A convert reaches very edifying conclusions…
First, a brief biography
I am neither a theologian nor a philosopher. What, then, am I doing writing a note about the Catholic Church? I find the answer in an experience that is not very common, to say the least: I grew up in a family of Jehovah’s Witnesses, and my life was affected by many years of Jehovah’s Witness indoctrination and by the extreme demands that religion places on its believers. By a special grace of God, one day I accepted the Catholic religion and had the occasion to defend the faith I had recently acquired and to warn others about the consequences of paying attention to extremist religious cults.
Going back to the time when I separated from Jehovah’s Witnesses, I remember a conversation I had with one of the “elders.” At that time I had involuntarily witnessed a certain scandalous incident. The way in which the congregation’s “elders” dealt with this matter was rather inappropriate. Seeing this, my indignation was such that I promptly stopped associating with the Witnesses.
After some time, one of the “elders” came to visit me. He said he was concerned about my absence. The past scandal came up in the conversation, and the man could not find any argument, biblical or otherwise, that would justify the actions of his peers. Then he said to me: “God, in his wisdom, allows us to be obedient to an imperfect organization so that our faith is made perfect by obeying imperfect men.”
I answered him: “Good argument. The only problem with it is that, if it is accurate, we should all be Catholics. Because the Catholic Church is the imperfect organization that historically came first, and we should have joined it without fail”. This was a simple counterargument. In those days it did not even occur to me that one day I might become Catholic.
The elder could not believe what he was hearing and replied: “You are already expressing yourself like an apostate.” A few minutes later he left. I never saw him again. Seven years later I converted to Catholicism. It took me a long time to realize the importance of that conversation.
A challenge to a fundamental article of faith
We Catholics profess our faith in “One, Holy, Catholic Church…”. The meaning of the phrase is rather obvious to every Catholic Christian. I am sure a long treatise could be written about the implications of this short phrase. That is not my intention. One does not have to study much history to realize that the Church has already lasted twenty centuries despite her humble origins. One cannot deny that the Church is “one,” despite having been endangered by external pressures or by internal struggles for power. Likewise, the universality implied in the word “catholic” is still evident; the Church is active throughout the world, from China to America, and is the spiritual home of men and women of every class.
One and Catholic are easy things to accept. It is the word “holy” that people of our time find problematic. For some, that adjective is a cause of discomfort.
There is a long list of people with justified and unjustified complaints against the Church. We have, it is true, the lamentable record of certain past ages. Painful errors that even the Second Vatican Council has had to admit. Recently even the Pope, His Holiness John Paul II, publicly asked forgiveness before the whole world for the faults of the Church. The history of the Church is so full of these shameful facts that some of her enemies have no hesitation in identifying her with the woman clothed in scarlet described in the Revelation to Saint John. We Catholics, of course, do not agree with such a thing, but in any case this gives us an idea of the resistance the Church may encounter in today’s world.
The “One Catholic Church” is frequently an obstacle for many who would like to believe that somewhere there exists a holy Church of Christ. Some declare that she is a stumbling block because of her long history of internal conflicts and because she has sinned by commission and omission, sometimes against the very people she is supposed to protect, sustain, and shelter.
There are very few arguments that can be used against this kind of reasoning. My problem with this position is its very origin. Behind the sad litany of accusations there is always a good measure of bitter resentment. A bitterness that can be compared to the bitterness of a lover who has been deceived by his beloved. There is no hope for this soul in gall, because it is no longer possible to see again the original innocence on the face of the loved one. “Ah, if only everything could be as it was in the first days!” he complains.
The matter of holiness therefore requires a better understanding. Simply put, we believe that the Church is holy not because all her members are perfect human beings who live in absolute holiness. What we believe is that God can make a person holy regardless of that person’s original condition. We believe that He can repeat this operation day after day… In forming a Church of imperfect and sinful people, God makes evident the curious paradox of His holiness dwelling amid the most obvious imperfection. This is what we Catholics call grace: God’s ability to form a perfect vessel from the clay of which we are made. In a certain way, the Church reminds us of this paradox of grace: we are not called because we are better than the rest of mankind. We are called because we are not better, and therefore our presence in the Church highlights and makes evident the grace of God.
When Jesus was on earth, He was harshly condemned by those who could see in Him the elements of holiness, the miracles, and the just and upright life that Jesus led. Why? Those people did not see Jesus judging with justice. The judicial aspect of holiness was conspicuous by its absence in this new prophet, Jesus. To make the matter even more scandalous, Jesus seemed to enjoy the company of those condemned by the society of that time. Jesus attracted sinners and initiated them into the ways of holiness. In a certain way, we can say that it is this very characteristic of Jesus’ personality that makes Him so attractive to us in the Gospels. I do not think we would respect Him more if He had been an implacable judge who brought divine punishment upon the sinners of His time.
To explain this point, I would like to use, taking some liberties, a well-known part of the Gospel of Saint John. When the crowd brings the adulterous woman before Christ and declares: “Moses told us to stone women like this!”
Let us imagine (it is only an example) that the woman represents the Church and that the crowd represents those who condemn the Church. Jesus admits the fact that the Law condemns adultery in very strict terms. Nevertheless, Jesus decides to focus the crowd’s attention on something that all those present have in common before Jesus: sin.
Jesus’ invitation to inspect oneself and to practice a little introspective examination has a strange result. Everyone leaves, leaving the Master and the woman alone. After a while Jesus pronounces His judgment: “Neither do I condemn you. Go in peace and sin no more.” He has the authority to do this because He is greater than Moses, and He chooses to point to the role that divine grace has in solving the problem of human sin.
Both the Church and her accusers have the element of sin in common. It is Jesus who brings sin to light and graciously forgives it.
The Sacraments make the Church holy
Obviously the Church is not represented by the adulteress. We have used that as an example to illustrate how Jesus deals with sin. There is a great difference between the adulteress and the Church, and it is that the mission of the Church is a holy mission. The Church is an imperfect receptacle that contains a number of holy elements. These holy elements are what we call the Sacraments.
If the Sacraments were absent from the Church, there would be nothing to justify the existence of the Church. If the Sacraments had no Church in which to dwell… it is difficult to imagine how they could be properly honored and preserved. The Sacraments are what make the Church a holy vehicle. That is why Christianity cannot be a mere philosophy of life that men choose to guide themselves without ever associating with the Church.
When someone insists on bitterly condemning the obvious imperfections of the Church, that very bitterness reveals the kind of pride that can only be harbored by someone who believes himself more righteous than others. That attitude of thinking oneself better and entitled to condemn does not accept, and does not believe it needs, the consolation of the Sacraments. Anyone can accuse and criticize… but who can build up in love?
Should we then accept everything just as it is and accept it passively? Perhaps we could have a more active role in the struggle between sin and holiness. We must remember that we too are an integral part of the Church. If we allow God to increase our holiness, by extension we will be helping to increase holiness within the Church. It is worth noting that saints have arisen in many of the ages when the ecclesiastical hierarchy seemed to have lost the direction of the faith. It is true that we are not a Church composed exclusively of saints, but we can bear witness that God, in his grace, gives the Church the gift of His holiness if we make room for it in our own life.
Author: Carlos Caso-Rosendi
Source: Apologetica.org
