The most liberating insight in metaphysics is this: negation has no substance of its own. It exists only as a refusal of what is real.
The Dependence of Denial
Consider atheism. It cannot exist without God. There is no atheism in a godless universe—there is only the absence of the question itself. Atheism is not a standalone position; it is a rejection of theism. The atheist’s denial presupposes the reality being denied. Remove God from existence, and atheism evaporates. It has no independent being.
The same is true of Protestantism. It is not a self-contained religious tradition that happens to exist alongside Catholicism. Protestantism is a negation of Catholic teaching—specifically, the rejection of papal authority, Sacred Tradition, the sacramental system, and the fullness of apostolic succession. Without the Catholic Church to reject, there is no Protestantism. The Protestant position is entirely dependent on the Catholic reality it denies.
(This is the one stand alone – common belief in protestanism, denying the Catholic Christianity – everything else is down to individual interpretation).
This principle extends everywhere:
- Darkness exists only where light is absent—it has no light of its own.
- A lie exists only by contradicting what is true—it cannot stand alone.
- Hatred is the corruption or privation of love—not its opposite equal.
- Evil has no positive essence; it is the absence or distortion of good.
This is not symmetry. This is parasitism.
Why This Matters Spiritually
The human tendency is to treat opposition as a kind of cosmic balance. We imagine that for every truth, there is an equal and opposite lie; for every good, an equal and opposite evil; for every light, an equal and opposite darkness. This picture is comforting in a way—it suggests order, equilibrium, fairness.
But it is false.
Truth is primary. Reality is primary. God is primary. The Church is primary. Opposition exists only because these primary things exist. The negation is real (humans really do reject God and His Church), but it has no independent standing. It is a choice, a refusal, a corruption—not an alternative reality with equal weight.
This changes everything about how we think about spiritual struggle.
The battle between faith and atheism is not a fair fight between two equal forces. It is the conflict between being and non-being—between what is real and a human refusal to accept it. The atheist is not standing on solid ground; he is standing on the absence of ground, pretending it is firm.
The battle between the Catholic Church and her opponents is not a competition between two equivalent traditions. The Church is Christ’s body, the sacrament of salvation, the fullness of apostolic truth. Her opponents—whether Protestant, Orthodox, or apostate—are rejecting what is objectively true and real. Their positions have whatever coherence they possess only by reference to what they deny. Cut away the Catholic reality, and their objections become incoherent.
The Role of Human Freedom
None of this denies human freedom. The fact that negation is parasitic does not mean it is impossible.
God exists as absolute reality. Humans are free to refuse assent to that reality. The Catholic Church exists as Christ’s true body on earth. Humans are free to reject her teaching and authority. But that freedom is always a freedom to deny, not a freedom to create an equal alternative.
Free will makes rejection possible. It does not make rejection valid or independent.
A man is free to deny that water is necessary for life. His denial is real—it expresses his actual refusal. But it does not make water any less necessary. The denial presupposes the reality it contradicts.
Similarly, the Protestant is free to reject papal authority. That rejection is a real act of human will. But Protestantism exists only as a negation of Catholic teaching. It has no independent foundation. Every Protestant doctrine, every Protestant argument, every Protestant principle derives whatever meaning it has from reference to what the Protestant denies.
This is why dialogue with those who reject the Church is so difficult. They are not standing on alternative ground; they are standing on a negation of Catholic ground and asking that negation to bear their weight. The conversation cannot proceed as though both sides have equally solid footing.
The Comfort of This Truth
Understanding that opposition is parasitic is liberating, not depressing.
It means that truth does not need to defend itself against lies as though they were equally real. It means that the Church does not need to prove herself against those who reject her as though rejection were an equally valid position. It means that faith does not need to compete with atheism as though atheism were standing on something.
The Church is not one option among many. She is the fullness of Christ’s revelation. Protestantism is not another valid path to Christ; it is a denial of the path Christ established. Atheism is not a rational alternative to faith; it is the refusal of reason’s proper end, which is the knowledge of God.
This does not mean that those who hold these positions are not sincere, intelligent, or even in some ways admirable. It means that sincerity and intelligence do not change the nature of denial. A man can sincerely, brilliantly deny a truth. His sincerity and brilliance do not make his denial less parasitic on the reality he rejects.
The comfort lies in this: the Church does not stand or fall by whether the world accepts her. She stands on Christ. She falls only if Christ is false—and Christ cannot be false, because He is Truth itself.
Opposition will always exist as long as humans are free. But opposition has no substance. It is real as an act of human will, but not real as an independent foundation. It borrows all its coherence from what it denies.
In that asymmetry lies the victory.
Rejection of free will nonsense
The determinist who denies free will is standing on the very thing he’s denying.
His position eats itself.
If free will doesn’t exist, then:
- His denial of free will is not chosen—it’s just determined neural firing.
- He cannot rationally argue for determinism, because rational argumentation presupposes the freedom to assent or dissent based on reasons.
- He cannot hold anyone responsible for rejecting his view, because responsibility requires freedom.
- He cannot even claim his position is true rather than merely caused—truth requires the freedom to recognize it or reject it.
The determinist is in the same parasitic position as the atheist or the Protestant—except worse, because he’s denying the very faculty that makes thought possible.
A determinist can live as though free will exists (and they all do—they deliberate, they blame, they praise, they argue). But they cannot think their way to determinism without borrowing the freedom they deny.
Aristotle saw this clearly: the freedom to deliberate about reasons is built into rational nature itself. Thomas Aquinas deepened it: free will is a natural capacity of the intellect and will together, ordered toward the good. You cannot reason your way out of having reasoned.
The determinist’s position is not just false—it’s self-refuting. And that’s a category of falsehood all its own. Which is exactly why parasitic negations are so unstable when you press on them.
Leave a Reply