I received an e-mail over the weekend decrying how complex Catholicism is when compared to evangelical Protestantism. In essence, it questions how the simplicity of the Gospel message can be turned into such doctrinally complex issues as the Immaculate Conception and Papal Infallibility, much less the Sacramental life of the average Catholic. It’s actually a very interesting question, and one that I had not really thought about until it came up on Saturday.
There are two points to make on this. First, given the complexity of other systems in God’s creation, theological complexity shouldn’t be seen as an impediment to the simple Gospel message. In fact, if you think about it, it makes a certain amount of sense. Second, I do not consider Catholicism to be complex. Most Catholics don’t either. It is a complete system and of great philosophical depth. I suspect it’s this depth that gives the impression of complexity.
Take a deep breath of air and what happens. Your diaphragm draws air into your lungs. That air carries oxygen, which is split from the air molecule and delivered to the red blood cells. At the same time, carbon dioxide is removed from the red blood cells and carried out of the lungs during exhalation. The blood then carries the oxygen to all the different parts of the body to be used as fuel. The lining of the lungs has to be gas permeable, but cannot be water permeable.
Now, here’s an important point. I have no idea if my description of this biological process is accurate or not. Quite frankly, I don’t care.
To me, never having sat through a chemistry class, this is a complex process. I don’t understand it. I may be able to relate the basics of it, but I might well get most of the details wrong. My background is in the humanities, so science was something I had to suffer through rather than something in which I sought depth. To someone more adept at the sciences, this is less complex. Someone that understands the basics of biochemistry will undoubtedly understand the very general ideas here much better than I will. At the next level, you might have a biologist or a pulmonary specialist – someone who really understands the mechanics of breathing and could give you unending amounts of accurate detail.
Now, God designed the mechanics of human life. God, therefore, built a certain degree of complexity into the biological. Who’s to say that He didn’t design some degree of complexity into theology as well? The basics of the Gospel message are undisturbed by the complexity behind it. What we see as complex would not be in the least bit complicated to Him.
My ignorance of biochemistry and biomechanics does not keep me from breathing. Generations of humans, for the recorded history of mankind, have gone happily about their lives in blissful ignorance of biomechanics and biochemistry. The fact that they didn’t recognize the complexity of biology doesn’t mean that the complexity wasn’t there all along. The same thing goes for theological complexity. The Gospel message is simple enough for most people to understand with their own eyes. Catholicism offers a deeper level of understanding. You don’t necessarily have to pursue that understanding – though I personally think that everyone should – but it’s there anyway.
As to the second point, I do not feel that the Catholic system is complex at all. From the inside, it doesn’t seem complicated. I do recognize an amazing depth to the teachings of the Church, and I suspect that this is where some of the confusion comes in, the alleged complexity that people see from the outside is in realty the depth of the Church’s teachings.
To this point, let us look at what John Henry Cardinal Newman wrote in 1845:
"Let me take the doctrine which Protestants consider our greatest difficulty, that of the Immaculate Conception. Here I entreat the reader to recollect my main drift, which is this. I have no difficulty in receiving the doctrine; and that, because it so intimately harmonizes with that circle of recognized dogmatic truths, into which it has been received; - but if I have no difficulty, why may not another have no difficulty also? why may not a hundred? a thousand? Now I am sure that Catholics in general have not any intellectual difficulty at all on the subject of the Immaculate Conception; and that there is no reason why they should. Priests have no difficulty. You tell me that they ought to have a difficulty; - but they have not. Be large-minded enough to believe, that men may reason and feel very differently from yourselves; how is it that men, when left to themselves, fall into such various forms of religion, except that there are various types of mind among them, very distinct from each other? From my testimony then about myself, if you believe it, judge of others also who are Catholics: we do not find the difficulties which you do in the doctrines which we hold; we have no intellectual difficulty in that in particular, which you call a novelty of this day. We priests need not be hypocrites, though we be called upon to believe in the Immaculate Conception. To that large class of minds, who believe in Christianity after our manner, -in the particular temper, spirit, and light, (whatever word is used,) in which Catholics believe it, - there is no burden at all in holding that the Blessed Virgin was conceived without original sin; indeed, it is a simple fact to say, that Catholics have not come to believe it because it is defined, but it was defined because they believed it." - Apologia Pro Vita Sua, Penguin Classics, 1994 Edition, page 227
So much for getting posts done in 600 words, eh?
The bottom line is that, if you join the Church, what is perceived as complex will eventually become natural. It may take some time, or it may not – that depends upon the individual. And though it may no longer seem complex at all, you may well be staggered by the depth of it for the rest of your life.
The Pope, in Salt of the Earth (p265) said:
"...Sometimes it seems so complicated to believe, that only scholars can keep everything straight. Exegesis has given us very many positive things, but it has also given rise to the impression that an ordinary person can't read the Bible because it is all so complicated...
...Theology, with its great discoveries will not become superfluous; indeed, in the global dialog among the cultures it will become even more necessary. But it must not obscure the ultimate simplicity of the faith, which puts us simply before God and before a God who has become close to me by becoming man..."
Excellent quote, John.
I'm reminded of Pontificator's Ninth Law:
If a Catholic cannot name at least one article of faith that he believes principally on the basis of the authoritative teaching of the Magisterium, he's either a saint or a Protestant.
I think the breathing analogy is a good one in that it captures the utter simplicity of a universal action weighed against great hidden complexity underneath it. But the faithful breather is under no obligation to hold with religious assent of mind and will any dogmatic respiratory truths. Of course, one could define deadly sin as the theological equivalent to putting a plastic bag over your head, and heresy as the enticement of others to do the same.
Steve,
On the basis of your last comment, I hereby dub thee worthy of my esteemed blogroll.
Anybody that can come up with the idea of a "dogmatic respiratory truth" is worthy of the read.
Truth be told, I used to read the Pantagruel when it first came out. I've missed several blogs since my return, and have taken a few off that I used to read regularly. Such is the nature of the blogosphere, I suppose.
A few points for protestants to ponder (as I've found myself doing):
Some denominations are either too simple or too complex and thereby seem to atract one end of the intellectual spectrum or the other...as if only those with either very short attention spans or slightly above average intelects can make good Christians. Having layers of increasing complexity would mean that one could progress as far as they could, be it the first level or all the way to the center. Be it simply doing things by rote, or wading through complex theology.
In regards to not "getting" the theology behind something--it is not always about you. Do we worship God, or ourselves? If someone says that they don't "get anything out of" doing something...maybe that something is for God. People should be edified and encouraged in church--but are we not to also worship God? Which comes first? Some people complain that they don't know Latin. Do they claim that God doesn't know Latin either?
Last time I was ill, I hardly understood the how and why in regards to antibiotics, but I would have been a fool to have rejected the Doctor's orders and said, "I don't get the science behind it, so I won't take it." I trusted the Doctor, with reason, so I took it. Are we to follow Christ, or walk beside him only when He chooses the route we would have choosen on our own? Is He our leader or our occasional traveling companion? If we have good cause to trust something, we have to sometimes let go of having to understand everything, do we not?
The "complexity" of Catholicism is partially because the Church respects the life of the mind and believes that any searcher wanting to dive into its depths have a right to the best in depth (and accurate)explanations of the Church's teachings.
There is no requirement for a Catholic to concern himself with all this "complexity." It is clear that many great saints were into this complexity: Aquinas, Bonaventure, etc. But there are hundreds of saints who were illiterate or had the most technically "shallow" understanding of the Faith--but lived what they knew, and prayed to Who they knew or wanted to know better-- with such intensity that their lives became beacons of Faith illuminating the way for even those intellectually inclined who love "complexity," love raising questions, and want the best and most accurate answers that can be provided.
Mark, thanks for the vote of confidence, but I'm merely a fan of The New Pantagruel... I don't actually blog there... or anywhere regularly. Tho' I've been known to occasionally post a few things on Ales Rarus and my brother-in-law's Smedley Log. I'm happy to have shown the true and authoritative path to respiratory enlightenment, but I must confess, as is the case with most bodily functions, you'll find the dogmatics almost teach themselves. The case of waste elimination, however, specifically numbers I and II, is an entirely different matter. These, lacking authoritative apostolic guidance, appear to take years to master. And I can only claim successful "catechesis" in 4 of 6 cases... so far!
Cheers!