Wednesday, March 4, 2009


There is nothing with the insane man’s reasoning muses Chesterton in his seminal work, “Orthodoxy.” The difference between a sane man and an insane man is the basic principles or truths upon which he constructs his reasoning. For example, if a person thinks that he is being spied on by the government and we try to persuade him otherwise his very wise reasoning would be, “Of course they would say this. Spying is supposed to be a covert operation by definition.” His reasoning is very sane but his starting principles are (in those who claim to be sane) off.

That being said it should be stated straight out there is nothing wrong with debating Church teaching, practices, and beliefs. In fact it is quite healthy. It should help us appreciate and understand them better if the debate is taken seriously and even handedly. If a couple of solidly Catholic adults want to get together and debate the celibate priesthood, the doctrine of original sin, same sex marriage, women priests, or any what-have-you topic in a respectful, honest, informed, and well intentioned debate then knock your socks off.

But if he is responsible for the education of young minds or officially and publically representing the teachings of the Church, it is horrible abuse of position to present opinion on these matters. Even if it is a person’s intent to present something they find fairer than Church teaching or more in line with social justice or even more academically stretching, what is truly being taught is that one’s personal opinion is more important than the universal teaching of the Church. The basic principles upon which a young person is going to build his reasoning is askew. What a horrible legacy to leave behind.

Of course, that will not keep topics from being brought up by those being introduced to the faith. There are claims of fairness and ability and rights that need to be faithfully debated. The very sad reality is that those who hold these beliefs can only give, at best, a rudimentary understanding of why the Church has a teaching or discipline, almost nothing of the history involved, or the greater ramifications of their particular positions. Allowing the debate to take place without introducing all of these factors, particularly when it is done in the name of academic freedom is disingenuous and harmful to the Church, the individual, and the cause.

Take the debate about allowing women into the priesthood. This should be debated! True debate brings about truth. But too often the debate, when the person is pressed as to why this should be, answers about matters of fairness and ability. If the person who is representing the Church teaching shrugs his shoulders and says, “You know, I agree,” what deeper understanding has been achieved? A young mind is encouraged in prizing his own opinion over 2,000 years of collective thinking of the brightest minds that have ever gone about the business of thinking without even engaging the ideas. And if honesty were in the debate the Church does not deny a woman’s ability to do the work of a priest or that if they could be priests that they should in keeping with fairness. The true debate is elsewhere but this straw man is able to be built, debated, and treated as a flesh and blood issue when the real issue is out walking about the field.

Education and savvy does not solely subsist in being in opposition to collective reasoning but in first understanding it, building a platform upon which to stand, and setting up basic principles upon which you can build your reasoning. It is shallow and destructive philosophies that are entirely built upon what one feels is fair or thinks feels the best. It is sign of narrow thinking that our society assumes that what we deem fair and right is universally correct for all people of every nation and all times (when judging history.) Exploring this totality is where true education and good reasoning start to form.


Matt W said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt W said...

Great post, Father, and lots to think about.

You say that debating leads to truth, but what if the truth has already been determined. For example, does one debate the Trinity? No; one either accepts Its existence or one does not. If you do not, then can you really say you're a Catholic?

At some point in a debate, the question must be called and a decision rendered. Your example of women's ordination to the priesthood is perhaps not such a good one. JPII in his Apostolic Letter Ordinatio Sacerdotalis says that the Church has no authority to confer priestly ordination on women, and this is to be held definitively by all Catholics. That seems to end the debate, no?

Fr. V said...

I guess what I was trying to say is that if you are willing to engage the topic honestly, you will discover a lot more than just deciding that you like your position more or that you blindly accept whatever is thrown at you.

Does that make sense?

Anonymous said...

Like the Washing of Feet on Holy Thursday --little did any of us ladies know this is not historically or Traditionally or (I guess the word I want is) canonically correct. The "kids" in RCIA were asked to offer their feet, along with some of the team members. I'm not real good at saying 'no', but if I'd known that its meaning goes more deeply than we think, I'd have said no, if not also why not.

I saw it *debated* (in varying degrees of rage) here online, and then read up on it myself.

As you noted in the beginning of this post -- you can say what is your opinion, but if you are a shepherd, your opinion is not what you are to teach, and indeed, it all begins with the shepherd. If he doesn't know what he's talking about, or what TO talk about, or if he passes his opinion along as fact, we're all adrift. In a way it's good that people rely so heavily on their priests, but in another way, it's not ideal. One priest we had said there's too much Marian celebration in the Mass, and that when the Holy Father's away (JP II who traveled much), the mice will play. Guess who was a mouse! Now passing those 2 things along to me, which I knew to be only his personal opinion, is one thing. To teach them to spiritually or Catholicly-young is something dire. I loved it later in RCIA when folks began to challenge him -- they had done their homework, and God bless 'em, but indeed, talking about the untalkables is valuable, in the right settings. It makes one go and learn the seat of what is either two opinions, or Church teachings.


Anonymous said...


I basically lost a friendship over the fact that I disagreed with my a decision to allow a married couple (friends of mine) fresh out of RCIA to be the "teaching" couple the following year. They, along with an SJA nun instructed my father-in-law, with my husband as sponsor in RCIA. Basically, my father-in-law (RIP) came away with a couple of things. He attended Sunday Mass faithfully, although he thought holy days were "optional." He also devulged at his first confession the priest told him he didn't have any *real* sins. Nine months worth of "instruction" garnered him not much of the faith, in my and my husband's opinion. Being his Dad's sponsor, my husband would have, in particular, was on the just war doctrine (we had just gotten into Iraq at the time). My husband referred to the Cathechism. Quickly Sister informed him, "oh, we don't use that book here." And another time, the lead couple comments about not being *one issue voters* with regard to the prolife stand Catholics take... well, things sort of went downhill from there. Unfortunately, there are many Catholics who want their opinions to be heard, but cannot *listen* to the Truth that comes from the Magesterium... We lost a friendship, we are still cordial, butwe pray for them...and us

Anonymous said...

little type there...not *my* decision, but pastor's decision to ...