Barack Obama embodies the very antithesis of Catholic teaching.
When John the Baptist said to King Herod, "It is not lawful for thee to have thy brother's wife," the price he paid was his head on a platter. He had spoken Absolute Truth to power in a time when power was absolute. It was the bravest of acts, the kind only undertaken by those very rare men for all seasons.
Lying in stark contrast to this is catholic (note the small "c") Notre Dame University's genuflection before Barack Obama, a man embodying the very antithesis of Catholic teaching. As most are aware, the university extended an invitation to Obama to deliver a commencement address and, to make matters worse, will bestow upon him an honorary doctorate.
This is despite the fact that Obama has distinguished himself as the most militantly anti-life president in American history. In fact, his support of abortion extends to the point of infanticide, and I speak of his, at best, indifference to the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. In opposing the Illinois version of this legislation – thereby signaling his willingness to allow newborn babies to die in soiled store rooms – he showed his true colors. That is to say, it's not so much that the matter of when a baby gets human rights is above his pay grade; it's that he is morally degraded.
Adding to his impressive pro-death resume, Obama has rescinded the Mexico City Policy, thereby allowing our tax money to be used to promote abortion in foreign lands. He is also using tax dollars to fund the harvesting of stem cells from nascent human life. And he endeavors to establish a policy that would force health-care workers to either be party to abortion or risk losing their jobs ("Freedom of Choice" Act).
But it isn't just on life issues that Obama is found wanting. He also supports special rights for homosexuals (euphemistically called "gay rights"). Additionally, he apparently was a member of Chicago's socialist New Party in the 1990s, an association he has never adequately disowned. This is relevant because socialism seems incongruent with Catholic teaching. As Pope Pius XI said plainly in 1931, "No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist." (In fact, the Church has long condemned socialism – here and here, for instance).
Yet the inappropriateness of honoring Obama at Notre Dame doesn't have to be inferred from pronouncements from the past. Contemporary Church leaders have made their voices heard as well, with 13 bishops publicly criticizing the invitation. Among them is Bishop Edward J. Slattery of Tulsa, who said, "For President Obama to be honored by Notre Dame is more than a disappointment, it is a scandal."
Archbishop John J. Myers of Newark said, "When we extend honors to people who do not share our respect and reverence for life in all stages, and give them a prominent stage in our parishes, schools and other institutions, we unfortunately create the perception that we endorse their public positions on these issues."
Bishop R. Walker Nickless of Sioux City wrote, "Catholic institutions of higher learning must always be places where the Catholic values we hold so dearly will always be supported and promoted – not where the culture of death is allowed to be honored or valued."
And, in a letter to Notre Dame President Rev. John I. Jenkins, Archbishop John Nienstedt of St. Paul and Minneapolis called the invitation an "egregious decision" and said, "It is a travesty that the University of Notre Dame, considered by many to be a Catholic University, should give its public support to such an anti-Catholic politician."
Now, here some will say that Jesus was also criticized for consorting with sinners and responded with that heavenly wisdom, "The healthy are in no need of a physician." Yet this isn't an analogous situation. More appropriate here is, "The unhealthy are in no need of a podium." I would have no problem with anyone offering Obama counsel – he could certainly use it. I myself would be happy to talk with him if he asked; maybe I could muster shades of John the Baptist. But what Notre Dame is doing is quite different: It is honoring Obama by bestowing a doctorate upon him. Additionally, it is not giving him an opportunity to receive counsel but a forum in which to dispense it – and to malleable young minds at that.
Then there are those, such as the writers of this silly Los Angeles Times editorial, who accuse those on my side of hypocrisy, saying we were silent when pro-death penalty George W. Bush spoke at Notre Dame in 2001. Well, let's examine this.
First, I think I speak for many when I say that Obama is objectionable not just because of his profound lack of respect for life. From his apparent socialism (and I believe communism) to his support of "age-appropriate" sex education for kindergarteners to his opposition to California's Proposition 8, he has served notice that he is pushing a hard-left agenda (which I documented here) that certainly violates the letter and spirit of Catholic teaching.
Second, there is no equivalency between abortion and the death penalty or, for that matter, what is supposedly President Bush's mortal sin, launching military campaigns. The Church teaches that while capital punishment is hardly ever necessary in modern societies, it nevertheless is the right of "legitimate temporal authorities" to determine when it is justifiable. The Church also promulgates something called "Just War Doctrine."
There is no Just Abortion Doctrine.
Unlike capital punishment and war, direct abortion is never morally licit under any circumstances.
Having said this, there is a deeper issue to address. We're all sinners, and we could probably pick any president and find ways in which he violated Catholic teaching. And what about academic freedom? As the L.A. Times opined, the issue at Notre Dame is "whether a distinguished university should ban a speaker with whom it disagrees or engage him . . ." and that all universities "sometimes need to be reminded of the importance of uninhibited debate."
But the university isn't "engaging" Obama; it is giving him a forum in which to speak unopposed. There will be no debate. Of course, I realize that when the editorialists speak of "uninhibited debate," they refer to a general climate of academic inquiry and give-and-take fostered over time by exposure to different ideas. But while this sounds good, it's nonsense.
While leftists can pontificate all they like about "academic freedom," they draw lines like anyone else. Would they hire a professor or schedule a speaker who would advocate the extermination of a minority? If not, why? I mean, whomever they chose will be a sinner, and do not judge lest ye be judged, right? And, would they entertain a debate about the reinstitution of slavery or whether or not germs really cause disease? How about trephination (drilling a hole in someone's head) as a solution to mental illness?
The point is that our gratuitous talk about "open-mindedness" is mere sloganeering, because we all consider certain issues to be settled. As G.K. Chesterton once said, "The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid." A child cannot advance in math if he won't accept simple truths such as two plus two equals four, and science would never have ascended from a childlike state of primitiveness had man not accepted and then built upon simple scientific truths. We might have debated Aristotle's geocentrism versus Copernicus' heliocentrism in 1600, but if we had still been wrangling over it in 1910, we would have been insane. Perpetual open-mindedness in all matters is not a virtue because it isn't "mindedness" at all; it is the trumping of the mind. The mind is there to find answers, not just ask questions.
And moral truths should be treated with at least the respect of scientific ones. Of course, "open-minded" secularists will be quick to point out that morality isn't science, and I'll be even quicker to say they're hypocrites. I reiterate that they draw their lines (slavery, racism, sexism, extermination of minorities, etc.), proving that their relativistic creed is mainly for use on other people's values. They have their dogma, just like everyone else.
But, leftists, here is a newsflash: This isn't about your dogma – it concerns Catholic dogma. You have your values – twisted and distorted though they may be – and you're very self-centered to believe they should prevail in a Catholic setting. Not everyone is as numb to morality as you are, and believing Catholics understand that many matters you're confused about are actually settled issues. We also understand that, as with science, man cannot progress morally unless he accepts known truths and builds upon them.
The bottom line is that Catholic institutions (if they are to be authentic) have a responsibility to apply Catholic dogma, not the secular variety. They have an obligation to draw Catholic lines, not merely replicate those of the Los Angeles Times. They have a duty to instill students with Catholic teaching, not that of Berkeley. Thus, in such an eminently sane setting abortion isn't a debated issue. It's a settled issue. And Barack Obama isn't just another president. He is way over the line.
Really, this whole affair smacks just a bit of evangelist Billy Graham's obsequious behavior with respect to the Clintons. I'm referring to how he once called them a "great couple" and "wonderful friends," implied that Hillary Clinton might make a good president and once quipped that Bill Clinton "should be an evangelist" and "leave his wife to run the country." Ah, Rev. Graham, "if thou dost not speak to warn the wicked from his way . . .."
We should remember that since every age has its Herods, we have to ask ourselves a couple of questions. Would we recognize one if we saw him? And, then, would we have the faith and strength to be a John the Baptist?
No, no, Slattery, Myers, et. al. are engaging in rank censorship!
In his haste to appeal to the authority of The Church, Mr Duke has forgotten that geocentrism was also a ‘settled issue.’ His ‘newsflash’ about the centrality of Catholic dogma to this discussion just begs for someone to point out the painfully obvious irony, namely, that Catholic dogma has a most militantly anti-science track record. It’s funny that Mr Duke wants to wave the banner of scientific progress, since it was actually The Church that stood in its way for centuries.
And all this business about the ‘twisted and distorted morality’ of ‘leftists’ is easily identifiable as psychological projection. Their has never been a source of more blatantly distorted morality than the Catholic Church. Anyone who disagrees simply does not know the historical record.
I wouldn’t characterize Mr Duke as “pro-death” based on his “pro” views about the “death” penalty; why must he use this term? No one is pro-death. Please.
DCNorthwest:
Re: “…Catholic dogma has a most militantly anti-science track record. It’s funny that Mr Duke wants to wave the banner of scientific progress, since it was actually The Church that stood in its way for centuries.”
Here http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/ccc_toc.htm is the link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church. Please find in it for me where this dogma is “most militantly anti-science.” Also, please explain how the Church has “stood in its way for centuries.”
What I suspect is that a leap in logic has been made here in this propaganda: the Church is against science that offers people an easy way to be bad, ergo, the Church is against all science.
sedonaman
There has been no leap “in” logic, and the post to which you responded is not “propaganda.”
1) “Being against” something can mean anything from a) simply holding an alternative viewpoint to b) taking action – torturous, violent action – against those holding a view other than one’s own. For which of these (a or b) do you think The Church has earned its reputation?
2) It’s a mistake to draw a distinction between one kind of science (the bad-causing kind) and another kind of science (the good-causing kind). It’s just science.
3) Science is a method; you can either accept it as valid or not. You can’t be selective.
4) Either all science can “offer people an easy way to be bad” or none of it can. Human nature offers people an easy way to be bad. (Guns don’t kill; people do).
5) You’re right. Catholic dogma can’t be militantly anything. It’s Catholic actions that have been militant. (But seriously, the usage of “militantly” in “militantly anti-science” is hyperbolic, not literal).
DCNorthwest:
Re: “There has been no leap ‘in’ logic, and the post to which you responded is not ‘propaganda.’”
Your original statement was, “Mr. Duke has forgotten that geocentrism was also a ‘settled issue.’ His ‘newsflash’ about the centrality of Catholic dogma to this discussion just begs for someone to point out the painfully obvious irony, namely, that Catholic dogma has a most militantly anti-science track record. It’s funny that Mr. Duke wants to wave the banner of scientific progress, since it was actually The Church that stood in its way for centuries.”
Words have meaning. Your retreat to the shelter of hyperbole notwithstanding, this begs for someone to ask when was geocentrism a settled issue? I assume you are alluding to Galileo’s time. If that is the case, then it certainly was not until 200 years later when the measurement of parallax of the stars and the pendulum precession were observed.. The irony is that the Galileo affair is usually the first, and almost always the only, case that anti-Catholic propagandists point to as evidence of Catholic “anti-science dogma” and used to establish [without question, of course] its “most militantly anti-science track record.” [The idea that Galileo was punished for his heliocentric theory ignores why Copernicus was not, even though he published essentially the same theory 20 years before Galileo was even born.] Hence, your leap of logic … and, by taking one data point [Galileo] and extrapolating a whole universe, a repeat of propaganda.
If the Church was as “militantly anti-science” as you claim, then among the things we should find are:
a) a call for the prohibition of teaching of science in schools;
b) the prohibition of Catholic students to study any science at all;
c) a general condemnation of the field of science [especially astronomy and the space program, for God’s sake], and all scientists;
d) a prohibition of the use by Catholics of scientific advances after, say, the time of Jesus;
e) few, if any, Catholic scientists, present or past [there would be no “Saint” Thomas Aquinas];
f) the excommunication of Catholics who actually do science.
Can you produce any evidence of these or similar things happening? On the contrary, we find the opposite, scientists like Dr. Anthony Rizzi, a devout Catholic, solver of an 80-year problem [ http://www.iapweb.org/director.htm ] in Einstein’s theory, and author of The Science Before Science. At the end of his Catholic TV series of the same name, he made a call to young Catholics to go into the field of science; and in his book on pages 185-187, he addresses this anti-Catholic prejudice vis à vis the Galileo case. As Rizzi points out, Galileo held other views that were completely erroneous, such as his view on the cause of the tides. Was Galileo as a scientist discredited completely for his erroneous views, as the Church was for the way it handled his case? No. And why not? Because discrediting a poor, helpless “victim” for holding erroneous views does not further an anti-Catholic agenda.
Re: “1)‘Being against’ something can mean anything from a) simply holding an alternative viewpoint to b) taking action – torturous, violent action – against those holding a view other than one’s own. For which of these (a or b) do you think The Church has earned its reputation?”
I have an answer to your question, but I think you should first explain what you meant by “being against”. Is it a or b?
Re: “2) It’s a mistake to draw a distinction between one kind of science (the bad-causing kind) and another kind of science (the good-causing kind). It’s just science.”
Sorta like, “It was just sex”?
Re: “3) Science is a method; you can either accept it as valid or not. You can’t be selective.”
Catholics accept that science is a method, but as with guns, it can be misused to produce evil results. Science is a method, but I fail to understand why you think it’s “a mistake” to see a difference, for example, between Nazi scientists experimenting on political opponents, trying to prove the superiority of the Aryan race, and science that prevents disease. [Note: Where would that method be without Aquinas?]
Re: “4) Either all science can ‘offer people an easy way to be bad’ or none of it can. Human nature offers people an easy way to be bad. (Guns don’t kill; people do).”
How Manichaean can you get? Beware the use of the word “all”. [See response to #3 about misuse.] In any event, I fail to see how the condemnation of the misuse of science equates to a “militant anti-science” position. On the other hand, such a leap of logic, as stated above, is prejudiced propaganda.
Re: “5) You’re right. Catholic dogma can’t be militantly anything. It’s Catholic actions that have been militant.”
OK, I guess you couldn’t find it in Catholic dogma, so now you are going after Catholics in general. Just exactly who committed what actions when, and how were they “militant”? [If you can’t come up with an examples other than Galileo, I will assume that’s the only one you are hanging your hat on.]
Good.
I concede the anti-science point to you. You have a lot more information about the commonly advanced Galileo scenario, and I agree – it’s not a very compelling case. The Church is not anti-science. Clearly the hyperbolic usage of ‘militant’ is problematic. Either way, your argument is much stronger than mine.
I’m not a Catholic, so there are a lot of things I don’t understand.
For example, if science contradicts with official Church doctrine, will The Church side with doctrine or science? Say, in the case of transubstantiation, or miracles, or the resurrection, or the ascension, or the cosmology of Genesis, for example? I ask because I don’t know.
Even if The Church would come down on the side of doctrine in some cases, I would no longer assert that this would make it ‘militantly anti-science.’ I would only argue that The Church does not recognize scientific authority in these cases.
In regards to the nature of science, I appreciate your reasons for understanding science as a potential source for evil. It can and has been misused. I would suggest again, however, that science itself is morally neutral, while human action is not. I still see no reason to distinguish between ‘good science’ and ‘bad science.’ A more accurate distinction would be between good and bad applications of science. Nazis chose a ‘bad’ application of science. But science itself is not therefore ‘bad.’
My comment #4), I agree, doesn’t make good sense. I was trying to say that human nature is the source of evil, not science.
In response to your who, what, when, how questions about Catholic militancy, my dear sir, I must recoil in astonishment. I guess the best answer I can put forward to those four questions are these two words: papal history. These two words entail centuries of war, murder, crusades, the Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, and wholesale violence of unimaginable proportions.
You win the linguistic debate about the militancy of Catholic dogma, but you cannot win a historical debate about the militancy of Catholic actions.
DCNorthwest:
Re: “For example, if science contradicts with official Church doctrine, will The Church side with doctrine or science? Say, in the case of transubstantiation, or miracles, or the resurrection, or the ascension, or the cosmology of Genesis, for example? …”
Here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13598b.htm is the Church’s explanation about science that is too long to post in its entirety. About three-fourths of the way down, there is a section that addresses conflicts between faith and science. I encourage you to read the whole article when you have time, however, because in other parts it addresses some of the issues you raise. Included is a brief discussion about Galileo [referred to by his last name, Galilei]. Here is an excerpt from the section on conflicts:
“Conflicts
“The conflicts between science and the Church are not real [because truth cannot contradict truth]. They all rest on assertions like these: Faith is an obstacle to research; faith is contrary to the dignity of science; faith is discredited by history. Basing the answers on the principles explained above, we can dispel the phantoms in the following manner. …”
Personally, I think a lot of error on both sides comes from each using their documents for something not intended. Religious fundamentalists, for example, take the Bible literally and use it as a history book [possibly to discredit evolution] and calculate that the age of the earth to be only 6,000 years [plus or minus]. And some scientists attempt to use science to prove that God doesn’t exist.
Re: “In regards to the nature of science, I appreciate your reasons for understanding science as a potential source for evil. It can and has been misused. I would suggest again, however, that science itself is morally neutral, while human action is not. I still see no reason to distinguish between ‘good science’ and ‘bad science.’ A more accurate distinction would be between good and bad applications of science. Nazis chose a ‘bad’ application of science. But science itself is not therefore ‘bad.’ … I was trying to say that human nature is the source of evil, not science.”
I now understand your point about science not being evil, but that people using it for evil; and I agree.
Re: “In response to your who, what, when, how questions about Catholic militancy, … the best answer I can put forward to those four questions are these two words: papal history. These two words entail centuries of war, murder, crusades, the Inquisition, burning heretics at the stake, and wholesale violence of unimaginable proportions.”
Here again I think you are laboring under some misinformation. Did the popes order those things? What are the specifics? I think if you did a little research, you would find a different story, as we observed in the Galileo case. To the extent that Christians in general and Catholics in particular committed atrocities, they did so against the teachings of Christ. As you do not fault science for what evil scientists do, you cannot blame Christian teaching for the evil that Christians do against that teaching. What we are left with is just what you said: people do evil. So what else is new?
With regard to history, it has been said that history is being taught as “points of view, rather than as a series of factual events” and that the “overwhelming majority [of teachers] believes that historical perspective is more important than truth,” so I am glad you brought up the Crusades, one of my favorite topics. “Misconceptions about the Crusades are all too common,” writes Crusade historian Thomas F. Madden. “The Crusades are generally portrayed as a series of holy wars against Islam led by power-mad popes and fought by religious fanatics. They are supposed to have been the epitome of self-righteousness and intolerance, a black stain on the history of the Catholic Church in particular and Western civilization in general. A breed of proto-imperialists, the Crusaders introduced Western aggression to the peaceful Middle East and then deformed the enlightened Muslim culture, leaving it in ruins. For variations on this theme, one need not look far. … So what is the truth about the Crusades? Scholars are still working some of that out. But much can already be said with certainty. For starters, the Crusades to the East were in every way defensive wars. They were a direct response to Muslim aggression – an attempt to turn back or defend against Muslim conquests of Christian lands.”
If we are to look at the events [what I call “Lundades”] leading up to the calling of the first Crusade, we arrive at an understanding / “perspective” that Leftist intelligentsia would rather we not:
632 – Mohammed dies
633 – Mesopotamia falls to Muslim invasion, followed by the entire Persian Empire
635 – Damascus falls
638 – Jerusalem capitulates
643 – Alexandria falls, ending 1,000 years of Hellenic civilization
648-49 – Cyprus falls
653 – Rhodes falls
673 – Constantinople attacked
698 – All of North Africa lost
711 – Spain invaded
717 – Muslims attack Constantinople again; repelled by Emperor Leo the Isaurian
721 – Saragossa falls, Muslims sights on southern France
720 – Narbonne falls.
732 – Bordeaux was stormed and its churches burnt down
732 – Charles Martel and his Frankish army defeat Muslims, turning back the Muslim tide
732 – Attacks on France continued
734 – Avignon captured by an Muslim force
743 – Lyons sacked
759 – Arabs driven out of Narbonne.
838 – Marseilles plundered
800 – Muslims incursions into Italy begin, Islands of Ponza and Ischia plundered
813 – Civitavecchia, the port of Rome sacked
826 – Crete falls to Muslim forces
827 – Muslim forces begin to attack Sicily.
837 – Naples repels a Muslim attack
838 – Marseilles taken
840 – Bari falls
842 – Messina captured and Strait of Messina controlled
846 – Muslims squadrons arrived at Ostia, at the Tiber’s mouth, sack Rome and St. Peter’s Basilica
846 – Taranto in Apulia conquered by Muslim forces
849 – Papal forces repel Muslim fleet at the mouth of the Tiber
853 – 871 – Italian coast from Bari down to Reggio Calabria controlled, Muslims terrorize Southern Italy.
859 – Muslims take control of all Messina
870 – Malta captured by the Muslims.
870 – Bari recaptured from the Muslims by Emperor Louis II
872 – Emperor Louis II defeats a Saracen fleet off Capua
872 – Muslim forces devastate Calabria
878 – Syracuse falls after a nine-month siege
879 – Pope John VIII forced to pay tribute of 25,000 mancuses (AUD$625,000) annually to the Muslims
880 – Byzantine Commanders gain victory over Saracen forces at Naples
881 – Muslims capture fortress near Anzio, plunder surrounding countryside with impunity for forty [40] years.
887 – Muslim armies take Hysela and Amasia, in Asia Minor.
889 – Toulon captured
921 – English pilgrims to Rome crushed to death under rocks rolled down on them by Saracens in the passes of the Alps
902 – Muslim fleets sacked and destroyed Demetrias in Thessaly, Central Greece,
904 – Thessalonica falls to Muslim forces
915 – After three months of blockade, Christian forces victorious against Saracens holed-up in their fortresses north of Naples
934 – Genoa attacked by Muslim forces
935 – Genoa taken
972 – Saracens finally driven from Faxineto
976 – Caliphs of Egypt send fresh Muslim expeditions into southern Italy. Initially the German Emperor Otho II, headquartered in Rome, successfully defeated these Saracen forces
977 – Sergius, Archbishop of Damascus, expelled from his See by Muslims
982 – Emperor Otho’s forces ambushed and his army defeated
1003 – Muslims from Spain sack Antibes
1003-09 – Marauding bands of Saracens plunder Italian coast from Pisa to Rome from bases on Sardinia
1005 – Muslims from Spain sack Pisa
1009 – Caliph of Egypt orders destruction of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, the Tomb of Jesus
1010 – Saracens seize Cosenza in southern Italy.
1015 – All Sardinia falls
1016 – Muslims from Spain again sack Pisa
1017 – Fleets of Pisa and Genoa sail for Sardinia, find Saracens crucifying Christians, drive Saracen leader out. Saracens try to re-take Sardinia until 1050
1020 – Muslims from Spain sack Narbonne
1095 – The First Crusade.
Source: “The Crusades In Context”
By Dr Paul Stenhouse
There were 463 years between Mohammed’s death in 632 and the calling of the first Crusade to free lands that had been Christian for a thousand years before the Muslim Lunaders arrived. If you had been pope during this time, looking back on those 463 years, what would you have done?
“From the safe distance of many centuries, it is easy enough to scowl in disgust at the Crusades. Religion, after all, is nothing to fight wars over. But we should be mindful that our medieval ancestors would have been equally disgusted by our infinitely more destructive wars fought in the name of political ideologies. And yet, both the medieval and the modern soldier fight ultimately for their own world and all that makes it up.” – “The Real History of the Crusades” by By Thomas F. Madden.
As for “unimaginable proportions,” I think they are more in someone’s imagination than in reality. If you want violence of “unimaginable proportions,” take a look at the death toll of the secular wars http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM . Table 3.1 http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.TAB3.1.GIF estimates the death toll from the Christian Crusades at 1,000,000 and the Spanish Inquisition at 350,000. Note 3 states that these are “best guesses.” I have read estimates that are much lower http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2001&month=April&read=1202 . Twentieth century democide [death by government] is describe thus: “In total, during the first 88 years of this [20 th] century, almost 170,000,000 men, women, and children have been shot, beaten, tortured, knifed, burned, starved, frozen, crushed, or worked to death; or buried alive, drowned, hung, bombed, or killed in any other of the myriad ways governments have inflicted death on unarmed, helpless citizens or foreigners. The dead even could conceivably be near 360,000,000 people. This is as though our species has been devastated by a modern Black Plague. And indeed it has, but a plague of Power and not germs.” http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/DBG.CHAP1.HTM .
Deaths due to Muslim Lunades since Mohammed are estimated to be 270,000,000 – probably high, but whatever the number, it is not insignificant, but what’s more important, you never hear about it.
My conclusion is that the perceived death toll from the Crusades and other misdeeds, while regrettable, has been pumped up to produce a revulsion similar to that by democide.
None of this is to excuse violence by Catholics/Christians, but to point out that there is more than just a little passing of the camel here. This is what happens when political advocacy http://www.nas.org/polReports.cfm?Doc_Id=7 replaces the disinterested pursuit of truth in the mission of the academy.
Re: “You win the linguistic debate about the militancy of Catholic dogma, but you cannot win a historical debate about the militancy of Catholic actions.”
Maybe not, but I think I have.
Sedona, I think you explained that very well, but perhaps you didn’t go far enough. As you said, the Crusades were defensive wars. As such, they were not fought over religion, not on the part of the Crusaders anyway. They were were a long overdue response to Muslim conquests that had long been chipping away at the Christian world. It is entirely conceivable that had they not been launched, the West as we know it today would not exist.
I should mention a couple more things. I also don’t dispute the point about science, but I think that the debate was like arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I think Sedona meant exactly what you expressed, DC. He simply was speaking more loosely. It was more semantics than anything else.
It much like if we call so-and-so an “evil man.” Theologically speaking (meaning, being precise), there is no such thing. This is because man is good by nature, made by God and for God. But do we always have to jump through hoops to speak in such ways? I think that intelligent people will understand what’s meant by “evil man.” As for the dunces, you should keep things simple for them anyway.
As for the Catholic Church, it’s hard for the average person to understand that most everything negative you hear about it is either untrue or blown out of proportion. This is because it’s hard to imagine that so many lies could abound relating to such an institution, but that is in fact the case here. The Catholic Church is perhaps THE most unfairly maligned institution in human history. The reason is that it gets criticism from all sides. First, the Protestants told lies about it for obvious reasons. Then today’s secular left (and some Protestants) have continued this smear campaign, often picking up on the same lies.
Wow. You really put some effort into that one.
True, one shouldn’t incriminate the group on grounds of the actions of some of its individuals. I have no interest in the condemnation of Christianity or The Church, per se, but niether of us can avoid noticing how destructive faith and ideology – of whatever kind – become when used to justify militant action. Perhaps militant action can only be motivated or justified by ideology; I see no reason to think that it isn’t.
But to bring our useful debate back into focus, my assertion was simply that Catholic actions have been militant. This has nothing to do with historical perspective or justifiable militancy, as you so thoroughly set out to point out. We must either acknowledge or deny that religious belief has historically been used to justify militant action. (It has also informed non-violence). Either way, the historical fact is that for all Abrahamic religions, war, killing, torture, and revenge have all been carried out in their names, and it is because of this history that dedicated scholars like yourself spend as much time and energy as you do in constructing arguments desinged to mitigate this simple fact – a fact that has indeed caused a major scar on the history of not only Catholicism, but on ‘religion’ more broadly.
Apologetics have occupied religious advocates for thousands of years, not because the reasonableness of their positions are self-evident, but quite the opposite. The Church has a lot of explaining to do.
Your list of dates and events is longer than mine, so if you judge ‘winning debates’ in terms of the amount of information wielded, I concede. But Polyneices’ famous quote is fitting: “The word of truth is single and plain, and justice doesn’t need shifting, intricate interpretations, since it makes its own case. But the unjust argument, since it is sick and deficient, needs clever medicine.”
The Church fought to maintain political power in Europe for hundreds of years, and the reputation of Catholicism has been permenantely undermined as a result. Argue all you want, but the author of the original post is making the same inflammatory argument (about a ‘betrayal of faith’) that has been used to justify militant responses to everything from Muslim invasions to accusations of heresy. The Church holds itself up as the sole interpreter of God’s word, and this blatant self-righteousness can never be overshadowed by even the most clever justification.
But I must say, yours was a very nice try.
DC, how would you have responded to Muslim invasions? By throwing flowers? The point is that a militant response to such a thing is the correct one. It’s also one that virtually any group under the sun would have undertaken.
And this is the point. Every group (except ones like the Amish, and even in their community you find corporal punishment) has undertaken military action. So, why do you seem to place special onus on the Church? The Muslims have certainly been militant, the Jews have (if we are to believe Jewish Scriptures – the OT), and every ethnic group and nation that has ever existed has. Who then in this violent world measures up to your standards? Maybe you should become Amish.
You see, you’re cherry-picking the Church for scorn on the basis of something everyone does. How can you describe it as militant because it has engaged in military action? You might as well then describe it as pacifist since it has also engaged in peace-making.
The point is, that your argument has to hinge on one of four things. They are the assumption that militant action is always uncalled for, the assumption that the Church is being hypocritical because it preaches pacifism, the assumption that the Church is required to be perfect in every action is undertakes to be legitimate, or the assumption that the Church is unusually flawed in this regard. All four assumptions are false. Let’s look at them one at a time.
1. As I’m sure you realize, military action is sometimes the appropriate response. In fact, in those cases the immoral thing is to respond incorrectly and not launch military action.
2. The Church isn’t hypocritical because it isn’t Amish. As the author said, it has a just war doctrine.
3. Since the Church is made up of human beings, it will never be perfect in all ways – that is something only existing in Heaven. The Church also never claims to be perfect.
4. If anyone would say the Church is unusually militant, they would be showing their ignorance of history and/or prejudice. Think about it. Critics of the Church will cite things like the Crusades or the Inquisition, like you have. But the Crusades were again, defensive wars. As for the Inquisition, the only one run by the Church was the Roman one. The Spanish Inquisition was run by the Spanish throne. As for the Roman Inquisition, it’s noted for being amazingly civilized for its time. Nevertheless, whether critics believe that or not, is this all they’ve got? Is it? I mean, we’re talking about an institution that is 2000 years old. If they can’t find more than what they mention, I think the Church is doing amazingly well.
Re: “You see, you’re cherry-picking the Church for scorn on the basis of something everyone does. How can you describe it as militant because it has engaged in military action? You might as well then describe it as pacifist since it has also engaged in peace-making.”
I think it’s right to single out the Church for special criticism. After all, they do claim to be the link between me and God, do they not?
It’s claims like these that have opened the Church up for sustained and warranted critique. Any person or institution that claims infallibility or sole possession of the ‘keys to heaven’ deserves a closer look, don’t you think?
I can describe the Church as militant because it has a history of burning people at the stake. It has a history of waging war. It has a history of close proximity – if not full integration – with political empire. I realize this debate is old and well-traversed, so I am eager to concede as much ground in favor of the usefulness of the Church as I possibly can. But guys, come on. This debate over militancy has come up because sedonaman put forward this question: “Just exactly who committed what actions when, and how were they ‘militant’?” As if!
The Vatican currently houses detailed records of the Inquisition. None of us here has or will ever see these records. Let us at least acknowledge, in a spirit of brotherly love, that these records tarnish not only the Church’s reputation, but also its claims to spiritual authority.
We have firmly established an affirmative answer to the question of Catholic militancy. Now we are talking about when militant action is justifiable. And I agree that violence is warranted in certain situations. I would not ‘throw flowers,’ as Paladin scornfully suggests. There is an expansive behavioral gulf between throwing flowers and burning people at the stake.
Nonetheless. I would still argue that the Church is ‘unusually militant’ – not in proportion to the violence that others have carried out as well (which is weak sauce, because the actions of others do not justify our own) – because it purports to be the sole arbiter between man and the Prince of Peace. In this sense, Catholic history is unusually militant.
It’s all about the self-righteousness you guys. Of course humans are prone to error. But the ones that set themselves up higher than everyone else are so much more the fools, the hypocrites, the madmen. And you, their defenders, will never concede. Why should you? Your very identity and cosmology are at stake.
Paladin writes: “Critics of the Church will cite things like the Crusades or the Inquisition, like you have….As for the Roman Inquisition, it’s noted for being amazingly civilized for its time. Nevertheless, whether critics believe that or not, is this all they’ve got? Is it?”
This is all critics need, my dear sir. Beyond this, they have the Church’s reputation for sanctioning pederasty, for restricting birth control, for turning a blind eye during the Holocaust, and seriously, a “civilized” Inquisition? – critics have ample fodder. Enough to keep you guys busy for a long, long time.
If I read you correctly DCNorthwest you believe that the Catholic Church is similar to school districts for sanctioning pederasty? Certainly the school districts have a much larger record of abuses.
It seems as you have some deep seated resentment of the Catholic Church. Have you talked to someone about this aberant behaviour?
Paladin:
Thank you for your comments and support, particularly post #11 where you state, “You might as well then describe it [the Church] as pacifist since it has also engaged in peace-making.”
Critics look at the Crusades and conclude that the Church is militant, but they never look at those 463 preceding years and conclude it is pacifist. Indeed. Sometimes I think the Church is pacifist to a fault.
Re: “It is entirely conceivable that had they [the Crusades] not been launched, the West as we know it today would not exist.”
This is exactly Prof. Madden’s conclusion in his discussion of the Crusades:
“Whether we admire the Crusaders or not, it is a fact that the world we know today would not exist without their efforts. The ancient faith of Christianity, with its respect for women and antipathy toward slavery, not only survived but flourished. Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam’s rivals, into extinction.”
DCNorthwest:
Re: “This debate over militancy has come up because sedonaman put forward this question: “Just exactly who committed what actions when, and how were they ‘militant’? As if!”
I think it is a fair question which I asked to give you a chance to show you are not pulling these accusations out of the air or just repeating what you have heard. I have provided dates, places, and academic sources, while you have provided nothing more than words to the effect, “C’mon guys. Everyone knows the Church has committed [fill in whatever evil deeds].” You talk as though the Church burned people at the stake as often as the Aztecs performed human sacrifice … even from its beginning.
Re: “As if!”
I am missing something here. “As if!” what?
Re: “This is all critics need, my dear sir. Beyond this, they have the Church’s reputation for sanctioning pederasty, for restricting birth control, for turning a blind eye during the Holocaust, and seriously, a ‘civilized’ Inquisition?”
I can address all of these but will limit my comments to the Holocaust and Inquisition because those are the topics you initially brought up.
You have said the Church has been militant down through the ages, and now you charge it with “turning a blind eye” toward the Holocaust. Just exactly what do you expect of the Church? To perform miracles? On the one hand, if it had launched another Crusade to stamp out Nazism, you would accuse it of more militancy. As it is, you condemn it for taking the pacifist approach to resisting the Holocaust. [BTW, the charge of “turning a blind eye” originated from an anti-Catholic fictional play written in the ‘60s and is nothing more propaganda; but, hey, it must be true because it was the topic of a play, and they wouldn’t be allowed to put it on if it wasn’t true, would they?] As we have seen a number of times and more recently from Benedict’s speech at Regensburg, when the pope speaks, people die. This was even more the case for those under Nazi domination. Yeah, Pius could have said more, and more people would have died. Would that have assuaged your judgement of him? Would the moral course have been to go ahead and let more people die just so DCNorthwest would think well of the Church?
Re: “The Vatican currently houses detailed records of the Inquisition. None of us here has or will ever see these records. Let us at least acknowledge, in a spirit of brotherly love, that these records tarnish not only the Church’s reputation, but also its claims to spiritual authority.”
If you suspect a conspiracy theory of hiding the truth, I encourage you to read this work http://www.tcsdaily.com/article.aspx?id=092006B by Prof. Edward Feser.
The Church freely admits the Inquisition; but the questions are, what is true about it, and has it been blown out of proportion? Dr. Donohue has done some research:
“The most famous period of the Spanish Inquisition, under the legendary Torquemada, had little to do with the common caricature of simple ‘bible-believing’ Protestants torn apart by ruthless churchmen. The true picture is unsettling enough: it was a [civil] government-controlled inquisition aimed at faithful Catholics of Jewish ancestry. The papacy, under Sixtus IV (1471-1484) and Innocent VIII (1484-1492), rather than controlling the Spanish Inquisition, protested its unfair treatment of the conversos [Jewish converts to Catholicism] with little result.” Read the rest here http://www.catholicleague.org/catalyst.php?year=2001&month=April&read=1202
Another question one might ask is how is it that the Catholic Church admits to the Inquisition and the Crusades, but no one can find similar mea culpae from Islamic authorities for its much more enormous crimes against humanity? The Church is condemned, but Islam gets a pass, ostensibly because the Church claims it is the one true religion. But wait. Islam makes the same claim, as does any religion that expects to have followers. Who would follow a religion that claimed not to have the truth at the exclusion of all others? The absurdity of such a situation is obvious to the most casual observer and dimmest Doubting Thomas.
Re: “We have firmly established an affirmative answer to the question of Catholic militancy.”
I think the question is still on the table. “Militant” compared to what? I think Paladin is right; the “what” in your mind is perfection. As with the Holocaust, you expect the impossible.
Re: “…critics have ample fodder. Enough to keep you guys busy for a long, long time.”
This is probably the most correct thing you have said. “A lie can get around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.” – Winston Churchill
DC, I don’t doubt your sincerity, and you definitely are literate. Unfortunately though, much of the information you’ve gotten about the Church is simply incorrect. We’ll start with the most serious misinformation.
The Church did not turn a “blind eye” to the Holocaust. Instead, it actually acted heroically during the event. This is not opinion. It is fact that was reiterated by none other than a Jewish historian, Rabbi David Dalin. He wrote a book titled “The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany” – http://www.amazon.com/Myth-Hitlers-Pope-Against-Germany/dp/0895260344. In this book he points out that Pope Pius XII is personally responsible for saving at least 700,000 Jews from extermination.
However, Dalin did not “uncover” anything. I said that he “reiterated” the truth about Catholic heroism during the war because the facts contained in his book have long been known. In fact, people during and after WWII (and this includes prominent Jews) would have been shocked by a negative portrayal of Pius. In fact, they thought just the opposite of him. Pius was praised roundly by contemporary Jewish figures like Albert Einstein, Moshe Sharett and Golda Meir. Here is an excerpt from an article on the subject.
Nazis and Jews alike recognized Pius XII as the most prominent opponent of the Nazis and defenders of the Jews. Albert Einstein said, “Only the Church stood squarely across the path of Hitler’s campaign for suppressing the truth.” In 1943 Chaim Weizmann, Israel’s first prime minister, said that the Holy See is lending its powerful help wherever it can. Moshe Sharett, Israel’s second prime minister visited Pius XII to thank him for the efforts of the pope and the Catholic Church to rescue Jews. Rabbi Isaac Herzog, chief rabbi of Israel, praised the pope and his delegates for what they did for the Jews. In September 1945 Leon Kubowitzky, secretary general of the World Jewish Congress, thanked the pope for his interventions and the Congress donated $20,000 to Vatican charities “in recognition of the work of the Holy See in rescuing Jews from Fascist and Nazi persecutions.” here is the link – http://www.stmaryvic.com/articles/hitler&PiusXII.htm.
Here is an excerpt from a book review of Dalin’s book.
“Dalin examines most of the pro- and con- authors on Pope Pius and his actions during World War II. He shows that many of Pope Pius’ detractors have made historical errors or simply created false information in order to promote their agendas. Dalin backs up his claims of the detractors’ errors by presenting sources and authors who know the history and sources. Dalin presents the detractors’ agendas as anti-Catholic and anti-papal, liberals who are against the Catholic Church, Pope Pius and Pope John Paul II. Some of them have used their arguments against Pius to attack Pope John Paul and now Benedict. The so-called Catholic detractors are angry liberals who are upset with the Church and the Pope over various issues; non-Catholic detractors are liberals who only want a liberal secular society where almost anything goes.” Link – http://www.curledup.com/mythpope.htm.
The reality, DC, is that there is so much more. The issue simply is not debatable – the Church’s critics made the Hitler’s Pope myth up out of whole cloth. And that’s the problem. When a big lie is repeated so often, so passionately and when it’s unbelievably big, people just can’t believe it’s not true. By the way, I should mention that everyone acknowledged the truth about Pius until about five years after his death. What happened then? A German Protestant playwright wrote a play titled “The Deputy.” It was propaganda and an attempt to smear the Church, portraying the Church as a Nazi co-conspirator. And the propaganda worked.
But we are making progress. The source of your grievance has now been identified – you think the Church is self-rightious. This is good because now we’re getting down to brass tacks.
Before I get to that, let’s be clear on what has been put to bed. You say that “We have firmly established an affirmative answer to the question of Catholic militancy.” What we have established is that the Church has done militant things. This is another way of saying that we’ve established the obvious. It’s much like saying that we have established that Catholics eat food. Yes they do. But this isn’t the same as saying that they are guilty of gluttony and hog food. If all they’re doing is eating it, they’re doing something everyone can and should do – to the right degree.
It also seems that you cannot dispute the overall degree. It seems that you have ceded another obvious point, which is that the Church has not been unusually militant relative to other groups. In fact, the Church has been very pacifistic relative to governments. Or maybe I should say, other entities of similar power.
Then there are your other points. The Church doesn’t sanction pederasty anymore than the schools do (as another poster mentioned). Every week at Fark (literally), I read another story about a teacher having an affair with a very young student – sometimes a 13 year old. Yet this is contrary to school policy. So it would be unfair to say that schools “sanction” pederasty.
As for birth control, it’s funny you should mention it. There recently was a news article about how a leading AIDS researcher said that the Pope is RIGHT about condoms. I can provide you with the link it you need it. But you can easily find it yourself. This doesn’t surprise me of course. If the Church states something definitely, you can bank on it.
Now let’s deal with the Church’s alleged “self-rightiousness.” You again have things wrong. The Church only claims infallibility in ONE area – when they Pope speaks ex cathedra. This means in the exercise of his office and only concerns the issuing of teaching on faith and dogma. It does not concern any other area of Catholic life and also comes into play very rarely. This is because Popes don’t often speak ex cathedra.
In other words, the Church does not claim the perfection you say it does. It only claims that it cannot err when issuing infallible teaching because, as far as that narrow area of a Pope’s life goes, he is led by the Holy Spirit. Above and beyond that, he is a sinner like anyone else. In fact, some Popes have been terrible sinners.
Now there is the idea that the Church claims to be your link to God. I think you’re getting your information from Protestants. Catholics can and do talk to God directly all the time. The Church encourages this. What the Church does do is provide the sacraments, which are administered by priests and are graces that God gives us. As far as this goes, the priest acts as a channel through which God’s grace flows. This doesn’t make him better than anyone. it simply means that he has a unique role. And even if he is an evil man, it doesn’t tarnish the sacraments. As St. Augustine said, “The sacraments are like light. If light flows through something that is impure, it does not become impure. It remains pure and travels on.”
As for Catholics overall attitude, I think you’re confusing us with Protestants. Catholics do not say, “Confess with your lips that Christ is Lord and you will be saved.” They don’t say, “Once saved, always saved.” We don’t believe we can be sure of our salvation or that we know who is going to Heaven and Hell. Catholic teaching and the Catholic spirit are characterized by humility. In fact, we emphasize that we are all sinners. By the way, when I told a Protestant about this recently, he argued with me and said that Christ freed us from that. So, you’re thinking of some other church.
There is so much more that could be said. As far as Christ being the Prince of Peace goes, we shouldn’t be Protestant and take Bible passages out of context. He also said that He has not come to unite the world but as a sword, to divide brother against brother. And now I’ll conclude.
You mentioned earlier that the Church is always under attack, that apologetics exists, because it has so much to defend. Of course, it’s partially true. Any institution with a 2000 year history will have much to defend. but you have it wrong. G.K. Chesterton (a champion of Catholicism) once said that the truth is always under attack because it touches everything. He then said, “Things can be irrelevant to the proposition that Christianity is false. But nothing is irrelevant to he proposition that Christianity is true.” The Church is always under attack because it is always right. But the world isn’t – it’s often wrong.
By the way, in ancient Roman times the Church was also under attack. Back then many Romans said it was two pacifistic. They were worried that Christianity would make their soldiers too feminine.
Typo – should have been “too pacifistic.”
Mickey G writes: “…you believe that the Catholic Church is similar to school districts for sanctioning pederasty? Certainly the school districts have a much larger record of abuses.”
I believe no such thing. School districts don’t hold themselves up as God’s definers and exemplars of morality. And there’s nothing ‘aberant’ about critiquing power. It happens to be the very practice that gave rise to the US Constitution, for example. You should try it some time. It’s quite liberating.
Sedonaman writes: “You talk as though the Church burned people at the stake as often as the Aztecs performed human sacrifice…”
‘As if’ burning people at the stake is ok even once. The Aztecs’ behavior is irrelevant.
Sedonaman asks, with emphasis: “Just exactly what do you expect of the Church?”
Based on its history, I expect the Church to continue to do whatever it takes to maintain relevancy – even if it requires justifying its own immorality.
The Church should have never merged with political power in the first place. (Granted, some have argued that the Church would have fared better were it not for Constantine’s fateful decision). The entire Catholic heirarchy was a human formulation, and I can say with confidence that Jesus would have nothing to do with the Catholic Church, or its money, or its power, or its piety. All these are antithetical to the life and work of Jesus.
Re: “…the Church claims it is the one true religion…Who would follow a religion that claimed not to have the truth at the exclusion of all others? The absurdity of such a situation is obvious to the most casual observer…”
Here’s what’s absurd: That thinking people would follow anybody who made such claims. Think for yourself. Why follow?
You say, “I asked to give you a chance to show you are not pulling these accusations out of the air or just repeating what you have heard.” Kind of ironic coming from someone whose provided so many links to what other people have said. Fact is, we all understand things based partly on what we’ve heard.
Re: “the “what” in your mind is perfection. As with the Holocaust, you expect the impossible.”
It is the Church who has laid claims to perfection (via the Pope). I understand that it’s impossible to live up to such claims.
Look. You guys are doing really good work. The information you’ve presented represents a lot of research and an admirable effort at defending the Church. But the Church is the very kind of thing that needs defending, because to us ‘casual observers,’ the whole thing is a house of cards. Why else would you go to these lengths? What do you care if I’m wrong? It’s yourselves that your afraid of being wrong. You’re proving this stuff to yourselves. I have no problem with people or institutions that make mistakes. It’s part of our nature. But the Church has claimed to be above this nature, which is why the slightest missteps invite so much scorn. Why doesn’t the Church admit that it’s run by men who made up its canon, that it doesn’t have a monopoly on the truth, that people can do just fine without it, and that in spite of what “Professor Madden” says about the Church’s single-handed responsibility for ensuring the emergence of Western culture, one could envision a whole host of cultural scenarios that would have turned out far better in terms of the quality of life for humanity – one which, most importantly, would not have a monolithic religious powerhouse, for example, refusing entire continents the benefits of birth control.
Well, DC, you are proving that you are not as open-minded as you claimed to be in a previous thread. I refuted your arguments, but you act as if I never addressed them and repeat the same fallacies. And you use sophistry. Why are we here defending the Church? Because you came here and attacked it. Why did you feel compelled to do so? Why does anyone talk about religion and politics? Why does anyone debate? These are good questions. But you should ask them of yourselves. If you do so honestly you may be surprised at the conclusions you come to.
As for the previous thread, you said you were interested in honest discussion. You said that you really wanted to understand why conservatives believe what they do. You claimed you were governed by reason. OK, so then we do research and provide you with facts and sound reasoning. And what do you do? You spit on them.
I’ll say that if you really didn’t care about being right (you asked us why we care), you wouldn’t have earlier said that you wanted to KNOW, that you would yield to reason. And if you really didn’t care about being right, you would just say, yeah, man, OK, you’re right. Then you would go off and smoke a bong or do whatever else you found pleasurable. So you do care – as we all do. That’s why we’re here. So let’s stop with the sophistry, OK?
You also said, You say, “I asked to give you a chance to show you are not pulling these accusations out of the air or just repeating what you have heard.” Kind of ironic coming from someone whose provided so many links to what other people have said. Fact is, we all understand things based partly on what we’ve heard.
Again, this is sophistry. You verify accusations by providing evidence. In most cases this takes the form of written historical accounts. And while we may understand things based partly on what we’ve heard, some of us “hear” a lot more than others. Some of us do research and actually try to get to the bottom of matters. That’s some of us. Most just are content to rest with their prejudices. Prejudices are very comfortable after all.
DC, earlier you ceded the point about science. I respected that and it did indicate open-mindedness. However, your behavior now indicates just the opposite. You also should consider having a bit more humility. You stated quite definitively earlier that the Church was anti-science. Then you readily admitted you were wrong. Don’t you think it’s a problem when you make definitive statements about things you know little about? Don’t you think that if you were wrong about that (even though it seemed so instinctively right at the time – it was in line with common prejudices), that maybe you’re wrong about other things also?
I think you do realize that. I think this is why you’re shying away from this debate. For sure, it is one of three things that drive you – pride, prejudice or laziness.
What I mean is that, whether you’ll admit it or not, you’re getting a lot more than you bargained for. We’re exploding many myths you’ve learned. This may tweak your pride because you’re realizing that much of what you thought you knew is probably wrong. So the excuse is, well, heck, we can’t really know anything anyway. We all understand things based on what we’ve heard. Or, it could be laziness. When you realize you’re very wrong, it becomes clear that righting the ship will take a lot of work. Why bother? the excuse is, hey, why do you really care about who is right or wrong? Or it could be prejudice. I mean, you KNOW the Catholic Church is evil, and you’re dead set on maintaining that belief. And the excuse is, c’mon, guys, we all KNOW the Church is guilty of these things. can’t we just move on?
No one can force you to be sincere. That is up to you. but a sincere person yields to facts and reason – an ideologue doesn’t. I don’t really expect any more from a liberal than ideologically driven, knee-jerk responses, so I can’t be disappointed. But you can disappoint yourself.
Paladin
(I didn’t address your previous post because I think we both posted at the same time. I posted before I saw your response. We’re apparently both writing and posting at the same time. I’m not trying to spit on your arguments. Take it easy. The following was written after your post that you thought I spit on)…
I am glad to drop the Holocaust denial charges. I will save this information for future situations in which I encounter similar charges being raised, and will defend the Church on this count.
Our orignial issue, regarding Catholic militancy, has been been ‘put to bed,’ as you say. So I offer the following exchange, with satisfaction:
DCNorthwest: “It’s Catholic actions that have been militant.”
sedonaman: “Just exactly who committed what actions when, and how were they ‘militant’?”
Paladin: “What we have established is that the Church has done militant things. This is another way of saying that we’ve established the obvious.”
Touche’. (Thanks, Paladin!).
Moving on then…
I’m sure the Church does not actually sanction pederasty. My assertion was that it has a repuation for doing so. This reputation has stuck because this type of action is so contrary to its dogma.
No human is infallible ever. Not even the Pope, not even when he speaks ex cathedra. The Church can, in fact, err when issuing “infallible” teaching. It’s a preposterous claim.
Re: “The Church is always under attack because it is always right.”
I won’t hold you to this. But since you said it, I should just point out that assertions like these strip apologists like yourself of all credibility in the court of rational debate. Be careful.
Re: “Catholics can and do talk to God directly all the time.”
I would argue that Catholics think they talk to God. Just like they think the Church is always right, or like they think the Pope is infallible at certain times.
Now.. in response to your last post…
As you can see, I have conceded to your historical arguments. Sorry for the cross-talk. But you’re right. If I had ignored your information, I would be very deserving of your tirade.
DC,
OK, I respect your willingness to admit error. I still must ask though, doesn’t it give you pause that these horrible things that you are been told about the Church, and that you’d taken for granted, are actually false? If someone you knew had been the target of such a smear campaign, don’t you think you’d be wondering what was up? Wouldn’t you find it interesting that someone found it necessary to engage in such deception? It’s not something I’d be incurious about.
When I said the Church is always right, I of course meant in matters of definitive teaching. I was not referring to every action undertaken and every statement made. But I stand by what I said.
As far as Catholics believing they speak to God, I can also say that you simply believe they don’t. You cannot prove your claim any more than I can prove mine.
You said, I’m sure the Church does not actually sanction pederasty. My assertion was that it has a repuation for doing so. This reputation has stuck because this type of action is so contrary to its dogma.
And the Jews have a reputation for being cheap. Blacks have a reputation for committing crime. Are you putting stock in stereotypes now? What’s the point? This isn’t to say stereotypes can’t have a basis in reality. Nevertheless, all your doing is stating a stereotype.
And would it be better if Church dogma did sanction pederasty? Maybe it would. Alfred Kinsey was a pedophile and actually endorsed it (yes, we know this for a fact now), and no one seems to bother the Kinsey Institute much. I guess you can be a lowlife if you just come right out and say, hey, I’m a lowlife! OK?
The reality is very different. If you behave wrongly, it’s a mistake. If you teach wrongly, it’s another mistake. Sure, a parent shouldn’t lie. But if he does, should he also tell his kids to lie just to be consistent? Actually, William Buckley once wrote a piece about this. It’s called something like “The Necessary Hypocrisy.” I’m not sure of the title though.
My error was to paint with too broad of a brush in speaking of ‘the Church’ as a single unitary actor throughout history. Certainly the papacy, atop the Church’s heirarchical power structure, serves as a focal point for synechdic critique. What is more likely is that the Catholic response during the Holocaust (just like actions throughout history) reflected a variety of sentiments – from concessional to adamantly oppositional – and so in this sense it is more correct to speak of “Catholic responses,” a plurality.
So I would move away from placing criticism at the feet of ‘the Church’ as a whole, and refine my arguments along more descriptive lines in terms of still maintaining the assertion that while some Catholic actors admirably came out in opposition to the Holocaust, others did not. Call it sophistry if you want, but it still seems plausible that the response of Catholics to the Holocaust was inconsistent, a ‘mixed bag’ as it were.
I only make this disctinction so that it might make sense to you why I do not instantly undertake a vigorous inquiry about any targeted ‘smear campaign.’ The necessity of ‘engaging in such deception,’ if applicable, is rather uninteresting, actually. As you know, those in power are naturally the targets of political opposition. It seems to me quite simple. Had I the time and energy, I would be quick to compile evidence to biuld a case; it might start with a passage, for instance, from David Kertzer’s book “The Popes Against the Jews” (Knopf:NY, 2001) where he gives the following account (p291):
“But Pius XII’s secretary of state concluded his encounter with the German ambassador on that grim day [when the decision was made to ship Jews to Auschwitz] on a note of reassurance: ‘I repeat,’ said Cardinal Maglione, ‘Your Excellency has told me that he will try to do something for the poor Jews. I thank you for it. As for the rest, I leave it to your judgement. If you think it more opportune not to mention this conversation, so be it.’
“Two days later, over a thousand of the Jews rounded up in Rome by the Germans were placed on a train bound for Auschwitz. Only a few would leave there alive.”
Now, what does this mean? Only that historical opinion is a matter of interpretation based on the evidence available, and based on an episode like this one, I restate my claim that the Catholic response during the Holocaust was by no means unitary, one way or the other. According the this account, ‘blind eyes’ were turned. We can debate whether or not these blind eyes should characterize the Church’s response as a whole (please appreciate the distinction I am making here), and it’s clear that you would argue they should not.
Either way, we can’t yet say that “these horrible things your are [sic] been told about the Church, and that you’d taken for granted, are actually false.” Clearly, they’re supported by the account I just gave, and so I’m not ready to say they’re ‘actually false,’ and incidentally, I don’t think I took them for granted. I asserted them without evidence, and questioned them in light of new information. I’ve adjusted my claims accordingly.
In regards to the Church always being right ‘in matters of definitive teaching,’ I see no significant difference between this claim and your original. This new claim is just as preposterous as the first. How foolish would I look, in a rational debate, if, in appealing to the teaching of X, I said “X is always right in matters of definitive teaching!” I’d be laughed out of the room. (But I appreciate that this is more your room than mine, so this won’t happen here).
Re: “As far as Catholics believing they speak to God, I can also say that you simply believe they don’t. You cannot prove your claim any more than I can prove mine.”
First, that isn’t my claim. I never said anything about thinking that Catholics don’t talk to God; my assertion was only that Catholics think they talk to God, which they do. It’s a true statement. I don’t know whether they actually talk to God or not, so I don’t argue that ‘Catholics don’t talk to God.’ I only argue that ‘Catholics think they talk to God.’ You, I am sure, are demonstrable proof of my claim. Second, in regards to the ‘unproveability’ of your claim, why make the claim in the first place?? Why not say ‘I think I talk to God’ in stead of ‘I do talk to God’? Why make such ridiculous claims, Paladin? There’s no reason to go around affirming a thing to be true (like talking to God) when you know you don’t know if it’s true or not.
In regards to reputation as stereotype. You raise a compelling point. I suppose it’s no use to allow stereotypes to dominate my understanding of the Church. Is pederasty a commonly applied stereotype among Catholics? How do stereotypes emerge? I don’t know. Perhaps a reputation is something that is earned, whereas a stereotype is not. But this is just brainstorming…
And I’m not entirely sure what your argument is in regards to Alfred Kinsey. It’s pretty weird and pretty creepy. Oh I get it – it’s a joke, right?
I will certainly look up Buckley’s piece on ‘necessary hypocrisy.’ I love Buckley. He has a way of “putting it just right.” Unfortunately, he has a way of doing so very often in defense of the status quo. But I must say, he does so brilliantly.
Paladin and sedonaman,
I’ve been down a similar path with DC Northwest in another thread about another subject. Same techniques.
He pretends to be thoughtful, and even concedes minor points in order to seem conciliatory. But in the end he maintains his ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
I am not a Catholic, but even I know the real story about Galileo and the Crusades. The thing is, people love their preconceptions, so they gladly embrace anything that confirms them, and reject whatever conflicts with them.
People hate the church. They hate God. They hate believers. It’s irrational, contrary to the preponderance of evidence, and vapid.
But, I’m not surprised.
DC,
That was a very literate post . . . that said little. At the end of the day, you always run and hide with a disclaimer like, well, we can’t really know what happened in history – it’s all perspective. Or it could be, we can’t really know what’s right. Who’s to say?
The problem, DC, is that you’re a moral relativist. This is an illogical “perspective” to hold. This is because to have a debate, you have to have a starting point. In philosophy such a thing is called an “axiom.” For example, for a debate about moral issues to make any sense, we have to agree truth exists. If not, why debate? If it’s all a matter of perspective, what’s wrong with killing Jews? What’s wrong with turning a blind eye to genocide?
As for the Church, to say that this or that Catholic might have done this or that is a cop-out. This is because we’re talking here about Vatican policy. The Vatican, as you know, is a Church with official teaching and a governing body. And it’s also a nation with “foreign policy.” So it can have official positions, just like any other nation.
It’s just like the United States. During WWI, there were Americans who didn’t want to go to war. But that didn’t mean that there wasn’t such a thing as official American policy and law. America WAS at war, plain and simple.
It’s the same thing here. With over a billion Catholics worldwide, of course different Catholics said and did different things. That isn’t the point. The point is that the Vatican still existed. It was still a nation. It still had a policy.
I’ll also point out that you’re ignoring the credibility of sources. Just like you can find a Catholic who’ll say anything you might want said, you can also find a source who might write anything you want written. On this issue the preponderance of the evidence is clear – the Church’s official policy was one of clever resistance to Nazi rule. And the Church also aimed to help all those persecuted by the Nazis.
You seem to take pride in being agnostic – in not knowing. But the word agnostic is just the Greek word for the Latin word for ignorant.
I’ll again say that you’re a moral relativist. Over the years I’ve come to understand why this fault is so serious. Much good material has been written on the subject. In fact, a good article on the subject was written by Duke. The link is here – http://selwynduke.typepad.com/selwyndukecom/2002/09/the-nature-of-r.html
Relativism is not a virtue.
DC,
I forget to address you Kinsey question. It’s well-known among people who dont’ get their information from the mainstream media that Kinsey and his accomplices were pedophiles. Kinsey basically said this in his books. We also know that Kinsey wrote to a Nazi pedophile named Fritz Von Balluseck. He encouraged Balluseck to continue molesting children and warned him not to get caught. And yes, this also is proven. The German courts have the letters exchanged between the two creeps. They were seized when Balluseck was put on trial after the war for the murder of a young girl.
There is so much more. The evidence against Kinsey is overwhelming. Watch the documentary “The Kinsey Syndrome.” I know you know that you can’t know anything. But if you watch it you might know something you didn’t know before.
Mountain Man once accused me of being a moral relativist, too. We had an engaging discussion about moral absolutism versus moral relativism. It’s a debate that reflects very different perspectives. It’s a lot easier to see the world in terms of white-and-black. This kind of view requires no thought, only obedience. I would suggest, however, that developing a sense of appreciation for complexity and nuance allows one much more flexibility in the face of new information. It allows one to change. I find it strikingly ironic that throughout this entire thread, I have made major concessions in the light of new information, yet I’m still the one who is being accused for “maintain[ing] ignorance in the face of overwhelming evidence..”. When I make a concession, you call it a cop-out, ‘running and hiding,’ or moral relativism. It seems to me that the real danger lies in moral absolutism. People who ‘know they’re right’ are unlikely, if not unable, to subject themselves to the same demands (in terms of yielding to new information) that they so quickly subject others to. You’re right, relativism is not a virtue. But humility is. And humility checks certitude. Do you understand what I am saying?
Re: “you always run and hide with a disclaimer like, well, we can’t really know what happened in history – it’s all perspective.”
In fact, I offered no such disclaimer, nor do I ‘always run and hide’ with one like it. Nothing even close. What I did say, actually, was that “historical opinion is a matter of interpretation of available evidence.” People interpret the meaning of these events differently. That is my assertion. (You’re a philosopher; you should respond to what I actually say, not to what you want me to have said).
And I beg your pardon, but my argument makes appeals to, and in fact does not ignore, as you charge, the credibility of sources. Since when is published scholarly material not a ‘credible source’? You clearly agree with me that a variety of opinions exist on any given historical debate, as you say, “Just like you can find a Catholic who’ll say anything you might want said, you can also find a source who might write anything you want written.” I think baseless accusations of discredit are more of a cop-out than anything I’ve said. I don’t doubt for a second that your sources are credible. The simple fact that we have credible sources offering different interpretations only supports my claim that historical opinion is a matter of interpretation of available evidence. I realize argument is fun, but it’s assertions like these that don’t lend themselves to meaningful argumentation.
Re: “As for the Church, to say that this or that Catholic might have done this or that is a cop-out. This is because we’re talking here about Vatican policy.”
What you see as a cop-out I see as an important distinction, one which, by the way, happens to support your argument. (Incidentally, ‘that Catholic’ in Kertzer’s account just happened to be Pope Pius XII’s representative).
Look. Mountain Man ran into the same awkward situation. You guys may be looking for head-to-head philosophical opposition. But I am not providing it. You both seem a little unsure about how to respond to my approach, which, I acknowledge, is elusive. (This is not a claim that I’m right, mind you. Only that I avoid being pinned down). I approach debate in a spirit of wanting to learn and find out; to me, that is ‘victory.’ A considerate change of mind is progress. But I feel like you and the others here are more interested in ‘smashing a liberal,’ so you’re not entirely sure how to respond to concessions. You call it sophistry, or tactics, or pretending, or manicheanism, or moral relativism, or the pride of agnosticism – none of which are responses to my arguments. They’re name-calling.
I love this forum and will be around on other posts. I’m trying to be careful not to alienate its small group of commenters, because I’m interested in comparing ideas with those who may hold different views. I have changed my positions numerous times in light of new information, and the response I get is accusatory and inflammatory. That’s fine, but it’s not good philosophy.
Defenders of the faith have much more at stake, and based on my own experience, there’s a certain feeling of animosity directed toward those who seem to be unwilling to rigidly defend a position. For me, it was a kind of jealousy. It raises interesting questions about the meaning of ‘freedom,’ don’t you think?
Roger that on Kinsey. Thanks.
“…the real danger lies in moral absolutism.” Hmmm. How do you know you’re right? According to what standard? Are you absolutely sure that absolutism is dangerous?
Read my words, for goodness’ sake. I said, “It seems to me” – which clearly avoids any claim of knowledge or absolutism. Next time when you quote me, include the whole statement.
Watching you grapple with the nature of absolutism is embarrassing. Didn’t we already have a discussion about absolutism, fundamentalism, and jihad? Do you think terrorists are dangerous? Are terrorists moral absolutists? Can you make the connection between a high degree of certitude, or absolutism, and the tendency to justify violence in its defense? Can you?
“…real danger…” Is it real danger, or does it just seem like it’s real? Is it real to you, but not to someone else? Is it real until you decide to change your mind?
Does it carry any weight at all for anyone except you? If it’s only real as a current thought occupying your attention, then why say anything at all? Tomorrow or 5 minutes from now, it could be completely irrelevant.
Watching you grapple with your relativism is at once entertaining and sad, kinda like being a witness to a train wreck.
If the terrorists were relativists, would they be any less dangerous? Does the term “non sequitur” mean anything to you?
“Here’s what’s absurd: That thinking people would follow anybody who made such claims. Think for yourself. Why follow?”
Fair enough, but take your own advice the next time you have a medical problem; think for yourself; don’t go to a doctor for advice you have to follow.
“…the Church is the very kind of thing that needs defending, because to us ‘casual observers,’ the whole thing is a house of cards. Why else would you go to these lengths?”
How silly of me not to see this connection; after all, everyone knows blacks fight racism so much because what racial bigots say about them is true.
“…one could envision a whole host of cultural scenarios that would have turned out far better in terms of the quality of life for humanity…”
I have not seen a single idea for a better society yet that doesn’t start from the current status quo [e.g., equality before the law, First Amendment rights, etc.], assume they are a given, and move on from there.
Since you believe the Catholic Church is omnipotent and has used its power in a negative manner, please share one of these visions with us. You can start by stating a postulated basic tenant of good, heretofore unknown of course, followed by describing how the culture would emerge and progress, followed with how it would culminate into a better quality of life for everyone, all without using any of the Church’s ideas about God, the nature of man, and his place in God’s scheme of things.
Since, as we have noted, all human endeavors are imperfect, also identify areas in which your scenario would be deficient at achieving the goods that you expect to emanate from the basic postulate. Make recommendations for solving/avoiding those deficiencies.
Mountain Man, I don’t know what you’re talking about. It looks more and more like you’re just taking what I say to you and saying the same thing back at me. You’re late to the conversation, and you’re trying to pick a fight with me about an issue that is neither under discussion nor within the domain of your understanding. Your 29 post is laughable.
Let me just say that a) terrorists would not engage in terrorism if they were relativists, so it stands to reason that yes, they would be less dangerous, and b) ‘non sequitur’ means that which does not follow. In terms of our most recent exchange, your opening comment in 29 is a good example.
Sedonaman, can you please tell Mountain Man he’s out of his league?
In regards to your doctor comment…a couple of things. Again, look closely at what I said: that it’s absurd that thinking people would follow “anybody who made such claims.” Doctors don’t claim to be the one true religion or to have the truth at the exclusion of all others. And no one ‘follows’ doctors in the sense that people ‘follow’ the Church. You’re trying to make a point about expertise and authority, and I understand that point. But your Church-doctor analogy just doesn’t work.
Your racists-critics analogy doesn’t work, either.
Re: “Since you believe the Catholic Church is omnipotent…”
I don’t believe the Catholic Church is omnipotent. What have I said that gave you that idea?
Re: “I have not seen a single idea for a better society yet that doesn’t start from the current status quo [e.g., equality before the law, First Amendment rights, etc.]…”
Certainly what constitutes a ‘better’ society requires a value judgement, no? You may have seen lots of ideas that you simply didn’t like. Whether or not it’s ‘better’ is a matte of opinion. Or maybe you haven’t seen a better idea because you haven’t been exposed to one? I hear the Church is not famous for its ideological ‘diversity.’
And by the way, the First Amendment was necessary because of the problem of heavy-handed religious institutions. It is a mechanism to help people avoid Church dominance, among other things.
Re: [the homework assignment]
No thanks. I don’t really want to do all that. (And try to resist the temptation to say something dumb like, ‘Why, because you can’t?!”). You do realize that the Greeks articulated conceptualizations of democracy hundreds of years before the Church was around, don’t you? (See Euripides, “Democracy and Despotism” or Pericles, “Funeral Oration”).
DC,
You are a relativist. You cannot appeal to an absolute external authority for truth; therefore, you have only yourself to turn to (remember introspection?).
So, now you know the reason for my questions, and also, you know how increasingly idiotic you sound. It’s getting to be a pattern with you.
Hell, do I have to explain everything to you? The connection between absolutism and terrorism is an non sequitur. Stalin, a relativist, killed 20 million. Pol Pot, a relativist, killed 6 million. Billy Graham, an absolutist, has killed no one. Get it?
DC,
You’ve made another mistake. This one would be called a fallacy. The communists were/are relativists and never shrunk from using violence (extreme violence) to achieve their ends.
Mountain Man says: “You are a relativist. You cannot appeal to an absolute external authority for truth; therefore, you have only yourself to turn to…”
Exactly. It’s called “the Enlightenment.”
Mountain Man, I’m sorry, but in this discussion, you’re the bat boy. Yes, you get a uniform and you get to sit in the dugout, but nobody really takes you seriously. Do you like being subjected to ridicule? Is that why you keep interjecting?
(Who wants to bet whether or not Mountain Man says the same thing back to me in his next post?)
Paladin,
Communists were/are relativists? I didn’t know that. Can you explain how?
DC,
Too bad the Enlightenment left you in the dark.
DC,
I suggest two things. First, if you want to have a rational discussion, stop attacking Mountain Man. Because what he’s saying is philosophically correct. Then I would recommend you read the Duke article on relativism I linked to. It explains things much better than we can.
You’re right to stand up for Mountain Man; he’s a special case. But if he doesn’t want to get tackled he shouldn’t play football. If Mountain Man wants to jump on to the field without the protection of decent argumentative skills, we will all wince a little when he gets roughed up.
I realize you think that what he’s saying is ‘philosophically correct,’ but the whole reason we’re having a debate is because I don’t share that view. Deference to an ‘absolute external authority,’ while technically a philosophical position, hardly enjoys universal agreement as being a ‘correct’ one. As I reminded him, the entire Enlightenment project was about moving away from such sources of authority. In the words of Immanuel Kant:
“Enlightenment is mankind’s leaving behind its self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to employ one’s own intelligence without being directed by someone else. This immaturity is self-imposed if it results not from lack of intelligence but from a lack of willingness and courage to use it without another’s guidance… “Have the courage to think for yourself!” – that is the motto of the Enlightenment.
“Because of laziness and cowardice, many supposedly grown men remain happily immature througout their lives, readily allowing others to serve as their guardians. After all, it is so easy to remain immature! If I have a book which does my thinking for me, a priest or pastor who serves as my conscience…then I do not need to take the trouble to think for myself.
“…I have stressed the primary point of enlightenment – i.e., of man’s release from his self-imposed immaturity – mainly in matters of religion…because immaturity in this area is the most unfortunate and reprehensible kind.”
I agree with Kant on this issue. (I can appreciate the irony, though, of using someone else’s words to support an argument about thinking for oneself. But I think the key point is in the last paragraph in regards to religious authority. While I can appeal to Kant’s ideas, I do not appeal to his authority for my religious views. I trust you see the distinction).
This was written well over 200 years ago, and still I encounter nice folks like yourselves who continue to argue for the absolute moral authority of the Catholic Church! And then to have the impudence to tell me – the one arguing against the absolute moral authority of the Church – that I’m the one whom the Enlightenment has “left in the dark.” Amazing.
In regards to Selwyn Duke’s essay on moral relativism, I’m familiar with the point of view he puts forward. I’ve read Duke elsewhere, and I just don’t think he’s a very good philosopher. He is very simplistic. In response to his argument in the affirmative of Absolute Truth, which seems to be something like, (I may be interpreting Duke’s argument incorrectly; I would be interested in how you would break down his main argument):
1. If there’s no Absolute Truth, then there’s no objective Right and Wrong.
2. Whithout an objective Right and Wrong, people will see ‘the darkest transgressions’ as no worse than ‘swatting a fly.’
3. The darkest transgressions are worse than swatting a fly.
4. Therefore, there must be Absolute Truth.
It’s bad logic. 4 doesn’t follow from 3. Nor does 2 follow from 1. In fact, I don’t know that very many people fit into the description of premise 2. This premise seems hyperbolic. Sure,there are the sociopaths, but to attribute their behavior to some sort of philosophical embrace of moral relativism is, well, simplistic sociology. It seems more likely that mass murdering sociopaths believe quite strongly that there is, in fact, a right and wrong, and that they are doing service for what they percieve to be absolutely right.
It’s fine to assert that there just is Absolute, objective Truth. As Kant has argued, it’s the easy position. Duke talks about the fear that relativists have at the prospect of Absolute Truth; I would argue to the contrary that ‘absolutists’ fear the prospect of nothing to guide their decisions, and the responsibility of having to think for themselves.
From my post #22: “I am not a Catholic…” Yet somehow I am arguing for the “absolute moral authority of the Catholic Church?” No wonder no one is taking you seriously, DC. Your level of comprehension leaves much to be desired.
I doubt that even at this point in the debate you even know what my position is. It is clear that you don’t undertand the concept of free will as it applies to religion, otherwise you would never write something as vapid as this: “…a book thinking for me…” That is as completely bereft of thought as I have seen.
How is the confirmation of your worldview (Kant) superior to mine? Can you even say what the source of my worldview is? Clearly not, by what you have written.
But what gets me the most is your self aggrandizing, holier-than-thou moralizing about how enlightened you are. Frankly, there is no evidence of this. All you have demonstrated is that you hold to your ideas as zealously as the most rabid of religionists, yet completely unaware of the irony.
At least those who are absolutists recognize who they are. You pretend to be open-minded, but you are as absolutist as they come.
What a load of crap.
DCNorthwest:
Re: “Enlightenment is mankind’s leaving behind its self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to employ one’s own intelligence without being directed by someone else. This immaturity is self-imposed if it results not from lack of intelligence but from a lack of willingness and courage to use it without another’s guidance… ‘Have the courage to think for yourself!’ – that is the motto of the Enlightenment.”
How do you know that the intelligence of any given person is infallible? Why do you wallow in the immaturity of taking Kant’s advice instead of thinking for yourself? What makes him more infallible than 2,000 years of Church theologians? Is it the idea that you can be bad without feeling guilt?
Pointing out that setting one’s self up as the arbiter of what is right and wrong is the pride of agnosticism is not name-calling; it is just making an observation of that which is a repeat of what has been going on since, as you pointed out earlier, man started doing evil and rationalizing it.
A man much older and wiser than I once told me that, “A stiff d**k has no conscience,” and he was absolutely right. How do you expect 6 billion people of widely varying IQs to make moral decisions if just two can’t resist the temptation to rationalize? To be ignorant [i.e., agnostic] is one thing, but to persist in ignorance and dub it a virtue has got to be the height of pride.
Re: “You do realize that the Greeks articulated conceptualizations of democracy hundreds of years before the Church was around, don’t you?”
Yes, I do; but that is not one of your own personal visions. I seems you couldn’t come up with just one on your own, could you? I know you said it would be dumb to say that, but I just couldn’t resist the temptation.
Mountain Man, sorry, I got you mixed up with the others who have been defending the Church. I guess I don’t know what your position is because a) you’re jumping late into a discussion in which you had no part in establishing, and b) most of what you’re saying to me is incoherent, and c) you keep repeating my lines back at me. You’re right – I can’t understand what your point is.
Sedonaman,
Re: “How do you know that the intelligence of any given person is infallible?…What makes him more infallible than 2,000 years of Church theologians?”
Where did I ever say that anyone’s intelligence is ‘infallible’? While niether Kant nor his intelligence is infallible, he does happen to be one of the major enlightenment philosophers that helped humanity remove itself from the intellectual restrictions of all those theologians. This at least gives his ideas some credibility. I’m not holding them up as infallible. Take it or leave it; it’s only Immanuel Kant. After all, you have Selwyn Duke.
Re: “Why do you wallow in the immaturity of taking Kant’s advice instead of thinking for yourself?”
Do you really think taking Kant’s advice to grow out of immaturity is “wallowing in immaturity”?
Here’s a quote from my previous post, that you either misunderstood or ignored: “(I can appreciate the irony, though, of using someone else’s words to support an argument about thinking for oneself. But I think the key point is in the last paragraph in regards to religious authority. While I can appeal to Kant’s ideas, I do not appeal to his authority for my religious views. I trust you see the distinction).”
I don’t know what your stiff dick argument is.
Re: “that is not one of your own personal visions.”
I never said anything about a ‘personal vision,’ which is why I used the word “one” instead of “I” when speaking of envisioning cultural scenarios.
Re: “I [sic] seems you couldn’t come up with just one on your own, could you?
I declined your offer because it was a ridiculously tall order. To deliver on your demands would require a lot more thought and hard work than I have done.
Re: “I know you said it would be dumb to say that, but I just couldn’t resist the temptation.”
Yes, it’s a dumb thing to say, and it’s not surprising that you couldn’t resist saying it.
DC,
That’s the third time you mentioned jumping in late. Is there some sort of rule you’ve established that prevents my comment?
I suppose that I should feel free to modify it or ignore it, since there is no absolute authority to appeal to.
DC,
You misinterpreted Duke’s piece about right and wrong. You said,
1. If there’s no Absolute Truth, then there’s no objective Right and Wrong.
2. Whithout an objective Right and Wrong, people will see ‘the darkest transgressions’ as no worse than ‘swatting a fly.’
3. The darkest transgressions are worse than swatting a fly.
4. Therefore, there must be Absolute Truth.
I’ll take them one at a time.
1. If there’s no Absolute Truth, then there’s no objective Right and Wrong.
Correct.
2. Whithout an objective Right and Wrong, people will see ‘the darkest transgressions’ as no worse than ‘swatting a fly.’
Not exactly. The idea is that without objective right and wrong, the darkest transgressions ARE no worse than swatting a fly. How many people will view them that way depends on how many people are in touch with reality.
3. The darkest transgressions are worse than swatting a fly.
Now this is a more serious misunderstanding. Duke believes this of course. And I do too. But he never said it in the piece. He simply is giving people the alternatives. He’s trying to help people understand what the implications of each belief are.
4. Therefore, there must be Absolute Truth.
Very wrong. Again, Duke didn’t claim that the argument was proof of Absolute Truth’s existence. He’s simply trying to help people understand the implications of accepting relativism.
In fact, he started off a paragraph alluding to this goal, ‘These are the unarguable implications of moral relativism.’ That’s what he said. He never said that the argument proves truth’s existence. So you created a straw man in his argument.
Now I call your attention to one os Duke’s paragraphs.
‘The last implication of relativism I’d like to mention concerns the matter of debating about morality. And bear in mind that the majority of debates and virtually all of the most rancorous ones do concern with it; why, even a debate about welfare policy concerns morality. After all, regardless of your opinion on the subject, the fact is that if determining which policy is best is truly an imperative, it’s only because it’s “right” to help the poor. But consider this: If there’s no Truth, there’s no point in engaging me in a sincere debate (one that is not for sheer entertainment, ego satisfaction or simply helping you get what you want) about right and wrong. This is because if there’s no Truth, there is no right or wrong, in which case you couldn’t be any more wrong or right than I could be. Thus, since the only purpose of a sincere debate is to determine what the correct stance (the Truth) on the issue at hand is, there wouldn’t be any point engaging me in it. So when you engage someone in sincere debate you are tacitly acknowledging that Truth exists.’
Why do you debate, DC? You should ask yourself that question. Let’s say there’s no truth. Then what could be ‘wrong’ with not using reason and just going by the authority of the Church? What could be wrong with slavery or killing Jews? You see, you said in an earlier post that your approach has us confused about how to address it. Not at all. You are confused. You want to debate right and wrong while also saying there is no right or wrong. And don’t bother saying that you don’t claim your point of view is ‘right.’ If it cannot be because there’s no truth, what are you trying to convince us of? That we should for some reason adopt YOUR opinion? Why? Why should we?
If you could show me how I was wrong in a real sense, I would cede the point. But you won’t even acknowledge that this real sense exists.
Good.
First, just a technical note. In regards to premise 3, I’m characterizing Duke’s argument as an enthymeme, where one (or more) premises are not explicitly stated, but are implied. It’s what H.P. Grice calls a ‘conversational implicature.’ Duke’s argument hinges on this implicature, that ‘the darkest transgressions are worse than swatting a fly.’
In regards to premise 1, can we ask whether or not truth can be absolute without being objective? Do ‘absolute’ and ‘objective’ have the same meaning? I am willing to seriously consider this. It seems like a mathematical or grammatical truth can be absolute, in the sense of being universally valid and non-contingent. But it doesn’t seem meaningful to speak of mathematical truths in terms of right and wrong. Might we all do well to consider whether or not there are different senses of ‘right’ and different senses of ‘wrong.’ This is a serious question; I’m not trying to parse words or play tricks. I think it’s an important question to ask.
Here’s what I have in mind: ‘Truth’ is not synonymous with ‘Right.’ ‘False’ is not synonymous with ‘Wrong.’ Truth and falsity seem to be morally neutral, where rightness and wrongness seem very much to have moral implications.
Let me repeat: I think there are many truths. So it doesn’t help us to assume, even hypothetically, that ‘there’s no truth.’ That “bachelor” means “unmarried male” is true. I accept that there is truth. What I’m asking is if that must necessarily be tied to an Objective Right and Wrong.
Thoughts?
DC: If there is no objective right and wrong, when is it “objectively right” to rape and murder a five year old child?
DC: just to be clear, I’m not referring to 1+1=2 “truths”. I’m referring to your “different senses of ‘right’ and different senses of ‘wrong’” statement.
I can think of a lot of conditional so-called truths (such as private enterprise in Cuba is considered “wrong”; in the US it is acceptable behavior). Theses aren’t basic moral issues.
I’m unclear from your statements whether you believe there is a fundamental “right and wrong” from a moral perspective, or whether all morality is conditional.
If there is no objective right and wrong, it would never be ‘objectively right’ to rape and murder a five year-old child. How could it ever be ‘objectively right’ if there is no objective right? It’s not a coherent question.
My hypothesis is that ‘objectively right’ and ‘absolutely right’ have two very different meanings. I can believe an action to be ‘absolutely wrong’ without being committed to the belief that the same action is ‘objectively wrong.’
To the question of whether or not it is ‘absolutely wrong’ to rape and murder anybody, I will always answer yes. Absolutely. (That is my belief, anyway). So then we ask by virtue of what (or whom) is such an action absolutely wrong? Is it by virtue of something objective?
How do we understand the meaning of ‘objective’? If we can agree on what it means, we can then ask whether all morality meets the conditions of objectivity.
Mr Jackson, can you say more about how you taxonomize ‘basic moral issues’ so that they can be distinguished from ‘non-basic moral issues’?
If all moral issues are not ‘basic,’ is morality not therefor conditional? It may be as simple as saying, “All morality is conditional in terms of whether or not it is basic.”
Also, by ‘fundamental’ do you mean ‘objective’?
“Objective” means that its content has nothing to do with what anyone thinks, feels, concludes for themselves, etc. If it’s an objective truth, the action is inherently right or wrong, period.
With regard to the question I posed, there is no situation any time, any place, anywhere, in any society, in any time period, where the rape and murder of a five year old child is “right”. It’s wrong for you, me, rich people, poor people, people in power, people without power, etc. This seems to me to be a pretty clear cut indication that, on a fundamental level, there are not “different senses of right and wrong” — unless we’re dealing with a non-moral issue. Blondes vs. brunettes, Coke vs. Pepsi, capitalism vs. communism are not fundamentally moral questions, so reasonable people can disagree (or have different senses of right/wrong in a non-truth, non-moral, personal preference sort of way.)
However, for other matters that do involve fundamental moral issues, there is such a thing as right and wrong, independent of what some people may feel about an activity. And if there are universal moral principles, then there are certainly universal “Truths”.
As for what makes an issue moral or not, it has to do with whether the issue involves human interaction. However, this is a necessary, but not sufficient condition. Obviously, not every issue is a moral issue. My preference for blondes over brunettes is not a moral issue, but calculations involving potential injury or harm to another human being are inherently moral issues. I’ve proposed that the basic moral question can be framed generally as “it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human being”, with the rape and murder of a 5 year olds child a practical illustration of this.
All moral issues are basic. The question is, is the issue a moral one or not?
Mr Jackson,
Your definition of ‘objective,’ as I understand it, means simply that which is mind-independent. Is this correct?
Re: “If it’s an objective truth, the action is inherently right or wrong.”
If what is an objective truth?
And how do you move from ‘if it’s [sic] an objective truth’ to ‘the action is inherently right or wrong’? Where’s the argument for this? You’ve only made an assertion.
With regard to the question you posed, I agree with your answer. (Are you explaining something or emphatically agreeing with me?). But I don’t follow your inference in regards to the ‘fundamental level.’ Are you arguing that this fundamental level exists objectively, i.e., is mind-independent? If there were no minds – for the sake of argument let’s limit this scope to human minds – would there still be an ‘objective truth’ in regards to the wrongness of raping and killing? It seems to me, Mr Jackson, that the ‘fundamental level’ of which you speak is very much mind-dependent, and that is exactly my point. The scope of morality is contingent on the ‘interactions of humans,’ as you nicely explain, yet if morality was in any way objective, it would have to exist regardless of whether or not humans exist. Right and wrong, then, even on your ‘fundamental level,’ seem quite contingent on the existence of human minds, and if this is true then we cannot speak, in any accurate sense, of an ‘objective morality.’
Re: “…on a fundamental level, there are not “different senses of right and wrong” — unless we’re dealing with a non-moral issue.”
Are you implying that non-moral issues occur at this ‘fundamental level.’? Or do non-moral issues transcend this ‘fundamental level’?
Re: “Blondes vs. brunettes, Coke vs. Pepsi, capitalism vs. communism are not fundamentally moral questions…”
On your definition of morality, as that which involves human interaction (necessary but not sufficient, to be sure), how on earth can political economy not be a fundamentally moral issue?
Re: ‘…the basic moral question can be framed generally as “it is immoral to deliberately harm an innocent human being”…’
Within the confines of your conceptualization of morality, would it be more accurate if you changed ‘deliberately’ to ‘unjustifiably’?
DC: I am indeed arguing that morality exists independent of the human mind; that there is an objective right and wrong that has nothing to do with whether or not people agree that X is moral or immoral.
I said that morality involves human interaction because a human being’s interaction with plants, animals, the earth itself is not a moral issue. It is neither moral nor immoral to eat cows, mine ore, or use a lot of electricity. Society/human consensus may approve or disapprove of these actions, and these actions may be harmful or helpful if evaluated on a scientific basis (assuming the science isn’t driven by a political agenda). But this is not a question of morality.
I’m not entirely certain where we agree or disagree, because I’m focusing on a comment you made earlier about “different senses” of right/wrong, and the lack of an absolute, Objective truth for things other than mathematical and grammatical observations. Once I understand exactly what you were intending to say here (and, as importantly, what you were not intending to say here), I can see if we have any real disagreement other than semantics.
[In this regard, “unjustifiably” may in fact be a substitute word for “deliberately”, if this is not a legal term. In the US it is “justifiable” to abort a 19 week old fetus, but doing so still does deliberate harm to an innocent human being. I’m not trying to divert this conversation into one about abortion, only to point out how the two words --- though similar --- may not in fact be the same with regard to the moral equation I offered].
So, let me restate the issue this way so we don’t have an unintentionally parallel conversation. Unless I misunderstood your earlier comments, you argued the following:
1. The only “Truths” that are absolute are mathematical and grammatical (1+1=2), “boy” = ”young man”.
2. Non-mathematical, non-grammatical issues involve “different senses of ‘right’ and different senses of ‘wrong’” (in other words, different people can look at the same act and reach different right vs. wrong conclusions based on how they think, feel about an issue, etc.
I gave you an example of a non-mathematical, non-grammatical situation (the rape and murder of a 5 year old child), and ask you to tell me when and how such a thing could be considered “right”? Unless you are willing to conclude that this act may be “right” (‘right’, ‘kinda right’, ‘sometimes right’, or any other degree or “different sense” of right) if some people feel/think it is (even if you, personally, don’t), then we have to conclude that it is always ‘wrong” regardless of how certain people think, feel, etc.
If it is always wrong to rape and murder a 5 year old child, then we’ve established a universal Truth that is non-mathematical, and non-grammatical. This means that there are certain things where there are not “different senses” of right and wrong, but instead represent definite, fundamental, inherent, and objective “right” or “wrong” behaviors/actions.
Again, not every action involves a moral question. But those that do reflect absolute Truths, not conditional judgments about right vs. wrong.
My focus to this point has been entirely on whether absolute, objective Truth does exist. How it exists, why it exists, and what things fall under the category of absolute Truths are different questions. I have some thoughts about this too, but the first issue is to see whether we need to debate whether absolute Truths do in fact exist.
Clarification — again, just to be absolutely clear because it’s difficult to do this in a comment section, take the last sentence I wrote and revise it to say “… see whether we need to debate whether non-mathematic, non-grammatical, moral Truths do in fact exist apart from human consensus or other human influences.