A request came
to me two weeks ago to dine and sit in with a group of Jews, Harvard students, who were to
discuss religion, to which I responded.
They, all strangers to me, were moved by a discussion of my "Jewish
Panorama" to have me "add spice to the con-fab." All eyes were centered
upon me, often more than their ears, as never before had they met such a strange thing as
a "Goldstein-Catholic," to quote one of them. They knew not that there was a
family of eight Baltimore Goldsteins and a New Hampshire Goldstein of artistic musical
skill in the Church, and that a lady who had that precious name is doing service as a
Dominican Nun. It was a hard night's work, as their questions and objections seemed to
cover almost the whole gamut of things Catholic. While some of them were skeptical about
this, and others about that, they all seemed to scorn belief in the infallibility of the
pope, as do you.
Keen though these young men were, they had a doctrinal concept of
infallibility that was as far from the Catholic concept of it as was that of the youngster
I heard of recently, though not as humorous.
Youngster : "Mother, I wouldn't
be a Catholic for anything."
Mother : "Why, my dear?"
Youngster : "I don't believe the pope is God."
Mother : "Why, my boy, I do not think Catholics
believe that."
Youngster : "Well, anyway, I heard a Catholic boy say
that
the pope is inflammable."
While the students did not believe the pope to be inflammable, the
discussion of infallibility did inflame them, judging by the heat it engendered.
There were no new questions propounded by the students, which was not
strange, as the doctrine of the infallibility of the pope had been attacked and answered
from every possible angle. Here are a few of the questions put up to me, as well as my
explanation of that mind-satisfying Catholic doctrine.
"Do you mean to say that a man can be immune from error?" Much to
their surprise was my answer. I do not know of any man in the world who is immune from
error; though I believe that God could keep a man from falling into error. After letting
that set in, I proceeded to say what I want you to know, that infallibility is attributed
by the Catholic Church to an official, and not to a private individual. It is Pope Pius
XII who is infallible, and not Mister, Father, nor even Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli.
Then came the 999 thousandth time asked question, "Then you really
believe that the pope can never make a mistake?" The answer was, No recognized
Catholic speaker or writer ever made so ridiculous a claim. A Baltimore lady once asked
Cardinal Gibbons with a look of surprise, "But Cardinal, you surely do not believe
that the pope cannot err?" To this the Cardinal replied, with a twinkle in his eye,
"The last time I was in Rome, the Pope said to me, 'And how are you, Cardinal
Jibbons?'"
Then came the ever-to-be expected query, "Catholics believe that the
pope cannot sin, do they not?" No, Catholics do not so believe, was my immediate
response. Proceeding to say that it is rather strange for university students to ask such
a question, as a man immune from sin is impeccable, and not infallible, as a glance at the
Standard Universal Dictionary proves, pointing to the copy on a nearby shelf. All are
sinners to some degree, that is why all men who are faithful to the teachings of the
Church go to confession. This includes the man who occupies Chair of Peter; but he goes to
confession as a man and not as Pope. Please, I pleaded, after answering a dozen or more
questions, do make distinction between the office and the man if you want to understand
infallibility as the Church teaches it.
I endeavored to impress the round table gathering with an understanding that
the Catholic Church is an organic, doctrinally God-protected spiritual society; that
Christ, its Founder, said "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (St.
Matt. 16:18). This means that the evil forces, such as false doctrines, would never
be able to put an end to her being the "pillar and mainstay of the truth," as
St. Paul designated the Church (1 Tim. 3:16). There is none of the Talmudic
doctrinal misunderstanding in the Catholic Church such as obtains in Jewry, where there is
not even an agreement as to what constitutes a Jew. The theological terms used in the
Catholic Church are clearly and intelligently defined, and agreed with by every bishop,
priest, sister, brother and learned layman throughout the world. Hence if you look at any
authoritative Catholic book, encyclopedia, dictionary, or catechism, you will find that
infallibility is declared to be an official pronouncement issued by the occupant of the
Chair of Peter, as pope, or the bishops in union with the pope; that is addressed to the
Church throughout the whole wide world; for the purpose of defining a question of faith or
morals. I repeat, faith and morals, as questions of mathematics, geology, astronomy,
ethnology, physics, history, politics, and the like, are not within the province of papal
infallibility.
After that, the students said, "All right, we understand now that the
pope is infallible in matters of faith and morals. Then the pope is inspired, God reveals
to him what he shall say about faith and morals. Is that not
so?" No, emphatically no, is the answer of every writer and speaker of
authoritative standing in the Catholic Church throughout the world. Inspiration is a
positive power; it is God moving persons inspired to do something, such as write the books
and epistles in the Old and the New Testaments. On the other hand, infallibility is
assistance of a negative nature. It is the Holy Spirit, the Third Person of the Triune
God, preventing His Church from falling into teaching error. No one who believes in the
God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, a God who is essentially infallible, can reasonably deny
the possibility of God using His protective power to keep His ambassador plenipotentiary
from teaching an erroneous concept of His doctrine.
Jews, who believe in the Torah, ought not to find infallibility an
objectionable principle, considering that it is merely God safeguarding the integrity of
his own teachings. God gave Moses, Aaron, and the succeeding high priests of Israel
supreme authority to interpret His Law, delegating to them the right to see that
"every transgression and disobedience received a just punishment," to quote St.
Paul (Heb. 2:1-3), which in some instances meant death, viz.-
"The man that will be proud, and refuse to obey the commandment
of the priest, who ministereth at that time to the Lord thy God, and the decree of the
judge, that man shall die, and thou shalt take away the evil from Israel" (Deut.
17:12).
The Mosaic Church of our fathers of old in Israel
exists no more, as with the end of its priesthood the power to interpret the old Law, and
to enforce its penal decree, became a thing of the historic past. But with the end of the
Church of old God did not leave man without a doctrinal guide of His making. Jeremiah, the
great Jewish prophet, foretold that a new, an "everlasting covenant" would be
made, which would bring unity of faith (such as exists in the Catholic Church alone), as
there was to be "one heart and one way . . . forever" (32:39-40). Such
oneness in a universal teaching body is not possible during all time, under changing world
conditions, without divine protection from error.
The Church of the New Covenant is the Catholic Church. That Church is the
"Body of Christ" (1 Cor. 5:27). It was to be, and is, one, - "one
body and one spirit . . . one faith" (Eph.4:4-5). Christ commissioned that
Church to "teach all nations to observe all that I (Christ) commanded." Christ
promised to remain with that Church "until the consummation of the world" (St.
Matt. 28:16-20). Christ said regarding His teachings, that "he who believes and
is baptized shall be saved" (St. Mark 16:16); that he who refuses to
"hear the Church" shall be condemned (St. Matt. 18:17). Again, that
"it will be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gemorrah in the day of judgment
than for the town" that will not "listen to the word" of Christ's teaching
body (St. Matt. 10:15). Ask yourself these questions said I, "If I am to
listen, and to obey the teachings of Christ; if I am to be punished for refusal to listen
and obey them, whose words shall I listen to?" "Should I listen to Protestant
churches, all of them professedly fallible?" "Shall I take the Bible as my
infallible guide?" "How am I to know the Bible is infallible without some
infallible guide proves it to be infallible?" "How am I to understand it with
absolute certainty without an infallible interpreter?" Your conclusion must logically
be, that if God has not instituted a teaching Church that is safe-guarded from error in
matters of faith and morals, then is my opinion of what God wants me to do as good for me
as any one else's opinion; then has God abandoned me to my whims, notions, and prideful
concepts of His will. This borders on the blasphemous, as it is a denial of the
all-mercifulness of God. It is not man, but God in His Church that makes the
pronouncements of that Church to be absolutely true in matters of faith and morals. The
safeguard from error in the Church is the Holy Spirit Christ promised, the Third Person of
the Triune God.
"I will ask the Father and He will give you (the Apostolic
Teaching Body) another paraclete to dwell with you forever, the
Spirit of truth . . . He will dwell with you, and be in you" (St. John 14:15-17).
From all this it follows that error in matters of faith
and morals on the part of the Church, which is the "Body of Christ," would be
error on the part of Christ Himself, and of the Holy Spirit indwelling, which is an
impossibility, as God cannot possibly err.
A spiritual society, being a human society in the sense of being composed of
men with ministerial powers of a supernatural nature, would inevitably fall into error in
the course of many centuries, irrespective of the intelligence of the men who compose it,
unless it has God protecting it from error by being endowed with infallibility, the only
guarantee of perfect truth in matters of faith and morals. If God did not leave man with
an infallible Church to teach what He commanded to be taught, then is man not culpable if
he concludes, as some ministers in other than the Catholic Church do, that there are only
two and not seven sacraments, or no sacraments at all; that Christ is a perfect man, but
not God; that divorce and remarriage, birth control, cremation, etc. are permissible.
If there is an infallible Church in the world it must be the Catholic Church,
as she is the only Church that claims to be infallible; then is she, as we Catholics
believe her to be, the only Church that guarantees absolute certainty in matters
religious? There is no doctrinal wavering in the Catholic Church; that is why Catholics
have a unity of confidence in the authenticity of the teachings of their Church that can
be found nowhere else in the world that calls itself Christian.
Looking back over my night's work, to try and find out if the task was really
worth while, I concluded that the prayerful spirit in which I tried to discuss the
question of infallibility, rather than the data and arguments presented, may possibly have
caused some of the seed I tried to plant into the minds and hearts of these students to
take root.
While they were intense at times, as was I myself, they were with minor
exceptions very courteous. They seemed to be more impressed with my seriousness, and
ever-readiness to meet their objections, than with the soundness of the matter presented.
They were like you are, my dear Mr. Isaacs, anxious to discuss religion, but so filled
with an inherited resistance to things Catholic (though not to Catholics personally) that
their light was darkness.
With all that, I continued to pray for them to share in the knowledge of
Jesus as their Messiah, that they may share in the joy here and in eternity, given to
those who know, love and serve Him with the certitude that the principle of infallibility
guarantees. |