Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Reflections on Radical Traditionalism: Why it is a Danger

“Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites. You traverse sea and land to make one convert, and when that happens you make him a child of Gehenna twice as much as yourselves.” (Matt 23:15)

Preliminary Disclaimer

As always, one needs to recognize there is a difference between the person who prefers the liturgy and the discipline of the time before Vatican II but respects the authority of the Pope to make changes for the good of the Church and the radical who claims that the Pope who makes such changes is in error. This article deals with the second group, not the first group.

Introduction

I’ve seen the comments on blogs, heard it from friends. The claim that the Vatican, in “going after” radical Traditionalists and disciplining them are wasting time on groups “too small to matter” and should be going after Modernists instead.

I have two quarrels with this claim. The first is a logical objection. The second is an objection to the claim that the Radical Traditionalists are harmless or less harmful.

PART I

The Logical Problem of the Claim: Affirming the Disjunct

Ironically, the claim that the Vatican should be going after Liberals or Modernists is essentially the same fallacy used by Doug Kmiec to propose Obama as a “pro-life” candidate.

1. We can either do [A] or [B]
2. People are doing [B]
3. Therefore they are not doing [A]

The problem is, of course, “Either [A] or [B]” are not the only options, and the fact that the Church does [B] is no proof they are neglecting [A]. This is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The problem is just because condition [B] exists, does not mean that condition [A] cannot exist as well. Kmiec made this error in arguing we can either seek to end Roe v. Wade or we can help women seeking abortions, and arguing those opposing Obama sought to end abortions therefore those opposing abortion are not in favor of helping women.

This is of course nonsense.

However the defenders of the radical traditionalists make the same error. They assume the sanctions invoked against the radical traditionalists means nothing is being done against the modernists. The enthymeme of this argument is that “it can’t be both [A] and [B]” which needs to be proven, but is usually bypassed by the argument from silence (“I never hear of the Church disciplining liberals, therefore they don’t.”) and when evidence is provided, the fallacy of “moving the goalposts” is used (“The Church never disciplines liberals!” “What about Milingo or others?” “That’s not enough!”)

The only way to avoid the fallacy is by first providing proof that the condition is exclusively [A] or [B]. However, this is never done. Rather it is merely assumed. Examples in favor of the argument are promoted. Examples which show the condition is not exclusively [A] or [B] are ignored.

PART II

Are Radical Traditionalists In Fact Harmless?

Let’s make no mistake here. The Liberal dissenters are indeed doing wrong and need to be opposed. However, the liberal dissenters are not a group who are likely to deceive the Catholic who is seeking to do what is right and to follow the Church teaching. The teachings of Hans Küng, Charles Curran, Joan Chittister do not appeal to the person seeking what they must do to be faithful. They appeal to the person who is seeking an excuse to disobey.

However, the Radical Traditionalists are also dangerous because they can mislead the person who is looking for the way to follow the true Church. Consider, for example, the case of Gerry Matatics, who entered the Church in 1986, became a Radical Traditionalist in 1992 and is now proclaiming the Post Vatican II Church is heretical and that Pope Benedict XVI is most likely not the true Pope (the logic of his syllogisms are terrible by the way, assuming what needs to be proven). Matatics is an extreme example of what one seeking to be faithful can become. However, less extreme cases are common indeed.

Becoming what one condemns

The problem I see with the Radical Traditionalist is that while the subject matter of their dissent is different from those of the Liberal Modernist dissenter, the form of their nature is chillingly similar.

• A position is staked out in opposition to what the Magisterium holds
• Documents are selectively cited seeking to show a contradiction of the present Magisterium with past popes or councils
• The conclusion is made that the present Magisterium is in error.

There is a serious problem with this view however, whether the one who makes use of it is modernist or radical traditionalist, and that is the fact that it all centers on the personal interpretation of the selected documents. Whether it is the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” or whether it is a radical traditionalist focusing on a 19^th century condemnation of religious indifferentism to claim that the relations between Catholics and others must be eternally acrimonious, both refuse to recognize the authority of the Magisterium when it comes down on a side contrary to what one holds.

Thus, instead of recognizing the possibility of erring personally, the error is thus automatically assumed to be on the part of the Church. Ironically, both sides will recognize the disobedience of the other side, but not their own disobedience. It’s as if Christ never said in Matthew 7:

^1 “Stop judging, that you may not be judged.

^2 For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

Quite frankly, when both sides make use of judging the other of refusing to obey the magisterium on a specific topic, but refuse to obey on their own areas of contention, they do behave hypocritically.

Appeal to an Ideal(ism)

Fundamentalism is often used as a slur, and is used so broadly that it is almost worthless as a descriptor. Generally speaking it associates “fundamentalist” with “right wing politics.” However, in the most general sense, Fundamentalism can be understood as holding there was once a time when religion was practiced perfectly (or at least better), and to be perfect, one must go back to the practices of this time. Now of course the appeal to the practices to be followed can be real (such as the traditionalistic “Pre-conciliar” view) or to a fictional (such as the claims of some liberals that the early Church was “pre-hierarchical”).

The Problem is the issue of conditions which were different. If the Church in the 13^th century was the pinnacle of Christendom, we certainly need to recognize that the circumstances at this time were certainly different than they are in the 21^st century and practices of the Church in the sense of discipline could not even remotely be handled the same way. Similarly, the appeal of some radical traditionalists who misuse the axiom lex orendi lex credenda (The Law of prayer is the law of belief) of St. Prosper of Aquitane to say that the changing of the liturgy led to a collapse of beliefs and heretical priests. This can be demonstrated as a post hoc fallacy by pointing out a few facts. Dissenting priests were present before Vatican II and the 1970 missal. Humanae Vitae which was widely dissented from was written before the 1970 missal (in 1968 to be precise).

If the change of the liturgy caused the change of belief, then it is not demonstrated by the evidence. Indeed, the appeal to “go back” to before Vatican II or before the current form of the Mass is based on an idealism which forgets the growing disillusionment with authority in the 1950s. It overlooks the assimilation of Catholics into mainstream society in the 1950s and 1960s, and it overlooks the general rejection of authority in Catholic, Protestant and entirely non-Christian nations in the mid to late 1960s. Instead they submit an idealistic sequence:

1. Before Vatican II, the Church was strong
2. After Vatican II, the Church was weak
3. Therefore Vatican II caused the Church to weaken

Of course if there is any other reason besides Vatican II which caused this, the alleged cause-effect is wrong.

The Authority to Bind and Loose

It has been a doctrine of the Catholic Church that the authority to bind and to loose. It is de fide (a matter of faith which is not to be contradicted by one who claims to be a faithful Catholic) that Peter had primacy of jurisdiction over the entire Church and that this primacy extends to his successors. This primacy is not just over matters of faith and morals but also over the matters of discipline and government of the Church (See Ott, Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma pages 279, 282, 285). Pope Pius XII made clear in the encyclical Humani Generis that the idea that the Pope must only be obeyed on matters of ex cathedra is an error. He says:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me"; and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

In other words, when the Pope teaches in a binding manner using the ordinary magisterium, he must be heeded.

The Pope has authority to interpret Scripture and Tradition, and we do believe that when he teaches authoritatively as Pope and not as a private theologian, we are to obey.

Here then is the irony of the Radical Traditionalist who claims to be the followers of true Catholic teaching. To defend their rebellion against Vatican II, they must violate the de fide teaching of the Catholic Church on exactly who has the final right of interpretation. The radical traditionalist who accuses the Church of today of being riddled with “the errors of Protestantism” is actually performing the same act they find so offensive when done by Luther and others in rejecting the Catholic teaching due to their own interpretation and their own decision of what is to be given credibility.

Thus the dissenter (Traditionalist or Modernist) does not evaluate his or her belief based on the Magisterium teaching, but evaluates the Magisterium teaching based on his or her belief. This makes the Teaching authority of the Church superfluous. When it agrees with the dissenter it is unnecessary. When it disagrees with the dissenter, the teaching authority is wrong.

Why the Radical Traditionalist IS a Danger to the Church

The Catholic who is seeking to follow the Catholic faith and knows the authority of the Popes and the long line of consistent teaching is rather unlikely to consider a dissenter like Küng to be a voice of authority. One looking for an excuse to dissent might use his sophistry to justify disobedience, but one seeking to obey the Church would not.

What makes the radical traditionalist dangerous is the fact that he claims to be following the true teaching of the Church. Like an anti-Catholic seeking to “rescue” a person from the Catholic Church and takes Scripture out of context to do so, the radical traditionalist has often cited old Church documents and compared them with new Church documents. He plays upon the faithful individual’s recognizing that there is indeed rebellion and disobedience in the Church, and leads them to think that it is the fault of “modernists” and “freemasons” within the Church [Prior to the end of the Cold War, Communism was also invoked] who have infiltrated the Church to teach error. Much literature of slanderous character has been published accusing Blessed John XXIII and Paul VI of being freemasons. Such literature is seldom repudiated by the officials of the SSPX.

When you consider that the SSPX has seminaries which teaches formally that one can disobey the Magisterium when it goes against their judgment on the grounds that if they disagree they are tainted with heresy, you can see the danger of such a system for the would-be faithful Catholic and see why the Magisterium must oppose them and not leave them be.

Radical Traditionalists are Not Misunderstood when they are Opposed

I have no doubt that a good percentage of the Catholics who prefer the Mass of the 1962 missal (See The Reform of the Reform? for a balanced view of the issue) are indeed faithful Catholics. They may not like the current form of the Mass and attend the legitimate Extraordinary Form when they can, but they accept the authority of the Magisterium and oppose rebellion.

Radical Traditionalists on the other hand are in disobedience to the Magisterium. There obedience only follows as long as the Magisterium does as they think right. When they say “Do not listen to Rome, listen to me” they are indeed a danger to the Church. It is wrong to think of the issue as “All they want is the Latin Mass. Why not go after the Liberals who support abortion?” As I pointed out in the beginning of this article, this is the fallacy of Affirming the Disjunct. The Church is indeed going after them with some strong actions indeed even if it is not always handled as we would personally like. However, the existence of the liberal dissent does not justify traditionalist dissent.

Conclusion

The dissenter, whether modernist or traditionalist, might be quite sincere in their disobedience. They might actually believe the Church is wrong. So here is the rub: If the Catholic Church believes it must teach as it does, and the dissenter disagrees with the Church then there are two options:

1. They are wrong and the Church is right. In this case, they must reevaluate their position and cease to be in error.
2. They are right and the Church is wrong. In this case, the dissenter must reevaluate their relationship with the Church they believe to be teaching error

If the obedience to the Pope as the successor of Peter is a de fide position and the Church teaches something the dissenter believes is wrong, then either the dissenter is in error or the Church is not protected from error… which would mean the Catholic Church is not the Church Christ promised to protect.

If the Radical Traditionalist decides to remain within the Church while refusing to accept the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, it is really a case of Cafeteria Catholicism.

Credo and Clarifications: What I Believe About Scripture, Church and Evolution

In light of a recent post which gathered a good deal of attention, I thought I should deal with certain misconceptions over what I actually believe.  Since some atheists and some Christians seem to be under the impression I reject the authority of Scripture and of the Church.  Because of this I want to make a formal statement on this subject.

Do I Believe Scripture Contains Error?

Answer: No.  I believe Scripture is Inerrant.  My disputes are not over the words of Scripture.  Rather, my disputes are with those personal interpretations of Scripture which insist on being treated as Doctrine.  I do believe certain Christians misunderstand the idea of genre when it comes to reading Scripture and draw a meaning the Bible never intended to give.

I formally reject the idea the Bible is only symbolic or myth and repudiate any other view which claims Scripture contains error.

Do I Believe The Catholic Church Errs?

Answer: No.  I accept and submit to the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the Successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, and do my best to keep to the teachings of the Church.

I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ and was given the authority to bind and to loose, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is given by Christ the authority to interpret Scripture

I do not go against the authoritative teaching of the Church and seek to constantly improve my understanding of her teachings to keep rooted in the Catholic faith.

That being said, I wish to also state that the Magisterium is living.  It does not contradict itself, but it can deepen the understanding of a teaching.  So we need to understand that the Current Successor of St. Peter has the authority to interpret the teachings of the Church in a binding way, but the Catholic in the pew does not.

This is why, when a radical traditionalist or a Young Earth Creationist Catholic cites an older council of the Church and accuses the the modern Magisterial teaching of contradiction, I accept the teaching of the Magisterium over the so-called interpretations of the individual.

What Do I Believe on Creationism, Evolution and the Teachings of the Church?

I believe that Genesis intended to affirm the truth that all creation is from God, and nothing exists which God did not will to bring into being.  However Scripture does not say how God chose to create the universe and all that which is in it.

Science appears to indicate the world is around 4 billion years of age.  I ground what I believe about the possibility of evolution in the teaching of Pope Pius XII who laid down the following requirements:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis)

The Church has not ruled that one may not believe in evolution at all, but requires us to remember:

1. It hasn't been proven without a doubt and we are not to say it has been proven beyond a doubt
2. Those who consider evolution have to consider both arguments for and against it.
3. The Church has the authority of authentically interpreting the Scriptures
4. We are to always submit to the Church should it make a ruling.
5. We must believe the soul was directly created by God

Because the Catholic Church does not forbid a belief in evolution that accepts God as the cause of all which exists, those who claim Catholics that accept the possibility of evolution are heretics do not speak for the Church, but instead are guilty of rash judgment if they assume without proof that Catholics who believe in evolution deny the authority of the Church or the Bible.

Conclusion

I formally reject as false and unjust any accusation which claims I deny the authority of the Church or the inerrancy of Scripture.  I do submit to the Church with an act of will.  I will never disobey the Church and seek to avoid all instances of accidental departure from her teachings.

Credo and Clarifications: What I Believe About Scripture, Church and Evolution

In light of a recent post which gathered a good deal of attention, I thought I should deal with certain misconceptions over what I actually believe.  Since some atheists and some Christians seem to be under the impression I reject the authority of Scripture and of the Church.  Because of this I want to make a formal statement on this subject.

Do I Believe Scripture Contains Error?

Answer: No.  I believe Scripture is Inerrant.  My disputes are not over the words of Scripture.  Rather, my disputes are with those personal interpretations of Scripture which insist on being treated as Doctrine.  I do believe certain Christians misunderstand the idea of genre when it comes to reading Scripture and draw a meaning the Bible never intended to give.

I formally reject the idea the Bible is only symbolic or myth and repudiate any other view which claims Scripture contains error.

Do I Believe The Catholic Church Errs?

Answer: No.  I accept and submit to the authority of the Magisterium of the Catholic Church under the Successor of St. Peter, Pope Benedict XVI, and do my best to keep to the teachings of the Church.

I believe the Catholic Church was established by Christ and was given the authority to bind and to loose, and the Magisterium of the Catholic Church is given by Christ the authority to interpret Scripture

I do not go against the authoritative teaching of the Church and seek to constantly improve my understanding of her teachings to keep rooted in the Catholic faith.

That being said, I wish to also state that the Magisterium is living.  It does not contradict itself, but it can deepen the understanding of a teaching.  So we need to understand that the Current Successor of St. Peter has the authority to interpret the teachings of the Church in a binding way, but the Catholic in the pew does not.

This is why, when a radical traditionalist or a Young Earth Creationist Catholic cites an older council of the Church and accuses the the modern Magisterial teaching of contradiction, I accept the teaching of the Magisterium over the so-called interpretations of the individual.

What Do I Believe on Creationism, Evolution and the Teachings of the Church?

I believe that Genesis intended to affirm the truth that all creation is from God, and nothing exists which God did not will to bring into being.  However Scripture does not say how God chose to create the universe and all that which is in it.

Science appears to indicate the world is around 4 billion years of age.  I ground what I believe about the possibility of evolution in the teaching of Pope Pius XII who laid down the following requirements:

36. For these reasons the Teaching Authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions, on the part of men experienced in both fields, take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter - for the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God.  However, this must be done in such a way that the reasons for both opinions, that is, those favorable and those unfavorable to evolution, be weighed and judged with the necessary seriousness, moderation and measure, and provided that all are prepared to submit to the judgment of the Church, to whom Christ has given the mission of interpreting authentically the Sacred Scriptures and of defending the dogmas of faith.[11] Some however, rashly transgress this liberty of discussion, when they act as if the origin of the human body from pre-existing and living matter were already completely certain and proved by the facts which have been discovered up to now and by reasoning on those facts, and as if there were nothing in the sources of divine revelation which demands the greatest moderation and caution in this question. (Humani Generis)

The Church has not ruled that one may not believe in evolution at all, but requires us to remember:

1. It hasn't been proven without a doubt and we are not to say it has been proven beyond a doubt
2. Those who consider evolution have to consider both arguments for and against it.
3. The Church has the authority of authentically interpreting the Scriptures
4. We are to always submit to the Church should it make a ruling.
5. We must believe the soul was directly created by God

Because the Catholic Church does not forbid a belief in evolution that accepts God as the cause of all which exists, those who claim Catholics that accept the possibility of evolution are heretics do not speak for the Church, but instead are guilty of rash judgment if they assume without proof that Catholics who believe in evolution deny the authority of the Church or the Bible.

Conclusion

I formally reject as false and unjust any accusation which claims I deny the authority of the Church or the inerrancy of Scripture.  I do submit to the Church with an act of will.  I will never disobey the Church and seek to avoid all instances of accidental departure from her teachings.

Reflections on Biblical Literalism and Truth

We cannot say: creation or evolution.  The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution, inasmuch as these two things correspond to two different realities.  The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not explain how a human person comes to be but rather what he is.  It explains his inmost origin and casts light on the project that he is.  And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.  But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of the human person comes from, nor his  inner origin, nor his particular nature.  To that extent we are faced with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities.

—Pope Benedict XVI

In The Beginning (1986) page 65

I've spent the last few articles speaking of attacks on Christianity from without.  Now I see I need to deal with one one of the attacks from within.  This is the area of Biblical Literalism which is being brought to my attention. It normally shows up under the topic of Creation vs. Evolution but the problem actually runs deeper than just the meaning of Genesis in the account of creation of the universe.

The approaches I have heard tend to be under the assumption that a literal reading of a Bible passage must be taken literally (often the Creation accounts of Genesis are literally true), and anyone who says otherwise is denying the teachings of the Bible or the Church.  This leaves people with the dilemma of either denying science or God… and it doesn't even have to be such a dilemma.

It is because of this sort of accusation that I am writing on the issue and not letting it lapse into obscurity.

The Problem With Literalism

To be blunt, this is a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be true, and tends to be brought on by a reading of the Scripture in English without an understanding of the nuances of the original languages combined with the personal interpretation of Scriptures.

Biblical Literalism tends to make personal interpretation of what is literally true the over-all authority, and tends to be threatened by views which attack this personal interpretation, confusing the attack on this personal interpretation with an attack on the Bible.

Some Boundaries to Keep In Mind

What we first have to distinguish is the difference between truth and genre which truth appears in.  The Bible has books of history, books of law, books of prophecy, books of praise, moral discussions and other genres as well.  We need to know the genre of the book in Scripture in order to understand how to read it.  A book of the prophets is not written with the same intent as, say, 2 Samuel.  The Book of Lamentations is not written with the same intent as the Book of Leviticus.

You read History as history, Law as law and so on, not Law as history or History as poetry.

This requires study of course, though this study needs to respect the fact that we believe the Books of Scripture to be Divinely inspired and Inerrant.  This means we don't say, for example, that the Psalms are inaccurate because the stylized writing does not measure up to what happened to King David when he was pursued by foes.

Unfortunately most Literalists tend to forget this.

The Problem With Literalism

Imagine if you will, a society which decides to live accordance with a certain book of law which is discovered, but does not have an understanding of the background and meaning and context at the time when the book was originally written.  How probable is it that such an application of this theoretical book of law will match up with what those who wrote the laws in it intended?  The book still has to be interpreted as to what it means, and disagreements come from those who interpret differently.

This is the problem with Biblical Literalism.  If it is based on the interpretation of the reader who takes it literally, the conclusions drawn will be flawed if the original understanding is flawed, and a challenge to the interpretation is seen as a challenge to the Scripture itself.

Catholic and Non-Catholic Literalists

Non Catholic Literalists tend to deny any sort of authority outside of the Bible, and try to interpret it literally to the best of their understanding.  Catholic literalists tend to take the Bible literally as well, and to take Church documents literally as well… to the best of their understanding.  The problem is, if there is an error in what one thinks is the meaning, the conclusions will be thrown off.

The Problems: False Dilemma and the Lack of an Exclusionary Premise

There are two forms of argument the Literalist uses.  One is logically invalid.  The other is valid but begs the question

The common invalid form runs along these lines

1. If you are a [Literalist] you [Believe the Bible is Inerrant] (If [P] then [Q])
2. You are not a [Literalist] (Not [P])
3. Therefore you do not [believe the Bible is Inerrant] (Therefore Not [Q])

The problem is, people can [believe the Bible is inerrant] and not believe everything in it was intended to have a [literal meaning] (for a silly example, Jesus saying "I am the Vine" does not mean we need to mulch Him).

The valid form some Literalists use often runs along these lines:

1. The Bible is either [Literal] or [Allegorical] (Either [P] or [Q])
2. My Opponent does not believe the Bible is to be taken [Literally] (Not [P])
3. Therefore my opponent believes the Bible is [Allegorical] (Therefore [Q])

Even though valid in form, the argument has a problem.  It assumes that the situations can only be [P] or [Q], with no other choice.  If another option is available (Option [R] for example) or it is not an "All or nothing" situation in "Some [P] or Some [Q]" or even "Some [P] and Some [Q]"  (that is, some parts of the Bible are reporting history and others using symbolic language) then the first premise is false and the conclusion is not proven.

These are conditions the Literalist does not consider.

The Unproven Assumption

What is assumed with the Literalist perspective is that their reading of the Bible is correct and any other perspective on reading the Bible is wrong.  It would be a harmless thing for the most part, except it strays into categories the Literalist is not qualified to make judgment on.  Whether it is a Young Earth Creationist arguing that the Earth must be 6,000 years old more or less or whether it Robert Sungenis arguing that the Earth must be in the center of the universe, the assumption is when the Literalistic reading of the Bible appears to be contradicted by science, then Science must be wrong because Scripture cannot be wrong.

The argument possesses the error of Affirming the Disjunct:

1. Either [The Bible] is true or [Science] is true (Either [P] or [Q])
2. [The Bible] is true ([P])
3. Therefore [Science] is not true (Therefore Not [Q])

However it confuses the interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself.  The Interpretation is the Bible intended to formally teach the Earth is the center of the universe (As Sungenis holds) or that the Earth is 6,000 years old (as Young Earth Creationists hold).

Sure, Scientists can Err, but is it Reasonable to Say They Got it Entirely Wrong?

[Now for some boring technical discussions of science.  Please bear with me, because one of the problems with Literalism is a tendency not to understand science.  (The other is, ironically, not understanding scripture either).]

Now that we looked at the problems with the logic of the Literalist arguments, we need to also ask questions about whether their allegations are true but just not expressed logically (as an invalid syllogism doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily false, but it means the syllogism cannot prove it true).

So what are we to say about people who insist on Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism?

The problem is, in order for their interpretations of Scripture to be correct, it's not just that Science made an error in calculation or in an assumption.  It means that Science has to be dead wrong in things it has observed. 

Geocentrism, to be true means, that light has to either move faster than the 186,000 miles/second or that Stars are closer to us than we think.  The problem is we have references in our own solar system.  We know what the distances are from other planets to earth.  We know the speed it takes for radio messages to reach probes from Earth (I seem to recall that for the outer planets some probes took two hours to respond to changes, and data sent from the probes took two hours to reach Earth).  If we know the speed of light and we know how long it takes to receive and send data to a probe out near Neptune, we can reason how far away this probe is.  If it took Voyager 2 twelve years to reach Neptune (Launched 1977, reached Neptune in 1989), it stands to reason that Science could not be wildly inaccurate to plot a course to anticipate where Neptune would be twelve years after launch… especially if the Scientists were supposed to be wrong in assuming Heliocentrism.

Now I like to quote St. Thomas Aquinas' maxim and will do so again here… "Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine" (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).  Errors in assumptions with astronomical distances tend to mean that if you are a few degrees off in your calculations, it may not be much deviation in travelling 20 feet, but if you are off a few degrees and the distance of travel is 2,829,691,159.88 miles (the distance to Neptune), such a difference becomes a vast distance.

Let's not even get started on how fast the outer universe would have to move to orbit the earth.  Occam's Razor is a good tool here.  We ought not to multiply causes unnecessarily.  When geocentrism has to explain retrograde movement, and why we can't detect the shifts which indicate the direction and speed a star is moving, the theory needs to be evaluated.

[The Geocentrism example may seem like a joke but it is not.  Robert Sungenis tries to argue Copernicus and Galileo were wrong about Heliocentrism, and some people actually believe this.  In his attempt to defend the Church at the time of Galileo, he puts himself in conflict with the Church today]

Likewise, in evolution, we are able to learn about things like the formation of rock, about the decay of carbon 14 in living things and so on.  Now of course it is limited in what it can do (it can't tell us the skeleton was of a man who died on June 6th 1426 at 10:17 am) but it can give us a general idea of how long it has been.  In a living creature the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14, the ratio stays stable.  Once the creature dies, the carbon 14 begins to decay and by comparing ratios, we can get a sense of how old a thing can be. This doesn't work on things never alive to begin with, and there has to be some matter to work with.  It is also only effective up to 60,000 years of age (though other isotopes can take us beyond this).

Literalists tend to object to the Carbon 14 dating because they claim "we can't know if the rate of decay is constant or not." The problem with such an objection is that we would need to investigate whether such a variability is so drastic as to throw off accuracy by ten thousand years or more.  However the argument of the Literalist is an Argument from Silence: There is no proof it stays constant, so it means it doesn't prove anything.

Again, if science so completely missed the boat as the Literalists claim, to be off by a magnitude of 1000 times, then it is not unreasonable to ask for the proof that such a variation of decay exists, because if such a variation could be established, it would make the method worthless.

The Dangers of Literalism

Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that "Truth cannot contradict truth."  However the Literalist has to essentially assert that Science must be entirely false when it dates the world to 4.7 billion years of age and says the Earth orbits the Sun.

The literalist argues he is protecting the "inerrancy" of the Bible, but in fact he is holding it up to ridicule.  Skeptics who take the literalist at its word point to the Bible and point to Science and says the Bible cannot be at all true.  The Literalist says the skeptic does not have faith (which is true), but the faith the Literalist demands is faith in their own interpretation of Scripture.  A look at St. Augustine's City of God (See books 15-16) takes the genealogies of Scripture prior to the Flood and points out that it does not follow that these ancient lines were talking about all the children born, or even first born children born, to a mentioned man, when it could mean that the Scriptures were talking about prominent children.

Because of this, the Literalist view provides a stumbling block for someone who understands science and thinks Christianity must be in contradiction to it.  Atheists assume we are fools, and intellectuals think they have to stop thinking to become Christians.

In a sense, the Literalists become a stumbling block when it comes to bringing the faith to the world.

The Wisdom of St. Robert Bellarmine

St. Robert Bellarmine was a cardinal at the time of the Galileo controversy.  He admitted he did not believe the earth orbited the sun (at the time it was a theory and not yet established as more than that), but he also realized that if it were proven so and because Scripture were inerrant, it would mean a misunderstanding of what Scripture meant, not that Scripture erred.  He wrote:

…I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

The Church recognizes that the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun has been demonstrated, but Sungenis and followers (as well as Young Earth Creationists) ignore Bellarmine's wisdom.  Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed a belief in evolution… guided by God… and Pope Pius XII had laid down the differences between what one could believe in regards to evolution to what one could not believe.

Yet the Literalists insist that what was demonstrated was false and refuse to consider the possibility that they do not understand what Scripture means.  They insist all Christians accept their views or they are no Christians at all.

That takes a special kind of arrogance.

It Comes Down to Pride… or Lack of Faith

What are we to make of those who insist that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings and those that say that dinosaurs skeletons are here to test faith (and how do they reconcile that claim with Numbers 23:19)?   How do we assess those who believe that the universe must revolve around the Earth?  What do we think of those who claim that Science must be wrong because it goes against their view of the Bible?

Especially what are we to think of a view which calls those who disagree with them "heretics"?

Ultimately their view is one of either pride, in refusing to consider they are the ones who err, or else in a lack of faith which assumes that if the Bible does not match up to their understanding, it must be wrong.

Ironically such people are the opposite side of the coin from the so-called "New Atheists."  Both tend to assume a literal meaning of the Bible.  The Biblical Literalists accept the Bible as literally true and accept it.  The New Atheist assumes it is to be understood as literally true and rejects it.

Neither considers the possibility of their own error in understanding Scripture.

A Personal Example

Back in the early 1990s, I assumed cloning would never happen (I was dabbling around with the idea of doing a sort of Science Fiction novel in case you are wondering why I was assuming this) because all life was from God, and life would not be created apart from God.  Then in 1996, we got news of Dolly the Sheep, and this caused me to think.  Clearly Dolly was not fraudulent.  So was the Christian faith fraudulent?  I had not yet read St. Robert Bellarmine, but the answer I reached was close to what he said: I recognized that it was quite possible I misunderstood what God would do.

Fourteen years and a degree later I now know I made two errors back then.  First, the belief that cloning was the creation of life out of non-living matter.  Second, that I had a false idea about God's permissive will versus the free will of man.  These two errors of mine led me to believe cloning would be impossible.  If I hadn't considered the possibility I misunderstood the nature of God I would either have had to deny the existence of Dolly or deny the existence of God.

Recognizing the possibility of my own error saved me from making a greater one.

Conclusion

Not all people who believe in Creationism are Literalists in the negative sense.  However, many forget the Church does not insist we only accept Creationism or only accept Evolution.  The Church does require us to believe all creation comes from God and rejects the idea that anything exists apart from God.  We are required to believe God creates the soul directly (it does not "evolve.")

However, Biblical Literalism is a belief which mistakes a personal interpretation of the Bible for the Bible.

We would all be wise to remember that while the Bible is inerrant, personal interpretations are not.

Reflections on Biblical Literalism and Truth

We cannot say: creation or evolution.  The proper way of putting it is: creation and evolution, inasmuch as these two things correspond to two different realities.  The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not explain how a human person comes to be but rather what he is.  It explains his inmost origin and casts light on the project that he is.  And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.  But in so doing it cannot explain where the "project" of the human person comes from, nor his  inner origin, nor his particular nature.  To that extent we are faced with two complementary — rather than mutually exclusive — realities.

—Pope Benedict XVI

In The Beginning (1986) page 65

I've spent the last few articles speaking of attacks on Christianity from without.  Now I see I need to deal with one one of the attacks from within.  This is the area of Biblical Literalism which is being brought to my attention. It normally shows up under the topic of Creation vs. Evolution but the problem actually runs deeper than just the meaning of Genesis in the account of creation of the universe.

The approaches I have heard tend to be under the assumption that a literal reading of a Bible passage must be taken literally (often the Creation accounts of Genesis are literally true), and anyone who says otherwise is denying the teachings of the Bible or the Church.  This leaves people with the dilemma of either denying science or God… and it doesn't even have to be such a dilemma.

It is because of this sort of accusation that I am writing on the issue and not letting it lapse into obscurity.

The Problem With Literalism

To be blunt, this is a gross misunderstanding of what it is to be true, and tends to be brought on by a reading of the Scripture in English without an understanding of the nuances of the original languages combined with the personal interpretation of Scriptures.

Biblical Literalism tends to make personal interpretation of what is literally true the over-all authority, and tends to be threatened by views which attack this personal interpretation, confusing the attack on this personal interpretation with an attack on the Bible.

Some Boundaries to Keep In Mind

What we first have to distinguish is the difference between truth and genre which truth appears in.  The Bible has books of history, books of law, books of prophecy, books of praise, moral discussions and other genres as well.  We need to know the genre of the book in Scripture in order to understand how to read it.  A book of the prophets is not written with the same intent as, say, 2 Samuel.  The Book of Lamentations is not written with the same intent as the Book of Leviticus.

You read History as history, Law as law and so on, not Law as history or History as poetry.

This requires study of course, though this study needs to respect the fact that we believe the Books of Scripture to be Divinely inspired and Inerrant.  This means we don't say, for example, that the Psalms are inaccurate because the stylized writing does not measure up to what happened to King David when he was pursued by foes.

Unfortunately most Literalists tend to forget this.

The Problem With Literalism

Imagine if you will, a society which decides to live accordance with a certain book of law which is discovered, but does not have an understanding of the background and meaning and context at the time when the book was originally written.  How probable is it that such an application of this theoretical book of law will match up with what those who wrote the laws in it intended?  The book still has to be interpreted as to what it means, and disagreements come from those who interpret differently.

This is the problem with Biblical Literalism.  If it is based on the interpretation of the reader who takes it literally, the conclusions drawn will be flawed if the original understanding is flawed, and a challenge to the interpretation is seen as a challenge to the Scripture itself.

Catholic and Non-Catholic Literalists

Non Catholic Literalists tend to deny any sort of authority outside of the Bible, and try to interpret it literally to the best of their understanding.  Catholic literalists tend to take the Bible literally as well, and to take Church documents literally as well… to the best of their understanding.  The problem is, if there is an error in what one thinks is the meaning, the conclusions will be thrown off.

The Problems: False Dilemma and the Lack of an Exclusionary Premise

There are two forms of argument the Literalist uses.  One is logically invalid.  The other is valid but begs the question

The common invalid form runs along these lines

1. If you are a [Literalist] you [Believe the Bible is Inerrant] (If [P] then [Q])
2. You are not a [Literalist] (Not [P])
3. Therefore you do not [believe the Bible is Inerrant] (Therefore Not [Q])

The problem is, people can [believe the Bible is inerrant] and not believe everything in it was intended to have a [literal meaning] (for a silly example, Jesus saying "I am the Vine" does not mean we need to mulch Him).

The valid form some Literalists use often runs along these lines:

1. The Bible is either [Literal] or [Allegorical] (Either [P] or [Q])
2. My Opponent does not believe the Bible is to be taken [Literally] (Not [P])
3. Therefore my opponent believes the Bible is [Allegorical] (Therefore [Q])

Even though valid in form, the argument has a problem.  It assumes that the situations can only be [P] or [Q], with no other choice.  If another option is available (Option [R] for example) or it is not an "All or nothing" situation in "Some [P] or Some [Q]" or even "Some [P] and Some [Q]"  (that is, some parts of the Bible are reporting history and others using symbolic language) then the first premise is false and the conclusion is not proven.

These are conditions the Literalist does not consider.

The Unproven Assumption

What is assumed with the Literalist perspective is that their reading of the Bible is correct and any other perspective on reading the Bible is wrong.  It would be a harmless thing for the most part, except it strays into categories the Literalist is not qualified to make judgment on.  Whether it is a Young Earth Creationist arguing that the Earth must be 6,000 years old more or less or whether it Robert Sungenis arguing that the Earth must be in the center of the universe, the assumption is when the Literalistic reading of the Bible appears to be contradicted by science, then Science must be wrong because Scripture cannot be wrong.

The argument possesses the error of Affirming the Disjunct:

1. Either [The Bible] is true or [Science] is true (Either [P] or [Q])
2. [The Bible] is true ([P])
3. Therefore [Science] is not true (Therefore Not [Q])

However it confuses the interpretation of the Bible with the Bible itself.  The Interpretation is the Bible intended to formally teach the Earth is the center of the universe (As Sungenis holds) or that the Earth is 6,000 years old (as Young Earth Creationists hold).

Sure, Scientists can Err, but is it Reasonable to Say They Got it Entirely Wrong?

[Now for some boring technical discussions of science.  Please bear with me, because one of the problems with Literalism is a tendency not to understand science.  (The other is, ironically, not understanding scripture either).]

Now that we looked at the problems with the logic of the Literalist arguments, we need to also ask questions about whether their allegations are true but just not expressed logically (as an invalid syllogism doesn't mean the conclusion is necessarily false, but it means the syllogism cannot prove it true).

So what are we to say about people who insist on Young Earth Creationism or Geocentrism?

The problem is, in order for their interpretations of Scripture to be correct, it's not just that Science made an error in calculation or in an assumption.  It means that Science has to be dead wrong in things it has observed. 

Geocentrism, to be true means, that light has to either move faster than the 186,000 miles/second or that Stars are closer to us than we think.  The problem is we have references in our own solar system.  We know what the distances are from other planets to earth.  We know the speed it takes for radio messages to reach probes from Earth (I seem to recall that for the outer planets some probes took two hours to respond to changes, and data sent from the probes took two hours to reach Earth).  If we know the speed of light and we know how long it takes to receive and send data to a probe out near Neptune, we can reason how far away this probe is.  If it took Voyager 2 twelve years to reach Neptune (Launched 1977, reached Neptune in 1989), it stands to reason that Science could not be wildly inaccurate to plot a course to anticipate where Neptune would be twelve years after launch… especially if the Scientists were supposed to be wrong in assuming Heliocentrism.

Now I like to quote St. Thomas Aquinas' maxim and will do so again here… "Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine" (“Small error in the beginning; large [error] will be in the end”).  Errors in assumptions with astronomical distances tend to mean that if you are a few degrees off in your calculations, it may not be much deviation in travelling 20 feet, but if you are off a few degrees and the distance of travel is 2,829,691,159.88 miles (the distance to Neptune), such a difference becomes a vast distance.

Let's not even get started on how fast the outer universe would have to move to orbit the earth.  Occam's Razor is a good tool here.  We ought not to multiply causes unnecessarily.  When geocentrism has to explain retrograde movement, and why we can't detect the shifts which indicate the direction and speed a star is moving, the theory needs to be evaluated.

[The Geocentrism example may seem like a joke but it is not.  Robert Sungenis tries to argue Copernicus and Galileo were wrong about Heliocentrism, and some people actually believe this.  In his attempt to defend the Church at the time of Galileo, he puts himself in conflict with the Church today]

Likewise, in evolution, we are able to learn about things like the formation of rock, about the decay of carbon 14 in living things and so on.  Now of course it is limited in what it can do (it can't tell us the skeleton was of a man who died on June 6th 1426 at 10:17 am) but it can give us a general idea of how long it has been.  In a living creature the ratio of Carbon 12 to Carbon 14, the ratio stays stable.  Once the creature dies, the carbon 14 begins to decay and by comparing ratios, we can get a sense of how old a thing can be. This doesn't work on things never alive to begin with, and there has to be some matter to work with.  It is also only effective up to 60,000 years of age (though other isotopes can take us beyond this).

Literalists tend to object to the Carbon 14 dating because they claim "we can't know if the rate of decay is constant or not." The problem with such an objection is that we would need to investigate whether such a variability is so drastic as to throw off accuracy by ten thousand years or more.  However the argument of the Literalist is an Argument from Silence: There is no proof it stays constant, so it means it doesn't prove anything.

Again, if science so completely missed the boat as the Literalists claim, to be off by a magnitude of 1000 times, then it is not unreasonable to ask for the proof that such a variation of decay exists, because if such a variation could be established, it would make the method worthless.

The Dangers of Literalism

Pope John Paul II said in 1996 that "Truth cannot contradict truth."  However the Literalist has to essentially assert that Science must be entirely false when it dates the world to 4.7 billion years of age and says the Earth orbits the Sun.

The literalist argues he is protecting the "inerrancy" of the Bible, but in fact he is holding it up to ridicule.  Skeptics who take the literalist at its word point to the Bible and point to Science and says the Bible cannot be at all true.  The Literalist says the skeptic does not have faith (which is true), but the faith the Literalist demands is faith in their own interpretation of Scripture.  A look at St. Augustine's City of God (See books 15-16) takes the genealogies of Scripture prior to the Flood and points out that it does not follow that these ancient lines were talking about all the children born, or even first born children born, to a mentioned man, when it could mean that the Scriptures were talking about prominent children.

Because of this, the Literalist view provides a stumbling block for someone who understands science and thinks Christianity must be in contradiction to it.  Atheists assume we are fools, and intellectuals think they have to stop thinking to become Christians.

In a sense, the Literalists become a stumbling block when it comes to bringing the faith to the world.

The Wisdom of St. Robert Bellarmine

St. Robert Bellarmine was a cardinal at the time of the Galileo controversy.  He admitted he did not believe the earth orbited the sun (at the time it was a theory and not yet established as more than that), but he also realized that if it were proven so and because Scripture were inerrant, it would mean a misunderstanding of what Scripture meant, not that Scripture erred.  He wrote:

…I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated.

The Church recognizes that the idea of the Earth orbiting the sun has been demonstrated, but Sungenis and followers (as well as Young Earth Creationists) ignore Bellarmine's wisdom.  Popes John Paul II and Benedict XVI have expressed a belief in evolution… guided by God… and Pope Pius XII had laid down the differences between what one could believe in regards to evolution to what one could not believe.

Yet the Literalists insist that what was demonstrated was false and refuse to consider the possibility that they do not understand what Scripture means.  They insist all Christians accept their views or they are no Christians at all.

That takes a special kind of arrogance.

It Comes Down to Pride… or Lack of Faith

What are we to make of those who insist that dinosaurs coexisted with human beings and those that say that dinosaurs skeletons are here to test faith (and how do they reconcile that claim with Numbers 23:19)?   How do we assess those who believe that the universe must revolve around the Earth?  What do we think of those who claim that Science must be wrong because it goes against their view of the Bible?

Especially what are we to think of a view which calls those who disagree with them "heretics"?

Ultimately their view is one of either pride, in refusing to consider they are the ones who err, or else in a lack of faith which assumes that if the Bible does not match up to their understanding, it must be wrong.

Ironically such people are the opposite side of the coin from the so-called "New Atheists."  Both tend to assume a literal meaning of the Bible.  The Biblical Literalists accept the Bible as literally true and accept it.  The New Atheist assumes it is to be understood as literally true and rejects it.

Neither considers the possibility of their own error in understanding Scripture.

A Personal Example

Back in the early 1990s, I assumed cloning would never happen (I was dabbling around with the idea of doing a sort of Science Fiction novel in case you are wondering why I was assuming this) because all life was from God, and life would not be created apart from God.  Then in 1996, we got news of Dolly the Sheep, and this caused me to think.  Clearly Dolly was not fraudulent.  So was the Christian faith fraudulent?  I had not yet read St. Robert Bellarmine, but the answer I reached was close to what he said: I recognized that it was quite possible I misunderstood what God would do.

Fourteen years and a degree later I now know I made two errors back then.  First, the belief that cloning was the creation of life out of non-living matter.  Second, that I had a false idea about God's permissive will versus the free will of man.  These two errors of mine led me to believe cloning would be impossible.  If I hadn't considered the possibility I misunderstood the nature of God I would either have had to deny the existence of Dolly or deny the existence of God.

Recognizing the possibility of my own error saved me from making a greater one.

Conclusion

Not all people who believe in Creationism are Literalists in the negative sense.  However, many forget the Church does not insist we only accept Creationism or only accept Evolution.  The Church does require us to believe all creation comes from God and rejects the idea that anything exists apart from God.  We are required to believe God creates the soul directly (it does not "evolve.")

However, Biblical Literalism is a belief which mistakes a personal interpretation of the Bible for the Bible.

We would all be wise to remember that while the Bible is inerrant, personal interpretations are not.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.

Evolution vs. Creation: The Wrong Battle Waged

Someone notified me recently I was being cited as a source against the claims of an atheistic individual who holds to Evolution and rejects Creationism.  While I am flattered that someone considers me authoritative, I think it is important to spell out what I do hold, lest someone think I am championing a cause I do not.

As I have stated in the title, I do believe the laying out of battle grounds between evolution and creation is the wrong battle for Christians to fight, putting some allies on the "enemy" side of the fence.  The issue is not whether to take the account of creation in Genesis literally or figuratively.  The issue is whether the creation of the universe is on account of an uncontrolled undirected cause or on account of God.

Unfortunately I think some Christians choose to fight the wrong battle on account of believing that science (as opposed to some erring scientists) must teach in opposition to the Christian faith.  The problem is the confusing a belief that God could work through evolution as His means of creation with the atheistic belief that claims of science means God does not exist.  The Christian who fights the "evolution vs. creation" battle when they think they are fighting the "God vs. atheism" battle do not assist in the battle against atheism.

The result of this wrong battle being fought is we see certain groups of Christians accusing other Christians who accept the possibility of evolution as the means God used to create as being heretical or being secret atheists or being deceived by atheists.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  Arguing that unless a man believes in creationism, the man is not a believer ignores the possibility of a faithful Christian who does not hold a fundamentalist view of Scripture.  The argument in this case is missing the point.

The point is whether or not God created the universe or whether the universe came together by chance.  If it was created by God, there is indeed purpose in the universe, and life has meaning.  If it was created by chance, there is no meaning to the universe and it is a matter of indifference whether we live in a manner called evil or a manner called good.

The issue of evolution is misused by the atheist to argue that because evolution happened, God is not necessary and therefore does not exist.

The problem is, the evidence pointed at to claim evolution is true does not prove the non-existence of God.  The other side of this coin is to show that the cell or the embryo is complex beyond imagining does not mean it could be done by God only through directly acting.

Now the problem with relying on the physical explanation of evolution alone and denying the existence of a creator is it cannot provide proof to explain certain steps (which is Begging the Question):

• From no life to life
• From single cell creatures to multi cell creatures
• from creatures without organs to creatures with organs they did not need before but now cannot exist without
• From non-sentience to sentience

The law of casualty holds that we cannot get a result which is greater than the sum of causes.  For example, we do not simply go from Acorn –> Tree.  We have acorn + water + soil + nutrients + sunlight –> Tree.  The believer tells us God –> Universe (with the "—>" being whatever means of creation used).  The atheist needs to explain: no life –> Life, Single Cell –> multi cell and so on, and why the law of casualty does not apply (or how it does apply).

Thus going from the so-called "primordial soup" to a single cell animal cannot be explained.  (The amino acid experiment was based on a false idea on what the primordial atmosphere was based on).  The evolution theory can say it did happen, but the atheistic view does not say how it happened.

Really this is the issue here.  If the atheist wishes to assert evolution sans God is true, the question is how do we know it is true, given the practical impossibility of proving a universal negative and the lack of scientific evidence showing these transitions taking place?

The syllogism of the atheist is:

1. God does not exist
2. The Universe exists
3. Therefore the Universe was not created by God.

This is where I come in to the dispute.  Science is claimed to be logical and reasonable.  Religion is accused of being irrational and illogical.  Yet the claims of scientists who argue science proves there is no God cannot put together a logical and rational argument to establish their claim.

The argument that since God cannot be studied scientifically means there is no God is in fact a bad logical argument.  It is based on the unproven assumption that only that which is observable exists.  (All A is B).  The problem of course is that no matter how much we know about A (things that are observable), it does not prove there is not B (something that exists) which is not in B.

As a syllogism:

1. All things which are observable exists (all A is B)
2. God is not observable (Not A)
3. Therefore God does not exist (Therefore not B)

We can show the error of this argument by replacing what A and B stand for:

1. All people in Los Angeles are in California (All A is B)
2. Bill is not in Los Angeles (Not A)
3. Therefore Bill is not in California (therefore not B)

(If Bill lives in San Francisco, the argument is false)

In this case "All A is B" does not mean "All B is A." (All people in Los Angeles are in California does not mean all people in California are in Los Angeles).  In fact (going back to the syllogism of existence and observation), since we do not know what we will be able to observe in the future, we cannot even say we know everything currently in A (things observable) is all that will ever be in A

To challenge this is the "Emperor has no clothes" comment we should be presenting to the world against atheism.  In contrast, to argue the "Creationism vs. Evolution" is a distraction from the truth to be evaluated at this time.  Whether one believes in Creationism or Evolution as a Christian, the individual is still saying "God did this."  (Not as a way to avoid complex explanations as Dawkins so ludicrously put it, but because if the existence of God is true, we will eventually wind up with the "Uncaused cause" of Thomas Aquinas). In contrast atheism says "All this was set into motion by purely physical causes," with no basis but a faith that someday science will find the answer.

Science can validly look at evolution from a purely physical point, without being wrong per se, when it asks "how it works."  However when it looks at the purely physical and says "this is all there is," it goes beyond what Science can say and the proponents of such a view are in fact leaving reason and logic behind.