Transcription
Most videos about the dangers of internet apologetics completely miss the point. They all basically go the same way. Internet theology spheres are bad because people get mad sometimes. And if we all talked like Gavin Ortland, then we would all be fine. Yet, is this really the biggest problem? Not even close.
Most people who go to hell over internet apologetics probably aren't going there because they called me a in a live chat somewhere. But to understand this, we really need to enter into a completely different paradigm of how we see the world with completely different values. Let me give you a historical example to see if you can catch on.
Book burnings. Our Catholic ancestors were huge fans of burning books. When Martin Luther began writing against the church, the main complaint wasn't that he used so many Latin forms of the word poop that one of the greatest classical scholars of the age, Arasmus, couldn't keep up. Rather, they just burned his books. Obviously, it did matter to many people that Luther was vulgar, but that wasn't really the most important thing. The most important thing was that people would lose the faith.
Yet, it wasn't only book burnings historically. The church would give harsh spiritual penalties to those Catholics who would read or keep those books without permission. Well, why? Because heresy is more dangerous than lust, more dangerous than pride or greed. Yet in our age of indifferentism, Catholics flirt with heresy all the time, watching video after video against the Catholic faith, pretending as if this was okay behavior.
The biggest problem in online apologetics isn't that bad personalities with vices might be imitated by people. The biggest problem in online apologetics is the way in which people are actively encouraged to watch and read material that is dangerous to the faith. In fact, most people don't know that outside of a few particular cases, such behavior is said to be sinful.
According to the near unanimous teaching of Catholic authors, the people who burned heretical books recognize that faith is unique among all the virtues. To guard the purity of the faith of the people is the greatest of tasks for the ruler and the very foundation of the spiritual life is guarding the faith in yourself. This is for two reasons. First, according to the words of the Council of Trent, faith is the beginning and foundation of justification. It is the first act in the life of justice where we give that highest homage to God. Beside being the root and foundation of our supernatural life internally, it is also an external guiding principle. Faith adheres to the spiritual and moral guidance given by the church. Hence, we are able to order our lives after this teaching in order to root out all of our sins and follow after grace.
If you get what I'm getting at here, faith is more primary and fundamental than the other virtues. Hence, vices against faith should be guarded with more severely than vices against any other virtue. Hence, while sins of the flesh may provide a more immediate danger, sins against faith threaten to shipwreck the entire foundation of the spiritual life. One who fornicates can still have faith and understand that he must make acts of contrition and go to confession to resolve his problem. The habitual fornicator still in a way grasps the spiritual teaching and exercises which can heal him from his illness. Yet the one who sins against faith strikes at the very root of the life of grace. The one who sins against faith sins against the very medicine which is meant to heal him from his sins.
There are many who wish to see the people shaken in faith as suffering from a purely intellectual problem rather than what it is a moral and spiritual problem. These acts need to be called what they are sins. We must resist sins and their occasions and apply the spiritual teaching of the church in order to overcome them. We must go to confession and confess where we have sinned against the faith in all of its aspects. We must constantly examine our conscience and be careful to avoid any occasion of sin.
Beside this, our external circumstances make this even more pressing. We are constantly bombarded with scandals meant to bring about doubts within us, whether real or apparent. Indifferentism which proclaims the equality of all Christian groups and liberalism which proclaims the complete freedom of the will reign supreme. Hence at all times we are oppressed by the temptation to listen and hear out error worse than what is going on in the world. Even in the church similar trends are forming which do not emphatically emphasize the uniqueness of the Catholic faith.
Therefore, I decided to make this video so I could go over the two biggest sins against faith that are almost universally committed in online apologetic circles so you can understand what your obligations are toward God and toward the church. Beyond that, remember your fellow Catholic who is in danger of complete destruction because of their habitual commission of these sins. There are many within the church who commit these sins on a daily basis and will be destroyed by them. Blessed Dennis of Carthusian said that the entire world perishes on account of the lack of fraternal correction and a spirit of charity, zeal, truth, and concern for their spiritual welfare exhort them to flee from these sins in their occasions.
The two main sins against the faith that I want to go over are occasions of sin and doubts against the faith. I know that calling doubts against the faith a sin sounds a bit strange, but just hear me out. The moral theologians means something very specific by this. But in order to know what sins against the faith are, we need to know its opposite, faith. For a full rundown, I would suggest that you check out my video from Monday on how Catholicism proves Christianity. But simply put, faith is to adhere to what God says. Just like I might believe in what my mother says and in this way have faith in her testimony, so also can we have faith towards God and believe in his testimony, which is called divine revelation. Hence, when we speak of temptations against faith or sins against faith, we are speaking of those acts that mitigate against our adherence to what God says.
The most direct and immediate way we can sin against faith is obviously by the complete repudiation of divine revelation. Hence, someone completely rejects the entirety of the revelation that comes through Jesus Christ. This is what we generally refer to as apostasy in the strict sense, whether it be apostasy to disbelief or apostasy from Christianity to some other religion. Yet we are also aware that it often happens that not the entirety of Christian revelation but parts of it are rejected. To reject a part of what is certainly Christian revelation and claim to accept other parts of it is to commit the sin of heresy. For example, all heretics reject the infallibility of the Roman pontiff. Since the infallibility of the Roman pontiff is certainly taught by God, to reject such a claim is to be a heretic. There are many different distinctions that can be made here about whether and how far someone is culpable due to whether or not they are perttonacious. But for now, we are simply speaking of those acts done in a culpable manner, as is normal in moral discourse. Just be aware that it is possible to accept errors against faith or reject truths of faith due to ignorance rather than malice and to be open to correction when this is made known. Such a person is obviously not a heretic.
Now, both apostasy and heresy are completely incompatible with faith. If someone commits these sins, they've destroyed the root of faith. In a way, all of the other sins that I'm going to cover here are going to tend towards these sins of heresy and apostasy. As mentioned above, faith is the root and guide of justice. Hence, the devil will want more than anything for you to lose the faith, which will be his ultimate triumph over Catholic souls. But most of you probably know these two points already. What I am here to tell you are about those sins that you probably aren't too well aware of.
But I want to deal with an objection before I begin. I just said that someone can reject a truth of faith or accept an error against faith without really realizing it. Wouldn't the same apply for the other sins I'm about to mention such as reading dangerous books or watching dangerous videos? Here it is important to highlight something you probably don't recognize. Every day we commit violations of the law of God that we might be inculpable or less culpable for due to a variety of different factors. We do not incur a debt before God or moral stain for this act. Yet even while we are not guilty for such acts, they are still intrinsically disordered. Since they are intrinsically disordered, they dispose to further sins. To put it succinctly, material sins dispose toward formal sins.
To give an example, let's say that we have a Christian who was taught very lacks morals and was told that self- abuse is permitted. Yet, he was taught that fornication was immoral. On the practically impossible supposition that this individual is actually not culpable for his self-abuse, there is still the intrinsic disorder which directs him to seek veneerial pleasure. Since he is ordered towards such pleasures, is he more or less likely to fornicate? Obviously, he is more likely. Hence, in this example, while the individual might be only materially sinning, it still disposes toward formal sin. Hence, even if I were to suppose that not a single person in the entire world was formally sinning and placing his faith in manifest danger by these acts, it would still be worth going over these sins individually since those who commit them are still committing intrinsically disordered acts.
But before we begin, I actually did a substack on a related topic a few months ago, going over the traditional teaching on how public debates on the faith can be sinful. Check it out at the link below.
The first sin I want to briefly cover is to deliberately place oneself in occasions of sin. This sin is probably the cardinal sin of online apologetics. Many Catholics believe that they can just go out and watch material against the church with no good reason without committing any sort of sin. This is completely wrong and has dragged many people to shipwreck. It is obviously impossible to avoid all possible occasions of sin. To simply walk down the street involves a number of different possible occasions of sin. Yet there are unique occasions of sin that we recognize are likely to cause us to sin and have no sufficient justification.
To give an example, I myself have spent a few years reading Protestant theology and do not particularly suffer from sins against the faith. Further, it is part of my job to speak to those who oppose the faith in order to provide answers that will remove the force of these objections. For me to read Protestant theology or to watch a theology debate both has a sufficient justification and places me in no unique danger of sin. Any possibility that such will happen is quite remote. On the other hand, other individuals struggle frequently from doubts against the faith and do not have the background to be able to resolve objections that they may hear. For these individuals, the danger is quite near and is likely to do them moral harm. Hence, these individuals sin against the faith in reading these books or watching these videos. Not only that, but if they are aware that the danger is proximate, the sin is grave. Hence, if done in full knowledge and consent of the will, it is a mortal sin.
The avoidance of dangerous books or heretical works is something that is demanded by the natural law and not merely by the old laws of the church. Quote, the natural law forbids one to read or hear red written matter of any description which one knows is dangerous to one's faith even though it is not dangerous to others and not forbidden by the law of the church. For a similar reason, one may not keep such material in one's possession. End quote. In the past, it was also something that was against the law of the church and could be punished with excommunication. As I mentioned above, some have mistaken the removal of this system with an understanding that exposure to radical material is only a part of the ecclesiastical law rather than being a part of the natural law. But this is not true at all. The doctrine concerning occasions of sin is part of the natural law. This is something that the popes have emphasized time and time again. The teaching on heretical literature is simply the application of this perennial teaching to sins against faith.
There are three possible cases which could lead to reading this material or watching these videos. First, when the danger is proximate. Second, when the danger is remote and there is not sufficient justification. Third, when the danger is remote and there is sufficient justification. In the first case, it is a mortal sin to read this material or watch these videos with the conditions mentioned above. In the second case, it is a venial sin. In the third case, there is no sin at all. As Mchu and Ken state, quote, "If a writing is dangerous and forbidden under natural law, the sin committed is of itself grave whenever the danger itself is serious and proximate. It is venial when the danger is slight or remote. The sin committed depends therefore not on the time spent in reading or the number of page covered but on the danger. No sin is committed if the danger is slight or remote and there is reason for reading the writing in question. For example, the defense of truth. End quote.
Hence, it is never under any circumstances permitted to read heretical works or watch heretical videos without sufficient justification. It is always at least a venial sin when there is no sufficient justification. Before you think that this is not a big deal, we must remember that venial sins are contrary to the law of God. Offend God, spill the blood of Christ, send us to purgatory, and dispose us to mortal sin. Hence, it is obligatory to avoid venial sin as well as mortal sin.
Contrast this teaching of moral theologians with the ordinary practice of many Catholics. Practice which is encouraged by internet apologetics culture. How many Catholics watch videos and debates, read articles and books, join Discord servers, and follow Twitter accounts that offer manifest danger to faith without sufficient justification? How many people have already completely lost the faith by such dangerous behavior? In Sarak 3:26, it says, quote, "A stubborn mind will be afflicted at the end, and whoever loves danger will perish by it." Not only the danger, which could be a result of the consumption of heretical material, but even the very act itself places one in danger of hellfire. To voluntarily place one in an occasion of sin with no sufficient justification is always a sin. The first sin is often the stepping stone to the second sin which often leads straightway to heresy or apostasy.
The second sin is doubts against the faith. As mentioned above, it is easy to misunderstand what I mean by this. So hear me out. The reason that doubt is a sin is because faith isn't merely some sort of feeling or emotion. It is a firm adherence of the intellect to what God has revealed. Hence, there is a traditional saying among theologians that he who doubts is an unbeliever. But before you freak out, let me clarify something. When we use the term doubt, we aren't speaking about fleeting feelings or unresolved objections. We are talking about a judgment that states that the Catholic faith is anything less than certain. Hence, Innocent the 11th even says that those who judge that Catholicism is merely probable do not have the Catholic faith. As St. Thomas teaches, quote, "Faith involves will to certitude." According to this definition, a believer differs from a doubter who ascends to neither side. He also differs from one holding an opinion who ascends to one side not with certitude but with fear concerning the other side. End quote.
Hence, when we use the term doubt, we mean a doubt that quote entertains fears that the teaching of revelation or of the church may be untrue or that the opposite teaching may be true. End quote. To have passing feelings or temptations is obviously not to entertain those fears. It is to merely suffer them. But as soon as the will is not positively contrary to these doubts that often flood into the mind, then one commits a sin. I want you to note something important. To adhere to and to entertain are different acts. In order to commit the sin of doubt, one doesn't even need to adhere to these doubts, but only to entertain them. To state that these doubts are probable or likely mitigates against the certainty demanded by the ascent of faith. When one allows these doubts in and begins to seriously consider whether they are actually true or not, they have already sinned.
Yet when one's will is firmly opposed to these doubts, recognizing that it is our weakness, our pride, our foolishness, and our darkness which has brought about the doubt within us, then we are able to grow in sanctity. It is in this that involuntary doubts, far from becoming an occasion of the destruction of our souls, becomes an occasion for the strengthening of our Christian warfare. If we adhere to God, consider the causes of these doubts, and resolve to remove these causes, make acts of the opposite virtue, and do everything else taught by our spiritual theologians, then we can merit an increase of grace by these doubts. Yet, if we nurture these doubts, pridefully consume content believing that we are able to resolve all the objections we have and continue down this path, it will destroy our soul.
Since it is easy for our more scrupulous brothers to struggle with what seems like a hard teaching, it is important to specify in more detail an involuntary doubt. These involuntary doubts are indeliberate or unwelcome doubts. These are doubts that quote arise in the mind before they are adverted to and without any responsibility of one's own for their appearance or if they are lodged in the mind, then they are resisted. With these non-sinful doubts, you didn't cause them to come about. If you cause them to come about, obviously you are guilty for them. To give an analogy, if you happen to be watching a movie and an Amada scene comes up which causes a motion of lust, obviously if you reject the motion and remove the occasion, you are not guilty for this motion of lust. It is indeliberate. But if you would voluntarily place the cause, you are guilty for the effect. So if you have a motion of doubt arise in you and you reject the motion, then you are obviously not guilty for it. But if you voluntarily place yourself in an occasion of doubt and then have doubts, it is sinful since you place yourself in an occasion of sin. Hence, St. John Paul II states temptations are not sinful only quote for those who do not expose themselves to occasions of sin. The theologians say that these are sinful because they are quote voluntary in their cause. In either case, as I mentioned, you have a moral obligation to resist the doubt by the ordinary means.
Many may think that this is impossible and that these doubts will continue to assault you, but you must remember the words of St. Ignatius. quote, "The enemy acts like a woman and being weak against vigor and strong of will. Because as it is the way of the woman when she is quarreling with some man to lose heart, taking flight when the man shows her much courage, and on the contrary, if the man losing heart begins to fly, the wrath, revenge, and ferocity of the woman is very great, and so without bounds." In the same manner, it is the way of the enemy to weaken and lose heart, his temptations taking flight. When the person who is exercising himself in spiritual things opposes a bold front against the temptations of the enemy doing diametrically the opposite. And on the contrary, if a person who is exercising himself commences to have fear and lose heart in suffering the temptations, there is no beast so wild on the face of the earth as the enemy of human nature in following out his damnable intention with so great malice. End quote.
It is also important to distinguish doubts and difficulties. Difficulties are objections against the Catholic faith. Obviously, for every Catholic, there are difficulties that they do not entirely understand how to resolve. For example, let's say a Catholic doesn't quite understand how to resolve divine simplicity with the Trinity. Sometimes a Catholic understands his own lack of knowledge and realizes that this difficulty does not provide a foundation for prudent doubt against the Catholic faith. Yet others will foolishly believe that any objection they cannot resolve gives a foundation for prudent doubt against the Catholic faith. and hence sins against faith.
Here it is important to give another distinction between negative doubt and positive doubt. Negative doubt is quote the state of mind in which one remains suspended between the truth contained in an article of faith and its opposite without forming any possible judgment either of ascent or descent from the article or its certainty or uncertainty. End quote. If this suspension of judgment is motivated by the will directing the intellect, not to give ascent because it believes that the difficulties of the intellect are enough to call into doubt the truth of the faith, then it is at least places one in immediate danger of heresy, if not makes one an implicit heretic already. As an example, if you had some individual who looked into objections against the trinity, explicitly placing themselves in danger of heresy, and then upon understanding the various different difficulties to the dogma of the trinity, decided to suspend his judgment of the matter. In this case, there would be a grave sin against faith.
McHugh gives the following two examples to help illustrate this doctrine. Quote, Titus being scandalized by the sinful conduct of certain Catholics is tempted to doubt the divinity of the church. He does not yield to the temptation by deciding that the divinity of the church is really doubtful. But the difficulty is so impressed that he decides to hold his judgment in obeyance. It seems that there is here an implicit judgment that is one contained in the motive of the doubt in favor of the uncertainty of the divinity of the church. Bus has the same difficulty as Titus and it prevents him from eliciting an act of faith on various occasions. But the reason for this is that an urgent business matter comes up and he turns his attention to it, or that he does not wish at the time to weary his brain by considering such an important question as that of faith, or that he thinks he can conquer temptation more easily by diverting his thoughts to other subjects, or that he puts off until a more favorable moment, the rejection of the difficulty. In these cases, there is not heretical doubt, since Balbus forms no positive judgment, even implicitly, but there may be a sin against faith. Thus, Bbus would sin seriously if his suspension of ascent should place him in immediate danger of positive doubt. He would sin venally if that suspension be due to some slight carelessness. End quote.
Positive doubt, on the other hand, is quote the state of mind in which one decides on account of some difficulty against faith that the latter is really doubtful and uncertain and that ascent cannot be given to either side. End quote. This is slightly different from the sinful form of negative doubt in so far as the former case involves a suspension of judgment on account of his doubts. Whereas this one involves the positive judgment that the doubts are at least wellounded enough to call into doubt the Catholic faith. In this case, the judgment is obviously heretical and completely incompatible with faith. This should be sufficient to look at the sin of doubt against the Catholic faith.
To give a bit of a summary, there are three ways of sinning against the faith on the road to heresy. First, it is sinful to voluntarily place occasions of sin without sufficient justification. If it is approximate occasion, then it is grave. If it is a remote occasion, then it is slight. Second, it is sinful to entertain doubts against the faith that enter into the mind rather than resisting them by the ordinary means. Third, it is sinful to suspend judgment so as to judge that the Catholic faith is not certain, but is some lesser degree such as probability.
But before we wrap up, I wanted to remind you that this is the season of Lent. It is the season to do penance for our sins in order to avert the wrath of God. It is the perfect time for any of you who have been neglectful in this part of your life to turn from it and to go to confession. Do penance and begin avoiding every occasion of sin. I'll be praying for all of you who are beginning on this journey. That's all that I have for you and as always, God bless and do penance for the kingdom of God is at hand.