Proxy Wars: Replacing Moral Belief with Ideology

Whenever America is involved in a moral debate, whether a national tragedy or change in leadership, her people get into a dispute about what we must do. The goal we should strive for is to consider what we want to change and what needs to be done to achieve it. But instead of doing this, our tendency is to pick the “sacred cow” of of our preferred ideology and substitute it for this investigation. Then, if anyone should disagree with our solution, we accuse them of “not caring” and being willing to let the evil continue.

But this is unjust. The person who rejects an ideological solution might simply disagree with the means put forward and think another solution is superior. In that case, the infighting is counterproductive. It leads to nothing being done on the grounds that each thinks that the other solution has no value.

The other side of the coin is when a proposed solution is just, but threatens something else we support, the temptation is to downplay the value of that solution, claiming that it will not help us and might cause extra harm. 

These two things combined make finding the truth difficult. A legitimate solution can be attacked by those who don’t want to follow it, while supporters of an illegitimate solution can savage those with reasonable objections.

If we want to find a real solution, we have to be willing to set aside our ideological preferences and search for the truth about a situation. Once we find the truth, we can see what needs to be done in response. But if we start with our own preconceived notions on what must be done, more often than not our “one size fits all” solution won’t fit at all.

As Catholics must be the light of the world, the salt of the earth, the city of the world (Matthew 5:13-16), we have no excuse for adding to this confusion. We believe that God forbade bearing false witness. This means we cannot demonize those who have a different idea on how to best carry out Church teaching [†]. Because we believe we have a Church established by Our Lord, given His authority, and protected from teaching error, we must listen to what the Church teaches and base our political views on that teaching.

Tragically, we tend to label those teachings we dislike as “prudential judgment” as if a prohibition against doing X was a mere opinion and we were free to do X. This negates our witness that we have the truth for the whole world. If we denounce others for rejecting Church teaching that we happen to agree with while ignoring Church teaching we are at odds with, we are hypocrites. While the world may not be very good at picking up truth, it’s uncomfortably good in spotting when we don’t practice what we preach.

So, when there is a tragedy, when there is an election, when there is some sort of national crisis, Catholics need to stop confusing their ideological preferences with seeking out and doing what is right. We can’t replace that with scapegoating and assuming that whoever does not support our ideological ideas must be acting out of bad will. We need to be willing to sacrifice our political preferences in favor of doing what is right if our political preferences are wrong.

Unfortunately, it is easy to fall into the temptation of immediately thinking of the “other side” being guilty while never thinking that we might be guilty of the same fault. I’m not talking about moral relativism here. If something is objectively wrong, we have to reject that wrong even if it means incrementally taking it down when outright overturning is impossible. No, I’m talking about our tendency to sneer at the wrongdoing of others but ignoring our own failures and refusing to amend them. When we do this, we are no longer defending what is morally right. Instead, we are fighting a proxy war over ideology while pretending to be morally virtuous. And then we wonder why Christian belief is rejected.

So let’s stop using the moral teaching of the Church as a camouflage for our political battles. Let’s make sure our faith shapes our ideology and not the reverse. 

____________________

[†] Of course we must make sure that our “different idea” is not an attempt to evade Church teaching. God is not deceived.

Isn’t it Time to Go Beyond the Usual Arguments?

5. Christ’s redemptive work, while essentially concerned with the salvation of men, includes also the renewal of the whole temporal order. Hence the mission of the Church is not only to bring the message and grace of Christ to men but also to penetrate and perfect the temporal order with the spirit of the Gospel. In fulfilling this mission of the Church, the Christian laity exercise their apostolate both in the Church and in the world, in both the spiritual and the temporal orders. These orders, although distinct, are so connected in the singular plan of God that He Himself intends to raise up the whole world again in Christ and to make it a new creation, initially on earth and completely on the last day. In both orders the layman, being simultaneously a believer and a citizen, should be continuously led by the same Christian conscience.

(Apostolicam actuositatem)

With yet another mass shooting and the inevitable arguments over whether laws should be passed, I think there’s one thing that never gets discussed: whether the 2nd Amendment itself needs to be amended. By this I mean it seems like proponents of gun control want to pass laws as if it did not exist and opponents of gun control want to use it to block any meaningful restrictions.

I think proponents of gun control need to offer ideas on how it should be reasonably be amended. I think opponents of gun control need to propose solutions on how to prevent mass shootings. But instead, people on both sides offer their same arguments that bring up the same counter-arguments and nothing gets done.

From a Catholic perspective, I think we need to move beyond partisan divisions and start *talking* to each other if we are to find a just solution that serves the public good. I would urge all sides to look at the situation without partisan lenses so we can find that just solution. But if we just point fingers and refuse to question ourselves, will that ever happen? Or will we just continue the circle of Shootings—Outrage—Forgetting?

As a Catholic, I think we need to break that circle and try to find just solutions, even at the cost of our political views.

The Danger in Being Unable to See We Might Be the Ones in Error

Putting the common “Church is in error” claim into a syllogism [†], it would look something like this:

1. [My interpretation] is [True] (A = B) [§]

2. [Church Teaching X] does not hold [My Interpretation] (C is not A)

3. Therefore, [Church Teaching X] is not [True] (Therefore C is not B)

The syllogism is logically valid [*]. But that does not make the argument true. We must also investigate whether the premises are true. In this case, the problem is in the first premise (antecedent). The history of heresy shows that no matter how sincere a person is in their belief being true, that does not make the belief true. The antecedent is a begging the question fallacy. The person accusing the Church of error has to prove that his interpretation is true. 

The problem is, the Church has a magisterium which has the authority and responsibility on how to interpret and apply Church teaching (doctrine or discipline) [∞]. Whatever goes against the magisterium is error. If obstinately held, that error is heresy. If one refuses to assent to the magisterium, that error becomes schism (See canon 751). So, the antecedent being true requires (A = C). But the consequent (second premise) denies that. Therefore the conclusion is false.

What we have to remember is, when a member of the Church—even if he be a priest, bishop, or cardinal—teaches in opposition to the Pope, his words lack authority. Canon 752 reminds us that even if the Pope does not teach in an ex cathedra manner, if he teaches, we must give “a religious submission of the intellect and will.”

Some may bring up the cases of Popes Liberius, Honorius I, and John XXII to argue that Popes can teach error. But the problem is these cases did not involve Popes teaching, but Popes privately held opinions [•]. But the teachings of Amoris Lætitia are not opinions. They are teachings, taught with the same level of authority as St. John Paul II’s Familiaris Consortio (both are Apostolic Exhortations). They are disciplinary teachings—which means a later Pope can legitimately change Pope Francis’ disciplines if he sees it as necessary without that “proving” that Pope Francis was in error [º].

So, the fact that the person opposing the Pope is a priest blogger, concerned bishop, or dubia cardinal, that rank does not give his opposition authority. It’s not for me to judge the state of their souls or their intentions. So I won’t accuse them of malice, heresy, or schism. Rather their words must be judged by whether they match up with the authoritative teaching of the Pope (See canon 750). If they don’t match, it is the critics’ words that must be found wanting—not the Pope’s words.

But if we insist on our own interpretation over the magisterium, then we’re no better than previous members of the Church who rejected authority. Church opposed the error of Hippolytus, Arius, Martin Luther, Ulrich Zwingli, Matthew Fox, or Hans Küng—all of whom believed themselves to be right in rejecting a Church teaching.

All of us should strive to be faithful to the magisterium under the current Pope and bishops… lest, in the future, the Church should talk about our errors.

_____________

[†] Ethically, we’re required to put an opponent’s argument into a valid logical form if possible—we can’t create an illogical straw man to make it look bad.

[§] This premise is usually assumed, but not stated. The technical term is enthymeme. 

[*] In classical logic, this is an AOO syllogism. But if the person was not making a universal claim, the argument would be IOO, and logically invalid.

[∞] This is not an ipse dixit fallacy here. The Pope and bishops in communion with him IS the valid authority and not an opinion.

[•] Scholars disagree over whether Liberius and Honorius I actually held error privately. In the case of John XXII, the issue was not yet defined. So while Church teaching later declared his opinion to be error, he did not reject established Church teaching.

[º] I fully expect that clarifications will come either during this pontificate or from his successor.

Catholics and Partisan Excuses

There is a dangerous attitude today which is willing to assume that a person belonging to an ideology we oppose can do no right, while one we approve of can do no wrong—even if both people happen to do the same act. Take for example, the case of the news story about Trump paying off a porn star. The Washington Post wrote an article about Evangelical leaders giving him a pass when they were outraged with Clinton. Now the point is valid. But what the article doesn’t mention, however, is that those criticizing Trump were the ones wanting to give Clinton a free pass.

I don’t bring this up to say “we should ignore both” or say “there is wrongdoing on both sides” in a sense that negates wrongdoing. Nor am I trying to make a tu quoque argument. Rather, I think we need to practice consistency. If an action is morally wrong and needs to be publicly denounced, then we need to speak out consistently, and not give the person we agree with a “free pass.”

By the same token, when a public person does something right, we should not praise only when it when done by someone we approve of while committing the “moving the goalposts” fallacy when it comes to someone we dislike. If we complain that politician X doesn’t do “enough” on a subject, and we constantly redefine what “enough” is so that the disliked person never quite reaches it, we’re not making a stand for the Church teaching. We’re making our moral stand seem like a partisan bias.

If a politician is wrong on an issue in light of the Catholic teaching we hold, we cannot downplay that issue. I’ve seen Trump supporters downplay Church teaching on social justice. I’ve seen Trump opponents downplay Church teaching on the right to life. In such cases (and it is not just something that happens with Trump), whatever Catholic Moral Teaching does not square with the supported politician is denigrated as a “lesser issue.” The politician is given a free pass on that issue so long as he does other things the partisan Catholic already agrees with.

We can’t bear proper witness to what we believe if we show the world that our morals flex when it suits us, and only hold firm when we want to denounce someone. The non-Catholic will then see social justice as proof of “liberal bias” and the moral issues as proof of “conservative bias.” They won’t see our stands as testifying on how all of us are called to live. They’ll see it as just one more political squabble.

Nor can we take this and point to the “other” side while refusing to examine our own behavior. This is an example of Our Lord’s warning about the splinter in a brother’s eye and a log in our own. If we loudly denounce others while doing the same thing, we make Our Lord’s Church look like nothing more than partisan hypocrisy. Such behavior would be a scandal, turning away people who need to hear the teaching of the Church.

Mistaken Papal Critics and History We Forget

Preliminary Note

I have no intention of passing judgment on successors of the apostles like the "dubia cardinals" led by Cardinal Burke, or the Kazakh bishops. Just as anti-Francis Catholics have misrepresented the Holy Father to support their narrative of a "heretical" Pope, I find that these cardinals and bishops were also misrepresented, with anti-Francis critics making it sound as if these cardinals and bishops "supported" their schismatic behavior.

This article does not claim to say that these churchmen are guilty of the same wrongs Sts. Cyprian and Hippolytus committed. I merely write this article to show that misinterpretation and attacks on Popes were not limited to the pontificate of Pope Francis. Rather, I wish to point out these two cases where the Popes were misrepresented and attacked as a reminder that even men known for their holiness can go wrong if they put themselves in opposition to Popes using their teaching office.

Introduction

One of the popular narratives in opposing Pope Francis is to point out some of his predecessors—such as Liberius, Honorius I, and John XXII who were suspected of privately holding error. The anti-Francis Catholics point out that these Popes are proof that a Pope can err. From that, we have a string of tortured logic arguing that because those Popes privately erred [a claim disputed among Church historians], Pope Francis can publicly err in his words and actions that sound unfamiliar to our own understanding of Church teaching.

These critics overlook a different part of Church teaching—where Popes have taught and certain bishops of the Church mistakenly thought the Popes were teaching error and publicly took a stand in denouncing them.  I would like to briefly discuss the case of two papal critics from the Third Century AD.

Pope St. Stephen I vs. St. Cyprian

One example of this took place in the Third Century AD. St. Cyprian held that the baptism of heretics was invalid, and if any of these heretics should convert to the Catholic Church, they needed to be rebaptized. 

However, St. Stephen I taught differently. He held that if the heretic was baptized in the proper formula, the baptism was valid. If this heretic turned/returned to the Catholic faith, he did not need to be rebaptized, but merely perform penance. Instead of realizing he had misunderstood the nature of baptism and changing his views, St. Cyprian accused St. Stephen I of promoting heresy in a series of letters to his fellow African bishops. For example, in his Epistle LXXIII, to Pompey:

2. He [Pope Stephen I] forbade one coming from any heresy to be baptized in the Church; that is, he judged the baptism of all heretics to be just and lawful. And although special heresies have special baptisms and different sins, he, holding communion with the baptism of all, gathered up the sins of all, heaped together into his own bosom. And he charged that nothing should be innovated except what had been handed down; as if he were an innovator, who, holding the unity, claims for the one Church one baptism; and not manifestly he who, forgetful of unity, adopts the lies and the contagions of a profane washing.

Cyprian of Carthage, “The Epistles of Cyprian,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. Robert Ernest Wallis, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 386.

But the fact is, the Catholic Church followed the teaching of St. Stephen, not St. Cyprian. If a person who was validly baptized by a non-Catholic intending to do what the Church intends, we hold that baptism to be valid. Even an atheist can validly baptize. The Catholic Church holds it is wrong to rebaptize. If a person was never validly baptized, we baptize. If there is a question about whether a person was validly baptized, we give conditional baptism. 

St. Cyprian’s error was in assuming that his position was correct and that the Pope must be wrong. From that assumption, he drew the false conclusion that the Pope was doing damage to the Church from his “error,” and had to be opposed. But since St. Cyprian was in the wrong about baptism, his condemnation of the Pope was simply wrong.

Pope St. Callistus [†] vs. St. Hippolytus 

Another example of a bishop wrongly accusing a Pope involved Pope Callistus. In a time when the Roman Empire held that slaves could not marry free citizens, the Pope decreed that such a marriage was valid. 

St. Hippolytus thought the Pope was in error. In a denunciation, he declared that the Pope’s action would lead to divorce, use of contraception, and attempted abortion on the part of a free woman who married a slave, writing [§]:

For even also he [Callistus] permitted females, if they were unwedded, and burned with passion at an age at all events unbecoming, or if they were not disposed to overturn their own dignity through a legal marriage, that they might have whomsoever they would choose as a bedfellow, whether a slave or free, and that a woman, though not legally married, might consider such a companion as a husband. Whence women, reputed believers, began to resort to drugs for producing sterility, and to gird themselves round, so to expel what was being conceived on account of their not wishing to have a child either by a slave or by any paltry fellow, for the sake of their family and excessive wealth.9 Behold, into how great impiety that lawless one has proceeded, by inculcating adultery and murder at the same time! And withal, after such audacious acts, they, lost to all shame, attempt to call themselves a Catholic Church!

Hippolytus of Rome, “The Refutation of All Heresies,” in Fathers of the Third Century: Hippolytus, Cyprian, Novatian, Appendix, ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, trans. J. H. MacMahon, vol. 5, The Ante-Nicene Fathers (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Company, 1886), 131.

I find this remarkably similar to the statements of some Catholics who claim that what the Pope said in Amoris Lætitia would mean people in a state of mortal sin seeking to receive the Eucharist—assuming that the abuse was directly caused by the Pope’s action as opposed to being an abuse of his teaching. 

Yes, a third century Catholic could think about becoming pregnant by a slave husband in that way, but that would be doing evil that was not in accord with the Pope’s teaching. This was a post hoc fallacy by St. Hippolytus which is similar to the one committed by Pope Francis’ critics.

Conclusion

These cases are examples of members of the Church who confused their interpretation of what should follow from Church teaching with Church teaching itself. Because of this, they falsely accused Popes of promoting error, attributing worst case scenarios as directly caused by the Pope who declared the teaching. These cases also involved the accusers assuming the worst of the Popes, leading them to think they must support the worst abuses.

I believe that these are the proper historical counterparts to the opposition to Pope Francis, not the examples of “bad Popes” people try to cite. People who have assumed that all people who are divorced and remarried must be in a state of mortal sin cannot reconcile that assumption with the Pope correctly pointing out that assessing culpability must be done with remarriage as well as with every other grave sin.

Like the third century critics of Popes, the 21st century critics of this Pope have confused their view with Church teaching itself. The Pope has made a reasonable teaching, but some people, failing to understand it, assume their fears of negative consequences through abuse is the intended teaching.

______________________

[†] Also known as Callixtus.

[§] This is commonly cited [correctly] as proof that the Church consistently condemned contraception and abortion.  But I find it interesting that Hippolytus slandered Callistus in doing so just as some critics today slander Pope Francis. These critics are correct that the teaching they defend is true. But they err in thinking the Pope’s teaching contradicts it.

Theologians, Bloggers, and Authority

It is the teaching of the magisterium that binds and looses, as well as interprets how to apply the teachings of the past to the present age. When the Pope and bishops in communion with him do this, we have the obligation to give assent to these teachings. There is no appeal to the decision of a Pope (canon 1404), though a later Pope can decide on a different approach from his predecessor. The magisterium does not invent new revelation, but can develop doctrine from the timeless teachings meeting current needs and challenges.

For those Catholics who are not members of the magisterium (most of us), we do not have the authority to bind and loose. Nor do we have the authority to declare what is the proper teaching and judge people who disagree with us to be enemies of the faith. The value of what we write only goes as far as we accurately portray the teaching of the Church. We might think that position Z logically follows from teaching X and Y, and perhaps our insights may help the Church to deepen our understanding of the faith, but we cannot claim that Z is Church teaching if the Church does not teach Z. Nor can we accuse the Church of error if she rejects our reasoning.

This is important because there is a growing number of theologians and bloggers out there who presume to pass judgment on the current magisterium based on their own interpretations of what should follow from past Church teaching. If they hold one thing, but the magisterium does not act in accordance with that interpretation, these theologians and bloggers have no right to declare them in “error.”

This is the reality we must adjust to. The “progressive” Catholic who wants to change Church teaching or the “traditionalist” Catholic who wants to resist change cannot declare the Church to be in error if the Church should reject their interpretation.

This means we have an ongoing obligation to study what the Church teaching is, and how it is applied. If we find our view is at odds with that of the teaching authority of the Pope, that’s a good sign that our view is the one in error. We have an ongoing obligation to understand in context what the teaching we have problems with really means.

The 2000 years of teaching from the Church cannot be cherry picked to reach a conclusion that we think is more in line with what we think the Church should be. Individual saints from the Church Fathers occasionally offered ideas which the Church eventually rejected. We cannot appeal to those ideas. Occasionally, theologians offered opinions that they later retracted. We cannot try to use the name of the theologian to justify what he later rejected.

The fact is, we do wrong if we seize on these ideas and call them “Church teaching,” when the actual Church has decided against this view. In short, we cannot bind what the Church has loosed, nor loose what the Church has bound. If we think otherwise, we act without authority and become stumbling blocks to the faithful.

That doesn’t mean we can’t theologize or encourage fellow believers to act rightly. But it does mean we must offer submission to the magisterium when she teaches in a way which goes against our preferred view.

You Are The Man! (2 Samuel 12:7)

Catholic factions on social media bears unfortunate witness to the fact that we’re little different than the ones we’re supposed to bear witness to: We’re good at spotting when those they disagree with act at odds with the Faith. We’re not so good at spotting when they fall short themselves. 

The result of this is we see conservative Catholics correctly point out how liberal Catholics fail to defend life and liberal Catholics correctly point out how conservative Catholics fail to support social justice—but neither group considers evangelizing their own faction where it goes wrong. The result of this is Catholic factions reducing our moral obligations to what they already agree with while downplaying or ignoring the real evil their faction commits. We’ve effectively become like the Pharisee in Our Lord’s parable (Luke 18:9-14)—we’re proud of what we do and look with contempt on those who don’t act as we do. But we don’t acknowledge our own sins.

That’s a serious matter.  If a Catholic views his faith in terms of his politics, he has replaced his faith with an idol. Our Lord is demoted from God and Savior to the archetype of the political platform he values. This is not a call for moral relativism. This is pointing out that no political faction is synonymous with our moral obligations. If a Catholic thinks he can downplay the issues his party is in the wrong over, he is not being a faithful Catholic, even if he is “right” on other issues.

To be a Catholic is to devote our entire life to God, rejecting whatever is contrary to Him. It is not a case of a bizarre moral calculus where we devalue issues we are less concerned over in favor of the positions we’d support regardless of what the Church teaches. If we allow ourselves to compromise our moral obligations when it harms our party or candidate, we’re no better than the Catholic we hold in contempt—for doing exactly the same thing! So let us avoid immediately thinking of how the other side does that as a defensive mechanism.

Our Lord warned us about hypocrisy in judgment (Matthew 7:1-5). While we must go out to the world and tell them of the right way to live (Matthew 28:20), we cannot excuse in ourselves what we condemn in others. Otherwise, at the Final Judgment we might find that—in waiting for “the other guy” to be judged—that Our Lord tells us the same thing the Prophet Nathan told King David: You are the man! (2 Samuel 12:7)

If He does, we will have no defense.