"These events brought a sickening dose of reality to our hallways. While the stories don't signal a trend, they do mean that all faith-based institutions can no longer afford to assume that predators are somewhere "out there," over the clean Christian rain-bow. They are not just in college locker rooms and Catholic rectories either. They are on our evangelical faculty and work in our community nonprofits, and we must respond to them in a way that bears the judgment—and mercy—of the gospel of Christ."It's hard for me to agree with Christianity Today puts out, but I can't see how else not to in this case. I'll say it again: I don't think using scandals against Roman Catholicism is a good way to argue.
Abuse scandals can certainly serve as good examples of hierarchical subterfuge in any organization that claims a lofty pedigree of divine favor. The Reformers of course, had no problem using scandal and abuse as arguments against Rome. For many of the Reformers, the scandals pointed to greater doctrinal issues that played a key role in perpetuating ecclesiastical abuse.
The problem as I see it in the 21st Century is that a Protestant using abuse scandals as an apologetic argument against Roman Catholcism 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. Simply saying "Well, they've got more than us" won't do any logical good either.
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 Rome as their ultimate infallible authority. On the other hand, there's another group who believe that the Bible is the only infallible authority.
Now, if I argue that an abuse scandal is one more argument "proving" that Rome is not the ultimate infallible authority, how does one avoid this contrary: abuse scandals within Protestantism prove that the Bible can't function as an infallible authority? I simply don't see how you can't.
From "our side" (or, at least, 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.
So we'll shout back and forth at each other. For those of you who enjoy shouting, knock yourselves out.
Posts
9 comments:
"Now, if I argue that an abuse scandal is one more argument "proving" that Rome is not the ultimate infallible authority, how does one avoid this contrary: abuse scandals within Protestantism prove that the Bible can't function as an infallible authority? I simply don't see how you can't."
There are a lot of wrong ways to argue. There are also right ways to argue.
What the pope claims for himself is more than just being an infallible authority. He also claims to be the successor of Peter and Paul. He claims to be the head of a unitary "one true church."
Few of the churches in "Protestantism" make such claims for themselves - and those who do are, like Rome, ultra-sectarian (Westboro Baptists come to mind).
If Fred Phelps' church had a sex abuse scandal it would have a similar effect on his claims that Rome's transcontinental scandal has on its claims.
The same goes for Brigham Young's scandalous sexual behavior and Mohammed's.
In any event, these things are not our primary arguments with those in the Roman communion, or with Mormoms or Muslims - nor would it be with those in Phelps' church.
-TurretinFan
Thanks for your comments Tfan.
I recall you raising similar concerns previously. Then you mentioned,
"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.
Nothing has changed in this approach on this subject since you last left this comment.As I responded last time,
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.
You asked last time: "When the papacy falls into scandal, whom does it discredit?" Since this older question of yours appears to reflect the content of your latest comment, I'll simply respond as I did before:
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.
More or less, I think I'm just violently agreeing with you.
James – there are a few reasons why I keep bringing this up.
The first is, Roman Catholicism (for many Roman Catholics) really isn’t about “the doctrines” or doctrinal arguments any more. Vatican II was largely about something I’ll call “the glories of the church”. For most Roman Catholics today, the John Paul II was something like a kindly grandfather. He spent years of his life talking not about theology, but something called “marriage and family”, which, in good part, was a defense of Humanae Vitae and related issues of sexuality.
Thus, this “sexual abuse scandal”, which occurred “under his watch”, really undermines all the “good feelings” that lots of people had about that time and era. If you have ever been to a Friday Fish Fry, or heard your co-workers sitting around talking about “what they’re giving up for Lent”, well, that’s what “cultural” Roman Catholicism becomes in its local communities. It’s all about “good food, friends from the neighborhood, and fellowship at a place we can trust”. It is largely cultural.
So there’s a “yuck” factor with the sexual abuse scandal. But further to that, the sexual abuse stories aren’t even about the sexual abuse. They’re about the cover-up. They’re about the criminal behavior of the bishops and church administrators. The question is, “are these the individuals you want to trust with your soul?” A further (doctrinal) question might be, does God really promise to give special guidance to “the Church”, an organization like this one, which is simultaneously “leading the flock” and engaging in criminal behavior?
And Jesus was right: we can discern a tree from its fruit. And so now, in pointing to the lesbian nuns who are now in battle with the Bishops, [who are lesbian nuns “in the Spirit of Vatican II”] to the huge percentage of priests and bishops (estimates range from 20% to 50%) who are said to be gay, we may legitimately say, “Here is your infallible Church in action”. There is rampant sexual scandal in the Roman Church, all through Church history.
At a minimum, bringing all this up will give us the opportunity to ask Roman Catholics (as I have done) to articulate again the specific doctrines which say, yes, “even though these are the most wicked people in the world, Christ still promises to protect them from erring doctrinally”. That is a very lame argument, when you look at it, and I don’t think many people have the stomach for it.
So no, it’s not a primary “argument”. But it is a cultural factor that strips away some of the shine of the “cultural” reasons for remaining Roman Catholic.
If we will know them by their fruits, that applies to any church, whether the Roman denomination or one of the various protestant versions. Which means whenever you have the kind of moral corruption that reaches to the top, you bail.
The problem then is that there is pretty much only one Roman church, which is the only true church.
Does anybody see problems with this?
IOW romanists are kind of stuck. Not so protestants, who can bail from the PCUSA to another more faithful presbyterian church.
At least that's how I see it, much more as John says, in romanism, the cultural blind faith rules on the ground level - as it is intended to do imo - and the finer points on just how and when the pope is infallible don't matter. Ignorance is the mother of devotion after all, and the more ignerunt the better. Consequently there is an impact when the hoi polloi in the pew find out just how many of the bishops covered up for the homosexuals.
Granted while Rome was a sink of iniquity at the time of the Reformation, the gospel of justification by faith alone along with the availability of vernacular bibles was the real silver bullet that carried the day. But that immorality opened the door to questioning the credibility and sanctity of holy mother church and it still can have a subordinate role today.
Bob S.
More or less, I think I'm just violently agreeing with you.
As I said in my post:
"Abuse scandals can certainly serve as good examples of hierarchical subterfuge in any organization that claims a lofty pedigree of divine favor. The Reformers of course, had no problem using scandal and abuse as arguments against Rome. For many of the Reformers, the scandals pointed to greater doctrinal issues that played a key role in perpetuating ecclesiastical abuse."
So... I think there is a place for such use of the abuse argument, but it requires a careful placement. As I went on to say:
"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."
John:
Thanks for your comments.
There are a number of problems with your points that an articulate Roman Catholic would challenge you on. I don't have time right now to point these out. Since none of these folks appear to want to challenge you, then well, maybe it's best I don't give them any fuel by stating what I think they are. I'll let them figure it out on their own.
James, for the most part I agree with you that the abuse scandals aren't an effective argument. I just don't necessarily agree for the same reason.
I do think there is a difference b/w RC abuse and Protestant abuse because priests/bishops have the added sacrament of Holy Orders. I know RCs explain away this stuff by separating the duties of the office from moral character but that distinction doesn't make much sense.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11279a.htm
What John Bugay said. Wolves can get inside every fold; what counts is not whether the institution attracts a large number, proportionally or in absolute terms, but how it responds to them. And a centralised body, regarding itself as above secular laws, intensely concerned to avoid "scandal" that might undermine its followers' confidence in the leadership, and able to ship offenders around the world under cover of diplomatic immunity, is much more easily tempted to cover up than First FreeWill General Baptist of East Tuskegee.
Post a Comment