On Self Deception

Sometimes a way seems right to a man, but the end of it leads to death! (Proverbs 16:25)

One thing all Christians can be tempted by is self deception.  We think that an exception from what God commands can be made for us.  We think of excuses as to why what God teaches should not apply to us, or why the Church teaching can't be what God means.  After all, if we're undergoing some sort of physical or emotional distress, or if we want something the Church teaches is wrong, it clearly means that the Church must be wrong, doesn't it?

The reason this self-deception so often succeeds is that we do not understand why the Church holds what it does, or we do not understand the words of Christ in the right context.  For example we see some people take the words of Christ against judging and contrast them with the words of St. Paul saying some things bring destruction and conclude that St. Paul missed the point of what Christ was teaching.  What this ignores is Matt 7:5, where the context indicates Christ is not speaking of letting everyone do as the please, but of judging others for their minor faults (the splinter) while ignoring one's own major faults (the beam).  Paul was quite aware of his own faults.

The problem is, in contrasting the "merciful Jesus" and the "harsh Paul," we forget the most vivid descriptions of Hell and warnings of judgment come from Jesus and not St. Paul.  Thus we instead invent for ourselves a God who will not punish, but will forgive us when we live in opposition to His teachings… even though we have no intent to change our ways out of love for Him.

There are many ways we deceive ourselves into thinking that the words of Jesus are not binding to us, excuses to explain why the absolute statements of Christ merely apply to "other people."

Ad Misericordiam

The appeal to pity is one of these ways we excuse ourselves.  The ad misericordiam (also known as the appeal to pity) mistakes a misfortune for what might happen as a reason for which the teaching should be set aside.  For example, the couple who wants to use artificial contraception, might bring up the large number of children they already have (usually 2.1), or their financial situation as "not being able to afford another child" and say that the Church teaching is "cruel."

However this appeal to financial straits does not answer the question: Why not practice self control?  In other words, the appeal to pity does not give a reason for changing a belief, but merely an attempt at sympathy to make one bend the rules.

Proclaiming Infallibility of the Self, Denial of Infallibility of the Magisterium

How often do we hear the claim, "It just seems right to me" or "Your church teaching is so cruel!"?  Ultimately this boils down to the claim that what one personally feels is right.  You can see this in a number of ways: Atheism seems to me to be more logical than a belief in God when you consider science.  Really?  So, we have a statement which makes the individual's assessment of atheistic claims, theological claims and interpretation of science infallible.  However, when it comes down to it, such a statement is really a statement of preference on how they would want the world to be.

If one wants to invoke their belief that the Church teaching is wrong on divorce, the question is: On what basis do we claim the Catholic interpretation wrong?  We can demonstrate the problem this way:

1. The Catholic teaching is denied to be authoritative
2. The individual's personal interpretation is claimed to be authoritative
3. Yet, if the Catholic interpretation is not binding on all, it is a personal interpretation
4. Thus, under this reasoning, personal interpretation can err.
5. So how does the individual who denies the Catholic teaching know his or her own views are right?

It has been remarked that while there is a shortage of priestly vocations, there is no shortage of vocations to the Papacy.  This seems to be true.  We deceive ourselves to think our preferences are what is right, and forget that we are affected by original sin, which inclines us to choose our personal desires over what God wills for us.

Confusing Preference and Dogma

Another common problem with self deception is the confusing of personal preference with dogma… and vice versa.  Personal preference is when we judge something "correct" or "heretical" based on what we would like a thing to be.  When we see certain traditionalists arguing that the Ordinary Form of the Mass is dangerous or heretical, they have no basis for their view.  They are using these terms as a rhetorical embellishment to show their dislike for the vernacular, the removal of unnecessary elements (such as the twice recited Confiteor), guitar masses and the like.

Such actions or tolerance on the part of the Magisterium are certainly not heretical, but because the individual dislikes them, they are so labeled.  The result is, the individual makes himself the infallible one and denies the Church has the right to make changes he or she disagrees with.

On the other side of the coin, the one who reduces a dogma to a preference tends to respond to a papal pronouncement they dislike with that's just his opinion.  Thus teachings on contraception, divorce and abortion are written off as an opinion, or even a partisan opinion.  Thus we see certain theologians challenging certain papal statements, claiming the Pope is in error in his "view."

Now, if the Pope writes a personal work, such as Pope John Paul II's Crossing the Threshold of Hope or Benedict XVI's Jesus of Nazareth, these are not intended to be binding documents.  However, if the Pope says (as he did in Evangelium Vitae #62):

"I declare that direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, always constitutes a grave moral disorder, since it is the deliberate killing of an innocent human being. This doctrine is based upon the natural law and upon the written Word of God, is transmitted by the Church's Tradition and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium"

then any claim that this is a mere opinion of the Pope is false.  The Pope has invoked his authority and must be obeyed on this matter, if one is to continue to claim to be Catholic and not a dissenter.

Yet Modernists and Traditionalists alike make use of the false statement that if the Church has not made a declaration ex cathedra, it is not binding, but merely an opinion.  It is especially ironic that certain traditionalists make use of this argument, as it would make the condemnation of the Modernists by St. Pius X a mere "opinion."

Argument By Proxy

Some attacks on Church authority are done by proxy.  The argument put forward is not a defense of the dissenter's opinion, but rather an attack on another position held by the Church.  This position is alleged to be in error, and therefore the dissenter doesn't have to listen to the Church teaching he or she really is opposed to.

The problem is twofold.  First, is the rather obvious question: where is the proof the Church is wrong on this proxy argument  Second is when one sets the proxy argument up, it doesn't mean other Church teachings are wrong.  It works like this:

1. The Church teaches [X] on Position [A]
2. The Church is wrong on Position [A]
3. Therefore the Church is wrong on Position [B]

The problem is, even if the claim was true of the Church being wrong on Position [A] which needs to be proven by the way, it would not have any connection to whether the Church was wrong on Position [B].  It's a non sequitur.

The Lacking Component… and its Counterfeit

In all of these cases, what is lacking is an attempt to establish what is true.  Instead, we have a position which seeks to set aside the issue of truth in exchange for emotion.  Labels are used to question the authority of the Church position, but do not in themselves demonstrate a lack of authority on the part of the Church.

Essentially all of these place emotion over the truth.  Emotion is a counterfeit for truth.  We can have passionate feelings for things that are true.  However, we can also have passionate feelings for things which are false.  How many times have people gotten into bad relationships because the emotion clouds their ability to see the harm the relationship is doing?

Now emotion in itself is not a bad thing.  Nothing from God is evil, provided it is used as God intends.  However, if we let it master us, tainted by concupiscence then we can place ourselves in opposition to God because we do not consider the possibility that our original sin can lead us to self deception and that we can be choosing evil, and think it must be good because we forget we are letting our passions rule us.

Truth speaks to What IS

Pilate said to him, “What is truth?” (John 18:38)

"…it was not a great philosopher but a fool who asked that question."  (Peter Kreeft, The Best Things in Life, page 95)

Pilate sees the concept of 'truth' as a harmless abstraction with no ties with reality.  The truth is different.  What is true can have consequences based on whether I heed the truth or not.

While many argue about whether truth may be known, when one comes down to it, we certainly can know truths.  If I throw a rock straight up in an open field, I know it is true that I had damn well better get out of the way before it comes down.  If a label reads poison, I know it is true that I will be harmed to ingest it.  Whether or not I scoff at whether we can know truth, if I fail to act on information that says "what is," I can be harmed by that failure.

Aristotle was famous for describing truth and falsehood  as, “To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true.”  If I say something is about God's teaching when it is not, I speak falsely.  To those who claim to be followers of Christ, we must recognize that God has revealed Himself to us and has revealed to us truth which we must follow.

Now, to speak that something which is not, is; or that something which is, is not; is to speak falsely.  It may not be a deliberate lie, such as in the case of a person who is mistaken on the subject he speaks on, but it is to speak falsely all the same. 

Another characteristic is that truth cannot contradict truth.  If God  is truth and He calls homosexual acts a sin, then a person does not speak truth if he calls them good.  Such a person may say this falsehood out of defiance, or out of sincere but mistaken belief, but his sincerity in his belief that the Church is wrong in saying what God requires does not make his belief right.

Conclusion

In all cases, what we must beware of is the confusing our desires with God's will.  The human person can deceive himself.  God doesn't want me to be unhappy, is a common mantra, but a false one.  It is better said, God desires what is truly good for us.  Sometimes, when we want something harmful, something which goes against God's will, God must thwart our personal plans and our disordered human desires must be denied to our sorrow at not being given what we want.  Sometimes we want a thing for which the Church must say No, this is against what our Lord commanded.

In such cases, one must ask, "Is this truly God's will to oppose the Church as being in error, or am I the one who has been deceived?"  "On what basis can I claim this?"

We ignore these questions to our peril.

On Loss

You only have power over [a man] so long as you don't take everything away from [him]. But when you've taken everything, he's no longer in your power — he's free again.

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again.  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!”

—Job 1:21

^34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

^35 For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother,and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

^36 and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’

^37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

^38 and whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me.

^{39 }Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

—Matthew 10

A question to ponder.  If one suffers a loss, what does it mean when one reflects on it in the light of Christ?  Are we victims?  Or are we set free?

All I can say is that when God calls, all I can do is to follow.

On Loss

You only have power over [a man] so long as you don't take everything away from [him]. But when you've taken everything, he's no longer in your power — he's free again.

—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

“Naked I came forth from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I go back again.  The LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD!”

—Job 1:21

^34 “Do not think that I have come to bring peace upon the earth. I have come to bring not peace but the sword.

^35 For I have come to set a man ‘against his father, a daughter against her mother,and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law;

^36 and one’s enemies will be those of his household.’

^37 “Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me;

^38 and whoever does not take up his cross ^and follow after me is not worthy of me.

^{39 }Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.

—Matthew 10

A question to ponder.  If one suffers a loss, what does it mean when one reflects on it in the light of Christ?  Are we victims?  Or are we set free?

All I can say is that when God calls, all I can do is to follow.

On Pharisee Mentality

One temptation which always follows behind the Christian trying to be faithful is the mentality of the Pharisee.  Since I'm not afflicted by it, I'll write this to help those of you who are…

Ha, ha.  Actually, this is one of the first symptoms of it: To look at others faults and failings while being blind to your own.  Jesus warned us all about this type of thinking, in Matthew 7:

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, ^remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

It is a strong indictment which any one of us can be guilty of.  Jesus speaks quite strongly about this: It is hypocrisy to look down on others who sin while forgetting our own guilt before Him.  Now of course He doesn't mean we can't call any action evil or wrong.  That's an old deception which is aimed at us to overlook the fact that we are sinners ourselves when we look down on others for being in a state of sin.  If we realize our own need for Christ, we ought to recognize others are seeking Christ as well.  They might be further away from Christ to be sure.  However, they also might be closer because they recognize their own sin and need for salvation.  Christ has said in Matthew 21:

^{28 }“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

^29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

^30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.

^{31 }Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

^{32 }When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.

^It is a paradox which can drive a person crazy.  "Hey!  I'm following all the rules here, but you're saying these people who do all these evil things are closer to God than ME?"  Yet, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10).  The one who knows that God is holiness, is goodness and looks at their life compared to the holiness of God will see their own life lacks in comparison to what God asks of us.

It doesn't even mean we need to act like one of those cretins who show up at the funerals of AIDS victims with signs saying the deceased is going to Hell to be acting in a way which Christ calls wrong.  All we need to do is to act as if we are superior to others in how we live, as Christ teaches 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 is proud of his actions, and forgets he is also a sinner who needs the mercy of Christ.

So I hope I set you all straight with that splinter.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go lie down and take some aspirin or something to deal with the pain.  The optometrist has said it might be caused by this beam I have in my eye... but what would he know? 

;-)

On Pharisee Mentality

One temptation which always follows behind the Christian trying to be faithful is the mentality of the Pharisee.  Since I'm not afflicted by it, I'll write this to help those of you who are…

Ha, ha.  Actually, this is one of the first symptoms of it: To look at others faults and failings while being blind to your own.  Jesus warned us all about this type of thinking, in Matthew 7:

^3 Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye?

^4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye?

^5 You hypocrite, ^remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.

It is a strong indictment which any one of us can be guilty of.  Jesus speaks quite strongly about this: It is hypocrisy to look down on others who sin while forgetting our own guilt before Him.  Now of course He doesn't mean we can't call any action evil or wrong.  That's an old deception which is aimed at us to overlook the fact that we are sinners ourselves when we look down on others for being in a state of sin.  If we realize our own need for Christ, we ought to recognize others are seeking Christ as well.  They might be further away from Christ to be sure.  However, they also might be closer because they recognize their own sin and need for salvation.  Christ has said in Matthew 21:

^{28 }“What is your opinion? A man had two sons. He came to the first and said, ‘Son, go out and work in the vineyard today.’

^29 He said in reply, ‘I will not,’ but afterwards he changed his mind and went.

^30 The man came to the other son and gave the same order. He said in reply, ‘Yes, sir,’ but did not go.

^{31 }Which of the two did his father’s will?” They answered, “The first.” Jesus said to them, “Amen, I say to you, tax collectors and prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God before you.

^{32 }When John came to you in the way of righteousness, you did not believe him; but tax collectors and prostitutes did. Yet even when you saw that, you did not later change your minds and believe him.

^It is a paradox which can drive a person crazy.  "Hey!  I'm following all the rules here, but you're saying these people who do all these evil things are closer to God than ME?"  Yet, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom (Psalm 111:10).  The one who knows that God is holiness, is goodness and looks at their life compared to the holiness of God will see their own life lacks in comparison to what God asks of us.

It doesn't even mean we need to act like one of those cretins who show up at the funerals of AIDS victims with signs saying the deceased is going to Hell to be acting in a way which Christ calls wrong.  All we need to do is to act as if we are superior to others in how we live, as Christ teaches 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 is proud of his actions, and forgets he is also a sinner who needs the mercy of Christ.

So I hope I set you all straight with that splinter.  Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to go lie down and take some aspirin or something to deal with the pain.  The optometrist has said it might be caused by this beam I have in my eye... but what would he know? 

;-)

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.