Some things must be placed beyond argument; disputation can never make progress unless there are some things that we no longer need to dispute.  In logic, for example, denying the law of non-contradiction is beyond the pale, or ought to be; in ethics, denying the Holocaust or defending the bayonetting of infants; in Christian theology, rejecting the Resurrection.

But by what authority are we to decide which things are beyond argument?  Notice that I said “authority,” not “power.”  I am not proposing that anyone should be coerced to accept such authority.  I am merely pointing out its indispensability.  The progress of reason itself requires authority.  For it is all very well to say that we should reach the decision about which things are beyond argument by argument, but by what authority are we to say that the argument has reached a conclusion? 

Secularists answer the question, “By human authority.”  Thus we have politically shaped conformity.  Or else they say “By no authority,” which effectively means either anarchy (which doesn’t last) or socially shaped conformity.

Protestants answer, “By the authority of the Holy Spirit,” understood as operating either through each individual (which effectively means by no authority -- see above) or through the sundry religious teachers, congregations, or denominations to which individuals adhere (which effectively means by human authority – see above).  So in practice the Protestant and Secularist solutions embody the same alternatives.  They are in this respect indistinguishable.

Some things must be placed beyond argument; disputation can never make progress unless there are some things that we no longer need to dispute.  In logic, for example, denying the law of non-contradiction is beyond the pale, or ought to be; in ethics, denying the Holocaust or defending the bayonetting of infants; in Christian theology, rejecting the Resurrection.

But by what authority are we to decide which things are beyond argument?  Notice that I said “authority,” not “power.”  I am not proposing that anyone should be coerced to accept such authority.  I am merely pointing out its indispensability.  The progress of reason itself requires authority.  For it is all very well to say that we should reach the decision about which things are beyond argument by argument, but by what authority are we to say that the argument has reached a conclusion? 

Secularists answer the question, “By human authority.”  Thus we have politically shaped conformity.  Or else they say “By no authority,” which effectively means either anarchy (which doesn’t last) or socially shaped conformity.

Protestants answer, “By the authority of the Holy Spirit,” understood as operating either through each individual (which effectively means by no authority -- see above) or through the sundry religious teachers, congregations, or denominations to which individuals adhere (which effectively means by human authority – see above).  So in practice the Protestant and Secularist solutions embody the same alternatives.  They are in this respect indistinguishable.

Catholics answer, “By the authority of Holy Spirit,” understood as operating through the Church founded by Christ.  This solution is distinct from the other two only if the Church is correct about what she actually is, which of course Protestants and Secularists deny.

Is she?  We are not answering the question today.  But this is the crux of the matter.

MCCCLIX.  We tend to fall in love with people we spend time with.  Therefore, decide whether she might be a suitable person to fall in love with before deciding to spend time with her, not after.

MCCCLX.  She is suitable to fall in love with if she is good person to marry and raise a family with.

MCCCLXI.  She is a good person to marry and raise a family with if she is a prudent and virtuous person, loves and is wise about children, and could faithfully love you too.

Women, change “she” and “her” to “he” and “him.”  Everything else is the same.

The other day I happened to reflect on what a good man a certain friend is.

Such a delight it is, such a refreshment of spirit to think of such persons.  Virtue is in decline, yet the world is full of saints.

The conversation took place years ago, but it made quite a dent in my memory.

A:  “I love think her theology.  I think it’s so neat.”  B:  “Do you mean you think it’s true?”  A:  “Who cares?  I’m just saying it’s neat.”

Chesterton remarks, “Pride consists in a man making his personality the only test, instead of making truth the test.  The sceptic feels himself too large to measure life by the largest things; and ends by measuring it by the smallest thing of all.”

A lot of things in human souls are disordered.  Up to this point in the story, it doesn’t matter why this is so -- whether because of original sin or because we are still half-ape.  Either way, we are pretty badly messed up.  The most conspicuous symptom is that we desire all sorts of things that aren’t good for us to desire.

The plot thickens:  We try all sorts of things to fix ourselves, only to discover that although there are certainly things that we can do -- I wrote about that yesterday -- yet our efforts have limited results.  Though divine grace exceeds our natural powers, even grace demands our cooperation, and God doesn’t promise to heal every ill in this life.  So we give up on all that.

Instead, we imagine that the way to be fixed isn’t to desire what is good, but to get what we desire.  If only we get it, we’ll be okay.  If we do get it, as sometimes happens, then we wonder why all that satisfaction isn’t more satisfying.

At this point the quantitative fallacy kicks in.  Getting what I want didn’t fix me.  Why not?  Ah, I get it:  I must need even more of what I want.  Then I’ll be okay.

No, divine healing requires divine hope and divine perseverance.  Keep your lamp trimmed.  If your eyes are too dim to see the wick, ask for help.  Weeping may endure for the night, but joy comes with the morning.