More on infallibility: some opposition to it

Many non-Catholics (and modern Catholics) bristle at the mere exclusivity pronounced by the Catholic Church.  It seems haughty, conceited, and arrogant to believe that only that Church has the gift of infallibility.  This is a turn off in many ways.  St. Peter says in 2 Peter 3 that the ignorant and unstable twist the words of Scripture to their own demise.  For some, the idea of infallibility is so pretentious, so evil, they are willing to twist Scripture (or ignore it all together) to make it not so.

On one level, many people have been erroneously raised under the concept of cultural relativism: every culture or belief is equally OK.  The dogma of infallibility contradicts that, and states emphatically that there is a SINGLE set of right teachings.  These people, these "I'm OK, you're OK" people, are offended at this incredibly politically incorrect view of the world.  To them, such thinking is backward and outdated.

Related to the above, it is truly hard to believe that good people who believe in Christ are somehow wrong.  I personally don't struggle with this: to me its clear: Christ established the Catholic Church and guaranteed its total fidelity (not the total fidelity of Her members, but Her as a whole) to Him and His Word; any one who disagrees with the Church disagrees with Christ and is therefore wrong.  That being said, there are many who have loved ones who don't belong to the same denomination or Church they do.  Perhaps their children apostacized from the Catholic faith, or maybe their siblings all belong to different denominations.  Do you really, really, want to say they are in error?  I mean is it nice to believe that well-meaning, Bible-believing, sincere people are somehow wrong?  When the idea that Chirst founded ONE, Holy, CATHOLIC and Apostolic Church and not several related churches that are ok, is tossed around, do we want to think that our loved ones are in error and not part of the Church that Christ founded?  God is too loving to let that happen, right?

Alternately, as a Methodist growing up, I was proud to call myself Methodist, and would defend my denomination against any claim that it was wrong, because it was mine and I belonged to it!!!  There was an emotional attachment to it.  It is a form of ethno-centrism, which is a view that one's own culture/belief system is the reference point from which they view the world, yet perfectly normal.  Infallibility disrupts that emotional attachment a non-Catholic has with the denomination of their childhood (or of their choosing).  That denomination is part of who you are, and to admit it is wrong is a horrendous blow to your idea of who you are.  This blow is even harder when you choose that denomination (often at great personal cost).  To think that someone else is calling your church wrong upsets you. 

The two above are hardly separated from each other.  It is only logical that a person believe that their denomination is right (which is why they are a part of it to begin with, partly).  Also, I don't know a single person who only has friends or relatives that belong to their denomination.  Thus, while you believe your denomination is right, those of your family or friends can't be wrong.  You can't have both, so the idea of infallibility or discernable religious truth becomes fantasy: it sounds nice but can't be real (because if it is, then either you or your loved one-or both-are wrong).

Even more personally, however, infallibility is an affront to people's pride and their own arrogance.  The United States is inherently a Protestant nation.  The entire ethic of "rugged individualism" is based on the Protestant idea of individual interpretation of Scripture.  We relish that, we thrive off that, we LOVE that.  It gives us POWER, puts US in control.  For some this individual interpretation allows them to justify their vices.  For others, it fuels their ego to create new and better theologies.  It feeds their importance.  Infallibility creates an uncomfortable alternative: perhaps you are wrong!  For those trapped in vices they cherish (like masturbation, sex before marriage or homosexuality), infallibility would require them to give up something they love.  For those who thrive on creating new and better theologies, it undermines their ego and checks their importance.  For both of these groups, infallibility is too condemning. 

_______________________________________________________

I really want to say that there are those who honestly, not for the selfish or deluded reasons above, cannot accept the idea that a Church has the gift of infallibility.  But when I think of the people I know, they all fit into the molds of the above (to greater or lesser extent).  In each and every case, admittance of infalliblity would undermine or confront their lifestyle, or possibly convict their consciences. 

Thomas Aquinas wrote that those who truly seek the Truth will be granted the Grace to find Jesus and His Church.  I honestly believe that.  Those who continue to reject the concept of infallibility are not really searching whole-heartedly for the truth.  If they were, wouldn't they want a Church that speaks authoritatively, and can, without doubt, guide them to the Truth?

What is Truth? More on infallibility.

Pilate asks Jesus "What is truth? (John 18:38)"

When a Catholic undertakes an apology, or explanation, of his/her faith, the concept of Truth cannot be forgotten.  The question, though, is exactly what Pilate asks: What is truth?

Jesus said to his Apostles: "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life".  Starting from this point,we can get a pretty good understanding of what Truth is.

First, we know what St John's Gospel says concerning Jesus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. [emphasis added]"  The Word, Jesus, was God.  Logic, then would state that if the Truth is Jesus, and Jesus is the Word, and the Word is God, than the Truth is God.  This dramatically enhances our understanding of what "truth" is. 

Scripture is quite clear about the nature of God.  God is eternal, universal, and unchanging.  He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  If Jesus is God, then He has the same characteristics: eternal, universal, and unchanging.  If Jesus is the truth, then truth has the same characteristics: eternal, universal, and unchanging.

This is incredibly important for the Catholic Apologist.  James White is a notable anti-Catholic Reformed Protestant apologist.  It seems that for some insane reason, CA over at Rockin Apologist is enamored with him.  White is an opponent of the concept of infallibility.  He wants the Church to be able to reverse course when new evidence comes out.  Sounds good in theory, but he is missing the characteristics of what Truth is: unchanging and universal.  This is what infallibility does: provide the faithful with a surety that what the Church teaches is True, and will not change.  White is assuming one of two things by urging against infallibility: 1) truth is relative, and changes when time and situations merit, or 2) we are never capable of knowing the truth.

The first assumption is objectively false based on the definition of truth.  If truth changes, than what was once true is now false.  Since truth cannot be false, and truth that changes becomes false, truth cannot change.  Let us assume then that Mr. White does not assume that truth is relative.  In fact, it would be more accurate, and more precise in my experience, to assume that he thinks us incapable of really knowing the Truth (being mere humans).  This view makes more sense.  If we really can't know the Truth, then it fits perfectly for us to reverse course, which numerous Protestant denominations have done in regards to contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, the Real Presence, and the authoritative Church.  As one with a Bachelor's in History, I can attest that it is a common philosophy among historians that we cannot ever really know what  happened, and so we must present our narrative as plausible, based on what the sources tell us.  This leaves us open to changing our story when "new evidence reveals" something to the contrary (although I'm still positive that George Washington was NOT a cross-dressing lesbain).  This is what White wants the Church to do.

This view, however, is faulty as well.  Christ, who is Truth made Flesh, promises His Apostles in the Upper Room: "But the Paraclete, the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and bring all things to your mind, whatsoever I shall have said to you. (Douay-Rheims)"  More modern translations of the Greek render that "He will guide you in all truth."  Apparently, Christ is promising His Apostles that His Spirit will protect them from falling into error, and will guide them in the Truth.  Christ Himself is telling us that through His holy Apostles, we CAN and WILL know the truth.

Okay, so Christ promised that the Apostles would know the truth, through the Holy Spirit.  It is assumed the Apostles would die, but Christ said earlier: "And I will ask the Father, and he will send another Paraclete, that he may abide with you forever."  So the Spirit, which will guide the Apostles in truth, will be with them forever (not just until they die).  Fine.  Great. But that doesn't explain how we know what the truth is when the Apostle's die. 

In Acts chapter 1, we see Peter, as head of the Apostles, call for a successor to Judas Iscariot, who committed suicide after betraying the Lord.  "And they appointed two...to take the place of this ministry and apostleship."  Clearly, the office of apostle isn't a one and done deal: it is passed on to another, once its holder has gone "to his own place".  Likewise, Paul exhorts Titus in Titus 1 to ordain presbyteros and episcopus to the cities in Crete...an authority that only a successor to the Apostles would have.  Further, we are told in 1 Timothy 3:15: that "the church of the living God" is "the pillar and ground of the truth." 

To synthesize what we have seen, then, Christ promised that He would send the Paraclete to His apostles, to guide them in all knowledge and truth.  His apostles, then, appointed successors to carry on their authority and ministry.  Is the Paraclete guiding them in all knowledge and truth?  Well, according to the apostle Paul, yes, through the Church.  Clearly, then, Scripture promises that through the Church we can and will be able to know the truth.

So we come back to the second assumption: that those who don't want to believe in infallibility don't really believe that we can know the truth at all.  If that be the case, then, Christ lied to us in the Scriptures.  If Christ lied to us in the Scriptures, then even those who oppose infallibility, but call themselves Christians, would be wrong, because they are believing a lie.  For Christians, though, that is a self-defeating, and contradictory belief to have.  For the Christian, Christ didn't lie.  If Christ didn't lie then He most obviously gifted to His Church the gift of infallibility, the inability to teach error on faith and morals.

Tradition versus Modernity

Father Longenecker commented on reform the current form of the Holy Sacrifice that the Church offers.  In his commentary, he remarks about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass and how, currently it is not for "average Catholics".  Although I've never been to one, I will disagree with him.

One of the reasons he gives is that often the music, being so beautiful, draws our attention to it rather than the Sacred Action on the altar.  Does it need to, though.  I reject the idea that beautiful music shouldn't be used to celebrate the most beautiful thing this side of Heaven because it might "distract" someone.  A good liturgical composer knows that the music is meant to accompany and compliment the Holy Sacrifice, as opposed steal the show.  Focusing particularly on the Gloria and Sanctus, the music should, especially during Christmastide and Eastertide, most especially for ALL Solemnities, reflect the nature of these prayers.  For goodness sake, both of these prayers in particular focus on God's greatness.  There is a series of Christian Music CDs called "My Utmost for His Highest"; this is what we are asked to give to God: our utmost.  So our utmost is so beautiful we can't present it to God for His glorification?  Listen to any of Thomas Tallis' or Giovanni Paletsrina's liturgical settings, and tell me they are not astoundingly beautiful.  Do that and I will attempt to have you committed.  They are beyond beautiful, they are borderline angelic.  And we can't have this at Mass why?

I will admit, having a professional choir (or even a very well trained choir) sing Palestrina's Missa Papae Marcelli for the Ordinary Form would seem more than a little out of place.  The music is elevated to fit the elevated ars celebrandi of a High Mass in the Extraordinary Form.  There is no High Mass in the Ordinary Form, nor is there a Low Mass.  It is all the same, with options to make the celebration more special depending upon the "pastoral needs" of the community.  In addition, the current paraphrasing of the Latin is very, well, elementary, basic, as if Mass is not anything to write home about.  Most definitely, the new translation will help matters, and make the presence of elevated music more fitting.

Another reason Father gives is the Latin itself. He argues that most pew-sitting Catholics wouldn't take well to Latin, and be turned off by it.  He's got a point.  The unfortunate thing, however, is that excuse has been around for hundreds of years, and yet, the Mass thrived.  People knew what was going on, aided and abetted by the music (or lack thereof) and silence (of which there was plenty).  All of this can be avoided, however, by putting Latin/English pew missals in the pews.  If we have Spanish, Korean, or "other" hymns with translations in Glory and Praise and Gather  and that is fine, than having Latin with English side-by-side shouldn't be such a bad idea.

The problem with the Old Mass wasn't the Mass itself, but rather the understanding of it by the priests who were celebrating it.  Their understanding of it boiled down to "Say the Black, Do the Red", in a rigid sort of way.  Elsewhere, Father Longenecker discusses the theology behind the procession.  He admits that it is essential to understand the whither-tos and why-fors of liturgical actions so that the liturgy can reflect, more accurately, the Divine Action that occurs during the Holy Sacrifice.  The result is a reverent, uplifting procession that elevates people's minds and hearts toward the Lord.  What if the priests of a certain generation had that understanding of the Mass they were celebrating?  Would they have been so willing to abandon the beauty of the Divine Action for what occurred immediately after the Council?  I tend to think not.  If you know the value of what you have, you are afraid to lose it.

Papal Infallibility...again

Occasionally, I read Catholic Exchange.  I used to check it daily, but not so much anylonger.  I happened to be directed to it, and noticed this piece about when the Pope speaks infallibly, written by a licensed canonist.

She says: "It is quite evident that this was intended to be an infallible pronouncement, as it is formulated exactly as Vatican I had stipulated. (Note that Pope Pius did not specify whether Mary had actually died or not, before she was assumed into heaven. Catholics are thus free to hypothesize about both possibilities!) There is absolutely no doubt that this is an instance of the Pope speaking ex cathedra."

Comments were closed, so here goes my rant.  While she is a licensed canonist, I seriously don't know where she got this idea that there was a specific formula to Pastor aeturnus or even Lumen gentium.  This is a very limited very of the infallibility of the pope.  Even without much theological or canonical training, I was able to point out the four criteria for infallibility in Humanae vitae, AND in John Paul II's Evangelium vitae. 

Here is what Lumen gentium says in regards to papal infallibility:

"And this is the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment." Lumen gentium, 25

Here is what the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican defined:

"we teach and define as a divinely revealed dogma that

• when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,
  • that is, when,
    1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
    2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
    3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,
• he possesses,
  • by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,
• that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.
• Therefore, such definitions of the Roman pontiff are of themselves, and not by the consent of the church, irreformable. "

What are the conditions, using both definitions?  First, the Holy Father must be addressing all Christians as their shepherd and teacher.  Second, he must be using his supreme apostolic authority.  Third, he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals.  In neither of these do we see a formula that is codified.  This means that neither the Fathers of the First Ecumenical Council of the Vatican, nor the Fathers of the Second Ecumenical Council of the Vatican wished papal infallibility to be formulaic.  Thus, it is open for the Holy Father to address an encyclical to all Christians (as the Paul VI did in Humanae vitae and John Paul II did in Evangelium vitae), mention his authority as the Successor of Peter (which is what John Paul II clearly does in Evangelium vitae, 62), and define a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the faithful.

It is as if the author didn't even read Evangelium vitae or Lumen gentium, or even the necessary docments from Vatican I. 

The Council or the Pill? What is to blame?

I just finished reading this piece over at CatholicCulture.org.  Dr. Mirus makes some good points, but in my opinion, does himself a disservice by not actually referring to Dr. Grisez's works concerning the development of Humanae vitae.  I have referenced before Dr. Grisez's analysis of why the comission majority would want to change Tradition.  Apparently, Dr. Mirus either a) didn't read it or b) didn't see what I saw.  According to Dr. Grisez, one of the reasons the comission was willing to change Tradition was because of the view espoused by a large number of the Council Fathers, that the Church and World were co-equal, and should reflect each other. 

It should also be noted that Dr. Grisez also mentioned the radical changing of the liturgy after the Council as a reason for thinking Tradition could be changed.  Their reasoning: if something so sacred as the Mass can be radically redone, why not doctrine?  More needs to be said on this end.  The fact that the Novus Ordo is most definitely NOT the Mass prescribed by the Council, and yet was promulgated and approved by the Holy Father and lauded by many Council Fathers reveals that while the teaching of the Council was solid, the attitude wasn't.

In addition, Dr. Grisez also explained that it is quite possible that overwhelming popular support for contraception influenced theologians into thinking along the lines: "if a majority of Catholics are contracepting anyway, it can't be that wrong... ."  This popularism is a fruit of the Council: I have even been told by a priest that a pope can teach definitively on a matter of faith or morals as Pope, and still be wrong if most of the people don't believe it.  While the whole sensus fidelium thing can't be ignored, the interpretation held by the priest in question wasn't concerned with historical assent to a particular belief.  Rather, this priest was influence by the idea that Truth was determined by democracy.

Dr. Mirus will not allow the Sacred Council to be the cause of the Church's maladies...and in part, he's right.  The downfalls of the Council are the result of at least a decade of diminished education and formation prior to the Council.  HOWEVER, the detrimental effects of the changing of the Mass, the implementation of the Council's call for ecumenism and the like can't be ignored either.

Nominalism, Protestants, and Rockin Apologist

CA over at Rockin Apologist has been discussing Nominalism, the philosophy that universals stem from particulars.  To summarize using CA's analogy: for the Nominalist, the concept of "greenness" exists only because something is green.  This is in contrast to the Realist, who holds that something is green only because the concept of "greenness" exists independently of other other things.  For the Realist, particulars are compared to the Universal, for Nominalists, universals are compared to the Particulars.

I've got some reflections on this, most, though, on CA's posts. 

1)  In both posts, CA presents the logic pattern behind typical Protestant thinking.  Indeed, upon reflection, nominalism lends itself to relativism.  Think about it: if Universals don't exist independent of particulars, but because of particulars, then anything goes.  How is this?  Well, consider the common Protestant reaction to beliefs different from theirs: "well that's not what I believe, but if it makes you happy, than I'm fine with it."  (To be perfectly fair, a good number of Catholics respond the same way, but then again, we live in a Protestant-based culture, so this makes sense.)  The typical Protestant concept of the Church Universal is based off of the various different sects of people all professing belief in Christ.  In this construct, the Church is a catch-all phrase by which to note all sincere Christians.  The construct is based of the fact, as Protestants see it, that there are tons of different groups of people all claiming to follow Christ, yet adhering to different Creeds, and worshipping in profoundly different ways.  In addition, there are different expressions of sexual love, so the concept of Love should be based on those different expressions.  This continues ad infitum.

2) The Nominalist arguments that CA presents for sola Scriptura and the Protestant view of the Cross may be logically sound, given their Nominal perspective, but are based on a false premises.  For example, in the Nominalist view of the Cross, presented by CA, the Cross is the Particular, and the universal is set in relation to that particular.  However, such a premise neglects the co-eternal nature of Christ, True God and True Man, consubstantial with the Father.  "Eternal" indicates that Christ exists outside of time and space, and as a result existed before and after the event of the Cross took place. Thus, to assume that the Cross explains Christ, and is "once for all" neglects the obvious fact that Christ existed before the Cross.  The Universal of Christ existed before the particular of the Cross.  The same is true for Scripture and Tradition.  By treating the Particular of Scripture as dominant over the universal of Tradition, the arguer is assuming falsely that Scripture preceded Tradition.  Scripture clearly tells us all over that the Apostles taught first, and only later did anything get written down.  For example, Paul is writing to the Romans...after he went there and taught there. The same is true for the Corinthians, Galatians, etc.  Even the Gospels were written AFTER the Apostles had been teaching for awhile.  Scripture itself attests that not EVERYTHING the Apostles said or did was written down.  Thus, it is more rational to assume that the Universal of Tradition exists separately and preceded the particular of Scripture.  In both cases, the Cross and Scripture, however, it CANNOT be understated that the particulars can only be understood by the Universals which brought them forth.

What is lying? From where I sit.

I was reading Live Actions response to its critics here.  For the newbie, Live Action is a Pro-Life group that has undertaken sting operations against Planned Parenthood.  These sting operations, done in different states in different clinics, have revealed a callous disregard for the law in Planned Parenthood clinics.  Such patterns are failure to report statutory rape to the authorities, failure to notify parents when the law stipulates, and most recently, the aiding and abetting of sex-trafficking of minors. 

Seeing as the president of Live Action, Lila Rose is a Catholic, Catholic moral theologians have weighed in on the ethics of these sting operations.  At the heart of this discussion is the Church's Magesterial discussion of the morality of lying.  Essentially, Holy Mother Church teaches that lying is intrinsically immoral.  This means that no matter the reason, lying is wrong and is never an acceptable course of action.  The question then becomes, what is lying?  As Dr. Christopher Kaczor (in the piece referenced above) points out, throughout the Christian Tradition, lying has always been condemned, but hasn't been easily definable. 

Below are some private reflections on what constitutes a lie...from my own experience, either things that I have done, or have been done to me.

1) Making a statement that is false, knowing it is false, with the intention of deceiving another into thinking it true...for personal gain.  For example, say I was delayed in coming home from work because I was taking my time or chatting with colleagues for a while.  When I got home late, I told my wife that I had some important business that needed my attention before I left, knowing that was not true.  That is a lie.  I would have knowingly made a false statement, hoping that my wife would believe the false statement was true.  What tops it all off is that this deception is not for some altruistic motive, but because I don't feel like being accused of not caring about the family over some people at work (or something similar, depending on the situation).

2) Keeping quiet on pertinent information in such a way that a false impression is made...for personal gain.  For example, you are offered a job teaching, but you have a couple classes to go before you are certified, and you are scheduled to take those classes in the fall, when you start teaching.  You accept, but purposely leave out the fact that you are not taking those classes, because you are afraid you won't get the job then.  That is lying.  You presented a case to the employer (you have your classes taken care of, and will be certified by the end of the school year) which was in fact not true purposely, because you wanted the job. 

3) Knowingly breaking a promise or pact made, but secretly...for personal gain.  For example, you have a particularly unhealthy habit, say drinking too much soda.  You've made a pact with someone close, say your best friend, that you won't drink any when you two aren't together.  Knowing this pact, you indulge anyway.  Afterall, they won't know, will they?  This is a lie.  You made a pact with someone you care about, and you purposely broke it for some personal pleasure.  What makes this a lie is the fact that you knew of the pact, and yet proceeded to break it in such a way that your friend wouldn't find out.  Truth is a separate reality, and by breaking the pact you made, you have knowingly and purposely presented a false truth to your friend, who has no reason not to think the pact is upheld.  That makes it a lie.

4) Presenting a minor detail or secondary reasoning for an action, knowing that there is another greater detail/reasoning...for personal gain.  For example, your employer lets you go, saying that your services are no longer required because they are combining your job with someone else's.  However, that is not the REAL reason.  Sure, they are combining your job with someone else's, for now, but that is not WHY they let you go.  The real reason might get them into trouble.  So, rather than tell you the real reason, they provide a secondary reason, something they probably did to cover up their real reason.  That is lying.  Look, in this case, the employer found a way to get rid of someone they could get rid of otherwise.  They made up an excuse, which in the long run saved them from legal action.  That is lying.

5) Saying something to someone and then, without consulting them, knowingly acting contrary to what you told them...for personal gain.  Example: you tell this employee that he'd be a perfect fit in a certain position, especially because he's got the zeal and the desire to remain there long time and bring stability to the position.  Then, when new leadership enters into the situation, and your track-recod is on the line (you know, because extravagent administration gatherings at a posh resort in the midst of a huge budget crisis aren't wise), you decide to cut the guy you hand picked loose...because it makes you look budget conscious.  To top it off, you don't even tell him the discussion is going on until you decide to let him go, thereby catching him totally off-guard and uprepared.  That is lying.  You let the poor soul do his job, thinking he'd be there for a while, when you are undercutting the message you gave him.  You are allowing him to think he's secure, when he's not, because you have your own hide to worry about. 

It is important to remember that some of these actually happened to me...thus, the pain felt from those might cloud my thinking.  I mean, are 4 and 5 technically lying?  Having had those happen to me, I'd like to say yes. 

However, for a more cogent analysis, I think it obvious that the "common denominator" for all the above examples is the personal gain.  In numerous Examinations of Conscience, we are asked if we've knowing told a lie, with the intent to decieve.  I think, again this is experiential wisdom as opposed to intellectual wisdom, that MOTIVE is hugely important here.  Who benefits from these actions?  Is it us?  Is that what we want?  I mean what if the company (or diocese) in Number 4 wasn't looking to protect itself from lawsuit, but rather a particular individual, whom the company was afraid the employee might target?  Is that really, then a lie?  What if, in Number 5, the individual in question wasn't doing it to save his own skin, but because he was told to by his superiors, who know nothing of the conversations the individual had with the employee? (Although, you'd expect that individual in that case to inform the employee of the discussion).  What about in number 2, withholding pertinent information not to save yourself, but to save someone else from slander or worse? 

In sum, I agree whole heartedly that all lying is intrinsically immoral, and never acceptable.  However, the mere statement or presentation of a falsehood as truth is not a lie...motive helps define a lie.  In this regard, I think there is a comparison with abortion: 

An abortion is a procedure with the intent purpose of killing a pre-born baby.  To reiterate, the sole purpose of the abortion, the motive, or intent, of the action itself, is to kill an innocent baby.  Thus, performing a hysterectomy on a pregnant woman with uterine cancer is NOT an abortion: the motive of the action is to remove a diseased organ, but just like an abortion, the baby will die.  This is what makes abortion so evil: we are engaging in a behavior for the sole purpose of killing someone.  With lying, we see a similar situation.  In lying, we knowingly present a falsehood as truth for our own benefit.  However, in other situations, falsehoods are knowingly presented as truth for other reasons.  An example of this is in the movie Bells of St. Mary's, when Father O'Malley tell Sister Superior that she's been transferred, and lets Sister think he requested it because of differences they had. This had been agreed upon because the doctor thought she might give up if she knew she had TB.  Father allowed Sister to believe this, hoping it would help her.  That is not lying.

The same could be true of Live Action's sting operations.  Sure, Lila Rose and her partners knowingly presented falsehoods as truths to Planned Parenthood staffers.  However, who benefited from this action?  Surely not Lila Rose or Live Action.  Unlike my friend Mark Shea, I do not think this is a case for consequentialism, which essentially argues along the lines "Hey, I don't care how she did it, but she got PP defunded! Great!"  For this to be true, you would have to classify what Lila Rose did as a lie.  I'm not sure I can do that.

Understanding Humanae vitae, Part I

In 1968, Pope Paul VI issued his Papal Encyclical Humanae Vitae, which definitively affirmed the Church of Christ's clear and consistent teaching condemning any external act which makes the sexual acts of man and woman infertile, or contraception.  The definition given for contraception is an important one, because it distinguishes between human acts and acts of nature.  For example, a human act is to remove the penis before ejaculation, thus possible preventing conception, or receiving medication designed to prevent conception. This is different from engaging in the sexual act while the woman is infertile due to the natural cycle of her body.  What causes the infertility in the first case is a human act (and therefore wrong), but what causes the infertility in the second case is a natural act (and therefore not wrong).

In the late 1950s, work began on a synthetic hormone that would eliminate ovulation from a woman's cycle, thus render her infertile during the time she was on the hormone.  Part of this work was begun by a Catholic, John Rock, who believed his work was within traditional Catholic teaching, which condemned contraception.  The development of this chemical means of preventing conception was hailed by many, as a result caught the eye of Bl. John XXIII.  To this end, he formed a commission to study the question of marriage, the family, and population.  During the Second Vatican Council, Pope Paul VI revised the mission of the commission (Pontifical Commission on Population, Family, and Birth-rate) to include contraception.  However, what is notable is that in his address to the expanded commission, he referred to Pius XII's rejection of a forerunner of the Pill, not Pius XI, who taught that all acts that render the marital act infertile are always intrinsically evil).

During the meeting of the commission, its composition changed a few times.  With the changing of the composition, so too did the attitudes of the commission.  According to Fr. John Ford, S.J, an eminent moral theologian who was a member of the commission as a theological expert, as the attitudes of the commission changed, so to did the questions they were trying to answer.  Dr. Germain Grisez, himself an eminent moral theologian and an assistant of Fr. Ford's during the commission, recalls that at first, the commission centered around the question of whether or not the Church's teaching on contraception could be changed (Fr. Ford and Dr. Grisez held that it could not).  Once a majority of the commission held that it could, they went about debating whether or not it should.  Eventually, all but 4 of the members of the commission accepted the idea that the Church should reverse its teaching on contraception.  Despite this majority, there was minority.  However, the materials presented to the Commission's President, Cardinal Ottaviani, were extremely biased.  All the counterarguments the minority raised were whitewashed and all but left out.  Thus, what the Cardinal received was a heavily one-sided report.  Paul VI himself had publicly voiced his displeasure with where the Commission was heading (this was after a number of the majority's documents were leaked to the press), so the Cardinal wanted him to be presented with a more balanced report.

It can be safe to say that the Holy Father found the arguments of the minority more convincing than the arguments of majority.  In addition, to that, the Holy Father was hard-pressed on a long, long precedent: since Apostolic times, acts that rendered the conjugal act infertile were always and everywhere condemned.  More recently, Pius XI in Casti conubii had clearly taught that all human acts that render sex infertile are always intrinsically evil, and Pius XII had rejected a forerunner of the Pill under the same idea.

I was drawn to this whole saga by a post over at CatholicCutlure.org, where Dr. Mirius provides some sources the give an interesting outline on what actually took place.

Understanding Humanae Vitae, Part II

Cardinal Ottaviani, president of the Papal Commission on requested of Fr. John Ford and Dr. Germain Grisez some materials that would Memorandum Concerning the Mentality of Those that Would Approve Contraception, which was submitted to Cardinal Ottaviani for him to submit to His Holiness Pope Paul VI.  At the time Pope Paul was not pleased with the progress of the commission Bl John XXIII established to study birth rates and contraception.  Cardinal Ottaviani wanted to balance the reports that the Holy Father would recieve.

Part of this piece includes a series of arguments that those infavor of claiming that tradition should be reversed.  Here is one such argument:

c) If interference with nature were wrong as such, contraception would of course be wrong. However, interference is accepted in other areas. Man has dominion over nature, including the human body, its life and the human process of generation. Contraception attacks no real value, but only, a biological process. By this intervention of art, the physiological process is assumed into the life of the human person, Far from being immoral, contraception turns out to be humanizing—since art perfects nature for man.

To be honest, I can't understand this.  Perhaps, this is why Grisez mentions in his piece that not everyone of the majority agreed with everyone of the arguments.  I don't understand how they can say on the one hand "contraception attacks no real value, but only a biological process" and on the other "the physiological process is assumed into the life of the human person."  How contraception attack "just a biological process" which has been "assumed into the life of the human person" and not attack any real value?  Does the human person not have any real value?

Dr. Grisez mentions throughout his piece that the members of the commission, while all (except 4) agreeing that contraception should be allowed, disagreed as to why.  Perhaps this argument gives us a clue as to why.  This argument essentially holds that because sex is simply a biological process, not a human act, interference with it should not be all that troubling. I can honestly see why not everyone on the commission would sign on with this rationale.  Is sex simply a biological process?  If so, why is it so popular today?  Sex must be the single most profitable biological process, period. Have you noticed how many "great sex" guides there are out there?  Or what about items manufactured to assist in having sex?  Or media produced to encourage people to think about or have sex?  Or people whose sole job it is to have sex?  Heck, some people center their entire bedroom decor around the sexual act, to make sex more inviting in their bedroom.  Does this sound like a simple biological process?  Lives can be completely ruined by sex!  Somehow, I think that many on the majority side of the commission truly understood this, and so didn't want to relegate such a potent action to the category of "natural act" in line with breathing and defecating.  However, they didn't take that idea to its next logical conclusion.  If sex is so important, and more than just a biological process, than interfering with it would be wrong.

Besides the obvious fact that Holy Mother Church taught emphatically that contraception was forbidden at least twice before 1968, and to reverse that teaching would be to contradict Holy Mother Church, it would also counter what the Church held concerning sex and its importance to the human person.  Why would a well meaning, otherwise good person decide for the Church to teach something was clearly contradicted a teaching that went back to the apostles?  According to Grisez, it had a lot to do several things.  Of those things. Grisez singles out changes to the liturgy.  According to him, many of the faithful were thinking that if the Mass could be so radically changed, why not some of the Church's doctrines?

What did Cain Really Say?

Since I was a child, I have been forced to read Cain's first words to God after being convicted of causing Abel's death, "My punishment is more than I can bear!" This is followed by a brief litany of perceived hardships Cain is going through: he is cast from God's presence, he will wonder the earth, he will be treated as a lowlife, and because he's been castout, he will be killed by others.  Then, God reassures Cain that its not that bad, and that God will mark Cain, and any who kills him will be cursed.

I was fine with that rendering until recently.  You see, my beloved mother purchased the Douay-Rheims/Clementine Vulgate side-by-side from Baronius Press.  (For which, I am extremely thankful...I can't wait to read it to the kids when they are older.)  I have been reading the Latin first, followed by the English (which surprisingly isn't as hard as I thought it'd be).  While reading Genesis 4, I came across the same passage (duh, I mean, it is the same Bible): "And Cain said to the Lord: My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon. 14 Behold you do cast me out this day from the face of the earth, and from your face I shall be hid, and I shall be a vagabond and a fugitive on the earth: every one therefore that finds me, shall kill me. 15 And the Lord said to him: No, it shall not so be: but whosoever shall kill Cain, shall be punished sevenfold."

I've been thinking about that rendering for a few days.  What a difference it makes!  First, however, the NAB rendering isn't all that bad, from a logical standpoint.  Cain realizes what his deed has cost him, and is afraid that his deed will lead to his own death at the hands of another.  God, being ever merciful, reassures him that his worst fears will not come to fruition.  From this story, we get the reassurance that our struggles will never be more than we can bear.  In comparison, however, the contemporary rendering is lacking something: contrition for what he has done. 

Consider these words: "My iniquity is greater than that I may deserve pardon!"  Cain understands what he has done, he understands the gravity of his actions, which leads him to the say "and from your face I shall be hid."  I may be reading too much into this, but this sounds more like contrition than "This is too much for me!", which sounds like whining.  From where I sit, Cain isn't complaining; he is contemplating and verbally realizing what his actions mean: 1) his killing of his brother is so heinous he doesn't warrant pardon or redemption, and 2) the ultimate punishment: he will be hidden from God.  His contrition, if that is indeed what it is, compels God to say, "No, I will not let anyone kill you as you wander the earth."  Cain could very well be saying that he deserves death (for there is no pardon for his sin), and yet God assures him that is not the case, His Mercy and Grace supercede our sinful actions.

I'm no big fan of the NAB, but there is obviously an advantage to using the original (in this case Hebrew) rather than a translation of the original (which is what the Vulgate is) as a basis of your translation.  However, I have special affinity to the Vulgate and Douay-Rheims/Challoner.  This affinity is based on the fact that for centuries the Vulgate and its translation, the D-R/C, was the only version of Scripture around (and spawned Luther's translation into German and the KJV).  That says something about the theological and moral certitude in the Vulgate and D-R/C. 

Peter, the Pope, and Headship of the Church

I subscribe to John Martignoni's Bible Christian Society's Apologetics for the Masses newsletter.  The current edition carries on a virtual debate concerning Peter as the first pope.  I would like here to discuss some points that come up in that piece.

1)  John and Thomas mention that the term Pope was not actually used in reference to the Bishop of Rome exclusively until about the 3rd or 4th Centuries.  They don't mention why, and this is important.  The term "pope" is derived from the Latin word for "father", much like the English term "papa".  It was commonly used in the Early Church (East and West) to refer to the bishop of a diocese.  In fact, Copts still use the term in reference to their chief bishops.  Sometime in the late 3rd and early 4th Centuries, the Latin Church stopped using the term in reference to other bishops, and used it exclusively in reference to the Bishop of Rome.  In fact, it is quite common in the writings of Eastern Christians to refer to the Bishop of Rome as the "Pope of Rome".  For Christians in the West, the term "Pope" has certain connotation concerning headship and authority.  That headship and authority existed far before the term "pope" began to refer to the holder of that headship and authority.

2)  John fails to react to Thomas' statement that the Church began at Pentecost.  Consider the actual text of Scripture as it recounts what happened that day: "They therefore that received his word were baptized: and there were added in that day about three thousand souls. (D-R)"  Three thousand were added...added to what?  To the Church, of course.  The Church existed before Pentecost, but similar to a child that matures in its mother's womb, the Church matured between its conception from the pierced side of Christ, and its "birth", or manifestation to the world.  Why is this an important point when discussing Peter and his primacy?  Because if the Church exists prior to its epiphany to the world at Pentecost, its structure existed prior to said birth.  Prior to Pentecost, Peter was the leader of the Apostles.  He called for Judas' replacement.  He and he alone was commanded by the Lord to "feed my sheep", "feed my lambs" in John.  He is recounted to have entered the tomb, and it was to him that the Lord appeared on Easter Sunday, after appearing to Mary.  In all post-Crucifixion depictions of believers, Peter is mentioned with a leading role.  With such an established structure, it only seems logical that once the Church is made manifest to the world, Peter is at its head.

3)  Thomas says that in Matthew 16, all of the Apostles were given the commission of Peter.  This is patently false: when Christ says "I give you the keys to the Kingdom of Heaven" the 'you' is singular, which infers that Christ is speaking to Peter alone, not the rest of the Apostles.  Likewise, the power to open and shut is reserved to the keeper of the keys (cf Isaiah 22).  This being said, in his response, John fails to reinforce the concept of the key-bearer, the second in command, the vizier, the regent, who ruled under the King, with the authority of the King and in the King's stead in the physical absense of the King.  Peter fulfills this role when  Christ bestowed upon him the Keys.

4)  John argues that the first part of Acts is about Peter.  This may be true on the surface, but I think that statement, or that assertion goes against what Luke is attempting to do in the second part of Acts.  Luke contends in his prefaces to Acts and Luke that he is attempting to get Theophilus up to speed on what is going on, explaining to him the phenomenon that Theophilus has been experiencing.  It seems likely to me that Theophilus has heard of Paul, and the Gospel, probably even ran into some Christian communities somewhere within the Empire.  Luke, then is explaining what he has experienced. Obviously, Paul is a huge part in Christianity outside of Palestine and throughout the Empire, so it is likewise obvious that Luke will introduce Paul and his ministry.  However, Luke must also explain where Paul gets his authority and where he fits in within the Church.  If Luke is attempting to convert Theophilus, those points need explaining so Theophilus can trust Paul's message.  So, where does Paul get his authority?  From the Apostles that Christ commissioned.   Who are these Apostles, and Who is Christ?  That last question is answered in the Gospel of Luke, while the former is partially answered in Luke and the answer is finished in Acts.  In Luke, we learn who the cast of characters is: chosen by Christ, and specially tasked with spreading the Gospel.  In Acts, we see how these Apostles carry out their commission, and we see the authority given to them.  God sent His Spirit on the Apostles and Mary at Pentecost, and those same Apostles, led by their spokesman Peter, proclaimed the Gospel loud and clear.  Just as Christ was able to heal the sick who touched His cloak, so too did Peter's shadow heal the sick.  The demons fled from the Apostles, just as they fled from Christ.  The first part of Acts, then establishes the veracity and true power of the Apostles and Christ's Church.  We see that much of what Christ was able to do (forgive sins, drive out demons, heal the sick, raise the dead) the Apostles, more specifically Peter, are able to do.  Only after Paul has met with the Apostles, and they approve his message and mission.  It is with their blessing and their authority that he is sent out.  Thus, Paul, in a sense, speaks with the authority of the Apostles, upon whom the Holy Spirit descended at Pentecost.

So there you have it: my four cents.

Dr. Gosnell: the Logical End to Abortion

I've been following the story of "Dr." Gossnell in Philadelphia for the past week.  It is hard to write anything after reading the grand jury's statement.  I am just numb.  Women being mutilated and murdered.  Cracking jokes about the size of a baby before grotesquely stabbing him with scissors and severing his spinal cord (and not even saying "fetus" but "baby"--he knew he was taking an innocent human life and didn't care).  Severing feet of those innocent people he's slaughtered and keeping them around for "research".  And state departments knowing this is going on and doing nothing.  How can your heart not bleed?  How can you not be enraged?

The NYT and other news outlets have tried to call this behavior an anomaly, not related to abortion.  Sadly, this is the logical end to abortion.  This is what happens we allow ourselves to see other human beings as sub-human.  Consider the picture below, of an African-American slave.  By all accounts, Southerners had dehumanized the slaves they controlled to make their treatment of them seem "moral"  Apologists for slavery called "Negros" inferior to whites, while "biologists" claimed that biologically, they were less than human.  Some even claimed that treatment such as evidenced below, was for their own good, because they weren't capable of making decisions on their own.

Consider also, this picture:

If a reference to the Shoah or Holocaust seems out-of-place when discussing abortion, it shouldn't.  The only way that such atrocities against humanity are able to happen are when we denigrate and dehumanize other humans as not human.  Hitler and his National Socialists were clear that Jews, homosexuals, Gypsies, Catholics, Poles, and communists were somehow less than human.  This attitude allowed them to treat those in captivity the same way some American slave owners treated their slaves: with inhuman brutality.

By most accounts, the genocide of the Shoah and the Rwandan genocide and the enslavement of Africans by Europeans in the 17th, 18th, and 19th Centuries are extreme low points in human history.  How can we have any faith in humanity after these incidents?  The example of dr. Gosnell and abortion as a whole are clearly reflected in these examples. 

First, we start with a dehumanizing attitude.  To the Germans, Hutus and Tutsis, and Americans, the "other" is somehow less than human.  They are burdens to society, to personal well-being.  They are incapable of "rational thought".  They are "untermenchen", "niggers", "fetuses": not completely human.  The pictures show the result of this attitude.  While these pictures are disturbing enough, the dissection of a pre-born baby is too much to stomach, to repulsive.  However, to abortion-supporters, these are "babies", but fetuses, or blobs of tissue, or to atheist monster PZ Meyers: meat.

Second, we have government compliance.  We know that it was the government that sponsored and encouraged Shoah and the Rwandan genocide.  They provided the impetus and infrastructure, they provided the means and manpower...it was the populace who stood idly by.  With slavery, government allowed, made it legal, and provided the legal infrastucture to protect the "peculiar institution".  In most of the Industrial world, abortion is protected by law, a supposed "right".  As witnessed in Pennsylvania and most any state where Planned Parenthood has presence, the government not only turns a blind eye to the goings on, but they provide money to support the murders.  In addition, much like the press in Germany, Rwnada, and the antebellum South, not only turns a blind eye to atrocities (like the NYT on Gosnell), but works to garner support for the actions.

Gosnell isn't an aberration.  He is the logical conclusion.  His callousness toward all human life save his own is the logical end to a pro-abortion mindset.  He, like George Tiller and other abortionists, have inhumanly distanced themselves from humanity so as to provide their "service".  Like the "hero" in Camus' Stranger who kills a man in cold blood and feels no remorse, thus it is with the pro-abortionist.  Is it any surprise that such creature will care about a clean clinic, about following civil law when he has abrogated Natural and Divine Law?

Save the Liturgy, Save the World: A Reaction to Rockin Apologist

Catholic Apologist at RockinApologist is a friend of mine, so I follow his stuff.  Most recently, he posted on a Pepsi commercial contest.  Being a smart fellow (with one glaring exception: his belief that James White is  brilliant), it is not uncommon for him to make some good points.  I would like to reflect on his post for a bit...bear with me.

1)  According to CA, the commercial in question has some guy dressed like a priest.  Seeing as Episcopalians, Anglicans, and Lutherans all like to (at least occasionally) play dress-up, its hard to actually distinguish between a Catholic and liturgical Protestant.  While Lutherans and Anglicans/Episcopalians have women ministers, men still dominate that position, so even that is not really a give away.  Anglicanism has so many disparate parts, at least according to Fr. Dwight Longenecker, that even those parishes with traditional trappings (beautiful Gothic church, statues, traditional worship, etc) can have weird theological beliefs which would allow them to subsitute Pepsi and chips for wine and bread.  I share CA's opinion that as far as anti-Catholic ads go, this is very, very tame.

2)  CA mentions that rather than gimmicks, we teach the Word of God.  I have a better idea: how about we become unabashedly Catholic?  What is so wrong with abstaining from meat on Fridays (yes, I know that the Church lifted that, provided that you substitute some other penance on Fridays, but we are talking identity, here)?  Why don't Catholic schools have off on Holy Days of Obligation (or half-days to allow for the kids to go to Mass, which they may not do on their own)?  Why don't we do Eucharistic processions or such?  Its one thing to preach something, but we need to put those things into practice.  While service to the poor is good, even atheists do that...we need to put our money where our mouth is.

3)  The main way to recapture a Catholic Identity is to recapture our sense of truly Catholic worship.  We are not Protestant.  We revere the Eucharist because we believe it is Truly the Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity of Our Lord, Jesus.  How about we act that way?  End the conga-line processions for Holy Communion.  End the practice of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (I mean, do we really need to speed up Communion time, a time when we get to bond with Our Lord in a truly intimate and close way?  Shouldn't we all have time to reflect on what we are about to partake in and what we have just partaken in?).  Recapture a sense of the Sacred during liturgical events.  The translation that is being implemented in Advent 2011 (replacing the paraphrase we've been using for the last 40 years) will help a great deal, but Latin would be better.  Why?  ITS NOT NORMAL!!  You know there is a problem when my non-Catholic mother wishes to hear Mass again in Latin, like when she visited her friends growing up.  You knew you entered into something different, extraordinary when you went to Holy Mass, celebrated in Latin.  You may not have known exactly what was going on, but you could, at the least, know it was special (hey, no one speaks Latin in conversation anymore, right?).  This is why the Orthodox retain Greek (and some Latin) and why many Anglicans continue to use heirarchic English for their services.  While we are at it, get rid of the plain, trendy, and cheap liturgical vestments.  There is a great deal to be said for hand-crafted, high-quality, intricately detailed vestments for Holy Mass.  Priests: you are standing in for the True High Priest...at least look the part!!!  Get rid of carpet in the Sanctuary, and re-install the Communion Rail (you don't have to use it, but it at least gives the impression that the Sanctuary is a special place).  Get rid of the "Eucharistic table" and reinstall a true Altar of Sacrifice that actually looks the part.  Perhaps the single best thing that can be done to reclaim Catholic worship is to recapture that millenia old practice of celebrating Holy Mass ad orientam...in the same direction as the people. 

4) CA asks why churches don't just hop on board with the whole Gospel message and abondon the world.  A 19th century author (either Mark Twain or GK Chesterton...I think it was Chesterton) said, "Christianity hasn't been tried and found wanting, it has been found hard and never tried."  Churches who employ gimmicks lack true faith in Christ.  Christ resisted temptation to abandon His mission for what the world had to offer.  He was offered material gain (food), adulation (by not dying as he fell from the temple spire), and power.  All these would have undermined His mission to redeem mankind.  Our leaders have succumbed to the temptations Christ resisted not only because they are sinful, but because, deep down, they trust the world over Christ.  Rather than look to Christ, who resisted great temptation (I mean, He knew the death He had to suffer, yet He went through with it anyway...), they look to the "promises" of the world.