197. The truths in false prophets
197. THE TRUTHS IN FALSE PROPHETS
What can we learn from heretics, liars, and false prophets, theologians, and philosophers? Should we pay them serious attention for any other reason than to refute their errors?
As the good is in relation to things, so is the true in relation to knowledge. Now in things it is impossible to find one that is wholly devoid of good. Wherefore it is also impossible for any knowledge to be wholly false, without some mixture of truth. Hence Bede says that no teaching is so false that it never mingles truth with falsehood. Hence even the teaching of the demons with which they instruct their prophets contains some truths whereby it is rendered (apparently) acceptable. For the intellect is led astray to falsehood by the semblance of truth even as the will is seduced to evil by the semblance of goodness (II-II,172,6).
A true prophet is always inspired by the Spirit of truth, in Whom there is no falsehood, wherefore he never says what is not true; whereas a false prophet is not always instructed by the spirit of untruth, but sometimes even by the Spirit of truth (II-II,172,6).
Yes, we should often expect to learn important truths from heretics. And the reason is found in the very metaphysical structure of reality. Truth and error, good and evil, are not equal and opposite forces, as Manicheeism and Zoroastrianism claim. Error is perverted truth, evil is perverted good. All that exists is metaphysically true and metaphysically good. So it is always possible to find something true beneath something false, and something good beneath something evil. Even Hitler had a sense of patriotism and honor and courage, however perverted; if not, he could never have succeeded in doing the harm he did. Even Satan had to speak some truth to deceive Eve in Eden. To see that, carefully compare Genesis 3:5 with Genesis 3:22. Satan used “know” ambiguously, but every ambiguity is a half-truth. The ambiguity was that God “knows” evil as a free and sober man understands an addiction, but man “knows” evil as an addict does.
Poor Satan! Metaphysical necessity requires him to use some truth to persuade us of any error, and some good to tempt us to any evil. Pure truth is possible, but pure falsehood is not. Satan cannot exclude God totally from his false prophets’ deceptions and evils, but God can exclude Satan entirely from His prophets, and render them infallible. This is precisely what He does to the magisterium, or teaching authority of His public prophet, His Church.
(God does not grant her moral perfection in practice (“indefectibility”), only infallibility in her public, authoritative teachings in theology and morality.)
The practical corollary of this metaphysical principle is (1) the opportunity to learn some truth from every error, however egregious, and (2) the need for discernment and critical thinking (“Test everything, hold fast to that what is good”—1 Thess 5:21).
Obviously, part of this discernment is judging the two parties involved, (1) the party you are listening to and (2) yourself. (1) You should judge how likely it is that you will find something true and profitable in a compromised source. Reading brilliant heretics can be like hunting for treasure in a dump. Sometimes it works. (2) You also have to factor in your own maturity and susceptibility to deception. This is why exorcists do not listen to demons during exorcisms.
We can often learn more from false prophets than from true ones. For instance, the difference God makes can sometimes be appreciated better by reading atheists like Nietzsche and Sartre than by dull, safe, conventional religious writings. Especially honest and (therefore) unhappy atheists (real or fictional) like Albert Camus and Samuel Beckett and Ivan Karamazov.