On Obedience and Dissent Within the Catholic Church (Part II)

Read more »

Thought for the Day: Trolls

I really wonder what trolls hope to accomplish when they post links to anti-Catholic articles in the comments for the blog.  If it's to sway me, I'd say it fails completely. The link leads to a blog which sounded like completely irrational hatred filled with four letter words, spewing venom at the leaders of the Church.  If it was intended to intimidate me or cause me to lose hope it also failed.  If this is the best the individual can argue, its hardly worth bothering with.

The only sense I can make of it is that the author holds an irrational hatred for certain things and feels the need to attack people who defends what the author hates and slanders.

Just remember if the author sounds like Todd Unctuous… or worse, makes him sound reasonable compared to the author, the author isn't doing their faction much good.

On Obedience and Dissent Within the Catholic Church (Part I)

Read more »

Christ is the Physician, We Are The Sick

^30 The Pharisees and their scribes complained to his disciples, saying, “Why do you eat and drink with tax collectors and sinners?”

^31 Jesus said to them in reply, “Those who are healthy do not need a physician, but the sick do.

^32 I have not come to call the righteous to repentance but sinners.”

I think one of the things Christians need to keep in mind is that, when Christ says He has not come to call the righteous but the sinners, we must recognize we are the sinners who need Him, and not the perfect who are already worthy as they are.  We may be tempted to think we are righteous, but we are not.

All of us are tainted by the effects of original sin, and by the sinful acts we do of our own choosing.  In some cases, it may be easy to see.  The tax collectors realizes he is a sinner and prays for forgiveness (see Luke 18:13).  In other cases it is not easy to see.  The self-righteous instead boasts before God (Luke 18:11-12).

The False Dichotomy

We unfortunately have the tendency to create a false either-or situation in our minds:

1. If I am [a good person] I will not be [like this tax collector]. (If [A] then [B])
2. I am not [like this tax collector] (not [B])
3. Therefore I am [a good person] (Therefore [A])

The problem of course is that just because we may not be "like this tax collector" does not make us a good person.  In other words, if we use Hitler as the standard of evil, we all look good in comparison but if Hitler is not the standard of evil, but rather one example of evil, we may find that none of us can take a righteous attitude in what we do.

"Bad News Boys…"

There is an old joke which runs as follows:

A priest was hearing confessions for a mining camp.  The first miner walks in and the priest asks him to confess his sins.

The miner scratches his head and says "Well I don't know… I never killed anyone."

The exasperated priest tells him, "Get out of here and make an examination of conscience!"

The miner exits and sees the line of miners waiting for their turn.  "Go home boys!  He's only taking murderers today!"

Now of course, the priest was not only hearing the confession of murderers.  Rather he was telling the miner to consider what he had done or failed to do which needed reconciliation with God, and not judge himself in comparison to murderers.

Yet too often, we look at our relation with God with the consideration of what we haven't done compared to others… not in the sense that they have done more out of love for God in comparison to ourselves but rather that we haven't acted as bad as them, so we must be good.

We should remember Psalm 50:

^7 “Listen, my people, I will speak; Israel, I will testify against you; God, your God, am I.

^8 Not for your sacrifices do I rebuke you, nor for your holocausts, set before me daily.

^9 I need no bullock from your house, no goats from your fold.

^10 For every animal of the forest is mine, beasts by the thousands on my mountains.

^11 I know every bird of the heavens; the creatures of the field belong to me.

^12 Were I hungry, I would not tell you, for mine is the world and all that fills it.

^13 Do I eat the flesh of bulls or drink the blood of goats?

^14 Offer praise as your sacrifice to God; fulfill your vows to the Most High.

^15 Then call on me in time of distress; I will rescue you, and you shall honor me.”

^16 But to the wicked God says: “Why do you recite my commandments and profess my covenant with your lips?

^17 You hate discipline; you cast my words behind you!

^18 When you see thieves, you befriend them; with adulterers you throw in your lot.

^19 You give your mouth free rein for evil; you harness your tongue to deceit.

^20 You sit maligning your own kin, slandering the child of your own mother.

^21 When you do these things should I be silent? Or do you think that I am like you? I accuse you, I lay the charge before you.

The Other Side of the Coin

On the other side of this coin is the claim that because we aren't doing any worse than anyone else, we are fine as we are.  God has commanded in Exodus 23:2 ^ Neither shall you allege the example of the many as an excuse for doing wrong (in other translations it can be rendered You shall not follow a multitude to do evil).  In the New Testament, Jesus says in Luke 17:

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

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

Going along to get along is not what we are to do.  Christ makes use of some graphic imagery to show the lengths we are to take to avoid sin.  If we would not cut off our foot or gouge out our eye, should we not take steps to avoid sin?  If "the crowd" embraces sin as good, ought we not to avoid "the crowd" when it seeks to lead us to do evil?

Neither can we appeal to the bad example of those who do not practice what they preach.  Jesus, in Matthew 23 says in verses 2-3, “The scribes and the Pharisees have taken their seat on the chair of Moses. Therefore, do and observe all things whatsoever they tell you, but do not follow their example. For they preach but they do not practice.

Are there individual priests and even bishops who fail to behave as they ought?  Indeed there are, and they will answer for the things they will not repent of.  For Christ says in Luke 17: 1-2, "Things that cause sin will inevitably occur, but woe to the person through whom they occur.  It would be better for him if a millstone were put around his neck and he be thrown into the sea than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."

However, the personal sins of an individual priest or bishop do not justify our own sins.  Nor does it justify the disobedience of the Church in one area because a priest or bishop is disobedient in another.

Completing the Circle

Thus we can see that both the disdaining of others while ignoring our own sins, and the thinking we are no worse than others so our sins don't matter are attitudes which contradict the teachings of Christ.  He has come to call the sinners, not the righteous.  If we think we are good because we are "not like them" or if we think we are good because we "only do what everyone else is doing," we are behaving self-righteously, and refusing to let Jesus, the Divine Physician, heal our infirmities.

So let us cease to think of ourselves as some sort of "elect" who have it made, and instead recognize we are sinners who daily must rely on Christ to strengthen and sustain us.

Chronological Snobbery

Introduction

Definition of Snob:

a person who has an exaggerated respect for high social position or wealth and who looks down on those regarded as socially inferior.

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

There is a tendency in modern times to look at the past with disdain, and to assume that something of the past is of no value simply because of the age of the observation.  CS Lewis describes this in his book, Surprised by Joy, when he says:

Barfield never made me an Anthroposophist, but his counterattacks destroyed forever two elements in my own thought. In the first place he made short work of what I have called my "chronological snobbery," the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited. You must find why it went out of date. Was it ever refuted (and if so by whom, where, and how conclusively) or did it merely die away as fashions do? If the latter, this tells us nothing about its truth or falsehood. From seeing this, one passes to the realization that our own age is also "a period," and certainly has, like all periods, its own characteristic illusions. They are likeliest to lurk in those widespread assumptions which are so ingrained in the age that no one dares to attack or feels it necessary to defend them. (p207-208)

The Effective Assumptions of Chronological Snobbery

The argument of Chronological Snobbery tends to run as follows:

1. It is argued that A implies B.
2. A implies B is an old argument, dating back to the times when people also believed C.
3. C is clearly false.
4. Therefore, A does not imply B.

Because we have an exaggerated respect for the scientific data we know today, we look down on people from earlier periods of time as being mentally inferior.  I suppose many might believe this today, but I'd suspect Socrates and St. Thomas Aquinas probably had superior intellects to most people who disdain them today.  They might not have known the scientific data of today, but there is no doubt that had they lived today, this modern data would have deepened their arguments, not led them to hold the opposite of what they held when alive.

Of course this brings us to the major problem of Chronological Snobbery: The disdaining of the belief in God and in miracles based on our incrementally increased knowledge over the past

Scientific Data and Truth

Chronological Snobbery assumes, that because we have more scientific data available today (due to the advances in the past), it means the society which did not have access to the scientific data we have now were basically "dumb as rocks" and whatever they claimed to have observed could not be true, especially if they spoke of a Theophany, or of an action by God, it must have been an event which had a natural cause, and the ancients did not know it.

However, we need to recognize that something that is true today could be known in the past, even if it was known with less detail.  The fact that ancients believed some things we obviously know to be false now does not indicate everything they believed was false.  The ancient world may have believed in Geocentrism for example, but that belief did not make untrue the other things which they held, such as Geometry.

In other words, just because ancients did not know some things were true, does not mean they had no knowledge of truth.  The claim that it did is essentially Scientism, holding that only that which can be established scientifically, ignoring all other forms of knowledge.  (The paradox of scientism is that one cannot establish it scientifically).

An Reductio ad absurdum for Chronological Snobbery

Let's envision a time in the 23rd century, where society has changed, and the world is a meritocracy.  Those with genetic advantages in the mental field are given positions of authority and power.  Those who lack are relegated to doing menial jobs, essentially the property of those who have.  Now, lets assume that a person comes forward, and brings up writings against slavery from the 19th century as showing arguments as to why the current system ought not to be tolerated.

Would it be valid to negate his arguments on the grounds that "people back in the 20th century believed [X], therefore they had no idea what they were talking about on slavery"?

Chronological Snobbery Today

Yet, that is what passes for argument today.

1. Medieval People believed in God and Miracles (Medieval people believed [A])
2. They also believed in Bleeding as a medical practice (They also believed [B])
3. They were wrong on Bleeding (They were wrong on [B])
4. Therefore they were wrong on God and Miracles (Therefore they were wrong on [A])

The problem, of course, is that Medieval people being wrong on [B] has no bearing on whether they were wrong on [A].

A Variant of this Error: The Ancients "Didn't Know" About Natural Phenomenon

Because of this assumption, we often assume (as I said in the beginning) that ancient peoples were "dumb as rocks" about natural phenomena, and assumed natural phenomena were the acts of gods.  In modern times, we assume that because there is a natural cause for these things, the belief in gods must be attributing a supernatural cause to the natural.  However, the ancient Christian author Clement of Alexandria (AD 150-215), in his Stromata, wrote on superstitions over "ill omens" this way:

It was a clever remark of Antiphon, who (when one regarded it as an ill omen that the sow had eaten her pigs), on seeing her emaciated through the niggardliness of the person that kept her, said, Congratulate yourself on the omen that, being so hungry, she did not eat your own children.

“And what wonder is it,” says Bion, “if the mouse, finding nothing to eat, gnaws the bag? ”For it were wonderful if (as Arcesilaus argued in fun) “the bag had eaten the mouse.”

Diogenes accordingly remarked well to one who wondered at finding a serpent coiled round a pestle: “Don’t wonder; for it would have been more surprising if you had seen the pestle coiled round the serpent, and the serpent straight.”

For the irrational creatures must run, and scamper, and fight, and breed, and die; and these things being natural to them, can never be unnatural to us.

Roberts, A., Donaldson, J., & Coxe, A. C. (1997). The Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol. II : Translations of the writings of the Fathers down to A.D. 325. Fathers of the second century: Hermas, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus, and Clement of Alexandria (Entire) (529). Oak Harbor: Logos Research Systems.

In other words, the educated ancients were quite aware of natural causes for things, and did not possess the superstition the modern with chronological snobbery claims all ancients held.  CS Lewis, in speaking of miracles, had written about the Virgin Birth of Christ as such:

The idea that the progress of science has somehow altered this question is closely bound up with the idea that people in ‘olden times’ believe in them 'because they didn't know the Laws of Nature. Thus you will hear people say "The early Christians believed that Christ was the son of a virgin. but we know that this is a scientific impossibility.” Such people seem to have an idea that belief in miracles arose at a period when men were so ignorant of the course of nature that they did not perceive a miracle to be contrary to it. A moment's thought shows this to be nonsense and the story of the Virgin Birth Is a particularly striking example. When St. Joseph discovered that his fiancée was going to have a baby, he not unnaturally decided to repudiate her. Why? Because he knew just as well as any modem gynaecologist that in the ordinary course of nature women do not have babies unless they have lain with men. No doubt the modern gynaecologist knows several things about birth and begetting which St Joseph did not know. But those things do not concern the main point—that a virgin birth is contrary to the course of nature. And St Joseph obviously knew that. In any sense in which it is true to say now, 'The thing is scientifically impossible,’ he would have said the same: the thing always was, and was always known to be, impossible unless the regular processes of nature were, in this particular case, being overruled or supplemented by something from beyond nature When St Joseph finally accepted the view that his fiancées pregnancy was due not to unchastity but to a miracle, he accepted the miracle as something contrary to the known order of nature.

The error of Chronological snobbery asserts that because they did not know in the past what we know now, they therefore knew nothing and thus attributed to supernatural causes things of nature.  But we can see this was not believed in the time of the Old Testament, as we can see in Genesis 38:24 where it says "About three months later, Judah was told that his daughter-in-law Tamar had played the harlot and was then with child from her harlotry."  Sounds very much like knowledge of where babies came from.

Conclusion

Essentially, the argument from chronological snobbery is to assume that, because the ancients did not have knowledge of cells or atoms, they had no knowledge at all and therefore an appeal to an old source has no validity because of its age.  However this is not logical.  A lack of knowledge on topic [A] does not mean a lack of knowledge on topic [B].  Nor does increased knowledge in the present on topic [A]mean no knowledge in the past on topic [A].  We might have radar and other things to help us with advanced knowledge of storms, but this does not mean the ancient sailor or farmer had no knowledge of weather.

To assume that the ancients believed in God because they had no knowledge of science is false.  It is also false to assume that because an idea is old, it is untrue.  These are a priori assumptions of one who rejects belief in God or miracles (I say "or" because not all who deny miracles also deny God… we do have Modernists who reject miracles yet seem to have some sort of belief in God)

It is not the newness or age of the knowledge which is important, but whether it is true that matters.

Thought for the Day: Contradictions?

When it comes to all the people out there who love to point to so-called examples of contradiction in the Scriptures, or claims that the Church contradicts the Bible, has it never occurred to them there might in fact already be an explanation out there, which they might try to look up before posting?

If You're Against Oil Excavation, Don't Excavate Oil: Pelosi's Ironic Position

Remember Nancy Pelosi, with all her arguments as to why she couldn't work to oppose abortion… how it was an issue of pushing one's beliefs on someone else?  How she said:

"I have some concerns about the church's position respecting a woman's right to choose," Pelosi responds. "I am a practicing Catholic, although they're probably not too happy about that. But it is my faith."

"I practically mourn this difference of opinion because I feel what I was raised to believe is consistent with what I profess, and that is that we are all endowed with a free will and a responsibility to answer for our actions," she continues. "And that women should have that opportunity to exercise their free will."

The irony is, when it comes to the Cap and Trade and energy conservation, Pelosi has said:

As you may know about me, I am fairly agnostic about the means to the end in terms of what mechanism is used. What we want, though, is to have a result. The job that the bill must do is have a result that we reduce our dependence on foreign oil as a national security issue; that we reduce our dependence on fossil fuels, wherever they originate, as a health and environmental issue; that we proceed with innovation so that we can be number one, continue to be number one in the world in innovation, competitiveness, by creating new green jobs for the future.

It is a defense, a security issue, a health issue, an environmental issue, it is an economic issue, and it is a moral issue for us to honor the obligation we have to pass this planet on to future generations intact. And if you believe, as I do, that it is also that this is God's beautiful creation, we have a moral responsibility to preserve it.

So, what if I'm pro-choice on strip mining?  On Nuclear Waste in Yucca Mountain?  What if I think we should turn the Alaska Wildlife Preserve into a parking lot for the oil exploitation?  What if I think we should expand oil excavation, not diminish it?

Why do we have a "moral responsibility" to preserve creation, but not the "moral responsibility" to protect life?  Why is it ok to invoke God for the latter, but not the former?  Why should people have the freedom to abort, but not to do what they want with environmental issues on their own property?

This is Pelosi's inconsistency, her hypocrisy.  She cannot refuse her religious obligation when it comes to a topic she disagrees with, while invoking it on a topic she likes and avoid the label of hypocrite.

So, how would Pelosi respond to these (slightly reworded) slogans after the BP debacle?

1. Pro-Choice (on Oil Excavation)!
2. Don't force your environmentalism on me!
3. Oil Excavation should be a decision between a CEO and His stockholders!
4. We don't know when pollution begins!
5. If you're Opposed to Oil Excavation, Don't Excavate!
6. My Land, My Choice!
7. I'm Personally Opposed to Oil Excavation, but I don't want to Force My Beliefs on Others!
8. Trust Oil Execs!
9. Keep Your Rosaries off my Oil Wells!
10. Against Oil Excavation?  Walk!
11. Oil Execs should have that opportunity to exercise their free will.

All of these are pro-abortion slogans, slightly reworded except the last which is Pelosi's own statement with "Women" replaced by "Oil execs."  Like the pro-abortion slogans, all of these are guilty of the same error: Saying something which affects others is only a matter of personal choice, and that those who are opposed have no say in the matter.

Either Pelosi is a anti-choice (on oil) zealot, or she needs to seriously rethink her reasoning.  if Pelosi wants to invoke God and mention her Catholicism, she must be consistent in her behavior.  She may be quite sincere in her wanting to clean up the environment, but she is blind to the irony of her behavior.