Attacks against the Church: Fallacies of Composition

 

One of the attacks against the Church, or on Christianity in general, is to point to someone behaving badly is to point at somebody behaving badly who is a believer and arguing from that fact that the whole of the Church (or Christianity) behaves badly, or that the Church is the cause of the bad behavior.

 

In logic, we call this the Fallacy of Composition, and it works like this:

1. Individual A is a part of group B
2. Individual A has trait X
3. Therefore, group B has trait X.

We can show this is false by filling in A, B and X as follows:

1. Fluffy is a Cat
2. Fluffy is orange
3. Therefore Cats are Orange

Obviously untrue, because while individual members of the group “cat” can have the color trait of “orange,” the color is not a trait belonging to all cats.

 

The fallacy basically assumes that the individual possesses a trait because of the group it belongs to, when it is possible for an individual member has a trait independent of the group. It also assumes, in cases of human persons that the individual cannot differ from the group. If one member is bad, they must all be bad.

 

Humanity, however, has free will. An individual is free to behave in such a way that the group has nothing to do with, or even deplores. Moreover, individual behavior is not limited to one group. A moral trait, good or bad, can exist in individuals belonging to ideologically opposed groups, or different ethnic groups. 

 

But even though there is no basis for such an accusation, this fallacy is still used against the Catholic Church.For example, how many times have you seen this in the media or on the internet?

1. Bishop X is part of the Catholic Church.
2. Bishop X covered up for an abusive priest.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church covers up for abusive priests.

This is the same error as assuming that all cats are orange because Fluffy is orange. If Bishop X is being disobedient, not doing what the Church obliges him to do, his behavior is in spite of, not because of his membership in the Church.

 

Or, another common attack is to link the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity in order to accuse Christianity of homophobia. Again, the assumption is because A is a part of B, and A has the trait of X, they must have acquired this trait from B. When the majority of Christianity looks at their antics with disgust, it’s a sate bet that their behavior isn’t caused by their being Christian.

Recognizing this logical fallacy will prevent the person of good will from being misled by muddled thinking or deliberate distortion used in attacking the Church, or Christianity in general. 

 

In both cases, what we have here is an presumption of cause and effect, when the association must be investigated. When the individual has a bad trait, we first have to ask about the origin of that bad trait. Does the group mandate this behavior? For example, if the Church mandates chastity according to one’s marital state, then those members of the church who are unchaste are acting in spite of, not because of the teaching of the Church.

 

The only way you can show that the behavior of the individual reflects the teaching of the Church is to show the individual is acting in accordance to the Church teaching . . . directly. None of this “Well you say this is wrong, and this person wouldn’t attack people who do this if you didn’t say this is a sin.” One who believes homosexual acts are wrong (for example) is no more prone to violence against the practitioners of those acts than the person who supports animal rights is prone to violence against people who disagree—some people might use their beliefs in a violent way,but that is an individual choice.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

 

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

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347) [emphasis added]

So we can see that even though the Church teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, she also teaches that seeking to harm people with this tendency is also wrong. One cannot support homosexual acts and be a good Catholic and one cannot support the mistreatment of people with this condition. So to use the fallacy of composition, and accuse the Church teaching for whatever crimes are committed against individuals should never be accepted as an argument.

Attacks against the Church: Fallacies of Composition

 

One of the attacks against the Church, or on Christianity in general, is to point to someone behaving badly is to point at somebody behaving badly who is a believer and arguing from that fact that the whole of the Church (or Christianity) behaves badly, or that the Church is the cause of the bad behavior.

 

In logic, we call this the Fallacy of Composition, and it works like this:

1. Individual A is a part of group B
2. Individual A has trait X
3. Therefore, group B has trait X.

We can show this is false by filling in A, B and X as follows:

1. Fluffy is a Cat
2. Fluffy is orange
3. Therefore Cats are Orange

Obviously untrue, because while individual members of the group “cat” can have the color trait of “orange,” the color is not a trait belonging to all cats.

 

The fallacy basically assumes that the individual possesses a trait because of the group it belongs to, when it is possible for an individual member has a trait independent of the group. It also assumes, in cases of human persons that the individual cannot differ from the group. If one member is bad, they must all be bad.

 

Humanity, however, has free will. An individual is free to behave in such a way that the group has nothing to do with, or even deplores. Moreover, individual behavior is not limited to one group. A moral trait, good or bad, can exist in individuals belonging to ideologically opposed groups, or different ethnic groups. 

 

But even though there is no basis for such an accusation, this fallacy is still used against the Catholic Church.For example, how many times have you seen this in the media or on the internet?

1. Bishop X is part of the Catholic Church.
2. Bishop X covered up for an abusive priest.
3. Therefore, the Catholic Church covers up for abusive priests.

This is the same error as assuming that all cats are orange because Fluffy is orange. If Bishop X is being disobedient, not doing what the Church obliges him to do, his behavior is in spite of, not because of his membership in the Church.

 

Or, another common attack is to link the Westboro Baptist Church with Christianity in order to accuse Christianity of homophobia. Again, the assumption is because A is a part of B, and A has the trait of X, they must have acquired this trait from B. When the majority of Christianity looks at their antics with disgust, it’s a sate bet that their behavior isn’t caused by their being Christian.

Recognizing this logical fallacy will prevent the person of good will from being misled by muddled thinking or deliberate distortion used in attacking the Church, or Christianity in general. 

 

In both cases, what we have here is an presumption of cause and effect, when the association must be investigated. When the individual has a bad trait, we first have to ask about the origin of that bad trait. Does the group mandate this behavior? For example, if the Church mandates chastity according to one’s marital state, then those members of the church who are unchaste are acting in spite of, not because of the teaching of the Church.

 

The only way you can show that the behavior of the individual reflects the teaching of the Church is to show the individual is acting in accordance to the Church teaching . . . directly. None of this “Well you say this is wrong, and this person wouldn’t attack people who do this if you didn’t say this is a sin.” One who believes homosexual acts are wrong (for example) is no more prone to violence against the practitioners of those acts than the person who supports animal rights is prone to violence against people who disagree—some people might use their beliefs in a violent way,but that is an individual choice.

For example, the Catholic Church teaches in the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

 

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved. (2333)

 

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

 

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection. (2347) [emphasis added]

So we can see that even though the Church teaches that homosexual acts are wrong, she also teaches that seeking to harm people with this tendency is also wrong. One cannot support homosexual acts and be a good Catholic and one cannot support the mistreatment of people with this condition. So to use the fallacy of composition, and accuse the Church teaching for whatever crimes are committed against individuals should never be accepted as an argument.

Slowly Moving Forwards In Communications

Read more »

Slowly Moving Forwards In Communications

Read more »

Two Senses of "Religion" and the Danger of Denying Them

Introduction

There are two senses to the word "religion." The first sense comes from the belief that it is true. The second comes from the belief it is not true. The importance of being aware of both senses is important to avoid the loss of religious freedom.

The first sense of the word is the sense of the believer. A religion makes claims about the nature of reality that impacts everybody whether they believe it or not. For example, if God exists, then the atheist worldview (which denies the existence of any type of divinity) must be false. If Jesus Christ is God in the sense that Christianity believes Him to be, then logically the religions that claim He is not must be false. That's the law of non-contradiction at work. It lets us know that truth exists about the accuracy of religious claims—which means we can find out truth about religion if we choose to seek it. And once we find it, we live in accordance with it. That's a binding requirement of everyone, whether they believe in a religion or not.

The second sense is the sense of how one who does not accept a religion as true can approach it.  One can know about a  religion even if he or she does not accept it as true. In this sense we can know about religion as an organized understanding of how people believe the universe works and how they believe people should live in it. Whether or not you believe a particular religion to be true, one can understand what the beliefs are and not be jerks about not believing the claims. For example, if I invite Rabbi Cohen to dinner, I don't prepare a meal of ham. If I know it's Ramadan, I don't invite a Muslim coworker to meet over breakfast. I don't believe the Jewish dietary law and the Muslim fasting are binding on me, but it is respectful not to put the believer of a religion in a situation where he has to choose between his beliefs and his friends or business etc.

So in the first sense, Religion teaches us to conform to the reality it reveals. In the second sense, we are respectful of a religion we don't agree with because we recognize it has behaviors which members voluntarily take upon themselves because they feel obligated. Even when we believe their behavior is wrong (as opposed to a difference of opinion), we behave like civilized people in doing so.

The Failure to Respect Either Sense Leads to Persecution

Unfortunately, in modern society there is a growing tendency to reject both aspects of religion. Basically, there is no interest in seeking out the truth and no interest in respecting the conscience of believers. This has the result of doubly violating the freedom of religion.

In denying freedom of religion in the first sense, it is believed that there is no binding truth, therefore no person can claim that there is an obligation to behave rightly when doing so goes against the edicts of the state. There is a right way to act, because truth exists (for example, if the fetus is a person then it can never be right to kill the fetus by abortion). But if one denies the obligation to live according to truth, then moral obligation is seen as nothing more than personal preference. Opposing the legality of abortion is seen as no more reasonable than not eating pork. So the person who believes abortion is wrong is accused of "forcing your views on people." Even if a majority of Americans should happen to believe Christian morality is true, trying to pass laws that reflect that belief

In denying religious freedom in the second sense, our nation has de-evolved to the bigotry we claim to have moved beyond. Who gives a damn if the Catholic believes he can't support paying for contraception? Who gives a damn about a Muslim or Jew believing he cannot eat pork? If your religious beliefs interfere with my whims, then your religious beliefs must be opposed!

Logical Errors that Lead to Ignoring the Consideration of Truth

Whenever the appeal to religious freedom is made, one common response is to deny that the obligation to live according to what is true has any binding force, and deny that practitioners of religious practices can believe themselves bound to such a practice. These denials root themselves in a belief that "Well I don't believe in what you think, so why should laws exist that tell me I can't do what I want?"

Another response is an appeal to fear. The Sharia is mentioned (for example the behavior of ISIS/ISIL). Or perhaps the Satanists want a monument to counteract the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. The argument is, "You wouldn't want to give these things  authority over you. So don't try to put your own beliefs into law."

The problem is, both of these objections overlook the obligation of seeking the truth and living in accordance with it. Two hundred years ago in America, many people simply refused to consider the question of whether enslaving people was moral, even though 400 years before that, religious teaching had condemned it. In America, we know now that slavery is wrong—very few people think otherwise. But the fact is, if we go by the (lack of) logic that rejects a moral claim because of its religious origin (that's the Genetic Fallacy by the way), then we have to reject the opposition to slavery on the grounds that it is imposing a "religious view" on others.

Just because a person personally disagrees with a law because of they see a religious motivation, does not make that law merely a "religious law" that is unjustly imposed on others. The murderer, the rapist and the thief may think laws against murder, rape or stealing should not be imposed on them. Regardless of whether one believes that murder is wrong because of the Ten Commandments or for some other reason, it is reasonable for a law to exist that forbids and punishes murder . . . it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist or an atheist. So when Christians believe abortion should not be legalized, the response is to ask whether their claim about the human person is true.

As for an appeal to fear like the imposition of the Sharia or the erection of a Satanic statue on the Steps of an Oklahoma Courthouse, what we have is the fallacy known as the Category Mistake. One thinks these are the same thing as the religious freedom and moral obligation Christianity calls for. But they are not the same thing.

The general objection to the Sharia is not the fact that it teaches that a thing is wrong, but the fact that it mandates punishments we consider unjust. There's a difference between saying "we must stone an adulteress to death" and saying "abortion kills a human person." Likewise, the reason we can reject the erecting of a Satanic statue is because the purpose of it is not the same as the erection of the Ten Commandments. The erection of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse basically makes the statement that there is objective good and evil. It does not show preferential treatment for Christianity. But the Satanic statue, on the other hand, is erected to be confrontational—basically it's the same bad behavior as the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at the funerals of people who died from AIDS or while serving in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the presence is intended to distress people whose behavior or beliefs they disagree with.

Understanding the Implications

When we recognize religion in the first sense, it makes sense that people who share a sense of right and wrong will want to see the government reflect that sense. Provided they do so in a civil way, in compliance with the law and do not use coercion on others, they have this right under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and the rights "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Recognizing religion in the second sense means that when members of a religious minority believes they are obligated to avoid doing certain things that they believe to be evil, the elites in power do not force them to do these things.

Recognizing and respecting these senses of religion are the difference between a truly free country and one that is not free. Unfortunately, today, America is falling into that second category. I don't say that as an exaggeration. We behave differently than the cases of totalitarian nations, yes. But it is a difference of degree, not of Free vs. Not Free when it comes to religion.

Two Senses of "Religion" and the Danger of Denying Them

Introduction

There are two senses to the word "religion." The first sense comes from the belief that it is true. The second comes from the belief it is not true. The importance of being aware of both senses is important to avoid the loss of religious freedom.

The first sense of the word is the sense of the believer. A religion makes claims about the nature of reality that impacts everybody whether they believe it or not. For example, if God exists, then the atheist worldview (which denies the existence of any type of divinity) must be false. If Jesus Christ is God in the sense that Christianity believes Him to be, then logically the religions that claim He is not must be false. That's the law of non-contradiction at work. It lets us know that truth exists about the accuracy of religious claims—which means we can find out truth about religion if we choose to seek it. And once we find it, we live in accordance with it. That's a binding requirement of everyone, whether they believe in a religion or not.

The second sense is the sense of how one who does not accept a religion as true can approach it.  One can know about a  religion even if he or she does not accept it as true. In this sense we can know about religion as an organized understanding of how people believe the universe works and how they believe people should live in it. Whether or not you believe a particular religion to be true, one can understand what the beliefs are and not be jerks about not believing the claims. For example, if I invite Rabbi Cohen to dinner, I don't prepare a meal of ham. If I know it's Ramadan, I don't invite a Muslim coworker to meet over breakfast. I don't believe the Jewish dietary law and the Muslim fasting are binding on me, but it is respectful not to put the believer of a religion in a situation where he has to choose between his beliefs and his friends or business etc.

So in the first sense, Religion teaches us to conform to the reality it reveals. In the second sense, we are respectful of a religion we don't agree with because we recognize it has behaviors which members voluntarily take upon themselves because they feel obligated. Even when we believe their behavior is wrong (as opposed to a difference of opinion), we behave like civilized people in doing so.

The Failure to Respect Either Sense Leads to Persecution

Unfortunately, in modern society there is a growing tendency to reject both aspects of religion. Basically, there is no interest in seeking out the truth and no interest in respecting the conscience of believers. This has the result of doubly violating the freedom of religion.

In denying freedom of religion in the first sense, it is believed that there is no binding truth, therefore no person can claim that there is an obligation to behave rightly when doing so goes against the edicts of the state. There is a right way to act, because truth exists (for example, if the fetus is a person then it can never be right to kill the fetus by abortion). But if one denies the obligation to live according to truth, then moral obligation is seen as nothing more than personal preference. Opposing the legality of abortion is seen as no more reasonable than not eating pork. So the person who believes abortion is wrong is accused of "forcing your views on people." Even if a majority of Americans should happen to believe Christian morality is true, trying to pass laws that reflect that belief

In denying religious freedom in the second sense, our nation has de-evolved to the bigotry we claim to have moved beyond. Who gives a damn if the Catholic believes he can't support paying for contraception? Who gives a damn about a Muslim or Jew believing he cannot eat pork? If your religious beliefs interfere with my whims, then your religious beliefs must be opposed!

Logical Errors that Lead to Ignoring the Consideration of Truth

Whenever the appeal to religious freedom is made, one common response is to deny that the obligation to live according to what is true has any binding force, and deny that practitioners of religious practices can believe themselves bound to such a practice. These denials root themselves in a belief that "Well I don't believe in what you think, so why should laws exist that tell me I can't do what I want?"

Another response is an appeal to fear. The Sharia is mentioned (for example the behavior of ISIS/ISIL). Or perhaps the Satanists want a monument to counteract the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse. The argument is, "You wouldn't want to give these things  authority over you. So don't try to put your own beliefs into law."

The problem is, both of these objections overlook the obligation of seeking the truth and living in accordance with it. Two hundred years ago in America, many people simply refused to consider the question of whether enslaving people was moral, even though 400 years before that, religious teaching had condemned it. In America, we know now that slavery is wrong—very few people think otherwise. But the fact is, if we go by the (lack of) logic that rejects a moral claim because of its religious origin (that's the Genetic Fallacy by the way), then we have to reject the opposition to slavery on the grounds that it is imposing a "religious view" on others.

Just because a person personally disagrees with a law because of they see a religious motivation, does not make that law merely a "religious law" that is unjustly imposed on others. The murderer, the rapist and the thief may think laws against murder, rape or stealing should not be imposed on them. Regardless of whether one believes that murder is wrong because of the Ten Commandments or for some other reason, it is reasonable for a law to exist that forbids and punishes murder . . . it doesn't matter whether you're a Christian, a Buddhist or an atheist. So when Christians believe abortion should not be legalized, the response is to ask whether their claim about the human person is true.

As for an appeal to fear like the imposition of the Sharia or the erection of a Satanic statue on the Steps of an Oklahoma Courthouse, what we have is the fallacy known as the Category Mistake. One thinks these are the same thing as the religious freedom and moral obligation Christianity calls for. But they are not the same thing.

The general objection to the Sharia is not the fact that it teaches that a thing is wrong, but the fact that it mandates punishments we consider unjust. There's a difference between saying "we must stone an adulteress to death" and saying "abortion kills a human person." Likewise, the reason we can reject the erecting of a Satanic statue is because the purpose of it is not the same as the erection of the Ten Commandments. The erection of the Ten Commandments in front of a courthouse basically makes the statement that there is objective good and evil. It does not show preferential treatment for Christianity. But the Satanic statue, on the other hand, is erected to be confrontational—basically it's the same bad behavior as the cretins from the Westboro Baptist Church who show up at the funerals of people who died from AIDS or while serving in the Persian Gulf. In both cases, the presence is intended to distress people whose behavior or beliefs they disagree with.

Understanding the Implications

When we recognize religion in the first sense, it makes sense that people who share a sense of right and wrong will want to see the government reflect that sense. Provided they do so in a civil way, in compliance with the law and do not use coercion on others, they have this right under the First Amendment (Freedom of Religion and the rights "of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.")

Recognizing religion in the second sense means that when members of a religious minority believes they are obligated to avoid doing certain things that they believe to be evil, the elites in power do not force them to do these things.

Recognizing and respecting these senses of religion are the difference between a truly free country and one that is not free. Unfortunately, today, America is falling into that second category. I don't say that as an exaggeration. We behave differently than the cases of totalitarian nations, yes. But it is a difference of degree, not of Free vs. Not Free when it comes to religion.

Seventh Anniversary: Thoughts on Church and State after Blogging for Seven Years

Thoughts on the State

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

I posted this in my first blog entry seven years ago as a warning sign of what America would have to face in the future. I must admit that at the time I expected we would not see such things until America became a totalitarian state. As it turns out, I did not anticipate that we would so swiftly lose our freedoms without seeing the Constitution overthrown.

But, looking at the state of affairs seven years later, it was no mere hyperbole to say we were in danger of losing our freedoms . . . it was just a matter of looking in the wrong direction as to how freedoms would be attacked.

I learned that a nation does not have to be totalitarian to persecute religion. All it takes is:

1. a group successfully portraying religion as the enemy of what appears good.
2. the willingness of people to accept unjust means of suppressing unpopular views.

If the people of a nation will accept these things, we will continue to see a government pretend that our Constitution means something and still violate it.

Thoughts on the Church

While I have seen my country get worse over the past seven years, I have seen my Church get better. In 2007, I believed the rhetoric popular among some conservative Catholics that the US Bishops were a group of incompetents allowing heresy to run rampant. Now, I no longer believe this to be true. At first I thought the change came in 2008 when then Pope Benedict XVI visited America. After that visit, the bishops seemed to be stronger, more confident.

But just as I believe that we couldn't have had the problems after Vatican II without existing (and hidden) problems before Vatican II, I don't think Benedict XVI could have strengthened the bishops without there being bishops of good will to begin with.

Yes, there are bishops who did better or worse at their job. But I think part of the problem was that Catholics seeking to be faithful needed someone to blame for the fact that America was increasingly losing its moral values and that Catholics were among those perpetrating these changes.

I think we lost track of the fact that there have always been faithless Catholics and that even the greatest saints were not able to reach everyone of them. We assumed that the errors of the time would not have happened if the bishops had "done more." That's basically setting a goal that even the Apostles could not have met.

That's why I look back at the first year and a half of this blog with sorrow. The open disrespect for the successors of the Apostles is something I wish had never been there.

I think this is what I have ultimately learned during my years blogging . . . the Church is stronger than her detractors give her credit for because she is sustained by God. Whenever I have been confronted by news that looks bad for the Church, whenever I have been asked "How can you say the Church is not failing?" I find that when I take the time to look, things are never as bad as the detractors think.

The first year of Pope Francis is an example of that. Things were reported that sounded startling. But in every case, I found that those who were scandalized had never read things in context and were relying on selective quotes. After a few scares I learned that reading what he had to say, his teachings were solidly Catholic, dealing with holes in my learning that I never knew were there.

Nowadays, I think I would say that the Church doesn't have so much a leadership problem as it does a "followership" problem. In 1968, we had a general rejection of authority in the West--civil and religious. Between 1968 and 2008, we had 40 years of Popes and bishops struggling to defend the teaching of the Church from this widespread rebellion. It's only after 2008 that we began to see the fruits of this 40 year struggle emerging.

Some Catholics condemn St. John XXIII and Paul VI for the mess that appeared to in the 1960s. I think they're wrong. I believe it would have happened whether we had a Vatican II or not. Like I said, to have a blow up like we did indicates problems that had to be in place before Vatican II ever began.

Some Catholics blamed St. John Paul II for not behaving like how they imagine St. Pius X would have behaved. And, prior to the 2007motuproprioof Benedict XVI, I saw some Catholics even accusing him of being a modernist. They're bashing Pope Francis now, and I have no doubt they'll bash his successor.

It's a self destructive mindset . . . it deceives people into thinking that the problem with the Church is other people, never considering whether their own behavior is spiritually harmful or whether they're rashly judging another.

Perhaps that's why I tend to take a stronger stance against it. It's not that I think other errors are harmless. It's that I think this error is more likely to snare the Catholic trying to be faithful.

Conclusion

What it boils down to is that in the seven years since I began this blog, I have learned to trust that God loves His Church and protects her from leading the faithful astray.So even when I see those /facepalm moments where someone within the Church says or does something that shocks, I have learned to trust God to lead the Church under the headship of the Successor of Peter and the bishops in communion with him.

That doesn't mean we'll have smooth sailing. God permits afflictions to come and strengthen us. We'll have the misbehaving laity, religious, priests and bishops on occasion. But the behavior of some does not mean the corruption of the whole.

We'll still have problems interacting with the secular world. We had problems before Obama was elected and we'll have problems after he leaves. But even so:

God is in control and watching over His Church.

Now it's time to face year number eight and beyond, remembering the lessons I have learned.

Acknowledgements

This blog probably would never have existed except for the suggestion of my friend Brian. He's the one who put me onto blogging in the first place. I was on disability for a work injury and getting a raw deal from the company involved. He was concerned I was sinking into depression and suggested this as something to keep me busy.

He's also asked me challenging questions over the years—questions which forced me to look deeper into the Catholic faith to answer things I had never given much thought to before.

Thanks, Brian.I can't believe we've known each other for ten years. It hardly seems that long. :)