In the post below some of the commenters have discussed the Catholics who say "I’m Catholic, but I can also think for myself." The ones that proudly proclaim they are independent. The one thing about thinking with the mind of the Church is that it is like a massively parallel computer processing. Instead of a single mind determining what is truth we are linked to what Christ taught and was passed down from the Apostles both orally and written. This data has flowed through the Church fathers and others and has been enriched and expanded on by the magisterium. The data has not experienced packet loss or corruption and is only richer through development of this doctrinal data.
Those that make the claim above are like those who take their computer off the massively parallel network and then claim they are better off. At one time in our space program they use to employ three computers to run the same information. Only information that two of three computers agreed upon was considered valid. The same goes with doctrine. The name of those black boxes in this case are Scripture and Apostolic Tradition. They get to out vote you every time. It doesn’t matter if you agree with those two outputs, your output will be just seen as error to be ignored. Everything is functioning properly if your output is the same as theirs. Disagreeing doesn’t make you independent, it makes you wrong.
(Yes I’m a geek, though I bet Dr. Thursday could do a lot better with this analogy.)
10 comments
I agree. And I thought of Dr. T as I was reading your post…he thinks this way, too. But it is an entirely accurate analogy.
It’s like all being on a boat, and there is an instruction manual on “How to Sail” and some people say, “Oh I don’t need to read that, I’m on the boat, and I’ll just figure it out for myself. I’m a free thinker! Maybe I’ll find a new way to sail, a way YOU never thought of, ha ha!” in that sort of superior, progressive way such people have.
That is a blistering assault, but it happens to be the truth.
“It doesn’t matter if you agree with those two outputs, your output will be just seen as error to be ignored.”
Forgive me if I’m wrong but don’t you mean, “disagree”?
Minor point – sigh.
Oh, wait, how about…
troff to XML
you see, those who claim to know what Chirst taught are working with antiquated markup that only tells them how something looks. The magesterium is like all the metadata you can add with a semantic markup.
Okay…. I’m a of a different stripe I guess.
You know, just about as soon as someone says, “I’m Catholic, but I can think for myself,” you usually get a pretty good idea instantly of where they stand on issues like abortion, Communion to non-Catholics, contraception, papal infallibility, women’s ordination, etc.
Why, it’s almost as if they all think together in lock-step….
“Disagreeing doesn’t make you independent, it makes you wrong.”
Well said, Jeff–in fact, this whole post had me chuckling for quite a while…
Hey, I think for myself…
And wherever I thought that I disagreed with or just didn’t understand the Church’s teaching, I prayed for wisdom and understanding, and whenever I have done that… God in His grace has given them to me.
It’s an amazing and rarely discussed fact that God created us with minds capable of reasoning AND understanding when we are in Him and ask Him to help us. Go figure, but God’s been right every time in my experience!
Your analogy is interesting and quite relevant. How much more! We do not have “a right to an opinion” – we have a DUTY to seek the TRUTH.
After all, it was the “Greatest System Designer” Who said “Not the smallest byte of the law, not the smallest bit of that byte, shall pass away…” (Cf. Mt 5:18) If the civil engineers can claim Him as “Greatest Bridge Builder” – why can’t we give Him our own title?
Moreover! (here comes the required Chesterton quote) even such a non-technical genius as Chesterton could tell when a Pope was good at computing. In GKC’s essay on the death of (St.) Pius X, he wrote: “the great and good priest now dead had all the prejudices of a peasant. He had a prejudice to the effect that the mystical word “Yes” should be distinguished from the equally unfathomable expression “No.” [GKC, ILN Aug 29, 1914 CW30:153]
(It may come as a surprise, but this is the basis of Boolean Algebra!)
Now as our good Curt Jester knows, I am anything but curt, and tend to write at length. So I will defer my additional thoughts on this matter to my own blogg. Seeing as how we are coming up on the feast of the Chair of St. Peter (Feb 22) this is a good time to explore the Papacy, and I have some very Chestertonian AND technical things I can post…
In fact, this will be Benedict’s first time celebrating this feast, so it might be a good idea to start a novena as a gift. OK – starting on Feb 14 I will say the Five Luminous Mysteries for B16’s intentions. Anyone willing to join?
It isn’t about what you think, it is all about how you feel. It is a pet peeve, when people tell me how they feel concerning an ethical issue. I ask them how they come to that conclusion, and they just get defensive because I’m attacking their feelings. This isn’t just a concern for Catholics. In general the concept of philosophy is becoming exstinct.
I remember a philosophy professor at a public university complaining about students not wanting to find the truth, but only wanted to defend “their reality” and she had to keep correcting students that their is only ONE reality. We might have different perceptions, bias, and preferential values we apply in reality, but we don’t live in individual universes where we ignore the laws of nature.
I’m Catholic, and I can think for myself, that’s why I accept all that the Church teaches.
Hey, I thought about it and it all made sense so I decided to stick with the Church instead of going down the road to a denomination that taught different stuff or allowed people to do whatever they want.