There have been some hot debates as of late on what is the right thing to do.  Political debates, “vaccine” debates, where one should be praying and what constitutes an appropriate act of obedience.  And when I say “hot debates”, I mean HOT.  Like next level divisively hot debates.

Over the last couple of weeks, many have been asked: “what side are you on?”  Well, there is only one side ever worth being on in all things and at all times: the side of truth.  

I don’t enjoy debates, I enjoy dialogue.  In the spirit of Socrates defending the dialectic method itself in the Gorgias, I believe discussions where both parties are not equally pursuing the truth together are not worth the time.  And even in debates where each side is pursuing the truth, if the debate is particularly divisive, rhetorical, or emotional, what is the point of getting involved, if one is not firmly convinced of a certain argument? Further, as soon as the debate becomes highly telephonic, engaging in such debate often sets one up for ambush or other peril at a later time.  Doesn’t feeding the “REO Speedwagon Communication Network” (I heard it from a friend who heard it from a friend) grant such kind of communication an undue acknowledgment of legitimacy?

In addition to an obligation to diligently learn the truth and live by it, one has a duty to share his understanding of the truth with others (CCC 425-6).  The intellectually honest man must boldly proclaim the Truth (found in the person of Christ).  After all, we literally worship Truth.  As Jesus stated in John’s Gospel, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.” (Jn 14:6)  But this requires a spirit of constant diligence to learn what is true and to always be intellectually honest and consistent.

This was not always my MO.  For example, once upon a time, I had a habit of reflexively defending corporate America, believing that being on the side of “team red” simply required me to do so.  “It’s just part of being a good and ‘smart’ conservative!”, I thought.  No need to further study or develop refined opinions on economics, government bureaucracy, corporate welfare, or the plutocracy.   But now, the more the Great Reset unfolds and the more predictable the further attacks on Western Civilization become, I no longer simply dole out blanket rhetorical epithets to “make those liberal snowflakes cry”.  You want to have an honest and nuanced discussion about Klaus Schwab, George Soros, the Plutocracy, the Technocracy, the Big Corporate Industrial Complex, the Pharmaceutical Industrial Complex, the IMF, Wall Street, Central Banking, and the elite over world agenda?  Let’s do it.  Authentic dialogue broadens and deepens our understandings and helps us act in ways that will truly build up Christ’s kingdom on earth while rejecting the divided and confused kingdom the evil one wants us to be enslaved to.

If one does not sincerely pursue the truth in his moral, spiritual, and practical day to day life and attempt to live by it, he can only be on the side of the Father of Lies.  As Pope John Paul II put in his encyclical on truth itself, Veritatis Splendor,

     Pilate’s question: ‘What is truth’ reflects the distressing perplexity of a man     who often
     no longer knows who he is, whence he comes and where he is     going. Hence we not
     infrequently witness the fearful plunging of the human     person into situations of
     gradual selfdestruction.  (VS, Chapter III, 84)

A Controversial Take

That’s right, one of my favorite encyclicals is Veritatis Splendor (the Splendor of Truth).  Is it more ironic or more apropos to mention this encyclical?  For one, just mentioning this encyclical has put me at odds with many on “team Traditionalists”.  Let me now engage in what some of my old Semi-Pro Football teammates used to call “real talk”.  It is getting tiresome to constantly hear so many lambaste Pope John Paul II and literally dismiss every word he has ever written, accompanied by the reminder that Pope John Paull II once kissed a Koran.  Did Pope John Paul II kiss a Koran?  All signs point to “yes”.  Was that a grave error?  YES!  Does this automatically mean that he was a secret Freemason and that everything out of the Church since Vatican II is inherently false?  For goodness sake, NO!

Admittedly, the last comment would be an extreme take, but as there absolutely are men among us who reduce everything wrong with the world to “modernism” and Vatican II, such a take on JPII is not far off the mark for some.  It is worth challenging these brothers to explain what writings of Pope John Paul II they have contention with and why.  Is it fair to criticize certain opinions of Pope John Paul II, Pope Benedict XVI, or Pope Francis?  Of course.  But it’s equally fair to back up strong opinions with commensurate academic diligence.

What is so great about Veritatis Splendor?  For one, it is a brilliant means by which Consequentialism, Proportionalism, and the Fundamental Option Theory were refuted by our Supreme Pontiff at the time of its publication.  Here’s a valid criticism: it would have been nice if Pope John Paul II didn’t take so long to publish it.  The errors in moral theology that JPII called out were ravaging many Catholics for decades up to that point.  Many had been tricked by dissenting moral theologians and poorly trained priests using erroneous teachings to “absolve” the faithful of all sorts of sins bringing them to “gradual selfdestruction”. (Ibid.)  These people were taking the sin of contraception, for example, to their priests and were being told, “your ends justify the means”.  There was so much confusion that an encyclical on truth itself was probably the most appropriate encyclical that could have been written at that time. 

For those who have not read it, please study its contents.  Observe the craftiness by which JPII wove scripture, St. Thomas, St. Augustine, and the rest into a bold condemnation of bad moral theology.  The modernists thought there was no way a Pontiff could pull off a formal condemnation of such errors without being guilty of “manualism” or “legalism”.  But Pope John Paul II pulled it off.  Splendidly.  Focus on the words of the encyclical themselves, and if you still come away angry or disappointed, please let me know as I would love any further illumination on the Holy Father’s writing that I may have missed.  

A Thomistic Appeal

Why is the truth important?  Why must one live by the truth and to act upon it?  
The answer is quite simple: man is the rational animal.  Unique to his nature, among the animals, is to know.  How does man know?  By observing the nature of things (what they are ordered toward).  As he says in his commentary on Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics, man, acting properly qua man, studies that which has being, he then understands the nature of the things he observes in the world, and then, by his actions, he respects the order of the real world (eternal law) as it has been designed by God.  Specifically, when man understands his own nature, and applies his will to do that which fulfills him as a human person per se, and avoids that which inherently is disordered (against his nature), he does what is right, and thus glorifies God.  In his discourses on man and the natural law, St. Thomas establishes the integral connection between speculative and practical reason: in order to know what one must do, he must first apply his reason well and simply know.  Any act that is moral is an act that can be justified by reason.  And there is no immoral act which can be justified by reason.

Put another way, man was made to contemplate, study, and determine what is right and is bound by his conscience to do what he earnestly concludes is right.  If one diligently studied the natural law and then came to a conclusion about what the right thing to do was, and then chose against it, it would be impossible to justify such an action.  One would literally have to say, “I thought doing X was right, so I did Y.  I figured it would be right not to do what I thought was right”.  Such would be preposterous.  

Or as St. John Henry Cardinal Newman once said, "Conscience is the aboriginal Vicar of Christ" ("Letter to the Duke of Norfolk", Catholic Teaching, 1885).  A point one member of my community defended quite well for several weeks before leading a host of faithful to pray on a public sidewalk for lost souls at a hotel. 

Some Questions Worthy of Dialogue

There are some tough questions many faithful are either asking right now or should be asking quite soon.  It is imperative that we discern the answers to these questions and act boldly and upon right reason.  Here are a few that I have heard discussed that I believe are worthy of dialogue sooner rather than later:

Can one attend an SSPX church?  Under what circumstances?

The Pope has recently told the faithful that we must obey the UN.  Must we?  Why should we or why shouldn’t we?  He is the Supreme Pontiff, after all.  What are the limits and circumstances by which we must be obedient to the Supreme Pontiff?

My own Bishop requested that parishioners throughout the diocese wear masks in church in 2020.  Was I obliged to obey this desire?

If a new Bishop requests that all priests receive the “vaccine”, are they bound to follow such a desire?  If a few priests then face predictable medical complications as a result, will the laity be willing to acknowledge that taking the “vaccine” under such compulsion was the wrong decision for such priests?  Even before that, what movements are the laity making to support our priests so that they feel emboldened to defend their basic human right to make a prudential decision regarding their own health?  

Are these rhetorical questions?  Yes.  Were they written with an objective in mind?  Partially.  But here is the objective: I humbly pray that these questions can be discussed and answered before the responses (from whomever) become entirely reactionary and further division ensues.  Because the time to answer such question is inevitable.  Such time will come, whether you like it or not.  And if we are too afraid to be at all proactive in facing them, then the division and angst felt over the last few weeks will pale in comparison to what’s ahead.  

On that note, I would like to end with another timeless gem from Pope John Paul II,

     It is an illusion to think that faith, tied to weak reasoning, might be more penetrating;
     on the contrary, faith then runs the grave risk of withering into myth or superstition.
     (Fides et Ratio, Ch. 4, 48)

The good man reasons well and acts accordingly.  Let’s be good men and good Catholics who are bold enough to do the same.    

God bless,
Gadfly