Letter to the Editor

First Things, Dec 2006

Sent 4 Dec 2006 in response to Dec 2006 issue, not published

Thoughts on Catholic-led Christian Unity

Dear FT editor,

Thanks for continuing to produce an excellent and always deeply thought-provoking magazine. As a conservative evangelical Christian, I've been meaning for awhile to comment on your editorial tendency to disparage evangelicals (often fairly) and aggrandize the Roman Catholic Church (RCC). In the December 2006 issue, I noticed many more cases, especially of the latter. After reading and thinking about Damon Linker's New Republic article (3 Apr 2006), I can say that I agree with RJN's diagnosis of the problem ("the moral and cultural confusion that appeared to permeate the nation during the mid-1970s ... a crisis of meaning [i.e. of religion] ... [America needs] a comprehensive system of thought ... providing them with final, authoritative answers to every human question ... an ideological 'alternative to both Marxism and secularized liberalism' that would grant the nation 'a definition of reality, an ideology, based on Jewish-Christian religion, that [was] as creative, comprehensive, and compelling as was Marx's definition of reality" [from NR article]) but disagree with his proposed solution (the RCC). I immediately add that I also strongly disagree with Linker's proposed solution of continued secular liberal hegemony (as if secular liberalism were not a political religion; Hmm, did Linker experience a sincere change of heart or was he being disingenuous?).

As I say, I applaud and sympathize with RJN's call for such a unifying force in our society and world, but I just can't see how the RCC could fill this role. Lord Acton's dictum that "power corrupts" seems to me to be a well-established theorem (if not axiom) of natural law (great NL article by J. Daryl Charles, by the way). RCC claims to "papal infallibility" and final authority must yield to this immutable natural law of power/corruption in the same way and for the same reasons that monarchy and divine right of kings did in an earlier era. These claims may sound nice in theory, but they simply do not work in practice, as the history of both unchecked monarchy and the RCC have richly proven.

I found myself pondering whether, just as America's separation of powers and checks and balances "fixed" the problems of monarchy, some similar "fixes" (e.g. perhaps drawing on the conciliar tradition in the RCC) could allow us Christians to construct a unifying forum. Of course, attempts like the National and then World Council of Churches are not inspiring (much like the UN), but the concept at least seems promising. The problem for both religious and political cases would seem to be preventing small elites from ignoring and opposing the views of the great majority of "laymen." The key point is to recognize that authority comes from God to all individual believers, part of which authority may then be conditionally delegated to the organization.

Some other thoughts: If all Catholics were like RJN and thought like the editors and writers of First Things, I'd be forced to think much more seriously about joining! Unfortunately, I'm afraid your type represents only a small part of the RCC. In my view, the central genius of the Enlightenment was to limit the damage of (inevitable) human error and evil, and I believe this idea must be applied to both political and religious authority. Finally, the RCC was no friend to the American Revolution, although this enmity has admittedly been moderated over the years. Given this fact of history, it seems disingenuous for Catholics to now claim synergy with American ideals, much less a right to religious leadership! Using RJN's own words, it seems that the RCC was "taken captive by disordered passions that overwhelm[ed] a necessary humility in the face of historical dynamics that [they] neither understood nor controlled" (quoting from December issue [p70] on America during the Civil War; I mean here passions of authority in the face of historical dynamics of capitalism, freedom, individualism, etc.).

Keep up the great work!

Steven P. Sawyer



Other thoughts: Another concern is that the "Catholic" mind and culture (RJN, FT excepted) seems inimical to American individualism and other values. It seems that "raw" Catholics from Europe and other parts of the world were indeed "an ignorant and squalid people" (RJN quoting ? in an earlier FT).

RJN responds! (7 Dec 2006 re: Linker): Dear Mr. Sawyer, Thank you for writing. Damon Linker grotesquely distorts my understanding of Christian and specifically Catholic influence in our polity, both what that influence is and what it should be. And I believe you greatly overestimate the degree of authoritarianism and power in the polity of the Catholic Church. I do take to heart what you say about my "tendency to disparage evangelicals." I hope that is not the case, but will be mindful of your concern. Cordially, (The Rev.) [RJN]

And Again! (9 Jan 2007 re: Church): Dear Mr. Sawyer, While the correspondence section is chock full, I did want to respond personally to your message of December 4. I certainly wouldn't want any one to consider becoming Catholic because there are Catholics like me. The Catholic Church is much greater, and better, than that. But I will give you no argument about the importance of ecclesiastical corruption in the past centuries of clarifying the meaning of freedom and its political applications. Again, thank you for writing. Cordially, (The Rev.) [RJN]