As far as I can remember, I have only written one blog entry on child abuse within the Roman church: Deliver Us From Evil: The Catholic Church and Pedophile Priests. If I've done any other posts on this topic, I've since forgotten.
The problem though, as I see it in the 21st Century, is that a Protestant using abuse scandals as an apologetic argument against Romanism has to explain abuse scandals within various Protestant churches. For years I've pointed out that if the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well.
For instance, I this weekend I watched a documentary on alleged child abuse within the Christian and Missionary Alliance Denomination entitled, All God' Children. Here's the trailer:
The entire documentary is available on YouTube. Similar to Roman hierarchical subterfuge, the victims here likewise went through years of bureaucracy to be recognized. It's worth a look.
I'm all for presenting argumentation against Rome, but I'm not for all argumentation without discrimination against Rome. Certain arguments, like using abuse scandals, need to be carefully laid out. Why is Rome's abuse problem different than abuse in Protestant churches? What dogmas or doctrines play a crucial role in the occurrence of abuse? These are two questions off the top of my head that should be carefully expounded before Rome is chastised. If any of you have thoughts on how to justify using abuse arguments as an apologetic against Rome, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Till I'm convinced otherwise, I'm going to stick with saying using such arguments an apologetic aren't helpful.
Posts
21 comments:
Without watching the whole documentary, it appears that the abuse took place at one particular school... is that correct?
I think everybody acknowledges that abuse can happen anywhere. The major differences between cases like this and Rome are:
i. Rome's abuse was practically church-wide. It was the same type of abuse, following the same pattern, in multiple locations throughout the world over a sustained period of time. That has much bigger implications for the institution as a whole than it would if it was just random local churches or schools.
ii. Rome's abuse did not just involve rogue elements (even with superiors burying their head in the sand), but was actually known about by those in high positions and actively covered up. The abusers were protected, and consequently their abuse was effectively facilitated by the heirarchy.
iii. Rome's abuse IS tied to their theology and identity as a church. There is:
a. Their belief that they cannot err, which makes it practically impossible for them to admit and correct mistakes. I know, I know, the doctrine is that they are only infallible on matters of faith and morals, but they conceive of themselves as so tied to Christ (the pope and He are "one only head") that the way this works out in practice is that they are willfully blind about their own corruption. Thus they refused, and still refuse to a large extent, to repent and take responsibility for the abuse.
b. Their view of the clergy, and by implication the nature of "the church," that caused them to be more concerned about the priests than the victims. The record shows this, and it involved deliberate decisions on their part.
c. The question of the role priestly celibacy has played in all this. There is a reason why the Westminster Confession calls such things "sinful snares." Again, RCC abuse, unlike protestant cases, was not random or localized, but institution-wide.
Overall, I'd say the RCC abuse scandals don't prove they are a false church, but they do suggest they aren't what they think they are, and present themselves to be, and they do suggest that they have serious institutional problems that implicate their theology and ecclesiology.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents.
Another thing: Whenever we do encounter a Protestant church where there is rampant, pervasive child or sexual abuse, involving culpability at the highest levels, we DO question whether that church is legitimate, and rightfully so. I don't see any reason for treating the RCC differently.
The problem is that Rome claims to be infallible - whereas no Protestant church has ever claimed that.
If Roman Catholic apologists push back and say, "Infallibility is only about dogmas, said from chair of Peter, etc. and not about behavior/sins, etc." - the problem is that there are 2 kinds of submission to the Pope -
I forget the wording they use but one
is pertaining to dogma
the other is the "regular" (something like that) where total submission and docility is required.
The second meaning of the regular function of the Magisterium is total submission in all things - it is hard to get around that by trying to hide behind the formal definition of "infallibility".
It is that second definition that seems to foster an atmosphere of "we are right and whatever we say, goes" and therefore there was a centuries long culture of being a law unto themselves and that seems to have contributed to the hierarchical cover-ups.
Louis, thanks so much for your comments. Here would be my brief responses:
Rome's abuse was practically church-wide.
This appears to me to be arguing quantity of abuse can indict an organization but allow less-abuse- ridden organizations a free pass. I think this ultimately qualifies as an invalid argument.
Rome's abuse did not just involve rogue elements (even with superiors burying their head in the sand), but was actually known about by those in high positions and actively covered up.
If you watch the later sections of the documentary I linked to, you'll find a very similar circumstance.
Rome's abuse IS tied to their theology and identity as a church.
I think you're on to something here, and I would suggest that any who wish to use abuse scandals should rather approach the topic by looking at the doctrines / dogmas that perhaps open the door to them.
The problem is that Rome claims to be infallible - whereas no Protestant church has ever claimed that.
Hi Ken, thanks for the comment.
Here's how I would respond if I were a Roman Catholic:
"True, my ultimate authority is the magisterium. You Protestants claim the Bible is your ultimate authority. If churches which believe the Bible is their only authority still may have an abuse scandal (like the CMA), then your argument that an infallible authority makes my Roman church culpable while your ultimate authority gets a free pass is a double standard."
The RC church I use to attend (a number of years ago now) was quite a training ground or beginning point for many immigrant priests, so it was not unusual when a new associate pastor came on board. After a spell with no associate pastor we suddenly were going to get one, and a caucasian at that. He came on board and was well received and liked.
Then one Sunday morning as we drove to church for mass, there were protestors with signs about a pedophile priest on the street where the entrance to the parking lot was. Turns out that people visiting from another province went to the Saturday evening mass and recognized the priest as one convicted of some sort of child or youth related sex crime. Of course there was an archbishop led meeting where he took full responsibility for the transfer of this priest. While I did not attend the meeting my wife did. After the first four or five people made their points against what the archbishop did, then the "forgive and forget and love one another" crowd started to come forward. Once this started happening the archbishop's attitude and demeanor began to change from humble, even contrite, to the point where he even condemned the visitors (who recognized and outed the priest) for not going to him but instead going to the media. I have no idea where that priest went or if he is currently pastoring a parish.
So like louis said above, while pedophilia is not unique or confined to RC-ism, it seems it has the best system in place with the ability to move pedophiles large distances (over 2100 miles in this case) rather anonymously and without question from the congregation/laity. Protestant denominations can and should do their due diligence in researching and backgrond checking a prospective pastor.
It may not be a good argument again RC-ism, but it should give people a lot to consider if the heirarchy is so complicit in the cover up of such actions.
The problem though, as I see it in the 21st Century, is that a Protestant using abuse scandals as an apologetic argument against Romanism has to explain abuse scandals within various Protestant churches. For years I've pointed out that if the argument you're using works against your own position, you've refuted yourself as well.
James, it is simply not true, because there are two things going in the RC world that Protestantism simply does not have:
1. Sure, everyone has sex abusers in the fold. But what Rome has, that no one else has, is (a) official documents mandating secrecy (going back a thousand years, as has been documented here, for example), and a hierarchical level of bishops and higher, all of whom become "enablers" for sex abusers (rather than hold them accountable in any way).
Speaking about this second group in no way touches on Protestants, because Protestants simply don't have this "enabling" layer.
2. The claim that "our interpretation of Scripture carries the same weight as Scripture". And this is taken further, as I've noted, that Rome now claims that the Roman church (scandal-ridden hierarchy especially included) is "the universal sacrament of salvation".
It is clear that there is no parallel in Protestantism, either in Rome's unique claims, nor in Rome's unique level of "enablement".
Speaking about the "sex abuse scandals" at these levels does not touch Protestants in any way.
Sorry, here's that link to documentation, which I forgot in my previous post:
http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2012/03/sexual-abuse-in-roman-catholic-clerical.html
Louis and John,
Thank you both for your comments. Perhaps we'll not agree on this, but at least we should understand where each of us is coming from.
I like to boil everything down and see what's left. Here's what I see once the flame is turned off: There's a big group of people that trust in Rome as their ultimate infallible authority. That is: sola ecclesia. On the other hand, there's another group of us who believe that the Bible is the only infallible authority. That is: sola scriptura.
Now, if I argue that an abuse scandal is one more argument "proving" that Rome is not the ultimate infallible authority, how do you avoid this contrary: abuse scandals within Protestantism prove that the Bible can't function as an infallible authority?
You see gentlemen, for me, the Scriptures need to be protected from inferior arguments. When we argue against Rome, we have to do so in a consistent way with our paradigm of authority.
This is not to say that there is not a place to discuss abuse scandals, but we need to be careful not to refute ourselves in the process. This is why if you review my closing paragraph in this very entry, I state:
"I'm all for presenting argumentation against Rome, but I'm not for all argumentation without discrimination against Rome. Certain arguments, like using abuse scandals, need to be carefully laid out. Why is Rome's abuse problem different than abuse in Protestant churches? What dogmas or doctrines play a crucial role in the occurrence of abuse? These are two questions off the top of my head that should be carefully expounded before Rome is chastised. If any of you have thoughts on how to justify using abuse arguments as an apologetic against Rome, I'd be interested in hearing what you have to say. Till I'm convinced otherwise, I'm going to stick with saying using such arguments an apologetic aren't helpful."
There are certainly many more examples of abuse and scandal within Protestant churches than the one I've pointed out. I think this subject if used as an apologetic against Rome, unless carefully laid out (as Louis began doing above), simply functions as inferior argumentation leading to: 1)offense 2) a shouting match (which side can muster the most evidence).
While I am aware John that you've posted a number of "abuse" entries, this particular post of mine was provoked by the documentary I recently watched (linked in the entry), and therefore not at all intended as any sort of critique of your material. While I can't say I've read all of your posts, but I think laying out the epistemology of why you post on the abuse scandals would be helpful. Perhaps maybe you've done this, if so my apologies. My only concern is to protect the doctrine of sola scriptura. If you've got an answer to my above question, I'd like to see it.
it may not be a good argument again RC-ism, but it should give people a lot to consider if the heirarchy is so complicit in the cover up of such actions.
Teenie,
Thank you for sharing your story. Certainly Rome is abuse and scandal ridden. There is indeed a place for pointing this out. My concern is simply knowing when to use such arguments, and in which context.
James,
Couldn't one say that our final authority has never raped any children or defended child rapists, whereas their infallible authority has? That would seem a crucial difference. If it were the Scriptures themselves and not people claiming to be following the Scriptures, I woumd think the two were on that equal footing.
However, I do agree that the sex scandals don't make a good polemic. Even if it does not apply to my denomination, if it did then I would not like hearing so and I would not find an appeal to some bad apples convincing. I think truth should be the issue, not behavior.
In Christ,
JL
Couldn't one say that our final authority has never raped any children or defended child rapists, whereas their infallible authority has?
I don't think so. If I were a Romanist, I would respond that the Spirit of God is not responsible for the sins of those in church leadership just like in the Bible, the Spirit of God isn't responsible the sins of those in Protestant church leadership. Also, depending on which anti-Romanist I was responding to, I may throw in the fact that the Bible records the sins of some of the saints (David, Peter), and yet this doesn't negate the Bible as an infallible authority.
JL,
Read this, and then ask your question:
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/papal-infallibility
The relationship of the papacy to Roman Catholicism is not equivalent to the relationship of some televangelist to Christianity.
The relationship of the papacy to Roman Catholicism is not equivalent to the relationship of some televangelist to Christianity.
I would agree, with the exception that any televangelist claiming direct messages from God, particularly in regard to what certain Scriptures mean, functionally enters the category of "infallible interpreter" (that category includes Rome, The Mormon Church, the Watchtower, etc.) even if they vehemently deny it.
Even those televangelists claiming personal infallibility rarely claim to be the head of Christ's church.
So, when their ministry falls into scandal, it discredits their ministry, but not Christianity generally.
When the papacy falls into scandal, whom does it discredit?
-TurretinFan
James,
I don't see the issue as one of ultimate authority -- sola ecclesia or sola scriptura. Not everything boils down to that one issue. It's more a question of the character of the institution. Is it Godly or not?
It's not supposed to be a knock-down, air-tight, logical argument. It's one important factor among many that is relevant in considering whether that church is really led by the Holy Spirit. In fact, many people have left the RCC precisely for this reason. They have concluded that God is not in a church that can act so flagrantly unholy.
Even those televangelists claiming personal infallibility rarely claim to be the head of Christ's church.
I was careful above to use the word "functional." That word was chosen specifically and I would also include the claim you mention.
I've been super-busy, and don't recall how televangelists joined this discussion. My apologies if I mentioned them and don't recall it. That's what excessive work and study will do.
When the papacy falls into scandal, whom does it discredit?
This depends on the perspective.
If a Romanist were to allow me to use a historically accepted definition of sola scriptura when explaining what my ultimate infallible authority is, charity would suggest that I at least allow them a similar opportunity.
Romanism attempts to put parameters around when her papacy is "infallible." My approach would be first to allow them to define their terms, and then after that I would put forth arguments either demonstrating what they've defined is either illogical or special-pleading.
If I utilized their definition of their ultimate authority and when it is infallible (according to them), the parameters presented would probably demonstrate the abuse issues are not the result of the authority when in infallible mode. For instance, there's no infallible pronouncement I'm aware of which suggests the Papacy must hire priests prone to pedophilia. One may wish to argue that certain practices within Romanism opens the door to such things, but this is not the same thing a positive pronouncement condoning such things.
Now from our side (or my perspective) we see the entire papacy (at least I do), as an abomination, so whatever good they do is simply filthy rags. This means that whatever "bad" they do is regarded as even worse. So of course, when they have scandals, from our perspective, it confirms what we already think about them.
If our goal though is simply to confirm the abomination we already know the papacy is, then by all means, expose as much scandal as possible. On the other hand, we should not be surprised if they similarly point out scandals within Protestantism to confirm what they "know" to be true about us.
Frankly, I think this sort of noise back and forth is futile. I'm open though to correction on this. How my friend, would you respond to what I stated about to John and Louis about ultimate authority?
I think it is possible that we're talking past one another. I'm looking at the RC scandals from a different angle.
There is a possible ad hominem use of these scandals, which is logically invalid. I think you are doing a good job of tearing that down.
But there are other uses of these scandals - uses that are not logically invalid. Maybe this point is not helpful here, because someone might misunderstand and think I'm supporting the ad hominem usage.
-TurretinFan
But there are other uses of these scandals - uses that are not logically invalid.
I would certainly agree. Always in my thinking on this is that scandal and abuse played a key role in Reformation polemics. That abuse and scandal though was linked back to doctrinal deviation. This is why Roman Catholics think the Reformers went "too far." Many Roman Catholics have no problem admitting the rampant 16th century abuse in their church. They are quick to point out that that abuse was taken care of. They then add, the Reformers went "too far" and attacked their Roman doctrine.
What I would like to see is that when we as Protestants refer to current Roman scandals, we ground our use of the scandal as being the result of a deeper theological errors. We need to go "too far" just like the Reformers did.
Post a Comment