Speech, Interpretation and the Pope

Preliminary Note

The trick in writing an article like this is to avoid coming across like "Just think like me and you'll be fine" as if I were wise man with all the answers and the reader is an idiot if he or she disagrees. If I come across like that, then I failed in achieving what I hoped in this article.

What I hope to do is to discuss what I have learned over the years in dealing with troublesome news reported about the Church—even before Francis became Pope—as explanation for why I am not troubled by our Pope and why I do not think we are headed towards the dangers many of my fellow Catholics fear we are headed for.

So below is my attempts at explaining why I believe what I do and why I do not think that Pope Francis is causing harm to the Church by what he says. I hope it helps those facing those questions and concerns I once struggled with.

Introduction

A friend of mine (who always asks challenging questions and forces me to explore my faith more deeply) writes:

I think that your article addresses one group - those who think that Francis is making statements which are at odds with Church teaching. But there is another group who rather think that Francis speaks in a way which is too easily misunderstood or mischaracterized. I think that this second group believes in his orthodoxy but wishes for greater clarity.

I think that this second group is of the belief that we Catholics should not need to spend a great deal of time explaining "what the Pope really meant". And they feel frustrated when the Pope's words are misused.

It is true that my previous article did explicitly intend to discuss that first group. However, it's a fair point to consider when the Pope speaks and people who are not dissenting Catholics find themselves troubled by what they hear.. 

The Pope speaks. Misinterpretations happen. Is this a case of cause and effect where the Pope speaks imprecisely and this causes to misinterpretation? Or would that be a post hoc fallacy where there are two events and one mistakenly draws a link between the two where it does not exist? I would ask the reader to consider these two possibilities.

When it comes to seeking a reply to this concern, the person should ask, "Why am I concerned/offended?" How you answer the question can help approach the issue. From what I can see, the concerns tend to fall into three areas:

1. Fear that people will misunderstand the Pope with disastrous consequences.
2. Fear that the Pope is giving his support to an -ism that they disagree with.
3. Fear that the Pope will change Church teaching to something that contradicts current teaching.

There's a lot of subsets in the three groups. I won't discuss every issue that the people have fears over, but I do believe that the people who fear what he has to say are covered by these categories.

Let's try to look at these categories.

Fear that people will misunderstand the Pope with disastrous consequences

I think we need to be aware that wanting the Pope to speak "more clearly" is a very vague concept that will mean different things to different people.

The reason I say this is that it is not possible to speak so clearly that no mistake is possible. The differences between the speaker and the listener in terms of things like education, areas of knowledge, background, intellect, political outlook, philosophical outlook, preconceptions, etc., are going to be barriers if the speaker and the listener differ on these areas. Words can be ambiguous based on the meaning a perspective gives them.

Think of it this way. As Christians, we recognize the inerrancy of Scripture. God willed that the human authors only include the material He wanted in it... no more, no less. Yet those Christians who rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible routinely come up with contrary interpretations as to what certain parts mean. Do we say that the Scriptures communicate poorly? Or do we recognize that we are not all infallible interpreters of the Scripture?

Now that's with Scripture. Now imagine when we are dealing with human beings, all speaking different languages, so we have to rely on translations of what is said--where nuance may be missed depending on the skill of the translator and the complexity of the language. Now that doesn't mean every speaker is flawless and the fault is always be with the listener. But I think it does show that the idea that Pope Francis is expressing himself badly is not necessarily established as fact.

One may believe that the Pope should perhaps be more cautious when he does his so-called "Off the cuff" or "off script" moments. Certainly we had some odd moments in the first year of his pontificate where things were reported and some Catholics had WTF moments. But even here, we do need to ask whether the problem was with what he said or whether it was a problem of how it got back to us and how we interpreted it.

For example, during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, there was the embarrassing moment where he kissed a Qur'an.  Knowing of his fidelity to the Church, the idea of him being an apostate is ludicrous. The more probable meaning was that of him thinking that he was showing the local means of respect for a gift. So objectively, things would have been better if he did not kiss the book. But because he did, we are obligated to look into the meaning of this before presuming something like deliberate rejection of part of the Catholic faith.

That is why seeing or hearing something that seems odd does not justify Rash Judgment (I've cited this so often, some of you ought to know it by heart):

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

— of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor

...

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

  Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

This means that when we encounter a fellow Christian who does or says something that strikes us as odd, we are not to presume bad will on the part of the person acting. Only when it becomes apparent that no other interpretation is possible that we can move on with a gentle fraternal correction.

And let's not forget Pope Benedict XVI with his book length interview Light of the World where he used the example of a male prostitute with AIDS deciding to use condoms as an example to illustrate his point of a person beginning to consider the moral consequences of his actions. Many people believed he was advocating a changed teaching. Then that he had spoken badly. If you can remember back to those days, there was conservative Catholic media saying people in the Vatican should be fired for what happened. But ultimately, it was apparent that the problem was with the media wanting to report a change, not the Vatican making an error. (Are you beginning to remember that misunderstanding wasn't a problem exclusive to Pope Francis?)

What happens in cases like these is we have a problem that the news media (and some Catholics who think the magisterium is in the wrong) immediately jumps on things it thinks is new without considering how it fits in with other Catholic teaching. The Pope mentioned condoms and AIDS sufferers! He's saying it's OK to use condoms! He's changing the teaching!

Um... no. What we actually had was a media ignorant of what we believe reporting what they thought they heard, and a reaction by some Catholics blaming the confusion on the Church. That is vastly different. But, because we have been conditioned to expect that the media reports accurately about the facts, nobody actually thought to question whether the media did report the facts accurately.

The thing is, many people interpret the news from the Church by their preconceptions. That cannot be considered the fault of the Church. If a person's only tool is a hammer, every problem is approached as if it were a nail—which is a bad idea if the problem is installing a new pane of glass or swapping out a hard drive.

That's basically the problem with the media. For the most part, news services don't have a qualified religion reporter. Reporters assigned to stories treat Church news on moral issues as if they were political or economic issues. The result is they report the Church news as if it was political or moral news.

Imagine it this way. If I have no medical knowledge and I read a medical journal, how reliably do you think I will be able to assess the information within and explain it to others? Moreover, if I am considered a source of reliable news and I report on what I understood the medical journal to say, how accurate do you think the news report will be?

It's the same principle with the Church teachings. If one does not understand the nature of the Church and how she understands things, how can such a person avoid making mistakes in reporting?

Now I don't want to be misunderstood as saying "You need a Masters in Theology to understand the Pope." What I want the reader to be aware of is summed up by Dirty Harry in Magnum Force: "A man has got to know his limitations."

If a person knows his or her knowledge on a subject is limited, he or she can know that it is possible that when something doesn't seem to make sense that perhaps they have misunderstood the words and what gets repeated to others on that subject may be a distortion of what was really said. If a person doesn't know his or knowledge is limited, it means that he or she will probably go pass something along that is false thinking it was true. That's unfair to the person who did not say what the person who misunderstood him thinks that the original speaker did say.

Here's an example. I use computers but don't know much about the technical information about them. Since I'm researching a new computer (the current machine on my desk has been a faithful companion since the time of World of Warcraft: Cataclysm but needs replacing). So I occasionally ask a friend of mine questions on articles I read. Often he has to ask me a lot of questions or to provide a link to the article so he can wade through the mess of what I thought was said and find out what was actually said so he can answer my questions. The problem was not with the person who wrote the article, but was with me (PEBKAC, I believe they call it).

This is what one has to consider when the news reports something on the Pope. If the news reporter does not understand the Church he or she reports on, the result is something less than accurate.

The trick is to make sure that the problem is not at the level of the person doing the interpreting before worrying the Pope is expressing himself wrongly and causing confusion.

Fear that the Pope is giving his support to an -ism that they disagree with

The above was the framework that leads to the problems of fear and mistrust. When one assumes the media accurately reports the words of the Pope in context and they don't, the result is people thinking the Pope is saying something he had no intention of saying.

But even when people miss that first step, there are still ways to investigate things that seem strange.

I think we need to be aware of two types of meaning: univocal and equivocal. In the first, we have words where only one meaning is possible. In the second, more than one meaning is possible.

One problem is that people tend to assume that the meaning of a phrase is univocal. If the Pope uses a certain term, people tend to assume it has one meaning. Thus, when St. John Paul II spoke about feminism, certain Traditionalists presumed he was speaking in favor of radical feminism--something NOW and Planned Parenthood would find laughable, and was quite far from his intent.

But once one realizes that words and phrases can be equivocal, the possibility that the intention of the Pope is different than the meaning the reader/listener associates with the term must be considered.

We also have to consider the possibility of the either-or fallacy. The idea that there are only two options, when there are more than two. We have a tendency to think either conservative or liberal, either capitalism or socialism etc.

Thus when the Pope speaks about the problems in Capitalism (as he did in Evangelii Gaudium), people fear he is supporting socialism. But condemning flaws in one is not necessarily approving the other. Nor is it condemning the whole of capitalism.

There is another thing to consider. If the Pope speaking on the Catholic approach to an issue sounds like the supporting of an -ism, perhaps one should ask whether they have an -ism of their own which stands in the way of understanding the Pope properly. For example, the radical feminist who sees nothing but "patriarchal oppression" in Church teaching because she sees everything in terms of feminism.

Fear that the Pope will change Church teaching to something that contradicts current teaching

Finally, there is the fear that the Pope will make a heretical change to Church teaching. I think this is caused by certain traditionalist Catholics who claim that the Church has been in the wrong since the reign of St. John XXIII and every seeming difference between their interpretation of Church teaching and what the magisterium says today is "evidence" of this divide. The Catholic who tries to be faithful can't help but see the badly behaving Catholics and is deceived into thinking that the fault lies with the Magisterium.

But, if we have faith in Jesus Christ and believe He established this Church, gave it His authority and protects it, that's a wrong conclusion to make. That's not elevating Pope Francis to the level of demigod. That's putting your faith in the fact that even if parts of the Church fall into error, remaining faithful to the Church under the headship of the successor of St. Peter is the only safe path to be on.

So when it comes to being concerned that we'll see the Pope permitting abortion or "gay marriage," we can be sure that the Holy Spirit is not on a coffee break while the the Pope makes up whatever the hell he wants. The Holy Spirit is just as much with Pope Francis as with his predecessors.

But this is the "lowest common denominator" kind of protection to protect us from bad and corrupt popes—something that Pope Francis is not. When one reads his writings as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, one can see that he has a deep love of Jesus and for the Church. He has a record for opposing governments legitimizing evil as if it were good. For example, he opposed the recognition of "gay marriage" in Argentina, putting himself at odds with the government. I mention this because so many people seem to think that his words "Who am I to judge?" means he intends to change Church teaching, not realizing that he was taken out of context.

So to sum up on this issue, As a Pope we know he will be protected from teaching error by changing Church doctrine. As a person who is a faithful son of the Church we know he has no desire to make any such changes to Church doctrine.

Conclusion

I think that when it comes to these concerns, we need to be aware of certain things.

When it comes to the fear that the Pope will be misunderstood and lead people astray, the things to remember are that it is impossible to speak in such a way that no person can be misunderstood, that people have the obligation to seek out the proper understanding of the Pope's words and that some people misreport the words of the Pope out of their own misunderstanding of Catholic teaching or out of opposition to the teaching of the Church. We must recognize the possibility of our own misunderstanding and consider it before automatically assuming that the Pope spoke badly.

When it comes to the fear that the Pope is promoting some -ism, we need to remember that Pope Francis only supports one -ism, and that is Catholicism. What he is doing is speaking on issues of Catholic teaching that tend to be overlooked, and for the person who has their own -ism as a lens, they tend to see everything through the lens of that -ism and evaluate the Pope's words politically when it is actually a matter of moral behavior.

When it comes to the fear that the Church will change doctrine under Pope Francis, we need to remember both the fact that he has a deep love for Christ and His Church and that the Holy Spirit protects him from teaching error in matters of faith and morals which are binding on the faithful.

What I think we can draw from this is the fact that the problem is not with what Pope Francis says, but with the fact that people who are ignorant of the Church teaching are reporting on the Pope based on their ignorance and people are uncritically accepting what they say as if it were accurate. A one sentence or one paragraph quote of the Pope is insufficient. We need to find out what was said in context.

This isn't the easiest thing to do. If we rely on the mainstream media and political commentary we agree with, we will only see reported with the emphasis they see as important.

But other sources exist. The Vatican has its own news service (VIS), its own website (www.vatican.va) and sponsors several apps for Android and iPad that allows you to see what was said in full. There are reliable Catholic news sources in America as well which report the news without the editorials that make it sound like the Pope is a heretic. We can find the news in context and see how the Church understands it, if we are willing to look.

And that is the ultimate thing we must do when faced with these concerns. We must actually consider the possibility of our source of news being wrong, and there being a different meaning than the modern ideology sees it. The Church has been around since Pentecost in AD 33. She continues to use words in their full sense that many people have forgotten. She does not think in terms of "Democrat vs. Republican." She thinks in terms of carrying out the mission of salvation—salvation which may require warning both liberals and conservatives of the errors of their ways.

So we must explain the Catholic faith to those who hear the Pope and misunderstand him. Yes, it would be nice if everyone understood what he meant without our need to explain. But since people can misinterpret based on how they understand (or don't understand) we do have to explain what is really meant.

It's part of the Spiritual Works of Mercy:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

Speech, Interpretation and the Pope

Preliminary Note

The trick in writing an article like this is to avoid coming across like "Just think like me and you'll be fine" as if I were wise man with all the answers and the reader is an idiot if he or she disagrees. If I come across like that, then I failed in achieving what I hoped in this article.

What I hope to do is to discuss what I have learned over the years in dealing with troublesome news reported about the Church—even before Francis became Pope—as explanation for why I am not troubled by our Pope and why I do not think we are headed towards the dangers many of my fellow Catholics fear we are headed for.

So below is my attempts at explaining why I believe what I do and why I do not think that Pope Francis is causing harm to the Church by what he says. I hope it helps those facing those questions and concerns I once struggled with.

Introduction

A friend of mine (who always asks challenging questions and forces me to explore my faith more deeply) writes:

I think that your article addresses one group - those who think that Francis is making statements which are at odds with Church teaching. But there is another group who rather think that Francis speaks in a way which is too easily misunderstood or mischaracterized. I think that this second group believes in his orthodoxy but wishes for greater clarity.

I think that this second group is of the belief that we Catholics should not need to spend a great deal of time explaining "what the Pope really meant". And they feel frustrated when the Pope's words are misused.

It is true that my previous article did explicitly intend to discuss that first group. However, it's a fair point to consider when the Pope speaks and people who are not dissenting Catholics find themselves troubled by what they hear.. 

The Pope speaks. Misinterpretations happen. Is this a case of cause and effect where the Pope speaks imprecisely and this causes to misinterpretation? Or would that be a post hoc fallacy where there are two events and one mistakenly draws a link between the two where it does not exist? I would ask the reader to consider these two possibilities.

When it comes to seeking a reply to this concern, the person should ask, "Why am I concerned/offended?" How you answer the question can help approach the issue. From what I can see, the concerns tend to fall into three areas:

1. Fear that people will misunderstand the Pope with disastrous consequences.
2. Fear that the Pope is giving his support to an -ism that they disagree with.
3. Fear that the Pope will change Church teaching to something that contradicts current teaching.

There's a lot of subsets in the three groups. I won't discuss every issue that the people have fears over, but I do believe that the people who fear what he has to say are covered by these categories.

Let's try to look at these categories.

Fear that people will misunderstand the Pope with disastrous consequences

I think we need to be aware that wanting the Pope to speak "more clearly" is a very vague concept that will mean different things to different people.

The reason I say this is that it is not possible to speak so clearly that no mistake is possible. The differences between the speaker and the listener in terms of things like education, areas of knowledge, background, intellect, political outlook, philosophical outlook, preconceptions, etc., are going to be barriers if the speaker and the listener differ on these areas. Words can be ambiguous based on the meaning a perspective gives them.

Think of it this way. As Christians, we recognize the inerrancy of Scripture. God willed that the human authors only include the material He wanted in it... no more, no less. Yet those Christians who rely on their personal interpretation of the Bible routinely come up with contrary interpretations as to what certain parts mean. Do we say that the Scriptures communicate poorly? Or do we recognize that we are not all infallible interpreters of the Scripture?

Now that's with Scripture. Now imagine when we are dealing with human beings, all speaking different languages, so we have to rely on translations of what is said--where nuance may be missed depending on the skill of the translator and the complexity of the language. Now that doesn't mean every speaker is flawless and the fault is always be with the listener. But I think it does show that the idea that Pope Francis is expressing himself badly is not necessarily established as fact.

One may believe that the Pope should perhaps be more cautious when he does his so-called "Off the cuff" or "off script" moments. Certainly we had some odd moments in the first year of his pontificate where things were reported and some Catholics had WTF moments. But even here, we do need to ask whether the problem was with what he said or whether it was a problem of how it got back to us and how we interpreted it.

For example, during the pontificate of St. John Paul II, there was the embarrassing moment where he kissed a Qur'an.  Knowing of his fidelity to the Church, the idea of him being an apostate is ludicrous. The more probable meaning was that of him thinking that he was showing the local means of respect for a gift. So objectively, things would have been better if he did not kiss the book. But because he did, we are obligated to look into the meaning of this before presuming something like deliberate rejection of part of the Catholic faith.

That is why seeing or hearing something that seems odd does not justify Rash Judgment (I've cited this so often, some of you ought to know it by heart):

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

— of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor

...

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

  Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

This means that when we encounter a fellow Christian who does or says something that strikes us as odd, we are not to presume bad will on the part of the person acting. Only when it becomes apparent that no other interpretation is possible that we can move on with a gentle fraternal correction.

And let's not forget Pope Benedict XVI with his book length interview Light of the World where he used the example of a male prostitute with AIDS deciding to use condoms as an example to illustrate his point of a person beginning to consider the moral consequences of his actions. Many people believed he was advocating a changed teaching. Then that he had spoken badly. If you can remember back to those days, there was conservative Catholic media saying people in the Vatican should be fired for what happened. But ultimately, it was apparent that the problem was with the media wanting to report a change, not the Vatican making an error. (Are you beginning to remember that misunderstanding wasn't a problem exclusive to Pope Francis?)

What happens in cases like these is we have a problem that the news media (and some Catholics who think the magisterium is in the wrong) immediately jumps on things it thinks is new without considering how it fits in with other Catholic teaching. The Pope mentioned condoms and AIDS sufferers! He's saying it's OK to use condoms! He's changing the teaching!

Um... no. What we actually had was a media ignorant of what we believe reporting what they thought they heard, and a reaction by some Catholics blaming the confusion on the Church. That is vastly different. But, because we have been conditioned to expect that the media reports accurately about the facts, nobody actually thought to question whether the media did report the facts accurately.

The thing is, many people interpret the news from the Church by their preconceptions. That cannot be considered the fault of the Church. If a person's only tool is a hammer, every problem is approached as if it were a nail—which is a bad idea if the problem is installing a new pane of glass or swapping out a hard drive.

That's basically the problem with the media. For the most part, news services don't have a qualified religion reporter. Reporters assigned to stories treat Church news on moral issues as if they were political or economic issues. The result is they report the Church news as if it was political or moral news.

Imagine it this way. If I have no medical knowledge and I read a medical journal, how reliably do you think I will be able to assess the information within and explain it to others? Moreover, if I am considered a source of reliable news and I report on what I understood the medical journal to say, how accurate do you think the news report will be?

It's the same principle with the Church teachings. If one does not understand the nature of the Church and how she understands things, how can such a person avoid making mistakes in reporting?

Now I don't want to be misunderstood as saying "You need a Masters in Theology to understand the Pope." What I want the reader to be aware of is summed up by Dirty Harry in Magnum Force: "A man has got to know his limitations."

If a person knows his or her knowledge on a subject is limited, he or she can know that it is possible that when something doesn't seem to make sense that perhaps they have misunderstood the words and what gets repeated to others on that subject may be a distortion of what was really said. If a person doesn't know his or knowledge is limited, it means that he or she will probably go pass something along that is false thinking it was true. That's unfair to the person who did not say what the person who misunderstood him thinks that the original speaker did say.

Here's an example. I use computers but don't know much about the technical information about them. Since I'm researching a new computer (the current machine on my desk has been a faithful companion since the time of World of Warcraft: Cataclysm but needs replacing). So I occasionally ask a friend of mine questions on articles I read. Often he has to ask me a lot of questions or to provide a link to the article so he can wade through the mess of what I thought was said and find out what was actually said so he can answer my questions. The problem was not with the person who wrote the article, but was with me (PEBKAC, I believe they call it).

This is what one has to consider when the news reports something on the Pope. If the news reporter does not understand the Church he or she reports on, the result is something less than accurate.

The trick is to make sure that the problem is not at the level of the person doing the interpreting before worrying the Pope is expressing himself wrongly and causing confusion.

Fear that the Pope is giving his support to an -ism that they disagree with

The above was the framework that leads to the problems of fear and mistrust. When one assumes the media accurately reports the words of the Pope in context and they don't, the result is people thinking the Pope is saying something he had no intention of saying.

But even when people miss that first step, there are still ways to investigate things that seem strange.

I think we need to be aware of two types of meaning: univocal and equivocal. In the first, we have words where only one meaning is possible. In the second, more than one meaning is possible.

One problem is that people tend to assume that the meaning of a phrase is univocal. If the Pope uses a certain term, people tend to assume it has one meaning. Thus, when St. John Paul II spoke about feminism, certain Traditionalists presumed he was speaking in favor of radical feminism--something NOW and Planned Parenthood would find laughable, and was quite far from his intent.

But once one realizes that words and phrases can be equivocal, the possibility that the intention of the Pope is different than the meaning the reader/listener associates with the term must be considered.

We also have to consider the possibility of the either-or fallacy. The idea that there are only two options, when there are more than two. We have a tendency to think either conservative or liberal, either capitalism or socialism etc.

Thus when the Pope speaks about the problems in Capitalism (as he did in Evangelii Gaudium), people fear he is supporting socialism. But condemning flaws in one is not necessarily approving the other. Nor is it condemning the whole of capitalism.

There is another thing to consider. If the Pope speaking on the Catholic approach to an issue sounds like the supporting of an -ism, perhaps one should ask whether they have an -ism of their own which stands in the way of understanding the Pope properly. For example, the radical feminist who sees nothing but "patriarchal oppression" in Church teaching because she sees everything in terms of feminism.

Fear that the Pope will change Church teaching to something that contradicts current teaching

Finally, there is the fear that the Pope will make a heretical change to Church teaching. I think this is caused by certain traditionalist Catholics who claim that the Church has been in the wrong since the reign of St. John XXIII and every seeming difference between their interpretation of Church teaching and what the magisterium says today is "evidence" of this divide. The Catholic who tries to be faithful can't help but see the badly behaving Catholics and is deceived into thinking that the fault lies with the Magisterium.

But, if we have faith in Jesus Christ and believe He established this Church, gave it His authority and protects it, that's a wrong conclusion to make. That's not elevating Pope Francis to the level of demigod. That's putting your faith in the fact that even if parts of the Church fall into error, remaining faithful to the Church under the headship of the successor of St. Peter is the only safe path to be on.

So when it comes to being concerned that we'll see the Pope permitting abortion or "gay marriage," we can be sure that the Holy Spirit is not on a coffee break while the the Pope makes up whatever the hell he wants. The Holy Spirit is just as much with Pope Francis as with his predecessors.

But this is the "lowest common denominator" kind of protection to protect us from bad and corrupt popes—something that Pope Francis is not. When one reads his writings as the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, one can see that he has a deep love of Jesus and for the Church. He has a record for opposing governments legitimizing evil as if it were good. For example, he opposed the recognition of "gay marriage" in Argentina, putting himself at odds with the government. I mention this because so many people seem to think that his words "Who am I to judge?" means he intends to change Church teaching, not realizing that he was taken out of context.

So to sum up on this issue, As a Pope we know he will be protected from teaching error by changing Church doctrine. As a person who is a faithful son of the Church we know he has no desire to make any such changes to Church doctrine.

Conclusion

I think that when it comes to these concerns, we need to be aware of certain things.

When it comes to the fear that the Pope will be misunderstood and lead people astray, the things to remember are that it is impossible to speak in such a way that no person can be misunderstood, that people have the obligation to seek out the proper understanding of the Pope's words and that some people misreport the words of the Pope out of their own misunderstanding of Catholic teaching or out of opposition to the teaching of the Church. We must recognize the possibility of our own misunderstanding and consider it before automatically assuming that the Pope spoke badly.

When it comes to the fear that the Pope is promoting some -ism, we need to remember that Pope Francis only supports one -ism, and that is Catholicism. What he is doing is speaking on issues of Catholic teaching that tend to be overlooked, and for the person who has their own -ism as a lens, they tend to see everything through the lens of that -ism and evaluate the Pope's words politically when it is actually a matter of moral behavior.

When it comes to the fear that the Church will change doctrine under Pope Francis, we need to remember both the fact that he has a deep love for Christ and His Church and that the Holy Spirit protects him from teaching error in matters of faith and morals which are binding on the faithful.

What I think we can draw from this is the fact that the problem is not with what Pope Francis says, but with the fact that people who are ignorant of the Church teaching are reporting on the Pope based on their ignorance and people are uncritically accepting what they say as if it were accurate. A one sentence or one paragraph quote of the Pope is insufficient. We need to find out what was said in context.

This isn't the easiest thing to do. If we rely on the mainstream media and political commentary we agree with, we will only see reported with the emphasis they see as important.

But other sources exist. The Vatican has its own news service (VIS), its own website (www.vatican.va) and sponsors several apps for Android and iPad that allows you to see what was said in full. There are reliable Catholic news sources in America as well which report the news without the editorials that make it sound like the Pope is a heretic. We can find the news in context and see how the Church understands it, if we are willing to look.

And that is the ultimate thing we must do when faced with these concerns. We must actually consider the possibility of our source of news being wrong, and there being a different meaning than the modern ideology sees it. The Church has been around since Pentecost in AD 33. She continues to use words in their full sense that many people have forgotten. She does not think in terms of "Democrat vs. Republican." She thinks in terms of carrying out the mission of salvation—salvation which may require warning both liberals and conservatives of the errors of their ways.

So we must explain the Catholic faith to those who hear the Pope and misunderstand him. Yes, it would be nice if everyone understood what he meant without our need to explain. But since people can misinterpret based on how they understand (or don't understand) we do have to explain what is really meant.

It's part of the Spiritual Works of Mercy:

To instruct the ignorant;
To counsel the doubtful;
To admonish sinners;
To bear wrongs patiently;
To forgive offences willingly;
To comfort the afflicted;
To pray for the living and the dead.

Conveniently Overlooking the Second Step

Read more »

Conveniently Overlooking the Second Step

Read more »

Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents

[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.

In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)

I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.

Introduction

Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."

It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.

Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?

It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.

That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth

Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?

That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth  encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.

The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.

Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.

For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.

The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.

The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.

Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)

Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:

• Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
• The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
• Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]

The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.

If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!

So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.

The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)

The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after.  It must be found.  It must be followed.

The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."

But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.

When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.

Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.

That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.

Conclusion

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.

If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.

Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.

Thoughts on Reason, Catholicism and its Opponents

[3] To proceed against individual errors, however, is a difficult business, and this for two reasons. In the first place, it is difficult because the sacrilegious remarks of individual men who have erred are not so well known to us so that we may use what they say as the basis of proceeding to a refutation of their errors. This is, indeed, the method that the ancient Doctors of the Church used in the refutation of the errors of the Gentiles. For they could know the positions taken by the Gentiles since they themselves had been Gentiles, or at least had lived among the Gentiles and had been instructed in their teaching.

In the second place, it is difficult because some of them, such as the Mohammedans and the pagans, do not agree with us in accepting the authority of any Scripture, by which they may be convinced of their error. Thus, against the Jews we are able to argue by means of the Old Testament, while against heretics we are able to argue by means of the New Testament. But the Muslims and the pagans accept neither the one nor the other. We must, therefore, have recourse to the natural reason, to which all men are forced to give their assent. However, it is true, in divine matters the natural reason has its failings. (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Contra Gentiles Bk 1. Emphasis added)

I find it interesting that the Church is attacked as being irrational even though she recognizes the importance of using reason to dialogue with those who do not share any other sources of information in common. While the Church recognizes that the finite ability to reason by a finite human being can have its weaknesses, she still recognizes the importance of sharing the truth through means that both groups will accept.

Introduction

Nowadays, reason is a badly misused term. It used to be understood as holding one's views as "the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments logically." Now, it's used as a mark of ideological purity--where the views which go against that of the individual setting himself or herself up as a judge are deemed "irrational."

It's also abused in the sense of being redefined to only hold to certain kinds of knowledge. This abuse denies that religious knowledge is reasoning. It instead limits reason to judging only that which can be known by the human intellect. Any knowledge which goes beyond the level of what the human mind knows is deemed irrational.

Of course, there's a slight problem with that. The problem is that limiting of reason to what can be known by the human intellect alone cannot be proven by the human intellect alone. It is basically an assertion that there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge... but how can human knowledge know this?

It is the problem of making a universal negative: No knowledge above human knowledge exists. The problem is, one has to have all knowledge to know there is nothing more than human knowledge that exists. One has to have all knowledge to know there is no knowledge beyond human knowledge. In other words, such an allegation is a self contradiction because it asserts knowledge beyond what human knowledge can know on its own.

That's why the rejection of religious knowledge as irrational cannot be anything other than an ideology held by a person who believes--in the negative sense of "an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof."

Going Beyond the Name Calling to Seeking the Truth

Once one realizes this major flaw in the belief that no knowledge beyond human knowledge exists, one can understand that the majority of the attacks on the Christian faith and the moral obligations which come from this faith do not come from reason. They are essentially acts of name calling which avoids asking whether the Christian claims are true. If one merely slaps a label like irrational or bigoted on the Christian claims, then it is easy to refuse to look at what justification is offered for the claims. After all, who wants to look at an irrational or bigoted idea?

That is unfortunate. Especially when an individual seeking the truth  encounters a Christian with an irrational or bigoted outlook on life. But, just as it is wrong to presume all African Americans are felons because a person encountered one who was a felon, it is also wrong to assume that Christianity is irrational or bigoted merely because they encountered one with that attitude.

The truth is, Christianity--at least in the Catholic view (I will not presume to speak for the non-Catholic Christians, leaving them to explain their own understanding)--does see reason as an important part of the faith. If we did not, we could not try to come to a deeper understanding of what His commands require of us. If God forbids a thing and we know God is all powerful, all knowing, omnipresent and infinitely good, we can reason that the prohibition can be understood as more than something God arbitrarily decreed because He was in a bad mood.

Catholic theology is based on the understanding that God's will is reasonable. As Archbishop Fulton J. Sheen once put it, while God's actions can be beyond reason, it is never contrary to reason. Thus when He issues His Ten Commandments, we can understand and reason from them that right behavior in our life has a basis on the proper use of things He created.

For example, when we see the prohibition of adultery, fornication, homosexual acts, etc., we can understand that it's not that we have an "anti sex" God, but that God intends the family to be an important part of His intent for how we live. Sins against His intent for the family break down how we are to live. We can reason both how they affect us at the human level (reducing family to a mere sexual union between two or more people based on the gratification of the individual leads to the breakdown of society) and in relation to Him.

The deeper one goes into the Catholic teaching on morality, the deeper and more well thought out the reasoning becomes. One learns that our belief that homosexual acts is wrong is not based on the fear or homosexuals or the "ick factor" so commonly invoked as the reason for our belief. Our opposition to contraception and our belief that Our Lord only called men to be priests is not based on a belief that women are inferior or good only for producing children.

The fact is, we absolutely deny the charges that bigotry is the motivation for our teachings.

Irrationality in the Condemnation of Catholic Teaching

There are not over a hundred people in the United States who hate the Catholic Church. There are millions, however, who hate what they wrongly believe to be the Catholic Church — which is, of course quite a different thing. These millions can hardly be blamed for hating Catholics because Catholics “adore statues”; because they “put the Blessed Mother on the same level with God”; because they say “indulgence is a permission to commit sin”; because the Pope “is a Fascist”; because the “Church is the defender of Capitalism.” If the Church taught or believed any one of these things it should be hated, but the fact is that the Church does not believe nor teach any one of them. It follows then that the hatred of the millions is directed against error and not against truth. As a matter of fact, if we Catholics believed all of the untruths and lies which were said against the Church, we probably would hate the Church a thousand times more than they do. (Archbishop Fulton J Sheen, Radio Replies)

Unfortunately, what we believe and the reasoning we use in holding our beliefs are not understood. We are denounced, not through reason, but through mere assertions that:

• Whoever does not hold X is bigoted [all A is B]
• The Catholic Church does not hold X [C is part of A]
• Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted [Therefore C is part of B]

The problem is, the major premise (Whoever does not hold X is bigoted) needs to be proven. It assumes the cause and effect without considering whether it is possible to "Not hold X" without being bigoted.

If it is possible, then the major premise is false and the conclusion (Therefore the Catholic Church is bigoted) is not proven to be true!

So in reality, the charges of bigotry made against the Catholic Church have no basis in reason or logic. They simply come from the unproven assertion that disagreement with positions held by the elites of the society must be based on ill will towards certain groups of people.

The Remedy—Seeking, Finding, Following Truth

“To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true” (Aristotle, Metaphysics, 1011b25)

The remedy, recognized by the saints of all ages and the philosophers of ancient and medieval times, but forgotten by modern philosophers, is the recognition that truth exists. It must be sought after.  It must be found.  It must be followed.

The first step (seeking the truth) may seem obvious, but too many people simply don't take that step. The reason is because too many people don't realize that they don't know. They rely on what they have had repeated to them without asking if it is true. "Everyone knows that the Church is anti-women, anti-gay, etc. etc. etc."

But once you start asking questions about what everybody knows, you start to find that maybe everybody doesn't know and you have to go back to the beginning and see what is true, rather than what is thought to be true.

When it comes to finding the truth, we have to do investigations into claims. What is the basis for holding such a claim? Are the claims reasonable? But we also have to ask "Are my presuppositions true? Do I hold them reasonably?" If we hold presuppositions without examining them, they can lead us astray if they turn out to be false.

Following truth means that once we discover what is true, we are bound to live in accordance with it. Many people cite the old adage, Knowledge is Power, but that is only true if you act on it. To use an obvious example, If you know what tomorrow's lotto numbers are going to be, but don't bother to buy a ticket or at least share the numbers with someone, your knowledge is effectively worthless.

That's how it works with examining the claims of the Church. If you recognize the truth of the Church, but choose not to act on it, that knowledge grants you no power.

Conclusion

Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me. (Luke 10:16)

Thus, people need to recognize what the claims of the Church are and whether she reasonably holds them. If God exists, if Jesus is God and if Jesus chose to establish one visible, hierarchical and apostolic Church to carry out His mission while He protects her from teaching error, then it is reasonable to recognize that what the Church teaches is true and following it is not merely "good for you" like yogurt or green vegetables, but is vital to be heeded.

If the Church teaches something about what must or must not be done, and the Church was given her authority by Christ, it stands to reason that rejecting the Church is rejecting Christ. Once one understands that, the hostility to Church teaching is shown to be irrational and actually harmful.

Some may not recognize that the Catholic Church is that Church. Even so, that does not excuse anyone for seeking out the truth, always asking what is true about what is claimed and what is true about the preconceptions the seeker is carrying.

Reflections on the Recent American Tendency to Use Force to Change Morals

Read more »