Dave Armstrong's Blog, page 13

Documentation: Pope Francis is Orthodox, Pro-Tradition, and Against Modernism (By Dan Marcum)

This was originally posted in the Catholic Answers forum on 9 January 2015 and then expanded later on. I modified the title of #11 and deleted one quotation from it (which I felt was off-topic), and shortened many other titles.

* * * * *
1. Tradition

“We must put ourselves in line with the great Tradition which [is] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of the Magisterium.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the ‘servant of the servants of God’; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church...to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim.” source

2. No Salvation Outside the Church

“[Do not] fall into the temptation of thinking...that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own... On the contrary...you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.” source

“It is not possible to love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church.” source

“Consequently, one cannot understand a Christian apart from the People of God. For a Christian is not a monad, off somewhere alone. No, he belongs to a people, to the Church, so much so...that a Christian without the Church is a pure ideal, not a reality!” source

“It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Christ without the Church, of following Jesus outside his Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church.” source

3. Church Infallibility

“[W]hen the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err.” source

“[A]bove all faith is required of the Catholic exegete — [faith] received and shared with the whole believing people, which in its totality cannot err.” source

“The faith of the People of God...is a simple faith, a faith that is perhaps without much theology, but it has an inward theology that is not wrong, because the Spirit is behind it.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

4. Papal Infallibility

“[T]he presence of the Pope is the guarantee for all and the safeguard of the faith.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is...the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ.” source

“Everything happened cum Petro et sub Petro, that is, in the presence of the Pope, that is a guarantee of freedom and trust for all, and a guarantee of orthodoxy.” source

“And, as I have dared to tell you, [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.” source

5. The Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope

“The Pope...[is] – by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful and [enjoys] supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.” source

“Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff...with a final and unappealable decision and subject to no recourse, has decreed dismissal from the clerical state is to be imposed on said priest for the good of the Church.” source

6. The Reality of the Devil

“[In] this generation, like so many others, people have been led to believe that the devil is a myth, a figure, an idea, the idea of evil. But the devil exists and we must fight against him. Paul tells us this, it’s not me saying it! The Word of God is telling us this. But we’re not all convinced of this.” source

“[T]he Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.” source

7. Traditional Marriage

“[T]he complementarity of man and woman...is at the root of marriage and family.” source

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” source

“The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis... Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But…[as] the French bishops have taught, [marriage] is not born of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life.” source

“May this colloquium be an inspiration to all who seek to support and strengthen the union of man and woman in marriage as a unique, natural, fundamental and beautiful good for persons, families, communities, and whole societies.” source

8. Opposition to Abortion

“It is must be therefore reiterated the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless life, and the unborn child in the womb is the most concrete example of innocence.” source

“From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” source

“[So] many times in my life as a priest I have heard objections: ‘But tell me, why the Church is opposed to abortion, for example? Is it a religious problem?’ No, no. It is not a religious problem. ‘Is it a philosophical problem?’ No, it is not a philosophical problem. It’s a scientific problem, because there is a human life there, and it is not lawful to take out a human life to solve a problem. ‘But no, modern thought…’ But, listen, in ancient thought and modern thought, the word ‘kill’ means the same thing. The same evaluation applies to euthanasia.” source

9. Opposition to the Ordination of Women

“[As] far as women’s ordination is concerned, the Church has spoken and said: ‘No’. John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That door is closed.” source

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion.” source

“Women in the Church must be valued not ‘clericalised’. Whoever thinks of women as cardinals suffers a bit from clericalism.” source

10. Opposition to Communion for the Divorced and Remarried

"About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can't. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage." source

“The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a [punishment]. It is important to remember this.” source

“People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.” source

11. The Exclusiveness of Christian Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

“You can follow a thousand catechism courses, a thousand spirituality courses, a thousand yoga or zen courses and all these things. But none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God). Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say ‘Father.’ ” source

12. Condemnation of Media Distortion of his Papacy

“Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching. That's what I think, not what the media say that I think.” source

“[S]ome people are always afraid because they don’t read things properly, or they read some news in a newspaper, an article, and they don’t read what the synod decided, what was published. What was worthwhile about the synod? The post synodal connection and the Pope’s address. That is definitive.” source

13. The Reality of Hell

“[M]afia crimes [produce] blood money, it is power soaked in blood, and you cannot take it with you to the next life. Convert, there is still time, so that you don’t end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path.” source

“God of infinite mercy… May none of your children be lost to the eternal fires of hell, where repentance is no more.” source

14. Opposition to Contraception

“[O]penness to life is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman...if they are not in accord on this point of openness to life. If it can be proved that he or she married with the intention of not being Catholic [on this point] then the matrimony is null. [It is] a cause for the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life. source 

“[About] Humanae Vitae…[the] genius [of Pope Paul VI] was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism.” source

“Paul VI was not antiquated, close minded. No, [he was] a prophet again who with [Humanae Vitae] told us to watch out for the Neo-Malthusianism that is coming. This is what I [want] to say.” source

15. The Limits of Papal Infallibility

“If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do.” source 

“I’m not a specialist on bioethical arguments, and I’m afraid of being mistaken in my words. The Church’s traditional doctrine states that no one is obliged to use extraordinary methods when someone is in his terminal phase. Pastorally, in these cases I have always advised palliative care. On more specific cases, should it be necessary, it’s appropriate to seek the advice of specialists.” source

16. The Limits of Free Speech Rights

“[F]reedom of expression must take account of the human reality and for this reason one must be prudent. ... Prudence is the virtue that regulates our relations. I can go up to here, I can go up to there, and there, beyond that no. … For this reason freedom must be accompanied by prudence.” source

“We have the obligation to speak openly, to enjoy this freedom, but without offending others. … That is, there is a limit. Every religion has dignity; every religion that respects life, human life, the human person...I cannot make fun of it. This is a limit and I have taken this sense of limit to say that in freedom of expression there are limits.” source

17. The Doctrine of Just Warfare

“With terrorism one must fight, but I repeat what I said in my previous trip: when an unjust aggressor must be stopped, it must be done with an international consensus.” source 

“One nation alone cannot determine how to stop an unjust aggressor. ... To stop an unjust aggressor is a right of humanity, but it is also a right of the aggressor to be stopped in order not to do evil.” source

“In reaffirming that it is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor, I wish to reiterate, moreover, that the problem cannot be resolved solely through a military response.” source

18. Condemnation of Recreational Drug Use

“Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called ‘recreational drugs’, are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that.” source

“I am delighted to welcome...the families of young people from San Patrignano, whom I join in saying no to every form of drugs. And perhaps it will do some good for everyone to say this, simply: no to every kind of drugs!” source

“Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem.” source

19. Condemnation of Euthanasia

“The dominant thinking sometimes suggests a ‘false compassion’, that which believes that it is: helpful to women to promote abortion; an act of dignity to obtain euthanasia; a scientific breakthrough to ‘produce’ a child and to consider it to be a right rather than a gift to welcome; or to use human lives as guinea pigs presumably to save others. Instead, the compassion of the Gospel is that which accompanies in times of need, that is, the compassion of the Good Samaritan, who ‘sees’, ‘has compassion’, approaches and provides concrete help.” source

“The same evaluation applies to euthanasia… [T]his is to say to God, ‘No, I will accomplish the end of life, as I will.’ A sin against God the Creator! Think hard about this.” source

“But there is also the reality of the abandonment of the elderly: how many times we discard older people with attitudes that are akin to a hidden form of euthanasia! The culture of discarding human beings hurts our world. We discard children, young people and older people under the pretense of maintaining a ‘balanced’, economic system the center of which is no longer the human person, but money. We are all called to counter this culture of poisonous waste!” source

20. Condemnation of Syncretism in Ecumenism

“In this [ecumenical] dialogue, ever friendly and sincere...[a] facile syncretism would ultimately be a totalitarian gesture on the part of those who would ignore greater values of which they are not the masters. True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity... What is not helpful is a diplomatic openness which says ‘yes’ to everything in order to avoid problems, for this would be a way of deceiving others and denying them the good which we have been given to share generously with others. Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another.” (Evangelii Gaudium 251) source

“Christians often do not even know the core of their Catholic faith, the Creed, so as to leave room for a certain syncretism and religious relativism, without clarity on the truths to be believed and the salvific uniqueness of Christianity. The risk is not far off today of people building a so-called "do-it-yourself" religion. Instead, we should return to God, the God of Jesus Christ, we must rediscover the message of the Gospel.” source 

“We must be careful not to fall prey to conciliatory syncretism which, in the end, is empty and a harbinger of a totalitarianism without values. … This invites us, first, to return to the fundamentals.” source

21. Economic Subsidiarity

“[T]he social doctrine of the Church teaches us that the principle of solidarity [should be] implemented in harmony with that of subsidiarity. Thanks to the effects of these two principles, processes should be at the service of human beings and of the increase of justice, without which there can be no true and enduring peace.” source

“We [should] also learn to appreciate more fully the important values inspired by Christianity, such as the vision of the human person, the nature of marriage and the family, the proper distinction between the religious and political spheres, the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, and many others.” source

“[T]he ideals which shaped Europe from the beginning [included] peace, subsidiarity and reciprocal solidarity, and a humanism centred on respect for the dignity of the human person.” source 

22.  Support of Catholic Apologetics

“[In] professional, scientific and academic circles…[we should be] developing new approaches and arguments on the issue of credibility, a creative apologetics which would encourage greater openness to the Gospel on the part of all.” (Evangelii Gaudium 132) source

“[Confirmation] gives us a special strength of the Holy Spirit to spread and defend the faith… to confess the name of Christ boldly, and never to be ashamed of his Cross.” source

“[A] dialogue is not doing apologetics, although sometimes you must do so, when we are asked questions that require an explanation.” source 

23. Support of the Mass in Latin and Ad Orientem

“By the celebration of the sacred mysteries according to the extraordinary form of the Roman rite...may [the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter] contribute, in fidelity to the living Tradition of the Church, to a better comprehension and implementation of the Second Vatican Council.” source

On January 12, 2014, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem. source

On October 31, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated Mass ad orientem. source

During his January, 2015 trip to the Philippines, Pope Francis celebrated Mass in Latin. source

On December 24, 2013, Pope Francis celebrated the traditional Latin Mass. source

24. Condemnation of Progressivism

“[The] spirit of adolescent progressivism” says, “[We] cannot become isolated or remain stuck in our old traditions. … And this is what we call apostasy; the prophets called it adultery. … Still today, the spirit of worldliness leads us to progressivism, to this uniformity of thought.” source

“[There is] a destructive tendency to goodness, that in the name of a deceptive mercy binds the wounds without first curing them and treating them; that treats the symptoms and not the causes and the roots. It is the temptation of the ‘do-gooders,’ of the fearful, and also of the so-called ‘progressives and liberals.’ ” source 

* * * * *

Documentation: Pope Francis is Pro-Tradition and Against Modernism (By Dan Marcum)

This was originally posted in the Catholic Answers forum on 9 January 2015 and then expanded later on. I modified the title of #11 and deleted one quotation from it (which I felt was off-topic).

* * * * *
1. He has Affirmed his Commitment to Tradition

“We must put ourselves in line with the great Tradition which [is] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of the Magisterium.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the ‘servant of the servants of God’; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church...to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim.” source

2. He is Strong on No Salvation Outside the Church

“[Do not] fall into the temptation of thinking...that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own... On the contrary...you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.” source

“It is not possible to love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church.” source

“Consequently, one cannot understand a Christian apart from the People of God. For a Christian is not a monad, off somewhere alone. No, he belongs to a people, to the Church, so much so...that a Christian without the Church is a pure ideal, not a reality!” source

“It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Christ without the Church, of following Jesus outside his Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church.” source

3. He is Strong on Church Infallibility

“[W]hen the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err.” source

“[A]bove all faith is required of the Catholic exegete — [faith] received and shared with the whole believing people, which in its totality cannot err.” source

“The faith of the People of God...is a simple faith, a faith that is perhaps without much theology, but it has an inward theology that is not wrong, because the Spirit is behind it.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

4. He is Strong on Papal Infallibility

“[T]he presence of the Pope is the guarantee for all and the safeguard of the faith.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is...the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ.” source

“Everything happened cum Petro et sub Petro, that is, in the presence of the Pope, that is a guarantee of freedom and trust for all, and a guarantee of orthodoxy.” source

“And, as I have dared to tell you, [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.” source

5. He is Strong on the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope

“The Pope...[is] – by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful and [enjoys] supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.” source

“Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff...with a final and unappealable decision and subject to no recourse, has decreed dismissal from the clerical state is to be imposed on said priest for the good of the Church.” source

6. He is Strong on the Reality of the Devil

“[In] this generation, like so many others, people have been led to believe that the devil is a myth, a figure, an idea, the idea of evil. But the devil exists and we must fight against him. Paul tells us this, it’s not me saying it! The Word of God is telling us this. But we’re not all convinced of this.” source

“[T]he Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.” source

7. He is Strong on Traditional Marriage

“[T]he complementarity of man and woman...is at the root of marriage and family.” source

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” source

“The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis... Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But…[as] the French bishops have taught, [marriage] is not born of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life.” source

“May this colloquium be an inspiration to all who seek to support and strengthen the union of man and woman in marriage as a unique, natural, fundamental and beautiful good for persons, families, communities, and whole societies.” source

8. He Condemns Abortion

“It is must be therefore reiterated the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless life, and the unborn child in the womb is the most concrete example of innocence.” source

“From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” source

“[So] many times in my life as a priest I have heard objections: ‘But tell me, why the Church is opposed to abortion, for example? Is it a religious problem?’ No, no. It is not a religious problem. ‘Is it a philosophical problem?’ No, it is not a philosophical problem. It’s a scientific problem, because there is a human life there, and it is not lawful to take out a human life to solve a problem. ‘But no, modern thought…’ But, listen, in ancient thought and modern thought, the word ‘kill’ means the same thing. The same evaluation applies to euthanasia.” source

9. He Condemns the Ordination of Women

“[As] far as women’s ordination is concerned, the Church has spoken and said: ‘No’. John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That door is closed.” source

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion.” source

10. He Opposes Communion for the Divorced and Remarried

"About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can't. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage." source

“The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a [punishment]. It is important to remember this.” source

“People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.” source

11. He Teaches the Exclusiveness of Christian Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

“You can follow a thousand catechism courses, a thousand spirituality courses, a thousand yoga or zen courses and all these things. But none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God). Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say ‘Father.’ ” source

12. He Condemns Media Distortion of his Papacy

“Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching. That's what I think, not what the media say that I think.” source

“[S]ome people are always afraid because they don’t read things properly, or they read some news in a newspaper, an article, and they don’t read what the synod decided, what was published. What was worthwhile about the synod? The post synodal connection and the Pope’s address. That is definitive.” source

13. He is Strong on the Reality of Hell

“[M]afia crimes [produce] blood money, it is power soaked in blood, and you cannot take it with you to the next life. Convert, there is still time, so that you don’t end up in hell. That is what awaits you if you continue on this path.” source

“God of infinite mercy… May none of your children be lost to the eternal fires of hell, where repentance is no more.” source

14. He Condemns Contraception

“[O]penness to life is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman...if they are not in accord on this point of openness to life. If it can be proved that he or she married with the intention of not being Catholic [on this point] then the matrimony is null. [It is] a cause for the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life. source 

“[About] Humanae Vitae…[the] genius [of Pope Paul VI] was prophetic, as he had the courage to go against the majority, to defend moral discipline, to apply a cultural brake, to oppose present and future neo-Malthusianism.” source

“Paul VI was not antiquated, close minded. No, [he was] a prophet again who with [Humanae Vitae] told us to watch out for the Neo-Malthusianism that is coming. This is what I [want] to say.” source

15. He Teaches the Limits of Papal Infallibility

“If the Pope says that the earth is the centre of the universe, and not the sun, he errs, since he is affirming something that ought to be supported by science, and this will not do.” source 

“I’m not a specialist on bioethical arguments, and I’m afraid of being mistaken in my words. The Church’s traditional doctrine states that no one is obliged to use extraordinary methods when someone is in his terminal phase. Pastorally, in these cases I have always advised palliative care. On more specific cases, should it be necessary, it’s appropriate to seek the advice of specialists.” source

16. He Teaches the Limits of Free Speech Rights

“[F]reedom of expression must take account of the human reality and for this reason one must be prudent. ... Prudence is the virtue that regulates our relations. I can go up to here, I can go up to there, and there, beyond that no. … For this reason freedom must be accompanied by prudence.” source

“We have the obligation to speak openly, to enjoy this freedom, but without offending others. … That is, there is a limit. Every religion has dignity; every religion that respects life, human life, the human person...I cannot make fun of it. This is a limit and I have taken this sense of limit to say that in freedom of expression there are limits.” source

17. He Teaches the Doctrine of Just Warfare

“With terrorism one must fight, but I repeat what I said in my previous trip: when an unjust aggressor must be stopped, it must be done with an international consensus.” source 

“One nation alone cannot determine how to stop an unjust aggressor. ... To stop an unjust aggressor is a right of humanity, but it is also a right of the aggressor to be stopped in order not to do evil.” source

“In reaffirming that it is licit, while always respecting international law, to stop an unjust aggressor, I wish to reiterate, moreover, that the problem cannot be resolved solely through a military response.” source

18. He Condemns Recreational Drug Use

“Attempts, however limited, to legalize so-called ‘recreational drugs’, are not only highly questionable from a legislative standpoint, but they fail to produce the desired effects. Substitute drugs are not an adequate therapy but rather a veiled means of surrendering to the phenomenon. Here I would reaffirm what I have stated on another occasion: No to every type of drug use. It is as simple as that.” source

“I am delighted to welcome...the families of young people from San Patrignano, whom I join in saying no to every form of drugs. And perhaps it will do some good for everyone to say this, simply: no to every kind of drugs!” source

“Let me state this in the clearest terms possible: the problem of drug use is not solved with drugs! Drug addiction is an evil, and with evil there can be no yielding or compromise. To think that harm can be reduced by permitting drug addicts to use narcotics in no way resolves the problem.” source

19. He Condemns Euthanasia

“The dominant thinking sometimes suggests a ‘false compassion’, that which believes that it is: helpful to women to promote abortion; an act of dignity to obtain euthanasia; a scientific breakthrough to ‘produce’ a child and to consider it to be a right rather than a gift to welcome; or to use human lives as guinea pigs presumably to save others. Instead, the compassion of the Gospel is that which accompanies in times of need, that is, the compassion of the Good Samaritan, who ‘sees’, ‘has compassion’, approaches and provides concrete help.” source

“The same evaluation applies to euthanasia… [T]his is to say to God, ‘No, I will accomplish the end of life, as I will.’ A sin against God the Creator! Think hard about this.” source

“But there is also the reality of the abandonment of the elderly: how many times we discard older people with attitudes that are akin to a hidden form of euthanasia! The culture of discarding human beings hurts our world. We discard children, young people and older people under the pretense of maintaining a ‘balanced’, economic system the center of which is no longer the human person, but money. We are all called to counter this culture of poisonous waste!” source

20. He Condemns Syncretism in Ecumenism

“In this [ecumenical] dialogue, ever friendly and sincere...[a] facile syncretism would ultimately be a totalitarian gesture on the part of those who would ignore greater values of which they are not the masters. True openness involves remaining steadfast in one’s deepest convictions, clear and joyful in one’s own identity... What is not helpful is a diplomatic openness which says ‘yes’ to everything in order to avoid problems, for this would be a way of deceiving others and denying them the good which we have been given to share generously with others. Evangelization and interreligious dialogue, far from being opposed, mutually support and nourish one another.” (Evangelii Gaudium 251) source

“Christians often do not even know the core of their Catholic faith, the Creed, so as to leave room for a certain syncretism and religious relativism, without clarity on the truths to be believed and the salvific uniqueness of Christianity. The risk is not far off today of people building a so-called "do-it-yourself" religion. Instead, we should return to God, the God of Jesus Christ, we must rediscover the message of the Gospel.” source 

“We must be careful not to fall prey to conciliatory syncretism which, in the end, is empty and a harbinger of a totalitarianism without values. … This invites us, first, to return to the fundamentals.” source

* * * * *

12 Ways That Pope Francis is Pro-Tradition and Against Modernism (By Dan Marcum)

This was originally posted in the Catholic Answers forum on 9 January 2015. I modified the title of #11 and deleted one quotation from it (which I felt was off-topic).

* * * * *
1. He has Affirmed his Commitment to Tradition

“We must put ourselves in line with the great Tradition which [is] under the guidance of the Holy Spirit and of the Magisterium.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is not the supreme lord but rather the supreme servant – the ‘servant of the servants of God’; the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church...to the Tradition of the Church, putting aside every personal whim.” source

2. He is Strong on No Salvation Outside the Church

“[Do not] fall into the temptation of thinking...that we can get along without the Church, that we can save ourselves on our own... On the contrary...you cannot love God outside of the Church; you cannot be in communion with God without being so in the Church.” source

“It is not possible to love Christ but without the Church, to listen to Christ but not the Church, to belong to Christ but outside the Church.” source

“Consequently, one cannot understand a Christian apart from the People of God. For a Christian is not a monad, off somewhere alone. No, he belongs to a people, to the Church, so much so...that a Christian without the Church is a pure ideal, not a reality!” source

“It is an absurd dichotomy to think of living with Christ without the Church, of following Jesus outside his Church, of loving Jesus without loving the Church.” source

3. He is Strong on Church Infallibility

“[W]hen the Church, in the variety of her charisms, expresses herself in communion, she cannot err.” source

“[A]bove all faith is required of the Catholic exegete — [faith] received and shared with the whole believing people, which in its totality cannot err.” source

“The faith of the People of God...is a simple faith, a faith that is perhaps without much theology, but it has an inward theology that is not wrong, because the Spirit is behind it.” source

“[T]he Tradition of the entire People of God over the centuries...cannot be mistaken in belief.” source

4. He is Strong on Papal Infallibility

“[T]he presence of the Pope is the guarantee for all and the safeguard of the faith.” source

“The Pope, in this context, is...the guarantor of the obedience and the conformity of the Church to the will of God, to the Gospel of Christ.” source

“Everything happened cum Petro et sub Petro, that is, in the presence of the Pope, that is a guarantee of freedom and trust for all, and a guarantee of orthodoxy.” source

“And, as I have dared to tell you, [as] I told you from the beginning of the Synod, it was necessary to live through all this with tranquillity, and with interior peace, so that the Synod would take place cum Petro and sub Petro (with Peter and under Peter), and the presence of the Pope is the guarantee of it all.” source

5. He is Strong on the Universal Jurisdiction of the Pope

“The Pope...[is] – by the will of Christ Himself – the supreme Pastor and Teacher of all the faithful and [enjoys] supreme, full, immediate, and universal ordinary power in the Church.” source

“Pope Francis, Supreme Pontiff...with a final and unappealable decision and subject to no recourse, has decreed dismissal from the clerical state is to be imposed on said priest for the good of the Church.” source

6. He is Strong on the Reality of the Devil

“[In] this generation, like so many others, people have been led to believe that the devil is a myth, a figure, an idea, the idea of evil. But the devil exists and we must fight against him. Paul tells us this, it’s not me saying it! The Word of God is telling us this. But we’re not all convinced of this.” source

“[T]he Prince of this world, Satan, doesn’t want our holiness, he doesn’t want us to follow Christ. Maybe some of you might say: ‘But Father, how old fashioned you are to speak about the devil in the 21st century!’ But look out because the devil is present! The devil is here… even in the 21st century! And we mustn’t be naïve, right? We must learn from the Gospel how to fight against Satan.” source

7. He is Strong on Traditional Marriage

“[T]he complementarity of man and woman...is at the root of marriage and family.” source

“The first setting in which faith enlightens the human city is the family. I think first and foremost of the stable union of man and woman in marriage.” source

“The family is experiencing a profound cultural crisis... Marriage now tends to be viewed as a form of mere emotional satisfaction that can be constructed in any way or modified at will. But…[as] the French bishops have taught, [marriage] is not born of loving sentiment, ephemeral by definition, but from the depth of the obligation assumed by the spouses who accept to enter a total communion of life.” source

“May this colloquium be an inspiration to all who seek to support and strengthen the union of man and woman in marriage as a unique, natural, fundamental and beautiful good for persons, families, communities, and whole societies.” source

8. He Condemns Abortion

“It is must be therefore reiterated the strongest opposition to any direct attack on life, especially innocent and defenseless life, and the unborn child in the womb is the most concrete example of innocence.” source

“From the moment of its conception, life must be guarded with the greatest care while abortion and infanticide are unspeakable crimes.” source

“[So] many times in my life as a priest I have heard objections: ‘But tell me, why the Church is opposed to abortion, for example? Is it a religious problem?’ No, no. It is not a religious problem. ‘Is it a philosophical problem?’ No, it is not a philosophical problem. It’s a scientific problem, because there is a human life there, and it is not lawful to take out a human life to solve a problem. ‘But no, modern thought…’ But, listen, in ancient thought and modern thought, the word ‘kill’ means the same thing. The same evaluation applies to euthanasia.” source

9. He Condemns the Ordination of Women

“[As] far as women’s ordination is concerned, the Church has spoken and said: ‘No’. John Paul II said it, but with a definitive formulation. That door is closed.” source

“The reservation of the priesthood to males, as a sign of Christ the Spouse who gives himself in the Eucharist, is not a question open to discussion.” source

10. He Opposes Communion for the Divorced and Remarried

"About the problem of Communion to those persons in a second union, that the divorced might participate in Communion, there is no problem. When they are in a second union, they can't. I believe that it is necessary to keep this within the entirety of pastoral care of marriage." source

“The exclusion of divorced people who contract a second marriage from communion is not a [punishment]. It is important to remember this.” source

“People who are divorced can receive communion, people who are remarried can’t.” source

11. He Teaches the Exclusiveness of Christian Indwelling of the Holy Spirit

“You can follow a thousand catechism courses, a thousand spirituality courses, a thousand yoga or zen courses and all these things. But none of this will be able to give you the freedom as a child (of God). Only the Holy Spirit can prompt your heart to say ‘Father.’ ” source

12. He Condemns Media Distortion of his Papacy

“Look, I wrote an encyclical, true enough, it was a big job, and an Apostolic Exhortation, I'm permanently making statements, giving homilies; that's teaching. That's what I think, not what the media say that I think.” source

“[S]ome people are always afraid because they don’t read things properly, or they read some news in a newspaper, an article, and they don’t read what the synod decided, what was published. What was worthwhile about the synod? The post synodal connection and the Pope’s address. That is definitive.” source

* * * * *

Catholics Reproducing Like "Rabbits": The Essential Silliness of the Clueless Perceptions of Pope Francis' Perfectly Catholic and Orthodox Remarks

There is nothing whatsoever wrong with what the pope said. In context (and even out of context, for those who understand Catholic teaching on this score), it is altogether sensible, orthodox, and defensible.

But if people are looking for heterodoxy (or "liberalism") in the Holy Father's utterances, assuredly they will "find" them. Folks seem to "see" whatever they want to see. The arts of logic and objective analysis (not to mention classical rhetoric) appear to be in very miserable, decrepit shape anymore.



As in all such controversies regarding Pope Francis, we must necessarily get as much context as we can. The importance of this cannot be emphasized enough. That is found in the complete transcript of the pope's press conference on his flight from Manila: published in America (1-19-15; see also another online text from Catholic News Agency). I found it in five seconds on Google. Here are the key sections (blue highlighting my own):

On Paul VI: It’s true that openness to life is a condition for the sacrament of matrimony. A man cannot give the sacrament to the woman, and the woman cannot give it to him, if they are not in accord on this point of openness to life. If it can be proved that he or she married with the intention of not being Catholic (on this point) then the matrimony is null. (It is) a cause for the annulment of the marriage, no? Openness to life.

Paul VI had studied this with the commission for life, what to do to help many cases, many problems, no? The important problems that make for the love of life; the problems of every day—but many, many.

But there was something more. The refusal of Paul VI was not only about the personal problems, that he then tells the confessors to be merciful, to understand if this is true, and then (he tells them) “you can be merciful, more understanding.” He was looking at the Neo-Malthusianism that was underway worldwide. What do you call this Neo-Malthusianism? Less than one percent of birth rate in Italy. The same in Spain. That Neo-Malthusianism that seeks to control humanity on behalf of the powers (that be).

This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series. I rebuked a woman some months ago in a parish who was pregnant eight times, with seven C-sections (cesareans). “But do you want to leave seven orphans? That is to tempt God! (Paul VI) speaks of responsible parenthood. What I wanted to say was that Paul VI was not antiquated, close minded. No,(he was) a prophet again who with this (encyclical) told us to watch out for the Neo-Malthusianism that is coming. This is what I wanted to say.

[ . . . ]

Christoph Schmidt (CIC): How does the Church respond to the criticisms about its position on birth control given that the world population is growing so much. And to the criticism that the poverty in the Philippines is due to the fact that Filipino women have an average of 3 children each?

PF:I think the number of 3 (children) per family that you mentioned, it is the one experts say is important to keep the population going,. three per couple. When it goes below this, the other extreme happens, like what is happ[en]ing in Italy. I have heard, I do not know if it is true, that in 2024 there will be no money to pay pensioners (because of) the fall in population.

Therefore, to give you an answer, they key word is the one the Church always uses all the time and even I use it: it is responsible parenthood. how do we do this? With dialogue. Each person with his pastor seeks how to do that responsible parenthood.

That example I mentioned shortly before about that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) 'no but I trust in God' But God gives you methods to be responsible. Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood! This is clear and that is why in the church there are marriage groups, there are experts in this matter, there are pastors, one can seek and I know so many, many ways out that are licit and that have helped this. You did well to ask me this.

Another thing in relation to this is that for the most poor people, a child is a treasure. It is true that you have to be prudent here too but for them a child is a treasure. (Some would say) 'God knows how to help me' and perhaps some of them are not prudent, this is true. Responsible paternity but let us also look at the generosity of that father and mother that see a treasure in every child.

It's patently obvious what his reasoning is. But (to step back for a moment), when it comes to the issue of contraception and birth control (the two are not absolutely identical), there are several things that must be kept in mind, that are of the essence of the Catholic teaching:

1. Married couples are to be open to life, and not "anti-child." A couple who decide to not have any children from the outset of a "marriage" make the ostensible "marriage" null and void, as the pope noted.

2. Artificial contraceptive methods are thus gravely sinful, because they attempt to unnaturally separate the procreative (childbearing) and unitive (pleasurable) functions of sexuality within marriage.

3. Natural Family Planning (NFP) is approved and encouraged by the Church because it is not (i.e., understood and practiced in the right way) "anti-child" and (by recourse to infertile periods and abstinence) does not separate the procreative and unitive functions.

4. NFP is a moral and permissible practice precisely because Catholics are allowed to space and limit children for appropriately serious reasons.

5. In other words, Catholic couples are not obliged or required to have an unlimited number of children, and to not make any efforts whatsoever to avoid having a child at a particular time and circumstance.

The problem is that the secular world (typically) only understands the "mechanics" and "difficult" elements of the Catholic prohibition of artificial contraception, and that in a superficial and "surfacey" way, and not the underlying worldview and philosophy. The world understands that Catholics are not supposed to use a condom or birth control pill, but they don't understand why this is the case and why it is infinitely more than the Church (which the secular person pictures in his head as a bunch of old celibate, joyless men) merely seeking to make people miserable and to deny them pleasure, and being supposedly "anti-sex."

And of course every time objections are voiced, it is noted that many Catholics dissent from Catholic teaching (as if that is relevant to anything). Lots of people can't, e.g., control their tongues from gossip and calumny, either, but does it follow that the Bible doesn't teach that we all should do so?

Now, because the world poorly understands the rationale of the sinfulness of contraception (that all Christians agreed with until 1930, when Protestants and later the Orthodox started chipping away at the traditional teaching), the world (and Christians who think in the same manner) caricatures Catholic teaching as "obliged or required to have an unlimited number of children, and to not make any efforts whatsoever to avoid having a child" (#5 above).

The latter is what the pope was referencing in his remarks about "rabbits." This is a function of rhetoric or polemics, as part of argumentation. He was not attacking orthodox Catholic teaching on contraception in the slightest. He was, rather, sharply attacking the world's caricature of Catholic teaching, as supposedly requiring large numbers of children. Secular thinking has little subtlety or sense, and the hostility to Catholicism often reduces it downright cluelessness and rank stupidity.

Not being able to comprehend moderation and sense in matters of childbearing, the world (i.e., "world-system" or kosmos in Greek, in biblical usage), can only grasp two extremes:

1) no children or very few (the anti-child / contraceptive mentality), or

2) unlimited children and no planning whatsoever. 

Thus, when any Catholic who knows what he is talking about explains the Church's view on contraception, he or she necessarily has to delve into this latter miscomprehension as well. That is precisely what the pope was doing above.

I understood it immediately because it is exactly what I myself have been doing, lo these past 24 years since I became a Catholic. Indeed, contraception was the very first issue concerning which I changed my mind, even before I was fully convinced of Catholicism. I don't think any lay apologist has defended Catholic teaching on contraception any more than I have, for this reason. And I have often noted (in my defenses and explanations) the extreme caricature of Catholicism supposedly requiring ten or twelve children of every couple.

Thus, my own case can be seen as a very minor analogy to the pope's: being totally in favor of the Church's teaching on contraception, while at the same time explaining that the teaching also includes family planning, understood in the proper, "pro-life" / "pro-child" way. I can easily produce several past statements of mine that are along the lines of what the pope said, in his references to "rabbits." Here are three examples out of many such:

I think the crux of the matter is the nature of sufficient cause to avoid further children, and the limitations on the command to "be fruitful and multiply." I don't think it is a sin to intelligently, thoughtfully plan, in the matter of children. That is a matter of stewardship, just as in any related matter of care of that which God has entrusted to us. We are stewards of our children, as well as of our gifts and abilities and money and possessions and responsibilities, or our time. Hence, Pope Paul VI wrote in Humanae Vitae (16):

. . . the Church is the first to praise and recommend the intervention of intelligence in a function which so closely associates the rational creature with his Creator; but she affirms that this must be done with respect for the order established by God.

Paul VI goes on, in this passage, to explain the Catholic rationale for such Catholic planning and NFP:

If, then, there are serious motives to space out births, which derive from the physical or psychological conditions of husband and wife, or from external conditions, the Church teaches that it is then licit to take into account the natural rhythms immanent in the generative functions, for the use of marriage in the infecund periods only, and in this way to regulate birth without offending the moral principles which have been recalled earlier.

The Church is coherent with herself when she considers recourse to the infecund periods to be licit, while at the same time condemning, as being always illicit, the use of means directly contrary to fecundation, even if such use is inspired by reasons which may appear honest and serious. In reality, there are essential differences between the two cases; in the former, the married couple make legitimate use of a natural disposition; in the latter, they impede the development of natural processes. It is true that, in the one and the other case, the married couple are concordant in the positive will of avoiding children for plausible reasons, seeking the certainty that offspring will not arrive; but it is also true that only in the former case are they able to renounce the use of marriage in the fecund periods when, for just motives, procreation is not desirable, while making use of it during infecund periods to manifest their affection and to safeguard their mutual fidelity. By so doing, they give proof of a truly and integrally honest love.

I think a related factor is the matter of heroic virtue. No woman is required to go to extraordinary lengths to have children, simply because she and her husband are commanded to multiply. There comes a point where it becomes "excessive" to some extent (in some cases, even to the point of morbidity). For example, if a woman has good medical reason to believe that she has, say, a 90% chance to miscarry (perhaps if she has had five in a row and has very weak ovaries and/or uterus), should she try to become pregnant, anyway? I say no, and I think it is very clearly no. It is a reasonable and moral determination to make, that the risks are too great. We make such choices all the time in life.

It is not "anti-child" at all to come to such a conclusion. It is pro-woman. It is pro-reasonable expectation of failure and success. 

(Critique of the "Quiverfull" and "Divine Family Planning" Positions on Childbirth (That Oppose Catholic Natural Family Planning), 9-20-08)

The Catholic Church does not teach that one must have ten or 15 children. Couples are to take into consideration relevant factors, such as physical health, psychological, and financial aspects. But one must be open to life . . . (Dialogue on Contraception & Natural Family Planning, 5-16-06)

Couples do not need to have 10 kids to be good Catholics, as there are permissible reasons to limit the numbers (financial, emotional, and physical). (Dialogue on the Ethical Distinction Between Artificial Contraception and Natural Family Planning, 2-16-01)

Compare, then, what I wrote, with what the pope said. I contend that we intended the same meaning:

1) Dave #1 (2-16-01): "Couples do not need to have 10 kids to be good Catholics . . ."

2) Dave #2 (5-16-06): "The Catholic Church does not teach that one must have ten or 15 children."

3) Dave #3 (9-20-08): "No woman is required to go to extraordinary lengths to have children, simply because she and her husband are commanded to multiply."

4) Pope Francis #1: "This does not mean that the Christian must make children in series." [my italics]

5) Pope Francis #2: ". . . that woman who was expecting her eighth (child) and already had seven who were born with caesareans. That is an irresponsibility (That woman might say) 'no but I trust in God' But God gives you methods to be responsible." 

6) Pope Francis #3: "Some think that, excuse me if I use that word, that in order to be good Catholics we have to be like rabbits. No. Responsible parenthood!" 

Note that the phrase "responsible parenthood" is nothing new, either. As Pope Francis alluded to, Blessed Pope Paul VI repeatedly used it in Humanae Vitae :

In relation to physical, economic, psychological and social conditions, responsible parenthood is exercised, either by the deliberate and generous decision to raise a numerous family, or by the decision, made for grave motives and with due respect for the moral law, to avoid for the time being, or even for an indeterminate period, a new birth.

Responsible parenthood also and above all implies a more profound relationship to the objective moral order established by God, of which a right conscience is the faithful interpreter. The responsible exercise of parenthood implies, therefore, that husband and wife recognize fully their own duties towards God, towards themselves, towards the family and towards society, in a correct hierarchy of values. (section 10)

I am not in the least bit opposed to either 1) large families, or 2) the Catholic prohibition of artificial contraception. But I made the remarks above, because they oppose the secular or otherwise contra-Catholic caricature of what we supposedly teach.

The same thing is true of the Holy Father. Once again, this controversy is "much ado about nothing".

Matthew Schmitz, writing at First Things,  stated:

The Church has never taught that Catholics are to have as many children as possible. They can use abstinence, including the selective abstinence of “Natural Family Planning,” to limit the number of children they bear. Yet such nuance is bound to be lost on the Pope’s secular audience.

Thus far, we agree. But he goes on to blame the pope for using terminology that will likely be misunderstood by the media and secular world.  He continues:

Defenses of Pope Francis’s most controversial statements usually take the form, No, of course this is not counter to church teaching. If so, we can always be glad of the fact, but that is a rather low bar by which to judge any statement. Questions of prudence, relevance, and helpfulness must also be weighed.

. . .  one lesson will be that there must be responsibility in how we speak as well as in how we love.

I strongly disagree with that. Catholics will always be misunderstood, no matter how carefully we use language. I say that we ought to say what is true and oppose what is untrue and let the chips fall where they may. If we become overly concerned with image and perception, then we are playing the world's game. The Catholic goal and responsibility is to speak truth. The pope spoke truth. If it is misunderstood, it is. Those who are supposed to understand it, in God's grace, will do so. Those who won't (out of God's graces and will) will not. It's always been that way and always will be.

Jesus and St. Paul spoke (or wrote) a lot about this sort of thing:

Matthew 11:25-26 (RSV) At that time Jesus declared, "I thank thee, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to babes; [26] yea, Father, for such was thy gracious will."

Matthew 13:10-16 Then the disciples came and said to him, "Why do you speak to them in parables?" [11] And he answered them, "To you it has been given to know the secrets of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given. [12] For to him who has will more be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who has not, even what he has will be taken away. [13] This is why I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. [14] With them indeed is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah which says: `You shall indeed hear but never understand,  and you shall indeed see but never perceive. [15] For this people's heart has grown dull, and their ears are heavy of hearing, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should perceive with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and turn for me to heal them.' [16] But blessed are your eyes, for they see, and your ears, for they hear."

Romans 1:21-22 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. [22] Claiming to be wise, they became fools,

1 Corinthians 2:10-16 God has revealed to us through the Spirit. For the Spirit searches everything, even the depths of God. [11] For what person knows a man's thoughts except the spirit of the man which is in him? So also no one comprehends the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. [12] Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit which is from God, that we might understand the gifts bestowed on us by God. [13] And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who possess the Spirit. [14] The unspiritual man does not receive the gifts of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned. [15] The spiritual man judges all things, but is himself to be judged by no one. [16] "For who has known the mind of the Lord so as to instruct him?" But we have the mind of Christ.

Ephesians 4:18-19 they are darkened in their understanding, alienated from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, due to their hardness of heart; [19] they have become callous and have given themselves up to licentiousness, greedy to practice every kind of uncleanness.

The world and the legions of Christians who think more like the world than like Christ and historic Christians, don't comprehend these things, not because Pope Francis or anyone else has not made them clear enough, but because it doesn't want to hear them, and willfully disobeys Christian, Catholic, biblical truths (most of the time because they are difficult to follow, and never more than in matters of sexuality). It's not fundamentally a matter of "botched PR / presentation" but of a hostile will.

Schmitz  -- and all those who have carped on and on these past two years about the pope's supposedly "unfortunate" language -- analyze this incident based on the former approach, whereas I look at it from the latter perspective. Christians will always be misunderstood and hated. Jesus was accused of being possessed by demons, for heaven's sake (did He screw up in His presentation and choice of words, too?).

Yet we are foolish enough to expect that our popes will not also be pilloried and misunderstood from those in certain quarters? Granted, the pope may slip up and not say things as best he could at times, but so do we all. That's not the crux of the issue. The primary problem remains one of folks not wanting to hear and follow his message.

Catholic Philosopher Francis Beckwith vs. Mark Shea Regarding Waterboarding

 
The following exchange is from the combox of a piece entitled "The Boy Who Cried Waterboard," by Zippy Catholic, posted on the What's Wrong With the World website on 29 April 2009. Catholic philosopher Francis Beckwith's words will be in regular black; Mark Shea's in blue. This is (note!) an edited version, to highlight their particular back-and-forth dialogue. To read the whole thing and all the context, follow the link above.
* * * * *
Apparently, KSM [Khalid Sheikh Mohammed] went through 5 waterboarding sessions, which consisted of 183 "spills" of water. I could be wrong about this, by the way. But that's the way I understand it.

Having said that, couldn't someone respond this way, "The fact that he went through 183 spills means that it wasn't torture to him. That is, a successful waterboarding is the result of the prisoner believing he could drown based on the sensations he is experiencing. But someone who is mentally tough could overcome those sensations by what he knows to be true, that in fact he is not drowning."

***

I did not merely say "The fact that he went through 183 spills means that it wasn't torture to him." I said that "someone could say that," which means that "someone," and not necessarily me, "could say that." . . . that's what philosophers do, they think about stuff by suggesting different conceptual schemes. They don't just uncritically repeat the talking points of Moveon.org or Human Events as if they were gospel.

. . . you see what's going on here. If anyone wants to think about this stuff, they are shouted down by extracting their words out of context and offering loaded questions in order to imply bad faith.

 ***

Yes. Someone could. In fact, someone has: it's been a standard talking point of the Rubber Hose Right since Limbaugh first proposed it for mass consumption by dittoheads a week or so ago.

Of course, it's an argument of almost preternatural stupidity. But still, you are right: someone could respond with it and lots of people are either born stupid or working hard to achieve stupidity by force of will.

You see, in torture sessions, it's not the victim who decides how many times he will be tortured. It's the torturer. You might as well say that since a woman was gang raped multiple times, that means it wasn't rape to her.

Blackadder's right, Dr. Beckwith. Listen to him. Instead of merely proposing preternaturally stupid responses as hypotheticals, go all the way and analyze why they are preternaturally stupid. Philosophy is, after all, about the love of wisdom.

***

Fellow philosopher Edward Feser: 

Yes, Frank, only preternatual stupidity or a Cafeteria Catholic Bush-worshipping Ay-rab -hating Dittohead desire to shill for the Rubber Hose Right could possibly (or, to be excessively charitable, at least plausibly) motivate anyone even to raise conceptual questions about what constitutes torture. So, come on now, listen to your moral betters, then go see your confessor ASAP, OK?

I mean, as I noted in an earlier post, it's all just so obvious, right? Nothing more need be said!

***

I'm sorry, but I cannot teach music to the tone deaf or art appreciation to the blind. If the gang rape analogy could not alert you to the problem of Dr. Beckwith's hypothetical response, no mortal power can put in what God has left out of your critical faculties.

***

For myself, I have tended to confine my examples of torture to what is unambiguously torture (waterboarding, freezing prisoners, strappado). Of course, there are grey areas where seemingly innocuous things can be used for torture (and have been). But since the Makers of Fine Distinctions are so eager to always pretend that such grey areas are proof we do not torture, I have tended not to bother with them.

***

I'm attempting to say that a man who is actually tortured and a woman who is actually gang-raped are both at the mercy of the people who are torturing and gang-raping them. The fact that these evil acts are perpetrated against them multiple times is no proof at all that it is not torture or rape to them. To say that it is evidence of this is preternaturally stupid. To mention that "somebody" might say it, without noting the preternatural stupidity of the argument is not what I would call an optimal exercise of the vocation of "philosopher".

***

As I have already noted, the 183 number is highly misleading.

No. What's misleading is the claim the 183 acts of torture become five acts of torture if you cluster the 183 acts into groups of five.

But that, of course, does not have any effect on the judgment as to whether the act itself is torture.

I actually had not heard Limbaugh's comments on this matter. (I really don't remember the last time I listened to his radio show). I thought of the fictional comments all by my lonesome. That's what we philosophers tend to do. It is not our first thought to reach for the rubber hose remark.

But, of course, it should not matter who says this or that. What should matter is whether one has a good or bad argument, whether one has carefully thought through the issue in question.

Yes. And that's what I addressed: the fact that your (or "somebody's") argument was extraordinarily bad.

As I have said on numerous posts, I carry no brief for torture. I think, as the Church teaches, that torture is intrinsically evil.

Good.

There are, of course, clear cut cases of torture. And there are, of course, clear cut cases of non-torture. But there are, whether we like it or not, borderline cases whose intrinsic evil a reasonable and well-informed person may call into question.

The old "What O What is Torture?" gambit. I can answer that in this case. Forcing somebody to undergo simulated drowning once, much less 183 times, is a clearcut case of torture, not a "borderline case". Attempting to argue to the contrary is sophistry.

Consider this example. The Church teaches that active euthanasia is intrinsically immoral, including some acts of withholding treatment that lead to death. On the other hand, there are acts of withholding treatment that lead to death that are not intrinsically immoral. So, if someone were to simply employ colorful pejoratives to distract us from the serious work of thinking carefully and cautiously about these borderline cases--e.g., "killer," "rubber hose right,"--that someone would be planting the seeds of intellectual vice into his listeners. He would be providing the occasion for a person to harm his own soul.
Although I understand Mr. Shea's passion, and indeed respect the tenacity he employs in making his case, I cannot help but think that his pious pose and profane prose do little in reminding his listeners that he is an advocate for the good, the true, and the beautiful. ***

Mark is boxing with phantoms in his own mind. I'm not defending torture. Never have; never will. What I am defending is thinking rather than emoting and demagoging.

A few things to remember:
1. just because Rush Limbaugh says something doesn't make it wrong.True. Which is why I never said so. I merely noted that "somebody" has in fact made the point you are making and that lots of other somebody have been repeating it.
2. a sneer is not a rebuttal.Correct. This is a rebuttal:

You see, in torture sessions, it's not the victim who decides how many times he will be tortured. It's the torturer. You might as well say that since a woman was gang raped multiple times, that means it wasn't rape to her.

And it's a rebuttal you still have not addressed. 3. if in your comments you employ insult as a substitute for argument, don't feign offense when those you insulted push back. I employed no insult. I described "somebody's" argument as preternaturally stupid, because that's what it is. It lacks intelligence. It does not betray even the rudiments of critical analysis of its huge weaknesses. I took it for granted that you were sincere when you told Blackadder that is it not what you think, but what "somebody" might think. I said that if "somebody" were to actually think that, they would be thinking something stupid and that other (not you) have in fact, expressed this stupid idea. But even that is directed at the idea, not the person. But since I took it for granted that you were not claiming you think it, I said nothing about you at all--except to express my disappointment that you would give voice to "somebody's" hypothetical opinion without noting the gigantic flaws in the argument.
4. if you're going to trot out appeals to human dignity to ground your position, don't be surprised when people are taken aback when you don't treat them with dignity when making your case.I said nothing about your person at all. I noted that the argument has been popular among the torture defenders I meet in cyberspace (whom I refer to as the "Rubber Hose Right" just not a few here speak casually of the "Moloch-worshipping Left"). I did not say you numbered among them, merely that the argument was popular with them, which it is. Again, my words were directed at the idea, not the man.
5. don't follow leaders; watch the parking meters.You know, that's just what I tell those who are bending over backward to adore Obama or excuse Bush/Cheney torture policies. ***The following comment was in a thread in the same venue under a post dated 25 April 2009:
I think there is a great danger is employing the argumentum ad hitlerum fallacy to either the Vox crowd or those who want to have a serious conversation about what constitutes torture, just punishment, etc. When someone offers a counter-example to your moral position, you owe it to that person, if he or she is serious, to carefully, charitably, and intelligently offer that person a response. Calling such a person names because he or she happens to think that rational discourse is important undermines one of the first principles of liberal democracy: political liberty. A polity that denigrates rational discourse opens itself up to demagoguery and totalitarianism. And if you haven't noticed, we're creeping in that direction.

Every since the 1960s, the "social movement" ethos of self-righteous know-it-alls has inhibited rather than advanced civility.

***

See a far more extensive reply to Mark Shea from an equally eminent Catholic philosopher, Edward Feser.

Waterboarding: Catholic Philosopher Edward Feser's Blistering Rebuke of Mark Shea's Sophistical Polemics

The following excerpts are from the combox of the article, "It's Just So Obvious!": The Case of Torture (Edward Feser, What's Wrong With the World, 2 May 2009). Mark Shea's words will be in blue; Francis Beckwith's in green.

* * * * * 
You seem to me simply to be ignoring everything I said about why we need to get clear on what "torture" means before we can pull out these citations as if they were trump cards that should shut off all
discussion. Would you say that the Church and the Holy Father are contradicting Scripture, since (as the citations I gave above show) it explicitly says that "torture" can be permissible in principle as a way of punishing the guilty? Presumably not; and neither would I. But how can they fail to be contradicting it? The answer is that they are evidently not using the word "torture" in exactly the same sense as that in which Scripture uses it. But in that case we need to work out exactly what is meant if we are properly to understand the force of the statements in question. . . .

***
Re: my alleged "contradictions," if you would make some attempt to read what I wrote fair-mindedly and carefully, and in particular to note the distinctions I make between (a) what is intrinsically moral or immoral, (b) what is moral or immoral not intrinsically but only given certain conditions, (c) what is not immoral at all, either intrinsically or given current conditions, and (d) what may arguably be defensible in the light of the total body of evidence from Scripture, tradition, the teaching of the popes, etc., then I think you'll see that there are no contradictions in what I've said. In short, I think you would see this if you would try to engage in a serious debate rather than looking for ways to score cheap rhetorical
points.

Re: whether I have contradicted myself vis-a-vis the specific question of whether waterboarding is torture, here too you are simply playing rhetorical games and not even trying seriously to grapple with
my argument. . . .

For example, you have yet to address the question of how to reconcile what you say about torture with Scriptural passages like the ones from Sirach. In the non-normative sense of "torture," what these passages allow for is obviously torture. But it cannot be said that they allow for torture in the newer, normative sense, since Scripture cannot teach moral error. (I'm assuming you agree with this. Or do you think that Sirach is teaching error?) If you acknowledge that passages like Sirach are not teaching error, then you must also acknowledge that inflicting severe pain as a means of punishment is not intrinsically wrong (but at most wrong under certain conditions). And in that case, since one of the purposes of punishment is to deter future disobedience, the U.N. definition of torture you cite is surely inadequate. For isn't Sirach telling us it is OK to "use someone as a means" to secure an end (i.e. future obedience)? Even if you think not, it is hardly obvious that he isn't: These questions aren't as cut and dried as you think, so that it is not appropriate to go around accusing people who disagree with you of being in conflict with Church teaching.

Furthermore, no one is claiming that we have to provide a definition that will cover every single case before we can say anything about the subject of waterboarding. The claim is rather that we have to provide a definition that at least is consistent with everything that Scripture and tradition tell us about the subject. Jimmy Akin proposes one possible definition when he describes torture as "the disproportionate
infliction of pain" (thereby incorporating the modern tendency to use "torture" in an inherently normative sense). He argues that this definition best fits all the evidence, and also thinks that there are some
cases in which waterboarding a known terrorist to extract life-saving information would not count as torture in this sense. Is he right? I don't know, but his proposal is worth taking seriously, and is an honest
attempt to do justice to everything that the Magisterium has taught.

***


One more point in response to this silly "I guess some people think that not all torture is really torture" nonsense. One finds the same rhetorical game being played by people who think that colleges and
universities who require their faculty to refrain from homosexual acts are comparable to racists. "Oh, I see, so some discrimination is not really discrimination, huh?" Checkmate, right?

Of course not. The fallacy here is failing to see that "discrimination" has come to have a normative sense in addition to its older, non-normative sense. The original meaning was just something like "treating people differently." Because some differential treatment is unjust, the word has now come to have a second, normative sense of "unjustly treating people differently." When this is kept in mind, it is obvious that people who oppose racial discrimination but not the faculty hiring policy in question are not contradicting themselves. They might agree that both cases involve discrimination in the older, non-normative sense, but not that they both involve discrimination in the newer, normative sense. To insist that they must be contradicting themselves is just to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

The "Ah, so you think some torture isn't torture, huh?" shtick is no more respectable than this. Everyone agrees that waterboarding is torture in the older, non-normative, descriptive sense. What they disagree about is whether it is torture in the newer, normative, "immoral by definition" sense. Here too, to insist that those who deny that waterboarding is immoral must be contradicting themselves is simply to commit the fallacy of equivocation.

I know this basic point of logic and language robs some folks of a favorite rhetorical move, but them's the breaks.
***

Dr. Feser says he is begging for light from the Church's teachers. They offer it. If, like you, he now objects that the light offered is unacceptable since it has not been prefaced with "Simon Peter
says" then I have to conclude that the burning need for the Church to give guidance in this matter is not all that burning after all.

Man are you a nasty piece of work. I think I'm done trying to have a discussion with you, civil or otherwise, thank you very much.

***

Several parables evidently presuppose that severe corporal punishment can be just -- certainly that seems to be the way they were traditionally understood (and for my money, I trust older interpreters over recent ones any day). And then there are all the even more explicit OT texts. I am NOT saying "Therefore waterboarding is OK." I AM saying "Therefore any Christian had better think twice before saying
that inflicting severe corporal punishment is 'inherently contrary to human dignity.'" That premise is simply not available to him in the debate over waterboarding. This should be even more obvious when we consider that if capital punishment is in principle just -- as I assume you'd agree the Bible makes crystal clear -- then a fortiori severe corporal punishment can in principle be just. I don't see why you think there is any Protestant/Catholic issue here. Sirach aside, the specific point I am making (about what premises are available in thedebate) applies to Protestants as well as Catholics.

I agree with you that both sides of this debate lump all sorts of things together that shouldn't be lumped together. That's part of my point in this discussion. There's way too much moralistic preening and
way too little careful conceptual or theological analysis. And the minute someone attempts such an analysis, some jackass accuses him of hair-splitting, or dissenting from the Magisterium, of denying the
"obvious," or whatever. It's disgusting and depressing, which is why I mainly try to stay out of the debate.

***

[Relevant verses in Sirach]:

E.g. here's RSV:

33:26: Yoke and thong will bow the neck, and for a wicked servant there are racks and tortures.
33:28: Set him to work, as is fitting for him, and if he does not obey, make his fetters heavy.
42: 1, 5: Of the following things do not be ashamed... of whipping a wicked servant severely.

And here's NAB (a post-Vatican II Catholic version -- note that some
of the verses are numbered slightly differently, given the translators'
choices):

33: 27: Food, correction, and work for a slave; and for a wicked slave, punishment in the stocks.
33:29: Put him to work, for that is what befits him; if he becomes unruly, load him with chains.
42:1, 5: But of these things be not ashamed... of beating the sides of a disloyal servant.

And finally, just for fun, Today's English Version:

33: 26: You can use a harness and yoke to tame an animal, and a slave can be tortured in the stocks.
33:28: Work is what he needs. If he won't obey you, put him in chains.
42:1, 5: Here are some things you should not be ashamed of... beating a disloyal slave until the blood flows.

***

Since you remain absolutely baffled about what the definition of torture even is,

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. I'm absolutely baffled. Totally at sea. Don't know which end is up. Just what I said, spot on. When you can bring yourself to the point of attacking even just a plausible caricature of what I've said, Mr. Shea, and restrain yourself from indulging your taste for the ad hominem, maybe then I'll buy your earlier "Aw shucks, I didn't mean nothin'" routine and return to conversing with you.

I'm sorry you refuse to grant forgiveness

I don't refuse. I forgive you. The reason is that I really do think that you "know not what you do."

Judging from this and other exchanges I've seen, you really, honestly, do not seem to be aware how unfair and needlessly offensive you are. So, I forgive you. But for the same reason, I just don't see much
point in trying to have a discussion with you. The fact that you seriously continue to think that I and others haven't answered, or even tried to answer, your points is one good piece of evidence that there's
no point. Why continue when the evidence shows you're just going to continue ignoring, ridiculing, caricaturing, making unfounded accusations, etc. and then expressing shock when someone objects to
this?

Sorry.

[Then Francis Beckwith intervenes (referring to the above) with an even more wonderful reply to Mark's nefarious antics (this is what happens when Mark tangles with two great Catholic philosophers)]:

Ed is spot on here. The main reason for my own self-imposed detachment from this conversation--found on this entry and elsewhere--is Shea's apparent inability to entertain two possibilities:

(1) that one can honestly disagree with him while attempting to be true to Church doctrine, and

(2) that queries about definitions and distinctions are not Jesuitical inventions of the inauthentic sadist employed to excuse evil, but rather, serious attempts to advance the common good.

*** 

[Mark continued to badger on, so Dr. Feser had to resort to sarcasm, for lack of anything better to do in the face of "dialogical intransigence"]:

OK, I'll take the bait one more time. I know I'll regret it.

The answer to Pope Mark's latest question is No, of course not. The girl is innocent. Not just because she hasn't committed any evil act in the past, but because even if she was somehow "involved" in planning
the future act in question, she does not have the level of maturity to be held responsible the way an adult would. So, no, of course she cannot be waterboarded. If that means NYC is toast, then yes, we'll have to accept that, horrific as it is. Because as I've made clear already, like Mark, I believe that we must never do evil that good may come.

Sorry it took me so long to answer. Such a tough question for us pro-torture dissenters, you know. Had to sweat out whatever desperate, half-assed response I could come up with. (Though I see you did generously give us all of 14 minutes before deciding we were stumped.)

Well, either that or it just took me all this time to leave work, pick up my kid from school, and fire up the computer to see what Mark's latest zinger would be.

OK, Mark, your turn. Caricature and condemn away...

***


This would comport with your earlier remarks that torture to extract confessions is illegitimate but torture to punish may be admissible. I'm still confused by the direct conflict between you and Fr. Harrison who says that torture to obtain information might be fine, but torture to punish is intrinsically immoral.

Dr. Feser: Apparently you've read Harrison as carefully as you've read me. That is, not carefully at all. Fr. Harrison explicitly says:

I do not think that the direct infliction of severe physical pain, as a punishment for duly convicted delinquents carried out by public authority in accord with a norm of law, can be categorized as intrinsically evil.

He then goes on to say that he thinks that in practice it should nevertheless not be used. I agree with both of these judgments. So, there is no conflict between me and Fr. Harrison on this particular point at all. I've made this clear several times, but you keep refusing to read what's in black and white in front of you. Go to the end of part II of Harrison's article and read it for yourself if you don't believe me. I look forward to your acknowledgement of your misreading. It would be a good first step to acknowledging all your other ones.

You'll notice that neither I, nor Harrison in that particular quote, refer to "torture." That's because, as I keep saying, the word is ambiguous. In one sense it just means "the infliction of severe bodily pain." In that sense of the word, and only in that sense, it can't be intrinsically immoral, because Scripture and tradition, never contradicted by the Magisterium or any pope, says that in that sense it isn't immoral. But there is another sense of the word "torture" -- the sense that is evidently being used in Veritatis Splendor, and which Jimmy Akin has plausibly argued is something along the lines of "the disproportionate infliction of pain" -- on which torture is intrinsically immoral, and which I, like you, therefore condemn.

It seems to me that the dispute between us is essentially over whether or not waterboarding, specifically, counts as torture in this second sense. You say that it does, though I have yet to see an argument, or
certainly any good argument, for this particular claim. My position is that whether it is torture in this second sense is not clear. It might be, but I haven't seen a compelling argument for that claim. It might also be at least wrong all things considered, even if not intrinsically -- I can certainly see strong arguments for that claim. But until I have a chance to pursue this issue in more depth, I don't have a settled view. I have also said, though, that until the Church clarifies this issue, waterboarding shouldn't be used.

Furthermore, I have never said that what counts as "torture" is a mystery. Like you, I think that there are many clear cases and some not so clear ones. As far as I can tell, we may disagree only about the
specific question of whether waterboarding counts as torture in the second sense. But neither of us defends it.

Now how all this makes me "pro-torture" or in conflict with the Magisterium, I have no idea. Anyway, I thought it worthwhile yet one more time to summarize what I've already said here many times already, in the hope that you might finally see that you have been unfair in characterizing my views.

Re: the "Pope Mark" stuff, I think if you'll go back and read through our exchange, you'll find that the sarcasm did not begin with me. So I flung a little back your way. Sue me, I'm only human...

[Feser opposed the mantra of someone else (one that we have seen over and over in this debate)]:

"If the thesis is that water torture is not obviously torture"

William, if even men of good will like yourself still cannot muster even enough fairness and objectivity to acknowledge that no one is defending such a silly, self-contradictory claim, then it's no surprise
that little "headway" is being made -- nor any mystery about whose fault that is.


* * * * * 

Dialogue on Whether Gerry Matatics' Current Ecclesiological Position More So Resembles Donatism or Protestantism (vs. Pete Vere, JCL)

This exchange occurred on Karl Keating's Facebook page, in a public post (12-25-14). Pete's words will be in blue; Karl's in green.
* * * * *
Karl wrote in his initial post:

For a long time Matatics has made it known that he doesn't think there are any valid bishops or priests left anywhere in the world, unless a few might be in hiding somewhere. 

That was the springboard for my first comment, which was disputed by Pete, and so we went on to what I thought was an interesting dialogue:

* * * * *

If he says there are no priests, bishops, or valid Masses, looks like he has simply reverted to Protestantism. I've been saying for almost 25 years that the further "right" one goes on the spectrum, the more one becomes like both Protestants and heterodox / modernist Catholics. Here's Exhibit #1 of that.

I get the thrust of what you are saying, but not every departure from Catholicism is comparable to Protestantism. Especially since Protestantism is a relative newcomer to historical departures from Catholicism. In this case, I think Gerry's lastest position is more analogous to Donatism.

But the Donatists would have said that they have valid priests and bishops, whereas Gerry says there are none (or hardly any) left anywhere. That is held by several "low church" Protestants: especially non-denominational ones. It's the utter rejection of valid priests (and by logical extension and presupposition, apostolic succession as well), which is Protestant-like. Virtually all Protestants, after all, reject the Sacrifice of the Mass.

Most sedes [sedevcantists: those who say there is no sitting pope] are more like atheists and skeptics than like evangelicals. This is probably why a sedevacantism tends to attract a disproportionately high number of engineers, scientists, and medical professionals. One has to be cautious about stereotypes. 

They ["atheists and skeptics"] are insofar as they are hyper-rationalists and lack faith in some respects (in God's protection of the Church, etc.).

In Gerry's case and in, e.g., Robert Sungenis' case, I think a lot of their errors (not all) can be explained by the fact that they were "insufficiently converted Protestants." They either didn't fully understand Catholicism, or the "Roman mindset," or joined what they set up in their mind as a "fantasy-Church" so that when they found sin in the Church they resorted to radical opinions in order to deal with that.

The hyper-rationalism I referenced above is also seen in some strains of fundamentalist, anti-Catholic Calvinism, as well as in Jehovah's Witnesses, who rationalize the Trinity away.

But error is rarely easy to pigeonhole. It comes from many sources and becomes amalgamated in a new way in the latest fashionable heresies and schisms. The devil is extremely clever in this way. Thus I see sedevacantism and radical Catholic reactionaries in general as a mixture of many kinds of errors.

I don't think I'd call Gerry's position with respect to priests Protestantism. Unlike Protestants, he believes there is a ministerial priesthood. He just thinks the priesthood has had its equivalent of the Great Apostasy. 


Thanks Karl. That's why I see Gerry as more comparable to the Donatists than to Protestantism (outside of Anglicanism and traditional Lutheranism). Gerry believes that a ministerial priesthood was instituted by Christ and passed down, unlike most Protestants.

Hi Karl,

Well, I was going by your description: "For a long time Matatics has made it known that he doesn't think there are any valid bishops or priests left anywhere in the world." [my italics added]

If he still believes in a "ministerial priesthood" yet can't identify a single person in this class, I say that is a distinction without a difference.

Dave, I think the key word here is "left". That's what distinguishes the neo-Donatist from the neo-Reformer.

Additionally, on our side of the border, there is an additional difference in that evangelicals have for the most part shed their historical anti-Catholicism. So many are quite friendly toward Catholicism and Orthodoxy in Canada. In fact, at the evangelical seminary where I am doing a graduate degree in pastoral studies, I actually found myself on All Saints' Day gently correcting my Evangelical brothers and sisters for putting western haloes on Eastern saints.

As usual, Pete, we're approaching this from somewhat different perspectives: both valid, I think. I'm saying that if a person thinks there are no priests to be found at all, obviously he has adopted underlying premises whereby there is no apostolic succession or indefectibility. Those are two aspects that are distinctive of Protestantism and not Catholicism or Orthodoxy.

That's where (I submit) it comes from, both historically and logically (false premises).

Under an assumption of apostolic succession and the indefectibility of the Church, a scenario such as Gerry proposes is (in the eyes of faith) impossible. It cannot happen.

Dave, as usual I think you have brought out the best in me in terms of constructive self-criticism, given that I ran with both traditionalists and Catholic apologists during my time in the Catholic media. I guess my big question is whether it is fair or merely a shortcut to compare every divergence from Catholicism to Protestantism. Personally, I am becoming increasingly uncomfortable with such comparisons for two reasons:

1 - At one time Protestantism could be defined by its anti-Catholicism. This is no longer the case today especially since the papacies of St John Paul II, Benedict and Francis who in a world that has grown increasingly secular and violent, were particularly appreciated by many Protestants for providing a strong Christian voice. Additionally, many Protestant denominations and movements are reconsidering ideas that made them Protestant historically. We are really seeing this up here among Canadian evangelicals and the Emerging Church movement, in which Canadian evangelicals are attempting to re-embrace Christian Tradition, as well as distinguish and distance themselves from their American counterparts.

2 - Protestantism is a relative newcomer historically. Its key underlying ideas had first been rejected by Catholics not at the Council of Trent, but previously at the Second Council of Nicaea -- aka the Seventh Ecumenical Council. In fact the council opens with a former iconoclast bishop (Basil of Ancyra) renouncing a series of iconoclast doctrines -- including that of Sola Scriptura. This floored me. Keep in mind that Second Nicaea is one of the seven councils we hold in common with the Eastern Orthodox, and it takes places in 787 -- over seven centuries before Martin Luther and John Calvin appear in human history.

I think we need to resist the temptation to Tridentinize every controversy. Not that Trent was unimportant as a Church council. However, like Vatican II, Trent was not some sort of super-council that trumps all other Church councils. Moreover, I think taking a much more robust approach to the first Seven Ecumenical Councils would benefit both the traditionalist movement and the apologetics movement. Actually, this is why my favourite features in This Rock/ Catholic Answers Magazine were generally the Patristic features.

"my big question is whether it is fair or merely a shortcut to compare every divergence from Catholicism to Protestantism."

I don't do that in the first place so it is a red herring. E.g., I agreed above that the hyper-rationalism of sedevacantism also has similarities to atheists and Jehovah's Witnesses (a non-trinitarian sect that is not Protestant). In this case I have made the comparison, for the reasons given (which have not been overthrown, as far as I can see).

You guys say Gerry believes that the priesthood class exists, but I noted that if he can't identify even one real priest, that it is a distinction without a difference. It's like believing in unicorns but never being able to produce one. That has little meaning beyond being a fairy tale or myth.

Anti-Catholicism is also irrelevant to my analysis, which has to do with anti-clericalism or anti-sacerdotalism, and ahistoricism. I myself would have rejected a strict apostolic succession and (at least partly) the priesthood when I was an evangelical and I was never anti-Catholic at any time. I was anti-institutional.

Nor do I see how Protestantism being "a relative newcomer historically" has any bearing on my point. Gerry believes no priests can be found. That's consistent with Protestantism, but not Donatism (the latter would say that true priests could be found in their ranks, but Gerry says they are absent, period). Thus the main observation we have made about his position is in harmony with my comparison to low church Protestantism.

Trent is irrelevant to my analysis as well. I never mentioned it (nor the early councils). When I do mention Trent in relation to Protestants, I often note that it said that their baptism was valid.

Lots of interesting comments, Pete (as always); they just have little or nothing to do with my argument. :-)

As for my own interest in patristics, I've now edited three books of patristic quotes [one / two / three] and wrote a book on development; and the one on Orthodoxy that you contributed to, discusses the fathers a lot, too. Thus, I have no disagreement at all that the period is supremely important. Church history was the biggest reason why I became a Catholic.

I also made a comment above that is directly contrary to the assertion that I "always" compare errors among Catholics to Protestantism:

"But error is rarely easy to pigeonhole. It comes from many sources and becomes amalgamated in a new way in the latest fashionable heresies and schisms. The devil is extremely clever in this way. Thus I see sedevacantism and radical Catholic reactionaries in general as a mixture of many kinds of errors."

So in Gerry's case, I would note that the hyper-rationalism is similar to atheism and secular thought in general; I already said that it is also similar to theologically liberal Catholics, as well as Protestantism. With respect to his view of clergy or lack thereof, in particular, I think it is clearly most analogous to Protestantism.

If he had said, "there are a small number of true priests found over here or over there," then I would have agreed that it was more similar to Donatism and other rigorist schisms (I've compared radical Catholic reactionaries to those times without number, as any search on my site would reveal), but the fact that he can't find any suggests to me an anti-sacerdotal form of Protestantism at bottom. 


* * * * *  

Calm, Reasoned (Rather Than Hyper-Polemical) Orthodox Catholic Resources on the "Torture" / "Enhanced Interrogation" Ethical Issue

 
By Dave Armstrong
I agree with what my friend Christopher Blosser had to say in his article in First Things:

I have little respect for those who cavalierly lobby in defense of waterboarding — or, for that matter, those who who bring a cudgel to the discussion — tar-and-feathering as the “Rubber Hose Right” (to borrow one well-known term) anyone who raises doubts about fundamentalist proof-texting from John Paul II’s Veritatis Splendour that torture, like slavery, is “intrinsically evil”, end of story. ( Cardinal Dulles noted himself in First Things danger of approaching that particular passage in such a manner ). 

I have considerably more respect for Catholic apologists like Jimmy Akin and Fr. Harrison, who address the issue with humility and trepidation, acknowledging the lack of clarity. Father Harrison in particular can be commended for taking into account the width and breadth of Church history and papal teaching. 

Nonetheless, it has been five years of predominantly lay Catholics — some very prominent — in open dispute and confusion on the matter. The positions of both sides has been articulated such that, every time this debate resurfaces in the blogging world, one can predict from memory the various points raised and tactics employed.

I also strongly agree with Jimmy Akin's statement in one of his excellent, characteristically thoughtful and measured articles on the topic (from October 2006):

[having] briefly chatted with Mark about the matter, my impression is that his position is within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought on this, though his is not the only position within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought.” - See more at: http://the-american-catholic.com/2010...

I haven't been keeping up with this debate, including what Mark [Shea] has written about it, . . . I have briefly chatted with Mark about the matter, and my impression is that his position is within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought on this, though his is not the only position within the permitted range of Catholic moral thought.

Here are the further resources (if other articles of a similar dispassionate, non-polemical nature are discovered, I will gladly add them to the list):


The Controversial "Torture" Issue as Related to Catholic Development of Doctrine on the Treatment of Heretics [Dave Armstrong, 24 Oct. 2006]  

Waterboarding: Pro and Con [extensive discussion on my Facebook page as to whether it is "torture" and therefore, intrinsically wrong; 5 May 2014] 

Jesus' Parabolic and Analogical Reference to "Torturers" in Matthew 18:34, as a Relevant Consideration in Arguments Over the Ethics of Waterboarding and Coercive or Corporal Punishment in General  [Dave Armstrong, 7 May 2014]

Torture and Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Moral Theology: Part I. The Witness of Sacred Scripture (Fr. Brian W. Harrison)
Torture and Punishment as a Problem in Catholic Moral Theology: Part II. The Witness of Tradition and Magisterium (Fr. Brian W. Harrison)
Clarification on the Definition of "Torture" (Fr. Brian W. Harrison) 
The Church and Torture (Fr. Brian W. Harrison, This Rock, Dec. 2006)

Separating the Wheat from the Chaff in the Great Torture Debate (Christopher Blosser, The American Catholic, 22 Jan. 2010)
Catholic Advocacy of Torture: A Teaching Moment for the Catholic Bishops? (Christopher Blosser, First Things, 12 Feb. 2010)

What About Torture? (Jimmy Akin, 28 June 2004)
Doubts About Torture (Jimmy Akin, 26 Oct. 2006)
Defining Torture: An Initial Exploration (Jimmy Akin, Nov. 2006)
Defining Torture: Proposing A Definition (Jimmy Akin, Nov. 2006)
Defining Torture: One More Thought (Jimmy Akin, Nov. 2006) 

Interrogational Torture (Patrick Lee, American Journal of Jurisprudence: Vol. 51: Issue 1, Article 5; 2006; not sure if the author is a Catholic, but it is a thoughtful article) 

* * * * *

Anti-Catholic Cluelessness About Biblical Words and Literary Genre ("Paradise") Leads to the Obligatory Rank Insults of Catholics (Yours Truly)

 I received the following letter from one Chris Cole (cscole1964@gmail.com). It's yet more evidence of the depths of imbecility and slander that anti-Catholics will sink to. If they are this desperate to fault a Catholic, then I think it's a very good indication of the bankruptcy of their own views. Thankfully, the vast majority of Protestants are neither anti-intellectual nor anti-Catholic. His complete letter follows (indented). Because of its slanderous, defamatory nature, I don't have any qualms about confidentiality at all:
* * * * *

Hi, Dave,
I am still reading your book, Biblical Defense. I found an interesting use you make of Scripture. If you did it accidentally, you should be embarrassed. If you did it deliberately, you should be ashamed.

On p. 135, you quote Cardinal Newman with approval, referring to Paradise as a temporary abode of the dead, while they await judgment, but not Heaven. Then, I flip the page to 137, you quote Francis de Sales, WITH YOUR EDITORIAL INSERTION, EQUATING Paradise with Heaven. That is a disgusting jesuitical trick, claiming that Paradise is or is not Heaven, as it suits your purpose. However, by placing the two places so close together, you accidentally showed your hand.

Your apostasy has turned you into a vile and underhanded man. I hope your popish rewards are worth it.
Sincerely,
Chris Cole

Okay! First, let's look at the passages he is referring to, from my book, A Biblical Defense of Catholicism. Cardinal Newman is commenting on 1 Peter 3:19-20, whereas St. Francis de Sales is interpreting 1 Corinthians 15:29. I've highlighted the directly relevant passages in blue.

Cardinal Newman comments: 

Our Savior, as we suppose, did not go to the abyss assigned to the fallen angels, but to those mysterious mansions where the souls of all men await the judgment. That He went to the abode of blessed spirits is evident, from His words addressed to the robber on the cross, when He also called it Paradise; that He went to some other place besides Paradise may be conjectured from St. Peter’s saying, ‘He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who had once been disobedient’ (1 Pet. 3:19-20). The circumstances, then, that these two abodes of disembodied good and bad, are called by one name, Hades . . . seems clearly to show that Paradise is not the same as Heaven, but a resting-place at the foot of it. Let it be further remarked, that Samuel, when brought from the dead, in the witch’s cavern, said, ‘Why hast thou disquieted me, to bring me up?’ (1 Sam. 28:15), words which would seem quite inconsistent with his being then already in Heaven.
[Footnote: Sermon: "The Intermediate State," 1836]  (pp. 134-135]

[ . . . ]
St. Francis de Sales:
This passage properly understood evidently shows that it was the custom of the primitive Church to watch, pray, and fast for the souls of the departed. For, firstly, in the Scriptures, to be baptized is often taken for afflictions and penances; as in Luke 12:50 . . . and in St. Mark 10:38-9 . . . in which places our Lord calls “pains and afflictions” baptism [cf. Matt. 3:11, 20:22-3; Luke 3:16].
This, then, is the sense of that Scripture: if the dead rise not again, what is the use of mortifying and afflicting oneself, of praying and fasting for the dead? And indeed this sentence of St. Paul resembles that of 2 Maccabees 12:44 [cited above]: “It is superfluous and vain to pray for the dead if the dead rise not again.”...Now, it was not for those in Paradise [Heaven], who had no need of it, nor for those in Hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory. Thus did St. Ephraim [d. 373] expound it
[Footnote: The Catholic Controversy, Henry B. Mackey, trans. (Rockford, Illinois: TAN Books, 1989), 368-369]

Remember, that our man Cole claims I am "vile and underhanded" in my interpretation, which is a "disgusting jesuitical trick" that ought to make me "ashamed." All I did was make one bracketed clarification that St. Francis was referring to heaven in his use of "Paradise" in this citation. Obviously, he contrasts "Paradise" and "Purgatory" in the same paragraph, so he is not equating them. He means something else then, than that. It is either the "limbo of the fathers" or Sheol or Hades, the netherworld, or he means by it, heaven. That the latter is his meaning, he makes clear on the very next page, two paragraphs later:

If there are some sins that can be pardoned in the other world it is neither in hell nor in heaven, therefore it is in Purgatory.

Compare that to the passage in dispute (minus my bracketed interjection):

Now, it was not for those in Paradise, who had no need of it, nor for those in Hell, who could get no benefit from it; it was, then, for those in Purgatory.

When he used "Paradise" he was clearly using it as a synonym for "heaven." Because some readers may not be aware that it has this meaning, I clarified in brackets. This is precisely what Chris Cole deems to be a dishonest "trick" and my supposed arbitrary twisting of one word this way and that to suit my nefarious "popish" purposes.

Of course, no such thing was done, and this can be easily shown from the Bible and Protestant or secular sources, as I will now proceed to do. Paradise can certainly be used as meaning heaven. Merriam-Webster Online provides three different meanings in its definition of paradise:

1a :  eden 2
b :  an intermediate place or state where the souls of the righteous await resurrection and the final judgment c :  heaven

Likewise, under heaven in the same reference, one of the synonyms for it is paradise. Dictionary.com ("paradise") gives the same information:

noun
1. heaven, as the final abode of the righteous. 2. an intermediate place for the departed souls of the righteous awaiting resurrection. 3. (often initial capital letter) Eden (def 1).

When multiple meanings of words exist, then context is supremely important to determine the meaning. Cardinal Newman's context had to do with Sheol or Hades, whereas St. Francis was using the word as synonymous with heaven.

If our friend doesn't care about secular dictionaries, then let him see what The New Bible Dictionary (edited by J. D. Douglas, Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1962, "Paradise": 934-935), states:

In Lk. 23:43 the word 'paradise' is used by Jesus for the place where souls go immediately after death, cf. the concealed paradise in later Jewish thought. The same idea is also present in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk. 16:19-31).

The same article, however, cites the other two instances in the New Testament (2 Cor 12:2-4 and Rev 2:7) as referring to "heaven." Let's look at these three passages:

Luke 23:42-43 And he said, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom." [43] And he said to him, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise."

2 Corinthians 12:2-3 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows. [3] And I know that this man was caught up into Paradise -- whether in the body or out of the body I do not know, God knows --

Revelation 2:7 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who conquers I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the paradise of God. 

Jesus didn't ascend to heaven until His Resurrection, which was on a different day than His death. Therefore, He couldn't be referring to heaven in that instance. But in 2 Corinthians, note how Paul uses interchangeably Paradise and third heaven. It's a different meaning than in Luke 23:43. Likewise, paradise in Revelation 2:7 is heaven, since we know by Revelation 22:2, 14, and 19 that the "tree of life" is located in heaven.

The Greek word is paradeisos: Strong's word #3857. Thayer's Greek Lexicon (cited in the link to the left) gives the same variant meanings that I accept:

3. that part of Hades which was thought by the later Jews to be the abode of the souls of the pious until the resurrection: Luke 23:43, cf. 16:23f. But some (e. g. Dillmann (as below, p. 379) understand that passage of the heavenly paradise.

4. an upper region in the heavens: 2 Corinthians 12:4 (where some maintain, others deny, that the term is equivalent to ὁ τρίτος οὐρανός in 2 Corinthians 12:2); with the addition of τοῦ Θεοῦ, genitive of possessor, the abode of God and heavenly beings, to which true Christians will be taken after death, Revelation 2:7 (cf. Genesis 13:10; Ezekiel 28:13; Ezekiel 31:8).

Other lexicons agree. Kittel notes these different meanings, etc.

I'm afraid that the compelling "case" that my legion of anti-Catholic foes try to make; that is, that I am a lying, deceiving, scurrilous scumbag and all-around thoroughly wicked wascally wascal, will, I'm afraid, have to be made on grounds other than this.

Y'all keep on making your arguments against my character and basic abilities as an apologist (as you see it), and I'll keep on exposing and broadcasting them as the ridiculous charades and farces that they are.


God sees all. He knows (whatever my mistakes and errors may be) that I am not a deliberate deceiver, and He sees when folks bear false witness against others. God is not mocked. Lying about others and slandering them are very serious sins indeed. You hurt your own soul and your own less-than-stellar anti-Catholic "cause" in acting like this. The sooner you learn that, the better.

Books by Dave Armstrong: The "Catholic" Luther: An Ecumenical Collection of His "Traditional" Utterances

[in progress]
 MISC.
Introductory Facebook post [10-10-14 ]
"Why Bring Up the Marian Views of the Early Protestant Leaders At All? Of What Relevance is It?" [Facebook, 10-16-14]

  EXCERPTS
Introduction (10-10-14)

On Sacramental Confession [Facebook, 10-14-14]  

Invocation of  the Blessed Virgin Mary [Facebook, 10-16-14]

Casual Reference to Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) as Scripture [Facebook, 11-6-14]

On What is "Biblical" [Facebook, 11-10-14]

On Merit [Facebook, 11-10-14] 

On Eucharistic Adoration [Facebook, 11-11-14] 

On the Veneration of the Saints [Facebook, 11-11-14] 

Acceptance of the Eucharistic Principle of Ex Opere Operato [Facebook, 11-12-14]

Some of Luther's Silly Superstitions [Facebook, 11-12-14] 

 PURCHASE * * * * *