I have discovered a grand stumbling block to evangelization!

[Crescentinus]

After months of research, I have discovered a new type of logical fallacy.
I call it “reductio contra Catholicum”. It is a form of argument where it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by blaming all evils on Catholicism.
Here’s how it is:
X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

Now, the best way to destroy this stumbling block is by applying objective reason.
Thoughts?

 

[buffalo]

The Catholic proposition will always be left standing. Failure to live up to it does not invalidate the proposition.

 

[JackVk]

You haven’t necessarily found a new fallacy, or if you have, it’s sort of a hybrid of false cause and ad hominem.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

After months of research, I have discovered a new type of logical fallacy.
I call it “reductio contra Catholicum”. It is a form of argument where it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by blaming all evils on Catholicism.
Here’s how it is:
X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

Now, the best way to destroy this stumbling block is by applying objective reason.
Thoughts?

You could turn that around on any religion. The only thing is that only Catholics ever make the lime light, so it is usually only their sins that are known. There are some well known exceptions however. It really is a silly argument, I didn’t think people did that kind of thing. Who’s doing it?

 

[Crescentinus]

It really is a silly argument, I didn’t think people did that kind of thing. Who’s doing it?

I always hear this from certain militant atheists, Seventh-Day Adventists, Jehovah’s Witnesses among other anti-Catholics on sites such as FaceBook and YouTube.

 

[TrueLight]

Fallacy of Composition?

The fallacy of Composition is committed when a conclusion is drawn about a whole based on the features of its constituents when, in fact, no justification provided for the inference. There are actually two types of this fallacy, both of which are known by the same name (because of the high degree of similarity).

The first type of fallacy of Composition arises when a person reasons from the characteristics of individual members of a class or group to a conclusion regarding the characteristics of the entire class or group (taken as a whole). More formally, the “reasoning” would look something like this.

Individual F things have characteristics A, B, C, etc.
Therefore, the (whole) class of F things has characteristics A, B, C, etc.

This line of reasoning is fallacious because the mere fact that individuals have certain characteristics does not, in itself, guarantee that the class (taken as a whole) has those characteristics.

It is important to note that drawing an inference about the characteristics of a class based on the characteristics of its individual members is not always fallacious. In some cases, sufficient justification can be provided to warrant the conclusion. For example, it is true that an individual rich person has more wealth than an individual poor person. In some nations (such as the US) it is true that the class of wealthy people has more wealth as a whole than does the class of poor people. In this case, the evidence used would warrant the inference and the fallacy of Composition would not be committed.
nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html

 

[faithfully]

After months of research, I have discovered a new type of logical fallacy.
I call it “reductio contra Catholicum”. It is a form of argument where it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by blaming all evils on Catholicism.
Here’s how it is:
X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

Now, the best way to destroy this stumbling block is by applying objective reason.
Thoughts?

I don’t know. I always go to: There’s a difference between being Catholic by way of Baptism and upbringing. And being a practicing Catholic.

Otherwise: X is any race other than own, X is evil, therefore this race is evil…

 

[fide]

After months of research, I have discovered a new type of logical fallacy.
I call it “reductio contra Catholicum”. It is a form of argument where it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by blaming all evils on Catholicism.
Here’s how it is:
X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

Now, the best way to destroy this stumbling block is by applying objective reason.
Thoughts?

I think that often there is a premise in place before the “logic” ever gets applied - namely this one: “Catholicism is evil.” In other words, they already believe it before the “logic” gets turned on.

After years of arguing/debating with anti-Catholics I come to the conclusion that logic is irrelevant because the premises are different between us. Our beliefs - our faith - is different. And faith is deeper than logic.

 

[fred_conty]

After months of research, I have discovered a new type of logical fallacy.
I call it “reductio contra Catholicum”. It is a form of argument where it seeks to demonstrate that a statement is true by blaming all evils on Catholicism.
Here’s how it is:
X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

Now, the best way to destroy this stumbling block is by applying objective reason.
Thoughts?

That is nothing new, and in fact quite common.

Just as an example the crusades. That’s an old one.

Just a thought.

 

[R_C]

X is Catholic
X is evil
Therefore, Catholics/ism is evil

:nope:

How is this a valid syllogism?

“X is evil” has no meaning. We cannot even say that the devil is evil. We know as a fact that X is not intrinsically evil, for all Creation is intrinsically good. Then, what is evil? The acts.

Well, an action per se is not Catholic. The acts of bearing false witness, murdering, or adultery, have existed among all peoples and throughout time. They have been committed by Catholics and non-Catholics all along.

The conclusion is even worst. Catholics/ism? Even if the premises were valid, how would the actions of a few make the doctrine “evil”? How can a doctrine that teaches to love one another and forgive your enemies be evil only because there have been some who have hated their brothers and worse? Does the betrayal of Judas, a legitimate apostle of Christ, make all the apostles or the whole of Christianity evil?

Here is a similar version:

X is Catholic.
X is a holy person.
Therefore, Catholics/ism is holy.

Now, if X is “evil” - that is, acts contrary to Catholic doctrine and the teachings of Christ - then he is condemned and his actions do not affect us. But if X is a holy person because he follows the Catholic doctrine and the teachings of Christ, then his acts are directly related to Catholics and to Catholicism.

 

[Crescentinus]

:nope:

How is this a valid syllogism?

“X is evil” has no meaning. We cannot even say that the devil is evil. We know as a fact that X is not intrinsically evil, for all Creation is intrinsically good. Then, what is evil? The acts.

Well, an action per se is not Catholic. The acts of bearing false witness, murdering, or adultery, have existed among all peoples and throughout time. They have been committed by Catholics and non-Catholics all along.

The conclusion is even worst. Catholics/ism? Even if the premises were valid, how would the actions of a few make the doctrine “evil”? How can a doctrine that teaches to love one another and forgive your enemies be evil only because there have been some who have hated their brothers and worse? Does the betrayal of Judas, a legitimate apostle of Christ, make all the apostles or the whole of Christianity evil?

Here is a similar version:

X is Catholic.
X is a holy person.
Therefore, Catholics/ism is holy.

Now, if X is “evil” - that is, acts contrary to Catholic doctrine and the teachings of Christ - then he is condemned and his actions do not affect us. But if X is a holy person because he follows the Catholic doctrine and the teachings of Christ, then his acts are directly related to Catholics and to Catholicism.

Thanks for the analysis.
I had seen the invalid syllogism mostly from Seventh-Day Adventists trying to convert Catholics.