FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: The Fallacy of Chronological Snobbery
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2
After reading the thread started by Markie Boy about priests and celibacy, I want to throw a bone out here.

I noticed a lot of people responded to his question simply by saying "the Church has been this way for two thousand years, so don't question it." That's not a good argument. Markie Boy is misinformed, but we aren't doing a very good job at explaining why.

Let me play the Devil's Advocate here: Slavery had been around for thousands of years before America abolished it. Pro-slavery people could have certainly said "we've been using slave labor to build civilizations for thousands of years! Don't question it!" But just because something has been around forever doesn't mean it's right.

Let me clarify--I'm not advocating for married clergy here! I just want to talk about how we are attacking this debate, because we're committing a logical fallacy. We Catholics know we can say this about our Church because She has been guided by the infallible Holy Spirit since her very conception. But for a Protestant who doesn't think that, this makes a poor argument indeed.
I thought we were discussing the point with Catholics, not protestant heretics. 
It would be a logical fallacy if we were not talking about Catholicism and the Church.

The fallacy would be an informal fallacy, which means it is not an error in the form of the argument itself. Informal fallacies can be situational, meaning that it is not a fallacy in a particular situation, even though it would be in another. 

Informal fallacies often are flaws in the argument that suggest the necessity of a conclusion, but in reality it is not the the conclusion is false, but the argument is not sufficient to prove the conclusion. The post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy is a perfect example. Pointing out that just because something comes after does not mean it is caused by, nevertheless, does not deny causality. There might be causality, but it's not simply because one thing succeeded the other.

An argument from authority is relatively weak when selling shaving cream, it becomes the best argument when we're speaking about religion. In fact Faith is basically an argument from authority where we cannot see the intrinsic necessity of something, nor reason from its causes.

When you have a religion which is based on tradition, as well, looking at the praxis over a long period is a very solid argument. It does not mean that that praxis cannot and should not change, but the longer the tradition, the more serious the reason for the change.

That is essentially the argument of St Thomas (ST I:II q.84 a.2) as regards any human law, not merely religious, but a fortiori, when tradition is involved (the core of the argument is in red) :

Quote:Article 2. Whether human law should always be changed, whenever something better occurs?

Objection 1. It would seem that human law should be changed, whenever something better occurs. Because human laws are devised by human reason, like other arts. But in the other arts, the tenets of former times give place to others, if something better occurs. Therefore the same should apply to human laws.

Objection 2. Further, by taking note of the past we can provide for the future. Now unless human laws had been changed when it was found possible to improve them, considerable inconvenience would have ensued; because the laws of old were crude in many points. Therefore it seems that laws should be changed, whenever anything better occurs to be enacted.

Objection 3. Further, human laws are enacted about single acts of man. But we cannot acquire perfect knowledge in singular matters, except by experience, which "requires time," as stated in Ethic. ii. Therefore it seems that as time goes on it is possible for something better to occur for legislation.

On the contrary, It is stated in the Decretals (Dist. xii, 5): "It is absurd, and a detestable shame, that we should suffer those traditions to be changed which we have received from the fathers of old."

I answer that, As stated above (Article 1), human law is rightly changed, in so far as such change is conducive to the common weal. But, to a certain extent, the mere change of law is of itself prejudicial to the common good: because custom avails much for the observance of laws, seeing that what is done contrary to general custom, even in slight matters, is looked upon as grave. Consequently, when a law is changed, the binding power of the law is diminished, in so far as custom is abolished. Wherefore human law should never be changed, unless, in some way or other, the common weal be compensated according to the extent of the harm done in this respect. Such compensation may arise either from some very great and every evident benefit conferred by the new enactment; or from the extreme urgency of the case, due to the fact that either the existing law is clearly unjust, or its observance extremely harmful. Wherefore the jurist says [Pandect. Justin. lib. i, ff., tit. 4, De Constit. Princip.] that "in establishing new laws, there should be evidence of the benefit to be derived, before departing from a law which has long been considered just."

Reply to Objection 1. Rules of art derive their force from reason alone: and therefore whenever something better occurs, the rule followed hitherto should be changed. But "laws derive very great force from custom," as the Philosopher states (Polit. ii, 5): consequently they should not be quickly changed.

Reply to Objection 2. This argument proves that laws ought to be changed: not in view of any improvement, but for the sake of a great benefit or in a case of great urgency, as stated above. This answer applies also to the Third Objection.
Some Catholics appeal to antiquity when doing so supports traditional Latin Catholicism.  "What we are now, you once were.  If we are wrong now, you were wrong then.  If we were right then, you are wrong now."  Or something to that effect.  When that argument is used against old Latin traditions that were novel when they replaced the previous tradition, then we're not allowed to appeal to antiquity.  That could be something to work on.
The tradition of celibacy is solid.  
But there is no harm in discussing the issue when someone is asking questions in an effort to learn.  You can't just shut them down and say "read this" because some people don't learn well when you tell them to go away and read.
This is not the same as Protestants attacking the Church......
Celibate priests are like JESUS, celibate and single , thats why they conform perfectly as the Alter-Christus. They are also free to spend 24/7 saving souls from going to HELL which is why JESUS came. Remember JESUS is called the SAVIOR, SAVIOR from what? HELL
The appeals to abolish celibacy are rarely real appeals to doing things like the east or whatever. Usually, when you dig a little deeper, it becomes clear that wanting to abolish celibacy is basically just modern people obsessed with sex who are horrified at the thought of a “normal” person loving God and others more than themselves enough to give it up.

I am celibate. It is a beautiful and fruitful vocation. I can serve God and my fellow man without reserve because I answer to no one in this world but my spiritual director. When God places someone in need before me, I can help them without deferring to the needs and desires of a spouse I do not have. I belong to God alone, and my children are the many souls he has given me to love, and there are more than  a natural family would ever provide. Although I am celibate, I most certainly lack nothing.
One argument for married priests seems to be that it would prevent paedophilia. 

This completely ignores the fact that the issue is not "paedophilia" but rampant homosexuality in the clergy.
(09-26-2018, 09:15 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]One argument for married priests seems to be that it would prevent paedophilia. 

This completely ignores the fact that the issue is not "paedophilia" but rampant homosexuality in the clergy.

And that marriage does not "cure" psychological or moral problem ...
(09-27-2018, 01:08 AM)MagisterMusicae Wrote: [ -> ]
(09-26-2018, 09:15 PM)Dominicus Wrote: [ -> ]One argument for married priests seems to be that it would prevent paedophilia. 

This completely ignores the fact that the issue is not "paedophilia" but rampant homosexuality in the clergy.

And that marriage does not "cure" psychological or moral problem ...

In fact, based on observational evidence, marriage may actually cause a great deal more psychological problems.
Pages: 1 2