R
RoryMcKenzie56
Guest
I was recently engaged in a discussion with a thoughtful Mormon who, recognizing the difficulty of inter-religious dialogue, asked, “How do we get out of the loop?” The context was misunderstanding each other because we use the same words to mean different things. The following is my suggestion for how all of us of any belief system should always approach that which we hold to be in error:
To your larger, and to my mind, most important question, “How do we get out of the loop?,” I have an answer. Each of us must learn to defend the accused. When a defense attorney defends a client he believes to be in the wrong, he is still obligated to present the facts in such a way as to present his client in the most favorable light possible. Is God pleased if we are always seeking to view those who we hold to be astray from the truth in the worst possible way? I have no reason to believe that. Without lying, without compromising what we truly believe, we can do a better job of helping our co-religionists to see the good and true and beautiful that is present in the faiths that we reject.
I truly do not believe that any major religion teaches anything that is worthy of ridicule. But over the years, on the internet, I have been regularly accosted by LDS zealots who arrogantly propose that the Trinity is ridiculous, that priestly celibacy is indefensible, or that the various Inquisitions and Crusades can only be understood as non-Catholics have presented and interpreted them, and who seem wonderstruck at how Catholics can be so stupid as to accept such doctrine or history. As a result of this experience, I took it upon myself to go see how things were over at a major Catholic internet site, Catholic Answers, this particular forum especially. To my dismay, it seemed little different toward the LDS and Protestants as what I perceive to be the case over at MA&DB toward Catholics and Protestants.
I believe we need to learn that no one is stupid for following the teaching of a major religion. If you think that, you just don’t appreciate how a slight turn at the beginning of a spiritual and theological voyage can land you in completely different ports. I am told that miscalculations at the beginning of a trip across the Atlantic can mean the difference between landing at Oslo or Johannesburg. It doesn’t mean that the mariners are inept boobies about everything because of a mistake at the beginning. The same thing happens in theology and philosophy. I am not smarter than those with whom I differ. It is arrogance that would make anyone say that Mohammed, Luther, Calvin, or Joseph Smith were bumbling theologians, or that Kant, Spinoza, and Descartes were illogical philosophers. I have the greatest respect, and humanly speaking, I have awe, for the intellects of these men who labored to thoughtfully work out theologies and philosophies with which I disagree.
I have proposed and will continue to propose that people of good will of every faith should adopt the method of him Catholics call, the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologica he follows a precise formula. Before every question to which he gives the Catholic answer, he gives the answer of the leading gnostic, heretic, or freethinker of his day citing authoritative sources best suited to be persuasive. He is dutifully acting as a defense attorney who thinks his client is after all, still in the wrong. He gives it without prejudice, disparagement, or ridicule and for the uninformed like me, he can explain the error so well as to make one unfamiliar with his method believe that the error is true. That is what happened to me before I understood his way. He tries to defend error to the best of his ability before he announces what he believes. This is what I ask for. This approach to understanding and appreciating error, in my opinion, will be the most singularly dignified manner by which we may learn the best of what others believe, become predisposed to love those whom we oppose intellectually, and to gain for ourselves a reputation for justice and honesty that will help those who adopt the method to “get out of the loop” one by one.
I pledge myself that whether on the internet or at home or at church, when possible, I will not be silent in the face of unjustified ridicule of someone else’s beliefs. I will not deny the Catholic faith anymore than St. Thomas did. But judging the circumstances, it is my ardent desire to share this vision of truth and error which does not necessarily believe in the stupidity or wickedness of Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons. I am particularly sensitive and aware of Baptist and Mormon misrepresentations having been a Baptist and having spent so much time with Mormons on the internet. I can defend these two points of view, not so as to try to persuade anyone that they are true, but so that Catholics may understand and appreciate that sensible people of good will can without being evil or stupid, arrive at different conclusions than we have.
I don’t have any interest in defending this method to those who apparently think they can win souls by disparaging words and disrespect. Catholic Tradition already supports the clear renunciation of what does not conform to the Catholic faith. But it also supports understanding and appreciating how particular errors come to be so popular. We support the clear rejection of error, but at the same time we are mistaken to imagine that non-Catholics are merely stupid.
To your larger, and to my mind, most important question, “How do we get out of the loop?,” I have an answer. Each of us must learn to defend the accused. When a defense attorney defends a client he believes to be in the wrong, he is still obligated to present the facts in such a way as to present his client in the most favorable light possible. Is God pleased if we are always seeking to view those who we hold to be astray from the truth in the worst possible way? I have no reason to believe that. Without lying, without compromising what we truly believe, we can do a better job of helping our co-religionists to see the good and true and beautiful that is present in the faiths that we reject.
I truly do not believe that any major religion teaches anything that is worthy of ridicule. But over the years, on the internet, I have been regularly accosted by LDS zealots who arrogantly propose that the Trinity is ridiculous, that priestly celibacy is indefensible, or that the various Inquisitions and Crusades can only be understood as non-Catholics have presented and interpreted them, and who seem wonderstruck at how Catholics can be so stupid as to accept such doctrine or history. As a result of this experience, I took it upon myself to go see how things were over at a major Catholic internet site, Catholic Answers, this particular forum especially. To my dismay, it seemed little different toward the LDS and Protestants as what I perceive to be the case over at MA&DB toward Catholics and Protestants.
I believe we need to learn that no one is stupid for following the teaching of a major religion. If you think that, you just don’t appreciate how a slight turn at the beginning of a spiritual and theological voyage can land you in completely different ports. I am told that miscalculations at the beginning of a trip across the Atlantic can mean the difference between landing at Oslo or Johannesburg. It doesn’t mean that the mariners are inept boobies about everything because of a mistake at the beginning. The same thing happens in theology and philosophy. I am not smarter than those with whom I differ. It is arrogance that would make anyone say that Mohammed, Luther, Calvin, or Joseph Smith were bumbling theologians, or that Kant, Spinoza, and Descartes were illogical philosophers. I have the greatest respect, and humanly speaking, I have awe, for the intellects of these men who labored to thoughtfully work out theologies and philosophies with which I disagree.
I have proposed and will continue to propose that people of good will of every faith should adopt the method of him Catholics call, the Angelic Doctor, St. Thomas Aquinas. In the Summa Theologica he follows a precise formula. Before every question to which he gives the Catholic answer, he gives the answer of the leading gnostic, heretic, or freethinker of his day citing authoritative sources best suited to be persuasive. He is dutifully acting as a defense attorney who thinks his client is after all, still in the wrong. He gives it without prejudice, disparagement, or ridicule and for the uninformed like me, he can explain the error so well as to make one unfamiliar with his method believe that the error is true. That is what happened to me before I understood his way. He tries to defend error to the best of his ability before he announces what he believes. This is what I ask for. This approach to understanding and appreciating error, in my opinion, will be the most singularly dignified manner by which we may learn the best of what others believe, become predisposed to love those whom we oppose intellectually, and to gain for ourselves a reputation for justice and honesty that will help those who adopt the method to “get out of the loop” one by one.
I pledge myself that whether on the internet or at home or at church, when possible, I will not be silent in the face of unjustified ridicule of someone else’s beliefs. I will not deny the Catholic faith anymore than St. Thomas did. But judging the circumstances, it is my ardent desire to share this vision of truth and error which does not necessarily believe in the stupidity or wickedness of Baptists, Muslims, Buddhists, or Mormons. I am particularly sensitive and aware of Baptist and Mormon misrepresentations having been a Baptist and having spent so much time with Mormons on the internet. I can defend these two points of view, not so as to try to persuade anyone that they are true, but so that Catholics may understand and appreciate that sensible people of good will can without being evil or stupid, arrive at different conclusions than we have.
I don’t have any interest in defending this method to those who apparently think they can win souls by disparaging words and disrespect. Catholic Tradition already supports the clear renunciation of what does not conform to the Catholic faith. But it also supports understanding and appreciating how particular errors come to be so popular. We support the clear rejection of error, but at the same time we are mistaken to imagine that non-Catholics are merely stupid.