Question for Catholics

[The Persnickety Platypus]

What is the purpose of a pope?



I have some opinions on the issue and would like to put them up for debate, but to be fair, would first like to hear your reasoning firsthand.

[Dilettante]

I just returned today from my vacation and read this interesting question. But let's not waste any more time and take the challenge: Why is a Pope necessary?

First, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we value orthodoxy and unity (although I'm not saying we can determine with any certainty what doctrines are true or false) . What is the problem we face now?

Early Christians differed widely, from semi-hippie nudists to strict puritans. This should hardly surprise us, since Jesus left no writings of his own, and the Bible is after all a collection of books, and books require interpretation by readers. Needless to say, different readers are bound to arrive at different interpretations. The only way to maintain a certain uniformity was to have a standard interpretation of Christian doctrine. This means having a leader, or a group of leaders among whose one will have the final say. So the need for a Pope arises from the variety of possible interpretations of Christianity.

Of course, I'm assuming orthodoxy is seen as desirable. If it is not, then all this will be unnecessary. And any one interpretation will be as good as the next. But many people reject this relativistic attitude.

[MagusYanam]

First, for the sake of argument, let's assume that we value orthodoxy and unity (although I'm not saying we can determine with any certainty what doctrines are true or false) . What is the problem we face now?

...

The only way to maintain a certain uniformity was to have a standard interpretation of Christian doctrine. This means having a leader, or a group of leaders among whose one will have the final say. So the need for a Pope arises from the variety of possible interpretations of Christianity.

Okay, I can see that. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church has been able to maintain doctrinal uniformity not through a papacy but through fixation of Church doctrine. In the Eastern Orthodox community, precedent is established by the ecumenical councils, and no authority can change it. On the other hand, the Catholic magisterium is allowed to change doctrine - so while you may have a church that has only one standard doctrine at any one time, that doctrine may change (as with, for example, Vatican II, which allowed the Catholic Church to become fully modernised).

That being said, the Orthodox Church is an extraordinarily stodgy and (in my opinion) restrictive branch of the faith. I truly admire the Catholic Church's adaptability that comes with a progressive doctrine through the magisterium.

Being the good Latitudinarian that I am, though, I'd have to complain that having doctrinal authority vested in just one man or even just one council doesn't seem very sound. That same authority I would rather have vested formally in each person's individual conscience and capacity for reason (as it is in the Anglican Communion).

[Dilettante]

Magus Yanam wrote:

Being the good Latitudinarian that I am, though, I'd have to complain that having doctrinal authority vested in just one man or even just one council doesn't seem very sound. That same authority I would rather have vested formally in each person's individual conscience and capacity for reason (as it is in the Anglican Communion).

Thanks for your reply, Magus! In Catholicism individual conscience always has the last word: the problem is, individual conscience can be wrong. In the case of an "invincibly erroneous" conscience, the individual is not held accountable for his/her error. However, if means to correct the error are available to the individual, then that's a different matter. Catholic bishops often remind their fellow-Catholics of the importance of developing a well formed conscience, not too rigorous but not too lax. I imagine they hope such a conscience will be in tune with current Catholic doctrine, or that the magisterium will harmonize the two and correct any errors.

[ST88]

What is the purpose of a pope?

If I may put on my cynic hat for a moment, I'd have to come to the conclusion that the Catholic Church is a vast, huge, monstrous organization that requires immense lobbying power. The Pope is, in effect, a head of state for such organization. In the absence of a Christ, he is God's representative on Earth -- elected! -- but he is also the head advocate and liaison for the organization.

Catholicism needs a heirarchy because religious teaching is done through Church tradition -- and so, like the Academie Francaise, an official version of what Christianity Must Mean needs to be disseminated and enforced (the current pope was one such enforcer). He is simultaneously a figurehead and chief administrator for the organization.

[The Persnickety Platypus]

In Catholicism individual conscience always has the last word: the problem is, individual conscience can be wrong.

But of course, the pope is an individual as well, so likewise HIS conscience could be wrong. When a common person mis-interprets a passage he is only leading himself astray. On the other hand, when the POPE makes a mistake, he is taking millions of catholics down with him! And the Pope, being mere human, is bound to make mistakes. I reject the notion that the Pope is supposedly "chosen by God". Did God choose the past Popes that assasinated in order to gain power, and once in power, killed and oppressed anyone that disagreed with him? Surely not.

Which leads me to my next "theses". Don't you think it is dangerous to instill an organized government for religious purposes? Isn't this just inviting corruption, as demonstrated in the past? How can you be sure that the Catholics in positions of power are really acting in reverence to God, rather than merely seeking personal gain?

Catholics don't seem to read the Bible themselves, or even think on their own. They rely on those in power to think for them. They assume that what they are being taught is biblical. Catholics are litterally political pawns; their salvation is at the mercy of others. Isn't it safer to examine things for yourself, and let that take precedence in your conclusion? The Bible is here for anyone to read. I don't need a Pope to tell me what it says.

[ST88]

Did God choose the past Popes that assasinated in order to gain power, and once in power, killed and oppressed anyone that disagreed with him? Surely not.

Do you think that the entire Catholic organization is tainted by the past actions of such popes? Or do you think there can be a religious explanation that gets them off the hook?

[The Persnickety Platypus]

Not sure I know what you mean by that. It is near impossible not to hold a grudge against the organization knowing the many attrocities committed in the past. But then again, it wouldn't be fair to hold the clergy responsible for the actions of previous ministries. I do think that it is a good example of why religious governments such as the Vatican are a bad idea.

Is this a trick question?

[MagusYanam]

Not sure I know what you mean by that. It is near impossible not to hold a grudge against the organization knowing the many attrocities committed in the past. But then again, it wouldn't be fair to hold the clergy responsible for the actions of previous ministries. I do think that it is a good example of why religious governments such as the Vatican are a bad idea.

Is this a trick question?

Well, the Catholic Church is far from perfect and its history far from being all sweetness and light, but I most certainly do not think that the organisation itself is a bad idea. While I think some of the basic assumptions aren't very sound (the doctrinal infallibility of the Pope, for example), the Roman Catholic Church's structure enables it to do extraordinary good for the world, while also keeping doctrine from straying too far from the mainline.

I think having an organised church government, with bishops and councils et cetera, strengthens the church as a whole. I mean, you look at the excesses of the conservative 'non-denominational' congregations in this country and see how far they've strayed from their own traditions, from the liturgy, even from the central doctrine of divine grace - and governmental mainline organisations (like the Methodists or the Episcopalians or the Roman Catholics) start looking pretty good.

Of course, there is also the flipside - governmental organisations are also capable of abetting or even committing tremendous evil as well as aiding tremendous good. Such a risk, I suppose (pardon my Niebuhrian lapse here) comes with all power.

[Dilettante]

Many people hold a grudge against Christianity because of its past crimes. A guy called Karlheinz Deschner started a monumental "Criminal History of Christianity" which he died before completing (see http://www.deschner.info/en/work/kg/criminalhistory.htm). The Catholic Church certainly has a checkered past, as do other versions of Christianity. Protestant leaders have also been capable of egregious abuses of power: John Calvin in Geneva was more lethal than the Inquisition. Persnickety Platypus's argument is a good argument against investing religious figures with temporal power (separation of church and state, for example) and against the creation of Christian political parties or coalitions. But it doesn't work so well against the current Papacy because it lacks temporal power.

The Papal infallibility dogma is relatively recent (1870) and hardly ever used. It was always a controversial dogma, and one can see why. Of course, there are limits. The Pope is certainly an individual and his conscience cannot go against the magisterium or against previous doctrine.

As I said, current Popes have no temporal power, except perhaps inside the Vatican buildings. And Popes are not "chosen by God", but by the College of Cardinals. Of course one could choose to believe that the Holy Spirit somehow helps them make a good choice, just like others assume that God wanted George W. Bush to be elected. But that's a different matter. Can we objectively determine when the Holy Spirit has been at work? I don't think so.

Any human group is vulnerable to corruption, to a greater or lesser extent. But note that getting rid of hierarchy does not eliminate power, which remains hidden. In the absence of a visible head, the people in power, the manipulators, are still there--only this time they're not accountable to anyone!

It's totally unfair to say that Catholics don't think: there's a long list of Catholic philosophers, from Aquinas to Anscombe, who would be more than capable of disproving that point. Of course many among the rank and file may choose not to think very hard, but that is true of Protestants also. Think about the Protestant Fundamentalists who just refuse to learn about evolution, for example. And many Protestants seem happy to be the political pawns of Cal Thomas or James Dobson, without ever questioning their doctrines.

Persnickety Platypus, you seem to think that one can just read the Bible and go from there. But it's not that simple! The Bible is not as simple as an instruction booklet. You say you don't need a Pope to tell you what the Bible says. But the Bible doesn't "say" anything until it is interpreted by someone, be it the Pope, a Protestant minister, or yourself. If you are suggesting that any interpretation of the Bible is equally valid, then Christianity is reduced to a Babel of discordant sects. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that your interpretation is more correct than that of the Catholic Church, then you will need to work out a complete philosophico-theological system to support your point. Most Christians adhere to some sort of standard interpretation of the Bible. Most rely on some religious leader or leaders for authoritative interpretations. So they're really substituting one pope for another. This is hardly surprising, since there is much to be said for unity in religious matters (although it has its disadvantages too, as Magus points out).