Is the Papacy "Man-Centered"?

Objection: Catholicism is a man-centered church, instead of one focusing on Christ. This is shown by, for instance, the prominence it gives to the office of the papacy.

One of the odd things I have noticed is how Catholicism is so often accused by many of our non-Catholic brothers and sisters in Christ of being a "man-centered" religion. For instance, they often point to the Pope as an example that demonstrates such to be the case. As a matter of fact, however, this is one of the areas which makes it especially clear to me that the Catholic Church is focused on Christ above all, and that, ironically enough, it is precisely those who make such accusations that are all too often, in fact, "man-centered" in their ecclesial views, and not orthodox Catholics.

Of course, it is clear that there are positions of authority in the Church, as we can see from the plain teaching of the New Testament. (That is simply a matter of necessity to have the visible unity that Christ wills for His Church.) While there may be disputes about the nature of that authority (and specifically the authority claimed for the Petrine office), nevertheless most non-Catholics would grant at least that much. Very few churches have no leadership positions whatsoever, for obvious reasons. Now, without discussing the office of the papacy in general (a broader debate for another time), it suffices for present purposes that insofar as the papacy is a position of leadership, then in that respect anyway, it is something you would expect to find in the Church. Consequently, it would be difficult to base a charge of being "man-centered" merely on the fact that Catholics recognize a visible leader for the Church, whatever other reason you may object to the Pope specifically as fulfilling that role.

Even when it comes to the more disputed topic of the infallibility of the Pope under certain limited circumstances (which teaching is often greatly misunderstood by many non-Catholics), the same holds true. Again, I do not wish to argue for that teaching at this time, but only to address it insofar as it is proposed as supporting the objection made above. And in that respect, it is important to remember that Catholics believe (rightly or wrongly) that Christ promised such protection to Peter and his successors, and that ultimately such a belief reflects a trust in Christ. This protection is believed to be promised to the pope, not because of the intrinsic trustworthiness of human leaders, but for the precise contrary reason, because humans are very much fallible. Therefore, if the Gospel, in all respects, is to be preached through all the centuries as Christ promised, then the Holy Spirit has to protect the leaders of the Church as a whole, and the Pope in particular, lest the Church manage to drop the ball. Otherwise, as one Catholic writer has put it hyperbolically, the Church would have lost the gospel half an hour after Pentecost. In other words, our faith is in Christ that He will keep his promises to Peter and his successors (cf. Matt 16:18; Luke 22:32), by the protection of the Holy Spirit, precisely because of the fallibility they would otherwise be prone to. One might still disagree with the doctrine for other reasons, of course, but not for the idea that it shows how Catholicism is "man-centered". Even if you believe the Church to be in error for believing such, what it believes has nothing to do with glorifying man, but rather the opposite, since it takes for granted that man is of himself prone to teach error. The focus is on the trustworthiness of Christ to protect His Church. (After all, would one say that the doctrine of the inspiration of Scripture is man-centered as well, because it states human authors wrote infallibly under the positive inspiration of the Holy Spirit, an even greater claim than the merely negative protection claimed for the papacy under certainly limited circumstances? Presumably not.)

Which, finally, leads to a curious circumstance. In many Protestant churches, especially those who pride themselves on not being "man-centered" like "Catholics are", we see that if some scandal erupts concerning the pastor, or even if just the pastor starts to be unpopular with a part of the congregation for whatever reason, it can lead to church splits, with many leaving and, (from a perfectly consistent point of view for such churches), it would be acceptable. Such a church, it would seem, would be far better described as a “man-centered” church than what the Catholic Church could legitimately be claimed to be.

Contrast such a situation to, say, Dante, for instance, who was a devout Catholic, loyal to the Church, and yet could in his Divine Comedy portray popes in Hell. He certainly was under no illusions about the men who could conceivably be found even in leadership positions. Yet he did not cease to belong to the Church, whatever he may have thought of some popes. There is such a thing as respecting the office (especially given that it was established by the Son of God) even when it is difficult to respect the man filling that office. Such was the case under the Old Testament, and such is the case under the New. Indeed, while most popes, for instance, have been holy men, there have admittedly been some scandalous popes who, while certainly not proving anything against the infallibility of the Church (which is not to be confused with the impeccability of its leaders), have certainly in their personal lives lived quite contrary to the teachings of the Gospel. If, indeed, Catholicism was "man-centered" as is claimed , then such scandals would have been enough by themselves to have destroyed the Church.

But that leads to my final point: as a Catholic I do not base my faith on Peter by himself, who will deny his Lord three times (cf. Matt 26:69-75), or who will separate himself from Gentiles for fear of giving offense (cf. Gal 2:11-14). Peter is a man with all the weaknesses and temptations to sin and consequent failures that such constitutes. No, rather, I base my faith on Christ, who promises to send the Holy Spirit to strengthen Peter so as not to teach error under certain circumstances as the visible head of the Church (and, in the case of Peter himself personally, even positively inspiring him to write holy Scripture in the case of his two letters in the New Testament). In those circumstances, I trust my Lord because of His promises. That is because, being a man myself, I know far too much of Peter to give him complete trust under any circumstances in which he is not divinely protected in such a way.

It would only be if I left the Church (or had never came into it) on account of the errors of Peter when he does not have the promise of the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching error, or because of his own personal sins, then, and only then, would it be accurate to accuse me of being “man-centered”. Because in that case, I would be failing to follow and trust Christ, due to my focus on Peter.