|
"Ecclesiastical Totalitarianism," it is a jarring juxtaposition of words, a contradiction in terms for any denomination professing true belief in the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. However, that is precisely how some observers are describing the beliefs espoused by the new Roman Catholic Pontiff, former Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Of course, the term Pontiff comes from the Latin term pontifex, or "bridge builder." It would seem that the new Pope intends to be a bridge builder only for the purpose of building overpasses to the next life, not in the sense of reaching out to others here on Earth. According to an article by Daniel J. Wakin in today's edition (3/20/05) of the NY Times, "A Theological Visionary With Roots in Wartime Germany," a biographer of Pope Benedict XVI named John L. Allen Jr. sees the new Pope as what some might call the "Fascist of Faith":
"Having seen fascism in action, Ratzinger today believes that the best antidote to political totalitarianism is ecclesiastical totalitarianism," he wrote. "In other words, he believes the Catholic Church serves the cause of human freedom by restricting freedom in its internal life, thereby remaining clear about what it teaches and believes." <Emphasis added.>
This is fallacious reasoning on several levels. In the first place, it essentially argues that two wrongs make a right. The tortured logic goes something like this: Political totalitarianism is bad because it restricts human freedom. If the Catholic Church forces its members to adhere to a strict orthodoxy of belief, they will be free to believe and do as the Church commands. Therefore, ecclesiastical totalitarianism is good. In other words, the end justifies the means. If you do something that is generally considered to be wrong, but you do it in the service of good (or the name of God), you are doing a right.
However, just because political totalitarianism is wrong, it does not follow that ecclesiastical totalitarianism is an acceptable way to oppose and counteract it. Moreover, what if the Pope and his clergy are deluded about the correctness of the course they have chosen for Catholics throughout the world? They are just as human as the rest of us and are therefore capable of unintentionally committing serious errors in judgment.
The Pope is also committing the fallacy of "Special Pleading" because he is implicitly claiming that he and the Church are exempt from certain principles or standards, without providing sufficient justification for the exemption. The new Pope assumes that political totalitarianism is a bad thing. However, following his logic, it goes without saying that the Church is good and knows what is best for its flock. Therefore, ecclesiastical totalitarianism is a good thing.
Yet, not everyone would agree that the Church is always good and correct in the positions it takes. Let's not forget Copernicus, Gallileo and the Inquisition. Moreover, many would argue that the very isolation of the Catholic hierarchy from the concerns of everyday life due to the celibate lifestyle mandated by the Church makes Catholic clerics, including the Pope, singularly unsuited for the task of comprehending the real world and pronouncing the "True Rule" for all Catholics to follow, regardless of their circumstances.
Of course, others would contend that the fact that the clerics have committed themselves to leading moral lives cuts the other way and that, due to their "removal" from the "real world," they are able to maintain a sense of ethical objectivity that enables them to avoid the temptations and pitfalls to which the rest of us are subject. However, the fact remains that the Pope has chosen to assume as given a point that is definitely debatable. Leading celibate and cloistered lives without having families of their own or facing the need to earn a living in the hardscrabble, workaday world is a double-edged sword that can give one insight on some matters and make one virtually blind on others.
One can also view the Pope's pronouncements on the right of the Church to decide what is best for Catholics as an example of the logical fallacy of "Appeal to Doubtful or Unproven Authority" or the "Appeal ad Verecundiam." This kind of argument usually follows the following pattern: Someone who claims to be an authority on a subject makes a claim about it. Therefore, the claim must be true. This sort of reasoning is fallacious when the alleged authority is not an expert. In such cases the reasoning is flawed because, although the claim could be true, the fact that an unqualified person made the claim does not provide any rational reason to accept it as such. Since people have a tendency to believe authorities (and there are, in fact, good reasons to accept some claims made by authorities), this fallacy is a fairly common one.
Of course, the Pope and other Catholic clerics are undisputably experts on the Catholic Bible. However, it takes a great "leap of faith" to go beyond that and contend that the Bible states "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" or that the Pope is infallible when he makes pronouncements of Church doctrine "ex cathedra." That latter statement is like saying that the Pope (and, by extension, the Church) is always right when he thinks deeply before he speaks and really, really means it.
It is also doubtful that the Pope has any rightful claim to moral authority when it comes to questions of birth control. For one thing, what could he know about it personally? For another, I am not aware of any passages in the Bible that deal directly with this issue. However, even if there were, I do not believe the Bible can be considered a legitimate modern authority on such matters.
It is estimated that, at the end of the Biblical period around 1 A.D., there were only about 200 million people in the entire world. There are now some 6.45 billion. Thus, it is understandable that, throughout the extensive period of history when the books of the Bible were written, there was arguably a perceived need for people to "be fruitful and multiply" so that there would be enough of them to cultivate the land and produce the food necessary for survival. In the eyes of the Israelites, God's "chosen people," it was also necessary for them to reproduce in sufficient numbers to be able to defend themselves against their enemies.
Today, these reasons for promoting unbridled human fecundity no longer have any validity. In these times, unchecked propagation of humanity threatens the supplies of food, water and other resources and bodes ill for the health of the environment. Moreover, survival of an ethnic group or nation in the age of weapons of mass destruction does not necessarily depend on sheer numbers. Maybe for insects or paramecia, but not for humans. Instead, the moral imperative must be to hold the line on further human population growth.
According to the NY Times article, "Even as he celebrated the Mass leading into the conclave on Monday morning, Cardinal Ratzinger called relativism a 'dictatorship' under which the ego and personal desires are paramount. <Emphasis added.>" This is definitely an attempt to turn logic on its head by defining something as its exact opposite. Moral relativism seeks to understand the viewpoints and motivations of other people and recognizes that what seems wrong from one perspective may appear to be right from another. In other words, "walk a mile in the other person's shoes" before you condemn him. I believe this is what Jesus would have done, for Jesus himself said, "Let he who is without blame cast the first stone." Since he did not do so, the clear implication was that not even he was perfect. Why should Popes think that they are?
Moral relativism also holds that one cannot impose one's values on others. They have to be personally convinced of the truth of what you are saying before they will accept it as their truth. The Catholic Church has too often gotten in trouble over this point when it sponsored misguided and bloody Crusades against the infidel defenders of the Holy Land and excommunicated protestant reformers and even tortured supposed heretics. This Pope seems to be one who never learned the lessons of the past. As the saying goes, "He who is not aware of the mistakes of the past is in danger of repeating them." Hopefully, this Pope will come to his senses and avoid that pitfall.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(177 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
