You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

You Can Only Push So Far

Introduction

I'm sure A&E was caught by surprise by the huge backlash involving Phil Robertson and his comments on homosexuality.  They assumed people would agree with them in condemning his comments as "homophobic." Instead, they found that not only were a large portion of the viewing public not offended by his statements, they were in fact offended by the A&E suspension.

Those who were caught by surprise shouldn't be. While the case was an unexpected rallying point, the treatment of Christian moral teaching by political, cultural and media elites has been so hostile that it was only a matter of time before American Christians got so fed up that they would revolt.

What This Article Is Not

I don't intend this article to be a defense of Mr. Robertson. Nor do I intend it to be an apologia for the Christian position on homosexuality.  I don't intend to defend all forms of Christianity. Because I recognize Catholicism as the Church established by Christ, the positions I choose to defend come from Catholicism. When other denominations diverge from Catholicism, I feel no need to justify that position.

What this is article is about is the distorted way Christian moral teaching is portrayed.

The Hypocrisy Problem

One problem is that in America, the political, cultural and media elites have contempt for the Christian moral teaching that they run afoul of. They're perfectly happy to point out when conservative thought runs afoul Christianity... or when they think it runs afoul of Christianity. However, when the teaching of Christianity turns to things the elites practice or support, suddenly they are hostile and Christianity is "forcing" itself on others.

This is a case of hypocrisy of course. One can be consistent either by accepting the teaching of Christianity in all areas of life or one can say it has no say in any area. But if a person only permits Christianity in areas one agrees with and denied it the right to speak on position one disagrees with, it makes that person hypocritical. This is because the person only recognizes authority when it benefits them and ignores it when it does not.

The case of Pope Francis demonstrates this.  He has spoken about upholding Catholic moral and social teaching. But the elites only cite passages when it seems to agree with them... regardless of how out of context they have to take his statements.

The Honestly Problem

Another problem is the portrayal of Christian teaching.  Basically the Christian is represented as being ignorant, dishonest or holding malice because they hold to their moral beliefs which say some acts are never good. If a Christian thinks homosexual acts are sinful, it must mean the Christian hates homosexuals.

The problem is, the charge is false. The concern for another on the grounds that he or she is living in a way that leads to damnation is not an act of hatred or contempt. If we hated the sinner (and remember Christians know they themselves are sinners as well), we'd just ignore them satisfied with the thought they'd go to hell.

The Reaction

Christians get annoyed like other people of course. In this case we are annoyed because the Christians are being slandered. Our teachings are selectively cited, misrepresented and we are falsely accused of malice for our motives.

So when this attack on Robertson happened, when Christian teaching is portrayed as something it is not, Christians justly get angry.  It's not that Phil Robertson is a person of great significance.  It's that he said what was true and he was reviled for saying it.

Imposition of Ideology, Not Neutrality

Introduction

One of the tactics used in seeking to displace Christianity is by making the alternative view seem to be neutral in the face of a "partisan" religion. Basically, the argument is that because the First Amendment forbids "establishment of religion," and Christianity is a religion, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of Christianity.

The problem is, the establishment of religion refers to the making a religion the official religion of the nation. In historical precedent, a state religion involved official sanction of one religion over another. It had the rights while any other religions were restricted in some way.

This understanding has been perverted into the sense that the practice of religion cannot be accepted on property belonging to government whether national, state or local... even to the extent that a memorial to the war dead which bears a religious symbol can be ordered torn down decades later.

The Contradictory Positions

Paradoxically, one cannot place a cross on public property as part of the freedom of religion, but one can burn a cross on public property as part of the freedom of speech (if not done to intimidate)... even though both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are part of the First Amendment.

This leaves us with a contradiction: One cannot have a display of religion on public property because it might offend those who do not share those religious beliefs. So why can people air political beliefs on public property without concern over whether it offends those who do not share that belief?

If allowing religious symbols or activity on public property means the establishment or endorsement of religion, then it follows that allowing political activity on public property is the government's endorsement of a political faction. Any political demonstration on the Washington Mall therefore imposes political views.

One can either argue that both religious and political symbols/activity can be allowed on public property or neither can, but one can't argue for one without the other without being hypocritical.

Oh wait... the First Amendment also informs us that we have the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," so one can't argue neither is allowable.

The Real Issue

The real issue here is the modern movement to restrict religion is not based on neutrality, but on restricting something that stands in opposition to an ideological position. It is an imposition of a position favored by political and social elites and the suppression of those that disagree.

In other words, what we have is the "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion in order to benefit a group that dislikes the calling of sin a sin.

When we see judges determine that so-called "gay marriage" is a human right against the widely recognized knowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, we see a member of the elite imposing their views on others. When we see government officials refusing to defend just laws they disagree with, they are imposing their views on others.

The Reverse is Not True

Now some try to argue that Christianity is the one that imposes its view on others. This is false. Christianity is no ideology trying to force its way by courts and executive orders into a system of beliefs held across time and geography. Christian morality has long been recognized as being true by people of different lands and eras, and the laws which derive from Christian morality come from the conviction that laws must be in accordance with the truth.

This is important to remember: Christianity did not force itself on an unwilling public by unscrupulous judges and partisan laws. It is now under attack because malcontents dislike being opposed in their desire for their favorite vices.

Conclusion

Despite the media and political propaganda to label Christian morality as intolerant and calling for a "neutral" view, we need to recognize that the views expressed as an alternative are not neutral. They are adversarial to Christianity, thinking of it as a bad thing that needs to be contained or destroyed.

The secular rejection of Christianity is not a movement based on justice, but on partisanship. Once we recognize this we can see their actions for the injustices they are.

Imposition of Ideology, Not Neutrality

Introduction

One of the tactics used in seeking to displace Christianity is by making the alternative view seem to be neutral in the face of a "partisan" religion. Basically, the argument is that because the First Amendment forbids "establishment of religion," and Christianity is a religion, the First Amendment forbids the establishment of Christianity.

The problem is, the establishment of religion refers to the making a religion the official religion of the nation. In historical precedent, a state religion involved official sanction of one religion over another. It had the rights while any other religions were restricted in some way.

This understanding has been perverted into the sense that the practice of religion cannot be accepted on property belonging to government whether national, state or local... even to the extent that a memorial to the war dead which bears a religious symbol can be ordered torn down decades later.

The Contradictory Positions

Paradoxically, one cannot place a cross on public property as part of the freedom of religion, but one can burn a cross on public property as part of the freedom of speech (if not done to intimidate)... even though both freedom of religion and freedom of speech are part of the First Amendment.

This leaves us with a contradiction: One cannot have a display of religion on public property because it might offend those who do not share those religious beliefs. So why can people air political beliefs on public property without concern over whether it offends those who do not share that belief?

If allowing religious symbols or activity on public property means the establishment or endorsement of religion, then it follows that allowing political activity on public property is the government's endorsement of a political faction. Any political demonstration on the Washington Mall therefore imposes political views.

One can either argue that both religious and political symbols/activity can be allowed on public property or neither can, but one can't argue for one without the other without being hypocritical.

Oh wait... the First Amendment also informs us that we have the "the right of the people peaceably to assemble," so one can't argue neither is allowable.

The Real Issue

The real issue here is the modern movement to restrict religion is not based on neutrality, but on restricting something that stands in opposition to an ideological position. It is an imposition of a position favored by political and social elites and the suppression of those that disagree.

In other words, what we have is the "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion in order to benefit a group that dislikes the calling of sin a sin.

When we see judges determine that so-called "gay marriage" is a human right against the widely recognized knowledge that marriage is between one man and one woman, we see a member of the elite imposing their views on others. When we see government officials refusing to defend just laws they disagree with, they are imposing their views on others.

The Reverse is Not True

Now some try to argue that Christianity is the one that imposes its view on others. This is false. Christianity is no ideology trying to force its way by courts and executive orders into a system of beliefs held across time and geography. Christian morality has long been recognized as being true by people of different lands and eras, and the laws which derive from Christian morality come from the conviction that laws must be in accordance with the truth.

This is important to remember: Christianity did not force itself on an unwilling public by unscrupulous judges and partisan laws. It is now under attack because malcontents dislike being opposed in their desire for their favorite vices.

Conclusion

Despite the media and political propaganda to label Christian morality as intolerant and calling for a "neutral" view, we need to recognize that the views expressed as an alternative are not neutral. They are adversarial to Christianity, thinking of it as a bad thing that needs to be contained or destroyed.

The secular rejection of Christianity is not a movement based on justice, but on partisanship. Once we recognize this we can see their actions for the injustices they are.

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

Implications of the Phil Robertson Incident

Read more »

Thoughts on Those Who Think the Pope Errs

Introduction

Nine months into the pontificate of Pope Francis, there is a certain subset of orthodox Catholics in the blogosphere who think he is going in the wrong direction. Because Pope Francis gives a certain emphasis that doesn't mirror their preferences, the response is to view him as one or more of the following: naive, out of touch, not knowledgeable on the topic or even heretical.

Some of them are polite in their misgivings. Some seem to treat him like an "idiot uncle" who needs to be endured. But what they're not doing is treating him like the Pope.

Many bloggers in this subset have expressed concern with the Pope's teachings, making comments asserting that what he says goes against Church teaching by either poorly expressing himself or by lack of understanding. When the Pope speaks on moral theology in relation to political or economic issues, the assumption is he said something wrong. Nobody seems to ask whether their own understanding of what he said or of Church teaching is faulty.

In other words, this subset of bloggers tends to consider themselves to be more knowledgeable than the Pope on these issues.

I really can't follow these bloggers. They are going in a direction conscience forbids me to go.

There are two reasons for this.

The First Reason

The first is I have a belief that God is active in His Church and will not permit it to teach error in matters of faith and morals binding on the faithful.

Now many might say, "Oh! I would never deny an ex cathedra statement by the Pope, but he didn't speak infallibly." The problem is, the faithful are not only bound by ex cathedra statements. The Encyclical of Pope Pius XII, Humani Generis #20 tells us:

20. Nor must it be thought that what is expounded in Encyclical Letters does not of itself demand consent, since in writing such Letters the Popes do not exercise the supreme power of their Teaching Authority. For these matters are taught with the ordinary teaching authority, of which it is true to say: "He who heareth you, heareth me";[3] and generally what is expounded and inculcated in Encyclical Letters already for other reasons appertains to Catholic doctrine. But if the Supreme Pontiffs in their official documents purposely pass judgment on a matter up to that time under dispute, it is obvious that that matter, according to the mind and will of the Pontiffs, cannot be any longer considered a question open to discussion among theologians.

The ordinary teachings of the Pope still require the assent of the faithful. Now, is it reasonable to think that when we have the obligation to assent, the Holy Spirit will permit the Pope to teach that which is harmful to the soul of the faithful?

I can't buy into that thinking. It means that unless the Pope declares everything he does ex cathedra, there must always be doubt about what he teaches... we can never know whether a teaching we must assent to is true unless it bears this mark.

That's spiritual chaos and something that contradicts Christ when He says, in Matt 28:20b, "And behold, I am with you always, until the end of the age."

Even if Pope Francis turned out to be like Pope John XXII, with a faulty understanding, God protects His vicar from teaching error in a binding way.

The Second Reason

And that brings me to the second reason: I don't believe Pope Francis is a Pope like John XXII. I believe he is a holy man, teaching in full accord with what the Church has always taught.  Reading his insights from before he became Pope, in books like Only Love Can Save Us, Open Mind Faithful Heart and On Heaven and Earth show what he believes and speaks on is not at all going against what the Church had said previously. His recent encyclical and exhortation are solid Catholic teaching as well.

While sloppy journalism has misrepresented him at times, that misrepresentation is not his fault and it is our obligation to seek the true meaning and not rely on the misinterpretation.

Conclusion

I believe that whatever troubles may come to our Church, we cannot accept as valid any group which holds that they are right and the Pope is wrong in matters which require assent. When the Pope speaks on moral obligations towards economic and political actions, we do not do right by saying the Pope doesn't really understand economics or politics. We do right by heeding the moral obligations he warns us about.

Deciding we can ignore the Pope is wrong, whether the disobedience is liberal or conservative in nature.

A good rule of thumb is, if the Pope is reported as saying something that sounds like it goes against Church teaching,  the safe bet is that the error is with the reporter or reader -- not the Pope.