An Ignorant Wrath

Read more »

Thoughts on Gradualism, Defeatism, and Overcoming Intrinsic Evil

gradualism

■ noun a policy or theory of gradual rather than sudden change.

Introduction

I’ve encountered some pro-lifers who are objecting to the recent laws strictly restricting abortion. From my reading, they seem to make two arguments.

1. That many opponents of abortion are not willing to go so far as to give up exceptions for incest, rape, and “life of the mother.” If we alienate them, the fear is they will go to the pro-abortion camp.
2. That laws that strict are more likely to be ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, thus locking in abortion as a right.

Therefore, they argue, we should start with a lower goal and work our way up. These people seem sincere about being pro-life but, in all honesty, I think they’re wrong in their reasoning that leads to their conclusion. St. John Paul II, in his encyclical Evangelium Vitae (#73), wrote about politicians trying to limit the effects of abortion laws:

In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

Note, this is not about reducing the effectiveness of a law to improve popularity among people. This is about “half a loaf is better than none” in cases where a pro-abortion law is inevitable. In such a case, putting whatever restrictions one can achieve into such a law is better than no restrictions at all. But that isn’t the case here. Here, we have legislators who believe we have the possibility of overturning Roe v. Wade and other unjust abortion rulings.

Case #1: Alienating Supporters

With this in mind, how does the first argument fit in with Catholic teaching? Badly—it’s practically an inversion of Church teaching. In this case, it’s not about “limiting the harm done by such a law” because the law is passed and signed already. It’s about “limiting the law in the name of public opinion” by keeping people who have an imperfect understanding of the defense of life from jumping ship by creating exceptions. 

As I see it, if these people object to not allowing exceptions now, why should they accept eliminating these exceptions later? I think it’s more likely that when we move to eliminate those exceptions later, these people will think we’re guilty of “bait and switch” and resist our actions anyway. The difference is they’ll also think we’re liars.

One person who used the “alienating supporters” argument suggested to me that after doing the more limited law, we can work on education. To which I say we should have already been doing that and we should still do it for those who are sincerely pro-life but misled regardless of the status of laws.

Such people of misdirected good will need to understand that:

• “One may never do evil so that good may result from it.” (CCC #1789)
• Abortion—which is deliberate termination of pregnancy by killing the unborn child (Catechism, Glossary)—is an evil act 
• Therefore, one may never commit abortion so good may come of it.

This is not intended to be a logical form. Rather I’m showing that two of principles that one must hold to be pro-life lead to the third principle. This third principle excludes exceptions for rape, incest, and “life of the mother.” Rejecting these principles means one is mistaken about what being pro-life means.

Let’s apply the principle of St. John Paul to this: we can say that while abortion laws that only allow it for rape, incest, and life of the mother are less evil than laws allowing unrestricted abortion and can be tolerated if those are the only two options. But if the option exists to ban all abortion in a state legitimately exists, we cannot choose the exceptions option instead.

Think of it this way. Imagine a person who opposes slavery or segregation in most cases, but wants exceptions in case they need it. Such a person would not be pro-freedom, no matter how sincere they were about opposing 99% of the cases of slavery [#]. We would not include that 1% exception in our attempts to abolish slavery if the option to abolish it entirely existed. Abortion is the same case: something that is always evil and the exceptions are still evil acts.

Case #2: The “unconstitutional” fear

This leads us to the second objection: that a total abortion ban might get thrown out, enshrining abortion forever, while a law with some exceptions might be upheld. My response to that is: the Supreme Court judge who would vote to rule a total ban unconstitutional, would also rule the abortion ban with exceptions of rape, incest, and the life of the mother to be unconstitutional. As long as we have any Supreme Court judges who think abortion is a human right, instead of a human rights violation, there is a danger that any restrictions at all will be thrown out.

I find that there is a defeatist attitude about passing laws restricting abortion. I’ve seen some go as far as to say Roe v. Wade will never be overturned, so we should spend our time instead making abortion less “necessary” instead of opposing it. Some have also said that people will just seek illegal abortions, so even if we do overturn it, we’ll never end it [%]. That attitude betrays a false understanding of Christian obligation. St. John Paul II, in Evangelium Vitae #73, also reminds us:

Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection.

Capitulation that accepts abortion as inevitable is incompatible with our call to change injustice. We cannot put our faith in a corner. We have obligations here. As the Vatican II document, Apostolicam actuositatem (#5), puts it:

Christ’s redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel. In fulfilling this mission of the Church, the Christian laity exercise their apostolate both in the Church and in the world, in both the spiritual and the temporal orders.

Refusing to fight injustice is to fail in our obligation. Moreover, it is ironic that people who take this defeatist attitude don’t take it with other injustices. They’re quick to invoke the Seamless Garment on other issues. But they forget another teaching of St. John Paul II in Christifideles Laici, #38:

“Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights—for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture—is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.”

Remember, Gaudium et Spes #51 [§] equated abortion with murder, genocide, torture and other evils these people normally oppose. If we think that a person is wrong to oppose subhuman living conditions while saying we’ll never get rid of genocide, we should think the person who opposes subhuman living conditions while saying we’ll never get rid of abortion is equally wrong [~].

Since we recognize these other things are evil, we must treat abortion with the same gravity.

Conclusion 

An intrinsic evil is something which is always wrong by nature and can never be turned into a good act by circumstances or intention. Saying we should create unnecessary exceptions to banning the evil, or refusing to fight it are incompatible with our Catholic calling. Abortion is one of these intrinsic evils, and the proposed “necessary” exceptions and “focusing on other areas” is therefore also incompatible with our Catholic calling. We need to be on our guard not to allow these attitudes to enter our thinking. Otherwise, regardless of our intentions, we are not really pro-life.

True, there are different ideas on how best to fight the evil of abortion. But not fighting it is not an option.

__________________

[#] Remember, the three exceptions demanded for abortion are less than 1% of all abortions.

[%] This is the “argument from consequences” fallacy, trying to argue that banning abortion is wrong because of negative consequences. But replace “abortion” with “murder” or “rape.” Is the argument reasonable? No, and using it for abortion is equally unsound.

[§] The relevant text of Gaudium et Spes #51 is:

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

[~] While I support the Seamless Garment as properly understood, the problem I have with the late Cardinal Bernadin’s speech on the seamless garment is it can be misunderstood as saying X+Y+Z > abortion. I don’t believe the Cardinal meant that, but people have twisted it to argue exactly that.

Just a Pinch of Incense 2019

Read more »

Normality is not the Same as Reality

Read more »

Do You Not Yet Have Faith?

85 “The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living, teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ.” This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome.

86 “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 

One element of the rebellion within the Church is the attempt to set paragraph 85 at odds with the beginning of paragraph 86. “Yes,” they say, “the Church has this authority. But the Church is not superior to the Word of God. So, when the Church teaches contrary to the Word of God, I must not obey.” Unfortunately, this way of thinking—sincere as it might be—is leading people astray.

This is because they have used the wrong emphasis in paragraph 86. It is not intended to be used as a means to pass judgment on when to obey the Church. It is intended to declare that the Church teaching cannot and does not change what God has taught, so we can trust the teaching of the Church with confidence regardless of the sins of . We can see this in the often overlooked paragraph 87:

87 Mindful of Christ’s words to his apostles: “He who hears you, hears me,” the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms.

There’s no place for interpreting paragraph 86 as setting oneself up to judge whether or not to accept the teachings of the magisterium as valid. (See also Canon 752, Humani Generis #20, Lumen Gentium #25). It is part of the Church teaching that we trust and obey the Church as if we were trusting and obeying Christ (cf. Luke 10:16). Not because of the holiness of the men who serve as Pope and bishops, but because we believe that Christ always protects His Church. 

Remember, it makes no sense to profess that you trust God to protect His Church from error in the extremely rare case of ex cathedra definitions while thinking He allows error to pour into the Church through the Ordinary Magisterium. But that is what the anti-Vatican II and anti-Francis attacks from within the Church are effectively saying.

There will always be trials and tribulations in the Church. They will be more than we can handle on our own. We will need Our Lord to save us from them. But we should always remember the Gospel account of crossing over the Sea of Galilee (Mark 4:35-41). When His terror stricken disciples woke Him, he calmed the storm and told them: “Why are you terrified? Do you not yet have faith?” (Mark 4:40).

Yes, the Church is in the midst of a storm, as she was countless times before. Yes, it can look like the worst storm ever. But God is in charge of His Church. The Barque of Peter will not sink. Yes, we must strive to do His will, but in the end, things are not under our control. They are under His.

That is why we must abandon the fear that the Church will fail or become corrupted. Not because Popes are sinless, but because God always protects His Church.

Ipse Dixit: Just Because You Say it Doesn’t Make it So

But to return to the matter in hand! If your papist wants to make so much fuss about the word sola (alone) tell him this, “Dr. Martin Luther will have it so, and says that a papist and a jackass are the same thing.” Sic volo, sic jubeo; sit pro ratione voluntas. [Luther is quoting Juvenal here. The phrase means “thus I wish, thus I order, my will stands in place of reason.”] We are not going to be the pupils and disciples of the papists, but their masters and judges.

—Martin Luther, On Translating: An Open Letter (1530) [#]

The Protestant Reformers of the 16th century and the current Catholics attacking the authority of the Church today have vastly contradictory ideas on what the Church should look like. But, in terms of tactics and response to correction, they’re virtually identical. Both believe that the Church went beyond having corruption and sin in it and actually fell into teaching error. Both insist that their interpretation of Scripture and Church documents are accurate, and both believe that any attempt at correction is proof of the error. In fact both seem unable to discern the difference between their interpretation of Scripture and Church teaching and the actual texts, applying text against us when their applicability is what is under dispute.

The result of this is a mindset that makes the Reformers and critics into the judge and jury of their disputes. They insist their views of the Church are right, they insist their interpretation of the Scriptures and Church documents are right, and any who say otherwise show they are in error by the fact that they disagree.

However, we must disagree all the same because making these claims are not the same thing as proofs. They are simply bare assertions and we do not have to accept bare assertions. We must (if we’re wise) insist on their showing either their evidence for the claim or their authority to teach in a binding manner. If the person replies with a bare assertion and/or an insult, we have a right to be dubious.

Catholics profess that the Church established by Christ, which Scripture tells us about, was the Catholic Church, under the headship of St. Peter and his successors. This is testified to by history and the writing of the Church Fathers. Not just in the West, but in the East too:

And why, having passed by the others, doth He speak with Peter on these matters? He was the chosen one of the Apostles, the mouth of the disciples, the leader of the band; on this account also Paul went up upon a time to enquire of him rather than the others. And at the same time to show him that he must now be of good cheer, since the denial was done away, Jesus putteth into his hands the chief authority among the brethren; and He bringeth not forward the denial, nor reproacheth him with what had taken place, but saith, “If thou lovest Me, preside over thy brethren, and the warm love which thou didst ever manifest, and in which thou didst rejoice, show thou now; and the life which thou saidst thou wouldest lay down for Me, now give for My sheep.”

—St. John Chrysostom, Homily on John LXXXVIII

As a result, whoever wants to argue that the Church has taught error has to prove it. If they want to teach by authority, they have to demonstrate that they have the authority to teach in a binding manner. Just because you think the Church erred doesn’t mean she did, or that it means she lost her mandate, or that it gets passed on to you. So, simply asserting that “the Church is wrong,” doesn’t make it so.

So, if someone wants to argue there is a break in Church teaching, where something was taught in contradiction to the Church teaching today, they need to demonstrate that it is so, and that their understanding of both past and present teaching is correct in doing so.

For example, certain critics of the Church today argue that St. Pius V taught that the Mass of 1570 was established infallibly and forbade any change. Therefore, they argue that the Mass of 1970 was invalid and heretical because St. Paul VI implemented a changed Mass. But the part of Quo Primum that they cite [§] refers to forbidding any person other than the Pope from changing or overruling the implementation of the 1570 missal.

But the Missal was changed. Changes were made by Popes in 1604, 1634, 1884, 1920 (many changes to the rubrics). Then Ven. Pius XII (1951 and 1955) made changes that required changes to canon law, permitted some use of the vernacular, and completely revised Holy Week. Finally, it was revised in 1962. So, before 1970, the Missal of St. Pius V had been substantially changed—and none of the Popes involved believed they were violating Church teaching in modifying the Missal. It’s evidence that this interpretation of Quo Primum by critics is not proof, but merely another ipse dixit claim. Their rebellion against the Church and rejection of the Ordinary Form of the Mass is founded on a baseless assertion.

This is pretty much how it goes in every attack on The Church (as opposed to individual sinners or regions falling into error). The condemnation of the Church is based on the personal interpretation of Scripture and Church documents over the teaching of the Church while refusing to consider the possibility of their own error. But that’s how the heresies of history formed. The ancient heresiarchs interpreted Scripture in a way contrary to the understanding of the teachings of the Apostles from the beginning. I don’t doubt that they were sincere and thought they were helping the Church. But they did not have the authority to teach and they did not prove that the Church deviated from the teaching the Apostles passed on from Our Lord.

The modern anti-Vatican II or anti-Francis Catholic is no different. They draw conclusions at odds with Church teaching, rejecting the authority of the Church and making ipse dixit statements, treating them as “proof” that the Church remains in “error” until it acts the way they imagine was a golden age in the Church.

These things should always be rejected.

____________

[#] As a standard disclaimer for my non-Catholic readers, I don’t write this article to attack non-Catholics today and respect and try to follow the Church on Ecumenical issues. I cite the 16th century Reformers as a “You are the man” (2 Samuel 12:7) moment by showing that the super Catholics at odds with the Church are behaving in the same manner as the 16th century Reformers that they hate. 

[§] “We likewise declare and ordain that no one whosoever is forced or coerced to alter this Missal, and that this present document cannot be revoked or modified, but remain always valid and retain its full force notwithstanding the previous constitutions and decrees of the Holy See, as well as any general or special constitutions or edicts of provincial or synodal councils, and notwithstanding the practice and custom of the aforesaid churches, established by long and immemorial prescription – except, however, if more than two hundred years’ standing.”

False Accusations revisited

Parvus error in principiis, magnus error in conclusionibus (Small error in the beginning leads to great error in the conclusion). It’s a maxim that means that if you start with errors in your assumptions, your conclusion will build on those false assumptions and wind up with an even greater one [§]. So, when we set out to prove something, it’s vital to make sure that our assumptions and research are correct.

This is especially true if you’re planning to accuse a person or group. We might think something is an error. But before we argue that it is in error, we need to investigate whether our understanding about the thing is true. If it isn’t, our opposition might be what’s really in error.

I think of this when I come across anti-Catholic attacks. In attempting to show why they are right in their beliefs, they start by attacking our “errors.” The problem is, Catholics don’t believe what they accuse us of. So, if they justify breaking with the Catholic Church on grounds of the Church teaching error [#], but the errors they allege we teach are things we don’t we actually reject then their break remains unjustified. So when Calvin alleges we worship idols, when some Orthodox allege Catholics think we “earn” our way out of Purgatory by our suffering (The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Eastern Church, Question 66) [*], when Luther alleges (Commentary On Galatians, Chapter 5 v. 15) [+] that we believe we can earn salvation, these things are simply false. The Catholic Church does not and never had believed these things.

Whether Calvin, Peter Mogila (the author of the Orthodox Confession) and Luther were badly taught on these matters, whether they badly misunderstood the correct teachings, or whether they were barefaced liars (I leave it to God to judge), they used false statements to justify rejection of the Catholic Church and encourage others to do the same. Not only at the time of writing, but in the present time where modern anti-Catholics assume they had accurate knowledge of Church teaching. [%].

Of course, we must follow Our Lord’s teaching in Luke 6:31. “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” If we would have others speak truthfully about us, we must speak truthfully about others. That means if we want to speak about another’s errors, we must be sure we have properly understood their statements as they intended it to be understood. Whether we speak or write about others, inside or outside of the Church, we have the obligation to make sure we speak accurately about what they really said and did.

Sadly, that isn’t the case. There is a (probably informal) movement that is aimed at opposing what they think is error in the Church. They take “Who am I to judge” to be approval of homosexuality. They take “rabbit Catholics” to mean opposition to large families. They take his words on the permissive will of God to be something approved of by God. From here they use their false interpretation (whatever the culpability might be) to attack the Pope, some having gone so far as to formally accuse him of heresy and urge the bishops to take action.

But these are false accusations, even if the anti-Francis Catholics believe them. We have an obligation to understand a person correctly before accusing him if we are to avoid rash judgment (you’ll notice that, while I pointed out that reformers, anti-Catholics, and anti-Francis Catholics spoke falsely—which can be established by comparing what they wrote with what the Church wrote—I never accused them of lying. That would require knowledge of their heart and mind that only God knows).

Whoever you are, whatever you do (I’m looking at our politicians and media here), whatever you profess to believe, you have an obligation to speak accurately when making an accusation, not assuming that what we hear or what we think it means is what our opponent holds.

_____________________

[§] In logic, if one or both premises are false and/or the logical form is invalid, the conclusion is unproven. It might be correct by sheer coincidence, but the person didn’t prove his point.

[#] We need to distinguish between what the Church teaches and what an individual Catholic might believe—contrary to the teachings of the Church. If one assumes that the error of one is the error of the whole Church, that’s the fallacy of composition.

[*] This catechism reads in part: “Our Church doth not admit or approve of such Fables as some Men have fancied concerning the State of Souls after Death; as that they are tormented in Pits and Waters, and with sharp Prongs, when they are snatched away by Death before they can have done sufficient Penance for their Faults.” To which Catholics can say, “we don’t believe that either.

[+] “This we see also in the Papacy, where the doctrine of faith being cast aside, it was impossible that concord of spirit should remain, and in the stead thereof there arose through the doctrine of works innumerable sects of monks, which being at variance with one another, did measure their holiness by the straitness of their orders and the difficulty of their superstitious works which they had themselves devised.” To which Catholics can say “Luther knew less than he thought about the Catholic Faith.”

[%] That doesn’t mean that the Catholic Church teaches the Protestant position of course. Rejecting A does not mean accepting B.