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. 😊
Monsignor Pope Ping!
The reasons Arch-Pope is so often wrong on these posts:
His use of flawed logic, his tendency to substitute RC identity talking points, as a substitute for the rejection of Scripture.
Interesting.
When has Monsignor Pope rejected scripture? Proof with a live link, please.
I've pointed this out on a great many of your Arch-Pope threads for a year.
He's generally very thin on Scripture and when he uses it, he is almost always misusing it.
Please check your "in forum" link on your account page.
Thanks for asking.
Seems to me whenever we bring up something no one wants to answer it’s a “talking point”. Why can we find not one single Protestant in the first 1500 years of the Church? Talking point! How can we reject Scripture, when we established the canon of Scripture in the first place? Talking point!
You can’t find Protestants and certainly not Roman Catholicism in the NT. You will find Christianity however.
I have to say that my lovely wife likes it when I agree with her. If, on the other hand, I happen to express an alternate opinion, she does tend to think that I am attacking her and she gets very upset. Twenty-Five years of marriage and I have struggled to find a diplomatic way to hold an opinion different from my wife. I have failed. But my "personal attacks" have dwindled to almost nothing because I learned "Yes dear".
To me it's a mild annoyance within a marriage. But in the world, you simply cannot have social interaction where every disagreement is seen as a personal attack. I see this all the time.
Because no one used the term Protestant before. But that doesn't mean that there were not any dissenters from the Church of Rome, otherwise why did Rome cause a schism in the Church in 1054?
How can we reject Scripture, when we established the canon of Scripture in the first place?
You have conflated the first "we" (the current RCC) with the second "we" (ancient church consuls). This is similar to saying that the US Supreme Court cannot reject the US Constitution because they are the arbiters of what the Constitution means.
Perhaps your fellow Catholics should focus on this. I bet the Msgr would be disappointed at the lack of desire of Catholics to engage in the debate.
Christianity is not defined by the categories you are using in that question. For this reason, the correct question is, "Has God always had individual believers in every age? The answer to that question is resoundingly yes.How can we reject Scripture, when we established the canon of Scripture in the first place? Talking point!
“Lord, they have killed Your prophets and torn down Your altars. I am the only one left, and they are seeking my life as well”? 4And what was the divine reply to him? “I have reserved for Myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.” 5In the same way, at the present time there is a remnant chosen by grace.… (Romans 11:3-5)
"We" is the wrong category. God inspired, recorded, and preserved His Words - beginning thousands of years before the Savior trod this globe. God chooses to use people to accomplish His Work.
In this specific thread, I am referring only to Arch-Pope.
Best.
councils, not consuls. Sorry for the error.
I’m not talking about the name “Protestant”, obviously that didn’t exist.
I’m talking about Protestant theology. Find me one Church Father who held the same theology as the Reformers. Sola Scriptura, Faith Alone, disbelief in the Real Presence, rejection of sacred hierarchy, rejection of the sacrificial priesthood, rejection of monastic life, rejection of the cult of saints and their feast days.
And I don’t want to see “Well Augustine said X”. No. Not enough. I want you to show me a single person who held ALL OF IT. The whole kit and caboodle of modern Protestantism. Because I’ve seen people quote Augustine up and down on grace and conveniently forget that he was a bishop who offered the Mass, honored the saints, kept their feast days, wrote rules for monastics, ordained priests, etc.
The Christianity of the earliest time period was, in fact, substantially the same as what we now call today the Catholic, Orthodox, and Oriental Churches. No one ever held Protestant theology until much, much later.
Paul
Specifically Romans.
“But in the world, you simply cannot have social interaction where every disagreement is seen as a personal attack. I see this all the time.”
I see this as stemming from a lack of intelligence.
Stupid people get things wrong more than others, then when they discuss an issue with smart people they are made to look and feel stupid. This hurts and angers them. Since they have been hurt by the other person, he must be attacking them.
What does an intelligent person do? Ben Franklin tells us: “...for having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information or fuller consideration to change opinions even on important subjects which I once thought right but found to be otherwise...”
This does not mean that we are obliged to listen patiently to the ten-millionth recitation of every fallacious argument the left puts out; it only means that we must consider new or previously unknown information and arguments—of which the left has none.
But were those dissenters identifiably Protestant in their theology? What did they dissent about, and just as importantly, what did they NOT dissent about?
Were the Orthodox Protestant? Were the non-Chalcedonians? Were the Montanists, the Arians, the Gnostics, the Manicheans, the Novatianists, the Nestorians?
Find me one dissident group that believed what modern Protestants believe. I will give you the whole range of Protestantism to choose from.
I agree with Msgr. Pope. It can very difficult to hold a discussion. Even when a topic seems neutral, one finds people getting upset because some switch has been tripped.
I completely reject that. Paul was as Catholic as anyone else. But if we start that debate up, we are arguing Biblical exegesis and not Patristics.
Lets mark Paul “disputed” for now.
Anyone else outside the NT?
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.