Obscurantism and Jehovah's Witnesses

This morning, whilst browsing the Catholic dictionary at the back of our old Holy Family Bible (a beautiful 1950 Douay/Confraternity printing) I came across the word obscurantism. Now this definition is just a little bit outdated. When was the last time any conciliar Catholic was accused of obscurantism? For those of you who are unaquainted with the Church's recently ignored tradition of forbidding dangerous literature, check out the entry on the subject to the right.
I'll transcribe the essential bits:
Forbidden books are:
1. any edition or translation of the Scriptures by non-Catholics, e.g., a King James version of the Bible;
2. any book which defends heresy or schism or tries to undermine the fundamental truths of religionm, e.g., a book denying papal infallibility or teaching atheism;
3. any book attacking religion or morals, e.g., a book fostering divorce or birth control;
4. any book on religion by a non-Catholic unless it clearly contains nothing opposed to the Catholic Faith;
5. any book without ecclesiastical approval which deals with the Scriptures;
Now this sort of mentality is seldom seen on the blogosphere, that freethinker's paradise. Consider the recent words of a certain Catholic blogger:
It's also good to read multiple commentaries by different people with different interpretations--and not just by Catholics. Non-Catholics have brains, too, and sometimes they have really good insights. In fact, my favorite commentary on Genesis isn't a Christian commentary: It's Jewish.
I therefore don't write off a commentary just because the author isn't Catholic. Instead, I use critical thinking to try to correct non-Catholic elements in the commentary as I read it.
The members of this Society are well aware of my pro-censorship bent, but it is worth pondering how frequently we moderns expose ourselves to heretical polemics, be they atheist or protestant or something else entirely, and especially on the internet. The larger issue of censorship and submitting oneself to attacks upon the Faith could be the subject of a much, much longer post.
Anyways, to fill out my title, I was pleased this morning also to read this recommendation for dealing with Jehovah's Witnesses which I found whilst perusing the Roman Theological Forum, which I quote below.
90. Doorway manners. Most people are not ready to talk convincingly to Jehovah's Witnesses who knock at their door, because most people do not have prepared answers for the memorized presentation that Jehovah's Witnesses give. You should at least have on hand a small piece of literature that refutes the common claims of the Witnesses or which briefly presents Catholic beliefs. Ask them to take and read your piece of literature. You will probably discover that they will not accept your literature, and they will leave. But, if they do not leave and instead begin to hurl a stream of words at you, begin to recite out loud the Creed, the Act of Faith, or some other Catholic prayer. They will then leave rather hurriedly.
Hand out a pamphlet, and if the poor heretic persists, recite the Credo. What a noble image that presents!
Credo in Deum, Patrem Omnipotentem, ...
go to main page
St. Louis-Marie de Montfort, ora pro nobis
St. Joseph, ora pro nobis
St. Ambrose of Milan, ora pro nobis
St. Dominic, ora pro nobis
St. Francis (and St. Clare), orate pro nobis
St. Catherine of Siena, ora pro nobis
St. Alphonsus Ligouri, ora pro nobis
St. John Chrysostom, ora pro nobis

20 Comments:
ahhh yes # 90 Door Manners....very good advice
In the past I always shied away from reading literature not authored by a Catholic. Unfortunately these days I need to filter even Catholic material. The first 'mix' I read is Transforming Suffering by Mitchell & Wiseman. I spotted the book in a used book store. What caught my eye was Pope John Paul II photo sandwiched between Dalai Lama, Thomas Keating & Thubten Chodron.
Well, all I can say is that if I were to take these rules as binding, I'd have to drop out of grad school right now!
Non-Catholics may have brains, but they have no true cognitio of God, just ask Thomas, Secunda Secundae Partis, q. 10, a. 3, co.
Let me tell you, lacking a true cognitio of God is not a good thing. According, I think that Iacobus was right to exception to that fellow's remark.
Hm...
This entire subject makes me recall an earlier comment I made about some posters here being so conservative that they probably think the printing press was a bad idea...
But on a serious note, yes, it is true that we should take care not to read materials that will place our faith in jeopardy. And yes, sometimes that even includes materials by Catholics.
This reminds me of a discussion that occured during a class I took on Catholic higher education. I think Cardinal Newman talks about having a wholeness to one's knowledge - the integrity of universal truths which all fit together in a system of knowledge. Before you've got that, it seems particularly dangerous to read erroneous works.
I can't exactly remember the quote, but some saintly monk said that one bad book can destroy an entire monastery.
St. Basil talks about dangers of pagan literature.
Dom Gueranger's discussion of St. Anthony, on this week's calendar, recalls that the great hermit could not tolerate even the presence of heretics.
'Course, good ol' St. Antony, being a hermit, really didn't tolerate the presence of, you know, anyone. Not that I'm pro-heretic or anything.
Point taken, Ambrosius.
My mistake is that it was not from Dom Gueranger, but from the Office, and that this is before he betook to live the life of a hermit.
Ab haereticorum et schismaticorum hominum, maxime Arianorum, congressu et colloquio sic abhorrebat, ut ne prope quidem eos accedendum diceret.
So great was his aversion for the company of, or conversation with, heretics, especially the Arians, that he used to say that we ought not even go near them.
St. Basil also talks about the virtues of pagan literature.
Right you are. I probably should have mentioned that.
On this note, what do y'all think about partaking of certain forms of media just in order to more effectively criticize them to others? Naturally the cases will vary -- for example, a person would need a *grave* excuse to justify paging though pornographic pictures, but there are other less serious cases.
For example: The Da Vinci Code might normally qualify as unwholesome literature. But when I was in Peace Corps, I was sorely tempted to read it, just because all my fellow volunteers kept reading it and telling me that it offered some serious and persuasive criticisms of the Church. I didn't believe it for a second, and the "serious challenges" people told me about sounded ridiculous and confused, but it would have been easier to tear the book apart if I had actually read it. I am not in the least concerned that my faith will be shaken by the likes of Dan Brown.
Another example that has been perplexing me: I sometimes think that, should the opportunity present itself, I ought to go and see the Vagina Monologues. I can't tell you how many times I've found myself in arguments with people about whether and where it should be performed. I've read about it and I think I have some reasonable idea of what it is and what it represents, but people are always telling me, "No, no. You haven't got the message right; you just don't understand because you haven't seen it." Generally they themselves seem quite confused about what the play really means, and I am relatively certain that I would not ultimately approve, but it's true that my ability to discuss it is greatly limited by my not having seen it.
There are times when effective apologetics require greater understanding of the disease that is being treated. Might this sometimes be a valid reason for partaking of the unwholesome?
Is it a necessary near occasion of sin? If so, then it's permissible. We can only licitly expose ourselves to gravely sinful matter when it's absolutely necessary: and in those circumstances there's little real choice involved anyway.
Also, getting to heaven is the number one priority. All other things (including effective apologetics), although objectively good, may have to be set aside if they place in danger getting to heaven.
Grad school is probably a necessary near occasion, since it's not like you have real choice in choosing a good Catholic university.
This like so many other things discussed on this blog comes back to finding a good, reliable, *traditional*, confessor. Since finding one of these types of priests is so helpful in getting to heaven, we all should think strongly about pursuing educations and careers near traditional priestly apostolates, parishes, and communities.
Well, naturally, getting to heaven is the most important thing. But in apologetics, the hope is that it might help *other people* get to heaven, too.
I guess part of my point was that, unlike looking at pornography, something like reading the Da Vinci Code might *not* be a mere occasion to sin, if one is doing it for a good reason and is relatively certain that one will not be influenced by its so-called arguments. Under which category does the Vagina Monologues fit? I suppose I don't know... I haven't seen it.
Sorry... that's a NEAR, not a MERE occasion to sin. I'm a little worried about what *that* slip reveals about my thinking!
From the Catechism of St. Pius X:
32 Q: What should a Christian do who has been given a Bible by a Protestant or by an agent of the Protestants?
A: A Christian to whom a Bible has been offered by a Protestant or an agent of the Protestants should reject it with disgust, because it is forbidden by the Church. If it was accepted by inadvertence, it must be burnt as soon as possible or handed in to the Parish Priest.
That's a gem! I love it!
Anyone ever refuse those little green bibles that are passed out at various college campuses? I suppose one should tell them that they are in error and invite them to convert to the Catholic Church.
Up close and personal Jehovah's Witnesses can be wolves in sheep's clothing.
Think about this-When the devil comes knocking on your door he may not have the 'dark goth look'.They could be smartly dressed and wielding the Christian Bible.
I have Jehovah's Witnesses family in the usa who practice the Watchtower JW enforced ritual shunning that i have not seen or heard from in 15 years.
The central CORE dogma of the Watchtower is Jesus second coming (invisibly) in 1914 and is a lie.Jehovah's Witnesses are a spin-off of the man made Millerite movement of 1840.
A destructive cult of false teachings, that frequently result in spiritual and psychological abuse, as well as needless deaths (bogus blood transfusion ban).
Yes,you can 'check out anytime you want but you can never leave',because they can and will hold your family hostage.
The world has the Internet now,and there are tens of thousands of pages up from disgruntled ex-Jehovah's Witnesses like myself who have been abused by the Watchtower cult.
Jehovah's Witnesses are often a mouth that prays a hand that kills.The Watchtower is a truly Orwellian world.
----
Danny Haszard former Jehovah's Witness X 33 years and 3rd generation www.dannyhaszard.com
Post a Comment
<< Home