Defensor Fidei: James Akin's Apologetics Blog

2002-08-28T23:18:00.000-07:00

OVERUSE OF MODIFIERS

One of the most common faults of beginning writers is the overuse of modifiers (adjectives, adverbs). You must resist this tendency. Overmodification of your nouns and verbs weakens the force of your writing. Beginning writers frequently add modifiers thinking that these will make their text more vivid and powerful, but they don’t. Consider these two sentences:

(1) The beautiful Francesca lovingly spread a treasured quilt on the green grass beneath the stately oak.

(2) Francesca spread a quilt on the grass beneath the oak.

The second is better writing. In the first, each noun and verb has been modified in a vain attempt to make the text more vivid. The result is that the reader is asked to process too much; the modifiers get in the way. While each modifier may seem like a lovingly crafted detail to the author, they get annoying to the reader. If sentence after sentence is overmodified, he will stop reading.

Your writing will be much stronger if you avoid unnecessary modifiers. Remember: When it comes to modifiers, less is more. After you have written your rough draft, go through it and strike out every modifier that you possibly can. Only keep a modifier if, without it, the text will become unintelligible to the reader or the claim you are making will be false. Only modifiers needed to make something true or intelligible should be included by a beginning writer.

In particular, don’t put “good” and “loving” in front of words like “Father,” “mother,” or “teacher” unless you have to in order to be understood (which is almost never). These are among the most chronically over-used modifiers in contemporary apologetics texts. Other commonly overused words are “gracious” and “saving.”

For example, you don’t need to say “God is a good Father and so he lovingly provides for his children.” It is stronger to say “God is a Father and provides for his children” (note that we also got rid of “so he” in addition to “good”; this also makes it stronger writing). You don’t need to allude to the fact that bad fathers may not lovingly provide for their children. You don’t need to point out that God is good. Your reader can be expected to know that God is good at whatever he does, so if he is a Father, he will be a good one. The modifier “good” is unnecessary and weakens the writing.

2002-08-28T23:11:00.000-07:00

JOHN 19--MARY ENTRUSTED TO JOHN
Do not replace the literal sense of the text with the spiritual. The literal sense of the text is that Jesus was entrusting his mother to John’s care so that she could be taken care of in his absence. Literally, the text is not about Mary’s spiritual motherhood; it is about her domestic situation. The use of this passage to show a figure of Mary’s spiritual motherhood of the Church and the individual believer is spiritual application, not the literal sense of the text.

BISHOPS AND APOSTLES
In describing apostolic succession, do not imply that bishops are simply modern apostles. They aren’t. The bishops are the successors of the apostles as the supreme leaders of the Church, but they are not the successors of the apostles in the office of apostle. A modern bishop is not simply an apostle by another name. All of the apostles had universal jurisdiction, could make infallible definitions, and work miracles. Modern bishops don’t fit that profile.

ACTS 1--MATTHIAS AS JUDAS’ REPLACEMENT
It is very difficult to use the text of Matthias’ election as Judas’ replacement to prove apostolic succession. What we are dealing with here is a very specialized succession that cannot easily be generalized. First, this is not a bishop succeeding an apostle. As we note elsewhere, bishop and apostle were different offices, despite the King James Version’s use of the term “bishoprick” (which makes the passage tempting for a Catholic apologist). Matthias was an apostle, not simply a bishop.

Further, this isn’t even a prooftext for apostles needing to succeed apostles, for it was not Jesus’ will that the office of the apostle continue beyond the first century. Instead, what we have happening here is a replacement of one of the Twelve, the group of Twelve that followed Jesus during his earthly ministry. This group, by nature, could not continue beyond the first century. A few years later when James was killed, he wasn’t replaced, though there were certainly candidates around (probably Justus was still alive).

It seems that the best interpretation of this passage is that, after the death of Judas, it was fitting that the Church age be started with twelve apostles at the helm, corresponding to Jesus’ original wish and to the twelve patriarchs of Israel at the founding of the nation. Once the Church age had been launched in this way, there was no need to maintain the twelve beyond that, so when James was martyred by Herod Agrippa, he was not replaced. Neither were the other apostles as they died. Furthermore, those apostles who were not part of the twelve—such as Paul, Barnabas, and James the Just—were never added to that number to make up the difference, so far as we can tell.

2002-07-08T19:09:00.000-07:00

PROBLEMATIC TERMS

*APOSTATE
Why Problematic: The term "apostate" has a very precise meaning (see CIC 751): It means a person who has renounced the Christian faith entirely, not just a part of it. Consequently, it does not apply to heretics. Neither does it apply to schismatics, who have broken communion with the Church without denying a part of the faith. Only someone who says "I no longer believe in Jesus Christ as the Second Person of the Trinity" is an apostate. Unfortunately, the term "apostate" is inaccurately applied to many people who are only heretics or schismatics. The cognate noun *APOSTASY is also inaccurately applied to movements involving a less than total falling away from the faith (e.g., to widespread lukewarmness or non-practicing of the faith).

When Okay: When you are referring to an individual who has completely renounced faith in Jesus Christ, "apostate" is okay. When you are referring to a movement of such individuals, "apostasy" is okay.

Alternatives: If someone is not an apostate, use the correct term for them: HERETIC, SCHISMATIC, DISSIDENT, LAPSED CATHOLIC, LUKEWARM CATHOLIC, FALLEN-AWAY CATHOLIC.

*CULT (worship or devotion)
Why Problematic: Although the term "cult" with is original meaning--worship, devotion, or a system of worship or devotion--is fine in and of itself, it has become problematic due to the growth of the other use of the term, discussed below. The employment of the word as a term of abuse is now the dominate English usage, and as a result it "sounds bad" even when it is being used in an appropriate way. It also is potentially misleading, as many readers may think you are employing it abusively when you are not. Even when this does not happen, its use will generally cause problems for the reader and will harm the persuasive value of your writing or speaking.

When Okay: There are some situations in which the term can be used, particularly: (1) When writing for academics or (2) when referring to ancient cults (e.g., the cult of Yahweh, the Temple cult in Jerusalem, the cult of Isis, the Mystery Cults).

Alternatives: Use *WORSHIP or DEVOTION if referring to the act; use SYSTEM OF WORSHIP, SYSTEM OF DEVOTION, RELIGION, MOVEMENT, SECT, or GROUP when referring to a body of people.

*CULT (Bad Group)
Why Problematic: In colloquial English, the term cult has become a term of abuse that has no objective content. It is a silly-putty word that is applied to any religious group that one does not like.

Many, especially in Protestant "counter-cult apologetics" try to dignify the term by coming up with definitions for it that sound objective, but none of these are viable. They all either suffer from arbitrariness, subjectivity, hypocrisy, or some combination of these.

In general, the definitions fall into two classes: theological and sociological definitions.

Theological definitions attempt to say what a cult is based on the doctrines it holds. All of these definitions suffer from arbitrariness. They focus on the denials of particular doctrines that the user holds dear (e.g., "Any group is a cult if it doesn't preach salvation by grace alone through faith alone through Christ alone"). Such idiosyncratic definitions do not correspond to the way the term is popularly understood and are therefore arbitrary and misleading to members of the general public who hear the word being used in such senses. Such definitions also frequently are hypocritical (e.g., "These people are a cult because they believe that you will not be saved unless you join their group"--as if that wasn't with nuances a basic teaching of the Christian faith!).

Sociological definitions attempt to say what a cult is based on organizational characteristics, such as having a central, charismatic leader, a secretive, hierarchical structure with authority at the top, or being overly intrusive or manipulative with regard to the lives of its members. These definitions come closer to the way in which the term is actually used in popular speech (especially when the themes of secrecy, authoritarianism, and undue intrusiveness and manipulation are at play) and thus are less arbitrary.

However, a significant degree of arbitrariness remains. For example, nobody has come up with a sociological definition that catches all and only those groups they wish to call "cults." As a result, people tend to say things like "A cult is something which shares many or most of the following characteristics..." This is a signal that we really don't have a good definition.

It also makes the application of the term subjective: Is a simple majority of characteristics enough? A three-quarter majority? Do some characteristics have more "weight" than others in deciding whether something is a cult? The "many or most" definitions are simply too arbitrary in their application, allowing one person to declare a group a cult while another denies it.

Another problem is that the characteristics involved are subjective in their appraisal:

If many cults have charismatic leaders, how charismatic does he have to be? There is no objective scale of charisma. Further, what's bad about having a charismatic leader? Doesn't every successful organization start with or quickly develop one?

If many cults have secretive leadership, just how secretive do they have to be? There is no objective scale of secretiveness. Furthermore, all leaders of all organizations keep certain information as privileged or confidential. When does legitimate confidentiality become secretiveness?

If many cults have authoritarian leadership, just how authoritarian do they have to be? There are no objective scale of authority. Further, all leaders of all organizations exercise authority, either formally or informally, otherwise they wouldn't be leaders. When does legitimate leadership become authoritarianism?

If many cults are unduly intrusive into the lives of their members, how intrusive do they have to be? There are no objective scales. Further, what are considered legitimately private matters vary enormously with time and culture. Many things considered private today would not have been considered private in the past, and many things considered matters of public scrutiny today would have been considered completely personal matters in the past.

If many cults are manipulative of their members, how can we possibly measure this? Every group uses various means to motivate its members to proper action. These means take the form of both rewards and punishments. They frequently involve controlling the flow of information within the group. That is how groups maintain their existence and their membership. Individual instances can be criticized as inappropriate--this reward should not be promised, this punishment should not be threatened, this fact should or should not be allowed to circulate--but there is no scale of manipulativeness by which a group can be objectively judged.

Because there are no objective standards of measurement in these areas, whether a particular group has the indicated characteristics will be almost wholly in the eye of the beholder. A group may, in fact, be manipulative, authoritarian, secretive, or whatnot, but matters will not be helped by calling it a "cult." That will only lead to arguments about whether the term is appropriate and by what standards it is to be judged, with opportunities at every turn for advocates of the group to disagree with you with an appearance of plausibility. It is better to call the group what it is (manipulative, authoritarian, etc.) and then back it up with specific examples, knowing that even then there will be plausible rejoinders.

Many of the sociological definitions are also hypocritical in that they apply criteria to other groups when an equal case could be made against one's own group. For example, Christianity was founded by a charismatic leader (Jesus) who claimed to have direct revelation from God and who promised his followers eternal life on condition that they be part of the group, threatening outsiders and disobedient members with eternal punishment. Members were expected to acknowledge their personal unworthiness, often with a specific disclosure of personal wrongdoing and accompanying penances, which (especially in the early Church) involved group shunning.

If Jesus and the first Christians were right to do these things, and if we still hold in various ways to them today, we really can't fault others for doing the same things. We can say that they are incorrect in thinking that they are God's chosen group, but we can't fault them for acting like God's chosen group on the assumption that they are.

When Okay: Needed quotes only.

Alternatives: Instead of using the term *CULT, substitute neutral alternatives, such as RELIGION, MOVEMENT, GROUP, or SECT, depending on which of these best describes the group.

When needed, modifiers can be applied to the substitute term to make it more precise. For example:

If it claims to be Christian but isn't, use the modifier PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN.

If some of its members are Christians (validly baptized and professing faith in Christ) and some aren't, use QUASI-CHRISTIAN.

If it fits the definition of a heresy or schism, use HERETICAL or SCHISMATIC (the nouns HERESY and SCHISM may also be used when appropriate).

If it has a problematic mode of behavior, use the corresponding adjective--e.g., ABUSIVE, AUTHORITARIAN, DECEPTIVE, INTRUSIVE, MANIPULATIVE, SECRETIVE. (These also are good replacements for the problematic cognate adjectives *CULTIC and *CULT-LIKE.)

If you need to call attention to its erroneous belief system or illegitimate status, use FALSE.

If you need to call attention to the ill-effects (spiritual or otherwise) that it causes, use HARMFUL or DESTRUCTIVE.

In general, avoid modifiers whenever possible (which is most of the time). Modifiers weaken your writing, create arguments about whether they are appropriate, inflame the discussion, and (in the case of these modifiers) turn people off who you want to win over, especially members of the groups in question. Nevertheless, they do sometimes need to be used.

Note: Many people who use the term "cult" also use the even worse term *MIND CONTROL. Be sure to read that entry as well.

*EUCHARISTIC MINISTER
Why Problematic: The term "Eucharistic minister" is never used in official Church documents. These documents are at pains to stress the extraordinary character of lay persons (other than acolytes) serving in this capacity and so always refer to "extraordinary ministers of Holy Communion." "Eucharistic minister" attempts to blur the extraordinary character of the service.

Another, attempt to evade the extraordinary character of the service is ICEL's deliberate mistranslation of "extraordinary minister" as *SPECIAL MINISTER.

When Okay: When you are quoting a person (not a document), need the quote, and can't work around it, use "eucharistic minister" or "special minister." Otherwise, not. If it is a document that is using "special ministers," sub in the term "extraordinary ministers" and footnote it explaining that you are correcting a deliberate mistranslation.

Alternatives: EXTRAORDINARY MINISTER OF HOLY COMMUNION

*FUNDAMENTALIST
Why Problematic: Although there are some individuals who proudly apply the term "Fundamentalist" to themselves, this word has such overwhelmingly negative connotations to most that it is commonly regarded as a term of abuse. Consequently, many readers will assume that you are being abusive when you are not. Further, because Evangelicals tend to have the same theological beliefs as those who call themselves Fundamentalists, even if you are only talking about the latter then many Evangelicals will assume that you are speaking of them and being abusive to boot.

In recent years some Western reporters have begun to apply the term "Fundamentalist" to certain non-Christians--e.g., "Fundamentalist Muslims"--based on perceived (often imaginary or wildly exaggerated) similarities to the attitudes of Fundamentalist Christians.

When Okay: When you are referring to those who apply the term to themselves. Even then you may need to caution the audience and explain how you are not using the term.

Alternatives: If you want to refer to the group without sounding abusive, try phrases like CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS, CULTURALLY CONSERVATIVE PROTESTANTS. If you are referring to Evangelicals then use EVANGELICAL. If you are referring to fanatical Muslims then use ISLAMIST (this, apparently, is the term of choice among Muslims to refer to their fanatics, though it sounds like a dis of their whole religion to me).

*MIND CONTROL
Why Problematic: Many practitioners of "counter-cult apologetics"--especially in Protestant circles--refer to "cults" that practice "mind control." To the average person, this suggests either something out of science fiction (a la "Jedi mind tricks") or spy thrillers (e.g., The Manchurian Candidate), in which people are "reprogrammed" using drugs and torture. The thing is, neither of those kinds of mind control exist in the real world. They don't work (as the Viet Cong who tried them on American soldiers found out). Drugs and torture can affect people's behavior, but they don't work to bring about fundamental changes of belief; those happen for other reasons.

None of this is what "counter-cult apologists" and "deprogrammers" are referring to. They mean, instead, much more mundane things like controlling the information that a person is exposed to, chanting slogans, and even being nice to someone (!). Deprogrammers commonly claim that, by the skillful application of such techniques, anyone can be led to believe anything, even the deprogrammers themselves. In other words: By applying a set of techniques nowhere near as extreme as drugs and torture, it is possible to deprive someone of their free will and get them to believe whatever you want.

Baloney.

If that were the case then some dictator or high priest would have figured it out hundreds or thousands of years ago and used it, and the world today would have only one belief system and only one government.

The human mind is too resilient for that. The deprogrammers and "counter-cult apologists" are simply making inflated, unsustainable claims that scare and mislead people whose relatives have joined a weird religious sect.

Sometimes deprogrammers portray certain physical practices--such as sleep-deprivation or eating a low-protein diet--as being part of the "mind control." However, these practices do not, in fact, control minds (those Vietnam POWs got through sleep deprivation and low-protein diets just fine), and it isn't remotely clear that the sects that do these things mean them to have "controlling" effect on anybody. Maybe they just believe in vegetarianism! Maybe (like some Christian monasteries) they just have a custom of getting up in the night to say prayers! Those things aren't mind control, they're just asceticism.

To complicate matters here, some New Agers actually use "mind control" in a positive sense! In this case, it refers to using various discipline to control your own (otherwise unruly) mind. Thus the term is applied to certain (bogus) mental disciplines that allegedly increase the brain's output of alpha waves (or delta or theta waves) and allegedly unlock amazing mental powers. The most well-known such technique is called Silva Mind Control (after its inventor, Jose Silva).

When Okay: When you are referring to someone attempting a Manchurian Candidate-like form of mental manipulation, when you are referring to Silva Mind Control and similar New Age "mind control" techniques. In either case, warn people that the alleged methods don't work.

Alternatives: Use the ordinary English words for the things members of religious groups do to gain converts: PERSUASION (if it's a mortally neutral technique), PROPAGANDA (if it is an unworthy bending of the facts), or LYING or DECEPTION (if it involves the sectarian conveying a known falsehood).

*MOHAMMEDANISM
Why Problematic: Muslims will take offense at this term, taking it to imply that they worship Muhammad the same way that Christians worship Christ. The same applies to the cognate noun *MOHAMMEDAN.

When Okay: Needed quotes only, and with a caution against using these terms in dialogue with Muslims.

Alternatives: When referring to the religion of Muhammad, use ISLAM. When referring to a follower of that religion, use MUSLIM. If you need an adjective, either ISLAMIC or MUSLIM will work.

*SERIOUS SIN
Why Problematic: Historically the category "serious" ranks above "light" and below "grave." Yet for some fuzzy-headed reason, in recent years, there has been a movement among translators of ecclesastical documents into English to avoid the word "grave" and use "serious" instead, even when the word in the original Latin is gravi. This happens especially in the phrase "serious sin," where it should be "grave sin."

This has even found its way into some of the translations on the Vatican web site (though, of course, these have not all been signed off on by the Holy Father). The Catechism studiously avoids this problematic translation, which uses "grave sin" eighteen times and uses "serious sin" only once, when it is quoting the American translation of the Code of Canon Law (and thus couldn't easily change what was in the translation).

The basic problem with using "serious" to mean "grave" is that it confuses these two categories of gravity. Even more problematic is the tendency of some writers to use "serious sin" as a substitute for the phrase "mortal sin." This not only blurs the distinction between grave sin and mortal sin (all mortal sins being grave but not all grave sins being mortal), it also obscures the fact that mortal sins are mortal--deadly to the soul.

When Okay: If you are referring to a sin that is serious but not grave then the term "serious sin" is appropriate.

Alternatives: If you mean an objectively grave sin then say GRAVE SIN. If you mean a grave sin for which someone is mortally culpable then use MORTAL SIN.

*TRADITIONALIST
Why Problematic: Despite the fact that Traditionalism was a heresy a few hundred years ago, some today apply the term "Traditionalist" to themselves. Some of these individuals are schismatics (e.g., Lefebvrists), potentially even heretics. Unfortunately, complicating matters is the fact that many Catholics who are fully in union with the pope also apply the term to themselves. These tend to be individuals who have a special attachment to the Latin Mass or (in the case of Feeneyites) doctrinal formulations that were common prior to the mid-20^th century. This creates a problem of needing to distinguish the two groups, those who are good Catholics in union with the pope and those who are not.

When Okay: If you are referring to good Catholics in union with the pope who simply have a preference for older liturgical or devotional forms, use "Traditionalist."

Alternatives: If you are referring to individuals who are not in communion with Rome or who are only barely in communion with Rome, use RADICAL TRADITIONALISTS. If referring to those only barely in communion with Rome, use TRADITIONALIST DISSIDENTS.

*WORSHIP
Why Problematic: The term "worship" originally included both the worship of God (adoration) and devotion to saints (veneration). It recently has become restricted in common speech to the worship of God, and the typical reader will be shocked or misled by its application to saints.

When Okay: Needed quotes only, and with a warning about how the term is not being used.

Alternatives: DEVOTION, VENERATION.

2002-07-08T18:58:00.000-07:00

Why This Page

For some time I have needed to put together a set of notes on how to do and how not to do Catholic apologetics. I plan eventually to use these notes as the basis of a book. In the interim, I also have a need to make these notes accessible to certain folks who wish to use them. After puzzling over how best to do this, I started to design a web-based system that I realized was essentially a blog. Rather than reinvent the wheel, I decided to do the notes in blog format until I'm geared up to do the book (at which point I will strike the tent on the blog). If you've come across this page and find it useful to you, great.

One note: Some individuals may wonder who I'm thinking about when I give particular "don't do this" notes on the page. The answer is: Probably nobody in particular. Most of the errors I plan on cataloguing here are not unique to any one individual. They tend to be things that I run across a lot (because I read a lot of apologetic manuscripts), and so I have no particular person in mind when recording them in this blog. I see these problems too many times to associate them with any particular person. So, if you're an apologist, archair or otherwise, don't worry. I'm almost certainly not thinking of you in pointing out a particular mistake. If anything, I may be thinking of myself, because I plan on cataloguing mistakes I've made in past writings, talks, and discussions.

So enjoy!

--James Akin