A very thoughtful post from a very clever, devout Catholic, 'Bonald', in today's Othosphere (the primary lesson I take from it is that we only have our Faith-Man's inadequate reason and puny powers of language cannot save us): "How my thinking has changed since I started blogging 16 years ago Usually, as a man ages, he grows more humble, less sure of his opinions, more tolerant of the world’s folly. On the other hand, there has definitely been a society-wide trend of radicalization in the past decade, a tendency to see our political opponents as enemies rather than people with different opinions, seldom worth speaking to and never worth listening to. I see both influences on myself. How can this be, when the two effects seem so contrary? How can a man grow both more tolerant and more intolerant? In fact, there is a connection: both involve a loss of faith in the power of reason, in particular in the power of rational discourse to achieve consensus. That is the common thread in all the ways I have changed in these 16 years fighting the Long Defeat. I’ve lost my faith in reason; I no longer see any point in arguing. Back in my Throne and Altar days, I considered it a duty to keep contact with the other side, to at least skim liberal/mainstream news, to study liberal political philosophy as presented by liberals themselves. I’m no longer willing to even listen to these people. I don’t trust them to deal honestly on any matter I care about. In this, I am typical. A lot of people wrote off their political opponents for good in around 2020, an unfortunate situation for which I hold the Left and its unhinged anti-white, anti-Christian bigotry entirely to blame. (But then, I would think that, settled in my epistemic bubble as I am, wouldn’t I?) I no longer feel the need to come up with arguments for claims I reject. “Transgenderism” was the issue that started this for me. I have no argument against the claim that a man who mutilates himself and thinks he’s a woman is in fact a woman. I mean, I’m sure I could probe my intuitions, make deductions from natural law, and fashion arguments, as I have done in response to previous iterations of the Sexual Revolution, but this time, I had a powerful feeling that I would be wasting my time and degrading myself. Partly it’s because I’ve come to despise semantic games: if one defines “woman” to mean “anyone who identifies as a woman”, then yes, the dude in a dress is a woman, but he’s crazy to “identify” that way. My opponents are very well funded and have an army of writers working all day on word tricks to justify predetermined conclusions. They can generate sophistries faster than honest amateurs could hope to swat them down, and honest amateurs don’t have media platforms, so no one will ever learn about our refutations anyway. I remember how infuriated I was when a paid DEI bureaucrat at my university explained, during the diversity training that is mandatory to take part in a faculty search committee, that diversity (i.e. non-whiteness, non-maleness) does not compete with merit because diversity is a component of merit. You see–just redefine “merit”, and there are no trade-offs! This is the sort of childish wordplay that people only get away with because no one is allowed to question it. I’m not going to bother arguing with that bishop who says Catholics can’t object to anti-white discrimination because “DEI means God”. New ones are always popping up. “It’s not true that the Israel lobby exerts enormous influence over US foreign policy. We’re actually under the nefarious control of…Qatar!” “We’ve got to defeat Putin in Ukraine, or else he’s going to conquer the rest of Europe!” There’s a rather clever fellow influential in nationalist circles who’s case boils down to “Putting-our-own-people-first is a great principle. No one does it better than Israel. Therefore, the Western putting-our-own-people first movement must support Israel and approve for them an ethnic particularism that remains forbidden to us.” Political science and philosophy departments continue to churn out books on the need to defend democracy from the popular will and to defend liberalism from expression of disapproved beliefs. Argument is pointless. No one is arguing in good faith–not even, I suspect, me. I’ve come to hate theology–not knowledge about God itself, of course, but the stuff that theologians write. Nothing else I have studied relies so consistently on playing with words. This is ironic, because theological argumentation was arguably what got me into blogging in the first place. I found that I was pretty good at it. It felt good to turn the tables on a complacent establishment that imagined conservative Christianity to be indefensible and its adherents uniformly stupid. I do not think that this good feeling is spiritually healthy though. Victory in a battle of wits goes not to who is right but to who is clever, who is best at sleight of hand redefinition of words, shifting the burden of proof, or inventing arbitrary but plausible-sounding metaphysical or hermeneutic principles. I haven’t changed my theological beliefs, but I think much less of the arguments I used to make for them. Most of the historical Christian heresies were not heresies at all, but only disagreements over how to use words. Thus, I regard Monophysites, Monothelitists, and Nestorians as purely semantic heretics, i.e. not heretics at all. Whether Christ has one nature or two just depends on how you choose to use words. I’ve heard clever arguments that the whole economy of salvation depends on Christ having two natures, but I can think of equally compelling arguments that it depends on him having one. The Jansenist and Quietist “heresies” also, I’d say, existed primarily in the minds of uncharitable readers. Even the difference between theism and pantheism is quite slippery when one tries to peg it down. As I said in a comment to JMSmith, Catholic apologists’ belligerence toward Protestants has irrationally intensified as the Papacy discredits itself. “My impression is that the ‘crazy-ex-girlfriend’ phenomenon is fairly recent. As recently as the Benedict XVI pontificate, the guns were all pointed at secularism…’all the evils of the world come from Luther’ nonsense was much less prevalent than ‘all the evils of the world come from Ockham/Descartes’ nonsense…Now, Catholic apologists seem to waste much more of their time attacking fellow Christians. Doing this in the decade when sodomism has achieved hegemony in the West is positively perverse. Maybe it’s because it’s safer to attack long-dead Protestants than the State-enforced worship of sexual perversion. Maybe it’s a reaction to Bergoglio’s heresies: Catholics either felt obliged to follow him in endorsing abominations or they felt the need to prove that they weren’t Protestants for failing to do so, which they did by noisily attacking Protestantism. The new pope indicates that he intends to change doctrine to endorse abominations but only after the faithful have been bullied and cajoled enough that our attitudes are softened up. I presume orthodox Catholics will respond by attacking Martin Luther harder.” I didn’t think of it at the time, but another contributing factor is that in the 21st century preserving an identity has become synonymous with holding a grudge, i.e. my “tribal Catholicism” gone negative. If only the rules of logic made reason as automatic and impersonal as arithmetic, but in metaphysics and ethics, the axioms themselves are up for grabs, and we can’t avoid a certain personal responsibility for our own conclusions. The real problem is motivation. Society was lost when people started wanting social liberalism to be true and looking for reasons in its favor; the Church was lost when people started wanting theological liberalism to be true and looking for reasons in its favor. A clever fellow looking for an argument to justify fornication will succeed; demanding he reason carefully will slow him down only slightly. Rather than argue with him, it might be better to shame him for his unchaste motive. We were lost when we stopped wanting what God offers us and started wanting what the world offers us, i.e. when we ceased to have Hope."
Postscript: I must make it clear that I'm not advocating Fideism (nor, I think, is Bonald), we need Faith to be Reasonable, but trying to argue our case with the enemy is perhaps only to futilely engage in their rationalistic debate, something that we cannot win on its terms. Also, I think he makes a good point about some of the 'heresies'. They might merely have been semantical misunderstandings in the cases he mentioned. The churches founded on these heresies have survived to this day. I note that he doesn't mention Arianism, which is unquestionably a heresy, explicitly denying Christ's divinity and therefore His salvivic power. It is noteworthy that Arianism per se did not survive, despite having at one time far more members than any of the other 'heresies' (unless one wishes to include Unitarianism, which is as good as dead, anyway). I sympathise with his point that we should be more cooperative with non-woke other Christians-I interpret that he means all the woke are fair game, 'Christian' or otherwise. He certainly has no hesitation in calling out Francis and Leo as heretical-they're not merely misunderstood, but have engaged in and are attempting to engage in changing doctrine towards the tolerance, and obviously celebration, of unquestionably wicked perversions. I think we on this site have generally been happy to take every ally that we can. I recall a general consensus that many Northern Protestants are natural allies, on social issues, of orthodox Catholics in the South of Ireland, to take one example. Even a lot of Muslims have more in common with us than most liberals, although they are our enemies in so many ways.
Thank you for posting this. It was refreshing. Even bracing like a crisp breeze. When Ireturnd to the faith I became immediately traditional--- what the Church has always taught. No novelties. I am done with these wars. You and Ronald are right. Anyone determined to have whatever vice is on offer will not be influenced by rational argument. I remember back in the 90's when I was involved in pro life and realized that even when science finally admits the child in the womb from conception is in fact a human child it simply wouldn't matter to the pro aborts. "So what? I still have the right to abort" in this moment my eyes were opened. St Paul says to avoid fruitless argument. So now unless the Holy Spirit directs me to speak i avoid contention and I pray. Sometimes I condemn myself for cowardice but in the end prayer is more effective than words. Forgiveness is more powerful than polemics. Holy Hours are infinitely more powerful than time spent arguing. Excellent article.
Personally, I am of the opinion that our allies are people of good will. Those who are not, are those who promote evil as good and good as evil disingenuously. That people of good will are currently experiencing the cross. That the separation of the sheep and the goats is happening currently. Birth pangs.
Exorcists are not really supposed to talk to demons. With the exception of learning their names and how they got into the poor person in order to get rid of the things. The Roman Rituale warns exorcists not to do chat but still some priests do so and there are records of some quite lengthy conversations. Down the years I have read many of these and the strong sense from these is that the demons are not logical but are in fact insane. Not insane in a way that would excuse them their evil. just that they have left logic and true reason far, far behind. One example of this a exorcist asked a demon why it went into Rebellion against God since God being God Almighty he and the other devils were going to be defeated? At which the demon screamed in a fury and said, 'Don't test me on this!!' More and more I have the feeling as I get older that Evil is insane and illogical. This being so , I don't think it is amenable to reason. I think perhaps you see this in the Gospels with Jesus. When evil mal intentioned people came to argue with Him his answers tended to be short, sweet and to the point. Jesus did not think He would change the mind of the bad people themselves I think His answers short as they were was to the listeners. There have been Saints like St Dominic who did appear to convert people with arguments. But looking back on it I don't think it was so much what Dominic said that brought about conversion, it was more about what St Dominic was that had effect. Also his miracles. The only time I think I would get into a deeper discussion would be if I saw the Holy Spirit had opened or half opened a door. Or to put it another way if the Holy Spirit tapped me on the shoulder to do so/
I made a terrible mistake one time when I was very young. I was talking to an atheist and he asked me why I would not conduct an argument with him and I quoted this. Then he said to me, 'Are you calling me a pig!' (I suppose I was...cringe)... I think the only reason why I might get into a big debate would be for the fun of it. Like a Chess game. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for anything spiritual.
I see on the news that the Vatican nuncio has refused a request from Fr. Pavone (who was stripped of his faculties a while back) to receive temporary faculties so as to be able to celebrate the funeral Mass for his Mom who has just died. This is what is called cruelty and a total lack of compassion.
Indeed. True, perfect Reason is encapsulated in the Logos, St. John the Evangelist's Greek term for The Word, which represents the infinite, eternal Knowledge/Reason of the Son of God. The reason of all creatures is incomprehensibly inferior to the Logos. In the hierarchy of creaturedom, mankind lies way below the angels, despite our creation in the likeness of God. Still, this 'likeness' must, in my (very) humble opinion grant mankind the Grace of a Reason that possesses at its height an integrity very much in excess, despite its inherent intellectual limits, of that of even the highest angels, provided it is accompanied by Faith. Our Lady is the prime exemplor. Arguments propagated by the Saints are persuasive, but not to those who set their hearts not to reason, but a 'rationalism' that is Reason's opposite. Think of the rationalism of the Pharisees confronted by the Logos.
These are the people who have no problem 'accompanying' buggery, if I can be excused my bluntness. And, let's face it, have they for decades been so disciplinarian about multiple episodes of abuse of children? And they're still not. All sorts of bending over backwards to 'treat' and 'understand' these monsters (is it because they do the same themselves, or would like to?), but a priest who wishes to say the Funeral Mass for his mother...?
seem to have grown so cold You know there was a man on EWTN a while back talking about when Francis was their bishop in Argentina and they were holding their annual Corpus Christi procession and they always carried a banner at the front and Beroglio came down quite hard on them and said they could not carry the banner. Just an absolute no, he said if the next bishop would let them carry the banner good, but they could not while he was bishop. It just seemed so petty and mean cold hearted a thing to do, it leaves you speechless. Our bishops{some of them, not all but too many of them} have grown so cold and don't have the love of Christ in their hearts. Is it any wonder then that people have grown so cold and empty. Do any of them pray anymore?
"Because of the great evil around them the love of many will grow cold." Words of Jesus We are seeing this right in front of our eyes.
I think the way of the Christian is that every individual soul is of infinite importance. So everyone is worth loving. No one gets left out. It is of the heart But from a kind of Socialist/ Liberal/ Free Masonic/ Woke/ Globalist way of looking at things it is not individuals who are important but classes and categories and ideas/ Of the head/. So for instance when such people talk of loving homosexuals, for instance, they don't mean as individuals , they mean they love the idea of homosexuality.
