Three Dangerous “Half-Truths” Catholics are Facing Today

Mark A. McNeil

          There are some things in life that really don’t matter.  Just the other day my wife noticed me putting butter on some bread before placing it in the toaster oven.  She commented that this was an “odd” way to make toast.  For her, the butter should be placed on the bread after it is toasted.  This reminded me of another conversation, this one long ago,  between my mother and father.  In my father’s family, it was customary to toast one side of the bread while leaving the other “soft.”  In my mother’s family, of Polish descent, bread was normally “hard” and consequently there was little “appreciation” for soft bread.  My point to my wife was that there is simply no objective right or wrong when it comes to the toasting and buttering of bread.

          Of course, this conversation was largely in jest.  There are other matters that are of great importance.  In fact, some issues are matters of life and death.  If I walk by an exposed electrical wire and someone working on it said, “Don’t touch the wire, it will kill you,” my difference of “opinion” would not change the effects of the electricity on my body.  There are some brute facts of human life and death that require we take them seriously and not manipulate their meaning.

          In an analogous way, for those who profess the Catholic faith some truths are vital and essential to our spiritual life.  There are other matters about which we may disagree.  For instance, the Catholic Church affirms that God’s existence may be known through reason.  There is more than one argument, however, that has been used to show the truth of this claim. 

           In addition to the fact that some truths are essential to the Catholic faith, it is equally true that these truths are part of a larger “fabric.”  In other words, our faith is not a collection of independent claims, each standing alone.  To the contrary, Catholic faith is an organic whole, a living organism.  Each part must be interconnected and considered in relationship to the rest.  In fact, to consider the parts without integrating them with the whole is to invite misunderstanding and confusion.  It is the purpose of this article to consider three concrete examples of such misunderstanding.  I hope to show that it is essential that we immerse ourselves in the whole range of Catholic teaching or else we will misunderstand and misapply its claims to “fullness of truth.”  I also hope to show that there are serious misunderstandings of Catholic faith that threaten our very mission as the People of God.

I.  “The Church’s primary mission is working for social justice.”

          The nineteenth century was certainly one of the most revolutionary centuries in recorded history.  Virtually every major discipline was affected by philosophical and scientific theories that proclaimed the discovery of a “key” to history, the variety of species, the idea of “God,” etc.

          Along with these revolutionary forces in the world of ideas, there were also revolutionary movements at work in the world of industry.  The changing conditions of workers spawned new theories about economy and the role of labor and property in the human quest for happiness.  Karl Marx identified “capitalists” as the main culprits in the injustices of the Industrial Revolution and religion as one of their great tools for suppressing the masses of workers.  His grand vision was of a world without private property and without the distinct “classes” of people inherent in the capitalist scheme. 

          The proponents of capitalism argued that the pursuit of wealth and the greatest liberty in accumulating it produced the best economy for the individual.  If there is freedom to build and sell cars, for instance, the competition created by this free market will drive down prices and drive up quality.  Since buyers have a choice between products, they will likely buy the best product for the lowest price.  Producers have to yield to this demand or else close up shop. The “winner,” then, is the consumer.  An open and free market economy, then, is the best thing for the individual.

          It was in this context that the Catholic tradition concerning “social justice” began.  This is not to say that the Church said nothing on the matter before the nineteenth century.  Beginning with the Scriptures themselves, the call to act justly and to consider the poor and needy has always been part of the moral expectations of Christians.  The ancient prophets considered neglect of the “widow and orphan,” the weakest members of society, a clear sign of the moral depravity of their generations.  Christ Himself linked one’s treatment of the poor, hungry, and naked to one’s final standing before God in judgment (Mat. 25). 

          Concerning the battle between the Marxists and Capitalists, the Church criticized and continues to criticize both of them.  The Church defended the right to own private property but also criticized the overemphasis on the accumulation of wealth that is often present in wealthy nations. 

         The “social justice” tradition in the Catholic Church focuses on the role of the Church in protecting the true meaning and values of the human person.  The Church does not declare a certain political system, party, or ideology the “correct” one.  There is no perfect economic or political system.  Often the same system is successful in some cases and a failure in others.  Social, economic and political structures change.  There are unchanging truths about the human person, however, that must be protected whatever the changing conditions in which he is found.  The Church seeks to address and protect these in the concrete situations of human life.

          The student of the nineteenth century, however, cannot help but notice that social justice matters were not only the concern of the Catholic Church but also of European Protestants.  Many of these, unfortunately, had modified and, in some cases, even abandoned, the most fundamental beliefs of Christianity.  Certain uses of biblical criticism resulted in doubt about the authenticity and reliability of the sacred texts.  The so-called “quest” of the historical Jesus resulted in confusion and doubt.  A host of Protestant writers, perhaps in order to save their jobs in Christian institutions, sought to reduce the Christian faith to an “essence” or “kernel,” stripping away its unnecessary “husk.”  Included in the husk were the virgin birth of Jesus, the inspiration of Scripture, the Trinity, and many other doctrines previously considered essential to the Christian faith.  The “essence” of Christianity turned out to be something like, “Love your neighbor as yourself.”  This command was accompanied by an admission that making life better for people in this life is the primary duty of the Church. 

          There is something incredibly wrong here.  It is not that loving one’s neighbor is wrong.  Who could argue with that?  It is that a particular part of the moral dimension of Christian faith turns out to be the only dimension of Christian faith.  The part is taken for the whole.  Furthermore, if Christianity is really only a moral injunction to “love,” it follows that anyone who acknowledges this may be said to be a “Christian.”  Christianity no longer involves embracing the belief that God has indeed revealed Himself in history through divine actions and inspired words.  It is precisely because we know there is a God and that Jesus is the Savior of the world that we know God places a limitless value on the human person.  It is by knowing our origin in God that we also discover our destiny.  This is the foundation of our conclusion that humans are made in God’s image and that we ought to love one another.  To separate the command to love from the God Who commands and the acts of this God in history making possible our eternal salvation is to impoverish and even trivialize the meaning of the biblical command to love.

          Furthermore, the Church’s primary mission is to evangelize the world.  Christ’s final instructions were to declare the Gospel to the entire world and to baptize those who embrace it as true (Mt. 28:18-20).  The primary mission of the Church is then to participate in the salvation of souls.  That the world needs salvation presupposes the seriousness of sin and the reality of an afterlife during which we will be judged in view of our lives in this world and our response to the divine initiative to offer salvation.  All of these themes are found throughout the Scriptures and therefore should have been included in any presentation of the “essence” of Christianity.

          Why then is the Church involved in fighting for justice by making judgments on political policies and the like?  The Church involves herself in these endeavors in order to evangelize.  When people cannot find food, it is difficult to think about eternal life.  When people are fighting to stay warm and feed their children, it is hard to consider the meaning of the Christian faith.  We want to feed the hungry and clothe the naked so that the well-being of their bodies may lead to an opportunity to embrace the Good New of Jesus Christ. 

          The bodily needs and desires of human persons are not ends in themselves.  As aspects of human existence they must be understood and integrated with the other aspects of our existence, most especially the spiritual.  To consider our bodily needs as final “ends” with no need to consider their ultimate goal or object, is to treat the human person as a brute animal. (See #2420 CCC.)  The intellectual and volitional dimensions of our existence are essential to a correct interpretation of our bodily needs.  Sexuality, for instance, may indeed be for pleasure and procreation in the case of monkeys.  For humans, however, there are spiritual bonding, educational and spiritual obligations of parents to children.  These added dimensions mean that sexuality does not mean exactly the same thing for monkeys as for humans.  The Church fights for social justice precisely because she believes the human person transcends the social and political orders just as we transcend the material order. 

          I fear that there are Catholics today who have lost their faith in the core teachings of the Church.  They doubt the trustworthiness of Scripture.  They doubt the authority of the Church.  They find a continued reason for professing the “faith” in a redefinition of that faith.  To be a Catholic, for them, is to fight for social justice.  To be a Catholic is to oppose the death penalty or some similar social issue.  They feel no qualms about rejecting the Church’s teachings about human sexuality or receiving communion while living in what the Church considers “mortal sin.”  History is repeating itself.  Just as many nineteenth-century Protestants turned to social justice issues to fill the void left by their rejection of the dogmatic faith of the Church of the Councils, so it is that some Catholics are doing the same.  By isolating an aspect of the Church’s faith, however, they have essentially redefined its meaning and risk professing and working for something that is not truly “Christian.”

          As long as social justice is considered an end in itself, it is a dangerous half-truth.  When social justice is seen as part of a grand vision of activity in this world providing opportunity for the spread of the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ, it is good indeed.

II.                  “The Church doesn’t believe it is necessary for salvation anymore.”

          As a Protestant Evangelical, what attracted me to study the Roman Catholic Church was its seeming timelessness.  Throughout our history books the Catholic Church was hovering somewhere in the background or in the forefront.  When I discovered the writings of the Church Fathers shortly after graduating from high school and while studying in a Pentecostal Bible college, I was increasingly impressed by how “Catholic” they sounded.  Talk of bishops, sacraments, “tradition,” and all the rest suggested the Catholic Church of today is essentially the same reality as the Church found in the earliest days of Christianity.

          Of course, this is not to suggest that the Church has not developed in various ways.  If Christianity is truly living and vibrant, we would expect to find greater clarity in understanding its various riches as the centuries progress.  Development, as Cardinal Newman so eloquently showed, is not the same as mutation, however.  We expect to find consistency and unity in the faith from beginning to end.

          My initial attraction to the Church due to its perceived timelessness remains to this day.  I have come to see, however, that the historical continuity of the Church’s faith is sometimes less than apparent.  This is especially true in our own day whenever it is not uncommon to hear that the Church has “changed its mind” on fundamental questions of belief:  “Vatican II changed everything.”  Before formally entering the Church, I heard a priest explain how the Church “used to believe” that everyone needed to be a Catholic.  Now, he claimed, the Church recognizes that there are Christians in all denominations and we ought not to bother them about becoming Catholics. 

          About a year ago one of my students asked me to serve as his confirmation sponsor.  At the initial meeting with the “DRE,” the young people desiring confirmation were told that the next number of months should be a period of determining whether or not they truly wanted to be confirmed.  She explained that God might lead some of them outside the Catholic Church and others would be “lead” to remain within it. 

          These anecdotes, and many others could be offered, suggest that there are many who think choosing to be a Catholic is much like choosing a flavor of ice cream at the grocery store or selecting a radio station.  If one “feels” right in a Catholic Church, well, that’s good for him.  If one feels right elsewhere, well, that’s good for him.  The choice of what “church” one will associate with is relative to preference.

          It may come as a shock to some that this is not only absolutely contrary to the way the Church viewed herself through the centuries but it is also contrary to the current teaching of the Church.  Commenting on the ancient saying, “Outside the church there is no salvation,” the current Catechism of the Catholic Church notes, “it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his body” (846).  Catholic theology continues to affirm the absolute necessity of both Christ and the Church.  Failure to teach this truth would not only be discontinuous with the entire theological tradition of the Church but would be unfaithful to the Sacred Scriptures themselves.  “I am the way, the truth, and the life.  No one comes to the Father except by Me,” said Jesus (Jn. 14:6). 

          Imagine your city under some sort of military attack.  The only way out of the coming destruction is by way of a single airplane.  If you are on the plane, you will escape.  If you are not, you will be destroyed.  It is in this way that the Church thinks of the human condition.  We are in danger of destruction in view of the consequences of human sin.  We have no hope when we consider our own efforts.  In our dire condition, God reaches to us in the person of Jesus Christ.  Through His saving life, death and resurrection a way of forgiveness is provided.  Those who receive these graces may be saved, those who do not are lost in sin.  Additionally, it does not matter how sincere people are about some futile alternative “way of escape.”  If the airplane is truly the only way, those not on it will be destroyed.

          The Church insists on the necessary connection between forgiveness, grace, Christ, and the Church.  In a mysterious way, God has entrusted the mission of forgiveness to the Church as an ongoing extension of Christ in this world.  The Church is the “body of Christ” that acts on His behalf in this world.  The saving acts of Christ are connected with the acts of the Church in this world that we call “sacraments.” 

          What, then, is the Church’s attitude towards other religions and other Christian groups?  Are they all hopelessly lost?  With respect to Christian groups, the Church recognizes that there are different degrees to which these groups participate in the fullness of grace that is found in the Catholic Church.  Although they lack all the sacraments or all the truths affirmed by the Catholic Church, such persons may be saved by their participation in the graces they have.  We acknowledge the truths that are affirmed by these groups and also acknowledge in many cases the legitimacy of their baptisms.  The Church refuses to grant, however, that they stand alone as “churches.”  To the contrary, the Church insists that she alone is Christ’s Church subsisting.  All the others depend on the Catholic Church and derive what is true and good mysteriously from her.

          It should also be noted that those who know that the fullness of truth is found in the Catholic Church are under obligation to join her communion.  In other words, to enjoy the life of grace outside visible communion with the Church is extraordinary and cannot serve as a “norm.”  The Church is meant to be one, holy, catholic, and apostolic.  These elements are only found in their fullness in the Roman Catholic Church.  To promote the continued separation of Christian communions from their true home in the Roman Catholic Church is to seriously sin against the oneness of the Church.

          How should we view other religions?  Here we must be very careful.  The Church recognizes that God is at work throughout the world among all people.  We recognize the dignity and worth of all those made in God’s image.  We also seek to remember that God’s will to save the human family is universal in scope (1 Tim. 2:4).  The Church then hopes that the grace that comes to us only through Christ may be offered to all human persons.  Further, the Church also affirms that the human mind may discover some truths about God in the world of common experience.  It is possible, then, to know of God’s existence and also to discover various truths about the human person that are consistent with divine revelation.  Those who do seek after God’s truths, guided mysteriously by grace, may participate in God’s salvation in an implicit way.  In other words, they do not explicitly know the message of Christ, the sacraments, and the Church, but they are open to divine grace and would embrace the Christian faith if a viable witness of it were available to them.  If such people are saved, however, it will only be because of the graces of forgiveness that come to them only through Christ and the Church.  They must still be on the same “airplane” that leads to safety.  We only hope that God provides an extraordinary way of grace to those who lack the normal and ordinary means.

           The ongoing mission of the Church is evangelization.  “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men” (#848).  Our reflections on the possibility of salvation for those who are unable to respond to the Gospel should not lead to the false conclusion that the Church is not needed or that Christ is only one of many ways to salvation.  Absolutely not!  Christ alone is the way of forgiveness and the Church is the means by which Christ’s grace flows throughout the world.  Rather than deny the Church is necessary, then, the Church insists as strongly as ever that, as far-reaching as salvation may be in the world, it can never be separated from its true sources.

          The position of the Church should be clearly differentiated from what is often taught in the name of the Church. On several occasions, along with a few other “apologists, I stood on the steps of the tower at the University of Texas in Austin and fielded questions about Christianity from students.  On one of these occasions, a young lady went to the microphone, pointed her finger at me, and asked:  “Please tell me whether or not you believe that the billions of people that don’t accept the Christian message are going to go to hell forever.”  I replied by noting that there are three distinct positions on this matter that are found in contemporary Christian literature.  The first might be called “pluralism.”  Pluralism claims that the ways to “heaven” are many.  Jesus is only one of countless ways to the same destination.  A second view might be called “exclusivism.”  This position claims that Jesus is the only way to heaven and that one must explicitly embrace the Christian message by faith.  According to this view, only professing Christians may be saved.  A third view, “inclusivism,” agrees that Jesus is the only way to salvation but simultaneously affirms that the salvation of Christ may extend beyond the realm of those who explicitly profess faith in Him.  It is this third view that expresses the approach of the Catholic Church. 

          After relating the three positions and identifying myself with the inclusivists, I concluded by noting that the real question is concerning those who do know the message of Christ.  What will you do with the Good News of Jesus?  What happens to those who have no chance of hearing this message is in God’s hands.  The Church must never forget her central mission of evangelization.  The current pluralism is a destructive threat to that mission.

III.               “God loves everyone.”

          Perhaps the most comforting truth that I know is that God loves the human family.  When I think of how patient and forgiving God is to me, I marvel.  Never was a more profound story of love told than that which provides the central message of the Christian faith.  God loves the world so much He gave His only begotten Son (Jn. 3:16). 

          The love of God, however, can be misunderstood whenever it is taken in the wrong way or isolated from other truths about God.  In the biblical narrative, for instance, we first discover God giving to the newly created man and his wife a command:  “Do not eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.”  Tied to disobedience is a tragic consequence:  “On the day you eat of the tree…you shall surely die.”  A more accurate rendering would be, “dying you shall die.”  The sin of Adam began a process of decline and ultimately death that we all experience in our lives. 

          As the narrative continues, we find the consistent unwillingness of the human family to obey God’s commands and hence they are punished (e.g., the Flood, Tower of Babel).  Even after Abraham and his descendants are chosen by God they continue to hear the voice of God through His various spokespersons calling them to obedience and warning them of divine wrath.  Through it all, the Scriptures provide a gloomy picture of man’s inability and unwillingness to live according to the word of God.  Divine judgment is the constant threat, both in this life and the afterlife. 

          It is in this context that the love of God must be seen.  God’s love appears on the backdrop of divine holiness.  God is absolutely pure and holy and cannot tolerate evil and disobedience (1 Jn. 1:5). 

          Years ago I walked into a Sears department store and was given a piece of paper with a number on it.  I was told that there would be a drawing for a piece of jewelry at the jewelry department about thirty minutes later.  When the time for the drawing came, a large black velvet background was placed on the counter.  A necklace was then draped over the top of it.  The black background, of course, was designed to enhance the brilliance of the necklace.  I have frequently thought of this when considering the place of God’s love in divine revelation.  There is a reason why God gave the Old Testament before the New.  It is quite significant that God appears dominantly as a God of holiness and law in the first testament.  The love of God shines in all its glory whenever we see it on the “black” background of sin and evil and the correspondent holiness of God.

          This is not to say that the love of God is not present in the Old Testament.  To the contrary, the careful reader of the Scriptures must be struck by how patient God is with the moral depravity and waywardness of His chosen people.  It is difficult to find a more striking picture of God’s great love than that found in the prophet Hosea.  It is hard not to conclude, however, that the pictures of divine love in the Old Testament are “glimpses” in the midst of God’s anger and wrath towards human disobedience.

          In respect to the New Testament, it is often claimed that God is now portrayed as “love” and that we have a dramatically different picture than what is found in the Old Testament.  I think this is an erroneous perspective.  The portrayal of a holy God Who is angry with sin is not only present in the New Testament but it is more frightening than what is found in the Old Testament (2 Thes. 1:7-9, Rev. 20:11-15).  Christ’s parables in Matthew 25 warn of the eternal consequences of our acts in this world.  Everlasting despair, a consequence of separation from God, is a topic frequently found in the words of Jesus.  No complete reading of the Gospels can lead one to the conclusion that Jesus only spoke about peace and love.

          It is precisely this emphasis on God’s holiness and intolerance for human sin that enables us to see the incredible meaning of Christ’s sufferings.  It is because God loves the human family but cannot ignore sin and disobedience that God became like us in order to suffer on our behalf.  As St. Paul argued, because of Christ, God is both “just and the justifier” of those who believe in Jesus (Rom. 3:26).  He is just because He does not overlook sin.  He is justifier because He pronounces “just” those who receive the grace of forgiveness through Christ.  This marvelous gift of forgiveness and grace, however, is given to us through the self-offering of Christ.  Rather than being “cheap,” God’s grace and forgiveness are given at the infinite cost of the cross of Christ and His eternal self-offering before the Father in heaven. 

          By pondering these central themes of Scripture, we may see that “love” in the Bible is not a “mushy” feeling of some sort.  Instead, love is the very gift of one’s self for another.  God has given Himself in the life and death of Jesus.  This is no mere “feeling.”  We may also see here that the love God has given to us also constitutes a call to love.  As Christ loved us, we are to love God and one another (Jn. 13:34).  This requires that we pour out our lives in obedience and service to God and others.

          With this background, we are prepared to see that the tendency to ignore the real possibility of hell and the neglect of God’s commands is a horrible deduction from a false understanding of God’s love.  Too many think that God’s love means that He will overlook all our sins.  It doesn’t really matter what we do, some think, God’s love will cover over it all.  Not only does this view neglect the massive material from the Scriptures and the Tradition concerning God’s holiness, but it also cheapens God’s love.  Rather than being the ultimate historical gift of God’s very self for us calling us to return in an analogous way to God, love is taken as a nebulous apathy to human lukewarmness in regard to divine things. 

          Yes, it is true that God loves us all.  This should not cause us to breathe a sigh of relief as if we then have nothing to worry about.  No, God’s love is a cause for great rejoicing but also a call to fundamental and radical openness to God and our reply of love which shows itself in our lives of obedience to God’s word.  Failure to do so should be accompanied by fear rather than smug assurance and presumption.

Conclusion

           This brief article considered three “half-truths” I see present in the Church today.  There are various others that could and perhaps should be mentioned.  I have spoken with several friends about these topics in recent days and all of them have replied by giving me more possible “half-truths.”  Perhaps other similar articles should be written.

           My intention in writing is not merely to criticize popular trends.  In fact, my hope is that the prevalence of these ideas may provide an opportunity for redemption and conversion.  Heresies and half-truths have always been difficult to answer simply because they are always built on some level of truth.  Who can deny the call to social justice?  Who can deny the universal salvific will of God?  Who can deny that God loves us?  The problem, of course, is that these “truths” are part of the larger fabric of the Christian faith and cannot be adequately appreciated apart from it. 

          These facts require that we return to the Scriptures and the fundamentals of the faith passed along through the centuries in the Catholic Church.  This restoration of “context” should clear up the misunderstandings.  Remember as well that we are not dealing here with “preferences.”  We are dealing with divine revelation.  We are dealing with questions of eternal consequence.  If God has indeed spoken to us in the Scriptures and the Church, and that is the faith of the Catholic believer, we must listen.