Doing Evil to Achieve a Good End? Reflection on Moral Dilemmas

 

Why Richard, it profits a man nothing to give his soul for the whole world... but for Wales?

– St. Thomas More, A Man For All Seasons

One of the more difficult things in defending moral obligations is when people set up a moral dilemma in which it is proposed that unless we do a thing normally condemned as wrong, an evil result will happen.  It is argued that the evil suffered will be worse than the evil done to prevent it.  Therefore we are told we should do this evil to prevent a greater evil.

When the Christian makes a stand saying, “Even so, we may not do evil so good may come of it,” he or she is vilified and Christian morality is blamed as the cause of the suffering that is claimed will result from not doing evil.

Faced with this kind of argument, it can be easy for the Christian to falter and perhaps make a compromise – setting aside what one is obligated to do in favor of preventing a scenario where harm will happen.

Breakdown of the Dilemma

The dilemma generally works this way:

·         Either we do [X] or we suffer [Y].

·         We should not have to suffer [Y].

·         Therefore we are justified in doing [X].

This is how people who try to promote changing certain moral beliefs argue: We should not have to suffer [Y].  [X] is a reasonable means to avoid that suffering.  If you do not change your belief that [X] is wrong, then you are responsible for the suffering [Y] causes.

Such an argument is remarkably effective in its intimidation, playing on the fact that people who are good do not want people to suffer if it can be avoided.

The problem with this dilemma is the fact that it makes two assumptions that need to be proven, but instead of proving them tries to pass them off as proven:

1.       That doing [X] in response is mandatory regardless of whether it is evil or not.

2.       That suffering [Y] is so bad that avoiding it is an absolute obligation.

If either of these assumptions is false, then the dilemma collapses.

Four Aspects of Duty

In Pope Bl. John Paul II’s unfinished work, Man in the Field of Responsibility (pp 8-9), the future Pope describes four obligations in acting.  To paraphrase:

1.       I must act to achieve a good end

2.       I must not act to achieve a good end

3.       I must act to prevent a bad end

4.       I must not act to prevent a bad end

In other words, to do our duty, we must either act or not act to achieve a good result or we must act or not act to prevent a bad result.  If our action would assist in achieving a good effect or preventing a bad effect, we must act.  However, if our action would hinder the achievement of a good end or the prevention of a bad end, then we should not act.

Living Morally is a Duty

But we need to remember something.  Not every action is a legitimate response in achieving a good end or preventing a bad end.  For example, we cannot consider murder of political opponents as a legitimate means of making sure legislation we think is necessary becomes law.  The recognition of this fact shows there are limits to how far we can go to achieve a certain end.  These limits are limits of morality – the recognition that some behavior is good and some behavior is wrong.  That some actions are right and some actions are wrong.

If it is the duty of every person to live morally then we must consider whether action or inaction needed to achieve a good end or to prevent a bad end is a moral action.   If you disagree that every person has the duty to live morally, then you really can have no complaint if someone comes over one night and steals your car.

So in considering the topic of doing evil to achieve a certain end, we can extrapolate on the outline of the future pope’s work to say that our moral obligations require:

1.       I must act morally to achieve a good end

2.       I must not act immorally to achieve a good end

3.       I must act morally to prevent a bad end

4.       I must not act immorally to prevent a bad end

So, the whole concept of “the ends justify the means” is to be rejected.  A bad means or action may never be used.  If we reject morality in the name of expedience, then somebody can decide to use an evil act that harms us if they claim the end is important enough.

So Edmund Burke’s famous quote of “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” (this would actually be #3 in the first list) is therefore correct some of the time – those times when good action is required.  Good men cannot refrain from acting if the action to prevent the evil is good.  However, if the action is bad, good men must refrain from doing it (#4).  Otherwise you would have the self-contradiction of doing evil to prevent evil, to which a person may ask “So why should we do your evil (which benefits you) instead of my evil (which benefits me)?”

The Person is Good or Evil through the Acts Performed

The future Pope John Paul II also pointed out (Man in the Field of Responsibility p17) that a man becomes good or evil through the act he performs.  This is an important point to realize: The person who chooses to do something that is evil, despite the result he or she wishes to accomplish, is an evil person.  We should be wary of such people.  If the result is so important that I am willing to do whatever it takes, I will tend to treat any obstacles in the way as “unimportant” and probably view people harmed as “unimportant” in light of the goal.  It essentially says, “What I want is important.  If it harms somebody else, that harm is unimportant.”

The 20^th century testifies by filled graveyards as to the damage that thinking causes.  Indeed, the history of dictatorships shows what happens when we treat the end as all important and consider the evil done to achieve that end as “less important.”  Most people, regardless of political outlook, recognize that what these dictators did was terribly wrong.  Except for extreme ideologues, names like Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and others are names of revulsion.  They all claimed to have beneficial goals in bettering the life of their people, but what they did to carry out their goals was evil – millions were killed on account of those goals – and as a result we tend to call the dictators evil.

Now the mentioning of the dictators is of course an extreme example, but it makes the point that people do recognize the fact that some things are always to be condemned.  When one considers these facts, statements like “there are no moral absolutes,” and “don’t push your morality on me,” to be pretty stupid statements.  We recognize that a person who would utter such statements on behalf of Hitler or Stalin to be fools.

In other words, we recognize that moral absolutes do exist.  Once we do realize this fact, we are obligated to always consider what morality requires of us and not try to explain it away when it is inconvenient

Intrinsic Evil: Some Things can NEVER be done

Some things can never be justified.  For example, no matter what a woman does, it can never justify rape as a response to what she did.  NEVER.  We would all be horrified and disgusted with anyone who would say it was justified.

Catholicism calls those acts “intrinsically evil.”  That is to say, those acts are evil by their very nature and can never, under any circumstances, be justified nor be deliberately chosen as an act despite the suffering we want to avoid.  Among other things, it can never be permissible to permit abortion, commit murder, commit genocide, commit torture or commit rape as a means of avoiding suffering regardless of the situation.

If someone disagrees with this and wants to deny the existence of intrinsically evil acts, it means he or she has to accept the idea that there are circumstances when things like rape can be justified.  But that is absurd… and offensive.

But once we recognize that certain acts are never justified, we have to recognize that our behavior does have restrictions put on it.  If killing an innocent person is always wrong, then abortion can never be a legitimate action for example.

The Catholic Church, in teaching moral obligations, is affirming that we cannot do certain things no matter how insignificant they seem to the world.

Even Non-Christians Recognize the Golden Rule

Morality is not something that only Christianity imposes and the rest of the world resents.

Even somebody who rejects Christian and especially Catholic morality can understand the concept of the Golden Rule: Do to others whatever you would have them do to you (Matthew 7:12).  If you want people to treat you morally, treat them morally.  If you reject acting morally towards others when it hampers you, then someone else can refuse to act morally towards you if it hampers them.  It becomes hypocritical for someone who rejects moral absolutes to appeal to morality when others do evil to us.

What follows from this is that everybody has an obligation to act morally towards another person.  Not just people who treat you well (see Matthew 5:43-48), but every person.  Otherwise we become evil when we act immorally towards those who do not treat us well.

In Plato’s Republic (Book 1, beginning with 332a), there is a dialogue in which the participant, Polemarchus asserts that it is just to harm the unjust and to benefit the just.  Socrates responds with questioning that demonstrates that such actions make the man unjust, concluding:

“If, then, anyone affirms that it is just to render to each his due and he means by this, that injury and harm is what is due to his enemies from the just man and benefits to his friends, he was no truly wise man who said it. For what he meant was not true. For it has been made clear to us that in no case is it just to harm anyone.” [335e]

Socrates is an example of the fact that even non-Christians recognize this fact.  He saw the view that doing good to friends and evil to enemies was not acting rightly.  It demonstrates that insisting that men act justly to others, regardless of their wickedness or virtue is not a case of Christians “forcing their values on others.”

Double Effect vs. Willing an Evil Act

One thing to be aware of is sometimes people confuse doing an evil act to avoid a bad result with the Catholic teaching on Double Effect.  They might argue that the Church permits an act that seems similar to the dilemma proposed and therefore the Church should not object to the act in the dilemma either.

The reason this is not a valid comparison is because the principle of double effect involves the existence of an undesired consequence which would be avoided if possible and does not directly result from the action

I find the following a useful distinction to avoid confusion between deliberately doing evil and an unintended evil effect happening as a result of an action:

Distinguishing the object from the effects is pivotal for understanding the principle, since the principle serves one object with two effects. Two particular examples demonstrate well the function of the principle. The first is the case of the dying patient in intractable pain, with no hope of recovery. An intrinsically wrong object of activity is direct killing of the innocent, and therefore to give the patient an injection of a lethal drug is always prohibited. But can one give the patient a painkiller, even if the patient could suffer heart failure as a result? The principle permits this because the object, administering a pain reliever, is distinct from one of its effects, possible death; the administration of such drugs is ordinarily for pain relief and not for killing. Conversely, the object of injecting a lethal drug can not be distinguished from its effect: the very meaning of the object is to kill.

(Dwyer, J. A. (2000). The new Dictionary of Catholic Social Thought (electronic ed.) (301). Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press.)

One can see the difference: Administering a drug with intent to kill and administering a drug with the intent to alleviate pain are two entirely different things.  In the second case, the possibility of death is not intended, and if it was possible it would be avoided.  But in the first case, the death of the patient is the intention.

Even though in both cases relieving suffering is the intended goal and a good goal, the means used makes one act evil and the other act good.  Since the action makes the person good or evil, it means that even when the person intends a good result, he or she can be judged evil by the means used.

That surprises some people who tend to think evil acts are done by evil people and don’t consider that people do have motives which seem good in their own minds.  Very few people are like the character Aaron the Moor from the Shakespeare play Titus Andronicus (made into a 1999 movie, Titus) who dies regretting he had not done more evil, saying:

O, why should wrath be mute, and fury dumb?
I am no baby, I, that with base prayers
I should repent the evils I have done:
Ten thousand worse than ever yet I did
Would I perform, if I might have my will;
If one good deed in all my life I did,
I do repent it from my very soul.

Most people who want to justify an evil act have in mind a result to bring about or avoid which they believe outweighs the harm inflicted, and become hurt and offended when it is pointed out that the acts done to achieve this end are evil.

It Is Undeniably a Painful Fact but We Cannot Set Aside Morality When it Suits Us

That is important to remember.  The emotions are real.  Nobody wants to suffer.  In these dilemmas, there is a result people want to avoid.  It is understandable that the person who has to face those consequences may feel betrayed by the person who says, “No.  This may not be done.” 

But it must be understood that the person who stands up for doing what is right is not responsible for the suffering that may come from doing right.  This person merely states the reality, that we cannot do evil so good may come of it, and requires us to rethink our perspective.

Knowing Right from Wrong Obligates Us to Apply Our Standards to All – Even Those Who Disagree

In the novel A Canticle for Leibowitz (page 296 in my EOS edition) by Walter Miller Jr., we have a situation where there has been a nuclear war, and people are suffering from radiation sickness.  The government wants to establish facilities to decide who has received enough radiation to be fatal to recommend euthanizing.  The abbot of the monastery where they want to establish the facility tells them he will refuse cooperation unless the doctor promises not to advise people to euthanize themselves.  The doctor says it is not right to do this with non-Catholic patients and accuses the abbot of imposing his views on others and the abbot has no right to make this condition, and demands the abbot explain why he insists on this stance for non-Catholics as well as Catholics.  The abbot responds (emphasis in original):

Because if a man is ignorant of the fact something is wrong and acts in ignorance, he incurs no guilt, provided natural reason was not enough to show him that it was wrong.  But while ignorance may excuse the man, it does not excuse the act, which is wrong in itself.  If I permitted the act simply because the man is ignorant that it is wrong, then I would incur guilt, because I do know it to be wrong.  It is really that painfully simple.

The doctor responds by accuse the abbot of being merciless and out of touch, which is no refutation of the facts stated by the abbot.

It is Unjust to Blame the Church for Refusing to Sanction Evil Means to Avoid a Bad Result

Miller’s 1959 novel is extremely relevant (and prophetic) when it comes to people who argue the Church is merciless in refusing to change her moral teachings to prevent some evil from happening.  They say that Catholic institutions and businesses run by Catholics who hire and serve non-Catholics are “forcing their view on others” by refusing to provide contraceptive coverage to non-Catholics.  They blame the Church for being the aggressor when she is in fact the victim of the law.

But, like the abbot in A Canticle for Leibowitz, the Church knows her duty to God.  The Church knows that permitting an evil act for people who do not know it is evil is to incur guilt for that evil.

To use the criteria of the future Pope John Paul II earlier, The Church needs to act to avoid the bad end, but we can’t do the bad act of doing something intrinsically evil (complying with the mandate) to avoid the bad end (ruinous fines).  So we must either find a good means to oppose the bad end or suffer the bad end.

This is also why the Church must speak out and warn people of the evils being done and why they must not be done.  Yes, it is possible in some cases that a person might not realize that the act proposed is evil.  But being silent about this ignorance is not permissible, just as having knowledge of a bridge being unsafe to travel across and being silent about it is not permissible.  We must speak up to prevent people from doing wrong just as we must speak up to prevent people from being killed when driving across an unsafe bridge.  Otherwise we are responsible for the resulting tragedies.

Looking at Examples with These Considerations

With these considerations in mind, we should look at some incidents where the Church has felt morally obligated to take a stand against the dilemma.  In some of them, the Church has been labeled “out of touch.”  In others, she has been blamed for suffering for not changing her teaching in the face of the dilemma.  She’s been called cruel or bureaucratic or legalistic in refusing to permit what she considers evil as a means to prevent suffering.

Atomic Weapons

One historical case which can offend Americans was the case that happened in 1945.  The Catholic Church spoke against the use of atomic weapons in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  Many people thought them to be out of touch or to favor the Japanese over the Americans: After all, didn’t dropping the bombs mean shortening the war and preventing the projected one million casualties expected from an invasion of the Japanese home islands?

We have the dilemma again:

1.       Either we [Use Atomic Weapons] or we [Suffer Horrendous casualties]. 

2.       We don’t want to [Suffer Horrendous Casualties]. 

3.       Therefore [Use of Atomic Weapons] is justified. 

That is an “Ends justify the means” argument which was essentially what the US Government argued, and was something I once (to my sorrow) believed to be valid myself.

The reason the use of the weapon was not justified is it was an indiscriminate weapon in which an entire city was a target, not merely military targets in a city.  The intent was to terrorize the Japanese people and government into surrender.  Now the desire to save the lives of Allied soldiers is in itself a good end.  But the means used (deliberately employing indiscriminate death and destruction on a massive scale) was an evil means.  Since we may not employ an evil means to achieve a good end or avoid a bad end, it follows reasonably that the dropping of the Atomic Bomb was not a moral response.  That’s not to say there were no moral ways to try to end the war with fewer casualties of course, but the dilemma used tried to justify an evil means to achieve a good end.

AIDS and Condoms in Africa

One particularly reprehensible attack on Pope Benedict XVI and the Church was over the AIDS epidemic in Africa in 2009.  It was essentially argued that either the Church accepts condoms as a valid means of protection or be responsible for the continuing spread of AIDS.  The problem is, this was not at all the only means of preventing the spread of AIDS.

What the attack on the Church presumed was it was not possible to ask people infected with HIV to refrain from sexual activity and that therefore the use of condoms was necessary to protect innocent people from infection.

But the Catholic Church pointed out that one could prevent the spread of AIDS without using an evil means by insisting that people with AIDS had the responsibility to refrain from activity which put their spouses at risk of infection.

The Church was blamed for the suffering when in fact she pointed out the real cause of the suffering and called for behavior to be changed to truly prevent the spread of infection.  I mean really… what the hell kind of husband would risk infecting his wife just to gratify his sexual urges?   It’s that kind of person, not the Pope, who is reprehensible.

Besides, if he didn’t listen to the Church telling him not to have sex with a person he is not married to when he got AIDS, why should he listen to the Church if the Church should tell him to wear a condom with his uninfected wife?

The HHS Mandate Dilemma

At this time, there are many Catholic institutions as well as businesses run by Catholics which are threatened by the dilemma on whether to do what is sinful: Either the Catholics allow the contraceptive coverage or face ruinous fines. 

Since providing support for something the Church believes to be intrinsically evil, Catholics cannot go along with the mandate.  But the fines are flagrantly unjust.  So Catholics are justified in finding a non-sinful way of avoiding the evil effect of paying those fines.

The response of the Catholics is to sue the government to protect their rights under the Constitution.  It is not an immoral act to seek a redress for grievances – that is in fact one of the First Amendment Rights after all.

Now those who want to force the Church into accepting these mandates try to argue that the Church is to blame for being in this position.  It is claimed that the Church is seeking to push their values on others and are willing to let people be denied “health care” because of a legalistic attitude.

But since contraceptives and abortifacients are things which Catholics believe are intrinsically evil, we can never make use of them and cannot make them available to others who do not share our values.  As the abbot in A Canticle to Leibowitz pointed out, even if others do not know an act is wrong, we do and if we say nothing, we bear responsibility.

So now the Catholics appeal to the courts to defend their rights.  If the Courts fail in their duties and rule against us, then we will have to face ruinous fines that will eventually force Catholic institutions (like hospitals and schools) and Catholic owned businesses into bankruptcy, because we may not disobey our Lord and do that which we know is evil.

Martyrdom

I’ve left the dilemma of martyrdom for last because it is a consistent example of the Church practicing what she preaches above.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes martyrdom as follows:

2473 Martyrdom is the supreme witness given to the truth of the faith: it means bearing witness even unto death. The martyr bears witness to Christ who died and rose, to whom he is united by charity. He bears witness to the truth of the faith and of Christian doctrine. He endures death through an act of fortitude. “Let me become the food of the beasts, through whom it will be given me to reach God.”

When one is given the choice of denying what God commands and living and standing up for God and being killed for it, the world expects the Christian to fold.  It believes no belief is so important as to be worth dying for.  Think about how much good one could do if the martyr had just “compromised” a little and lived to continue doing good.  But for the person who believes in God, denying Him is always wrong.  Since we may never do evil so good (in this case, living) can come from it, we are to stand up for our belief even if someone does us evil and kills us for doing what we believe to be right.

While we are not obligated to seek martyrdom (there’s that option to find a non-evil means to avoid suffering), we are called to accept it rather than deny the God we profess belief in.

Martyrdom is not something which only happens to a subset of the population.  Young children and old men have been martyred.  Men and women have been martyred.  Laity and clergy have been martyred.  Even Popes have been martyred for the faith, so it is not limited to the lowly while the powerful order them to suffer. 

The motivations of the persecutors vary but it all tends to revolve around the Christian recognizing that the demands of God are more binding than the demands of the state if there is a conflict.

Because any member of the Church can be called to martyrdom if he or she would be faithful to Christ over the world, we can say that the Church practices what she preaches in saying we may not do evil to avoid an evil result.  We recognize it is better to suffer for doing right than to do evil to avoid that suffering.

Once this fact is grasped, then all the other scenarios where the Church says in response to the other moral dilemmas that we may not do evil to avoid suffering become clear as well.

Christ has told us:

“If anyone wishes to come after me, he must deny himself and take up his cross daily and follow me.  For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it.  What profit is there for one to gain the whole world yet lose or forfeit himself? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy angels.  Truly I say to you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see the kingdom of God.”  (Luke 9:23-27)

That applies to every moral dilemma we face in life. 

And Now We Wait… and Pray

Read more »

And Now We Wait… and Pray

Read more »

Sede Vacante

Read more »

Sede Vacante

Read more »

Does the Church Need a Pope from [Location Here]?

As the Church grows closer to the Pope's renunciation of office, I've seen certain discussions online concerning who should be chosen as his successor.  One of these discussions involves the statement that the next Pope should come from a certain region.  Africa seems to be the most commonly mentioned region in this regard, although other regions have been mentioned (Latin America, Italy or the United States for example).

Now, I firmly believe that the Pope, being the successor of Peter, can come from any region and if the best person for the job is from Africa, then he should be chosen for the task.

But I also think that those bloggers and blog comments who say that the vibrancy of the African Church means an African Pope would be best suited for the job are actually using the fallacy of division.

The Fallacy of Division works this way:

• Group [X] has characteristic [Y]
• Therefore every member of Group [X] has characteristic [Y]

Or to use an example:

• This orchestra is the best in the world
• Therefore every member of the orchestra is the best in the world

Maybe, maybe not.  Perhaps performing alone, some members of the orchestra are mediocre, but when combined with others, their contribution helps create the excellency of the whole.

The argument for a Pope from a region because the region is known for a vibrant faith is the same fallacy.  We can't judge the individual by the region he comes.

I don't pretend to know who will be the best choice to succeed Pope Benedict XVI (I have an idea on who I would like to see, but I will keep silent on that).  I do believe that whoever is chosen, it must be because the cardinals believe him to be the best choice to be the Successor of Peter, and not because the region he comes from is known for a strong faith.

We certainly need to pray for the coming conclave, that the cardinals will be guided by the Holy Spirit and not by human considerations.

Does the Church Need a Pope from [Location Here]?

As the Church grows closer to the Pope's renunciation of office, I've seen certain discussions online concerning who should be chosen as his successor.  One of these discussions involves the statement that the next Pope should come from a certain region.  Africa seems to be the most commonly mentioned region in this regard, although other regions have been mentioned (Latin America, Italy or the United States for example).

Now, I firmly believe that the Pope, being the successor of Peter, can come from any region and if the best person for the job is from Africa, then he should be chosen for the task.

But I also think that those bloggers and blog comments who say that the vibrancy of the African Church means an African Pope would be best suited for the job are actually using the fallacy of division.

The Fallacy of Division works this way:

• Group [X] has characteristic [Y]
• Therefore every member of Group [X] has characteristic [Y]

Or to use an example:

• This orchestra is the best in the world
• Therefore every member of the orchestra is the best in the world

Maybe, maybe not.  Perhaps performing alone, some members of the orchestra are mediocre, but when combined with others, their contribution helps create the excellency of the whole.

The argument for a Pope from a region because the region is known for a vibrant faith is the same fallacy.  We can't judge the individual by the region he comes.

I don't pretend to know who will be the best choice to succeed Pope Benedict XVI (I have an idea on who I would like to see, but I will keep silent on that).  I do believe that whoever is chosen, it must be because the cardinals believe him to be the best choice to be the Successor of Peter, and not because the region he comes from is known for a strong faith.

We certainly need to pray for the coming conclave, that the cardinals will be guided by the Holy Spirit and not by human considerations.

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

Following newsfeeds online, I see many editorials talking about how the Church is "dying" and needs to change if it is survive  (By allowing women priests, permitting abortion, contraception and so-called homosexual "marriage.")  Personally, I wonder why these people express such concern.  After all, given that they seem to think we are a misogynistic homophobic institution, you'd think they couldn't wait for us to die.

I suspect that, far from being altruistic, this advice is being made in the same spirit as the pack of wolves suggesting to a flock of sheep that they need to get rid of those burdensome sheepdogs so there can be a dialogue on what to have for dinner.

The imminent demise of the Catholic Church has been announced by many so-called prophets who believe their movement will cause the Church to die.  When the Protestant Revolt began, some of the founders predicted our demise before their challenges in the name of Scripture.  The Enlightenment predicted our demise in the before their challenges in the name of Reason.  Atheists today predict our demise before their challenges in the name of Science.

These challenges however failed to kill us in the past and will not kill us now because the Catholic Church is not an enemy of reason, scripture or science.  Truth does not need to fear truth.  While some may apply erroneous philosophies based on their worldviews and confuse them with the teachings of Reason, Scripture or Science, the fact is their philosophies of interpretation do not accurately attack the Church – basically these attacks are aimed at the wrong target.

Other challenges come from political movements and social revolts.  Communism and Fascism both predicted that Christianity in general and the Church in particular was an archaic relic holding people back, while their movements would provide what the people really needed.  The modern hedonism argues that nobody cares about sexual morality and the Church is stupid/old-fashioned for clinging to teachings they disagree with.

But these movements have fallen or will fall.  Where Fascism was once seen as the wave of the future, it is now recognized as a wrong turn.  Despite the media message which sells sex, the media cannot hide the fact that free sex is a terribly empty thing and that there must be more to life than one night stands.  These movements mislead people.  They do not rest on truth, but rather on desires and fears.

Now these challenges can lead individuals and groups astray of course.  Regions have fallen away from the Church.  Many individuals do indeed reject the Church teachings on subjects based on the slogans of the age.  "Reproductive Freedom" for example.  It is true that the Church in America and Western Europe  are facing these trials.  It is also true that scandals in the media make it appear the Church is crumbling.

But difficulties and attacks and sinful members do not prove the demise of the whole Church.  While these challenges may cause the faithful to suffer and the weak to be led astray, and property to be lost, the Church does not exist for the comfort of her members, the body count in the pews, dollars in the collection basket or popularity with the elites.

Whether or not one accepts her claims or not, the Church exists as the means Christ chose to bring His salvation to the world.  It is true that a bad shepherd in the Church may obscure that message of salvation.  But whether or not this message is popular has no bearing on whether it is true.

If the Church believes what she teaches about her own mission, she cannot change the message of salvation to something more popular.  Why?  Because it is not her message – it is Christ's message.

The Church teaches about herself:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church #86]

Because the Church believes herself obligated to be faithful to Christ, she cannot change her message without being unfaithful to Christ.

Once one realizes that the Church believes this – whether or not they agree with the Church over the truth of her belief – it becomes clear that to say "change or die" is a foolish ultimatum.  We remember Christ's words in Mark 8:36-38

What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.

The Pagan Romans, for example, told the early Christians "Change or Die."  Christians knew it was better to die for the truth than to compromise what they believed.  The Church is still here.  Pagan Rome is a pile of ruins.  We will still be here when this current attack is ruins as well.

As Cardinal Francis George said,

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."

That will happen here as well.

We as Catholics believe Christ promised to be with the Church always (Matt 28:20), and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18).

People of good will may or not accept what Catholics believe about the relationship of Christ and the Church.  But they should consider this.  If we're wrong we should have collapsed long ago under the weight of sinners inside and persecution outside.  But if we're right, perhaps people should consider the ramifications of that.

But as the teacher of the Law, Gamaliel, pointed out when faced with the Christians:

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

If we're right, it means those who oppose her teachings are not fighting a human institution…

…they're fighting God.

Reflections on the "Helpful" Advice to a "Dying" Church

Following newsfeeds online, I see many editorials talking about how the Church is "dying" and needs to change if it is survive  (By allowing women priests, permitting abortion, contraception and so-called homosexual "marriage.")  Personally, I wonder why these people express such concern.  After all, given that they seem to think we are a misogynistic homophobic institution, you'd think they couldn't wait for us to die.

I suspect that, far from being altruistic, this advice is being made in the same spirit as the pack of wolves suggesting to a flock of sheep that they need to get rid of those burdensome sheepdogs so there can be a dialogue on what to have for dinner.

The imminent demise of the Catholic Church has been announced by many so-called prophets who believe their movement will cause the Church to die.  When the Protestant Revolt began, some of the founders predicted our demise before their challenges in the name of Scripture.  The Enlightenment predicted our demise in the before their challenges in the name of Reason.  Atheists today predict our demise before their challenges in the name of Science.

These challenges however failed to kill us in the past and will not kill us now because the Catholic Church is not an enemy of reason, scripture or science.  Truth does not need to fear truth.  While some may apply erroneous philosophies based on their worldviews and confuse them with the teachings of Reason, Scripture or Science, the fact is their philosophies of interpretation do not accurately attack the Church – basically these attacks are aimed at the wrong target.

Other challenges come from political movements and social revolts.  Communism and Fascism both predicted that Christianity in general and the Church in particular was an archaic relic holding people back, while their movements would provide what the people really needed.  The modern hedonism argues that nobody cares about sexual morality and the Church is stupid/old-fashioned for clinging to teachings they disagree with.

But these movements have fallen or will fall.  Where Fascism was once seen as the wave of the future, it is now recognized as a wrong turn.  Despite the media message which sells sex, the media cannot hide the fact that free sex is a terribly empty thing and that there must be more to life than one night stands.  These movements mislead people.  They do not rest on truth, but rather on desires and fears.

Now these challenges can lead individuals and groups astray of course.  Regions have fallen away from the Church.  Many individuals do indeed reject the Church teachings on subjects based on the slogans of the age.  "Reproductive Freedom" for example.  It is true that the Church in America and Western Europe  are facing these trials.  It is also true that scandals in the media make it appear the Church is crumbling.

But difficulties and attacks and sinful members do not prove the demise of the whole Church.  While these challenges may cause the faithful to suffer and the weak to be led astray, and property to be lost, the Church does not exist for the comfort of her members, the body count in the pews, dollars in the collection basket or popularity with the elites.

Whether or not one accepts her claims or not, the Church exists as the means Christ chose to bring His salvation to the world.  It is true that a bad shepherd in the Church may obscure that message of salvation.  But whether or not this message is popular has no bearing on whether it is true.

If the Church believes what she teaches about her own mission, she cannot change the message of salvation to something more popular.  Why?  Because it is not her message – it is Christ's message.

The Church teaches about herself:

"Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication, and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith.” [Catechism of the Catholic Church #86]

Because the Church believes herself obligated to be faithful to Christ, she cannot change her message without being unfaithful to Christ.

Once one realizes that the Church believes this – whether or not they agree with the Church over the truth of her belief – it becomes clear that to say "change or die" is a foolish ultimatum.  We remember Christ's words in Mark 8:36-38

What profit is there for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? What could one give in exchange for his life? Whoever is ashamed of me and of my words in this faithless and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.

The Pagan Romans, for example, told the early Christians "Change or Die."  Christians knew it was better to die for the truth than to compromise what they believed.  The Church is still here.  Pagan Rome is a pile of ruins.  We will still be here when this current attack is ruins as well.

As Cardinal Francis George said,

"I expect to die in bed, my successor will die in prison and his successor will die a martyr in the public square. His successor will pick up the shards of a ruined society and slowly help rebuild civilization, as the church has done so often in human history."

That will happen here as well.

We as Catholics believe Christ promised to be with the Church always (Matt 28:20), and that the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18).

People of good will may or not accept what Catholics believe about the relationship of Christ and the Church.  But they should consider this.  If we're wrong we should have collapsed long ago under the weight of sinners inside and persecution outside.  But if we're right, perhaps people should consider the ramifications of that.

But as the teacher of the Law, Gamaliel, pointed out when faced with the Christians:

So now I tell you, have nothing to do with these men, and let them go. For if this endeavor or this activity is of human origin, it will destroy itself. But if it comes from God, you will not be able to destroy them; you may even find yourselves fighting against God.” (Acts 5:38-39)

If we're right, it means those who oppose her teachings are not fighting a human institution…

…they're fighting God.

The Church Can Never Change To What Today's Society Demands

Read more »

The Church Can Never Change To What Today's Society Demands

Read more »

Do Not Be Afraid

Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ's power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows "what is in man". He alone knows it.  (Homily of Blessed John Paul II, Oct 22, 1978)

One of the things I see with some of my fellow Catholics is a sense of fear when it comes to the recent announcement from Pope Benedict XVI that he will retire effective February 28th at 8pm.  Since there has not been a Papal resignation in 600 years, it seems to be a shocking thing to us.

The important thing to remember is that Christ has promised to be with our Church always (See Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20).  The successor of Benedict XVI will be a different person and will handle the Church in a different way to be sure.  But Benedict XVI handled the papacy differently than Blessed John Paul II.

We may like the changes or we may prefer things the older way.  But the important thing to remember is that when the new Pontiff is elected, he will be protected in the same way as the previous popes.

So come what may in the future, we can have faith in knowing that God will continue to watch over His Church.  Individuals may be persecuted and individuals may err.  But our Church is protected and the gates of hell will not prevail over her.

Do Not Be Afraid

Brothers and sisters, do not be afraid to welcome Christ and accept his power. Help the Pope and all those who wish to serve Christ and with Christ's power to serve the human person and the whole of mankind. Do not be afraid. Open wide the doors for Christ. To his saving power open the boundaries of States, economic and political systems, the vast fields of culture, civilization and development. Do not be afraid. Christ knows "what is in man". He alone knows it.  (Homily of Blessed John Paul II, Oct 22, 1978)

One of the things I see with some of my fellow Catholics is a sense of fear when it comes to the recent announcement from Pope Benedict XVI that he will retire effective February 28th at 8pm.  Since there has not been a Papal resignation in 600 years, it seems to be a shocking thing to us.

The important thing to remember is that Christ has promised to be with our Church always (See Matt 16:18 and Matt 28:20).  The successor of Benedict XVI will be a different person and will handle the Church in a different way to be sure.  But Benedict XVI handled the papacy differently than Blessed John Paul II.

We may like the changes or we may prefer things the older way.  But the important thing to remember is that when the new Pontiff is elected, he will be protected in the same way as the previous popes.

So come what may in the future, we can have faith in knowing that God will continue to watch over His Church.  Individuals may be persecuted and individuals may err.  But our Church is protected and the gates of hell will not prevail over her.

Reflections on the Announced Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI

I was certainly caught by surprise at the announcement of the Pope that he will step down, effective February 28th.  I was introduced to his writings in the 1990s during a time when I was beginning to study what the faith I was brought up with meant.  I found his works wise and insightful.

As many crises arose in the Church, I was impressed at how he and Blessed John Paul II stood up for the truth in a sea of relativism.  Portrayed as a hateful old man by many, I saw in him a deep love and understanding of the obligations of seeking and doing what was right that binds us all.

At the death of Blessed Pope John Paul II, I thought he would be a good Pope, but I thought his age would keep him from being elected (Because of that assumption, I thought Cardinal Arinze would be a good man to be elected if we couldn't have Cardinal Ratzinger).  So when the news came of his election, I was elated.  His work after his election showed this elation was justified.

During his pontificate, he continued the work of making clear the teachings of the Church, showing a profound love of Christ in doing so.  His encyclicals showed the recognition of the fact that a desire for reform of the world could not simply be done by government decree, but had to have at its base a love for each person from the moment of conception to natural death.

Despite the attacks he suffered with the misrepresentation of his deeds and words, he showed he was a Pope deeply in love with Christ and seeking to lead people to seeking Christ.

Now, he has stated he must retire due to health reasons.  I find myself saddened at the news, but trust he is doing so because he believes it is best that he steps down before his health declines to the point he can no longer lead the Church.

I thank God for giving us Pope Benedict XVI at the time he was needed, and offer my prayers for the Pope and for his successor.

Reflections on the Announced Retirement of Pope Benedict XVI

I was certainly caught by surprise at the announcement of the Pope that he will step down, effective February 28th.  I was introduced to his writings in the 1990s during a time when I was beginning to study what the faith I was brought up with meant.  I found his works wise and insightful.

As many crises arose in the Church, I was impressed at how he and Blessed John Paul II stood up for the truth in a sea of relativism.  Portrayed as a hateful old man by many, I saw in him a deep love and understanding of the obligations of seeking and doing what was right that binds us all.

At the death of Blessed Pope John Paul II, I thought he would be a good Pope, but I thought his age would keep him from being elected (Because of that assumption, I thought Cardinal Arinze would be a good man to be elected if we couldn't have Cardinal Ratzinger).  So when the news came of his election, I was elated.  His work after his election showed this elation was justified.

During his pontificate, he continued the work of making clear the teachings of the Church, showing a profound love of Christ in doing so.  His encyclicals showed the recognition of the fact that a desire for reform of the world could not simply be done by government decree, but had to have at its base a love for each person from the moment of conception to natural death.

Despite the attacks he suffered with the misrepresentation of his deeds and words, he showed he was a Pope deeply in love with Christ and seeking to lead people to seeking Christ.

Now, he has stated he must retire due to health reasons.  I find myself saddened at the news, but trust he is doing so because he believes it is best that he steps down before his health declines to the point he can no longer lead the Church.

I thank God for giving us Pope Benedict XVI at the time he was needed, and offer my prayers for the Pope and for his successor.

Pathetic Little Straw Man

I find it interesting to see what people share on Facebook when it comes to hostility towards Christianity.  It's not just that their arguments against Christianity lack any semblance of reason and logic.  It's also the case that the Christianity they attack has very little to do with what Christianity teaches.  I don't know if it merely reflects their ignorance or whether it indicates a dishonest "quote mining" in order to make Christianity look bad, but either way, one does not refute Christianity through an uninformed misrepresentation of what it teaches.

The current piece of bad reasoning running around Facebook is a quote from a blogger named Amanda Marcotte which a Facebook group has been sharing:

Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority.

What we see here is a straw man argument.  This is not what Christianity argues.  What Christian philosophers have said is that with no moral absolutes, anything is permissible (I've dealt with the illogic of the claim that there are no moral absolutes in an earlier article).  It then challenges the person who rejects the fact that values come from a source above us to explain how moral norms can be binding.

Morality can come from one of the following:

1. Something above the human level (such as God and Natural Law)
2. Something at the human level (such as society)
3. Something below the human level (such as instinct)

The problem is, if morality does not come from something above us, it really cannot bind.  If morality comes from society, then it is people who follow what values society holds that are good and those who oppose societal values are bad.  This means that in a society which embraces segregation, Bull Connor was a moral person and Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral person.  If we get our values from society, then to condemn the values of another society merely becomes a case of "pushing your values on others."

But the opposite is true.  We recognize that often it is the moral person who challenges the values of society, and that some societies behave in an immoral manner.  We could not condemn the values of the Third Reich or apartheid era South Africa unless moral values come from outside society.

Likewise that it comes from instinct does not work.  Sometimes morality tells us to do something which goes against the instinct, such as dying rather than to do what one thinks is wrong.  Instinct guides us towards satisfying physical needs, but sometimes we need to suppress instincts for a greater good, for example suppressing one's survival instinct by putting oneself at risk to save another.

So the point that Ms. Marcotte misrepresents is actually the demand to justify the source of morality if one denies the existence of God.  Since neither instinct nor society can explain binding moral values, if one wants to claim binding moral values and deny the existence of God such a person has to give an explanation for something above the human level which can demand we follow these moral values.

Informed Christians don't deny that atheists can have proper moral values.  The existence of an atheist who seeks to do what is right is no challenge to Christian belief.  What the Christian notes is the atheist is being foolish in insisting on those moral norms they personally follow while ignoring those they disagree with instead of investigating why these norms are binding to begin with.

The atheist who refuses to consider a source above humanity in considering moral obligations is being as reasonable as a person who refuses to consider matter as a factor in the study of physics.

Pathetic Little Straw Man

I find it interesting to see what people share on Facebook when it comes to hostility towards Christianity.  It's not just that their arguments against Christianity lack any semblance of reason and logic.  It's also the case that the Christianity they attack has very little to do with what Christianity teaches.  I don't know if it merely reflects their ignorance or whether it indicates a dishonest "quote mining" in order to make Christianity look bad, but either way, one does not refute Christianity through an uninformed misrepresentation of what it teaches.

The current piece of bad reasoning running around Facebook is a quote from a blogger named Amanda Marcotte which a Facebook group has been sharing:

Atheist are routinely asked how people will know not to rape and murder without religion telling them not to do it, especially a religion that backs up the orders with threats of hell. Believers, listen to me carefully when I say this: When you use this argument, you terrify atheists. We hear you saying that the only thing standing between you and Ted Bundy is a flimsy belief in a supernatural being made up by pre-literate people trying to figure out where the rain came from. This is not very reassuring if you’re trying to argue from a position of moral superiority.

What we see here is a straw man argument.  This is not what Christianity argues.  What Christian philosophers have said is that with no moral absolutes, anything is permissible (I've dealt with the illogic of the claim that there are no moral absolutes in an earlier article).  It then challenges the person who rejects the fact that values come from a source above us to explain how moral norms can be binding.

Morality can come from one of the following:

1. Something above the human level (such as God and Natural Law)
2. Something at the human level (such as society)
3. Something below the human level (such as instinct)

The problem is, if morality does not come from something above us, it really cannot bind.  If morality comes from society, then it is people who follow what values society holds that are good and those who oppose societal values are bad.  This means that in a society which embraces segregation, Bull Connor was a moral person and Martin Luther King Jr. was an immoral person.  If we get our values from society, then to condemn the values of another society merely becomes a case of "pushing your values on others."

But the opposite is true.  We recognize that often it is the moral person who challenges the values of society, and that some societies behave in an immoral manner.  We could not condemn the values of the Third Reich or apartheid era South Africa unless moral values come from outside society.

Likewise that it comes from instinct does not work.  Sometimes morality tells us to do something which goes against the instinct, such as dying rather than to do what one thinks is wrong.  Instinct guides us towards satisfying physical needs, but sometimes we need to suppress instincts for a greater good, for example suppressing one's survival instinct by putting oneself at risk to save another.

So the point that Ms. Marcotte misrepresents is actually the demand to justify the source of morality if one denies the existence of God.  Since neither instinct nor society can explain binding moral values, if one wants to claim binding moral values and deny the existence of God such a person has to give an explanation for something above the human level which can demand we follow these moral values.

Informed Christians don't deny that atheists can have proper moral values.  The existence of an atheist who seeks to do what is right is no challenge to Christian belief.  What the Christian notes is the atheist is being foolish in insisting on those moral norms they personally follow while ignoring those they disagree with instead of investigating why these norms are binding to begin with.

The atheist who refuses to consider a source above humanity in considering moral obligations is being as reasonable as a person who refuses to consider matter as a factor in the study of physics.

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

Thought for the Day: Inconsistent and Illogical Denial of Absolutes

Ever notice how some people claim there are no moral absolutes, but reject a claim that some things (like racism, genocide, rape or murder) can ever be justified?  The problem is these two positions are absolutely contradictory.  To say that there are no moral absolutes is to say that nothing is wrong all the time.  But to say that some things are always wrong means there is something about an action itself which makes it wrong regardless of the circumstances.

If we can know it is always wrong, it means we can look at understanding what it is about the act that makes it wrong and apply it to understand moral standards on our obligations to other persons.

That means those activists who stand up for a cause against injustice, yet deny morality when it comes to their own behavior are behaving inconsistently.  After all, they are insisting others follow absolutes while they will not follow absolutes in their own lives.

To put it in a syllogism:

• If [no Moral absolutes exist], then [everything is permissible]. (if A then B)
• Not [everything is permissible] (Not B)
• Therefore not [no moral absolutes exist].  (Therefore Not A)

Since "not [no moral absolutes exist]" is another way of saying that moral values DO exist (the negative is required to keep the syllogism consistent) we have a syllogism where the premises are true and the argument is valid.  It means the statement "moral absolutes exist" is proven to be true.

Christianity, in particular Catholicism, offers explanations on why the moral obligations must be drawn where they are.  If a person should happen to reject these explanations, they are obligated to offer their own explanation as to why the line should be drawn differently.

But because they can neither create the justification for a different dividing line, nor refute the Christian arguments of morality, the usual result is to just go ahead with the illogical claim that there are no moral absolutes.

The Fallacy of Special Pleading

One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.

Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion?  Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy").  Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony.  It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position.  It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.

Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy.  The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it.  The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.  Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity.  We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.

The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement.  Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life.  If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything.  Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like?  Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?

Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense.  Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.

The Fallacy of Special Pleading

One thing that routinely comes up on the arguments on the HHS Contraception mandate and the arguments of abortion is the fallacy of special pleading.  Special Pleading is a fallacy that argues that because a person lacks a certain set of experiences, their views on an issue are of no value and can be disregarded.

Special Pleading can either be accusative ("What right do you have to be opposed to abortion?  Men can't even get pregnant!") or defending a view("While I'm personally opposed, I don't think we can judge somebody who has an unexpected pregnancy").  Either way, it is used as an excuse to reject testimony.  It is one thing to say that because of a certain factor, you might not be able to fully empathize with my position.  It is quite another thing to say that your opinion is worthless and without merit because you are/are not part of a certain group. While a person who is/is not part of a certain group may not be able to fully emphasize with the turmoil the suffering person is going through, but that does not change the fact that his or her argument may have merit.

Unfortunately, Modern America is rife with this fallacy.  The entire so-called "War on Women" label is based on it.  The premise is that women need "reproductive freedom" and therefore should have contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.  Thus we see arguments that men who oppose this coverage can be ignored because they can't relate to the woman's need to be free of the consequences of unrestrained sexual activity.  We also see the argument that a Church "run by celibate old men" can't understand why women need contraceptive and abortifacient coverage.

The problem with such an argument is that if contraception goes against the nature of the sexual act or if abortion destroys a human life, then it does not matter what gender or religion the person is who makes the statement.  Reality does not depend on sharing a similar outlook on life.  If it did, then it would be impossible to judge anything.  Could you imagine somebody saying we should not judge the members of the SS working in the extermination camps because we can't imagine what their situation was like?  Or in a less extreme example that a person who practices sobriety has no right to judge the alcoholic?

Right and wrong are independent of faction, and that is why this tactic is nonsense.  Unfortunately a lot of people buy into this tactic, which is why the schools would be serving America better if they taught logic to help immunize people from falling for such misleading tactics.

Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms

The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality.  Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil.  Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong.  Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.

The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning.  The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise.  In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.

Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.

That anger is revealing though.  It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong.  That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong].  Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."

The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts.  For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other.  That isn't hypothetical, by the way.  I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged.  These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.

Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong.  So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists.  Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?"  Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior."  People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.

But that leads to the question of who draws the line?  Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator.  Take Pedophilia for example.  NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children.  Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching.  They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.

It also demands a justification for drawing a different line.  If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not.  Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others.  In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?

Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either.  The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.

Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge.  That's the irony of it all.  Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves.  By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.

This is the problem with "selective morality."  If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?"  Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships?  Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11?  After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable?  Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.

You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid.  People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people.  But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.

It's quite clear.  Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.

Hypocrisy or the Lowest Common Denominator? Dangers in Selectively Denying Moral Norms

The area of moral teaching in which Christians seem to be most hated is the area of sexuality.  Persons who act on certain inclinations become angry when told that those sexual acts are evil.  Christians are called hateful and judgmental people because they say that certain acts are always wrong.  Now, while there can be people who say they are wrong in a grossly inappropriate way (The Westboro Baptists come to mind), the badly expressed message does not take away from the fact that certain acts are wrong.

The anger and hostility directed against Christians is accompanied by some rather bad reasoning.  The argument that if people choose to live in a certain way, nobody should tell them otherwise.  In other words, we are not allowed to have moral judgments on these activities.

Then these individuals get furious when you employ a reductio ad absurdum and apply that argument to other moral issues which they do find offensive.

That anger is revealing though.  It shows that the individual does recognize that certain things are wrong.  That individual just refuses to accept that their own behaviors can be part of the group [Things that are morally wrong].  Basically, it means "Other people do evil things, not me."

The problem is, those "other people" can often use the same arguments to justify their own deplorable acts.  For example, the same arguments used to justify homosexual "marriage" can also be used to justify incestuous marriage and polygamy: free and mutual consent between people who profess some level of affection for each other.  That isn't hypothetical, by the way.  I've personally encountered proponents of "polyamory" relationships who get offended when people say it is immoral, using the same arguments the proponents of homosexual relationships – and the same demand not to be judged.  These proponents got extremely angry when I pointed out that the concept of "polyamorous marriage" is an oxymoron.

Yet the fact that advocates of homosexual "marriage" do get offended when a Catholic Bishop makes that comparison shows that these advocates do think these things are wrong.  So, essentially, that means they believe a moral line exists.  Otherwise, when the comparison with polyamory and consensual incestuous relationships came up, they'd probably just shrug and say, "So what?"  Their anger then just want to draw the line differently, including their own preference in the list of "acceptable behavior."  People don't normally get offended when their beliefs are compared to something which doesn't offend them after all.

But that leads to the question of who draws the line?  Either there is a line to be drawn, or else we have no choice but to accept the lowest common denominator.  Take Pedophilia for example.  NAMBLA argues that the modern age of consent laws are artificial and that consensual relationships can exist between adults and children.  Most people find the existence of this group as well as their proposals horrific, but they use the same arguments that are used to justify other sexual activities condemned by Christian moral teaching.  They merely add the condition that the age of consent should be lower than 18 and invoke the ancient Greeks and Romans to justify their views.

It also demands a justification for drawing a different line.  If people want to say absolutes exist, but want to include homosexual acts as morally acceptable, they need to show how their absolute is justified while other consensual relationships are not.  Otherwise they become guilty of what they accuse Christians of: forcing their own view of morality on others.  In other words, why draw the line HERE and not THERE?

Actually, when it comes to showing justification for an absolute, Christianity has the advantage – and not from saying "God says so," either.  The belief in marriage as a lifelong exclusive relationship between a man and a woman which is open to the possibility of having and raising children has the biological data (pregnancy comes from sex) and sociological data showing the family as the foundation of a society and that societies with strong family ties also tended to have strong societies.

Eliminating the elements of lifelong, exclusive and being open to the possibility of having and raising children makes stopping at "gay marriage" an arbitrary decision by who is in charge.  That's the irony of it all.  Those people who get offended at this reductio ad absurdum have contradicted themselves.  By drawing the line at "gay marriage" but going no further is to make an arbitrary imposition – which is what they have accused Christians of in the traditional view of marriage.

This is the problem with "selective morality."  If a person demands that the traditional understanding of marriage be set aside in the case of one preference, then it leads one to ask, "Who has the authority to determine where the law may be redrawn and where the new absolute lies?"  Why should it be drawn to only include "homosexual marriage" and not incestuous marriages or polyamorous relationships?  Why should the age of consent be 18 instead of 15 or even 11?  After all, we can point to a time in the past when such things were seen as acceptable?  Of course we can also point to times when slavery and torture and other things we condemn today were considered acceptable, so maybe it's not always such a good idea to point to the morals of the past indiscriminately… it opens up the doors to the reductio ad absurdum.

You can see the problem which those who would change morality tend to avoid.  People don't want to permit things they believe are wrong, but they want to justify their own wrong by making themselves the "victim," claiming that the people who say their own vice is wrong are "judgmental" and "hate-filled" people.  But then they can't explain why others can't take their same principles and demand to have them applied in a way that goes even further than they want to go.

It's quite clear.  Without a rational basis for why a limit should be drawn (a basis Christian moral teaching does possess), one is forced to choose between hypocrisy and the lowest common denominator.

New Years 2013: Let's Be Prepared

Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ Jesus will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. (1 Peter 5:8-10)

It is safe to say that Christianity is being treated as a hated minority by the political and media elites, regardless of what the majority of the population might think.  Whether the majority agrees or disagrees, it is this elite that calls the shots and says what is. 

If the population chooses to believe the slander of the elites, the elites will be able to make use of this support to justify whatever actions they want to carry out against Christians.  If the population does not, the elites will be able to employ the law to harm us, but will have to work harder to give a semblance of legality for their actions.

Let's be prepared.  America is at the point where real persecution against Christians can be expected.  In the name of the popular ideology, we have been declared hate filled people who make our teachings on the basis of hatred of our neighbors – a charge the Romans made against the Christians in the first centuries of its existence.

Christians can only counter the slander/libel of the charges against them by reasoned argument as to why the attacks against them are false and unjust.  We can expect to be shouted down of course.  We can expect to have our teachings distorted.  We can expect to have our explanations ignored.  All we can hope to do is reach out to the person of good will who might be observing what we have to say.

We can expect this because it is already happening.  Our elites attempt to force Christians to change their beliefs, and accuse us of being ignorant and intolerant because we believe the Christian teaching is reasonable and worthy of our trust.  As they grow in power, they can be more direct in their actions.

So we have to be prepared.

But our preparation is not to find bunkers, load up with guns and launch a revolution, or to hide away if America collapses.  As Christians, we know the truth of reality.  God exists.  Jesus Christ died to save us, He rose again and we are required to respond in faith to bring the Good News to the world until He returns.

That requires us to be in the streets, not in the bunkers.  That requires us to try to bring the truth to those who hate us.  It also requires us to refuse to bend when they demand we bow the knee to the altars of the secular.  A time may come when armed revolution may have to to be waged.  A time may come where we need to practice self-defense.  But that time may also not come.

The history of our Church is filled with martyrs who met the hatred towards Christ with love, recognizing that these persecutors are our brothers and sought to bring the Good News of Christ to them, letting them know that God loves every one of us, but also calls every one of us to repent.  This is not a duty for men and women dead for hundreds of years.  It is a duty of every person who professes to be a Christian.

We must be prepared.  Not for armed conflict with hostile human beings over the political direction of our nation, but for conflict over the souls of our people who are deceived to believe that God only suggests we all be "nice" to each other.  Every one of us, by our lives, are to be a witness for Christ.  Some of us may be called to be a witness for Christ by our deaths.  We have to be prepared for that too.

Finally, we must be prepared for battle for our own souls.  Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been people who weakened and compromised their faith and their witness.  Yet Christ has warned us in Matthew 16:25-26 that:

Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.  What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?

We can expect to be hated, because He was hated and no servant is greater than His master (see John 15:18-20).

In fear of the hatred any one of us can falter.  When you have angry people screaming vile hatred at you – ironically condemning you as someone hates and judges others – it is easier to stay silent, easier to compromise, to stall.  it is easier, but it is also forbidden to us.  If we love Christ, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15) and one of His commandment is:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

We must remember that to be strong Christians we must realize we are weak.  We must remember that we work with Christ and not on our own.  We must pray daily that whatever trials and challenges may be sent our way, that we may be given the grace to persevere and to live as Christ calls us to live, and maybe even to die as He calls us to die.

New Years 2013: Let's Be Prepared

Be sober and vigilant. Your opponent the devil is prowling around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.  Resist him, steadfast in faith, knowing that your fellow believers throughout the world undergo the same sufferings. The God of all grace who called you to his eternal glory through Christ Jesus will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you after you have suffered a little. (1 Peter 5:8-10)

It is safe to say that Christianity is being treated as a hated minority by the political and media elites, regardless of what the majority of the population might think.  Whether the majority agrees or disagrees, it is this elite that calls the shots and says what is. 

If the population chooses to believe the slander of the elites, the elites will be able to make use of this support to justify whatever actions they want to carry out against Christians.  If the population does not, the elites will be able to employ the law to harm us, but will have to work harder to give a semblance of legality for their actions.

Let's be prepared.  America is at the point where real persecution against Christians can be expected.  In the name of the popular ideology, we have been declared hate filled people who make our teachings on the basis of hatred of our neighbors – a charge the Romans made against the Christians in the first centuries of its existence.

Christians can only counter the slander/libel of the charges against them by reasoned argument as to why the attacks against them are false and unjust.  We can expect to be shouted down of course.  We can expect to have our teachings distorted.  We can expect to have our explanations ignored.  All we can hope to do is reach out to the person of good will who might be observing what we have to say.

We can expect this because it is already happening.  Our elites attempt to force Christians to change their beliefs, and accuse us of being ignorant and intolerant because we believe the Christian teaching is reasonable and worthy of our trust.  As they grow in power, they can be more direct in their actions.

So we have to be prepared.

But our preparation is not to find bunkers, load up with guns and launch a revolution, or to hide away if America collapses.  As Christians, we know the truth of reality.  God exists.  Jesus Christ died to save us, He rose again and we are required to respond in faith to bring the Good News to the world until He returns.

That requires us to be in the streets, not in the bunkers.  That requires us to try to bring the truth to those who hate us.  It also requires us to refuse to bend when they demand we bow the knee to the altars of the secular.  A time may come when armed revolution may have to to be waged.  A time may come where we need to practice self-defense.  But that time may also not come.

The history of our Church is filled with martyrs who met the hatred towards Christ with love, recognizing that these persecutors are our brothers and sought to bring the Good News of Christ to them, letting them know that God loves every one of us, but also calls every one of us to repent.  This is not a duty for men and women dead for hundreds of years.  It is a duty of every person who professes to be a Christian.

We must be prepared.  Not for armed conflict with hostile human beings over the political direction of our nation, but for conflict over the souls of our people who are deceived to believe that God only suggests we all be "nice" to each other.  Every one of us, by our lives, are to be a witness for Christ.  Some of us may be called to be a witness for Christ by our deaths.  We have to be prepared for that too.

Finally, we must be prepared for battle for our own souls.  Throughout the history of Christianity, there have been people who weakened and compromised their faith and their witness.  Yet Christ has warned us in Matthew 16:25-26 that:

Whoever wishes to come after me must deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me. For whoever wishes to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.  What profit would there be for one to gain the whole world and forfeit his life? Or what can one give in exchange for his life?

We can expect to be hated, because He was hated and no servant is greater than His master (see John 15:18-20).

In fear of the hatred any one of us can falter.  When you have angry people screaming vile hatred at you – ironically condemning you as someone hates and judges others – it is easier to stay silent, easier to compromise, to stall.  it is easier, but it is also forbidden to us.  If we love Christ, we will keep His commandments (John 14:15) and one of His commandment is:

Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.  And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age. (Matthew 28:19-20)

We must remember that to be strong Christians we must realize we are weak.  We must remember that we work with Christ and not on our own.  We must pray daily that whatever trials and challenges may be sent our way, that we may be given the grace to persevere and to live as Christ calls us to live, and maybe even to die as He calls us to die.

The Hypocrisy of Modern Moral Relativism

There's an old saying.  What's mine is mine.  What's yours is up for grabs.  The person who coined it was obviously a cynic, but the saying does capture the hypocrisy of the modern moral relativism.  Put basically, champions so-called "tolerance" demand that their views be accepted that even if a person disapproves of a view, he or she should respect the right of the individual to live in accordance with that view without being judged for it.

BUT, this champion of "tolerance" will not practice what he or she preaches.  This person will not accept the right of the individual who believes in Christian morality to live in accordance with that view.  On the contrary, he or she will quite harshly judge and condemn these views, trying to suppress them.

In other words, this so-called champion of "tolerance" is not tolerant at all.  Rather, he or she is trying to force through changes in morality while arguing that those following traditional Christian morality are forcing their views on others.

Since the modern moral relativist is arguing tolerance as a virtue.  He or she is obligated to live according to that virtue if this person is to avoid the charge of hypocrisy.  If, as they argue, people with unpopular stances should be permitted to hold these views and that we should all treat these views as equally acceptable; then it follows that they should practice what they preach, by tolerating the holders of traditional Christian morality when they are now unpopular with the political and media elites in this country.

Moreover, if they have a right to speak openly about what they disagree with on other views and expect to be treated civilly in doing so, then it is quite reasonable for those who hold conflicting views should also be treated with respect when they are open with what they disagree with.

But this is what they do not do.  Instead of tolerating the traditional Christians who speak out to defend their views, instead of treating them with respect when it comes to disputes on what is right, what we see is savage attacks and insults.  We see demonization of opponents.

Thus we see the proponents of modern moral relativism do not practice the tolerance they demand their opponents follow.

What becomes apparent from this fact is that the issue is not an issue of fairness at all.  It is an issue of trying to forcibly changing morality through intimidation and coercion, refusing to tolerate their opponents seeking to defend their views, and then blaming their opponents for the tactics they themselves are using (such as "forcing beliefs on others").

Since the definition of hypocrisy is, "the practice of claiming to have higher standards or more laudable beliefs than is the case," and the practitioner of modern relativism claims the standards of "tolerance" while refusing to grant any to views they oppose, it stands to reason that such a person is a hypocrite.

To avoid the charge of hypocrisy, such persons must immediately cease their slanderous attacks on the traditional Christian values and start… tolerating them.  They must recognize that they must give the same free and open practice of Christianity in the public square that they insist be given to their own beloved causes.