Nonsense Challenges

There are certain challenges thrown against the nature of God which, while of no real intellectual value themselves, seem aimed at throwing certain Christians into a quandary which they don't know how to answer, with the evident hope that such a question will cause a person to lose faith. I handled one of these questions over a year ago, and I thought it was time to handle another.

The question bandied about is:

"Can God make a Square Circle?"

Let's start with a few definitions here:

Square: a plane figure with four equal straight sides and four right angles.

Circle: a round plane figure whose boundary consists of points equidistant from the centre.

Round: having a curved surface with no sharp projections.

Angle: the space (usually measured in degrees) between two intersecting lines or surfaces at or close to the point where they meet.

† a corner, especially an external projection or internal recess

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

Now, when comparing things to a square, things like a rectangle or a rhombus have  some of the characteristics of a square, but not all of them.  The rectangle has four right angles, but not four equal straight sides.  A rhombus has four straight sides , but not four right angles.  Other shapes like a parallelogram are four sided plane figures, like a square but lack the four equal straight sides and four right angles.

Likewise, a variant of a circle is the oval, which is rounded, but the boundary points are not equidistant from the center.

So, what's the Point here?

What this indicates here is that if we have a rhombus, a rectangle or a parallelogram, we do not have a square.

Likewise, if the object we have is an oval, we do not have a circle.

The nature of a circle or a square is based on it having certain characteristics.  If we alter these characteristics, we no longer have a circle or a square.

If we add a side, we no longer even have something in this class.  We have a pentagon, not a square.  If we remove a side, we have a triangle, not a square.  If we alter one of the sides of a square so it is no longer straight, it is no longer a square.

So too, if we add a straight side to a circle, it is no longer round.  If we add an angle to a circle, it is no longer round.  If it is no longer round, it is no longer a circle.

The Law of Non Contradiction

The Law of non contradiction, commonly stated is: It is not possible that something be both true and not true at the same time and in the same context.  So, for example, a table cannot be made entirely of wood and entirely not of wood at the same time.

So if something is round, it cannot at the same time be square (because if round is true, then straight is false).  If something is square, it cannot be round at the same time (because if straight is true, then round is false).

The Application

If God creates something in the shape of a square, we call it square because it meets the characteristics of what we call a square.  If what He creates is not in the shape of a square we do not call it a square.

Ultimately the question is phrased to lead people to either claim God "cannot" do something. or else to try to trick them into the position of having to explain how God can do the impossible.  However, it is nothing more than a wordplay, which ignores the fact that a circle and a square have certain things in their own essence which are contradictory to the other (a round object cannot have a straight side.  A straight side cannot be rounded), in order to create an illusion of limitation.

It is because of this that the question is sheer nonsense.

Reflections on Fruits

Two men, a priest and a skeptic were walking down the street.  The skeptic was complaining about the problems of religion, arguing it helped nobody.  "It doesn't change a person's behavior, so what good is it?"  The priest said nothing until he walked past a dirty unkempt individual.  "Look, soap didn't change that person's appearance, so what good is it?"  The skeptic objected.  "That's not fair.  Soap could help him, but he just didn't use it."  The priest nodded.  "And that's my answer to you as well."

—Origin Unknown

The Question

I recently received a question, expressing concern for the state of the Church, about the concept of "By their fruits, you will know them."  Given the troubles in the Catholic Church, I was asked, is it possible that these are the fruits which indicate this is not God's Church? 

The Consideration

The verses which seems important to consider are largely from Matthew.  The first is from Matthew 7:

^15 “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. ^16 You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? ^17 So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit. ^18 A sound tree cannot bear evil fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. ^19 Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. ^20 Thus you will know them by their fruits.

In context, we see Jesus is speaking of individuals, and is speaking of hypocrisy and of false prophets.  People who may invoke the name of God, but their actions do not follow what they claim to hold.  The sound tree vs. the bad tree.

The second verse comes from Matthew 12, when Jesus was accused of doing his miracles through demons:

^33 “Either make the tree good, and its fruit good; or make the tree bad, and its fruit bad; for the tree is known by its fruit. ^34 You brood of vipers! how can you speak good, when you are evil? For out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. ^35 The good man out of his good treasure brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil.

In both cases, Jesus is speaking of the behavior of individuals.  Those who show good fruits cannot be called evil, while those who show evil fruits cannot be called good.

The Analysis

With each individual within the Church, the question is whether or not the person hears God's message and keeps it in his or her heart.  If he does, he will bring forth good fruit.  If not, he will bring forth bad fruit.  Since the verse was applied to an individual and not to the Church, it seems to be taking it out of context to apply the verse to the Church, unless it can be established that the person bearing bad fruit is doing so because he is following the true teaching of the Church.  Otherwise, to claim "Person X is a Catholic, and he is doing bad things, therefore the Catholic Church is bad" is in fact a post hoc fallacy.

So if "Sister Mary Loony," or "Father Harry Tik" is saying or doing things which shows bad fruit, we need to analyze whether or not the Catholicism they teach is in fact in line with the teaching of the Pope and those in communion with him.  If it is, the accusation is valid.  If it is not, then obviously it is unjust to blame the Church for those who teach their own views instead of the Church.

Remember in Matt 12:15, Jesus spoke of false prophets: People who teach a false teaching and present it as God's.  Reading the Prophets in the Old Testament, we see many incidents of false prophets who sought to teach a message not from God.  They claimed that God would not forsake Jerusalem to the nations because His temple was in Jerusalem, and to let Jerusalem fall would show God to be weak.

The true prophets however spoke the truth, that God would not tolerate the wickedness of His people, and they would be held to account for their sins (Ezekiel is very powerful in this respect)

The Application

Certain things, such as art, architecture and music do reflect the influence of faith in a society.  A society which practices its faith will be more inclined to produce works of deep spiritual meaning, while a society which does not, will be less likely to produce people who are inspired to create.

It would be false however to think that the Western decline in ideas of art is due to the Church being in decline, unless one can make a case that the Church itself is responsible for the decline in its official teaching (as opposed to people who imposed their own interpretation on to what the Church has taught).

Indeed, when we look at the path of Western society, we see a tendency against God and faith and towards secularism.  In other words, a society which is rejecting Christ and is marginalizing faith.

Does the Church embrace this?  No, in fact it is setting itself in opposition to this secularism, and calling for a return to Christ, making Him the center of our lives individually and in society.

So it cannot be said that The Church is the cause of this aesthetic collapse.

Nor can it be said to be the cause of any moral or spiritual collapse.  These collapses are caused by man moving away from the teachings of Christ and His Church.

The Church cannot compel the individual to obey however.  It can only teach what is, and to speak out against what is false.  But as Humorist Dorothy Parker once remarked (and was wrongly attributed to Mae West): "You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think." If people will not listen to the Church, and will reject its authority, there is not much one can do to make them listen.

The Obligation for US as Individuals to Bear Witness

This is of course where those of us who claim to be faithful sons and daughters of the Church come in.  We are indeed called to transform our culture by our living witness to Christ.  Perhaps this means preaching.  But not all of us are called to preach, but all of us are called to bear witness.

The primary way we can do this is by our actions.  As St. James has said in chapter 2 of his epistle:

^14 What does it profit, my brethren, if a man says he has faith but has not works? Can his faith save him? ^15 If a brother or sister is ill-clad and in lack of daily food, ^16 and one of you says to them, “Go in peace, be warmed and filled,” without giving them the things needed for the body, what does it profit? ^17 So faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead.

^18 But some one will say, “You have faith and I have works.” Show me your faith apart from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith.

If we, if you as an individual or I as an individual, are not showing our faith by our works, are failing to bear witness to the world.  Yes, many non-Christians and many people who reject all concepts of religion are scandalized by our behavior, who profess the belief in Christ but by our works seem to show nothing but bad fruit.  Who is to blame in such a case?

We are.  We are whenever we fail to bear witness to the faith we have within us by living our lives according to that faith.  I know the faults I have to work on, and I don't always succeed in the struggle against them.

Sinners in the Church… are Us

we need to remember Matthew 7 when we see sinners within the Church:

^1 “Judge not, that you be not judged. ^2 For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. ^3 Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? ^4 Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? ^5 You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.

When we pass judgment on what others are failing to do for the Church

All of us are obligated to remove the log in our own eye, and whether or not "the other guy" removes the speck from their eye does not change the obligation we have before God.

If we want the Church to show good fruits, we need to start with ourselves.  If we are offended by the behavior of others, are we ourselves exemplary in our own behavior?

If our objection is others promoting error, are we speaking out for the truth?

If we do not, we fall into the category of the hypocrites Jesus spoke out against.  "the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get" is a sentence I would not want applied against me, but Christ has told us, this is how we will be judged.

Not Judging Does Not Mean Staying Silent

This does not mean we need to be silent against evil of course.  As the book of Ezekiel, chapter 33, has related:

^The word of the Lord came to me: ^2 “Son of man, speak to your people and say to them, If I bring the sword upon a land, and the people of the land take a man from among them, and make him their watchman; ^3 and if he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows the trumpet and warns the people; ^4 then if any one who hears the sound of the trumpet does not take warning, and the sword comes and takes him away, his blood shall be upon his own head. ^5 He heard the sound of the trumpet, and did not take warning; his blood shall be upon himself. But if he had taken warning, he would have saved his life. ^6 But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet, so that the people are not warned, and the sword comes, and takes any one of them; that man is taken away in his iniquity, but his blood I will require at the watchman’s hand.

So, the question to be directed against those who wonder if the Church has bad fruits, on account of her members, is: Does the Church warn against the sword on the land?  Does it speak out against the evils the land is committing?

Note, I did not say "Does the individual priest or layman."  It is quite possible for individuals to fall short of their obligation before God.  But does The Church as a whole fail to teach?

Actually no.  it stands up against the evil of the world, it condemns the evil, and tries to lead us to the good.

Conclusion

Now, if I lie to you the reader about what the Church teaches, or if I fail to understand what the Church teaches, is this the fault of the Church?  Or is it my own fault?

This is ultimately what we need to consider about whether "The Church" produces good fruits or bad.

1. Who has the authority to teach for the Church? (As Catholics, we hold it is the Magisterium)
2. Who is responsible for following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church)
3. Who is responsible for not following the teaching of the Church? (Every one of us who claim to be in communion with the Church without obeying the teaching of the Church)
4. When is "the Church" (In contrast to the individual) responsible?  (Only if the individual does evil because he follows what the Church teaches, and not his misunderstanding of what the Church teaches)
5. Is the Church responsible for a misunderstanding? (Only if it fails to teach properly)

Ultimately, to demonstrate "the Church" has bad fruits, it has to show that the actual teaching of the magisterium, properly understood, is the cause of these bad fruits, avoiding post hoc and straw man fallacies.  It requires a knowledge of what the Church has taught, in context, and a demonstration that this evil was intended by the teaching of "the Church," as opposed to overzealous or overlax individuals who distorted or misinterpreted it.

Affirming a Disjunct, Denying the Conjunct and the Abortion Debate

While I thought this was kicked under the carpet when the 2008 elections ended, I have seen some bloggers and commentators make use of the following reasoning:

1. We can either oppose abortion or we can reduce the need for abortion by helping women
2. Pro-lifers are opposing abortion
3. Therefore they are not helping women in need

Affirming a Disjunct
This is a variant of the false dilemma fallacy known as Affirming a disjunct:

• Either p or q
• p
• Therefore not q

Why is this a logical fallacy?  Because premise #1 is false in declaring we can either do p or q, but not both, or in assuming that because one has done one choice, he or she has set him or herself against the alternative.
Anyone who has seen the crisis pregnancy centers staffed by pro-lifers knows this is a false accusation which seeks to label the opponents as being insensitive.
Denying the Conjunct
Radical anti-abortion supporters (which is different from being pro-life) sometimes use the counterpart to Affirming a Disjunct, known as Denying the Conjunct:

1. You cannot both demonstrate in front of abortion clinics (p) and support abortion (q)
2. You are not demonstrating in front of abortion clinics (not p)
3. Therefore you support abortion (q).

This logical fallacy is also how Randall Terry calumniated Bishop Darcy over the Notre Dame incident.  It is a similar error, assuming that there is only one solution to be labeled Pro-Life.
What is getting lost with both forms of the false dilemma  is that the first group assumes that any focus on one approach must ignore the other, while the second group assumes only their way is right.
The Catholic Church of course rejects both errors. 
When it comes to the first case, Yes indeed we need to aid mothers to be in distress, but that does not mean we must neglect the ending of legalized abortion.  The call of the Christian is to do both.
The second error false because one can be opposed to abortion without taking part in all forms of opposition.  I disagree with Terry's version of how to act, but that does not mean I want abortion to remain legal.  Rather I believe his view is imprudent at best, and most probably counterproductive (his own version tends to alienate, not encourage women to seek other options)
What Is To Be Done
Quite simply, we must do both.  We need to work to end legalized abortion, and we need to assist women in need so they can choose other options.  If a person argued that all we need to do is to end Roe v. Wade (which is in fact not argued) then yes, this would be a limitation, and a weakening of what we are obligated to do to what is "easy."
However, this also applies to the person who says we need to only focus on the aiding the woman and need and leave abortion in place as legal.  It fails to act against a very real evil, and simply works on symptoms and not the disease itself.

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.