It Came From The Roman Church: Catholic horror stories told by Evangelicals & how to respond

This Rock/ Catholic Answers via Petersnet ^ | David Mills

[Polycarp]

Title:	It Came From The Roman Church . . .
Author:	David Mills
Title:	It Came From The Roman Church . . .
Larger Work:	This Rock
Pages:	12 - 15
Publisher & Date:	Catholic Answers, Inc., San Diego, CA, April 2002
Includes:	Identical text with no graphics.
Description:	Catholic horror stories told by Evangelicals (and ex-Catholics) and how to respond to them.

"It Came From The Roman Church . . . "

Don't Flee From Catholic Horror Stories

By David Mills

In the brief time since my family became Catholics, some of my Evangelical friends have gone out of their way to tell me Catholic horror stories. They will tell me about some near-pagan example of Catholic folk religion they once saw, or an oppressive priest (reactionary or liberal) they once knew, or a Catholic family next door who went to Mass regularly but didn't know anything about the Bible and the faith, or a married friend who happily carried on a long affair supposedly by going to confession after each visit to his girlfriend.

Some of them like to talk about "recovering Catholics" who were supposedly so horribly damaged by growing up Catholic that they just had to become Protestants. (They are always surprisingly unskeptical about these stories.) These people suffered by being made to feel guilt and shame about everything they did or to feel that they could not ever satisfy all the rules God insisted they obey before he would love them.

This is both a personal and an evangelical problem for Catholics. Almost any Catholic who talks very long to a serious Evangelical will be told in some way that though the Pope is a wonderful man, and some Catholics really love the Lord, and thank God for the Catholics in the pro-life movement, the average Catholic parish is either a den of iniquity or simply dead spiritually.

The Evangelical will often claim, by contrast, that Evangelical churches are alive, and, since our Lord said we shall know them by their fruits (Matt. 7:16), Evangelicals are the real Christians. (This ignores, of course, that what Jesus said applied to individual teachers, not to movements or theological systems.) The implication is that if you're a Catholic you've been had.

It is probably worse for a convert, because his friends sometimes speak as if he were either a dullard who hasn't noticed the problems or a romantic who refuses to see them. "You won't live in Rome, you know," one close friend told me — meaning, I suppose, that the Catholic faith I would encounter wouldn't be pure — as if this would be shocking news to me, the mere stating of which would bring me to my senses.

What To Think

How can one respond to this line of argument?

First, you must admit that the Evangelical has enough facts to make a reasonable charge. The truth is that many Catholics do not lead a visibly faithful life. Most, for example, do not obey the Church's teaching on contraception. Few (amazingly to me) go to confession.

On the other hand, many Evangelicals and their churches appear to be models of faithfulness. They study Scripture, try to order their lives by its teaching, share their faith with others, and at some sacrifice minister to the world in many ways. We can learn much from them.

Second, you must listen with sympathy yet question the horror stories. Most of us have trouble doing this, because something in our culture trains us to accept any story of suffering without question and to assume that the Church must have been guilty of almost anything it is accused of.

Take the stories of "recovering" Catholics. Of course, some people have suffered real abuse and have been treated badly. But most of these stories I have heard from the allegedly "recovering" Catholics themselves do not ring true.

What I hear, beneath the emotion and the anger, is usually one of two things. The first is an unwillingness to grow up and forgive what seem to be the sort of offenses we have all suffered from parents or teachers or pastors. The second is an unwillingness to live the Catholic life, leading to a desire to blame the Catholic Church rather than admit this. I say this because the offenses they describe were often surprisingly minor, even trivial, and were often simply attempts — some clearly clumsy or unkind, but some apparently not — to get them to live a fully Catholic life.

For example, many (I do not know how to put this delicately) left the Church when they wanted to remarry after a divorce, and the conjunction of their remarriage and their enlightenment is too convenient for me to accept the latter at face value. (In my experience, it is rare to find an ex-Catholic in Episcopal churches who is not divorced and remarried, and friends tell me that this is also true in many Evangelical churches.)

And of course the Catholic life is a difficult one to live and some people do not want to try. My wife works a few hours a week in the nursery of a budding megachurch nearby, and several of the other women she works with were once Catholics. They have all told her they left the Church because they "found Jesus" elsewhere. I suggested she look them in the eye and say, "You're using contraception, aren't you?" (She didn't.)

Now, I do not mean that you ought to tell the "recovering Catholic" that you do not believe his story. That would be unkind and perhaps drive him yet further from the Church. I suggest only that you have a mental reservation, based on a reasonable reading of the evidence.

Hard To Argue With

Third, you must remember that the Evangelical has a different idea of the local church. He is comparing apples with oranges and complaining that the oranges aren't red enough.

For the Evangelical, the local church is primarily a gathered community of those of like mind and social class that forms a fairly complete alternative community for its members. For the Catholic, the local church is primarily the place we — people of different minds and classes — gather to meet the Lord in the Mass and from which we go out to exercise our vocations in the world.

The Evangelical church will therefore produce lots of public ministries, from Bible studies to short-term mission trips. The Catholic church may or may not have a lot of these ministries, but in either case they are not essential to its life and not stressed in the way they are in the Evangelical church.

The time and energy Evangelical put into their churches' public ministries Catholics may be putting into other, less visible religious activities. They may go to daily Mass when the Evangelical would go to a midweek Bible study, but for some reason going to Mass is not counted as a sign of "life."

Fourth, you must remember the practical differences between Catholics and Evangelicals. There is less attachment to a particular local church in Protestant circles because these churches are more transitory: They get created, split, and cease to be much more regularly than do Catholic parishes.

The Evangelical church therefore has to provide its people with the nourishment that deeper roots provide those who have lived there longer. The type of social interaction that the Catholic may have in his extended family the Evangelical may have to find in his church. The Evangelical church will seem livelier, though it is only giving its members what the Catholics have already. Its social homogeneity helps a great deal as well. There is more potential for interaction among its members due to greater similarities, interests, goals, et cetera. More diversity — which you find in many Catholic parishes — means less potential for interaction.

Because the two churches are different in theory and in practice, the Evangelical church can be presented as livelier than the Catholic church next door, because its life is much more public, while the life of the second is largely hidden from view. The Catholic parish may be producing saints by the dozen, but it may not produce enough visible efforts to get credit for "life."

Fifth, you must remember that as a Catholic you are tied down in a way the Evangelical is not. Anyone who doesn't meet the standards of holiness or zeal required in a particular Evangelical church may either leave or be disinvited to attend. The Evangelical can simply declare that the offender is not a "true Christian." But Catholics cannot disown bad Catholics. A Catholic is stuck with every other Catholic in the world, no matter how badly he behaves.

Besides this disadvantage, the Catholic Church does not even get to claim her own saints on her own behalf. Because they feel any good Christian must in some sense be one of them, Evangelicals will often adopt a Mother Teresa as a sort of honorary Evangelical and try to take credit for her as well. (This, I should make clear, has happened to me in discussions with my Evangelical friends.)

The Evangelical World

Sixth, you must realize that though there is much to admire in Evangelicalism, things are not exactly as they seem. A Catholic will have to note that even the most conservative Evangelicals have capitulated completely to the contraceptive mentality and for the most part to the divorce culture as well. Almost all neglect the sacramental life, and though they all recognize the authority of Scripture, they are enmeshed in intractable disagreements over what it means.

And even one of their own pollsters, George Barna, has found that they are doctrinally a confused body. Over one-third do not believe in Jesus' physical Resurrection, and over half do not believe in the existence of the Holy Spirit. About two in five "born again" Christians believe that "it does not matter what religious faith you follow because all faiths teach similar lessons about life," and from half to three-quarters believe "there is no such thing as absolute truth."

I bring this up not to put down our Evangelical brothers and sisters, who on most issues are our closest allies and often are models of faithfulness. I bring it up only to encourage those who have been left tongue-tied by the sort of argument I've described. Out of charity, you should not be quick to quote these statistics in return but will, I hope, be able to listen with some serenity to someone put down the Catholic Church as inferior to Evangelicalism.

A Sign

Finally, you must see that realism about the Catholic Church implies a surprising proof of her claims. My Evangelical friends think that comparing lax Catholics to lively Evangelicals will make me an Evangelical. Their horror stories may be disturbing to me personally, but not to my faith. They do not make me doubt the claims of the Catholic Church. Fallen men in groups rarely keep a high standard and almost never do so over any length of time.

As a barely Christianized teenager, listening to classmates in my social studies class sneer at Christianity because the Allies and the Germans both sang hymns as they killed each other, I thought that such a thing was only what one would expect. That Christians in 1915 thought that God was on their side did not seem to me to have much to do with the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God who rose from the dead almost nineteen hundred years before.

Laxity seems to me almost inevitable in something as big and as old and as embedded in the culture as the Catholic Church. But I do not suggest that Catholics console themselves with a realistic view of the Catholic Church as a human institution, because in the body of Christ sociological inevitability does not have the last word.

I began to love the Catholic Church in part because she kept reviving when she seemed to be dying and men of the world were writing her obituary. Time after time, when sociologists predicted her death, she exploded into new life. These revivals have always seemed to me a sign of her unique divine life. We are, I think, at the beginning of such a revival even now.

What To Do

But what to do, when a friend tells you Catholic horror stories? It is trying, being treated as a dolt or a fool. I have found the best way to respond is simply to say, gently, "I'm not stupid, you know." This will usually send your friend into retreat — though not always, I've found. While he tries to apologize you can begin to tell him about the one Church whose status is not affected by her members' sins and failings.

And then you can admit that most Catholics are not perfect Catholics and explain that in the Catholic Church you have found all the graces by which God will help you pursue God. You can say that you love and respect your Evangelical brothers and sisters, but only in the Catholic Church are these graces to be found in their full range and power — which is why all the horror stories in the world will not discourage you.

David Mills is the author of Knowing the Real Jesus (Servant/Charis [2001]) and a senior editor of Touchstone: A Magazine of Mere Christianity.

©2002 by Catholic Answers, Inc.

[RobbyS]

Forty years ago, I also could see no difference between NFP and the use of contraceptives, and logically the case is hard to make. But in terms of consequence, the matter is clear. "Contraceptive Mentality" is not a mere rhetoric: It describes a world view in which charity is replayed by sentiment, duty by royal whim. Few who use NFP will, in the end, resort to abortion; the same is not true of those who use contraceptives, to whom a pregnancy is a "problem"to be fixed, an abortion a final solution. For the latter, every sex act is open to a death.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I will be happy to continue this debate with you personally via FReepmail. I only debate on this publicly forum with men of good will. 259 posted on 7/31/02 10:27 PM Pacific by Polycarp

I was not seeking their contribution... honestly. I just try to flag those who -- without meaning any vanity -- have told me in the past via FReepMail that they like to read my arguments (I flag Jerry_M on my Christian-libertarian posts, I flag RnMomof7 on my Arminian posts, I flag the_doc and Matchett on my Roman posts, etc.)

To illustrate, I honestly would have no objection to you flagging Campion or Patent on subjects which they found to be of interest. But it was not meant to give any personal offense, I'll drop it if you like.

We can FReepMail the discussion if you prefer, but I do like the Forum a lot better. It moves much faster... I gat a lot of FreepMails and sometimes don't answer them for days. ;-)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Forty years ago, I also could see no difference between NFP and the use of contraceptives, and logically the case is hard to make. But in terms of consequence, the matter is clear. "Contraceptive Mentality" is not a mere rhetoric: It describes a world view in which charity is replayed by sentiment, duty by royal whim. Few who use NFP will, in the end, resort to abortion; the same is not true of those who use contraceptives, to whom a pregnancy is a "problem"to be fixed, an abortion a final solution. For the latter, every sex act is open to a death.

Look, Robby, unlike most Protestants I will freely stipulate that the Contraceptive Mentality is in and of itself a sinful attitude.

My arguments simply attend to the assertion that NFP is somehow more "procedurally ethical" than non-abortifacient mechanical contraception. I don't buy it. Both NFP or non-abortifacient Mechanical contraception can be used to service a sinful Contraceptive Mentality; that should be obvious, if you think about it. But neither NFP nor Mechanical methodology is necessarily employed to service a Contraceptive Mentality, in certain "stewardship"-type cases of Family Poverty and lack of economic means; and I do not at this time buy the argument that in such cases NFP is somehow more "procedurally ethical" than non-abortifacient Mechanical contraception.

At present, I am content to be uncompromising in my opposition to all forms of chemical contraception in all cases, because contrary to Reverend Dobson, I know that all abortifacients violate the Sixth Commandment. I am genuinely interested in the NFP-vs-Mechanical contraceptive procedural question, but am electing to table my critiques on that subject at this time.

Polycarp may direct a specific thread on that subject to my attention any time he likes; on a dedicated thread, I will gladly (and as best I can, humbly) offer him my personal mumblings on the subject anytime he should request.

[Starwind]

I am genuinely interested in the NFP-vs-Mechanical contraceptive procedural question, but am electing to table my critiques on that subject at this time.

I'd be curious about your views on sex (within an ordained marriage) that precludes conception (masturbation, oral sex, coitus interuptus, etc).

Also, do you think in-vitro fertilization, sperm banks etc, which seek to create life outside of God's 'plan' are biblical?

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

I'd be curious about your views on sex (within an ordained marriage) that precludes conception (masturbation, oral sex, coitus interuptus, etc).

Good grief. Gee, Starwind, we're getting pretty specific, aren't we?

Which brings up a tangential pont -- Unfortunately for both modern Romans and modern Protestants, Pagan America expects us all to be "prudes" who are afraid even to discuss theological questions of sexuality in plain terminology. I am guilty of it myself, preferring anesthetic euphemisms like "Mechanical Contraception" when I am plainly talking about condoms and sponges. Argh!!

Nonetheless, here goes...

I do not believe that Marital enjoyment of Oral Foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin, any more than manual foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin.

If Solomon and the Queen of Sheba are engaging in "oral foreplay" in preparation for good, productive Biblical Procreation... then the Priests are cordially invited to stay the heck out of their Marital Bedroom.

A garden inclosed is my sister, my spouse; a spring shut up, a fountain sealed. Thy plants are an orchard of pomegranates, with pleasant fruits; camphire, with spikenard, Spikenard and saffron; calamus and cinnamon, with all trees of frankincense; myrrh and aloes, with all the chief spices: A fountain of gardens, a well of living waters, and streams from Lebanon. Awake, O north wind; and come, thou south; blow upon my garden, that the spices thereof may flow out. Let my beloved come into his garden, and eat his pleasant fruits. I am come into my garden, my sister, my spouse: I have gathered my myrrh with my spice; I have eaten my honeycomb with my honey; I have drunk my wine with my milk. (Song of Solomon, 4:12-16, 5:1a)

In short, "foreplay" -- including Oral Foreplay -- in view of Marital Procreation, is not Sin.

As always, IMHO.

Also, do you think in-vitro fertilization, sperm banks etc, which seek to create life outside of God's 'plan' are biblical?

Dunno.

Give me an example of a medical technology which helps couples to pro-create without the elimination of "excess" embryos, and I will probably consider it. As Polycarp has probably figured out, Orthodox Presbyterians do not necessarily have an extensive, magisterial "Theology of the Body" on such matters; it's all about that Old-Time Religion (the Ten Commandments) with us. "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

The problem with "in-vitro fertilization" to Orthodox Presbyterians is not with the abstract idea of "playing God" so much as it is the fact that we have a serious moral objection with discarding the unused fertilized embryos like so much Human Trash.

If "in-vitro fertilization" did not involve the elimination of dozens of "unwanted" Human Embryos to acheive the "desired result", then us Decalogue-dependent Orthodox Presbyterians would probably have no more moral objection to "in-vitro fertilization" than we would have a moral objection to "fertility pills" -- which is to say, no real objection at all.

HOWEVER, in the Status Quo, "in-vitro fertilization" does involve the elimination of dozens of "unwanted" Human Embryos, and Orthodox Presbyterians do have a serious moral objection to that. "Thou Shalt Not Kill".

[Starwind]

I do not believe that Marital enjoyment of Oral Foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin, any more than manual foreplay prior to Sexual Procreation is any kind of Sin.

And if said foreplay does not lead to Procreation...?

[.45MAN]

(((PING)))

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

And if said foreplay does not lead to Procreation...?

Under what conditions?

At this point, we get into mind-reading. The Church is not an institution devoted to mind-reading, but rather the teaching of Moral Instruction.

Aside from Abortifacients which as always wrong, the core teaching seems to me to be, "Christian Couples should not be engaged in a Contra-Conception Morality". If a Marital Couple are enjoying some physical intimacy one night, and decide for whatever reason to NOT fully-consummate (maybe she has a "head-ache" for all I know), I don't see any possible "problem" with that.

On the other hand, if a Marital Couple are deliberately using "foreplay" to avoid procreation on a continuing basis, then we are outside of a pure question of "Christian Liberty" and into a question of "Contraceptive Mentality". I don't propose to read their minds, but I will point out that a contraceptive mentality is Immoral.

[Theresa]

"Most people I know who left the church did so on ideological lines, mostly having to do with human desire."

I knew a woman who says she left because as a child the huge crucifix in the church made her cry and because the Church did not forbid drinking which was why her father was an alcoholic. So silly. She was on her third marriage.

[Theresa]

"I just read the bible for myself and did not let other MEN influence me."

I read the bible with the aid of the Catholic Church and I am glad that God gave me the grace to trust in his Church and the Holy Spirit who guides it. I WANT and welcome the influence of the Catholic Church and I need it.

[constitutiongirl]

Yeah, I've even heard of that one. I've read Fox's Book of Martyrs. Of course, all of the Protestant atrocities were conviently left out.

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I WANT and welcome the influence of the Catholic Church and I need it.

Well it's no wonder you don't see the truth.

Becky

[sitetest]

Dear Starwind,

I'm happy to see that you wish to become a Catholic scholar! ;-)

"Ok, my original concern in post 169 was the need to combine catechism and encyclicals, etc..."

Well, remember first that this concern came about because Wrigley told us that he tended to believe that we don't teach idolatry, and I pointed out that it wasn't that tough to find out what we actually teach, believe, and practice.

It isn't necessary to read the source documents cited in the footnotes of the Catechism to learn what it is the Church teaches. If what you're trying to do is find out where the Church stands, the Catechism, by itself, does a pretty good job. Which is why I said:

"If you want a good, basic idea of what Catholics believe and practice, read the Catechism of the Catholic Church."

But, perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you wanted to know what it is that Catholics teach, believe, and practice, without necessarily delving into all the theology behind it.

An English translation of Humanae Vitae may be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

An English translation of Familiaris Consortio may be found here:

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_19811122_familiaris-consortio_en.html

I just googled for these, and the Vatican website translations came up as the first URLs. That may be effective in finding many official Church documents as you study further.

I wish you good reading.

sitetest

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

Can you please give me scripture refernces for this. Thanks

It'll have to wait till tomorrow, its on my other compter.

Becky

[mlocher]

there is no Christian denomination more inconsequential to modern Christianity than mainstream American protestant denominations, specifically the likes of the major Lutheran, Presbyterian, Episcopalian, and Methodist sects. I do not consider them "evangelical."

just like the pope keeps catholics away from christ, i happen to believe that deonominations of any kind keep people from christ, or perhaps better stated, can be a barrier between the christ -- person relationship. in my paradigm, i expect and hope that denominations would be inconsequential.

i am intrigued with your thought process. can you elaborate a bit more on your definition of evangelical and why you think these denominations are inconsequential? this enquiring LCMS member is interested. LCMS = lutheran church -- missouri synod and hopefully as you can tell from my previous posts i do not take the work of man too seriously.

[SoothingDave]

If you are trying to say that the church is the body of Christ thus making it God or equal to God, that would be idol worshipping at least and could be blasphemy.

It's not just a metaphor, Becky.

SD

[SoothingDave]

Re 183

Thank you for the very nice response. I was actually just warding off all the arguments that I get hurled at me. You and one other poster that I have dealt with, and it has been quite a few, are the only two that have come out and said plain that the catholic schools are pitiful at teaching their own faith. If more of the catholics recognized that fact it might be able to be fixed. Good Luck.

I think just about every Catholic on the Neverending thread expressed regret that the schools did and do a poor job catechizing children. Not "only two." I recall every one doing it.

SD

[PayNoAttentionManBehindCurtain]

I beg to differ Dave. Most of you defended the schools and said I was either not paying attention, or just plain studpid. Maybe after dadwags came on and said that during the times I was in schools the education sucked some might have relented a little, but no one believed me till a catholic confirmed it.

Becky