Pecco ergo erro

Last Updated on Friday, 30 September 2011 12:32 Written by Father Bill Friday, 30 September 2011 12:32

I’m pro-choice. I’m pro-gay rights. I’m pro-immigration. I’m pro-gun control. I believe in Darwin. (Michael Bloomberg as quoted in Forbes, October 10, 2011, page 286)

Sometimes you simply cannot believe your ears (or, in this case, your eyes) when a great one of this world sets forth moral verities. And, so, from the last page of Forbes this month, we find moral and epistemological consistency, coherence, and lucidity shining with blinding power from amidst a collection of quotes from men of fabulous wealth.

I think the idea here is that such wealth manifestly endorses the moral and epistemological  authority of those who are quoted, for the headline of this collection is “Thoughts from Forbes 400 members past and present.”  Surely Forbes‘ editors intend that we understand these toughts to be true rather than false, profound rather than trivial. And the irony is this: Bloomberg’s quote is one which everyone must salute as true and profound, whether one joins him in believing in Darwin or not. Here Bloomberg agrees with St. Paul (1 Corinthians 2:13) and King David (Psalm 116:10).  Who knew?

Bloomberg (and King DAvid, and St. Paul) would have us understand that moral and political commitments result from prior convictions, whether those about God or Darwin.  Because Bloomberg believes that what Darwin taught is truth, so he promotes the murder of infants and the normality of perverseness, and so on.  In this case, those committed to the truth of Holy Writ and those committed to the error of Holy Writ agree on the moral consequences of a commitment to Darwin.

If one wishes examples of inconsistency, incoherence, and confusion, look no further than those who claim to be Christians who affirm belief in Darwin but disagree with Bloomberg’s moral agenda on abortion and homosexuality.  Or those who claim to be “Biblical” in their belief but who follow the agenda Bloomberg follows.

Will Bloomberg’s consistency, coherence, and lucidity about his faith and commitments avail at The Doom?  No.  He will confess “Pecco ergo erro,” I sin and so I err.  And, in that confession he will be joined by many within modern professing Christendom, who like him believe a lie and so clothe themselves with wrong.


Learn More

Welcome Lie No. 2

Last Updated on Friday, 24 November 2006 11:07 Written by Father Bill Friday, 24 November 2006 11:07

James Taranto and his side-kicks at the Wall Street Journal turn up some amazing stuff on the web.  In “Best of the Web Today” for November 22, 2006, Taranto links to a Daily Mail photo feature  extolling the technological advances that allow us now to see inside the wombs of animals, to observe miniature elephants, dogs, and dolphins. Directing our attention to these things, Taranto exposes another welcome lie, this time concerning the nature of the human baby in utero.

The feature begins with these words: “An unborn elephant, tiny but perfect in every way. A dolphin swimming in the womb, just as it will have to swim in the ocean the moment it is born. An unborn dog panting. Each one amazing and now, thanks to these remarkable pictures, they can be seen for the first time.”

The photos truly are amazing.  Consider, for example, the tiny elephant shown below. 

 elephant in the womb

We are told at the Daily Mail that this baby elephant is six months along its 24 month gestation.  No problem at all understanding that this is an elephant in the making, not an eggplant or a centipede.  Moving along some further months,we see the next photo of a baby elephent. 

 another elephant in the womb

Here, the Daily Mail does not tell us this baby elephant is in the 24 month cycle.  But in the following photograph, we’re told that this baby elephant is at 12 months, that it weighs 26 pounds, and that It can use its trunk, and can curl it right up into its mouth and over its head.

 yet another elephant in the womb

In the photo below, we see a dog in utero at 52 days with a full coat of light cream hair.  Its whiskers are forming.

 dog in the womb

At day 63 (see below) we’re told that the pup is armed with the tools necessary to survive, including a highly acute sense of smell and the ability to hear sounds far beyond our human range of hearing.

 ‘nuther dog in the womb

Finally, below see the open-eyed dolphin baby, swimming in its mother’s womb.  These and many more photos are slated to be shown on the National Geographic Channel December 10, 2006.  See further photos from this upcoming presentation by clicking here.

 dolphin in the womb
One commenter at the Daily Mail says this: “It’s amazing to see that technology has developed so far and graces us with a gift such as these pictures. I am amazed at how alike human and animal embyos are! What a beautiful discovery.” 

human lurking in wombBut, as Taranto notes, this point of view must certainly be false!  By way of pointing to the Welcome Lie concerning humans in the womb, Taranto says, “”By contrast, as we all know from reading the newspapers, there is no such thing as an unborn human being. We develop by a little-understood process in which a clump of cells, similar to a tumor or a fingernail, miraculously becomes a baby at the moment the entire clump is exposed to air. That humans and animals come into the world in such radically different ways pretty much demolishes the notion that we are the product of Darwinian evolution, doesn’t it?”


Learn More

Egalitarian Welcome Lie No. 1

Last Updated on Wednesday, 25 October 2006 01:05 Written by Father Bill Wednesday, 25 October 2006 01:05

welcomelieIn recent correspondence on a couple of blogs and in private correspondence as well, I’ve had occasion to revisit a lie used by feminists (secular and religious) to prosecute their attacks on classical western patriarchy. Since the relevant refutations to this particular lie are close at hand, I post them here, and inaugurate a new classification of posts in this blog: Welcome Lies.

This blog entry is, therefore, an engagement of Welcome Lie No. 1. It’s not No. 1 as a matter of importance, but only in terms of this blog. It’s the first of the welcome lies, welcomed by egalitarians, that I’ll treat.

The term “welcome lie” comes to me from an article by Michael Nolan who wrote: “If the first casualty of war is the unwelcome truth, the first tool of the discontented is the welcome lie.” This is the sentence which begins his 1998 article published in First Things entitled “What Aquinas Never Said About Women.” The second sentence of Nolan’s article goes like this: “Such lies cluster freely around Thomas Aquinas.”

Nolan goes on to refute two of the more common lies, namely that Aquinas claims women are defective males and that he claims that the male human embryo receives a rational soul earlier than does the female. In addition to Nolan’s refutation of this lie (a welcome lie for the religious egalitarian, eager to bash Biblical patriarchy), I offer one of the most incorrigible examples of preference for agenda over truth, namely Patricia Gundry’s online philippic against patriarchy entitled Woman Be Free. If one will surf to the online text of this work, and do a word search on “Aquinas,” he will arrive at the paragraphs where she lodges the welcome lie against Aquinas which Nolan ably exposes in his article at First Things.

There are several curious features of Gundry’s distribution of this lie about Aquinas which I want to catalog here. First of all, it appears Gundry has not even read Aquinas, for her citation of him is not from any translation of the Summa Theologica, but rather from Susan G. Bell’s 1973 book Women: From the Greeks to the French Revolution . If one wishes to consult Aquinas directly, a standard English translation has been on the net for years at the Christian Classics Ethereal Library . This site lists several digital versions of the Summa and the part of the Summa used to excoriate Aquinas is found here.

Second, Gundry’s citation of Aquinas is egregiously out of context. You may verify this for yourself by consulting Nolan’s exposition and also by consulting the English translation of the Summa at CCEL. The words cited by Gundry are found in Summa 1, 92, 1. But if you will read Aquinas’s text of the entire question he’s engaging (only half a dozen or so paragraphs) you will see that the words Gundry quotes are Aquinas’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s view, which Aquinas immediately contradicts and corrects.

Imagine that I write an essay defending capitalism, and I paraphrase Marx on the social injustice of private property. Imagine that after this paraphrase, I go on to contradict Marx and offer a contrary idea about private property, the latter being my own conviction. Imagine, later, that Patricia Gundry lifts my paraphrase of Marx out of the essay, and then offers this as proof that Fr. Bill is a Marxist.

This is exactly what she has done to Aquinas (indeed, it is what all egalitarians do when they accuse Aquinas at this point). Said another way, Aquinas is correcting a mistake in Aristotle, but Gundry (and others like her) take Aquinas’ paraphrase of Aristotle’s mistake and assert it is Aquinas’ own conviction! Is this chutzpah, or what?

Ordinary people would rightly call it slander. It’s possible, I suppose, that Gundry has allowed herself to be led into slander by gullibly believing others who slander Aquinas. That’s the most charitable explanation for her mistake. And, this no doubt explains the popularity of this slander among many egalitarians. “I mean, Gee Whiz! Aquinas, for crying out loud – the Big Cajunah of the Catholic Church. He thought women were defective males! If he can get it so very very wrong, then maybe we’re not crazy at all to insist that there’s been a conspiracy against women for centuries!”

As Nolan said, this is a welcome lie. Nevertheless, I’ve had to dismiss the Gullibility Theory of Gundry’s persistence in spreading this lie, because … About eight years ago, just after Nolan’s article made its appearance in First Things, I happened to be engaged in cyber-discussion and debate with Gundry in a forum devoted to the controversy between patriarchalists and egalitarians in the Church. I had found and read Gundry’s work Woman Be Free, and also Nolan’s concise refutation of the lie about Aquinas which her work contained. I laid all this out before Mrs. Gundry, challenging her to read Aquinas directly (not someone else’s citation of Aquinas), to read Nolan’s defense of him, and then to retract her slander of Aquinas. She never responded directly in that forum, but in one of her own forums (in which I was lurking) she reported my admonition and asked others what they thought of all this. Nothing further came of it. That was about eight years ago. As you’ll see by consulting her digital text of Woman Be Free, she has never retracted her slander.

So, I do not think Gundry is gullible. No, she seems quite content to slander a teacher of the Church because she rejoices, as Nolan says, in a welcome lie.

Learn More


Bill’s Blog Posts

Bill's blog Faith and Gender is now migrated onto this website. The comments are now visible!

Access Bill's blog by clicking here.





Copyright © 2012 ICGS