The Catholic church has another sex scandal on its hands. This time involving the late Marcial Maciel. Assuming the allegations are true, he was an active bisexual.
This raises a number of issues. Sexual misconduct, can, of course, occur in any denomination. And it occurs both inside and outside the church.
That said:
1.If the Catholic church is the true church, then shouldn’t we hold it to a higher standard? At one level, this scandal is very familiar. It reflects the pattern of misconduct and cover-up that we’d expect to find in a secular organization. Yet Catholicism doesn’t claim to be just another human institution.
2.Likewise, if the Catholic church has the true sacraments, sacraments which confer grace ex opere operato, then shouldn’t we expect Catholics who were regenerated in baptism and attend Mass regularly to be more saintly than the average evangelical?
3.Fallen human nature is prone to hero worship and personality cults. Within Protestantism, we see this in blind following which some televangelists attract.
The problem in Catholicism, however, is that, instead of resisting this sinful tendency, it promotes it. Makes it official.
Therefore, a celebrated prelate like Maciel has much further to fall than the downfall of a televangelist or faith-healer.
4.Maciel was acting just like a typical cult leader. And it says something about Catholicism that gives haven to cult leaders like Maciel.
5.From what I’ve read, the late John-Paul II is also complicit in this scandal. He functioned as a shield.
Now, John-Paul II was very pious by Catholic standards. He wasn’t like the Borgia popes. He wasn’t worldly. He wasn’t a nominal believer.
What does it say about Catholic spirituality when intense piety and moral blindness so easy cohabit?
What does all that Marian devotion, daily masses, prayers, confessions, &c, amount to when the individual is that deficient in elementary moral discernment and resolve?
Remember, too, that the pope is ultimately responsible for church discipline. He’s the top cop in the hierarchy. He’s responsible for someone like Maciel. Responsible for the conduct of his subordinates.
He can’t prevent them from doing certain things, but if it comes to his attention, he can take action.
6.Due to the hierarchical structure of Catholicism, accountability is a one-way street. There is no one to watch the watchman. So it operates like a classic cult. An autocrat at the top of the food chain who is answerable to no one. And Catholicism is an overarching cult that spawns miniature cults under its protective penumbra.
7.This scandal also draws attention to the overly familiar problem of clerical celibacy.
8.Ultimately, though, the lion’s share of the blame belongs, not to the Catholic hierarchy, but the Catholic laity. The laymen are responsible for bankrolling this operation.
What we will see, in the face of this scandal, is the usual hand-wringing and fist-shaking by indignant laymen during the week, only to see them dutifully process back into same corrupt institution come Sunday.
Catholic laymen are the enablers. They write the checks which their decadent clergymen cash. It’s a self-perpetuating scam.
It reminds me of what happens when a faith-healer is exposed. His “revelations” turn out to be somebody backstage whispering into his earpiece.
After he’s exposed, some of his one-time followers become disillusioned and go elsewhere, but others head straight back to the tent meeting the very next day.
For them, this is an act of faith. This validates their faith. They prove their faith by continuing to believe in the discredited faith-healer despite all the damning evidence. Only a true believer would stand by a fallen faith-healer. So this is their way of showing God how faithful they are.
And devout Catholics react exactly the same way in the face of the latest clerical scandal. This is a test of their faith in Mother Church. They must bear their cross. Indeed, there’s something meritorious about their perseverance despite the public stigma.
This is why we needed a Reformation. And this is why the Reformation is far from over.
Ted Haggard, eat your heart out.
ReplyDeleteThat was excellent, very well put.
ReplyDeleteCatholic laymen are the enablers. They write the checks which their decadent clergymen cash. It’s a self-perpetuating scam.
ReplyDeleteYou extrapolate from one decadent clergyman to a blanket tarring of all Catholic clergy as decadent. This is bigotry.
Hi Ben,
ReplyDeleteDo you really want to open up this can of worms? The case of Maciel is hardly an isolated incident. It’s the latest installment in a larger and longer pattern of abuse and deceit.
And the rot reaches to the top. Even if popes and bishops don’t personally commit these sins and crimes, they are complicit when they tolerate this behavior and run interference for errant clergymen under their authority and care.
And that, in turn, implicates the laity, which is supporting this misconduct by supporting the hierarchy.
And, by the same token, even conscientious priests are complicit in this outcome by lending their support to this system.
Catholics have a corporate, institutional identity. You don’t get to compartmentalize the good from the bad. If you work the company, you tacitly endorse the product. It’s not as if this is your only ecclesiastical option.
Even if popes and bishops don't personally commit these sins and crimes, they are complicit when they tolerate this behavior and run interference for errant clergymen under their authority and care.
ReplyDeleteI grant the principle. Whether Popes have been complicit, and to what extent bishops have been complicit, is another matter.
And that, in turn, implicates the laity, which is supporting this misconduct by supporting the hierarchy.
False. The laity supports the good things which the hierarchy does. They cannot prevent the hierarchy from misusing some of their support (although they should exercise due diligence to see that their support is not being misused). The Catholic hierarchy is not so thoroughly corrupt that any support of the system necessarily entails support of the corruption, as if they were supporting the mafia. On the contrary, the hierarchy is an essentially good and necessary institution which provides the most valuable of all services to humanity.
And, by the same token, even conscientious priests are complicit in this outcome by lending their support to this system.
Such a facile and transparently bad argument. Don't support Catholicism in any way or else you're supporting pedophilia!
Catholics have a corporate, institutional identity. You don’t get to compartmentalize the good from the bad.
For purposes of individual moral responsibility, you do.
If you work the company, you tacitly endorse the product.
Of course. I endorse the propagation of the Catholic religion, the celebration of the Catholic sacraments, and the Church's various charitable activities. If someone in the Catholic Church uses my money for evil purposes, this happens without my knowledge or consent.
It's not as if this is your only ecclesiastical option.
Yes it is. Other churches exist, granted, yet joining one would involve me in violation of my conscience. Surely you admit the principle that, if one commits an act which one believes to be evil, one is sinning, regardless whether the act itself is objectively evil.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“False. The laity supports the good things which the hierarchy does.”
That’s not a morally sufficient rationale. For example, there are terrorist organizations that provide social services for poor and needy Muslims. They do this to garner popular support and burnish their image.
To say I support a terrorist organization for the good things it does would hardly be an adequate justification.
“They cannot prevent the hierarchy from misusing some of their support.”
Of course they can. The hierarchy can only misuse what it has at its disposal. Without lay support, there would be nothing to misuse.
In addition, if I’m not associated with an organization, I don’t share the same responsibility for what it does than if I’m associated with that organization.
“(Although they should exercise due diligence to see that their support is not being misused). “
Why should the laity have to exercise oversight over the hierarchy? That subverts the very notion of a hierarchy.
“The Catholic hierarchy is not so thoroughly corrupt that any support of the system necessarily entails support of the corruption, as if they were supporting the mafia.”
To the contrary, the corruption is inevitable given certain preconditions, such as a hierarchical polity and clerical celibacy.
“On the contrary, the hierarchy is an essentially good and necessary institution which provides the most valuable of all services to humanity.”
Well, I’d expect you to say that since you’re a pious Catholic. My problem is that nothing your church ever does ever calls into question your commitment to your church.
“Such a facile and transparently bad argument. Don't support Catholicism in any way or else you're supporting pedophilia!”
See above.
“For purposes of individual moral responsibility, you do.”
Your individual moral responsibility includes the corporate consequences of your actions.
“Of course. I endorse the propagation of the Catholic religion, the celebration of the Catholic sacraments, and the Church's various charitable activities. If someone in the Catholic Church uses my money for evil purposes, this happens without my knowledge or consent.”
Since these abuses are foreseeable, you tacitly consent to the abuse.
“Yes it is. Other churches exist, granted, yet joining one would involve me in violation of my conscience. Surely you admit the principle that, if one commits an act which one believes to be evil, one is sinning, regardless whether the act itself is objectively evil.”
Actually, I don’t admit that principle. There’s an ethical tradition which takes that position, but I find it quite dubious.
I can’t have a moral duty to do something immoral. If something is an objective moral duty, then I’m duty-bound to do it—in which case it can’t be immoral for me to do it (even if I mistakenly believe my duty is evil).
"1.If the Catholic church is the true church, then shouldn’t we hold it to a higher standard? At one level, this scandal is very familiar. It reflects the pattern of misconduct and cover-up that we’d expect to find in a secular organization. Yet Catholicism doesn’t claim to be just another human institution.
ReplyDelete2.Likewise, if the Catholic church has the true sacraments, sacraments which confer grace ex opere operato, then shouldn’t we expect Catholics who were regenerated in baptism and attend Mass regularly to be more saintly than the average evangelical?"
Couldn't these same criticisms be leveled against Christians in general when comparing them and their fruit to the secular world and charity/love of non-believers? I don't mean just professing or nominal Christians, but true believers; a common objection along these same lines it seems would be that if genuine Christians are united with Christ and partakers of the divine nature, their love and light should not be just comparable to the charity and actions of non-believers (or unfortunately even inferior to it in many cases it seems), but really of a completely different order of magnitude. Shouldn't the average evangelical, who doesn't claim to be just another unregenerate separated from God, be more saintly than all non-believers?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteThis is nothing new. Of course, you know that. :)
Mark
THE DUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Couldn't these same criticisms be leveled against Christians in general when comparing them and their fruit to the secular world and charity/love of non-believers? I don't mean just professing or nominal Christians, but true believers; a common objection along these same lines it seems would be that if genuine Christians are united with Christ and partakers of the divine nature, their love and light should not be just comparable to the charity and actions of non-believers (or unfortunately even inferior to it in many cases it seems), but really of a completely different order of magnitude. Shouldn't the average evangelical, who doesn't claim to be just another unregenerate separated from God, be more saintly than all non-believers?”
i) First of all, your objection, even if valid in its own right, doesn’t negate the point I made about Catholicism. Catholicism itself rejects a parallel between the Catholic church and other denominations. It makes higher claims for itself. It distinguishes itself from other denominations, as the true church with the true sacraments.
ii) Moreover, when we compare believers with unbelievers, we also need to make allowance for the extent to which the unbeliever may be under the lingering cultural influence of Christian ethics.
iii) Furthermore, I do think that genuine believers are generally more ethical than unbelievers. So I can accept your comparison, but reject your conclusion.
perceptive insight, I wonder what john armstrong or other reformed catholics might say if they read this post.
ReplyDelete"It makes higher claims for itself. It distinguishes itself from other denominations, as the true church with the true sacraments."
ReplyDeleteWhere does it claim that its members never commit mortal sin, or that there are no tares in its fold? It does not claim to be "just another human institution", but it certainly claims to be made up of human sinners and possible apostates. You mention true sacraments and ex opere operato, but that doesn't mean the disposition of the recipient is of no matter or that no obstacles can impede grace.
"Moreover, when we compare believers with unbelievers, we also need to make allowance for the extent to which the unbeliever may be under the lingering cultural influence of Christian ethics."
Do you think other ethical systems, including those from other religions, have had positive cultural influences today or throughout history? Or is any positive influence due exclusively to what they share with Christian ethics? Did Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy which you consider non-Christian have (not always of course) positive cultural influence after abandoning the gospel?
And if unbelievers fruit is merely a result of common grace, those who have special grace should still be set apart in their fruit and holiness, no? You seem to affirm this though so...
"Furthermore, I do think that genuine believers are generally more ethical than unbelievers. So I can accept your comparison, but reject your conclusion."
Generally, perhaps. But why shouldn't it be universal and the case for all believers who are truly united with Christ in contrast to all non-believers who have no such real union and source of sanctifying grace?
The Dude said:
ReplyDelete"Where does it claim that its members never commit mortal sin"
Me:
No one said that its members never commit mortal sin. The argument was that, according to Roman Catholic theology, the sacraments are supposed to cause the effect of a greater desire to do good deeds and not to sin. If the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and only true dispensor of the sacraments (historically pre-Vatican II anyway), then we should see a higher state of morality than Protestants. We don't see that, and therefore, the claim made by the RCC is false.
If P, then Q.
~Q
.: ~P
The Dude said:
"or that there are no tares in its fold?"
Me:
That's a misuse of that parable. The field is the world, not the Church.
The Dude said:
"You mention true sacraments and ex opere operato, but that doesn't mean the disposition of the recipient is of no matter or that no obstacles can impede grace."
Me:
Aren't the sacraments supposed to affect such a disposition? Ezekiel 36 is usually cited by Roman Catholic dogmaticians as being a prooftext for Baptismal Regeneration. There it states that God will write the Law on the heart and cause His people to walk in His ways. Regeneration should affect disposition as well as outward obedience.
"No one said that its members never commit mortal sin. The argument was that, according to Roman Catholic theology, the sacraments are supposed to cause the effect of a greater desire to do good deeds and not to sin."
ReplyDeleteThe argument seems to imply that its members should not commit mortal sin then. Which basically means when Rome claims it is the true church with true sacraments, it is somehow completely forgetting or ignoring its view of mortal sin or just being inconsistent.
"the sacraments are supposed to cause the effect of a greater desire to do good deeds and not to sin. If the Roman Catholic Church is the one true Church and only true dispensor of the sacraments (historically pre-Vatican II anyway), then we should see a higher state of morality than Protestants. We don't see that, and therefore, the claim made by the RCC is false."
The RCC does not teach grace is confined only to her official members. And as I was saying, if true Christians are truly united with Christ and recipients of special and sanctifying grace (also partly from the sacraments for many Protestants) to affect their desire, we should see a higher state of morality amongst all Protestants relative to non-Christians. Unless you are saying some Catholics could have a higher state of morality than some Protestants. But it seems the argument is all Catholics universally should have a higher state. Which is why I am asking why the same comparison of all Protestants to all non-believers does not apply.
"That's a misuse of that parable. The field is the world, not the Church."
You agree that the *visible* church consists of both wheat and chaff no?
"Aren't the sacraments supposed to affect such a disposition?"
CCC 1128 This is the meaning of the Church's affirmation that the sacraments act ex opere operato (literally: "by the very fact of the action's being performed"), i.e., by virtue of the saving work of Christ, accomplished once for all. It follows that "the sacrament is not wrought by the righteousness of either the celebrant or the recipient, but by the power of God." From the moment that a sacrament is celebrated in accordance with the intention of the Church, the power of Christ and his Spirit acts in and through it, independently of the personal holiness of the minister. Nevertheless, the fruits of the sacraments also depend on the disposition of the one who receives them.
Cross references 1584: Since it is ultimately Christ who acts and effects salvation through the ordained minister, the unworthiness of the latter does not prevent Christ from acting.
CCC 1131 The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.
CCC 2111 To attribute the efficacy of prayers or of sacramental signs to their mere external performance, apart from the interior dispositions that they demand, is to fall into superstition.
That’s not a morally sufficient rationale. For example, there are terrorist organizations that provide social services for poor and needy Muslims. They do this to garner popular support and burnish their image.
ReplyDeleteThere is an immense difference between supporting an organization whose primary purpose is evil but which does some ancillary good, and an organization whose purposes are all good and which contains some ancillary corruption.
Why should the laity have to exercise oversight over the hierarchy? That subverts the very notion of a hierarchy.
All humans, among whom are Catholic bishops, stand to benefit from moral supervision and correction.
To the contrary, the corruption is inevitable given certain preconditions, such as a hierarchical polity and clerical celibacy.
Some corruption is inevitable in any human society, since all are sinful. In any case, your response here is irrelevant to my point that supporting a society which inevitably contains some corruption is not the same as supporting the corruption itself.
My problem is that nothing your church ever does ever calls into question your commitment to your church.
My commitment to the Church is based on theology, not the moral character of the Cardinal Archbishops of major American cities.
Since these abuses are foreseeable, you tacitly consent to the abuse.
Not at all. You yourself have recently referenced the principle of double effect. One is justified in performing an act which is, in itself, morally good or morally neutral, even if it has foreseeable negative consequences, provided that the good which one intends outweighs the negative effect one does not. If this were not the case, as you point out, it would never be lawful to make war, since war inevitably results in the deaths of some innocents.
If something is an objective moral duty, then I’m duty-bound to do it—in which case it can’t be immoral for me to do it (even if I mistakenly believe my duty is evil).
Any action performed in the belief that the action will offend God is a sin, because it manifests a willingness to offend God, which is itself sinful.
THE DUDE SAID:
ReplyDelete“Where does it claim that its members never commit mortal sin.”
A straw man argument. Try responding to what I wrote, and not what I didn’t write or wouldn’t write.
“Or that there are no tares in its fold?”
Does the Catholic church apply the parable of the wheat and the tares to itself? Can you cite some magisterial document where it does that?
If you want me to apply that parable to the Catholic church, I’m happy to do so:
Evangelicalism is to wheat as Catholicism is to tares. How’s that?
“But it certainly claims to be made up of human sinners and possible apostates.”
Irrelevant to my claim since I already framed my original claim in qualified terms.
“You mention true sacraments and ex opere operato, but that doesn't mean the disposition of the recipient is of no matter or that no obstacles can impede grace.”
Say we have a set of 100 test subjects who receive resistible sacramental grace. Say we have another set of 100 test subjects who receive sacramental placebos.
A certain fraction of test subjects who receive resistible grace may resist it. But we would still expect an overall difference between those who receive resistible sacramental grace, and those who receive no sacramental grace at all.
Or are you prepared to claim that sacramental grace makes absolutely no practical difference in an individual’s state of grace (and resultant sanctity), whether distributively or collectively?
“Do you think other ethical systems, including those from other religions, have had positive cultural influences today or throughout history? Or is any positive influence due exclusively to what they share with Christian ethics? Did Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy which you consider non-Christian have (not always of course) positive cultural influence after abandoning the gospel?”
They can have both positive and negative effects. We’d have to judge this on a case-by-case basis.
I myself feel free to distinguish between the individual and the institution. There are Catholics who are holy because they happen to be genuine Christians.
However, Catholicism wouldn’t approve of my driving a wedge between individual Catholic identity and institutional Catholic identity.
“And if unbelievers fruit is merely a result of common grace, those who have special grace should still be set apart in their fruit and holiness, no? You seem to affirm this though so...”
Asked and answered.
“Generally, perhaps. But why shouldn't it be universal and the case for all believers who are truly united with Christ in contrast to all non-believers who have no such real union and source of sanctifying grace?”
It should only be universal if I were a Wesleyan perfectionist.
“The argument seems to imply that its members should not commit mortal sin then. Which basically means when Rome claims it is the true church with true sacraments, it is somehow completely forgetting or ignoring its view of mortal sin or just being inconsistent.”
A straw man argument.
“The RCC does not teach grace is confined only to her official members.”
That’s equivocal. Let’s take the clergy.
i) Holy orders is itself a sacrament. And Holy orders is, itself, a source of sanctifying grace:
“The first effect of the sacrament is an increase of sanctifying grace. With this, there is the sacramental grace which makes the recipient a fit and holy minister in the discharge of his office. As the duties of God's ministers are manifold and onerous, it is in perfect accord with the rulings of God's Providence to confer a special grace on His ministers. The dispensation of sacraments requires grace, and the rightful discharge of sacred offices presupposes a special degree of spiritual excellence. The external sacramental sign or the power of the order can be received and may exist without this grace. Grace is required for the worthy, not the valid, exercise of the power, which is immediately and inseparably connected with the priestly character. The principal effect of the sacrament is the character, a spiritual and indelible mark impressed upon the soul, by which the recipient is distinguished from others, designated as a minister of Christ, and deputed and empowered to perform certain offices of Divine worship (Summa III.63.2). The sacramental character of order distinguishes the ordained from the laity.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm
So the Catholic clergy already have a source of sanctifying grace which is denied the laity. An additional source of sanctifying grace.
ii) Moreover,, since the Catholic clergy generally celebrate Mass every day or several times a day, they generally received sacramental grace more frequently than the laity.
iii) Furthermore, “As to the Eucharist, those only who have priestly Orders can consecrate, i.e. change bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.”
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13295a.htm
As such, a Baptist minister (to take one example) would lack the requisite grace to properly consecrate the communion elements.
After all, Leo XIII issued a famous encyclical on the nullity of Anglican orders:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1896leo13-apost.html
And the Anglican Communion has a better claim on apostolic succession that the Southern Baptist Convention.
iv) Apropos (iii), Protestants don’t receive the sacramental grace of communion since their rite is invalid.
v) Apropos (i)-(iv), we would generally expect Catholic clergy to be holier than Catholic laity, and generally expect (observant) Catholic laymen to be holier than Protestant clergy or laity.
That’s the inner logic of your position.
Or let’s take a specific example. The late John-Paul II is on the fact-track to sainthood:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/new.php?n=8443
But if he was complicit in priestly abuse scandal, then we have a highly compartmentalized definition of sanctity.
Or take the American bishops. To my knowledge there was an almost total failure on the part of the American bishops to properly address the phenomenon of priestly abuse. (I once read that the late Cardinal Archbishop of Washington DC was an exception.)
What are we to make of such systematic moral blindness at very the top of an organization? We’d never make the same excuses for a human institution. Why lower the bar for an allegedly divine institution?
“Unless you are saying some Catholics could have a higher state of morality than some Protestants.”
Since some Catholics are genuine Christians while some Protestants are nominal Christians, that’s entirely possible. Indeed, I’m sure there are many instances in which that’s actually the case.
“But it seems the argument is all Catholics universally should have a higher state.”
You keep pedaling this straw man argument. You’re persistent inability to offer an honest critique of my position bodes ill for your own.
“Which is why I am asking why the same comparison of all Protestants to all non-believers does not apply.”
I already addressed that comparison.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“There is an immense difference between supporting an organization whose primary purpose is evil but which does some ancillary good, and an organization whose purposes are all good and which contains some ancillary corruption.”
True. And so, at that point, we have to bring other considerations to bear. At what point does the evil outweigh the good?
Likewise, is this the only organization that can deliver a necessary good such that any necessary evils attendant to that service are sufficiently mitigated by its (allegedly) indispensable service?
“All humans, among whom are Catholic bishops, stand to benefit from moral supervision and correction.”
Because it’s hierarchical, the Catholic church is incapable of self-correction. Once the upper echelon is corrupted, there’s no higher court of appeal.
“Some corruption is inevitable in any human society, since all are sinful.”
And some corruption is exacerbated by specific policies.
“In any case, your response here is irrelevant to my point that supporting a society which inevitably contains some corruption is not the same as supporting the corruption itself.”
Not all corruption is inevitable. Some corruption is avoidable. And some complicity is avoidable.
Given the Church of Scientology, or given the LDS church, some corruption is inevitable—given those institutions. But the existence of those institutions is not a given.
Moreover, even if they were a given, my membership is not a given.
“My commitment to the Church is based on theology, not the moral character of the Cardinal Archbishops of major American cities.”
And you don’t allow your ecclesiology to be corrected by the word of God. The Pastoral Epistles lay down moral qualifications (among other qualifications) for church office. That carries with it moral disqualifications from church office.
But given your prior commitment to apostolic succession and the immutable character of valid ordination, you refuse to square your commitment to the church, as you define it, with the Biblical doctrine of the church.
“Not at all. You yourself have recently referenced the principle of double effect. One is justified in performing an act which is, in itself, morally good or morally neutral, even if it has foreseeable negative consequences, provided that the good which one intends outweighs the negative effect one does not.”
You’re leaving out a key criterion: if I’m forced to choose between the lesser of two evils, it’s permissible of me to commit the lesser evil to prevent the greater evil (where “evil” is not synonymous with moral evil).
Supporting the Catholic church presents no such dilemma or forced option.
“Any action performed in the belief that the action will offend God is a sin, because it manifests a willingness to offend God, which is itself sinful.”
I have a standing duty to provide for my young children. And suppose the law requires me to provide for my children.
Also suppose, after reading David Boonin’s defense of abortion, I come to the conclusion that it’s permissible for me to abandon my children.
Is it wrong for me to be required by law to provide for my children now that I wrongly believe I have the right to abandon them if I so please?
Is it morally wrong for me to carry out my moral duty to do the right thing? How do my wrongful beliefs absolve me of my moral obligations?
Steve,
ReplyDeleteYour latest response reveals quite clearly that your arguments about the immorality of financially supporting the Catholic Church depend on a theological premise: the Catholic hierarchy is not an indispensable good. You would avoid a lot of unpleasantness if you would just stick to the real argument, which is the theological one.
The Pastoral Epistles lay down moral qualifications (among other qualifications) for church office. That carries with it moral disqualifications from church office.
It is a moral imperative to observe the qualifications for ministry laid down in the Pastoral Epistles. Yet, if someone fails to observe these qualifications, it does not mean that the person is ipso facto not a valid minister. It means someone is sinning. The one who chooses the candidate for ministry sins by not properly vetting candidates and the candidate himself sins by failing whatever moral qualification he is failing. Nevertheless, the Bible never says that such a one immediately ceases to be a minister.
Is it wrong for me to be required by law to provide for my children now that I wrongly believe I have the right to abandon them if I so please?
No, in the hypothetical scenario which you construct, the law is not even forcing you to act against your conscience. The law is simply forcing you to enact one of the options which you believe to be permissible (unless you have been convinced that it is positively evil to support your children).
In general, the law should avoid forcing people to act against their consciences (e.g., forced conversions to the true religion), but must do so if it is necessary to protect the rights of others.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Steve,__Your latest response reveals quite clearly that your arguments about the immorality of financially supporting the Catholic Church depend on a theological premise: the Catholic hierarchy is not an indispensable good. You would avoid a lot of unpleasantness if you would just stick to the real argument, which is the theological one.
i) This is how it works: when you present an argument, I present a counterargument. My counterarguments are logically pegged to your arguments.
ii) And the issue is not reducible to a single “real” argument. Every argument has its presuppositions.
iii) You’re also erecting a false dichotomy between the argument in my post and the “real” argument.
Is there any evidence that would ever count against the claims of Rome? Are the claims of Rome consistent with any outcome whatsoever?
“It is a moral imperative to observe the qualifications for ministry laid down in the Pastoral Epistles. Yet, if someone fails to observe these qualifications, it does not mean that the person is ipso facto not a valid minister. It means someone is sinning. The one who chooses the candidate for ministry sins by not properly vetting candidates and the candidate himself sins by failing whatever moral qualification he is failing. Nevertheless, the Bible never says that such a one immediately ceases to be a minister.”
Why not? If the Bible lays out certain qualifications for ministry, and a minister fails to meet those qualifications, then, by definition, he is unqualified to be a minister. So why wouldn’t such a failure disqualify him from ministry?
Your position seems to be this: all that matters is if an ordinand is qualified at the time of his ordination. It matters not how unqualified he may subsequently become.
That’s hardly a logical position, Ben.
“No, in the hypothetical scenario which you construct, the law is not even forcing you to act against your conscience. The law is simply forcing you to enact one of the options which you believe to be permissible (unless you have been convinced that it is positively evil to support your children).”
i) If I don’t think I have an obligation to support my children, then I don’t think the gov’t has a right to oblige me to support my children. So that’s still a violation of conscience.
ii) However, we can vary the illustration to accommodate your caveat. Suppose I’m an impressionable member of the Hitler Youth. My father’s gentile, but my mother’s Jewish. I think I have a patriotic duty to turn my mother into the authorities (to be deported to a concentration camp). But my father orders me to conceal my mother’s Jewish identity.
His order violates my conscience. So where does my duty lie? To obey my father, or do my civic duty (as I see it)?
“In general, the law should avoid forcing people to act against their consciences (e.g., forced conversions to the true religion), but must do so if it is necessary to protect the rights of others.”
So you now admit that there are some circumstances under which it’s appropriate for someone to act against his (misguided) conscience.
Is there any evidence that would ever count against the claims of Rome?
ReplyDeleteCertainly. The Church can never promulgate evil universal laws, teach false doctrine in its extraordinary or ordinary and universal magisterium, promulgate offensive rites of worship, or cease to produce sanctity. Prove any of the above, and you disprove Catholicism.
If the Bible lays out certain qualifications for ministry, and a minister fails to meet those qualifications, then, by definition, he is unqualified to be a minister. So why wouldn’t such a failure disqualify him from ministry?
He is morally disqualified from ministry, such that he should not be a minister, and should be removed. You need to distinguish between moral imperative and metaphysical necessity, between "should be" and "ipso facto is."
His order violates my conscience.
The natural law is ineradicably inscribed in every man's heart. Certain positions can only be arrived at through the suppression of one's conscience. At the very least, no one could surmount at least being in doubt as to the morality of murdering one's mother, and it is unlawful to act with a doubtful conscience.
So you now admit that there are some circumstances under which it’s appropriate for someone to act against his (misguided) conscience.
No, and come to think of it I'm not even sure of my previous statement that it is sometimes permissible for civil authority to force someone to act against his conscience. It is certainly permissible in some circumstances to restrain someone from acting with his conscience, but it is another matter to force him to act positively against it, since this entails coercing him to sin.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“Certainly. The Church can never promulgate evil universal laws, teach false doctrine in its extraordinary or ordinary and universal magisterium, promulgate offensive rites of worship, or cease to produce sanctity. Prove any of the above, and you disprove Catholicism.”
Isn’t that circular? What’s your standard of true doctrine if not magisterial teaching? Or do you have a criterion independent of the church?
“He is morally disqualified from ministry, such that he should not be a minister, and should be removed. You need to distinguish between moral imperative and metaphysical necessity, between ‘should be’ and ‘ipso facto is’."
Assuming we accept your distinction for the sake of argument, then why have so few morally disqualified prelates been removed from office for their complicity in the priestly abuse scandal? Why wouldn’t that massive negligence count as evidence against the claims of your church?
“The natural law is ineradicably inscribed in every man's heart. Certain positions can only be arrived at through the suppression of one's conscience. At the very least, no one could surmount at least being in doubt as to the morality of murdering one's mother, and it is unlawful to act with a doubtful conscience.”
Now you’ve generated a conundrum. If it’s unlawful to act with a doubtful conscience, then it’s unlawful for the boy to either protect his mother or turn her over to the authorities.
So you’ve created a dilemma in which it’s impossible for him to do the right thing. Both action (report her to the authorities) and inaction (refrain from reporting her to the authorities) are equally unlawful.
“No, and come to think of it I'm not even sure of my previous statement that it is sometimes permissible for civil authority to force someone to act against his conscience. It is certainly permissible in some circumstances to restrain someone from acting with his conscience, but it is another matter to force him to act positively against it, since this entails coercing him to sin.”
That begs the question, taking us back to square one. If I have an objective moral obligation, then how is it sinful for me to do what I’m morally obligated to do?
The sin lies in my faulty conscience, and not in my obligatory obedience to the call of duty.
What’s your standard of true doctrine if not magisterial teaching? Or do you have a criterion independent of the church?
ReplyDeleteIf you could demonstrate that Catholic doctrine is internally inconsistent (synchronically or diachronically), inconsistent with the Bible, with the facts of history, or with what is naturally knowable, you would demonstrate that it is false.
Assuming we accept your distinction for the sake of argument, then why have so few morally disqualified prelates been removed from office for their complicity in the priestly abuse scandal? Why wouldn’t that massive negligence count as evidence against the claims of your church?
So you’ve created a dilemma in which it’s impossible for him to do the right thing. Both action (report her to the authorities) and inaction (refrain from reporting her to the authorities) are equally unlawful.
No, in the presence of doubt as to the morality of action, the proper response is inaction.
BEN DOUGLASS SAID:
ReplyDelete“If you could demonstrate that Catholic doctrine is internally inconsistent (synchronically or diachronically), inconsistent with the Bible, with the facts of history, or with what is naturally knowable, you would demonstrate that it is false.”
Which is why I’m Protestant.
“No, in the presence of doubt as to the morality of action, the proper response is inaction.”
i) Inaction is just an alternative action.
ii) I also find your principle dubious. In this life we’re sometimes confronted with forced options, both of which may be morally ambiguous to some degree. This is commonplace in war and bioethics. We don’t always enjoy the luxury of sitting it out while someone else makes the tough decisions.
iii) Finally, I’m puzzled by your lopsided confidence given the range of Catholic opinion on this particular topic:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12441a.htm