Posted on 05/12/2017 7:10:58 AM PDT by Salvation
The discussion and debate of issues is problematic today for many reasons, among them the use of flawed logic, the tendency to engage in identity politics, and the widespread rejection of natural law. I would like to highlight three issues in particular that commonly interfere with discourse on the Internet, including the “Comments” section of blogs such as this one.
I. The internet is “tone-deaf.” Any discussion that occurs in writing misses such personal elements as tone of voice, facial expression, and body language. A light-hearted delivery or a smile can change how words are understood. For example, the words, “You’re crazy!” can seem accusatory and harsh in writing, but accompanied by a smile or a joking tone, the words can be understood as playful. Sometimes the person’s tone can demonstrate irony: You’re crazy all right, but in a good way. You’re with God, but to the world you’re crazy.” Maybe calling someone crazy is a challenge, but the tone is gentle, asking for clarification more than making an accusation.
The point is that a written text seldom conveys the subtleties of human conversation. Many people take offense when none was intended or when the other party was merely trying to pose a question in a friendly rather than accusatory manner.
II. Reading things as absolutes – There is a tendency to interpret a point that is made in writing in an absolute way, thinking that the author means what he says without exception or that nothing else should be considered as a factor.
For example, earlier this week, in my blog on recent parish closings I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.” My purpose was to be artful and memorable, to provoke thought with a smidge of hyperbole.
I clarified that it was true in a juridical sense that bishops close parishes (by withdrawing their canonical status as a parish with an assigned pastor), but that bishops don’t routinely look around for parishes to close. Other things being equal, they want parishes to thrive and stay open. When a parish closes, the bishop is usually responding to what amounts to a lack of people. Generally, the parishes that are closed or merged are financially challenged. Perhaps they have old buildings that cannot be maintained cost effectively, or critical staff (including the pastor) can no longer be afforded. The lack of financial resources is usually tied to a lack of human resources: parishioners. In relatively rare cases, a financially sound parish is merged with others for the common good and to share resources effectively.
The primary driving force behind parish closings, however, comes down to a lack of people. It is not just that the mean old bishop is closing down parishes for no good reason. So, intending to make a short but memorable comment, I wrote, “Bishops don’t close parishes, people do.”
I do not mean this absolutely. I am not saying that the closing of every single parish is the direct fault of the people and the poor bishop is only doing what he must. Yet it is clear from the comments that many thought I did mean it absolutely, that I was saying that all parish closings are entirely the fault of God’s people and that bishops and clergy are completely innocent. Never mind that I went on to point out a number of other factors in church closings as well; surely I did not intend to imply that I’d made an exhaustive treatment of every possible cause.
Many also expanded my reflection by drifting from my restricted notion of cause to a wider notion of blame. That low attendance is a numerical cause for many parish closings is demonstrably true. Blame, by which I mean moral responsibility, for low attendance is a deeper and more complex issue.
I think there is plenty of blame for the clergy in this. We have not consistently preached the need to attend Mass. There has been poor catechesis and even outright error from members of the clergy. But there is also rebellion in the ranks that the clergy are no more responsible for than are parents for every poor decision of their adult children. The fact is, there is shared blame for the falling away from the faith. Clerical leaders are an important—but not the only—source of the problems today.
My point here is not to write another article on Church closings; it is to assert that interpreting everything in an absolute sense, a form of all-or-nothing thinking, can lead to strident reactions that produce much heat but little light. Interpreting a point that the writer (in this case me) makes in an absolute way, when it was not intended in that way, usually incites anger. The responder creates a straw man and then angrily denounces it. It is a straw man because it isn’t even the point that was made but rather an exaggerated version of it. The whole exchange goes south from there and doesn’t even end up being about the point that was actually made. This is bad argumentation.
III. Taking things personally – Many today take argumentation very personally; identity politics is a likely explanation. “Identity politics” is a reductionist mode in which people link their opinions with their very person. “This is who I am, and if you don’t agree with what I assert, you are offending me personally.” People also do this with group identities (e.g., sex, race, sexual orientation).
In such a climate, it is difficult to have productive debate because people take the disagreement personally and “shut down” rather than considering the counterpoints thoughtfully. They feel personally attacked rather than sensing that they are being challenged to reconsider or to better explain their view. Interestingly, they then tend to respond with a personal attack!
This was also evident in some of the comments on the post earlier this week. The “logic” of some respondents seems to have been this: Laity are being critiqued; I am a lay person; Therefore, I am being critiqued.” Well, maybe, but not all lay people are alike. More than likely, if someone is even reading this blog, he still goes to Mass and supports the mission of the Church. The laity includes a smaller number of Catholics (15-30%) who attend Mass faithfully and largely accept Catholic teaching, but a much a larger number (70-85%) who do not.
One can use a term such as “laity” and mean it generally, not as a personal attack on every single member of the large, diverse group. By interpreting the comments about the laity as applying to you personally, and rejecting them as not applicable, you may miss consideration of many of the points.
Anyway, this is my take on why discourse, especially in cyberspace is often so strident. Remember, I do not mean all of these points absolutely, and I might not actually have you in mind, even if you are a member of some of the groups I mention! For example, not all people who read and comment on my blog possess every trait that I mention here. A few people might even be an exception to everything I’ve said! You never know, especially if you presume good will on the part of the author. 😊
You reject the Words of Jesus (TRUTH).
Jesus said to them, “Amen, amen, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you do not have life within you. 54Whoever eats* my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him on the last day. 55For my flesh is true food, and my blood is true drink. 56Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent me and I have life because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on me will have life because of me.
Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven,* but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven.n 22Many will say to me on that day,o ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’p 23Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you.* Depart from me, you evildoers.’q
The Pharisees are portrayed as a negative example for his disciples, and his condemnation of those who claim to belong to him while disobeying his word is no less severe (Mt 7:21–23, 26–27).
In regard to paganism pour into the Catholic Church...
The Twentieth Century Encyclopedia of Catholicism says the following
“In her liturgy and her art, *in her tradition* and *the forming of her doctrine*, naturally enough she includes Jewish elements, but also elements that are of *pagan origin*.
“In certain respects, she has copied her organization from that of the Roman Empire, has preserved and made fruitful the philosophical intuitions of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle, borrowed from both Barbarians and the Byzantine Roman Empire—but always remains herself, thoroughly digesting all elements drawn from external sources...In her laws, her ceremonies, her festivals and her devotions, she makes use of local customs after purifying them and “baptizing” them.
If you could think clearly you would realize that life which can be lost then regained by your fidelity, then lost again by failure is not ETERNAL LIFE. JESUS, God with us, told you that when you believe on Whom GOD has sent for your salvation, you have eternal life then and yet you refuse it. GOD in HIS Word tells you HE is the author and FINISHER of your NEW LIFE IN CHRIST> Your filthy righteousness counts for nothing, nothing at all except your pride.
Jesus also said in John 6 that if you ate His flesh and drank His blood, you would live forever. Where are the Catholics who are living forever?
He said that whoever came to Him would never hunger or thirst. Do you get hungry or thirsty?
He said that He was bread. Does that mean He was made of wheat flour?
I mean, if you are going to take what He said literally, then at least be consistent and take ALL of it literally.
No, I reject the errant teaching of the Catholic church that violates the body of revealed Truth from God.
God has commanded us to NOT eat blood and that was reiterated to the church at the Council at Jerusalem.
My faith is deeper than it ever was as a Catholic because now I have Jesus and the Holy spirit dwelling in me. My body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, with whom I am sealed until the day God redeems me.
It's not the temporary dwelling that Catholicism teaches where you get it, lose it, get it, lose it. On again, off again salvation on a day to day basis.
THAT is superficial because it isn't permanent and does not result in a permanent change in life.
You do the best you can and God take care of the rest.
You said:
“Jesus also said in John 6 that if you ate His flesh and drank His blood, you would live forever. Where are the Catholics who are living forever?” They are in Heaven.
He said that whoever came to Him would never hunger or thirst. Do you get hungry or thirsty? They are in Heaven.
He said that He was bread. Does that mean He was made of wheat flour? Jesus turned the bread and wine into His Body and Blood.
I will continue to pray for you so that you see the Truth and that you put aside the childish games that anti-Catholics play. The true Church founded by Christ is the Catholic Church. You are always welcome.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.