As such, there are times when I have to throw down the gauntlet, versus those who (consciously or unconsciously) stand athwart the Truth of Christ, and most especially versus those who claim the title of "Catholic" while minimizing, ignoring, dismissing, or even openly rejecting the Church's teachings (and on matters of severe importance, at that). The gauntlet does not mean that I hate my opponents; nor does it mean that I hold them to be evil, irredeemable, or anything other than fellow sons and daughters of God who happen to have been deceived (or otherwise "captured") by the Father of Lies. But the gauntlet does mean--regrettably--a battle. I can only offer such opponents, above and beyond my promise (insofar as my fallen nature, supported by the grace of God, allows me) to conduct the battle with honour, an idea from C.S. Lewis, in his excellent book, "Mere Christianity":
"When soldiers came to St. John the Baptist asking what to do, he never remotely suggested that they ought to leave the army: nor did Christ when He met a Roman sergeant-major--what they called a Centurion. The idea of the knight--the Christian in arms for the defence of a good cause--is one of the great Christian ideas. War is a dreadful thing, and I can respect an honest pacifist, though I think he is entirely mistaken. What I cannot understand is this sort of semipacifism you get nowadays which gives people the idea that though you have to fight, you ought to do it with a long face and as if you were ashamed of it. It is that feeling that robs lots of magnificent young Christians in the [armed] Services of something they have a right to, something which is the natural accompaniment of courage--a kind of gaiety and wholeheartedness.
I have often thought to myself how it would have been if, when I served in the first world war, I and some young German had killed each other simultaneously and found ourselves together a moment after death. I cannot imagine that either of us would have felt any resentment or even any embarrassment. I think we might have laughed over it."
(C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, Ch.7, pars.8-9)
To fight without rancor, to spar without hate; that, I offer to my opponents. Do not confuse that for any lack of resolve to strike directly and keenly, at need; I will not ravage anyone's emotions out of mere spite; but nor will I soften a necessary blow, simply out of some deference to feelings or (far worse) the "ritualized cowardice" of political correctness.
That being said: I now call upon those Catholics, in particular, who have embraced heterodoxy... who have taken it upon themselves to "follow their own consciences" to places which flatly contradict the spirit and law of the Church in Whom they were baptized... who have become content to invert venial sin with mortal sin, the negotiable with the non-negotiable. I most especially call upon those who trumpet their unyielding defense of any opposition to the death penalty, their hopes for the elimination of involuntary poverty, their unequivocal condemnation of the War on Terror, and all (otherwise good) goals which share an almost uncanny resemblance to the goals of the present-day U.S. Democratic Party. Most of all, I call those of the above whose ferocity in furthering the above goals is matched only by their lack of ferocity in fighting the evils of abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, the cultural "normalization" of homosexuality, and the like.
To these, I ask the following simple question:
TO GIVE UP
YOUR OTHER GOOD CAUSES???
For the love of all that's holy: do you seriously think that, if you were completely loyal to the Magisterium of the Catholic Church, you'd have to abandon ANY of your other good efforts? Why on earth would giving true and clear priority to the fight against the non-negotiable "articles of the Culture of Death" (e.g. abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, homosexual "marriage" [sic], human cloning, etc.) interfere with your other efforts to end poverty, to find practical ways to bring the War in Iraq to a speedy conclusion, to work against the death penalty, and such? Why, in the name of all that's good, would placing your efforts on the rock foundation of Truth endanger those efforts in the slightest, if those efforts are truly good?
Moreover, I warn you against a terrible danger, so subtle as almost to be imperceptible when you're immersed in it (as I well know--having been there for years of my life): when you give yourself permission to "detach" from obedience to the Church, you necessarily set something/someone else (almost always "yourself"!) as the final arbiter of truth... and that "something else" cannot possibly serve in that role successfully. The beginning of this "detachment" is subtle: it often starts with an appeal to the "supremacy of your own conscience" (which a cursory and context-free reading of Church documents will seem to confirm), and it seems so very innocent! After all: if you change from "I assent to the Church's Teaching in all matters of Faith and Morals" to the variant, "I currently happen to agree with all the Church's teachings regarding Faith and Morals", how would anyone else know the difference? If you're of a utilitarian and/or pragmatic mindset, there would seem to be no difference at all! In fact, it might even "feel" better, since--as you could easily tell yourself, using words almost identical to those of the Church: "The Church doesn't want blind obedience [which is true, so far as it goes]--She wants us to use our reason to meet and grapple with these truths, for ourselves!"
Thus is the door opened to the sin of pride... and a good-tasting and addictive poison it is, too. Not many 12-step groups to help you recover from it, either.
The "drift" then continues. Eventually, when you hit the first teaching of the Church which runs against your own feelings (and possibly thoughts)--it's almost always something related to sexual ethics, it seems (e.g. homosexuality, contraception, in-vitro fertilization, etc.)--you'll first experience the effects of being "cut off" from your base. (A tree that's cut completely through won't necessarily fall at first; it might need a breeze to start it tipping.) You'll think, "Hm... that doesn't make sense to me. In fact, I don't think that makes very much sense at all! Especially since my dear friend [x] is [homosexual, contracepting, using IVF, considering an abortion, etc.], and I love them, and they're not a bad person, and since only bad people would violate the Church's teachings, they can't possibly be violating the Church's teachings--or else, the Church's teaching is just plain wrong!"
Then come one of at least four main paths toward heterodoxy (i.e. "wrong belief"):
(1) [the more explicit] "The Church is just wrong about this one!"
(2) [the more implicit] "These teachings must not be real "Church teaching" at all! They're probably just the opinions of some old, celibate men in Rome, and Jesus probably wouldn't have agreed with it, either!"
(3) [even more implicit] "They may be Church teaching, but they're not *infallible* Church teaching! They're just one of those changeable ones, like limbo!"
(4) [one of the most implicit] "The teachings may be true, but other teachings are of far greater importance; love (see here for the real definition of that!), for example, is of a far higher priority than are picky, heady, theological 'rules' about details regarding sexuality."
And then, if you're brutally honest with yourself, you'll have only two authentic options before you: embrace your pet ideas, and formally leave the Church (whereupon even your pet ideas will eventually wither, fragment, and degenerate into putrefied parodies of what your once embraced with a clean heart); or surrender your pet ideas and reconcile yourself to the Church (whereupon all of your pet ideas that were truly good will eventually be given back to you, purified of the dross of error and sin).
I fully admit: when I was of that mind, I wasn't the least bit interested in such honesty; I was into feelings, feelings, and more feelings (which I thought were the basis of all "real" life). I suspect that many of the "heterodox Catholic" camp have that same insidious virus. I wish the prognosis of that disease were better... but it took literally *years* for me even to start facing the "fracture" at the core of my life (living "in" and "out" of the Church, at the same time), and it took many more years--and several life-shattering and painful events--for me to start making the hard choices necessary for moving away from it. I can only tell you that it's possible, and that it's by God's Grace alone, and that having lots of people "never stop praying for you" has a lot to do with chances of recovery (and with the chances of recognizing that it's something from which you need to recover!).
So... here's my challenge to you, if you're a heterodox Catholic (i.e. a Catholic who gives him/herself permission to go against the explicit teachings of the Magisterium of Christ's Church) reading this: I stand ready--with my all-too-human swordsmanship, my fallible shield-work, and my borrowed armour--to try my best to battle the errors that hold you, and I stand ready to pray for you, daily, no matter what. (I already do, in fact.)
The gauntlet is thrown. In the next weeks, months, and years, Catholics (and all Christians, for that matter!) need to unite in Truth, as well as in Spirit; no other kind of "unity" can hope to endure... especially if the near future is even half as dark as it promises to be, for those of Faith. In this present gathering darkness, Christ needs us all on the same side, and not fragmented into hundreds of politically-motivated mini-camps! The stakes are far too high to do anything else. And if taking and giving some hard knocks is what will bring people to shake off their errors and embrace the fullness of truth, then so be it; I can do no less, in the service of my Lord and Master.
9 comments:
Feelings can be very easily twisted to call good evil and evil good. But so can reason. It's hard to forget, less than a century after the fact, how many intelligent people were taken in by Marxism.
This leaves appeal to authority. There are multiple authorities that claim to speak for God, how do I know which of them is true?
It's hard to forget, less than a century after the fact, how many intelligent people were taken in by Marxism.
I'd suggest that the verb in your sentence would best be cast in the present tense, in addition to past tense! A sort of "neo-Marxism" seems to be rising in North America, South America, and Europe, as we speak...
This leaves appeal to authority.
Yes, and no. It's still possible to appeal to sane reason, even when "insane reason" (something of an oxymoron, I know) is so popular. The law of non-contradiction, for example, still holds, even if 99% of the population forgets or disdains it.
There are multiple authorities that claim to speak for God, how do I know which of them is true?
Very short answer to a very involved question: examine the claims, reject the ones contrary to sane reason, and--from the ones that remain--try out the one that best harmonizes with reality.
In Christ,
Brian
I'd suggest that the verb in your sentence would best be cast in the present tense, in addition to past tense!
I know that Soviet style Marxism failed to provide the promised benefits. I can therefore state that it was a mistake, and that the people who fell for it were mistaken.
I think that modern neo-Marxism will fail, and unless stopped earlier fail in the same way. But I could be wrong.
Yes, and no. It's still possible to appeal to sane reason, even when "insane reason" (something of an oxymoron, I know) is so popular.
It's not a matter of popularity, but of my own limited capacity compared to other people that I know got it wrong. Take Judaism vs. Catholicism, for example.
Thomas Aquinas was a lot smarter than I can hope to be, and as far as I can tell he honestly believed that Catholicism is what God wants. This means that at least one of the following is a true statement:
1. Catholicism is true.
2. Thomas Aquinas's reason was insufficient to identify the true religion that God wants us to follow.
Maimonides was also a lot smarter than I am, and as far as I can tell he was also intellectually honest and sought to do what God wanted. This means that at least one of the following is also a true statement:
3. Judaism is true.
4. Maimonides' reason was insufficient to identify the true religion that God wants us to follow.
Since 1 & 3 can't both be true, at least one member of the group {Thomas Aquinas, Maimonides} got it wrong. Unless either of them was intellectually dishonest, or there are new relevant facts that at least one of them didn't have, I don't believe my reason will work where somebody so much smarter than I am failed.
1. Catholicism is true.
2. Thomas Aquinas's reason was insufficient to identify the true religion that God wants us to follow.
3. Judaism is true.
4. Maimonides' reason was insufficient to identify the true religion that God wants us to follow.
One alternate possibility: Maimonides (whom St. Thomas Aquinas respected highly) was working with an incomplete data set (e.g. without the reality of the resurrection of Christ, and all its attendant implications), out of attachment to his starting assumptions (i.e. the definition of "Messianic Age", etc.). Maimonides dismisses Jesus as a heretic, "sent only by God to test the people", at least partially because he thinks that Jesus failed to usher in "the Messianic Age"; this can only mean that Maimonides took the "Messianic Age" to be an earthly, physical one--which shows surprising non-awareness of the whole point of Salvation History: the reconciliation of Man to God, lost through sin.
I don't pretend that this response is airtight (or anything but a sound-byte): but it's a point to ponder. The fact that this-or-that person is brilliant in one or more ways doesn't mean that they can't miss something; by that same token, one would need to dismiss theism on the basis that Stephen Hawking disbelieves in God! (I've met at least one atheist who claimed that, with a straight face.)
I also realize that this begs your original question: "how can we achieve certainty, if the possibility of missing something is there"? I'll try to write about that later, when I have some time.
I see your point about intelligent people being too attached to their starting assumption. A person can be consciously honest, while his or her subconscious is still pulling in a particular direction.
BTW, Christ's resurrection is not data, it's a conclusion. The relevant(1) data mostly falls into four separate categories:
1. The Old Testament
2. The New Testament
3. The Jewish oral tradition, which is partially written down in the Mishnah and the Talmud
4. The Catholic oral tradition, which I think you call the deposit of faith
Maimonides weighed the evidence, and decided that he believed #3 more than #2 and #4. Thomas Aquinas weighed the same evidence, and decided that he believed #2 and #4 more than than #3. Christ's resurrection is a conclusion from #2 and #4, which directly contradicts #3.
(1) About God's relationship with humanity, which you would call salvation history.
BTW, Christ's resurrection is not data, it's a conclusion.
:) Tell that to the Apostles! But--just for the sake of argument, if we assume we're talking about someone who hasn't personally encountered the Risen Christ (corporeally or spiritually)--I'll grant that a modern person would need to see the Resurrection as a "sub-conclusion", which leads further (with other data) to the further conclusion that Christianity is true.
The relevant(1) data mostly falls into four separate categories:
1. The Old Testament
2. The New Testament
3. The Jewish oral tradition, which is partially written down in the Mishnah and the Talmud
4. The Catholic oral tradition, which I think you call the deposit of faith.
(N.B. That's close; Catholicism regards the "Deposit of Faith" as the sum-total of Divine Revelation, which includes both Sacred Tradition *and* Sacred Scripture.)
One point of note: Since Catholics regard the Hebrew Scriptures as authoritative, inerrant, and divinely inspired, they would see no conflict between #1, #2, and #4. That's part of the point: an acceptance of Catholicism would not entail any rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures, and many of the core tenets of Judaism would still be (and are) quite intact, there.
an acceptance of Catholicism would not entail any rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures, and many of the core tenets of Judaism would still be (and are) quite intact, there.
It would not entail any rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures - but it would entail a rejection of Judaism, because it would entail a rejection of both the oral law and traditional interpretation of the scripture.
This would be vaguely analogous to a Catholic who contemplated becoming Greek Orthodox. The scripture, both Old Testament and New, is the same(1). Yet to be Greek Orthodox you would need to reject some doctrines that Catholics believe(2), and to interpret the verse(s) that establishes the primacy of Peter differently(3).
(1) That's the reason I didn't choose Protestants - they reject books that Catholics consider Old Testament, such as Maccabees.
(2) I assume there are doctrinal differences between Catholics and Greek Orthodox - I could be wrong.
(3) In a way that makes Peter the rock on which the church is built, but not necessarily later bishops of Rome.
[Accepting Catholicism] would not entail any rejection of the Hebrew Scriptures - but it would entail a rejection of Judaism, because it would entail a rejection of both the oral law and traditional interpretation of the scripture.
True... though I'd argue that a great many of the essentials of Judaism would still endure such a move (as a religion, not as a culture--I'm quite aware of the "sticky wickets" that many a Jewish person can face in this matter, since an acceptance of Christianity is often seen by other Jews as a renunciation of their culture, heritage, and even family identity--in a way that an acceptance of atheism would not be).
This would be vaguely analogous to a Catholic who contemplated becoming Greek Orthodox. The scripture, both Old Testament and New, is the same(1).
With some exceptions (such as the Ethiopian Orthodox, who include the Book of Jubilees, and one or two others), that's true. This exception highlights one of the main reasons why Orthodoxy would never satisfy a seeker of truth completely: "Greek Orthodoxy" is fractured into nationalistic pieces which do not follow one cohesive body of doctrine--to say nothing of one cohesive body of discipline! If the Patriarch of one Orthodox Church "prayerfully and studiously" arrives at a conclusion contrary to the views of the Patriarch of another of the Orthodox Churches, they have no choice but to endure the contradiction forever, since there is no "final court of appeals" by which such differences can be resolved. The same problem (if I may say this gently) occurs within Judaism; there is no unified body of doctrine to which a Jew may point and say, "That is what I believe"... largely because (in my experience with my Mom's side of the family, who are Jews of the "reform" variety) Jews often value practice over belief (sometimes to the complete exclusion of the latter, as was the case with a Jewish atheist college friend of mine).
Yet to be Greek Orthodox you would need to reject some doctrines that Catholics believe(2), and to interpret the verse(s) that establishes the primacy of Peter differently(3).
Right. I would argue, though, that the arguments against St. Peter and his descendants (bishops of Rome) holding primacy would need to ignore virtually every scrap of Church history from Apostolic times, onward.
(2) I assume there are doctrinal differences between Catholics and Greek Orthodox - I could be wrong.
Again, it depends on the Church in question, and even on the sub-faction. Some divisions of Orthodoxy are virtually indistinguishable from Catholicism, doctrinally speaking, while others have gone rather far-afield.
True... though I'd argue that a great many of the essentials of Judaism would still endure such a move
Depends on what the essentials of Judaism are. Jews see most of those essentials as practices, not beliefs. It would be silly for a Catholic to follow many of these practices, since you believe they have been superseded.
The same problem (if I may say this gently) occurs within Judaism; there is no unified body of doctrine to which a Jew may point and say, "That is what I believe"...
Orthodox Jews do have a body of doctrine, summed up in the 13 principles of Maimonides. But it's a lot smaller than the writings of the doctors of the Church. As you said, it's because for Jews this isn't as important.
There is also an equivalent of canon law, in the Shulchan Aruch. That is a lot more important, and has a lot more commentaries.
You have to remember that Reform Judaism is a bit like Vox Nova. It's done by Jews, but their beliefs and practices are different from what Judaism is traditionally understood to mean. This is also true about the conservative Judaism I mostly practice.
There is no single authority in Judaism is this generation, but historically there have been authorities that were accepted by everybody (eventually, usually centuries after they died).
Post a Comment