Is the "No True Catholic" Fallacy Sound?
There is a pop logical fallacy called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy that, in my opinion, is one of the most widely misused cudgels in casual argumentation. An example of the argument in action could go as follows:
Bob: No southerner uses instant grits.
Joe: My aunt Bea uses instant grits, and she was born in the south.
Bob: No true southerner uses instant grits.
The fallacy is not that Bob arbitrarily restricted who is permitted to belong to the group "southerners," but instead that he created a new category, which he calls a true southerner, that he can arbitrarily define as he pleases. He then updates his original premise to incorporate his new definition, making it effectively immune to any possible criticism.
The way the accusation of fallacy is often used, however, is to accuse anyone who provides an essentialist definition of any category or group of having fallacious reasoning. For that reason, I think people use it more as a critique of essentialism than its original use as an accusation of invalid reasoning. Imagine the conversation below:
Bob: A patriot must love and support his country
Joe: I'm a patriot and I hate my country.
Bob: Then you're not a patriot.
An accusation of the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in the above conversation would be inappropriate. It is true that in order to be a patriot, one must love and support their country - that is part of its definition. Joe's assertion thus puts him outside of the definition of the term, and Bob commits no fallacy by asserting it as such.
So let's bring it back to theology, imagine the following conversation:
Bob: A Catholic is required to believe in the Immaculate Conception
Joe: I'm a Catholic and I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Bob: Then you're not a true Catholic.
Did Bob commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy in his response here?
To truly get to the bottom of this we need to do a few things:
- Investigate identity assertions and the limits of their sufficiency
- Evaluate whether asserting a Catholic identity is sufficient for belonging
- Investigate whether a person can lose their claim to their Catholic identity
- Discuss the sense in which the word "Catholic" is used in the above conversation
When is asserting identity sufficient?
If you go around the comment sections of the internet, you'll often see people accuse others of gatekeeping. Urban Dictionary's definition of this word at the time of writing is the following:
A word used to describe when someone sets a standard/limit on what someone must do to call themselves a 'true fan' of something/someone.1
Imagine I told someone I was a "coffee snob;" there doesn't seem to be an easy way to define an essential definition of what a coffee snob actually is such that I'd be able to omit categories of people. At a minimum, I'd assume that the person needs to like coffee. But conceivably a person could have such a high bar for what constitutes good coffee that he never found one he liked. I can't think of behavior more snobby than that!
It's difficult, then, to judge someone to not be a coffee snob when they tell you they are one; and this is primarily because the only real evidence that could exclude them from the category would need to be provided by the one claiming they belong to it. This is what I would put into the category of simple asserted identity. Other examples are things like:
- Gamer
- Harry Potter Fan
- Spiritual
Again, the assertion itself, in the absence of contrary assertions made by the one claiming the identity, is sufficient evidence for membership within those categories.
It is not always the case, however, that asserting an identity is sufficient to prove belonging to that identity. One such category is actually used in the source example of the fallacy itself: the ancestry of a person. Let's imagine the original conversation went like this:
Bob: A Scotsman must be from Scotland
Joe: My aunt Bea is from North Africa, and shes a Scotsman
Bob: No true Scotsman is from a place other than Scotland
We may object to Bob's qualifier of true here but for a different reason - it was totally unnecessary! If it were entirely omitted, his argument would be stronger because the word true appears to be further qualifying the original identity, but no such qualifier is needed.
So clearly there are identities for which the assertion is sufficient evidence of belonging, and those for which it is insufficient.
Is asserting Catholic as an identity sufficient?
Before I get into what is required to assert the Catholic identity, I want to discuss the "Christian" identity. I think for many low church Protestants this is actually a harder question to answer than you might expect. You'll often see debaters try to redirect the question and say "to be a Christian means to believe in the Gospel," but this is ultimately asking the exact same question, phrased differently.
I would say the fact that so many seek to answer this question and distill Christianity to its minimum set of attestations shows that this is an open question for many, rather than one that has been settled with any sort of wide consensus.
Defining Christianity this way makes it seem like to be Christian is simply an asserted identity. Most mainstream Christians would say that believing Jesus is God is an essential condition of "mere Christianity," but Jehovah's witnesses consider themselves Christian and deny this dogma. Other Christians, like "once saved always saved" evangelical types, believe that the single and original confession of faith is sufficient in perpetuity. A confession of faith done in this way is not too dissimilar to an asserted identity.
As a Catholic, this debate on what mere Christianity is is not actually very relevant to me. The Church is a visible institution, and to be a Catholic, properly speaking, is to be a member of her. Catholics believe that to be within the church is to be grafted to Christ, the vine. To be outside of her is to be severed from the vine which provides life to the fruit and branches originating from it.
This proposition, that the Church is an institution and not a confession, is important to frame the entire discussion. For many other Christians the source of their belonging to the category is purely confessional - by which I mean that it requires a personal belief in a series of affirmations.
Contrary to this, as is the case in all centrally governed organizations, the Church is given authority over who is permitted to enter and the process by which they do so. It also establishes the rules to remain in good standing, and the process through which people lose that standing.
To be a Catholic in good standing is to be in full communion with the Church. This communion requires universally following the legitimate exercises of authority of the Pope and the magesterium (teaching office) of the Church. Being in communion is thus not bidirectional - it is unidirectional; Catholics are called to be in communion with the Pope, but he does not need to be in communion with you. I'd argue that this is one reason Jesus gave us a visible head of His church.
The way we enter the Church has always been understood to be through Baptism. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says the following:
Baptism makes us members of the Body of Christ: "Therefore... we are members one of another." Baptism incorporates us into the Church. From the baptismal fonts is born the one People of God of the New Covenant, which transcends all the natural or human limits of nations, cultures, races, and sexes: "For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body."2
Baptism, by the work of God, incorporates us into the body of Christ, which we know as the institution of the Catholic Church. Thus, being baptized is the legitimate means through which we become and are called "Catholic."
Can a person lose their Catholic identity once they have it?
If Baptism brings us into the Church, is there a similar and opposite mechanism to remove a member? Not exactly. The closest approximation of being "removed" from the Church is through the canonical penalty of excommunication.
In cases of excommunication, there may be formal proceedings before a rendered judgment, but there is also another type of excommunication called excommunication latae sententiae. This type of excommunication is rendered automatically. Offenses that render this automatic judgment include heresy, defined by the Code of Canon Law as follows:
Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith;3
Truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith is succinctly known as dogma. Thus, an obstinate denial of dogma would result in the excommunication of the heretic automatically.
But how does excommunication differ from removal? Following the words of our Lord, we can never be disincorporated from that which God has joined us to:
What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.4
Jesus is talking about marriage in the above passage, but the imagery is very purposefully similar. Only through the work of God can one become incorporated mystically. The work of God brings us into the body of Christ in Baptism, just as the work of God unites the bodies of husband and wife in Holy Matrimony.
The Catholic encyclopedia agrees when it says the following:
The excommunicated person, it is true, does not cease to be a Christian, since his baptism can never be effaced;5
Excommunication is a call to come back into communion; it is not truly an eviction from the Church. She still has jurisdiction over the person who was baptized, even if they themselves do not acknowledge it. The person is treated as a stranger, but they are not actually dismembered.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector.6
Thus, a person, once baptized, can never lose their Catholic identity, even if they are treated as though they have lost it through excommunication.
The Sense of the word, "Catholic"
When Joe says he is a Catholic, he may mean one of two different things:
- He self identifies as Catholic
- He was baptized Catholic
If he means the first one, as I've argued, he is incorrect; being a Catholic cannot simply be asserted because:
- Catholic indicates membership in an institution
- The institution has rules for entry
If he means the second option, he is correct: baptism is the sacrament of initiation which brings us into the church.
When Bob responds and says "true Catholic", what condition is he trying to add to the definition of Catholic? He is probably suggesting that Joe is not a Catholic in communion.
The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Catholic faith. The penalty for obstinately denying it, as mentioned above, is automatic excommunication - which is to lose your good standing in the Church. Bob is correct, then, that Joe is not in good standing. Joe is at the very best privately a heretic, and if he were obstinately denying correction in this matter, he would be a formal heretic and therefore be automatically excommunicated.
Bob seems to use the words "true Catholic" to address Joe's sneaky implication that it is permissible to deny dogma in the Catholic Church.
Conclusion
While Bob's intentions are good, I think he does indeed commit the "No True Scotsman" fallacy, and I'd argue the consequences of doing so are not benign.
We need to make sure we are very precise in our language when we discuss theological matters like these. The word true doesn't add any description to the word Catholic that could be useful in correcting someone with a heretical opinion. Instead, we should be precise with our corrections. What follows is a better way Bob could have made his point:
Bob: A Catholic is required to believe in the Immaculate Conception
Joe: I'm a Catholic and I don't believe in the Immaculate Conception.
Bob: Then you're in grave error; a Catholic's assent to the dogma of the Church is not optional.
When we do it this way, there is greater hope that the dialogue can be constructive; it's possible Joe was not aware of this, and maybe this call to repentance will be the seed that saves him. When we correct others, we must do so in charity, and that means trying our best to be clear and avoid scoring cheap rhetorical points at the expense of our brothers and sisters.
It is important to highlight that we get one baptism, thereby making membership in the Church forever. It is a serious obligation to be a Catholic, and we cannot treat it as an identity we can easily dispose of when we're done with it. We are held to a higher standard, being given the fullness of the truth, and refutation of this gift of grace will be held against us at the time of judgment.
I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew you out of my mouth.7