Is Christianity Arrogant?

It's a phrase flung about by non-Christians, skeptics and atheists, that the claims of Christianity are "arrogant."

Arrogant is defined as "having an exaggerated sense of one’s own importance or abilities," It can also be seen as claiming for oneself more than one has a right to.  If one states what is, it is not arrogance.

Now to conclude that Christianity is arrogant, one has to consider some things.  Christianity claims that God can be known, in part, through reason.  That which is not known through reason can be known by revelation.  It claims that what it teaches is through revelation as His will.

Is this arrogance?  Only if it is not true.  If what they claim is in fact true, it is no arrogance to claim it, but rather humility. 

The irony is, to claim that Christianity is arrogant, it presupposes that the one making the accusation of arrogance knows whether or not God exists, and that He did not say what Christians claim He taught.

So, the question is: On what basis can this accusation be made.

If they can't back up what they claim, isn't that… arrogance?

Does it Matter? Considerations on Internet Disputes

The Internet makes for interesting communications.  To reach a wide area, one doesn't need to sell a book to a publisher or an article to a magazine.  One doesn't need to buy airtime.  All one needs is a free blogging service, the time to write, and one can potentially (depending on fame/notoriety) reach a far reaching audience without cost.

Of course, the frontiers of the internet also have a sense of wide reaching consequences.  It is largely unrestricted.  With the exception of images of something illegal (for example, child pornography), one can easily post whatever they feel like.

When it comes to opinion blogs or sites dedicated to a topic, one could easily type what they wish and post it, claiming it is true.  Another site links to the first, and before long it is possible that a false claim can take on a life of its own.  Sites like Snopes have been established to debunk some of the famous internet rumors, but of course the rumors can go far afield, and far beyond the ability of such groups to handle all the misinformation out there.

This can lead to the frustrated attitude of "Does it really matter?" when one comes across false statements bandied about as if it were true.  (Consider, for example, the infamous "Madeline Murray O'Hair wants to ban religious programming" rumor which still goes around even though she is dead.)

The answer is: It depends.

What Doesn't Matter

I think things that don't matter so much are things from obscure sites which have little to no following.  For example, I once encountered a site which claimed that Pope Pius XII favored the dropping of the bomb on Japan so as to eliminate paganism and making it easier to convert the nation.  Something like this is ridiculous, and flies against the known facts (such as, Nagasaki having a large concentration of Christians in it).  But it isn't worth responding to because, as far as I know, nobody believes it… or at least nobody who has any sense of credibility.  It isn't widely repeated, and is best left to languish in anonymity.

There will always be "crackpot theories" out there, which anyone can make up but have no real affect outside of the author of their theories.

What Does Matter

What does matter is when one of these false statements takes on a life of its own, and becomes widely quoted across the internet.  People assume it is true without questioning it.  There is a good deal of this going around.  For example, there are numerous allegations made by anti-Catholic sites giving quotes allegedly made by different individuals with influence in the Church which are used to "prove" a claim made by an individual about the evil of the Church. 

For example, numerous claims of the Catholic Church insidiously seeking to promote pagan practices under the guise of Christianity are made for the purpose of attacking the Catholic Church and seeking to "scare" people out if it.  The claim that the Spanish Inquisition killed 65 million people is another similar widespread claim which has no basis (World War II "only" killed 20 million people).

For a second example: I have seen, on atheist sites, pictures which purport to show that the Church was hand-in-glove with the Nazis during WWII.  The pictures are authentic.  The explanations are not.  (The author of the captions for example did not know that the "Reich Church" did not include Catholics, but was Hitler's crude attempt to control all Protestants under one Church.  It was opposed by the Catholic Church and the Protestants in what was known as the "Confessing church.")

As a third example, I have seen on a sede vacantist (those who hold the Catholic Church has not had a valid pope since Pius XII) site pictures of Pope John Paul II surrounded by people in native garb (Polynesian or American Indian for example), with claims that he was taking part in pagan worship or allowing pagan practices in a Catholic Mass.  Again, the pictures are real but the captions are false.  These individuals were Catholics who were performing welcoming ceremonies for the Pope and were not pagan actions at all.

The reason this sort of thing does matter is that the claims have enough widespread repetition that people believe it to be true, and one has to spend the time and effort to point out that what is being reported is either a distortion of the truth or an outright contradiction to what the Church believes or in contradiction to actual events.

Why It Matters to Respond

When one comes across a distortion or a false claim which has wide distribution, we need to remember that the reason it gets repeated is because:

1. People believe it to be true
2. What was actually held or done by the Church is not known by these individuals

If people believe something false, they unwittingly take part in a slander when they repeat it.  Now of course it is not possible to eliminate such falsehoods (though I think it would be wonderful to have a Christian version of Snopes), we can at least snip one branch of the spread by challenging it where we encounter it.  We may not convince the person spreading such a falsehood.  But not all the readers are determined haters of a group, and those who see a claim and do not know it is false are at a crossroads.

1. If nobody debunks the claim, these individuals may go on assuming the claim is true.
2. If somebody debunks the claim, these individuals become "inoculated" to the claim and may take other claims of a false nature with a grain of salt.

The Truth is What Matters, but what is the truth?

Now it is true that in an institution as old as the Catholic Church, there will be knaves within the Church who have done evil things in the name of the Church, and of course there will be times when someone posts something which is true, though out of context.

We don't want to assume everything done or said is automatically false if it is negative to the Church.  Yes Torquemada did do some pretty bad things in the Spanish Inquisition.  In the United States, Catholics in the South did attempt to explain away the Pope's teaching on slavery in a way which justified them.  It would be foolish to try to cast those bad things as if they were justified.

However, the context is often distorted.  For example, while Torquemada was reprimanded by Rome and  the Spanish Inquisition was run by the state, not the Church; and Southern Catholics did attempt to recast the papal documents condemning slavery as if they were condemning only the slave trade, these things are often not widely known.

Certainly there are old documents, which are written in terms of specific situations, which sound bad when looked at from the perspective of the 21st century Western civilization.  However they sound bad because these documents are portrayed as universal and for all time, when in fact they are being cited out of context.

For example, in the Papal Bull Unam Sanctam, the Pope did in fact say "it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."  However, those Feeneyites who claim this means all people not explicitly in the Church are going to hell quote this out of context.  (Those who do not know this through no fault of their own will not be punished for what would be impossible for them to know).

Pope Boniface VIII actually wrote this in response to Philip the Fair of France who demanded that the clergy of France put loyalty to the King over loyalty to the Pope.  In other words, King Philip was usurping spiritual authority he had no right to demand, and the Pope was setting straight this erroneous view.

The Need to Understand History and Doctrine

One needs to understand history and doctrine to assess the context of a statement which sounds bad and is authentic.  One also needs to understand these things to recognize a false statement attributed to the Church.

Unfortunately, many people do not know of these things.  A non-Catholic would probably not know much about what the Church in fact teaches, just as I would have to do some substantial research before I could accurately discuss the disputes between pre- mid- and post-tribulationism.  So when they encounter such a statement made on the internet, they might have no reason to doubt it, and because of this, not bother checking it.

The Duties of Those Who Know

Those who have knowledge on a subject certainly need to stand up against falsehood on the subject.  Just as the scientist needs to stand up to someone going about posting a misrepresentation of what science has discovered, the Christian who knows the truth needs to stand up against someone posting false or out of context statements on the Church.

The Duties of Those Who Do Not Know

Decency and charity require us to investigate whether or not a bizarre claim is true before repeating it. 

For example (and this really happened), I have no high esteem for Martin Luther.  I think he erred in his actions.  However, once I came across a claim on an internet forum that the story of Martin Luther flinging an inkpot at the devil was in fact a bowdlerized version of a story and he in fact flung his own excrement.  Such a story, if true, would make one doubt Luther's sanity.

The key clause of course is: "IF TRUE."

Looking up this claim however, I could find no credible source that this in fact occurred.  It was only repeated on small sites, none of which had any credible citations.  I suppose it isn't impossible, but there is no credible basis for claiming it is true.  Such a claim seems probable to only come from someone who had a desire to discredit Luther.  Because of this, it seems to me to be indecent and uncharitable to repeat it as if it were true. 

Another example is the quote alleged to de Tocqueville which stated "America is great because she is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, she will cease to be great."  It is widely repeated, and does indeed sound inspiring.  However, the problem is, it does not exist in his work Democracy in America to which it is attributed.  It is an old adage to be sure, and I think there is truth in it.  However, de Tocqueville did not write it, and it ought not to be attributed to him.

Before Passing on A Quote We See on the Internet

The questions which need to be asked are:

1. Did it in fact even happen?  Was it in fact said?
2. Can we establish this was said/done from a reliable source?
3. Can we establish a quote as existing from a specific document which is a primary source? (That is, not somebody quoting a thing, but the actual document where the individual wrote it, or a transcript of an address where the individual said it)
4. Are we sure that what was said/done was not taken out of context in this quote or picture?
5. Are we sure that when we are looking at a statement or action, we are understanding the context of the times people were living in?

Before judging someone on a quote or picture on the internet, we need to ask these questions.  As soon as we answer one of these questions with a "NO," it is no longer truthful and ethical to print such a claim.  If our answer is "I don't know," we are obligated to do more research until we can answer yes or no.

To use a secular example (for those readers who might be turned off by religious discussion), there is the "birther" controversy over Obama.  The claim is he was born outside of this country and as such does not qualify to be president.

The question is whether or not this is true.  From what I understand from my own research, what Hawaii released was the document it releases for all birth verifications (not just Obama's), and that several quotes allegedly made to show he was not born here cannot be verified in transcripts from reliable sources.

Because of this, I don't consider it ethical for me to repeat "birther" claims as if they were true.  I strongly disapprove of certain actions of his on moral and ethical grounds to be sure, but I don't think this disapproval justifies my repeating as true things which cannot be proven as true.

Conclusion

All of us have ideas of what is right and what is wrong.  Quotes abound out there which seem to be ideal to prove our point.  However, the question which always needs to be asked is whether it is true.  Unless we can be certain it is true (citing a reliable source, with reference that others can verify) it becomes mere gossip at best, or possibly even libel unless stated as being your opinion it is true… which brings us back to the question: On what basis do you believe it to be true?

Edit to the Post:

Well I feel foolish, but when I was doing the final editing of this post, I did not notice that some of the list on "Before Passing on A Quote We See on the Internet" section was phrased wrong, and in those cases, a "yes" answer would mean we should rethink, as opposed to a "no" answer.

I have edited the post to make it consistent with my original intent, and my apologies for the error.

To Be A Fool For Christ

^18 For the word of the cross is folly to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. ^19 For it is written, “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will thwart.” ^20 Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? ^21 For since, in the wisdom of God, the world did not know God through wisdom, it pleased God through the folly of what we preach to save those who believe. ^22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom, ^23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles, ^24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. ^25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

^26 For consider your call, brethren; not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth; ^27 but God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise, God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong, ^28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are, ^29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God. ^30 He is the source of your life in Christ Jesus, whom God made our wisdom, our righteousness and sanctification and redemption; ^31 therefore, as it is written, “Let him who boasts, boast of the Lord.”

I think all of us have a fear of drawing attention to ourselves, especially if it leads others to look down on us.  This can be a real challenge for the Christian in a world which tends to disdain the faith.

From the standards of the world, the faith is indeed something that seems foolish.  God becoming man?  Being born of a Virgin?  Being crucified?  Why everyone knows He would have been more successful if He had descended from on High and said "YOU DO WHAT I SAY!" before all the media of the world, right?

Or, more commonly, for the Christian to say that contraception, abortion, divorce and homosexual marriage are wrong things is also something that seems foolish to the world.

Generally, the world thinks we are a pack of fools for believing this sort of thing.

Perhaps this is why many of us stumble when challenged, and say as little as possible.  Certainly I know I have missed some opportunities:

(Scene: I am sitting in a buffet restaurant reading Catholicism and Fundamentalism)

Waitress: What are you reading?

Me: …a book

Waitress: What's it about?

Me: … Well it's about how fundamentalists sometimes misunderstand Catholic teaching

The waitress eventually gets information from me, but it is like pulling teeth, and she probably goes away regretting she started the conversation.  Such is the problem when one worries about what others will say. She was clearly curious, and it might have led to some sort conversation taking place freely sharing the faith.

If we are to be fools for Christ, we need to recognize that what seems to be foolishness to the world is in fact reasonable when understood.  That God did what He did, not on a whim, but to help us to realize we need Him.

We need to stop worrying whether the world thinks we are fools, and to recognize that the wisdom of the world cannot measure up to the wisdom of God.

Not worrying does not mean we Christians can act like jerks, employing the argumentum ad baculum (Appeal to force: Literally appeal to the stick) by saying "convert or burn in Hell!"  As we believe God requires us to love our fellow man, our response is to be one of charity.

Being a fool for Christ does not mean throwing out logic.  I believe the Christian faith is indeed rational.  It does mean realizing that God makes use of our puny works and makes great things out of them.  This means if one has the ability to use logic and reason with those who require it, he or she should put their talents to use for God.  If one can empathize with one who requires it, he or she can make use of those talents too.

None of us Christians are "too dumb" to do the Lord's work.  If God calls us, He knows we can do His work.  Remember the story of Moses in Exodus 4:10-17 where Moses tried to cop a "Send someone else please" attitude.

Being a fool for Christ means we are to trust God in our service to Him, knowing He is who He said He is.

We don't necessarily have to do great things.  But as Mother Teresa once said, "We cannot all do great things, but we can do small things with great love."

Is there anything more repellant and foolish sounding than picking up lepers from the streets and caring for them?  From the perspective of the world, she was a fool… who knows what sort of diseases one could pick up with things like AIDS about?

Yet her foolishness in Christ was wisdom indeed, for she heard God's call and did small things with great love, and these small acts became a great act through Christ.

So when we live in the world as Christians, let us walk in confidence.  Even though the world thinks us fools, let us go forth trusting in the wisdom of God.

When Intolerance is Driven to Lie

On another blog site, one individual, rather outspoken in his intolerance of religion, posted this quote in a comment (that is, he was not the author of the article, but merely responding to it) which he alleged Pope Leo XIII said [quoted verbatim from the individual's reply]:

"The death sentence is a necessary and efficacious means for the Church to attain its end when rebels act against it and disturbers of the ecclesiastical unity, especially obstinate heretics and heresiarchs, cannot be restrained by any other penalty from continuing to derange the ecclesiastical order and impelling others to all sorts of crime ... When the perversity of one or several is calculated to bring about the ruin of many of its children it is bound effectively to remove it, in such wise that if there be no other remedy for saving its people it can and must put these wicked men to death."

- Pope Leo XIII (whose papacy ended in 1903)

The intent of such a quote is to portray Catholicism (or in the case of the Atheist, religion in general) as a dangerous, violent, totalitarian entity which seeks to quash freedom.

Of course, to assess what Pope Leo XIII meant, we would have to look at the quote in context, which would mean reading the document from which it came.

See the problem here?  There is no document name, no date.  No way to establish that he ever said it or not.  All Vatican documents are identified by Latin title in a formal document, or by date and location for a less formal document.

So Who said it?

Doing a Google search, we can find six sources (all of them secondary), which cite this:

1. A book which seems to be written with nobody of expertise [Harry Kawalarang] (uncited)
2. Positiveatheism.org (which attributes it to Lloyd M Graham's Deceptions and Myths of the Bible)
3. A comment on PZ Myers blog (which cites the same)
4. An article by Michael Carmichael who cites it in a bashing of Pope Benedict XVI (no source given)
5. A textfile of The Popes and their Church written by Joseph McCabe [an anti-Catholic ex-priest who left the priesthood in 1896, and claimed to be a part of a Vatican conspiracy] who claims to translate it from a work  called "Public Church law" (or Institutiones Juris Ecclesiastici Publici) which he claims predated the 1917 Code of Canon Law (which he misidentifies as the 1918 code).
6. A fundamentalist article about a "World Church" persecuting "real" Christians.  (it claims "canon law" as its source)

The ultimate source of the quote is Joseph McCabe, notorious for flagrant errors.  Notice though how it is cited on the internet: Some say canon law, some say Leo XIII and some can't even identify it at all.  Yet they all cite it as fact.

The truth is, it is a fraudulent quote, without basis.  There was canon law which predated the 1917 code, yes (McCabe gets the name wrong however.  It was Institutiones iuris publici ecclesiastici.  This may seem like nitpicking but it shows McCabe's ignorance of the actual work which existed during the time he was a priest)  The reform began in 1904 because there were so many conflicting things within it from additions over centuries.

Notice how the citation for this quote has been distorted, and lacks consistency.  From McCabe's claim it came from the pre-1917 code of canon Law, to the claim that it was made by Leo XIII "whose papacy ended in 1903" (they stress this in order to make it seem this is a modern view of the Church) we have an unsubstantiated claim which nobody can produce a Church document which even says what is claimed.

On the willingness to quote false sources

I doubt this individual maliciously posted something he knew was a lie.  Rather, I suspect he accepted the quote at face value on account of his hostility towards religion.  But what does this sort of tactic indicate?  People who believe any bit of scandal against a group they dislike without verifying it are really nothing more than gossips who do act out of malice.  If an accusation is made about a person and this accusation is making a quote, it requires a source which another person can independently verify the evidence.  Otherwise it is nothing but hearsay.

Still in the case of this quote, and others like it, someone was driven to lie when the statement was originally made, and this says volumes about intolerance.  I have over the years encountered several people who were willing to lie about what the Church has taught, and many others who were willing to cite these lies without checking facts.

The claim is made "The Church said THIS" but when confronted with a demand for proof, suddenly the source is "no longer available" or "was privately translated" or claims are made that "later editions removed the quote."

In other words, the only credibility for such a claim is based on the person who claims it was said.

Except if they can't give a primary source to show where it came from, there is no credibility to be given this person.

Reflections on the Nature of Government

^10 Pilate therefore said to him, “You will not speak to me? Do you not know that I have power to release you, and power to crucify you?” ^11 Jesus answered him, “You would have no power over me unless it had been given you from above; therefore he who delivered me to you has the greater sin.” (John 19:10-11).

It has been a turbulent few weeks politically and morally in terms of what our government is trying to do, and facing religious opposition to it.  The contentious aftermath about the House Health Care bill including the Stupak Amendment has pro-abortion supporters in the government wondering what to do to counteract this.

This isn't an article about health care or abortion or the Obama administration per se.  Rather, it is about the nature of government itself.  What is its purpose?  When is it a good government or a bad government.

Part I: Reflections on Aristotle's Politics.

Aristotle, in his Politics, described the difference between a good and a bad government as:

The conclusion is evident: that governments which have a regard to the common interest are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen. (Book 3 Part 6)

We have here two key elements: first, that a government needs to have a regard to the common interest, and second that it has to act in accord to strict principles of justice.  A government which acts according to the interest of the rulers is a despotic government.

This need not be a willful attempt to unjustly keep certain people suppressed.  Aristotle also noticed that the human nature of self deception also has its role to play:

…all men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect and they do not express the whole idea. For example, justice is thought by them to be, and is, equality, not. however, for however, for but only for equals. And inequality is thought to be, and is, justice; neither is this for all, but only for unequals. When the persons are omitted, then men judge erroneously. The reason is that they are passing judgment on themselves, and most people are bad judges in their own case. And whereas justice implies a relation to persons as well as to things, and a just distribution, as I have already said in the Ethics, implies the same ratio between the persons and between the things, they agree about the equality of the things, but dispute about the equality of the persons, chiefly for the reason which I have just given- because they are bad judges in their own affairs; and secondly, because both the parties to the argument are speaking of a limited and partial justice, but imagine themselves to be speaking of absolute justice. (Book 3 Part 9)

The disgust many Americans felt over the actions of the Supreme Court in the 1960s and 1970s seems to spring from this kind of thinking.  For example, the focus on the rights of the criminal alone without reflection on how these rights impacted the rights of the society as a whole.

Likewise, restrictions on individuals because of laws like segregation or apartheid can be opposed because they give justice to some, but not others.

I think this comes into play in America today in regards to how certain partisan ideals are portrayed as "rights" and those who oppose the partisan ideals represented as "rights" are demonized.

For example, we have in America a debate on Health Care and whether it should be universal.  The idea behind it is the belief it is not right that the poor should suffer due to the lack of ability to pay for coverage, since the costs of being able to save a life often could mean the financial ruin of someone who could not afford health insurance.  As far as this goes, it is legitimate to discuss what role the government should play in making sure that all are able to receive necessary care.

What becomes unjust however is when one seeks to force through a benefit for a special group, which benefits that group only.  Hence the debate over including abortion in Health Care. 

Abortion is generally acknowledged to end the existence of an unborn person, and the dispute is over whether the mother should have the right to decide on a whim whether or not to end the existence of this unborn person.  A certain segment of the population insists on the availability of this convenience for the mother.  Another segment argues that this is immoral and objects to people who object being forced to support it against their will.

With this being considered, the demand to include access to abortion as a part of "health care reform" is in fact promoting inequality, where all are obligated to support something which benefits only a certain segment of society (those who insist on engaging in sexual activity without considering the consequences and insisting on the right not to be responsible for the consequences).

A similar case could be made for the push for "gay marriage."  Marriage has long been recognized as an institution which is the building block of society.  It recognizes that sexual activity between males and females result in offspring, and recognizes that a bond exists between husband and wife, between parent and child.  Laws which protect marriage recognize that these bonds are inviolate, and actions which harm the marriage bond will ultimately bring harm to society ("the common interest" referred to above).

The push for "gay marriage" seeks to set this aside, allowing the rights of marriage to those who cannot produce offspring by the nature of their being.  This is not the same thing as a heterosexual couple who is infertile marrying.  While the infertile heterosexual couple could have children except for the accident of their own health issues, homosexuality simply cannot produce offspring by its very nature: Two lesbians cannot have a child.  The child is the offspring of one of the partners and another man.  Two homosexual males cannot have a child.  The child is the offspring of one of the partners and another woman.  (This is one reason why one can validly say that "gay marriage" attacks society.  Homosexual couples seeking to reproduce must necessarily violate the marriage bond to do so)

Seeking the legal benefits which comes with marriage without the framework the legal benefits are intended to support is to merely privilege a certain segment of society. This is based on the idea that since all persons are equal, all persons should have access to the same rights regardless of whether it is fitting they should have them.

Aristotle observed:

…political society exists for the sake of noble actions, and not of mere companionship. Hence they who contribute most to such a society have a greater share in it than those who have the same or a greater freedom or nobility of birth but are inferior to them in political virtue; or than those who exceed them in wealth but are surpassed by them in virtue. (Book 3 Part 9)

From this, it seems to follow that the rights of marriage under the law of a society must be based on the contribution of the family to society, and not on the basis of sexual intercourse between two individuals.

Unfortunately, in America we have a sense that every person must have a right to do anything they want.  Therefore we see nonsense like insisting males have the right to join the "Girl Scouts" to avoid injustice, ignoring the fact that things like gender are real things.  (It is wrong to treat a person as less of a person on account of their gender, but it does not follow from this that we must treat a person as if gender does not exist).

From this, we can consider more clearly what Aristotle had to say about the nature of good and evil in relation to government.

Aristotle pointed out:

The true forms of government, therefore, are those in which the one, or the few, or the many, govern with a view to the common interest; but governments which rule with a view to the private interest, whether of the one or of the few, or of the many, are perversions. (Book 3 part 7)

Those who would promote a view of government which insists on protecting private interests as a civil right are indeed perversions.

Part II: Reflections on Christian Obligation In Regards to the State

It is true that one cannot apply to the state the idea that one who is a Christian has freedoms that another individual does not.  This would make Christianity merely a "private interest," in the sense similar to legal persecutions by radical Hindus in India or the state mandated support of Islam in the Middle East.  Christians need to remember that when Christian teaching and Christian ethics form the basis of society, it must be that the ethics and teaching apply equally to all.  (It is because of this view that the Church takes a stand against secularism in government and society.  When the government is ruled in a way that benefits the irreligious over the religious, it is acting in the favor of a private interest).

However, the Christian view is that God is the center of reality, of truth and of life regardless of whether one believes in Him or not.  Their view of good derives from this.  Likewise, the one who professes a secular view, that God has no role to play in society, has to establish what is good from a secular view. 

I believe Thomas Aquinas had some good insights into what is necessary in law to be considered good:

…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 Q92 A1)

For the Christian, the Divine Justice is the yardstick for the good the lawgiver must follow.  If it does not, then while it may be beneficial to some, it is not good.

St Augustine speaks of the idea of the kingdom without justice in his City of God:

Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor." (Book IV: Chapter 4)

If the state has impunity to place injustice as law, then the state is arbitrary like a band of robbers, and cannot be said to be just.  Since the Christian is obliged to oppose injustice, they must speak up when the state is unjust.  If the state insists that the Christian cannot speak up on the grounds of "separation of Church and State," this is unjust because it deprives the Christian the right to speak when those who speak from other convictions are not similarly deprived.

It is because of this that reports of complaints against Bishops taking a stand in accord with their beliefs becomes ominous.

Part III: Christianity and Other Views within a State

Whether or not the atheist or the non-Christian religious believer likes it, America is largely made up of people who believe in the Christian notion of God, and any discussion of a good government must take this into account, because these standards are assumed.  If one wishes to reject these standards, something must be shown to be acceptable to replace them.

The Christian, with a properly formed faith, who acts in accord with their beliefs is in fact doing what the citizen of a state is supposed to be doing: acting for the common good based on what they believe is right.  Agree or disagree, the Christian with the properly formed faith does indeed have a world view on what justice is and what it requires.

The view of one who holds Christianity is wrong, and insists on forming society in a way which runs counter to the Christian view however. is not doing this unless they demonstrate why their actions do appeal to absolute justice and the common good and not to a private benefit.  Those who would object to "under God" in our Pledge of Allegiance or "In God We Trust" on our money is not objecting in terms of supreme justice, but under the private benefit of not wanting to see religious activity in public.

So if one proposes the state is to be governed by something other than the Christian view of Good, we need to be able to look at what this "other" holds, and why it should supplant the view the Christians hold on the nature of good and evil.  If such a case cannot be made, but proponents make this change anyway, then this is an arbitrary action by a group acting with impunity, not with justice.

Part IV: The Problem of Partisanship

The problem we have with the state in America today is that rather than a government acting for the public good with a clear understanding of what is good, we have a government of factions, each seeking to promote its agenda, and calling it good for the whole.  Both Liberals and Conservatives focus on material wealth, and differ on whether it is good to let the "free market" decide or the "state" decide.

Under this view, a majority in both houses and a president who shares these partisan leanings are enough to do what one wants with impunity — until the power structure shifts and those who were out of power enter power and those who once ruled are cast out.  Then that which was a majority view becomes a minority view and the formerly minority view becomes a majority view.

In this case the government veers "right" to "left" and then "left" to "right."  Those who support the government call it "good" while those who do not call it "bad" (or "a step backwards").  None of this considers what is the true good however, and I believe if Aristotle were alive today, he would have to call our governing of state a perversion.  Private interests run key.  The citizens become marginalized and our government becomes a government of few governed by self interest, with growing dissatisfaction from the faction falling out of power with each pendulum swing.

Part V: What Then Should We Do?

Ultimately if America is to be a land of justice, we need to step back and understand what it means to be an American citizen.  We need to recognize what is the source of ultimate good and justice and we need to make sure our laws follow this vision as accurately as possible.  Democrats and Republicans will no doubt differ on ways and means on how to carry it out, and not all of these views will be compatible with the ultimate good, due to the person's ability for self-deception.

However, if we are to be a land of justice, we need to understand what the yardstick is to be, and ensure that those who we bring to office are people who live up to this justice and not to partisan concerns which are made first.

Those things which run afoul of the ultimate good must be opposed.  The idea of vox populi vox dei (The voice of the people is the voice of God) is of course nonsense.  Indeed, the person who is crediting as having coined the statement (Alcuin) actually said the opposite:

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit. (And those people should not be listened to who keep saying the voice of the people is the voice of God, since the riotousness of the crowd is always very close to madness.)

The appetites of the individual lead people to do many things which are problematic, contradictory and focused on self-gratification.  The state exists to serve the good of the people, but the good is not the self gratification.

Therefore, we need to oppose those actions which deal with self-gratification or the reducing the consequences of self-gratification, and ask ourselves what is the greatest good?

Conclusion: The Christian Way

As Christians, we have an answer to this which guides our behavior, and is shown in two passages from Matthew:

^36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” ^37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. ^38 This is the great and first commandment. ^39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. ^40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.” (Mattt 22:36-40).

and

^16 And behold, one came up to him, saying, “Teacher, what good deed must I do, to have eternal life?” ^17 And he said to him, “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.” ^18 He said to him, “Which?” And Jesus said, “You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, ^19 Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself.” ^20 The young man said to him, “All these I have observed; what do I still lack?” ^21 Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” ^22 When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful; for he had great possessions. (Matt 19:16-22)

We have conditions in two areas as to what is good.  To follow God, and to treat our fellow man as ourselves.  A state which goes astray on either area fails to do what is good and just.

The Bishops and the laity who speak out against the evil of the government are not being partisan.  They are not imposing their own views.  They are in fact teaching us what we are required to do in the Light of the ultimate good.

Illogic from an Internet Quote

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."

—Quote commonly repeated on the Internet

This is what passes for a reasoned argument on the internet.  The problem of course, not only is it not a reasonable argument, it fails to grasp the basic point of contention.

Problem #1: "I just believe in one fewer god than you do"

First of all, the argument of "believing in one fewer god" sounds cute but there is a problem with it.  The difference between believing in two gods and believing in one god is not just the difference of one god.  It is the difference between polytheism and monotheism, which is a pretty substantial difference, as it is the difference between a belief in a group of imperfect higher beings, each with sovereignty over a specific area, and a perfect higher being.

The difference between believing in one god and believing in zero gods is an infinite difference, as is atheism and theism.  Believing there is a God holds a dramatically different view from a view that there is no God, as it reflects on one's outlook on the meaning of existence and our obligations towards our fellow men.

So the statement shows either a great ignorance or a great contempt for the issue in question, and demonstrates a failure to understand the dispute between theism and atheism.

Problem #2: "When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours"

Such a statement, again, sounds cute but it also betrays an ignorance of why we monotheists actually disagree with polytheism.  A look at fourth and fifth century authors like Arnobius of Sicca (I am referring to the actual author, not this blogsite) and his Ad nationes; or St. Augustine and the first ten books of City of God shows a challenge to a polytheistic view, stating that such beings were by nature finite beings and had no such a power to compel worship, and demonstrated logically that such a view of deities was irrational and so on.

Even outside of Judaeo-Christian views, Greek philosophers recognized the flaws of the system of polytheism.

The author of the quoted statement, and those who cite it or copy it into their sig files, demonstrate that they have no idea why polytheism is rejected by a monotheist, assuming that the monotheist simply uses their arguments against other religions.

The problem is, these arguments against polytheism cannot be applied to monotheism because polytheism and monotheism hold incompatible views.  Disproving polytheism does not disprove monotheism.

This brings us to a second issue with this second statement.  No matter how many false religions one debunks, one has not proven all religions are false.  It is like saying "All swans are black."  No matter how many black swans one sees, it does not prove the case.  Yet the sighting of one white swan disproves it.  So the disproving of the Greek pantheon, the Hindu pantheon or whatever does not say "there is no God."  It can merely say "this system is not reasonable and can be dismissed."

Unfortunately, in this age of "bumper sticker philosophy," people do throw that quote around thinking it proves something, when examined, it is quite empty of meaning. 

Why Indeed?

One of the trends I have noticed among the more traditionalist minded Catholics is a sense of malaise about the Church they are in.  They look at the problems of the Church today, they look to the decline of vocations, they look to the scandals… and they complain about how "The Church" does nothing whatsoever about it.

They ask why nobody is doing anything about it.

I was struck with how odd this looks when we look at the saints of the Church in times when we had these exact problems of another century.

In my Lives of the Saints book, I was reading of St. Godfrey, Bishop of Amiens, who lived in the eleventh century AD.  When he entered the religious life, there was a strong decline of vocations, there was moral laxity among the faithful and among the religious.  Some religious and clergy were failing to live up to their vows.

So what did he do?  He went to work restoring the Church in the area he lived in, restoring discipline, making his own life an example of the holiness he preached.

Today, many look at the problems of the Church and they ask "Why does not God send saints to bring about reform?"

To which I think the counter question could be asked:

Why are we not seeking to be saints, serving Christ's Church from our love of God?

Why indeed?

This is a little story about four people named Everybody, Somebody, Anybody, and Nobody.

There was an important job to be done and Everybody was sure that Somebody would do it.

Anybody could have done it, but Nobody did it.

Somebody got angry about that because it was Everybody's job.

Everybody thought that Anybody could do it, but Nobody realized that Everybody wouldn't do it.

It ended up that Everybody blamed Somebody when Nobody did what Anybody could have done