'LONG AS YOU KEEP 'EM WAY OFF BALANCE, HOW CAN THEY SPOT, YOU GOT NO TALENTS?

There is nothing with the insane man’s reasoning muses Chesterton in his seminal work, “Orthodoxy.” The difference between a sane man and an insane man is the basic principles or truths upon which he constructs his reasoning. For example, if a person thinks that he is being spied on by the government and we try to persuade him otherwise his very wise reasoning would be, “Of course they would say this. Spying is supposed to be a covert operation by definition.” His reasoning is very sane but his starting principles are (in those who claim to be sane) off.

That being said it should be stated straight out there is nothing wrong with debating Church teaching, practices, and beliefs. In fact it is quite healthy. It should help us appreciate and understand them better if the debate is taken seriously and even handedly. If a couple of solidly Catholic adults want to get together and debate the celibate priesthood, the doctrine of original sin, same sex marriage, women priests, or any what-have-you topic in a respectful, honest, informed, and well intentioned debate then knock your socks off.

But if he is responsible for the education of young minds or officially and publically representing the teachings of the Church, it is horrible abuse of position to present opinion on these matters. Even if it is a person’s intent to present something they find fairer than Church teaching or more in line with social justice or even more academically stretching, what is truly being taught is that one’s personal opinion is more important than the universal teaching of the Church. The basic principles upon which a young person is going to build his reasoning is askew. What a horrible legacy to leave behind.

Of course, that will not keep topics from being brought up by those being introduced to the faith. There are claims of fairness and ability and rights that need to be faithfully debated. The very sad reality is that those who hold these beliefs can only give, at best, a rudimentary understanding of why the Church has a teaching or discipline, almost nothing of the history involved, or the greater ramifications of their particular positions. Allowing the debate to take place without introducing all of these factors, particularly when it is done in the name of academic freedom is disingenuous and harmful to the Church, the individual, and the cause.

Take the debate about allowing women into the priesthood. This should be debated! True debate brings about truth. But too often the debate, when the person is pressed as to why this should be, answers about matters of fairness and ability. If the person who is representing the Church teaching shrugs his shoulders and says, “You know, I agree,” what deeper understanding has been achieved? A young mind is encouraged in prizing his own opinion over 2,000 years of collective thinking of the brightest minds that have ever gone about the business of thinking without even engaging the ideas. And if honesty were in the debate the Church does not deny a woman’s ability to do the work of a priest or that if they could be priests that they should in keeping with fairness. The true debate is elsewhere but this straw man is able to be built, debated, and treated as a flesh and blood issue when the real issue is out walking about the field.

Education and savvy does not solely subsist in being in opposition to collective reasoning but in first understanding it, building a platform upon which to stand, and setting up basic principles upon which you can build your reasoning. It is shallow and destructive philosophies that are entirely built upon what one feels is fair or thinks feels the best. It is sign of narrow thinking that our society assumes that what we deem fair and right is universally correct for all people of every nation and all times (when judging history.) Exploring this totality is where true education and good reasoning start to form.