Sunday, October 09, 2005

Roman Catholic Ecclesiology (as commonly understood) and Christian Apologetics

One of the important jobs of Christian apologists is to defend the Church against accusations that it has been, overall, an influence for bad in the world, or generally guilty of evil activity and teaching. This is particularly important for apologists who are Catholics, who believe in the holiness, infallibility and indefectibility of the Church. Now, this latter belief does not mean we must deny sins or errors by individual Christians or even by particular Churches (segments of the Church). It only means that we do not accept that the Church ever committed itself as a whole to any such wrongs.

But actions, if pursued throughout the Church and with little or no official censure or, contrariwise, with official approval, constitute a teaching that such actions are morally correct. (They thus reflect on both the Church’s holiness and doctrinal trustworthiness.) Therefore, if it could be shown that a particular evil activity had been generally accepted and approved throughout the Catholic Church, that would constitute a falsification of the Catholic truth-claims.

Now, there is no doubt that many of the popular characterisations of “sins” or “mistakes” of the Church are based on exaggeration, selective history or misunderstanding. Nevertheless, not all accusations can be dismissed this way. When someone points to the fact that the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) of the middle ages justified the use of torture and burning at the stake to “protect the true Faith” and achieve religious ends, they are speaking the truth. To reply that the actual applications of violent force were left to the civil authorities makes no moral difference, as the RCC condoned these acts and in some cases had religious or clergy directly participate in them, as, for example, in the Inquisition’s torture chambers.

My response to this has always been to note that these extreme evils (for so they must be accounted in the context of the Saviour’s teaching) were not universally practiced or accepted as legitimate in the Church of that time. The Eastern Orthodox Church (EOC) never taught that torture was justified, even with the occasional compromises by some of its jurisdictions with civil governments. (One can take a similar approach regarding other mediaeval Western excesses involving widespread abuse of ecclesial and papal power.) Since, as an Anglican Catholic, I believe that both the RCC and EOC are part of the Catholic Church, this makes perfect sense from my point of view.

The problem is this. If most “orthodox” Roman Catholics are correct, and those Churches visibly outside their communion are not properly part of the One (Visible) Catholic Church, then this line of defence is unavailable and plausible alternatives seem to disappear completely. That is why it appears to me incontestable that the RCC’s ecclesiological claims (as normally presented), even in their post-Vatican II, “gentler” version of exclusivity, are implicitly inconsistent with belief in the infallibility of the Church, and so are radically un-Catholic.

To make my position clear, here is the syllogism:
  1. If a Church or communion of Churches authorises, condones and engages in an activity with virtual unanimity through its official organs of authority over an extended period of time, this constitutes a definitive teaching affirming the moral goodness of that activity.
  2. It is not possible for the Catholic Church as a whole to be in error in a definitive teaching on moral matters, any more than in matters of Faith.
  3. Therefore, a definitive teaching established by the process outlined in (1) cannot be in error if the said “Church or communion of Churches” is equivalent to “the Catholic Church as a whole”. [1 + 2]
  4. The RCC officially and generally authorised, condoned and practised torturous punishments, examinations and executions for religious ends over an extended period of time.
  5. Therefore, the RCC definitively taught that such torture was morally right. [1 + 4]
  6. Such torture is, in fact, morally repugnant.
  7. Therefore, the RCC definitively taught error on an important moral matter. [5 + 6]
  8. Therefore, the RCC is not the whole Catholic Church. [3 + 7]

I will take it as a given that 2 and 6 are uncontested by all identifying as Catholics. And that 3, 5, 7 and 8 do follow logically from their identified premises. That only leaves 1 and 4. 1 is a theological statement that appears synonymous with the RCC’s teaching on the infallibility of the consensus of the ordinary magisterium. 4 is a historical statement. Is it seriously questioned, even by revisionist historians?


Blogger Fr. John said...

This type of writing is too good to languish in this blog. More Roman Catholics need to see this type of commentary.

I have gone to several of the traditionalist RC web sites and engaged them on their own turf, if they are bested in the debate they begin to chant "Peter, Peter, Peter," as though a magic talisman.

Your logic would perhaps give them pause for thought. I am a bit more ham handed.

In Christ,
Fr. John

7:23 AM  
Blogger Scott Carson said...

This argument is not sound. In particular, premise (4) begs the question. The moral question at issue is precisely whether the Church condones torture, yet you assume that it does as part of your premises.

What folks are arguing about should not be whether or not the Church has ever condoned torture, but whether the things she has condoned legitimately and unambiguously count as instantiations of torture. They might, of course, but you can't simply assume that they do.

What you need, before this argument can be taken seriously, is another argument that proves (4) to be the case, an argument that shows that there is at least one historical event in which the Church admits that what she is doing is torturing someone.

Good luck with that.

7:53 AM  
Blogger Bruce said...

"This argument is not sound."

Maybe, but for those of us who are new Christians and are evaluating Rome's possessive, exclusive claims (as I did), the fact that premise 4 seems more likely than not certainly tends to make us doubt their claims.

10:26 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home