When Did Rome Go Wrong?

[excubitor]

The means by which orthodoxy is preserved is not through the office of the Pope but through the offices of the Apostles.

This is badly worded. What I meant to say was "The means by which orthodoxy is preserved is not just through the office of the successor of Peter but also through the offices of all the Apostles.

 

[Contarini]

Yes sorry it was a gross overstatement. May I rephrase it. It seems to me apparent that the only belief which unites protestants is that there was a historical person called Jesus who saved us in some way and that the Roman Catholic Church has corrupted the gospel of Jesus Christ and the teachings of the apostles to one extent or another.

Fair enough.

I know about the High Church Anglicans and perhaps there are equivalent Episcopalians

Episcopalians are Anglicans.

who basically teach everything the same as the Catholic church,

And more who would basically agree with everything that your Communion and the Orthodox have in common.

some have even signed the Catechism and made overtures to Rome for reunification. I do not regard them as protestants. However these are the minority of Church of England Christians. The vast majority believe a variety of doctrines different to the Catholic church. Why else would they have accepted Cranmer’s innovations unless they believed that he was restoring truths of the Apostolic church which had been corrupted by the Roman Catholic Church and left uncorrected by King Henry VIIIth, the ‘Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England’?

Who are “they”? The Church of England has never been a democracy, though the Episcopal Church is, more or less. The Church of England in the sixteenth century was virtually coterminous with the nation of England, and from Henry on the rulers of England made decisions for the Church. That is indeed our great shame, though Catholic rulers (in communion with Rome) also engaged in quite a bit of control over the churches in their territories at times. So I’m not sure who these Anglicans are who are supposed to be sitting around deciding whether or not to “accept Cranmer’s innovations.” Are you talking about the Convocations of Canterbury and York?

At any rate, yes of course it’s true that sixteenth-century Anglicans thought Rome had corrupted the faith to some degree or another. The way the 39 Articles put it is that the particular church of Rome has erred just as other particular churches have. And many Anglicans historically have taken a very dim view of Rome indeed. However, all it takes to be Protestant is to believe that all churches are fallible. You don’t have to believe that Rome is any more in error than your own church. You may believe it to be less so. (That is my situation, currently.) But since Rome demands that we accept that it has fallen into no formal theological error whatsoever, belief that it is in any error at all excludes us from communion. (Of course that doesn’t necessarily make us Protestant–we could unite with the Orthodox, and it often puzzles me that more Anglicans–those not as friendly to Rome as I am–do not do so. I have recently been wondering why I do not do so. But if we think the East has erred as well, so that there is no church free from error, as the 39 Articles indicate, then I’d say we are Protestants. Indeed, it would be hypothetically possible to say “Rome and/or the East has not erred yet, but could err and still remain part of the true Church.”)

And if you or any other “protestant” (unfortunate over generalised label - not intended as a pro-Catholic anti-anybody slur) believes that the Roman Catholic Church has not corrupted the doctrine of the apostles in any way then on what grounds do you remain out of communion with the Pope and the Church?

Indeed. But there’s a huge difference between “corrupted in any way” or “to some extent” and corrupted all knowledge."

Your use of the word “orchestrated” is also unfortunate. To err is human. No one needs to orchestrate it.

The fact is that virtually all our protestants denominations have come from the Church of England, the Baptists, the Lutherans, the Presbyterians all of which began with severe anti-catholic dogmatic statements.

The Lutherans did not come from the Anglicans in any sense. Presbyterians have a complex relationship with us–the English Presbyterians came out from us and the Scots had Episcopalianism imposed on them for a while. But they derive their doctrinal positions from Continental Protestantism–indeed that was the main point of difference between them and us, that they thought we weren’t following the example of the “best reformed” churches.

 

[Contarini]

The closest thing to a unified catechism that has come from these “reformed” fellowships is the Westminster Confession which states as a uniform belief that “Nor can the Pope of Rome, in any sense, be head thereof; but is that Antichrist, that man of sin, and son of perdition, that exalts himself, in the Church, against Christ and all that is called God”

I wouldn’t call it “the closest thing to a unified catechism,” but I think it’s fair to say that Presbyterians occupy a more or less central position on the Protestant spectrum. Of course, few Presbyterians today would subscribe to that particular clause–the conservative Presbyterian Church in America deleted it. The more liberal PCUSA didn’t need to, because they don’t take the Confession that seriously anymore.

As a protestant who recently converted to Catholicism I can assure you first hand that this sentiment is alive and well amongst protestant fellowships.

You know a lot of Protestants who think the Pope is the Antichrist? Well, at least they aren’t dispensationalists. . . .

Certainly anti-Catholicism is alive and well in some Protestant circles. But my involvement with Protestantism is even more recent than yours. I teach in an evangelical college, and I have been pleasantly surprised by how non-anti-Catholic my students are. Some of them worry about whether Catholics worship saints or whatever, but even they put it in a fairly tentative and respectful way, and most seem pretty sure that Catholics are just a weird and different form of the same Christian faith they hold.

Your logic is tragically flawed here. These are two seperate issues.
Question 1. Has the Pope orchestrated a global corruption of the teaching of the apostles throughout the entire church both in the East and in the West and.
Question 2. Is the Pope necessary to preserve and maintain orthodoxy.

Can’t you see that they are entirely different questions. I was talking about the first question. How can you refute my comments by posing a second completely different question?

My point was that while the existence of the Orthodox does disprove those silly anti-Catholics who think Catholicism was made up by some evil papal conspiracy, it poses a far more fundamental challenge to your Communion.

In fact your point merely affirms my claim, that the orthodox teachings of the apostles have been preserved in both the East and the West, in other words they have not been corrupted by the Pope at all.

Not necessarily. The Orthodox say that Sacred Tradition *has *been corrupted by the Pope to some extent.

The means by which orthodoxy is preserved is not through the office of the Pope but through the offices of the Apostles. The Orthodox church is blessed with Apostolic Succession in their communions.

This doesn’t make sense in light of your later claim:

It is breaking with the Bishop of Rome that results in loss of doctrine, corruptions of the teachings of the apostles.

I don’t see how these two statements are consistent with each other. I recognize that you modified this statement later, but the point that is particularly inconsistent is the recognition that the Orthodox have apostolic succession, with the implication that this allows them to preserve orthodoxy even in the absence of communion with Rome.

One other point: while your Communion does hold that we Anglicans have broken apostolic succession, I believe that it recognizes the orders of the Old Catholics.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

Hi Edwin,
Would you say that the Doctrine of Justification he faced and challenged in Germany (not necessarily Rome) is that which Rome teaches today? Is the JDDJ a clarfication of doctrine, or of misunderstandings of Luther’s time?

Jon

Well, there are actually at least three things here:

1. Late medieval theologies of justification current in Germany in Luther’s day.
2. The teaching of the Council of Trent.
3. Current RC teaching.

I think that current RC teaching is trying to move away from the overly juridical language of the sixteenth century–Trent’s unfortunate use of “merit,” for instance.

As a Wesleyan, the main substantive problem I have with Trent’s teaching is the claim that one can have the supernatural gift of faith without also having charity. I don’t think the JDDJ addressed this, but I may be wrong. The JDDJ is of more interest to Lutherans, naturally, than to me, since many of the issues Lutherans worry about are not part of my Wesleyan heritage.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

Well, there are actually at least three things here:

1. Late medieval theologies of justification current in Germany in Luther’s day.
2. The teaching of the Council of Trent.
3. Current RC teaching.

I think that current RC teaching is trying to move away from the overly juridical language of the sixteenth century–Trent’s unfortunate use of “merit,” for instance.

As a Wesleyan, the main substantive problem I have with Trent’s teaching is the claim that one can have the supernatural gift of faith without also having charity. I don’t think the JDDJ addressed this, but I may be wrong. The JDDJ is of more interest to Lutherans, naturally, than to me, since many of the issues Lutherans worry about are not part of my Wesleyan heritage.

Edwin

Edwin,
So then, perhaps I ought not say corruptions and abuses, but instead misunderstandings of doctrine by both sides, now being revisited by both sides in dialogue.

Jon

 

[guanophore]

My point was that while the existence of the Orthodox does disprove those silly anti-Catholics who think Catholicism was made up by some evil papal conspiracy, it poses a far more fundamental challenge to your Communion.

Can you elaborate on this Professor Edwin? I have always thought that there are much wors hurdles in the reunification of protestants than Orthodox.

Not necessarily. The Orthodox say that Sacred Tradition *has *been corrupted by the Pope to some extent.

Not just the infallible dogma’s of the pope but councils as well. The insertion of the filoque seems to be just as problematic.

… the recognition that the Orthodox have apostolic succession, with the implication that this allows them to preserve orthodoxy even in the absence of communion with Rome.

I think this is what the Church teaches. Otherwise, she would not afrirm that the sacraments are valid.

One other point: while your Communion does hold that we Anglicans have broken apostolic succession, I believe that it recognizes the orders of the Old Catholics.

Edwin

I think this is one of the elements that is fostering reunification right now.

 

[mark_a]

I’m interested in the historical approach Protestants take to when and where the Roman Church ceased to be the Church of Christ. I often hear Protestants say the early Church was pure, but later corrupted by false teachings. For this to be true, there has to a point that Protestant historians can point to where it can be said, “Now the Catholic Church has broken with the true faith.”

When, and by what particular heresy (or general heresies), do Protestants believe that the Catholic Church broke away from the true Church. In the meantime, what happened to the true Church? Where is its history … its central teachings, its leaders?

I can’t answer the question, but for my money Muhammed and Joseph Smith have had the most success at trying to discredit the Church.

 

[Contarini]

Can you elaborate on this Professor Edwin? I have always thought that there are much wors hurdles in the reunification of protestants than Orthodox.

That’s not what I meant. I meant that the Orthodox claims over against your Communion are much stronger than those of Protestantism. I wasn’t evaluating the likelihood of reconciliation.

Edwin

 

[guanophore]

That’s not what I meant. I meant that the Orthodox claims over against your Communion are much stronger than those of Protestantism. I wasn’t evaluating the likelihood of reconciliation.

Edwin

Yes, this is the meaning I took from it.

However, I don’t understand how you see it that way. We share a much higher percentage of doctrine with the Orthodox, and a large part of the schism was caused by ignorance of differences in language and culture, as well as pride on the part of the leaders at the time. These things have been rectified, and the excommunications were mutually withdrawn.

While there are just a handful of sticking points, I do see that they are serious, just less in number and quality than those with Protestants, who have departed doctrinally. (BTW, I am not thinking of Anglican and Lutheran communions, but the modern American Evangelicals).

 

[Contarini]

Yes, this is the meaning I took from it.

However, I don’t understand how you see it that way. We share a much higher percentage of doctrine with the Orthodox, and a large part of the schism was caused by ignorance of differences in language and culture, as well as pride on the part of the leaders at the time. These things have been rectified, and the excommunications were mutually withdrawn.

While there are just a handful of sticking points, I do see that they are serious, just less in number and quality than those with Protestants, who have departed doctrinally. (BTW, I am not thinking of Anglican and Lutheran communions, but the modern American Evangelicals).

Again, I don’t dispute that the differences are less (though many Orthodox would). My point is that the Orthodox seem to me to have identified the things that really are open to criticism in your Communion. Protestants, by comparison, are stumbling around in the dark shooting at random, because we are an aberrant version of Western Christianity and don’t have the perspective to identify what really went wrong.

If some of the more polemical Orthodox (well, really the mainstream Orthodox, minus the more ecumenical folks like David Hart) are right in saying that Western theology has gone fundamentally wrong by thinking in primarily juridical terms, then that explains both the Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and the Catholic criticisms of Protestantism. Late medieval indulgence theology *and *Luther’s theology of justification can be seen to be two sides of the same juridical coin.

In contrast, Catholic responses to Orthodox criticisms seem to boil down to “everyone hates us and so we must be the true Church.” Catholics are fond of accusing Orthodox of being “anti-Catholic” and simply nursing historical grudges rather than actually grappling with the doctrinal issues.

On the other hand, I am given pause by folks like David Hart, who argue that much modern Orthodox theology does indeed exaggerate the problems with the West. I take Hart very seriously, and I need to study the matter more thoroughly. I don’t think conversion to Orthodoxy is something I’m going to do while I live where I do (though I suppose if I really became convinced that Orthodoxy was true in the terms claimed by most Orthodox apologists, the fact that there is no Orthodox church in my town and that becoming Orthodox would require me to break ties with the church community in which I presently participate would cease to be relevant), so I have some time. I have not really taken Orthodoxy that seriously as an option until this year.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

Again, I don’t dispute that the differences are less (though many Orthodox would). My point is that the Orthodox seem to me to have identified the things that really are open to criticism in your Communion. Protestants, by comparison, are stumbling around in the dark shooting at random, because we are an aberrant version of Western Christianity and don’t have the perspective to identify what really went wrong.

If some of the more polemical Orthodox (well, really the mainstream Orthodox, minus the more ecumenical folks like David Hart) are right in saying that Western theology has gone fundamentally wrong by thinking in primarily juridical terms, then that explains both the Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and the Catholic criticisms of Protestantism. Late medieval indulgence theology *and *Luther’s theology of justification can be seen to be two sides of the same juridical coin.

In contrast, Catholic responses to Orthodox criticisms seem to boil down to “everyone hates us and so we must be the true Church.” Catholics are fond of accusing Orthodox of being “anti-Catholic” and simply nursing historical grudges rather than actually grappling with the doctrinal issues.

On the other hand, I am given pause by folks like David Hart, who argue that much modern Orthodox theology does indeed exaggerate the problems with the West. I take Hart very seriously, and I need to study the matter more thoroughly. I don’t think conversion to Orthodoxy is something I’m going to do while I live where I do (though I suppose if I really became convinced that Orthodoxy was true in the terms claimed by most Orthodox apologists, the fact that there is no Orthodox church in my town and that becoming Orthodox would require me to break ties with the church community in which I presently participate would cease to be relevant), so I have some time. I have not really taken Orthodoxy that seriously as an option until this year.

Edwin

Blessings Edwin! If do not mind me asking,what is your take on women ordination? And no, I am not out to say your congregation is wrong and the RCC is right. I simply like to hear from those who follow that specific Christian tradition to give me their insight.

 

[Contarini]

Blessings Edwin! If do not mind me asking,what is your take on women ordination?

I believe that orthodox Christology (and orthodox theology generally), combined with the assumptions about gender generally held by modern people (including the Pope and others who oppose women’s ordination) point toward women’s ordination. I find the standard Catholic/Orthodox/traditionalist-Anglican arguments against women’s ordination to be extremely poor. It seems to me that the position generally maintained in broadly Catholic (i.e., the three groups mentioned above) circles today breaks with traditional Christian belief far more radically than the practice of women’s ordination does. Such a position (i.e., that masculinity and femininity both fully instantiate human nature, but in complementary and fundamentally different ways, such that women cannot sacramentally share in the priesthood of the male Jesus who is the Church’s bridegroom) denies the traditional view that there is one human nature, and logically implies either that women cannot be saved or that there should be a separate female incarnation. Since both of these views are clearly heretical, it seems to me that (unless we are to return to the view that women are imperfect men) women’s ordination is in fact the orthodox position.

I state this in some detail because it’s different than the stereotype most conservatives hold of the pro-women’s ordination position (in other words, I assume no feminist principles beyond those commonly held by my opponents, and rest my case on traditional Christian theological principles). I have argued this many times on this forum (rarely meeting with an argument that even attempted to engage what I was actually saying, rather than simply repeating the standard cliches), and don’t want to do so here (we can start another thread if you want to).

However, I am only too aware that I am fallible and that my cultural bias may be distorting my judgment. Therefore, I would be willing to submit to the mind of the Church on this matter, if I decided on other grounds to become Catholic or Orthodox. A complicating factor is that my wife is a much stronger and more convinced advocate of women’s ordination than I am.

Edwin

 

[JonNC]

A complicating factor is that my wife is a much stronger and more convinced advocate of women’s ordination than I am.

Edwin

Always a very complicating factor, Edwin. I know the feeling quite well on a number of topics not limited to faith.

Jon

 

[Nicea325]

I believe that orthodox Christology (and orthodox theology generally), combined with the assumptions about gender generally held by modern people (including the Pope and others who oppose women’s ordination) point toward women’s ordination. I find the standard Catholic/Orthodox/traditionalist-Anglican arguments against women’s ordination to be extremely poor. It seems to me that the position generally maintained in broadly Catholic (i.e., the three groups mentioned above) circles today breaks with traditional Christian belief far more radically than the practice of women’s ordination does. Such a position (i.e., that masculinity and femininity both fully instantiate human nature, but in complementary and fundamentally different ways, such that women cannot sacramentally share in the priesthood of the male Jesus who is the Church’s bridegroom) denies the traditional view that there is one human nature, and logically implies either that women cannot be saved or that there should be a separate female incarnation. Since both of these views are clearly heretical, it seems to me that (unless we are to return to the view that women are imperfect men) women’s ordination is in fact the orthodox position.

I state this in some detail because it’s different than the stereotype most conservatives hold of the pro-women’s ordination position (in other words, I assume no feminist principles beyond those commonly held by my opponents, and rest my case on traditional Christian theological principles). I have argued this many times on this forum (rarely meeting with an argument that even attempted to engage what I was actually saying, rather than simply repeating the standard cliches), and don’t want to do so here (we can start another thread if you want to).

However, I am only too aware that I am fallible and that my cultural bias may be distorting my judgment. Therefore, I would be willing to submit to the mind of the Church on this matter, if I decided on other grounds to become Catholic or Orthodox. A complicating factor is that my wife is a much stronger and more convinced advocate of women’s ordination than I am.

Edwin

Thanks for your insight. Do mind,if I ask your cultural background?

Peace!

 

[Contarini]

Thanks for your insight. Do mind,if I ask your cultural background?

Peace!

I don’t quite know what you mean by that. My mother’s family were Americans–my grandmother the daughter of working-class German immigrants, my grandfather from wealthier Anglo-American stock (his father and uncle were self-made entrepeneurs who owned a chain of cheap hotels in Chicago before founding their own small “Holiness” denomination; his mother was from a more traditionally upper-class background and was disowned by her father for marrying a fanatical Methodist preacher). My grandparents went to Scotland to run a Holiness Bible College, but eventually split away from their church and founded their own non-denominational evangelistic organization in northern England and the Midlands. My father’s folks were fishermen and farmers from the Shetland Islands–my paternal grandparents emigrated to Australia when my dad was a year old. He came back to Britain when he was 18, visited my maternal grandparents’ mission where his aunt worked, had a conversion experience, and eventually married my mother. We moved back to the States when I was six, and after living in Indiana for a year and a half we moved to East Tennessee. I grew up in the woods 13 miles from the town where we mostly did our shopping. We rarely watched TV and never went to the movies. The house was full of books–mostly old-fashioned evangelical literature, but some secular classics as well. My family ran their own publishing company, specializing in biographies (basically evangelical hagiography) and collections of devotional readings. I was homeschooled until I was 15, when I started attending a small Christian liberal arts college about 20 miles away. I commuted, and my mother went with me–she had never received a college/university degree, but she had a grammar-school education in England before the school system went comprehensive. We graduated together. I worked for the family business, tutored homeschoolers, taught piano, helped my family take humanitarian aid to Romania and work on arranging the translation of our books, and read a lot of church history for two years, after which I went to Duke to pursue a Ph.D.

This is very long-winded, but I wasn’t sure exactly what sort of information you were after, and my “cultural background” is rather complicated.

Edwin

 

[Nicea325]

I don’t quite know what you mean by that. My mother’s family were Americans–my grandmother the daughter of working-class German immigrants, my grandfather from wealthier Anglo-American stock (his father and uncle were self-made entrepeneurs who owned a chain of cheap hotels in Chicago before founding their own small “Holiness” denomination; his mother was from a more traditionally upper-class background and was disowned by her father for marrying a fanatical Methodist preacher). My grandparents went to Scotland to run a Holiness Bible College, but eventually split away from their church and founded their own non-denominational evangelistic organization in northern England and the Midlands. My father’s folks were fishermen and farmers from the Shetland Islands–my paternal grandparents emigrated to Australia when my dad was a year old. He came back to Britain when he was 18, visited my maternal grandparents’ mission where his aunt worked, had a conversion experience, and eventually married my mother. We moved back to the States when I was six, and after living in Indiana for a year and a half we moved to East Tennessee. I grew up in the woods 13 miles from the town where we mostly did our shopping. We rarely watched TV and never went to the movies. The house was full of books–mostly old-fashioned evangelical literature, but some secular classics as well. My family ran their own publishing company, specializing in biographies (basically evangelical hagiography) and collections of devotional readings. I was homeschooled until I was 15, when I started attending a small Christian liberal arts college about 20 miles away. I commuted, and my mother went with me–she had never received a college/university degree, but she had a grammar-school education in England before the school system went comprehensive. We graduated together. I worked for the family business, tutored homeschoolers, taught piano, helped my family take humanitarian aid to Romania and work on arranging the translation of our books, and read a lot of church history for two years, after which I went to Duke to pursue a Ph.D.

This is very long-winded, but I wasn’t sure exactly what sort of information you were after, and my “cultural background” is rather complicated.

Edwin

Very interesting background,thank you for sharing.Congratulations on your Ph.D. I earned my B.A. in History back in 1992 and an MBA in 2004. I too have read church history and enjoy it. Do you own The Faith of the Early Fathers by William A. Jurgens - Catholic Book, 3 Volumes, of theological and historical passages from the writings of the early Church Fathers? Great source for early church fathers.

 

[rinnie]

[SIGN][/SIGN]

Again, I don’t dispute that the differences are less (though many Orthodox would). My point is that the Orthodox seem to me to have identified the things that really are open to criticism in your Communion. Protestants, by comparison, are stumbling around in the dark shooting at random, because we are an aberrant version of Western Christianity and don’t have the perspective to identify what really went wrong.

If some of the more polemical Orthodox (well, really the mainstream Orthodox, minus the more ecumenical folks like David Hart) are right in saying that Western theology has gone fundamentally wrong by thinking in primarily juridical terms, then that explains both the Protestant criticisms of Catholicism and the Catholic criticisms of Protestantism. Late medieval indulgence theology *and *Luther’s theology of justification can be seen to be two sides of the same juridical coin.

[SIGN]In contrast, Catholic responses to Orthodox criticisms seem to boil down to “everyone hates us and so we must be the true Church.” [/SIGN]Catholics are fond of accusing Orthodox of being “anti-Catholic” and simply nursing historical grudges rather than actually grappling with the doctrinal issues.

On the other hand, I am given pause by folks like David Hart, who argue that much modern Orthodox theology does indeed exaggerate the problems with the West. I take Hart very seriously, and I need to study the matter more thoroughly. I don’t think conversion to Orthodoxy is something I’m going to do while I live where I do (though I suppose if I really became convinced that Orthodoxy was true in the terms claimed by most Orthodox apologists, the fact that there is no Orthodox church in my town and that becoming Orthodox would require me to break ties with the church community in which I presently participate would cease to be relevant), so I have some time. I have not really taken Orthodoxy that seriously as an option until this year.

Edwin

Oh now come on Edwin you got to give us more credit then that. But honestly now that you said it, do you agree with it? Do you not agree that the CC is the most persecuted in the world.

And yes the CC does claim to be the True Church I will agree with you on that.

But what that phrase means is if the CC does anything it lives forever. Let our Pope be human one minute of his life and he is crucified for years, and you have to agree that is true.

And wonder why, If a Pope does something or Bishop or Priest they are held to much higher standards then any other Religion. Would you not at least agree with that?

 

[JonNC]

But honestly now that you said it, do you agree with it? Do you not agree that the CC is the most persecuted in the world.

Hope you don’t mind if I answer rinnie? My answer is no! I believe, particularly in the last century, and probably through history, the Orthodox churches have been far more persecuted that any western Christian can conceive. Whether it be in the Old Soviet Union and her occupied states in Eastern Europe, to parts of the Islamic Middle East, the eastern Orthodox have had it much worse. When we as Christians say the gates of hell will not prevail aginst His Church, the Orthodox are the prime example of that truth.

Jon

 

[Contarini]

Oh now come on Edwin you got to give us more credit then that. But honestly now that you said it, do you agree with it? Do you not agree that the CC is the most persecuted in the world.

It’s the biggest, so it gets more attention, positive and negative.

I don’t know how one would measure what church is the “most persecuted,” and I think that since there is no clear way to substantiate the claim, it just makes Catholics look whiny. Especially given how much persecuting the Catholic Church itself has done.

This is one of those really bad moves that leave me scratching my head–why does anyone think this is effective apologetics?

And wonder why, If a Pope does something or Bishop or Priest they are held to much higher standards then any other Religion. Would you not at least agree with that?

It isn’t surprising, given the nature of Catholic claims and the immense power that the Catholic Church has wielded historically. I’m not sure it’s actually true–I think that the kind of negative attention religious leaders get is primarily a function of the size and importance of the institutions they lead, and secondarily a function of the extent to which they have taken moral stances that the secular media find harsh or “self-righteous” (almost a meaningless concept as it’s used today). Since the Pope is the leader of the largest religious organization in the world (probably the largest organization of any kind except for the U.N. and the People’s Republic of China!), and since the Catholic Church takes stands that are unpopular with the secular world, the negative attention the Pope gets is quite understandable. Most Catholics wouldn’t behave any different if the situation were reversed–people on this forum routinely gloat over any kind of failure or scandal among those with whom they disagree.

Ted Haggard got a lot of this kind of negative attention, because he was the “leader” of an umbrella organization of American evangelicals, and because he had spoken out a lot against homosexuality and generally in favor of conservative Christian moral teaching.

I wish Catholics would just accept that all the flak is the result of their prominent position in the world, and stop whining about it so much.

Edwin

 

[rinnie]

Always a very complicating factor, Edwin. I know the feeling quite well on a number of topics not limited to faith.

Jon

And you must agree also Jon that us women do have a way of getting our way