Ad Populum Fallacia

 

AD POPULUM FALLACIA

“…how close to the sheep are we really, knowing now that our exhortations and endorsements notwithstanding, they take the opposite position. …do we know how and why the people in an overwhelming, incontrovertible majority did? Have we bothered to find out?

“…Undoubtedly, these elections — as well as those held six years ago — amply prove that our people will not walk with us when we choose to take sides, when we wear political colors, and repeat partisan refrains, unless our endorsements resonate with their thoughts, sentiments, aspirations as well as idiosyncrasies.

“…One bishop told me that all the facts are in, and that the evil of martial law is amply established. In the first place, I do not think that all the facts are in. Of course, many of the reports of egregious violations of rights have proven to be true, as have many allegations of the abuse of power. …I think that sorely lacking on our part as members of the clergy was fidelity to the clear Gospel injunction against judging. We judged, and our judgment was harsh — but the people did not concur!”

https://www.manilatimes.net/2022/05/30/opinion/columns/the-church-and-the-elections/1845503

—Fr. Ranhilio Callangan Aquino, “The Church and the elections,” The Manila Times (May 30, 2022)

Father Ranhilio Aquino, O.S.B. would make a majoritarian vote of the Philippine electorate an endorsement of his purportedly noncommittal stance in the context of grave violations of the moral law by our politicians, including murder, plunder, and propagating egregious historical lies. It’s a longtime logical fallacy called ad populum.

The Roman Catholic Church is called to speak out unequivocally and courageously against untruth and injustice. This critical responsibility Aquino conveniently prefers to repudiate. Although he may be credited for his integrity, that is, for holding fast to his conscience, he should be faulted, indeed, condemned for moral want.

By all means, let us listen to everyone, to all social groups, the poor in particular, and journey together as a society.

On the other hand, let us not condone moral evil, of the type especially that is structural and systemic and that destroys nations.

Explicit condemnation of Marcos Jr.—not only because of the crimes of his father, mother, and other family members but also because of the conduct of his campaign on the basis of gross historical falsehood besides sundry mendacity—is morally justified, particularly when we consider the prospectively destructive social consequences of a Marcos Jr. win.

Although the outright endorsement of Leni Robredo is unnecessary to make this imperative point, it is an action on the other hand morally justifiable in order to preclude the assumption by Marcos Jr. of the formidably powerful office of the president. Marcos Jr. gravely threatens to recapitulate the crimes of his father.

I agree with the assertion that the Roman Catholic Church as an institution should not directly engage in partisan politics.

However, it should actively involve itself in all areas in which morality touches upon politics, and in this respect the institution cannot but sometimes be drawn into partisan politics.

Even as politics embraces all of life, it is not morally neutral.

Aquino says that it is not the role of the institution to judge others. I beg to disagree.

He probably has in mind the following verse.

“Do not judge and you will not be judged.” (Matthew 7:1)

We make judgments every day, and it is necessary to judge in order to simply function. We make judgments about the job performance of others or their state of mind, for example, because we have to work with them productively. We make judgments about our political situation and those responsible for it so that we can undertake plans and actions to make it better.

Jesus is referring to making judgments about the inner lives of others—their invisible motivations, their unseen thoughts, the hidden workings of their conscience—it is this existential aspect of others, their moral being, so to speak—that we cannot see and therefore that we cannot judge. It is visible only to God.

 

Jesus is saying that we cannot assume the judgment seat of God. Only he can exercise final and perfect judgment over the moral condition of others. 

 

That’s my take on this Gospel verse.