So we heard. Again and again and again and again, ever since the Great Lila Rose disaster that swept the Catholic Blogosphere a few years ago. Of course we also got a dose of Catholic legalism then, when we learned there is a massive difference between lying and dishonesty, in which some argued you could be the most dishonest person in the world, weaving entire tapestries of falsehoods and deceit, as long as you didn't technically lie. Pharisee anyone?
But on the real level of reality, the emphasis was on not lying, not being dishonest, condemning the idea that lies and falsehoods could ever be good for anything. The Gospel? Falsehoods and deceit? Not compatible. OK. Fine.
So now it turns out Sir. Elton John hearts Pope Francis. Like most of the followers of the Post Modern Way, Sir John loves the Pope. He loves him because, like most who only recently hated the popes and the Church, they think Francis is all about trashing this laughable old religion to conform to the Post-Modern Way. Especially when it comes to the Ultimate Question of Gay Marriage.
This brought out a certain reaction by some, who pointed out that the reasons Sir John hearts Francis is based upon falsehoods and false assumptions. This, in turn, brought the wrath of The Shea, who found some off the wall loony statements and suggested anyone not celebrating Sir John's step toward conversion was in the same boat as the loonies.
While some were hesitant, most jumped in to say that anything that bridges gaps with the unbeliever, and any positive response, was therefore good. Even if it's not true, or the assumptions are false, it matters not. Positive is positive. That's all that matters.
Suddenly, in stepped the legendary Zippy Catholic. Mr. Zippy came to our aid once, so I have no heavy criticism there. Certainly an intelligent person, though the alias makes it tough to figure out anything about his assumptions or the framework from which he operates. Still, he is learned and does a good job conveying his ideas. Especially when it comes to this, the reminder that shrugging shoulders about falsehoods and deception is not good. It never is good. If we remember. If we believe the Catholic blogosphere.
So we have a dose of consistency. Something that can often be lost where amateurs are concerned. And in much of the Catholic apologetics world, amateurs are the professionals of the vocation.
Updated Note: It looks like more have jumped into the post and questioned some of the statements and approaches, including the indisputable claim that everything about Francis is beautiful and praiseworthy, and that it matters not how it's done, as long as people who hated the Church now love Francis at least. Good to see.
This amuses me not even as a filthy protestant, but as computer/IT guy (though a lot of this debate does serve to enforce the protestant impression that Catholics have become the new pharisees - not that that is necessarily a bad thing).
ReplyDeleteSee the issue comes when two truths/goods/however you want to put it come into conflict. The hiding-jew/hunting-nazi thought exercise is brought up in these debates expressly because it is a stark, clear example of this happening: To preserve life (hide the jew) you must be deceitful. However to be faithful to the truth, you must not deceive the Nazi. Hence two good things or tasks or whatever are in conflict. Once it has been established that all parties AGREE that there is a conflict between two goods, and whether/how they should be sorted, can then a discussion occur.
Of course Shea & others end up getting the discussion stuck in an infinite loop because:
Rule 1: There is no "no-win" (or I guess you could say, "no-sin") scenario. The very text in the Bible says that we cannot be tempted beyond what we can bear. Ergo for every dilemma there MUST be a proper solution.
Rule 2: Evil cannot be done that good may come of it. One possible interpretation of choosing one good when it conflicts with another is to committing evil. i.e. if a train is barreling down some tracks and you must choose which branch to divert it to, and there are innocent people tied at both branches, to choose which group of people live can just as easily be pointed out as choosing to kill others (an evil act).
Therefore, we have a conflict. Because of Rule 2, situations CAN arise which violate Rule 1. What is to be done? Some like to play the legalistic route, that the "evil" being done this time isn't really, "technically" evil. However that ends up running afoul of words from the Boss's OWN MOUTH where He was pretty condemning towards the idea of being "technically" not sinning. Some just outright deny that conflicting goods can ever occur.
Of course, by your own standards will you be judged. Since ALL people must sort-order truth & goodness now and then, those who condemn it (by calling it "consequentialism") will eventually run afoul of it, only now they'll try and label it something else. It would be like trying to condemn "oxygen hoarding" by people, only to turn around and call it "breathing" when you do it. Thus in this instance, Mark finds himself hoisted upon his own standards when he finds the good of "being honest about the Church" in conflict with the good of "evangelizing for the Church". Having condemned and made it clear that it is absolutely and always wrong to sort-order truth/goodness, he now finds himself handicapped in this dilemma, because for him there is NO possible choice.
But then doing nothing is also a sort of choice...
(cont from above)
ReplyDelete---------------------------------
Explanation for those who don't get it:
I'm using sort-order in this context as a method for choosing when two things of equal value conflict. In programming it would be a way for the system to choose which process to perform if both were requesting the same system resources at the same time. It's also a consideration I use in writing characters. What is the higher, more important virtue if it conflicts with another?
Example: Two characters both value honest and loyalty obviously. But say they are asked a question like "does this dress make me look fat?" For the character that places a higher sort-order on honesty, they would answer that question even if it was being disloyal to the other person. For the second character that has a higher value on loyalty, they will answer the question in such a way to maintain the relationship, even if it means being dishonest.
Of course people will have different sort-orders from each other, and one problem is that how do you argue someone's sorting? (assuming it even SHOULD be argued) To do so would easily come off as arguing against the virtue itself! Thus the most common tactic of highlighting the virtue they favor, while downplaying the virtue they don't OR highlighting the "evils" one had to commit to choose the other virtue. i.e. In the nazi/jew dilemma. 1) "It is better that the innocent not die. You would have the innocent person killed!" 2) "We must be faithful to the truth. You would lie and deceive another human being!"
On and on it goes...
Since we just had some elections…If Elton John should be welcomed with open arms for his positive statements about the Pope, then a Republican candidate should be just as welcomed for some positive statements about Pro-Life, right? I wonder if those on CAEI would agree.
ReplyDelete