Who's Waldo?

I have become a skeptic.  Between politicians, social media and fake news, I have come to believe that every bit of information I encounter must be viewed with a critical eye regardless of its significance.  Where at one time I wondered whether the person passing the information had an agenda, I now assume everyone has an agenda, and therefore exhibits a bias.  Sometimes that bias is evident, and other times not easily seen, but it’s always there.  From trivial banter to dire warning, from neighborhood gossip to official decree, the person passing the information is compelled to do so for a reason of significant importance to person himself.  Words and wording may be intended to inform, impress, mislead, offend, deflate, or evoke any number of responses from the intended target.

Nowhere is this bias more apparent than in the news media.  Pick a major story and see how it is reported by the various pundits.  I sometimes wonder if they all witnessed the same event.  I am especially suspicious of reports of a new study.  Who paid for the study?  What is their background?  How do they benefit from the results?  What prompted them to conduct the study in the first place?  The same criticism can be applied to polls also.  Were the questions worded in such a way to solicit a certain response?  How were the respondents selected?  Since we are often not privy to the answers, I tend to write most of them off as meaningless.

In fairness to being a true skeptic, I need to be aware of my own bias.  Am I always fair in my assessment of the opinions of others?  I may try to see the other person’s point of view, but that can be difficult.  We all think our own point of view is superior to that of others. 

I have never been a good student of history.  I’m not proud of that.  My brain doesn’t seem to work that way very well.  I was more of a math and science guy with a short attention span.   History and literature were difficult subjects for me to retain when I was young.  Now that I am older and more introspective, my skepticism tends to interfere with my study.  I wonder how the bias of the historian affects the way we see the past. 

Last week I was listening to a local Protestant preacher on the radio while on my way to Eucharistic Adoration.  He was lauding the accomplishments of Peter Waldo who started the Waldensian movement in the Middle ages.  I wasn’t familiar with Waldo, but this preacher held him in high esteem for translating the bible from Latin into the vernacular despite being suppressed by the Catholic Church.  I immediately assumed there were two sides to this story and wanted to learn more. I know enough to realize when the Church strongly opposes someone or a particular movement, it is because some heresy needs to be squashed. 

Doing a google search, I found that most information on Waldo came from Protestant sources that painted him in a favorable light.  I did find one article in the Catholic Encyclopedia on the Waldenses (the movement attributed to Waldo) that supported my suspicion that their teaching strayed into heresy.  When confronted with conflicting portraits like this, I naturally tend to favor the Catholic view.  In all fairness, however, I need to be able to justify my reason for doing so.  After all, if I am going to be true to my skeptical self, I should view all sources with a critical eye. 

In this particular case, the biographical information is similar in the few sources I checked, but the events and ramifications come from two different points of view.  The Protestant sources highlight Waldo’s belief in voluntary poverty and religious simplicity while his problems with the Church are attributed to his strict biblical teaching that upset the Church hierarchy.  To a Protestant, he might be viewed as a hero.  Looking from a Catholic perspective, the problem was not his biblical teaching, but that he was teaching error.  If the Church is to be the pillar and bulwark of truth as the bible says, she must be able to enforce her authority to protect people from heretical teaching.  In effect, the Waldenses were early Protestants.

Today when history is written and rewritten by sources often unknown, we do need to keep a critical eye open.  The old saying don’t believe everything you read has never been more relevant than today.  Also, don’t react to everything you read on social media.  Step back.  Take a breath.  What are they saying?  Who is saying it?  Why are they saying it?  Should they be saying it?  Are they qualified to say it?  Is it constructive or destructive?  If you can’t find the answers, it is probably best to ignore.

While a certain amount of skepticism is prudent in today’s world, we must be careful not to let it affect us spiritually.  While the truth may be difficult to uncover at times, God’s truth is immutable and must be protected.  We cannot allow questionable sources to lead us into questioning our faith.  Despite dubious information casting doubts on our sensibilities, the tendency to question even God’s absolute truth as protected by the Church must be avoided.