Truth, Whether Convenient or Not

Read more »

Unfounded Suspicions Treated As Fact

Read more »

Love and Truth Will Meet—and Apparently Say "See Ya"

¹¹ Love and truth will meet; 

justice and peace will kiss. 

¹² Truth will spring from the earth; 

justice will look down from heaven. (Psalm 85:11–12).

Introduction

There’s an ugly battle flaming up between Catholics when it comes to the Orlando mass shooting. it’s a battle over how to address the people who have a same sex attraction when it comes to condolences. Are they a community? Or are they not? The dispute is over whether one should send condolences to the “LGBT community” or whether that would look like an endorsement of sinful acts. This seems like something which they can resolve charitably. Unfortunately, it’s gotten to the point where the two sides are practically throwing anathemas at each other, assuming the other side is guilty of bad will or even malice.

Setting Up the Situation

To sum up the two positions briefly (and hopefully, fairly):

1. Those who think we should use term “LGBT community” say this is no different than referring to “the black community” or the “Jewish community,” and nobody should take offense or think this is an endorsement of sinful behavior.
2. Those who oppose the use say that grouping people by their inclination or behavior is not the same as real ethnic or religious communities, but instead equates people with their behavior. Also, given the tendency of the media to present such things as “CHURCH TO CHANGE TEACHING” headlines, it does matter whether or not Catholics use this term.

So the question is over whether calling people with a disordered attraction a community is in keeping with the command to love the sinner and speaking against the sin.

There’s no official teaching on the proper form here. The official statement from the Holy See said:

The terrible massacre that has taken place in Orlando, with its dreadfully high number of innocent victims, has caused in Pope Francis, and in all of us, the deepest feelings of horror and condemnation, of pain and turmoil before this new manifestation of homicidal folly and senseless hatred. Pope Francis joins the families of the victims and all of the injured in prayer and in compassion. Sharing in their indescribable suffering he entrusts them to the Lord so they may find comfort. We all hope that ways may be found, as soon as possible, to effectively identify and contrast the causes of such terrible and absurd violence which so deeply upsets the desire for peace of the American people and of the whole of humanity.

The Pope did not use the term, but there’s no doubt he was clear in condemning an evil act and showing love and compassion for victims and their families. So, unless wants to condemn the Pope, there is nothing wrong with avoiding the term. On the other hand, some bishops did use the term in sending condolences and Catholics dispute whether this was right.

Here’s the Problem

The problem with this debate is many debaters are openly insulting of the other side, accusing them of being bad Catholics. Hotheads among Catholics who support using the term “LGBT community” accuse those who don’t like it of bigotry and a lack of compassion for the victims and their families. Hotheads among Catholics opposed to the term accuse those who do use it of heresy and sending a false message to the world. Neither side is free of inflammatory rhetoric (So don’t go pointing fingers at the other side).

But people are assuming that a dispute proves a lack of love or a neglect of truth. Yes, we want to show compassion to the victims and their families. Yes, we want to condemn the mass shooting as something evil regardless of how the victims lived. But we also must make clear (where fitting) that our moral beliefs are not going to change because of the evil some do.

So, we have an obligation. Before we condemn a Catholic for being heretical or hateful, we have to know the intentions the speaker or writer had. Does the person who uses the term “LGBT community” mean to endorse something against Church teaching? Or is this a case of simply not thinking about the potential meanings people might draw from it? Does the person who does not use the term mean to show hatred to the victims? Or is it a case of wanting to be clear about where the Church stands?

What gets overlooked is the fact that a person may not intend what the listener/reader believes it the point. We should strive to speak clearly. But not all will have the same talent in doing so. We have to realize that condolences phrased differently than we like may not mean support of evil. It is possible the speaker is unclear or we have simply misunderstood because we give words meaning that the speaker does not intend. If the speaker uses the term, but does not mean to support sin, we must not condemn him for heresy. if the speaker does not use the term, but does not act out of hatred in doing so, we must not condemn him of bigotry. It is only when we know the person acts from a bad motive, that we can offer a rebuke.

Conclusion

It’s hypocrisy to love the person far away and hate our brother. God, who told us to love our enemies, also told us to love our neighbor as ourself. So if we call for love and compassion for the victims, but will not show it for the fellow Christian who we argue with, we are doing wrong. It’s time to stop accusing each other of bad will and time to start understanding what the other person meant, accepting different views as valid when they are compatible with Catholic belief and gently guiding them back when they are not.

Savaging each other over disagreements because we assume the other is deliberately choosing to do evil is rash judgment and we become hypocrites if we refuse to love our fellow Christian.

Speaking Truth and Avoiding Falsehood and Rash Judgment

Regular readers of mine probably know my favorite quotation of Aristotle, his definition of truth by heart, but it’s time to cite it again:

To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false.

 

 Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989).

What brings up this citation this time is my seeing a growing number of people on the internet willing to impute motives to people based on their own interpretation of the quoted words, without concern as to whether the author intends those interpretations or not. It’s an important thing to keep in mind. If we want to speak truthfully about a person, we must make sure that our interpretation of his or her words are what the author intends before we praise or criticize the author/speaker in question. If we don’t do this, then we speak falsely about the person and our criticism is either wrong or, if it’s right, it’s only right by coincidence. 

This is especially a problem when personal preferences and beliefs color the meaning of words. For example, I have had to defend St. John Paul II when he used the word “feminism” from detractors who assumed he was using it in the sense of the American meaning of radical feminism. From this interpretation, his detractors accused him of being faithless to the Church. Or for a more recent example, millions of people still think that Pope Francis was endorsing “same sex marriage” on account of an out of context quote, “Who am I to judge.” (See HERE for context). Such people do not speak the truth when they claim/accuse the Pope of changing Church teaching.

Catholic philosopher Peter Kreeft demonstrated why this is a problem in one of his Socratic dialogues he wrote (they’re all worth reading):

Socrates: I think you are confusing belief with interpretation.

Flatland: No, I'm just saying we have to interpret a book in light of our beliefs.

Socrates: And I'm saying we must not do that.

Flatland: Why not?

Socrates: If you wrote a book to tell other people what your beliefs were, and I read it and interpreted it in light of my beliefs, which were different from yours, would you be happy?

Flatland: If you disagreed with me? Why not? You're free to make up your own mind.

Socrates: No, I said interpreted the book in light of my beliefs. For instance, if you wrote a book against miracles and I believed in miracles, and I interpreted your book as a defense of miracles, would you be happy?

Flatland: Of course not. That's misinterpretation.

Socrates: Even if it were my honest belief?

Flatland: Oh, I see. We have to interpret a book in light of the author's beliefs, and criticize it in light of our own.

Socrates: Precisely. Otherwise we are imposing our views on another. And that is certainly not charitable, but arrogant.

Peter Kreeft. Socrates Meets Jesus: History's Greatest Questioner Confronts the Claims of Christ (Kindle Locations 749-755). Kindle Edition.

So if I interpret the meaning of something based on my personal beliefs, and not according to the intention the speaker/author had, then I miss the point. Moreover, if my criticism is based on this misinterpretation, I do injustice and quite possibly do moral wrong to the person I criticize. Speaking falsely can be a sin if we know it is false, or if we can research the statement and see the true content, but simply don’t bother to (vincible ignorance). But even in a case where the person who speaks falsely has no way of learning that his/her criticism is false (invincible ignorance), wrong is still done. Invincible ignorance simply means that the person has no way of finding out that they speak or act wrongly.

Nor can we hide our speaking rashly behind the excuse of “So-and-so needs to speak more clearly” (which is an excuse which is very popular among the detractors of Pope Francis). If you think a person speaks unclearly, then you have the obligation to act on that belief to be extra careful in avoiding misinterpretation and false accusation.

All of us have the moral obligation to speak truthfully. If we know we speak falsely when we speak against someone, then we outright lie. If we just assume that an accusation must be true without verifying that the speaker/writer intended to say what we accuse them of, then we are guilty of rash judgment.

This doesn’t apply only to other people committing rash judgment against Popes. It also applies to the people we dislike. A person can find Obama, Bush, Clinton, Trump, Nancy Pelosi, Wayne LaPierre (among others, I’m just culling the boogeymen most hated by Left and Right) to be offensive and supporting offensive policies. But that offense we take does not give us leave to spread whatever hostile interpretations we think sound good. We still have the same obligation to make sure that what we say is true and that we have made an accurate interpretation of our foes. In other words, even if the person that you oppose is a total bastard, that doesn’t give you the right to speak falsely against him or her.

I think this is especially important in an election year. Issues will be thrust forward, and candidates will take both sides. There will be attempts made to put the preferred idea in a positive light, and claim bad will for the opposed idea. We are not allowed to take part in misrepresentation, whether this misrepresentation tries to make an evil plan sound good or morally neutral, or to make a good or morally neutral idea seem evil. If we speak in favor of something or someone, we must do so honestly, and if we speak in opposition to some person or policy, we must be sure we accurately understand it first, and not distort it.

Otherwise we bear false witness and do wrong, whether we do so deliberately or through careless indifference.

To Speak the Truth

Introduction

People who know me know that I like Aristotle’s definition of truth. It is a simple definition and it lays out parameters for understanding the reality of what is said:

To say that what is is not, or that what is not is, is false; but to say that what is is, and what is not is not, is true; and therefore also he who says that a thing is or is not will say either what is true or what is false. (Metaphysics 1011b.20–39)

Aristotle, Aristotle in 23 Volumes, Vols.17, 18, Translated by Hugh Tredennick. (Medford, MA: Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press; London, William Heinemann Ltd., 1933, 1989).

So, when we speak, what we say either corresponds to reality or it does not. Unfortunately, society today does not seem to care for discovering what corresponds with reality. Rather many people prefer an interpretation of events that justifies themselves and puts those they agree with in a bad light. The result of this mindset is the fact that people will only listen to what makes them comfortable and seek to reject what makes them uncomfortable. But if what makes them comfortable is false, then their sources are harmful in seeking out the truth and living in accordance with it.

Pride and Fear of Being Shown Wrong

Compounding the problem is the fact that nobody wants to be shown to be wrong. To admit that one’s viewpoint, which has been defended zealously hitherto, has been a defense of something worthless feels like an indictment of one’s judgment—nobody wants to be thought of as a fool and admission of error is seen as admitting to being a fool. That is what made Socrates so unpopular. That barrier of pride is a large stumbling block to discovering what is and living in accord to it.

I think this is the reason it has traditionally been held that the two taboo subjects for discussion are religion and politics. For a person to have to admit that their view of reality in general or their views on how society should be governed are false—especially when they have invested so much in defending these views—is often too much to bear. As a result, people stop looking for truth when it is perceived to threaten their comfortable beliefs and become hostile when it comes to people who question their comfort zone.

That’s unfortunate. To make progress, whether as an individual or a society, one has to discern what is true and follow where it leads. But if one refuses to consider whether what is threatening to comfort is true, no progress can be made.

Fear of the Obligation to do That Which is Right

There is another reason for hostility to truth. That reason is the recognition that if what we support turns out to be false, especially when that falsehood turns out to be morally wrong, we will be obligated to turn away from that belief or that behavior. Denial of that indictment of wrongdoing and hostility to the person who makes us aware of the wrongdoing are ways to avoid thinking about whether we need to change. This is one of the reasons that defensive people misquote Matthew 7:1. If a person can turn tables on the person who says “X is wrong,” putting him or her on the defensive by making it appear that the appeal to doing what is right is actually wrongdoing, then people have shifted the attention from the issue at hand—that X is wrong—and towards the person who insists on moral truths which are obligatory to follow.

“Hypocrisy” then becomes a popular epithet to hurl at the person speaking the truth. Basically the accusation says “You say not to do evil X, but you do evil by saying that X is wrong. Therefore we can ignore you!” Actually no. It is true that every one of us struggles with some sort of evil (with the exception of Our Lord and His Mother). But one does not become a hypocrite until they have no intention to change their ways. That’s the kind of thing Jesus condemned as judgmental—writing someone off as irredeemable. But frail as we are, we are still required to speak out against what is wrong while praying for God to change our hearts for our own sins. We must avoid thinking that “As long as I’m not as bad as that guy, I’m fine."

Truth and Assumption

Of course we need to make some distinctions here. It’s not wrong to defend a position one thinks is right. But all of us need to distinguish what is true about the position it and defend that truth, as opposed to defending assumptions without investigating whether they are true. Some things are simply indefensible and must be rejected.

Moreover, many people assume things are facts without discerning whether they are true or simply commonly repeated but false. People sometimes elevate wrong opinions or falsehoods to “fact.” For example, they may confuse sequential events for cause/effect and then stand their ground on something that does not need to be defended. Or they may assume anecdotes represent the whole or go by what “everybody knows” without determining whether it is true. People may rashly assume motives for why others hold different positions which the other person would deny are his or her motives.

The point is, many things we take for granted as being true are actually saying of what is that it is not or saying of what is not that it is. Once we are aware of the obligation to speak that which is true, and the need to discern between what is true and what is assumed, then we need to look to what we defend and what we oppose. Do we defend what is true? Or what is comfortable? Do we oppose what is false? Or merely what we dislike?

If we assume bad will on the part of those we disagree with and don’t consider the possibility of our own misunderstanding of the other person or if we don’t consider the possibility of the person being in error out of ignorance, then we are making an assumption that might not be true.

Conclusion

I think we need to keep these things in mind wherever we are. When things are reported on the news, or show up on Facebook or in blogs, or in comments, we have to ask whether what is said is true before embracing it. When something seems to challenge a comfortable belief, we have to ask whether our comfortable belief is true before making a defense based on our assumption. If it turns out that the popular or comfortable assertion is false, we must stop repeating it.

Likewise, when we are inclined to accuse a person of bad will for holding a position we do not like, the obligation to speak the truth requires that we investigate their position and the reason they hold it. We might find that they still are in error and need to be refuted, but at least in doing so we will not come across as intolerant and ignorant—even if opponents still accuse us of being so.

As Christians we believe that God forbids us from bearing false witness. I believe this not only includes deliberate lies used to incriminate others, but also includes rash judgment and calumny against those we disagree with. While invincible ignorance is not a sin, we do sin when we repeat things when we could learn the truth but simply don’t care to do so. We will have to account for our rash judgments, uncharitable accusations and holding on to false beliefs and will be held accountable for the things we could have learned but chose not to check. This also applies to when we choose to live a lie rather than discern whether we do wrong. 

We are called to speak and live the truth. So let us do both. Let us say of what is, that it is and of what is not, that it is not. But let’s not just say it. Let’s also live it.

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

Stop the Bishop Bashing: An Open Letter to my Fellow Catholic Bloggers

Read more »

Marked

Read more »

"This is a Rebellious People..."

Read more »

TFTD: They Revile What They Do Not Understand

But these people revile what they do not understand and are destroyed by what they know by nature like irrational animals. (Jude 1:10)

A couple of days before Christmas, I was involved in a combox discussion on the issues over the satanic counter to the Nativity Scene in Florida. My own thesis was that the putting up a “religious” display with the intent of protesting religious displays was a self-contradiction. What struck me was a comment from one of the atheists. It was a tu quoque claim that the Bible was full of contradictions. Today, there seems to be a lot of atheists on Facebook and in the comboxes bashing Christianity over Neil deGrasse Tyson and his tweet in celebration of the December 25th birthday of Sir Isaac Newton (the actual tweet struck me as being more pathetic than offensive, apparently trying to imply Newton was more important than Christ).

Basically, the theme is that Christians are stupid for believing in God while blaming Christianity and religion in general for every crime in the history of humanity (denying the role of the atheistic ideology in the worst atrocities of the 20th century). These things are pretty tiresome, and fairly frustrating. The bashing is basically illogical and factually wrong. They would actually be easy to refute—if people took the time to listen and investigate whether what they say is true.

Ven. Fulton J. Sheen expressed things very well when he wrote:

“There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church—which is, of course, quite a different thing.” (Radio Replies vol. 1)

Ven. Archbishop Sheen makes a good point. The Catholic Church is not really hated for what she teaches, but for what people think she teaches, and when people run afoul of the Church teachings, we are told that these teachings were made out of hatred of women, of people with same sex attraction, of divorced people, the poor, the rich, sexuality etc., simply because we have a teaching on the morality of certain actions.

People don’t even ask what we teach, let alone why we teach it. People assume that the worst possible portrayals of the Church in history are true, never realizing that even in past centuries there were people with ideologies and axes to grind who had no problems denigrating the Church to build up their own agendas. Because they know nothing of Catholic teaching and history, but assume the Church is capable of the worst, they assume that the horror stories they hear must be true and done out of sheer malice—never mind facts and the context of the times.

Sometimes I wish people couldn’t post on a subject online unless they could demonstrate they understood what they were bashing.

But we shouldn’t expect that. Our Lord did warn us that we could expect hatred from the world if we sought to be faithful to Him:

¹⁸ “If the world hates you, realize that it hated me first. ¹⁹ If you belonged to the world, the world would love its own; but because you do not belong to the world, and I have chosen you out of the world, the world hates you. ²⁰ Remember the word I spoke to you, ‘No slave is greater than his master.’ If they persecuted me, they will also persecute you. If they kept my word, they will also keep yours. ²¹ And they will do all these things to you on account of my name, because they do not know the one who sent me. ²² If I had not come and spoken to them, they would have no sin; but as it is they have no excuse for their sin. ²³ Whoever hates me also hates my Father. ²⁴ If I had not done works among them that no one else ever did, they would not have sin; but as it is, they have seen and hated both me and my Father. ²⁵ But in order that the word written in their law might be fulfilled, ‘They hated me without cause.’ (John 15:18-25)

So we endure hatred and try to reach out to the person of good will who wants to learn the truth, praying for all of them.

The Obligation of Truth

The social media being what it is, I tend to see a lot of political emails, Facebook posts etc go by. A lot of them make claims that certain politicians or groups do or say horrific things that every decent person should be disgusted by.

I don't pass them on without investigating them first. I may, for example, find Obama's policies reprehensible while seeking to live in accordance with what I believe.  However that does not allow me to pass on false information as a means of opposing those things he does that I must call evil.

There are some issues that we must be aware of:
■ We may never knowingly choose to do an evil act so good may come of it.
■ To pass on statements without investigating whether or not it is true is negligence.
■ We must understand the context of words and actions that seem so shocking before using them to judge.

These are things that I wish people would apply to the information passed on about the Catholic Church. There is a lot of outright lies being passed on concerning what the Church has allegedly taught or done that horrify people.   There is also a lot of stories going on about individuals who are Catholic and did terrible things... and these things are portrayed as if they were part of Church teaching instead of as the aberrations they are.

Here's the problem. To pass on statements you know are false is to be guilty of slander/libel. To pass on false statements you could investigate but don't makes you guilty of libel/slander through negligence.  The same applies to knowing or negligent passing on of out of context information.

This is not something theoretical. It's not relegated to the crude and cartoonish libel of Jack Chick. Today, we have people who make false statements about what we believe and our motivation for holding our beliefs. We're homophobic in our teaching about marriage, we're anti-woman about our beliefs on contraception and abortion.  False history and out of context examples are given as "proof."

It's funny how people will immediately look to Snopes.com when a politician they favor is maligned but can't be bothered to try and find out the truth behind anti-Catholic statements. Or, if they "research," they look at sites they ideologically agree with -- which is like asking the Tea Party for objective information on Obamacare or NARAL about Operation Rescue.

Regardless of who is the target, whether or not we like them, the obligation is to learn what is true, and only pass on what is true.

Think about it...

The Obligation of Truth

The social media being what it is, I tend to see a lot of political emails, Facebook posts etc go by. A lot of them make claims that certain politicians or groups do or say horrific things that every decent person should be disgusted by.

I don't pass them on without investigating them first. I may, for example, find Obama's policies reprehensible while seeking to live in accordance with what I believe.  However that does not allow me to pass on false information as a means of opposing those things he does that I must call evil.

There are some issues that we must be aware of:
■ We may never knowingly choose to do an evil act so good may come of it.
■ To pass on statements without investigating whether or not it is true is negligence.
■ We must understand the context of words and actions that seem so shocking before using them to judge.

These are things that I wish people would apply to the information passed on about the Catholic Church. There is a lot of outright lies being passed on concerning what the Church has allegedly taught or done that horrify people.   There is also a lot of stories going on about individuals who are Catholic and did terrible things... and these things are portrayed as if they were part of Church teaching instead of as the aberrations they are.

Here's the problem. To pass on statements you know are false is to be guilty of slander/libel. To pass on false statements you could investigate but don't makes you guilty of libel/slander through negligence.  The same applies to knowing or negligent passing on of out of context information.

This is not something theoretical. It's not relegated to the crude and cartoonish libel of Jack Chick. Today, we have people who make false statements about what we believe and our motivation for holding our beliefs. We're homophobic in our teaching about marriage, we're anti-woman about our beliefs on contraception and abortion.  False history and out of context examples are given as "proof."

It's funny how people will immediately look to Snopes.com when a politician they favor is maligned but can't be bothered to try and find out the truth behind anti-Catholic statements. Or, if they "research," they look at sites they ideologically agree with -- which is like asking the Tea Party for objective information on Obamacare or NARAL about Operation Rescue.

Regardless of who is the target, whether or not we like them, the obligation is to learn what is true, and only pass on what is true.

Think about it...

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

Propaganda vs. The Church

Cardinal Dolan remarked that the Church was outmarketed on the so-called "gay marriage" issue and caricatured as being "anti-gay."  While I agree, I think it is more accurate to say the opponents of the Church used massive propaganda and slander/libel in their marketing of homosexuality and abortion.

This propaganda and slander involves portraying their own position as true without proving it so, and then vilifying anyone who disagrees making them appear to be motivated by bigotry.

It has been quite successful. Looking at comments in news stories about the ACLU suing the Catholic bishops on their abortion directive, I see hateful comments about how the Church is a horrific institution that needs to be destroyed.

Now one needs to take Internet comments with a grain of salt. How representative they are of the population is hard to judge. Are they the common view? Or are they snarky teens mad that mom and dad made them go to Church?

However, such comments show that among part of the population people have been effectively propagandized to support, or at least not care, if the Government should try to attack or control the Church.

Basically the propagandists state (without proof) that the Catholic position is based on hatred and seek to use the appeal to emotion in order to get pity for the favored view and opposition to the Church teaching... before the Church can even speak.

Now some have blamed the bishops, saying that if they were doing their jobs we wouldn't be in this position. I don't believe that. The reason is,  a false statement (whether deliberate or not) can easily fit on a slogan or soundbite. The refutation takes much longer.  Given how short a news story is, the refutation is usually ignored or distorted.

However, all Catholics (not just the bishops and priests) are called to defend the faith. Not all who have been propagandized are extreme. Some of them may be open to the truth, merely believing what they have been told about us because it never occurred to question the reliability of the reports.

Some, especially on the Internet, may be abusive.  All we can do is to be polite and speak to the reader, not get sucked into a flame war with an abusive person.

Propaganda vs. The Church

Cardinal Dolan remarked that the Church was outmarketed on the so-called "gay marriage" issue and caricatured as being "anti-gay."  While I agree, I think it is more accurate to say the opponents of the Church used massive propaganda and slander/libel in their marketing of homosexuality and abortion.

This propaganda and slander involves portraying their own position as true without proving it so, and then vilifying anyone who disagrees making them appear to be motivated by bigotry.

It has been quite successful. Looking at comments in news stories about the ACLU suing the Catholic bishops on their abortion directive, I see hateful comments about how the Church is a horrific institution that needs to be destroyed.

Now one needs to take Internet comments with a grain of salt. How representative they are of the population is hard to judge. Are they the common view? Or are they snarky teens mad that mom and dad made them go to Church?

However, such comments show that among part of the population people have been effectively propagandized to support, or at least not care, if the Government should try to attack or control the Church.

Basically the propagandists state (without proof) that the Catholic position is based on hatred and seek to use the appeal to emotion in order to get pity for the favored view and opposition to the Church teaching... before the Church can even speak.

Now some have blamed the bishops, saying that if they were doing their jobs we wouldn't be in this position. I don't believe that. The reason is,  a false statement (whether deliberate or not) can easily fit on a slogan or soundbite. The refutation takes much longer.  Given how short a news story is, the refutation is usually ignored or distorted.

However, all Catholics (not just the bishops and priests) are called to defend the faith. Not all who have been propagandized are extreme. Some of them may be open to the truth, merely believing what they have been told about us because it never occurred to question the reliability of the reports.

Some, especially on the Internet, may be abusive.  All we can do is to be polite and speak to the reader, not get sucked into a flame war with an abusive person.

TFTD: Hypocritical Champions of 'Tolerance.'

Introduction

A friend brought to my attention the campaign being used by certain homosexual activists to attach the name of Rick Santorum to a rather repugnant substance.  This article was conceived while reflecting on the utter hypocrisy of the action from people who claim to champion "tolerance."

The Scenario

Case #1: Homosexual activists try to stamp out the teenage use of "That's so gay!" (used as an equivalent of "that's bad") as an intolerant statement.

Case #2: Homosexual activists seek to promote the term "Santorum" as a neologism involving some pretty disgusting things as revenge for Rick Santorum speaking out against homosexual acts as a moral wrong.  They are so successful that the #1 and #2 Google hits for "Santorum" [at the time of this writing] involve this repugnant action, and it is not until the #3 hit that we are directed to any entry about Rick Santorum himself (the Wikipedia entry).

It is an interesting contrast.  In the first case, people are seeking to eliminate a pejorative meaning to a word commonly associated with homosexuality.   In the second case, the same people are seeking to create a pejorative meaning for a name belonging for a man they despise.

Now, if I were to campaign to make a pejorative meaning to "homosexual" (such as, "Oh man, I stepped in some homosexual… it's all over my shoes!"), I have no doubt that this action would be widely denounced (assuming anyone actually reads the site) as hateful.

So why is it that such people who campaign against "That's so gay" as being intolerant also make use of intolerance when it suits them?

Definitions

These people certainly do not practice what they preach.  If they did, they would recognize that, if it is wrong to give the term "Gay" a negative term, then it reasonably follows that it is wrong to give other terms a negative connotation.

Given that the term 'Tolerate' means:

allow the existence or occurrence of (something that one dislikes or disagrees with) without interference.

Soanes, C., & Stevenson, A. (2004). Concise Oxford English dictionary (11th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

It seems that the person who claims tolerance is a virtue must accept the existence of views they disagree with.  Otherwise, they are not tolerant.  They are hypocrites, defined as:

The practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.

The Syllogism

SYLLOGISM:

1. [Tolerance] [Allows the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (All [A] is [B])
2. Some [Homosexual Activists] do not [Allow the existence of something one dislikes or disagrees with without Interference] (Some [C] is not [B])
3. Therefore Some [Homosexual Activists] are not [Tolerant] (Therefore Some [C] is not [A])

I use the weaker [Some] and not the stronger [No] in recognition of the fact that some activists have human decency and do not act like these barbarians.  The use of [Some] limits the argument to certain people and does not attempt to lump all people into one category.

This courtesy is unfortunately not returned, as it is common to see Catholic teaching compared with being no different than the Westboro Baptist Church and their hateful activities.

The Inescapable Reasoning

The accusation of hypocrisy on the part of these activists is just and cannot be denied.

Since Tolerance is the virtue preached by these activists, but they will not apply to others what they demand for themselves, we can reasonably conclude that these activists claim a moral standard to which their behavior does not conform.  Since that is the definition of hypocrisy, those activists are hypocrites.

Absolute Values, Absolute Truth

There is only one way to attempt to escape the charge of hypocrisy, and that begins with recognizing that tolerance is not a universal value, but it is relative to an absolute truth.  Since one can refuse to tolerate something on the grounds that it is, by nature, dangerous to others and therefore cannot be permitted to exist without causing harm, one can attempt to argue that the Christian opposition to homosexuality is harmful to others.

Universal truths would be true in all times, for all people in all circumstances.  So if it is universally true that I cannot murder a person arbitrarily, it would be true a thousand years ago, now, and a thousand years from now.  It would be true whether I lived in America, Afghanistan or Australia and whether I was rich or poor.  Asian or Caucasian etc.  Even if some cultures utterly rejected this truth, it would not change the fact that it is universally true.

This is why Tolerance cannot be a Universal Truth.  If it was, one would have to give equal tolerance to the Jews and the Nazis who persecuted them.  It would have to give equal tolerance to the view that child molestation is wrong and to the views of NAMBLA.

Sane people recognize that these views cannot co-exist.  If it is wrong for the Nazis to persecute the Jews, one cannot tolerate the view of the Nazis.  If child molestation is wrong, the views that it is acceptable cannot be tolerated.  The person who tries to tolerate both views would have to be overlooking some serious issues.

This is also why Islam and Christianity cannot both be true.  If Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the fulfillment of Revelation, then the claim of Islam that He was merely a Prophet but lesser than Muhammad must be false.  Likewise, if the claim of Islam be true, then Jesus cannot have been the Son of God.

The point is, truth cannot contradict truth.  So if one view is seen as truth, a view which contradicts it cannot also be truth.

"Tolerance" and Truth

What this comes down to is this.  If Christians say that homosexual acts are wrong, and certain activists say homosexual acts are morally acceptable, both views cannot be seen as true.  Both must demonstrate why their views are true.  Christianity has done this, and one can look up the teachings on the matter.  Those who reject the Catholic teaching as being false need to demonstrate why it is false and provide reasons for why their view is true.

Yet this is exactly what is not done.  It is argued that the Catholic teaching is "intolerant," without showing why homosexual acts need to be tolerated as morally acceptable behavior.  Instead, logical fallacies are used, notably the appeal to fear and pity, to lead one to think that if Gay "marriage" is not made law, the Westboro Baptist Church and people murdering homosexuals will become the norm; and that the denial of the "right to marry" means homosexual persons will be forced to live alone without love.  We are told that we must either sanction "gay marriage" or else sanction the "persecution" of homosexuals.

The Position of Catholics Must Be Distinguished From Popular Distortions

It only makes sense to invoke the Westboro Baptist Church or those people who assault homosexuals against the position of the Catholic Church, if the Catholic Church accepts their actions as valid.  If they do not, the comparison is invalid.

Of course since the Catholic Church condemns treating persons as less than persons, this sort of argument is a slander.  Blessed John XXII wrote in 1963:

158. It is always perfectly justifiable to distinguish between error as such and the person who falls into error—even in the case of men who err regarding the truth or are led astray as a result of their inadequate knowledge, in matters either of religion or of the highest ethical standards. A man who has fallen into error does not cease to be a man. He never forfeits his personal dignity; and that is something that must always be taken into account.

So the right thinking Catholic recognizes that even though we must condemn homosexual behavior, we must still treat the person with homosexual tendencies as a person and not as a sub-human who may be mistreated.  However, one can still believe homosexual behavior is wrong without contradicting the view that persons must be treated as persons:

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,¹⁴¹ tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."¹⁴² They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

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

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

—Catechism of the Catholic Church

In other words, persons are to be treated with respect as persons even though we must oppose homosexuality as wrong.  There is no justification to the accusations of "homophobia" or bigotry against us, and to say our beliefs are wrong requires one to prove what beliefs are right and why.  Otherwise it is an ipse dixit claim.

Conclusion

This is the dilemma for the activist which rejects the Christian moral teaching and calls us "intolerant."

On one hand, if one wants to invoke Tolerance as an absolute value, they must either tolerate the views they disagree with (including us Christians) or else be labeled Hypocrite. 

On the other hand, if they want to avoid the hypocrite label while condemning our view as wrong, they must stop hiding behind the label of "tolerance" and acknowledge that universal and absolute truths exist and are knowable, and they must demonstrate the truth of their claims and not claim that their views must be true on the account that they reject our views.

If they will not, if they will simply continue on in personal attacks, using labels like "homophobe," "bigot," or "intolerant," then we can see that such activists are motivated by emotion and hatred, not by reason and logic and that they are guilty of the behaviors they accuse us of possessing.