Qualify This!

Michelle here.

If you read carefully through the questions-and-answers by staff apologists on the Catholic Answers Forums, you’ll notice that we use a lot of qualifiers. Especially when dealing with issues of moral culpability, we try very hard not to use absolutes. While it is possible to state definitively whether or not a particular action is grave matter, it is not possible for the apologists to discern any inquirer’s personal culpability because culpability for grave matter depends on knowledge and consent, two things I am not remotely qualified to discern. So we use qualifiers. We use may, could, perhaps, possible, might, etc. It becomes habitual. So habitual that I find it leaks into other forms of writing I do, such as this blog.

In what was supposed to be a "throwaway" post that turned into a major brouhaha over Martin Luther, I wrote:

"If you’re trying to think of the perfect gift for Luther, might I suggest obtaining a partial or plenary indulgence for his soul? Wherever Luther is now, I’m sure he now knows the value of an indulgence."

GET THE POST.

You may be horrified to learn that this innocuous bit of humor has brought me to the attention of the Universal Inquisition. Well, the Sacred Weblog of the Universal Inquisition at any rate, where I am exposed as a neo-Catholic (gasp!). The Inquisitor General, who describes his blog (one hopes with tongue in cheek) as "the weblog for the office of the Inquisitor General, scourge of heretics, archenemy of modernity, and protector of all things traditional" writes:

"Jimmy Akin’s blog has mentioned Luther’s birthday and given us this mildly humorous comment:

‘If you’re trying to think of the perfect gift for Luther, might I suggest obtaining a partial or plenary indulgence for his soul? Wherever Luther is now, I’m sure he now knows the value of an indulgence.’

"Of course, our only quibble is with the ‘wherever’ part. Luther is almost certainly in Hell*, and we have no qualms about saying it, unlike our neo-Catholic fellow bloggers.

"* Note the words ‘almost certainly.’"

GET THE POST.

While I did not intend to write with qualifiers in a humor bit, I note with amusement that it has become a bit of a modus operandi. And, frankly, that’s fine with me.  (It’s primarily artistic writing, such as fiction, where qualifiers may be a problem.)  In the case now being scrutinized, my qualifier wherever is an acknowledgement that it is not given to us to know where Luther is right now or whether an indulgence may help him, but that we can know that he does now know the value of an indulgence. Even if the indulgence cannot be used for his sake because he is in heaven or hell, God can use the indulgence for the sake of a suffering soul who can benefit. If Luther’s in purgatory, God can use the indulgence for his sake. In any case, the indulgence is of benefit and value to someone.

But, in the spirit of the Universal Inquisition, let’s look at the Inquisitor General’s use of qualification. Apparently, he desperately wants to say flat-out that Luther is in hell and thus separate himself from those Awful Neo-Catholics who refuse to make such a judgment. Despite assertions to the contrary, he does have qualms about saying it flat-out and so he highlights and explains his qualification so that he cannot be accused of casting Luther into hell. I submit to the Universal Inquisition that this isn’t a case of acknowledging that judgment belongs only to God but a case of Cover Your Tracks.

Note: The Wikipedia article on neo-Catholicism was down when I tried to check it. I can’t wait to try again later and find out all about neo-Catholicism.

Update:  Link to the Inquisitor General’s post added.  Apologies for the oversight.

62 thoughts on “Qualify This!”

  1. Thanks Michelle! I was hoping either Jimmmy, Tim, or you would respond to Inquistor General.
    “The Wikipedia article on neo-Catholicism was down when I tried to check it. I can’t wait to try again later and find out all about neo-Catholicism.”
    I think it’s back up.

  3. I laughed the first time I heard someone talk about Catholic Answers as if it were a house organ for liberal Catholicism.
    The fact that Jimmy, Michelle, and other CA apologists take so much fire from the right AND the left speaks well of the orthodoxy of their positions.

  4. A re-post about the Luther “qualifiers”.
    “Most Catholics are born Catholic. Most Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Moslems, Buddhists, etc. are also born into their faith. Ridiculing their founders is not Christian. Such chastisement is a cancer eating at the heart of our Catholic Faith.” (Note, there are no qualifiers.)
    .

  6. Nota bene: I certainly do not mean by my last comment that I think Luther’s in hell. I have no idea. But I do think there is a big difference between ex-Catholics whom a less sensitive age would accurately call heresiarchs and people who were born into their traditions.

  7. I laughed the first time I heard someone talk about Catholic Answers as if it were a house organ for liberal Catholicism.
    Yes, Catholic Answers, that hothouse of heterodoxy! ;D *rotfl*

  8. Infants and childen under age 8 who are validly Baptized with Water in the name of the Father,
    Son and Holy Ghost are Catholic.
    When they are beyond the age of reason, if they are a part of a non Catholic sect, they are offically termed heretics. Some use the term Protestant, others separated bretheran.
    Those who leave the Catholic faith are also called apostates.
    Abe Foxman of ADL fame, because he is a Baptized Catholic, is by definition a Apostate. Geraldo Rivera is a Baptized Catholic, although he is apostate.

  10. “The fact that Jimmy, Michelle, and other CA apologists take so much fire from the right AND the left speaks well of the orthodoxy of their positions.”
    I agree. I guess that means I’m a NeoCatholic though. 🙁

  11. Belonging to a group that includes heresies in its official beliefs is not the same thing as being individually culpable of heresy.
    Personally adhering to heterodox beliefs does not make an individual a heretic either. More is required.

  12. Hmm…somehow, I’m not sure how serious I’d take a blog that describes itself as “A refuge for all those who want to bring back the Dark Ages” 😀
    Still, ’twas an interesting glance 😉

  13. A little insight to the wonders that is wikipedia.
    Anyone else bother to check the history of the wikipedia page linked?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neo-Catholicism&action=history
    Notice one of the big contributors: Inquisitorgeneralis
    Coincidence? Maybe. His original post added the vernacular sense of the term whereas before the wiki just cited NeoCatholicism as the 19th Century Spain thing.
    Ironic how the word NeoCatholic went to imply radically conservative to radically liberal. Also ironic how it was the radically conservative that did it in both cases.

  14. I have no idea if Luther is in hell. I sure hope not. He was certainly a very confused puppy, with more personal “issues” than the average person.
    The truth, though, is that he probably did more damage to the Church, and therefore, the world, than anyone in the 2000 years since Christ. There could be a case to be made for Karl Marx, Hitler, Lenin, Stalin, and Mao, who were all certainly much more evil than Luther. I would call it a dead heat between Karl Marx and Luther as to whose ideas have been the most pernicious influence.
    Could Karl Marx have arisen without Luther though? Another interesting question.
    It’s hard to say… Perhaps given political forces and the state of the Church, the tragic severing of the body of Christ was inevitable and Luther just happened to be the catalyst. Very hard to say. I’d be very interested in hearing opinions on all of these musings of mine.

  15. I don’t think the severing of the Body of Christ was inevitable. There was certainly a need of reform in the 16th century. But, as Archbishop Sheen pointed out: “Some undertook to reform the Faith. There was nothing wrong with the Faith. What needed reformation was behavior.”

  16. “Inevitable” is too strong a word. But the wood was piled and tindered– Luther was just the steel, and Holy Roman politics the flint. So I agree that his responsibility for breaking up the Church was greatly mitigated.

  19. Follow up to the post above. I should mention that at the time of this writing the list is:
    * Memento
    * Fight Club
    * Secretary
    * Being John Malkovich
    * High Fidelity
    * The Boondock Saints

  20. Tim J,
    “The fact that Jimmy, Michelle, and other CA apologists take so much fire from the right AND the left speaks well of the orthodoxy of their positions”
    That someone is “in the middle” or “takes it from both sides” doesn’t say much about the orthodoxy of his or her position. You can always find people to the left and the right of you.

  21. What’s this nonsense from Neocon about “heretics” and “apostates”?
    A heretic is someone who, despite correction, stubbornly denies a specific truth taught by the Catholic Faith. In “official” terms, the Vatican has ruled that Protestants should not be called heretics since (1) they don’t claim membership in the Catholic Church and (2) the use of that term is not going to win anyone back into the Church.
    An apostate is someone who has renounced the Christian religion in general.
    Both terms are considered unhelpful at best except when applied in a very discriminating manner by competent authorities.
    I would be very interested in knowing if any Catholic bishop or Vatican congregation has officially called anyone an apostate or heretic since 1962.

  22. Here’s the important part to know about neo-Catholicism:
    “Since Vatican II, Neo-Catholicism has become a mildly derogatory term most often used by traditional Catholics to describe neoconservative Catholics who fully accept the changes to Catholic practice, liturgical life, and presentations of Catholic teaching made after the close of the Second Vatican Council. They accuse contemporary Neo-Catholics of having an exaggerated view of Papal authority and of being concerned with politics over liturgical and doctrinal matters. For example, the typical Neo-Catholic might be actively involved in the pro-life movement, but would favor contemporary liturgical practices, such as folk Masses, lay Eucharistic ministers, and altar girls, and they may blend Protestant soteriology and eschatology with Catholic teaching. They would also likely be more in favor of ecumenism with conservative evangelicals and interreligious dialogue with Jews.
    Neo-Catholicism is occasionally misused to refer to all who might be classified as being on the right of the Catholic theological spectrum, but this is not the generally accepted meaning of the term.”

  23. Anyway, we really don’t see the point of this post. So what if we felt compelled to use qualifiers, too? Our statement was still logically different from Michelle’s. We’re far more blunt about the probability of Martin Luther being in Hell.

  25. “That someone is “in the middle” or “takes it from both sides” doesn’t say much about the orthodoxy of his or her position. You can always find people to the left and the right of you.” — JebProtestant
    Y’know what the sad thing is? The protestant here is the one making the most sense.

  26. “I submit to the Universal Inquisition that this isn’t a case of acknowledging that judgment belongs only to God but a case of Cover Your Tracks.”
    Or maybe it’s a case of covering our own tracks by acknowledging that judgment belongs only to God? You neo-Catholics really *are* just like prots. It’s always either/or w/you ppl. 😉

  27. “Ironic how the word NeoCatholic went to imply radically conservative to radically liberal. Also ironic how it was the radically conservative that did it in both cases.”
    Actually, by our definition, neo-Catholicism is pretty much conservative. It’s just that it’s *merely* conservative that’s the problem. We’re proud radical traditionalists.

  29. Dante ends up in Paradise. By the end of the Divine Comedy the narrator is contemplating the Blessed Trinity, not worried about placing people he didn’t like into Hell. May we all similiarly spend our energies contemplating God’s mercy and and not damning (or even insinuating the damnation of) other people.

  30. “Dante ends up in Paradise. By the end of the Divine Comedy the narrator is contemplating the Blessed Trinity, not worried about placing people he didn’t like into Hell. May we all similiarly spend our energies contemplating God’s mercy and and not damning (or even insinuating the damnation of) other people.”
    But Dante did insinuate the damnation of other ppl… and the popes have consistently praised his book.

  32. “But Dante did insinuate the damnation of other ppl”
    Yes, but how does that relate to the context of the rest of the Divine Comedy? It’s necessary to read the narrator’s progress through Hell, Purgatory, and Paradise as a process of growth. So that, when the narrator finally reaches Heaven he lets go of his judgments of the state of other people’s souls or at least, this is no longer the focus. The focus is on God and “the love that moves the sun and the stars.”
    I also don’t see how saying someone is “almost certainly in Hell” is an extension of the theological virtues of charity or hope. It seems more like despair for someone’s salvation, which strikes me as worse than despair for our own salvation (because we know ourselves, but only God can know the depths of someone else’s soul).
    If we’re going to talk about great Catholic poets too, we should mention Gerard Manley Hopkins, who in talking about the Wreck of the Deutschland and the death of its passengers holds out the hope of repentance and salvation for each one of them, regardless of their creed. It’s a beautiful poem that exemplifies Catholic hope as it wrestles with reality and avoids falling either into presumption or despair – believing that salvation is possible even in the last moments of someone’s life, as Christ waits before them. I’m reminded too of St. Therese of Liseux, who held out hope for the salvation of the murderer right before his execution. Her first child she called him. Never stop praying for the salvation of souls, and never lose hope.

  33. “Yes, but how does that relate to the context of the rest of the Divine Comedy?”
    Who cares? He still did it and multiple popes still praised the book.
    “If we’re going to talk about great Catholic poets too, we should mention Gerard Manley Hopkins, who in talking about the Wreck of the Deutschland and the death of its passengers holds out the hope of repentance and salvation for each one of them, regardless of their creed.”
    I still held out hope for Luther. I just highly doubt he made it, that’s all.
    What’s your point w/all this?

  34. “He still did it and multiple popes still praised the book.”
    Yes, but did they praise it mostly because he condemned people to Hell? :-p Or because they sensed the beautiful turn towards God throughout.
    “I still held out hope for Luther. I just highly doubt he made it, that’s all.”
    That’s fine. I’m more sympathetic with this statement more than the one from before. Saying one has doubts is different, at least to me, than saying someone is “almost certainly in hell.” The one statement emphasizes the speaker’s lack of knowledge. The other statment seems to reach for certainty. Plus you’ve couched your doubt by preceeding it with hope, which was not the way the statement in Michelle’s other post was set up (that was preceeded by a restatement of one of Michelle’s sentences into a question instead, with a suggestion of incredulity).
    “What’s your point w/all this?”
    I just want to make sure you still had hope, since your earlier statement suggested otherwise. Plus I like arguing about Catholic literature (it’s what I do for a living), and you fell into that by comparing “we” to Dante. 🙂

  35. “Yes, but did they praise it mostly because he condemned people to Hell? :-p Or because they sensed the beautiful turn towards God throughout.”
    Regardless of why they praised it, they praised it… and Dante did just what I did in writing ppl into his vision of Hell. Besides, if Dante was around today and writing the Inferno, would you be all that surprised if he wrote Luther into Hell?
    “That’s fine. I’m more sympathetic with this statement more than the one from before. Saying one has doubts is different, at least to me, than saying someone is “almost certainly in hell.” The one statement emphasizes the speaker’s lack of knowledge. The other statment seems to reach for certainty. Plus you’ve couched your doubt by preceeding it with hope, which was not the way the statement in Michelle’s other post was set up (that was preceeded by a restatement of one of Michelle’s sentences into a question instead, with a suggestion of incredulity).”
    I still stand by my original comments, but if framing it differently helps some ppl swallow the medicine, then so be it… 😉

  36. sigh… So much for my hope that it was a paradoy site. I noticed that he removed the movie list in his profile too. Weirder and weirder..

  37. “sigh… So much for my hope that it was a paradoy site. I noticed that he removed the movie list in his profile too. Weirder and weirder..”
    Could you maybe come up w/a criticism that has some substance?

  38. Just for the record, The Sacred Weblog of the Universal Inquisition now pretty much exists solely for the purpose of expressing the Catholic Faith in a way that offends neo-Catholic milquetoasts. We pretty much gave up on all other pursuits after about our first month of blogging.
    If you have a problem w/that… GOOD!

  41. Inquisitor Genreal, why don’t you post endlessly on Columbe’s blog. I think you would be a good match there. Is CC a double agent. Inquiring minds want to know.

  43. Okay, now I get it. “Neo-catholic” is the latest word made up by Latin-Mass schismatics to describe faithful Catholics.
    Sigh.

  44. You got it, John, but don’t expect a couple of the other commenters on this post to do so; they have so insolated their minds that it is impossible for anything not in their personal temmplates to get in.

  46. Neo Cath is someone who thinks Vatican II is a gift of the Holy Spirit. NeoCon is someone who thinks Bush is the Holy Spiirt.
    Coloumbe is a quite a colorful character.
    His actvities were exposed last year in 2 articles written by Catholic Theologian Dr. Thomas Drolesky. They can be viewed at http://www.christorchaos.com
    Read the March 2004 articles , one is ( Rejecting Satan and his pomp
    and works) the second is March 2004 titled charles coulombe questions.

  47. Inquisitor-
    You wrote that NeoCatholics are those who “fully accept the changes to Catholic practice, liturgical life, and presentations of Catholic teaching made after the close of the Second Vatican Council.”
    I have to ask;
    Which changes to Catholic practice? Those legitimately allowed by official church teaching, or those carried out by raving liberal Buddhist wannabes? One is not the same as the other.
    Who’s presentations of Catholic teaching? The CCC, or some feminist former nun passing herself off as a catechist?
    My acceptance of the teachings of VII can not be twisted to imply that I endorse barefoot, tree-hugging guitar masses, or even that I prefer Mass in the vernacular.
    I’m all for the Tridentine Mass becoming commonplace again. I find the current exercise of the Novus Ordo to be notable for it’s slovenliness and lack of enthusiasm, but that is mainly the fault of the participants (including priests), and not anything inherent to the Mass itself. If the Mass seems slovenly, it’s because WE are slovenly. We have forgotten HOW to be solemn about anything.
    Most problems with the liturgy can be traced to the great numbers of Catholics who figure that they are doing God a favor by just showing up at Mass.
    So if I don’t fully accept all the nonsense that has been propagated in the NAME of Vatican II, but I accept and obey the teaching of the council itself, does that make me a neocatholic?

  48. Personally, I wish Michelle would stop with the trad-baiting posts; I’ve noticed this seems to be more common with her than with Jimmy et al, from whom I haven’t seen any. I’m not saying the trads are right; I’m saying the best way to avoid outbursts of acrimony like the ongoing feud in this thread is to avoid posting snarkily on the topic. Don’t feed the trolls and they’ll fade away. Most of the other bloggers here would handle the question of Luther’s possible salvation/damnation without throwing in the jibes that cause flame wars – even if the trads are at fault in so doing. Look at how Cardinal Hoyos deals with the SSPX. Even when they blast him, he treats them with charity and fairness, not an escalation of snarkiness.
    I like this blog. I don’t want to see it become yet another battlefield for the endless Vatican II vs Trad wars like Mark Shea’s comment boxes. Please.

  50. “Don’t feed the trolls and they’ll fade away.”
    Just for the record, if that was a reference to us, we’re not trolling. It’s perfectly reasonable for us to post in the combox for a post that was about our blog. In no way can the fact that we’re here to defend ourselves be construed as trolling.

  51. JJ-
    I understand your desire to avoid stirring up the controversy here, but I think you’re being unfair to Michelle. Nothing in the original post has anything to do with “trad-baiting” or Traditionalists at all. If anything, I expected Protestant anger towards it. It’s a “throwaway post”, just as she said, that never should have elicited this level of scrutiny.

  52. http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/05/the_population_.html
    “I think that we know at least two people who are in hell: Judas and one of the early Roman emperors, most likely Nero.”
    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/05/canonization_of.html
    “Regarding the discussion at hand, I think it is possible for the Church to use its gift of infallibility to “canonize the damned,” or “anti-saints” as we might call them”
    http://www.jimmyakin.org/2004/05/canonization_of_1.html
    “We may legitimately form the impression intellectually that, given what we know about an individual, it does not look likely that they made it (i.e., because they appeared to be a person with the faculty of reason who nevertheless lived a life of apparently knowing and deliberate grave sin right up to the end), but we can never know what happened in the privacy of their own mind in the last few seconds of their life, and God can work miracles even then.”
    The last appears to be exactly what IG did with respect to Luther. If that is the case, I agree 100% with IG. For the record, I also agree substantially with Mr Akin

  53. the catholic Faith does not segregate, either one belives all of the Faith, or none of it.
    there is no space in between.

  56. “He admits being the author of the wikipedia article”
    We admit? More like we’re flat out proud of it.
    Why does the “Inquisitor” speak about himself in the plural? Does he think he’s a pope or king, or does he have multiple personality disorder, or what?
    either one belives all of the Faith, or none of it
    If this were really true, we’d be forced to conclude that NeoConSpy is an apostate.

  57. Does he think he’s a pope or king, or does he have multiple personality disorder, or what?
    No, he thinks he is the Universal Inquisitor.

  58. No, Pha, he is not an apostate; he is merely one of those people who will not be swayed by mere facts in light of higher truth.

  59. he is not an apostate
    Nor did I say he is. Please read what I wrote: “If this were really true, we’d be forced to conclude that NeoConSpy is an apostate.” In reality, the condition is not met, because NeoCon’s claim was false.

  62. Thanks for all the great comments, everyone. This comments on this post will now be closed.

Comments are closed.