Please help! Unanswerable dilemma!

[PetraG]

The dilemma involves the Church’s former banning of books. Basically, although protestants were expected to read Catholic works when questioning their own tradition, Catholics were forbidden to investigate protestant works when questioning Catholicism. However, isn’t it necessary to view both view points for an individual to honestly assent to a faith? Otherwise they’ll naturally suspect bias amidst their sources!

I can see why the discipline was changed, but I don’t see what the big issue is here even if books had been banned. I don’t know what the intellectual boundaries on the faithful have been over time, but I don’t see where it makes this an issue, one way or the other, unless the faithful were kept away from the primary sources of the Church Herself.

A Catholic is in the position of knowing they have reliable authority to teach them. A Protestant, in contrast, has placed themselves in the position of being their own authorities with regards to the faith. That means the Protestant has taken on the duty to fairly assess things before they reject them.

Yes, a Catholic would “naturally” suspect that maybe the Church isn’t giving them “the whole story” needed to place their faith in the teaching authority of the Church. Catholics, however, have supernatural assurance that in spite of whatever human faults and frailties are to be found among those with teaching authority, the Church will always teach the truth when it comes to faith and morals.

In other words, the Catholic and the Protestant are in totally different places with regards to their duties when it comes to forming their consciences. The Catholic has the guarantee of correct teaching; the Prostestant does not. More to the point: the Protestant cannot have that certainty. They are all philosophically constrained because every Protestant denomination is founded on the idea that an individual can defy what the Church teaches on his or her own authority.

In other words, once it is accepted that Luther could be right and the Church could be wrong, it necessarily followed that Luther could also be wrong. The Christian forming their conscience but rejecting the Apostolic teaching authority has no dry ground to stand on; they are forced to be open to the idea that anybody could be wrong.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Wouldn’t they be stuck between being terrified of excommunication/disobeying the church, and not being able to main intellectual integrity?

Maybe. Maybe not. At any rate, the Church doesn’t take the oppressive approach anymore.

People are well aware of the Church’s past and it’s outmoded methods. The list of books is just one example. If you dig, or talk to older people from pre VII days, you’ll find plenty more examples of oppression coming from the Church. But it was all “in practice”, none of those things were ever dogmatic or even authoritative beyond being a matter of obedience.

It’s not much different today. When your bishop, or the pope, does something that you don’t like you just roll eyes and ignore. That’s the way it’s always been. Nothing to see here.

 

[TheLittleLady]

If my pastor tells me “that book is not good for you to read”, I respect him and don’t read the book.

Rebellion against just laws is not a virtue

 

[PetraG]

I totally understand that, but what if someone who was living at that time had doubts about Catholicism? And what if they felt they had to investigate non-Catholic claims, in order to honestly assent to the Faith?

Wouldn’t they be stuck between being terrified of excommunication/disobeying the church, and not being able to main intellectual integrity?

When does that need for ïntellectual integrity" ever end? Are we stuck, for instance, between being terrified that our spouse is cheating on us or not being able to follow them everywhere they go? No, I think we also have the option of realizing that we have no evidence that warrants withholding our trust that way. We can choose not to indulge fears that have no evidence to warrant them.

Could we be wrong? Well, yes, you could fear that your spouse is cheating even though you have absolutely no reason to believe he or she is and you could be right. What does it do to your relationship with your spouse, however, when there is nothing your spouse can do that will satisfy you that he or she isn’t cheating on you? What kind of relationship is that? It is a relationship that lacks the trust that the spouse deserves and the marriage needs.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Wish I could like this eleven times!!

 

[Hope7]

Thank you so much for responding. But when you say,

It’s not much different today. When your bishop, or the pope, does something that you don’t like you just roll eyes and ignore. That’s the way it’s always been. Nothing to see here.

Wouldn’t ignoring this have made one susceptible to excommunication? I just don’t see how that’s an option. (Also I understand obedience. My question is, if a Catholic had become doubtful to Catholic authority, wouldn’t they have been stuck within obedience? In other words, wouldn’t they have needed to be obedient to both

1. honest faith
   and 2. prohibition of non-Catholic reading

This dilemma is what stumps me.)

 

[PetraG]

Wouldn’t ignoring this have made one susceptible to excommunication? I just don’t see how that’s an option. (Also I understand obedience. My question is, if a Catholic had become doubtful to Catholic authority, wouldn’t they have been stuck within obedience? In other words, wouldn’t they have needed to be obedient to both

1. honest faith
   and 2. prohibition of non-Catholic reading

This dilemma is what stumps me.)

Ah–you’re assuming that attaining “honest faith” is an intellectual exercise.

It isn’t. The New Testament is very clear about that. We are not required to master some set of intellectual realizations in order to accept it and if we insist that we do we may be denying ourselves the opportunity to have the gift of faith.

Our Faith does not defy intellect. It does make sense. That does not mean that it is enriched by constant poking and prodding and doubt. If you read spiritual autobiographies, you won’t find people saying they had some intellectual “aha!” moment that brought them to the faith. Usually, it is the other way around: that is, they attained faith when they quit throwing up walls and digging foxholes to protect themselves from accepting the gift. It didn’t require giving up honest objections. It did require giving up the need to be objecting all the time just to be looking for objections. You can’t get anywhere in a car if you insist on staying outside it, kicking the tires.

 

[TheLittleLady]

1. prohibition of non-Catholic reading

Not true.

Prohibition of selected, heretical or morally objectionable reading.

Again, if you were doubting your Catholic faith, I would be a bad friend to hand you a Jack Chick tract.

Remember, as humans we do have doubts. Don’t think that once you become Catholic you will never again have another doubt. Thing is, as we mature, we learn who we can trust when we are in doubt.

Look at Billy Graham (not the Jr., the original). Did you know that he always had ministers from many denominations at his rallies? When you came forward, you were asked what your faith background was.

If it was Baptist, you were sent to speak to a Baptist minister, if you were Nazarene you went to talk to the Nazarene minister, so forth. If you were Catholic, they had a priest there to meet with you. You could trust Billy Graham to preach Christ and not try to shake your faith.

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Wouldn’t ignoring this have made one susceptible to excommunication?

No because we’re not talking about dogmatic teachings here. Even if we were, for the laity, excommunication is all but an unused form of correction. For all practical purposes for laity its not even worth mentioning.

Conscience is a rule. Obedience is not. The word obedience is not even helpful when talking about what a person’s acceptance of any particular religious practice or teaching may be. The words in VII documents are helpful in understanding how the Church thinks people should accept its teachings.

 

[PetraG]

No because we’re not talking about dogmatic teachings here. Even if we were, for the laity, excommunication is all but an unused form of correction. For all practical purposes for laity its not even worth mentioning.

Conscience is a rule. Obedience is not. The word obedience is not even helpful when talking about what a person’s acceptance of any particular religious practice or teaching may be. The words in VII documents are helpful in understanding how the Church thinks people should accept its teachings.

Yes.

For the Church is driven by the Holy Spirit to do her part for the full realization of the plan of God, who has constituted Christ as the source of salvation for the whole world. By her proclamation of the Gospel, she draws her hearers to receive and profess the faith, she prepares them for baptism, snatches them from the slavery of error, and she incorporates them into Christ so that in love for him they grow to full maturity. The effect of her work is that whatever good is found sown in the minds and hearts of men or in the rites and customs of peoples, these not only are preserved from destruction, but are purified, raised up, and perfected for the glory of God, the confusion of the devil, and the happiness of man. Lumen Gentium, Ch 2, 17

 

[PetraG]

No because we’re not talking about dogmatic teachings here. Even if we were, for the laity, excommunication is all but an unused form of correction. For all practical purposes for laity its not even worth mentioning.

Conscience is a rule. Obedience is not. The word obedience is not even helpful when talking about what a person’s acceptance of any particular religious practice or teaching may be. The words in VII documents are helpful in understanding how the Church thinks people should accept its teachings.

Still, I would not say that Lumen Gentium, for instance, is quite so adamant that the word obedience is “not even helpful.”

There is nuance to the relationship between the laity and those with a pastoral office:
Like all Christians, the laity have the right to receive in abundance the help of the spiritual goods of the Church, especially that of the word of God and the sacraments from the pastors.[6] To the latter the laity should disclose their needs and desires with that liberty and confidence which befits children of God and brothers of Christ. By reason of the knowledge, competence or pre-eminence which they have the laity are empowered–indeed sometimes obliged–to manifest their opinion on those things which pertain to the good of the Church.[7] If the occasion should arise this should be done through the institutions established by the Church for that purpose and always with truth, courage and prudence and with reverence and charity towards those who, by reason of their office, represent the person of Christ.

Like all Christians, the laity should promptly accept in Christian obedience what is decided by the pastors who, as teachers and rulers of the Church, represent Christ. In this they will follow Christ’s example who, by his obedience unto death, opened the blessed way of the liberty of the sons of God to all men…

The pastors, indeed, should recognize and promote the dignity and responsibility of the laity in the Church. They should willingly use their prudent advice and confidently assign duties to them in the service of the Church, leaving them freedom and scope for acting… Moreover the pastors must respect and recognize the liberty which belongs to all in the terrestrial city.

 

[tafan2]

Typically they would have gone to their local priest and asked for guidance about their doubt. Likely mist priests did a good job explaining the faith, some maybe not do good.

It likely would have never crossed a typical Catholics mind to go find a book on the prohibited list just to learn the other side’s position.

 

[PetraG]

It likely would have never crossed a typical Catholics mind to go find a book on the prohibited list just to learn the other side’s position.

It is likely based on human nature that some of us want to read a book precisely because it “made” a prohibited list.

 

[tafan2]

Why do you say the rule was harmful? Do you know someone, beyond the author and publishers, who were harmed?
Why contradictory? What was it contradicting?

 

[PetraG]

Haha I’m sure you’re quite right! Thank you again for taking the time to respond.

I hate to be a stickler though, but I must ask–doesn’t the fact that Catholics were probably unaware of a rule not negate the fact that the rule was harmful & contradictory? Because say they did know about the rule. Then we’re back to square one, no?

Maybe I should just let this go. I definitely still find it troubling, though…

If there was a harm in it (that is, a list of “prohibited” books) it would be that it gives works written in error a glamour that they don’t deserve.

There isn’t any harm in telling someone that a certain book is misleading or that it contains serious errors. To the contrary, that is a service. Your doctor would do it, if the book were a self-help book about health. Who is better qualified whether a book about your body is true or not? Sorry, but probably your physician and the specialists he or she knows are reliable are better qualified. They also too often have come to know all the ways that such a book has actually harmed patients. Your doctor might decide that putting the book on a “prohibited list” might have the opposite of the intended effect, though.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Excellent point. How is someone harmed by NOT reading heretical, untrue things?

 

[1Lord1Faith]

Still, I would not say that Lumen Gentium, for instance, is quite so adamant that the word obedience is “not even helpful.”

There is nuance to the relationship between the laity and those with a pastoral office:

There’s not much nuance there in that part of LG. It’s talking about practical matters. For example, laity advising pastors on practical matters and then the laity respecting the decision the pastor makes. There’s nothing in that context that’s referring to religious assent of teachings either dogmatic or prudential. It’s referring to stuff like what to teach the parish kids this year, or what kind of lights to go with in the sanctuary. The paragraph is in reference to administrative type issues. But even so, people can still hold to their perspective and push back. I mean, it should be obvious that a pastors prerogative on XYZ isn’t always going to be right, and may actually be harmful. The sexual abuse scandals alone are proof of that. It would be a mistake to read that sentence as a call to blind obedience to a pastor, or a bishop for that matter. No, people are to follow their conscience. They are not called to blind obedience to their pastors.

 

[PetraG]

There’s not much nuance there in that part of LG. It’s talking about practical matters. For example, laity advising pastors on practical matters and then the laity respecting the decision the pastor makes. There’s nothing in that context that’s referring to religious assent of teachings either dogmatic or prudential. It’s referring to stuff like what to teach the parish kids this year, or what kind of lights to go with in the sanctuary. The paragraph is in reference to administrative type issues. But even so, people can still hold to their perspective and push back. I mean, it should be obvious that a pastors prerogative on XYZ isn’t always going to right, and may actually be harmful. The sexual abuse scandals alone are proof of that. It would be a mistake to read that sentence as a call to blind obedience to a pastor, or a bishop for that matter. No, people are to follow their conscience. They are not called to blind obedience to their pastors.

Yes, the Apostolic authority is generally not used to forbid people from even reading things because the things have been identified as false. To clarify my meaning: yes, Lumen Gentium does teach that we do have an obligation to conform ourselves to what the Church teaches in matters of faith and morals:

Bishops who teach in communion with the Roman Pontiff are to be revered by all as witnesses of divine and Catholic truth; the faithful, for their part, are obliged to submit to their bishops’ decision, made in the name of Christ, in matters of faith and morals, and to adhere to it with a ready and respectful allegiance of mind. This loyal submission of the will and intellect must be given, in a special way, to the authentic teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, even when he does not speak ex cathedra in such wise, indeed, that his supreme teaching authority be acknowledged with respect, and sincere assent be given to decisions made by him, conformably with his manifest mind and intention, which is made known principally either by the character of the documents in question, or by the frequency with which a certain doctrine is proposed, or by the manner in which the doctrine is formulated.

In other words, we can read whatever we want, but we also have a duty to act so as to conform ourselves to the faith as the Church teaches it. That cannot mean saying we feel what we don’t feel or see what we don’t see. I take you to mean that would require an act in violation of integrity. One cannot support the truth by making a false statement about oneself, even to oneself. Yes, totally!

It does mean giving assent that certain articles of faith are true whether we feel or see the truth of them or not. We have to ask whether perhaps we don’t understand the teaching, there are many ways that can go, but we cannot simply take it upon ourselves to say something that we must accept is in fact true is perhaps not true for us. But yes, it is OK to say, this is true and I know it is true but I have to be honest and say I don’t understand how it is true. That is only being fully truthful rather than making the pretense of being truthful.

 

[dejj]

You write, “The dilemma involves the Church’s former [italics mine] banning of books.”

Did you resolve the dilemma? It appears to be a former thing to ban books from other denominations, as the Holy Spirit said. Does the Catholic Church allow us to read non-Catholic books these days? I would argue ‘yes’ based on what you wrote.

If it’s okay to read other books, here’s something from The Book of Secret Wisdom by Zinovia Dushkova: a million years ago, the Sons of Light gave humanity scrolls that were recorded in the language of Senzar (i.e., the sun; you know, people used to worship the sun before Abraham figured out and was called to worship God), but humanity burned the scrolls. Tradition means that there is a tradition and we are just doing tradition over and over again. Indeed, the Bible is a history book that has come to us through the changes of time.

There is no conflict with the Bible in discussing that humanity was here a million years ago. As you know, humanity evolved as Darwin said, then, Satan fell, everything was void and empty, and then, God made us all over again from dust and that was the beginning of recorded history.

 

[Lion_IRC]

… a dilemma which has rocked my world a bit–I can not see any solution to it.

Am I right in understanding that you see some sort of unanswerable problem with asymmetrical free-speech / censorship rules?

…what’s good for the goose should be good for the gander.

…Group A allows free speech, but Group B does not.

…Holocaust denial is banned in Germany but American neo-Nazis are allowed to read books on that very topic.

…Big Tech (Twitter, Pinterest, Facebook, etc) extends free speech rights to animal activists but not for pro-lifers who get banned for ‘misinformation’

I think you should first establish that this sort of asymmetry is necessarily, always and obviously wrong. And even if you were able to show that asymmetric censorship is totally unjustifiable, you would still need to answer your opponents whose response might simply be…“so what?”

We live in the midst of such relativistic post-modernism that the tolerance of every viewpoint is presumed to be a good thing. But this is nonetheless still a self-asserting presumption. And as such, it amounts to special pleading. It’s also a self-refuting paradox because I’m now liberated and free to express my contrary (gainsaying) viewpoint and assert that NOT all freedom of expression is good.