Foolable "M" stumbles while following a Fool!

What a surprise! "M" belatedly takes me to task for being Catholic in this response to a criticism of his self-magisterium ways here. He manages to accomplish an incredible tri-fecta of incompetence:

1. He politicizes me without evidence.
2. He actually helps make my argument by what he says--and doesn't say.
3. He ignores the lack of charity that I called the author of his excerpt on, and whom he supports.

All in all, not a bad days work! If Foolables like this came out of the woodwork more often, it'd make my job a hellova lot easier!

He opens with the typical implied ad hominem employed by the Reasonable:

Of course, comparing war with abortion doesn’t sit well with Catholics on the right.

Fascinating reading of hearts capacity our distinguished commentator possesses, don't you think? A simple search of Holy Fool would demonstrate two factors that contradict his assumption. One is the pride I hold in being a swing voter and a militant independent. Catholic Social Teaching is the paradigm I use to cast my vote. The other is the heat I've likely taken from those Catholics that support the war for my concerns over the U.S. casus belli for the Iraq War. Not exactly the stuff of die-hard war hawks, is it? Thanks for playing, "M". Play again?

Of course he will! He's just getting warmed up after casting that great wind to right field! He'll next argue that the Church has made a pronouncement that it hasn't made. He'll do it by demonstrating that his word is the final authority that he'll accept as a Catholic, thus making my original point even more clearly than I did. He begins with an interpretation of a Pope's words:

He quotes somebody named Jimmy Akin (I have no idea who this Akin guy is) who says, “If the pope really wants to say something in an authoritative way, he says it in a document of a higher order, like a motu proprio, an encyclical, or an apostolic constitution (the last being the most authoritative).”

Well, M, if you want to know who Jimmy Akin is, check out his blog instead of just reading my excerpt. If you did, you'd have found this:

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he was compelled in conscience to enter the Catholic Church, which he did in 1992. His conversion story, "A Triumph and a Tragedy," is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is Director of Apologetics and Evangelization at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to This Rock magazine, and a weekly guest on "Catholic Answers Live.".

Having settled M's concern about my source, I'll address his interpretation of the Pope's addresses:

Or, Mr. Akins, perhaps he does the quicker thing in a time of crisis, sidestepping the lengthy process of publishing and disseminating such a document and sends Vatican officials to the White House, or visits with President Bush himself, making it clear to the president, and all Catholics who actually have ears to hear, that such a war would be absolutely immoral. A face-to-face visit with the president sounds pretty “authoritative” to me, Jimmy.

Interesting, isn't it? Exactly what teachings of Catholicism does M cite in making this definitive statement as to the Pope's magisterial intentions? Oh, that's right: none! He not only misinterpretes the magisterial authority of those specific pronouncements of the Pope, he demonstrates why. In short, the only authority he references in determining the Pope's claim is his own. Not the Church's. Had he reviewed the Church's definitive teaching on the Pope's infallibility, he'd have learned this:

# when the Roman pontiff speaks EX CATHEDRA,

* that is, when,
1. in the exercise of his office as shepherd and teacher of all Christians,
2. in virtue of his supreme apostolic authority,
3. he defines a doctrine concerning faith or morals to be held by the whole church,

# he possesses,

* by the divine assistance promised to him in blessed Peter,

# that infallibility which the divine Redeemer willed his church to enjoy in defining doctrine concerning faith or morals.(from the First Vatican Council)

and this:

This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will. His mind and will in the matter may be known either from the character of the documents, from his frequent repetition of the same doctrine, or from his manner of speaking.
--------------------------------
the infallibility which the Roman Pontiff, the head of the college of bishops, enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith,(166) by a definitive act he proclaims a doctrine of faith or morals.(42*) And therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly styled irreformable, since they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, promised to him in blessed Peter, and therefore they need no approval of others, nor do they allow an appeal to any other judgment. For then the Roman Pontiff is not pronouncing judgment as a private person, but as the supreme teacher of the universal Church, in whom the charism of infallibility of the Church itself is individually present, he is expounding or defending a doctrine of Catholic faith.(43*)

or this:

ß3 No doctrine is understood to be infallibly defined unless this is manifestly demonstrated.

M would then have understood why the Pope's meeting with the POTUS, pronouncements in the media, etc. were not magisterial judgements of the Catholic Church. He would have understood that teaching documents that either define new doctrine, declare dogma or confirm previously undefined teaching carry the greatest magisterial weight--and are infallible. Therefore, other statements and pronouncements of the Pope carry less magisterial weight, and may only be a part of the Ordinary Magisterium (if they address previous revelation or teaching) or lack infallibility at all.

M fails to demonstrate any comprehension of this at all. Indeed, the only "authority" he cites to support his arguments on the Pope's judgement is William Cavanaugh! Yes, that would be this William Cavanaugh:

William T. Cavanaugh is associate professor of theology at the University of Saint Thomas in Saint Paul, Minnesota. He is the author, most recently, of "Theopolitical Imagination" (T. & T. Clark).

Sorry, M. An associate professor of theology just doesn't have the definitive authority of the Pope or Ecumenical councils of the Catholic Church.

M may say all he likes that the war in Iraq was not just. He may even say that Popes and Curial officials agree with him. What he can't say is that the Catholic Church has formally judged the Iraq War to be an unjust war. Thus, he can create no equivalence between the Iraq War and abortion. It doesn't exist. Could that change? Sure. However, so far, these are the facts on the ground. M's baseless assertions to the contrary do not change this fundamental fact.

Sweating at the plate, clearly behind in the count, M elects to take the next pitch. In his original post, the writer he supports declared:

By extolling the actions of our military in Iraq, we negate our teaching on the sanctity of human life and love of neighbor. War is granted our implicit approval. Violence is presented as the way to resolve conflict. Warriors become our children’s heroes. We’re essentially putting patriotism before the tenets of our faith. The result will be schools and students that look and sound more nationalistic than Catholic.

Given the lack of moral equivalency between the war and abortion, this statement is nothing less than insidious slander against American servicemen and servicewomen. What is M's response to this?

Nothing.

Well, that's not quite true. He did have this to say:

I pointed explicitly to the issue of abortion as a matter of comparison in making the argument that the Church has its own set of heroes, those who have stood against war and violence and injustice, and that these are the heroes we should be honoring, rather than those who chose to fight in an unjust war against the counsel of the Church.

He perpetuates the slander first uttered by the writer whose work he quotes.

Ironically, he appeals to Christ as his model, even though he posts such grevious slander and demonstrates such a regrettable lack of charity:

As Christians, we have two choices. We can either continue to tell ourselves that discipleship has nothing to do with resisting violence by emulating the pacifist Christ who said “No greater love is there than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” Or we can take up the cross and follow where he leads, rejecting the warmaking of the nation-state and putting our bodies on the line. I’m choosing the latter. And if Jesus indeed had something else in mind, I guess the joke is on me.

Funny, M, but I thought Christ's Church, whom he built with the price of his own blood, preserved his teaching on such matters as these:

2475 Christ's disciples have "put on the new man, created after the likeness of God in true righteousness and holiness."274 By "putting away falsehood," they are to "put away all malice and all guile and insincerity and envy and all slander."275
-----------------------------------------------------
2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280

2479 Detraction and calumny destroy the reputation and honor of one's neighbor. Honor is the social witness given to human dignity, and everyone enjoys a natural right to the honor of his name and reputation and to respect. Thus, detraction and calumny offend against the virtues of justice and charity.

I guess the joke is on you, M.

M has proven that he's willing to avoid the arguments that detract his treasured ideology and engage in name-calling and distraction in order to make points that support it. His unfortunate behavior, and his consideration of himself as a Catholic, make him a regrettably Foolable pundit. His unwillingness to address authentic Catholic teaching makes his testimony regarding her pronouncements suspect at best and laughable at worst. Fools and others of good will that struggle with the war need all the sound counsel they can find. M ain't it.

Pity. He would make an excellent Fool. If he'd only become more Foolish, and less Reasonable. Perhaps he will some other time.

He certainly didn't do so this time.