored by the media, what we are seeing is not an interest in protecting the youth and reporting the facts. What we are seeing is nothing less than an attempt to condemn the leader of the Catholic Church and shake the faith of those members of the Church.

The Effect of the Attacks

Tragically, it seems to be working. Polls claim that the popularity of the Pope is falling.  The London Times labels the Church defense against these unjust attacks as "bluster."  Church baiter Andrew Sullivan has claimed the Pope has "no moral authority."

None of these Charges have ever been proven. All of them have been Debunked

The problem is: While the media claims the attacks are true, in every case the charges made against Pope Benedict XVI have been debunked. The claim is that the Pope was responsible for quashing all attempts by the “heroic” bishops to remove predator priests. The fact is the media is employing the argument from silence fallacy to argue that since they have not heard of a solution, the Church did nothing and then Cardinal Ratzinger must have been responsible for this.

This kind of thing would be considered slander if the Pope was not considered a public person (in US law, conviction of slander against a public person requires proof that the story was published with malicious intent).

A Pyramid of Nothing

The public seems to be intimidated by a continued collection of stories against the Pope. The old adage where there’s smoke, there’s fire is considered to be true and the fact that the media is reporting these stories continually leads one to believe that there must be truth to it, even though the reports are entirely based on the media’s interpretation of documents and lawyers suing the Church, with no attempts to study what the Church has done, how it governed itself and so on.

The Oakland Case

In the latest case, we are told that then Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for quashing the case, even though the CDF, at the time, only dealt with cases involving the abuse of the confessional. There is an excellent debunking of the story by Fr. Zuhlsdorf who points out the gross misunderstandings of the media in this case.

For example, the media reports that the priest himself requested a dispensation, which it confuses with laicization. The AP report says:

But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

However the priest’s request was hardly a “stop me before I abuse again.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out what dispensation is in comparison to laicization, in his commentary on the story:

"DISPENSATION"? AP has been talking about the priest’s "removal" but not about a "dispensation".  What dispensation?  Dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state?  That is not the same as the "removal" implied in dismissal from the clerical state, which is a punishment.  Of course the half-informed scribblers of AP probably don’t understand this.  But, dear reader, this was an interesting line in the letter, if that is what it actually says in Latin.  As I read these things, here is what comes to mind.  And this is where the AP’s desires fall apart in this case.  In the 60’s and 70’s hordes of priests simply left ministry or, if they requested a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, they were often caused to wait a great deal of time – often a decade or more – until the priest was older and had a change to reflect – with the hope that somehow they might be recovered as priests.  Clearly this case is more complicated because the priest concerned had harmed children.  But back in the day, the standard operating procedure was to try to save priests from quitting.  Therefore, when a petition for dispensation had been made, the Congregation followed their standard operating procedure.

This is an excellent point. When we consider that in the 1980s, the CDF was only involved if the case involved solicitation in the confessional, the job to keep the priest in line fell to the Bishop, John Cummins, who appears to shamefully failed in his duties. Dispensation (the removal from obligations) is not the same thing as the penalty of laicization (the forbidding of the priest to practice his ministry). The priest was asking to be removed from the vows of celibacy and the like. Certainly this would be a scandal, and if the CDF had given a dispensation, I have no doubt that today the story would have been that the priest was “rewarded” for his actions (much as some say Cardinal Law was “rewarded” for his actions when he was “encouraged” to retire from one of the most powerful and influential dioceses in the United States and wound up being nothing more than a glorified pastor of an obscure church in Rome).

Any old stick will do to bash the Catholic Church.

“Defrocking” and Penalties

The media has been reporting about how certain priests were not “defrocked” (a false term) but it overlooks the fact that penalties can be exacted which forbid the priest from practicing their ministries which do not require laicization (which is limited to certain cases).

Whatever the penalty may be, the Church operates under the principle of law. It does not arbitrarily throw penalties about. The possibility of the accused being innocent is recognized. Investigations do need to be carried out, and the penalties need to fit the crime

In 2001, the Church did make changes to the rules in order to eliminate loopholes abusers could hide behind. Processes were streamlined and in severe cases, the CDF could eliminate the statue of limitations (ordinarily ten years after the abused minor reaches the age of 18).

The Double Standard

The ironic thing is, the Church stands condemned for not doing what it was (wrongly) accused of doing in the Inquisition… arbitrarily inflicting punishment on individuals without trial. So which is it? If the Church should be arbitrary, there is no cause for complaint when the Church is (falsely) accused of arbitrarily punishing during the Inquisition. If it is to take time and fairly investigate, then it also applies to priests accused of abuse.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the issue is that the Church is being attacked with the intent of undermining the support of the faithful. Whenever one story is debunked, another will keep on coming, with the intent of making the defenders weary and the average man in the pews thinking there must be some truth simply due to the sheer volume of the attacks.

Yet the fact that the reports are continually debunked should give the reader pause. If the attacks are continually shoddy and based on interpretation without proof to back it up, the veracity of the accuser should be investigated. If the media is continually shown to be misrepresenting the case against the Pope, shouldn’t we perhaps demand they prove the charge of guilt instead of demanding the Pope prove his innocence?

Perhaps we should even investigate the motives of the accusers from the media.

Of course it won't happen.  When a person is tried in the media, the accused is "guilty until proven innocent" and the accused is never innocent.

Because of this, my fellow Catholics should remember this: rash judgment is a sin.  We are obligated to be informed before passing judgment on another person… even the Pope.

Striking the Shepherd

Then Jesus said to them, “All of you will have your faith shaken, for it is written:

‘I will strike the shepherd,

and the sheep will be dispersed.’ (Mk 14:27).

What are we to make of the attacks against the Pope which seems to be going on daily… yet not a single allegation has been anything more than post hoc fallacy and insinuation, brought on by a media which seems to have no knowledge of Church procedures and no interest in learning?

The truth is, as the Church defends herself from these attacks and these defenses are entirely ignored by the media, what we are seeing is not an interest in protecting the youth and reporting the facts. What we are seeing is nothing less than an attempt to condemn the leader of the Catholic Church and shake the faith of those members of the Church.

The Effect of the Attacks

Tragically, it seems to be working. Polls claim that the popularity of the Pope is falling.  The London Times labels the Church defense against these unjust attacks as "bluster."  Church baiter Andrew Sullivan has claimed the Pope has "no moral authority."

None of these Charges have ever been proven. All of them have been Debunked

The problem is: While the media claims the attacks are true, in every case the charges made against Pope Benedict XVI have been debunked. The claim is that the Pope was responsible for quashing all attempts by the “heroic” bishops to remove predator priests. The fact is the media is employing the argument from silence fallacy to argue that since they have not heard of a solution, the Church did nothing and then Cardinal Ratzinger must have been responsible for this.

This kind of thing would be considered slander if the Pope was not considered a public person (in US law, conviction of slander against a public person requires proof that the story was published with malicious intent).

A Pyramid of Nothing

The public seems to be intimidated by a continued collection of stories against the Pope. The old adage where there’s smoke, there’s fire is considered to be true and the fact that the media is reporting these stories continually leads one to believe that there must be truth to it, even though the reports are entirely based on the media’s interpretation of documents and lawyers suing the Church, with no attempts to study what the Church has done, how it governed itself and so on.

The Oakland Case

In the latest case, we are told that then Cardinal Ratzinger was responsible for quashing the case, even though the CDF, at the time, only dealt with cases involving the abuse of the confessional. There is an excellent debunking of the story by Fr. Zuhlsdorf who points out the gross misunderstandings of the media in this case.

For example, the media reports that the priest himself requested a dispensation, which it confuses with laicization. The AP report says:

But the future pope also noted that any decision to defrock Kiesle must take into account the "good of the universal church" and the "detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke within the community of Christ’s faithful, particularly considering the young age." Kiesle was 38 at the time.

However the priest’s request was hardly a “stop me before I abuse again.” Fr. Zuhlsdorf points out what dispensation is in comparison to laicization, in his commentary on the story:

"DISPENSATION"? AP has been talking about the priest’s "removal" but not about a "dispensation".  What dispensation?  Dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state?  That is not the same as the "removal" implied in dismissal from the clerical state, which is a punishment.  Of course the half-informed scribblers of AP probably don’t understand this.  But, dear reader, this was an interesting line in the letter, if that is what it actually says in Latin.  As I read these things, here is what comes to mind.  And this is where the AP’s desires fall apart in this case.  In the 60’s and 70’s hordes of priests simply left ministry or, if they requested a dispensation from the obligations of the clerical state, they were often caused to wait a great deal of time – often a decade or more – until the priest was older and had a change to reflect – with the hope that somehow they might be recovered as priests.  Clearly this case is more complicated because the priest concerned had harmed children.  But back in the day, the standard operating procedure was to try to save priests from quitting.  Therefore, when a petition for dispensation had been made, the Congregation followed their standard operating procedure.

This is an excellent point. When we consider that in the 1980s, the CDF was only involved if the case involved solicitation in the confessional, the job to keep the priest in line fell to the Bishop, John Cummins, who appears to shamefully failed in his duties. Dispensation (the removal from obligations) is not the same thing as the penalty of laicization (the forbidding of the priest to practice his ministry). The priest was asking to be removed from the vows of celibacy and the like. Certainly this would be a scandal, and if the CDF had given a dispensation, I have no doubt that today the story would have been that the priest was “rewarded” for his actions (much as some say Cardinal Law was “rewarded” for his actions when he was “encouraged” to retire from one of the most powerful and influential dioceses in the United States and wound up being nothing more than a glorified pastor of an obscure church in Rome).

Any old stick will do to bash the Catholic Church.

“Defrocking” and Penalties

The media has been reporting about how certain priests were not “defrocked” (a false term) but it overlooks the fact that penalties can be exacted which forbid the priest from practicing their ministries which do not require laicization (which is limited to certain cases).

Whatever the penalty may be, the Church operates under the principle of law. It does not arbitrarily throw penalties about. The possibility of the accused being innocent is recognized. Investigations do need to be carried out, and the penalties need to fit the crime

In 2001, the Church did make changes to the rules in order to eliminate loopholes abusers could hide behind. Processes were streamlined and in severe cases, the CDF could eliminate the statue of limitations (ordinarily ten years after the abused minor reaches the age of 18).

The Double Standard

The ironic thing is, the Church stands condemned for not doing what it was (wrongly) accused of doing in the Inquisition… arbitrarily inflicting punishment on individuals without trial. So which is it? If the Church should be arbitrary, there is no cause for complaint when the Church is (falsely) accused of arbitrarily punishing during the Inquisition. If it is to take time and fairly investigate, then it also applies to priests accused of abuse.

Conclusion

Ultimately, the issue is that the Church is being attacked with the intent of undermining the support of the faithful. Whenever one story is debunked, another will keep on coming, with the intent of making the defenders weary and the average man in the pews thinking there must be some truth simply due to the sheer volume of the attacks.

Yet the fact that the reports are continually debunked should give the reader pause. If the attacks are continually shoddy and based on interpretation without proof to back it up, the veracity of the accuser should be investigated. If the media is continually shown to be misrepresenting the case against the Pope, shouldn’t we perhaps demand they prove the charge of guilt instead of demanding the Pope prove his innocence?

Perhaps we should even investigate the motives of the accusers from the media.

Of course it won't happen.  When a person is tried in the media, the accused is "guilty until proven innocent" and the accused is never innocent.

Because of this, my fellow Catholics should remember this: rash judgment is a sin.  We are obligated to be informed before passing judgment on another person… even the Pope.

Bulverisms

Introduction

Ever notice how intolerant people are when they accuse someone else of being intolerant or pushing their views onto others?  Ever notice how it is assumed that the Christian must be wrong because of some condition which causes them to be intolerant or unable to think for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't think this way?

Unfortunately this is a common tactic on the Internet.  It is not a new one however.  CS Lewis wrote about it in 1941, and noted it was old then.  It is the assumption that a person is wrong and seeks to provide a motive for why he is wrong… but never in fact PROVES the person is in fact wrong.

What Is A Bulverism?

CS Lewis spoke of Bulverism as follows:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

—CS Lewis.  God In the Dock, page 273

CS Lewis wrote about this phenomenon in 1941, but it seems to be a common thing today.

The Logical Error of the Bulverism

The logical form of a Bulverism is:

1. You claim that A is true.
2. Because of B, you want A to be true.
3. Therefore, A is false.

In other words, the argument of a Bulverism assumes the opponent is wrong in holding position [A] because of condition [B].  Thus we see Christians defamed because they are assumed wrong.  The attacker then goes on to give a reason for why the Christian holds A.  What is never proven however is that the Christian is wrong for holding position A.

It's a form of non sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise.  It also begs the question, that [A] is false when that needs to be proven

Lewis uses an analogy to illustrate the point:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error. [Emphasis added]

The Common Attack

This often comes into play in the most crude attack against the Christian.  We hear that if we would think for ourselves, we would realize we are blindly following the error of Christianity [I'm putting this far more charitably than the anti-Christian would do].  This assumes:

1. Christians claim [Certain moral behavior] are correct
2. Because Christians [do not think for themselves], they think [certain moral behaviors] are correct
3. Therefore Christians are wrong in thinking [certain moral behaviors] are correct.

We could apply the "Christians are homophobic" argument here as well… and certain anti-Christians do this as well.

The Overlooked Flaws With Using the Bulverism

The problem is, of course, that if one can use this argument against the Christian, the Christian can use the argument against their attacker.  We can merely substitute "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Muslim" or "Liberal" or "Conservative" and plug it in, and we can sling it back at you.

Of course you haven't proven your point and neither have I.

The use of the Bulverism is in essence sawing off the branch you are sitting on.  If one employs it against an opponent, the opponent can point it right back at the person making the attack.  If one refuses to apply it to their own argument, they cannot apply it to the opponent without being a hypocrite.

First Prove Your Point.  Then You Can Psychoanalyze

What is overlooked in the Internet debate today is that there is only one reason for rejecting something as false… and that is demonstrating that it is false.  All the reasons for trying to explain why something is false is meaningless if the thing is in fact true.

Yet instead, we see appeals to false analogy, appeals to numbers, appeals to age or newness… all of which are logical fallacies which do not prove the point one which one wishes to make.

Advice for the Christian

The Christian should be watchful for the Bulverism… first of all to avoid making the error yourself.  We who believe Jesus is the Truth should first of all demonstrate that the opponent's view IS false before trying to delve into motives why they are wrong.

Second of all to make sure you are not tricked by it.  It becomes easy to get caught up in challenging the reason the opponent provides for why we are wrong, completely overlooking the fact that first the opponent needs to prove we are wrong.

So don't get distracted.  One needs to stick to the point of insisting they prove their point.  Otherwise it will be treated as if they are right

Bulverisms

Introduction

Ever notice how intolerant people are when they accuse someone else of being intolerant or pushing their views onto others?  Ever notice how it is assumed that the Christian must be wrong because of some condition which causes them to be intolerant or unable to think for themselves, otherwise they wouldn't think this way?

Unfortunately this is a common tactic on the Internet.  It is not a new one however.  CS Lewis wrote about it in 1941, and noted it was old then.  It is the assumption that a person is wrong and seeks to provide a motive for why he is wrong… but never in fact PROVES the person is in fact wrong.

What Is A Bulverism?

CS Lewis spoke of Bulverism as follows:

You must show that a man is wrong before you start explaining why he is wrong. The modern method is to assume without discussion that he is wrong and then distract his attention from this (the only real issue) by busily explaining how he became so silly. In the course of the last fifteen years I have found this vice so common that I have had to invent a name for it. I call it "Bulverism". Some day I am going to write the biography of its imaginary inventor, Ezekiel Bulver, whose destiny was determined at the age of five when he heard his mother say to his father — who had been maintaining that two sides of a triangle were together greater than a third — "Oh you say that because you are a man." "At that moment", E. Bulver assures us, "there flashed across my opening mind the great truth that refutation is no necessary part of argument. Assume that your opponent is wrong, and the world will be at your feet. Attempt to prove that he is wrong or (worse still) try to find out whether he is wrong or right, and the national dynamism of our age will thrust you to the wall." That is how Bulver became one of the makers of the Twentieth Century.

—CS Lewis.  God In the Dock, page 273

CS Lewis wrote about this phenomenon in 1941, but it seems to be a common thing today.

The Logical Error of the Bulverism

The logical form of a Bulverism is:

1. You claim that A is true.
2. Because of B, you want A to be true.
3. Therefore, A is false.

In other words, the argument of a Bulverism assumes the opponent is wrong in holding position [A] because of condition [B].  Thus we see Christians defamed because they are assumed wrong.  The attacker then goes on to give a reason for why the Christian holds A.  What is never proven however is that the Christian is wrong for holding position A.

It's a form of non sequitur.  The conclusion does not follow from the premise.  It also begs the question, that [A] is false when that needs to be proven

Lewis uses an analogy to illustrate the point:

Suppose I think, after doing my accounts, that I have a large balance at the bank. And suppose you want to find out whether this belief of mine is “wishful thinking.” You can never come to any conclusion by examining my psychological condition. Your only chance of finding out is to sit down and work through the sum yourself. When you have checked my figures, then, and then only, will you know whether I have that balance or not. If you find my arithmetic correct, then no amount of vapouring about my psychological condition can be anything but a waste of time. If you find my arithmetic wrong, then it may be relevant to explain psychologically how I came to be so bad at my arithmetic, and the doctrine of the concealed wish will become relevant - but only after you have yourself done the sum and discovered me to be wrong on purely arithmetical grounds. It is the same with all thinking and all systems of thought. If you try to find out which are tainted by speculating about the wishes of the thinkers, you are merely making a fool of yourself. You must find out on purely logical grounds which of them do, in fact, break down as arguments. Afterwards, if you like, go on and discover the psychological causes of the error. [Emphasis added]

The Common Attack

This often comes into play in the most crude attack against the Christian.  We hear that if we would think for ourselves, we would realize we are blindly following the error of Christianity [I'm putting this far more charitably than the anti-Christian would do].  This assumes:

1. Christians claim [Certain moral behavior] are correct
2. Because Christians [do not think for themselves], they think [certain moral behaviors] are correct
3. Therefore Christians are wrong in thinking [certain moral behaviors] are correct.

We could apply the "Christians are homophobic" argument here as well… and certain anti-Christians do this as well.

The Overlooked Flaws With Using the Bulverism

The problem is, of course, that if one can use this argument against the Christian, the Christian can use the argument against their attacker.  We can merely substitute "Christian" with "Atheist" or "Muslim" or "Liberal" or "Conservative" and plug it in, and we can sling it back at you.

Of course you haven't proven your point and neither have I.

The use of the Bulverism is in essence sawing off the branch you are sitting on.  If one employs it against an opponent, the opponent can point it right back at the person making the attack.  If one refuses to apply it to their own argument, they cannot apply it to the opponent without being a hypocrite.

First Prove Your Point.  Then You Can Psychoanalyze

What is overlooked in the Internet debate today is that there is only one reason for rejecting something as false… and that is demonstrating that it is false.  All the reasons for trying to explain why something is false is meaningless if the thing is in fact true.

Yet instead, we see appeals to false analogy, appeals to numbers, appeals to age or newness… all of which are logical fallacies which do not prove the point one which one wishes to make.

Advice for the Christian

The Christian should be watchful for the Bulverism… first of all to avoid making the error yourself.  We who believe Jesus is the Truth should first of all demonstrate that the opponent's view IS false before trying to delve into motives why they are wrong.

Second of all to make sure you are not tricked by it.  It becomes easy to get caught up in challenging the reason the opponent provides for why we are wrong, completely overlooking the fact that first the opponent needs to prove we are wrong.

So don't get distracted.  One needs to stick to the point of insisting they prove their point.  Otherwise it will be treated as if they are right

Contradictory Reports: The Case of Fr. Jeyapaul

Sources: Vatican covered up abuse in Minnesota, lawyers say - CNN.com,

The Associated Press: Priest accused of US abuse won't fight extradition,

Vatican lawyer's statement on Indian priest | National Catholic Reporter

I find it interesting to see how the newest reports of abuse come tailored to overcome the challenges to the previous story.  In face to the rejections of the Milwaukee story, we now see a case come forward which took place after the new rules came into effect, seeking to imply that the old practices are still in play.

The facts of the matter seem to be somewhat different.

What is Alleged

The allegations is that priest Fr. Jeyapaul abused two teenage girls during his time in Minnesota.  One of them was reported to the diocese just before he left for India, while the other seems to have come forward after the priest had left America.

The claim is that the CDF was notified of the abuse but did nothing.  CNN and ABC reports that Cardinal Levada did nothing.

What is not Mentioned

What the stories do not mention is that when the Vatican was notified, it contacted the diocese in India and recommended the priest be laicized.  Most of the stories do not mention the priest is not contesting extradition to the United States to stand trial.  Nor do they mention that it was the Vatican which reported to authorities where he was to be found. 

It seems the diocese in India did not laicize the priest but gave a lesser penalty.

The Vatican attorney in the US, Jeffery Lana made this statement:

The decision regarding the canonical penalties imposed upon Father Jeyapaul was made by the Bishop of Ootacamund, whose diocese is located in the Nilgiris district of the Indian state of Tamil Nadu.

The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith suggested in this matter that Father Jeyapaul agree to laicization, demonstrating that the Congregation believed that the accusations were serious enough to merit dismissal from the clerical state. However, as a matter of longstanding canon law, such decisions are made by the local bishop, who is deemed to be generally in the best position to adjudicate the case relating to the priest in question.

It is important to note that the canonical proceeding involving Father Jeyapaul was wholly separate from any pending civil or criminal proceeding. The Holy See has cooperated with the requests of law enforcement authorities seeking the extradition of Father Jeyapaul to the United States, and in fact provided his exact location in India to assist such efforts.

It is interesting that these facts were not reported in the Mainstream Media.

The Significance for the Media

The media is reporting something untrue [The Vatican was covering up] as if it were true, omitting facts which go against the attacks on the Pope and the Vatican.  This is entirely unethical of course.  Fair and accurate reporting requires giving all the facts, and not merely one slanted side of it to promote an agenda.

The fact that the reporting continues to "evolve" in the face of news stories being debunked indicates not a concern for victims of abuse, but a desire to attack the moral authority of the Catholic Church.

The fact that the media has not really reported the actions of the Church, but instead seek to employ an argument from silence fallacy [The Minnesota diocese did not know the events in India.  Therefore the Vatican did nothing] to claim inaction or coverup. 

These two charges are contradictory of course.  The first would be inaction.  The second would be action to conceal.  Meanwhile reports indicate the Vatican neither was inactive nor concealing.

The media could have been defenders of the truth if it had reported this story fairly.  In that case it would have done a good service in helping the Church be aware of further repairs to the system it needed to implement.  Instead it attempted to portray this whole incident as the fault of the Vatican.

This leaves us with this question: How much trust can we place in the media to fairly and accurately report abuse allegations?

If the media is supposed to be serving us by reporting these things, I believe we can validly ask: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who polices the police?)

Significance in Legal Terms

Also in terms of the accused priest, it is important to make sure justice is done.  We have reports of abuse.  It has not yet been established the abuse is true.  If it is true, of course justice requires the priest should face the legal consequences.  If it is not true, justice requires his name be cleared.  Trial by media should not be tolerated however.

Significance for the Church

What troubles me in this case is that there seems to be more room for reform of the current system.  That a bishop can choose to ignore what the CDF suggests in terms of laicization indicates that the Code of Canon Law can use reform to prevent this in the future.  If the priest was in fact guilty of what he was accused of, clearly the diocese in India erred in the position he was given.  However, the Vatican did not cover up, though it would need to strengthen its laws for the future.

It is good to see they did recommend laicization and to see they did cooperate with the authorities to bring the priest forward.  However, this case indicates that perhaps we need to institute a policy where the CDF can override the decision of the Bishop in such cases. 

Of course we need to be certain that such an action does not remove the rights of the accused for a fair hearing as well, and does not create a bottleneck which slows cases down so much that the delay enables injustice.

Conclusion

Contrary to media claims, this is not a failure on the part of the Church.  Rather it shows us how the system currently works, and gives us evidence of further reforms the system needs to make in terms of procedure and tightening up canon law.  The Church needs to investigate where weakness is in the current system and make sure future cases cannot exploit the same situation.