Self-canonization And The Closed Feedback Loop

Everyone know what a strawman argument is. Basically it is a form of argument and an informal fallacy of having the impression of refuting an argument, whereas the real subject of the argument was not addressed or refuted, but instead replaced with a false one.

I’ve also seen a closely related phenomenon I’ll call “self-canonization”, for lack of a better term. It resembles the circular, self-reinforcing closed loop of the strawman in a way, with a splash of martyr-complex. It goes something like this:

One’s perceived righteousness is precipitated upon a particular stand taken. This could be any number of things: refusal to take “the jab” and enduring the fallout from that choice, or leaving the Church and having your former friends attack and alienate you for it. 

Because one is attacked and enduring a degree of perceived persecution, it reinforces a feeling that they are on the right path because of the resistance they are receiving, regardless of the nature of what is causing the blowback. So, you could have lost your assignment as a priest at a particular parish because your bishop is a liberal and you righteously preach the Truth on Church teaching. Or you could have been dismissed because of other reasons, and being an asshole and alienating people didn’t help your cause. 

And then it’s like a Chinese finger trap: the more resistance you get (whether or not you are actually “right” on x, y, z issue), the more convinced you are of your righteousness. You have become like St Thomas More or St John Chrysostom, the Golden Mouth of justice in the modern age. You double down like a Rottweiler with a bone. Deus Vult! It never occurs to you that you might be wrong, leading people astray, or simply an abrasive jerk. 

Then a kind of self-righteous blindness sets in. You are a Saul of Tarsus before he was knocked from his horse and his sight taken from him. Like Saul, you become a Pharisee of Pharisees, convinced of your own righteous stance in doing God’s will, and will not be told otherwise. In fact, if anyone does oppose you, it is clear they are on the “wrong side,” and an enemy of God. But you have plenty of followers to convince you you are on the right path. You do not enter into doubt or a dark night of conscience—to admit that you may be possibly wrong on a matter. Instead, you double down, and shut out anyone who raises questions about your holy crusade or mission.

Dom Scupoli in The Spiritual Combat lays the cornerstone of the spiritual life in distrust of self, which can sometimes be neglected when one is so convinced of the righteousness of their works or the pureness of their intentions:

“Distrust of self is so absolutely requisite in the spiritual combat, that without this virtue we cannot expect to defeat our weakest passions, much less gain a complete victory.  This important truth should be deeply embedded in our hearts; for, although in ourselves we are nothing, we are too apt to overestimate our own abilities and to conclude falsely that we are of some importance.”

Remember: just because you fancy yourself a John the Baptist type doesn’t mean you have charity, just because you’re being perceived as persecuted doesn’t make your actions necessarily righteous, and just because you talk like a jerk doesn’t necessarily make you a truth teller. While your righteousness must in fact exceed that of the Pharisees, if you don’t have charity you are nothing but a clanging gong, banging your own cymbal. We will be judged by our charity, and we can (and should) discern the sanctity of would-be saints and martyrs on theirs.