David was a Christian studying for his Ph.D. in communications at a secular university. Under his arm, along with his books, was a copy of a popular Evangelical magazine. As he entered Dr. Brock's office for a consultation, the professor saw the magazine and asked David what "that" was. David said, "The latest issue of Christianity Today; it's sort of a Christian intellectual journal." Professor Brock, well known for his religious skepticism, laughed out loud as he proffered, "Isn't that sort of an oxymoron — 'Christian intellectual?' "
David was offended, and for a communication major, unusually speechless. Later, he relayed the conversation to me, such as it was. He was depressed at not having a witty (and intellectual) rejoinder to trump our professor's atheism. I said, "But, David, Brock is right. Remember when we discovered that we were both working on our doctorates at a secular University hoping to change society's opinion that Christians can't think critically?" Now it was David's time to chuckle. He remembered our common calling.[1]
This series of articles is about the role of reason in the discovery of truth. We arrive at truth through the application of faith and reason, which are like "two wings on which the human spirit rises to the contemplation of truth" (John Paul II, Fides Et Ratio). Truth does not come to us by faith alone, nor does it come by reason alone. To rely on one, to the exclusion of the other, is to fly with one wing, mostly in circles, as we misapply the ordered rules of one or the other and introduce fallacies into our thinking.
Guilt by Association Fallacy
This chapter is about one particular fallacy, something called Guilt by Association, which falls under the category of irrelevant objective appeals. Appealing to Guilt by Association occurs when, instead of using objective evidence for or against the issue at hand, I tell my opponent that someone he doesn't like holds the position he's arguing for. I'm "thinking" that my opponent will side with me and against the person he doesn't like. I have attempted to assign guilt to a position, not because of the truth of the evidence or argument, but because of its association with someone of ill repute. We are all vulnerable to Guilt by Association because we like to belong to, or be accepted by, certain groups — and often we are willing to change our stance to accommodate that belonging.
In the situation with David, Professor Brock was using the Guilt by Association fallacy, (as well as several others), to imply that David, as a Ph.D. candidate, should not be associating himself with non-intelligent, or non-rational groups, e.g. Christians.
Guilt by Association is also used by anti-Catholics when they attempt to associate all Catholic priests with the few priests exposed during the recent scandal. Neither Brock's attempt on David, nor the anti-Catholic barrage against the priesthood, works very effectively because the facts are much different than the challenge implies. Brock ignores the many intellectual giants of human history that just happened to have been Catholic — scientists like Copernicus, writers like Shakespeare, musicians like Mozart,[2] theologians like Augustine, philosophers like John Paul II, and, perhaps most significantly, Brock ignores the contribution of Catholic monasticism to the preservation of Western intellectual civilization.
Associations That Are Not Fallacious
So far, we've discussed the fallacy whereby an argument is waged by creating a prejudice against a position due to an association, rather than the true merits of a position. We might fall into using this fallacy because we are confused about associations in general. There are three forms of association that are not fallacious and worthy of examination in our attempt to become more critical thinkers. There is a True Guilt by Association, a False Guilt by Association, and there is Virtue by Association. Let's look briefly at each.
True Guilt by Association
True Guilt by Association occurs when we sin because we associate with the wrong kind of friends. That is, we truly become guilty by the association.
St. Francis de Sales warns: "Friendship is the most dangerous love of all because…" true friendship involves taking part in the qualities of our friend, and… "a friendship that is founded on… sensual pleasures is utterly gross and unworthy" (Introduction to a Devout Life, 3.17). One of St. Francis de Sales' best lines was written as a warning against association with those who value frivolous accomplishments such a being able to dance gracefully, play well at games, dress fashionable, sing delightfully, speak eloquently and generally have a fine appearance. In today's lingo we might warn against association with those that are "socially hip but spiritually bankrupt." Associating with people who value such things causes St. Francis to deliver this gem of a line worth repeating to your kids from time to time: "It is thus that charlatans regard the greatest buffoons as the most virtuous." Pretty well sums up a significant part of American culture, doesn't it? This is the challenge of living in America: just how do we avoid friendships with charlatans and buffoons, and continue to be salt and light? Ah, Hamlet, that is the question.
MYSPACE.COM
True Guilt by Association can occur among our youth (or us) and it does not need to be a live individual. It can be an association with a machine or system programmed and controlled by individuals. I recently assisted a single Catholic mom, with an Internet phobia, to remove her underage and belligerent daughter's MySpace page. In the context of this discussion, this tween described her mood (in the MySpace field provided for such descriptions) as "guilty" — and she was.
First, she was only 12 and had violated MySpace's rule that a user be at least 14. The attractive young girl, who looks older than she is, had registered herself as being 17-years old, which encouraged advances from strangers she had no business knowing. Second, MySpace and the Internet made it easy to for this tween to associate with individuals who encouraged her rebellious, belligerent acting-out. Her "friends" at school also encouraged what she added to her page. Next to her picture was a colorful graphic of marijuana, below which she had entered the words "smoke some." The song she had linked to (which plays automatically upon accessing her page) was by a well-known rap group with explicit lyrics that glamorized sex and drugs. MySpace makes it easy for kids to post such links and play such songs on their page. The tween had also been able to write out a lengthy description of herself, which included explicit vulgarity. She was able to do all of this without restriction on MySpace, and because her single mom knows little about computers or the Internet, the tween was able to keep her mom from accessing the page. Third, on every MySpace profile, by virtue of entering your supposed birthday, your astrological sign is automatically displayed for the world to see. Further, the astrological sign is a highlighted link, inviting investigation. When you click on the link, you're taken to Tarot.com, a site that panders to the occult and explicit anti-Christian values. I signed up for a MySpace page to help this mother, and to investigate the MySpace phenomenon (www.myspace.com/drstanwilliams). As I entered my profile, the banner ad flashing at the top of the page read "Goth Test: Are You Goth Enough?"
I thought, "Oh, boy! We don't need this." I clicked on the link, imaging the 12-year old girl doing the same. She and her sister had shown some goth tendencies. My Internet browser took me to Tarot.com and the quiz. The screen read:
Take this goth quiz if you dare! Find out if you truly embrace the darkness, if you are one with the night creatures, or… if you're a poseur and really belong at the mall with the other brainwashed minions of consumerism. How goth are you? Here is question 4:
Do you wear a Catholic cross? (pick one of the following)
–Hell no. I'm a Goth, not a Catholic. I worship Satan
–An ornate one, for the aesthetic
–As an ironic statement, and/or among other jewelry
–No, I don't own one.
–Yes, and it's covered in bling (jewelry)
(I think a group of parents should file a class action lawsuit against MySpace for contributing to the delinquency of minors — although I might add there are hundreds of Christians who do a lot of evangelization on MySpace. I have two videos posted there, one on Confession. But, I digress — back to guilt…) There is a lot of guilt to spread around with a teen's association with MySpace. By the way, this kind of guilt is good, it can drive us to the confessional.
Now, in fairness to the tween, the emotional problems she is dealing with (due to a couple of terrible family situations) were in place long before she had access to MySpace and the Internet. In this case, the Internet didn't cause her problems, but they surely exacerbated them, and gave her acting-out approval and credence. Such is politically correct, but morally wrong, free speech.
False Guilt By Association
False Guilt By Association occurs when we are tempted to feel guilty about an association but should not. In fact, the association may be good for us — and the Church. Here are two examples.
False Guilt By Association can be brought on by prejudice or by ignorance. When folk songwriter and "singer" Bob Dylan was considering Christianity some years back, he came out with an album titled "Slow Train Coming." (Am I showing my age here? It was 1979.) It was popular among Christian youth and young adults. But some adult Christians were not sure they wanted to be associated with Bob Dylan. After all, if Dylan was going to be Christian, that meant that Christians would have to accept him and his sinful, rebellious past would gain credibility. A similar conundrum is faced by some Christians today with the return to Catholicism (or reconversion) of Anne Rice, the author who made vampires famous. Today she's writing a series of novels on the childhood of Jesus with a major motion picture in development by a company headed by a Catholic. So, should Christians associate with the likes of a converted Bob Dylan or Anne Rice? Of course, another option is to leave Christianity.
False Guilt By Association can also occur when we are just ignorant of who a person is, either by their dress, or their association with others. The classic example is when Jesus takes lunch with Zaccheus, the hated tax collector (speaking of charlatans). The Pharisees (speaking of buffoons) label Jesus "guilty" by association. But, of course, this was just another case where the buffoons were wrong.
A more personal example of the ignorance case occurred when I was a freshman at the evangelical institution known as Greenville College. All freshmen were required to take "Basic Christianity", a course taught by an amazing and intelligent apologist by the name of Dr. Stan Walters. One of Dr. Walters' required texts was C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. I brought the book home to read during Thanksgiving break and one night laid it on my mother's living room coffee table. Now, you have to understand that my mother (and father) were paying thousands of dollars for me to attend their alma matter. They were insistent (or at least hopeful) that I would get a good "Christian" education. You also have to understand that my mother's remembrance of C.S. Lewis was that of the acerbic, well-known Oxford agnostic. She did not know that after several rounds with Catholic J.R.R. Tolkien, Lewis became a great Christian apologist. It is unfortunate that his most remembered contribution to Christian apologetics begins with the word "mere," which is exactly what set my Mother off. How dare I bring this evil, apostate literature into her home? "Who gave you that?" she yelled. It took some explaining that my association with Dr. Lewis was part of my "Christian education." Mom had assigned Lewis' guilt because of his earlier association with skepticism. Who could blame her? They're both in heaven now and have probably met — don't you wish you could eavesdrop on such meetings?
One last example I can't resist. When my good friend Alex Jones, as a young man, was ordained a Pentecostal-Evangelical pastor in the Church of God in Christ, he wanted to go to seminary to get more training. But the elders of his "church" refused to let him. They liked their worship services with vibrant and emotional singing, and a style of preaching that prevented anyone from falling asleep. You had a better chance of being shoved off the end of a pew when Alex would characteristically yell out to his congregation: "Reach out and touch somebody." So, Alex wanted to go to seminary. And his elders said to Alex: "Absolutely not! If you go to seminary, our church will become a cemetery." Now, there's a fallacy for you. Needs a new category: "If two words rhyme they must mean the same." (Lord, save us from the Appeal to Rhyme.) Ironically, Jones undertook a night-time, clandestine, self-education by sneaking into the theology library at Detroit's Sacred Heart Major Seminary — the same seminary he would attend 30 years later in preparation for his second ordination — as a deacon in the Catholic Church. Deacon Jones' former elders had a fear of association with intellectual pursuits. Fortunately for us, Deacon Jones had no such fear and from his Catholic pulpit you will still hear him yell out to his congregation to be associated with the right folk: "I say, reach out and touch somebody!" Just make sure you're not sitting on the end of the pew when he says that.
Which brings me to the greatest of associations.
Virtue by Association
Virtue by Association occurs when we become more virtuous because of our association with persons of virtue. What a concept!
St. Francis de Sales encourages us to be associated with those friends who will generate the opposite of guilt. Those are true friendships. "Love everyone, Philothea, with a strenuous love of charity, but have no friendships except for those who communicate with you the things of virtue… (e.g.) moral virtues: in prudence, discretion, fortitude and justice." (Introduction to a Devout Life, 3.19)
No Better Association
Much could be said about virtuous associations, but there is no better association, guaranteed to push aside all guilt, than the association we seek with the saints and especially with God himself through Our Lord Jesus Christ. In practical terms, we have two practices that excel at getting us close to the saints and to Christ, thus developing in us guilt free associations. The first is praying the Rosary with Mary. What an opportunity, to seek the association of the mother of Jesus, and together seek the virtues that God reveals to us as we contemplate the mysteries and life of Christ.
But I've saved the best for last, so you'll remember it first. As I type this, I am in the presence of the greatest association of virtue known throughout the physical universe. I am literally in the presence of Christ. Christ has challenged us to be perfect in virtue as his heavenly Father is perfect. When we get to heaven, after bumping shoulders and knees with each other in purgatory, we will be in that perfect association of virtue. But now, here on Earth, we can have a close association with Christ through prayer, obedience, charitable service to those in need, by spending time in Eucharistic adoration, and the best association of all — by being one in body with him. May the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ bring us to everlasting life. Amen.
[1] Brock never got into it with me, and I was glad. At the time I was Evangelical, and I did not have the benefit of Catholicism's intellectual legacy; but then such a lack was perhaps a benefit. Had I fully understood the irrational basis of Brock's atheism, my argumentative tendencies may have jeopardized my doctorial candidacy. When I took a class from Brock, I was careful to ensure that my papers (which all dealt with Christian topics) were based on rational criteria. Brock awarded my efforts with high marks, and I hope the effort nudged his bias closer to a Christian worldview.
[2] In the initial draft, I used J.S. Bach as this example, until Dave Armstrong reminded me that Bach was Lutheran. Had me fooled.
