photo by Brian Lam |
The
Catholic Faith is a house of cards.
Anyone
who doesn't see how precariously it is arranged is not looking at it
closely enough. In Book II Chapter 7 of The Fellowship of the
Ring , Galadriel says to the heroes, “The quest stands upon the
edge of a knife.” If they stray even a little from the path, their
mission will fail. The very existence of the Catholic Church stands
on a precipice so thin that it is literally miraculous that it hasn't
all come crumbling down.
Why
does the Catholic Church find itself in such a dangerous situation?
It is because of its doctrines. I'm talking about those things that
the Church says must be believed in the area of faith and morals.
I'm not talking about uncertain things like if all dogs go to heaven.
Nor am I talking about positions the Church proposes in the areas of
science, politics, art, etc. We are confined only to faith and
morals. And we are only talking about the definitive things. Human
traditions are not a part of this. For example, priestly celibacy is
almost universally mandatory, but the Pope could overturn this any
time he wanted. He could say to himself, “I'm only 85. I can
still get with the honeys!” We are not talking about these kinds
of things, but only those things that the Church says are definitely
true.
It
is also important to understand a difference between the Catholic
Church and most other groups and organizations. Most of us are
registered as a part of one political party or another. But I would
venture to say that very few people will accept every single part of
their political party's platform. I've met Democrats who are
pro-life and Republicans who are anti-death penalty. I was a
registered member of the Star Wars Fan Club, but that didn't mean
that I blindly accepted everything George Lucas had done with the
series as perfect (though I am a passionate defender of the
prequels). I am a member of a family, but I don't do go along with
everything the family says (of course Fredo Corleone maybe should
have). We don't like to be labeled and boxed into corners.
Many
of us try to do the same thing with our religion. I have met
Catholics who are pro-choice or say they don't believe in hell. They
apply the same principles of their other associations with their
membership in the Catholic faith. Being Catholic is another aspect
of their social identity, along with being a Democrat or a Rotarian
or a Cleveland Sports fan (which indicates that this person is also a
masochist). But herein lies the major problem: Being Catholic
doesn't allow for this.
St.
Augustine said that membership in the Church is determined by
baptism. But St. Thomas Aquinas makes an important point about faith
in The Summa Theologiae II-II.Q1.2. He makes clear that faith
is an assent of the will to certain truths. In other words, having
faith means claiming certain beliefs as being true. Being a Catholic
means believing the truths of the Catholic faith. This means ALL of
the truths of the Catholic faith.
Sometimes
I will have a student ask if they can be a good Catholic and believe
in X (insert here something that the Church has declared definitively
incorrect like reincarnation, euthanasia, an only symbolic Eucharist,
Mary not being Immaculately conceived etc.). My response is to say
this:
“Ask
me if I'm an atheist”
“Are
you an atheist?” the student asks.
“Yes,”
I reply. “Now ask me if I believe in God.”
“Do
you believe in God?”
“Yes.”
At
this point they look at me sideways.
“What's
the problem?” I ask.
“You
can't say that,” they respond.
“Why
not?”
“Because
atheists, by definition, don't believe in God.”
Exactly.
And
what is it that Catholics, by definition, believe in?
Here
is where things get dangerous. The list of beliefs that the Catholic
Church holds to be true is not small. There are the common creeds
that we recite at mass and baptisms, but there is much more. There
are things that are popular such as unconditional love, salvation,
eternal life, and guardian angels. There are also things that are
not so popular including hell, the sanctity of unborn life, the
prohibition on divorce and remarriage (without annulment), holding
marriage to be only between 1 man and 1 woman, a general prohibition
on the death penalty, a ban on all torture, condemnation of
artificial birth control, and no women priests. Between these two
lists, you cannot choose one and dump the other. Why not?
The
essential beliefs are proposed to us by the authority of the Church.
To be sure, since God is rational, there are logical supports for
holding the doctrines. But the reason why we must believe them as
Catholics is not because of some long philosophical debate but
because the Church has presented them to us as true. For example, CS
Lewis, who was not a Catholic, found many logical reasons for the
belief in Purgatory. But the reason why must believe it is because
the Church invokes its authority to tell us that the belief in the
doctrine of Purgatory is true. Whenever the Catholic Church holds
out to us something that they say must be believed, they do so based
on the authority that they have. And by virtue of that authority we
believe.
But
if we say that we do not believe in this or that doctrine, it cannot
leave the rest of the beliefs intact. When the Church teaches us
that hell exists it appeals to its authority. If this belief is
rejected, then that rejection implies that the Church's authority is
wrong. Again, we're not talking about temporal policies or human
traditions. We are talking about things that are essential. For
example, John Paul II wrote in Ordinatio Sacerdotalis:
“Wherefore,
in order that all doubt may be removed regarding a matter of great
importance, a matter which pertains to the Church's divine
constitution itself, in virtue of my ministry of confirming the
brethren (cf. Lk 22:32) I declare that the Church has no authority
whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women and that this
judgment is to be definitively held by all the Church's faithful.”
John
Paul II promulgated this teaching by invoking his authority. To
reject this teaching is to reject the Church's Teaching Authority.
But this authority is the basis of all the other Church
doctrines. To borrow a metaphor from CS Lewis, rejecting any
essential Church doctrine is like sawing off the branch of the tree
that you are sitting on. It leaves you with nothing.
Let
me put it another way. The Catholic Church says that it speaks for
God. If it, when invoking this power, speaks something in error,
then it is obvious that the Church cannot speak for God since God
cannot make an error. Every time the Church proposes this or that
doctrine, it sticks its neck out to the world. Each doctrine is
carefully arranged and placed in the great order of the Catholic
Faith. But if even 1 of these is removed, the whole Church falls
apart. Take out a card and the whole house falls. Remove hell and
heaven goes with it.
Going
back to CS Lewis, he was someone who believed in several Catholic
doctrines, like Purgatory, without himself being a Catholic. He
never converted. A lot of ink has been spilled trying to explain why
this was, but I once read Lewis make the point that the
Catholic Church doesn't just give you a list of doctrines to accept
and that's it. It also requires someone to pledge that they WILL
believe any and all other new doctrines the Catholic Church might
propose in the future. (I'm sorry but I cannot find the exact quote,
but I will keep looking) In other words, being Catholic means
trusting Church to never make essential error and that any definitive
teaching that the Church presents must be true. This takes great
faith, and Lewis could not bring himself to do it because he saw in
the Church flawed men. Lewis saw that The Catholic Church is a house
of cards, and though it may not have fallen yet, but because men are
fallible, it will fall.
And
here is the great miracle. It has not, nor ever will fall. The
house may be a house of cards, but it is built on the Rock. Jesus
said the Peter that he was to be the Rock on which He would build His
Church. He gave Peter the keys to the kingdom. This does not imply
that the popular image of Peter as standing before the pearly gates
letting only those on the list inside, like he's the bouncer of Club
Paradise. So what does it mean that Jesus gave him the keys?
Let's
say King David needed to negotiate something with an approaching army
but he could not leave Jerusalem. David would then take the keys to
front gates of the city and give them to his ambassador. When the
foreign king would see that the ambassador held the keys to the
kingdom it meant that he spoke with the same authority as King David.
Peter and his successors all the way to Pope Benedict VXI, speak
with the authority of Christ. It is on the word of the Church's
teaching authority that we believe that baptism washes away sin, that
the bread and wine become Christ Our Lord, and that God is Love.
It
all stands or falls on the things that the Church teaches as
definitively true. If even a single one of those teachings is false,
then none of the other teachings can stand. The Catholic Church
stands on the edge of a knife. But only God can prevent it from
falling down.
And
that's the whole point.
here is what I think you are looking for:
ReplyDeleteC. S. Lewis wrote in Christian Reunion:
The real reason, I take it, why you cannot be in communion with us is not your disagreement with this or that particular Protestant doctrine, so much as the absence of any real "Doctrine", in your sense of the word, at all. It is, you feel, like asking a man to say he agrees not with a speaker but with a debating society.
And the real reason why I cannot be in communion with you is not my disagreement with this or that Roman doctrine, but that to accept your Church means, not to accept a given body of doctrine, but to accept in advance any doctrine your Church hereafter produces. It is like being asked to agree not only to what a man has said but to what he's going to say.
To you the real vice of Protestantism is the formless drift which seems unable to retain the Catholic truths, which loses them one by one and ends in a "modernism" which cannot be classified as Christian by any tolerable stretch of the word. To us the terrible thing about Rome is the recklessness (as we hold) with which she has added to the depositum fidei - the tropical fertility, the proliferation, of credenda. You see in Protestantism the Faith dying out in a desert: we see in Rome the Faith smothered in a jungle.
I know no way of bridging this gulf.
That said, Lewis usually takes great pains to avoid sectarian division (perhaps influenced by growing up in Northern Ireland), and is often sympathetic to Catholic viewpoints. For example, he received advice on Mere Christianity from Catholics as well as Protestants before its publication, to ensure that it expressed sentiments that were universally agreeable.
from http://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/2757/why-didnt-c-s-lewis-convert-to-catholicism
Thank you for the quote. I wasn't able to find it before I published this post.
ReplyDeleteLewis has been my great theological teacher and I find that he is easily accessible to any denomination as well as believers and non-believers.
Joseph Pierce wrote a book called "CS Lewis and the Catholic Church" because he had just written a book no Catholic converts and he asked for a list of books from each of his subjects that had influenced his conversion. The only author that was on their list was Lewis.
One of the things I admire about Lewis is something John Paul II said about him. The pope said that Lewis knew what his mission in the world was and he did it. Lewis saw himself not as a defender of a particular Christian denomination but of Mere Christianity.
I often wonder what he would think about the state of the modern Anglican Church.