To David: Letter 1 to An Anti-Catholic

Dear David,

When I discovered the website, Roman Catholic Faith Examined!, I noted that you had attempted at least one debate with a Catholic and were starting another. I am not much for debates, however, curiosity about you immediately directed my attention to your testimony, "Why I Left the Catholic Faith."

After revealing that you had two brothers studying to be priests (did either complete the formation?), you relate that the first reason you left the Catholic Church was because Catholics do not have a right attitude toward the truth. This made me stop for a moment. I have known Protestants with the same negative attitude you attribute to Catholics. They would never inspect a Catholic bible, read a Papal encyclical, or study such a wordy volume as the new universal catechism. Indeed, the book, Surprised By Truth, edited by Patrick Madrid, seemed to substantiate the fears of some that exposure to Catholic materials might lead Protestants into the camp of Rome. The book, as the cover purports, presents "eleven converts" who cite "biblical and historical reasons for becoming Catholic."

You assert that Catholics are "not allowed" to look at books that disagree with the tenets of Catholicism. Perhaps this was the case in the early 1960's in some places, but Catholic institutions of higher learning today are renown for their tolerance of differing viewpoints. The only Catholic school supported by a national collection, The Catholic University of America, has two Lutheran ministers and an Episcopal priest teaching theology. Catholic consortium programs for religious study in Washington, D.C. are composed of instructors from various faiths, including Evangelical and Baptist. Georgetown University even has an Atheistic Linguistic Analysis professor teaching philosophy. As for books, the Index is no longer published. I have been informed that the publishing explosion and also the educational maturity of people, at least in parts of the West, was among the reasons for the change. Although, speaking from my own experience, there still seems to be a great many gullible people.

As to this openness toward the truth which you applaud, is there any age limitation you would insert? Can a child or young teenager be exposed to differing religious views, or just grownups? Do they not need an established base from which they can render evaluation and, if need be, revision? Would your willingness to test truth include other areas? This is very much in the news regarding allowing both creationism and evolutionism in the schools. But, how about multiculturalism, value-free sexual education, homosexuality sensitivity, Marxist theories, revisionist histories, etc. Would you encourage your own good Protestant people to become exposed to the ideas of a secular or even a pagan world, let alone Catholicism?

A few years ago, Cardinal Hickey, Ordinary for the Archdiocese of Washington, D.C., seriously challenged Georgetown University not to forfeit its Catholic Christian identity. He protested a one-sided debate about abortion (sponsored by Planned Parenthood) and the administration's failure to put crucifixes or crosses in the new classrooms. I have to say that I side with the bishop on these issues. Maybe I am not as enlightened as you?

It seems to me, whether for good or ill, the Catholic Church often followed her maternal instincts in seeking to guard her people from harm. She had a clear sense of the truth, as well as what constituted right and wrong. She earnestly desired to transmit this message. Naturally, she resisted those forces or ideologies which conflicted with hers. Just as Christians are warned to avoid bad companions who might lead them into sin; so too did she steer her children from dangerous ideas. The fact that "some" non-Catholics put Protestant and Catholic teachings side-by-side and opt to embrace what they see as the truth in Catholicism nullifies the contention that conscientious searchers would always do the opposite. People may convert for very sincere reasons after serious intellectual inquiry. However, others, both Catholic and Protestant, may be ill-equipped for such an enterprise. We are probably both acquainted with people who seem to swing which ever way the wind blows. They may not be bad people. It may just be that their gifts for such scrutiny are minimal. Personality may also have much to do with it. Several years ago I noted that the membership in the charismatic renewal groups tended to have dependent personalities. They quite readily followed strong authority figures. Elements of their speaking in tongues also seemed to mimic the sounds made by the leader. Without responsible and faithful leadership, such prayer groups could go in undesired directions. The Catholic Church has long seen this dilemma. It is no accident that the Scriptures speak of the sheep and the good shepherd. We are not all leaders.

I suspect that we might also have to see ourselves from the perspective of the Catholic leadership: if small Protestant fundamentalist communities suddenly found themselves being the dominant religion, how willing would they tolerate the exposure of their adherents to ideas they consider seductive, heretical, and dangerous? Not for long, I suspect.

Trying to transmit the history of the Church or the stories of Scripture to times and places of great illiteracy, the Catholic faith resorted to physical representations and stained-glass windows. What is the old saying? Oh yes, "a picture is worth a thousand words." In any case, the main objective was to transmit one's perception of the truth. At the same time, Christianity, as opposed to the contemporary moral and historical revisionism, would contend that truth is not simply what you want it to be, truth is what it is. There is an objective quality to truth.

The difficulty that Catholics often have in dialoguing and/or debating with non- Catholic Christians is that depending upon what category of Protestant is currently available or popular, the so-called certain and self-evident Scriptural truths vary. I have noticed that even on the Internet, many groups concur in their dislike for Catholicism but are not in absolute agreement with each other on other matters. Maybe Protestant believers also need to put their claims side- by-side to help determine the truth. But then, how would it be determined? Who would have the last word? No, I guess that would not work either.

My own sense of the truth in my faith is not simply the product of training or indoctrination. As a supernatural gift, it is based on the reality of divine revelation: the Word of God. While I adhere to various structures to nurture and to safeguard this trust and faith, I also admit that my sense of certainty finds confirmation by God's grace. It is my opinion that God always offers direct help to those who pursue him and his truths with integrity and humility. Study, prayer, and charity are the hallmarks of the life we would all do well to follow.

Maturity as a human being, Catholic or Protestant, should mean some degree of toleration for the fancy of others and respect for differing opinions. It does not mean religious relativism or capitulation. The methodology of an ecclesiastical community, either toward ecumenism and dialogue or toward a ghetto mentality and "error has no rights" does not ultimately speak to the orthodoxy of its truth claims.

Goodness, my reflection upon your story only covered a page-and-a-half of your testimony. With your leave I will save other comments for future correspondence. Scripture usually understands truth in terms of fidelity. May we both be ever faithful to our Lord Jesus Christ.

Peace,
Fr. Joe

P.S. There are several Scriptures I have taken to heart:

[RSV - 2 Timothy 3:5-9] ...holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people. For among them are those who make their way into households and capture weak women, burdened with sins and swayed by various impulses, who will listen to anybody and can never arrive at a knowledge of the truth. As Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of corrupt mind and counterfeit faith; but they will not get very far, for their folly will be plain to all, as was that of those two men.

[RSV - Ezekiel 13:3,6,9] Thus says the Lord God, Woe to the foolish prophets who follow their own spirit, and have seen nothing! ... They have spoken falsehood and divined a lie; they say, 'Says the Lord,' when the Lord has not sent them, and yet they expect him to fulfill their word. ... My hand will be against the prophets who see delusive visions and who give lying divinations; they shall not be in the council of my people, nor be enrolled in the register of the house of Israel, nor shall they enter the land of Israel: you shall know that I am the Lord God.

[RSV - 1 John 1:5-10] This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light and in him is no darkness at all. If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not live according to the truth; but if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin. If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just, and will forgive our sins and cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.