Arguing Like St. Thomas Aquinas

Last week was a tough one for Catholics. No matter where one stands regarding the Society of St. Pius X, announcements of excommunications and schisms don’t exactly foster interior peace. Emotions are running high for many Catholics, especially for those who have direct interaction or participation with the SSPX. It should not be surprising then that fierce arguments have broken out between Catholics, particularly online—arguments that sadly have been marked by personal attacks and uncharitable accusations about the motives of others. Such unChristian and childish antics do nothing for the cause of reconciliation.

If St. Thomas Aquinas engaged with opposing views as many online Catholics do today, his Summa Theologica would be about 100 pages. It would consist of lines like, “Atheists reject God only because they can’t keep their pants on” and “Anyone who disobeys the pope is a prideful loser,” after which he’d move on to the next subject. Fortunately, instead the Angelic Doctor sought to understand as deeply as possible the actual point of view of those he was debating. He wanted to be able to explain those arguments as well as he could explain his own. Only then did he refute them in detail, and always without questioning the motives of those who held opposing views. This should be our model, but sadly it’s not.

My friend Kennedy Hall is a stalwart defender of the SSPX, arguing that the Society is justified in consecrating bishops and that the Vatican excommunications are not binding. SSPX defenders like Kennedy are being lambasted as arrogant and prideful, and accused of possessing a “Protestant spirit.” Why not instead assume that SSPX defenders have analyzed the evidence before them and made what they believe to be the decision most faithful to Christ, even if we disagree with that decision (as I do)? Why not engage the content of their arguments in an effort to persuade them of their errors? Wouldn’t this be more to the point—and more helpful— than attacking them personally?

It’s not any better on the other side of the coin. Another friend, Taylor Marshall—long-time sympathizer of the Society—has criticized the SSPX for consecrating bishops, which has resulted in harsh backlash from many of his followers who support the Society. He and others like him are charged with moral cowardice, greed, or a desire for human respect. The only reason a traditional Catholic would oppose the Society, according to many SSPX defenders, is some moral failing, not because of principled objections. 

Some of the attacks, while uncharitable, are also irrational. Saying that Taylor is opposing the consecrations in order to make money makes no sense. He’s probably shrinking his audience, not expanding it. Those who didn’t like him for his strong support of tradition won’t suddenly become ardent fans because of this one point of agreement, and some SSPX supporters will stop following him. Again, why not assume SSPX opponents like Taylor and others analyzed the evidence before them and made what they believe to be the decision most faithful to Christ, even if you happen to disagree with that decision? Why not engage the content of their arguments?

One of Christ’s most misunderstood commands today is his exhortation to “judge not, lest you be judged” (Matthew 7:1). It’s overused as a “Get Out of Jail Free” card, slapped down whenever someone criticizes a behavior or action. “Judge not!” says the woman who just killed her baby by abortion. Its overuse has led many otherwise faithful Catholics to dismiss any accusations of judgemental attitudes. Yes, we can (and should) judge actions: if a man steals cash from a restaurant, we absolutely should judge the action as objectively evil. What we cannot do, however, is judge the person’s heart, or assign uncharitable motives to him—motives we simply do not know because we can’t read hearts and minds. Yet this is exactly what we do when we accuse someone of supporting the Society due to pride, or opposing the Society due to moral cowardice. We don’t know why they are taking the position they take; all we can do is judge the validity of their arguments.

I’ve seen two forms of bad argumentation, the more charitable method and the less charitable one. The more charitable method assumes complete ignorance on an opponent’s part: “You don’t understand the issue, that’s why you take the position you do.” Often this is followed by, “Watch this 3-hour video which proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that I’m right.” Now it’s possible someone doesn’t fully understand an issue before coming to a conclusion. But usually the accusation of ignorance is made because the accuser hasn’t himself engaged the opposing position, and so assumes there’s simply no way anyone could disagree with him.

The less charitable method is simpler: just attack the opponent personally. Accuse the other party of acting for ulterior, self-centered, and even sinful reasons. The most common form this takes online is to accuse an opponent of being a “grifter” who just posits the opinions he believes will make him the most money. Ironically, it’s often people who also make money posting opinions online who make this accusation, and actually making such accusations can lead to more clicks and thus more online income.

Instead of making an attempt to consider the arguments of the other side—a process that often requires hard work and humility—too often a quarreler will just act as if he can read the mind or heart of his opponent. It’s the lazy way. 

In the case of the SSPX imbroglio, Catholics should adopt the attitude of Pope Benedict XVI, who was the point-man for engagement with Archbishop Lefebvre in the 1980s and then in 2009 lifted the excommunications of the SSPX bishops. While he strongly opposed many of the Society’s arguments, he never questioned their motives or assumed they had ill-will. He engaged with them, assuming them to be lovers of Christ. 

Likewise, we need to give the benefit of the doubt to those on the other side of this painful divide, believing they are motivated by a desire to follow Christ faithfully. None of this is to say that we can’t argue forcefully and vigorously, but our focus should be on judging our opponents’ arguments, not their motives. If you find yourself thinking, “He’s only saying that because…” or “She’s not even Catholic if she thinks that,” then take a step back. Even if the other person is actually a terrible person or driven by sinful motivations, by arguing the points of disagreement rather than making personality attacks, you help others who might be following the disagreement and might even convince your opponent to change his views.

And there’s another way we should look to the model of St. Thomas Aquinas and Pope Benedict XVI: we should pray intensely before even beginning any discussions. If you aren’t praying for the soul of the person you’re debating, you should keep your mouth shut and your phone in your pocket.

The disputes surrounding the Society of St. Pius X are serious and should not be ignored. But because they are so serious, they should be engaged in good faith and without personally attacking or questioning the motives of the other side. Reconciliation is possible, but only through prayer and charitable debate will it happen.