Catholic scholarship & authority
There’s an interesting exchange over at Mirror of Justice that was prompted by a post from Eduardo Moises Penalver (apologies for not knowing how to add appropriate diacritical marks) regarding the credibility of Catholic scholarship vis-a-vis magisterial authority. Here’s a snippet of the Eduardo’s initial post:
Does the expectation that Catholic academics will assent to authoritative teachings (and not publicly argue against them) undermine the legitimacy of Catholic legal theory? Assuming that the conclusions to which this person reasoned were set in advance by the magisterium, can we have any faith in the arguments themselves? Would the arguments have more credibility if we thought the person was following his line of thought where it took him? Or should the subjective motivations of the scholar have absolutely no bearing on the matter?
Be sure to read his subsequent clarification, as well as responses by Commonweal contributors Mark Sargent and Rick Garnett.
Pertinent to this thread is the current Mirror of Justice http://www.mirrorofjustice.com/, asking where are the Sloan Coffin’s today? Now that Carl Bernstein is calling for an inquiry, perhaps more will move to get this presidency to accountability.
A deductive argument, provided it is logically valid, is as strong as its premises. An inductive argument is as strong as the evidence cited. The motives of the person who proposes an argument are strictly irrelevant. In fact the same goes for statements. It is not unusual to hear a statement described as politically motivated. This is to muddy the waters. The question to ask is what evidence can be cited in support of the statement, not what motivated the person who made it. That said , we perhaps ought to scrutinize with special care to arguments advanced by persons of whom we have reason to be suspicious. But it is also a good idea to scrutinize our own arguments and those of our friends. Most of us can deceive ourselves from time to time. Always in a good cause!
There’s also an interesting note on the Catholic connections with the Jewish tradition of scholarship-within-tradition over at Opinion Work Product (link above). The “etiology” of belief–and the motivations of believers–is discussed (incorrectly but astutely) by Brian Leiter in an article, “The Hermeneutics of Suspicion,” and also shows up in the Mirror of Justice debates about Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell.” Given our limited ability to separate the wheat from the chaff, the motives of speakers will always need to be added to the scales. It may do more harm than good–but so may everything until Kingdom come.