With a long and sustained tug we have attempted to pull the mitre off pontifical man; and his head has come off with it. - G.K. Chesterton, Orthodoxy, Ch.3, The Suicide of Thought
Bearded Catholic Randy Beeler, at his blog The Catholic Comedy, comments on "a recent National Catholic Reporter blog post" in which "John Allen quotes Dallas Bishop Kevin Farrell's commencement address at the University of Dallas (UD) last Spring"
From the Bishop's commencement address;
We need to be self-critical and realize that no one of us has the only approach to Catholicism," Farrell said. "Honest debate, not confrontation -- true dialogue where we seek to understand the other, not facile condemnation -- should be the overarching way we move forward.
I want to say going out the gate that don't know much about either John Allen or His Exellency Bishop Farrell, so I am not addressing any of my remarks to them in particular. I will only say that the continued call for "dialogue" from some quarters, whether in the Church or the larger society, can not possibly be understood as open ended and all inclusive. In order for any meaningful debate to take place at all, there must first be some things established that are beyond debate or dialogue, that are not open to argument.
There are some things that may be fascinating to talk about, but useless to argue, such as the validity of Reason, or the general reliability of the senses, or the existence of other selves.
You can't reason your way to the validity of Reason... you can't work out an equation proving the validity of mathematics. You can't prove scientifically that the five senses tell us the truth about the outside world. You can't prove the outside world exists. These are all things that we take for granted as the foundations of reason. Trying to reason one's way toward these things is simply moving in the wrong direction, which reminds me of a joke (courtesy of P.D.Q. Bach)
Mister, do you want us to build your house from the bottom up, or from the top down?
Well, from the bottom up, naturally!
Consarn it, we'll have to tear it down and start all over again!
There may be those who toy with ideas such as that there is really no order in the cosmos, that there are no categories or patterns but what we choose to impose on the chaos of reality... but the people who make these arguments still insist on correct change, still drive on the right side of the road, still wear their pants on their legs and not on their heads. In other words, their philosophy is a phantasm, a mental trick, that even they (thankfully) do not try to take seriously.
As Chesterton said (from Orthodoxy, Ch. 2, "The Maniac");
This chapter is purely practical and is concerned with what actually is the chief mark and element of insanity; we may say in summary that it is reason used without root, reason in the void. The man who begins to think without the proper first principles goes mad, the man who begins to think at the wrong end.
The whole secret of mysticism is this: that man can understand everything by the help of what he does not understand. The morbid logician seeks to make everything lucid, and succeeds in making everything mysterious. The mystic allows one thing to be mysterious, and everything else becomes lucid.
There are any number of things that might be considered inarguable for a Catholic, because if any one of these things is an open question (the points of the Creed, for example), then Catholicism and all of Christian history becomes a continually open question. As St. Paul put it, "... if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith." (1 Cor. 15:14). In other words, the resurrection of Christ is not an issue open for "dialogue" within the Church. Period. Unless this question is considered settled by all parties, the question of, say, priestly celibacy is pretty moot. If Christ is not risen, who cares, frankly, if priests marry or not? Shoot, let them marry. Let them smoke crack.
Then comes the question of who (oh, who?), if anyone, has the authority to determine which areas are legitimately open for dialogue, and which are not. For a Catholic, again, this is a settled question. Someone does have precisely this authority, and... well, I know it's not me.
Let any Catholics looking for dialogue on this or that first state plainly what they accept as beyond debate. That may save everyone a lot of trouble.
Recent Comments