Testimonies from Scripture and Christian antiquity.

Response to a reader’s question

Dear Oscar: …

The subject addressed in your letter is very important. You mention the possibility that the Popes may be corrupt persons, and you ask whether the Church records these facts.

When Jesus Christ established his Church, he wanted to build it upon the Apostles, although it is understood that Jesus Christ himself is the ultimate foundation, and that no one can lay any other foundation, as the Bible itself says in 1 Cor 3:11; yet the same Bible speaks to us of the Apostles as “pillars,” “foundations,” or “stones,” so we must understand that Jesus has made others share in his office — Ephesians 2:20 may be seen as an example.

But Jesus did not make the Apostles “impeccable” as he was, that is, necessarily holy. I give you a useful example: Saint Peter himself, chosen by the Lord to “strengthen his brethren” and to shepherd “his sheep,” etc., and having already received the fullness of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, was rebuked by Saint Paul (see Galatians 2) because he “played the hypocrite”; and to dissemble in important matters such as those narrated in Galatians is a grave sin; and note that we are speaking of the Peter who received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost! Well then, that same Peter, without erring in his doctrine, certainly fell into “corruption” by his way of acting. In the example I gave you, the matter was that he did not want to eat with the Gentiles, for fear of the Jews: evidently a corrupt action, which caused great scandal to Christians; Saint Paul became very angry with him and corrected him publicly; we do not know Peter’s response, but one may suppose that he repented and changed his way of acting.

Well then, if Saint Peter fell into that corruption — not of doctrine, as we know, for he preached the Gospel correctly; it was a bad action of his — should we think that Jesus disowned him? Or that Peter’s gospel was mistaken? Or that Jesus’ prayer failed when, according to Luke 22:31-32, he prayed that Peter’s faith would not fail? Or that Peter’s Church was not the true one? Or, using the words you put to me in your letter, which evangelicals say to you, would Jesus perhaps “shield these facts”? Did he shield Peter’s hypocrisy? Certainly not; but then, does Peter’s corrupt action indicate that Christianity — of which Peter was undoubtedly a principal representative — was wrong? That is in fact what evangelicals say: since the popes (at least sometimes, or often) become corrupt, therefore the Catholic Church cannot be endorsed by Christ.

The solution to these things is simpler than it seems at first sight, and it is this: Jesus did not promise any of his apostles, not even Peter, that they would be IMPECCABLE. And history tells us (there you have Peter’s example, and there will be so many others!) that in fact the pastors of the Church have committed sins, some more, some less. All were (and are) sinners.

What Jesus promised Peter, and in communion with him all the pastors of his people, is INFALLIBILITY, which is something entirely different: it is the gift of the Holy Spirit that makes the Church preach without error, until the last day of history, the Gospel transmitted by the Son of God, Our Lord Jesus Christ; and it must be kept very clearly in mind that the promise of infallibility (“the gates of hell shall not prevail” against the Church, etc.) refers ONLY to matters of faith and morals, and to nothing else. In other words, you and I can be at peace inasmuch as we know that the Holy Spirit will not permit (Jesus has promised it) the Church, in matters of faith and morals, to be mistaken in her teaching. Now, whether one Pope is a saint and another corrupt changes nothing. Of course, the example of holiness is a living witness to the Gospel, and “corruption” is not. God could have made his Church a society of angels… but he did not. Indeed, “whoever says he has no sin makes God a liar,” says Saint John.

Something evangelicals often repeat is that Jesus said that “a good tree cannot bear bad fruit,” meaning that the bad fruits of Catholics are clear proof that Catholicism is a “bad tree.” It seems very logical and irrefutable, but as they interpret it, it is a gross error. The best way to destroy this sophism is to ask any evangelical whether he (or she) HAS NO SIN AT ALL. For if they have sin, then evangelicalism too is a bad tree; and if they say they do not…, well, I would say that with such an answer everything has been said. 1 John 1:10 says it very clearly: “If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.” The following verses also help us understand the context (it refers to the sins of Christians).

Another brief but effective example: in the first Christian communities many sins were also committed (see Paul’s two letters to the Corinthians, to give one example). Now, can we then conclude that those communities were not endorsed by Jesus, given that they were founded by the apostles themselves? Certainly Jesus does not endorse sin, but the fact that someone commits a sin does not mean that the community to which he belongs is disapproved by Jesus.

What Jesus was saying with the matter of the fruits and the tree was that everything good comes from God; what is evil does not come from God. From there to conclude that the Christian religion willed by God is the one in which NO ONE commits ANY sin is an abuse, don’t you think? In any case, such a religion never existed, nor does it exist today.

The history of the Church certainly has numerous examples of corrupt Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and laypeople; also of holy Popes, cardinals, bishops, priests, religious, and laypeople; and more than in any other religion. This does not shock us NOR IS IT HIDDEN in the Church; the Church has never taught that her pastors were all saints (although some Christians who do not know their faith very well may perhaps think so). On the contrary, we know that we are all great sinners, and that the desire for holiness and holiness itself are a gift of God’s mercy. May we always have holy popes (like the present one, whom I believe to be a great saint), but it will not necessarily be so. The power of God is shown “in weakness,” as Saint Paul mysteriously made clear (2 Cor 12:9-10); we do not trust in our holiness, but in God’s. And if Jesus did not will that the pastors should necessarily be holy, I think we should not expect it either. How can it be that a Pope or a bishop are great sinners? Ask yourself first: how can it be that you and I, baptized, redeemed, a new creation, born from above and anew “of water and the Spirit,” believers in Jesus, nevertheless experience every day the effects of sin? The answer is the same for you, for me, and for the popes.

Finally, you ask me whether the Church has these facts (of corrupt Popes) on record: well then, nothing is hidden. The facts are there, recorded by history. There are large encyclopedias with the lives of the Popes, which may be consulted in good libraries. All pontifical and ecclesiastical documents in general are kept in the archives, open to historians without restriction for religious reasons. The fable of a Church that “hides” these facts is the creation of minds clouded by fanaticism. I would like to know of any institution that takes greater responsibility for its people and its history than our Church.

God bless you.

Author: Fr. Juan Carlos Sack

Source: Apologetica.org