Critiquing an Melkite Archbishop's Proposal on a Married Priesthood

Source: A Lebanese archbishop’s practical argument for married priests « CNS Blog

Preliminary Note

I suspect what we really have here is a CNS blogger seeking to promote her own view about a married priesthood, rather than a Melkite Archbishop seeking to overturn the discipline of celibacy.  This is not written out of disrespect of the Archbishop of Tyre, but rather looking at an article which seems to be overly generalized.

The Article in Question

In CNS news, an article was published telling us of the Lebanese Melkite Archbishop, George Bakhouni of Tyre, speaking of the priest shortage in the West, saying he does not have a shortage of priests in his own archdiocese because Eastern Catholics have married priests.  The article generally uses sympathetic language instead of neutral language indicating that the author supports the idea.

The article describes his situation as:

For the archdiocese’s 10 parishes, “I have 12 priests. Eight of them are married and four are single, but two of the singles are serving in Italy,” the archbishop said.

This article also says,

“Christianity survived in the Middle East because of the married priests,” the bishop said. Because they are married with families and homes, they tend to stay even when conflicts and hardship send many celibate priests fleeing to safety.

The Archbishop tells us:

The Eastern tradition, he said, is “to choose someone who has his own work in the particular village, a good man, a faithful man, a Christian man. He will study a little bit, some theology and philosophy, and he will be ordained.”

The archbishop said it doesn’t matter that it’s impractical to send a married man to the seminary for six years. “We don’t want all of them to be doctors or theologians,” but witnesses. Priests don’t all have to be well spoken orators; they could even be fishermen, like the Apostles, he said.

The important thing, he said, is that they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments.

This may sound appealing to us in the West, particularly with the modern Western aversion to a hierarchical Church.  However, before asking "where do I sign?" we need to ask whether such a thing would work elsewhere.

Are The Situations Equal?

This is indeed the Eastern tradition, and it seems to work in the region where his Excellency lives, however, before applying it to the West, one needs to consider whether the situations are equal, to avoid the fallacy of the false analogy.

Comparing the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre to my own Diocese of Sacramento reveals some interesting things.  In his Excellency's archdiocese, he has 10 parishes and 12 priests.  In Sacramento, we have at least 90 parishes (I lost count) and 246 priests (192 diocesan, 54 religious priests in 2004) serving over 500,000 Catholics who make up about 16% of the total population in the region.

The question of course is whether the situations are similar.  Of course they are not.  In the Sacramento diocese we have priests who travel from place to place in small rural areas as well as those who serve larger fixed dioceses.

However, it is the celibate model which also exists in mission territory in Africa and South America, where priests must travel large distances to evangelize to those people who are only beginning to learn about Christ.

Comparing Apples and Oranges

I think the problem is, the situation in the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre is more static, where the main function of the priest is described as "they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments" is different from the role of the priest is more diverse.

For a comparison to work, we do need to remember that they must not have differences which make the comparison invalid.  If situations 1 and 2 have conditions A, B and C the same, but contradict on relevant issues X, Y and Z then to compare situations 1 and 2 would be inaccurate and misleading.

Thus it is not my intent to disparage one or build up another form.  Rather, I wish to point out that in the Catholic Church, there are many regions of the world, and what works in one region may not necessarily work in another region, and it is for the Magisterium, not the individual, to decide what is best for the Church.  Hence we do have other rites than just the Roman Rite.  The Church respects the traditions of her fellow Catholics in regions where the Eastern Rites are followed, and I acknowledge the wisdom of the Church.

The Church, in her wisdom, permits the married priesthood in the Eastern Rites and calls for celibacy for priests in the West.  The situations seem to fit the needs.  If it ever turns out differently, the Church can change her disciplines to meet the needs of the faithful.

However, it would be wrong to merely say "a married priesthood will solve the vocations crisis" as a blanket statement.  Such a statement is a Dicto Simpliciter fallacy, making a universal statement where there can be exceptions (exercise is good for most people, but if you have heart disease and are on a respirator, perhaps not).

If conditions in West and East are the same, then one can perhaps make a rule of thumb on married priesthoods.  However, if conditions are not the same, then it would be unwise to say "It works here, therefore it will work there" without considering there may be exceptions to the rule.

Conclusion

I do not think the Archbishop is making this error however.  Rather I think the author of this CNS blog is making this error in hopes that a married priesthood will somehow "fix" all the woes of the West.

Personally I think that is an oversimplification, ignoring the problem of the growing secularism of the West, and that such married priests would need faithful teachers so they would pass on the teachings of Christ faithfully.

This is the reform which is being undertaken in the West, and I suspect that once completed, perhaps we would find we did not need a married priesthood after all.

Critiquing an Melkite Archbishop's Proposal on a Married Priesthood

Source: A Lebanese archbishop’s practical argument for married priests « CNS Blog

Preliminary Note

I suspect what we really have here is a CNS blogger seeking to promote her own view about a married priesthood, rather than a Melkite Archbishop seeking to overturn the discipline of celibacy.  This is not written out of disrespect of the Archbishop of Tyre, but rather looking at an article which seems to be overly generalized.

The Article in Question

In CNS news, an article was published telling us of the Lebanese Melkite Archbishop, George Bakhouni of Tyre, speaking of the priest shortage in the West, saying he does not have a shortage of priests in his own archdiocese because Eastern Catholics have married priests.  The article generally uses sympathetic language instead of neutral language indicating that the author supports the idea.

The article describes his situation as:

For the archdiocese’s 10 parishes, “I have 12 priests. Eight of them are married and four are single, but two of the singles are serving in Italy,” the archbishop said.

This article also says,

“Christianity survived in the Middle East because of the married priests,” the bishop said. Because they are married with families and homes, they tend to stay even when conflicts and hardship send many celibate priests fleeing to safety.

The Archbishop tells us:

The Eastern tradition, he said, is “to choose someone who has his own work in the particular village, a good man, a faithful man, a Christian man. He will study a little bit, some theology and philosophy, and he will be ordained.”

The archbishop said it doesn’t matter that it’s impractical to send a married man to the seminary for six years. “We don’t want all of them to be doctors or theologians,” but witnesses. Priests don’t all have to be well spoken orators; they could even be fishermen, like the Apostles, he said.

The important thing, he said, is that they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments.

This may sound appealing to us in the West, particularly with the modern Western aversion to a hierarchical Church.  However, before asking "where do I sign?" we need to ask whether such a thing would work elsewhere.

Are The Situations Equal?

This is indeed the Eastern tradition, and it seems to work in the region where his Excellency lives, however, before applying it to the West, one needs to consider whether the situations are equal, to avoid the fallacy of the false analogy.

Comparing the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre to my own Diocese of Sacramento reveals some interesting things.  In his Excellency's archdiocese, he has 10 parishes and 12 priests.  In Sacramento, we have at least 90 parishes (I lost count) and 246 priests (192 diocesan, 54 religious priests in 2004) serving over 500,000 Catholics who make up about 16% of the total population in the region.

The question of course is whether the situations are similar.  Of course they are not.  In the Sacramento diocese we have priests who travel from place to place in small rural areas as well as those who serve larger fixed dioceses.

However, it is the celibate model which also exists in mission territory in Africa and South America, where priests must travel large distances to evangelize to those people who are only beginning to learn about Christ.

Comparing Apples and Oranges

I think the problem is, the situation in the Melkite Archdiocese of Tyre is more static, where the main function of the priest is described as "they live exemplary lives among their fellow villagers, know a bit of theology and the Bible and that they are available to celebrate the sacraments" is different from the role of the priest is more diverse.

For a comparison to work, we do need to remember that they must not have differences which make the comparison invalid.  If situations 1 and 2 have conditions A, B and C the same, but contradict on relevant issues X, Y and Z then to compare situations 1 and 2 would be inaccurate and misleading.

Thus it is not my intent to disparage one or build up another form.  Rather, I wish to point out that in the Catholic Church, there are many regions of the world, and what works in one region may not necessarily work in another region, and it is for the Magisterium, not the individual, to decide what is best for the Church.  Hence we do have other rites than just the Roman Rite.  The Church respects the traditions of her fellow Catholics in regions where the Eastern Rites are followed, and I acknowledge the wisdom of the Church.

The Church, in her wisdom, permits the married priesthood in the Eastern Rites and calls for celibacy for priests in the West.  The situations seem to fit the needs.  If it ever turns out differently, the Church can change her disciplines to meet the needs of the faithful.

However, it would be wrong to merely say "a married priesthood will solve the vocations crisis" as a blanket statement.  Such a statement is a Dicto Simpliciter fallacy, making a universal statement where there can be exceptions (exercise is good for most people, but if you have heart disease and are on a respirator, perhaps not).

If conditions in West and East are the same, then one can perhaps make a rule of thumb on married priesthoods.  However, if conditions are not the same, then it would be unwise to say "It works here, therefore it will work there" without considering there may be exceptions to the rule.

Conclusion

I do not think the Archbishop is making this error however.  Rather I think the author of this CNS blog is making this error in hopes that a married priesthood will somehow "fix" all the woes of the West.

Personally I think that is an oversimplification, ignoring the problem of the growing secularism of the West, and that such married priests would need faithful teachers so they would pass on the teachings of Christ faithfully.

This is the reform which is being undertaken in the West, and I suspect that once completed, perhaps we would find we did not need a married priesthood after all.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.

Reductio ad Absurdum: So Is it OK for A Child To Dress Up as Dan White?

Preliminary Note

In this time of Political Correctness, I entirely expect someone to miss the point of the article below and accuse me of holding the views which I merely provide as demonstrating what is wrong with the logical conclusion the attitude the article cited suggests.

So let me be clear, no I don't think the attitude of "it's none of your damn business" is a valid one, and this article is intending to show why it is not valid.

So let me be clear: My answer to the question asked in the title of my article is, "NO, it is NOT all right."

I suspect the accusations may fly anyway, but at least I have the preliminary note to point to when I suggest such a person has not read my article before replying.

Introduction

When it comes to dealing with logical claims in the blogosphere, it's hard to do a reductio ad absurdum anymore.  Somebody is actually advocating a thing you were about to propose as why an idea is ridiculous to begin with.

(The reductio ad absurdum is to point out the flaws in an argument by taking it to the logical extreme if we grant that the argument is true).

However, I will attempt to employ the reductio ad absurdum all the same and hope that someone has not already seriously proposed what I offer in refutation.

The Article In Question

The jumping off point is this example of an article, which someone linked on Facebook and showed up on my page.  I'm sure the intent was to promote tolerance, but the article seems to be nothing more than a showcase for illogic by the author of the piece.

The premise is a blogger's 5 year old son decides he wants to go to a Halloween as Daphne from Scooby Doo.   As far as it goes, this is not too unusual.  Children of that age are really too young to understand the connotations of dressing up as a different gender.  So the mother obliges him and gets him a costume.

The Initial Questionable Decision  

The blog's author describes it as follows:

So a few weeks before Halloween, Boo decides he wants to be Daphne from Scooby Doo, along with his best friend E. He had dressed as Scooby a couple of years ago.  I was hesitant to make the purchase, not because it was a cross gendered situation, but because 5 year olds have a tendency to change their minds. After requesting a couple of more times, I said sure and placed the order. He flipped out when it arrived. It was perfect.

Then as we got closer to the actual day, he stared to hem and haw about it. After some discussion it comes out that he is afraid people will laugh at him. I pointed out that some people will because it is a cute and clever costume. He insists their laughter would be of the ‘making fun’ kind. I blow it off. Seriously, who would make fun of a child in costume?

So in other words, the child impulsively chooses a costume and then begins to have second thoughts.  His mother overrides him, asking "who would make fun of a child in a costume?"

Anyone who remembers that age in school knows that anyone who goes out of the norm tends to get mocked by their peers.  It is a natural thing, and has no such motivations such as "homophobia."  But essentially, she overrides him and goes to the Party as Daphne.

The problems she has is not with the children (again, not entirely unexpected.  5 year olds are still young enough to not think about this too much), but with some parents.

Taking Offense With Offense

Mother gets offended with the fact some other mothers are put out, and calls them bullies.  She describes their actions in what is essentially a Straw Man argument:

But here’s the point, it is none of your damn business.

If you think that me allowing my son to be a female character for Halloween is somehow going to ‘make’ him gay then you are an idiot. Firstly, what a ridiculous concept. Secondly, if my son is gay, OK. I will love him no less. Thirdly, I am not worried that your son will grow up to be an actual ninja so back off.

If my daughter had dressed as Batman, no one would have thought twice about it. No one.

But it also was heartbreaking to me that my sweet, kind-hearted five year old was right to be worried. He knew that there were people like A, B, and C. And he, at 5, was concerned about how they would perceive him and what would happen to him.

Given that the author-mom did not describe anyone as saying that dressing as Daphne would make her son gay, we have to either assume she is omitting important information relevant to the story or else that the author-mom is merely attributing this view to them without actually knowing this to be a fact… in other words projecting her own concerns to others.

Essentially, the mother is declaring that her standards are all that matter, and anyone who voices disapproval over her standards is being intolerant

And Now… The Reductio Ad Absurdum

So lets look at the Reductio ad absurdum.  A South Park episode from the 1990s entitled "Pinkeye" features character Eric Cartman dressed up like Hitler for Halloween because he asked his mother for the costume.  You can see a brief clip HERE.  (Some readers might find the language offensive).

Back then, people could laugh at the poor taste of Eric Cartman's mother.  Today… someone might actually try to defend such a costume on the grounds that the mother is the one who calls the shots, and the problem is, using this author-mom's comments, they could. 

So let's apply the reductio ad absurdum to her argument.

Logically Speaking, if "None of Your Damn Business" is True, it means NOBODY can Complain

If it is "none of your damn business," then it is none of your damn business if a child wants to dress up as Hitler, or, perhaps closer to the title of the blog I am commenting on ("My Son is Gay"), dressing up as Dan White (who killed Harvey Milk in 1978).  If a woman wants her son to dress up in a costume as someone from Westboro Baptist Church, complete with sign and if we accept the "it is none of your damn business" argument as acceptable, there is nothing we can say.

I suspect most of you (and hopefully the author-mom) would object to a parent who had such a lack of judgment.  However I suspect some of you might say "That's different!"  However, when pressed, I suspect the argument would be "It's different to dress up as Daphne than it is to dress up as Hitler!"  Quite true… but entirely missing the point.

The mother's argument is essentially that she is not bothered by her son dressing up as Daphne, therefore it is nobody's business that he does, and anyone who is offended is intolerant.  If we accept this as an absolute norm, then perhaps people should have cut Prince Harry some slack for dressing as a Nazi.  After all, to apply the logic of this author, if he didn't mind, what gives anyone else the right to object?

Nobody believes "None of Your Damn Business" as an Absolute, so who decides where the line is drawn?

However, we don't accept this as an absolute norm, and rightfully so.  We do recognize that there are certainly standards, and that parents who fail to use good judgment when it comes to what their children do, especially in public, will trouble others.

So who decides where the line is drawn?  Remember, if there are no objective standards and all is subjective, then dressing like Hitler, dressing like Daphne… it's all the same, it depends on the individual choice.

However, if there is an objective sense of right and wrong, then one does have the right to get offended if a mother sends her son to school in such a way that strikes others as problematic — provided this offense is grounded in objective values and not personal taste. 

It is personal taste if I object to someone coming to school dressed all in white.  It is not merely personal taste if the student coming to school all dressed in white is dressed as a member of the Ku Klux Klan.

By What Standards?

So what the author of this "My Son is Gay" piece does wrong here is to give the impression that so long as she is all right with a thing, nobody has a right to complain.  However, it is not merely enough to say "Whatever society sanctions" either.  Apartheid in South Africa was sanctioned by those who were in power.  Exploitation of illegal aliens is largely sanctioned here in the United States.  I could go on, but I think these are enough to demonstrate the problem with assuming that what society approves of or tolerates is not necessarily acceptable.

Arguing from Truth, Not Emotion

You'll notice I haven't really said anything of approval or disapproval about the child's choice of costume.  This is intentional.  The point is, if we want to discuss whether a thing is appropriate or inappropriate, let's begin with seeking to establish what is true.  What were the exact position's of these mothers the author-mom objects to?  On what basis do they hold it?  For that matter, what is the motive of the author-mom in letting the child dress up in this costume to begin with?  Indulgence?  A belief in allowing the child maximum self expression?  Using her child to promote her own ideas of tolerance?

Who knows?  The author has really given us no information which would allow us to make an informed decision over who is in the right.  To attempt to make such a determination is the fallacy known as hypothesis contrary to fact: Treating a theory as fact, when in fact we would be merely assuming a motive).

Unfortunately, either the author-mom has left out crucial information or else she does not know either and is merely assuming.  So much outrage without actually asking "What exactly do you mean by this?"  Everyone assumes they know what this is about, and mothers only identified as "A", "B" and "C" are mocked and ridiculed without us ever knowing whether it is right to ridicule them or not.

You can call this what you like.

Just don't expect me to call it logical or rational.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IIIa): On That Which the Church Does Not Teach

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe

Introduction

Now that I have dealt with Peter, his primacy and that he made decisions for the Church which were either protected from error or else throws the entire belief of Christianity into doubt, it is time to move on to what some people might have wanted me to cover from the beginning — the belief of Papal Infallibility itself.

However (you knew there had to be a catch, didn't you?) before we can do this, we effectively need to define what it is not.

Two Forms of Rejection

There tends to be two forms to the rejection of the authority of the Church as binding.

1. Those who reject the Catholic claim of infallibility and that the Church can be free from error when she teaches.
2. Those who deny that a part of Catholic teaching, which they dislike, is binding.

Non Catholics tend to fall into the first group.  Because they believe the Catholic Church teaches wrongly, it makes sense they would not believe that the Catholic Church could be protected from error.  Some Catholics fall into the first group, but unlike the non-Catholic, they are being hypocritical for remaining within the Church when they reject what it teaches on teaching without error.

The second position tends to be held by Cafeteria Catholics (Catholics who arbitrarily choose which teachings they will follow and which they will not).  Such individuals deny they are at odds with the Church, their argument going as follows:

1. I am a faithful Catholic
2. I am at odds with the Church on Teaching X.
3. Therefore Teaching X is not binding.

Such an argument is in fact based on the belief that "whatever I do is good" and those who indicate otherwise are in the wrong.  Ironically such a view denies that the Church itself can be infallible, but insists on the infallibility of the self in a way far beyond what the Church teaches on the subject.

What Catholics DO NOT Believe on Infallibility

The first step for this section of the series is to eliminate what is outside of the Catholic teaching on Infallibility.  I start with this because pretty much all the attacks which seek to deny this teaching are based on assumptions which Catholics do not believe.  Attacks which say "What about X?" which cover material which Catholics do not believe is covered by the doctrine on infallibility would be examples of the Straw man fallacy.

So let us look at some things which Infallibility is NOT:

1) Infallibility is not impeccability.  Belief that the Pope is infallible does not mean a belief that the Pope cannot sin.  The Pope is a man, just as much in need of Christ's salvation as the rest of us.  Therefore, people who attack infallibility on the personal conduct of some Pope do not refute infallibility.

2) Infallibility does not cover the Pope's views on a subject as a private individual. Nor is what the Pope says prior to being Pope covered by infallibility.  Infallibility comes attached to the office of the Pope, and is not a personal gift.  Nor does it involve subjects other than faith and morals.  If the Pope says he thinks investing in Microsoft is a good idea, and Microsoft stock tanks, this does not mean the Pope is not infallible.

3) Infallibility is not prophecy.  Nor is it new revelation.  The Pope cannot define new beliefs (even though some Anti-Catholics accuse us of exactly this).  The Pope is not like what Mormons believe of their leader.  His words are not revelation from God.  Now I recognize that some non-Catholic readers will say "What about X?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This will be a topic further on in this series.  For now, the short answer is, we do not contradict the Bible, and the issue is over who has the authority to interpret what the Bible means.

4) The Pope's infallibility does not deal with the administration or governance of the Church.  People who point to actions by the Papal States prior to 1870, to the handling of the Sexual Abuse scandals of today or the recent news of the Vatican Banking controversy must realize that we do not believe that such actions are covered by infallibility.

5) Infallibility is not disproved by the changing of Church disciplines.  Whether the Mass is in English or Latin, whether we receive the Eucharist on the hand or the tongue, whether the laity receives both the host and the chalice or just the host… these changes do not mean the Church contradicts herself.  Rather these are things the Church binds and looses depending on the needs of the faithful at the time.  If for example, there is a false view that one must receive both the host and the chalice or one does not properly receive the Eucharist (as Jan Hus wrongly believed), the Church can withhold the Chalice from the laity.  If the Church decides that it would be more beneficial for the Mass to be said in the vernacular or uniformly in Latin, it can make a binding decree.  However, in such disciplines, the Church was not wrong then and is now right.  Nor was it right in the past and wrong now.  Both were decisions which fit the needs of the time.

6) Finally, Infallible teachings are not what people misunderstand them to be.  If a person misunderstands a teaching of the Church (such "Catholics worship Mary!") and point to an Infallible statement as if it promotes this false understanding, the fault is with the individual who misunderstands, not with the Church which is misunderstood.

It is important to make these distinctions because essentially every attack against infallibility falls into these categories.  Since Catholics do not believe infallibility is involved in these situations, any attack against the Catholic belief in infallibility which invokes these areas are false and do not refute infallibility.

There are of course more things which infallibility is not.  However these will be brought up at the proper time (such as the "If it isn't declared infallible, it's merely an opinion and I can ignore it" canard so beloved by modernists and traditionalists).

To Be Continued

In the next article, I intend to move on to what the Church DOES teach about infallibility.

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IIIa): On That Which the Church Does Not Teach

The Series Thus Far:

• Article I
• Article IIa
• Article IIb
• Article IIc
• Interlude
• Article IId
• Article IIe

Introduction

Now that I have dealt with Peter, his primacy and that he made decisions for the Church which were either protected from error or else throws the entire belief of Christianity into doubt, it is time to move on to what some people might have wanted me to cover from the beginning — the belief of Papal Infallibility itself.

However (you knew there had to be a catch, didn't you?) before we can do this, we effectively need to define what it is not.

Two Forms of Rejection

There tends to be two forms to the rejection of the authority of the Church as binding.

1. Those who reject the Catholic claim of infallibility and that the Church can be free from error when she teaches.
2. Those who deny that a part of Catholic teaching, which they dislike, is binding.

Non Catholics tend to fall into the first group.  Because they believe the Catholic Church teaches wrongly, it makes sense they would not believe that the Catholic Church could be protected from error.  Some Catholics fall into the first group, but unlike the non-Catholic, they are being hypocritical for remaining within the Church when they reject what it teaches on teaching without error.

The second position tends to be held by Cafeteria Catholics (Catholics who arbitrarily choose which teachings they will follow and which they will not).  Such individuals deny they are at odds with the Church, their argument going as follows:

1. I am a faithful Catholic
2. I am at odds with the Church on Teaching X.
3. Therefore Teaching X is not binding.

Such an argument is in fact based on the belief that "whatever I do is good" and those who indicate otherwise are in the wrong.  Ironically such a view denies that the Church itself can be infallible, but insists on the infallibility of the self in a way far beyond what the Church teaches on the subject.

What Catholics DO NOT Believe on Infallibility

The first step for this section of the series is to eliminate what is outside of the Catholic teaching on Infallibility.  I start with this because pretty much all the attacks which seek to deny this teaching are based on assumptions which Catholics do not believe.  Attacks which say "What about X?" which cover material which Catholics do not believe is covered by the doctrine on infallibility would be examples of the Straw man fallacy.

So let us look at some things which Infallibility is NOT:

1) Infallibility is not impeccability.  Belief that the Pope is infallible does not mean a belief that the Pope cannot sin.  The Pope is a man, just as much in need of Christ's salvation as the rest of us.  Therefore, people who attack infallibility on the personal conduct of some Pope do not refute infallibility.

2) Infallibility does not cover the Pope's views on a subject as a private individual. Nor is what the Pope says prior to being Pope covered by infallibility.  Infallibility comes attached to the office of the Pope, and is not a personal gift.  Nor does it involve subjects other than faith and morals.  If the Pope says he thinks investing in Microsoft is a good idea, and Microsoft stock tanks, this does not mean the Pope is not infallible.

3) Infallibility is not prophecy.  Nor is it new revelation.  The Pope cannot define new beliefs (even though some Anti-Catholics accuse us of exactly this).  The Pope is not like what Mormons believe of their leader.  His words are not revelation from God.  Now I recognize that some non-Catholic readers will say "What about X?  That contradicts the Bible!"  This will be a topic further on in this series.  For now, the short answer is, we do not contradict the Bible, and the issue is over who has the authority to interpret what the Bible means.

4) The Pope's infallibility does not deal with the administration or governance of the Church.  People who point to actions by the Papal States prior to 1870, to the handling of the Sexual Abuse scandals of today or the recent news of the Vatican Banking controversy must realize that we do not believe that such actions are covered by infallibility.

5) Infallibility is not disproved by the changing of Church disciplines.  Whether the Mass is in English or Latin, whether we receive the Eucharist on the hand or the tongue, whether the laity receives both the host and the chalice or just the host… these changes do not mean the Church contradicts herself.  Rather these are things the Church binds and looses depending on the needs of the faithful at the time.  If for example, there is a false view that one must receive both the host and the chalice or one does not properly receive the Eucharist (as Jan Hus wrongly believed), the Church can withhold the Chalice from the laity.  If the Church decides that it would be more beneficial for the Mass to be said in the vernacular or uniformly in Latin, it can make a binding decree.  However, in such disciplines, the Church was not wrong then and is now right.  Nor was it right in the past and wrong now.  Both were decisions which fit the needs of the time.

6) Finally, Infallible teachings are not what people misunderstand them to be.  If a person misunderstands a teaching of the Church (such "Catholics worship Mary!") and point to an Infallible statement as if it promotes this false understanding, the fault is with the individual who misunderstands, not with the Church which is misunderstood.

It is important to make these distinctions because essentially every attack against infallibility falls into these categories.  Since Catholics do not believe infallibility is involved in these situations, any attack against the Catholic belief in infallibility which invokes these areas are false and do not refute infallibility.

There are of course more things which infallibility is not.  However these will be brought up at the proper time (such as the "If it isn't declared infallible, it's merely an opinion and I can ignore it" canard so beloved by modernists and traditionalists).

To Be Continued

In the next article, I intend to move on to what the Church DOES teach about infallibility.

Reflections on Election Day

^3 Put no trust in princes, in mere mortals powerless to save.

^4 When they breathe their last, they return to the earth; that day all their planning comes to nothing. (Psalm 143)

At the time I write this, I do not know which party will come out ahead (though the news stories seem to be pessimistic about the Democrats at this moment which I write).  During this election season we have seen party positions endorsed as being for our salvation and others as being the worst thing ever.

I believe one thing we need to remember that if we replace one party with another on moral grounds, or work is not done on November 3rd.  It begins on November 3rd.  If the party which champions everything Christians must oppose is in power, we cannot remain silent of course.  However, if the opposition is elected we cannot remain complacent.  Just because the "bums" may be thrown out, does not mean our work is over, because just because one party may favor things like abortion rights and so-called "gay marriage" does not mean our job is done in opposing that party.

As Catholics, called to evangelize the world, we are called to stand up for what is right, called to denounce evil and called to remind the world that it is in sin and in need of a savior.

There are those Catholics who seek to distort the Church teaching, seeking to say abortion is merely "a issue" and if the Candidate is good "on the whole" it is ok to vote for a pro-abortion candidate over a pro-life candidate.

This is in fact contrary to what the Church teaches.

Evangelium Vitae tells us:

73. Abortion and euthanasia are thus crimes which no human law can claim to legitimize. There is no obligation in conscience to obey such laws; instead there is a grave and clear obligation to oppose them by conscientious objection. From the very beginnings of the Church, the apostolic preaching reminded Christians of their duty to obey legitimately constituted public authorities (cf. Rom 13:1-7; 1 Pet 2:13-14), but at the same time it firmly warned that "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29). In the Old Testament, precisely in regard to threats against life, we find a significant example of resistance to the unjust command of those in authority. After Pharaoh ordered the killing of all newborn males, the Hebrew midwives refused. "They did not do as the king of Egypt commanded them, but let the male children live" (Ex 1:17). But the ultimate reason for their action should be noted: "the midwives feared God" (ibid.). It is precisely from obedience to God-to whom alone is due that fear which is acknowledgment of his absolute sovereignty-that the strength and the courage to resist unjust human laws are born. It is the strength and the courage of those prepared even to be imprisoned or put to the sword, in the certainty that this is what makes for "the endurance and faith of the saints" (Rev 13:10).

In the case of an intrinsically unjust law, such as a law permitting abortion or euthanasia, it is therefore never licit to obey it, or to "take part in a propaganda campaign in favour of such a law, or vote for it".

It goes on to say:

A particular problem of conscience can arise in cases where a legislative vote would be decisive for the passage of a more restrictive law, aimed at limiting the number of authorized abortions, in place of a more permissive law already passed or ready to be voted on. Such cases are not infrequent. It is a fact that while in some parts of the world there continue to be campaigns to introduce laws favouring abortion, often supported by powerful international organizations, in other nations-particularly those which have already experienced the bitter fruits of such permissive legislation-there are growing signs of a rethinking in this matter. In a case like the one just mentioned, when it is not possible to overturn or completely abrogate a pro-abortion law, an elected official, whose absolute personal opposition to procured abortion was well known, could licitly support proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences at the level of general opinion and public morality. This does not in fact represent an illicit cooperation with an unjust law, but rather a legitimate and proper attempt to limit its evil aspects.

So we must keep in mind that we may never do anything which promotes abortion, or support those who promote it, but must in all cases oppose abortion and seek to restrict it.  (See HERE for insights from Cardinal-Elect Burke).

Those who say abortion is merely a matter of opinion to the Catholic voter and can vote for a pro-abortion voter over a pro-life voter speak falsely about what the Church believes.

^20 Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil, who change darkness into light, and light into darkness, who change bitter into sweet, and sweet into bitter!

^21 Woe to those who are wise in their own sight, and prudent in their own esteem!

^22 Woe to the champions at drinking wine, the valiant at mixing strong drink!

^23 To those who acquit the guilty for bribes, and deprive the just man of his rights!

^24 Therefore, as the tongue of fire licks up stubble, as dry grass shrivels in the flame, Even so their root shall become rotten and their blossom scatter like dust; For they have spurned the law of the LORD of hosts, and scorned the word of the Holy One of Israel.(Is 5:20-24).