Thursday, May 12, 2016
Monday, February 22, 2016
Wednesday, December 9, 2015
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.
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.
Sunday, December 14, 2014
Friday, April 4, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
Saturday, February 15, 2014
Fairy Tales
[The following essay was originally written for an online writing class I had to take in 2010, and so bears the marks of being a “school assignment”. Notwithstanding, it expresses some ideas I have not expressed elsewhere, and therefore I include it here.]
What is the most realistic type of fiction that has commonly been read or listened to by the majority of people throughout history? The answer to that question is easy enough to answer. Naturally, it would be fairy tales. It is true, as some may perhaps object, that one does not often in his daily experience come across pumpkins turning into coaches, or magic beanstalks, and so such people may question as to how realistic such stories actually are. However, I believe this shows a basic confusion as to what “realistic” should mean in this regard. These are only minor details, after all, of what is admittedly a fictional story. In details such as these, any fictional story is (by definition) not realistic, at least in the sense of narrating something that really occurred. (Of course, people often use the term “realistic” in a different sense, but for the moment I am simply going to the root of the word). However, in the more fundamental sense of dealing with truths which certainly are real and expressing them most strongly, it is difficult to come across a better vehicle of expressing these realities than fairy tales. An excellent example of one such tale that expresses important truths (in this case, the nature of true love), and which it would be valuable to analyze to demonstrate what I mean, would be “Beauty and the Beast.” Its depiction of love as well as the assumptions that such is based on go far in showing how true fairy tales really are.
Thus, in this classic, the truth about love is shown in its full beauty. Beauty, perhaps, is the perfect word to describe it. For in this fairy tale, beauty is shown for what it actually is, a quality of the soul, and not merely a matter of appearances. (Perhaps in no other story is the saying “Appearances can be deceiving” so perfectly portrayed.) The tale begins by mentioning three sisters, all three of whom are beautiful as far as outward appearances are concerned, but none so much so as the youngest, Beauty, who is beautiful in soul as well (in contrast to the other two sisters). As a consequence, her humility, love, and goodness enable her to have the wisdom to perceive where true beauty lies when she encounters the Beast. It is true that his external ugliness and apparent lack of sense are not qualities which help to attract her, and in fact she does not wish to marry him at first. However, his constant goodness of heart and patience more and more take the central place in her vision of him, and naturally her own wisdom reinforces her perception that this is a much deeper beauty. At the end, when she fears that the worst has occurred and that he may be dead, she realizes the extent of the love that she has for him, and finding him alive, expresses her wish to marry him. At this point, the Beast is no longer under the condemnation he had been placed under and is now shown to be a handsome prince, but this only externalizes the more important qualities that had lain within all along.
Naturally, such a story has much to teach us about what the basis of true love should be. In a world that so often places emphasis on superficialities such as looks or money, it expresses that such assumptions not only do not display deep love, but neither do they display deep thought. Attraction should not be based by simply noticing the outward qualities of others. If their souls are ugly, one soon ceases to notice even their outward appearances or wealth. Beauty’s sisters discovered this in the case of their own husbands, for instance. Moreover, such beauty as these people have will eventually fade, in any case. At that point, only the internal ugliness will remain. On the other hand, if one realizes, as did Beauty, that inner qualities of the soul are what should be sought for, then that person will discover what really strengthens true love. After all, at the end of the story, does anyone doubt that, even had the Beast remained as he had been before, that in Beauty’s mind he would still appear a handsome prince?
“Beauty and the Beast” is only one example among many that could be presented which show how fairy tales present the deepest of truths. Indeed, that fairy tales are the most realistic form of literature is shown by the fact that the same stories transcend cultures. They do so precisely because they express realities that are so fundamental that they are found in every culture, and are not limited to only one. Everybody should know the story of “Beauty and the Beast” naturally without having ever to hear it. The details might be different when one actually first reads a version of the story or sees a production of it (just as the details are different in the variations of the story found in other cultures), but the basic lesson it contains, which is the greatest part of the story, can be found in our hearts, if only we will listen. In that sense, fairy tales do not teach children about right and wrong. What they do is present to them concrete examples of what children already know. They give encouragement to them. Thus, when “Beauty and the Beast” shows them where true love is to be found, children do not in general criticize the story as being “unrealistic.” It is only later in life that people can come to such a cynical conclusion, after allowing themselves to be deceived by superficialities. If true love is indeed to be found, however, it is only because those involved have retained such childish wisdom. Perhaps this is an additional meaning of the saying that unless we become as a little child, we shall not enter the kingdom of heaven. Certainly, we shall not find a match made in heaven.
In any case, one can hardly find a more moving portrait of true love than that found in “Beauty and the Beast.” If its depiction of true love and the assumptions that underlie such a depiction seem silly to many, and unrealistic, then I can only say so much the worse for those people. It is a belief to which I cannot give my assent. To slightly alter the words of Scripture, the foolishness of fairy tales is wiser than the wisdom of “realistic” literature. Fairy tales deal with realities that all cultures find to be true. If the collective wisdom of mankind is to be despised, then at the least it is safe to say we are no longer democratic. However, the fact that such stories continue to be told fills me with hope that, despite all the challenges to the contrary from our culture, we have not lost this basic grasp of reality. We do not, admittedly, always act on such wisdom as is handed on to us. However, we have not forgotten lessons such as what constitutes real beauty and real love, even if for a time we ignore them, and live to regret it. May we all come to a deeper appreciation of the realistic nature of fairy tales, and be blessed by the lessons they teach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)