Thoughts on Catholic Teaching and anti-Muslim Attitudes

Preliminary Note

In this day and age people tend to fall into “either-or” thinking where a person who disagrees with a position is automatically assumed to support any abuse or bad behavior that is alleged to come from the opposite position. For example, the allegation that a person who opposes a certain restriction on gun ownership is guilty of enabling whatever mass shooting should come along. It is dangerous thinking and allows a demagogue to bully people or slander someone who thinks differently.

I make this point because this article, talking about some troublesome attitudes towards Muslims, is going to probably result in somebody claiming that I am ignorant of or indifferent to the sufferings of innocent people at the hands of radical Muslims or that I am taking a “one religion is as good as another approach.” Both accusations would be false.

I profess the truth of Christianity and profess that the Catholic Church is the Church founded by Our Lord. Because Islam professes that Jesus Christ was merely a man, of course I cannot accept Islam as true. Unlike many, I’ve read the Quran. However, I cannot believe it is Revelation. It’s largely a circular argument invoking the authority of Muhammad to claim authority for the Quran and invoking the authority of the Quran to claim authority for Muhammad. In addition, it speaks wrongly about what Christians believe—error being something one would not expect to be found in a “divine text."

However, the fact that we who are Christian believe Islam teaches error does not give us the right to speak falsely about Muslims, nor to treat them as being less human than the rest of us—and these are things that are commonly being done. Since the Catechism makes clear that we are not allowed to mistreat others, when it teaches...

1934 Created in the image of the one God and equally endowed with rational souls, all men have the same nature and the same origin. Redeemed by the sacrifice of Christ, all are called to participate in the same divine beatitude: all therefore enjoy an equal dignity. (225)

1935 The equality of men rests essentially on their dignity as persons and the rights that flow from it: (357)

Every form of social or cultural discrimination in fundamental personal rights on the grounds of sex, race, color, social conditions, language, or religion must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design.
 

 Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd Ed. (Washington, DC: United States Catholic Conference, 2000), 469–470.

...it is clear that we cannot discriminate against individual Muslims on the basis of our repugnance for radical Islam or for cultural practices in the Middle East. In other words, just because we believe their religion to be wrong that is not a justification for treating individual Muslims wrongly.

Introduction

It’s no secret that with the recent terrorist attacks in Paris and San Bernardino, combined with the atrocities of ISIS and Boko Haran over the past few years, people are focussing on one common denominator that they all share. That shared characteristic is a belief in Islam. Because of this, many Americans support politicians who propose restrictions on Muslims coming to America. The basic motive behind this reaction is the need to be safe. The need to be safe is not wrong in itself. However, when people fear, they often behave irrationally. When they behave irrationally, they sometimes do injustice in the quest for security.

Matters are not helped when the government gives the impression of ignoring the legitimate concerns as if they had no intention of addressing these concerns (for example, the President’s barb about his opponents being afraid of orphans and widows). The government does have the obligation to ensure the well-being of residents of the nation and if they do not, or appear to be indifferent, people begin to look to politicians who  promise simple solutions without considering whether there are any negative consequences.

Moreover, when a group is unpopular, people tend to scapegoat it and point to the worst elements within the group as if it was the central characteristic of that group. We have a bad habit of doing this in America—the equating of all African Americans with violent crime, equating all Hispanics with illegal immigration, equating all Irish immigrants with drunkenness and crime, equating all Japanese with being fifth columnists, and now equating all Muslims with terrorism.

But the problem with this association is nobody asks whether the claim that all Muslims think this way is true. Instead people assume that being a member of this group opens them up to suspicion of having the characteristics of the worst members. To avoid being a target of suspicion, an individual of this group has to prove their innocence—but that person will never be able to prove their innocence. The good members of the group are seen as “haven’t done anything…yet."

Muslims are Not a Bloc

This is made worse by the fact that people don’t know much about Islam, but think they know more than they do. There are people who think Muslims are a menace to our security and have never read the Quran (I have), but often misquote a fragment of Sura 9:5 (“slay unbelievers wherever you find them”) to justify their fear. They assume that the faithful Muslim is a Quran literalist in the same sense as a Christian Bible literalist and then say that to be a faithful Muslim, one must obey everything it commands. To put it in a syllogism: 

1. A devout Muslim must carry out everything the Quran teaches.
2. The Quran professes that Muslims must slay unbelievers.
3. Therefore a devout Muslim must slay unbelievers. 

Such thinking assumes that Islam is a monolith in which everyone who professes to believe Islam is true believes and practices in the same way. However Christianity and Judaism do not have this thinking. Catholics, Orthodox and Protestants all profess a belief in God and Jesus Christ as God but differ widely in how they believe the Christian faith ought to be practiced. Now obviously contradictions cannot all be true and objectively some of these groups will profess error. I am a Catholic because I believe the Catholic Church to be the Church established by Our Lord. But if I assumed that all Christians recognized what Catholics believed I would be surprised.

Likewise, Judaism has Orthodox, Conservative and Reform branches. They have some different ideas on what it means to be a Jew and disapprove of the other branches where they disagree. Buddhism has different schools of thought on how it should be practiced. People recognize these divisions and don’t assume that all Christians, all Jews and all Buddhists are marching in lockstep within their beliefs.

But when it comes to Islam, it is assumed that all Muslims think alike and that the behavior of terrorists and anti-American Imams are representative of what Islam is supposed to be. People barely are aware of Sunni vs. Shiite, let alone groups like Wahhabism and Sufi. They don’t recognize that the range of interpretation of how to be a “good Muslim” is just as diverse as the range of interpretation on how to be a good Christian or a good Jew. I have had encounters with Muslims who told me that they believed Wahhabism to be heretical in its interpretation of the Quran.

Obligation to Seek and Speak the Truth

Now don’t get me wrong here. I’m not advocating indifferentism where it doesn’t matter what one believes. Obviously it does matter. If Jesus Christ is the Son of God (and I profess He is), then religions that deny this are in error. The obligation to know, love and serve God requires to seek Him and follow Him as He wills, not as we will. However, God wills that we follow Him by speaking truth and not to bear false witness against those who are in error.

I don’t think False Witness is limited to a direct lie. I believe it also involves spreading negative claims about a person or group without checking whether it is true or not. I’m sure my fellow Catholics have experienced anti-Catholic claims that we know are false but have been repeated ever since the emergence of Protestantism in the 16th century. We resent these falsehoods being made about us and we resent it when anti-Catholics allege that bad behavior that we reject try to portray that bad behavior as the norm for Christianity. We know that an individual reading Catholic writings without understanding them can lead one to draw a wrong conclusion.

So why do we assume that when faced with a fragment of one Sura in the Quran that we interpret it correctly without knowing the context? In fact, the fragment of Sura 9:5 actually needs to be seen in the context of 9:1-6:

Surah 9—Repentance

1.A (declaration) of immunity from Allah and His Apostle, to those of the Pagans with whom ye have contracted mutual alliances—

2.Go ye, then, for four months, backwards and forwards, (as ye will), throughout the land, but know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah (by your falsehood) but that Allah will cover with shame those who reject Him.

3.And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle, to the people (assembled) on the day of the Great Pilgrimage—that Allah and His Apostle dissolve (treaty) obligations with the Pagans. If then, ye repent, it were best for you; but if ye turn away, know ye that ye cannot frustrate Allah. And proclaim a grievous penalty to those who reject Faith.

4.(But the treaties are) not dissolved with those Pagans with whom ye have entered into alliance and who have not subsequently failed you in aught, nor aided any one against you. So fulfil your engagements with them to the end of their term: for Allah loveth the righteous.

5.But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, an seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practise regular charity, then open the way for them: for Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful.

6.If one amongst the Pagans ask thee for asylum, grant it to him, so that he may hear the word of Allah; and then escort him to where he can be secure. That is because they are men without knowledge.

 Abdullah Yusuf Ali, trans., “The Meaning of the Holy Qur’an,” 2004.

Some Muslims see the adjoining verses as requiring them to treat fairly with the pagans who treat fairly with them and thus condemn the radical interpretation of jihad. Now I am not going to take a side and say “Muhammad intended this Sura to be interpreted as XYZ…” But I do think it is important that there are many different ways which these verses are interpreted by people who consider themselves to be faithful Muslims. Therefore, we cannot assume that the interpretation given by radical Muslims is held universally by all Muslims.

Are Our American Attitudes Interfering with Our Christian Obligation?

There is much more I could have written about the “All Muslims think alike” belief. But hopefully this will suffice to help people think about the common assumptions today. Since this is a Catholic blog, I do want to discuss some concerns that these attitudes bring to mind. The question that comes to mind is this: When we voice the popular American views, do we bear witness to our faith? Or do we bear false witness by leading non-Catholics to decide we are jerks and they want no part of what we profess? Pope Francis addressed this in his Exhortation, Evangelii Gaudium when he wrote:

99. Our world is being torn apart by wars and violence, and wounded by a widespread individualism which divides human beings, setting them against one another as they pursue their own well-being. In various countries, conflicts and old divisions from the past are re-emerging. I especially ask Christians in communities throughout the world to offer a radiant and attractive witness of fraternal communion. Let everyone admire how you care for one another, and how you encourage and accompany one another: “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (Jn 13:35). This was Jesus’ heartfelt prayer to the Father: “That they may all be one … in us … so that the world may believe” (Jn 17:21). Beware of the temptation of jealousy! We are all in the same boat and headed to the same port! Let us ask for the grace to rejoice in the gifts of each, which belong to all.

100. Those wounded by historical divisions find it difficult to accept our invitation to forgiveness and reconciliation, since they think that we are ignoring their pain or are asking them to give up their memory and ideals. But if they see the witness of authentically fraternal and reconciled communities, they will find that witness luminous and attractive. It always pains me greatly to discover how some Christian communities, and even consecrated persons, can tolerate different forms of enmity, division, calumny, defamation, vendetta, jealousy and the desire to impose certain ideas at all costs, even to persecutions which appear as veritable witch hunts. Whom are we going to evangelize if this is the way we act?
 

 Francis, Evangelii Gaudium, Apostolic Exhortation (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2013), 79–80.

Will the message of salvation be heard if our witness is one of hostility and treating those who are different unequally? Or, if one will not hear the Pope, perhaps they will hear the Word of Our Lord?

⁷ “But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, ²⁸ bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. ²⁹ To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. ³⁰ Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back. ³¹ Do to others as you would have them do to you. ³² For if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. ³³ And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do the same. ³⁴ If you lend money to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit [is] that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, and get back the same amount. ³⁵ But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. ³⁶ Be merciful, just as [also] your Father is merciful. 

 

 New American Bible, Revised Edition (Washington, DC: The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, 2011), Luke 6:27–36.

Our Lord’s teaching sometimes pushes us in uncomfortable ways. Loving our enemies is certainly a part of that uncomfortable push. No, we’re not obligated to seek out martyrdom. But we are not allowed to use our fear as an excuse not to follow Our Lord’s teaching. Certainly God does not desire the destruction of Muslims. He desires us to help them both in physical need and in their need for Christ. But if we look at them all with the suspicion of being mass murderers and change our laws to treat them unequally because of our fear, will they be able to see Christ in us? Or will our faith be derided because of our actions?

Conclusion

The Christian edict to love our enemies does not mean we are forbidden from defending ourselves from those who would harm us. But we’re not to punish the good and the evil alike. Those who are innocent are not to be punished for sharing an affiliation with the guilty. We would reject attempts to link all priests with those who committed sexual abuse. We would reject all attempts to link all pro-lifers with those who committed murders at abortion clinics. We reject such claims because they attempt to claim that the evil done by some are a characteristic of the whole. In other words, we deny that those who did evil represent what it means to be Catholic or pro-life respectively.

We should likewise realize that not all Muslims think the way the radicals do and actually resent the insinuation that they do. They also resent being treated as if they are simply terrorists who haven’t acted yet. If we would reach out to Muslims of good will and dialogue with them, perhaps bringing them over to a true understanding of Our Lord, then we need to avoid behaving in a way which causes scandal by leading them to think Christians hate them.

When it comes to seeking out the right policies to deal with terrorism and the right leaders to implement them, let us remember our duty as Christians to evangelize the whole world. Do our political beliefs drown out the message Jesus wants us to teach?

Reflections on an Anti-Catholic Attack

Introduction

Longtime readers should be aware of my favorite definition of truth and falsehood, according to Aristotle: To say of what is, that it is or to say of what it is not is to speak the truth. While that is not all there is to the concept of truth, it is an important point. We have to say what is true about a thing, whether we agree or disagree with a position. Otherwise, if we try to refute a position by speaking falsehood (saying of what is that it is not, or of what is not, that it is) about it, we prove absolutely nothing at all.

That means that in refuting something we should speak the truth about it, whether it is about Nazism, about Communism, about racism, about conservatism or liberalism. It applies to religions as well. If we are going to reject something as being wrong, we should do so by showing why the truth about it is repugnant, and not speak falsehoods about it to deceive people away from it.

Anti-Catholicism Does Not Speak The Truth

That is why I find religiously motivated anti-Catholicism to be so perplexing. Such individuals profess to believe in God and to follow the teachings of Christ—but have no qualms whatsoever about speaking falsely about the Catholic Church. Common tactics are misrepresenting teachings, misrepresenting history, misrepresenting Scripture and distorting the defenses of the Catholic faith. 

Now, it should be clear that if one believes that Catholicism is wrong and, out of a misguided sense of goodwill, wants to lead Catholics out of the Church, they should strive to understand what the Church actually believes on a subject and, with that accurate knowledge, investigate whether the Catholic belief contradicts the Scriptures in context. But that is precisely what is not being done.

Instead, the common tactic is to take a Catholic teaching that has been so frequently misrepresented that people no longer question whether the assertion is true. Then contrast that distorted teaching against a specially selected verse of Scripture. Then argue that the discrepancy shows that Catholicism is evil and must be opposed.

One Must Use Authoritative Sources When Investigating Something

If I were to write a paper on quantum physics, what would you want to know before accepting my conclusions? The first thing would be to determine whether my assertions and research were accurate. If I was uninformed about the topic or, if I was uninformed about the fundamentals, my conclusion wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. Any truth in the paper would be strictly coincidental, and not a reliable guide. So, when we want to learn the truth about something, we go to the sources that are authoritative. For example, we go to NASA and not to the National Enquirer when we want to learn accurately about what was discovered on Pluto. Likewise, we don't ask Planned Parenthood or NARAL to explain the reasons why people oppose abortion.

This logically follows in other areas as well. If one wants to refute Islam intelligently, one has to know what the Qur'an says. If one wants to intelligently refute Mormonism, one has to know what the Book of Mormon, Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price say—because the individual Muslim or Mormon is going to write you off as an idiot if it becomes apparent that you don't understand what they believe.

Likewise, when one wants to know what the Catholic Church believes, one doesn't go to an anti-Catholic site or an anti-Catholic theologian. One goes to an source which Catholics acknowledge as having the authority to say: "THIS is what we believe." In doing so, we have to interpret the source according to the intention of the authority—not what someone thinks it means based on their own (often uninformed) readings.

So, if one wants to know what the Church believes on a subject, one goes to a source which the Church has approved. For example, the Catechism of the Catholic Church. When one wants to know what the Pope meant in a soundbite, one goes to the Vatican website and gets the whole interview or address in context. One studies the Catholic faith to see whether the accusations made against her are accurate or not. They should NOT go to Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Spurgeon, Gerstner, Sproul or Barth. 

This is common sense. If a person relies on sources which are based in hostility, the first question to be asked is whether the hostility blinds the judgment or not. Remember, there are a lot of times people have misinterpreted another's intention and held a grudge which was based on a misunderstanding on the grounds that a person refused to believe goodwill on the part of that which he or she opposed.

One Must Consider the Agenda of Those Who Attack the Church

That must be remembered. When it comes to Catholicism, there is a lot of hostility from former members. At various times, groups have broken away from the Church. Such actions are based in opposition. Was the opposition justified? There is a lot of propaganda used to exaggerate the corruption in the Church to make it appear that the entire Church taught heresy and was out for malicious self-benefit. But often the people who made such claims had a vested interest in justifying their schism—they needed to make it look as if the Church was teaching falsely.

The problem is, when someone takes the worst possible elements about a person and exaggerates them, you can make anybody look bad—and some have gone so far as to try to slander Jesus Himself. So, we need to remember that we do not accept what a person says about their enemy simply on their own say-so (that's the ipse dixit logical fallacy). When one makes an accusation, proof is required.

But proof is not the same thing as assertion. Imagine a trial where all the evidence presented was only interpreted by the prosecutor. How likely is the accused to get a fair hearing? If you answered "not likely to be fair," you are correct. (if you answered "likely to be fair," perhaps you might prefer the legal systems of Iran or North Korea). So, when it comes to seeking to refute the Catholic Church and lead people out of her, the right way to do it is to study the Church teaching so that the evidence presented is evidence that the Catholic will say, "Yes, this is true." The wrong way to do it is to make claims which the informed Catholic will say "You are either deceived or lying."

And that's the thing about the Catholic faith. When one actually does the research and presents the truth about the Catholic faith, it cannot be refuted. One can honestly say "I disagree with the Church!" (there's a vulgar but accurate saying about opinions and posteriors which I won't repeat here), but one cannot honestly say "the Church is teaching error!"

Even the Devil Cites Scripture (Matthew 4:1-10)—So Check the Context

And that brings us to the next point. The whole attack on Catholicism from a Christian perspective depends on an individual interpretation of the Bible—generally from the assumption that Protestantism (in whatever form) is true—which requires us to ask "Why should we believe your interpretation of the Bible and not mine?" Remember, there are all sorts of ways to make a Bible verse fit whatever you want—look at the denominations that try to justify "Same sex marriage" for example.

So when an anti-Catholic tries to contrast Scripture with Catholic teaching, we have to ask:

• Have they properly understood the verse of Scripture?
• Have they properly understood the Catholic teaching?

Because the fact is, while the Bible is without error, that does not make the individual interpreter infallible—again, remember the denominations which justify "same sex marriage." If the Plain Sense of Scripture was so easy to find, then Lutherans and Zwinglians should have agreed on the meaning of the Eucharist, while the Presbyterians and Baptists should agree on the meaning of Baptism. The fact is, they don’t.

See, the Catholic accepts the authority of Scripture. That's a plain statement of fact. What the Catholic rejects is blindly accepting every personal interpretation that comes down the pike about what verses mean. If one wants to sling verses against the Church, expect us to take offense when those verses are taken out of context or are misapplied against the Church.

Conclusion

There is a whole raft of objections against the Church, and Catholics have been refuting these claims since the beginning of the Protestant schisms in the 16th century. Basically, it is a case of the same false accusations—that we worship Mary, statues, saints, the Pope—which Catholics emphatically reject as false. The attack is essentially the logical fallacy of begging the question. The opposition to Catholic practices have always depended on a misinformed understanding of what is actually being done and an overly literalistic interpretation of Scripture. 

The person of good will who thinks Catholicism is wrong and wants to “save” us from it has to recognize that God is truth and opposes lies. One who repeats falsehood is either deceiving or deceived, depending on whether the person knows the claim is false or whether the person never bothered to investigate the truth of the accusation. Since every person has the obligation to speak truthfully, the person of good will has to stop repeating false claims about the Church. This applies to false history and misrepresentations of history. 

God forbade false witness, and when one feels the need to speak against something, they have the obligation to seek the truth first, because even when acting out of ignorance, slander/libel does bear that false witness. It stands to reason that if we love God, we will seek to live in a way pleasing to Him, and that means not speaking falsely.

Postscript for Catholics

One of our responsibilities in defending the faith against those who attack it is not to automatically accept what those who attack the Church claim. Many anti-Catholics sound quite confident when they say that what we believe contradicts the Bible, but their confidence relies on believing certain stock phrases are true. We have the obligation to learn our beliefs—not just what we believe, but why we believe it. When we understand these things, we will not be led astray by spurious arguments that depend Catholics being ignorant about what they believe. Remember, to pray and to study

"...To Which All Are Compelled To Assent..."

(See: Failing to Make the Moral Case for Marriage | Catholic World Report - Global Church news and views)

It has been a common tactic by those dissatisfied with how the bishops are handling the case of the judicial diktats against our religious obligations is to accuse them of retreating from the moral teaching of the Church to the issue of religious freedom. The argument basically runs along the line of saying that the point of religious freedom has failed so far to persuade people and uses the hypothesis contrary to fact to claim that things would be different if the bishops would just make their case to the morality of the issue.

I think that such an argument, while it recognizes that we need to keep in mind the big picture of the culture war we are in, tends to miss the point about the current battle we are in, assuming a “one size fits all” approach to our opponents. The problem is, as I see it, we are facing an opponent who believes that our moral beliefs are rooted in ignorance and intolerance. In other words, they believe our religious beliefs themselves are “immoral.” As a result, they will not listen to explanations about why certain actions are always wrong—if we don’t share their views, we are just seen as trying to “explain away our bigotry."

St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summa Contra Gentiles, wrote about the problem of disputing with groups who reject our sources of authority for assessing the truth, pointing out that we need to start by appealing to where we agree:

it is difficult to refute the errors of each individual, for two reasons. First, because the sacrilegious assertions of each erring individual are not so well known to us, that we are able from what they say to find arguments to refute their errors. For the Doctors of old used this method in order to confute the errors of the heathens, whose opinions they were able to know, since either they had been heathens themselves, or had lived among heathens and were conversant with their teachings. Secondly, because some of them, like the Mohammedans and pagans, do not agree with us as to the authority of any Scripture whereby they may be convinced, in the same way as we are able to dispute with the Jews by means of the Old Testament, and with heretics by means of the New: whereas the former accept neither. Wherefore it is necessary to have recourse to natural reason, to which all are compelled to assent. And yet this is deficient in the things of God. [Sum. Cont. Gent. 1.2]

We are dealing with a Court of Law which seems bent on denying that laws based on the Judaeo-Christian moral beliefs have any constitutional standing—and therefore such laws affirming the nature of marriage as between one man and one woman are considered a violation of the so-called “separation of church and state.” Under such (spurious) principles, government employees and business owners are denied the right to refuse to do what is contrary to their moral obligations in the eyes of God.

So, we have to start with a common reference. Because the Constitution is being held up as the standard to which these attacks are being made. The argument is that laws against “same sex marriage” violate the rights of a segment of the population, so that is where this particular battle has begun, and we have to address the attacks being made there. It does make sense to appeal to the people of good will who may not recognize the truth about sexual morality but do want to seek the right thing. Of course, we cannot stop there. We have to show why our teachings are true. But first we have to get them to listen.

St. Justin Martyr recognized this concept when he wrote his First Apology. In writing to the Emperor, he started by appealing to the shared value between Christianity and the Stoics—justice and doing right:

Reason directs those who are truly pious and philosophical to honour and love only what is true, declining to follow traditional opinions, if these be worthless. For not only does sound reason direct us to refuse the guidance of those who did or taught anything wrong, but it is incumbent on the lover of truth, by all means, and if death be threatened, even before his own life, to choose to do and say what is right. Do you, then, since ye are called pious and philosophers, guardians of justice and lovers of learning, give good heed, and hearken to my address; and if ye are indeed such, it will be manifested. For we have come, not to flatter you by this writing, nor please you by our address, but to beg that you pass judgment, after an accurate and searching investigation, not flattered by prejudice or by a desire of pleasing superstitious men, nor induced by irrational impulse or evil rumours which have long been prevalent, to give a decision which will prove to be against yourselves. For as for us, we reckon that no evil can be done us, unless we be convicted as evil-doers, or be proved to be wicked men; and you, you can kill, but not hurt us.

 

[Justin Martyr, “The First Apology of Justin” Chapter II, in The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 1, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1885), 163.]

However, just because we have to start there, in this battle, does not mean we have to remain there. St. Justin Martyr started his defense of Christianity by pointing out that justice forbids punishing a man just because he is a Christian, pointing out that punishment must only be meted out for the wrongdoing. He establishes this point before attempting to show the righteousness of the Christian faith. He knows that Christianity, as a persecuted religion, has no standing in the eyes of the rulers of the empire. 

I think it is safe to say that in the eyes of lawmakers and judges, Christianity has no standing, and its teachings—or, rather, the misinterpretations of Christian teachings—are seen as repugnant. So, we must start with the values they claim to recognize (in this case, the Constitution) and show that the actions they are taking go against these values. St. Justin Martyr would point out that if those who he addressed refused to do what was just, they would betray what they stand for. Ultimately, that is what we must do when those in authority are hostile to us. We must point out that if they truly value the Constitution, they must respect it when it comes to the freedom of religion, and not treat our religious obligations as contrary to the Constitution.

As St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out when it came to using reason, this is deficient in the things of God. Likewise, merely reaching out to them at the level of the Constitution is deficient. We do need to go beyond the issue of the Constitution when it comes to preaching the Gospel and explaining why we must avoid certain acts. The Church does do this. But I think that the people who charge that the bishops are “retreating,” need to realize that those who refuse to listen to our teachings must be reached out to in ways where they might listen.

If they don’t (and it happens—there’s a reason that we refer to St. Justin as “St. Justin Martyr”), then it means we will have the harder task of evangelizing under a soft persecution, where the courts and lawmakers determine that they can set aside their laws arbitrarily. But, we certainly should reach out to people of good will beginning with the grounds they have in common with us. If we don’t, then we will be retreating.

A Question Concerning Fears About Pastoral Practice After the Synod

A friend of mine had a question about the concerns of the synod that doesn’t deal with the doubting of Christ protecting the Church. That’s fair enough. I have a tendency to deal mostly with the doctrine, but there is always the concern about how the Church teaching gets applied in the parish.

He says:

There are those—and I sometimes feel this way—who know that the Synod will not change doctrine but worry that there will be pastoral changes which involve watering down the way that the faith is taught and approving pastoral approaches which are harmful . . . . So it's not the doctrinal changes which concern people like me, it is how we go about conducting the day to day pastoral life of the Church.

We do need to remember that it is too early to assess what the pastoral changes may be. Why? Because this extraordinary synod is actually to prepare a relatio [the basis of what is actually going to be discussed] for the ordinary synod in 2015.  But I do understand the concern. After all, we have had problems in the past, and I am sure the people my friend refers to want to avoid a return to the period of rebellion and confusion.

Why This is a Concern

For those too young to remember, the Church had a demoralizing situation with the rebellion of some clergy and laity after Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. The rejection of authority, civil and religious, had effects on an entire generation. Popes Paul VI, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have had to fight this, and it seems like we are only now recovering (though some believe we are still going through it). I’m old enough to remember liturgical abuses like songs from Barry Manilow and Jesus Christ Superstar used as “hymns” in the 1970s, and I remember the “Spirit of Vatican II” school of thought from the sisters who ran the college I attended from 1989-1992, which held that the only people who didn’t get Vatican II were the members of the Magisterium who happened to be there at the Council. It felt like the spiritual anarchists were running rampant. We don’t want to have to deal with that again.

Of course we need to distinguish what is caused by the practice as established by the Church and what is caused by disobedience. The two are not the same. We had a generation of people from the “Spirit of Vatican II” (AKA: the Make up whatever the hell you want school of thought) who claimed to know what Vatican II “intended” even though it had nothing to do with (and usually contradicted) the actual words of Vatican II and the interpretation given by Popes who actually attended.

So What is Pastoral Practice?

So we have a distinction to make. What do we mean by pastoral practice? The term is not a formal Church term, but when used in Church documents, the general sense is the way Church teaching is carried out, whether it is the way the Church intends it to be carried out or whether it is an abuse practiced in a region. The term is equivocal (open to more than one interpretation) and we need to recognize that fact.

Do we mean what the Church says we must do? Do we mean guidelines open to personal interpretation? Or do we mean spiritual anarchy caused by the “make up whatever the hell you want” school of thought? These are different things, and the role of the Church is different in each case. Before we can say the pastoral practices of the 2015 Ordinary Synod (this extraordinary synod is preparation, remember) might be harmful, we need to consider what the teaching authority of the Church can do vs. what  a member of the Church may decide to do.

Remember, all of us are sinners and all of us have free will. None of us are impeccable. We can choose to what is wrong in spite of what the Church says we must do. Or, in other words, the Church can tell us what we need to do to be faithful to Christ, but she can’t force anyone to choose it. All she can do is try to correct, and seek better ways to communicate. 

But First, A Fallacy Warning

An important fallacy to avoid here is the post hoc fallacy. This fallacy looks at two events that happen in sequence and presume the first event was the cause of the second. Sometimes it turns out to be the case, but not always. One has to look at the events to see if there are links between them. Sometimes, there isn’t. For example, take this bit from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn:

A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his TOE.' Would ther' be any sense in that? NO. (Chapter 28).

That’s an exaggerated example, but people make this mistake a lot. One example in the Church is the association of Vatican II with the rejection of Church authority. Many people opposed to this council note that the Second Vatican Council ran from 1962-1965 and called for changes in some things that were seen as distracting. They also note that in the late 1960s we had many acts of rebellion against the Church.

The problem with the assertion is we know that this rebellion did not only affect Catholic countries. It also affected Protestant and even non-Christian nations, and was not solely a rejection of religion. It also rejected civil authority. So to say that Vatican II caused the Catholic dissent is an example of the post hoc fallacy—there are too many reasons outside of the reach of the authority of the Council that can better explain this rejection of authority. You might as well say that the Lateran V Council (1512-1517) caused the revolt of Martin Luther and others beginning October 31st 1517.

So the point to remember is, a sequence of events do not show relation. It may be a coincidence or there may be a connection . . . you have to research the link before you can say there is cause and effect.

Now that we are aware of this, let’s keep in mind when considering the different meanings of “pastoral practice."

Pastoral Practice In the Sense of What the Church Mandates

I have found that when the writings of the Church are actually read, they are pretty level headed. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent do not come across as draconian, and the decrees of Vatican II do not come across as Hippy-Dip. They recognize the importance of following Christ and recognize the fallen nature of humanity and the tendency to sin. The difference of language between the documents of the Council of Trent and Vatican II is that they were addressing Catholics of different eras where the political and social conditions were very different. Both attempted to explain the faith to people where they were at.

I expect this extraordinary synod and the 2015 ordinary synod will attempt to do the same thing. After the sexual revolution in the world and a period of widespread dissent in the Church, there are a lot of people who never learned to distinguish doing what is right from “you have to follow the rules or else.” The Church has to reach out to them in their ignorance or defiance (whatever the case may be) to show the truth.

There can be some legitimate differences of opinion on the best way to carry out the teachings of the Church. That’s not sinful—provided that people recognize that it is the Magisterium that has the responsibility and authority to judge what is legitimate and what is not. There were members of the Church who would have preferred that the changes to the Order of the Mass in 1970 would have been handled differently. So long as they recognize that it is the Magisterium that has the responsibility for making that decision and respect the decision made, that is fine. If the Church decided to reverse herself and go back to the missal of 1962, I’d be in the same boat they are in now, and I hope I would practice what I preach and follow.

I think that pastoral practices in this sense will reflect doctrinal norms. For example, with the fear/hope over admitting the divorced and (invalidly) remarried to the Eucharist, the result must reflect the doctrinal norms because we know Christ called this adultery (see Matt 19:4-9) and we know we cannot present ourselves to the Eucharist in a state of grave sin (see 1 Cor 11:27). So we can be sure that whatever pastoral practices the Church adopts will reflect doctrinal teachings. Any person who presents a claim that pastoral practice permits something that goes against doctrinal teaching—as taught by the Magisterium, not as the radical traditionalist claims—is exposed as a fraud.

Pastoral Practice in the Sense of Guidelines We Have to Interpret

There are times where we have to apply the Church teaching to our lives in a way where the Church decrees a pastoral practice and the person has to assess how to apply it to their life. The Church does not plop down a 3000 page compendium where you look up your specific case and see what you can do. No, she exhorts the faithful to behave in line with the teachings of the Church and permits us to assess how to apply the Church teaching to our lives. The effectiveness of these teachings do depend on how well the teaching is expressed of course, but another part of it is how honestly the member of the faithful applies the teaching. If the Church teaching is not easily understood, then people may accidentally run afoul of it. If it isn’t precise, people may not know where to turn in difficult cases. Try looking up Probabilism in the 1913 Catholic Dictionary for examples of different schools of thought (some accepted by the Church, and others rejected). We don’t want to make situations where the faithful feel damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

But we do have to remember that when the Church exhorts us to live in a certain way, we do have to use our judgment and form our conscience in line with the teaching of the Church. In other words, we also have the responsibility to seek out and do what is right. So let’s look at one of the cases where people seem to be most concerned with what was cited from the synod. The case of a couple from Australia who alarmed people when they spoke about welcoming the partner of a son with same sex attraction home for Christmas.

Now, the mainstream media seems to understand it that everything mentioned is enshrined as doctrine, but that isn’t the case. what it boils down to is that this couple spoke about issues concerning them . . . how do we deal with such situations? The point of the extraordinary synod is to take their shared experiences and break them down into the relatio saying “we need to address these issues.” Cardinal Burke gave an insightful breakdown of how the Church needs to consider what they said.

In light of the concerns about the pastoral practices emerging from the synod, I imagine the synod will be looking into how one can balance the loving your family members who choose to sin while not being forced to choose between alienating the family member or appearing to tolerate that which is evil. I think that is a good thing to explore. I personally have to ask myself, “Am I coming across like a jerk?” "Am I giving the impression of indifference if I don’t speak?"

But i imagine some people will be (and some on both sides already are) misinterpreting the synod discussions as giving sanction to relationships the Church must call a sin. If the Church expresses herself clearly, she cannot be blamed for the people who misinterpret it because they never bothered to learn what the Church required.

That’s our job, by the way, to pray that the synod fathers will be guided to express the Church teaching in a clear manner to help the person of good conscience.

But “good conscience” is the key. Conscience has to be informed. It can err, if it is not informed. And if the person cares little about informing the conscience, the chances are they will habitually choose what is pleasant over what is right.

As the Vatican II Document Gaudium et Spes (#16) puts it:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

The Church does tend to be very clear. But this type of Pastoral Practice relies on the member of the faithful seeking out God’s will, not being the hair splitter by playing the rules to maximum advantage or minimum disadvantage. If one acts in bad faith, the Pastoral Practice will not be effective . . . if you police yourself, it’s easy to become a corrupt cop when your obligation tells you that you must do something other than what you want to do.

Pastoral Practice Twisted Into Spiritual Anarchy

That leads us to the third case to consider—the case of someone choosing to interpret the Church teaching in such a way to justify their behavior even though the behavior cannot be justified in the eyes of the Church. While it is fading as the rebels of the 1960s get older, for quite awhile we had all sorts of distortions of Church teaching through the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” that claimed to know what the Council intended to say despite the fact that the documents themselves and the members of the Magisterium who actually participated in the Council opposed.

I have seen the Church teaching on “double effect” twisted by people to try to justify abortion—even though abortion is considered a direct evil that one cannot deliberately choose (Double Effect says the bad effect cannot be deliberately chosen and cannot outweigh the desired good effect). I have seen the Church teaching on Natural Family Planning distorted into claiming it was not a sin to use contraceptives—entirely contrary to Church teaching.

A dishonest person can justify anything they want to simply by ignoring the facts that stand in opposition to their position. You can try to contrast the Church as being in opposition to Christ. You can say that if the Church really understood the issue, she wouldn’t have taught what she did. I’ve seen these arguments constantly used. They lack only one thing . . . authority that permits them to do it. The Church has never recognized the view that one may choose, without sin, to do what the Church forbids. In fact, not only has the Church never taught it, Christ Himself does not recognize it:

John 20:23 tells us, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Matthew 16:19 tells us that Jesus said to Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:17-18 has Jesus confirming this authority to the Church, saying, "If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Eventually, people will get to the Final Judgment and be asked by Our Lord, “Why did you think I did not mean what I said?"

The point is, the Church is not to blame for people disobeying the teachings she lays down. As St. Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 4:3-4):

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

Our Lord Himself, in Matthew 24:11-13, tells us that:

Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

All she can do is teach, and offer correction when people go astray.

Conclusion 

When it comes to the pastoral care that comes about by the teaching of the Church after the synods, we cannot just assume that any bad behavior is the fault of the Church. It is only the fault of the Church when she formally teaches something that can be reasonably misinterpreted by someone who makes their best effort to live according to what the Church teaches we must do.

But if the person never bothers to find out what they are called to do, or chooses to make excuses for what he or she knows is disobedience, the fault is not the fault of the Church. It is the fault of the person who willfully disobeys or refuses to seek out the truth, preferring to remain in ignorance rather than risk having to alter their behavior.

I don’t believe we’ll see bad pastoral practices caused by the synod teaching (remember the earlier warning about the post hoc fallacy here!) because even aside from the fact that Jesus Christ protects His Church from error, I believe we have a Pope and bishops who are concerned with doing what is right and concerned for the welfare of the faithful. They will do their best, cooperating with God’s grace, to teach as effectively as they are able to do.

Will we?

A Question Concerning Fears About Pastoral Practice After the Synod

A friend of mine had a question about the concerns of the synod that doesn’t deal with the doubting of Christ protecting the Church. That’s fair enough. I have a tendency to deal mostly with the doctrine, but there is always the concern about how the Church teaching gets applied in the parish.

He says:

There are those—and I sometimes feel this way—who know that the Synod will not change doctrine but worry that there will be pastoral changes which involve watering down the way that the faith is taught and approving pastoral approaches which are harmful . . . . So it's not the doctrinal changes which concern people like me, it is how we go about conducting the day to day pastoral life of the Church.

We do need to remember that it is too early to assess what the pastoral changes may be. Why? Because this extraordinary synod is actually to prepare a relatio [the basis of what is actually going to be discussed] for the ordinary synod in 2015.  But I do understand the concern. After all, we have had problems in the past, and I am sure the people my friend refers to want to avoid a return to the period of rebellion and confusion.

Why This is a Concern

For those too young to remember, the Church had a demoralizing situation with the rebellion of some clergy and laity after Humanae Vitae was published in 1968. The rejection of authority, civil and religious, had effects on an entire generation. Popes Paul VI, St. John Paul II and Benedict XVI have had to fight this, and it seems like we are only now recovering (though some believe we are still going through it). I’m old enough to remember liturgical abuses like songs from Barry Manilow and Jesus Christ Superstar used as “hymns” in the 1970s, and I remember the “Spirit of Vatican II” school of thought from the sisters who ran the college I attended from 1989-1992, which held that the only people who didn’t get Vatican II were the members of the Magisterium who happened to be there at the Council. It felt like the spiritual anarchists were running rampant. We don’t want to have to deal with that again.

Of course we need to distinguish what is caused by the practice as established by the Church and what is caused by disobedience. The two are not the same. We had a generation of people from the “Spirit of Vatican II” (AKA: the Make up whatever the hell you want school of thought) who claimed to know what Vatican II “intended” even though it had nothing to do with (and usually contradicted) the actual words of Vatican II and the interpretation given by Popes who actually attended.

So What is Pastoral Practice?

So we have a distinction to make. What do we mean by pastoral practice? The term is not a formal Church term, but when used in Church documents, the general sense is the way Church teaching is carried out, whether it is the way the Church intends it to be carried out or whether it is an abuse practiced in a region. The term is equivocal (open to more than one interpretation) and we need to recognize that fact.

Do we mean what the Church says we must do? Do we mean guidelines open to personal interpretation? Or do we mean spiritual anarchy caused by the “make up whatever the hell you want” school of thought? These are different things, and the role of the Church is different in each case. Before we can say the pastoral practices of the 2015 Ordinary Synod (this extraordinary synod is preparation, remember) might be harmful, we need to consider what the teaching authority of the Church can do vs. what  a member of the Church may decide to do.

Remember, all of us are sinners and all of us have free will. None of us are impeccable. We can choose to what is wrong in spite of what the Church says we must do. Or, in other words, the Church can tell us what we need to do to be faithful to Christ, but she can’t force anyone to choose it. All she can do is try to correct, and seek better ways to communicate. 

But First, A Fallacy Warning

An important fallacy to avoid here is the post hoc fallacy. This fallacy looks at two events that happen in sequence and presume the first event was the cause of the second. Sometimes it turns out to be the case, but not always. One has to look at the events to see if there are links between them. Sometimes, there isn’t. For example, take this bit from Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn:

A body might stump his toe, and take pison, and fall down the well, and break his neck, and bust his brains out, and somebody come along and ask what killed him, and some numskull up and say, 'Why, he stumped his TOE.' Would ther' be any sense in that? NO. (Chapter 28).

That’s an exaggerated example, but people make this mistake a lot. One example in the Church is the association of Vatican II with the rejection of Church authority. Many people opposed to this council note that the Second Vatican Council ran from 1962-1965 and called for changes in some things that were seen as distracting. They also note that in the late 1960s we had many acts of rebellion against the Church.

The problem with the assertion is we know that this rebellion did not only affect Catholic countries. It also affected Protestant and even non-Christian nations, and was not solely a rejection of religion. It also rejected civil authority. So to say that Vatican II caused the Catholic dissent is an example of the post hoc fallacy—there are too many reasons outside of the reach of the authority of the Council that can better explain this rejection of authority. You might as well say that the Lateran V Council (1512-1517) caused the revolt of Martin Luther and others beginning October 31st 1517.

So the point to remember is, a sequence of events do not show relation. It may be a coincidence or there may be a connection . . . you have to research the link before you can say there is cause and effect.

Now that we are aware of this, let’s keep in mind when considering the different meanings of “pastoral practice."

Pastoral Practice In the Sense of What the Church Mandates

I have found that when the writings of the Church are actually read, they are pretty level headed. The Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent do not come across as draconian, and the decrees of Vatican II do not come across as Hippy-Dip. They recognize the importance of following Christ and recognize the fallen nature of humanity and the tendency to sin. The difference of language between the documents of the Council of Trent and Vatican II is that they were addressing Catholics of different eras where the political and social conditions were very different. Both attempted to explain the faith to people where they were at.

I expect this extraordinary synod and the 2015 ordinary synod will attempt to do the same thing. After the sexual revolution in the world and a period of widespread dissent in the Church, there are a lot of people who never learned to distinguish doing what is right from “you have to follow the rules or else.” The Church has to reach out to them in their ignorance or defiance (whatever the case may be) to show the truth.

There can be some legitimate differences of opinion on the best way to carry out the teachings of the Church. That’s not sinful—provided that people recognize that it is the Magisterium that has the responsibility and authority to judge what is legitimate and what is not. There were members of the Church who would have preferred that the changes to the Order of the Mass in 1970 would have been handled differently. So long as they recognize that it is the Magisterium that has the responsibility for making that decision and respect the decision made, that is fine. If the Church decided to reverse herself and go back to the missal of 1962, I’d be in the same boat they are in now, and I hope I would practice what I preach and follow.

I think that pastoral practices in this sense will reflect doctrinal norms. For example, with the fear/hope over admitting the divorced and (invalidly) remarried to the Eucharist, the result must reflect the doctrinal norms because we know Christ called this adultery (see Matt 19:4-9) and we know we cannot present ourselves to the Eucharist in a state of grave sin (see 1 Cor 11:27). So we can be sure that whatever pastoral practices the Church adopts will reflect doctrinal teachings. Any person who presents a claim that pastoral practice permits something that goes against doctrinal teaching—as taught by the Magisterium, not as the radical traditionalist claims—is exposed as a fraud.

Pastoral Practice in the Sense of Guidelines We Have to Interpret

There are times where we have to apply the Church teaching to our lives in a way where the Church decrees a pastoral practice and the person has to assess how to apply it to their life. The Church does not plop down a 3000 page compendium where you look up your specific case and see what you can do. No, she exhorts the faithful to behave in line with the teachings of the Church and permits us to assess how to apply the Church teaching to our lives. The effectiveness of these teachings do depend on how well the teaching is expressed of course, but another part of it is how honestly the member of the faithful applies the teaching. If the Church teaching is not easily understood, then people may accidentally run afoul of it. If it isn’t precise, people may not know where to turn in difficult cases. Try looking up Probabilism in the 1913 Catholic Dictionary for examples of different schools of thought (some accepted by the Church, and others rejected). We don’t want to make situations where the faithful feel damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

But we do have to remember that when the Church exhorts us to live in a certain way, we do have to use our judgment and form our conscience in line with the teaching of the Church. In other words, we also have the responsibility to seek out and do what is right. So let’s look at one of the cases where people seem to be most concerned with what was cited from the synod. The case of a couple from Australia who alarmed people when they spoke about welcoming the partner of a son with same sex attraction home for Christmas.

Now, the mainstream media seems to understand it that everything mentioned is enshrined as doctrine, but that isn’t the case. what it boils down to is that this couple spoke about issues concerning them . . . how do we deal with such situations? The point of the extraordinary synod is to take their shared experiences and break them down into the relatio saying “we need to address these issues.” Cardinal Burke gave an insightful breakdown of how the Church needs to consider what they said.

In light of the concerns about the pastoral practices emerging from the synod, I imagine the synod will be looking into how one can balance the loving your family members who choose to sin while not being forced to choose between alienating the family member or appearing to tolerate that which is evil. I think that is a good thing to explore. I personally have to ask myself, “Am I coming across like a jerk?” "Am I giving the impression of indifference if I don’t speak?"

But i imagine some people will be (and some on both sides already are) misinterpreting the synod discussions as giving sanction to relationships the Church must call a sin. If the Church expresses herself clearly, she cannot be blamed for the people who misinterpret it because they never bothered to learn what the Church required.

That’s our job, by the way, to pray that the synod fathers will be guided to express the Church teaching in a clear manner to help the person of good conscience.

But “good conscience” is the key. Conscience has to be informed. It can err, if it is not informed. And if the person cares little about informing the conscience, the chances are they will habitually choose what is pleasant over what is right.

As the Vatican II Document Gaudium et Spes (#16) puts it:

Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.

The Church does tend to be very clear. But this type of Pastoral Practice relies on the member of the faithful seeking out God’s will, not being the hair splitter by playing the rules to maximum advantage or minimum disadvantage. If one acts in bad faith, the Pastoral Practice will not be effective . . . if you police yourself, it’s easy to become a corrupt cop when your obligation tells you that you must do something other than what you want to do.

Pastoral Practice Twisted Into Spiritual Anarchy

That leads us to the third case to consider—the case of someone choosing to interpret the Church teaching in such a way to justify their behavior even though the behavior cannot be justified in the eyes of the Church. While it is fading as the rebels of the 1960s get older, for quite awhile we had all sorts of distortions of Church teaching through the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II” that claimed to know what the Council intended to say despite the fact that the documents themselves and the members of the Magisterium who actually participated in the Council opposed.

I have seen the Church teaching on “double effect” twisted by people to try to justify abortion—even though abortion is considered a direct evil that one cannot deliberately choose (Double Effect says the bad effect cannot be deliberately chosen and cannot outweigh the desired good effect). I have seen the Church teaching on Natural Family Planning distorted into claiming it was not a sin to use contraceptives—entirely contrary to Church teaching.

A dishonest person can justify anything they want to simply by ignoring the facts that stand in opposition to their position. You can try to contrast the Church as being in opposition to Christ. You can say that if the Church really understood the issue, she wouldn’t have taught what she did. I’ve seen these arguments constantly used. They lack only one thing . . . authority that permits them to do it. The Church has never recognized the view that one may choose, without sin, to do what the Church forbids. In fact, not only has the Church never taught it, Christ Himself does not recognize it:

John 20:23 tells us, "Whose sins you forgive are forgiven them, and whose sins you retain are retained.”

Matthew 16:19 tells us that Jesus said to Peter, "I will give you the keys to the kingdom of heaven. Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

Matthew 18:17-18 has Jesus confirming this authority to the Church, saying, "If he refuses to listen even to the church, then treat him as you would a Gentile or a tax collector. Amen, I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven."

Eventually, people will get to the Final Judgment and be asked by Our Lord, “Why did you think I did not mean what I said?"

The point is, the Church is not to blame for people disobeying the teachings she lays down. As St. Paul tells Timothy (2 Tim 4:3-4):

For the time will come when people will not tolerate sound doctrine but, following their own desires and insatiable curiosity, will accumulate teachers and will stop listening to the truth and will be diverted to myths.

Our Lord Himself, in Matthew 24:11-13, tells us that:

Many false prophets will arise and deceive many; and because of the increase of evildoing, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who perseveres to the end will be saved.

All she can do is teach, and offer correction when people go astray.

Conclusion 

When it comes to the pastoral care that comes about by the teaching of the Church after the synods, we cannot just assume that any bad behavior is the fault of the Church. It is only the fault of the Church when she formally teaches something that can be reasonably misinterpreted by someone who makes their best effort to live according to what the Church teaches we must do.

But if the person never bothers to find out what they are called to do, or chooses to make excuses for what he or she knows is disobedience, the fault is not the fault of the Church. It is the fault of the person who willfully disobeys or refuses to seek out the truth, preferring to remain in ignorance rather than risk having to alter their behavior.

I don’t believe we’ll see bad pastoral practices caused by the synod teaching (remember the earlier warning about the post hoc fallacy here!) because even aside from the fact that Jesus Christ protects His Church from error, I believe we have a Pope and bishops who are concerned with doing what is right and concerned for the welfare of the faithful. They will do their best, cooperating with God’s grace, to teach as effectively as they are able to do.

Will we?

Fallacious Thinking on Religious Indifferentism

I came across a claim on a gaming forum this morning. Basically the context is the poster was making a statement that there are no absolute values, and that all religious values are equally valid or invalid. This claim said there were no more or less value to the "myths" of traditional religion than there were to his/her own. Ordinarily, I would write it off as a fallacy not worth bothering with, but the truth is, many people do think this way.

The basic view of indifferentism that is expressed today is given in two views:

1. So long as you're trying to do good, what you believe doesn't matter.
2. There's no more proof for the belief in God than for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Both of these views start with the same fallacy: Begging the Question, which assumes to be proved true that which actually needs to be proven. So if a person wants to claim that Christianity is no more or no less valid than Pastafarianism or other belief, that's not something that is already proved. That's something that needs to be proven before they can move on to making their conclusion.

See, a person who thinks that all religions are manmade constructs or a person who thinks that all religions that make you feel good are good enough doesn't answer the question of how they know their belief. How does the person who thinks all religions are a construct of human beings know that none of them have any supernatural basis? They don't. They are making an assumption that no religion can have a supernatural basis.

Likewise, the person who thinks it doesn't matter what religion a person holds as long as the religion makes a person happy. If God exists, then if He establishes a way to follow Him, then it matters very much whether or not one follows that way.

Unfortunately many people make a decision on the universal validity or invalidity of religion based on their perception of what suits their worldview. The atheist presupposes that no religion can be true. The religiously indifferent presupposes that religion is nothing more than "being nice to each other." What is not asked is: What if my presupposition isn't true?

A few months ago I wrote on Pascal's Wager. I think it makes sense that people of good will consider the consequences of backing the wrong horse when it comes to seeking to follow the truth. If atheism is irrelevant if true and dangerous if false, then it makes a lot more sense to investigate the claims of religion to see if they are true then it does to investigate the claims of atheism.

The person of good will can't just stop in thinking "this is close enough." The search for truth is ongoing . . . eliminating false ideas, going deeper into true ones and trying to live by the truth. The person who holds to a worldview should consider why he or she holds that worldview . . . even the Christian. If God exists, and is not some indifferent architect, then what one does in relation to Him does matter.

That's why we can't presume that God does not exist or is indifferent and we can stop searching for the truth.

Fallacious Thinking on Religious Indifferentism

I came across a claim on a gaming forum this morning. Basically the context is the poster was making a statement that there are no absolute values, and that all religious values are equally valid or invalid. This claim said there were no more or less value to the "myths" of traditional religion than there were to his/her own. Ordinarily, I would write it off as a fallacy not worth bothering with, but the truth is, many people do think this way.

The basic view of indifferentism that is expressed today is given in two views:

1. So long as you're trying to do good, what you believe doesn't matter.
2. There's no more proof for the belief in God than for the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Both of these views start with the same fallacy: Begging the Question, which assumes to be proved true that which actually needs to be proven. So if a person wants to claim that Christianity is no more or no less valid than Pastafarianism or other belief, that's not something that is already proved. That's something that needs to be proven before they can move on to making their conclusion.

See, a person who thinks that all religions are manmade constructs or a person who thinks that all religions that make you feel good are good enough doesn't answer the question of how they know their belief. How does the person who thinks all religions are a construct of human beings know that none of them have any supernatural basis? They don't. They are making an assumption that no religion can have a supernatural basis.

Likewise, the person who thinks it doesn't matter what religion a person holds as long as the religion makes a person happy. If God exists, then if He establishes a way to follow Him, then it matters very much whether or not one follows that way.

Unfortunately many people make a decision on the universal validity or invalidity of religion based on their perception of what suits their worldview. The atheist presupposes that no religion can be true. The religiously indifferent presupposes that religion is nothing more than "being nice to each other." What is not asked is: What if my presupposition isn't true?

A few months ago I wrote on Pascal's Wager. I think it makes sense that people of good will consider the consequences of backing the wrong horse when it comes to seeking to follow the truth. If atheism is irrelevant if true and dangerous if false, then it makes a lot more sense to investigate the claims of religion to see if they are true then it does to investigate the claims of atheism.

The person of good will can't just stop in thinking "this is close enough." The search for truth is ongoing . . . eliminating false ideas, going deeper into true ones and trying to live by the truth. The person who holds to a worldview should consider why he or she holds that worldview . . . even the Christian. If God exists, and is not some indifferent architect, then what one does in relation to Him does matter.

That's why we can't presume that God does not exist or is indifferent and we can stop searching for the truth.

The Catholic Church, Politics and Logical Fallacies In America

Read more »

The Catholic Church, Politics and Logical Fallacies In America

Read more »