I know it may be a tired subject for some, but I keep seeing defenses of the Roman Catholic church and hierarchy that could have worked just as well for said defender to remain Protestant. The latest comes from David Mills who offers encouragement for those who are discouraged by what some Cardinals or bishops do or say.
Before getting around to Mills’ encouragement, here are a few examples of church teaching that Roman Catholics find befuddling. One is the bishops’ guide to voters in the United States, which received this objection:
My eyes glazed over when I first tried to read the entire 44-page text of Faithful Citizenship, when it first appeared on the scene in the fall of 2007. In their instructions to voters, the bishops dutifully call for opposition to abortion. But they mix that admonition with so many other considerations that the overall effect is weak. Faithful Citizenship does not draw the necessary, clear distinction between the issues on which good Catholics might disagree (such as economic policy) and those that are non-negotiable (such as abortion)—not to mention the distinction between issues on which prudent compromise is wise (economics again) and those on which compromise is odious (abortion again).
Faithful Citizenship was itself clearly a compromise of sorts, cobbled together to maintain the peace within the bishops’ conference. The final document was not entirely satisfactory to anyone on either end of the political spectrum, nor did it prevent public disagreements among American bishops during the ensuring election year.
And the net effect? Archbishop Raymond Burke believes that Faithful Citizenship helped ensure the election of President Obama, since the crucial Catholic vote swung toward the Democratic candidate. But that may be an exaggeration; survey results show that most Catholic voters were blissfully unaware of the bishops’ advice, and probably would have ignored that advice even if they had heard it.
Another example is whether the Roman Catholic faithful need to support the arms deal between the U.S. and Iran because the Vatican supports it:
Thus far, however, there has been no change in the Holy See and the U.S. bishops’ steady support for such an accord, even as the Obama administration has been criticized for making too many concessions to Iran to secure a deal that restricts the country’s nuclear stockpiles, centrifuges and research for 15 years.
“The agreement on the Iranian nuclear program is viewed in a positive light by the Holy See,” stated a Vatican spokesman in June, as talks with Iran appeared to be gaining traction, after 20 months of negotiations that involved the United States, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany.
On Aug. 9, the 70th anniversary of the U.S. military’s dropping of the atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan, during World War II, Pope Francis called for an end to all nuclear arms and weapons of mass destruction. The bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki 70 years ago ought to serve as a permanent warning to humanity in order “to repudiate her forever from war and to banish nuclear arms and every weapon of mass destruction,” he said.
Prudential Judgment
The Church had registered its support for the Iran nuclear deal in the months leading up to the conclusion of the negotiations. But it has issued no public statements during the last three bruising weeks on Capitol Hill, as the Obama administration defended controversial elements of the accord, including the fact that it did not permanently dismantle Iran’s nuclear-weapons program.Now, as the president himself admits the accord will not eliminate the threat posed by Iran’s nuclear program or call a halt to its promotion of terrorism in the Middle East, some Catholics have questioned whether the bishops’ stance affirms Catholic moral and social teaching, or whether it remains a matter of prudential judgment on which people of goodwill may disagree.
Asked to comment on this matter, Bradley Lewis, an authority on political philosophy at The Catholic University of America, clarified that the Church’s position on the accord is “a matter of prudential judgment.”
“Our Lord calls on us to be peacemakers, and the making of peace is one of the greatest responsibilities of statesmen, but so is the maintenance of a just peace; and precisely how to do this most effectively is something over which there can be a great deal of disagreement,” Lewis told the Register.
So what is a church member to do? David Mills counsels, “remember the theology”:
It’s “the hardest problem for converts to Catholicism — at least those who are theologically informed,” wrote a scholarly friend who had entered the Church about a decade ago. He felt no buyer’s remorse — he had been an Episcopalian, so how could he? — but the wild statements of Bishop X and Cardinal Y still upset him.
I would have thought the opposite from my friend: that Catholic failings is a harder problem for those who are not theologically informed. To put it simply: theology can make you feel better when every day’s news might bring the story of yet another scandal, which someone you know is going to bring up with glee.
In this case it clearly does. Theology provides an emotionally reassuring distinction between the form and the performance. It tells us exactly what the Church claims for herself and how far she is from claiming any great perfection in her members, from the pope on down.
She doesn’t claim much for herself on the human side. She claims a great deal on the divine side. There’s not a line in magisterial teaching that claims a pope will be a holy, wise, or even a prudent man. It doesn’t even claim he’ll a good man. See among others Alexander VI. What it does claim is that God will use him in certain ways that we can count on. He can even speak infallibly, in certain carefully defined circumstances. Alexander VI could have given an infallible teaching from his mistress’s bed. Strange but true, as the comic strip used to say.
The problem here is that what Cardinal X or Y says is also the theology. Possibly you can distinguish between infallible teaching and Alexander VI’s sexual exploits. But all of these Cardinals and Popes are the vehicles through which theology comes. Protestants are the ones who believe the truth (the Word) transcends the church. That’s how you can remain a Protestant and endure its many problems (until it abandons the gospel). But Mills and other apologists don’t have the pay grade to discern the teachings by which to judge the bishops. That’s the bishops’ task.
Even harder for Mills is the doctrine of infallibility. Did God protect the bishops from error in their voters guide? Has God protected the Vatican from error in its support for the arms deal? Isn’t God protecting the bishops all the time when they speak on everything — including climate change?
But if the church can be wrong about the morality and theology of voting and foreign relations, why can’t the same follow for morality and theology? I know. We’re talking about the Yankees. (Game’s fixed.)
This is not a solution to Protestantism. It only adds to Roman Catholicism’s problem.
Old Life 
“But that may be an exaggeration; survey results show that most Catholic voters were blissfully unaware of the bishops’ advice, and probably would have ignored that advice even if they had heard it.”
My former people.
LikeLike
D. Hart, as usual – great stuff.
I wonder how the game changes for “theologically informed” converts who take that Tiberian swim for decidedly non-theological reasons. For instance: I have a friend (a fellow Pursuer of Truth and Defender of Liberty) who recently converted to Romanism because a feverish invocation of the Blessed Virgin Mary helped him avoid an illicit roll in the hay while under the influence of cheap whiskey and cheaper wine.
This friend of mine considers himself an intelligent man, but no amount of logic will do any good. He’s had an experience, and he’s got the brains and the book-smarts to know a legit experience when he’s seen one. Any push-back I give him is me “burdening his conscience,” and any rebuke is me being a typically aspiritual Protestant.
So the question is: what camp do you see my friend falling into? The camp of converts who chafe under Cardinal XXX’s press-conference antics, or of the camp that could care less – that is, exhibit that oft-lauded “simple” or “old-lady-who-has-gone-to-daily-mass-for-50-years” faith?
Aren’t the folk-religion, “Mary Saved Me From My Naughtiness” types more of a danger to themselves than anything else? And what is that oh-so-easily ignored Bishop Y doing about that?
LikeLike
One way to protest is not to call oneself a “protestant”. Why should sectarians define themselves over antichrists who imitate the true Christ?
David Lipscomb: “We are satisfied that voting does much more harm to the church than dancing does. And we are no apologists for dancing.”
http://johnmarkhicks.com/2012/01/02/voting-more-evil-than-dancing-says-david-lipscomb/
The Scots Confession of 1560,Chapter 24 — the preservation and purification of religion is particularly the duty of kings, princes, rulers and magistrates. They are not only appointed for civil government but also to maintain true religion and to suppress all idolatry and superstition.
The sectarians who deny that National Christianity is New Testament Christianity are most likely Marcionites who don’t think there was any gospel in the Old Testament. Once such people begin talking about the spirituality of churches, they are not far from the conclusion that churches must be composed of only of those who profess to believe the gospel. And then they will probably start talking about “experiences”. And I don’t mean “sacramental experiences”.
Sectarianism is dangerous because it encourages people to separate themselves from the world. Some of them become so indifferent to managing the direction of history that they don’t even vote anymore….
The History of Scottish Congregationalism, 1960, p 17.
LikeLike
Seth, is your friend sure that a visit to purge the bad alcohol in the john was the reason for his chastity, not Mary?
Don’t know where to put this one, though Pentecostals and charismatics have similar experiences that defy logic. Just make sure he doesn’t bug you about the great intellectual tradition of Rome.
LikeLike
D. Hart,
A pastor friend of mine described those who were drawn to Rome or Eastern Orthodoxy as acting “as if they were under some kind of enchantment.” A hastily uttered prayer to St. Mary may seem miraculous to some, but only to those who already have the Romish narrative bought and paid for. After buying the folk-religion aspect of Roman piety, all roads do seem to lead to Rome. I guess that’s why some can create shrines over burnt toast or water-damaged walls.
Mostly it’s just disappointing, especially from someone who should know better. Some people don’t like being the odd-man out. And some people are just cowardly.
LikeLike
By the numbers, conversions are largely the effect of personal factors (link: http://www.pewforum.org/2009/04/27/faith-in-flux/)
The top two reasons for conversion are “Religious institutions, practices, and people” and “Life cycle changes” (mostly, family reasons).
Well, well down on the list are things like theological conviction — except in the case of Caths going Prot.
LikeLike
And this is what continues to baffle me about Romanist converts from Protestants. They despair over Protestantism’s disunity on what Scripture teaches, but they completely ignore Rome’s disunity on what the Magisterium teaches. Then, they lecture us on the true meaning of the Magisterium. I guess it really is all about justifying a decision that all too often seems like it was made emotionally, not intellectually.
LikeLike
You unfortunately speak the truth, DH. Especially given Mr. Mill’s earnest conversion account in Patrick Madrid’s ‘Surprised By Truth.’ [Np offense intended. I follow this lead.] Seriously, what good is an infallible Church if all its pronouncements are goofy to fallible?
LikeLike
The difference is palpable between the Called to Communion blog people who are are rather joyous–and theologically– at joining or returning to the Catholic Church
http://www.calledtocommunion.com/
and the angst and crappiness of Darryl Hart’s flock
sean
Posted August 18, 2015 at 2:36 pm | Permalink
“But that may be an exaggeration; survey results show that most Catholic voters were blissfully unaware of the bishops’ advice, and probably would have ignored that advice even if they had heard it.”
My former people.
Robert
Posted August 18, 2015 at 7:40 pm | Permalink
And this is what continues to baffle me about Romanist converts from Protestants.
Joe M
Posted August 18, 2015 at 10:52 pm | Permalink
You unfortunately speak the truth, DH. Especially given Mr. Mill’s earnest conversion account in Patrick Madrid’s ‘Surprised By Truth.’ [Np offense intended. I follow this lead.] Seriously, what good is an infallible Church if all its pronouncements are goofy to fallible?
Mark Mcculley
Posted August 18, 2015 at 3:27 pm | Permalink
One way to protest is not to call oneself a “protestant”. Why should sectarians define themselves over antichrists who imitate the true Christ?
If you need validation that bad, let ’em rock, Darryl. They make your version of the Christian religion look worse than how Trump is disgracing the Republican Party. Then again maybe you
LikeLike
Joe M., that’s what I am asking.
But are you jealous that Madrid didn’t include you? (Kidding mainly.)
What’s your story (if you care to divulge)?
LikeLike
vd, t, there’s a reason you come here, why you’re not protesting at the local PP, doing pro-bono work for Daleiden, and not going to church. Your schtick is much more OL than CtC.
More later.
LikeLike
I know, but Protestants are schismatic:
LikeLike
The burdens are light:
LikeLike
But if papal infallibility can emerge from the grass roots (bottom up), why is the insistence that the church gives us Scripture?
LikeLike
How to think and act liberal Protestant (so much for all that theology):
Maybe the callers need to direct their call in a different direction.
LikeLike
Darryl,
There is no “problem” because what cardinal x or y says is not “also” the theology. I also dont know why you think RCs dont believe the Word transcends the Church considering Christ founded the church. And since RCs hold to distinguishing doctrine from practice and prudential jusgment, infallibility is not “even harder” for Mills.
“But if the church can be wrong about the morality and theology of voting and foreign relations, why can’t the same follow for morality and theology?”
Peter was wrong when Paul opposed him. Do you think 1 and 2 Peter are wrong now? Paul gave commands concerning the appearance and behavior of men and women and concerning eating that you and your tradition ignore. Does that mean his other teachings can be ignored?
LikeLike
James Young, so you do believe in a one-legged stool after all — Scripture trumps the church? Or are you playing “word” games (get it? cool).
Also, if you can explain when the bishops are teaching and when they are not, that would be a help. But then again, your help wouldn’t help at all since there is no reason I should believe you. No offense, but neither you nor David Mills have any authority (underneath your reason-tradition-scripture stool).
Face it. You have to hold on to some sort of theological system irrespective of what the bishops say and do. Welcome to my Protestant world. Yup.
LikeLike
The nation of Israel was also of divine origin, but the scriptures trumped the traditions the leaders of that institution established. Further, folks outside of that institution had faith and were commended for it. The fact that the gates of hell won’t prevail (sounds like ultimate) does not mean that the church cannot fall into error or develop traditions of men that tickle the ears of those in her care. When she does (and she has), the plumb line we have with which to draw her back is scripture.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Scripture trumps the church? Or are you playing “word” games (get it? cool).”
So when you say “the truth (the Word) transcends the church” you reduce the Word and truth to Scripture. I’m not playing any games considering Scripture tells us who the Word and truth is.
“You have to hold on to some sort of theological system irrespective of what the bishops say and do.”
The theological system the bishops maintain and assert distinguishes between irreformable dogma/principles on one hand and practice and prudential judgment/application of those principles on the other?
LikeLike
James Young, why would you ask about Scripture and the Word if you weren’t in the habit of treating the magisterium as if a source of continuing revelation.
So the distinction between dogma and prudential judgment is irreformable?
Then why do the bishops talk so much about stuff that is not dogma? And do you think they always know the difference? Pius IX condemned the modern world (Syllabus of Errors). Was that merely prudential judgment? Is moving wayward pedophilic priests around only prudential judgment?
And while I’m asking, you think arriving at infallible dogma is not prudential? I’m more and more convinced that Rome works on a mechanical scheme. Mechanical certainty, mechanical mechanisms of sacraments, mechanical arrival at dogma.
Funny thing is, history doesn’t ever ever work that way, unless you are the author of sacred scripture and have divine inspiration/infallibility.
yup.
LikeLike
Darryl,
“Then why do the bishops talk so much about stuff that is not dogma?”
The same reason pastors in your church preach and talk about stuff that is not dogma or irreformable – I doubt you just automatically shrug off what they say whenever they aren’t citing Scripture but respectfully give it a listen and take it under consideration. Do you think infallibility only works if bishops remain cloistered from the world and come out every few decades saying “We will now commence with the infallibility. Hear ye. Hear ye. Afterwards go on with your business, faithful.” and then retreat into their chambers and from interacting with the faithful until the next occasion for infallibility?
“And do you think they always know the difference?”
Considering you already quoted Ratzinger and Francis explicitly asserting the difference, I’d say they just might.
“Is moving wayward pedophilic priests around only prudential judgment?”
How could it not be (a rather heinous one)? How is “moving pedophilic priests around” an irreformable dogma or principle? That doesn’t even make sense.
LikeLike
James Young, “who am I to judge” is an affirmation of the difference?
Yet another we-are-superior-because-you-guys-do-what-we-do. Cool.
Pastors in the confessional Reformed world know not to speak on stuff where the Bible is silent. Yup.
What kind of Protestant were you?
LikeLike