Second Sight

We have all been holding our collective breath for the report of the Commission to inquire into child abuse in the Dublin Archdiocese. It has now been published and has proved to be not so much another nail in the coffin as another nail in the Cross.

No doubt The Catholic Herald will be reporting in its next edition, but I thought that members of Secondsightblog would appreciate the opportunity to express a view more immediately. I will make sure that your views are brought to the Editor’s attention – but in order for him to have your reactions in mind initial comments must be posted by Monday.

Anyone who wishes to email me personally may do so (but say if you want me to maintain your anonymity). It would be helpful to know if your are a member of the clergy, or your denomination - if you are not a Catholic.

There are plenty of news sources around. I would recommend starting with the BBC, which has useful additional links. The Times has good coverage, as do several other newspapers. The full report is available.

I do not want to influence your reactions in any way, but it may help to consider any or all of these aspects:  the abusing priest himself, the official cover up, and what our verdict is on a church structure and culture in which such things can happen.

Remember: by Monday for maximum impact.

SUNDAY MORNING. YOUR REACTIONS HAVE BEEN SPLENDID.  ANYONE HESITATING – EVEN TO GIVE A ONE LINE MESSAGE — NOW IS THE TIME TO HAVE YOUR SAY.

It is clear that the December Copenhagen conference on climate change will not result in a legally binding treaty committing countries to emission targets. The best we may hope for is political agreement, involving immediate action – to be followed, optimistically, by a treaty next year. Even then much depends on the US Congress passing its climate change bill; and several other countries have particular interests they want to protect.

No day seems to pass without at least one new study suggesting that the onset of global warming will be much worse or much better, and will come much sooner or much later. Once again I am thrown back, for reasons of prudence, on the broad, but not universal, consensus of the scientific community. The outcomes it predicts are not precise and cover a range of possibilities. Future assessments will vary the predictions and the time scales, but we must assume that the general thrust will remain much the same. The current general target is to limit warming to the “danger” threshold of 2°C above pre-industrial levels. Substantially greater cuts in emissions than have been agreed so far will be required to achieve this.

But the orthodox view smacks to me more of setting targets which countries may be induced to accept rather than the realistic probabilities which face us. Without doubt the world is becoming warmer, but frankly we don’t really know how much warmer. We can hope to alleviate its effects, primarily through reducing industrial emissions, and we can hope to adapt. But the best we can say about these strategies is that outcomes would be worse without them. As Gordon Brown has said, there is no Plan B which will save the world from a “catastrophe” of floods, droughts and killer heatwaves.

Different regions of the world will be affected in different ways, and on different time scales. But the general picture which the IPCC paints is not attractive. Both storms and droughts will become more frequent and more severe. In addition to death and disease arising from these, malaria and other infections will spread to more regions. Heart and respiratory problems will increase with the increase in ground level ozone. Coastal flooding and erosion will overcome large areas in Asia and Africa; small, inhabited islands will be totally submerged.

The impoverished nations, particularly around the equator, will be affected most immediately because they are highly dependent on climate, and lack the resources for adaptation. More temperate climes will have a longer time scale, and the resources to adapt, but, well within the predicted possibilities of temperature change, these too will become vulnerable. Unfortunately more recent studies are suggesting that these effects will be more severe and closer at hand than the IPCC was in a position to forecast. Global warming appears to be accelerating.

So we look, without great optimism, to mitigation and adaptation. The list of possibilities is long but their implementation is another question. The schemes for reducing emissions by replacing fossil fuels are essential but expensive. Ironically it is the developed regions, less affected by climate change, that have the resources to help the developing world. But the developing world can only provide its own resources by industrialisation which will depend on the cheap power which tends to produce high emissions.

There is much expensive work to be done on infrastructure, and there is the likelihood of large-scale migrations towards temperate areas. The danger from this cannot be underestimated: the need for new territory is a common cause of armed conflict. Universal martial law may sound extreme; but it may not seem so one day.

Those who are opposed to genetically engineered crops must leave the room. However good their motivations may have been, these count for nothing now. It has even been suggested that we should become vegetarian because of the methane produced by herd animals. We have now been told that a dog has a larger carbon footprint than a four-wheel gas-guzzler, so the lighthearted suggestion that we should start by eating our dogs is not so lighthearted after all. I hope we won’t have to go as far as Jonathan Swift’s ironic suggestion about the over-fertile and undernourished  Irish poor – that they should eat their babies.

Eating babies reminds us that the carbon footprint of humans has led to arguments for the reduction of population through widespread contraception. But contraception, whether through artificial or natural methods, only tends to make a difference in settled and prosperous countries. Then it needs no advocates, for people take to it like ducks to water. In any event, it is grabbing a tiger by the tail. Developed nations have shown that widespread contraception is a one-way street: population fertility cannot be turned on and off like a tap.

So I must return to my starting point of several columns ago. Climate change is not the only issue. We still have the daily struggle of conforming our petty lives to the love of God. We still live in a society which is riven through with corruption and selfishness. Yet none of us can neglect climate change as an overarching, cataclysmic threat to our children and grandchildren; nor can we – who have benefited from industrialisation –  ignore the countries which cannot help themselves. What was once the scenario of science fiction is now all too likely to become science fact. It will demand great sacrifice, and great political will. And that political will is simply a euphemism for what you and I, as voters, choose to do. The rest is in God’s hands. As for me, I shall either be in heaven or undergoing a severe global warming of my own

Our recent excursion into the use of rhetoric in defence of the faith, and the subsequent contributions from you, suggests that we should looking at the subject more thoroughly.

In order to do that I have enlisted the help of my friend, who insists on hiding his identity under the nom be blog of Advocatus Diaboli. I should warn you that he probably knows more than most of our opponents about the shortcomings of the Catholic Church. But he has promised to observe the spirit of charity which is a feature of Second Sight.

It will now be up to you to defend or explain the Church. Welcome Advocatus Diaboli.

O O O

Thank you for welcoming me on your Blog. Let me first assure you that I come with goodwill. Some of my best friends, as they say, are Catholics. But I maintain that we all do better when we face up to the facts, and rid ourselves of superstitious habits of mind.  Of course my reasons and evidence for that will become clearer, if I am allowed to write in this Blog again. But I shall start in an area which I hope will not raise too many hackles.

What do we mean when we talk about a fact or a truth? I mean a statement which corresponds to reality. And I can measure this in either of two ways.The first is very simple. It is often called analytical. Thus if I say that bachelors are unmarried men, and that Bill is unmarried – I can conclude with certainty that Bill is a bachelor. What I have done is to apply logic to certain facts and arrive a certain conclusion. In this example the result is trivial but such reasoning can often yield interesting conclusions one might never have expected at the beginning. You can of course attack my argument. For instance you could say that “Bill” might easily be the name of a woman, and so my conclusion does not necessarily follow. That would force me to give a more careful exposition by saying “and that Bill, who is a man, is unmarried”

The second kind of fact is often called empirical. That is simply a statement which can be tested by evidence. If I claim that water boils at 100°C, you can test this with a thermometer. Again, I might be challenged because I have failed to add the phrase “at sea level”. For instance, at 3000m above sea level, water boils at about 91°C. But even that is not right because the crucial factor is not altitude but barometric pressure. While this tends to be lower at higher altitudes the exact level can vary.

So an empirical fact can be measured and refined. We can never be certain that we have it exactly right but each refinement brings us closer and closer to the truth.

But the statement that it is true that God exists comes under neither of these headings. Although many great philosophers have tried to prove the existence of God analytically, they have never succeeded. And no one has even seriously tried to measure the existence of God empirically. The question: “does God exist?” sounds very reasonable until you try to work out how you would test its truth. You will then discover that it has no meaning because there is no way of telling whether the answer is right.

Theists of course claim that their belief gives them certainty that God exists. But all this means is that they have a subjective and unprovable opinion. People have a myriad of different subjective and unprovable opinions – some of them incompatible with the idea of an orthodox God. These opinions can arise from a wide range of motives: upbringing, life experiences, the group of friends they move among, etc. It’s a free world and, as long as it doesn’t affect me, I am happy for them. But objective truth? It doesn’t even get close.

Advocatus Diaboli

Even had I known in advance of the Intelligence Squared debate at which Ann Widdecombe and Archbishop Onaiyekan were soundly trounced defending the motion that “The Catholic Church is a Force for the Good in the World”, I would not have attended.

Such occasions are not mounted to explore truth but to use the force of rhetorical tactics to drive home selective points which will appeal to an often prejudiced audience. Not that I dislike public controversy - as an intellectual exercise and an opportunity to strut one’s stuff it is great entertainment.

When I took part in such things in the late 1950s, I was doing so at Marble Arch and Leicester Square for the Catholic Evidence Guild. But then our training for this was extremely demanding. We were required to make presentation after presentation to a roomful of experienced speakers who had learned to deal with every kind and technique of attack. They were merciless for our own good. No one should enter the lions’ den without the full equipment to deal with lions. By the accounts, neither of our champions was so prepared. Folly.

One rhetorical device which is worth mastering is called Tu quoque (”You also”). It doesn’t get you nearer to the truth but it can unsettle opponents, and make palpable hits.

Take, for example, the case of Galileo, which is so often raised as an example of the Church’s opposition to science. Of course there is a good defence for the Church’s decision in the context. But it takes time to demonstrate, and no one will listen. Much more (rhetorically) effective is to say: “That’s a strange accusation to make given that the history of science is marked by its refusal to accept plain evidence, with far more serious consequences than Galileo.” The audience will sit up (doesn’t science, unlike the Church, follow the evidence?). And you will be challenged. So you can take your pick of answers.

You might take first William Harvey’s demonstration of the full circulation of blood, which he published - with experiments and reasoned arguments -  in 1628. His evidence was rejected by conservative medical science, and it took some 20 years before it was accepted.

More dramatic is Ignaz Semmelweis, the doctor who established, with indisputable results, that lack of hygiene led to a high rate of sepsis in midwifery and other medical treatments. This was in the 1840s. Despite the clear evidence his view was rejected time and time again by the scientific community of doctors. It was not until the last decades of the 19th century that medical hygiene began to be more widely recognised. Meanwhile, a very large number of deaths, particularly in childbirth, had taken place. It is thought that the mental illness which preceded Semmelweis’s death was caused by the continued, tragic rejection of his proofs.

The result of medical science’s conservatism was the death of many thousands of innocent people. Galileo only got house arrest.

In another part of the woods an attack may be made in this form: “You Catholics refuse to be guided by reason. You insist on faith, which none can prove.” You could, of course be tempted into philosophical argument, but how much better to say: “I have always been intrigued by the superstition of near-atheists - I do not call them atheists because it would be uncharitable to insult their intelligence. It’s really quite startling what they will believe without any evidence at all.” Again the surprise, again the challenge. So how do you back your statement up? Take your pick once more:

“I think I’m right in saying that you put a great deal of weight behind reason. Is that not so? I have always been disappointed when I have asked people to demonstrate the validity of abstract thought - without of course using abstract thought to do so. They never seem to be able to. I hope that you can, since you base your case on reason.”

Since this is a logical impossibility the demand may seem a trifle cruel. But this is a game where you take no prisoners. You might continue:

“I see you are scathing about miracles. But in the whole Bible and the history of miracles I have not come across a single one that is as far-fetched as the one that secularist scientists seem to believe automatically. I mean the miracle that something can emerge out of nothing by its own power. Do please explain why you believe this and how it could come about.”

Or if you really want to be naughty, try this: “You have condemned immorality in the Church over its history. I find this an odd approach because you also believe that human beings are no more than a complex of evolved neurons, entirely material. If that is true how can you blame the Church for anything it has done? Without free choice, morality and immorality have no meaning. Perhaps you could explain this strange contradiction in your thinking.”

Of course the Tu quoque technique I have described is no more than a tiny sample of the rhetorical skills built up since the Greeks and the Romans. And they are devices. Socrates, through Plato, rightly put rhetoric on a par with a skill like cooking. This did not stop him using such devices throughout his dialogues. But if we are to enter the public forum we need them. At the very least they put our opponents on the back foot, and leave even a prejudiced audience with some splinters of doubt in their minds.

Perhaps you agree, or you may think that such techniques are unworthy of the Christian. Perhaps you have further ideas on how to counter the ungodly. Let’s have some tips.

Re-reading the comments on Going along with the Crowd I thought it might be useful to make some summary, personal points. Of course I write on my own authority, and anyone is free to disagree or to amplify. My concern stems from my strong belief that the unity of the Church is a matter of supreme importance. Not only is this an essential characteristic (we claim to be One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic) but we have seen how the Reformation denominations have suffered from its lack.

Unity can of course be enforced with a big stick, as it has sometimes been in the past. But this is no longer possible, if it was ever desirable. However, maintaining a proper diversity within this unity is proving tricky. I have no time for à la carte Catholics; indeed I find the idea to be almost a contradiction in terms. Yet they grow apace, not only in this country but, even more aggressively in the USA.

However desirable democracy may be in political life, we have to start from our basic belief that the Church was founded by Christ, and given authority by him. He clearly invested the apostles (now the bishops) with authority. Among them he singled out Peter for a special leadership role. Of course it took time for the concept of the papacy to become clear.

His bishops have, first of all, to preserve the truths of Revelation and to oversee the Church’s developing understanding of those truths. This does not mean that they have necessarily been expressed in their most perfect form or that there will be no deeper and fuller expression of them over time. But it does mean that these core truths, once declared to be settled, are protected from error. No one who denies any of these is entitled to call themselves a member of the Catholic communion.

But the Church’s Christ-given authority stretches well beyond these to questions of faith and morals which are not infallible as such. The best summary we have of these is the Catechism of the Catholic Church. No one who wishes to call themselves Catholic is entitled to disregard this teaching. However it is possible to disagree in some issues, but a great personal responsibility so to do. The first responsibility is to understand the meaning and the reasons for the teaching, and to make a sincere effort to conform. It is by no means a question of picking and choosing. The proper formation of conscience is difficult but essential.

And there are of course the disciplines of the community which the Magisterium may lay down, just as any community must have its rules to ensure good order.

The basic structure I have described can of course be exercised in different ways – just as in secular areas leadership and management approaches can differ. I have never made a secret of my belief that the exercise of the Magisterium’s authority is often bureaucratic and oppressive in practice. It was developed in a world where the clerical authorities were the educated élite, and the laity seen as compliant peasants. That world no longer exists. If the Church wishes to flourish and grow, it needs fundamental reforms of structure and attitude. I have already indicated in these columns what I believe some of these should be. In summary, I look to the Church developing from a hierarchy into a true community, centred around Peter. By coincidence I was re-reading an article in the “The Month” (Jesuit periodical) which I wrote on this subject in June 1966. I am not inclined to change a word. We need to continue to argue the case, but it is clear that patience will be required.

St Augustine’s dictum still holds: In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all thing, charity.

O O O

It will only take you a second to follow this link. I think you will find it entertaining and informative. (Thanks to the Editor of the CH for passing it to me.)