The Catholic Church: Declining or Reviving?

The world at large became uncomfortably aware of the Roman Catholic Church's sexual abuse scandal in the mid-1990s, when news of priestly pederasty sparked a public outcry against both the occurrence of such perversion and the Church's lackluster response to it. However, the problem is far older. As early as the 1950s, bishops were routinely sending abusive priests to various "facilities" operated by the Church for therapy—either spiritual or psychological—but clearly, the Church, which mandates a celibate clergy, had been dealing privately with such deviants for a very long time.

A series of criminal cases have made national and international headlines. In a 1981 case widely covered by the media, a priest from the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Father Donald Roemer, pled guilty to felonious sexual abuse of a minor. Four years later, Gilbert Gauthe, a priest from Louisiana, pled guilty to 11 counts of molestation of boys. Even so, it took a Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé by The Boston Globe in 2002 to bring the scandal to real prominence, encouraging many victims to come forward with their stories of abuse, as well as lawsuits against the offending priests and the Church.

Coincidentally, a 1980 abusive priest case in Munich, Germany, came to the attention of the Archbishop there at the time, Joseph Ratzinger, who is now Pope Benedict XVI. He has recently been accused of covering up the abuse—just as many bishops and archbishops all over the world seem to have done routinely—by reassigning the offender to another parish or other duties, rather than defrocking him and remanding the case to civilian justice.

Later, as head of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Catholic Church's enforcer of orthodoxy, Cardinal Ratzinger had oversight of these cases under Pope John Paul II. Yet, during that time, the Church continued to handle the bulk of them internally and with great secrecy. For instance, in response to one case, Ratzinger wrote:

This court, although it regards the arguments presented in favor of removal [from the priesthood] in this case to be of grave significance, nevertheless deems it necessary to consider the good of the universal church together with that of the petitioner, and it is also unable to make light of the detriment that granting the dispensation can provoke with the community of Christ's faithful, particularly regarding the young age of the petitioner [a pederast priest who was 38 years old at the time].¹

Because of such statements seeming to give greater weight to the Church's needs than the victims', radical atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins have gone so far as to demand that the Pope be prosecuted for crimes against humanity for his role in covering up abuse by priests. However, in this instance, Hitchens and Dawkins have misrepresented the facts. When Ratzinger wrote this, the offender had long before been removed from all pastoral duties and contact with parishioners, and what is more, had already been convicted and sentenced for his crimes!² Evidently, the Church hierarchy desired the priest to leave the priesthood on his own (which he did after completing his prison sentence) to avoid provoking a crisis of confidence among church members. It got the crisis anyway.

This ongoing scandal, along with rampant secularism and humanism in the Western world, has made many wonder if we are witnessing the slow demise of the Roman Catholic Church—and by extension, of Christianity.³ The political power of the Pope and the Church's various institutions has waned considerably in recent years—certainly since John Paul II's triumph over Communism in Eastern Europe. Its moral authority has similarly declined as leaks of abusive priests, vicious intra-Curia feuds, and even Vatican ties to Nazi Germany have made headlines around the world.

Nevertheless, we should not be so quick to toss the Catholic Church into the dustbin of history. It is a nearly 2,000-year-old institution with deep ties to Europe's most powerful elites and multiple billions of dollars in assets around the world, including universities, nonprofit organizations, and think-tanks. While the sexual abuse scandal is certainly embarrassing and annoying, it does not have the power to bring down the world's largest Christian denomination. On the contrary, the scandal is showing signs of actually strengthening the Church.

Some Vatican watchers wonder aloud if the 83-year-old Benedict XVI can use the scandal to force a scouring, whether selective or wholesale, of the Curia, the central governing body of the Church. Most, however, do not believe that he can accomplish this at this point in his papacy. He may have the clout to force out a few of the older cardinals, particularly those who have championed the traditional cover-up policy, replacing them with younger cardinals loyal to him and his conservative theology. But a more sweeping housecleaning may be too long-term a project for the aging pontiff.

More likely, the Pope will use the scandals as a catalyst for reformation within the Church. Conservative cardinals and bishops consider this crisis to be an opportunity to emphasize the traditional, orthodox doctrines of Catholicism—particularly its teachings on sexual matters, including priestly celibacy—and they are willing to go so far as to reject and even excommunicate Catholics who will not toe the line. Benedict XVI may utter profound apologies where these abuse cases are prevalent, and he may go so far as to repeat the Day of Pardon (enacted by John Paul II in March 12, 2000, to confess the Church's historical sins) to atone for the hierarchy's errors during this crisis. As his nicknames, the "Panzer Cardinal" and "God's Rottweiler," suggest, this Pope's tendency is to go on the offensive to encourage and enforce greater orthodoxy among the faithful.

While the Catholic Church may take a momentary drubbing in the court of public opinion, it is old and strong enough to endure the beating and come out swinging in the next round. As it has done several times during its history—through the fall of Rome, barbarian invasions, the Renaissance, the Reformation, the Enlightenment, and the onslaught of modern and post-modern ideas—it will adapt to the vicissitudes of societal change and maintain its dominant place among the professing Christian churches of this world.


---------------------------------------

Endnotes

1 Dawkins, Richard, "The Pope Should Stand Trial," The Guardian, April 13, 2010 (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/13/pope-prosecution-dawkins).

2 Mees, Paul, "Here's a Crazy Idea: What If the Pope Is Innocent?" Crikey.com.au, April 23, 2010 (http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/04/23/here%E2%80%99s-a-crazy-idea-what-if-the-pope-is-innocent/).

3 Israely, Jeff, & Chua-Eoan, Howard, "The Trial of Pope Benedict XVI," Time, May 27, 2010 (http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1992171,00.html).

Do You Believe—Really Believe?

The death of Pope John Paul II and the election of Pope Benedict XVI made the Catholic Church—and the Catholic faith—front-page news around the globe. At least three days of wall-to-wall airtime were devoted to the Pope's death, his funeral, and the new Pope's election, and during this exclusive coverage, talking heads discussed wide-ranging linking topics, such as priestly celibacy, contraception, abortion, ordination of women, the centrality of Mary, the church's opposition to the Iraq war, and various other tenets of Catholicism. The news reporting also showed the world a great deal of the traditional ritual, liturgy, and trappings of the Vatican.

This week was also the lead-up to the Passover, so there have been a few articles, reports, and shows on Jewish beliefs and practices too. One public television show that I viewed briefly Thursday night employed an actor to recite and explain the whole traditional Pesach Seder. Each word and movement are carefully ordered (the meaning of the Hebrew word seder) so that nothing untoward creeps into the ritual. I was also reminded this week of how the Jews have combined the Passover—commanded by God to be kept on the fourteenth day of the first month—with the first day of Unleavened Bread—a holy day celebrated on the fifteenth day. By doing this, they have lost much of the meaning of both days.

We were also recently treated to the Anglican blessing of the marriage of Prince Charles to Camilla Parker-Bowles. Although the actual vows were spoken before a civil officer, the groom's mother, Queen Elizabeth II, who is also the head of the English church, permitted her son and new daughter-in-law this blessing if they confessed to their sinful premarital relationship. With the usual English pomp and circumstance, both priests and the royal couple read selections from the English Book of Prayer, sang a hymn or two, and looked contrite, and all was forgiven. For all this, the Prince of Wales gets to marry his longtime paramour, and Camilla receives a vaunted title, Duchess of Cornwall (she also can use "Princess of Wales," but for decorum's sake—at least for the time being—she has said she will refrain).

What is the common denominator in these three items? Each of the three religions claims the Bible, in whole or in part, as their source of belief and practice, but none of them seems to care that what they espouse and observe does not square with biblical teaching! Where does the Bible command priestly celibacy, the use of the title "Holy Father" for a man, or even the office of "Vicar of Christ"? Where does the Old Testament ordain the rigid formula of the Seder or allow Passover and the Night To Be Much Observed to be combined? In what epistle does God give a monarch authority over the church or permit and reward wanton, extramarital behavior in its next leader?

All of these religions are highly traditional faiths—to the extent that tradition has gained dominance in their practices, particularly in their rituals and governance. Jesus, of course, lambasted the Pharisees, the originators of the current rabbinical Judaism, on just this point:

. . . you have made the commandment of God of no effect by your tradition. Hypocrites! Well did Isaiah prophesy about you, saying, "These people draw near to Me with their mouth, and honor Me with their lips, but their heart is far from Me. And in vain they worship Me, teaching as doctrine the commandments of men." (Matthew 15:6-9)

Tradition in religion is a wonderful thing when it has a firm basis in the truth of God, but it becomes a deceitful and corrupting influence when its foundations are in the shifting sands of human thought. It is especially diabolical when it masquerades as rich and sublime while actually directly contradicting God's Word! This, for instance, is the case with calling the Pope "Holy Father." What blasphemy! Jesus Himself instructs His disciples, "Do not call anyone on earth your father; for One is your Father, He who is in heaven" (Matthew 23:9). No matter how saintly a man any Pope might seem, he can never even in the smallest way be comparable to God the Father!

Truly, "now we see in a mirror, dimly" when it comes to the revelation of God; none of us has God's Word down perfectly. Nevertheless, there is a wide gulf between sincere seeking of God's revealed truth and blatant disregard for the plain teachings of Scripture! Keeping tradition despite God's commandment to the contrary is nothing less than idolatry—exalting human ideas and desires above God's. It is what has become known as humanism, and it is an identifying mark of false religion.

God's true church has and follows the Bible, God's Instruction Book for Christian practice, which is what religion is. It resists outside intrusions of worldly philosophies and measures all new ideas against pure, confirmed, God-breathed Word (II Peter 1:19-21). On the other side, false religions have eaten of the fruit of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9, 17; 3:1-11), mixing godly teaching with false, human self-righteousness. It is an extremely simple test but highly effective in exposing false or corrupted faiths.

Jesus says straightforwardly, "This is the work of God, that you believe in Him whom He sent" (John 6:29). God's efforts are engaged in getting us to believe in Jesus, sure, but believing in Jesus is far more than accepting that He died for the forgiveness of our sins—it is believing what He said for our instruction and what He lived as an example to us. It is following Him, imitating Him, obeying Him, and becoming more and more like Him every day!

So, do we really believe Him? Or, are we just treading water, ignorantly or even willfully continuing in the traditions of our parents because we are too lazy, too content, or too fearful to follow the truth? God is seeking men and women to worship Him in spirit and truth (John 4:23), and these are the ones who really believe. Are we among them? Have we examined ourselves "as to whether [we] are in the faith" (II Corinthians 13:5)? Do we really and truly believe?