What Bloggers Gab about in Email We work out the details, then he adds:<\/p>\n Say, I just posed a question <\/a>about a Ross Douthat post<\/a>, having to do with Catholic teaching on faith and morals and the obligation of Catholics. I\u2019d appreciate it if you\u2019d weigh in. I really do want to know the answer, and I suspect the comboxes are going to turn into a sneerfest involving the word \u201cGalileo\u201d.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n This may strike some readers as snarky, but I confess that it cracked me up. I sometimes wonder if I could formulate the perfect flamebait post composed entirely of Pavlovian acoustical cues in a sentence that makes no sense like \u201cThe contraception of Galileo by Traditional Latin Mass advocate Benedict XVI shows that Karl Rove, Michael Moore, and Rosie O\u2019Donnell evolved from Nancy Pelosi\u2019s Mormon feminist lesbian and Iraqi baby conceived via in vitro fertilization after her gay marriage to Andrew Sullivan\u2013on 9\/11, in Israel.\u201d Long experience at blogging has taught me that sometimes mere acoustical cues are sometimes all that is necessary for a combox thread to instantly fall into a deep, deep rut in which virtually every thrust and parry of rhetoric is entirely predictable.<\/p>\n Sure enough, one of his readers does attempt the Galileo sneerfest but, to their credit, most of the \u201cChurch is full of crap\u201d crowd manages to keep their sneering roughly on topic and only indulges in the normal \u201cThis is all because of sex-obsessed celibate old men making crazy rules\u201d sneers and not the \u201cThe Church hates and fears science and progress\u201d sneers he feared. So the conversation still struggles to get out of a rut, but at least it\u2019s not the rut Rod anticipated. Also, there are are number of good replies that basically mirror my own.<\/p>\n Re: Ross\u2019 post: The question is not really what one is to believe but what one is to do. Even when we are talking about dogma (which we aren\u2019t here) one of the interesting features of Catholic teaching is that in, say, an encyclical or othe document formulating a dogma (such as, say, Unam Sanctam) *only* the dogma* is protected by infallibility while the reasoning and argument which might be adduced to support it in the rest of the document are not. Similarly, while the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in matters of faith and morals, how she might practically counsel somebody to apply those teachings in a given situation is not protected by infallibility. So we are under no obligation to think that the Magisterium is composed of infallible scientists or economista or political theorists. (Of course, we are also under no obligation to think it is composed of uneducated men either. Indeed, these guys generally are far better educated about stuff than the average American who is often so ready to think they are still grumbling about Galileo.)<\/p>\n Given that the task of the Magisterium is to be informed but not infallible about the places Catholic teaching impinges on practical application in \u201creal life\u201d the general approach I think we should take is to assume they know what they are talking about, but leave wiggle room for mistakes. That does not mean \u201clook for loopholes\u201d but \u201cdon\u2019t have a crisis of faith if it turns out they make a blunder about some practical matter of fact in science, economics, politics, etc.\u201d So, for instance, if it turns out that they get their facts muddled about the effects of a morning after pill, so that they thought it was abortifacient when it wasn\u2019t\u2026 well then, oh well. They were mistaken. It\u2019s not abortifacient. <\/p>\n But so what? It\u2019s still an artificial contraceptive and the Church has always taught that this is contrary to the revealed purpose of sex and marriage. So not much changes beyond a comparatively minor detail. You still shouldn\u2019t take the pill (nor indulge in the activity that necessitates it outside of the sacrament of Matrimony).<\/p>\n For me, what this comes down to is a sort of posture of docility with regard to Church teaching. I find that if one is in a \u201clooking for loopholes\u201d posture of \u201chow little can I get away with believing and obeying?\u201d then every factual peccadillo of the Magisterium tends to get exaggerated into a crisis of \u201cHow can I possibly trust a word they say, much less obey it?\u201d One the other hand, if (like me) the assumption is that they basically are doing what they have ever done\u2013articulating the teaching of the Church and giving broad advice on how to apply it practically (along with lots of caveats about how this is \u201cin most cases\u201d or \u201cassuming the current science is accurate\u201d or \u201cif what the experts say about global warming or the Laffer Curve or the effects of gamma rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds or the situation in Gaza or the abortifacient qualities of morning-after pills is true\u201d)\u2013then crises of faith or obedience tend to be very very rare. I\u2019ve been a Catholic for 20 years and have run across nothing in the Church\u2019s teaching that constituted anything like a crisis of conscience for me (though there\u2019s plenty that constitutes a crisis of convenience for me). Knowledge of the technical details of science, politics, technology, economics, the arts can be quite bollixed up in the mind of a bishop\u2013just as Thomas can have his science from Aristotle be somewhat dodgy\u2013and the main point (and validity) of the Church\u2019s teaching will still stand.<\/p>\n So, for instance, the question that animates Ross would not arise at all for me, because I\u2019m not particularly interested in the problem of whether a morning after pill is abortifacient or not. It\u2019s an artificial contraceptive and so is immoral to use, whether or not it works by murdering a baby or simply by keeping a baby who should exist from coming into being. In the same way, while I\u2019m not sold on the whole global warming thing, I am puzzled by the weird hostility some conservative Catholics have for the Vatican getting behind reduction of carbon emission and so forth. They\u2019re leading by example, not in obedience to some lefty agenda, but to the command to tend the Garden in Genesis. Same with their condemnation of the violence in Gaza and their no-questions-asked welcome to the Spanish speaking stranger in Texas or California. Their task is basically to apply the gospel counsels by the best light they\u2019ve got. If the light is flickering, they might see things that aren\u2019t there, but the basic intent is still the same.<\/p>\n
<\/strong>
So I write Rod Dreher because (bum ba BUM!) I\u2019m coming to Dallas and environs on January 24 ( January 24 9:00 AM \u2013 1:00 PM. St. Anthony parish<\/a>, Wylie TX. Topics: 101 Reasons Not to Be Catholic, This is My Body, Making Senses Out of Scripture<\/em>. Contact: Mark Windsor<\/a>.) I\u2019ve never actually met the guy, so it seemed like a good idea to drop him a line and we could all go out for dinner and a drink.<\/p>\n