Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T08:30:25.327Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Fallible Infelicities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 September 2024

Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

It would be interesting to know in what sense the Archbishop of Canterbury used the word ‘propaganda’ in introducing to the public, in his speech to Convocation, the pamphlet Infallible Fallacies as a useful antidote to the ‘intensified propaganda’ of the Catholic Church. This word has almost lost its primary and original sense, and has acquired a loaded and sinister meaning. What it usually signifies today is spreading or bolstering up an idea by suppressing half the truth about it, using false emphasis, suggestion and even direct mis-statement, and especially by employing a technique of making isolated and probably hypothetical instances appear as widely applicable generalisations. Inevitably, when the word is used, it raises in the mind an imaginative picture embodying these associations. It is strange then that His Grace should have used it, without explanation, when speaking officially on the delicate topic of the greatest Church in Christendom and the methods it uses in proclaiming its teaching, and it is still stranger that he should have selected for commendation, as a defence against this teaching, a pamphlet which exhibits, though clearly unconsciously and in ignorance, many of the characteristics of propaganda in this secondary and less reputable sense.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © 1953 Provincial Council of the English Province of the Order of Preachers

References

1 Infallible Fallacies—An Anglican reply to Roman Catholic arguments; by some Priests of the Anglican Communion (S.P.C.K.).

2 At this point the authors put in a dissuasive from popery by denying in toto the possibility that they can be, from the Catholic point of view, in good faith concerning the Roman claims, since they know quite well what these are and entirely deny their validity. Unfortunately they stem unaware that the invincible ignorance which leaves a person in good faith is ignorance not of the claims but of their truth.

3 The argument used by the authors that this could not happen because it would be an interference with human liberty is an untheological limitation of God’s omnipotence, which would effectively rule out the possibility of his providential guidance of human life.