Were Charles Colson's comments justified?

From Christianity Today, an interview with noted Evangelical author Charles Colson, who has played an instrumental role, with Fr. Richard Neuhaus, in the "Evangelicals and Catholics Together" initiatives:

How will Neuhaus' death affect Evangelicals and Catholics together?

It's a terrible setback because Cardinal Avery Dulles died a month before Neuhaus died. It was like a double-barreled blow. They were the principal leaders on the Catholic side of the dialogue. In some respects, those are two giants of the faith that you can't replace. But God in his sovereignty, his providence, knows exactly what he's doing.

The timing of Neuhaus's and Dulles's deaths is really significant when you realize that Pope Benedict on November 19 in what was otherwise a routine audience in St. Peter's square, gave a homily on justification and fully embraced the position that Evangelicals and Catholics Together had taken [in the 1997 document, "Gift of Salvation"]. He didn't identify it as such, but that's what he did.

Eleven years after that document was written, the Pope, the head of the church, concluded his homily by saying Luther was right, so long as you don't exclude charity, that is love, and the works that flow from love. Which of course none of us does.

Whoa. Hold on a second. First, since when did the Pope take his directives on soteriology from the ECT documents, as significant or meaningful as they might be? Secondly, the qualification—"so long as"—is very, very important. And if Colson is saying that he, as an Evangelical, believes that justification involves charity and works done in love, well, then welcome to Catholic Soteriology 101. A key question is: what did Luther really believe about the relationship between faith and charity? Benedict XVI rightly notes this, indirectly, when he states,

For this reason Luther's phrase: "faith alone" is true, if it is not opposed to faith in charity, in love. Faith is looking at Christ, entrusting oneself to Christ, being united to Christ, conformed to Christ, to his life. And the form, the life of Christ, is love; hence to believe is to conform to Christ and to enter into his love. So it is that in the Letter to the Galatians in which he primarily developed his teaching on justification St Paul speaks of faith that works through love (cf. Gal 5: 14). [emphasis added]

One of several reasons this makes me a bit huffy is that it's not at all evident (far from it!) that what an Evangelical such as Colson believes about justification, faith, and charity is what Luther believed. For example, Luther posited a form of "extrinsic justification," that is, justification is an external action, not an internal transformation. And that, of course, is opposed to the Catholic understanding of justification and the one apparently held by Colson. Unfortunately, Colson, in my opinion, makes matters even worse:

Do the Catholics in ECT right now take the same position on justification as Neuhaus and Dulles?

Oh yes. There are probably 12 to 13 other Catholic [leaders] who hold that position. And now of course the Pope holds it, so it almost doesn't matter who else holds it, in the way the Catholic Church is structured.

All shifts that take place in Catholicism happen very gradually. Vatican II was an exception. That's not the way in which theological development occurs within the catholic communion. It occurs in a gradual process in which the pope, and in this case, a cardinal and a couple priests see a way to express something differently and they would argue that there's no change.

Of course, if you compare it with Trent, there's a profound change. But they would see it as the development of doctrine. And if it's contrary to some church council — as this was, clearly — then nothing happens immediately.

Cardinal [Edward] Cassidy took ["The Gift of Salvation"] back to the Vatican in 1997 and was teaching it to the bishops. It sort of percolated through the church, and the Pope, who — significantly — was an Augustinian, picked it up. And then a decade later, it ended up in the catechism. That's just the way change occurs in the Catholic Church.

I don't, unfortunately, have time to dig into this very far, but here are a couple of problems: First, to repeat, the position that Colson takes as his own and (now) the Pope's, is hardly new or unique. It is the belief that justification involves faith intimately bound up with love and hope, (which result in good words accomplished by grace), as befitting the theological virtues given by the Holy Spirit. I'm glad Colson agrees with that view, but it's not evident at all that this view is the same as Luther's; quite the opposite.

Secondly, the statment about Trent is puzzling. After all, Trent stated:

For, although no one can be just, but he to whom the merits of the Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ are communicated, yet is this done in the said justification of the impious, when by the merit of that same most holy Passion, the charity of God is poured forth, by the Holy Spirit, in the hearts of those that are justified, and is inherent therein: whence, man, through Jesus Christ, in whom he is ingrafted, receives, in the said justification, together with the remission of sins, all these (gifts) infused at once, faith, hope, and charity. For faith, unless hope and charity be added thereto, neither unites man perfectly with Christ, nor makes him a living member of His body. For which reason it is most truly said, that Faith without works is dead and profitless; and, In Christ Jesus neither circumcision, availeth anything, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by charity. (Session 6, chapter VII)

How, I wonder, is this different in substance from what Benedict said and what the Catechism say? The Catechism, for the record, states:

Justification is at the same time the acceptance of God's righteousness through faith in Jesus Christ. Righteousness (or "justice") here means the rectitude of divine love. With justification, faith, hope, and charity are poured into our hearts, and obedience to the divine will is granted us. (par 1991)

Justification has been merited for us by the Passion of Christ who offered himself on the cross as a living victim, holy and pleasing to God, and whose blood has become the instrument of atonement for the sins of all men. Justification is conferred in Baptism, the sacrament of faith. It conforms us to the righteousness of God, who makes us inwardly just by the power of his mercy. (par 1992)

In short, Colson's comments are puzzling. Have I missed something?

Related IgnatiusInsight.com Articles:
• Was The Joint Declaration Truly Justified? | An Interview with Dr. Christopher Malloy
• Why Catholicism Makes Protestantism Tick | Mark Brumley
• Theosis: The Reason for the Season | Carl E. Olson
• Has The Reformation Ended? | An Interview with Dr. Mark Noll
• Reformation 101: Who's Who in the Protestant Reformation | Geoffrey Saint-Clair
• The Tale of Trent: A Council and and Its Legacy | Martha Rasmussen
• Evangelicals and Catholics In Conversation, Part 1 | Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
• Evangelicals and Catholics In Conversation, Part 2 | Interview with Dr. Brad Harper
• Answering The Call To Full Communion | An Interview with Dr. Francis Beckwith
• Thomas Howard and the Kindly Light | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Objections, Obstacles, Acceptance: An Interview with J. Budziszewski | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Thomas Howard on the Meaning of Tradition | IgnatiusInsight.com
• Surprised by Conversion: The Patterns of Faith | Peter E. Martin

Comments

[Kevin Davis]

I think Colson was just noting that the Protestant and Catholic understanding of salvation is not as dissimilar as many still believe. Of course there are still differences, important ones, but the point of ECT and B16's statements on Luther (which B16 has made before, see Principles of Catholic Theology) is to combat two caricatures of, respectively, Protestant and Catholic soteriology: antinomianism and [semi]-pelagianism. The Protestants are accused of antinomianism (justification is not necessarily accompanied by sanctification, which fundamentally includes charity) even though this is clearly denied by the Protestant confessions and their writers. The Catholics are accused of pelagianism or semi-pelagianism (grace does not precede and/or necessarily accompany salvation at all points) even though Trent clearly says otherwise. Nonetheless, these accusations still persist, and that is all Colson was doing: he was saying that both of these accusations are wrong because we both agree that regeneration is the result of a justification freely given.

Nonetheless, the differences remain important because Protestants divide justification from sanctification in such a way that the latter does not determine or influence the former. Catholics, however, believe that a failure in charity (of a certain degree) does determine the justified status of a person. This is why Protestants vehemently opposed the mortal sin and penance schemes, which were quite dominant in the consciences of most Catholics until recent decades (even though nothing has officially changed). Even the Protestants who believe that salvation can be lost are very careful to frame the "mortal sin" as one of complete and conscious rejection of Christ's salvation itself (i.e. "apostasy"), not a failure in charity (although it includes that).

[Francis Beckwith]

I think that Chuck's comments on Trent is sort of like the view of the Kennedy administration as Camelot (an invention of Arthur Schlesinger after JFK's assassination). I have no doubt that Chuck has read Trent. But, and I can really relate here, Chuck probably read Trent with all the Protestant assumptions that he brought to his reading. This is something I did when I was younger. But when I read Trent with "fresh eyes" in 2007, with a better understanding of the ontological issues at stake, I saw it as perfectly consistent with ECT. In fact, the section in Trent about the causes of justification is really eye-opening, for the cluster of causes is a dagger in the heart of both Pelagianism (and semi-Pelagianism) as well as mere imputation.

[Carl E. Olson]

All good points, Kevin, especially re: the division between justification and sanctification in Protestant theology. But consider this statement by Colson: "But they would see it as the development of doctrine. And if it's contrary to some church council — as this was, clearly — then nothing happens immediately." Yet, as I tried to quickly sketch, this is quite untrue. Colson, in my estimation, is spinning this as a "The Catholic Church acknowledges it was wrong about justification" moment, when in reality it is nothing of the sort. If anything, it is an "Evangelicals finally realize the Catholic Church was right all along" moment (although that is simplistic). I have a lot of admiration for Colson, but in this case he is either misrepresenting what is happening or completely misunderstands the theology involved.

[Paul]

What consistently disturbs me about people like this is their insistence on fitting everything into "what Luther said." They're not looking to be persuaded or to find common ground, they're looking to demonstrate that they (and Luther) are actually correct, and simply finding more palatable ways to articulate that. It undoubtedly is the case that the differences between what the Church and Luther taught are narrower than what many people in the pews think (and than many evangelical pastors continue to say). But groups like ECT will never make truly significant headway beyond the individual level unless evangelicals stop tacking back and forth; at some point you have to stop, admit that Luther was a heretic and that Catholicism is true, and while acknowledging the insight gained from evangelicalism, strike out for the far bank. Carl and Dr. Beckwith obviously have a better perspective than I, but isn't this the case? Do you really get to Catholicism by constantly saying "Luther was right"?

[dannyboy]

Yes, I have gone back and forth with a Lutheran friend about all of this. He thinks that the Catholic Church is admitting that Luther was right and I insist that the core of the doctrine has not changed at all (I am a scholar of religion and literature in the 16th and 17th centuries, so I know Trent well). I don't know what to think about it. We both want (and consider) our beliefs to be right, so I can't effectively claim that I am necessarily more objective about how to evaluate these developments than he is.

Admitting that the Church is contradicting itself basically justifies the existence of Protestantism and demolishes the Church's claims about itself, but admitting that Luther (and the other reformers) were wrong about the issue of Justification basically demolishes the foundations of Protestantism itself (and virtually obligates Protestants to become Catholics). I don't know how we will ever get over this hurdle, regardless of who is right. I have to believe that this may be a case of invincible ignorance on the part of devoted and reasonable Protestants, and that the Lord will overcome these divisions for us and illuminate the minds and hearts of schismatics if we just keep pursuing the truth in charity.

peace

[Kevin Davis]

True, Carl. I can't dispute with you there. I also found that particular point to be an odd one to make, but perhaps Colson understands "contrary to some council" in a way left unqualified because it was just a quick magazine interview.

[Gregorio]

It seems to me that the Evangelicals are the ones whose teachings on justification have most "evolved" since Luther's time.

I have yet to see any statement of theirs in this debate that embraces Luther's stance that the Christian ought to "sin and sin boldly" as both a sign of faith in the saving power of Christ's sacrifice and as protection against the "papist" tendency to place one's faith in "works".

(By the way, can anyone show me where to find a prooftext for Luther's efficacy-of-sin stance in Paul's letters?... I didn't think so.)

Now, that said, I do still believe that this particular Cath/Prot dialogue is constructive, for at least these two reasons:

First, it does appear to be bringing earnest and thoughtful believers closer together without compromising the Catholic faith.

(And, please God, don't let us ever lose a sense of the vital importance of Christian unity.)

Second, it further undermines what Scott Hahn calls the "counterfeit" contractual Catholicism embraced my some in the pews in which they believe they earn salvation by storing up redeeming acts on earth.

To someone who actually remembers the glacial pre-Vatican gazes that passed over the gulf between Catholics and Protestants, the mutual respect of the Colson and the Neuhaus camps is itself a sign and a wonder and ought to be treasured.

[nedbrek]

As a Protestant, I'm not particularly interested in what Luther believed (or even taught). I am interested in what God has revealed to us in the Bible.

We (Protestants and Catholics) agree that salvation is a free gift of God, without regard to works (Ephesians 2:8-9) - so that boasting is excluded. Of course, we must then determine what we mean by "gift", "work", and "boasting".

I think this can be succinctly described as "imputed" versus "infused" righteousness. "Infused righteousness" says that we receive some amount of God's grace at baptism. It is then our duty to nurture and protect this righteousness through "means of grace" (church attendance, penance, receiving the Eucharist, etc.) This is how most Protestants view Catholic soteriology.

The Protestant says that a legal transaction takes place when one agrees with God that one is a sinner, repents from sin, and trusts in the: death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. At this point, we are "justified". Some say this justification cannot be lost, others say it can be overturned by an equally powerful re-commitment to sin. Regardless, Jesus' perfect life is accounted to us - our good works at this point are out of recognition for what He has done for us.

[Evan]

As I understand it, ecumenical work tends to move towards a shared understanding of a given theological point. The idea of going back to something, then, (either Trent or Luther) seems rather misguided if we're doing so in order to point fingers about who said the right or wrong thing first. That said, I'd give Colson a bit of a break; he seems to be speaking on a more colloquial than technical level, and his errors seem more the result of oversimplification than a real intention to twist the story. Besides, the characterizations of Luther as somehow separating love from faith are just as mangled as those that Colson presents of Trent. Two Kinds of Righteousness comes to mind as worth reading, for a start.

But all of that aside, I never understood the draw of focusing on particular personalities the way that Colson is doing here. If we want to do substantive ecumenical work, better to focus on the confessions of the Protestant denominations rather than the occasional writings of a single man, however influential he was. It's not as if we hang on the writings of Paul III in articulating this or that Catholic position on justification.