Lex Credendi

I recently watched an episode of Penn and Teller’s show Bullshit (which can be found on YouTube) that was intended to show the fallacies of Catholicism in regard to belief in the Papacy. For those who have never watched their show before, it is intended to be a show in the same vein as Mythbusters, but with irreverent humor and R-rated language. To the uninformed viewer, their show is intended to be an expose of hypocrisy in “the Vatican” — that is to say, the person of the Pope and the Roman Curia, and by extension, all of the bishops and priests. However, the show ends up being an anti-Catholic screed of the worst sort, mixing half-truths with logical fallacies with actual truths taken out of context with downright fabrications — not unlike the sensationalistic The Da Vinci Code by Dan Brown. The end result is a hodgepodge of anti-Catholicism that, to those who are not Catholic (and therefore probably don’t know or believe Church doctrine and know little about Church history), would appear to be rather indicting on the face of it. At least The Da Vinci Code was presented as fiction; this show is purported to be based on facts.

It is hard to begin answering the charges levelled in this show. Not because they are true, but because it is complicated to explain why they are either only partially true, or entirely false. Church history is not an easy subject, and Church doctrine even less so, as Catholicism is a fairly complicated religion when compared with “Bible-only” forms of Christianity.

This particular episode could be compared with many of the anti-Semitic falsehoods told by people over the ages. When someone throws a Molotov cocktail out there (like the lie about Jews using Christian children’s blood for Purim rituals during the Middle Ages), it is hard to simply answer, “No, that’s not true.” Most people then are still left with doubts. Also, such charges are difficult to answer because they are often put forth in the same fashion as the cliched cross-examination question, “Did you stop beating your wife?” (Any answer that is simply yes or no presupposes the idea that you were, in fact, beating your wife in the first place.)

In this post, I will refute the claims of Penn & Teller, and show that this episode of their show does not present facts, but a hateful bias that actually attempts to prevent the truth from being known.

Penn begins the episode by stating that anyone who believes that the Pope is an infallible man that has a direct pipeline to the Almighty is not going to be swayed by this show (as these people would fall into the category of “true believers”). What he does not say, is that no orthodox Catholic believes such a thing. Any Catholic who did would be guilty of, at the least, material heresy.  Also, Penn implies that if you are religious (and therefore a fool), the show might not be for you, but that if you are guided by morality, ethics, reason, et cetera (as all irreligious atheists/agnostics undoubtedly are), that this show will throw open the door on the BS that is “the Vatican”.  It should probably be said at this point that, for those who don’t know, Penn and Teller are both militant atheists who have a vested interest in debunking any and all religion, including Catholicism. This should be clear when Penn says, “See, we told you there’s no God.”  Keep in mind also, that the first few misconceptions listed below are showcased in the first minutes of the show. This serves to remind you how evil the Catholic Church has allegedly been under the tyrannical rule of its 265 Popes.

First misconception: Catholics believe that the Pope is perfect and/or that he is infallible in all things.

Catholics believe a lot of things about the Pope, but that he can talk to God in the same way that Moses or Abraham did, or that he is infallible in all things are not among them. To believe such things would, according to Catholic doctrine, be heretical. The Catholic Church teaches that the Pope is the successor to St. Peter, that is to say, that he fills the office that was given to St. Peter by Jesus. All of the Popes — the Bishops of Rome — were successors to Peter, much in the way that all of the Presidents of the United States fill the same office to which George Washington was first elected. The Pope has the right to rule the Church, but he is a man who is stained with sin just as the rest of us are (withthe notable exceptions of Jesus and Mary). We Catholics who know history know that there have, in fact, been truly bad Popes who did unconscionable things in abuse of their office. Remember that Peter denied Christ three times; being Pope does not make you perfect. The much misunderstood doctrine of Papal Infallibility only rarely applies to Papal teaching. It basically says that, when the Pope is teaching on matters of faith and morals in a way that is clearly intended to apply to the whole Church (ex cathedra), that the Holy Spirit will not let him teach error. It is essentially to prevent the corruption of Catholic dogma and doctrine, not so that any novel teaching of the Papacy is to be mindlessly accepted by the faithful. There are actually only a few teachings of the Church which fall under this category, as most articles of faith (such as the Divinity of Christ) were declared by one or more of the twenty-one Ecumenical Councils (in this case, the First Council of Nicaea in A.D. 325). (Papal Infallibility Wikipedia article)

Second Misconception: the Church condoned slavery, denied the Holocaust, was responsible for “the Inquisition”, and general intolerance of anyone who did not toe the Church line.

While there have been Catholics who have owned slaves, there are also Catholics that are disobedient in other areas of Catholic morality as well; that does not indict the Church, it shows that all people, whether Catholic or not, are sinners. While the Popes were usually not successful in preventing the slave trade, they were not silent nor complicit (as far as I have found) on the issue. A good article on Christianity and slavery can be found here.

The issue of denying the Holocaust is very puzzling to me. This charge is usually not framed in this way; I have never heard, nor have ever seen the claim that the Church denied that the Holocaust happened. If it ever did, it would have had to have been early on (late 1930s – mid-1940s), as evidence for the Holocaust became quite clear following the liberation of concentration camps. The Pope during World War II, and until 1958, was Pope Pius XII. He has been, in recent years, castigated as an anti-Semitic Pope who was in league with Hitler and complicit in perpetrating the Holocaust against the Jews. There is only one problem with this charge — there is no evidence of it. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that Pius XII, who was certainly aware of at least some of the persecution that Jews endured under the Nazis, did a great deal to protect them as much as he could. In the 1930s, he issued statements that were openly critical to the race theory upon which Nazi Germany based their plan of extermination. Later, directly following World War II, the chief rabbi of Rome, Eugenio Zolli, converted to Catholicism precisely because of Pius XII’s efforts to protect Jews during WWII. The charge of Pius XII’s anti-Semitism did not initially appear in any well-researched history textbook or other such venue. It first appeared in 1963 in the script of a play by Rolf Hochhuth, and was soon accepted by the anti-Catholic community as fact. (Pope Pius XII FAQs) Pope John Paul II and his successor (Pope Benedict XVI) have both done a great deal to highlight the evil of the Holocaust and have tried to mend Jewish-Christian relations as much as possible. Of course, due to Benedict XVI’s German heritage and his life in Nazi Germany as a youth, many have tried to slander him as a “Nazi Pope”. These allegations are simply not true. (Pope Benedict XVI and the Hitler Youth)

The Crusades are really too lengthy to go into much detail here. Essentially, they consisted of a series of wars, only some of which were officially called for by Church authority (i.e., the Pope). The purpose of these wars was to secure safe passage of Christian pilgrims from Europe to the Holy Land, which was then under the control of Muslim Turks (the Ottoman Empire). While the First Crusade was essentially successful, the others were not, and it is true that some atrocities were committed by Crusaders that should not have happened. The most notable of these are the sack of Constantinople, and the killing of some innocent Jews and Muslims. For a better understanding of the Crusades check out this article.

Ah, the Inquisition…an anti-Catholic’s dream. With this one, not only can you appeal to the non-Catholic Christians, but to all non-Christians in general. The story goes that the Church executed, by some accounts, up to twenty million people in Europe alone for offending Catholic sensibilities. (This claim, due to the “Black Legend“, is patently false, as evinced by the fact that such a killing spree would have annihilated the entire population of Europe. More accurate estimates put the real toll closer to between 2,000 and 4,000 over a 400 year period.) Once again, the claims are not accurate, and are often downright laughable. That is not to say that there were not bad (even atrocious) events that happened, but such events must be understood in context. First of all, the most famous Inquisition (yes, the Spanish one) was not even sanctioned by the Church, but was essentially an independent undertaking of the overzealous King and Queen of Spain during the latter 15th and early 16th centuries, Ferdinand and Isabella. The other Inquisitions, which were Church-sanctioned, were not as lengthy or as infamous. In all of the Inquisitorial trials where people were, in fact, executed, the executions were not done by the Church, but by the State. Obstinate heresy was, at this time, a crime that was equivalent to treason in the eyes of the State, and thus was a capital crime. For a more detailed, accurate, and less salacious account of “the Inquisition”, see here.

Images depicting these ideas, meant to prejudice a viewer against the Church, are shown within the first few minutes of the program with no offered explanation. It is done so in order to convey the idea that it is a given that, not only are these things all true as presented, but that the “knowledge” of these things is so common, that no explanation is even necessary. Also, Penn states that the Pope is going to talk to “them”. One could interpret that this means a private audience. Later, it is seen that what it actually means is that someone, presumably from their film crew, went to St. Peter’s Square in Vatican City during one of the Urbi et Orbi addresses that the Pope gives regularly. No official from the Catholic Church was presented as a counterpoint to their allegations. Supposedly, this was because no one responded to whatever letters they sent to various bishops, priests, etc. While it is possible that no cleric responded to them — if they indeed sought such contact — I must do my best to answer for my Church, as slander such as this should not go unanswered. To be continued…

On to Part 2

1. Penn & Teller Take On the Vatican – Part 2 - Lex Credendi says:

   September 9, 2009 at 12:10 am

   [...] Penn & Teller Take On the Vatican – Part 2 Sep.09, 2009 in Uncategorized Back to Part 1 [...]