Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IVc): Who Speaks for the Church?

The Series So Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III
13. Article IVb

Introduction

As I mentioned in Interlude III; I have come across in my research of those explaining Sola Scriptura, a tendency to contrast what they believe with what they say Catholics believe about Scripture. 

The arguments sometimes used are of the type that: because the Catholic Church believes [A], they cannot be considered infallible or even (on occasion) authentically Christian.  However, if the Catholic Church teaches [B] and not [A], then it is wrong to accuse them of believing [A].

Since I have found many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe written by recommended non-Catholic theologians, I thought I should make a statement about this discrepancy and making clear the issue of authoritative teaching.

Let’s begin with two issues of logic I think will be important to consider here, the Straw Man fallacy and the structural problem of drawing a conclusion from false premises.

On the Straw Man Fallacy

While I’ve referenced this fallacy before, I would like to remind the reader of the Straw Man. This is a fallacy where a person’s position, we’ll call it [A] here is misrepresented as [B]. The challenger to [A] then refutes [B] and then claims that he has refuted his opponent.

The problem is, the position was [A] and not [B], so the refutation of [B] has not refuted position [A].

On the Problem with False Premises

From here, we need to move forward to one of the principles of logic: If the Premises are False, and the Argument is Valid, then the Conclusion is Unknown. In other words, if the premises are false, even if the argument has a logical form which is correct, we cannot prove the conclusion is true from the argument because false premises do not prove truth (“You can’t get there from here.”) It is only if the premises are true and the argument is valid that we can say the conclusion is true.

So what?

So some of you might be wondering what this has to do with anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura vs. the authority claimed by the Church that I’m supposed to be getting into (and I admit, when I got into writing this series, I had no idea how long it would stretch out). Others, who have followed me for awhile are probably wondering where I am going with these preliminary definitions.

The importance is, just because someone says a thing about Church teaching does not make it so. If a person misrepresents what the Church teaches (willfully or accidentally — what needs to be recognized is the fact of misrepresentation, not the motive) then any “refutation” of that misrepresentation does not refute the Catholic teaching. Moreover, if these misrepresentations are used as premises in an argument against Catholic teaching it means that because the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be proven true.

Thus before attacking the Catholic position (or for that matter, any position), we need to be certain that the source used accurately understands and interprets what the Catholic Church believes.

Preliminary: Dissent from Church is Different than Denominational Disputes

One trend I notice is that sometimes a non-Catholic cites a dissident Catholic as an alternate view within Catholicism to support their view that the Church errs.  I don't think this is done with malice to present a distorted view (unlike the anti-Catholic vitriol which exists out there), but rather because there is a misunderstanding on the authority of the Church to teach for the faith vs. dissenting views where one claims the Church got it wrong.

If I understand it correctly, within Protestantism there are differing opinions on what is the right way to interpret the Bible for example.  Within Protestantism, there are different movements, including Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Non-Denominationalism, certain Mainline denominations, Liberal Protestantism (I'm talking about the school of thought, not Protestants who happen to be politically liberal) and so on.  However, a person writing about Protestantism in general could discuss different "movements," within Protestantism, and nobody would object to the idea that such a view is within the general umbrella of Protestantism even if they disagree with one or more of those views.

For example, Arminianism is in dispute with Calvinism on the role of Free Will. From what I have seen on internet articles, I get the feeling there is no love lost between them (and yes I freely admit my perspective is that of an outsider — which will lead to a point to consider below). However, people within Protestantism do not appear to view holding one or the other view as ceasing to be Protestant[1]. Instead, if someone cites a view one disagrees with the common reply is “They don’t speak for me,” and nobody accuses them of denying what is inconvenient.  Why?  Because we recognize the person who says this does not recognize said view as authoritative.

On Official Teaching vs. Dissent

Exactly, and the Catholic objection to the citation of a dissenter is, “They don’t speak for the Church.”

Since we believe that the Magisterium (the college of Bishops in communion with the Pope and never apart from him) has the authority to determine what is and what is not in keeping with the Catholic faith, anyone writing on the what the Catholic faith teaches (myself included) has credibility only through accurately explaining the magisterial teaching.

Therefore, if you have a theologian who claims to be a Catholic but teaches in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself, one cannot say the dissenter is teaching Catholic Theology, even if he is a Catholic teaching theology.  Fr. Küng has taught in direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches to be true.  As a result he has been stripped of their license to teach as Catholic Theologians. (I mention Küng by name because his book Infallibility? seems to be popular with non-Catholics who disagree with the Catholic teaching on the subject).

A good document to read on the subject of the role of the theologian within the Catholic Church can be found here.  The point is if, for example, Fr. Küng says one thing about Catholic teaching and the Pope formally teaches another, you don't have two views on Catholicism.  You have one right view (the Pope's) and one wrong view (Fr. Küng's).

Because of this, the person who cites the dissenting Catholic against the Magisterium does not have a case against the Magisterium. (Certain Protestant theologians who like to cite Fr. Küng against the Magisterium fall into this error).

Furthermore, It is the Magisterial Teaching and not the Non-Catholic's Interpretation of Church Teaching which is Authoritative

Since it is the magisterial teaching, not the interpretation from the outside, which matters, the same principle applies to outside commentator on Catholic teaching: it is only correct if his interpretation matches what the Church believes. 

Therefore, the denunciation of the Catholic Position cannot be considered proven true if it is based on a non-authoritative source which disagrees with the magisterium, or if the non-Catholic misstates or misunderstands the teaching as taught by the Magisterium. This includes the ex-Catholic who has left the Church. He does not bear special witness for having once been a Catholic unless his claims match what the magisterium teaches and intends with its teaching.

The Reason for this Explanation

The reason I bring this up is not to attack Protestantism.  Rather I want to point out that dissent differs from denominational disputes or differences of opinions.  Just because a person claims to be a Catholic does not make his views a valid opinion in challenging the Magisterium.  So if Fr. Küng says a thing on Scripture or Infallibility, if it contradicts the official teaching of the Church, it is not an alternate view, but an erroneous view.

Likewise the non-Catholic or the ex-Catholic who says something about the faith which we do not believe, then his statements are wrong whether he believes them to be true or not.

As a result, when it comes to determining the Catholic teaching on a subject, one looks to what the Church officially says and not how it might have been stated or misstated by a member within the Church.

Conclusion

The point of this (possibly repetitious) article is to make the reader aware of the fact that whatever the motive may be (good will or bad). A person writing about Catholicism can be in error if they misunderstand. Therefore any claims against the Catholic teaching needs to be investigated first of all to see if it is what we believe before assuming what is true.

---

[1] There is always an exception to the rule. For example, while I have heard Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Protestant, most Protestants would not accept that claim. I think they are right on this, and would not label these groups “Protestant.”

Thoughts on Infallibility (Article IVc): Who Speaks for the Church?

The Series So Far

1. Article I
2. Article IIa
3. Article IIb
4. Article IIc
5. Interlude
6. Article IId
7. Article IIe
8. Article IIIa
9. Article IIIb
10. Interlude II
11. Article IVa
12. Interlude III
13. Article IVb

Introduction

As I mentioned in Interlude III; I have come across in my research of those explaining Sola Scriptura, a tendency to contrast what they believe with what they say Catholics believe about Scripture. 

The arguments sometimes used are of the type that: because the Catholic Church believes [A], they cannot be considered infallible or even (on occasion) authentically Christian.  However, if the Catholic Church teaches [B] and not [A], then it is wrong to accuse them of believing [A].

Since I have found many misunderstandings about what Catholics believe written by recommended non-Catholic theologians, I thought I should make a statement about this discrepancy and making clear the issue of authoritative teaching.

Let’s begin with two issues of logic I think will be important to consider here, the Straw Man fallacy and the structural problem of drawing a conclusion from false premises.

On the Straw Man Fallacy

While I’ve referenced this fallacy before, I would like to remind the reader of the Straw Man. This is a fallacy where a person’s position, we’ll call it [A] here is misrepresented as [B]. The challenger to [A] then refutes [B] and then claims that he has refuted his opponent.

The problem is, the position was [A] and not [B], so the refutation of [B] has not refuted position [A].

On the Problem with False Premises

From here, we need to move forward to one of the principles of logic: If the Premises are False, and the Argument is Valid, then the Conclusion is Unknown. In other words, if the premises are false, even if the argument has a logical form which is correct, we cannot prove the conclusion is true from the argument because false premises do not prove truth (“You can’t get there from here.”) It is only if the premises are true and the argument is valid that we can say the conclusion is true.

So what?

So some of you might be wondering what this has to do with anything when it comes to Sola Scriptura vs. the authority claimed by the Church that I’m supposed to be getting into (and I admit, when I got into writing this series, I had no idea how long it would stretch out). Others, who have followed me for awhile are probably wondering where I am going with these preliminary definitions.

The importance is, just because someone says a thing about Church teaching does not make it so. If a person misrepresents what the Church teaches (willfully or accidentally — what needs to be recognized is the fact of misrepresentation, not the motive) then any “refutation” of that misrepresentation does not refute the Catholic teaching. Moreover, if these misrepresentations are used as premises in an argument against Catholic teaching it means that because the premises are false, the conclusion cannot be proven true.

Thus before attacking the Catholic position (or for that matter, any position), we need to be certain that the source used accurately understands and interprets what the Catholic Church believes.

Preliminary: Dissent from Church is Different than Denominational Disputes

One trend I notice is that sometimes a non-Catholic cites a dissident Catholic as an alternate view within Catholicism to support their view that the Church errs.  I don't think this is done with malice to present a distorted view (unlike the anti-Catholic vitriol which exists out there), but rather because there is a misunderstanding on the authority of the Church to teach for the faith vs. dissenting views where one claims the Church got it wrong.

If I understand it correctly, within Protestantism there are differing opinions on what is the right way to interpret the Bible for example.  Within Protestantism, there are different movements, including Fundamentalism, Evangelicalism, Non-Denominationalism, certain Mainline denominations, Liberal Protestantism (I'm talking about the school of thought, not Protestants who happen to be politically liberal) and so on.  However, a person writing about Protestantism in general could discuss different "movements," within Protestantism, and nobody would object to the idea that such a view is within the general umbrella of Protestantism even if they disagree with one or more of those views.

For example, Arminianism is in dispute with Calvinism on the role of Free Will. From what I have seen on internet articles, I get the feeling there is no love lost between them (and yes I freely admit my perspective is that of an outsider — which will lead to a point to consider below). However, people within Protestantism do not appear to view holding one or the other view as ceasing to be Protestant[1]. Instead, if someone cites a view one disagrees with the common reply is “They don’t speak for me,” and nobody accuses them of denying what is inconvenient.  Why?  Because we recognize the person who says this does not recognize said view as authoritative.

On Official Teaching vs. Dissent

Exactly, and the Catholic objection to the citation of a dissenter is, “They don’t speak for the Church.”

Since we believe that the Magisterium (the college of Bishops in communion with the Pope and never apart from him) has the authority to determine what is and what is not in keeping with the Catholic faith, anyone writing on the what the Catholic faith teaches (myself included) has credibility only through accurately explaining the magisterial teaching.

Therefore, if you have a theologian who claims to be a Catholic but teaches in opposition to the teaching of the Catholic Church itself, one cannot say the dissenter is teaching Catholic Theology, even if he is a Catholic teaching theology.  Fr. Küng has taught in direct contradiction to what the Catholic Church teaches to be true.  As a result he has been stripped of their license to teach as Catholic Theologians. (I mention Küng by name because his book Infallibility? seems to be popular with non-Catholics who disagree with the Catholic teaching on the subject).

A good document to read on the subject of the role of the theologian within the Catholic Church can be found here.  The point is if, for example, Fr. Küng says one thing about Catholic teaching and the Pope formally teaches another, you don't have two views on Catholicism.  You have one right view (the Pope's) and one wrong view (Fr. Küng's).

Because of this, the person who cites the dissenting Catholic against the Magisterium does not have a case against the Magisterium. (Certain Protestant theologians who like to cite Fr. Küng against the Magisterium fall into this error).

Furthermore, It is the Magisterial Teaching and not the Non-Catholic's Interpretation of Church Teaching which is Authoritative

Since it is the magisterial teaching, not the interpretation from the outside, which matters, the same principle applies to outside commentator on Catholic teaching: it is only correct if his interpretation matches what the Church believes. 

Therefore, the denunciation of the Catholic Position cannot be considered proven true if it is based on a non-authoritative source which disagrees with the magisterium, or if the non-Catholic misstates or misunderstands the teaching as taught by the Magisterium. This includes the ex-Catholic who has left the Church. He does not bear special witness for having once been a Catholic unless his claims match what the magisterium teaches and intends with its teaching.

The Reason for this Explanation

The reason I bring this up is not to attack Protestantism.  Rather I want to point out that dissent differs from denominational disputes or differences of opinions.  Just because a person claims to be a Catholic does not make his views a valid opinion in challenging the Magisterium.  So if Fr. Küng says a thing on Scripture or Infallibility, if it contradicts the official teaching of the Church, it is not an alternate view, but an erroneous view.

Likewise the non-Catholic or the ex-Catholic who says something about the faith which we do not believe, then his statements are wrong whether he believes them to be true or not.

As a result, when it comes to determining the Catholic teaching on a subject, one looks to what the Church officially says and not how it might have been stated or misstated by a member within the Church.

Conclusion

The point of this (possibly repetitious) article is to make the reader aware of the fact that whatever the motive may be (good will or bad). A person writing about Catholicism can be in error if they misunderstand. Therefore any claims against the Catholic teaching needs to be investigated first of all to see if it is what we believe before assuming what is true.

---

[1] There is always an exception to the rule. For example, while I have heard Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses claim to be Protestant, most Protestants would not accept that claim. I think they are right on this, and would not label these groups “Protestant.”

Christmas in Blogland (A Rant)

Charlie: When the Spaniards brought in Christianity, they tried to wipe out all the pagan rituals of the American Indian.

Joe: Yeah, but everybody around here is Catholic.

Charlie: That’s true, but, you see, they worship to the carved statues of saints. They don’t worship to God.

Joe: We believe in God.

Charlie: Yeah, but it’s still a form of idolatry, except now those idols represent Christian heroes, like saints instead of pagan gods. [The Milagro Beanfield War (1988 movie)]

I see certain articles come recommended from time to time on Christmas.  Some I agree with (Christmas is too commercialized and is the rejoicing over the coming of Christ is overlooked).  Others seem distracting (on Santa being an anagram for Satan) and some become rather insulting if you consider what is being said (that Christmas is pagan and those who celebrate Christmas are celebrating a pagan deity or are being deceived into worshipping a pagan deity).

As you might suspect, my interest is in number topic three.  I mean I don't have any use for Santa Claus, but I think that is a symptom of the trivialization of Christmas and not the cause.

The quote I gave from the dialogue in the Milagro Beanfield War is representative of what is assumed by such claims.  The character Charlie starts with the assumption that the Hispanic practices are pagan, worshipping idols instead of God and sticks to this view despite the fact that Joe makes clear that they believe in God and don't practice pagan idolatry.  Charlie is essentially unwilling to consider his assumptions are wrong.  Icons and statues must be idols because in Pre-Columbus America, the natives were pagan and worshipped idols.  Thus he ends up offending people by his insistence that they must have a pagan motivation.

Unfortunately some do make this error.  They assume that because a pagan celebration fell on December 25th and Christians celebrate Christmas then essentially Christmas is a pagan celebration.  You also see this for Halloween and Samhain; and Easter/St. Valentine's Day and Lupercalia and so on.  You could probably do this for any other holiday as well.

For that matter you could find some anti-Halloween people celebrating "Reformation Day" and accuse them of really celebrating Halloween (^_~).  You'd be wrong to do so, but the principle is the same.

The assumption is an error.  Basically speaking, it is as follows:

• [Objectionable Practice in History] took place on [Day X]
• Some Christians have [holy days] on [Day X]
• Therefore these [holy days] actually celebrate [Objectionable Practice in History].

The problem is, just because we celebrate Christmas on the same day as the pagans celebrated Sol Invictus and Mithras or the celebration of Saturnalia (pertaining to Saturn), does not mean our intentions are to worship these deities.  It's a post hoc fallacy.  There are 365 days in a year, and it stands to reason that some holidays and holy days are going to overlap.  Hanukah falls in the same season as Christmas, but Christians don't observe Hanukah and Jews don't observe Christmas even if the dates come close together.  Nobody would ever assume they were.

That some false god happened to be worshipped by some pagans in the Third Century AD is not the "Reason for the Season" among Christians who celebrate Christmas.  To us, these false gods are forgotten and irrelevant and the celebration of the Birth of Christ, our Savior, is what we celebrate.  Even if others also forget Christ and turn the holiday into a secular gift giving, their interest is not a pagan celebration.

Even if Christians took over pagan days to replace pagan holidays with Christian ones, who cares?  It shows the triumph of God over the pagan beliefs.  Where is Mithras or Sol Invictus or Saturn now? 

Gloria in excelsis Deo — we believe in God and celebrate Him.

Ask the average person celebrating Christmas about Mithras or Sol Invictus or Saturn and you'll probably get a blank look.  I know of them simply because I studied the history of Pagan Rome.  However, on December 25th, when I go to Mass, it is to rejoice in what God has done for our salvation.

Personally I have to ask, Who is really giving attention to Saturn, Mithras and Sol Invictus?  The people who celebrate Christmas?  Or the people who go around telling people about how Christmas is really pagan?

Think about it — and then leave us in peace to celebrate Christ.

Christmas in Blogland (A Rant)

Charlie: When the Spaniards brought in Christianity, they tried to wipe out all the pagan rituals of the American Indian.

Joe: Yeah, but everybody around here is Catholic.

Charlie: That’s true, but, you see, they worship to the carved statues of saints. They don’t worship to God.

Joe: We believe in God.

Charlie: Yeah, but it’s still a form of idolatry, except now those idols represent Christian heroes, like saints instead of pagan gods. [The Milagro Beanfield War (1988 movie)]

I see certain articles come recommended from time to time on Christmas.  Some I agree with (Christmas is too commercialized and is the rejoicing over the coming of Christ is overlooked).  Others seem distracting (on Santa being an anagram for Satan) and some become rather insulting if you consider what is being said (that Christmas is pagan and those who celebrate Christmas are celebrating a pagan deity or are being deceived into worshipping a pagan deity).

As you might suspect, my interest is in number topic three.  I mean I don't have any use for Santa Claus, but I think that is a symptom of the trivialization of Christmas and not the cause.

The quote I gave from the dialogue in the Milagro Beanfield War is representative of what is assumed by such claims.  The character Charlie starts with the assumption that the Hispanic practices are pagan, worshipping idols instead of God and sticks to this view despite the fact that Joe makes clear that they believe in God and don't practice pagan idolatry.  Charlie is essentially unwilling to consider his assumptions are wrong.  Icons and statues must be idols because in Pre-Columbus America, the natives were pagan and worshipped idols.  Thus he ends up offending people by his insistence that they must have a pagan motivation.

Unfortunately some do make this error.  They assume that because a pagan celebration fell on December 25th and Christians celebrate Christmas then essentially Christmas is a pagan celebration.  You also see this for Halloween and Samhain; and Easter/St. Valentine's Day and Lupercalia and so on.  You could probably do this for any other holiday as well.

For that matter you could find some anti-Halloween people celebrating "Reformation Day" and accuse them of really celebrating Halloween (^_~).  You'd be wrong to do so, but the principle is the same.

The assumption is an error.  Basically speaking, it is as follows:

• [Objectionable Practice in History] took place on [Day X]
• Some Christians have [holy days] on [Day X]
• Therefore these [holy days] actually celebrate [Objectionable Practice in History].

The problem is, just because we celebrate Christmas on the same day as the pagans celebrated Sol Invictus and Mithras or the celebration of Saturnalia (pertaining to Saturn), does not mean our intentions are to worship these deities.  It's a post hoc fallacy.  There are 365 days in a year, and it stands to reason that some holidays and holy days are going to overlap.  Hanukah falls in the same season as Christmas, but Christians don't observe Hanukah and Jews don't observe Christmas even if the dates come close together.  Nobody would ever assume they were.

That some false god happened to be worshipped by some pagans in the Third Century AD is not the "Reason for the Season" among Christians who celebrate Christmas.  To us, these false gods are forgotten and irrelevant and the celebration of the Birth of Christ, our Savior, is what we celebrate.  Even if others also forget Christ and turn the holiday into a secular gift giving, their interest is not a pagan celebration.

Even if Christians took over pagan days to replace pagan holidays with Christian ones, who cares?  It shows the triumph of God over the pagan beliefs.  Where is Mithras or Sol Invictus or Saturn now? 

Gloria in excelsis Deo — we believe in God and celebrate Him.

Ask the average person celebrating Christmas about Mithras or Sol Invictus or Saturn and you'll probably get a blank look.  I know of them simply because I studied the history of Pagan Rome.  However, on December 25th, when I go to Mass, it is to rejoice in what God has done for our salvation.

Personally I have to ask, Who is really giving attention to Saturn, Mithras and Sol Invictus?  The people who celebrate Christmas?  Or the people who go around telling people about how Christmas is really pagan?

Think about it — and then leave us in peace to celebrate Christ.

On the Red Herring Fallacy

Source: Fallacy: Red Herring

Introduction

I've recently had an individual show up, accusing me of inventing claims of anti-Catholicism on a blog I will not name.  Now, if the intent of that article had been to write against this blog itself, or specifically about refuting the claims of this blog, then his argument would have been valid.

However, this was not the intent of that article.  The intent was to challenge people to verify the truth of anti-Catholic claims before repeating them, and to remind them that one who repeats falsehoods bears false witness, and the obligation is to seek the truth before repeating claims from another.

The Red Herring Fallacy

To therefore argue about whether I should have linked to the blog in question is a Red Herring fallacy, which runs like this:

1. Topic [A] is being discussed [In this case, "Repeating anti-Catholic claims as if they were true, without checking if they were true is to bear false witness"]
2. Individual introduces Topic [B] which is irrelevant to topic [A] [In this case, "Demanding a link to the unnamed blog (which was used as an illustration of a point and was never quoted or deemed as relevant as anything other than an anecdote)"]
3. Topic [A] is forgotten in the discussion of Topic [B] [In this case, if I had gone on to discuss the unnamed blog in detail, the point of the original article would have been overlooked]

Since the unnamed blog was irrelevant to my post except as an anecdote as to why I was annoyed (I did not quote him or discuss any specific claims from his site), it will remain unnamed.  The point I made was relevant: anywhere someone repeats a tired old anti-Catholic claim without verifying the truth of the claim, it is to bear false witness against us.

The Analogy as to Why the Charge Against Me is Invalid

Demanding I cite such sites to prove the validity of my claim is similar to insisting a Jewish person link to the site of a Holocaust denier to prove Holocaust denial exists before accepting his denouncing Holocaust denial.  The site of the individual Holocaust denier would be irrelevant to the argument of the Jewish person denouncing Holocaust Denial.

(And before a new Red Herring comes up, I am not equating anti-Catholicism with Holocaust Denial)

Does False Witness apply to my Own Article?

Thus, any claim that I am bearing false witness against the nameless blog is a distraction against the issue.  I have not harmed the good name of the individual.  Nor have I said any specific thing about the nameless blogger which would defame him.  (I've used the generic "he" for example and have no idea as to the gender of the nameless blogger).  Such accusations against me would only have validity if I named him and refused to cite my evidence against him… and this is not the case.

However, this is what an anti-Catholic does: names us as a Church or names our saints and makes a claim accusing us of doing evil or inventing doctrines which targets us without evidence. This is what I am objecting to, not some minor blogger nobody has ever heard of who merely repeats those claims.  Nor am I objecting to specific claims made.

I am pointing out that any claim which accuses the Catholic Church of doing something evil without verifiable proof we have done what was accused is a claim which lacks charity.

My Intended Point Remains Valid

That point remains valid.  Anyone who repeats a scandalous claim against a named individual or group is obligated to provide proof of the claim, and to merely repeat such a claim without checking into whether it is true does take part in bearing false witness if it is false.

On the Red Herring Fallacy

Source: Fallacy: Red Herring

Introduction

I've recently had an individual show up, accusing me of inventing claims of anti-Catholicism on a blog I will not name.  Now, if the intent of that article had been to write against this blog itself, or specifically about refuting the claims of this blog, then his argument would have been valid.

However, this was not the intent of that article.  The intent was to challenge people to verify the truth of anti-Catholic claims before repeating them, and to remind them that one who repeats falsehoods bears false witness, and the obligation is to seek the truth before repeating claims from another.

The Red Herring Fallacy

To therefore argue about whether I should have linked to the blog in question is a Red Herring fallacy, which runs like this:

1. Topic [A] is being discussed [In this case, "Repeating anti-Catholic claims as if they were true, without checking if they were true is to bear false witness"]
2. Individual introduces Topic [B] which is irrelevant to topic [A] [In this case, "Demanding a link to the unnamed blog (which was used as an illustration of a point and was never quoted or deemed as relevant as anything other than an anecdote)"]
3. Topic [A] is forgotten in the discussion of Topic [B] [In this case, if I had gone on to discuss the unnamed blog in detail, the point of the original article would have been overlooked]

Since the unnamed blog was irrelevant to my post except as an anecdote as to why I was annoyed (I did not quote him or discuss any specific claims from his site), it will remain unnamed.  The point I made was relevant: anywhere someone repeats a tired old anti-Catholic claim without verifying the truth of the claim, it is to bear false witness against us.

The Analogy as to Why the Charge Against Me is Invalid

Demanding I cite such sites to prove the validity of my claim is similar to insisting a Jewish person link to the site of a Holocaust denier to prove Holocaust denial exists before accepting his denouncing Holocaust denial.  The site of the individual Holocaust denier would be irrelevant to the argument of the Jewish person denouncing Holocaust Denial.

(And before a new Red Herring comes up, I am not equating anti-Catholicism with Holocaust Denial)

Does False Witness apply to my Own Article?

Thus, any claim that I am bearing false witness against the nameless blog is a distraction against the issue.  I have not harmed the good name of the individual.  Nor have I said any specific thing about the nameless blogger which would defame him.  (I've used the generic "he" for example and have no idea as to the gender of the nameless blogger).  Such accusations against me would only have validity if I named him and refused to cite my evidence against him… and this is not the case.

However, this is what an anti-Catholic does: names us as a Church or names our saints and makes a claim accusing us of doing evil or inventing doctrines which targets us without evidence. This is what I am objecting to, not some minor blogger nobody has ever heard of who merely repeats those claims.  Nor am I objecting to specific claims made.

I am pointing out that any claim which accuses the Catholic Church of doing something evil without verifiable proof we have done what was accused is a claim which lacks charity.

My Intended Point Remains Valid

That point remains valid.  Anyone who repeats a scandalous claim against a named individual or group is obligated to provide proof of the claim, and to merely repeat such a claim without checking into whether it is true does take part in bearing false witness if it is false.

Anti-Catholicism and False Witness

Preliminary Notes

I am aware that only a minority of non-Catholics are anti-Catholics, so I would hope the non-Catholic who reads this article and does not hold anti-Catholic views would recognize this article is not directed to them.  I do not hold you responsible for those claims, and believe you seek to do what is right even if you disagree with the Church.

For those who would argue the false claims are true, spare me the unattributed quotes ("Well Pope so-and so said thus and so from some unnamed source") from some unhistorical source ("Well, Rev. Jim Bob said this…!").  If you want to claim the Catholic Church taught something evil, link me the document, not what some person claims the document says.  Likewise, if you want to argue there were real "secret Christians" who taught the truth, again, link me the document and not what some person claims was the truth.  Give me documents where the alleged Papal quote was made, not some quote whose source is simply some other book where we have no idea whether it was in context or not.

I would also hope that all readers who might repeat old tales against the Catholic Church would remember that false witness is a sin, and to repeat something falsely either knowing it is false or not verifying whether it is true is bearing false witness.

• You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.  (Ex 20:16).
• The false witness will not go unpunished, and he who utters lies will perish.  (Pr 19:9).
• You know the commandments: ‘You shall not kill; you shall not commit adultery; you shall not steal; you shall not bear false witness; you shall not defraud; honor your father and your mother.’  (Mk 10:19).

/Facepalm

I came across a post by someone who claimed he was not anti-Catholic — and then went on to repeat the tired old canards about the Catholic Church, accusing the Church of being corrupt.  Funny sort of "not-anti-Catholic."

Displaying an ignorance of history and of what Catholics believed, he demonstrated a good deal of prejudice which he apparently thought was true: Of the Church being corrupted by government and "inventing" doctrines, and eventually the truth being rediscovered by Protestants.

I don't see the need to actually link to the site.  The author has said nothing which was not said a thousand times before since the 16th century, so why give his site notoriety?

Now I have no doubt he actually believed this garbage, and so did the people who "recommended" the post to me.

Unfortunately this indicates there are people who rely on the tired old lies repeated over and over, who believe that the Church didn't believe in Transubstantiation until AD 1215, didn't define the canon of Scripture until 1546, and so on.

How Does Anti-Catholicism Differ From Disagreement with the Catholic Church?

I recognize that some people disagree with the Catholic Church on doctrinal grounds and believe the Church got it wrong.  They act in good faith and try to refute the Church from what they believe to be authoritative sources.

However, anti-Catholics are generally people who are not focussing so much on teaching what they believe.  Rather they focus on the alleged wrongs in the Catholic Church.  Hence the label anti Catholic.  They focus on opposing Catholicism, not defending what they believe to be true.

Anti-Catholics generally approach things from the standing that the Church is evil, and try to dredge up the allegations about how the Church "invented" things and burned 20 million people (as Jimmy Swaggart has claimed), was totally corrupted and so on.  When asked to cite sources, either "everyone knows that" or it comes from indirect sources that have unattributed quotes.

Remember, it is no proof to take quotes out of context.  Luther infamously remarked he could fornicate a hundred times a day and not lose his salvation.  He was wrong of course, but he said this as hyperbole of the assurance of salvation and not to give approval to fornication.

"Proof?  We don’t need no Proof!  I don’t have to show you any stinking Proof!”

Of course such claims do not provide any "proof" (I suspect Loraine Boettner would be the common source directly [person read the book] or indirectly [person heard someone repeating claim from book]).  One who believes Catholicism is wrong and is determined to oppose it is often willing to believe any argument claiming to explain how it went wrong.

The problem is, there is no evidence for any "so-called" true church which Catholicism is alleged to have replaced, while the testimony of the Patristics do bear witness to the Sacramental, Apostolic, Hierarchical Church which exists.  So much is the evidence, that many would argue that the Catholic Church overthrew the 'early church' and replaced it (which would make Christ a liar when He said the gates of Hell would not prevail against the Church (Matt 16:18) and that He would remain until the end of the world (Matt 28:20).

Cardinal Newman's Clever Remark

Indeed, the absence of proof justifying such a claim that the 'true' church was supplanted by Catholicism is so total that John Henry Cardinal Newman (a convert from Anglicanism who became a Catholic when searching for the early church) made the following statement about the claims of the early church being corrupted by Catholicism:

And this utter incongruity between Protestantism and historical Christianity is a plain fact, whether the latter be regarded in its earlier or in its later centuries. Protestants can as little bear its Ante-nicene as its Post-tridentine period. I have elsewhere observed on this circumstance: 'So much must the Protestant grant that, if such a system of doctrine as he would now introduce ever existed in early times, it has been clean swept away as if by a deluge, suddenly, silently, and without memorial; by a deluge coming in a night, and utterly soaking, rotting, heaving up, and hurrying off every vestige of what it found in the Church, before cock-crowing: so that 'when they rose in the morning' her true seed 'were all dead corpses'-Nay dead and buried-and without grave-stone. 'The waters went over them; there was not one of them left; they sunk like lead in the mighty waters.' Strange antitype, indeed, to the early fortunes of Israel!-then the enemy was drowned, and 'Israel saw them dead upon the sea-shore.' But now, it would seem, water proceeded as a flood 'out of the serpent's mouth, and covered all the witnesses, so that not even their dead bodies lay in the streets of the great city.' Let him take which of his doctrines he will, his peculiar view of self-righteousness, of formality, of superstition; his notion of faith, or of spirituality in religious worship; his denial {9} of the virtue of the sacraments, or of the ministerial commission, or of the visible Church; or his doctrine of the divine efficacy of the Scriptures as the one appointed instrument of religious teaching; and let him consider how far Antiquity, as it has come down to us, will countenance him in it. No; he must allow that the alleged deluge has done its work; yes, and has in turn disappeared itself; it has been swallowed up by the earth, mercilessly as itself was merciless.' (The Development of Christian Doctrine Introduction, part 6, Emphasis added)

In other words, the alleged destruction of the so-called 'true church' was so total that we can find no evidence that this church ever existed, AND we can find no trace of whatever destroyed this early Church.

I Don't Buy Claims that "Everyone Knows" but Nobody can Prove

That's kind of hard to swallow, isn't it?  Quite frankly, if I see anyone claiming my Church invented doctrine, I want to see the proof of when it was invented, and I want to see the so-called 'true Christians' of the time who were obligated to defend the faith speaking out against it.  We know of the Christians testifying to the truth against the pagans.  We know of them rejecting Gnosticism, Modalism, Donatism, Arianism, Nestorianism, Monophysitism, Monothelitism, Pelagianism and Iconoclasm (among others) — often at the risk (or loss) of their lives.

These saints died for the truth of the faith, and we know of the accounts of their deaths… yet we know nothing of those who were obligated to stand up for the faith, yet stayed silent for over a thousand years.

Why is it, that when three quarters of the Empire became Arianism, it was only Rome which stood as a defender of the Trinity?  In the face of all of these heresies, it was Rome leading the way, supporting those who defended the true faith and saying "No, these are lies about our Lord," to the heresies.

Why is it, we know of the heroism of St. John Chrysostom (AD 349-407) who died in exile because he dared defend the Church against Empress Eudoxia and we know about Pope Innocent I defending him… but we know nothing about the so-called "early Christians" who allegedly held the "true" faith against Catholicism?

Why do we have thousands of pages written by St. Augustine (AD 354-430) against the Manichees, the Donatists and the Pelagians, but not one fourth or fifth century defender of Sola Fide or Sola Scriptura?

Not Argument from Silence

The argument from silence fallacy essentially argues that since there is no argument against a position, it must be true, or because there is no argument for a position it must be false.

However, when there is evidence one way, but none against it becomes apparent that the evidence favors the one way.

Bearing False Witness

To speak truly, one has to say of what is, that it is; and of what is not, that it is not.

If one says something is, when it is not or is not when it is, this is not truth.

Now, if a person knows he is speaking something untrue, he is a liar and bears false witness.  if a person speaks something untrue, thinking it is true, his innocence or guilt will depend on whether it was possible to learn the truth or not. If he could find out and does not, he libels or slanders another and is considered negligent in not checking before speaking.

Now we come to bearing witness against the Catholic Church.  Can one find out what we believe by doing research from credible sources?  Indeed.  One can find out from Catholic sites what we believe about others, and one can seek out unbiased history accounts.

However, if one is known to hate the Church or believe it to be evil, it is possible such a source is not objective.  He might rashly believe the worst about the Church.  He might think his ignorance of what the Church believes in comparison to his personal reading of the Bible means the Church "invented" things.  Or possibly, he might believe that in opposing the "evil" of the Church that a "slight" exaggeration is all right.

However, there is no justification to repeating falsehoods against another, and no justification to repeating negative things about another without verifying them to be true first.