In the latest Newsweek magazine, Andrew Sullivan captures the essence of his belief about the Catholic Church with his article “The Forgotten Jesus: Christianity has been destroyed by politics, priests, and get-rich evangelists.”
In reading any anti-Catholic dribble, it’s important to understand where the commonalities are, so that you can quickly identify it for being what it is before reading the whole thing (and wasting valuable time), and moving on.
Consider the author
When inquiring about the present state of nanoscience, it is best to speak with a nanoscientist. When inquiring about the present state of historical literature, speak with a historian or a novelist. When inquiring about the present state of Christianity, don’t speak with a self-identifying Catholic who endorses homosexuality, repudiates the Church’s position on a myriad of subjects, and was once caught posting online anonymous advertisements for unprotected anal sex, preferably with “other HIV-positive men.” Not exactly a credible source, is it? But, then again, this is Newsweek we’re talking about.
It seems that part of Sullivan’s living is made by being the secular-liberal’s favorite “struggling Catholic.” After all, who’s better to tongue-lash the Catholic Church than someone who claims to be one? It’s the legendary wolf in sheep’s clothing tactic. The left likes nothing more than seeing someone lie for their own benefit.
Consider the premise
Sullivan goes on at length about how Thomas Jefferson cut from the Bible only Jesus’ own words and said that those were essentially the only content worthwhile in the Scriptures. Much of the article stands upon the idea that if only Jesus were actually listened to, perhaps we dumb 99.99% of Christians who read ALL of Scripture wouldn’t be such terrible human beings who care about issues like abortion, gay marriage, the family, etc.
The relevance of Thomas Jefferson as a credible source on religion is hard to understand. Sullivan elaborates that if the words of Jesus were listened to, like St. Francis of Assisi was so apt at doing, then we wouldn’t see this blend of religion and politics that often seems to muddy the cultural waters.
“When we think of Jefferson as the great architect of the separation of church and state, this, perhaps, was what he meant by “church”: the purest, simplest, apolitical Christianity, purged of the agendas of those who had sought to use Jesus to advance their own power decades and centuries after Jesus’ death,” writes Sullivan.
The premise of this statement, which applies to the entire piece, is that religion should be boiled down to simple piety and that whenever theology has an influence on government, it corrupts both.
One problem with that premise is the fact that true Christian understands simply piety to be more than resting in the woods in prayer, and that removing theology from influencing government castrates both the moral foundations of all public policy as well as religious liberty.
Did the conclusion precede the problem?
People who claim to be Catholic only to use that “allegiance” as a supposed foundation for credibility often start with an intended outcome, and then identify the problems that contribute to that outcome.
What I’m saying is this: Sullivan wrote this article with a particular issue in mind. Ok, this is a hypothesis with no evidence, just an inkling. That needs to be put up front. But the fact that he desires Christianity to go back to the good ole days of leaving everyone else along and not proposing any conflicting moral voice into the culture tells me that the HHS mandate is fresh in his mind. He never mentions it, mind you. But after all, what do liberals need in order to force upon religious employers their vision for “reproductive rights” and require religious institutions and people to violate their own teachings? Passivity.
He praises St. Francis ofAssisifor fleeing “to bare shacks in the woodlands, to pray and be with God and nature,”
The idea of Christians praying in their metropolitan apartments, and having a worn-out Bible firmly pressed against their iPad as they jump on the subway or downtown bus scares the pants off of secularist liberals. Like the girl on the playground trying to escape the annoying boy that has a crush on her, liberals cry out, “Why don’t you just go away?!?” They’ll even use your own Scripture to give you reasons for it—even if that means ignoring the rest of the text.
Echoing the brilliance of Ronald Reagan, the nine most terrifying words in the Catholic Church are, “I’m from the left and I’m here to help.” Whenever a pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage Catholyic tells you that they have the key to restoring your good name, run!
Consider the horrible arguments and smearing
Another important element in this case study, is evaluating a strawman argument. This assumes that you have ignored the advice to just identify a noncredible author with subversive intentions and premises, and picking up another magazine. But, hey, it happens to the best of us.
In claiming that “real” Christians should just be so quite in prayer that they never speak up for truth, Sullivan must have realized that Christians have contributed to the overturn of some of the world’s most horrendous atrocities. “There are times when great injustices—slavery, imperialism, totalitarianism, segregation—require spiritual mobilization and public witness.” Interesting, so who exactly get’s to decide which issues warrant spiritual mobilization and public witness?
You see, Sullivan’s real gripe isn’t with vocal, mobilized Christians with a voice that resonates with, say, the Catholic Church (as our bishops do). The issue is that hard-left liberals can’t infallibly decide which issues we speak up on. Religious leaders become trivialized to mere tools for hand-picked issues, rather than moral voices who inspire millions (or billions) with the fullness of truth. Why splice only Jesus’ words when even He said that He was sent by His Father. Wouldn’t that mean what the Father says is in play as well?
He criticizes Christians who supposedly wish “away a century and a half of scholarship that has clearly shown that the canonized Gospels were written decades after Jesus’ ministry, and are copies of copies of stories told by those with fallible memory.” Who denies that?
What is miraculous is that DESPITE being copies of copies and written by fallible people decades after Christ’s death, Scripture is still the inspired Word of God. Why are the words of Jesus in the Gospel so important and powerful, as Sullivan proposes, if the whole of Scripture is chalked up to flimsy verbiage? With that one sentence, he incinerates the very foundation of his article—namely, that if Christians followed Jesus’ words, as St. Francis did, Christianity would be better off.
I would be interested to find out why I should care about any of Scripture, with regard to the spiritual life, if its divine inspiration is called into question.
Consider the smearing
What liberal analysis of Christianity wouldn’t be complete without blaming all priests and bishops for the crimes of a few?
For the record, the abuse of children by members of the clergy is one of the most tragic, immoral and criminal things to have every happened within the Church. Pope Benedict XVI has come out very strongly against those crimes and has recognized the need of the Church to act and ensure that this doesn’t happen again. The Bishops of theU.S.have the most comprehensive and transparent anti-abuse program in the world—better than any other institution, religious or non-religious—and yet the narrative remains.
With that said, Sullivan goes on: “I don’t know what greater indictment of a church’s authority there can be—except the refusal, even now, of the entire leadership to face their responsibility and resign.”
Some of our bishops weren’t even ordained priests at the time of the abuse cases. Most of the abusers are dead. Most of the people who shuffled the abusive priests from one parish to another are crippled and infirmed in old age. Priests or bishops in active ministry that had any direct involvement with an abuse cases are few and far between—and those cases are being hammered away by the media. Any living bishop or priest involved in child abuse should be put in prison. Who argues with that? Nobody, not even the nastiest investigative journalist could find me one bishop who says that abusive priests or bishops should be treated differently than the rest of society.
To act as if the abuse cases have ANY relevance in the involvement the Church has in public life is a bigoted attempt to shame good priests and bishops away from the public square and squelch the First Amendment. Thomas Jefferson would be ashamed.
Proposing no solution
Not every argument needs a solution. If one argues against abortion, you don’t necessarily have to have a concrete answer for how it should be overturned.
But if the phrase, “Forget the Church, Follow Jesus” is on the front of a magazine and the last section of the feature story says “I have no concrete idea how Christianity will wrestle free of its current crisis, of its distractions and temptations, and above all its enmeshment with the things of this world,” then my first point of identifying a author with no credibility is verified. Unfortunately it might take reading the whole thing to have the author tell you what you should have already known.
But, strangely enough, there was a proposed answer. The answer was to forget the one thing keeping the Church together. If he wasn’t targeting the Church with that phrase, it would have read, “Forget Christianity, Follow Jesus.”
Look at what happens when there is no organization around the teachings—it falls apart. The real story is not what went wrong with the Church, but instead, how has the Church done so much with a society so hostile.
Like this:
Be the first to like this post.
