On Pain: When it seems to come from God or His Church

One of the problems when discussing doctrine of belief and morality is that people do have emotions and feelings and desires.  These things can be disordered of course.  These things can be brought about bad choices or being in situations through the fault of another person.  However, they are real feelings.  Sometimes, in dealing with a situation where the Church has no choice but to say "No," a person is caught on the wrong side of that decision.

Now from an objective perspective of course, if we believe the Church's authority is bestowed by Christ, then the person caught on the wrong side is on the wrong side.  However, it doesn't do them much good to say "$#!+ happens.  Deal with it."  Indeed, it might lead such a person to decide that the Church is acting with cold indifference.

On the other hand, each person in such a situation must "deal with it."  They must come to terms with the situation they are in or walk away while those who are not in this situation, while not being permitted to compromise on the truth, do need to be compassionate in how they deal with the situation.

Dealing With It: The Person In Pain

The person in a difficult situation needs to consider some things here.  Our emotions do tell us how we feel, but they should not be the master of what we do.  There is an old maxim of moral theology which states that no person should be their own judge of what is right and wrong.  Why is this?

This is because the possibility for self deception is high.  We all have a strong desire to avoid any suffering, or at least a perceived suffering.  Consider the person who endures a toothache because they consider the possibility of the dentist to be worse.  Sometimes we do have to experience discomfort in order to be healed of the situation we are now in.

The Issue of Faith

When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did not go to my mother-at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists; I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie; if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment. (CS Lewis.  Mere Christianity p201-202)

The question then is "Do we trust the dentist" to do the right thing even when a situation seems to be quite painful (drilling the tooth)?

Likewise, do we trust God to seek our ultimate good when what we see is painful?  Do we trust the Church when she acts in the motivation of doing what she believes Christ wants us to do?  If we do not trust, we will not see the possibility of pain being used to purify us from what is not good for us from the perspective of having an immortal soul.

I have alluded to this in the past in speaking of what the Catholic Church believes about herself.  The important questions the Catholic in pain must ask themselves are: Do I believe Jesus established the Church which established the norms I am at odds with?  Do I trust that Jesus has promised to protect the Church from teaching error?'

Do we recognize the possibility that we are clinging to a toothache in thinking that if it is not our way, it can't be God's way?  Are we thinking that if the Church does not grant our request, it must be doing wrong?

Belief vs. Faith

^28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

^29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

^30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”

^31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”  (Mt 14:28-31).

There is a story about the 19th century Tightrope walker called Blondin (Jean Fracois Gravelet) who would walk across Niagara Falls.  He would do some amazing stunts like riding a bicycle, walking it blindfolded.  The story goes that one time he asked the crowd who believed he could cross it blindfolded while pushing a wheelbarrow.  Of course the crowd cheered him on.  Blondin then replied with "Who will get into the wheelbarrow while I push it across?"

The crowd was silent.  Not one person was willing to get into the wheelbarrow while he took it blindfolded across Niagara Falls.  They believed he could do it, but not one of them was willing to put their faith in him.

Those who are suffering some affliction, and believe Christ or His Church is the cause of it are in the situation of the Crowd at Niagara Falls.  Christ, like Blondin, is asking "Who will get into the wheelbarrow?"

Peter may have sank when his faith wavered, but he at least had faith enough in Christ to get out of the boat, and he had faith in Christ to save him when he sank.

Will we trust Christ enough to get out of the boat of the situation we are in and follow Him?

"God is Good" does not mean Our Life will be Pain Free

In the book Rome Sweet Home, Kimberly Hahn discusses a story of how she was wrestling with the pain and bitterness over her husband's conversion to the Catholic Church.  She recognized that she either would have to join him or remain in a divided family.  She was struggling with why God would  allow her to go through such pain.  She then relates how her daughter had to be taken to the hospital because of dehydration.  She had an extremely high temperature (peaking at 105.2 degrees) and she had to assist the nurses in putting ice cold cloths on her child's body to help bring the temperature down, even though it was very painful to the child.  She says of the experience:

As soon as her hot little body heated up the towel, we took it off and put on another cold one.  it was imperative that we get her fever down.  Hannah was lying there with one arm bound by an IV tube and the other stretched toward me as far as she could reach, her body shaking so hard.  She was screaming "Mommy!  Mommy!"

Hannah could not understand what I was doing.  I was supposed to protect her from harm, yet here I was helping to put the cloths on that were causing her much pain and discomfort.  I could not explain it to her, but I knew I was doing the most loving thing for her.

In the midst of this I felt the Lord put his hand on my shoulder and say, "Kimberly, do you see what a good mother you are?  You love your daughter, so you are causing her pain to heal her.  Do you see how much I have loved you, my daughter?  I have caused you pain, to heal you, to draw you to myself." (Rome Sweet Home pages 150-151)

I think this is important to remember, when we are asking ourselves "Why is God making me suffer like this?"  Like the dentist of CS Lewis' account.  Like the actions Kimberly Hahn had to do in helping the nurses keep the temperature down on her seriously ill daughter, sometimes God must act in a way which causes us pain in order to make us well.  Sometimes the Church must act in a certain way and refuse to make an exception, even though it causes us pain, because she must be faithful to Christ.

In such a case God is doing us no wrong.  Nor is the Church doing us wrong.

Parenthesis: On Unjust Stewards

Let me be clear I am not speaking of an individual in the Church who is unyielding in a way which does not do God's justice.  There are sinners in the Church of course.  If there is an unjust member of the clergy or the laity in a Church position who behaves unjustly, we need to have faith in God and trust He will do His will, while praying for deliverance.

However, our view must be that of Christ in Matthew 26:39, which says:

He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

The solution God might have to deliver us from injustice in such cases might not be what we want.  It might even be that the Lord permits the action of the unjust steward to bring about good we do not see.  However, if we are certain that an affliction is due to an individual in the Church behaving unjustly, we need to respond in faith, and not in anger.  God is not thwarted by those who act against Him.  If He wills a thing, nothing can stand against him.

So is it Cruel to say "Deal With it?"  Reflections for the Person Interacting with the one suffering

So is it cruel for the person who is interacting with the suffering person to just say "$#!+ happens, deal with it?"  I think it would be cruel to say it in this way of course.  However, if the Church does a thing because to do otherwise would be to contradict what she believes, then we do the person no favors in agreeing with the lashing out against the Church which they do in their pain.

On the other hand, we do not do God's work if our response is cold.  Sometimes we must say "No" and take part in "tough love."  But that doesn't mean we can just brush off their pain.  We need to offer them our ear to hear and our support to help them with their heavy burden without indulging in any self pity which may be present.

We cannot abandon the truth ever.  But how we present the truth can make a difference as to whether we help a person with their burden or whether we make it seem more oppressive.

For the times I have chosen the latter approach, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

On Pain: When it seems to come from God or His Church

One of the problems when discussing doctrine of belief and morality is that people do have emotions and feelings and desires.  These things can be disordered of course.  These things can be brought about bad choices or being in situations through the fault of another person.  However, they are real feelings.  Sometimes, in dealing with a situation where the Church has no choice but to say "No," a person is caught on the wrong side of that decision.

Now from an objective perspective of course, if we believe the Church's authority is bestowed by Christ, then the person caught on the wrong side is on the wrong side.  However, it doesn't do them much good to say "$#!+ happens.  Deal with it."  Indeed, it might lead such a person to decide that the Church is acting with cold indifference.

On the other hand, each person in such a situation must "deal with it."  They must come to terms with the situation they are in or walk away while those who are not in this situation, while not being permitted to compromise on the truth, do need to be compassionate in how they deal with the situation.

Dealing With It: The Person In Pain

The person in a difficult situation needs to consider some things here.  Our emotions do tell us how we feel, but they should not be the master of what we do.  There is an old maxim of moral theology which states that no person should be their own judge of what is right and wrong.  Why is this?

This is because the possibility for self deception is high.  We all have a strong desire to avoid any suffering, or at least a perceived suffering.  Consider the person who endures a toothache because they consider the possibility of the dentist to be worse.  Sometimes we do have to experience discomfort in order to be healed of the situation we are now in.

The Issue of Faith

When I was a child I often had toothache, and I knew that if I went to my mother she would give me something which would deaden the pain for that night and let me get to sleep. But I did not go to my mother-at least, not till the pain became very bad. And the reason I did not go was this. I did not doubt she would give me the aspirin; but I knew she would also do something else. I knew she would take me to the dentist next morning. I could not get what I wanted out of her without getting something more, which I did not want. I wanted immediate relief from pain: but I could not get it without having my teeth set permanently right. And I knew those dentists; I knew they started fiddling about with all sorts of other teeth which had not yet begun to ache. They would not let sleeping dogs lie; if you gave them an inch they took an ell.

Now, if I may put it that way, Our Lord is like the dentists. If you give Him an inch, He will take an ell. Dozens of people go to Him to be cured of some one particular sin which they are ashamed of (like masturbation or physical cowardice) or which is obviously spoiling daily life (like bad temper or drunkenness). Well, He will cure it all right: but He will not stop there. That may be all you asked; but if once you call Him in, He will give you the full treatment. (CS Lewis.  Mere Christianity p201-202)

The question then is "Do we trust the dentist" to do the right thing even when a situation seems to be quite painful (drilling the tooth)?

Likewise, do we trust God to seek our ultimate good when what we see is painful?  Do we trust the Church when she acts in the motivation of doing what she believes Christ wants us to do?  If we do not trust, we will not see the possibility of pain being used to purify us from what is not good for us from the perspective of having an immortal soul.

I have alluded to this in the past in speaking of what the Catholic Church believes about herself.  The important questions the Catholic in pain must ask themselves are: Do I believe Jesus established the Church which established the norms I am at odds with?  Do I trust that Jesus has promised to protect the Church from teaching error?'

Do we recognize the possibility that we are clinging to a toothache in thinking that if it is not our way, it can't be God's way?  Are we thinking that if the Church does not grant our request, it must be doing wrong?

Belief vs. Faith

^28 Peter said to him in reply, “Lord, if it is you, command me to come to you on the water.”

^29 He said, “Come.” Peter got out of the boat and began to walk on the water toward Jesus.

^30 But when he saw how (strong) the wind was he became frightened; and, beginning to sink, he cried out, “Lord, save me!”

^31 Immediately Jesus stretched out his hand and caught him, and said to him, “O you of little faith, why did you doubt?”  (Mt 14:28-31).

There is a story about the 19th century Tightrope walker called Blondin (Jean Fracois Gravelet) who would walk across Niagara Falls.  He would do some amazing stunts like riding a bicycle, walking it blindfolded.  The story goes that one time he asked the crowd who believed he could cross it blindfolded while pushing a wheelbarrow.  Of course the crowd cheered him on.  Blondin then replied with "Who will get into the wheelbarrow while I push it across?"

The crowd was silent.  Not one person was willing to get into the wheelbarrow while he took it blindfolded across Niagara Falls.  They believed he could do it, but not one of them was willing to put their faith in him.

Those who are suffering some affliction, and believe Christ or His Church is the cause of it are in the situation of the Crowd at Niagara Falls.  Christ, like Blondin, is asking "Who will get into the wheelbarrow?"

Peter may have sank when his faith wavered, but he at least had faith enough in Christ to get out of the boat, and he had faith in Christ to save him when he sank.

Will we trust Christ enough to get out of the boat of the situation we are in and follow Him?

"God is Good" does not mean Our Life will be Pain Free

In the book Rome Sweet Home, Kimberly Hahn discusses a story of how she was wrestling with the pain and bitterness over her husband's conversion to the Catholic Church.  She recognized that she either would have to join him or remain in a divided family.  She was struggling with why God would  allow her to go through such pain.  She then relates how her daughter had to be taken to the hospital because of dehydration.  She had an extremely high temperature (peaking at 105.2 degrees) and she had to assist the nurses in putting ice cold cloths on her child's body to help bring the temperature down, even though it was very painful to the child.  She says of the experience:

As soon as her hot little body heated up the towel, we took it off and put on another cold one.  it was imperative that we get her fever down.  Hannah was lying there with one arm bound by an IV tube and the other stretched toward me as far as she could reach, her body shaking so hard.  She was screaming "Mommy!  Mommy!"

Hannah could not understand what I was doing.  I was supposed to protect her from harm, yet here I was helping to put the cloths on that were causing her much pain and discomfort.  I could not explain it to her, but I knew I was doing the most loving thing for her.

In the midst of this I felt the Lord put his hand on my shoulder and say, "Kimberly, do you see what a good mother you are?  You love your daughter, so you are causing her pain to heal her.  Do you see how much I have loved you, my daughter?  I have caused you pain, to heal you, to draw you to myself." (Rome Sweet Home pages 150-151)

I think this is important to remember, when we are asking ourselves "Why is God making me suffer like this?"  Like the dentist of CS Lewis' account.  Like the actions Kimberly Hahn had to do in helping the nurses keep the temperature down on her seriously ill daughter, sometimes God must act in a way which causes us pain in order to make us well.  Sometimes the Church must act in a certain way and refuse to make an exception, even though it causes us pain, because she must be faithful to Christ.

In such a case God is doing us no wrong.  Nor is the Church doing us wrong.

Parenthesis: On Unjust Stewards

Let me be clear I am not speaking of an individual in the Church who is unyielding in a way which does not do God's justice.  There are sinners in the Church of course.  If there is an unjust member of the clergy or the laity in a Church position who behaves unjustly, we need to have faith in God and trust He will do His will, while praying for deliverance.

However, our view must be that of Christ in Matthew 26:39, which says:

He advanced a little and fell prostrate in prayer, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from me; yet, not as I will, but as you will.”

The solution God might have to deliver us from injustice in such cases might not be what we want.  It might even be that the Lord permits the action of the unjust steward to bring about good we do not see.  However, if we are certain that an affliction is due to an individual in the Church behaving unjustly, we need to respond in faith, and not in anger.  God is not thwarted by those who act against Him.  If He wills a thing, nothing can stand against him.

So is it Cruel to say "Deal With it?"  Reflections for the Person Interacting with the one suffering

So is it cruel for the person who is interacting with the suffering person to just say "$#!+ happens, deal with it?"  I think it would be cruel to say it in this way of course.  However, if the Church does a thing because to do otherwise would be to contradict what she believes, then we do the person no favors in agreeing with the lashing out against the Church which they do in their pain.

On the other hand, we do not do God's work if our response is cold.  Sometimes we must say "No" and take part in "tough love."  But that doesn't mean we can just brush off their pain.  We need to offer them our ear to hear and our support to help them with their heavy burden without indulging in any self pity which may be present.

We cannot abandon the truth ever.  But how we present the truth can make a difference as to whether we help a person with their burden or whether we make it seem more oppressive.

For the times I have chosen the latter approach, mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.

Deus Vult! (Therefore the Church MUST be wrong): Reflections on Cafeteria Catholicism

Introduction

[Preliminary Note: In this article I am dealing with the attacks on the official teachings of the Church and not the actions of an individual who is in a Church office who does wrong in the application of what the Church teaches.]

In a past article I dealt with the issue of authority in the Catholic Church, and how the belief that the Church was established with the authority to bind and loose.  I asked then, why a person would want to belong to a Church which claimed this if they did not believe it, because if it was not true, it is a pretty monstrous claim.

Yet we do have a phenomenon within the Church which we know as "Cafeteria Catholicism."  The principle is a person accepts only those parts of the faith they believe in, and reject those issues (normally of morality, but sometimes on doctrine too) they disagree with.

In all of these cases, we see that the Church is claimed to be in the wrong when it disagrees with person X on their behavior.

Thus we see things like the Pope is called "cruel" for not allowing condoms to prevent AIDS.  We see the Church called cruel for requiring Catholics to behave morally, for opposing “gay marriage” and so on.  We see the Church position on contraception and abortion called "cruel" because it "forces" a woman to die in childbirth or have too many children.  We see the Church position on divorce and remarriage "cruel" because they insist that Christ forbids divorce if the marriage is valid.

In all of these cases, we see people claim “God must want me to do X "because I would be unhappy if I did not get my way.”   The enthymeme (unspoken assumption) of this argument being, "God wants me to be materially happy."  Thus we see people say in effect Deus vult! (“God Wills It!”) If the Church disagrees, then the Church must be wrong.

There is a problem in all of these cases, but the problem is not with the Church.

Anger  is Directed at the Church for doing what she believes she must do

Many of the stances the Church holds, she holds simply because she believes she must do so if she is to be faithful to Christ. She rejects certain positions set forth by the world, such as not accepting the use of condoms to “stop” the spread of AIDS; such as refusing to sanction the marriage between two individuals of the same sex; such as refusing to sanction remarriage if the first marriage was valid and both spouses are alive.

Now I have no doubt that many people think an “exception” should be made or the Church “policy” [a loaded term to make it seem like a merely human rule], and in many cases the emotion they feel is quite real.

All the sad stories about AIDS sufferers, Lesbians in Love [ever notice how it’s always two women who are used as an example… never two men?], divorced persons wanting to remarry have the same refrain: “The Church won’t let us do X!”

The problem with this tired old refrain is the Church believes she cannot change what she says because to do so would be unfaithful to God. Therefore, the demand for the Church to change is in fact a demand that the Church be unfaithful to what she believes God requires.

This is, in a word, selfishness.

A person may disagree with what the Church believes of course, but they can’t claim their view is “more Catholic” in doing so. Let’s go back to the premise of how Catholicism differs from other religions. We believe that the Catholic Church is the Church directly established by Christ with a visible head with the authority to bind and loose. This does not mean that the Church can go and abolish one of the Ten Commandments tomorrow. The Church believes her authority to bind and loose can only be used in service to God, and not independently of God.

The Misinterpretation of “God is Love" (and therefore He wouldn’t stop me from doing what I want)

One of the most annoying counterarguments against the Church is the taking out of context of “God is Love.” (from 1 John 4:16). Taken from the concept of we must love our brother, “God is Love” is turned into saying “God is Nice.” God, in this view, is non-threatening, He makes no demands. He only wants us to be happy here on Earth and is willing to bend His rules even though His silly Church won’t.

Excuse me, but this is not the God of the Bible at all. This is the God of Hallmark sentiments. It is actually a blasphemous view of God which negates what Christ did on the Cross for us.  It ignores the possibility of our being sinners.

God does indeed love us. When Adam and Eve broke away from God, God was under no obligation to bring salvation to us. Yet He did send His Son to save us. However, the message of Christ was not “An’ ye harm none, do what you will” (a popular Wiccan saying). It was “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). God loves us unconditionally to be sure. When one of us falls away, He desires to bring us back (see Luke 15:4). However the imagery God uses is that He goes out and brings back. We who sin are in the wrong place, and He goes to bring us back to the right place.

Love is not sentimentalism. Love seeks the greatest good for the beloved. Sometimes, it must be “tough love.” Love cannot sacrifice truth because no falsehood can be good, and no good thing can be false. So when the beloved wants something harmful, the lover must at times say “Because I love you, I cannot do X.”

The Church Has Other Motivations Than “Being Mean.”

Now, agree with the Church or disagree, at least accept that when the Church draws a line in the sand, it is not for the sake of being “cruel.” Rather it is because she believes that this is the right place as decreed by God.

Disagreement with the Church is therefore a rejection (whether intended or not) of the Church values and a demand she behave differently because what the Church believes is “not important” in relation to what the individual wants.  Thus the argument that the Church should permit condoms is a claim that continence is unimportant because we can’t help acting like crazed weasels in heat. The claim that the Church should permit remarriage if a spouse has been unfaithful is a rejection of the Church belief that if a marriage is valid, the Church cannot remarry a person already married. If the Church refuses to sanction homosexual “marriage” it is because she believes God has forbade homosexual acts.  If she condemns abortion as evil, it is not because she wants to control women.  It is because she believes the unborn child is a living human person.

All the appeals to emotion one wants to dredge up are irrelevant.  If God has commanded certain things are intrinsically evil (always wrong) then the Church may not make changes with them.

In all of these cases, we see the insistence that the Church act in defiance to what she believes God commands. This is not calling on the Church to become “more like Christ.” It is (willed or not) the non servium of the Devil saying “I reject the value you insist on!”

“But… God wants me to be happy!”

This is another argument which is thrown around, which makes God into a fuzzy Santa Claus. God desires us to be happy yes. However He knows that not all things we desire will make us happy in the light of the fact we possess an immortal soul. We were made for eternity with God. We were also made with free will. Because of this, we have the ability, but not the right, to behave in a way contrary to what He decrees.

Temporary happiness which will lead to separation from God for eternity is not something God wants for us.  God is good, and there is no evil or imperfection in Him. We, on the other hand, are imperfect and sometimes desire worthless or harmful things with the thinking it is a good thing. The wicked things will not bring us closer to God, regardless of whether it “feels” right or not. How many times have we seen children want what is harmful for them? They think the parent is “mean” because he or she will not indulge the child. However, sometimes the parent must refuse the child something which will not be good for the child.

Sometimes God must command we do not do a certain thing, much as we might want to. The Church, believing what Christ says about “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” must be faithful to what she believes God commands.

Misunderstanding what the Church Teaches

Not all dissent is born of defiance. Some is born out of ignorance. There are many times when a person does not understand why the Church holds a thing and thus claims what the Church does must be wrong. While the motive might be less willful, it does not excuse the person for rejecting what the Church holds.

GK Chesterton once wrote, in the article "The Drift from Domesticity" found in the book Brave New Family (Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53):

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 is an excellent point. “Reform for the sake of reform” is foolish. Before one can make a change, one must remember that one needs to understand the intent of the original position. Otherwise the result is “unintended consequences” and the like.

This is the difference between Vatican II and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” In Vatican II, the Church understood that there were some important beliefs of the Church being smothered in an attitude of clericalism (“let the priests do it”) and laity wrongly elevating certain customs to the level of dogma. In the “Spirit of Vatican II” we had some clergy and laity say, “I don’t see the sense of this… let’s get rid of it.”

However, before putting oneself in opposition to a Church teaching, one is obligated to find out what the Church teaches and why.

If one has a problem, one has to see why such a rule was made, rather than employing the "argument from silence" fallacy and assuming that because one does not know the reason for a rule it must be arbitrary.

By all means ask for help in seeking understanding.  But recognize the possibility of error in your own a priori assumptions as well.  If the Church is given the authority to bind and to loose and the Church is protected from teaching error (Look up Humani Generis #21: This is not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements), then the person who disagrees with the Church needs to ask whether the disagreement stems from the Church being fundamentally wrong or whether it stems from the individual being fundamentally wrong.

A Personal Example of Not Knowing Why

Here's a personal example.  Back in the late 1990s I was doing a paper on Charles Curran.  One of his arguments against the Church position on contraception was that because the Church position on money lending had changed, the position on contraception could be changed as well.  I couldn't find an answer to this question, though it sounded wrong.  For about seven years I could not find an answer to this quandary.

In the end I did find the answer.  Curran was making a fallacy of false analogy and misrepresenting what the Church had done.  The Church always condemned usury.  However, in the Middle Ages where wages were set by law, it was essentially impossible for a person to get out of debt.  Later when the structure of economics shifted from feudalism, it became possible for a person to improve their social standing and become wealthier.

Usury was condemned in both cases.  However, in Feudalism, any money lending was usury because it was impossible to pay back any interest.  Later, it was possible to pay back reasonable amounts of interest.  So there was not a change in doctrine.  Just a change in what was possible to pay back.

If I had relied on my own beliefs as being infallible, I might have felt I had to leave the Church.  Instead, I trusted the Church and, in time, learned why she did as she did.

The Fork In the Road: WHAT Do You Believe about the Church?

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.  (Joshua 24:15).

I don’t want people to misinterpret these next sections. I am not saying “Love it or leave it!” (Indeed I am praying the reader in this situation will not leave her). Rather I am appealing to all Catholics to recall what they are called to believe about the authority Christ gave His Church.

However, for all people who dissent from what the Church believes on certain moral issues, they must go back to the underlying fundamental principle:

We believe that the authority which the Church possesses comes from Christ Himself and cannot be used in defiance of what He wills. We believe that the obedience of the Church is required by God (see Matthew 18:17)

Aut verus Ecclesia aut diabolical (Either the true Church or Diabolical)

[Yes I did this through machine translation. Latin purists may have a better way to translate this. Feel free to suggest a correction].

So here is the fork in the road. So here is what the dissenter must ask: Do you believe the Catholic Church, under the headship of the Pope, has the authority to teach in God’s name and is protected from error in doing so?

Do you believe this or do you not?

If the answer is yes, then logically one must consider the possibility of being in error himself. If the answer is no, then the question is Why remain in a body you think is false?  To borrow from Joshua 24:15 above, if you will not accept the notion that the Catholic Church teaches through the authority of Christ, it is time to ask who does.

Anti-Catholics are, in this respect closer to the truth than the Cafeteria Catholic. Does this statement shock you?  They at least recognize that if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be then she is making a diabolical claim, even though they err in their conclusion.

However, if you believe the Catholic Church is wrong (or, in the case of Cafeteria Catholics, wrong in "some parts") then YOU must be prepared to justify the authority YOU invoke. I’m not a fan of ipse dixit.

The Problem of appealing to personal Mysticism over the Church: It starts in “Mist,” centers on “I” and ends in “schism.”

Ultimately most acts of dissent against the Church, most acts of refusing to accept the authority on an area is based on a form of focusing on the self. If I want it, it means God wants it. So if I want to marry another man, if I want to contracept or abort, if I want to divorce and remarry… then obviously God must want it too!

Such a view ignores the fact that we are tainted with original sin. As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:15, “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” We can, at times, do what is wrong and we can, at times, delude ourselves into thinking that we want is right. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has wrote:

It is strange that some theologians have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience. (On Conscience, 3)

If we have a weak and relativistic view of morality (the "mist") which centers on the self (the "I") the end result is usually a de facto schism even if one insists they are a perfectly good Catholic "where it matters."

Thus even if it "feels right" it does not mean it is right.

Conscience Must Be Formed

Conscience is not an infallible guide.  It must be trained.  A person living in a place which has never known Christ, might have a deformed conscience.  Vatican II has spoken on this, saying, in Gaudium et spes:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. (9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. (Emphasis added)

If we do not even look for what is right, we cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgment.  Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between invincible and vincible ignorance:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

Conclusion

So we are back at the crossroads.  Either the Church is what she claims to be or she is not.  If what she claims is true, then obviously, to do the work of God, one must do so in obedience to what the Church binds and looses.  If she is not, then it is senseless to demand the Church "change" when her teachings are based on an authority which one rejects as false.

However, one should remember the words of Christ as well in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

^8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

^9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

^These are not the words of a fuzzy, lax God.

^

Deus Vult! (Therefore the Church MUST be wrong): Reflections on Cafeteria Catholicism

Introduction

[Preliminary Note: In this article I am dealing with the attacks on the official teachings of the Church and not the actions of an individual who is in a Church office who does wrong in the application of what the Church teaches.]

In a past article I dealt with the issue of authority in the Catholic Church, and how the belief that the Church was established with the authority to bind and loose.  I asked then, why a person would want to belong to a Church which claimed this if they did not believe it, because if it was not true, it is a pretty monstrous claim.

Yet we do have a phenomenon within the Church which we know as "Cafeteria Catholicism."  The principle is a person accepts only those parts of the faith they believe in, and reject those issues (normally of morality, but sometimes on doctrine too) they disagree with.

In all of these cases, we see that the Church is claimed to be in the wrong when it disagrees with person X on their behavior.

Thus we see things like the Pope is called "cruel" for not allowing condoms to prevent AIDS.  We see the Church called cruel for requiring Catholics to behave morally, for opposing “gay marriage” and so on.  We see the Church position on contraception and abortion called "cruel" because it "forces" a woman to die in childbirth or have too many children.  We see the Church position on divorce and remarriage "cruel" because they insist that Christ forbids divorce if the marriage is valid.

In all of these cases, we see people claim “God must want me to do X "because I would be unhappy if I did not get my way.”   The enthymeme (unspoken assumption) of this argument being, "God wants me to be materially happy."  Thus we see people say in effect Deus vult! (“God Wills It!”) If the Church disagrees, then the Church must be wrong.

There is a problem in all of these cases, but the problem is not with the Church.

Anger  is Directed at the Church for doing what she believes she must do

Many of the stances the Church holds, she holds simply because she believes she must do so if she is to be faithful to Christ. She rejects certain positions set forth by the world, such as not accepting the use of condoms to “stop” the spread of AIDS; such as refusing to sanction the marriage between two individuals of the same sex; such as refusing to sanction remarriage if the first marriage was valid and both spouses are alive.

Now I have no doubt that many people think an “exception” should be made or the Church “policy” [a loaded term to make it seem like a merely human rule], and in many cases the emotion they feel is quite real.

All the sad stories about AIDS sufferers, Lesbians in Love [ever notice how it’s always two women who are used as an example… never two men?], divorced persons wanting to remarry have the same refrain: “The Church won’t let us do X!”

The problem with this tired old refrain is the Church believes she cannot change what she says because to do so would be unfaithful to God. Therefore, the demand for the Church to change is in fact a demand that the Church be unfaithful to what she believes God requires.

This is, in a word, selfishness.

A person may disagree with what the Church believes of course, but they can’t claim their view is “more Catholic” in doing so. Let’s go back to the premise of how Catholicism differs from other religions. We believe that the Catholic Church is the Church directly established by Christ with a visible head with the authority to bind and loose. This does not mean that the Church can go and abolish one of the Ten Commandments tomorrow. The Church believes her authority to bind and loose can only be used in service to God, and not independently of God.

The Misinterpretation of “God is Love" (and therefore He wouldn’t stop me from doing what I want)

One of the most annoying counterarguments against the Church is the taking out of context of “God is Love.” (from 1 John 4:16). Taken from the concept of we must love our brother, “God is Love” is turned into saying “God is Nice.” God, in this view, is non-threatening, He makes no demands. He only wants us to be happy here on Earth and is willing to bend His rules even though His silly Church won’t.

Excuse me, but this is not the God of the Bible at all. This is the God of Hallmark sentiments. It is actually a blasphemous view of God which negates what Christ did on the Cross for us.  It ignores the possibility of our being sinners.

God does indeed love us. When Adam and Eve broke away from God, God was under no obligation to bring salvation to us. Yet He did send His Son to save us. However, the message of Christ was not “An’ ye harm none, do what you will” (a popular Wiccan saying). It was “If you love me, you will keep my commandments.” (John 14:15). God loves us unconditionally to be sure. When one of us falls away, He desires to bring us back (see Luke 15:4). However the imagery God uses is that He goes out and brings back. We who sin are in the wrong place, and He goes to bring us back to the right place.

Love is not sentimentalism. Love seeks the greatest good for the beloved. Sometimes, it must be “tough love.” Love cannot sacrifice truth because no falsehood can be good, and no good thing can be false. So when the beloved wants something harmful, the lover must at times say “Because I love you, I cannot do X.”

The Church Has Other Motivations Than “Being Mean.”

Now, agree with the Church or disagree, at least accept that when the Church draws a line in the sand, it is not for the sake of being “cruel.” Rather it is because she believes that this is the right place as decreed by God.

Disagreement with the Church is therefore a rejection (whether intended or not) of the Church values and a demand she behave differently because what the Church believes is “not important” in relation to what the individual wants.  Thus the argument that the Church should permit condoms is a claim that continence is unimportant because we can’t help acting like crazed weasels in heat. The claim that the Church should permit remarriage if a spouse has been unfaithful is a rejection of the Church belief that if a marriage is valid, the Church cannot remarry a person already married. If the Church refuses to sanction homosexual “marriage” it is because she believes God has forbade homosexual acts.  If she condemns abortion as evil, it is not because she wants to control women.  It is because she believes the unborn child is a living human person.

All the appeals to emotion one wants to dredge up are irrelevant.  If God has commanded certain things are intrinsically evil (always wrong) then the Church may not make changes with them.

In all of these cases, we see the insistence that the Church act in defiance to what she believes God commands. This is not calling on the Church to become “more like Christ.” It is (willed or not) the non servium of the Devil saying “I reject the value you insist on!”

“But… God wants me to be happy!”

This is another argument which is thrown around, which makes God into a fuzzy Santa Claus. God desires us to be happy yes. However He knows that not all things we desire will make us happy in the light of the fact we possess an immortal soul. We were made for eternity with God. We were also made with free will. Because of this, we have the ability, but not the right, to behave in a way contrary to what He decrees.

Temporary happiness which will lead to separation from God for eternity is not something God wants for us.  God is good, and there is no evil or imperfection in Him. We, on the other hand, are imperfect and sometimes desire worthless or harmful things with the thinking it is a good thing. The wicked things will not bring us closer to God, regardless of whether it “feels” right or not. How many times have we seen children want what is harmful for them? They think the parent is “mean” because he or she will not indulge the child. However, sometimes the parent must refuse the child something which will not be good for the child.

Sometimes God must command we do not do a certain thing, much as we might want to. The Church, believing what Christ says about “If you love me, you will keep my commandments,” must be faithful to what she believes God commands.

Misunderstanding what the Church Teaches

Not all dissent is born of defiance. Some is born out of ignorance. There are many times when a person does not understand why the Church holds a thing and thus claims what the Church does must be wrong. While the motive might be less willful, it does not excuse the person for rejecting what the Church holds.

GK Chesterton once wrote, in the article "The Drift from Domesticity" found in the book Brave New Family (Ignatius Press. 1990. Page 53):

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 is an excellent point. “Reform for the sake of reform” is foolish. Before one can make a change, one must remember that one needs to understand the intent of the original position. Otherwise the result is “unintended consequences” and the like.

This is the difference between Vatican II and the so-called “Spirit of Vatican II.” In Vatican II, the Church understood that there were some important beliefs of the Church being smothered in an attitude of clericalism (“let the priests do it”) and laity wrongly elevating certain customs to the level of dogma. In the “Spirit of Vatican II” we had some clergy and laity say, “I don’t see the sense of this… let’s get rid of it.”

However, before putting oneself in opposition to a Church teaching, one is obligated to find out what the Church teaches and why.

If one has a problem, one has to see why such a rule was made, rather than employing the "argument from silence" fallacy and assuming that because one does not know the reason for a rule it must be arbitrary.

By all means ask for help in seeking understanding.  But recognize the possibility of error in your own a priori assumptions as well.  If the Church is given the authority to bind and to loose and the Church is protected from teaching error (Look up Humani Generis #21: This is not limited to ex cathedra pronouncements), then the person who disagrees with the Church needs to ask whether the disagreement stems from the Church being fundamentally wrong or whether it stems from the individual being fundamentally wrong.

A Personal Example of Not Knowing Why

Here's a personal example.  Back in the late 1990s I was doing a paper on Charles Curran.  One of his arguments against the Church position on contraception was that because the Church position on money lending had changed, the position on contraception could be changed as well.  I couldn't find an answer to this question, though it sounded wrong.  For about seven years I could not find an answer to this quandary.

In the end I did find the answer.  Curran was making a fallacy of false analogy and misrepresenting what the Church had done.  The Church always condemned usury.  However, in the Middle Ages where wages were set by law, it was essentially impossible for a person to get out of debt.  Later when the structure of economics shifted from feudalism, it became possible for a person to improve their social standing and become wealthier.

Usury was condemned in both cases.  However, in Feudalism, any money lending was usury because it was impossible to pay back any interest.  Later, it was possible to pay back reasonable amounts of interest.  So there was not a change in doctrine.  Just a change in what was possible to pay back.

If I had relied on my own beliefs as being infallible, I might have felt I had to leave the Church.  Instead, I trusted the Church and, in time, learned why she did as she did.

The Fork In the Road: WHAT Do You Believe about the Church?

If it does not please you to serve the LORD, decide today whom you will serve, the gods your fathers served beyond the River or the gods of the Amorites in whose country you are dwelling. As for me and my household, we will serve the LORD.  (Joshua 24:15).

I don’t want people to misinterpret these next sections. I am not saying “Love it or leave it!” (Indeed I am praying the reader in this situation will not leave her). Rather I am appealing to all Catholics to recall what they are called to believe about the authority Christ gave His Church.

However, for all people who dissent from what the Church believes on certain moral issues, they must go back to the underlying fundamental principle:

We believe that the authority which the Church possesses comes from Christ Himself and cannot be used in defiance of what He wills. We believe that the obedience of the Church is required by God (see Matthew 18:17)

Aut verus Ecclesia aut diabolical (Either the true Church or Diabolical)

[Yes I did this through machine translation. Latin purists may have a better way to translate this. Feel free to suggest a correction].

So here is the fork in the road. So here is what the dissenter must ask: Do you believe the Catholic Church, under the headship of the Pope, has the authority to teach in God’s name and is protected from error in doing so?

Do you believe this or do you not?

If the answer is yes, then logically one must consider the possibility of being in error himself. If the answer is no, then the question is Why remain in a body you think is false?  To borrow from Joshua 24:15 above, if you will not accept the notion that the Catholic Church teaches through the authority of Christ, it is time to ask who does.

Anti-Catholics are, in this respect closer to the truth than the Cafeteria Catholic. Does this statement shock you?  They at least recognize that if the Catholic Church is not what she claims to be then she is making a diabolical claim, even though they err in their conclusion.

However, if you believe the Catholic Church is wrong (or, in the case of Cafeteria Catholics, wrong in "some parts") then YOU must be prepared to justify the authority YOU invoke. I’m not a fan of ipse dixit.

The Problem of appealing to personal Mysticism over the Church: It starts in “Mist,” centers on “I” and ends in “schism.”

Ultimately most acts of dissent against the Church, most acts of refusing to accept the authority on an area is based on a form of focusing on the self. If I want it, it means God wants it. So if I want to marry another man, if I want to contracept or abort, if I want to divorce and remarry… then obviously God must want it too!

Such a view ignores the fact that we are tainted with original sin. As St. Paul put it in Romans 7:15, “What I do, I do not understand. For I do not do what I want, but I do what I hate.” We can, at times, do what is wrong and we can, at times, delude ourselves into thinking that we want is right. Pope Benedict XVI, as Cardinal Ratzinger, has wrote:

It is strange that some theologians have difficulty accepting the precise and limited doctrine of papal infallibility, but see no problem in granting de facto infallibility to everyone who has a conscience. (On Conscience, 3)

If we have a weak and relativistic view of morality (the "mist") which centers on the self (the "I") the end result is usually a de facto schism even if one insists they are a perfectly good Catholic "where it matters."

Thus even if it "feels right" it does not mean it is right.

Conscience Must Be Formed

Conscience is not an infallible guide.  It must be trained.  A person living in a place which has never known Christ, might have a deformed conscience.  Vatican II has spoken on this, saying, in Gaudium et spes:

16. In the depths of his conscience, man detects a law which he does not impose upon himself, but which holds him to obedience. Always summoning him to love good and avoid evil, the voice of conscience when necessary speaks to his heart: do this, shun that. For man has in his heart a law written by God; to obey it is the very dignity of man; according to it he will be judged. (9) Conscience is the most secret core and sanctuary of a man. There he is alone with God, Whose voice echoes in his depths. (10) In a wonderful manner conscience reveals that law which is fulfilled by love of God and neighbor. (11) In fidelity to conscience, Christians are joined with the rest of men in the search for truth, and for the genuine solution to the numerous problems which arise in the life of individuals from social relationships. Hence the more right conscience holds sway, the more persons and groups turn aside from blind choice and strive to be guided by the objective norms of morality. Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin. (Emphasis added)

If we do not even look for what is right, we cannot plead ignorance on the day of judgment.  Thomas Aquinas makes the distinction between invincible and vincible ignorance:

Now it is evident that whoever neglects to have or do what he ought to have or do, commits a sin of omission. Wherefore through negligence, ignorance of what one is bound to know, is a sin; whereas it is not imputed as a sin to man, if he fails to know what he is unable to know. Consequently ignorance of such like things is called invincible, because it cannot be overcome by study. For this reason such like ignorance, not being voluntary, since it is not in our power to be rid of it, is not a sin: wherefore it is evident that no invincible ignorance is a sin. On the other hand, vincible ignorance is a sin, if it be about matters one is bound to know; but not, if it be about things one is not bound to know. (ST I-II, Q76, A2)

Conclusion

So we are back at the crossroads.  Either the Church is what she claims to be or she is not.  If what she claims is true, then obviously, to do the work of God, one must do so in obedience to what the Church binds and looses.  If she is not, then it is senseless to demand the Church "change" when her teachings are based on an authority which one rejects as false.

However, one should remember the words of Christ as well in Matthew 18:

^6 “Whoever causes one of these little ones ^who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

^7 Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come!

^8 If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life maimed or crippled than with two hands or two feet to be thrown into eternal fire.

^9 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter into life with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into fiery Gehenna.

^These are not the words of a fuzzy, lax God.

^

What Is The Point? Reflections on Truth and Internet Disputes

Read more »

What Is The Point? Reflections on Truth and Internet Disputes

Read more »

When A Culture Rejects Morality Where Can They Draw A Line? A Bizarre Case in France

Source: Polygamy Controversy Presents Dilemma for Post-Christian France

France has been more or less estranged from the Church for quite some time.  In moving towards secularism, they have become more and more distant from traditional religious morals.  Of course once one has erased a moral line on the basis that it has a "religious origin" it becomes very hard to justify forbidding a thing.

The case which struck me is the case of Lies Hebbadj, a French butcher whose wife was fined for driving with a veil (they are Muslim).  When investigating the case, the police learned that she was one of the wives of Mr. Hebbadj.  It seems he has four wives, and the French government is seeking to see whether they can revoke his citizenship and deport him because of polygamy grounds.

Mr. Hebbadj's defense?  Life Site News reports:

Objections to his alleged polygamy were answered by the woman’s husband, Lies Hebbadj, an Algerian-born Muslim, who pointed out that, in accordance with modern French customs, he does not have four wives but one wife and four mistresses, plus 12 children between them.

“If one can be stripped of one’s French nationality for having mistresses, then many French could lose theirs,” Mr. Hebbadj, a halal butcher, said after consulting his legal counsel. “As far as I know, mistresses are not forbidden, neither in France, nor in Islam.”

Thus we see the dilemma when a nation rejects certain moral requirements such as marriage.  If it is socially acceptable for the French to keep mistresses and have children by them, then how can they reject polygamy from a foreign culture if three of the wives can be classified as mistresses and only one as a wife?  It seems that under such a system as France possesses, the fact that Hebbadj can undergo ceremonial Islamic marriages with only one of them legally recognized as a wife.

Don't think I am rooting for Hebbadj of course.  Polygamy was rejected by Christianity for the most part (except for aberrations like Luther sanctioning a polygamous marriage for Phillip of Hesse) because it goes against God's intent for one man and one woman, and polygamy (properly speaking, polygyny) reduces the woman to an object, inferior to men.

The problem is, France is trying to have it both ways.  It has more or less spurned the Christian sexual morality, openly tolerating things which are generally seen as wrong in most cultures.  Yet, when a Muslim exploits the fact that France has spurned Christian morality to seek to justify his polygyny, the French government really has no basis to invoke the common good.  After all, if polygamy is wrong, it indicates it is because a person can have only one spouse, and other relations are outside of that one marriage.

The problem is, they can't divide the line so that polygamy is forbidden but mistressing is not.  To be consistent, either both must be forbidden or both must be tolerated.

They can't even use the issue of asking whether the other women consented to this arrangement unless they also apply it to the practice of keeping mistresses as well.  Really if society sanctions the keeping of mistresses, there is very little which justifies keeping multiple wives either.

Ultimately, France has to decide what the basis is for morality.  If it is created by the society, and French society boasts of plurality in society, then logically they cannot do anything against the encroachment of Islamic customs into France.

However, if morality is outside of us, then France has to recognize that certain customs and practices it performs are out of line with this morality and must be rejected if they want to reject the obviously wrong practice of polygamy.