Thanks for the trackback, Justin. It's my first, and a great honor. :)

Even though I'm a recovering Protestant myself, I do think the Protestant schism partly explains the problem. But the question I still can't answer is: Why did this happen in the Catholic nations of Europe? What caused hundreds of millions of people who had not chosen Protestantism of some sort to abandon their faith?

Early this year, George Weigel explored this topic in a "First Things" article. But in the end, I don't think he got any closer to an answer for that "why" than the main character of Joseph Heller's novel )from which I drew the title to my post) got to one for his "what".

And I don't think this is an academic question. If we ourselves want to preserve both the Catholic faith and way of life to pass down to successive generations, it is imperative that we find out what happened and why.

Your thoughts?

This is a rather large topic. My first suggestion, if you haven't already, is to read Francis Schaeffer's How shall we then live?. He traces (somewhat superficially, but clearly) the progression of the secular mindset from Aquinas to the present. He claims Aquinas was the first major theologian to offer up the idea that revelation and reason are somehow separable (or at least he provided the seed for this idea). I think the problem here runs through each denomination, to a greater or lesser exent, and not so much between denominations. Look at the Episcopal church (or the Anglican one) in their fights over homosexuality.

Also, see this speech given by Robert P. George, which makes a similar point.

Finally, I'm no expert on the Reformation and Counter-reformation, but I did read Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God recently, which develops a sociological theory that helps explain why the Reformation took hold in the places it did. One of the key themes (which is obvious, but it seems to me often ignored) is that the Reformation was led by Catholics who were dismayed at the corruption in their Church (Stark uses the terms "The Church of Power" and "The Church of Piety" to describe the two groups). Movements for reform had ebbed and flowed for several hundred years before Luther. And the Reformation did result in the Counter-reformation, although too late to prevent the schism. It is an open question whether the church would/could have reformed itself without the Reformation. I think a Protestant case could be made that the Reformation saved the Church, despite the problems it brought with it.

One further point,

Nonetheless, one need look no further than the Biblical exegeses of liberals in mainstream Protestant Churches for evidence of how dramatically human passions can distort divine revelations.

I think you can find such exegeses by Catholics just as easily as by Protestants. Likewise, you can find conservative exegeses by Protestants just as you can with John Paul II. Read the George piece I linked to.

P.S. I'm not offended in the least, but I do think you are either overstating the case, or taking too narrow a view of things.

Mike,

I'll admit that I'm simplifying, and any overstatements are to be considered theses rather than assertions. But so as not to overstate too much, let me quickly address two points:

I think a Protestant case could be made that the Reformation saved the Church, despite the problems it brought with it.

I'm not necessarily saying that it couldn't. My question is merely whether they'd take a different approach had they a view of centuries to come. (I'm no expert on the topic, but for an example of what I mean, perhaps mechanisms and/or seeds could have been carried into schism that would have made reconciliation easier... or something. It gets mixed up with ethnic and other disputes, as well.)

I think you can find such exegeses by Catholics just as easily as by Protestants.

Right, but at the end of the day, Catholics have to turn to the rest of the Church via the Vatican for the final word. Protestants aren't so restricted.

I oppose consolidated world government, but I can't help but note that consolidated power in the Catholic church is precisely what made the church so utterly corrupt and impotent in dealing with the sex abuse scandal. That's why you had so many high church officials engaging in coverups. That's why some organizations have had to file for bankruptcy. To this day, the Pope has declined to say the "buck stops here."

Protestants left the church because it was thoroughly corrupt. The Protestant reformation was a help to the Catholic church.

Whether it is a fair perception or not, most Protestants believe that the Catholic Church places the Pope as a greater authority than the Bible.

I will admit to the downside and that is the absolute splintering of non-Catholics, which itself is a measure of scandal and impotence.

"Catholics have to turn to the rest of the Church via the Vatican for the final word."

That's fine if you have a JPII as Pope (and Ratzinger, etc.), but not so good if you have [insert favorite incompetent/crooked/liberal Pope here]. I don't deny that one of the main advantages the Catholic Church has is it's long history of theological development, or that having more structure is conducive to developing an institutional memory, for lack of a better term. As I said, this is a large topic, and I'm not supposing that the differences between Catholics and Protestants can be worked out on Dust in the Light. The question of institutional order and authority vs. individual freedom (in doctrinal terms) has been debated for 500+ years - perhaps there is no "correct" answer.

'My question is merely whether they'd take a different approach had they a view of centuries to come."

You could say that about almost any decision/movement. It has more resonance if your talking about years instead of centuries, though. Who can imagine what will happen in the coming centuries?

I think a Protestant case could be made that the Reformation saved the Church, despite the problems it brought with it.

In a somewhat selfish perspective, I tend to agree. It is certainly not outside the real of possibility that God would use the Reformation as a way of re-forming His Church. Unfortunately, it seems that it happens at the expense of many Protestants.

The question of institutional order and authority vs. individual freedom (in doctrinal terms) has been debated for 500+ years - perhaps there is no "correct" answer.

This seems an odd thing to say. It would seem that would require God to abandon His promise to lead us in all Truth, and undermine the very existence of a Truth. If there is no "correct" answer, what is the point of following either? It also would appear to go against Christ's nature - He seemed very big on submission of His will to that of the Father, not in following His own individual freedom.

c matt -

I meant correct as in discernable to human beings right now, not correct in some absolute sense. God will unify His church on His own time - all I'm saying is that there seems to be an unresolved tension right now between the authority of the church and the freedom of the individual to interpret Scripture and to interpret God's will in his or her life. Which is the second point in response to your post - I don't mean individual freedom in the sense that the believer should place his will above God's. I mean individual freedom in the sense that each individual is responsible to God. Obviously, one purpose of the church is to rebuke and instruct brothers and sisters in Christ, so I'm not saying that the church should have no authority - the question is how much authority.

The problem shifts depending upon whose viewpoint you take: you and Justin are looking at it from the viewpoint of the church, looking at wayward believers and the Protestant splintering. But if you look at it from an individual believer's perspective, the local church is more accountable to him than the distant Vatican.

You can frame this debate in the same way as politics (I realize there are limitations to the analogy): conservatives trust individuals to make decisions, and to be responsible for them, whereas they don't trust the government. Liberals have the reverse view. I think there is a loose correspondence between political conservatives/Protestants and liberals/Catholics.

These distinct views are related, in part, to the different ways that Catholics and Protestants interpret Matthew 16:18. Catholics tend to focus on the person of Peter as a symbol of the Church, the "rock" upon which the Church is built, while Protestants focus on the revelation by the Holy Spirit as being the rock. I'm not a theologian, but it seems to me that there is no way to resolve this question about the true meaning of the passage - one can muster various arguments one way or the other, but ultimately it is a matter of faith what one believes. This is what I was referring to when I said there is no correct answer. All will be revealed in time, but right now we have to live with imperfect understanding.

Sorry for the rambling post, I'm a little tired...

Mike S.

Aquinas didn't teach that reason and revelation are seperable. If you read The Unit of Philosophical Experience by Gilson, you'll find that what St. Thomas was trying to do was maintain distinctions among theology, philosophy, and logic. It was the failure to maintain those distinctions on the part of some key medieval philosophers (notably St. Bonaventure and William of Ockham) that lead to the collapse of epistemology and the skepticism that followed.

I read Schaffer's book as a Protestant, and found it not only superficial, but utterly dismissive of practically everything produced by Catholic Europe. For Schaffer, Christianity began with the Reformation; or so it would seem if you read only that book. MTF

(Cont.) As for the case of the Protestant Reformation being helpful: The only Priest I've personally met who could be fairly categorized as a "Rad-Trad" once told me that the Reformation was the best thing that ever happened to the Catholic Church, as it caused the Church to purify itself of much accured corruption.

That said: Although Catholic exegetes took up critical methods for interpreting the Bible at a later date, those schools originated entirely from within Protestantism.

Which leads me back to my original question: Why did this apostasy take place in Catholic Europe?

"I read Schaffer's book as a Protestant, and found it not only superficial, but utterly dismissive of practically everything produced by Catholic Europe. For Schaffer, Christianity began with the Reformation; or so it would seem if you read only that book. MTF"

This may be completely accurate - you've obviously read far more than I have on this subject. In Schaeffer's defense I would offer that a) he wasn't trying to cover all of Christian history, and b) that he was trying to explain the modern mindset, and that the period he covered was sufficient to do that. Also, I think he was writing for the general public, and not as a scholar. And he was a Calvinist, so it's not surprising that he might give the Catholic Church short shrift.

I'm curious what your view is of Schaeffer's explanations, such as they are, for the Northern-Southern split during the Renaissance and Enlightenment (roughly, that the Northern countries, where the Reformation took hold more strongly, stuck to a more Biblical worldview, while Southern ones, where the Reformation had less influence, followed the Enlightenment ideas that man's reason could discern absolute truth).

"Which leads me back to my original question: Why did this apostasy take place in Catholic Europe?"

I'd be surprised if there was a simple explanation for that. Part of the answer is probably related to the fact that, as in the US, the elites are far more secular than the general public. And it is the elites who are pushing the EU and the Constitution. The general public is more secularized than the US public, but it seems probable that if they had written the constitution, they would not have elided Europe's Christian past.

One element this discussion lacks is the role that the establishment of churches has played in European history. This isn't solely a Catholic problem. In fact, the Anglican Church in England offers a prime example.

For centuries, the crown designated Anglicanism as a de facto religious monopoly (just as the Spanish did with Catholicism). As a result, the C of E became more associated with societal acceptability and respectability than with the Gospel -- which, in turn, led to the focus on intellectual fashion that has resulted in the current decay.

The fundamental difference between religious expression in the U.S. and Europe is that, in the U.S., it has been encouraged as an expression of popular freedom, not as a de facto extention of the state. That important difference has made Europe more susceptable to the kind of apathy we see today (especially considering that those same state religions often justified the soverign's near-totalitarian control and unwarranted bloodshed).

For the Catholic Church (or any other Christian church) to rely on constitutional, political or marketing formulas to reverse that trend will be seen as either 1)more of the same or 2)a craven strategy that should be ignored. With Islam on the march in Europe, only an uncompromising preaching of the Gospel that motivates passion for Christ can reverse the trend.

On another note, Joel Thomas is absolutely right on the role of consolidated power making the Catholic Church corrupt not only before the Reformation but today, as well (and I'm a Catholic saying this). But the problem has far less to do with Catholicism and more to do with human nature. Any system that concentrates power and discourages accountability -- whether that system is headed by the Vatican or the Marxist Kremlin -- is bound to result in pervasive corruption. Such systems of governance isolate those in power and foster their sense of arrogance and entitlement; they also discourage anything but subservient fealty on the part of those whom the leaders claim to "serve".

Rome's insistence on constitutional or political resolutions to European religious apathy reflects its infatuation with consolidated power. So, too, does its insistence on supporting the UN as the ultimate geopolitical arbitrator.

"But the problem has far less to do with Catholicism and more to do with human nature."

I think that is true - but isn't part of the point that Catholicism has a central authority built into it, while Protestantism doesn't? Justin's original post implied that that authority is important for preserving doctrine. This is another reason why I said there may not be one "correct" answer - both systems have different advantages and disadvantages, and God can use both to further His kingdom.

Mike S., the fundamental problem with the Catholic system of governance has more to do with the lack of accountability to those whom the powerful claim to serve that with concentrated power in and of itself. But the problem is that the two usually go hand in hand. The problems with the Catholic system manifest themselves less in defining and preserving doctrine than in ensuring the hierarchs' ethical behavior. The great outcry within the Catholic Church during the past two years had to do precisely with the behavior of bishops who enabled clerical sexual predators and intimidated or ignored abuse victims and their families.

Besides, Mike S., I know of many Catholic bloggers who are upset at John Paul II because he has done a poor job disciplining bishops who teach things at variance with the faith. When a pope is flaccid about such internal discipline, concentrated power as a means of preserving doctrine tends to become a non sequitur.