What is a Proportionate Reason? A Reflection

Introduction.

A reader on my blog page asked me for a clarification on what a Proportionate Reason was when it comes to moral theology and the abortion issue. It reminded me that sometimes what think is clear, the average reader might see as technical jargon. So, I apologize for not being clear and will try to explain it without sounding too technical or patronizing. (I suspect I may have to apologize in advance for not succeeding there).

Some Basic Things to Remember.

When dealing with evil and what enables it, we need to make a few basic statements. 

First. We are absolutely forbidden to do an evil act so good may come of it.

Second. To have a morally good act, the action itself must be morally good or neutral (no intrinsically evil acts [that is, the act itself is bad regardless of conditions] can ever be made good), the intention is good (doing something good or neutral for an evil reason makes the act evil), and the circumstances must be good (giving a Snickers bar to a starving child who turns out to have a peanut allergy is bad, even if no harm was intended).

Third. The conditions that make up a mortal sin require committing a serious (grave) evil, knowing it was evil and freely choosing to do it anyway.

Fourth. If it’s impossible to know something (for example, Native Americans in pre-Colombian times absolutely could not have known of the need to accept Christ) and the person acted wrongly, thinking what they did was good, God will not hold a person responsible for that ignorance, even though wrong is done. We call this invincible ignorance. But, if the ignorance was something that could have been learned if the person bothered to look but was negligent, that isn’t excusable. We call this vincible ignorance.

Fifth. The person who knows they have committed a grave sin need to go to Confession before receiving communion (Canon 916). Notorious and unrepentant sinners who choose to go receive Communion anyway can be barred (Canon 915).

So, we could sum this up and say, since we may not do an evil act so good may come of it, we have an obligation to learn what the Church teaches and live it. We are without excuse if we reject the Church teaching and do evil, and we are without excuse if we do evil through ignorance that we could have cleared up if we bothered to look. We could wind up in a state of mortal sin if all conditions are present.

We can never deliberately choose to do evil or to freely and knowingly assist in that evil. (For example, you can never have a morally good rape or a morally good lynching). Even if a Catholic should dissent from Church teaching, they are not excused from obeying it. Otherwise “I disagree” could be an iron clad defense for geocide or murder. If anybody does take part in assisting evil knowingly and willingly, they are responsible for having done evil. So, in the Ratzinger Memorandum, he mentions voting for someone because they are pro-abortion as an example of being obligated to stay away from receiving the Eucharist.

But What About Acts that Aren’t Intrinsically Evil

So, let’s move on. Keeping the above things in mind, let’s move on to Proportionate Reasons that justify an act that is not intrinsically evil in itself, but still makes the evil act possible. 

The immediately relevant part of the Ratzinger Memorandum, the part that gets dragged out every four years, is the section on voting. Voting in itself a civic duty, not an intrinsic evil. Therefore, any sin involved comes from the intention or the consequences.

While deliberate evil in a vote exists if one deliberately chose to vote to support something the Church condemned as evil, we still need to consider the consequences of voting for something that will have an evil consequence, even if unintended. This isn’t a “moral calculus” where we decide X amount of evil is tolerable, while X+1 is not. Instead we have to consider whether the person who enabled the evil had a reason that took away culpability.

If the person knows that voting for a candidate who publicly states his support for something the Church labels evil would enable this bad result (and not being aware indicates a defect in knowledge of Church teaching or the politician’s position), the greater the evil enabled means the greater the reason is needed proportionate to the harm done (there’s where we get the term proportionate reason) is needed to justify the participation in the act.

I’ve pointed out elsewhere that the Catholic Church has (in Gaudium et Spes #27) listed abortion next to murder and genocide in talking about evils. So, we cannot simply treat abortion as one issue among many any more than we can treat murder or genocide as one issue among many. 

This is where the Catholic risks stepping into a trap. It is easy for any concerned Catholic—who has sympathies for one party at odds with the Church in some way—to confuse the reasons they dislike the other party for proportionate reasons. Since the Church does speak so strongly against abortion, unless they can offer a proportionate reason for voting for a pro-abortion candidate that they would accept if used by a Catholic trying to justify voting for murder, genocide, or torture, I honestly don’t think they can defend their vote. This is why I think the insight from Archbishop Chaput is so important: 

We sin if we support “pro-choice” candidates without a truly proportionate reason for doing so—that is, a reason grave enough to outweigh our obligation to end the killing of the unborn. And what would such a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions—as we someday will.

Chaput, Charles J. Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (p. 230). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

So, the Catholic who says “I am justified in supporting a pro-abortion candidate because of the evils in the other candidate,” must be able to face God and the victims of the policy that this evil invoked at the final judgment and say, “Yes this was more urgent.”

I would like to conclude by bringing up another issue frequently forgotten when people debate proportionate reasons. That is, the same moral obligations that bind the Catholic considering voting for a pro-abortion candidate also apply for the Catholic considering a vote for his opponent. If that Catholic votes for the other candidate because of his support of the evil position, that voter is also culpable for that evilly intended vote. And, yes, the requirement for a proportionate reason applies to his vote for the opponent with a morally wrong platform too.

None of us are exempted from the obligation of looking to the Church to understand our moral obligations in being a Christian and following them to the best of our understanding and ability to form our consciences. None of this can be set aside because “the stakes are too high” in this election. While we must not be scrupulous in seeking to do right, we must not be lax either. So, when a candidate proudly states they will support something we know is evil, we do have an obligation to oppose it in a moral way.

And, if we should ever become convinced that we have failed to do this, let us remember that we have a Sacrament that reconciles us with God and His Church. Let us avail ourselves of that Sacrament, making a firm purpose of amendment to strive to live according to God’s commandments.

Evading the Abortion Issue

The Church is very straightforward in her teachings. Yes, determining the level of culpability in an individual’s sins might be complex in discerning knowledge and freedom in the decision, But that never makes a morally bad act good, and we must oppose evil, even when we might otherwise benefit from a group that promotes it or fear consequences if that group does not gain power. The fact is, we must not choose to do evil so good may come of it, and we must make certain that any remote cooperation [i.e., not intended] with the evil is done for a reason proportionate to the evil.

Tragically, some Catholics have announced their intention to vote for pro-abortion candidates‡, arguing that the evil of the other side meets the “proportionate reason” requirement. That they reason this way is deeply troubling. In Gaudium et Spes #27, for example, the Church lists abortion next to murder, genocide, euthanasia, torture, and slavery in terms of abominable actions¥. Those Catholics who intend to vote for pro-abortion candidates announce themselves against these other evils as non-negotiable… and rightly so. But, while they would never dream of compromising and voting for a candidate who supported those evils, they are willing to vote for a candidate who supports abortion, claiming that such a candidate is “more pro-life” while condemning Catholics who won’t vote like them.

The problem is this. While the Church does indeed teach that the Right to Life is more than just opposing abortion, one cannot be pro-life without that crucial piece. So, when the Catholic who announces his or her intention to vote for a pro-abortion candidate while denouncing his fellow Catholic for neglecting other issues of Catholic Moral Teaching in the name of abortion§,  he or she needs to keep in mind Matthew 7:2. “For as you judge, so will you be judged, and the measure with which you measure will be measured out to you.” 

This verse is important because calling out another on a moral wrong means you know that action is wrong. So, calling down judgment on Catholics for downplaying Teaching X in the name of opposing abortion, while downplaying of abortion in the name of Teaching X is also worthy of judgment†.

Don’t get into an argument over theological calculus here where you try to calculate what level of other evils is supposed to outweigh abortion (both sides do this, and calculate it in their favor). When the Church says “X is wrong,” don’t try to justify your support of the candidate who champions X by pointing to the other side’s failings. Each one of us will answer for the evils we ignore or try to explain away when the Church has called them “evil” by name.

__________

(‡) This has gotten so out of hand, that I have seen some Catholics attack Cardinal Paglia claiming he is out of touch with the Church for saying that Catholic politicians absolutely cannot support or defend abortion.

(¥) Yes, the Church lists more issues in that paragraph, and yes, I have cited them in previous articles. But it goes to show that those who invoke those issues cannot claim ignorance on how seriously the Church views abortion.

(§) A popular attack they use is “anti-abortion but not pro-life.”

(†) Again, before you plan to send an angry “what about…?” response, keep in mind, I have also written blogs warning against those opposing abortion being complacent or justifying their downplaying other issues.

Logical Fallacies Catholics Need to Watch Out for in Political Discussions

I’ve been discussing the Catholic attitudes in politics lately. It’s not something I particularly want to do, but it seems to be a necessity in election years. The danger I am writing about involves Catholics on both sides of our dualistic political divide pointing out the sins of others, while either ignoring or being blind to the sins they risk falling into. Because these partisan Catholics inevitably attack the Church when it speaks out against policies supporting “their” faction, I see writing about them as part of my mission to defend the teaching and authority of the Church.

One of the major problems I see in these partisan disputes is that both sides fall into the same fallacies and use the same arguments, condemning the other side for reaching a different conclusion through them. That dispute does not help the Catholic Church spread the faith throughout the world. In fact, not only does it not respect the universal§ nature of the term Catholic, it actually leads those looking at us from outside as viewing the Catholic faith as one more partisan sect (cf. Romans 2:24).

So, as we get closer to Election day (64 days as I write this), I thought I should write on some logical fallacies that Catholics use in debating over Biden vs. Trump†, as the factions claim one is a saint and the other a demon.

The first one I would like to discuss is the Fallacy of Relative Privation. This one assumes that X is worse than Y. Therefore, those concerned about Y are focused on something unimportant. So, when we face the abortion issue, half of the American Catholics argue that because of the evil of abortion, the rest of the issues are not important in comparison because “the stakes are too high.” The other half argue that because of the evil caused in the other issues, they have to vote for the pro-abortion candidate and try to end abortion through “other means” because “the stakes are too high.” 

Both these attitudes are mirror images of each other. The practical effect of this fallacy is that whatever issue the preferred party is wrong on is essentially treated as unimportant, even if the Catholic voter would deny they didn’t care if you asked them point-blank. 

The second fallacy I would like to address is the Either-Or fallacy. This fallacy assumes there are only two choices. Either Conservative or Liberal; either Democrat or Republican. If a Catholic voter should dare say that his conscience doesn’t permit him to support either, then may God have mercy on his soul because these partisan Catholics will not. Both sides will argue that the other side is aligned with the powers of darkness, and a refusal to vote for their side is an endorsement of the powers of darkness… even though the Catholic bishops have explicitly rejected that accusation.

What every American Catholic voter needs to keep in mind is that both parties are at odds with Catholic teaching in a serious way. When trying to do good and oppose evil, we cannot use our persona preferences as our guide. We must look to the Church for guidance, and then vote according to what our conscience demands.

Unfortunately, that leads us to a third fallacy we need to beware—the fallacy of equivocation. Some words have more than one meaning (equivocal words). If we use a word differently than intended, we will fall into error over the intended meaning. When the Church refers to conscience, she does not mean an infallible voice that makes what we want to do right. Conscience says “I must do X; I must not do Y.” It doesn’t say “Meh, I don’t feel anything about this.” Also, conscience must be formed through the teaching of the Church and those entrusted to lead it. If we—upon hearing the teaching of the Pope or bishop—immediately accuse him of being left- or right-wing, we are not letting our consciences be formed by the Church, and we have no excuse for it.

The thing is, if the Church speaks out on an act as evil, we cannot support it, and we cannot enthusiastically support the party that accepts it or calls it good. We have a serious obligation to ask, “what am I going to do about that evil, now and in the future?” We should be lamenting the difficult choices we have in voting as a Christian. If we don’t, if we just assume our party is automatically right, we’re just as guilty as the other guy we’re pointing our finger at.

None of this should be interpreted as moral relativism. Are some evils worse than others? Yes. But arguing that X is worse than Y doesn’t solve the evils of Y, does it? The truth is, we can’t use some bizarre moral calculus that sets out to justify how we were going to vote anyway. The moment we write off a moral teaching as something we need to “sacrifice” because “the stakes are too high,” we are making ourselves complicit in the sins of omission.

This leads to a fourth logical fallacy, the tu quoque. This fallacy responds to an accusation by pointing out a flaw in the opponent, real or not. So, if Catholic A points out a moral failing in a political party, pointing out the flaws in the party he favors is not a refutation. So, the Catholic intending to vote for a party favoring abortion often points to the sins of a party that opposes abortion, and vice versa. But the sins of another doesn’t change the fact that our own party also supports evil… whether intrinsic, in intention, or in consequence. 

Catholics need to stop using fallacies in their thinking and arguments, because they lead us into becoming obstinate in what we were going to do anyway. It’s not enough to see the evils of the other side. We need to be aware of and oppose the evils on our own side too. Otherwise, the outsider will look at us and see just another group of partisan hypocrites, and not the Church established by Christ, while we will look at others as either enemies deserving our contempt because of their evils or allies whom we turn a blind eye to their wrongs.

 

 

___________

(§) From the Greek καθολικός (Katholikos—universal).

(†) As always, when it comes to comparing and contrasting opposed factions, I try to alphabetize them to avoid appearances of bias.

Thoughts on the Misuse of the Ratzinger Referendum in 2020

Everybody has talking points they use to promote their position and refute their opponent’s. Sometimes these talking points have merit to them. At other times, they are merely rattled off like an incantation intended to ward off an opponent’s challenge, but with no real understanding of what it actually means. 

Unfortunately, in 2020, we are seeing a very nuanced document—commonly known as the Ratzinger Memorandum—turned into an incantation by both sides, each conveniently reading it in a way to attack the other side, with no attempt to apply it to their own. This memorandum (which can be read HERE) was written in response to a question by the disgraced and defrocked McCarrick on whether one would be unworthy to receive Communion if they held a position in opposition to Church teaching. Only two points ever get cited by partisan Catholics. Section #3 and the bracketed Nota Bene. For convenience, they are reproduced here:

3. Not all moral issues have the same moral weight as abortion and euthanasia. For example, if a Catholic were to be at odds with the Holy Father on the application of capital punishment or on the decision to wage war, he would not for that reason be considered unworthy to present himself to receive Holy Communion. While the Church exhorts civil authorities to seek peace, not war, and to exercise discretion and mercy in imposing punishment on criminals, it may still be permissible to take up arms to repel an aggressor or to have recourse to capital punishment. There may be a legitimate diversity of opinion even among Catholics about waging war and applying the death penalty, but not however with regard to abortion and euthanasia.

* * *

[N.B. A Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in evil, and so unworthy to present himself for Holy Communion, if he were to deliberately vote for a candidate precisely because of the candidate’s permissive stand on abortion and/or euthanasia. When a Catholic does not share a candidate’s stand in favour of abortion and/or euthanasia, but votes for that candidate for other reasons, it is considered remote material cooperation, which can be permitted in the presence of proportionate reasons.]

Those who intend to vote for a pro-abortion candidate cite the nota bene and argue (dubiously at best) that the candidate’s other positions or the positions of the other candidate, become a “proportionate reason.” Those who support another candidate who is not pro-abortion candidate but is also morally bad in other areas emphasize Section #3 and say there is nothing wrong with voting for a candidate who supports those things. Both are misinterpreting the matter.

When it comes to the issue of abortion, we need to remember that the Catholic Church equates it with other barbarities. In Gaudium et Spes #14, we read:

Furthermore, whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where men are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are supreme dishonor to the Creator.

So, the candidate who supports abortion cannot be simply excused for it in the name of the other positions he might support any more than a candidate who supports genocide can be excused. This isn’t a rhetorical appeal. The Catholic Church calls these things infamies. So, when you have a Democrat who supports some of the infamies listed and a Republican who supports others on the list of infamies, you cannot say that voting for them is morally good. Nor can you claim that the issues your candidate is wrong on (if it’s on the list) is unimportant.

With this in mind, the Catholic who says they are enthusiastic supporters of the candidate who announces his intent to promote and/or defend these infamies have—at best—grossly misunderstood Church teaching. Since both major party candidates in 2020 are at odds with some items on this list, the only appropriate attitude for a Catholic who believes he or she must vote for one of them must be an attitude of sorrow and reluctance… a sense that both are terrible, but one will do less damage to the moral good than the other. Such an attitude cannot say that “Well, issue X is more important, so we’ll fight Issue Y ‘later.’”

No. It seems to me that Catholics belonging to a major party must vote in the primaries against a candidate who supports one or more of the infamies. If said candidate makes it to the national election, we had better (to build on something said by Archbishop Chaput§) make sure our reasons are going to be justifiable before God and the victims of our vote at the final judgment. If we act as if the issue our party is wrong on is “less important,” then let’s stop the pretense that we will fight for the other issue “later.” We should be fighting now to reform whatever party we identify with so they might be less inclined to nominate a similar candidate next time. That fight doesn’t end on Wednesday, November 4th 2020.

If we truly think that the candidate we vote for is the lesser of two evils† and he gets elected, the Catholics who voted for him had better take a “You broke it, you bought it” attitude when it comes to the evils they identified as “lesser.” The Catholics who voted for his opponent had better work to eliminate those evils within their own party. Unfortunately, this never seems to happen.

I would like to address another error Catholics commit in citing the Ratzinger Memorandum against the US Bishops on the Death Penalty. It is true that Benedict XVI (then-Cardinal Ratzinger) did point out that support of the death penalty was morally tolerable. But we need to remember that this was written in 2004. It is superseded by what Pope Francis wrote in 2018, amending the Catechism on the Death Penalty. Benedict XVI was not in error in 2004, because the teaching was not yet refined. But those Catholics who think they can treat the 2018 teaching as if the 2004 memorandum outranked it have fallen into a dangerous error. There is no more permissible “legitimate diversity” of opinion here.

But, before those Catholics who already opposed the death penalty get too smug, let them remember this: If they recognize that Catholics who treat the death penalty as a “lesser issue” are wrong, then they are utterly without excuse if they treat abortion the same way. It is true we can easily defend Pope Francis’ change on the grounds that self defense requires the minimum force required and in modern times, the death penalty is no longer the minimum force required. However, the supporter of a pro-abortion candidate can’t escape the fact that abortion can never be justified. As long as Christianity existed, abortion was condemned as murder… which is an infamy. So if Catholics who support a candidate who is in favor of the death penalty are wrong, where does it leave the Catholics who support a pro-abortion candidate?‡

___________________

(§) What he said was: ‘And what would such a “proportionate” reason look like? It would be a reason we could, with an honest heart, expect the unborn victims of abortion to accept when we meet them and need to explain our actions—as we someday will.’ (Chaput, Charles J. Render Unto Caesar: Serving the Nation by Living our Catholic Beliefs in Political Life (p. 230). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

I believe we can logically extrapolate from this and apply it to all issues that the Catholic Church describes as Infamies.

(†) One of the propaganda pieces used by some Catholics is “voting for the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil.” The irony is, it tends to be used by Catholics who enthusiastically intend to vote for a different candidate (hopefully in spite of) who still supports an infamy against a Catholic who reluctantly plans to vote for the other. It overlooks the possibility of a Catholic voter seeking to reduce damage as much as possible (much like accepting the consequences of a side swipe to avoid a head-on collision). 

(‡) Please don’t argue that you are “eliminating the need for abortion.” That doesn’t work for the other infamies listed in Gaudium et Spes, and it doesn’t work here either.

What Happens When Catholic Voters Are Dishonest?

CAN. 751† Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.

CAN. 752† Although not an assent of faith, a religious submission of the intellect and will must be given to a doctrine which the Supreme Pontiff or the college of bishops declares concerning faith or morals when they exercise the authentic magisterium, even if they do not intend to proclaim it by definitive act; therefore, the Christian faithful are to take care to avoid those things which do not agree with it.

CAN. 753† Although the bishops who are in communion with the head and members of the college, whether individually or joined together in conferences of bishops or in particular councils, do not possess infallibility in teaching, they are authentic teachers and instructors of the faith for the Christian faithful entrusted to their care; the Christian faithful are bound to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops.

CAN. 754† All the Christian faithful are obliged to observe the constitutions and decrees which the legitimate authority of the Church issues in order to propose doctrine and to proscribe erroneous opinions, particularly those which the Roman Pontiff or the college of bishops puts forth.

Over the past two weeks, the USCCB have issued statements on different moral teachings… abortion, the death penalty, the treatment of migrants, religious freedom and the like. Right on the heels of the Democratic and Republic Conventions, these statements seem aimed at reminding American Catholics about what the Church requires of them.

And, right on schedule, American Catholics come out of the woodwork to denounce those statements, claiming they are ignoring (often they accuse of the Bishops of deliberately ignoring) other issues that these critics think is more important. When the bishops condemn abortion, those Catholics planning to vote for a pro-abortion candidate accuse them of ignoring the other teachings. When they condemn the death penalty, those Catholics who plan to vote for a candidate who supports it accuse the bishops of ignoring abortion… which they just spoke about the day previously.

When this happens, it is hard to avoid wondering if a portion of these Catholic voters are either culpably ignorant or outright dishonest§. By saying this, I don’t mean dishonest in the sense of “not believing in God.” Rather I mean dishonest in the sense of not honestly seeking to examine one’s conscience and see if their behavior is against what Catholics are called to be.

I have seen some Catholics proclaim to be faithful while refusing to give assent to the Pope (that’s dissent at best, if not de facto schism). I’ve seen others proclaim to be “Pope Francis Catholics†” while being openly contemptuous of the bishops who repeat his teachings. More often than not, you can tell which of them plan to vote Democrat and which plan to vote Republican while claiming to be the only Catholics to follow the Church correctly. Catholics of these factional views try to claim their political views are doctrine, while doctrine their party is afoul of is “opinion” or “prudential judgement.‡”

We need to remember that Jesus Christ has established the Catholic Church under the visible head of St. Peter and his successors—up to and including the current Pope—and the bishops in communion with him. If an individual bishop or a group of bishops act against that communion, they do not act with any authority. But when a bishop teaches, we are bound to give “to adhere with religious submission of mind to the authentic magisterium of their bishops” (Canon 753).

This is where we run into the dishonesty test. If a Catholic who, upon being instructed by the Pope or his bishop on a certain matter, immediately searches for reasons not to obey… such a Catholic is not being honest. He is guilty of what Our Lord condemned in the attitude of the Pharisees, looking for legalistic excuses not to follow God’s teachings and there are consequences for that attitude (cf. Matthew 18:17, Luke 10:16).

Whether the Pope or bishop speaks out on an intrinsic evil like abortion, or a morally neutral act carried out with evil intention or consequence, we don’t get to decide whether to obey or not. Either we obey or we are not faithful Catholics… no matter how hard we politically fight those we see as enemies of the Church.

It should be noted that such prohibitions are not limited to matters of dogma. The Church can also bind in matters of discipline and governance. For example, there was never anything evil about eating meat. But the Church decreed for centuries that we must not eat meat on Fridays as an act of penance. Those Catholics who did eat meat on Fridays were not guilty of sin simply because they ate meat, but because they refused to accept the penitential discipline laid down. These acts of governance can be changed as needed. But we don’t get to pass judgment on those acts of governance and decide whether or not we will follow them.

This is where every Catholic needs to look at their behavior. If the response to the authoritative act of Pope or bishops is to look for ways to evade that obligation, we are being dishonest. If we point out the sins of others who we politically oppose while doing the same thing, we are being dishonest.

And if we are dishonest, we are not giving the obligatory assent. Once we start down that road, we will end up facing judgment for it. If we are unrepentant in our disobedience, we do risk hell. That is the end result of being dishonest with ourselves. And if (God forbid!) we face that judgment for not keeping God’s commands, the things we did do will be of no avail. As Our Lord, Jesus Christ said:

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’” (Matthew 7:21–23).

…and we will have no honest excuse if we do not give the obedience God commands us to give to His Church.

___________

(§) This is of course something for God to judge and the individual Catholic’s confessor to assess. I will not “name names” or accuse individuals of being guilty. All I hope to do is get people to think about it.

(†) I hate this term. Not because of any hostility to the Pope, but because virtually all of the Catholics I have encountered who use it hijack it to cover their political views which are actually in opposition to what the Pope has said.

(‡) I’ve discussed that HERE.

Lazarus is at Your (Political) Door

Read more »

It’s Iimi! A Semi-Socratic Dialogue on Authority and Missionary Dating

Read more »