All, None and Some: On How the Failure to Distinguish Can Distort Truth

One of the things which irritates me is how the English language gets abused in the pursuit of rhetoric, especially when one seeks to claim a person holds a position he does not.  This all too common.  An individual makes a claim about what Catholics believe.  Someone who is actually a Catholic offers an objection, saying that what is claimed is actually false.  The accuser then makes a rhetorical appeal to indicate the one who is objecting is actually ignorant on what they believe.

Let's look at the root of confusion in some of these errors.

Confusing All, None, Some

One of the common rhetorical statements is that ALL [people of a group] hold [X].  For example, all [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt].  The objection is that this claim is not true.  The attacker then accuses the person who objects of holding the opposite: that NO [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt].  The attacker then goes on to point out examples which support his case and then claim his opponent is refuted.

There is a problem with that technique.  ALL and NO are contrary to each other, but what contradicts the claim of the accuser is not No [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt] but rather SOME [pre-reformation clergy] are NOT [corrupt]. 

Unfortunately, this tactic is often used.  A universal statement is made.  When the objection is raised to the universality of the claim, the one who objects is accused of being in denial over the fact that in some cases, the case is true.  However, the accuser didn't say SOME.  He said ALL.

How This is Used in Attacks on the Church

Generally speaking this error will take a real problem which was or is present in some parts of the Church.  The Church can be accused of corruption, liberalism, rigidness and so on.  The example of some individuals who behave in this way is then represented to be the view of the entirety whether by action or failure to act.

It overlooks however that in order to be a problem of the Church it needs to be shown that it is one which is held by those who are speaking in the role of authority of the Church, and not an individual within the Church who speaks on his own.

There are unfortunately many who dissent from the teachings of the Church.  However, if they dissent, it indicates there is a teaching which they disagree with.  If they are dissenting from the teaching of the Church, then it is unreasonable to claim ALL of [the Church] holds [the dissenting view].

What the Individual Usually Means

What it usually comes down to is the individual who accuses does not approve of the behavior of SOME within the Church, and uses the rhetoric ALL as an embellishment.  He would be wiser to say "I don't approve of the behavior of what seems to be held by a certain portion of those within the Church."  In such a case then it would need to be determined whether the behavior of that portion was compatible with what the Church teaches or not.

The Part Stands In For the Whole

Another common error which relates to ALL, SOME and NONE is the claim that the part represents the whole.  So, if an atheist argues that because some Christians behave in an ignorant way, it is representative of the whole, this confuses the difference between some and all.  What is the evidence that this is representative?

Usually, the claim is based on the belief that the believers must be ignorant because they believe, which argues in a circle.  Why do Christians believe?  Because they are ignorant.  Why are Christians ignorant?  Because they believe.  One could easily reword this to the following: Why don't atheists believe?  Because they are ignorant.  Why are atheists ignorant?  Because they don't believe.  Same error, different target.

The Hidden Assumption: This belief is correct.  If you disagree you are ignorant.

The problem of course is the establishment of proof that to believe in God is ignorant.  Because science deals only with the natural order, it is completely unable to assess whether or not the supernatural exists.  Yet many seek to invoke Science with a capital 'S' as having disproved religion… invoking the claim that knowledge of science has shown that miracles can't happen and claiming that those who believed in miracles could not know how the natural world really worked.  This continues to make the error of confusing SOME, ALL, and NONE.

CS Lewis once pointed out that Matthew 1:19 shows the flaw in that assumption (He discusses this in God in the Dock which makes good reading).  If St. Joseph had been ignorant about how children come to be, he would not have been considering the quiet divorce of Mary.  Indeed, to believe in miracles, one has to accept that the universe does function in a set way, and the miraculous departs from the normal.

The False Analogy of the Ancient Pagans: We're back to All, None and Some

A false analogy is one where one points to two situations with some similarities while ignoring the differences which make the two situations different.  For example, because ancient Greeks employed the myth that the sun was Helios who travelled across the sky in a fiery chariot to explain sunrise and sunset, Christian belief in God, the Eucharist and the Virgin Birth are also the same type of myth.

The problem of course is that there is no linkage.  The fact that some religious beliefs of pagans were myths, does not mean ALL religious beliefs are.  The claim that science "disproves" religion is not justified, and the attributing the cause of belief in a religion as superstition is a Bulverism.

"No Swans are Black?" Falsifiability and Assertions

The belief that all swans are white (once a belief in the European world which had never seen a black swan… indeed, Europeans only became aware of them in 1697) was extrapolated from the following observations:

1. All swans I have seen are white
2. It is most probable then that all swans are white

Now it may be impractical to observe every swan, but if we should ever observe a black swan, we do show the "probable" claim to be a false claim.  The observance of any number of white swans does not prove the universality of the claim, but the observance of one black swan disproves it.  Thus it is not reasonable to conclude a universal solely on the grounds of an observed group.

Yet, the confusing of SOME with ALL or NONE continues in almost every aspect of life.  Stereotypes are based on it ("all of ethnic group X are dishonest".)  Polemics against a different creed makes use of it ("no religious believer is reasonable").  Advocacy of a preferred policy makes use of it ("whoever opposes my plan doesn't care about X").

And of course the Catholic Church is a constant victim of it.  All one needs do is to point to the presence of a thing one dislikes or the absence of a thing one likes within a certain sample of Catholics, then make a claim that ALL Catholics do [the thing disliked] or NO Catholics do [the thing liked] as a reason for rejecting the Church as a whole (in the case of those outside the Church opposed to religion in general or Catholicism in particular,  or in part (in the case of those within the Church, commonly in an area one disagrees with).

When Does Some Speak for All?  Does the Part Represent the Whole?

However, before one can make such a claim, one needs to see whether such a group one uses as a representative sample is in fact representative of the whole.  For example, in America, there are people who are deeply patriotic and people who are deeply opposed to the actions of their nation.  There are people authorized to act in the name of the nation and those who are not.  Now, let us suppose some subgroup in America does something which causes harm to another nation.  Is it just to say "America did this?"

It could be.  In the case of the nation going to war, the lawfully elected leader would have the authority to carry out a policy, and one could correctly say "America went to war with X" even if some individuals in America oppose the policy.  The groups in opposition would be Americans but would not represent the actual policy of America.

Likewise, if a naturalized US citizen and former CIA operative fired a bazooka at a Polish freighter in Miami harbor in 1968 (to use a bizarre real life example), that is not an action of "America" even if American courts give the individual in question a sentence lighter than they ought.

Conclusion

Now, how do we apply this principle to the Catholic Church?

Before saying "All clergy are corrupt" or "The Catholic Church permits abuse" or "The Church is anti-woman" or any number of similar accusations from Left or Right, one needs to ask some questions, such as:

1. Does the part act as the official representation of the whole?
2. Do their actions reflect the official position?
3. Am I rightly assessing what the official position IS?
4. Am I drawing the right conclusion?
5. Does my statement reflect what is? 

There are of course more to ask, but if one can't answer "Yes" to these questions and demonstrate the basis for the claim, such an individual is confusing ALL/NONE with SOME.

All, None and Some: On How the Failure to Distinguish Can Distort Truth

One of the things which irritates me is how the English language gets abused in the pursuit of rhetoric, especially when one seeks to claim a person holds a position he does not.  This all too common.  An individual makes a claim about what Catholics believe.  Someone who is actually a Catholic offers an objection, saying that what is claimed is actually false.  The accuser then makes a rhetorical appeal to indicate the one who is objecting is actually ignorant on what they believe.

Let's look at the root of confusion in some of these errors.

Confusing All, None, Some

One of the common rhetorical statements is that ALL [people of a group] hold [X].  For example, all [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt].  The objection is that this claim is not true.  The attacker then accuses the person who objects of holding the opposite: that NO [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt].  The attacker then goes on to point out examples which support his case and then claim his opponent is refuted.

There is a problem with that technique.  ALL and NO are contrary to each other, but what contradicts the claim of the accuser is not No [pre-reformation clergy] are [corrupt] but rather SOME [pre-reformation clergy] are NOT [corrupt]. 

Unfortunately, this tactic is often used.  A universal statement is made.  When the objection is raised to the universality of the claim, the one who objects is accused of being in denial over the fact that in some cases, the case is true.  However, the accuser didn't say SOME.  He said ALL.

How This is Used in Attacks on the Church

Generally speaking this error will take a real problem which was or is present in some parts of the Church.  The Church can be accused of corruption, liberalism, rigidness and so on.  The example of some individuals who behave in this way is then represented to be the view of the entirety whether by action or failure to act.

It overlooks however that in order to be a problem of the Church it needs to be shown that it is one which is held by those who are speaking in the role of authority of the Church, and not an individual within the Church who speaks on his own.

There are unfortunately many who dissent from the teachings of the Church.  However, if they dissent, it indicates there is a teaching which they disagree with.  If they are dissenting from the teaching of the Church, then it is unreasonable to claim ALL of [the Church] holds [the dissenting view].

What the Individual Usually Means

What it usually comes down to is the individual who accuses does not approve of the behavior of SOME within the Church, and uses the rhetoric ALL as an embellishment.  He would be wiser to say "I don't approve of the behavior of what seems to be held by a certain portion of those within the Church."  In such a case then it would need to be determined whether the behavior of that portion was compatible with what the Church teaches or not.

The Part Stands In For the Whole

Another common error which relates to ALL, SOME and NONE is the claim that the part represents the whole.  So, if an atheist argues that because some Christians behave in an ignorant way, it is representative of the whole, this confuses the difference between some and all.  What is the evidence that this is representative?

Usually, the claim is based on the belief that the believers must be ignorant because they believe, which argues in a circle.  Why do Christians believe?  Because they are ignorant.  Why are Christians ignorant?  Because they believe.  One could easily reword this to the following: Why don't atheists believe?  Because they are ignorant.  Why are atheists ignorant?  Because they don't believe.  Same error, different target.

The Hidden Assumption: This belief is correct.  If you disagree you are ignorant.

The problem of course is the establishment of proof that to believe in God is ignorant.  Because science deals only with the natural order, it is completely unable to assess whether or not the supernatural exists.  Yet many seek to invoke Science with a capital 'S' as having disproved religion… invoking the claim that knowledge of science has shown that miracles can't happen and claiming that those who believed in miracles could not know how the natural world really worked.  This continues to make the error of confusing SOME, ALL, and NONE.

CS Lewis once pointed out that Matthew 1:19 shows the flaw in that assumption (He discusses this in God in the Dock which makes good reading).  If St. Joseph had been ignorant about how children come to be, he would not have been considering the quiet divorce of Mary.  Indeed, to believe in miracles, one has to accept that the universe does function in a set way, and the miraculous departs from the normal.

The False Analogy of the Ancient Pagans: We're back to All, None and Some

A false analogy is one where one points to two situations with some similarities while ignoring the differences which make the two situations different.  For example, because ancient Greeks employed the myth that the sun was Helios who travelled across the sky in a fiery chariot to explain sunrise and sunset, Christian belief in God, the Eucharist and the Virgin Birth are also the same type of myth.

The problem of course is that there is no linkage.  The fact that some religious beliefs of pagans were myths, does not mean ALL religious beliefs are.  The claim that science "disproves" religion is not justified, and the attributing the cause of belief in a religion as superstition is a Bulverism.

"No Swans are Black?" Falsifiability and Assertions

The belief that all swans are white (once a belief in the European world which had never seen a black swan… indeed, Europeans only became aware of them in 1697) was extrapolated from the following observations:

1. All swans I have seen are white
2. It is most probable then that all swans are white

Now it may be impractical to observe every swan, but if we should ever observe a black swan, we do show the "probable" claim to be a false claim.  The observance of any number of white swans does not prove the universality of the claim, but the observance of one black swan disproves it.  Thus it is not reasonable to conclude a universal solely on the grounds of an observed group.

Yet, the confusing of SOME with ALL or NONE continues in almost every aspect of life.  Stereotypes are based on it ("all of ethnic group X are dishonest".)  Polemics against a different creed makes use of it ("no religious believer is reasonable").  Advocacy of a preferred policy makes use of it ("whoever opposes my plan doesn't care about X").

And of course the Catholic Church is a constant victim of it.  All one needs do is to point to the presence of a thing one dislikes or the absence of a thing one likes within a certain sample of Catholics, then make a claim that ALL Catholics do [the thing disliked] or NO Catholics do [the thing liked] as a reason for rejecting the Church as a whole (in the case of those outside the Church opposed to religion in general or Catholicism in particular,  or in part (in the case of those within the Church, commonly in an area one disagrees with).

When Does Some Speak for All?  Does the Part Represent the Whole?

However, before one can make such a claim, one needs to see whether such a group one uses as a representative sample is in fact representative of the whole.  For example, in America, there are people who are deeply patriotic and people who are deeply opposed to the actions of their nation.  There are people authorized to act in the name of the nation and those who are not.  Now, let us suppose some subgroup in America does something which causes harm to another nation.  Is it just to say "America did this?"

It could be.  In the case of the nation going to war, the lawfully elected leader would have the authority to carry out a policy, and one could correctly say "America went to war with X" even if some individuals in America oppose the policy.  The groups in opposition would be Americans but would not represent the actual policy of America.

Likewise, if a naturalized US citizen and former CIA operative fired a bazooka at a Polish freighter in Miami harbor in 1968 (to use a bizarre real life example), that is not an action of "America" even if American courts give the individual in question a sentence lighter than they ought.

Conclusion

Now, how do we apply this principle to the Catholic Church?

Before saying "All clergy are corrupt" or "The Catholic Church permits abuse" or "The Church is anti-woman" or any number of similar accusations from Left or Right, one needs to ask some questions, such as:

1. Does the part act as the official representation of the whole?
2. Do their actions reflect the official position?
3. Am I rightly assessing what the official position IS?
4. Am I drawing the right conclusion?
5. Does my statement reflect what is? 

There are of course more to ask, but if one can't answer "Yes" to these questions and demonstrate the basis for the claim, such an individual is confusing ALL/NONE with SOME.

Reflections on Free Will, Sin and Discipline in the Church

"If anyone wants to damage the Landlord's [That is to say, God] character… he ought to say that the Landlord is an inveterate gambler.  That would not be true, but it would be plausible, for there is no denying that the Landlord does take risks….

The Landlord has taken the risk of working the country with free tenants instead of slaves in chain gangs: and as they are free there is no way of making it impossible for them to go into forbidden places and eat forbidden fruits.  (CS Lewis.  Pilgrim's Regress.  page 180)

Introduction

One of the difficult things to remember is that because God has made man with free will, he has the ability to use this free will to choose things which are against the command of God.  This does not mean man has the right to use his free will for good or for evil, but because God has made man free, the approaches the Church can use in dealing with the sinners are limited.

I believe this is a point which is forgotten.  We see notorious sinners within the Church and we want to know why they aren't thrown out.  We forget that the cases where the Church does declare excommunication are limited to certain sins of extreme gravity, and not for every mortal sin.  This seems to be especially forgotten today, where the spirit of rebellion is so defiant against Church teaching, and many grumble that Vatican II "caused this."

The Church is not Becoming More Lax with Vatican II

For those who would argue a division of before and after Vatican II where before all was well and after it was a disaster, I think it useful to cite from the Pre-Vatican II book The Question Box [Sadly out of print] which was originally published in 1903 and republished in 1929 (original spellings, syntax and grammar of that time are maintained):

If your Church is a Holy Church, why do you allow adulterers, drunkards and corrupt politicians to be members in good standing?  Should not moral character be insisted upon as a qualification of church membership?  Why are there so many poor and ignorant in your Church?

Because the Church is the universal Kingdom of God, divinely commissioned to teach Christ's Gospel to all men — sinner and saint, rich and poor, cultured and uncultured — alike.  "There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal iii. 28).  The Church is not a Church of the elect, as Wyclif taught or Calvin; nor is she an exclusive club for the outwardly respectable and the well-to-do.

Sinners are rarely excommunicated from her fold, and only for some flagrant sin, just as traitors and convicted criminals are debarred by the state from citizenship.  The adulterer, the drunkard or the corrupt politician is not in "good standing" for he is not permitted to receive Communion until he manifests a heartfelt sorrow for his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.

Christ came into the world for sinners: The angel Gabriel said to Mary: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. i. 21).  Christ Himself said: "The Son of Man is come to save that which is lost" (Matt. xviii. 11).  "I am not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt. ix. 13).  In spite of His conscious preeminence as the sinless Son of God, our Lord spent His life by choice among the poor and ignorant, without ever humbling them by His condescension.  One of the signs whereby He was recognized as the Messias was the fact that He was to preach "the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5)

Christ always speaks of the Church as a Society composed of the good and the wicked.  He compares it to a field in which cockle grows with the wheat (Matt xiii. 24-30); to a net containing good and bad fishes (Matt xiii. 47); to a barn containing chaff as well as wheat; to wise and foolish virgins (Matt xxv. 1-12).  St. Paul also speaks of a "great house having vessels not only of gold and silver, but also wood and earth; or honor and dishonor" (2 Tim. ii. 20).  And St. John writes to remind us we are all sinners: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8)

(The Question Box.  page 124-125)

The question, presented in 1929 sounds very much like what a person scandalized today would ask.  The reply certainly cannot be considered "Spirit of Vatican II."

As we can see, the Church recognized that there were sinners within her, but also that the role of the Church was not merely the expulsion of the sinner, but the seeking of the redemption of the sinner within her.

Two Opposite Errors We Must Beware

Now, does this mean that those who are offended by the public obstinacy of certain fellow Catholics are to just "shut up and take it?"  By no means.  However this is one of two errors which people are deceived by to question or reject the idea of submission to the Church.  The other error is, "Stop judging us.  We can do what we want!"

The first error is an error because it assumes an either-or position.  We must either drive out all the sinners from the Church or else tolerate all sin in the Church.  This is not the case.  We must recognize that the existence of unrepentant sinners and weak ministers within the Church is not a new phenomenon.  The free will, tainted by original sin, means that people will be inclined to selfishness and concupiscence.  The Church exists to lead all people both within and without to Christ.  Some members of the Church may ignore her teachings to their peril, but the only way the Church could prevent this would be if she had the power to overwrite the free will God has given humanity.  In other words, the Church would have to treat free men like "slaves in chain gangs" (as CS Lewis put it).

The second error is the error because because it assumes that from the fact we have free will, there is no moral problem with doing anything we wish.  Christ has shown us the error of this view: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15).  God has taught certain things are never to be done and certain things are right only in certain conditions.  What God has decreed, man may not overturn on his own.  This is why dissent is so foolish.  It argues that the Church gets it wrong while the individual knows better… ignoring the requests for the basis of authority of their claim.

The Issue of Enforcement

I suspect what makes this so contentious is the issue of enforcing the teachings of the Church.  Yes indeed, we have some people who create vapid, and sometimes heretical "liturgies."  We have politicians who openly support things the Church condemns as evil, and people want to know "Why doesn't the Church excommunicate these people?"

The problem is, this question indicates a misunderstanding on when and where excommunication is used.  The Church has reserved excommunication for very few cases.  Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters writes about it as follows [links to canons added]:

Under current canon law, only certain crimes are directly punishable by excommunication.  They are: apostasy, heresy or schism (c. 1364); desecration of the Eucharist (c. 1367); physical attack on the pope (c. 1370) absolution of an accomplice (c. 1378); simulated celebration of Mass or confession (c. 1378); the unauthorized consecration of bishops (c. 1382) violation of the sacramental seal by the confessor or others (c. 1388) and procuring abortion (c. 1398).  One can easily see that these types of offenses are those that could cause great disturbance in the Church….

…the main point is that excommunication is limited to only a few, very serious and well-defined offenses. (Excommunication and the Catholic Church page 12)

This shows that people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church for every sin.  However, this does not permit people in mortal sin from presenting themselves to communion either.  Canon Law says:

Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The reader is reminded that perfect contrition means being truly sorry for having done these acts and wanting to turn away from them.  So for the pro-abortion politician to be repentant, it means he regrets what he has done and will seek to make amends for the evil done.

Now it is true that when the public sinner does not exclude himself, the Church is to turn away the person who is persisting in grave sin:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It is tragic that not all the priests or bishops carry out the enforcement of this requirement (it is witness that there are sinners within the Church).  However, we must remember that this is a failing on the part of the individual priest or bishop and is emphatically not a Vatican policy.

Is it frustrating to see certain sinners behaving in this way publically without being seeing a correction?  Of course it is.  However, our lack of awareness as to what is done does not mean nothing is done (That's an argument from silence fallacy). 

We do have to remember what St. Paul has said in Galatians 6:

^7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,

^8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.

Even if the Church is unable to bring about the conversion of the manifest sinner, the unrepentant sinner will indeed answer for the sins they commit.

The Danger to the Catholic Seeking to Follow Christ

Now of course no faithful Catholic should approve of or remain silent over abuses and dissent within the Church.  However, when we consider the view we should take, we need to be aware of a real danger we need to avoid.

There is a danger to the faithful Catholic who sees the public scorning of Church teaching by dissenters and grows angry, and that is the danger of forgetting his own need of salvation.  We must be on guard against the Devil whispering to us about how "everybody but us" is a sinner and the Church would be better if it was run as we would have it. 

Instead we must remember that God desires the salvation of the dissenter as well.  This doesn't mean "ignore the sin."  It does mean we must not become prideful or contemptuous to other sinners even when we must oppose the wrong that they do.

This is something Christ warned us of in Luke 18:

^10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

^11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

^12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

^13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

^14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee did the things he spoke of.  The tax collector was a sinner.  That wasn't the point.  The point was the tax collector recognized his sinfulness.  If we are faithful in our service to Christ, we do need to recognize our sinfulness and to repent, depending on God.

Another danger we need to beware of is the resentment that the sinner seems to be treated lightly instead of "getting what they deserve" as Christ pointed out in Luke 15:

^25 Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.

^26 He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.

^27 The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

^28 He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.

^29 He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.

^30 But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’

^31 He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.

^32 But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’”

The "Older Brother Syndrome" has the case where the one who was faithful feels resentment over all the commotion concerning the sinner.

Those who are faithful to God will of course be rewarded for their fidelity, but the danger is becoming so angry at the sins of the prodigal that one forgets God does not desire the death of the sinner, but their salvation.  If God calls on us to be merciful with the sinner because He has been merciful to us, it will go badly for us if we will not merciful to those who offend us, as He pointed out in Matthew 18:

^23 That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants.

^{24 }When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.

^25 Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.

^{26 }At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’

^27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.

^28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. ^He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’

^29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

^30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt.

^31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair.

^32 His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.

^33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’

^34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

^{35 }So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

We must not forget, when dealing with scandals and dissident behavior within the Church that God has forgiven us, and we must forgive others as well.  This doesn't mean let them walk over you unrepentant, or ignore those who seek to distort what the Church teaches.  Heresy and disobedience must be opposed always.

However it does mean we cannot take the attitude that we can simply throw out those who are sinners and consign them to Hell and all will be well.

Conclusion

The person who thinks I am calling for indifference within the Church when it comes to the obstinate sinner, or dismissing the concerns of those troubled by dissent within the Church has missed the point of what I wish to say. 

I am not saying this at all.  I am pointing out that the Church exists to bring Christ's salvation to the world, and that all of us are sinners.  As Christians, our task is to pray for the sinner that he might have a change of heart and be saved.

If we follow the example of the prayer of the Pharisee, if we refuse to show compassion like the Debtor Servant, if we think the Prodigal Son should be forever excluded, we are not following the way of our Lord.

We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which means that we are not to look disdainfully down on them, but rather, by our prayers and actions, seek to help each other.

The Church is not an exclusive club for the perfect, and we should not denounce the Magisterium for not treating the Church as if it was.  It may bother some of us to see that the wicked seem to act without repercussion.  However, when stirred to anger.  There are some things the Church cannot do simply because Christ has not given her the power to do so.  In these cases, where it pains us to see the dissenter flaunting his defiance, let us trust in God's power and authority to judge the wicked and remember Psalm 37:

^1 Of David.

^Do not be provoked by evildoers;

do not envy those who do wrong.

^2 Like grass they wither quickly;

like green plants they wilt away.

^{3 }Trust in the LORD and do good

that you may dwell in the land and live secure.

^4 Find your delight in the LORD

who will give you your heart’s desire.

^5 Commit your way to the LORD;

trust that God will act

^6 And make your integrity shine like the dawn,

your vindication like noonday.

^7 Be still before the LORD;

wait for God.

Do not be provoked by the prosperous,

nor by malicious schemers.

^8 Give up your anger, abandon your wrath;

do not be provoked; it brings only harm.

^9 Those who do evil will be cut off,

but those who wait for the LORD will possess the land.

^10 Wait a little, and the wicked will be no more;

look for them and they will not be there.

^11 But the poor will possess the land,

will delight in great prosperity.

^12 The wicked plot against the just

and grind their teeth at them;

^13 But the LORD laughs at them,

knowing their day is coming.

^14 The wicked draw their swords;

they string their bows

To fell the poor and oppressed,

to slaughter those whose way is honest.

^15 Their swords will pierce their own hearts;

their bows will be broken.

^16 Better the poverty of the just

than the great wealth of the wicked.

^17 The arms of the wicked will be broken;

the LORD will sustain the just.

^18 The LORD watches over the days of the blameless;

their heritage lasts forever.

^19 They will not be disgraced when times are hard;

in days of famine they will have plenty.

^20 The wicked perish,

the enemies of the LORD;

Like the beauty of meadows they vanish;

like smoke they disappear.

^21 The wicked borrow but do not repay;

the just are generous in giving.

^22 For those blessed by the Lord will possess the land,

but those accursed will be cut off.

^23 Those whose steps are guided by the LORD;

whose way God approves,

^24 May stumble, but they will never fall,

for the LORD holds their hand.

^25 Neither in my youth, nor now in old age

have I ever seen the just abandoned

or their children begging bread.

^26 The just always lend generously,

and their children become a blessing.

^27 Turn from evil and do good,

that you may inhabit the land forever.

^28 For the LORD loves justice

and does not abandon the faithful.

When the unjust are destroyed,

and the children of the wicked cut off,

^29 The just will possess the land

and live in it forever.

^30 The mouths of the just utter wisdom;

their tongues speak what is right.

^31 God’s teaching is in their hearts;

their steps do not falter.

^32 The wicked spy on the just

and seek to kill them.

^33 But the LORD does not leave the just in their power,

nor let them be condemned when tried.

^34 Wait eagerly for the LORD,

and keep to the way;

God will raise you to possess the land;

you will gloat when the wicked are cut off.

^35 I have seen ruthless scoundrels,

strong as flourishing cedars.

^36 When I passed by again, they were gone;

though I searched, they could not be found.

^37 Observe the honest, mark the upright;

those at peace with God have a future.

^38 But all sinners will be destroyed;

the future of the wicked will be cut off.

^39 The salvation of the just is from the LORD,

their refuge in time of distress.

^40 The LORD helps and rescues them,

rescues and saves them from the wicked,

because in God they take refuge.

Reflections on Free Will, Sin and Discipline in the Church

"If anyone wants to damage the Landlord's [That is to say, God] character… he ought to say that the Landlord is an inveterate gambler.  That would not be true, but it would be plausible, for there is no denying that the Landlord does take risks….

The Landlord has taken the risk of working the country with free tenants instead of slaves in chain gangs: and as they are free there is no way of making it impossible for them to go into forbidden places and eat forbidden fruits.  (CS Lewis.  Pilgrim's Regress.  page 180)

Introduction

One of the difficult things to remember is that because God has made man with free will, he has the ability to use this free will to choose things which are against the command of God.  This does not mean man has the right to use his free will for good or for evil, but because God has made man free, the approaches the Church can use in dealing with the sinners are limited.

I believe this is a point which is forgotten.  We see notorious sinners within the Church and we want to know why they aren't thrown out.  We forget that the cases where the Church does declare excommunication are limited to certain sins of extreme gravity, and not for every mortal sin.  This seems to be especially forgotten today, where the spirit of rebellion is so defiant against Church teaching, and many grumble that Vatican II "caused this."

The Church is not Becoming More Lax with Vatican II

For those who would argue a division of before and after Vatican II where before all was well and after it was a disaster, I think it useful to cite from the Pre-Vatican II book The Question Box [Sadly out of print] which was originally published in 1903 and republished in 1929 (original spellings, syntax and grammar of that time are maintained):

If your Church is a Holy Church, why do you allow adulterers, drunkards and corrupt politicians to be members in good standing?  Should not moral character be insisted upon as a qualification of church membership?  Why are there so many poor and ignorant in your Church?

Because the Church is the universal Kingdom of God, divinely commissioned to teach Christ's Gospel to all men — sinner and saint, rich and poor, cultured and uncultured — alike.  "There is neither Jew nor Greek there is neither bond nor free; there is neither male nor female.  For you are all one in Christ Jesus" (Gal iii. 28).  The Church is not a Church of the elect, as Wyclif taught or Calvin; nor is she an exclusive club for the outwardly respectable and the well-to-do.

Sinners are rarely excommunicated from her fold, and only for some flagrant sin, just as traitors and convicted criminals are debarred by the state from citizenship.  The adulterer, the drunkard or the corrupt politician is not in "good standing" for he is not permitted to receive Communion until he manifests a heartfelt sorrow for his sins in the Sacrament of Penance.

Christ came into the world for sinners: The angel Gabriel said to Mary: "Thou shalt call his name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins" (Matt. i. 21).  Christ Himself said: "The Son of Man is come to save that which is lost" (Matt. xviii. 11).  "I am not come to call the just, but sinners" (Matt. ix. 13).  In spite of His conscious preeminence as the sinless Son of God, our Lord spent His life by choice among the poor and ignorant, without ever humbling them by His condescension.  One of the signs whereby He was recognized as the Messias was the fact that He was to preach "the Gospel to the poor" (Matt. xi. 5)

Christ always speaks of the Church as a Society composed of the good and the wicked.  He compares it to a field in which cockle grows with the wheat (Matt xiii. 24-30); to a net containing good and bad fishes (Matt xiii. 47); to a barn containing chaff as well as wheat; to wise and foolish virgins (Matt xxv. 1-12).  St. Paul also speaks of a "great house having vessels not only of gold and silver, but also wood and earth; or honor and dishonor" (2 Tim. ii. 20).  And St. John writes to remind us we are all sinners: "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John i. 8)

(The Question Box.  page 124-125)

The question, presented in 1929 sounds very much like what a person scandalized today would ask.  The reply certainly cannot be considered "Spirit of Vatican II."

As we can see, the Church recognized that there were sinners within her, but also that the role of the Church was not merely the expulsion of the sinner, but the seeking of the redemption of the sinner within her.

Two Opposite Errors We Must Beware

Now, does this mean that those who are offended by the public obstinacy of certain fellow Catholics are to just "shut up and take it?"  By no means.  However this is one of two errors which people are deceived by to question or reject the idea of submission to the Church.  The other error is, "Stop judging us.  We can do what we want!"

The first error is an error because it assumes an either-or position.  We must either drive out all the sinners from the Church or else tolerate all sin in the Church.  This is not the case.  We must recognize that the existence of unrepentant sinners and weak ministers within the Church is not a new phenomenon.  The free will, tainted by original sin, means that people will be inclined to selfishness and concupiscence.  The Church exists to lead all people both within and without to Christ.  Some members of the Church may ignore her teachings to their peril, but the only way the Church could prevent this would be if she had the power to overwrite the free will God has given humanity.  In other words, the Church would have to treat free men like "slaves in chain gangs" (as CS Lewis put it).

The second error is the error because because it assumes that from the fact we have free will, there is no moral problem with doing anything we wish.  Christ has shown us the error of this view: "If you love me, you will keep my commandments." (John 14:15).  God has taught certain things are never to be done and certain things are right only in certain conditions.  What God has decreed, man may not overturn on his own.  This is why dissent is so foolish.  It argues that the Church gets it wrong while the individual knows better… ignoring the requests for the basis of authority of their claim.

The Issue of Enforcement

I suspect what makes this so contentious is the issue of enforcing the teachings of the Church.  Yes indeed, we have some people who create vapid, and sometimes heretical "liturgies."  We have politicians who openly support things the Church condemns as evil, and people want to know "Why doesn't the Church excommunicate these people?"

The problem is, this question indicates a misunderstanding on when and where excommunication is used.  The Church has reserved excommunication for very few cases.  Canon Lawyer, Edward Peters writes about it as follows [links to canons added]:

Under current canon law, only certain crimes are directly punishable by excommunication.  They are: apostasy, heresy or schism (c. 1364); desecration of the Eucharist (c. 1367); physical attack on the pope (c. 1370) absolution of an accomplice (c. 1378); simulated celebration of Mass or confession (c. 1378); the unauthorized consecration of bishops (c. 1382) violation of the sacramental seal by the confessor or others (c. 1388) and procuring abortion (c. 1398).  One can easily see that these types of offenses are those that could cause great disturbance in the Church….

…the main point is that excommunication is limited to only a few, very serious and well-defined offenses. (Excommunication and the Catholic Church page 12)

This shows that people are not excommunicated from the Catholic Church for every sin.  However, this does not permit people in mortal sin from presenting themselves to communion either.  Canon Law says:

Can.  916 A person who is conscious of grave sin is not to celebrate Mass or receive the body of the Lord without previous sacramental confession unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition which includes the resolution of confessing as soon as possible.

The reader is reminded that perfect contrition means being truly sorry for having done these acts and wanting to turn away from them.  So for the pro-abortion politician to be repentant, it means he regrets what he has done and will seek to make amends for the evil done.

Now it is true that when the public sinner does not exclude himself, the Church is to turn away the person who is persisting in grave sin:

Can.  915 Those who have been excommunicated or interdicted after the imposition or declaration of the penalty and others obstinately persevering in manifest grave sin are not to be admitted to holy communion.

It is tragic that not all the priests or bishops carry out the enforcement of this requirement (it is witness that there are sinners within the Church).  However, we must remember that this is a failing on the part of the individual priest or bishop and is emphatically not a Vatican policy.

Is it frustrating to see certain sinners behaving in this way publically without being seeing a correction?  Of course it is.  However, our lack of awareness as to what is done does not mean nothing is done (That's an argument from silence fallacy). 

We do have to remember what St. Paul has said in Galatians 6:

^7 Make no mistake: God is not mocked, for a person will reap only what he sows,

^8 because the one who sows for his flesh will reap corruption from the flesh, but the one who sows for the spirit will reap eternal life from the spirit.

Even if the Church is unable to bring about the conversion of the manifest sinner, the unrepentant sinner will indeed answer for the sins they commit.

The Danger to the Catholic Seeking to Follow Christ

Now of course no faithful Catholic should approve of or remain silent over abuses and dissent within the Church.  However, when we consider the view we should take, we need to be aware of a real danger we need to avoid.

There is a danger to the faithful Catholic who sees the public scorning of Church teaching by dissenters and grows angry, and that is the danger of forgetting his own need of salvation.  We must be on guard against the Devil whispering to us about how "everybody but us" is a sinner and the Church would be better if it was run as we would have it. 

Instead we must remember that God desires the salvation of the dissenter as well.  This doesn't mean "ignore the sin."  It does mean we must not become prideful or contemptuous to other sinners even when we must oppose the wrong that they do.

This is something Christ warned us of in Luke 18:

^10 “Two people went up to the temple area to pray; one was a Pharisee and the other was a tax collector.

^11 The Pharisee took up his position and spoke this prayer to himself, ‘O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector.

^12 I fast twice a week, and I pay tithes on my whole income.’

^13 But the tax collector stood off at a distance and would not even raise his eyes to heaven but beat his breast and prayed, ‘O God, be merciful to me a sinner.’

^14 I tell you, the latter went home justified, not the former; for everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and the one who humbles himself will be exalted.”

The Pharisee did the things he spoke of.  The tax collector was a sinner.  That wasn't the point.  The point was the tax collector recognized his sinfulness.  If we are faithful in our service to Christ, we do need to recognize our sinfulness and to repent, depending on God.

Another danger we need to beware of is the resentment that the sinner seems to be treated lightly instead of "getting what they deserve" as Christ pointed out in Luke 15:

^25 Now the older son had been out in the field and, on his way back, as he neared the house, he heard the sound of music and dancing.

^26 He called one of the servants and asked what this might mean.

^27 The servant said to him, ‘Your brother has returned and your father has slaughtered the fattened calf because he has him back safe and sound.’

^28 He became angry, and when he refused to enter the house, his father came out and pleaded with him.

^29 He said to his father in reply, ‘Look, all these years I served you and not once did I disobey your orders; yet you never gave me even a young goat to feast on with my friends.

^30 But when your son returns who swallowed up your property with prostitutes, for him you slaughter the fattened calf.’

^31 He said to him, ‘My son, you are here with me always; everything I have is yours.

^32 But now we must celebrate and rejoice, because your brother was dead and has come to life again; he was lost and has been found.’”

The "Older Brother Syndrome" has the case where the one who was faithful feels resentment over all the commotion concerning the sinner.

Those who are faithful to God will of course be rewarded for their fidelity, but the danger is becoming so angry at the sins of the prodigal that one forgets God does not desire the death of the sinner, but their salvation.  If God calls on us to be merciful with the sinner because He has been merciful to us, it will go badly for us if we will not merciful to those who offend us, as He pointed out in Matthew 18:

^23 That is why the kingdom of heaven may be likened to a king who decided to settle accounts with his servants.

^{24 }When he began the accounting, a debtor was brought before him who owed him a huge amount.

^25 Since he had no way of paying it back, his master ordered him to be sold, along with his wife, his children, and all his property, in payment of the debt.

^{26 }At that, the servant fell down, did him homage, and said, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back in full.’

^27 Moved with compassion the master of that servant let him go and forgave him the loan.

^28 When that servant had left, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a much smaller amount. ^He seized him and started to choke him, demanding, ‘Pay back what you owe.’

^29 Falling to his knees, his fellow servant begged him, ‘Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.’

^30 But he refused. Instead, he had him put in prison until he paid back the debt.

^31 Now when his fellow servants saw what had happened, they were deeply disturbed, and went to their master and reported the whole affair.

^32 His master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you your entire debt because you begged me to.

^33 Should you not have had pity on your fellow servant, as I had pity on you?’

^34 Then in anger his master handed him over to the torturers until he should pay back the whole debt.

^{35 }So will my heavenly Father do to you, unless each of you forgives his brother from his heart.”

We must not forget, when dealing with scandals and dissident behavior within the Church that God has forgiven us, and we must forgive others as well.  This doesn't mean let them walk over you unrepentant, or ignore those who seek to distort what the Church teaches.  Heresy and disobedience must be opposed always.

However it does mean we cannot take the attitude that we can simply throw out those who are sinners and consign them to Hell and all will be well.

Conclusion

The person who thinks I am calling for indifference within the Church when it comes to the obstinate sinner, or dismissing the concerns of those troubled by dissent within the Church has missed the point of what I wish to say. 

I am not saying this at all.  I am pointing out that the Church exists to bring Christ's salvation to the world, and that all of us are sinners.  As Christians, our task is to pray for the sinner that he might have a change of heart and be saved.

If we follow the example of the prayer of the Pharisee, if we refuse to show compassion like the Debtor Servant, if we think the Prodigal Son should be forever excluded, we are not following the way of our Lord.

We are to hate the sin, but love the sinner, which means that we are not to look disdainfully down on them, but rather, by our prayers and actions, seek to help each other.

The Church is not an exclusive club for the perfect, and we should not denounce the Magisterium for not treating the Church as if it was.  It may bother some of us to see that the wicked seem to act without repercussion.  However, when stirred to anger.  There are some things the Church cannot do simply because Christ has not given her the power to do so.  In these cases, where it pains us to see the dissenter flaunting his defiance, let us trust in God's power and authority to judge the wicked and remember Psalm 37:

^1 Of David.

^Do not be provoked by evildoers;

do not envy those who do wrong.

^2 Like grass they wither quickly;

like green plants they wilt away.

^{3 }Trust in the LORD and do good

that you may dwell in the land and live secure.

^4 Find your delight in the LORD

who will give you your heart’s desire.

^5 Commit your way to the LORD;

trust that God will act

^6 And make your integrity shine like the dawn,

your vindication like noonday.

^7 Be still before the LORD;

wait for God.

Do not be provoked by the prosperous,

nor by malicious schemers.

^8 Give up your anger, abandon your wrath;

do not be provoked; it brings only harm.

^9 Those who do evil will be cut off,

but those who wait for the LORD will possess the land.

^10 Wait a little, and the wicked will be no more;

look for them and they will not be there.

^11 But the poor will possess the land,

will delight in great prosperity.

^12 The wicked plot against the just

and grind their teeth at them;

^13 But the LORD laughs at them,

knowing their day is coming.

^14 The wicked draw their swords;

they string their bows

To fell the poor and oppressed,

to slaughter those whose way is honest.

^15 Their swords will pierce their own hearts;

their bows will be broken.

^16 Better the poverty of the just

than the great wealth of the wicked.

^17 The arms of the wicked will be broken;

the LORD will sustain the just.

^18 The LORD watches over the days of the blameless;

their heritage lasts forever.

^19 They will not be disgraced when times are hard;

in days of famine they will have plenty.

^20 The wicked perish,

the enemies of the LORD;

Like the beauty of meadows they vanish;

like smoke they disappear.

^21 The wicked borrow but do not repay;

the just are generous in giving.

^22 For those blessed by the Lord will possess the land,

but those accursed will be cut off.

^23 Those whose steps are guided by the LORD;

whose way God approves,

^24 May stumble, but they will never fall,

for the LORD holds their hand.

^25 Neither in my youth, nor now in old age

have I ever seen the just abandoned

or their children begging bread.

^26 The just always lend generously,

and their children become a blessing.

^27 Turn from evil and do good,

that you may inhabit the land forever.

^28 For the LORD loves justice

and does not abandon the faithful.

When the unjust are destroyed,

and the children of the wicked cut off,

^29 The just will possess the land

and live in it forever.

^30 The mouths of the just utter wisdom;

their tongues speak what is right.

^31 God’s teaching is in their hearts;

their steps do not falter.

^32 The wicked spy on the just

and seek to kill them.

^33 But the LORD does not leave the just in their power,

nor let them be condemned when tried.

^34 Wait eagerly for the LORD,

and keep to the way;

God will raise you to possess the land;

you will gloat when the wicked are cut off.

^35 I have seen ruthless scoundrels,

strong as flourishing cedars.

^36 When I passed by again, they were gone;

though I searched, they could not be found.

^37 Observe the honest, mark the upright;

those at peace with God have a future.

^38 But all sinners will be destroyed;

the future of the wicked will be cut off.

^39 The salvation of the just is from the LORD,

their refuge in time of distress.

^40 The LORD helps and rescues them,

rescues and saves them from the wicked,

because in God they take refuge.

A Look at the Bones for the Soup

“we must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled.”

—JRR Tolkien

I've had some private responses to my last post, and some questions.  Shouldn't I have focused on Liberalism or Atheism or something of the like instead of the Christian who tries to do what is right?  So going against the advice of Tolkien, I'm going to detail some of the "bones" which went into my Leerwort Letters.

In reading this, it would be a mistake to reason "Either Conservative or Liberal.  He's writing against conservatives.  Therefore he approves of liberalism."  Rather I was writing in this respect: Most of the readers who seem to come by this blog and comment do seem to have some interest in seeking to do what is right before God.

Now of course, the Devil doesn't just give up just because we repent and follow Christ.  In our early days as Christians, the devil may seek to call us back to the old allures.  However for those who persevere and trust in God, some of the old temptations will not be as effective.

The Devil seeks to hit us where we live and to deceive us to go from saying to God "Thy Will Be Done" to saying "My Will Be Done."

Some of the "advice" given by Leerwort is inspired from things I've seen friends and family go through.  However, for the deepest insights into the temptations of the would-be faithful Christian, I've had to look inward, not outward, and to see the temptations within myself daily.

Of course for every person, whether believer or atheist; whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, the Devil does want us to put ourselves first and to think we do not need to be helped.  "It's the attitude of I'm fine.  YOU need help!"

If the Devil can deceive us in this way, we become unaware of this block to opening our hearts to God's grace and love.

So the person who looks at that article and views it as saying "Only certain people are in the right" that would be a view which is against what I intend.  All of us have things we cling to, which we ought to reject, and all of us should seek to repent of these things.

A Look at the Bones for the Soup

“we must be satisfied with the soup that is set before us, and not desire to see the bones of the ox out of which it has been boiled.”

—JRR Tolkien

I've had some private responses to my last post, and some questions.  Shouldn't I have focused on Liberalism or Atheism or something of the like instead of the Christian who tries to do what is right?  So going against the advice of Tolkien, I'm going to detail some of the "bones" which went into my Leerwort Letters.

In reading this, it would be a mistake to reason "Either Conservative or Liberal.  He's writing against conservatives.  Therefore he approves of liberalism."  Rather I was writing in this respect: Most of the readers who seem to come by this blog and comment do seem to have some interest in seeking to do what is right before God.

Now of course, the Devil doesn't just give up just because we repent and follow Christ.  In our early days as Christians, the devil may seek to call us back to the old allures.  However for those who persevere and trust in God, some of the old temptations will not be as effective.

The Devil seeks to hit us where we live and to deceive us to go from saying to God "Thy Will Be Done" to saying "My Will Be Done."

Some of the "advice" given by Leerwort is inspired from things I've seen friends and family go through.  However, for the deepest insights into the temptations of the would-be faithful Christian, I've had to look inward, not outward, and to see the temptations within myself daily.

Of course for every person, whether believer or atheist; whether Catholic, Orthodox or Protestant, the Devil does want us to put ourselves first and to think we do not need to be helped.  "It's the attitude of I'm fine.  YOU need help!"

If the Devil can deceive us in this way, we become unaware of this block to opening our hearts to God's grace and love.

So the person who looks at that article and views it as saying "Only certain people are in the right" that would be a view which is against what I intend.  All of us have things we cling to, which we ought to reject, and all of us should seek to repent of these things.

The Leerwort Letters (My own attempt at the Screwtape Letter Genre)

Doing versions of the Screwtape Letters is to take an awful risk as a writer.  CS Lewis did have a great insight into the human heart and how the devil hoped to deceive us away from God.  Most of us don't have either that insight or the talent to express that insight in writing, and the result is it reads like an argument made by a Christian with a few cosmetic changes to make it sound like the Screwtape Letters. 

I suspect my own attempt will come much closer to one of the failed attempts to mimic the genre, but I thought it is a topic I thought I should approach: The temptation of the faithful Christian into rebellion without even realizing it.

So, for better or for worse (most likely the latter) here is my own attempt at the genre.

My Dear Casketgnaw,

You seem to have put your foot in it when it came to assignments being passed out today. You managed to complain loudly that your because your patient was a conservative and a faithful Christian therefore you were being set up to fail. It’s bad enough that you embarrassed yourself with such a foolish statement. It’s worse because being my former student at the Tempter’s Academy, you managed to make it look like I’ve taught you nothing.

So it seems I will have to give you an overview of the fundamentals you somehow failed to learn while in Tempters School.

Just because a person is pious doesn’t mean they are untouchable. The only people we have been unable to touch were our Enemy and the creature He used to be His mother. Everyone else, we can crack if we just think about how to exploit their weaknesses. You think Conservative Christians are a tough nut to crack? Just look at the phrase “conservative Christian” and you will see a wedge you can use to separate the patient from the Enemy.  "Christian" is a belief which the Enemy wants to affect all other preferences the patient has.  We want the Patient to judge "Christianity" by "Conservative" just as we want our liberal patients to judge "Christianity" by "Liberalism."

So, my dear former pupil, it matters not whether the patient is Catholic or Buddhist, Conservative or Liberal. Our job is to turn their head to look at things in the way we want them to see and once we get them into the habit of putting their own wants first; to discourage them from thinking they could be wrong.

Like with every other patient we’ve had since Adam and Eve, we want them to think their wants are the only good there is, and where there is a difference, the Church must be wrong. We want them prideful. We want to lead them to think that they can’t be in error, so in any conflict, the one challenging them must be in error.

You’ll have some good resources to help with this of course. Your patient is a Catholic.  According to the case file of your patient, he is young and zealous for the faith and has come to understand that the Church he is in is indeed the Church the enemy has established. These things, if left unattended can indeed lead him into the Enemy’s camp so we can have no grasp on him once he changes from death to life.

However, because he is young and zealous, we can misdirect both to our own ends.  We have had some success in guiding some of our other patients within the Enemy's church to do some foolish things which will scandalize your own patient.  All they need to do is to look at the news accounts of a priest who abuses the Enemy’s Mass; the nun who is a lesbian feminist, the theologian who claims that it is being true to that hated Vatican Council II (We had to work hard to make it ineffectual) to do the opposite of what the Council says.

With these scandals, we then can lead them to think “I’m not that way!” Then we can guide them to the unspoken conclusion that “therefore what I think should be is the true teaching of the Church.”

Remember, the young are not like the old. With the old we encourage them “not to make waves,” or to see so many sides to the story that they lose sight of the Enemy’s side of the story. With the young we want to appeal to their sense of justice and lead them to a view which is very unjust indeed when looking at others.  When he prays, we want his prayers to become like the Pharisee in the Enemy's parable: "O God, I thank you that I am not like the rest of humanity—greedy, dishonest, adulterous—or even like this tax collector."

So don’t waste your time appealing to his baser instincts… that’s not to say it won’t work.  (He does have a girlfriend after all… though she too is trying to be faithful to the enemy, and any unrepented mortal sin works for us).  It's just that you don’t need to make him a hedonist to bring him into our clutches. Rather, use them in a way compatible with his views: lead him to the view that so many people out there are hedonists and seem to suffer no consequences for doing so. Now, unless he has some compulsions to exploit, you won’t make him into a public sinner. But you can exploit his own desires and lead him to think “Something must be done!”

Once you have your patient realizing “something must be done” we can nudge him to notice that his church is not handling it in the way he would prefer, and whisper to him that it shows the church is not doing what the Enemy wants.

It is true that often our best strategies are to hide the fact that we exist. However in this kind of case, it often helps to make it known we do exist and make it seem we are to blame for the church action the patient does not like.

We can exploit this "arguing in a circle" to our benefit, getting our patient to think that what he thinks should be done is the Enemy's will is the first step.  Leading him to think that any difference between his view and the actions of the Church (and you should always suggest that it is the Enemy's Church and not some of the useful idiots within who does the wrong things he is offended by) indicates the Enemy's Church is controlled by our useful idiots and by us should be very successful.

This will have the added benefit that when the patient's political views or personal situation runs afoul of the Church (and at times they will… that's the beauty of Our Father Below's attack on that Adam and Eve… concupiscence makes them want to be selfish), they will judge the Enemy's Church as following our dictates, forgetting the Enemy's promise that we would never prevail against it (we will someday!) and never consider the possibility of their own situation being at odds with the Enemy.

Next time you’re down Below, go swing by and visit where Donatus is roasting away. He was a person who was vigorous in defense of the Church, yet we have him now. You want to know why?

We got him to think his view of what the Enemy's Church should be was The Enemy's view of what the Church should be, and he ended up condemning and defying the Enemy's Church for laxity and heresy. Isn’t that fun? He and his were so worked up about the Pope readmitting those patients back into the Church who they thought should be kept out, that he denied the authority of the Church when it went against them!

Don't get carried away however.  You don't need to make your patient a schismatic. So long as he thinks the difference between himself and the official teaching of the Enemy's Church to be our infiltration of the Enemy's Church, we can deafen him to the Enemy trying to steal him away from us.

But always remember the first fundamental step: Always lead the patient to think that what he wants is right, and when the Church challenges that, the Church must be wrong.  In doing so, you can deceive both the hedonist who hate's the enemy and the Enemy's servant alike.

 

Affectionately,

Your Instructor, Leerwort