Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

As Jesus passed by, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post.  He said to him, “Follow me.”  And he got up and followed him.  While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.  The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.  Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Matthew 9:9-13

I think among Christians there are two tendencies which go against the teaching of Christ and need to be opposed.  One is the tendency to say "This person is a sinner and therefore his conversion is a sham and we should shun him."  The other is to say "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

"This Person is a sinner"

Of course we need to recognize that all persons are sinners, and so are we.  All of us have sins we are struggling with, and all of us need to look at our brethren with that in mind: The Lord has been merciful to us, and so we must do this as well in our consideration of others.  The sinner who realizes he is a sinner seeks out God to repent.  The self righteous one focuses on the sins of others and does not consider how his own actions appear before God.

Matthew, as a Tax Collector, would have had a reputation among the Jews as a quisling or collaborator.  He was enriching himself working for the conqueror in exploiting the conquered.  Jesus called him, and he left what he had… probably a lucrative position… and followed Jesus.

Yet because of what he was, some held it against him all the same.  He had collaborated and therefore he was an outcast forever and always.  Jesus recognized that the sick need the physician, but some would argue that anyone who has ever been ill were not welcome.  Such a view ignores the fact that the one judging is behaving in a way contrary to the words of God.  If we do not have mercy towards our fellow man, our acts of sacrifice are meaningless.  As St. John has said (1 John 4:20-21):

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

"I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

This is often stereotyped as the "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) position, but it is more than that.  One of the most common errors in America is to claim that Public Figure X has done great things, so certain "little things" called sin doesn't matter.

When Jesus calls us, He does indeed call us from where we are.  However, we are not to remain where we are.  If we are great sinners, we are to turn away from the lifestyle that alienated us from God to begin with.  The college student dabbling in drugs and premarital sex, the businessman making use of unethical business practices, the prostitute selling her body on the streets, the politician advocating laws which were contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church… we cannot seek to justify our sins by pointing to something "Good" we have done as balancing out the evil done.

Jesus told us (in Luke 17):

^7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? ^8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? ^9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? ^10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

In doing good, we do not "buy Heaven."  In accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are not "owed salvation."  We are obligated to do these things, and in doing them, we are "unworthy servants."

What good we do does not "balance out" the evil done and permit us to do evil so long as we have done good… or accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord.  The Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia) means "change of mind or heart, repentance, regret."

The Proper Mindset

Moreover these two mentalities can often run together.  We forget our own sins, and assume that our conversion or our charitable actions give us a large bank balance with God against these things.  However we refuse to consider that others might be in the same boat as us and judge them unworthy.

In the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, the three elements necessary for forgiveness are:

1. Sorrow for our sins
2. Admission of our guilt
3. A firm resolve to avoid further evil and turning to good

If we are not sorry for our sins ("I slept with my girlfriend last night and don't regret it"), if we will not admit our guilt ("This isn't a sin!  the Church is just wrong on this issue!"), if we will not resolve to change our lives to live for Christ, rejecting evil in our lives ("So I voted for an abortion law… so what? I work for the poor") we are not followers of Christ but self-righteous men who will not accept the call of Jesus "Come follow me."

The Pharisaical mentality tends to ignore #2 and possibly #1 as well.  It focuses on the sins of others.   The view of the "What I did is enough" mentality ignores #3 and sometimes #2.

If we are not sorry for what we have done, if we will not admit we are sinners in need of the mercy of God how can the Love of God reach us, the God who calls us to be sorry for what we have done, to confess our guilt and do our best to avoid sin in the future becomes a God we can choose to ignore when it is inconvenient.

We then stroke our own egos and congratulate ourselves as the Pharisee did in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

We congratulate ourselves for our pious deeds or our accepting Jesus as our personal savior, but we forget the crucial part.  The Pharisee was not wrong for fasting and giving tithes or for believing in God.  However he was wrong in assuming there was nothing wrong with his own life while standing in judgment of the Tax Collector who at least knew he was a sinner and wanted to change.

This does not mean we should accept evil of course.  When our brother errs, we do need to offer correction.  But it does mean we ought not to judge ourselves righteous in comparison to the world.

Reflections on the Feast of St. Matthew

As Jesus passed by, he saw a man named Matthew sitting at the customs post.  He said to him, “Follow me.”  And he got up and followed him.  While he was at table in his house, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat with Jesus and his disciples.  The Pharisees saw this and said to his disciples, “Why does your teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?”

He heard this and said, “Those who are well do not need a physician, but the sick do.  Go and learn the meaning of the words, I desire mercy, not sacrifice.  I did not come to call the righteous but sinners.”

Matthew 9:9-13

I think among Christians there are two tendencies which go against the teaching of Christ and need to be opposed.  One is the tendency to say "This person is a sinner and therefore his conversion is a sham and we should shun him."  The other is to say "I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

"This Person is a sinner"

Of course we need to recognize that all persons are sinners, and so are we.  All of us have sins we are struggling with, and all of us need to look at our brethren with that in mind: The Lord has been merciful to us, and so we must do this as well in our consideration of others.  The sinner who realizes he is a sinner seeks out God to repent.  The self righteous one focuses on the sins of others and does not consider how his own actions appear before God.

Matthew, as a Tax Collector, would have had a reputation among the Jews as a quisling or collaborator.  He was enriching himself working for the conqueror in exploiting the conquered.  Jesus called him, and he left what he had… probably a lucrative position… and followed Jesus.

Yet because of what he was, some held it against him all the same.  He had collaborated and therefore he was an outcast forever and always.  Jesus recognized that the sick need the physician, but some would argue that anyone who has ever been ill were not welcome.  Such a view ignores the fact that the one judging is behaving in a way contrary to the words of God.  If we do not have mercy towards our fellow man, our acts of sacrifice are meaningless.  As St. John has said (1 John 4:20-21):

^20 If any one says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen, cannot love God whom he has not seen. ^21 And this commandment we have from him, that he who loves God should love his brother also.

"I have accepted Jesus as my personal savior — so it doesn't matter what I do otherwise."

This is often stereotyped as the "Once Saved Always Saved" (OSAS) position, but it is more than that.  One of the most common errors in America is to claim that Public Figure X has done great things, so certain "little things" called sin doesn't matter.

When Jesus calls us, He does indeed call us from where we are.  However, we are not to remain where we are.  If we are great sinners, we are to turn away from the lifestyle that alienated us from God to begin with.  The college student dabbling in drugs and premarital sex, the businessman making use of unethical business practices, the prostitute selling her body on the streets, the politician advocating laws which were contrary to the teachings of Christ and His Church… we cannot seek to justify our sins by pointing to something "Good" we have done as balancing out the evil done.

Jesus told us (in Luke 17):

^7 “Will any one of you, who has a servant plowing or keeping sheep, say to him when he has come in from the field, ‘Come at once and sit down at table’? ^8 Will he not rather say to him, ‘Prepare supper for me, and gird yourself and serve me, till I eat and drink; and afterward you shall eat and drink’? ^9 Does he thank the servant because he did what was commanded? ^10 So you also, when you have done all that is commanded you, say, ‘We are unworthy servants; we have only done what was our duty.’”

In doing good, we do not "buy Heaven."  In accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior, we are not "owed salvation."  We are obligated to do these things, and in doing them, we are "unworthy servants."

What good we do does not "balance out" the evil done and permit us to do evil so long as we have done good… or accepted Jesus Christ as our Lord.  The Greek word μετάνοια (metanoia) means "change of mind or heart, repentance, regret."

The Proper Mindset

Moreover these two mentalities can often run together.  We forget our own sins, and assume that our conversion or our charitable actions give us a large bank balance with God against these things.  However we refuse to consider that others might be in the same boat as us and judge them unworthy.

In the Catholic Sacrament of Reconciliation, the three elements necessary for forgiveness are:

1. Sorrow for our sins
2. Admission of our guilt
3. A firm resolve to avoid further evil and turning to good

If we are not sorry for our sins ("I slept with my girlfriend last night and don't regret it"), if we will not admit our guilt ("This isn't a sin!  the Church is just wrong on this issue!"), if we will not resolve to change our lives to live for Christ, rejecting evil in our lives ("So I voted for an abortion law… so what? I work for the poor") we are not followers of Christ but self-righteous men who will not accept the call of Jesus "Come follow me."

The Pharisaical mentality tends to ignore #2 and possibly #1 as well.  It focuses on the sins of others.   The view of the "What I did is enough" mentality ignores #3 and sometimes #2.

If we are not sorry for what we have done, if we will not admit we are sinners in need of the mercy of God how can the Love of God reach us, the God who calls us to be sorry for what we have done, to confess our guilt and do our best to avoid sin in the future becomes a God we can choose to ignore when it is inconvenient.

We then stroke our own egos and congratulate ourselves as the Pharisee did in Luke 18:

^10 “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee and the other a tax collector. ^11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, ‘God, I thank thee that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. ^12 I fast twice a week, I give tithes of all that I get.’ ^13 But the tax collector, standing far off, would not even lift up his eyes to heaven, but beat his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me a sinner!’ ^14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for every one who exalts himself will be humbled, but he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

We congratulate ourselves for our pious deeds or our accepting Jesus as our personal savior, but we forget the crucial part.  The Pharisee was not wrong for fasting and giving tithes or for believing in God.  However he was wrong in assuming there was nothing wrong with his own life while standing in judgment of the Tax Collector who at least knew he was a sinner and wanted to change.

This does not mean we should accept evil of course.  When our brother errs, we do need to offer correction.  But it does mean we ought not to judge ourselves righteous in comparison to the world.

An Absence of Reason and Logic: Reflections on an Article Advocating Legalizing Prostitution

On the control panel of the Xanga site, I get little notifications of so and so recommended article X by blogger Y.  One of these recommendations was on an article written advocating women having the right to be prostitutes.  I have no idea why this article was recommended, because the argument put forth is a poor one.

Reading through this I am reminded of the maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

This article starts out by saying: I've never met a prostitute, spoke to one, nor can I really say have I ever seen one.  This is an indication that whatever she is basing her beliefs on, it is not founded on the actual experience of the prostitute, neither the type taking part in the illegal type or the legal type.

This is a warning right off the bat that there is no reason in this sort of statement.  If I think that prison guards should "be trained differently so as not be so harsh" but have no concept of the experience of the prison guard (whether from hearing from them personally or studying about them) then on what basis does the opinion have any credibility?

The article claims:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me. The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes. I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was. Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood.

There are several errors here, both logical and factual.

The factual error first, to avoid being distracted on a red herring, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, though some Christians made the connection from two incidents which have similarities.  The term "Magdelines" comes from this misunderstanding.

Now on to the logical errors:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me.

This is a form of an Argument from Silence.  If "I" can't think of a reason, there must not be one.  GK Chesterton however pointed out the problem with this form of thinking:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

I think the bolded parts of this quote are especially relevant.  To argue that because one can't see the use of it therefore we must end it is the height of reckless folly.  Let those who would seek to allow the legalization of prostitution show they understand why it was declared illegal before we allow them to dismantle what was before.

"The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes."

This is a tu quoque fallacy.  Whether or not some men who make laws make use of prostitutes is of no relevance on whether or not prostitution is illegal.  Some lawmakers who make laws on bribery accept bribes.  Should bribery then be legalized?  Or does it mean some lawmakers are hypocrites?  Hypocrisy on the part of some lawmakers is not a valid reason to negate a law.

"I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was."

This is a false comparison.  The woman did not remain a prostitute.  Christ forgave sinners, but also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Indeed the work of the Church with "Magdelines" was to help them escape from this lifestyle, and find a more decent lifestyle.

"Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood"

So what we have then are women exploited due to their desperate circumstances, whether poverty, addiction, lack of education or whatever.  Under the author's proposal, the women may now be legally exploited.

Legalizing prostitution will not help these women.  Helping them overcome their lack of education, addictions and poverty so they are not forced into this sort of lifestyle out of desperation will.

The author goes on to say:

I think the state of Nevada does a pretty decent job with the legalization of prostitutes. The kind of person who wants to purchase and the type of person selling is going to be far different from the normal person like me or you. If we provide safety and regulation it makes the "profession" cleaner and maybe not so "wrong".

The first sentence is an opinion and needs to be measured against the reality to see if it is reasoned or uninformed.  The women who are prostitutes there are generally the same type as those who practice illegally.  What the state has done is merely say "pass health tests and don't walk the streets."  However, this has not eliminated illegal prostitution.  Rather it has given sanction to certain pimps to operate legally for paying a fee.  Women receive no benefits, pay half of their take to the brothel (more, as a cab driver's bonus comes out of the woman's cut as well).  In the meantime, illegal "escort services" and child prostitution abound.  Legalization then only benefits some pimps and the women they hire.  It has no bearing on other woman unable or unwilling to enter into the brothel system.

Another item of concern, is whether legalization does improve the plight of these women or whether it makes exploitation easier.  Las Vegas has been identified as one of the top 17 places where sexual trafficking takes place.  This speaks against the "safer and cleaner" argument.  Safer for the "John" perhaps.  Not safer for the women.  Making it "not so 'wrong'" has done nothing to help these women.

The author continues:

Sure, we strive for our little girls to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, and ladies in the church choir. There will always be one girl that rebels, and we have to defend her right to make ends meet.

Or, to apply an Absurdum ad reductio, we could make the same argument that we have to defend their right to be a drug pusher.  A girl who rebels to do something illegal does not justify making that thing legal. 

The author finishes by saying:

Maybe we should focus our attention on making it a right to be a prostitute, but educate girls about the harms (mentally, socially, etc) and get these girls on a better track to greener pastures. If we are in a country where right now women have the right to abort their unborn, shouldn't women have the right to sell their bodies if they want?

Such is certainly the self-destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade.  Because society argues that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child, there is little reason for them to oppose other actions.  However, the fact something is legal does not make it right.  Once upon a time, slavery was legal and logical questions could be asked  based on the assumption that a slave was not a person.  However, if that premise was false, the conclusions would be too.

Likewise, if abortion was wrongly legalized, conclusions based on that legalization are necessarily false.

As to the statement itself, it does not support a point for legalizing prostitution.  Educating prostitutes to change their lifestyle does not need to be done in the context of legalization (her argument here is a non sequitur).  Legalization seems more likely to keep women in the lifestyle, not move on to "greener pastures."

This article shows the truth of the maxim  Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

An Absence of Reason and Logic: Reflections on an Article Advocating Legalizing Prostitution

On the control panel of the Xanga site, I get little notifications of so and so recommended article X by blogger Y.  One of these recommendations was on an article written advocating women having the right to be prostitutes.  I have no idea why this article was recommended, because the argument put forth is a poor one.

Reading through this I am reminded of the maxim of St. Thomas Aquinas: Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

This article starts out by saying: I've never met a prostitute, spoke to one, nor can I really say have I ever seen one.  This is an indication that whatever she is basing her beliefs on, it is not founded on the actual experience of the prostitute, neither the type taking part in the illegal type or the legal type.

This is a warning right off the bat that there is no reason in this sort of statement.  If I think that prison guards should "be trained differently so as not be so harsh" but have no concept of the experience of the prison guard (whether from hearing from them personally or studying about them) then on what basis does the opinion have any credibility?

The article claims:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me. The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes. I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was. Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood.

There are several errors here, both logical and factual.

The factual error first, to avoid being distracted on a red herring, Mary Magdalene was not a prostitute, though some Christians made the connection from two incidents which have similarities.  The term "Magdelines" comes from this misunderstanding.

Now on to the logical errors:

Why it's illegal sometimes baffles me.

This is a form of an Argument from Silence.  If "I" can't think of a reason, there must not be one.  GK Chesterton however pointed out the problem with this form of thinking:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good idea for somebody. And until we know what that reason was, we cannot judge whether that reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious.

I think the bolded parts of this quote are especially relevant.  To argue that because one can't see the use of it therefore we must end it is the height of reckless folly.  Let those who would seek to allow the legalization of prostitution show they understand why it was declared illegal before we allow them to dismantle what was before.

"The men up in higher places who make the laws do business with these girls sometimes."

This is a tu quoque fallacy.  Whether or not some men who make laws make use of prostitutes is of no relevance on whether or not prostitution is illegal.  Some lawmakers who make laws on bribery accept bribes.  Should bribery then be legalized?  Or does it mean some lawmakers are hypocrites?  Hypocrisy on the part of some lawmakers is not a valid reason to negate a law.

"I think the reason why it's illegal is mainly based on moral code. Christians seem to forget a lady named Mary Magdalene and what her occupation was."

This is a false comparison.  The woman did not remain a prostitute.  Christ forgave sinners, but also admonished them to "go and sin no more."  Indeed the work of the Church with "Magdelines" was to help them escape from this lifestyle, and find a more decent lifestyle.

"Some of these girls that are prostitutes are at the lowest point of their lives just trying to keep some kind of shelter and food over their heads. Some are addicts and some just don't know any better way to get by due to a lack of education and bad childhood"

So what we have then are women exploited due to their desperate circumstances, whether poverty, addiction, lack of education or whatever.  Under the author's proposal, the women may now be legally exploited.

Legalizing prostitution will not help these women.  Helping them overcome their lack of education, addictions and poverty so they are not forced into this sort of lifestyle out of desperation will.

The author goes on to say:

I think the state of Nevada does a pretty decent job with the legalization of prostitutes. The kind of person who wants to purchase and the type of person selling is going to be far different from the normal person like me or you. If we provide safety and regulation it makes the "profession" cleaner and maybe not so "wrong".

The first sentence is an opinion and needs to be measured against the reality to see if it is reasoned or uninformed.  The women who are prostitutes there are generally the same type as those who practice illegally.  What the state has done is merely say "pass health tests and don't walk the streets."  However, this has not eliminated illegal prostitution.  Rather it has given sanction to certain pimps to operate legally for paying a fee.  Women receive no benefits, pay half of their take to the brothel (more, as a cab driver's bonus comes out of the woman's cut as well).  In the meantime, illegal "escort services" and child prostitution abound.  Legalization then only benefits some pimps and the women they hire.  It has no bearing on other woman unable or unwilling to enter into the brothel system.

Another item of concern, is whether legalization does improve the plight of these women or whether it makes exploitation easier.  Las Vegas has been identified as one of the top 17 places where sexual trafficking takes place.  This speaks against the "safer and cleaner" argument.  Safer for the "John" perhaps.  Not safer for the women.  Making it "not so 'wrong'" has done nothing to help these women.

The author continues:

Sure, we strive for our little girls to grow up to be doctors, lawyers, teachers, mothers, and ladies in the church choir. There will always be one girl that rebels, and we have to defend her right to make ends meet.

Or, to apply an Absurdum ad reductio, we could make the same argument that we have to defend their right to be a drug pusher.  A girl who rebels to do something illegal does not justify making that thing legal. 

The author finishes by saying:

Maybe we should focus our attention on making it a right to be a prostitute, but educate girls about the harms (mentally, socially, etc) and get these girls on a better track to greener pastures. If we are in a country where right now women have the right to abort their unborn, shouldn't women have the right to sell their bodies if they want?

Such is certainly the self-destructive legacy of Roe v. Wade.  Because society argues that a woman has the right to kill an unborn child, there is little reason for them to oppose other actions.  However, the fact something is legal does not make it right.  Once upon a time, slavery was legal and logical questions could be asked  based on the assumption that a slave was not a person.  However, if that premise was false, the conclusions would be too.

Likewise, if abortion was wrongly legalized, conclusions based on that legalization are necessarily false.

As to the statement itself, it does not support a point for legalizing prostitution.  Educating prostitutes to change their lifestyle does not need to be done in the context of legalization (her argument here is a non sequitur).  Legalization seems more likely to keep women in the lifestyle, not move on to "greener pastures."

This article shows the truth of the maxim  Parvus error in initio magnus erit in fine (Small error in the beginning; large (error) will be in the end).

On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.

On Partisanship

Partisan is defined by the Concise Oxford English Dictionary as "a strong supporter of a party, cause, or person."  However, in terms of the modern usage, "partisanship" is used to accuse the other side of not being objective.

The implication is that the person who is a strong supporter of the wrong cause can't be objective or he or she would be agreeing with us.  The irony is the the person who uses the accusation of partisanship is often guilty of this in themselves.

So how does one avoid partisanship?  Ultimately the way we do this is to recognize that our loyalty to a party, to a cause or to a person can only be carried out to the extent that it or he promotes the truth. 

Ask yourself this.  Would you rather vote for a candidate who holds views directly condemned by your religious beliefs than to vote for a candidate of the other party?

If the answer is yes, then this is an example of partisanship.

Would you condemn something which was done by the other party, but tolerate the same thing when done by your own party, because it is "theirs" or "yours"?

This too is partisanship in the wrong sense of the world.

Now we have to clarify things here.  I am not talking about indifferentism.  I am not saying we need to consider all views equally valid.  There is a strong streak of relativism out there denying that there is any objective truth.  We do need to challenge what is wrong.  But the question is does one wish to deny others the right to protest while their own cause makes use of protests?  Does one think the police should lock up "them" but thinks they should be lenient with "us"… for the same action?

Truth should be everyone's goal.  We ought not to assume that an action is good or bad based on the party or cause which promotes it.  We should remember that what matters is if the action is based on truth or not.

Truth is objective: To say of what is that it is, and of that which is not, say it is not (to paraphrase Aristotle).  Yet all too often we hide simple truths in weasel words and evasions.  We don't say "killing the unborn."  They don't even like to say "abortion."  So they say "a woman's right to control her fertility."

This is not saying of what is.  It is trying to avoid saying what is.  Partisanship often comes into play here.  if the party or cause of our choice is at odds with what is true, we try to reframe it in a way favorable to us… but at the expense of truth.

Conversely, accusing a person of partisanship is wrong when it says that which is not, is or if it says that which is, is not.

There are many cases of Catholic bishops speaking out on moral issues today.  Yet they are often attacked as doing so in support of a political cause.  Are their accusers saying what is or are they saying that which is not, is?

The Catholic Church has always opposed abortion, has always been concerned with the innocent person in the world victimized.  In doing so, she must at times stand up against a world leader or a nation and say "This is wrong."

Yet when she does so, she is often accused of siding with the opponents of this leader or nation.

This is the fallacy of bifurcation.  To say something is either one thing or another ignores the possibility of a third position.  To argue that either Bishops support Obama or they are Partisan ignores the view that they oppose Obama due to their obligations to teach the moral obligations of the faith.

The world may want the Church to speak in rigid categories of either A or B.  However if neither A nor B is compatible with the Church view, the Church must say of what is that it is,  or of that which is not that it is not, without concern over whether the Party in power agrees or disagrees.

Another issue is that of confusing real issues with ways and means.  There is no political party in America which holds the view of "let the poor die hungry and without medical care."  However, our political parties do indeed argue of the ways and means of helping the poor.  One is not obligated to support one party platform to "help the poor."  It may be both parties can be wrong on an issue, in which case the believer needs to challenge the parties to change their way of thinking.

During the election season, some bishops were accused of partisanship for daring to associate one party with abortion.  After all, the other party "wasn't really pro life."  However, when one looks at the issue, one party had some members who supported abortion and some who wanted the issue to go away and a large portion saying it should be limited or illegal.  The other party publicly proclaimed abortion as a right to be defended.

To say what is, one would have to say one party has a divided view of life issues, but at this time generally opposes abortion.  The other openly sanctions abortion.

To say that the opposing of a party which openly sanctions abortion is "partisan," is to say of what is not that it is.

With Obama in the White House, there are many arguing over whether he is good or bad.  The answer is not to be defined by party lines and votes, but by the Law of God.  Where Obama does which is compatible with the Law of God, it is legitimate rule.  However, where his actions are incompatible with the rule of God, it is no law (as Thomas Aquinas said) and must be opposed.

We've now come to our ultimate consideration.  When Obama or Bush or Clinton does something, our first consideration should be over whether or not it is a good action.

If it is a good action (compatible with God's law), then there is no issue, and we ought not to oppose it, whether it comes from our own party or the other.

If it is not a good action, then we need to consider whether it is an indifferent action or a bad action.

If it is an indifferent action (one where specific behavior is not obligated under moral theology to act or not act), we are free to oppose or leave it be as we see fit.

However, if it is a bad action, we are not free to support it or leave it be, but must oppose it.

Moreover, we must oppose it regardless of whether this action comes from our own party or the other party.

If we only act based on our own political affiliation and set aside our own beliefs, we are not followers of the truth, but merely partisans.

More Reflections on Logic: "It's Just an Opinion"?

As for the fallacy, this is simply an opinion, not a debate; Forensic Rules are not in place and throwing out logical fallacies becomes tiring very quickly. I am just as entitled to an opinion as the protesters.

—Comment from an objection to a statement I made on a logical fallacy

 

Comments like this show the problems with reasoning in modern society.  Because something is said to be an opinion we can ignore the rules of logic.  The problem is, we cannot.  If I should say, for example, I was of the opinion that Obama was promoting certain programs because he would want to promote socialism in America, and because he is a Socialist he promotes these programs this would indeed an opinion.

It would also be the fallacy of Begging the Question.  My reasoning would be muddled using two opinions as proof of each other when both need to be proven.  Any person reading what I advocated would be able to say "This guy is pretty irrational, and his opinions lack any reasonable basis."

Unfortunately, people no longer consider whether what is said has basis of truth for it.  We see slogans like "Bush Lied, Kids Died" or "Guns don't kill people, people with guns kill people" or "It's the economy, stupid" and accept it as true without considering "IS it true?"

Opinions are always opinions about something.  This means that their accuracy is based on how well they conform to the facts.  If I am of the opinion that the Sky is green, it is an opinion of the color of the sky.  However, if the sky is not green, my opinion is based on an error of fact.

Likewise, if I were to argue that "Hitler restored National pride to Germany, made the economy stronger and restored security after the chaos of the 1920s, therefore he was a good leader." I would be making an opinion about the nature of Hitler's regime.  However, that opinion would have to be measured up against the facts of the regime.  A person objecting to my opinion could (justly) point to the Holocaust and the Aggressions of Germany leading to war to argue (very justly) Hitler was NOT a good leader for the country.

To argue something is "good" or "bad" is not merely an opinion (though today we tend to use it when we mean we approve or disapprove of something).  It is, from a theological perspective, a statement of fact.

Today we view "good" to mean "to be desired or approved of; pleasing."  However, properly used, good should be understood to mean "that which is morally right; righteousness."

St. Thomas Aquinas once wrote on good leadership, saying:

I answer that, as stated above (Q[90], A[1], ad 2; [1992]AA[3],4), a law is nothing else than a dictate of reason in the ruler by whom his subjects are governed. Now the virtue of any subordinate thing consists in its being well subordinated to that by which it is regulated: thus we see that the virtue of the irascible and concupiscible faculties consists in their being obedient to reason; and accordingly "the virtue of every subject consists in his being well subjected to his ruler," as the Philosopher says (Polit. i). But every law aims at being obeyed by those who are subject to it. Consequently it is evident that the proper effect of law is to lead its subjects to their proper virtue: and since virtue is "that which makes its subject good," it follows that the proper effect of law is to make those to whom it is given, good, either simply or in some particular respect. For if the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on true good, which is the common good regulated according to Divine justice, it follows that the effect of the law is to make men good simply. If, however, the intention of the lawgiver is fixed on that which is not simply good, but useful or pleasurable to himself, or in opposition to Divine justice; then the law does not make men good simply, but in respect to that particular government. In this way good is found even in things that are bad of themselves: thus a man is called a good robber, because he works in a way that is adapted to his end.

(Summa Theologica I-II Q 92. A1)

If we keep something like this in mind, we can realize that when offering opinions on whether something is Good or not Good, it has to have some basis in fact if it is to be a reasonable opinion.

Therefore we can see the problem with the claim of "Well, that's just your opinion."  The question remains however: On what basis does one hold an opinion?

1. If I hold an opinion which is logically sound and supported by the facts, it is an opinion which is justified.
2. if I hold an opinion which has no basis other than my own preference, it is an uninformed opinion.
3. If I hold an opinion which is illogical and runs against the facts, the opinion is wrongly formed.

However, we tend to throw around the phrase "Well that's just your opinion" as a negation, a denial of absolute truth.  If I make an argument as to why something is wrong, and the rebuttal is "That's just your opinion," the rebuttal fails to rebut.  It just says "I disagree but have no basis for it other than what I like."

The problem is, if everything is just "an opinion," then my opposition to slavery, to racism and to genocide is "just my opinion," and who am I to push it on others who think it is a good thing?

We can see the problem of ignoring logic and seeking to use "opinion" as a word to either protect one's own view from scrutiny or to deny another's statement without proving it to be false.