Generation at Risk
I listened to Dobson the last 2 days. He talked about how in 1990 he wrote a book called Generation At Risk that detailed to conflict between people who beleived in God and those that did not. His guest, Dennis Prager, pointed out that many liberals do believe in God. So he refined Dobson’s categories to those that believe in devine text and those that do not. Dr Prager is a Jew so he wanted to include both Christian and Jewish scriptures in his formulation. The trouble is that some liberals even believe in scripture. So the notion of devine text does not do it. What really divides the liberals from conservatives is the belief in infallibility.
I know conservative protestants and jews would never say they believe in infallibility but they do. They think marriage is between a man and a woman. That is ordained by God. It is not up for debate. It will never change. It is an infallible truth. They cannot give a coherant rationale for why this doctrine is infallible and others like contraception were not. Still they feel quite strongly this is an infallible truth. Different biblical interpretations exist but if any interpretation that says gay marriage is fine is simply wrong. That is precisely what Catholics mean by an infallible doctrine. So they believe the concept but they reject any wording that connects it with the identical Catholic idea.
As I said, when it comes to explaining why something is infallible they have some real trouble. They do what Catholics do. They appeal to scripture, tradition, and recognized authorities. The trouble is that by these rules the reformation and many doctrinal changes since cannot be justified. So they are not consistent. Dennis Prager might be more consistent from a Jewish perspective. I don’t know if there are any times in Jews have ignored tradition and authority in favor of their pet interpretation of scripture. Protestants certainly have done that. The trouble is that is precisely what modern liberals are doing.
When you see the issue really being about infallibility then things fall into place. You can see why the controversy is so hard to solve. Those that are right don’t know why they are right. They cannot face up to why they are right because they would have to become Catholic. So they are stuck with endless hand waving arguments. Liberals can dismiss them as being bigoted or closed minded. They can never explain why being closed minded is rational on these issues because they reject their own foundation. They have enough spiritual sense to figure out the right position but no consistent way to show why it is right.
Catholics are in a different boat. They have a clearly stated and logically defendable doctrine of infallibility. The trouble there is many Catholics reject it. A combination of lousy spiritual formation and strong cultural forces have created a generation of Catholics who just reject the doctrine of infallibility. That is like a protestant rejecting Sola Scriptura. It is at the foundation of how we know any doctrine. So at a time when the Catholic church should stand out as the only one with solid answers we end up with the majority of Catholics in embarassing compromises with the world. Happily it is beginning to change.
