On the Passing of Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ:
(Musings of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum)
I was nearly finished with a posting yesterday on other subject matters when I received the word. Upon hearing this news, I felt compelled to set that material aside and focus on the subject to be covered in this posting. That other posting will be put up in the coming week when I feel inclined to do so but this matter in my mind takes precedence for reasons that hopefully will be come clear.
To start with, someone who has gone though as many deaths of family, close friends, and major influences in my life as I have in the past eight years{1} gets to the point to where they can become rather unaffected by such things. But in the case of Avery Dulles, this one is different for a variety of reasons. And as Cardinal Dulles' passing happens to tie into a general principle long propounded at this weblog and in other places, it seems appropriate to touch on both the principle as well as the man himself.
Not even two months ago, I noted in blogging a commemoration of an important yet often not known papal encyclical letter dealing with the subjects of faith and reason how close so many of my views were with those of the now-late Avery Dulles. Indeed it is no exaggeration to say that if someone wanted to know with ninety percent certainty or more how I would view any given theological issue, all one would have to do to read Dulles' work -something I noted back in October when touching on the aforementioned encyclical commemoration in a footnote.{2}
I realized quite some time ago that after I had studied a theological issue and taken a reasoned position that Dulles and I were so frequently in agreement that it was literally uncanny.{3} I did not study much of his work directly in my more formative period on these matters so it is not because of direct input the lions share of the time. But at the same time, there has to be more to this than a mere coincidence. I believe it shows that when you place importance on reason and logic as natural God-given lights and do not denigrate them, that they are tools that can serve you well in coming to a grasp of knowledge and how to use it to one's profit.
Of course, once I realized how common this occurrence was, I started reading Dulles' writings on subjects where I had already come to my own conclusions after study and reflection: something I did not consciously do for areas where I was still uncertain. The reason for this was to avoid the tendency that so many people can have of intellectual laziness -a malady to which no one can claim immunity from at least potentially. I have never been one to let others do my thinking for me{4} and this is a trait I noticed that Dulles also shared.
Avery Dulles was one who would go wherever the evidence led essentially and did this within the context of a very profound faith. But having noted similarities in the rational approach on various matters, I want to take a moment and distance myself from the late cardinal in the realm of faith. I am not going to claim that my faith is anywhere near as profound as his was before he shed this mortal coil and the distance is probably greater than I currently realize. But hand in hand with faith in some form or another should go concern for ethics and principles and His Eminence was imbued with a concern for both of these things much as your host is.
Now many who have already or who will eulogize him in the coming weeks have themselves evinced no concern for these matters whatsoever{5} but your host will not be among them. Instead, I will endeavour to remember Avery Dulles in the future as I do in the present conscious of what I have obtained from him in the refining of my intellectual outlook on matters theological{6}, of his focus on being a public thinker who challenged conventional views regardless of the source{7}, and in other areas which may be mentioned another time if I am so inclined to do so.
Actually, there is one other area I am going to mention right now because in light of the current age of incivility, this characteristic of His Eminence is one that bears noting: showing patience as well as due respect for opposing viewpoints. Avery Dulles the theologian made many impressions on me but Avery Dulles the Christian imprinted upon me the importance of this important factor when in years past I had not always been as careful as I have tried in subsequent years to be in this area.{8}
Much more could be said but I am at a loss to organize my thoughts on this anymore than I already have so I will take leave of this subject for now after noting two more things. First, I will pray for him to the extent that my pathetic efforts will be either efficacious or even needed and ask him for his prayers for those of us in much greater need than he likely is. I also have created a tag for all Dulles related posts to this weblog both previously blogged as well as for this one and for use in perpetuity. But as he has passed on now, it seems appropriate to recall some of the final public words this tremendous thinker put forth when he released his farewell lecture at Fordham University where he had held a teaching chair for twenty years. Without further ado:
Suffering and diminishment are not the greatest of evils but are normal ingredients in life, especially in old age. They are to be expected as elements of a full human existence. Well into my 90th year I have been able to work productively. As I become increasingly paralyzed and unable to speak, I can identify with the many paralytics and mute persons in the Gospels, grateful for the loving and skillful care I receive and for the hope of everlasting life in Christ. If the Lord now calls me to a period of weakness, I know well that his power can be made perfect in infirmity. “Blessed be the name of the Lord!”
And with that I take leave of this subject for now making my own one for the late Cardinal Avery Dulles a prayer from the Roman Missal.
Lord please remember Avery Dulles. In baptism he died with Christ: may he also share his resurrection, when Christ will raise our mortal bodies and make them like his own in glory. [Roman Missal: Eucharistic Prayer III From Masses for the Dead]
Notes:
{1} I do not want to say anymore on the subject at this time than that.
{2} See footnote two of that note for details from the archives of this blog if interested.
{3} This pattern is one I first noticed about seven to eight years ago.
{4} Well, almost never anyway. (It has been years since I accepted anything uncritically.)
{5} To say nothing of their contempt for such things as reason and logic in reality as opposed to their paying lip service to the concepts through mindless parroting of church texts from one era or another speaking of these matters being of significance.
{6} Particularly in the area of church models -one of the few where there was not only influence from Avery Dulles but of a direct nature in my understanding and approach to this very intricate ecclesiplogical subject matter. Here are threads posted to this weblog in years past in order of oldest to newest where this subject was treated in some detail:
An Outline of Various Church Models Throughout History --Parts I-V (circa November 23-24, 2003)
More on Church Models (circa July 9, 2005)
{7} Including from the Vatican: something today's purveyors of an obsessive uncritical cult of the pope mentality towards every Vatican utterance either currently or from the past would do well to consider.
{8} Nor do I harbour any illusions that I am completely free from need of additional work in this area lest anyone wonder.
Showing posts with label Avery Dulles SJ. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Avery Dulles SJ. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Remembering Fides et Ratio Ten Years After:
A month ago Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of what I believe may be the most significant document of Pope John Paul II's pontificate: the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. I have written before on how highly I think of this text and want to reiterate that at this time from the archives so without further ado:
Five books that mean a lot to me
Five is too few so I will expand the number a bit. And like...Chris Blosser, I will not include the Bible or the Catechism in this short list. What I will list will be books which would prove to be pivotal to my overall approach to all subject matters. They will be listed in roughly chronological order of what was read first:
...
Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio should be ranked among the best works on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a highly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.
Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
However much I find myself annoyed at the way so many Catholics of a variety of outlooks{1} pay lip service to the concepts of reason and logic, a text such as Fides et Ratio reminds me that the Catholic Church is in principle not opposed to the natural lights of reason and logic and never has been.
So for those whom this posting has piqued their curiosity as to the aforementioned encyclical letter, here is a link to the text itself:
Fides et Ratio
I would advise that those undertaking an examination of said text to pack themselves a couple of meals and have a dictionary nearby. Spread out the study in at least a few sessions and do not try to read it too quickly if you want to really comprehend what the late pontiff was saying about a chief crises of our time that affects to a certain extent virtually everything around us.
I was going to end this posting there but decided to note my opinion that someone should put together a kind of Cliff Notes version of this text. Among those I have in mind for such a project would be Cardinal Avery Dulles or Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Cardinal Dulles is the pre-eminent American Catholic theologian in my view -and not merely because I find out as I have noted before after taking a position on numerous theological issues that our views so often are simpatico.{2} Cardinal Ruini is one of those who contributed to the text of the encyclical itself. Here is some of what Cardinal Dulles has said on the aforementioned encyclical:
Can Philosophy Be Christian (Avery Dulles SJ from First Things circa April 2000)
I am unaware at this time of any commentaries by Cardinal Ruini on the encyclical but will amend this posting at a later date if apprised of any.
Notes:
{1} And I do not exclude in this view members of the clergy -even some whom I ordinarily respect who nonetheless have blind spots in at least a few areas.
{2} To note a few examples from the archives in order from newest to oldest:
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]
It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us[...] -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 25, 2006)]
Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 9, 2004)]
Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]
I recently heard an excellent program...where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views...It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]
A month ago Wednesday marked the tenth anniversary of the publication of what I believe may be the most significant document of Pope John Paul II's pontificate: the encyclical letter Fides et Ratio. I have written before on how highly I think of this text and want to reiterate that at this time from the archives so without further ado:
Five books that mean a lot to me
Five is too few so I will expand the number a bit. And like...Chris Blosser, I will not include the Bible or the Catechism in this short list. What I will list will be books which would prove to be pivotal to my overall approach to all subject matters. They will be listed in roughly chronological order of what was read first:
...
Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio should be ranked among the best works on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a highly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.
Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
However much I find myself annoyed at the way so many Catholics of a variety of outlooks{1} pay lip service to the concepts of reason and logic, a text such as Fides et Ratio reminds me that the Catholic Church is in principle not opposed to the natural lights of reason and logic and never has been.
So for those whom this posting has piqued their curiosity as to the aforementioned encyclical letter, here is a link to the text itself:
Fides et Ratio
I would advise that those undertaking an examination of said text to pack themselves a couple of meals and have a dictionary nearby. Spread out the study in at least a few sessions and do not try to read it too quickly if you want to really comprehend what the late pontiff was saying about a chief crises of our time that affects to a certain extent virtually everything around us.
I was going to end this posting there but decided to note my opinion that someone should put together a kind of Cliff Notes version of this text. Among those I have in mind for such a project would be Cardinal Avery Dulles or Cardinal Camillo Ruini. Cardinal Dulles is the pre-eminent American Catholic theologian in my view -and not merely because I find out as I have noted before after taking a position on numerous theological issues that our views so often are simpatico.{2} Cardinal Ruini is one of those who contributed to the text of the encyclical itself. Here is some of what Cardinal Dulles has said on the aforementioned encyclical:
Can Philosophy Be Christian (Avery Dulles SJ from First Things circa April 2000)
I am unaware at this time of any commentaries by Cardinal Ruini on the encyclical but will amend this posting at a later date if apprised of any.
Notes:
{1} And I do not exclude in this view members of the clergy -even some whom I ordinarily respect who nonetheless have blind spots in at least a few areas.
{2} To note a few examples from the archives in order from newest to oldest:
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa March 24, 2007)]
It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us[...] -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa October 25, 2006)]
Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 9, 2004)]
Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]
I recently heard an excellent program...where Cardinal Avery Dulles so frequently enunciated my views...It is nice to know that my views so closely align with this brilliant man. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa November 23, 2003)]
Friday, November 30, 2007
Points to Ponder:
The relationship between authority and personal judgment may be described as dialectical. That is to say, the two are neither identical nor separable. Our personal convictions about what is right and wrong are at least partially shaped by what the community and its leaders have taught us, and on the basis of those convictions we determine whether to follow the community's authorities in a given instance. To the extent that we have been successfully socialized into the community, our free and spontaneous judgments about right and wrong tend to coincide with the rules and expectations of the community. [Avery Dulles, SJ]
The relationship between authority and personal judgment may be described as dialectical. That is to say, the two are neither identical nor separable. Our personal convictions about what is right and wrong are at least partially shaped by what the community and its leaders have taught us, and on the basis of those convictions we determine whether to follow the community's authorities in a given instance. To the extent that we have been successfully socialized into the community, our free and spontaneous judgments about right and wrong tend to coincide with the rules and expectations of the community. [Avery Dulles, SJ]
Saturday, March 24, 2007
More on the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Invalid Appeals Thereof:
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
(Dialogue With Jonathan Prejean)
The following is a response written a couple of weeks ago to an email sent by Jonathan Prejean in response to the following posting to this weblog from earlier this month:
On the Appeal to Authority and Distinguishing Between Valid and Fallacious Appeals Thereof
In this posting, Jonathan's words will be in an appropriately crimson coloured font. Without further ado...
Shawn:
Hi Jonathan: When did you start blogging again??? I just realized when looking for your old blog that you started again and did not tell me. Did I miss anything or were you absent in 2006??? When did you return and why did you not send an email encyclical on the matter??? Anytime someone with a lucid mind returns to blogging I want to know about it even if they do not necessarily agree with me. (I will similarly complain if Ian Mclean starts up again (and I know he will) and I do not know about it from the get-go.)
I really appreciate someone taking the time to lay this material out. It gets forgotten all too often.
Well, that is one reason I am trying to set it out in writing. You have been absent the blogosphere for a while and may not be aware that I have been focusing the past couple of years on the building blocks of rational thought to a greater and greater extent -a fair amount of which was directed by circumstances I was either privy to or just reaching critical mass on some matters after not seeing anyone else say or do anything about them. I noted in a thread on 2007 resolutions (among other things) an intention to continue at times along these lines as I have time to do so.
It is unfortunate and I dislike having to say it but I have found myself more and more jaded over the years at the lack of will for actually utilizing reason and logic by people in general. Of a particularly troubling nature is the fideism that infects Catholic apologists (albeit they are hardly the only ones where this is a problem) and this has been happening for a long time. What really rankles me is how the the apologist oligarchs and their clueless sycophants do not want to do a damn thing about it except circle the wagons. (I have never viewed you in this light so you need not wonder by the way.) But I will step off my soap box on that issue for now lest things get offtrack here.
The overall picture is entirely correct, and I would recommend filling in only a couple of more details:
1. In discussing the valid use of authorities, you note that authorities can be used "as supporting documentation for an opinion sustained by logic and reasoned argumentation." Although I think I understand what I have in mind, I'd be concerned about this being exploited as yet another loophole for the fallacious use of an appeal to authority.
My point essentially is that you can construct an argument and then point to a presumed "authority" who agrees with your conclusion. However, that approach while valid is only as strong as the arguments you present -unless you can present the arguments of the "authority" on which you concur. (Though the latter is quite rare.) But even then, the argument is still only as strong as the arguments used by the presumed "authority."
What many people would claim is that the fact that someone else holds the same conclusion has any probative weight for their argument, and that is equally fallacious (the most popular version I've seen is the "If Cardinal Dulles believes it, it must be permissible for Catholics to hold it").
Oh without question. My point is in outlining when an appeal to authority is correct and when it is not. I have been accused by some including not only geopolitical apologists for various pseudo-"progressivist" outlooks but also certain Catholic apologists I shall not name of denying that it is possible to appeal to an authority in any instance. This is something that is so obviously false and absurd that it is hard to take such people seriously. Nonetheless, it is appropriate I believe to point out that there are valid and invalid ways of doing it and that is the purpose of this posting.
The only valid sense in which this can be applied (which is redundant in terms of argumentative force but not clarity) is if one is citing a source that makes the same ARGUMENT.
Which only happens if the person is using the argument of the authority as their own. I would argue in that case that it is if not invalid than at the very least intellectually lazy and (in such a case) the position requires for its sustaining the arguments being borrowed to be sound ones.
I note that this is how you cite Cardinal Dulles, but almost no one else does it correctly.
I appreciate you noticing that actually. It just so happens that on a lot of issues, I realize that Cardinal Dulles agrees with me after the fact meaning after I have pondered an issue and taken a position on it. Almost never has Dulles directly influenced my view on anything with the exception of the subject of church models where he was admittedly the primary influence.
I think that error on this point is a disturbingly common problem, so I would like to see an explicit distinction between the use of authorities as holding a conclusion (fallacious) and the use of authorities for the argument they make (valid).
Do you mean appealing to an authority for opinions or conclusions??? I have dealt with that before in past blog postings -see the links to that posting from August 27, 2004 (quoted at the beginning of the thread and linked later on in the thread) and also one from May of 2005 where I revisited those points in a briefer form. (When referring to two threads superimposed over the capitalized phrasing "HERE and HERE", those are the threads so linked.)
2. Along those lines, regarding the appropriation of arguments from other sources (your Mr. X example), you should distinguish between "shot to pieces" from the standpoint of validity and soundness. If an argument is invalid, then it is invalid no matter who makes it, which is why the appeal to authority is inherently fallacious.
I understand the distinction you are making and it is a valid one. However, here is the context of the problem I was outlining. The example I used was in reference to a real life example a couple of years ago where I shot the argument to pieces and the person arguing with me cited an "authority" making the exact same argument. When I emphasized that I had already destroyed the argument this "authority" made, the response was a dissertation on the authority's presumed "credentials" and a request for my own as if that ploy could somehow objectively rehabilitate the moronic argument made by said "authority." Ergo, the the reason I approached that part of the text as I did.
On the other hand, if the argumentis that Mr. X, based on experience and knowledge of the discipline, has drawn a proper inductive conclusion through a reasonable methodology in anarea that is susceptible to some degree of uncertainty (due to the limitedstate of knowledge, for example), then this sort of opinion could legitimately affect the certainty of some particular conclusion, making it have some evidientiary value as grounded in a reliable inductive method.
Without question but that situation is rare as you know when people cite certain authorities -even if they correctly cite ones whose areas of expertise happen to cohere well with the subject of dispute.
Of course, one must still examine Mr. X's argument to determine whether he is making a legitimate judgment within the scope of a discipline, offering a deductive argument, or simply stating his own opinion of the matter in frank admission that he is bringing to bear considerations that are personal rather than normative.
When you say "normative" am I correct in presuming that you do not mean by the word what I do??? I make the distinction between non-normative and normative argumentation as the difference between objectively verifiable and subjectively opinionated. Of the two, only the former can be rationally argued with because the latter is a matter of opinion which does not admit of an empirical frame of reference oftentimes.
It is, of course, the burden of the one bringing forth any source to make explicit how he is using the source in question. No one should be obliged to guess as to whether the proponent agrees with the source's argument, whether he agrees with the methodology, and whether and why he disagrees with the source's conclusions in some respects and not others (for example, he considers one statement as a proper conclusions of a reliable inductive methodology, while the other is the source's mere opinion).
Precisely!!! That has been my point all along but for some reason, particular controversialists are either unable or unwilling to see it. I did not think what I have written over the years in this respect was any kind of rubix cube.
My intention was to point out how a fallacy is properly identified and what is intrinsic to its nature. Hence the manner in which I stated the thesis of the posting:
--A fallacy of argument is by definition erroneous in the areas of usage and application of logic and reason thereof and nothing else.
I realize that someone can come to correct conclusions with invalid or faulty arguments but outside of the supernatural sciences and certain mechanisms that are contained therein for providing solid points of reference, such situations are more conducive to dumb luck or simply betting on the come viz. picking a particular authority with which to accept the conclusion of. In everyday discussions though, the natural lights of reason and logic are ample when they are properly understood and inculcated. As far as the distinction between inductive and deductive, you are right but the tenor of my posting implies deductive reasoning.
Strictly speaking, deductive reasoning is the only reasoning which can be said to be reliable to a substantial degree when properly utilized as it is not as prone to the degree of open or nebulous constructs which inductive reasoning has. Furthermore, I do not see how inductive reasoning can ever be said to actually bind anyone rationally. Its value is in my view very circumscribed and anyone who would use it against an argument based on deduction would find themselves on the losing side far more frequently than not -all things presumed equal of course.
But at the same time, if one is committed to achieving true and correct beliefs by reasoning, as opposed to mere emotion or opinion, then one's arguments must be logically valid.
Without question.
Likewise, even on purely inductive matters, it might be permissible to appeal to authority in a way that is not proper for deductive arguments, but then only insofar as the authority in question is following a method of inquiry deemed reliable for establishing the sorts of conclusions being asserted (and the proponent should be plain if he is relying on someone else's expertise in this way, so that one can challenge the source's qualifications or methodology for the benefit of those who might rely on him).
Precisely. And as this is so rarely done, one can take it as a general norm that any appeal to authority will fail in this area unless demonstrated to the contrary. (Putting the burden of proof on the one so appealing where it belongs and not conversely.)
4. The last recommendation is simply my own personal preference, and I don't intend it to be an assertion of any cognitive duty so much as an option for your consideration.
Ok.
I personally prefer to bypass entirely the question as to whether what someone's words objectively manifest matches upwith their subjective intent. Frankly, if someone is willing to say "I meant X when I said Y," then I thenceforth act as if they said X even ifthere is no possible way that Y could objectively be interpreted to mean X. This is because, quite frankly, people sometimes just make mistakes (e.g.,typing the wrong thing, picking a statement without sufficient consideration), but no one ever wants to admit having made a mistake.
Well, pointing it out can give people reason to pause -particularly if they continue to claim they did not say something and accuse of "lying" various persons who see the same objective manifestation in their writings.
Rather than putting someone on the defensive about a mistake, which drags down the quality of the discussion, I would generally let the correction pass, because then at least what is being discussed is what ought to be discussed.
Generally this is true. But I know people who mess up in this area not infrequently and yet are not called out on it.
I freely confess that my bias in this regard is also motivated by the fact that some of the most disreptuable debaters on the Internet (e.g., Svendsen, Engwer, White) absolutely love the rhetorical tactic of accusing the opponent of mistake, using it even when the mistake is irrelevant and sometimes deliberately misrepresenting an opponent to createa mistake where none has been made.
Well, I do of course always presume good-will in all parties involved a priori even if this is not always explicitly apparent.{1} We both know that White and Svendsen do not do that nor does Engwer. I allow them to demonstrate that they are not acting in good will or at least provide me with sufficient enough motives of credibility to make an objective assessment on the matter. While not always an accurate read, my trackrecord in this area over the years is significantly more correct than incorrect.
Respectfully submitted, Jonathan Prejean
Thank you for your intelligent, thought-provoking input Jonathan. Let me know what you think of the reasons I noted above -my focus is essentially universal and particular on this posting as is often the case.
Note:
{1} A couple significant examples come to mind where this principle has been explicitly or implicitly noted over the years -including this one which was blogged very recently:
[S]ometimes a person can unknowingly convey a sense or impression towards others that they do not intend to convey. Certainly as a rule one must presume continuity in these areas. Nonetheless, at the same time, there are exceptions whereby the actions and statements of a person do not necessarily correctly reveal their inner intentions. And while one should strive at all times to verify things by objective criteria; at the same time, the evidence does not always point to the reality of something as it subsists in the mind of the other party involved in a dispute. With that in mind, and however it may appear to contradict objective manifestations, greater care at times needs to be given to what someone says they intend however appearances to the contrary may fail to countenance it. In other words: faith is required to some extent that an individual's assessment of their intentions is correct because by non-normative criteria it cannot be ascertained. This is not always easy to do mind you when there is a history of bad blood between persons. However, whenever an opportunity to put things right presents itself that manifests the possibility of success (however remote), I have always viewed it as something to be seized upon because one never knows when such opportunities may present themselves again if ever. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa February 5, 2007)]
The principle animating the above observations was encapsulated in a weblog post thread on charity from about three years ago in the following words which were written almost two hundred years before your weblog host was even born:
Always be ready and willing to excuse the faults of your neighbour, and never put an unfavourable interpretation upon his actions. The same action, says St. Francis de Sales, may be looked upon under many different aspects: a charitable person will ever suppose the best, an uncharitable person will just as certainly choose the worst. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa January 24, 2004)]
The above principle either explicitly or implicitly was referenced in a number of postings to this weblog prior to that time (the earliest being August 23, 2002) and quoted or linked to numerous posts subsequent to that time including the following ones found on a very brief (five minute) archival search of a few of the several possible search terms:
August 26, 2004, August 27, 2004, December 30, 2004, May 14, 2005, December 13, 2005, December 14, 2005, January 23, 2006, February 9, 2006, February 12, 2006, March 6, 2006, August 5, 2006, August 14, 2006, September 21, 2006, November 14, 2006.
If more time was taken and additional search terms were used, many others would be found both in the period prior to January 24, 2004 and particularly after it but the above ones will have to do at the present time.
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
On Torture and General Norms Revisited:
(A Response to Dr. Scott Carson)
Those who have been following these threads are aware by now (at least to some extent) that the subject of torture has been discussed in various forums in recent weeks with probably as much heat as light in some circles. We for our part at Rerum Novarum set forth in three connected parts a proposed hypothesis on these matters for the consideration of various parties involved. As we prepared to post other threads on various subjects which are completed, it was made known to us that Dr. Scott Carson of An Examined Life responded to at least some of what we wrote. His full thread to be interacted with at this time can be read HERE and in this posting his words will be in dark green font with quoted sources italicized.
I. Shawn McElhinney, whose blog Rerum Novarum I rather like and read rather often, has taken a position regarding the torture question that strikes me as grounded in reasons that are, for him, uncharacteristic. In a series of posts he has made an argument to the effect that it is not, in fact, the teaching of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium that torture is per se wrong, in spite of what Veritatis Splendor may have to say on the topic. His argument, in outline, goes something like this:
The teaching of the Church in the Ordinary Magisterium is indefectible.
The teaching of the church in the supreme ordinary (or universal) magisterium is indefectible yes. As for whether or not the ordinary magisterium in all of its parameters is, that is a controverted issue and remains unresolved by the magisterium itself. For that reason, a proposed hypothesis such as that would have the burden of proof to ultimately sustain it as a viable theory if it can withstand the required scrutiny of course.
There is also the issue of universally promulgated disciplinary directives which within certain boundaries would be protected from error either in positive or divine law. The question is whether or not any of the previous papal or conciliar statements on these matters was of universal scope either explicitly or tacitly by logical extension. This is therefore not as easy to discern as many would want to make of it -something we are sure Dr. Carson would concur with us on.
Significant theologians, including John Paul II and, even more significantly, Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and, thus, an essential influence on the writing of Veritatis Splendor, have made it clear that certain teachings, when they impinge on matters involving prudential judgments about contingent matters of fact in the temporal realm, are not indefectible.
The present writer has not made this assertion either. It is true that Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical letter where this position appears to be made; however, when one considers the manifested intention of that encyclical (as we did in the second of our three part response) it makes such a reading difficult to sustain in a coherent way.
Historically, the Church has actually required the use of torture:
This is a fact of history whatever one wants to think of that.
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Hence, in order to preserve the doctrine of indefectability, we must conclude that the teaching of Veritatis Splendor is not indefectible with regards to the moral status of torture.
In order to preserve indefectibility, there has to be continuity of principles even if they undergo further refinement over time or in accordance with changing times and circumstances. Furthermore, magisterial documents are not always easy to understand and this needs to be accounted for at all times lest Catholics do with them what many Protestants do with the Bible. (In presuming it is perspicuous or otherwise can be understood correctly in all its parameters with little or no effort on their part.)
Hence, torture is not necessarily per se wrong,
It depends on how this term is defined. The first thing the present writer noted in his posts on torture is that those who take the position of Mark Shea are required to define their terms. To ascertain whether torture is or is not per se wrong depends on how the term is defined.
In fact, given what the Church has done historically, we must conclude that torture is actually morally required under certain circumstances.
Again, it depends on how the term is defined and what those circumstances are. Under ordinary circumstances, it would appear that torture however it is defined would not be permissible. One of the things this writer did was situate Gaudium et Spes in its historical context and point out factors that impacted its content that are generally overlooked by those who quote from it too freely. Certainly Veritatis Splendour is a more authoritative text but even then, one must be careful to exercise due care in seeking to interpret its manifested intention correctly.
Our precise wording was as follows:
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Every word of that statement needs to be carefully considered.
This argument is valid, but it is not sound.
We will examine Dr. Carson's proposed counter-hypothesis in a moment but he does make a distinction between valid and sound argumentation: one that is valid in itself though whether it applies to what this writer wrote will now be considered.
(For those who may not be familiar with these technical terms, an argument is said to be deductively valid when it is not possible for its conclusion to be false when all of its premises are true, and an argument is said to be deductively sound when it is both valid and all of its premises are in fact true.)
This is an accurate summation of the distinction indeed and we thank Scott for making it.
The difficulty lies not in the structure of the argument, but in its reliance on historical facts of dubious interpretation to carry its conclusion through.
In particular, we may note that if it is possible for Veritatis Splendor to be mistaken about the moral status of torture because of the possibility of an appeal to fallible prudential reasoning, then it is equally possible for earlier documents "requiring" the use of torture to be mistaken in their use of prudential judgments to argue for the moral licitness of torture in defense of the common good.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it assumes that all statements in an encyclical or any magisterial text are of equal weight. It is not that simple which is why the appeal to Veritatis Splendour (VS) or Gaudium et Spes (GS) in and of themselves does not suffice. One of the reasons this writer dealt with the subject of general norms of interpretation viz. GS is because that document is often appealed to in a departure from previous understandings where there is no warrant for doing do by virtue of the manifested intentions of the synod (i.e. not to make any new extraordinary definitions{1}) or the manifested intention of the document itself. This is why we focused so much on the manifested intention of GS, the manifested intention of VS, and also the important CDF Instruction which explains how to go about in a critical examination of magisterial texts with proper fidelity to the magisterium of the Church.{2}
This renders the premise regarding the appeal to the alleged historical facts regarding earlier uses of torture either false or hopelessly ambiguous, and this vitiates the soundness of the argument.
There will always be vagueness when terms are not defined which is why we insisted on it from the outset in the posting. If not for the fact that to outline the historical record would have taken up a ton of time and effort which we do not have (unfortunately) and if not for the fact that it would have unduly lengthened what we sought to make as short and concise a post as possible{3}, we could sustain by adequate proofs that assertion every bit as much as we can any assertion we have made over the years.{4} So that point aside, the soundness of the argument is not affected as much as it is (perhaps) not as strong as it could be. Having noted that briefly{5}, we shall now consider the rest of Scott's arguments in this thread.
It is worth noting at this point that the premise claiming that earlier "popes and councils" actually "sanctioned" torture is in itself hopelessly vague, even independently of its use in this particular argument.
One of the problems with striving for economy of prose is that sometimes stuff has to be glossed over to some extent. We try to only do this with items which are not in the realm of the debatable{6} but that is not always possible unfortunately.
We are not told who these popes were, or which councils, or the circumstances under which they are being said to have "sanctioned" torture, or even what the alleged sanctions were other than threats of excommunication for "heresy". It ought to go without saying that this kind of premise is utterly useless if for no other reason than its manifestly controversial nature.
This is a fair criticism it seems.
Even putting aside the difficulty of this particular premise, however, it is perhaps even more important to note that the language of Veritatis Splendor is as unambiguous in its condemnation of torture as the interpretation of earlier history regarding the alleged "sanctioning" of torture is ambiguous. So there is one point on which Shawn is quite right: either there has been a mistaken prudential judgment made somewhere, or the indefectibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is on the line.
We did not think of it that way and appreciate Scott noting the parallel ambiguity. It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us{7} -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly.{8} In posting this excerpt from a recent email correspondence, we hope Scott will see a brilliant theologian enunciating with greater crispness what your humble servant has done a less-than-stellar job at perhaps. Without further ado:
Cardinal Dulles took the same position in principle on slavery and approached it in the same framework as we have the torture subject. Here are the relevant paragraphs (particular attention should be paid to the undelined parts):
Noonan has one further argument for doctrinal change. In 1993, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II took, from Vatican II's pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, a long list of social evils: "homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide . . . mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as sub-human living conditions, arbitrary imprisonments, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons." Where Vatican II had called these practices "shameful" (probra), John Paul II calls them "intrinsically evil." In the same encyclical the pope teaches that intrinsically evil acts are prohibited always and everywhere, without any exception.
Did John Paul II, by including slavery in his list of social evils, effect the revolution in Catholic moral theology that Noonan attributes to him? It seems to me that if he had wanted to assert his position as definitive he would have had to say more clearly how he was defining slavery. He would have had to make it clear that he was rejecting the nuanced views of the biblical writers and Catholic theologians for so many past centuries. If any form of slavery could be justified under any conditions, slavery as such would not be, in the technical sense, intrinsically evil.
According to the logic of Noonan's argument, whatever holds for slavery would have to be said for deportations, subhuman living conditions, and degrading conditions of work. But could not degrading or subhuman conditions be inevitable, for example, after some great natural disaster in which mere survival is an achievement? Individual deportations of undesirable aliens occur continually as a matter of national policy today; mass deportations could perhaps be necessary for the sake of peace and security. If pressed, I suspect, the pope would have admitted the need for some qualifications, but he could not have specified these without a rather long excursus that would have been distracting in the framework of his encyclical. So far as I am aware, he never repeated his assertion that slavery is intrinsically evil. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , in their discussions of slavery, speaks so absolutely. [Cardinal Avery Dulles: From Development or Reversal? (circa 2005)]
The principles involved are precisely the same and likewise, without explaining how the term is being defined, the minimum requirements for a dogmatic definition are not met. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 23, 2006)]
We had clarified ourselves a bit earlier in another email which is cited at this point for the sake of not reinventing the wheel:
[Veritatis Splendour (VS)] was a summing up of the wide scope of moral theological questions. For that reason, it is clear that the intention of the pope was to recall the corpus of issues under that heading in a comprehensive fashion and to be in uniformity with the tradition as he claimed was his intention in VS 4 or 5. That means no new issues were to be settled and therefore we cannot presume that any new ones were. And as GS (which VS quoted) did not refer to torture as "intrinsically evil", we cannot presume that VS in appearing to say that was making a new declaration in light of the pope's manifested intentions earlier in the encyclical. And if one considers the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian as I noted in my posts on torture, it is clear that to surmize that VS had a deficiency on the matter in question is not outside the bounds of possibility and asserting that it possibly does (if one is not too dogmatic about it) is acceptable according to general norms of interpretation. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 20, 2006)]
In other words, there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of going about this matter and seeking further clarification. And one important issue is that a term needs to be defined and in a variegated term such as torture (or slavery), condemnations of one form do not necessarily involve another form. As GS was not settling anything new, the condemnation of slavery could not be considered comprehensive but instead a reaffirmation of the forms of slavery already condemned: namely, chattel slavery of which there were at least seven or eight papal condemnations going back to the late fifteenth century. Likewise, if torture is condemned, lacking a definition of the term, one must conclude that only those forms which were traditionally condemned would be involved.{9} Anything more than that is to read into the text which one should strive to avoid doing at all costs.
Here it is essential to see that the judgment of Veritatis Splendor, that torture is per se immoral (or, "intrinsically evil", as Shawn puts it), is not a prudential judgment, but a judgment about matters of faith and morals, the very domain in which the Ordinary Magisterium is regarded by faithful Catholics as indefectible. The judgments of earlier "popes and councils", however, to the effect that the use of torture is the correct way to safeguard the common good, are clearly matters of prudential judgment, matters in which the Ordinary Magisterium is not regarded as indefectible.
It is not this simple for reasons we have already outlined. Furthermore, if torture is "intrinsically evil" than so is everything else in that paragraph and we doubt Scott would assert that. (Or does Scott really think that deportations --also mentioned in that paragraph of GS and reiterated in VS- are "intrinsically evil"???)
So what Shawn has shown, if anything, is that if we are to regard the Church's Ordinary Magisterium as indefectible, we must take Veritatis Splendor to reflect the infallible teaching on the moral status of torture, and we must regard the actions of earlier "popes and councils" who threatened folks with excommunication for not using torture as misguided attempts to safeguard the common good. This is not what he intended to show, however, which is why I regard the argument as "uncharacteristic"--I think he is usually a little more careful than this, and his arguments are often sound as well as valid.
We hope to have explained reasonably well in this followup why what was originally written by us on this subject was written with greater care than it may admittedly appear on first or second glance. However, as noted already, Scott did pinpoint what was because of time constraints admittedly the weakest part of our exposition but hopefully it was adequately explained why that part of the equation was not delved into with the usual degree of detail that we strive to do when discussing issues.
Hopefully two additional things are clear in what was covered in this followup posting to our original exposition on torture and general norms of interpretation and it is these factors (i) there are certain areas where Scott oversimplifies our position{10} and (ii) we are quite pleased with his approach to the discipline of the dialogue on this subject and hope to have further discussions with him on issues if he is so inclined.
Notes:
{1} This does not mean that infallibility in a formal sense was lacking completely from the decisions of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council of course. But because of the predominently pastoral intention of the synod -the distinction we have outlined many times before with viable hypothesis including in this thread from over three years ago- such things cannot be so casually presumed as many seem wont to do.
{2} A document we note which was probably written by Pope Benedict XVI in his capacity as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) for the late Pope John Paul II in 1990. (Three years before Veritatis Splendour.) That text was not only issued by the CDF with the pope's full knowledge but Pope John Paul II went so far as to approve it in forma specifica which means that he made the conclusions and arguments of the text his own.
{3} Dr. Carson surely knows if he has read the blog posts to this humble weblog or past essays by the present writer that economy of prose is not one of our strong suits.
{4} Dr. Carson also presumably is aware that we as a rule document every assertion thoroughly. One reason for this is that it gives people ample reason to trust us in those cases where things cannot be so documented due either to time constraints or other factors.
{5} Certainly we must in the interest of disclosure concede this point to Scott.
{6} Meaning that the statements are not debatable even if how they are properly understood when scrutinizing the historical record is a matter of legitimate debate of course.
{7} Either on the precise issue in question or on the principles involved in properly understanding it.
{8} Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]
{9} Namely, the limits placed on torture by past papal decrees. Or to revisit what we quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia via their article Inquisition:
The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: Article Inquisition as excerpted from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
It is also worth considering the circumstances and some of the intentions with GS which we noted in our posting from October 13, 2006. To consider those factors, it hopefully is clearer why the Council would have sought to appear to make a broader statement than they actually made. (Again, this was touched on in our three part posting on torture and general norms and will not be reiterated at this time.)
{10} We do not blame Dr. Carson for this as (i) the issues are quite nuanced ones and (ii) his civility of tone and charitable approach in disagreement with us compels us out of principle to give him all benefits of the doubt.
(A Response to Dr. Scott Carson)
Those who have been following these threads are aware by now (at least to some extent) that the subject of torture has been discussed in various forums in recent weeks with probably as much heat as light in some circles. We for our part at Rerum Novarum set forth in three connected parts a proposed hypothesis on these matters for the consideration of various parties involved. As we prepared to post other threads on various subjects which are completed, it was made known to us that Dr. Scott Carson of An Examined Life responded to at least some of what we wrote. His full thread to be interacted with at this time can be read HERE and in this posting his words will be in dark green font with quoted sources italicized.
I. Shawn McElhinney, whose blog Rerum Novarum I rather like and read rather often, has taken a position regarding the torture question that strikes me as grounded in reasons that are, for him, uncharacteristic. In a series of posts he has made an argument to the effect that it is not, in fact, the teaching of the universal and Ordinary Magisterium that torture is per se wrong, in spite of what Veritatis Splendor may have to say on the topic. His argument, in outline, goes something like this:
The teaching of the Church in the Ordinary Magisterium is indefectible.
The teaching of the church in the supreme ordinary (or universal) magisterium is indefectible yes. As for whether or not the ordinary magisterium in all of its parameters is, that is a controverted issue and remains unresolved by the magisterium itself. For that reason, a proposed hypothesis such as that would have the burden of proof to ultimately sustain it as a viable theory if it can withstand the required scrutiny of course.
There is also the issue of universally promulgated disciplinary directives which within certain boundaries would be protected from error either in positive or divine law. The question is whether or not any of the previous papal or conciliar statements on these matters was of universal scope either explicitly or tacitly by logical extension. This is therefore not as easy to discern as many would want to make of it -something we are sure Dr. Carson would concur with us on.
Significant theologians, including John Paul II and, even more significantly, Benedict XVI when he was still Cardinal Ratzinger and, thus, an essential influence on the writing of Veritatis Splendor, have made it clear that certain teachings, when they impinge on matters involving prudential judgments about contingent matters of fact in the temporal realm, are not indefectible.
The present writer has not made this assertion either. It is true that Pope John Paul II issued an encyclical letter where this position appears to be made; however, when one considers the manifested intention of that encyclical (as we did in the second of our three part response) it makes such a reading difficult to sustain in a coherent way.
Historically, the Church has actually required the use of torture:
This is a fact of history whatever one wants to think of that.
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Hence, in order to preserve the doctrine of indefectability, we must conclude that the teaching of Veritatis Splendor is not indefectible with regards to the moral status of torture.
In order to preserve indefectibility, there has to be continuity of principles even if they undergo further refinement over time or in accordance with changing times and circumstances. Furthermore, magisterial documents are not always easy to understand and this needs to be accounted for at all times lest Catholics do with them what many Protestants do with the Bible. (In presuming it is perspicuous or otherwise can be understood correctly in all its parameters with little or no effort on their part.)
Hence, torture is not necessarily per se wrong,
It depends on how this term is defined. The first thing the present writer noted in his posts on torture is that those who take the position of Mark Shea are required to define their terms. To ascertain whether torture is or is not per se wrong depends on how the term is defined.
In fact, given what the Church has done historically, we must conclude that torture is actually morally required under certain circumstances.
Again, it depends on how the term is defined and what those circumstances are. Under ordinary circumstances, it would appear that torture however it is defined would not be permissible. One of the things this writer did was situate Gaudium et Spes in its historical context and point out factors that impacted its content that are generally overlooked by those who quote from it too freely. Certainly Veritatis Splendour is a more authoritative text but even then, one must be careful to exercise due care in seeking to interpret its manifested intention correctly.
Our precise wording was as follows:
The past sanctioning of torture by popes and councils -going so far as to command kings and princes under pain of excommunication with matters of heresy when these undermined the common good of society- means that torture itself cannot be "intrinsically evil" unless the doctrine of indefectibility is contradicted.
Every word of that statement needs to be carefully considered.
This argument is valid, but it is not sound.
We will examine Dr. Carson's proposed counter-hypothesis in a moment but he does make a distinction between valid and sound argumentation: one that is valid in itself though whether it applies to what this writer wrote will now be considered.
(For those who may not be familiar with these technical terms, an argument is said to be deductively valid when it is not possible for its conclusion to be false when all of its premises are true, and an argument is said to be deductively sound when it is both valid and all of its premises are in fact true.)
This is an accurate summation of the distinction indeed and we thank Scott for making it.
The difficulty lies not in the structure of the argument, but in its reliance on historical facts of dubious interpretation to carry its conclusion through.
In particular, we may note that if it is possible for Veritatis Splendor to be mistaken about the moral status of torture because of the possibility of an appeal to fallible prudential reasoning, then it is equally possible for earlier documents "requiring" the use of torture to be mistaken in their use of prudential judgments to argue for the moral licitness of torture in defense of the common good.
The problem with this line of argumentation is that it assumes that all statements in an encyclical or any magisterial text are of equal weight. It is not that simple which is why the appeal to Veritatis Splendour (VS) or Gaudium et Spes (GS) in and of themselves does not suffice. One of the reasons this writer dealt with the subject of general norms of interpretation viz. GS is because that document is often appealed to in a departure from previous understandings where there is no warrant for doing do by virtue of the manifested intentions of the synod (i.e. not to make any new extraordinary definitions{1}) or the manifested intention of the document itself. This is why we focused so much on the manifested intention of GS, the manifested intention of VS, and also the important CDF Instruction which explains how to go about in a critical examination of magisterial texts with proper fidelity to the magisterium of the Church.{2}
This renders the premise regarding the appeal to the alleged historical facts regarding earlier uses of torture either false or hopelessly ambiguous, and this vitiates the soundness of the argument.
There will always be vagueness when terms are not defined which is why we insisted on it from the outset in the posting. If not for the fact that to outline the historical record would have taken up a ton of time and effort which we do not have (unfortunately) and if not for the fact that it would have unduly lengthened what we sought to make as short and concise a post as possible{3}, we could sustain by adequate proofs that assertion every bit as much as we can any assertion we have made over the years.{4} So that point aside, the soundness of the argument is not affected as much as it is (perhaps) not as strong as it could be. Having noted that briefly{5}, we shall now consider the rest of Scott's arguments in this thread.
It is worth noting at this point that the premise claiming that earlier "popes and councils" actually "sanctioned" torture is in itself hopelessly vague, even independently of its use in this particular argument.
One of the problems with striving for economy of prose is that sometimes stuff has to be glossed over to some extent. We try to only do this with items which are not in the realm of the debatable{6} but that is not always possible unfortunately.
We are not told who these popes were, or which councils, or the circumstances under which they are being said to have "sanctioned" torture, or even what the alleged sanctions were other than threats of excommunication for "heresy". It ought to go without saying that this kind of premise is utterly useless if for no other reason than its manifestly controversial nature.
This is a fair criticism it seems.
Even putting aside the difficulty of this particular premise, however, it is perhaps even more important to note that the language of Veritatis Splendor is as unambiguous in its condemnation of torture as the interpretation of earlier history regarding the alleged "sanctioning" of torture is ambiguous. So there is one point on which Shawn is quite right: either there has been a mistaken prudential judgment made somewhere, or the indefectibility of the Ordinary Magisterium is on the line.
We did not think of it that way and appreciate Scott noting the parallel ambiguity. It may help the readers to consider that once again, we have taken a position on an issue and then discovered that Cardinal Avery Dulles has agreed with us{7} -a most pleasing pattern over the years to put it mildly.{8} In posting this excerpt from a recent email correspondence, we hope Scott will see a brilliant theologian enunciating with greater crispness what your humble servant has done a less-than-stellar job at perhaps. Without further ado:
Cardinal Dulles took the same position in principle on slavery and approached it in the same framework as we have the torture subject. Here are the relevant paragraphs (particular attention should be paid to the undelined parts):
Noonan has one further argument for doctrinal change. In 1993, in his encyclical Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II took, from Vatican II's pastoral constitution on the Church in the modern world, a long list of social evils: "homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide . . . mutilation, physical and mental torture and attempts to coerce the spirit; whatever is offensive to human dignity, such as sub-human living conditions, arbitrary imprisonments, deportation, slavery, prostitution and trafficking in women and children; degrading conditions of work which treat laborers as mere instruments of profit, and not as free responsible persons." Where Vatican II had called these practices "shameful" (probra), John Paul II calls them "intrinsically evil." In the same encyclical the pope teaches that intrinsically evil acts are prohibited always and everywhere, without any exception.
Did John Paul II, by including slavery in his list of social evils, effect the revolution in Catholic moral theology that Noonan attributes to him? It seems to me that if he had wanted to assert his position as definitive he would have had to say more clearly how he was defining slavery. He would have had to make it clear that he was rejecting the nuanced views of the biblical writers and Catholic theologians for so many past centuries. If any form of slavery could be justified under any conditions, slavery as such would not be, in the technical sense, intrinsically evil.
According to the logic of Noonan's argument, whatever holds for slavery would have to be said for deportations, subhuman living conditions, and degrading conditions of work. But could not degrading or subhuman conditions be inevitable, for example, after some great natural disaster in which mere survival is an achievement? Individual deportations of undesirable aliens occur continually as a matter of national policy today; mass deportations could perhaps be necessary for the sake of peace and security. If pressed, I suspect, the pope would have admitted the need for some qualifications, but he could not have specified these without a rather long excursus that would have been distracting in the framework of his encyclical. So far as I am aware, he never repeated his assertion that slavery is intrinsically evil. Neither the Catechism of the Catholic Church nor the recent Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church , in their discussions of slavery, speaks so absolutely. [Cardinal Avery Dulles: From Development or Reversal? (circa 2005)]
The principles involved are precisely the same and likewise, without explaining how the term is being defined, the minimum requirements for a dogmatic definition are not met. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 23, 2006)]
We had clarified ourselves a bit earlier in another email which is cited at this point for the sake of not reinventing the wheel:
[Veritatis Splendour (VS)] was a summing up of the wide scope of moral theological questions. For that reason, it is clear that the intention of the pope was to recall the corpus of issues under that heading in a comprehensive fashion and to be in uniformity with the tradition as he claimed was his intention in VS 4 or 5. That means no new issues were to be settled and therefore we cannot presume that any new ones were. And as GS (which VS quoted) did not refer to torture as "intrinsically evil", we cannot presume that VS in appearing to say that was making a new declaration in light of the pope's manifested intentions earlier in the encyclical. And if one considers the Instruction on the Ecclesial Vocation of the Theologian as I noted in my posts on torture, it is clear that to surmize that VS had a deficiency on the matter in question is not outside the bounds of possibility and asserting that it possibly does (if one is not too dogmatic about it) is acceptable according to general norms of interpretation. [I. Shawn McElhinney: Excerpt from an Email Correspondence (circa October 20, 2006)]
In other words, there are acceptable and unacceptable ways of going about this matter and seeking further clarification. And one important issue is that a term needs to be defined and in a variegated term such as torture (or slavery), condemnations of one form do not necessarily involve another form. As GS was not settling anything new, the condemnation of slavery could not be considered comprehensive but instead a reaffirmation of the forms of slavery already condemned: namely, chattel slavery of which there were at least seven or eight papal condemnations going back to the late fifteenth century. Likewise, if torture is condemned, lacking a definition of the term, one must conclude that only those forms which were traditionally condemned would be involved.{9} Anything more than that is to read into the text which one should strive to avoid doing at all costs.
Here it is essential to see that the judgment of Veritatis Splendor, that torture is per se immoral (or, "intrinsically evil", as Shawn puts it), is not a prudential judgment, but a judgment about matters of faith and morals, the very domain in which the Ordinary Magisterium is regarded by faithful Catholics as indefectible. The judgments of earlier "popes and councils", however, to the effect that the use of torture is the correct way to safeguard the common good, are clearly matters of prudential judgment, matters in which the Ordinary Magisterium is not regarded as indefectible.
It is not this simple for reasons we have already outlined. Furthermore, if torture is "intrinsically evil" than so is everything else in that paragraph and we doubt Scott would assert that. (Or does Scott really think that deportations --also mentioned in that paragraph of GS and reiterated in VS- are "intrinsically evil"???)
So what Shawn has shown, if anything, is that if we are to regard the Church's Ordinary Magisterium as indefectible, we must take Veritatis Splendor to reflect the infallible teaching on the moral status of torture, and we must regard the actions of earlier "popes and councils" who threatened folks with excommunication for not using torture as misguided attempts to safeguard the common good. This is not what he intended to show, however, which is why I regard the argument as "uncharacteristic"--I think he is usually a little more careful than this, and his arguments are often sound as well as valid.
We hope to have explained reasonably well in this followup why what was originally written by us on this subject was written with greater care than it may admittedly appear on first or second glance. However, as noted already, Scott did pinpoint what was because of time constraints admittedly the weakest part of our exposition but hopefully it was adequately explained why that part of the equation was not delved into with the usual degree of detail that we strive to do when discussing issues.
Hopefully two additional things are clear in what was covered in this followup posting to our original exposition on torture and general norms of interpretation and it is these factors (i) there are certain areas where Scott oversimplifies our position{10} and (ii) we are quite pleased with his approach to the discipline of the dialogue on this subject and hope to have further discussions with him on issues if he is so inclined.
Notes:
{1} This does not mean that infallibility in a formal sense was lacking completely from the decisions of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council of course. But because of the predominently pastoral intention of the synod -the distinction we have outlined many times before with viable hypothesis including in this thread from over three years ago- such things cannot be so casually presumed as many seem wont to do.
{2} A document we note which was probably written by Pope Benedict XVI in his capacity as Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) for the late Pope John Paul II in 1990. (Three years before Veritatis Splendour.) That text was not only issued by the CDF with the pope's full knowledge but Pope John Paul II went so far as to approve it in forma specifica which means that he made the conclusions and arguments of the text his own.
{3} Dr. Carson surely knows if he has read the blog posts to this humble weblog or past essays by the present writer that economy of prose is not one of our strong suits.
{4} Dr. Carson also presumably is aware that we as a rule document every assertion thoroughly. One reason for this is that it gives people ample reason to trust us in those cases where things cannot be so documented due either to time constraints or other factors.
{5} Certainly we must in the interest of disclosure concede this point to Scott.
{6} Meaning that the statements are not debatable even if how they are properly understood when scrutinizing the historical record is a matter of legitimate debate of course.
{7} Either on the precise issue in question or on the principles involved in properly understanding it.
{8} Normally Dulles and I are of a like mind on subjects -as I tend to discover after I have formed an opinion on a subject and then read his views on it. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa December 16, 2003)]
{9} Namely, the limits placed on torture by past papal decrees. Or to revisit what we quoted from The Catholic Encyclopedia via their article Inquisition:
The limit placed upon torture was citra membri diminutionem et mortis periculum -- i.e, it was not to cause the loss of life or limb or imperil life. [The Catholic Encyclopedia: Article Inquisition as excerpted from Rerum Novarum (circa October 13, 2006)]
It is also worth considering the circumstances and some of the intentions with GS which we noted in our posting from October 13, 2006. To consider those factors, it hopefully is clearer why the Council would have sought to appear to make a broader statement than they actually made. (Again, this was touched on in our three part posting on torture and general norms and will not be reiterated at this time.)
{10} We do not blame Dr. Carson for this as (i) the issues are quite nuanced ones and (ii) his civility of tone and charitable approach in disagreement with us compels us out of principle to give him all benefits of the doubt.
Tuesday, July 12, 2005
"Updating Rerum Novarum" Dept.
The following update is properly seen as a completion of what was started in early June with the addition of various weblogs to the side margin of this humble weblog. Without further ado, let Us get to it with the new additions by category:
Some of My Writings and Reviews
The above title is a slight revision of what was utilized prior to this update.
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc.
Revisiting Rerum Novarum Policy Viz. Emails [>>>]
A Brief Revisiting of the Comments Box Subject [>>>]
Briefly on Comments Boxes Again (With Jonathan Prejean) [>>>]
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme [>>>]
On the Problems with Live Debate Formats As a Rule [>>>]
My Political/Social Musings
On Political/Social Subjects in General
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. [>>>]
"Return of the Stupid Party" Dept. [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc.
The above title is a slight revision of what was utilized prior to this update.
Weighing in on Sen. Trent Lott's Comments [>>>]
In light of Senator Dick Durban getting off scott free rather than being forced to either resign from the Senate or being (at the very least) stripped of any ranking position in the Senate, it seemed appropriate to go into the archives at Rerum Novarum and add in this update what your host wrote in December of 2002 on Senator Trent Lott.
The aforementioned inclusion will hopefully illustrate a bit clearer a common (and blatant) double standard present in the media whereby those so-called "progressivists" who make far more egregious statements in official capacity (such as Sen. Durban's comments made on the floor of the US Senate) get off scott free and those who are called "conservatives" who make much more benign statements in an unofficial capacity (such as Sen. Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party in late 2002) who do not.
"The Framers Know Best" Dept. (On the US Government and Why It Is Not a Democracy) [>>>]
The above thread was posted on April 16, 2005 and was passed over in the last update. In light of the upcoming judicial battles, it seems appropriate to include it at this time.
Points to Ponder --On Legal Plunder and How to Identify It (Claude Frederic Bastiat) [>>>]
"The Framers Know Best" Dept. (On "Advise and Consent") [>>>]
"The Stupid Party Strikes Back" Dept. [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On the Perversion of Law Via Socialist Thievery (Claude Frederic Bastiat) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (On Eminent Domain and Other Bits) [>>>]
On the Upcoming Supreme Court Retirements/Nominations [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
The 2006 Election and How Republicans Can Avoid History Repeating Itself [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On the Iraq War, Potential Future Wars, and the Probable Positions of the Popes Thereof [>>>]
More on the Iraq War, the Syria Hypothesis, and the Duelfer Report [>>>]
On Pseudo-"Peacemakers", Lawful Plunder, and Possible Remedies [>>>]
On the War and Those Who Try to Hide From Their Past [>>>]
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
On the Argumentation Fallacy of Provincialism --An Audio Post [>>>]
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On Geopolitical "Alliances" and Moral/Ethical Distinctions [>>>]
On the Subjects of Foundational Presuppositions and Authentic Dialogue [>>>]
On Actual "Obsessions", "Angsts", and "Tormented Consciences" (Parts I-III) [>>>]
Though the person being addressed in the last of the above-included threads is a pseudo-"progressivist", that thread was classified in this section because they have a serious problem with ethics. Should that change in the future, the aforementioned thread may be reclassified to the "progressivist" category or relegated to the archives of this weblog.{1}
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
On Bolton and Benedict and an Interesting Incongruity in the Positions of So-Called "Progressivists" --An Audio Post [>>>]
Guest Editorial Outlining A Long Overdue Indictment of Stephen Hand (Written by Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
A Commentary on Greg's Guest Editorial [>>>]
Some Thread Updates and Additional Notations on the Stephen Hand Saga [>>>]
Responding to a Rationally Challenged Catholic So-Called "Progressivist" [>>>]
Societal Defense vs. Revenge (A Clarification Post) [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On the Many Masks of Modern Marxism [>>>]
More on Marxists, Their Many Masks and Other Theories [>>>]
My Theological Musings
On the Mystery of the Church
More on Church Models [>>>]
Church Authority Topics
On the Subjects of Papal Authority and Church History [>>>]
On Other Controverted Subjects
Miscellaneous Morning Notes on the Conclave and the Selection of a New Pope --An Audio Post [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Recommended* Catholic Websites
The Crossroads Initiative Site (Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio) [>>>]
Longtime readers of this weblog are aware that it is Our opinion that the best primer article on ressourcement methodology in cyberspace was written by Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio. The above link is to his website and there are many good resources (including informative essays) there.
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
Private Initiative, Entrepreneurship, and Business in the Teachings of Pius XII (Anthony G. Percy) [>>>]
Though the mention of a pope may give the impression that this link belongs in the theological section, the subject matter clearly belongs in that crossroads spot between faith and reason. For that reason -and since the Catholic Church is often misperceived in its pre-John Paul II days as being opposed to commerce and private enterprise- it seems appropriate to include the material at the link above here to dispel that myth in part.{2}
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
The One War, The Real War (Fr. James V. Schall, SJ) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
Revealed: How An Abortion Puts the Next Baby At Risk (Michael Day) [>>>]
"Little Eichmanns" and "Digital Brownshirts" (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
President Mbeki's Brother: Only the Private Sector Will Make Africa Rich (Alex Singleton) [>>>]
Raising the Marginal Cost of Tyranny (Perry de Havilland) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics (Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
The Caricature and Reality of George Bush (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Confiscating Property (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Dependency on Government (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
75 Years Old (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (Peter F. Wiener) [>>>]
The Catholic Luther: A Critical Reappraisal (David C Steinmetz) [>>>]
For those who find it odd that We would include two seemingly polar opposite links on Martin Luther, the reason is because it is Our belief that the truth of the man is somewhere between the two. The latter would deal more with the man from a subjective standpoint whereas the former touches on an objective assessment of his philosophy carried out to its logical (and frightening) conclusion. The moral of this story is simple: good intentions (giving Fr. Luther the benefit of the doubt here) do not necessarily add up to good results. Indeed, oftentimes they do not as the sordid history of marxism (and the efforts of many of that outlook who presumably have good intentions) well attest to.
The Inconvenient Conscience (Cardinal George Pell) [>>>]
Can Philosophy Be Christian? (Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ) [>>>]
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved* Links
Allatae Sunt Encyclical Letter on the Observance of Oriental Rites (Pope Benedict XIV) [>>>]
General Magisterial Texts
Quadragesimo Anno Encyclical Letter on the Reconstruction of the Social Order (Pope Pius XI) [>>>]
Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical Letter on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity (Pope John XXIII) [>>>]
And finally, for the lawyers in the audience who enjoy technical promulgating language:
Each and everything outlined above is hereby added, reclassified, abrogated, obrogated, or derogated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Perhaps around a fourth of all the posts to this weblog have been included in various updates over the duration of this weblog's existence. For that reason, it is not necessarily a detriment to a post to be reclassified in this fashion.
This decision can be made for several possible reasons, one of which is a later post either enunciating the same points a bit better or in a more appropriate context (thus making it somewhat redundant by using them both). Another reason is that a particular post does not have anything but a transient nature to it and therefore does not seem appropriate to retain in the side margin of links beyond a certain point. And finally, there is the possibility of a particular post simply reaching the point of not measuring up to the standards of the webmaster. The latter scenario is admittedly very rare; however it bears noting in the interest of disclosure because it has happened before. (In those cases, the post is removed from the side margin and simply left in the archives.)
Essentially, what is included in any update is what We believe to be the more important posts at various times and circumstances as well as the most important articles, essays from others, etc; however that judgment can certainly change. And hopefully what is noted above clarifies these matters so that there is no potential misunderstandings.
{2} Included in this weblog update is Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno to further assist in that endeavour.
The following update is properly seen as a completion of what was started in early June with the addition of various weblogs to the side margin of this humble weblog. Without further ado, let Us get to it with the new additions by category:
Some of My Writings and Reviews
The above title is a slight revision of what was utilized prior to this update.
Weblog Special Reports, Commemorations, Retrospectives, Miscellaneous Stuff, Etc.
Revisiting Rerum Novarum Policy Viz. Emails [>>>]
A Brief Revisiting of the Comments Box Subject [>>>]
Briefly on Comments Boxes Again (With Jonathan Prejean) [>>>]
Responding to the Blogosphere Book Meme [>>>]
On the Problems with Live Debate Formats As a Rule [>>>]
My Political/Social Musings
On Political/Social Subjects in General
On the Subject of "Deep Throat", the Correlative Ramifications Thereof, Etc. [>>>]
"Return of the Stupid Party" Dept. [>>>]
On the US Constitution, the Fundamental Rights of Man, Etc.
The above title is a slight revision of what was utilized prior to this update.
Weighing in on Sen. Trent Lott's Comments [>>>]
In light of Senator Dick Durban getting off scott free rather than being forced to either resign from the Senate or being (at the very least) stripped of any ranking position in the Senate, it seemed appropriate to go into the archives at Rerum Novarum and add in this update what your host wrote in December of 2002 on Senator Trent Lott.
The aforementioned inclusion will hopefully illustrate a bit clearer a common (and blatant) double standard present in the media whereby those so-called "progressivists" who make far more egregious statements in official capacity (such as Sen. Durban's comments made on the floor of the US Senate) get off scott free and those who are called "conservatives" who make much more benign statements in an unofficial capacity (such as Sen. Lott's comments at Strom Thurmond's birthday party in late 2002) who do not.
"The Framers Know Best" Dept. (On the US Government and Why It Is Not a Democracy) [>>>]
The above thread was posted on April 16, 2005 and was passed over in the last update. In light of the upcoming judicial battles, it seems appropriate to include it at this time.
Points to Ponder --On Legal Plunder and How to Identify It (Claude Frederic Bastiat) [>>>]
"The Framers Know Best" Dept. (On "Advise and Consent") [>>>]
"The Stupid Party Strikes Back" Dept. [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On the Perversion of Law Via Socialist Thievery (Claude Frederic Bastiat) [>>>]
Miscellaneous Notes and Notifications (On Eminent Domain and Other Bits) [>>>]
On the Upcoming Supreme Court Retirements/Nominations [>>>]
On Political Election Topics
The 2006 Election and How Republicans Can Avoid History Repeating Itself [>>>]
On the Recent War and War in General
On the Iraq War, Potential Future Wars, and the Probable Positions of the Popes Thereof [>>>]
More on the Iraq War, the Syria Hypothesis, and the Duelfer Report [>>>]
On Pseudo-"Peacemakers", Lawful Plunder, and Possible Remedies [>>>]
On the War and Those Who Try to Hide From Their Past [>>>]
On Particular Philosophical/Ethical Subjects
On the Argumentation Fallacy of Provincialism --An Audio Post [>>>]
On Proper and Improper Approaches to Argumentation [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On Geopolitical "Alliances" and Moral/Ethical Distinctions [>>>]
On the Subjects of Foundational Presuppositions and Authentic Dialogue [>>>]
On Actual "Obsessions", "Angsts", and "Tormented Consciences" (Parts I-III) [>>>]
Though the person being addressed in the last of the above-included threads is a pseudo-"progressivist", that thread was classified in this section because they have a serious problem with ethics. Should that change in the future, the aforementioned thread may be reclassified to the "progressivist" category or relegated to the archives of this weblog.{1}
Of or Pertaining to 'Progressivist' Philosophies (Falsely So-Called)
On Bolton and Benedict and an Interesting Incongruity in the Positions of So-Called "Progressivists" --An Audio Post [>>>]
Guest Editorial Outlining A Long Overdue Indictment of Stephen Hand (Written by Greg Mockeridge) [>>>]
A Commentary on Greg's Guest Editorial [>>>]
Some Thread Updates and Additional Notations on the Stephen Hand Saga [>>>]
Responding to a Rationally Challenged Catholic So-Called "Progressivist" [>>>]
Societal Defense vs. Revenge (A Clarification Post) [>>>]
Points to Ponder --On the Many Masks of Modern Marxism [>>>]
More on Marxists, Their Many Masks and Other Theories [>>>]
My Theological Musings
On the Mystery of the Church
More on Church Models [>>>]
Church Authority Topics
On the Subjects of Papal Authority and Church History [>>>]
On Other Controverted Subjects
Miscellaneous Morning Notes on the Conclave and the Selection of a New Pope --An Audio Post [>>>]
An About Face From John Allen on the New Pope [>>>]
Recommended* Catholic Websites
The Crossroads Initiative Site (Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio) [>>>]
Longtime readers of this weblog are aware that it is Our opinion that the best primer article on ressourcement methodology in cyberspace was written by Dr. Marcellino D'Ambrosio. The above link is to his website and there are many good resources (including informative essays) there.
Recommended* Articles on Various Subjects
Recommended* Socio-Political Articles on Various Subjects
Private Initiative, Entrepreneurship, and Business in the Teachings of Pius XII (Anthony G. Percy) [>>>]
Though the mention of a pope may give the impression that this link belongs in the theological section, the subject matter clearly belongs in that crossroads spot between faith and reason. For that reason -and since the Catholic Church is often misperceived in its pre-John Paul II days as being opposed to commerce and private enterprise- it seems appropriate to include the material at the link above here to dispel that myth in part.{2}
Dems Find No Vote Fraud in Ohio [>>>]
New York Times v. Janice Rogers Brown (Nat Hentoff) [>>>]
The One War, The Real War (Fr. James V. Schall, SJ) [>>>]
Why does the New York Times Insist on Calling Jihadists "Insurgents"? (Christopher Hitchens) [>>>]
Are Liberals Begging For It? (Ronald Wieck) [>>>]
Revealed: How An Abortion Puts the Next Baby At Risk (Michael Day) [>>>]
"Little Eichmanns" and "Digital Brownshirts" (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
President Mbeki's Brother: Only the Private Sector Will Make Africa Rich (Alex Singleton) [>>>]
Raising the Marginal Cost of Tyranny (Perry de Havilland) [>>>]
A Tale of Two Tax Cuts (Justin Lee Jones) [>>>]
Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics (Christopher Blosser) [>>>]
The Democrats Sign Up With the Anti-Semites (Richard Baehr) [>>>]
Keep the Pressure on Your Senators to Nix a Gonzales Nomination (Steve Dillard) [>>>]
The Caricature and Reality of George Bush (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Our Strange War - Looking Ahead, Our Options (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
The Global Shift: The World Will Soon Better Appreciate the United States (Victor Davis Hanson) [>>>]
Confiscating Property (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
Dependency on Government (Walter E. Williams) [>>>]
75 Years Old (Thomas Sowell) [>>>]
Recommended* Religious/Theological Articles on Various Subjects
Martin Luther: Hitler's Spiritual Ancestor (Peter F. Wiener) [>>>]
The Catholic Luther: A Critical Reappraisal (David C Steinmetz) [>>>]
For those who find it odd that We would include two seemingly polar opposite links on Martin Luther, the reason is because it is Our belief that the truth of the man is somewhere between the two. The latter would deal more with the man from a subjective standpoint whereas the former touches on an objective assessment of his philosophy carried out to its logical (and frightening) conclusion. The moral of this story is simple: good intentions (giving Fr. Luther the benefit of the doubt here) do not necessarily add up to good results. Indeed, oftentimes they do not as the sordid history of marxism (and the efforts of many of that outlook who presumably have good intentions) well attest to.
The Inconvenient Conscience (Cardinal George Pell) [>>>]
Can Philosophy Be Christian? (Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ) [>>>]
Shawn's Eastern Catholic Corner Approved* Links
Allatae Sunt Encyclical Letter on the Observance of Oriental Rites (Pope Benedict XIV) [>>>]
General Magisterial Texts
Quadragesimo Anno Encyclical Letter on the Reconstruction of the Social Order (Pope Pius XI) [>>>]
Ad Petri Cathedram Encyclical Letter on Truth, Unity and Peace, in a Spirit of Charity (Pope John XXIII) [>>>]
And finally, for the lawyers in the audience who enjoy technical promulgating language:
Each and everything outlined above is hereby added, reclassified, abrogated, obrogated, or derogated in perpetuity all things to the contrary notwithstanding.
Notes:
{1} Perhaps around a fourth of all the posts to this weblog have been included in various updates over the duration of this weblog's existence. For that reason, it is not necessarily a detriment to a post to be reclassified in this fashion.
This decision can be made for several possible reasons, one of which is a later post either enunciating the same points a bit better or in a more appropriate context (thus making it somewhat redundant by using them both). Another reason is that a particular post does not have anything but a transient nature to it and therefore does not seem appropriate to retain in the side margin of links beyond a certain point. And finally, there is the possibility of a particular post simply reaching the point of not measuring up to the standards of the webmaster. The latter scenario is admittedly very rare; however it bears noting in the interest of disclosure because it has happened before. (In those cases, the post is removed from the side margin and simply left in the archives.)
Essentially, what is included in any update is what We believe to be the more important posts at various times and circumstances as well as the most important articles, essays from others, etc; however that judgment can certainly change. And hopefully what is noted above clarifies these matters so that there is no potential misunderstandings.
{2} Included in this weblog update is Pope Pius XI's Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno to further assist in that endeavour.
Saturday, July 09, 2005
More on Church Models:
This post contains material from a message board discussion circa early June 2005. It has been edited slightly for posting here and will revisit a subject which was discussed on this weblog in late 2003. My interlocuters words will be in slate font.
Here's a handy summary of Avery Cardinal Dulles's book, Models of the Church. I just read this book and find it quite helpful in understanding certain frustrating conflicts where people talk past each other.
Yes, Cardinal Dulles work is very helpful in that area.
Cristoph Cardinal Schoenborn criticized the harsh tone of the book in representing the Institutional model as well as the proliferation of tentative models in theology textbooks.
If we only talked about established stuff, nothing would ever be established. At some point, an idea has to be set forward and discussed before it reaches the point of being generally accepted as one way of viewing the evidences.
Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever of Cardinal Dulles in that article. Cardinal Schoenborn speaks of various theologians who use "models" in their theology but his main intention in the article is to oppose such persons to ressourcement methodology. However, this cannot be an indictment of Dulles because Dulles is himself a ressourcement theologian!!! So because of that fact, Schoenborn must be referring to others who utilize models methodology in ecclesiology. For example, Hans Kung was mentioned and he was never a ressourcement theologian. I explain the fundamental divisions between the theologians of the Vatican II era HERE and as you can see, there is quite a distinction to be made.{1}
Robert Royal also gives a critical overview of Dulles, including Models of the Church, which is pretty balanced.
Dulles is and always has been a very deep and nuanced thinker. That is important to remember whenever one reads any of his material. And nuanced thinkers are not often easy to discuss.
Frankly, Dulles statements about the institutional church needed to be said because they were true.{2} Royal's argument seems to be that Dulles' work gave "red meat to dissenters" but that is a poor argument for one reason: dissenters by their very nature will tend to appropriate any source they think can support their views -and often misrepresent those sources in the process.
Look at what so-called "progressivists" do with Vatican II and what so-called "traditionalists" do with various sources from Unam Sanctum and Cantante Domino to Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, and Humani Generis. It is the very nature of dissenters to misuse in an unorthodox fashion sources that in and of themselves are quite orthodox. To argue against anything because of potential abuses is a very poor way of arguing.
Dulles argues that the models should overlap and correct each other, and to this end, he is both supportive and critical of each model, though not equally so. For example, he suggests that the Sacramental model is best able to embrace the positive features of other models. In this, he echoes the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, chapter 1 of which, defines the Church as mystery.
Indeed. I happen to agree that the best model is the sacramental model of the Church. It is also the most thoroughly traditional in many respects because the earliest Fathers did not focus on the kinds of externals common to the Counter-reformation polemics but instead on the Church as first and foremost a mystery. However, the sacramental model at the same time -though emphasizing mystery- does require some externals as well much as the sacraments themselves do. (For example, water for baptism, oils for confirmation, etc.)
And also with Lumen Gentium, Dulles puts the Institutional model of the Church as a "perfect society" as less central than the models of Sacrament and Mystical Communion (this last includes People of God, Body of Christ, and what Dulles calls a "Community of Disciples").
The Institutional model was one of the late bloomers of the bunch.{3} For that reason, it does not deserve the same emphasis as earlier and more traditional ones such as the church as sacrament and the church as mystical body. Likewise, church as herald and church as servant are still too new to be given the same emphasis as the church as institution.
In the Herald model, the Church is only important insofar as it proclaims the word of God. When it is not preaching the Great Commission, it should be discarded as an idol. Aherents to ths model tend to identify Catholics exclusively with the Institutional model.
True.
Much online apologetics reenact the old reformation/ counter-reformation dance: a Herald shows up to criticize those who worship the Institutional Church. Some Catholic responses are to highlight the institutional evidence or respond in paradoxes. To point out the sin present in all Christian communities only confirms the Herald in his or her approach.
Yup. That is why I as a rule am tired of the apologetical dance and have been for quite a while. That is not to say that I do not do it still on occasion of course but I get tired of seeing people talk past one another and generally evincing no interest in actually listening to what their perceived "adversaries" actually say.
Dulles is very critical of the Servant model (Richard P. McBrien, New Wine program, your friendly neighborhood liturgist, but also would seem to include Catholic Worker and l'Arche), and also presents a more balanced example of this Servant model (Doubleday 1987 "Expanded Edition," pp196-198). Certain disciples of this model tend to regard those who disagree with them as defenders of the exclusively Institutional model.
What do you think?
You have latched onto a subject which underscores the undeniable fact that different views are often the result of different foundational presuppositions.{4} As far as the models subject goes, I have written a bit on this subject actually -particularly in this thread. You will note I am sure that my primary source material for that thread was Dulles' work.
Notes:
{1} I did not mention Dulles but he was part of the group of those listed in footnote nine of that post.
{2} And anyone familiar with the abuses of power of the Curia in the early to mid twentieth century knows this.
{3} Though ironically those who call themselves "traditionalists" in almost all cases react from this paradigm; ergo revealing how untraditional they really are but I digress.
{4} This is one key reason I want to dialogue with Tim Enloe on this subject at some point. My last public notations on this intention can be read HERE and HERE.
This post contains material from a message board discussion circa early June 2005. It has been edited slightly for posting here and will revisit a subject which was discussed on this weblog in late 2003. My interlocuters words will be in slate font.
Here's a handy summary of Avery Cardinal Dulles's book, Models of the Church. I just read this book and find it quite helpful in understanding certain frustrating conflicts where people talk past each other.
Yes, Cardinal Dulles work is very helpful in that area.
Cristoph Cardinal Schoenborn criticized the harsh tone of the book in representing the Institutional model as well as the proliferation of tentative models in theology textbooks.
If we only talked about established stuff, nothing would ever be established. At some point, an idea has to be set forward and discussed before it reaches the point of being generally accepted as one way of viewing the evidences.
Furthermore, there is no mention whatsoever of Cardinal Dulles in that article. Cardinal Schoenborn speaks of various theologians who use "models" in their theology but his main intention in the article is to oppose such persons to ressourcement methodology. However, this cannot be an indictment of Dulles because Dulles is himself a ressourcement theologian!!! So because of that fact, Schoenborn must be referring to others who utilize models methodology in ecclesiology. For example, Hans Kung was mentioned and he was never a ressourcement theologian. I explain the fundamental divisions between the theologians of the Vatican II era HERE and as you can see, there is quite a distinction to be made.{1}
Robert Royal also gives a critical overview of Dulles, including Models of the Church, which is pretty balanced.
Dulles is and always has been a very deep and nuanced thinker. That is important to remember whenever one reads any of his material. And nuanced thinkers are not often easy to discuss.
Frankly, Dulles statements about the institutional church needed to be said because they were true.{2} Royal's argument seems to be that Dulles' work gave "red meat to dissenters" but that is a poor argument for one reason: dissenters by their very nature will tend to appropriate any source they think can support their views -and often misrepresent those sources in the process.
Look at what so-called "progressivists" do with Vatican II and what so-called "traditionalists" do with various sources from Unam Sanctum and Cantante Domino to Pascendi, Mortalium Animos, and Humani Generis. It is the very nature of dissenters to misuse in an unorthodox fashion sources that in and of themselves are quite orthodox. To argue against anything because of potential abuses is a very poor way of arguing.
Dulles argues that the models should overlap and correct each other, and to this end, he is both supportive and critical of each model, though not equally so. For example, he suggests that the Sacramental model is best able to embrace the positive features of other models. In this, he echoes the Vatican II Dogmatic Constitution, Lumen Gentium, chapter 1 of which, defines the Church as mystery.
Indeed. I happen to agree that the best model is the sacramental model of the Church. It is also the most thoroughly traditional in many respects because the earliest Fathers did not focus on the kinds of externals common to the Counter-reformation polemics but instead on the Church as first and foremost a mystery. However, the sacramental model at the same time -though emphasizing mystery- does require some externals as well much as the sacraments themselves do. (For example, water for baptism, oils for confirmation, etc.)
And also with Lumen Gentium, Dulles puts the Institutional model of the Church as a "perfect society" as less central than the models of Sacrament and Mystical Communion (this last includes People of God, Body of Christ, and what Dulles calls a "Community of Disciples").
The Institutional model was one of the late bloomers of the bunch.{3} For that reason, it does not deserve the same emphasis as earlier and more traditional ones such as the church as sacrament and the church as mystical body. Likewise, church as herald and church as servant are still too new to be given the same emphasis as the church as institution.
In the Herald model, the Church is only important insofar as it proclaims the word of God. When it is not preaching the Great Commission, it should be discarded as an idol. Aherents to ths model tend to identify Catholics exclusively with the Institutional model.
True.
Much online apologetics reenact the old reformation/ counter-reformation dance: a Herald shows up to criticize those who worship the Institutional Church. Some Catholic responses are to highlight the institutional evidence or respond in paradoxes. To point out the sin present in all Christian communities only confirms the Herald in his or her approach.
Yup. That is why I as a rule am tired of the apologetical dance and have been for quite a while. That is not to say that I do not do it still on occasion of course but I get tired of seeing people talk past one another and generally evincing no interest in actually listening to what their perceived "adversaries" actually say.
Dulles is very critical of the Servant model (Richard P. McBrien, New Wine program, your friendly neighborhood liturgist, but also would seem to include Catholic Worker and l'Arche), and also presents a more balanced example of this Servant model (Doubleday 1987 "Expanded Edition," pp196-198). Certain disciples of this model tend to regard those who disagree with them as defenders of the exclusively Institutional model.
What do you think?
You have latched onto a subject which underscores the undeniable fact that different views are often the result of different foundational presuppositions.{4} As far as the models subject goes, I have written a bit on this subject actually -particularly in this thread. You will note I am sure that my primary source material for that thread was Dulles' work.
Notes:
{1} I did not mention Dulles but he was part of the group of those listed in footnote nine of that post.
{2} And anyone familiar with the abuses of power of the Curia in the early to mid twentieth century knows this.
{3} Though ironically those who call themselves "traditionalists" in almost all cases react from this paradigm; ergo revealing how untraditional they really are but I digress.
{4} This is one key reason I want to dialogue with Tim Enloe on this subject at some point. My last public notations on this intention can be read HERE and HERE.
Wednesday, June 22, 2005
Miscellaneous Threads Worth Reviewing:
As there are many threads to note here and not much time, I will comment on each one only briefly...
The Democrats sign up with the anti-Semites (Richard Baehr)
Those who wonder why I continually mutter the refrain of "extreme liberalism is a mental disorder" need only consider what Mr. Baehr outlines above -one choice bit of which reads as follows:
[T]he Democrats in Congress are now giving voice and credibility to the view that Israel was responsible for the Iraq war. And other Democrats, watching the hearing at the DNC, are hosting anti-Semites who argue that Israel had advance warning of the 9/11 attacks and is therefore responsible for allowing the attacks to occur. And even deeper into familiar anti-Semitic tropes: that Israelis withheld the information so as to benefit financially.
This sounds exactly like classic anti-Semitism. These messages were not being conveyed on anti-Semitic web sites, or on Palestinian TV and radio on Thursday, but at a Democratic function from a meeting room in Congress, with more than 10% of the Democrats in Congress in attendance, and at Democratic National Headquarters. . In all likelihood, these outrageous charges are now being communicated and rebroadcast throughout the Arab and Muslim world, with the imprimatur and legitimacy of the Democratic National Committee, and the US Congress as the reliable source.
Until late Friday, no Democratic Party official or Congressman, had expressed any discomfort with what happened. Now, we have a statement by Congressman Barney Frank, saying he was out of the conference room when the bad stuff happened in the mock impeachment trial, and that he thinks McGovern's view are noxious. So too, DNC Chairman Howard Dean released a statement saying the DNC rejects the hate literature that was being distributed in its own office.
In fact, the activist groups that watched the meeting at the DNC, and handed out the moonbat conspiracy literature blaming Israel for 9/11, were there as guests of the DNC.
I shudder to think of what would have happened to the Republicans if the RNC had even talked about entertaining such kooks -let alone actually doing so as the DNC did. Once again, those who claim there is not a double standard in the manner whereby these kinds of events are reported are either lying, blind, mad, or some combination of the three. Moving on...
Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties (Christopher Blosser)
It does seem as if the operative presupposition of BXVI (as with JP II before him) is that modern warfare is wrong because theoretically there are "greater capacities for destruction." My educated guess though is that they base this on their WWII experiences which were anything but memorable for either of them. It is true that military weaponry in WWII was far more destructive than anything that had preceded it. However, it seems as if BXVI (and JP II before him) does not account in their positions for the fact that military weaponry has gotten more and more precise over time. Another way of saying it is this way: if the "greater capacities for destruction" rubric is a significant factor in their operative presuppositions, then pointing out the error in that presumption would (by logical extension) call into question the entire position itself. But that is not all...
Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics (Christopher Blosser)
Mark Twain once said that there were three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. And while it is true that even accurate statistics can be manipulated, it is equally true that false statistics can be paraded about by ideologues who try to pass them off as the truth. Christopher does well to take on this tactic amongst the contingent of pseudo-"peacemakers" and expose their recourse to false statistics for what it is. Those who are genuinely opposed out of conscience to the military option being utilized in Iraq would have it to their credit if they were to publicly say "okay, we have used questionable sources in noting statistics from the Iraq war" or something along those lines. But do not bet the farm on them doing that -further proof that so many of these sorts are not interested in truth at all but instead in spreading their propaganda of appeasement by any means necessary fair or foul.
Can Philosophy Be Christian? (Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ)
The above thread is an oldie but a goodie from Cardinal Dulles which bridges reason and faith: two elements that I try to hold in reasonable balance here at Rerum Novarum. It discusses the subject of Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of which I wrote some comments on recently in outlining influential works that I recommended for readers of this weblog.{1} The above article discusses that encyclical and the subject of philosophy in general and is well worth reading and reflecting upon.
Politics and "Public Service" (Kevin Tierney)
The above thread discusses some of the more unsavoury elements of what is often called "public service" in the political arena. Moving from one social commentator to another, we have the following from the esteemed Dr. Walter E. Williams -possibly the columnist whose views most reflect those of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum:
Victimhood: Rhetoric or Reality?(Walter E. Williams)
The above article discusses the manufactured "victimhood" status of the black population of this nation. I will provide just a teaser sample though:
If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."
You will have to read the article for the rest but trust me: Williams' stuff is always worth it.
Click it or Ticket (Walter E. Williams)
Dr. Williams (economist, social commentator, and all-around thinker) is quite opposed to the "click it or ticket" policy of the state patrols in many states...viewing this as an unconstitutional infringement on his personal liberty. This is undoubtedly an argument that many would react to in a predictable fashion -as accustomed to creeping socialism as we have become- however, Dr. Williams' basic theory is this:
Who owns Walter E. Williams? Is it President Bush, the U.S. Congress, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or do I own myself? I'm guessing that any reasonable person would agree that I own Walter E. Williams. The fact that I own myself means that I have the right to take risks with my own life but not others'. That's why it's consistent with morality to mandate that my car have working brakes. If my car doesn't have working brakes, then I risk the lives of others, and I have no right to do so. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, then I risk my own life, which I have every right to do.
The solid grounding in Claude Frederic Bastiat could not be clearer in the above expositions, but then again, I have pointed that out on this weblog before{2} so it need not be digressed upon here.
Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks (WorldNetDaily)
Unfortunately, the last two audioposts I recorded have not surfaced at this weblog yet because in one of them, I really let Durbin have it. That was four days ago though and it is inexcusable that he has not been forced to resign his leadership position in light of these comments. This is significantly more formal (and the comments themselves far more problematical) than what Senator Trent Lott said in late 2002 which lost him his position as leader of the Senate.{3} In light of the obvious double standard rearing its ugly head again, it seems appropriate to reiterate that anyone who claims that said double standard does not exist is either lying, blind, mad, or some combination of the three. Moving on though, we will conclude with one final thread...
Pro-Abortionists Joseph Gerson and the AFSC, Dr. Carol Wolman, the "Seamless Robe," [Etc] (Dave Armstrong)
William Blake's dictum that "an altered eye alters all things" applies in spades to the person Dave addresses in the thread above. It also is a case study in the social observations that (i) extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and (ii) the depths to which ideologues will go to advance their agenda not only by any means fair or foul but by taking any allies they can find however noxious they happen to be. Anyone who wonders why I decided a while back to no longer try and continue to dialogue with the person Dave takes to task in the above thread hopefully now understands better my reasons for that decision.{4}
Blind emotionalism and illogic{5} can only be tolerated for so long from those who should know better before it becomes necessary to set one's sights on more important issues. And once that becomes evident, it is important to take that step and leave those who are spiritually and logically (and perhaps psychologically) self-destructing to their own devices. But that is enough on the aforementioned subject for the present time.
Notes:
{1} Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio may well be the best work on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a hghly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.
Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
{2} Bastiat's theories heavily influenced a number of my earliest influences including Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan. (I believe I can see traces of them in the methodology of Mike Mentzer as well in retrospect.) And the principles enunciated in this work continue to influence some of the commentators I like to read most -such as Dr. Walter E. Williams. [...] Dr. Williams has called Bastiat Liberty's Greatest Advocate and has declared that he "easily outranks any of our founding fathers." I have to concur with this because unlike the others, he presented a weltanschauung for viewing the subject of law that is consistent and practical. The best part about Bastiat's work is that he was an economist who wrote not for the ivory tower but for average people. As one who had to endure the classroom presentation of economics in college, I could appreciate this approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
{3} Again, Senator Lott's comments were made in an unofficial capacity at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, not on the floor of the Senate in official capacity as Durbin's comments were.
{4} See the addendum I affixed to this post four days ago for a bit more information on that subject. Additional reasons influencing this decision were also noted HERE.
{5} Not to mention prevarication and a manifested lack of Christian charity.
As there are many threads to note here and not much time, I will comment on each one only briefly...
The Democrats sign up with the anti-Semites (Richard Baehr)
Those who wonder why I continually mutter the refrain of "extreme liberalism is a mental disorder" need only consider what Mr. Baehr outlines above -one choice bit of which reads as follows:
[T]he Democrats in Congress are now giving voice and credibility to the view that Israel was responsible for the Iraq war. And other Democrats, watching the hearing at the DNC, are hosting anti-Semites who argue that Israel had advance warning of the 9/11 attacks and is therefore responsible for allowing the attacks to occur. And even deeper into familiar anti-Semitic tropes: that Israelis withheld the information so as to benefit financially.
This sounds exactly like classic anti-Semitism. These messages were not being conveyed on anti-Semitic web sites, or on Palestinian TV and radio on Thursday, but at a Democratic function from a meeting room in Congress, with more than 10% of the Democrats in Congress in attendance, and at Democratic National Headquarters. . In all likelihood, these outrageous charges are now being communicated and rebroadcast throughout the Arab and Muslim world, with the imprimatur and legitimacy of the Democratic National Committee, and the US Congress as the reliable source.
Until late Friday, no Democratic Party official or Congressman, had expressed any discomfort with what happened. Now, we have a statement by Congressman Barney Frank, saying he was out of the conference room when the bad stuff happened in the mock impeachment trial, and that he thinks McGovern's view are noxious. So too, DNC Chairman Howard Dean released a statement saying the DNC rejects the hate literature that was being distributed in its own office.
In fact, the activist groups that watched the meeting at the DNC, and handed out the moonbat conspiracy literature blaming Israel for 9/11, were there as guests of the DNC.
I shudder to think of what would have happened to the Republicans if the RNC had even talked about entertaining such kooks -let alone actually doing so as the DNC did. Once again, those who claim there is not a double standard in the manner whereby these kinds of events are reported are either lying, blind, mad, or some combination of the three. Moving on...
Pope Benedict, Modern Weaponry and Civilian Casualties (Christopher Blosser)
It does seem as if the operative presupposition of BXVI (as with JP II before him) is that modern warfare is wrong because theoretically there are "greater capacities for destruction." My educated guess though is that they base this on their WWII experiences which were anything but memorable for either of them. It is true that military weaponry in WWII was far more destructive than anything that had preceded it. However, it seems as if BXVI (and JP II before him) does not account in their positions for the fact that military weaponry has gotten more and more precise over time. Another way of saying it is this way: if the "greater capacities for destruction" rubric is a significant factor in their operative presuppositions, then pointing out the error in that presumption would (by logical extension) call into question the entire position itself. But that is not all...
Shock & Awe, Civilian Casualties and Questionable Statistics (Christopher Blosser)
Mark Twain once said that there were three kinds of lies: lies, damn lies, and statistics. And while it is true that even accurate statistics can be manipulated, it is equally true that false statistics can be paraded about by ideologues who try to pass them off as the truth. Christopher does well to take on this tactic amongst the contingent of pseudo-"peacemakers" and expose their recourse to false statistics for what it is. Those who are genuinely opposed out of conscience to the military option being utilized in Iraq would have it to their credit if they were to publicly say "okay, we have used questionable sources in noting statistics from the Iraq war" or something along those lines. But do not bet the farm on them doing that -further proof that so many of these sorts are not interested in truth at all but instead in spreading their propaganda of appeasement by any means necessary fair or foul.
Can Philosophy Be Christian? (Cardinal Avery Dulles SJ)
The above thread is an oldie but a goodie from Cardinal Dulles which bridges reason and faith: two elements that I try to hold in reasonable balance here at Rerum Novarum. It discusses the subject of Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio of which I wrote some comments on recently in outlining influential works that I recommended for readers of this weblog.{1} The above article discusses that encyclical and the subject of philosophy in general and is well worth reading and reflecting upon.
Politics and "Public Service" (Kevin Tierney)
The above thread discusses some of the more unsavoury elements of what is often called "public service" in the political arena. Moving from one social commentator to another, we have the following from the esteemed Dr. Walter E. Williams -possibly the columnist whose views most reflect those of your humble servant at Rerum Novarum:
Victimhood: Rhetoric or Reality?(Walter E. Williams)
The above article discusses the manufactured "victimhood" status of the black population of this nation. I will provide just a teaser sample though:
If you listened to the rhetoric of black politicians and civil rights leaders, dating back to the Reagan years, you would have been convinced that surely by now black Americans would be back on the plantation. According to them, President Reagan, and later Presidents Bush I and II, would turn back the clock on civil rights. They'd appoint "new racists" dressed in three-piece suits to act through the courts and administrative agencies to reverse black civil rights and economic gains. We can now recognize this rhetoric as the political equivalent of the "rope-a-dope."
You will have to read the article for the rest but trust me: Williams' stuff is always worth it.
Click it or Ticket (Walter E. Williams)
Dr. Williams (economist, social commentator, and all-around thinker) is quite opposed to the "click it or ticket" policy of the state patrols in many states...viewing this as an unconstitutional infringement on his personal liberty. This is undoubtedly an argument that many would react to in a predictable fashion -as accustomed to creeping socialism as we have become- however, Dr. Williams' basic theory is this:
Who owns Walter E. Williams? Is it President Bush, the U.S. Congress, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or do I own myself? I'm guessing that any reasonable person would agree that I own Walter E. Williams. The fact that I own myself means that I have the right to take risks with my own life but not others'. That's why it's consistent with morality to mandate that my car have working brakes. If my car doesn't have working brakes, then I risk the lives of others, and I have no right to do so. If I choose not to wear a seatbelt, then I risk my own life, which I have every right to do.
The solid grounding in Claude Frederic Bastiat could not be clearer in the above expositions, but then again, I have pointed that out on this weblog before{2} so it need not be digressed upon here.
Durbin Apologizes for Gitmo Remarks (WorldNetDaily)
Unfortunately, the last two audioposts I recorded have not surfaced at this weblog yet because in one of them, I really let Durbin have it. That was four days ago though and it is inexcusable that he has not been forced to resign his leadership position in light of these comments. This is significantly more formal (and the comments themselves far more problematical) than what Senator Trent Lott said in late 2002 which lost him his position as leader of the Senate.{3} In light of the obvious double standard rearing its ugly head again, it seems appropriate to reiterate that anyone who claims that said double standard does not exist is either lying, blind, mad, or some combination of the three. Moving on though, we will conclude with one final thread...
Pro-Abortionists Joseph Gerson and the AFSC, Dr. Carol Wolman, the "Seamless Robe," [Etc] (Dave Armstrong)
William Blake's dictum that "an altered eye alters all things" applies in spades to the person Dave addresses in the thread above. It also is a case study in the social observations that (i) extreme liberalism is a mental disorder and (ii) the depths to which ideologues will go to advance their agenda not only by any means fair or foul but by taking any allies they can find however noxious they happen to be. Anyone who wonders why I decided a while back to no longer try and continue to dialogue with the person Dave takes to task in the above thread hopefully now understands better my reasons for that decision.{4}
Blind emotionalism and illogic{5} can only be tolerated for so long from those who should know better before it becomes necessary to set one's sights on more important issues. And once that becomes evident, it is important to take that step and leave those who are spiritually and logically (and perhaps psychologically) self-destructing to their own devices. But that is enough on the aforementioned subject for the present time.
Notes:
{1} Pope John Paul II's 1998 Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio may well be the best work on the subject of the relationship between faith and reason. The late pontiff was heavily influenced by St. John of the Cross -indeed his doctoral thesis was on St. John's Dark Night of the Soul. From a Catholic standpoint, this is a hghly authoritative magisterial statement on the matter; however that does not mean that non-Catholics cannot benefit as well.
Society today tends towards either overrationalization which disparages spirituality or a kind of mystical fideism which disparages reason. Pope John Paul II's Fides et Ratio is an excellent antidote for these tendencies. Because it is a very philosophically deep work, one should not read it too quickly. But one should give it a read if they are interested in the subjects of faith or reason and do not understand why each needs the other to properly achieve its intended function. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
{2} Bastiat's theories heavily influenced a number of my earliest influences including Senator Barry Goldwater and President Ronald Reagan. (I believe I can see traces of them in the methodology of Mike Mentzer as well in retrospect.) And the principles enunciated in this work continue to influence some of the commentators I like to read most -such as Dr. Walter E. Williams. [...] Dr. Williams has called Bastiat Liberty's Greatest Advocate and has declared that he "easily outranks any of our founding fathers." I have to concur with this because unlike the others, he presented a weltanschauung for viewing the subject of law that is consistent and practical. The best part about Bastiat's work is that he was an economist who wrote not for the ivory tower but for average people. As one who had to endure the classroom presentation of economics in college, I could appreciate this approach. [Excerpt from Rerum Novarum (circa June 14, 2005)]
{3} Again, Senator Lott's comments were made in an unofficial capacity at a birthday party for Strom Thurmond, not on the floor of the Senate in official capacity as Durbin's comments were.
{4} See the addendum I affixed to this post four days ago for a bit more information on that subject. Additional reasons influencing this decision were also noted HERE.
{5} Not to mention prevarication and a manifested lack of Christian charity.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)