Comments on: Rhetoric rules OK

By: Robert Hartness

Robert Hartness — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:55:36 +0000

I concur mostly with Superview in his remarks, but disagree about our stance over the expediency of staying clear of infallibility. It seems odd to me that we are to fight shy of this issue until provoked. Maybe we should clarify the issue among ourselves first before trying to explain it to a hostile audience.

Vatican 1 introduced the notion of an infallible Pope on faith and morals and Vatican 2 added an afterthought that the Pope was to have his infallibility re-inforced as it were when teaching in unison with the Bishops of the world in a Church Council.

The first point might be that if either position can be said to be an intrinsic quality of the Magisterium of the Church wouldn’t one think it should also have the quality of being retrospective, rather than bursting upon the scene in the late 19th.century?
One might further observe that the rather late appearance of the concept of infallibility would indicate that it was an attempt to stem further dissension following the publication of Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Be that as it may, it could hardly be said that previous Popes, especially Paul Vth, had
a hotline to God when he was complicit in the execution of Giordiano Bruno, and later mistreatment and persecution of Galileo. That being so, we have the rather awkward fact that the issue of infallibility, as currently understood, appears to be a latter-day development of that very Church Magisterium which is allegedly unchanging.

Add to that the fact that for anyone to claim to be infallible is counterintuitive and flies in the face of common sense leaving us all well and truly up the proverbial gum tree.

On the other hand, if one admits these problems and clears the ground of such obstacles, maybe there is room to harden up an understanding of what infallible means.

Why doesn’t the church publish a list of those occasions when the faithful are expected to comply with the idea of infallible teaching?

It can’t be that difficult, surely. What springs to mind for example, is The Immaculate Conception, The Resurection, The Ascension, Pentecost, The Assumption of Our Lady into Heaven. …in effect, the contents of the Creed said by millions of Catholics every week, not to mention transubstantiation and the miracles of the Gospels. I, for one, am prepared to believe the absolute truth of these issues and yet they do not depend upon believing that the previous incumbents of the Papacy since 1870 were infallible.

So does it really matter whether the Pope thinks he’s infallible? I’m sure that if this proves to be yet another dogma issue that slips out of public view , like say limbo or indulgences, the Church will survive under the promises of Christ and the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

By: eclaire

eclaire — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 18:23:46 +0000

Thank you, tim.
One never knows who may be quietly responding to the arguments presented in defence of the Church even amid the hullabaloo. I attended the debate with my sister and I can say that one young man was genuinely interested in finding out why we were voting for the motion (this is another reason why more Catholics should have been sitting in the audience). He was thoughtful and respectful and this despite the fact that his ’student’ friends were very much against. There is an awful lot of bravado out there.
I can understand that it might not be a good idea to argue for infallibility in debates, but if others bring it up, surely it needs to be addressed? We can’t deniy it. After all, it clearly states in the Catechism (890) that ‘Christ endowed the Church’s shepherds with the charism of infallibility in matters of faith and morals’.

By: Ion Zone

Ion Zone — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 12:36:34 +0000

I agree, I never argue for infallibility in debates, for one thing it plays into their arguments, for another, it has never been true, human fallibility is a theme in the Bible, as well as life since the dawn of time.

By: tim

tim — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 17:05:11 +0000

Well said, eclaire! We have a duty to defend the Church. This doesn’t imply a duty to maintain that it’s always got everything exactly right - infallibility doesn’t stretch so far. But we must do our best - carefully. It can be as damaging to listeners to admit unfounded criticisms as to deny proper ones.

By: eclaire

eclaire — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:00:43 +0000

I strongly disagree with those who state that they wouldn’t have attended the debate even if they had known it was taking place. No matter what the odds are against, it is never a waste of time defending what one firmly believes (even when opponents refuse to listen). If it’s a sunny day you are waiting for, you’re in for a long wait in the current climate.
What we need are strong, fearless and magnetic, but humble and prayerful leaders; the rest will follow.

By: Superview

Superview — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 21:18:40 +0000

It is only human to be very defensive about criticism of the Church, especially when we are conditioned to believe that it does not err. The previous blog on ‘Following the crowd’ touched on the phenomenon of conditioning and we Catholics have certainly been subject to that since childhood; one of the reasons (if not the whole reason) for Catholic schools is to ensure that children are educated in a Catholic cultural setting with values and a world view that is carefully controlled. In very many ways it adds value and produces less selfish and more compassionate Christians and citizens; in other ways it leads to uniform and naive outlooks derived from the fear our leaders have of the modern world. Their reliance on the perspectives of, albeit, brilliant minds from many centuries ago -such as Augustine and Aquinas from 1,600 years and 800 years ago, respectively, hampers their ability to adapt to new information and expectations. For example, in context, I can understand how the Index of proscribed books came about, but it is amazing that from the 16th century until the 20th century -when it was abolished by Pope Paul VI in 1966 - the Vatican believed that with a directive from Rome it could (and probably did) prevent adult Catholics from reading alternative world-view literature. It is in a similar vein to the, presumably still extant, good advice to avoid occasions of sin and bad company. However, imagine the same task now with the global information revolution - instantaneous internet, multi-channel TV, Wikipedia, cinema, and the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of books and articles published every year. There is no hiding place or protection for any institution from the opinions of anyone (maybe Islamic fascism excepted) so to take Ion Zone’s last point, which seems to be a defence of the Church’s treatment of Galileo because his offence was to call the Pope stupid, calling the Pope stupid is a license available to us all without fear of imprisonment or worse - even in nominally Catholic countries.
As for the proposition that the Church does not err, who can sustain this case? The first principle in advocating that the Church is a force for good is to recognise the evidence to the contrary and the impact it has on your audience, deal with it with integrity, and then give brave and truthful witness to all that is good. It seems we are still a long way from this.

By: Ion Zone

Ion Zone — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 23:29:04 +0000

The thing about these debates is they pick their religious opponents carefully, often the atheist side will be running the show. I have heard of nuns being invited who are outnumbered two to one and don’t have a clue what to expect. The religious side is put in a position of ‘guilty until God says otherwise’ and put on a permanent defensive. These people don’t so much disbelieve in God as hate the very idea. And they don’t know a lot about what we believe in. We are constantly put in the position where they declare, subtly, that they are the sole guardians of facts and truth, uninfluenced by anything but Science and Reason, and therefore anything we say to contradict them is automatically false, even if we are rubbishing some assumption or ‘fact’ of theirs about our faith. I am constantly annoyed by their coming-or-going assertions, for example, that we all believe the Old Testament to be literal truth, and if we don’t then it is invalid anyway because it was written in the Bible, therefore, if one word is demonstrably untrue, particularly in a literal sense, then none of it is.

Who said science, logic, and reason belong to them? They did (Of course, when you point that out to them science become the ultimate democracy). This is a belief….but just you try to get them to admit they take anything without proof.

When you find evidence of atheist wrongdoings (French revolution, etc), they explain it all away by claiming that ‘religious thinking’ is to blame. That’s right, evil is never done in the name of atheism, it’s all ‘religious thinking’. But if you think about it, ‘Because there is no God and we have a materialistic reason for combat! Charge!’ is a very clunky battle cry, so they tend to say things are in the name of ‘reason’ or ‘progress’, which is why they get away with saying there has never been any violence in their name, despite things like this:

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=84742

In their eyes, God is always the reason for a massacre, but atheism is just a ‘feature’, like a mustache. Just looking at google headlines I see pages with names like “The Religious Origins of Totalitarianism and Tyranny”

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2009/01/dispatches-from-clueless-atheist.html

I also question their blaming of the ‘witch trials’ (Secular courts hunted ‘witches’ - the Vatican has always seen witchcraft as superstition, and did everything it could to prevent the trials - many of which are now, very quietly, acknowledged to be fiction) and Galileo’s trial, which was as much about his labeling of the Pope as stupid as anything else.

By: Fariam

Fariam — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:19:35 +0000

i agree that we shouldn’t underestimate the damage this ‘debate’ caused, particularly in a climate of hostility and quick fixes. I also heard - to my horror - that it is to be broadcast!

I would also ask the same question: why was “our side” so unprepared and unsupported?

Anyone going into thhis kind of debate should know what they are up against.

They should be armed with correct and up to date facts regarding a host of issues. Such debates can serve as an opportunity to get some true facts out, for example with regard to “Hitler´s pope”, adult stem cell cloning, abortion trauma, Aids experts agreeing with the Pope, post abortion trauma, the new evidence putting the Inquisition and the Crusades in context, Catholic influence on the developement of Western thought and culture, Catholic charity, the theology of the body…

I agree with using rhetoric. It can be a great tool in getting such facts and points across in a hostile environment. We may not change those with whom we debate, but we can perhaps influnce someone in the audience.

I agree with being honest, particularly about our shortcomings as a Church. A little humility can be very disarming.

I also agree that in a hostile environment, we need supporters. And I find it inexcusable that “we” were not prepared. And in these days of modern communication, how was it not possible to avert Catholics to this debate?

By: JohnMThompson

JohnMThompson — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:15:22 +0000

Thank you for your most useful advice on countering atheists.
How is it that they pronounce with such conviction on areas of which they have no personal experience?
For example, Richard Dawkins says ‘there is no God’. Would we dare to stray with conviction into his own field of biological science in order to dispute his knowledge?

By: claret

claret — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 00:26:04 +0000

Quentin,
I have replied to your direct note.