Wilfred McClay writes the following in “The Catholic Moment in American Social Thought”:
The more general interest in Catholic social teaching has come, perhaps not entirely coincidently, at a moment when the teaching authority of the church is at a low ebb, and Catholics feel free to set aside church doctrine (particularly relating to the teachings of Humanae Vitae and other aspects of human sexuality: contraception, abortion, divorce, and homosexuality) whenever it pleased them to do so. It is hard to see how the genie of self-assertion can be summoned back into the bottle. Although we still occasionally see Catholic politicians being forced to wrestle painfully and publicly with the conflicts between their faith and their secular duties, no such wrestling seems to be required anymore for lay Catholics in the conduct of their private lives. Even the most conservative Catholics now seem to carry one or two asterisks in their back pockets, to be used as self-administered dispensations whenever the painful and difficult conditions of life lead them to choose heterodoxy as an uncategorical and provisional imperative.
To do so is, of course a tacit commentary on those human frailties from which none of us is exempt. But it is also a commentary on the relative weakness of the church’s teaching authority. It is an enormous paradox that as the fullness of the church’s social teaching message has waxed, the respectfulness and attentiveness of its audience has waned. When Catholic social teaching is proposed in general terms, emphasizing the dignity of the human person, the common good, subsidiarity, peacemaking, care for the poor, and the like, everyone applauds because it is so enormously attractive — more attractive, one might argue, that most of the secular alternatives on offer. When such teaching begins to be applied to concrete social, economic, and political issues, however, it quickly becomes the case that Catholics insist on making up their own minds no matter what the interpreters of Catholic social teaching have to say, and the seemless fabric is soon rendered into a thousand pieces. (152-53 from Catholics in the American Century: Recasting Narratives of U.S. History, ed., R. Scott Appleby and Cathleen Sprows Cummings, Cornell University Press)
I would add to Bill’s astute observation that the failure here is not simply the Church’s teaching authority — the audacity of the papacy to the contrary. It is also what happens to Christianity in a voluntary church setting, that is, one where the magistrate is backing up the church’s authority. But it does seem that the church (Roman Catholic and Protestant) has an asterisk that can rival any church member’s — that is, one’s eternal destiny. If belonging to a church and heeding its teaching matters to one’s eternal state, then a church all of a sudden has authority that no earthly power has. The question then is whether Roman Catholic social teaching is doing enough to remind people of their sin and need for a savior, or is it a way to affirm the dignity of all people — even sinners.
That may be the biggest change of all in Rome’s teaching authority. If I have as great a chance of finding human dignity outside the church as inside it, or if I have as good a chance of going to heaven by being a Protestant as by joining the Roman Catholic Church, then the incentives to listen to Rome diminish.
Old Life 
So you’re saying the Call to Communion is optional?
LikeLike
Darryl,
That statement is true, but in the Catholic paradigm, the antecedent of the second conditional is not true, for reasons I explained in comment #480 in the Solo Scriptura thread.
In the peace of Christ,
– Bryan
LikeLike
“As the Catetchism states, ‘Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.’ (CCC, 846)”
I think Bryan is saying those of us who actively fight against Rome are in big trouble. The pew-sitter in a lame liberal, Protestant church who doesn’t know any better might be o.k., though.
LikeLike
I’ll still keep looking to Jesus without all of the extrabiblical stuff that Rome entails, though, and sleep quite well tonight doing it. If Bryan’s wrong, I’m assuming he has broken vows he took as a Protestant minister. He’ll probably sleep o.k., too, though. My atheist friend will sleep well as well, thinking both Bryan and I are idiots.
LikeLike
That statement is true, but in the Catholic paradigm, the antecedent of the second conditional is not true, for reasons I explained in comment #480 in the Solo Scriptura thread.
It’s not surprising, neither the mentor or his understudy get it.
Not only is the antecedent of the second conditional not true, it’s worse than that. The Roman Catholic paradigm itself is not true.
All that #480 gives us is Bryan’s human/fallible opinion of what Rome teaches, never mind if what Rome teaches is correct.
Until we know that we can know truth, it’s all fideism or a leap of faith even if Bryan chides Wilson for the same in Bryan’s preference for Aristotelian proofs for God/truth (though he appeared to back off a bit in the latest on Private Interpretation over at the Green Bilbo.)
But I didn’t know Aristotle was a papist, even if Acquinas stood up for him in a Vatican version of a Utah ex post facto baptism.
IOW Bryan’s assertions in order to justify his knowledge of Rome’s infallibility have zero credibility in the light of Scripture, reason and history, all the mystical sacramental eucharistic wand waving aside.
Sure it’s an appeal to personal experience, but all romanism for me growing up was have faith in faith, if not “be good” moralism. But I don’t take away much more than that from the CtC and Bryan today, creepy pictures of what is supposed to be Christ aside.
Besides mystical and visible would seem to be contradictory. It is protestantism that believes in an invisible church, not Rome.
LikeLike
Darryl,
I just finished watching an arresting documentary on HBO, that has some connection to the broader point you are raising here with respect to Rome and its impact in the broader culture. The film Mea Maxima Culpa: Silence in the House of God focuses on the response of the RCC to the sex abuse scandals from the level of parish and school, all the way up to the highest halls of power in the Vatican. I weaves a rather compelling narrative by honing in on the abuse of a particular priest, Father Lawrence Murphy, who presided over a Wisconsin school for the deaf, abusing over 200 children over 24 years. Along the way, the film discusses how sexual abuse has been, and continues to be addressed within the RCC.
One of the things I found most telling was how the perceived perfection of the church, and the self-proclaimed infallibility of the magisterium has been such an impediment to humanely, or even righteously dealing with the epidemic of abuse in the RCC. Yet, there are many RCC faithful who are seeking reform, by urging the church to dispense with the facade of perfection and infallibility, and deal transparently and contritely with such alarming abuse. In many ways the Vatican has bungled the issue by trying to save face – even with well meaning clerics who would opt for swifter action.
I also realize that this is somewhat separate from the theological matters of papal infallibility being discussed here and over at GB. I don’t wish to be overly unfair to RC’s in these discussions, as I assume they are grieved at the failings of their church. But, a constant feature in these discussions is the quandry of the “Protestant Paradigm” in being able to locate an authoritative, and even infallible witness to Divine Revelation. Yet, where I do see a very real existential connection in all of these arguments for Papal infallibility to this particular lapse in the magesterium’s judgement (and other historical instances) is that while Catholics claim that Papal infallibility is incredibly narrow in it’s application; in practice the perception is that the Papacy does not err in its administration of the church – so much so that it cannot come out and provide the contrition and transparency that the myriads of victims of sexual abuse are demanding of the church. They are demanding justice and equity from an ecclesiastical body that claims to be the organic, institutional representative of Christ on earth for crimes committed against the helpless by those who operated under the (often knowing) authority of the church.
So while some over at CtC want to claim Papal infallibility as the panacea to the quandaries of the “Protestant Paradigm”, for the RCC faithful worldwide, it is at minimum the Vatican’s own internal perception of it’s infallibility that is a major impediment to restoring confidence in the church amongst its faithful members. And they wonder why we have such a hard time stomaching their arguments? It’s really tough to buy in when N. American RC’s thumb their nose at the Vatican over trivial matters; but almost impossible to swallow when RC’s worldwide are questioning the legitimacy of RC leadership for such justifiable reasons.
LikeLike
BTW,
Here’s a decent review by the LA Times of Mea Maxima Culpa:
Review: ‘Mea Maxima Culpa’ looks at Catholic Church’s abuse cover-up
LikeLike
Bryan, “antecedent of the second conditional”? Please call HAL.
LikeLike
Bob S,
You and Sean need to have a beer sometime and swap boyhood stories. Good comment.
LikeLike
Jed,
You’ve been arrested? How much is your bail? We’ll take up a collection.
“I also realize that this is somewhat separate from the theological matters of papal infallibility being discussed here and over at GB.” – No, they’re not really separate. You can judge a tree by its fruit.
“I don’t wish to be overly unfair to RC’s in these discussions, as I assume they are grieved at the failings of their church.” – Actually, too many remain quite haughty.
“while Catholics claim that Papal infallibility is incredibly narrow in it’s application.” – Reminds me of how the end for Mrs. Smith came very suddenly: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-zf2UBp7fY
Good comments.
LikeLike
Actually it was Ed who died, not Mrs. Smith. My bad.
LikeLike
I’m telling you guys, CTC is a way station to atheism for some of these guys, because Catholicism does not solve the problems that these guys confronted during the crises in their Reformed ministries. For some of the less rigorous minds like Jeremy Tate it might work, but let’s see where Cross and Stellman are in a decade. As Hart likes to remind us, these guys are affirming things in Catholicism that more seasoned Catholic minds do not seek to affirm. The problem is, these affirmations are the very things that made Rome appealing to Cross and Stellman in the first place.
LikeLike
Erik, I think you’re leaving out the sin component or even the narcissism component. It’s one thing for us to get on line and feed our ‘beast of self’ in a comment box; “what we have to say is important and everyone needs to hear it.” It’s on a whole ‘nother level, to be a few years out of seminary and in your first pastorate or maybe not even getting that far, and not only REJECT the faith of your betters(this could be a legitimate case of faith and conscience) but then within DAYS seek to apologize for an antagonist religion and competing soteriology, all the while recreating your new found religion into something of your own image and construction. That’s something beyond being true to your conscience.
LikeLike
IOW, Erik it’ll be something more than unbelief that gets them, it may very well be lack of success.
LikeLike
Conservative Reformed ministry in the 21st Century American context is a long, hard road. Many faithful men perseverse, but some leave for (allegedly) greener pastures of Rome, some leave to teach Christian school (a man in the Central Classis of the URCNA did this recently — before asking to be relieved of his Pastoral responsibilities), some get bored like Patrick Edouard and seek sexual relations with women in the church. I’m thankful for those who persevere.
By the way, Patrick Edouard was a huge classical music enthusiast.
LikeLike
Erik,
You’ve been arrested? How much is your bail? We’ll take up a collection.
Thanks amigo, I even have a good bail bonding company I can direct you to. Sometimes I am amazed that I wasn’t arrested for some of my youthful mischief – but so far I have avoided (at times narrowly) a trip to County. I’ve visited friends in jail though, does that count?
I have often wondered if the RCC isn’t a stopping point along the way for some of the CtC crew as opposed to a destination. I am very hesitant to psycho-analyze these guys, because the reasons why someone would convert to Rome are probably very complicated from an internal perspective. But what they seem to do is present Rome as they want it to be, as opposed to accepting it for what it really is – something that Sean has been harping on since these conversations have flared up with little reply. It seems that cradle Catholics are far more willing to look at Rome for what it really is, and even then a lot of the faithful are pretty fed up with the corruption that has plagued the Vatican culture, all while remaining in Rome. I get that Rome is highly accomodative so long as it’s core – magesterium and mass – are let be; but, the Rome that CtC apologists present seems to be far from the Rome that we all observe, or even those from the inside experience.
When these conversations began, I was more inclined to play nice, but it gets difficult when confronted with some of the intellectual imperialism I have seen from certain CtC’ers. But, time and time again when I have presented real cases of major corruption that goes on under the leadership of an infallible Pope, all I get is hand waiving and a glib “no communion is perfect” type answer. When the reality of corruption at every level of RC leadership seems to find its way into the news with alarming regularity. It’s almost as if once these guys make the move to Rome they check their eyeballs at the door, because they sure seem blind to the darker side of the magesterium they claim we should all be submitting to.
LikeLike
Sean,
It’s on a whole ‘nother level, to be a few years out of seminary and in your first pastorate or maybe not even getting that far, and not only REJECT the faith of your betters(this could be a legitimate case of faith and conscience) but then within DAYS seek to apologize for an antagonist religion and competing soteriology, all the while recreating your new found religion into something of your own image and construction.
I’ll admit, it was pretty weird to see Stellman go from Reformed pastor to RC Apologist at breakneck pace, and I am not sure what motivated it. But, he had earned the respect of a lot of people in the Leithart trial, and from what I hear he was respected and loved by his church. As jobs go in the PCA, he had a pretty good gig, and if you go into the archives his teaching was in keeping with our Standards all the way to the end.
None of us really know the man, but the public persona he presents does leave some real questions. How does a guy go from being a Calvary Chapel missionary to a Reformed pastor and author to a Roman Catholic convert and apologist over what was a relatively short period of time given a span of a lifetime? It seems to me that sometimes guys make a push in to leadership because of real aptitude and the personal satisfaction that service can bring without really being settled in their own souls as to what they really believe. I think that one of the inherent flaws with the Seminary system is that it can advance young men into ministry before they are really ready, before their beliefs are fully formed in the crucible of the real world. Pastors are human like the rest of us, and vulnerable to the same struggles and crises of faith as the laity.
Without trying to channel my inner Richard, I think that there is a real temptation in all of us to settle in a system, as opposed to receiving and resting upon Christ alone? Reformed orthodoxy is merely a means to an end – which is restoration to God and fellowship with his people. If we locate our hope and peace in this or that system, even if it is the right system, it will surely disappoint, and greener pastures will emerge because our souls are restless. We will question the very things we know to be true because of the restlessness in our own souls. Stellman is a self-professed U2 fan, maybe like Bono sings, he still hasn’t found what he is looking for. From our perspective what is tragic about the whole thing is that we just don’t think Rome can deliver, hopefully he’ll come around someday.
LikeLike
Jed, agreed. I think taking issue with pedophilic priests is hitting below the belt. At the same time, the idea of an infallible magisterium creates potentially a culture of gullibility where whatever the church does must be okay. That’s not to say the church doesn’t acknowledge that priests sin. It is a recognition that an infallible church does not invite asking tough questions or receiving above board answers.
LikeLike
Jed Paschall: None of us really know the man, but the public persona he presents does leave some real questions. How does a guy go from being a Calvary Chapel missionary to a Reformed pastor and author to a Roman Catholic convert and apologist over what was a relatively short period of time given a span of a lifetime?
RS: In other words, the man’s profession and moral life did not tell much of his story at all. Hmmm
Jed Paschall: It seems to me that sometimes guys make a push in to leadership because of real aptitude and the personal satisfaction that service can bring without really being settled in their own souls as to what they really believe.
RS: So one can give a credible profession of faith and not be converted. Yes, I am making the assumption that when a person turns his back on the biblical Gospel and goes to Rome and embraces a false gospel that person is most likely unconverted. Remembering Sean’s continuing point about Galatians 1:8, Stellman is now preaching a false gospel.
Jed Paschall: I think that one of the inherent flaws with the Seminary system is that it can advance young men into ministry before they are really ready, before their beliefs are fully formed in the crucible of the real world. Pastors are human like the rest of us, and vulnerable to the same struggles and crises of faith as the laity.
RS: To put it another way, it teaches them the intellectual things without really getting to the spiritual issues of the heart.
Jed Paschall: Without trying to channel my inner Richard,
RS: Great post other than one small part.
Jed Paschall: I think that there is a real temptation in all of us to settle in a system, as opposed to receiving and resting upon Christ alone? Reformed orthodoxy is merely a means to an end – which is restoration to God and fellowship with his people. If we locate our hope and peace in this or that system, even if it is the right system, it will surely disappoint, and greener pastures will emerge because our souls are restless. We will question the very things we know to be true because of the restlessness in our own souls.
RS: Very good stuff.
LikeLike
“… How does a guy go from being a Calvary Chapel missionary to a Reformed pastor and author to a Roman Catholic convert and apologist over what was a relatively short period of time given a span of a lifetime? It seems to me that sometimes guys make a push in to leadership because of real aptitude and the personal satisfaction that service can bring without really being settled in their own souls as to what they really believe. I think that one of the inherent flaws with the Seminary system is that it can advance young men into ministry before they are really ready, before their beliefs are fully formed in the crucible of the real world. Pastors are human like the rest of us, and vulnerable to the same struggles and crises of faith as the laity …”
How does a guy go from being a student in an LCMS seminary to a pastor of an ELCA congregation to a RC priest, all over the issue of justification sola fide? Answer: The same way he went from being a street protester over social issues (mainly racial) until Roe v. Wade and then flip-flopped into Chuckie Colson’s waiting arms. With some folks it’s almost as if something looks really good until the showroom smell wears off and the shine begins to tarnish and then it’s off to joust the next windmill. Maybe I’ve walked on the earth too long already, but anymore I’m leery of almost anything anyone writes or says (except, of course, in the confessional P/R circles 🙂
LikeLike
Darryl,
Thanks for underscoring the point. I don’t think any form of church corruption is a deal breaker when approaching the question of church or papal authority – as these questions are resolved by rational analysis. However, the logical and theological questions surrounding the papacy do not exist in a vacuum. What I see as a real problem is a magesterium that claims infallibility in the matters of faith but is replete with major inconsistencies in practice. Does this ultimately mitigate all arguments against the papacy? No, but the issue has to be dealt with as to how papal infallibility informs the life of faith and practice in the RC – and the emerging sexual abuse scandals are exposing the limitations of papal infallibility and how the Vatican wishes to project itself to its members and the outside world.
LikeLike
Richard,
RS: Great post other than one small part.
Nothing more than a friendly jab. Your interactions here are enough to make this Reformed Confessionalist want to pull (what is left of) his hair out, but your comments always spark interesting discussions, which I have always appreciated.
LikeLike
Richard,
RS: To put it another way, it teaches them the intellectual things without really getting to the spiritual issues of the heart.
Maybe, but what I was getting at was that the biblical qualifications of an overseer seem to indicate someone who is mature and seasoned in the faith. The intellectual component is really important, but the spiritual maturity component is simply hard to teach and refine within an academic institution like a seminary.
LikeLike
Jed: I think that there is a real temptation in all of us to settle in a system, as opposed to receiving and resting upon Christ alone?
Yes. Which is why some of us like some Biblicism to accent our Confessionalism. 🙂
LikeLike
I am with Richard in affirming that fruit is important. If a Christian church or ministry consistently produces bad (even heinous) fruit, it needs to be questioned. That goes for Rome, it goes for the URC when a Patrick Edouard is ordained and commits serious public sin. There will always be one-offs, but if a pattern emerges, be very wary. This goes for us as individuals as well. We look to Christ, but we don’t become complacent and just take things for granted.
LikeLike
I made a bad & mean-spirited joke about Patrick Edouard being a classical music fan. I am sorry for that. It has brought to my attention that Patrick & his family are under pastoral care in a solid Reformed Church and comments like mine are not helpful to them or to his church.
LikeLike
Jed,
I come at this from so many different angles, I can’t do justice to it all. I will say I think there are enormous differences between heeding your conscience and then allowing yourself to be seasoned in a new religious expression, and heeding your conscience and immediately hanging the shingle of ‘specialist’ and/or ‘apologist’ of your new religious commitments. I think the later speaks volumes. And even if it doesn’t, it opens yourself up to both technical scrutiny of your expertise, and to the degree you trade upon your ‘journey’ as credibility as guide for others, exposes your ‘journey’ to scrutiny and evaluation. I don’t think any of that is particularly ‘out of bounds’ especially when Paul appeals to just such ‘common sense’ evaluation when approving leadership; ‘If they can’t order their own house…………..”. I’ve also learned the hard way to be suspect of any pastoral leadership who either by choice or necessity has never served in an associate pastor or some such capacity. It doesn’t have to be their own choosing but it still may render them unfit.
LikeLike
Richard, you’r gloating (I’m sure you’ll demure) over Stellman’s confession that turned out ostensibly false is the semi-revivalist version of rubbing scandal in the RCC’s face. It’s bad form in both cases. None of it attests to the inherent flaws of either system of Reformed confessionalism or Roman Catholicism, but rather the reality of abiding human sin.
LikeLike
Pedophile priests are less of an issue than a heierarchy protecting pedophile priests from prosecution and allowing them to continue to be around kids. Read the latest stuff from L.A. At what point are we free to conclude that a corrupt heierarchy points to a false church?
LikeLike
The problem I have with not looking at conduct is this isn’t just an argument about who has the best philosophy (in spite of George W. Bush saying that Jesus was his favorite philosopher). Scripture tells us to look at fruit and gives us really practical things to look at to determine if men are fit for office in the church. We can’t allow ourselves to become gnostic.
LikeLike
Erik, but every clean living Roman priest is unfit for office per Reformed confession. If there is the sort of direct line between corrupt doctrine and corrupt morals then the reverse would have to be true: clean living evidences orthodoxy.
So I think Darryl’s point above about how the theory of infallibility doesn’t do much to help the practical inevitabilities of human depravity is closer to the mark. I mean, when Reformed pastors sin a presbyterian theory of authority makes way to sort things out more honestly than an authoritarian theory. And Roman Catholic dogma is wrong simply because it is, not because its adherents are every bit as sinful as Calvinism’s adherents.
LikeLike
Well, since all protestants can do, according to the CtC, is retail fallible (of course) human opinion, here goes.
In light of the three marks of the church, the question that needs to be answered in the Roman homosexual – not pedophile – scandal, is it the rule or the exception? Is it endemic to the system or a glitch? I lean toward the latter. The coverup went right to the infallible top.
But as somebody remarked on the Benghazi scandal and the posturing over taking responsibility, ‘Let me explain. Those who are to blame lose their jobs. Those who are responsible do not.’ Guess who?
It will never happen.
There’s a reason for jus divinum church government and the multitude of counselors as opposed to an infallible non resident/universal bishop. Neither did the immorality of Rome at the Reformation help Rome’s cause one bit. That won’t phase the CtC apologetic one bit, but not everybody is a CtC wannabe.
LikeLike
Jeff,
Which is why some of us like some Biblicism to accent our Confessionalism.
See what happens when a guy gives an inch? And to top it off an emoticon? Right now I am giving a Ron Swanson look of disapproval.
I think our Confessional standards point to an end beyond themselves in WLC 1 – the chief end of man is not mastery of an orthodox system of doctrine, as vital as that may be – it is in the glorification and enjoyment of God. But, I think I hear what you are saying, heck, I even pick up my Bible from time to time – and gasp, I even read it. I just am less inclined to say, Frame’s argument for including biblicism, because I see the Confessional Standards as simply summarizing what Scripture already affirms. In the end I don’t think that a robust biblicism, or even one contained by the confessions give us anything that a healthy confessionalism doesn’t. Maybe that has more to do with personal temperment, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Zrim,
If there is the sort of direct line between corrupt doctrine and corrupt morals then the reverse would have to be true: clean living evidences orthodoxy.
I get where you and Erik are coming from here, and I would argue you need to look at this from more than one angle. First, we need to evaluate the truth claims of Rome on a rational basis, checking these against Scripture and reason. Second, when there is claims of widespread ecclesiastical corruption – which some are alleging in Rome’s case, I think we have to look at a practical level to see if their claims to infallibility are affecting the practice of the church – basically examining the fruit. What this does is give us reason to trust or distrust the credibility of the church. That isn’t to say we should bring an unreasonable standard that orthodoxy always results in orthopraxy, but when the message and the fruit are so far apart, it does create problems with respect to credibility and perception.
LikeLike
Zrim – So what do I do with the guy who used to go to my church who knew all of the right Reformed answers but who was divorced three times and could not be corrected by anyone?
The older I get, the more I demand both orthodoxy and a credible life, at least when it comes to investing my time and money.
LikeLike
We have to ask ourselves if Orthodoxy is the key, why can I not check out from the visible church and practice my faith privately and in online forums like this? If I’m called to actually interact with other human beings in an actual physical church and pay all of the money that that entails, may I not have high standards for how the leaders of that church live their lives? I’m not asking for perfection, but I’m not overlooking nonsense either.
LikeLike
How irate would you be as a Catholic paying money to the church knowing that it was going toward hundreds of millions of dollars in sexual abuse settlements? About the only way you would do it is if the church told you your soul was in peril absent your membership in that church. Hmmmm….
Covenant Reformed in Pella and the URCNA is being sued by an attorney who made tens of millions (closer to a hundred million dollars, I believe) from Microsoft. Without speculating on their guilt or innocence (since I don’t know all the facts), how well do you think it is going to go over for a bunch of fiscally conservative people (many of them Dutch), myself included, to pay a civil judgment if it is over the amount of the relevant insurance policies if the suit is lost? You can say character is secondary to Orthodoxy, but trial lawyers don’t give a rip about our Orthodoxy or lack thereof.
LikeLike
Jed, I’m not sure where we diverge. Agreed on your first and second points. Though I’d say that your first point–evaluating the truth claims against Scripture–is sufficient to determine credibility. So in the case of Rome, it may not be the distance from message to fruit so much as distance from the message to the Bible, while in the case of Geneva fruit becomes more relevant since message and Bible are already aligned. Once fruit goes rotten so does our credibility.
LikeLike
Erik, the same thing you do with the guy who cleaves to his wife but denies orthodoxy: discipline.
LikeLike
What is our CTC friends’ excuse for the lack of church discipline within their communion? I would imagine Bryan wrote a blog post on the topic back in ’09 explaining the problem away, no?
LikeLike
Zrim,
Thanks for clarifying. I think I was responding to one aspect of what you were saying – but, I see where you are coming from.
The big issue with the RCC in the sex abuse scandal has been a lack of discipline – which I think has given rise to some of the issues that I brought up.
LikeLike
Erik, likely that discipline is a Reformed paradigm, sacramental penance a Catholic one.
LikeLike
Erik: you asked: “At what point are we free to conclude that a corrupt hierarchy points to a false church?” I see this phrase from Jesus as axiomatic: “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad, for the tree is known by its fruit.” It is not as if “the sex abuse scandal” is the only corruption this hierarchy is involved in.
To be sure, in leaving Roman Catholicism, Rod Dreher made the claim “they all did it” (regarding the sex abuse scandals). But in looking at the issue of “Catholic Social Teaching”, which doesn’t go back 200 years, but maybe 120 years, if you consider some of the positive contributions. Prior to that, Catholic Social Teaching involved, in a significant way, “The Popes Against the Jews” – see especially Part 5. The “corrupt hierarchy” goes way back in history. They’ve just traded different kinds of corruptions.
The question rather is, “how can such a corrupt hierarchy claim, with a straight face, that a holy God will grant them doctrinal ‘infallibility’ under any circumstances?”
LikeLike
Erik,
Thank you for the kind words.
I would never think I’m half as smart as Bryan Cross or Stellman, but I am plenty smart to recognize the blind leading the blind when I see it. It’s interesting though that individuals with minds even more rigorous than Cross and Stellman (John Henry Newman, G.K. Chesterton, Scott Hahn, Edith Stein to name a few) become increasingly convinced of the truth of Catholicism years after their conversions.
Peace in Christ, Jeremy
LikeLike
Jeremy,
I actually think you ‘get’ Rome better than the other guys. My concern for you is that you allow the veneration and partaking of the eucharist much less the mediation of the priest and saints to bring you up short of finding your comfort and sole/soul rest in Jesus himself. I know you wanna argue they’re aids not impediments but as you might guess that’s where we diverge. Both sides have plenty of guys smarter than the average bear, I don’t see Paul commending such things as a comfort for the weak or troubled in fact Paul is annoyed by the cult of personality displayed in those claiming to be ‘of Paul’ or ‘of Apollos’. Not that you’re guilty of the latter.
LikeLike
Jeremy, but how smart is having to go through all sorts of hoops and cartwheels in order to maintain that the church has taught the same truths through all these years ever since Christ? The neglect of historical development (and the notion of development of doctrine just doesn’t work for Rome since 1864) makes CTC’s claims look dumb. Now if you guys would admit that you have intellectual difficulties that can only be overcome by faith (as Protestants also have), then we have some room to talk. But that puts Rome on a parity with Protestantism — a big no no, and the CTC cause loses all its mojo.
LikeLike
Jeremy,
That wasn’t a very charitable choice of words on my part. I was trying to convey that your apologetic approach (and the apologetics that appear to appeal to you) are on a different level than theirs (you make different sorts of appeals). I come off sounding arrogant and insulting, though, so I am sorry for that.
As far as Catholic intellectuals go, consider this piece by Patrick Allitt.
http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/a/allitt-converts.html
I don’t think these men had the impact Catholics would like to think they did.
“The consequence was marginalization, and convert intellectuals in general lost influence with the passing decades, so that none in the twentieth century could have an effect on his or her non-Catholic contemporaries to match that of Newman and Brownson in the mid-nineteenth. Certain writers, such as Chesterton or Christopher Dawson, could still find admirers, but neither created a major school of thought, and non-Catholic admirers saw their religion as a colorful aberration rather than a central element in their work. In that sense this book is the history of a momentous and protracted failure.”
LikeLike
Another irony, perhaps the curia should worry as much about church matters as Ukraine or global warming.
LikeLike
More detail on the aspect of Allen’s story that seems to be the most likely to give Francis lasting grief:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/the-groundtruth-project/backlash-against-chilean_b_6955290.html
LikeLike