Thursday, September 22, 2011

Of Herrings and Heresy

A red herring might be defined as a rhetorical device to distract someone from the real argument. There are three such relativistic devices--heresies or red herrings--that are used in our society constantly. They may be named the sentimental heresy, the utilitarian heresy and the political heresy. These forms of argument are, for the most part, subjective and relativistic.

The sentimental heresy uses strong emotions--either negative or positive--to argue the case. Now, I'm not about to argue about married priests pro or con. This is a post about forms of argument, so the following is just an example. So, for example, the sentimental argument in favor of married priests goes like this: "Father Bob is so lonely being celibate. He's such a fine man, and a good woman and a beautiful family would make him happy. Think of all those celibate priests who go home every night to an empty house..." You get the idea.

The utilitarian heresy used for the same cause would be, "Father Bob would understand family life so much better if he were married himself. He would be a better priest because he would have a good woman to back him up, and she could earn a second income as well, which would be good!" In this case the argument seeks to show how a particular innovation would be more useful than the status quo.

The political heresy turns the debate into a question of human rights and justice and fairness. So for married priests the political argument is, "What right does the Pope have to ban marriage for priests? Don't they have the right to be happy like anyone else? It's unjust. Why do men have to take on celibacy just because they have a call to priesthood?"

These three forms of argument are okay when you're dealing with genuine questions of human rights, or a genuine debate about the usefulness of an idea or when you genuinely want someone's sentimental opinion about an issue. Where they become heresies is when they become the only argument, and when they are used in matters where sentiment, utility and politics are of secondary importance--there being a more important and higher priority of truth to be decided.

This is where Catholicism cuts through the muddy thinking. Catholics should understand that there is a hierarchy of truth, and that true teaching on faith and morals trumps mere sentiment, utility and politics every time. The subjective opinions expressed as sentiment, utilitarianism and politics are necessary, but they need to be enlightened and informed by the greater teachings of the Catholic faith.


19 comments:

  1. Poor choice of example, seeing as how you're a married and, ostensibly, not celibate priest.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you! I think this will be extremely helpful. Just to be able to look at arguments/responses in this light should help me with apologetics tremendously.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So what would St Peter say with his mother-in-law alongside him - "Do as I say but not as I do"?

    ReplyDelete
  4. The post is about forms of argument--not about married priests pro or con...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Sure - I'm just being a little subversive before I join my wife in bed...

    ReplyDelete
  6. For those who would oppose priestly celibacy, and oppose the Church's teaching on it, just exactly what is it that they propose?

    That married men be allowed to be ordained as priests?

    Or that priests be allowed to date (and date and date and date) and (maybe) get married while a priest?

    Should priests be allowed to date parishioners? Should they be allowed to date someone who has gone to them for Confession? Or should they confine themselves to picking up women at the bar?

    And when the woman with whom he has fallen madly in love insists that she wants to "take the car for a test drive before she buys it," what then? Does the dating priest give in or dump her and lose his chance at happiness?

    Just how would this work, exactly? After all, single priests are entitled to love too, aren't they?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Our Holy Father backs you up in his Opening address to the German people yesterday:
    http://tinyurl.com/3k8a8td

    Uncanny that they should coincide on the same day...

    ReplyDelete
  8. \\That married men be allowed to be ordained as priests?\\

    Happens all the time in the Eastern Catholic Churches, Bender. There are several in my city.

    Of course, one must be married BEFORE ordination.

    \\Should they be allowed to date someone who has gone to them for Confession?\\

    In the Ukrainian Catholic Church, married priests do not hear the confessions of their parents or wives.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Father,

    Obviously, you missed another red herring. What name would you give to the technique of focusing exclusively on the illustrative example instead of the actual points being discussed?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I have been for over 35 years a member of an ecumenical renewal group in our city. When we were just getting started, we had many teachings on various aspects of the Christian life, including some on marriage. I still recollect leaving the talk on marriage with the thought, "So marriage is a commitment to a life of service. That's why it makes sense for even unmarried priests to provide marriage counseling."

    Not to focus exclusively on your example at the expense of your major point.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Since this is about the form of an argument rather than its content, presumably you would classify this as an example of the utilitarian heresy: "He that is without a wife is solicitous for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please God. But he that is with a wife, is solicitous for the things of the world, how he may please his wife: and he is divided. And the unmarried woman and the virgin thinketh on the things of the Lord, that she may be holy both in body and spirit. But she that is married thinketh on the things of this world how she may please her husband." It's an odd classification that makes 1 Corinthians heretical.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Maybe thefederalist missed the subtlety of the real scarlet fish: the sleight-of-hand red herring.

    By using a particular example - in this instance priestly celibacy (oh, the irony!) - to illustrate both the colour and the scaly nature of the arguments commonly ranged against it, the inference is quietly being drawn that the example itself is actually beyond argument. The conjurer, by showing these arguments to be unfounded, directs attention away from the fact that the example may be unsound in itself on other grounds altogether - as of course it is.

    Those, therefore, who focus on the illustrative example are in fact refusing to be distracted by the conjurer's sleight of hand and are trying to focus on the really important issue.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Vic, you're starting to sound like Duane Mandible!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Is he a Jesuit too?

    ReplyDelete
  15. Of course, one must be married BEFORE ordination.

    Of course? Why "of course"?

    Is that not then an invitation to delay ordination until one is married? Indeed, why should any single man even bother to enter the seminary?

    To those who insist that the Church should change --
    Why shouldn't a priest be able to marry AFTER ordination?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Flyingvic,
    Nowhere in scripture do the sacred authors mention Peter's mother in-in-law, just her house. That would indicate she was no longer living.

    ReplyDelete
  17. @Face. That is an example of another fallacy --- the ad hominem.

    ReplyDelete
  18. helgothjb --

    Actually, the Gospel does indicate that she is very much alive.

    "Jesus entered the house of Peter, and saw his mother-in-law lying in bed with a fever. He touched her hand, the fever left her, and she rose and waited on him." -- Mt. 8:14-15

    ReplyDelete
  19. Bender said, "Is that not then an invitation to delay ordination until one is married?"

    There are lots of jokes among the Orthodox about how desperate seminarians are to marry before their ordination.

    ReplyDelete