Shameful and pathetic

And many other things, none of them good. I refer to a commentary over at CNN by Roland S. Martin, who is identified as "a CNN contributor and a talk-show host for WVON-AM in Chicago" (I rarely watch CNN or cable news, so I've never heard of him before). Martin is an ex-Catholic and he doesn't care for the Catholic Church or Pope Benedict XVI. Or at least that's how I interpret these remarks:

Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

Non-Catholics who are up in arms of the proclamation by Pope Benedict XVI that the only true church in the world is that of Catholicism shouldn't even bother getting upset. Just chalk it up to an old man trying to get a little attention.

For him to even suggest that only the Catholic Church can provide true salvation to believers in Christ shows that he is wholly ignorant of the Scriptures that I have known all my life.

Sorry, let me take that back. I've really only known the Bible for the last 13 of my 38 years. That's because those first 25 years were spent as a die-hard Catholic.

"Die-hard Catholic"? Or poorly catechized Catholic? Anyhow, it gets worse:

Yet as I reflect on my years as a Catholic, it pretty much was a wasted experience, as there was more identification with the church, and not with Christ.

And that's why Pope Benedict XVI is meaningless, along with his decision to re-state the primacy of the Catholic Church. This week, the pope released a document correcting interpretations of the Second Vatican Council, which some say modernized the church. But for hardliners like Pope Benedict XVI, the liberals went too far in some of their declarations.

But what ticked folks off was his assertion in the 16-page document by the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith that the only denominations that can call themselves true churches are ones that can trace their roots back to Jesus Christ's original apostles. He even suggested they suffer from defects.

This is nothing but a naked attempt by Pope Benedict XVI to "own" Jesus by virtue of the Catholic Church considering the apostle Peter as its leader. He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission.

There he goes, misusing a Catholic book to bash the Catholic Church. And the punchline:

It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide

Unlike Martin's commentary, which is sure to shed light, engage minds, and touch hearts. Funny, I wouldn't have expected such distortion, vitriol, and snideness to be associated with cable news. Meanwhile, compare that nasty rant with this very thoughtful, clear-headed response to the CDF document by Stan Guthrie over at the Christianity Today live blog. Night and day.

Comments

[Nick Milne]

It's weird; right as I began reading that story (having come there from CNN itself), I suddenly got the urge to open Insight Scoop in a new tab. And here you are! To think I was almost (almost!) optimistic going in, having glossed over the title's implications - or perhaps having put too much emphasis on those implications. "Oh good," thought I, "CNN's commentator, whoever he is, recognizes that the document in question isn't the big monstrous insult the idiots have been painting it as. How unlike CNN!" The reality was appalling.

And I suppose Benedict's Jesus of Nazareth is just a few hundred blank pages, because clearly it couldn't be about Christ, to hear this gentleman tell it.

[Carl Olson]

Great point, Nick, about Benedict's book. For some reason I doubt Martin has read it. Why should he? After all, he has the Bible.

[Neil]

"He refuses to acknowledge the reality that Jesus didn't consider a church to be most important. What was? The Great Commission."

I guess the great commission is supposed to carry itself out.

[Nick Milne]

Dear Mr. Martin,

1. Of the Church it was claimed by Christ, with great and apparent sincerity, that Hell would not prevail against her. Were similar extravagant promises made about the Great Commission? If so, what were they? How have they worked out? Also, what is the practical purpose of the Great Commission if not to get all people everywhere to join the Body of Christ (for which, I am told, there is another, snappier name; it might begin with the letters "CHU" and trace its roots back to "Kuriakon")?

2. The Last Supper holds a tremendously important place in any church's (or, ha, "ecclesial group's") Christology and ecclesiology, trumped only by the Resurrection. In what manner do these two most important events reflect on the Great Commission - that is, on Christ's "most important" goal? For that matter, how do events like the Anunciation, or the Transfiguration, or the cleansing of the Temple bear on the Great Commission? That having been answered... how do they bear on the Church?

3. Paul's epistles; did he just write them into the audient void (as Lovecraft would say)? Or did he address them to the branches of the Church in various locales? If the latter, what was the point of him wasting his time evangelizing people who had already heard the Word? That is, why was he priveleging the maintenance of existing churches over the creation of new ones? Why was he doing this, I ask, in strict contravention of the apparently clearly-stated priorities of Our Lord? Even if Paul was a hopeless apostate or imbecile, why did the early Christians think it better to preserve his church-oriented letters rather than records of his public ministry? We have some of the latter, it is true, but they are far outnumbered by the former.

4. How does the Book of Revelation bear on the Great Commission? How, by comparison, does it bear on the Church? Which bearing, in your candid opinion, is the greater?

5. The Book of Acts is greatly concerned with the early days of the Great Commission. However, two necessary and often-illustrated components of those efforts are the organized solidarity of the Apostles and the authority they rightfully wield. Would the gentle fires of Pentecost have burned for just anyone? Could Joseph of Arimithea have won thousands of converts with a speech? Or does it take membership in a certain Body to get those kinds of results?

6. You have accused Benedict of being "an old man trying to get a little attention." The uncharitable nature of this suggestion aside, do you not agree that the charge is fatuous when levelled at a man who routinely commands crowds of enthusiastic thousands just for standing in his window? He is the Bishop of Rome, sir; where his crozier touches the ground multitudes spring up to cheer him. A recent trip to Poland saw him say Mass in the intimate company of a mere nine hundred thousand people (by way of a casual example). You'd need to go to great and terrible lengths to generate those kind of numbers, Mr. Martin. Like piggybacking on the popularity of CNN.com's front page, maybe.

7. The charge that Benedict is "wholly ignorant" of scripture is a strong one. I have nothing to ask you about it other than that you retract it for the monstrous calumny that it is. Will you?

8. You place great significance on "direct action" and "strong sermons." These are both good things, but are they the best things one could be doing in a church? Does one come to church to worship the Lord or to hear snappy speeches? There is nothing to say that one can not do both, of course, but should one really put the latter before the former? I can only assume you have, you see, because nowhere in your praise for the soul-jumping Michael Pfleger is there any hint as to whether or not the man is pious, reverant or pastoral. It is of no concern whatsoever whether or not he's a good speaker (see Moses) or committed to "direct action" (whatever that may mean); it is only a delightful bonus. Don't put the frosting before the cake.

9. I'm sorry you feel that your time as a Catholic was a wasted experience. However, I have to confess puzzlement as to how your "model Catholic priest" is any better. When you speak so warmly of how Fr. Pfleger knew how to "get souls jumping" and inspire the community to "direct action," it really sounds like somebody is on fire for Fr. Pfleger rather than for Christ per se. Putting such emphasis as you do on the personalities of those involved in church life - respecting of persons OH NOES - is the first step towards the sort of meaningless pseudo-secular striving after wind that you claim you were trying to escape. Is God absent when the pastor is not particularly exciting? Is He present when the pastor is the finest orator since Churchill? Have you seen the crowds that Benny Hinn gets? A more on fire, directly-acting crowd I have never seen; some are even literally jumping. What conclusion follows from this ominous premise, Mr. Martin?

10. The sum of the matter on this score, then, appears to be that Pope Benedict XVI is "meaningless" because he is not, like Fr. Michael Pfleger, a personally exciting man. That's the only possible explanation for your remarks, because the others - which I admit, are somewhat more clearly implicit in your words than the one I just proposed - are preposterous and dumb. We have already seen that you view Benedict as a man "wholly ignorant" of scripture, which is an astonishing claim. Is it really your contention, O honest man, that this is so? What, precisely, does the pope discuss in his weekly audiences? What is to be found in his recent (bestselling) book, Jesus of Nazareth? A few hundred blank pages? Watercolors from the pontiff's early years? I don't know, not having read the book myself (the very word "Jesus" is poison to me after all this time spent around Catholics, you see), but you seem to be a smart man who knows what he's talking about, so maybe you can tell me.

There are other questions I'd like to ask you, here recounted briefly (for this runneth long):

1. Eusebius' History; have you read it? What do you think of it?
2. Why do you find it necessary to remind your readers that Judas hanged himself?
3. You put "believing what Christ says" and "believing what a man of God" says in opposition to one another. Christ no longer being personally abroad in the land conducting his ministry, just who are we supposed to listen to that we might be properly evangelized? Your own exquisite suspicion of the "men of God" would seem to put to death the Great Commission before it even has a chance to warm up.
4. You say: "It is these kinds of missives by Pope Benedict XVI that do nothing to support or build the community of faith. All it does is divide." It is one of the curious paradoxes of Our Lord that He was all the time dividing things. The rich from the poor. The good fruit from the bad. The chaff from the wheat. Salt, mustard seeds, all manner of little granule-type things. Husbands from wives. Brothers from sisters. All that man has bound, Christ may loose. Not peace, but a sword, Mr. Martin. He came to disrupt the easy "community of faith" between the pharisees, syncretists and apostates. He came to separate Israel from Caesar.

And then, the paradox: He did all of this that we might all, eventually, be One. He has put enmity between all things under the sun so that we can finally really start thinking about who our friends are. We need a Peter, Mr. Martin; for the Prince of This World is a jerk, and it's Peter's job, and that of his successors, to get in his way whenever he can. The constant reiteration of truths, the fine-tuning of delicate propositions and the occasional outbreaks of weird stodginess are all part of the Church's constant war against a secular, syncretistic vacuity that would vanquish the Great Commission in a wall of white noise.

In other words, the Church of Rome is the first line of defense against the Pax Romana. That is not meaningless. That is meaning itself.

[Sandra Miesel]

That commentary appeared in the Indianapolis STAR (and of course many other papers) as a syndicated column.

Just a point to add to Nick's excellent rebuttal: the writer can't have been paying much attention in his Catholic days or he'd have noticed that Sunday Mass readings cover all the Gospels and Epistles, plus a chunk of Acts over the 3-year lectionary cycle. And unless (the notorious)Fr. Pfleger is changing the Scripture choices, the same texts are read at St. Sabina's as were at his old Catholic parish.

Why is it that ex-Catholic Evangelicals are such fonts of misinformation? Can't they just agree to disagree?

[Adam Janke]

"Why is it that ex-Catholic Evangelicals are such fonts of misinformation? Can't they just agree to disagree?"

It's the only way they survive. We know what would happen if they were 'informed' so their existence is based on their ability to be mis-informed and to venomously hate the Church.

[MMajor Fan]

I guess their Bibles have the invisible ink version of the first papal letter, by St. Peter, Rome, 63 AD, where there are instructions to "built thereon into a spiritual house, a holy priesthood."

1 St Peter 2:1-10, 5: 1-11