What major institution most deserves the title of greatest force for evil in the world? In a field of stiff competition, the Roman Catholic Church is surely up there among the leaders.
–Atheist/scientist Richard Dawkins, apparently confusing one of the world’s largest providers of charity, hospitals, and schools for China, North Korea, Cuba, the Soviet Union, Pol Pot’s Cambodia and other atheist regimes that have killed over 100 million people in the last century, in a piece in which the word “bigots” is used in the title entirely without irony
(Via MCJ–be sure to read Chris Johnson’s entire fisking of Dawkins’ hate-filled screed.)
October 30, 2009 at 9:37 am
Heh.
I thought being an atheist was supposed to make one less likely to fall for logical fallacies like this one, which is essentially an argument from tradition. Even if one accepts the premise that the Catholic church has always been evil, the conclusion does not follow from the premise that it will (or should) therefore always be evil in the future.
That quote is an excellent refutation of the atheist argument that without religion people would be rational. Just goes to show that in the battle for control over the (religious or atheistic) fundamentalist brain, reason almost always loses.
October 31, 2009 at 12:44 pm
Does not the Catholic church teach (1) salvation by works and (2) there are other sources of revelation than the Bible that are equally valid as the Bible?
How many people think that they are going to heaven because they go to confession and Mass and communion regularly, reverence their patron saints, etc., etc.?
The Catholic church’s departure from the gospel does in fact make it one of the most evil institutions of the day. In this Amreican age of tolerance and generally fuzzy theology, there’s been a romance (no other word can describe it) with Catholics for the last 15 years or so. But Catholic theology is still as wrong and fatlly misleading as ever.
October 31, 2009 at 1:39 pm
You know you’re in the Twilight Zone when a conservative Protestant will take the side of a militant atheist as long as the atheist is trashing the Catholic Church. The very same thing happened in an email discussion group I belong to.
It’s silly … do you seriously think Dawkins gives a rat’s patootie about justification by faith when he attacks the Catholic Church? And you must be aware that he holds evangelical Protestantism in at least as much contempt as he holds Roman Catholicism.
Finally … according to Evangelicals and Catholics Together, all sides agree that we are indeed justified by grace, and cannot achieve salvation by any works.
October 31, 2009 at 1:45 pm
Here is a portion of the ECT declaration on salvation:
Justification is central to the scriptural account of salvation, and its meaning has been much debated between Protestants and Catholics. We agree that justification is not earned by any good works or merits of our own; it is entirely God’s gift, conferred through the Father’s sheer graciousness, out of the love that he bears us in his Son, who suffered on our behalf and rose from the dead for our justification. Jesus was “put to death for our trespasses and raised for our justification” (Romans 4:25). In justification, God, on the basis of Christ’s righteousness alone, declares us to be no longer his rebellious enemies but his forgiven friends, and by virtue of his declaration it is so.
The New Testament makes it clear that the gift of justification is received through faith. “By grace you have been saved through faith; and this is not your own doing, it is the gift of God” (Ephesians 2:8). By faith, which is also the gift of God, we repent of our sins and freely adhere to the gospel, the good news of God’s saving work for us in Christ. By our response of faith to Christ, we enter into the blessings promised by the gospel. Faith is not merely intellectual assent but an act of the whole person, involving the mind, the will, and the affections, issuing in a changed life. We understand that what we here affirm is in agreement with what the Reformation traditions have meant by justification by faith alone (solafide).
October 31, 2009 at 1:47 pm
And finally … a list of the signers of the ECT statement on salvation (the statement is from 1997):
Dr. Gerald L. Bray (Beeson Divinity School)
Dr. Bill Bright (Campus Crusade for Christ)
Dr. Harold O. J. Brown (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
Mr. Charles Colson (Prison Fellowship)
Bishop William C. Frey (Episcopal Church)
Dr. Timothy George (Beeson Divinity School)
Dr. Os Guinness (The Trinity Forum)
Dr. Kent R. Hill (Eastern Nazarene College)
The Rev. Max Lucado (Oak Hills Church of Christ, San Antonio, Texas)
Dr. T. M. Moore (Chesapeake Theological Seminary)
Dr. Richard Mouw (Fuller Theological Seminary)
Dr. Mark A. Noll (Wheaton College)
Mr. Brian F. O’Connell (Interdev)
Dr. Thomas Oden (Drew University)
Dr. James I. Packer (Regent College, British Columbia)
Dr. Timothy R. Phillips (Wheaton College)
Dr. John Rodgers (Trinity Episcopal School for Ministry)
Dr. John Woodbridge (Trinity Evangelical Divinity School)
ROMAN CATHOLICS
Fr. James J. Buckley (Loyola College in Maryland)
Fr. J. A. Di Noia, O. P. (Dominican House of Studies)
Fr. Avery Dulles, S. J. (Fordham University)
Fr. Thomas Guarino (Seton Hall University)
Dr. Peter Kreeft (Boston College)
Fr. Matthew L. Lamb (Boston College)
Fr. Eugene LaVerdiere, S. S. S. (Emmanuel)
Fr. Francis Martin (John Paul 11 Institute for Studies on Marriage and Family)
Mr. Ralph Martin (Renewal Ministries)
Fr. Richard John Neuhaus (Religion and Public Life)
Mr. Michael Novak (American Enterprise Institute)
Fr. Edward Oakes, S. J. (Regis University)
Fr. Thomas P. Rausch S. J. (Loyola Marymount University)
Mr. George Weigel (Ethics and Public Policy Center)
Dr. Robert Louis Wilken (University of Virginia
October 31, 2009 at 10:34 pm
A couple of thoughts to this discussion:
1) I don’t want to agree with Richard Dawkins at all on this point. From at least a secular perspective, David’s point is valid, and we should even as reformed Christians agree with him (David).
2) The ECT document is probably not as helpful as you would imagine. R.C. Sproul and James Montgomery Boice both spoke out against that document with their series of seminars called “Here We Stand”, if I remember correctly.
3) The big problem in the ECT document is the E itself. What does it mean to be evangelical today. Everything from Open Theism, Oneness theology, Arminianism to Reformed Christianity is considered Evangelical. While I won’t say that these Evangelicals are not Christian, nor will I say that Catholics aren’t Christian either, there are very significant errors in Theology in both the “Evangelical” and Catholic camps. For the ECT document to really work, there really probably should be a corresponding EET document, Evangelicals and Evangelicals together, so that evangelicals will agree on theology.+ That, at this point, is perhaps not likely.
4) The final point is that a month ago on this very blog, there was a modest discussion about Antichrist, and whether the Pope should be so considered like the reformers considered him to be, and the older editions of the Westminster Confession considered him to be. If the Pope is the Antichrist, does that make him more evil than say, Hitler? Those are very tricky questions, and perhaps not helpful questions, though Dawkins’ comment certainly raises those very questions.
Just a few thoughts that I hope are at least modestly helpful.
November 1, 2009 at 7:15 am
I’ve looked at ECT, and I don’t see the Pope’s signature. Nor any cardinals. Nor any bishops anywhere in the world. Nor any of the congregations of the Vatican curia. Why not, if this is indeed what the Catholic church teaches? They’ve had 15 years or so to consider it–why haven’t any of them endorsed it–not one single RC bishop in the entire world? could it be that they in fact disagree with it?
Also, what has happened in the 15 years after ECT? Has the Catholic church disavowed its doctrines of salvation by works (what else could be the purpose of purgatory, indulgences, etc.?) Is there full intercommunion? Do we recognize each others’ ordinations (orders)?
In fact, ECT has gone nowhere, and almost everyone has forgotten. This fate is consistent with rabbi Gamaliel’s dictum (Acts 5:38): “If this plan or action is of men, it will be overthrown.” ECT was just of men, not of God, and it has gone nowhere. Res ipsa loquitur.
November 1, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I am sorry for the several posts … I could not edit my first one and had to add more.
Thank yous are in order to Doug and Tom for engaging the work of ECT.
I referred to the ECT declaration (and there have been several more written since 1997) because I believe the signers are a good cross section of genuine Evangelicals and Roman Catholics who give an honest appraisal of their faith. IOW, I choose to trust their veracity and sincerity. Maybe I’m mistaken to do so, but I really don’t think any of these individuals is being duplicitous.
BTW, Avery Dulles was elevated to Cardinal in 2000 or 2001, I believe. And the other Catholics on the list strive to be faithful to their church’s orthodoxy. Richard John Neuhaus, for one, had an excellent sense of what the Vatican teaches. So unless he was lying about what Catholics believe (along with every other Catholic signing the document), this document does indeed accurately reflect what the Roman Catholic Church teaches today about salvation by grace through faith.
And the evangelical signers include many men that I implictly trust.
So unless all of these men, generally known as intelligent and honorable, are engaged in an exercise in duplicity and venality … well, I think ECT makes worthwhile points.
November 1, 2009 at 5:15 pm
“You know you’re in the Twilight Zone when a conservative Protestant will take the side of a militant atheist as long as the atheist is trashing the Catholic Church.”
And when a liberal Christian trashes the atheist on the very same post. I’d be the last person to defend the Catholic Church on any number of issues, but to claim that it is the greatest force for evil in the world is insane.
*cue Twilight Zone music*
November 1, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Sigh … I did it again … missed something and I cannot add it to a previous post. I’m 42 and ready for assisted living.
Anyway … several Catholic Bishops and even an Archbishop signed the original ECT Declaration from 1994. One of them was Francis George, then Bishop of Yakima, now Archbishop of Chicago. You can’t get much more Catholic than that. I mean, would George (or Dulles, or Neuhaus for that matter) consciously sign something that the Pope would have opposed? Unless of course they are simply lying to the world, which is theoretically possible but I just don’t see it.
November 1, 2009 at 8:58 pm
OK, help me out. If salvation is a free gift, what are the purposes of purgatory, indulgences, etc?
November 1, 2009 at 10:52 pm
Tom, I am not a Roman Catholic theologian, but I can tell you from my study that truly knowledgeable Catholics absolutely believe in salvation by faith alone, and that coming from God and not a human work.
The doctrines of purgatory and indulgences have to do with the concept of temporal (temporary, time-based) punishments required for sins committed. The saving work of Christ removes the eternal punishment of sin — that is, hell — from the equation for believers. No indulgence can ever give one salvation or eternal life; a person who does not receive the gift of salvation through faith alone will be eternally damned.
However, just because one has been justified and declared righteous does not mean that they are actually indeed righteous; that’s the work of sanctification. According to RC teaching, if someone has not been completely sanctified in this life and done penance for the temporal punishment of sin, that person would be in purgatory for an unknown period of time until the person had indeed been temporally punished for their sins and brought into complete sanctification by the Holy Spirit, making them able to enter the presence of God.
It’s a complicated system, ultimately, based on the RC belief that sin has two different forms of punishment, one eternal and one time-based, and that Jesus gave us salvation by freeing believers from eternal damnation while still allowing for believers to be punished for a limited time for their sins in order to eventually be truly holy, whether in this life or the next.
Indulgences are forms of penance that, in essence, are particularly effective at reducing one’s temporal sin debt. For example, http://www.catholic.com talks about an indulgence that was worth “300 days” meant that doing the work of that one particular indulgence would be equivalent to a person saying a prayer each day over the course of 300 days as penance. This rating of indulgences by days has changed, and indulgences are either partial or plenary, giving either partial or complete satisfaction for the temporal punishment of a particular sin. Indulgences require some work (praying a prayer or a rosary or, surprisingly enough, reading the Bible) but are not salvific. They can, however, be done on behalf of someone in purgatory to relieve them of some of the punishment they must endure.
The selling of indulgences, which was Luther’s chief problem, was banned by the church in his era, though Luther was absolutely right to condemn its abuses (which were admittedly huge and admitted even in Catholic circles).
Protestant theology, on the other hand, declares that the justified person does not necessarily have to be completely sanctified in this life and will still go into the presence of God upon death and/or resurrection. Wesleyan theology says that entire sanctification is possible in this life, while Reformed theology denies it. However, most forms of both theological viewpoints say that upon death, the Christian is entirely sanctified by the Holy Spirit. Protestant theology says that the atoning sacrifice of Jesus paid for sin totally, not just the eternal consequence of damnation but also any temporal penalties. While we may face temporal punishments in this life that are consequences of our sins, we do not have additional consequences besides those that are naturally occurring. That is to say, we don’t have to do acts of penance to decrease some vague temporal punishment that’s attached to a specific sin we’ve committed. This frees the Protestant to do acts of charity and kindness thankful for God’s grace and mercy without the thought of essentially working off some temporal sin debt.
OK, getting out of theological and down to the nitty gritty:
1. The doctrines of purgatory and indulgences are based on certain readings from the Apocrypha and the New Testament, bolstered by arguments from certain church fathers (including ones we Protestants love like Augustine). However, they are by no means clear in Scripture in any sense.
2. We have clear disagreement as Protestants on these issues and should make those disagreements known. But let’s also be blunt — certain Reformed documents like the Westminster Confession also raise possibilities that are not crystal clear in Scripture like supralapsarianism to dogma.
3. We should make certain that we are all clearly teaching the central doctrines of the church universal and making sure they are understood, believed, followed, and obeyed. We may claim that many Catholics believe they are saved by going to mass and praying to Mary and what not, and that’s true due to a lack of teaching on salvation. But many Protestants believe they are saved just by going to church once a week too, and they are just as wrong.
OK, that’s enough…bedtime…
November 2, 2009 at 11:45 am
I’m not a Catholic, but I really like Pope Benedict. Whether you agree with his theology or not, he at least is true to the church he represents. (Plus he’s a cat person, so he can’t be all bad!)
November 2, 2009 at 5:46 pm
Jason,
Thank you for taking the time to craft a good answer to Tom’s well-taken question. It was something I planned to “get to” but it would have taken me a lot longer to give it the attention it deserved.
November 3, 2009 at 3:09 pm
I have found this discussion both interesting and frustrating.
First, I have a very high respect for the Catholic church’s good works and high morals (excluding their response to pedophile priests).
Secondly, while I appreciate John E’s position siding with ECT, the reality is that ECT has been shown to have represented a very shallow understanding of Catholic theology on the issue of salvation by Grace through faith.
It ignored the issue of baptismal regeneration.
It ignored the fact that Catholic theology has equated Grace with the Sacraments and the reception of Grace with the reception of the Sacraments.
It ignored the views of Catholics on the “surplus merits of Mary and the Saints”.
The issues of purgatory, which has to do with the purifying works that lead to salvation.
It ignored the Catholic position on faith being equivalent to submission to the church & it’s teaching.
Vatican II was explicitly universalist through a “baptism of desire”.
November 3, 2009 at 7:58 pm
Jason, thanks for the answer. All I can do is list the Catholic teachers who disagree with you 100%:
Sister Mary Vincent, OP
Mrs. Doris Masio
Sister Mary Jonathan, OP
Mrs. Mary Ruane
Sister Mary Michaela, OP
Sister Mary Regina, OP
Sister Mary Claire, OP
Father James Hanley, SJ
Mr. John Keating, SJ
Father William Breault, SJ
Father William Ryan, SJ.
That is to say, every one of my teachers at the Catholic grade school and high school I attended.
But don’t take my word for it. Let me issue this challenge. Go to the nearest Catholic church. Stop people as they come out of Mass. Ask them (1) if they know they are going to heaven, and (2) why they think they will or will not go to heaven.
Tom
November 3, 2009 at 10:34 pm
Tom,
I have no doubt you are correct. As a Presbyterian minister in a highly Catholic area — 80% of my congregation is linked in some fashion with Roman Catholicism and many of the wives who attend have RC husbands — I can say that the laity is usually misinformed about Catholic doctrine, and a high number of RC priests probably fall into the same category. One might ask, what good is official theology if the average person in the pew understands it or practices by it?
But of course, we in the Protestant arena need to be just as clear on what we believe. I can tell you how in the last year I’ve preached over and over again the need for faith and how faith in Christ (proven by but not merited through repentance and works) is the means of accepting Christ’s salvation. But there are plenty who still want to be “good people.” Even good doctrine preached rightly often falls on ears not yet ready to hear. If it’s true when we are doing things “right,” then how much harder is it to believe when your church (or in this case the local RC church) doesn’t even preach these things?
November 3, 2009 at 10:35 pm
Meant to say, “What good is official theology if the average person in the pew doesn’t understand it or practice by it?”