Category: Other Christians

While reading James White‘s responses to Karl Keating’s August 23rd e-letter, I came across a strange assertion in White’s follow-up "Even When I’m Wrong, I’m Never Wrong"-response. Setting aside the question of the merits of White’s critique of the e-letter, since that boxing ring is already occupied, let’s look at White’s defense for his error in calling Benedict XVI by the name of Boniface:

"I notice a few folks out there who are extremely excited and happy that when I quickly put together a response to Karl Keating on his ridiculous attack upon John MacArthur that twice I referred to Pope Boniface instead of Pope Benedict. Ignoring the substance of what I wrote and focusing solely upon mixing two artificial names (shall we just call him Joseph Ratzinger and stop the pretension of the Papacy and its naming policy?), some have jumped on this as if it has some kind of meaning."

Setting aside also the question of whether White should have thrown together an off-the-cuff response or should have more carefully considered the issue before offering a careful and measured response (or offered no response at all if he didn’t have such time to spare for the matter), let’s look at the claim that there is something "pretentious" or "fake" about popes taking new names.

The practice of a pope choosing a new name is an ancient one, stretching back to John II, who reigned in the sixth century and felt that his given name of Mercurius (derived from the pagan god, Mercury) was inappropriate for a Christian leader. We could even cite biblical support for the practice if we note that Jesus changed Simon’s name to Peter (cf. John 1:42). While this doesn’t directly support a pope choosing his own new name, it does show that taking on a new name is not antithetical to Christian piety or theology.

In modern times popes have often chosen their new names in order to honor loved ones, to demonstrate solidarity with predecessors, or to indicate the direction and goals of their pontificate. Thus, John XXIII chose his father’s name; John Paul I and John Paul II chose to honor predecessors and indicate continuity with them; and Benedict XVI explicitly stated that his name honored both the patron saint of Europe and a peacemaker pope, which indicated his own goals.

This isn’t simply a Catholic phenomenon. When Edward VIII abdicated the throne of England in 1936, his younger brother Albert succeeded him to the throne. The abdication had caused a great scandal in Britain, causing many to wonder about the future of the monarchy. In order to calm such fears and to demonstrate the continuity of the British monarchy, Albert chose to take his father’s name and be crowned King George VI. His choice was still fresh in the minds of royal protocol experts years later when his daughter Elizabeth succeeded him. Asked by her advisers what name she would be known by as queen, the new monarch is said to have responded "My own, of course."

My guess is that James White is not entirely ignorant of the history of papal names. Unlike sensationalistic anti-Catholics like Jack Chick, Dr. White shows some familiarity with the actual teachings of Catholicism. My guess is that he once again threw together a response without thinking through the claims he was making in the course of that response. He was likely more interested in dismissing criticism of his original sloppiness than in critiquing a Catholic custom. In short, he was more interested in proving himself right than in serving truth.

UPDATE:  Karl Keating has published his own response to James White in his August 30 e-letter.

GET THE E-LETTER.

A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:

"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."

Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:

“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”

GET THE POST.

Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."

So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?

No, not really.

In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.

In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.

The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.

But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.

Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.

A recent thread, now closed, on the Catholic Answers Forums caught the eye of Protestant apologist James White. One of the Catholic posters said:

"I have a lot of missionaries who come to ‘save me’ from Romanism."

Puzzled, James White responds on his blog:

“Please note: Roman Catholics can refer to ‘Romanism’ all they want. Scott Hahn has done a tape series called ‘Romanism in Romans,’ for example. No one will blink an eye. But, if I use the term ‘Romanism,’ Dave Armstrong will write a 24 page article about it.”

GET THE POST.

Not to mention that the subtitle of Karl Keating’s first book Catholicism and Fundamentalism is The Attack on "Romanism" by "Bible Christians."

So. Does James White have a valid point? Are Catholics guilty of a double standard?

No, not really.

In both the quotation of the person White quotes and in the subtitle to Karl’s book, the word Romanism is used in acknowledgment of the manner in which Catholicism is perceived by anti-Catholics. Indeed, Karl’s subtitle makes this acknowledgment explicit with the scare quotes. The Catholic poster is using the word in the same fashion but without the scare quotes.

In the case of Scott Hahn’s tape set, it can be argued that the word Romanism is used in the exact same fashion: As a play on words that is intended to demonstrate that those anti-Catholic Protestants who think the letter to the Romans is exclusively Protestant in its theology would be surprised by how much "Romanism" the apostle Paul spouts. Given Dr. Hahn’s affection for puns, as demonstrated in his many books, it is unsurprising that he would choose to give his tape set on Romans such a title.

The word Romanism can also be used by Catholics in another way: It can sometimes be used as an inside joke between Catholics who know that it is often used in a derogatory fashion by anti-Catholics. Much as some African Americans have adopted for each other (sometimes even as a term of affection!) a certain word that is highly-offensive when non-African Americans use it to refer to African Americans, so some Catholics occasionally use words such as Romanist and Romanism to affectionately tease each other.

But the fact that some Catholics occasionally use otherwise anti-Catholic words to refer to themselves or to their religion does not give license to non-Catholics to presume that the words are any less offensive or anti-Catholic when non-Catholics use such words to refer to Catholics and/or Catholicism. Just as it is common sense that a white person using the "n-word" for a black person is committing a gravely-insulting racial slur, so it should be a no-brainer that a non-Catholic using the word Romanism as a substitute for the word Catholicism is adopting a religious slur.

Language can be a very tricky thing. A sign of the mature use of language is the recognition that certain words or phrases are sometimes appropriate and sometimes inappropriate and that the duty of a polite person is to learn the distinctions and observe them — however puzzling he may personally find such distinctions to be.

Phillip R. Johnson, executive director of John MacArthur’s Grace To You ministry, comments on his blog about reports that payouts in priestly sex-abuse cases have topped $1 billion dollars. His premise is that these payouts prove that the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility is false. My thanks to him for offering me the opportunity to step into the world of fisking:

"Start with the pretense of papal infallibility [of which we will not define so that you do not know it has nothing to do with impeccability]; forbid everyone in the core hierarchy of the church to marry [except, oh, say, Eastern-rite priests, Protestant clerical converts who are already married, and permanent deacons]; embrace a notion of <scare quote>‘spirituality’</scare quote> with <overblown rhetoric>the most superstitious form of sacramental externalism at its core</overblown rhetoric>; and demand that all your members blindly and reverently accept the authority of the church’s earthly leaders no matter what [and even though those same leaders deny they have this kind of absolutist, tyrannical form of authority I’ve heavily implied, make non-members blindly and reverently think such a demand is made of Catholics] — and what kind of result would you expect?" [emphasis Johnson’s].

GET THE BLOG POST.

Certainly not truth-in-advertising from non-members who presume to attempt to explain to other non-members what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, that’s for sure.

Phillip R. Johnson, executive director of John MacArthur’s Grace To You ministry, comments on his blog about reports that payouts in priestly sex-abuse cases have topped $1 billion dollars. His premise is that these payouts prove that the Catholic Church’s claim of infallibility is false. My thanks to him for offering me the opportunity to step into the world of fisking:

"Start with the pretense of papal infallibility [of which we will not define so that you do not know it has nothing to do with impeccability]; forbid everyone in the core hierarchy of the church to marry [except, oh, say, Eastern-rite priests, Protestant clerical converts who are already married, and permanent deacons]; embrace a notion of <scare quote>‘spirituality’</scare quote> with <overblown rhetoric>the most superstitious form of sacramental externalism at its core</overblown rhetoric>; and demand that all your members blindly and reverently accept the authority of the church’s earthly leaders no matter what [and even though those same leaders deny they have this kind of absolutist, tyrannical form of authority I’ve heavily implied, make non-members blindly and reverently think such a demand is made of Catholics] — and what kind of result would you expect?" [emphasis Johnson’s].

GET THE BLOG POST.

Certainly not truth-in-advertising from non-members who presume to attempt to explain to other non-members what the Catholic Church believes and teaches, that’s for sure.