Roman Catholic Calvinists

Published on by D. G. Hart

Not sure that this is what Jason and the Callers had in mind.

Mark Silk compares politically conservative (read GOP) Roman Catholics to Jansenists and neo-Calvinists (I think he means New Calvinism) (thanks to Michael Sean Winters):

Today’s neo-Jansenists are likewise moral sticklers, focused laser-like on the twin evils of abortion and same-sex marriage, They are driven crazy by a Jesuit pope who tells them to stop harping on those issues, whose most famous remark is, “Who am I to judge?”

Where he portrays the Church as a hospital for sinners, they want to restrict Communion to the deserving, whether that means excluding politicians who are soft on abortion rights or holding the line against divorced and remarried Catholics. Possible papal readiness to open the door to the latter led Ross Douthat of the New York Times to blog the other day, ”Pope Francis would be either dissolving important church teachings into what looks to me like incoherence, or else changing those same teachings in a way that many conservative Catholics believe that the pope simply cannot do.” Oh, can’t he?

Today’s neo-Jansenists do their predecessors one better by embracing the Spirit of Capitalism famously associated with Calvinism by sociologist Max Weber. To tweet that inequality is the root of evil, as Francis did the other day, distressed them deeply. Altogether, they resemble the neo-Calvinists who have become the intellectual leaders of contemporary American evangelicalism.

The old-time Jansenism included world-class luminaries like mathematician Blaise Pascal and playwright Jean Racine but never the Catholic majority. In their emerging struggle with the Jesuit pope, the neo-Jansenists have lesser lights like Robert George and George Weigel, even as the faithful are overwhelmingly on Francis’ side. And so, history seems likely to repeat itself.

The good news for Weigel and George is that the Vatican makes no such distinctions. From their statistical perspective, the only distinctions are among bishops, priests, deacons, and baptized (not to mention monks and nuns). (But the Callers know better.)

By the end of 2012, the worldwide Catholic population had reached 1.228 billion, an increase of 14 million or 1.14 percent, slightly outpacing the global population growth rate, which, as of 2013, was estimated at 1.09 percent.

Catholics as a percentage of the global population remained essentially unchanged from the previous year at around 17.5 percent.

However, the latest Vatican statistical yearbook estimated that there were about 4.8 million Catholics that were not included in its survey because they were in countries that could not provide an accurate report to the Vatican, mainly China and North Korea.

According to the yearbook, the percentage of Catholics as part of the general population is highest in the Americas where they make up 63.2 percent of the continent’s population. Asia has the lowest proportion, with 3.2 percent.

During the 2012 calendar year, there were 16.4 million baptisms of both infants and adults, according to the statistical yearbook.

It said the number of bishops of the world stayed essentially the same at 5,133.

The total number of priests — diocesan and religious order — around the world grew from 413,418 to 414,313, with a modest increase in Africa, a larger rise in Asia, and slight decreases in the Americas, Europe and Oceania. Asia saw a 13.7 percent growth in the number of priests between 2007 and the end of 2012.

The number of permanent deacons reported — 42,104 — was an increase of more than 1,100 over the previous year and a 17 percent increase since 2007. The vast majority — more than 97 percent — of the world’s permanent deacons live in the Americas or in Europe.

That means Rome has roughly 5 bishops for every 400 priests and 1.2 million members, and 4 priests for 1,200 members. In the OPC, where the costs are nowhere near PCANYC levels, you have roughly 1 pastor for every one hundred members (and these members — ahem — meet membership requirements).

13 thoughts on “Roman Catholic Calvinists”

  1. I identify as a trad because of my formation but while being convinced of my own depravity (empirical evidence will do that for a rational, non-authoritarian sort) I’m never convinced of the depravity of other people because the empirical evidence so often points the other way. 🙂

    All goes back to the inability of Vatican II (a pastoral council that was in no way superfluous) to either really grapple with the questions that “modernism” posed or being fearful of what that engagement would ultimately unleash. Maybe a mix of both.

    The Roman Catholic problem at the time the council convened was this: how can tradition meet the now irrepressible division between the faith taught and thought and the faith lived. I’m not smart enough to fully comprehend Maurice Blondel’s work but if you are and if you’re so inclined to invest the time, he’s the man to consult for understanding what problems had arisen between 1907 and the convening of the Council. And addressing those problems could not be delayed.

    The Eucharist had been “the fastest way to heaven.” Now, though not then, for at least 2/3 of RC members, it’s a majestic and lovely habituation. If it weren’t they wouldn’t be calling for streamlining divorce, abortion and sodomy and presenting themselves ready to receive Corpus Domini.

    You gentlemen here and all those of your immovable persuasion do more for the preservation of Our Lord, as presented to us in scripture, do more for the preservation of “primitive orthodox, Protestantism” and real apostolic tradition than all the propaganda that any group of hyper-converts, can even begin to imagine and muster.

    Put it this way:

    If indeed, as Newman demonstrated in the Apologia, truth at times is better demon- strated through narrating a life than through “paper logic,” then these lives are worth revisiting by those who seek their own integrity in the midst of a church still marked by contested frames of meaning. – C. J. T. TALAR

    Like

  2. Make that problems identified not arisen during that period because they had arisen over a longer period of time.

    Like

  3. Thanks for the comment, MLD.

    I read this guy many years before I ever started engaging Roman Catholic thought on the internet by those converts you mention. I hope you enjoy it:

    At this point appears the full poignancy of the great Epistle with which we have been dealing. Paul is not merely arguing that a man is justified by faith-so much no doubt his opponents, the Judaizers, admitted-but he is arguing that a man is justified by faith alone. What the Judaizers said was not that a man is justified by works; but that he is justified by faith and works-exactly the thing that is being taught by the Roman Catholic Church today. No doubt they admitted that it was necessary for a man to have faith in Christ in order, to be saved: but they held that it was also necessary for him to keep the law the best he could; salvation, according to them, was not by faith alone and not
    by works alone but by faith and works together. A man’s obedience to the law of God, they held, was not, indeed, sufficient for salvation; but it was necessary; and it became sufficient when it was supplemented by Christ.

    Against this compromising solution of the problem, the Apostle insists upon a sharp alternative: a man may be saved by works (if he keeps the law perfectly) , or he may be saved by faith; but he cannot possibly be saved by faith and works together. Christ, according to Paul, will do everything or nothing; if righteousness is in slightest measure obtained by our obedience to the law, then Christ died in vain; if we trust in slightest measure in our own good works, then we have turned
    away from grace and Christ profiteth us nothing.

    To the world, that may seem to be a hard saying; it is not a hard saying to the man who has ever been at the foot of the Cross; it is not a hard saying to the man who has first known the bondage of the law, the weary effort at establishment of his own righteousness in the presence of God, and then has come to understand, as in a wondrous flash of light, that Christ has done all, and that the weary bondage was vain. What a great theologian is the Christian heart-the Christian heart that has been touched by redeeming grace! The man who has felt the burden of sin roll away at the sight of the Cross, who has said of the Lord Jesus, “He loved me and gave Himself for me,” who has sung with
    Toplady: “Nothing in my hand I bring, Simply to Thy cross I cling”-that man knows in his heart of
    hearts that the Apostle is right, that to trust Christ only for part is not to trust Him at all, that our own righteousness is insufficient even to bridge the smallest gap which might be left open between us and God, that there is no hope unless we can safely say to the Lord Jesus, without shadow of reservation, without shadow of self-trust: “Thou must save, and Thou alone.”

    That is the centre of the Christian religion–the absolutely undeserved and sovereign grace of God, saving sinful men by the gift of Christ upon the cross. Con demnation comes by merit; salvation comes only by grace: condemnation is earned by man; salvation is given by God. The fact of the grace of God runs through the New Testament like a golden thread; indeed for it the New Testament exists. It is found in the words which Jesus spoke in the days of His flesh, as in the parables of the servant coming in from the field and of the laborers in the vineyard; it is found more fully set forth after the redeeming work was done, after the Lord had uttered his triumphant “It is finished” upon the cross. Everywhere the basis of the New Testament is the same the mysterious, incalculable, wondrous, grace of God. “The wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through
    Jesus Christ our Lord.”

    Like

  5. Thanks for the quote, AB. It’s hard not to like Machen. First of all, he’s manly. That’s nice. Secondly, he’s fair and decent and honest.

    Like

  6. You’re welcome.

    And if you add that he is a friend to Catholics, hey, then maybe things don’t look too too bad in our divided Xiandom. We can even pray for futher unity as we forge ahead, unafraid.

    Grace and peace, MLD.

    Like

  7. For some religious folks. restricting Communion to the deserving, means excluding politicians (and individuals) who are not earnest enough for capitalism. Money does not grow on trees, and somebody had to earn what others give away.

    But must we ourselves earn what we receive? Can there be no legal solidarity so that what Christ our husband has deserved and earned is given to His elect? Why do most people in this country, religious or non-religious, Republican or Democrat, reject the socialist idea of the imputation of the sins of Adam to us, or of the imputation of the elect’s sins to Christ?

    Merit is a measured value”. Even though merit is not a biblical word, and it’s hard to remove the traces of Roman penitential “spiritual capitalism”, I still think we need to keep talkings about Christ’s merits.

    If we really don’t want to say “merit”, let’s say “obtained by a work”, with that work being the work of the cross. Deserved and earned by Christ’s death for the elect. Not by us who receive Christ and His benefits.

    Our salvation is not only by grace but also by justice. Romans 4:4 Now to the one who works, his wages are not counted as a gift by as his due. The salvation of the elect (with all blessings) is due to Christ because of His death. It is not only grace from the Trinity which gives Christ the salvation of His people.

    Like

  8. I doubt these Neo-Jansenists want history to repeat itself. The original Jansenists didn’t fare too well at the hands of the Jesuits. But then again, when has anyone done well once the Jesuits get involved?

    Like

  12. Tom,

    Why should Darryl believe that Roman Catholic liberals do not offer a proper or acceptable interpretation of Roman dogma. No one is kicking them out. Rome either doesn’t care or can’t make up its mind and just lets you believe whatever the heck you want. Neither one is good for the “voice of God” on earth.

    Like

  13. @Tom

    Would one really argue that malnutrition is a greater threat to human dignity than is murder, because many more people are malnourished than are murdered?

    That was a good analogy. And I agree with the analogy. I’d also like to come down strongly on the side that malnutrition is a much greater threat to human dignity than murder. Between 1990 and 2010 the murder rate in the USA dropped by over half. Most Catholics are not overjoyed seeing this as a huge change in the human condition. Certainly it is nice that crime is now at levels where it doesn’t constitute one of most people’s top 5 issues but there hasn’t been a dramatic change in human well being.

    Now onto the main point regarding homosexual marriage and there being no doctrine. Catholic doctrine on marriage has always involved a belief that Catholic marriage and secular marriage are the same thing. The church has fought for 1500 years to avoid “secret marriage” which is essentially the existence of a parallel system where the Catholic status of a marriage is often indeterminate because marriage was being handled in a purely secular way. Liberal secular divorce has created pressure here but mostly the Catholic church has wanted a situation where people who are legally married are Catholic married. They don’t want a situation where there are two entirely parallel systems in particular they want to avoid Catholic married people who are not secular married. Also excluding divorce they avoid secular married people who are not Catholic married. But due to the divergence on divorce they already do have:

    a) Secular divorced people who are not Catholic divorced
    b) Secular married people who are not Catholic married (almost always as a result of previous divorce)

    There is a lot of Catholic teaching that this is undesirable particularly (b). (b) is of course the main reason for Catholics to have problems intergenerationally. What is the status of children born of case (b)?

    There are religious communities that have come to accept that the secular system and the religious system simply diverge too far:

    a) The Orthodox Jewish community which has somewhat stricter laws regarding marriage, engagement requiring divorce and an asymmetric divorce proceedings has had to remove the assumption that secular marriage is anything more than public declaration of intent to be viewed as married.

    b) The Fundamentalist Mormon community has marital configurations the law doesn’t recognize (polygamy). The state of Utah has just gotten slapped down in their attempt at enforcement of trying to prevent these relationships so at this point as long as the girl is at least 18 this will be ongoing.

    c) Some Buddhist communities in the USA have polyandry which USA law doesn’t recognize.

    The teaching that would be used to wedge open this issue is the Catholic church wanting to avoid Catholics thinking of themselves as “church married” and/or “secular married”.

    Like

Leave a comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.