Points to Ponder:

Time passes so fast. Make time to be still. [Lailah Gifty Akita]

On Magisterial Interpretation:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)

One common mistake made in the area of magisterial interpretation is the presumption that a condemnation is broadly based rather than narrowly construed. From this operative presupposition, no shortage of uncharitable bile has been thrown about by "the unlearned and unstable" (cf. 2 Peter iii,16) in whom "the sin of rash judgments is a spiritual jaundice, which makes everything look amiss" (cf. St. Francis de Sales). As so much of this problem outside the spiritual realm comes down to interpretation, it seems appropriate to treat on the latter in brief as a supplement to (and presupposition to) the topic that the forthcoming project will examine in no small detail.

For interpreting the texts of the magisterium, there are parallels in principle to be found in the approach taken to canon law. There has been a longstanding understanding in canonical interpretation going back many centuries that laws establishing penalties, restricting the exercise of rights, or containing exceptions are to be interpreted strictly.{1} In like manner, odious laws are to be interpreted in a sense that will not extend them to cases not covered strictly by the words of the law while favourable laws are to be interpreted more benignly{2} in keeping with the traditional canons of charity.{3}

Transposing these principles to magisterial interpretation by corollary extension, it would mean interpreting condemnations or corrections by the magisterium strictly and not engaging in rash judgment. There can for example be variations of a concept which are similar but one is condemned while the other is not. It would be contrary to longstanding axioms of canonical interpretation{4} as well as fundamental charity{5} to presume in such an example that the condemnation of the one would automatically mean the condemnation of the other.{6} Instead, care should be taken with any reading of a potential magisterial text because they are usually worded pretty precisely and thus, every word matters.{7}

There are sadly too many folks who seem to go out of their way to find something wrong in others in various and sundry ways. This can be either in how they interpret a text, infer nefarious intent without recourse to objective manifestation of criteria, or a variety of other less than honourable means. Hopefully this brief treatment on the subject of interpretation can be of assistance for recognizing this adversarial presupposition in those who have it so they can better combat these harmful tendencies. (Both for their good and for the good of those they come in contact with in general.)

Notes:

{1} "Laws that establish penalties, restrict the free exercise of rights, or contain an exception to the law must be interpreted strictly (c. 18) It is long-standing canonical tradition that restrictive laws must be narrowly applied." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pg. 202 (circa 1991)]

{2} "Two of the ancient rules of law (Regulae Iuris, compiled in the year 1298) state that 'adverse laws are to be restricted, favorable ones amplified,' and 'penalties are to be interpreted benignly.' Strict interpretation means that the sense of the words of the canon and the scope of its application are limited as much as reasonably possible." [James A. Coriden: Excerpt from An Introduction to Canon Law pgs. 202-3 (circa 1991)]

{3} See the Rerum Novarum Posting Spiritual Instruction on Charity (circa January 24, 2004) for a good brief treatment on this very important subject.

{4} "It has always been an axiom of interpretation of Canon Law that odious laws are to be explained in such a sense as not to unduly extend them to cases not strictly covered by the words of the law, while in favorable laws a more benign interpretation is allowed." [Stanislaus Woywod: Excerpt from The New Canon Law pg. 6 (circa 1918)]

{5} See footnote three.

{6} To note one example, I wrote an essay nearly two decades ago in response to an article by Fr. Chad Ripperger where he was confusing two similar concepts of theological immanence. (Namely, relative immanence as articulated by Maurice Blondel and absolute or vital immanence which was condemned by Pope Pius X in his encyclical letter Pascendi Dominici Gregis.)

{7} This is a point I went over in some detail nearly two decades ago when conducting an essay examination of the Syllabus of Errors and addressing the claims made by not a few supposed "traditionalists" that there were contradictions of a doctrinal nature between the Syllabus and either teachings of the Second Vatican Council and/or the popes subsequent to the Council who sought to implement its teachings.

For the third time in recent months, I will post an update on the Democratic Presidential field which has expanded as well as contracted since the last update of this nature. As of this writing, it is at 14 candidates.{1} Here is a brief list of those who have dropped in and dropped out so far:


In the Race -Listed By Declaration Date:

John Delaney (July 28, 2017)
Andrew Yang (November 6, 2017)
Tulsi Gabbard (January 11, 2019)
Marianne Williamson (January 28, 2019)
Corey Booker (February 1, 2019)
Elizabeth Warren (February 9, 2019)
Amy Klobuchar (February 10, 2019)
Bernie Sanders (February 19, 2019)
Pete Buttigieg (April 14, 2019)
Joe Biden (April 25, 2019)
Michael Bennett (May 2, 2019)

Tom Steyer (July 19, 2019)

Deval Patrick (November 14, 2019)
Michael Bloomberg (November 24, 2019)


Out of the Race -Listed By Suspension Date:

Richard Ojeda (January 25, 2019)
Eric Swalwell (July 8, 2019)
Mike Gravel (August 6, 2019)
John Hinckenlooper (August 15, 2019)
Jay Inslee (August 21, 2019)
Seth Moulton (August 23, 2019)
Kirsten Gillibrand (August 28, 2019)
Bill de Blasio (September 20, 2019)
Tim Ryan (October 24, 2019)

Beto O'Rourke (November 1, 2019)

Wayne Messam (November 19, 2019)

Joe Sestak (December 1, 2019)

Steve Bullock (December 2, 2019)

Kamala Harris (December 3, 2019)

Julian Castro (January 2, 2020)


Note:

{1} Well technically there are others but the above listed ones are the only ones with a snowballs chance in hell of being nominated.

I have periodically mentioned a project on the Church's Magisterium that I have been working on that will be published early in 2020. Though long pondered, my first outline sketch was made in early November though the final product will be in some respects different than what is in the published outline.{1}

As the various text parts have been revised{2} or undergoing review for potential revisions{3} or otherwise extracted due to project length and made into other standalone writings{4}, I am as of this moment still ahead of my original projections and expect the full magisterium project to be published in final form in eight weeks as of yesterday. However, a thought of one important facet that was overlooked in the larger project came to my mind the other day. As I do not want to make any significant structural or content additions to the magisterium project as it currently is, I will be publishing within the coming days a short stand alone piece to supplement the larger project that will treat on this missing facet; namely, the subject of interpretation. I suppose its fitting that the 3500th addition to this site should be something of weight; ergo, that piece will be published on Saturday around 7am or thereabouts.


Notes:

{1} I also anticipated initially that the project would not be ready for publication until sometime in the spring of 2020 but for a variety of reasons, the work has come together much quicker than I originally presumed.

{2} As of this short note, this applies to parts i and ii of the project which are (barring unforeseen circumstances) completed as of this writing.

{3} As of this short note, this applies to parts iii and iv of the project which are still in second draft form.

{4} Basically, there was more material produced than I anticipated when sketching the outline so for the sake of economy of prose and a more focused product, some originally drafted project material was excised from the text and will be published prior to the project. (Though they will be used as source links within said project.)

Francis: Evangelize by Example, not Pushing Your Faith on Others

"Auld Lang Syne" Dept.
(For 2020)

Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And never brought to mind?
Should auld acquaintance be forgot
And days of auld lang syne?

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne
We'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

And surely ye'll be your pint stoop
And surely I'll be mine
And we'll tak a cup o' kindness yet
For auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae run about the braes
And pou'd the gowans fine
But we've wander'd mony a weary foot
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

We twa hae paidl'd i' the burn
Frae mornin' sun till dine
But seas between us braid hae roared
Sin' auld lang syne.

For auld lang syne, my dear,
For auld lang syne,
We'll tak' a cup o' kindness yet,
For auld lang syne.

And here's a hand, my trusty fiere
And gi'e's a hand o' thine
And we'll tak a right good willy waught
For auld lang syne. [Attr. Robert Burns]

Briefly On Faulty Apologetical Arguments:

This posting was written as a result of some things I have seen in social media feeds over the years and in particular, one that I saw earlier today. Basically, I see a number of well meaning folks who treat apologetics arguments as if they are by themselves conclusive. This is a common problem with the apologetics mindset but rather than go into that general subject, let us treat at this time of a common apologetics argument used by Christians. These folks often whip out arguments like Pascal's Wager or CS Lewis' Lord, Liar, Lunatic purported trilemma and use them with a certain smugness as if they contain some magical checkmate to thereby trap others like a spider traps a fly in their web. In reality however, neither of these arguments is as foolproof as the users of them so often presume. I will now briefly dispatch with both to prove my point.

Pascal's Wager

The main outline of this argument is one that attempts to shoehorn the person its presented to with the idea that either God exists or he does not and therefore you only have a few options. Going off of memory{1} the analogy is something akin to this:

• God exists, you believe, therefore you are rewarded

• God exists, you do not believe, therefore you are tormented

• God does not exist, you believe, you lose nothing

• God does not exist, you do not believe, you lose nothing

The gist of the argument is it is better to wager on God's existence should you have any doubt as to whether he exists or not. The flaws in the wager are many but the most significant one is as follows:

It presents false dichotomies to the person it is given to. 

To start with, there is the rhetorical "what if you are wrong?" which of course implicates the person giving the wager because they admit implicitly that they could well be wrong too. However, they never approach this subject with that presupposition in reality while they expect those they interact with to. There are other problems as well including the idea that all potential religions, deities, afterlife scenarios, etc are not for consideration but instead, only the Christian one or some variation of a Christian one. Why should the reader logically do that?

If you consider the various permutations of potential religious possibilities, the Christian conception{2} is merely one of a long list and unless presupposed to be deserving of special consideration is logically no more deserving of it than any other religious claim out there. And that is presuming you can logically narrow it down to one particular variation of the various sometimes contradictory Christian formulations rather than merely presupposing whichever formulation you are particularly partial to (if any). This fact alone dilutes the wager and makes it basically worthless as a genuinely persuasive argument for anyone who does not live in a time or under the assumption that the only religion possibility is the Christian one.{3}


Lord, Liar, Lunatic

In a certain sense, this argument is even weaker while it is probably appealed to with a greater frequency than the wager one.{4} It purports to force the reader into a trilemma of sorts where only one possibility makes logical sense; namely, that Jesus is Lord. If he is not Lord, than the only other possibilities according to the hypothesis is that he is a Liar or a Lunatic. The fundamental weakness to this argument is the claim that Jesus said he was God. Nowhere in the Synoptics does Jesus make such a claim so the only Gospel source where the claim can be somewhat substantiated is the Gospel of John. But herein lies a problem with that source: most Christian theologians who study the Bible claim that the Gospel of John is a more mystical gospel than the others. Also, in all the gospels, Jesus speaks in parables and uses metaphors a lot.

So one could say on the one hand that Jesus need not be a lunatic or liar when he was said to call himself God but could instead be an honest man who made a mistake{5} and that one additional example alone falsifies the presumptive trilemma. But beyond that, one would have to prove in the example where Jesus is said to refer to himself as God that he was to be taken literally in that passage rather than merely assuming he was. Jesus said many things about himself including that he was a vine and the apostles were the branches, he was a door, he was the sheepsgate, he was a shepherd and the followers were sheep, etc. You cannot ignore the numerous ways that Jesus spoke metaphorically and in parables and then state with definitiveness from the text itself that any claims to divinity he was purported to have made were to be taken literally. You have to presuppose the claim you would be trying to prove and that is circular reasoning and thereby is illogical.

As I know what postings like this can do, I will put in a footnote my actual view on this matter so I am not misunderstood.{6} The bottom line to this posting is this: there is no argument one can make rationally for religious belief that does not involve some aspect of acceptance on faith. The degree of acceptance of faith may vary by the given argument except at perhaps the most fundamental level{7} but beyond that, there should be a lot more humility on these matters than many pundits, agenda provocateurs, and apologists often manifest when interacting with others.

Notes:

{1} I am sketching it out in vague form above from memory so if the formulation is not precise, I apologize in advance.

{2} To the extent that there is or could be a single Christian conception of course.

{3} See footnote two.

{4} Probably in part because more Christians these days are familiar with CS Lewis than they are Blaise Pascal.

{5} Remember, an honest man who makes a mistake is no less an honest man because of it.

{6} To be clear, I am not saying I think this way.

{7} For example, Aquinas' Five Ways which while successful in its intention only purport to prove the existence of God through reason and does not presume to argue for a specific religious formulation of God.