Since @ThomasdelVasto has made a couple "main-Motte" religious posts I thought I'd join in the fun.
I'm a Protestant with strong Reformed leanings. My wife, on the other hand, has just converted to Catholicism. This has led me to explore aspects of Catholic teaching, though necessarily at a surface level given the rich history. Aquinas alone would take months if not years to digest. I expected to disagree on Mary (perpetual virginity, immaculate conception, assumption) and the Pope (infallibility); and I still do (though I was surprised how recently these have become "dogma": I would have found it much easier to be a Catholic in 1800 than today). I am pleasantly surprised at how much weight they place on Scripture, Christ, and Assurance: there are far more shared hymns than I had anticipated, as as an example.
What follows is some of the reflections I had to this surface exploration. I would be thrilled to be corrected or critiqued by any of the Motte's Catholics, if nothing else to better understand my wife's flavor of the Christian faith. Many of these are reactions to "Catholicism" by Bishop Robert Barron, which my wife kindly bought to introduce me to the titular topic. While I presume he is orthodox Catholic, his interpretations may not be universally accepted by Catholics. If I challenge particular arguments from Barron, it should not be interpreted as an argument against Catholicism unless Barron is arguing for Church Dogma. His "Catholicism" is also meant as an introduction and for popular consumption, and his actual beliefs may have more nuance.
As part of this journey (which is certainly not over yet!), I also read (the dense and repetitive) "Divine Will and Human Choice" by Richard Muller and "Christus Victor" by Gustaf Aulén. These, too, have varying degrees of rigor. Muller and Aulén were both Protestants.
God’s freedom
While Reformed theology would affirm that God predestines both those who are saved and those who are damned, Catholics balk at this concept; arguing that this implies a God who would cause sin. God cannot will that which is against his nature. Catholics would appeal to God’s provision and common grace that allows humans consciences to (partially and weakly) discern good and evil. Yet we cannot perfectly discern this apart from divine revelation (scripture). And scripture states multiple times in the Exodus narrative that God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. Aquinas (as if often the case) provides the most rigorous Catholic argument I’ve heard for this hardening. God through an act of his will withdrew what grace was granted to Pharaoh. Absent God’s grace Pharaoh drew more into his sin. While Aquinas argued this case for the individual case of Pharaoh, it seems consistent to assume that were God to withdraw his common grace more broadly that all would fall into a state where our consciences are no longer capable of even partial discernment of good and evil. This is also consistent with God giving humans over to their lusts in Romans 1.
So far, this interpretation is consistent with scripture, though I am discomfited by the constraints this threatens to place on God: constraints that come perilously close to being primarily informed by our own interpretation or perspective of scripture and sin. God works and wills, including in sin.
Barron, if I read him correctly, goes a step further. He puts the "problem of sin" as one of the best arguments against God. I’ve never understood this as a problem for Christians. It is a deep problem for atheists, who have to explain or excuse their visceral (though often mis-aligned) desire for justice despite no objective basis for these judgments. Christians have no such need to explain or excuse: of course we are all deeply desirous for justice since we have (again, weakly and with great room for error) a sense of what transcendent goodness could be. A consistent perspective on the problem of evil would be that God defines good, and if we don’t understand his actions to be "good" that is a fault (a mis-calibration) of our fallen nature. The fact that Barron does not take this tack hints that he believes humanity’s desire for a "good" God is compatible with humanity’s definition of "good". This runs the grave risk of putting ourselves as a "judge" or external arbiter of God’s behavior.
Barron continues to put a soft face on hard truths. Later in the book, Barron says "God sends no one to hell, people freely choose to go there". This sharply contradicts scripture. Jesus talks about casting sinners into the outer darkness. Peter says the present heavens and earth are being reserved for fire, kept for the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. John’s Revelation describes those who receive a mark on their forehead drinking the wrath of God, mixed in the cup of his anger, and tormented with fire and brimstone. If anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire. Again, God is not passive: he works and wills.
How does God work and will (1)? Does God have a an array of potential actions, any of which he can actualize? Yet this runs the risk of these potential actions being "outside" God. Does God create the potentials as he actualizes them? Thus no "possibles" exist for God, simply "actuals"? This also could be seen as a constraint on God and limit his radical freedom. Both these potential concepts of God’s will and freedom (of which I’m sure there are hundreds of alternative concepts) seem to be operating at a level above how Barron conceptualizes God’s freedom. Put crassly, Barron seems to be hinting that God could not "make a triangle a square", that is, that God is constrained by logical impossibilities. But this is such a small view of God. God creates our minds and universe. Our minds invent or discover things like logic, or define things like squares or circles. Whether spawned by our intellect or embedded in the structure of the cosmos, these concepts (including logic!) are part of Creation itself. God created the conditions under which we can model physical reality with math, structure, and logic. Logic is a model. Logos is Truth. Logic is created. Logos is the Creator.
God’s atoning work
The freedom God enjoys in his omnipotence has implications for a theological understanding of Atonement. The "big two" theories of Atonement, Satisfaction and Substitution, emphasize the sacrificial nature of the cross. This sacrificial interpretation retains God’s complete sovereignty with Christ’s death being an act of perichoretic propitiation. The incarnation and death was necessary because of God. It was not necessary because of anything external to God.
Catholics consider Substitution theory, which is the most common concept of Atonement in Reformed circles, to be heresy. Belief in the other concepts of Atonement are allowed. In the Satisfaction theory, which my understanding is that most if not all Catholics affirm, Jesus is our great high priest and a perfect offering, but does not receive the judgement of God. Christ died for our sins, but not in our place.
"Christus Victor" makes the historical case for Ransom theory. In principal, this theory could bring Protestants, Catholics, and Orthodox together: the church Fathers at least strongly hinted at Ransom theory being the primary lens through which they interpret the cross, and the church universally recognizes the importance of the church Fathers. Aulén makes the case that Luther was also an adherent to Ransom theory. Yet this theory risks making God subservient to morality or law, proposing that Jesus was paid to Satan in exchange for humanity (2). Uncharitably, this theory makes God beholden to the "laws" of commerce, even transaction with a brigand.
However, I do find Ransom theory to have its merits. In heavily Reformed theology Satan is almost considered an afterthought. Satan plays no necessary role in the arc of human redemption and salvation. Ransom theory, on the other hand, puts Satan in a prominent place: he is either the kidnapper of human souls or is the (legitimate, in some sense) owner of human souls. The exchange of Christ for humanity and the subsequent torture and murder of Christ was simultaneously Satan’s crowning achievement and his destruction. This interpretation echos Jesus’ parable of the landowner who sent servants to collect from the tenants only to have them beaten or killed. The frustrated landowner finally sent his own son, but the tenants murdered him hoping to take his inheritance. At the conclusion of the parable, the chief priests react that the landowner will bring the tenants to a “wretched end”. Christ’s death and resurrection was the ultimate victory over Sin, Death, and the Devil, bringing this triumvirate to a “wretched end”. Indeed, this victory can be interpreted as more complete than Satisfaction or Substitution theories: it not only removes the penalty of sin, but defeats the sin itself.
Conclusion?
I plan to read and think more on this topic. Next on my list is "Deification through the Cross" by Khaled Anatolios. Any other book recommendations are welcome. I'm particularly interested in Catholic perspectives Atonement that go deeper than Barron's book.
(1) As I read "The Divine Will and Human Choice" I had to continuously bite my tongue. My mathematical training was screaming "But Kolmogorov!". Yet Kolmogorov is but a model, and Muller was trying to describe reality. Muller, though, had merely words to try to describe reality and I kept mentally begging for a more rigorous algebraic representation to more clearly and concisely communicate. Of course, the algebraic representation is itself a model, but so are words: anyone who uses ChatGPT or Claude is implicitly recognizing that words are not reality but just a map or model of reality.
(2) In CS Lewis' The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe, Aslan (representing Christ) is beholden to the "deep magic".
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I'd like to note that while these have only recently been formally codified, veneration of Mary, belief in perpetual virginity, sinlessness, and her assumption into Heaven has existed for ages - these are all present in Orthodox Christianity which split off a thousand years ago, and veneration of Mary present in Oriental Orthodoxy which split off long before that. Vatican I actually put a hard limit on Papal Infallibility by officially defining it, before then Catholics were generally more Papist.
Making a formal dogmatic declaration is significant. I heard someone speculate that the timing existed to preserve veneration of Mary against a Protestant world that was increasingly dismissive of her. Meaning, without these formal dogmatic declarations, Protestants might have converted into Catholicism without gaining respect for her, bringing in their own "the mother of our Lord is just a woman," attitudes and eventually reducing Catholic devotion to her.
There are no external constraints on God. I think you are assuming here that Logic and God are different essences, and God's being is constrained by Logic. But instead, Logic is God's unchanging will. Logic is what it is because of God's Being being what it is.
But like, could God be something else? Could God want something else? What would that entail? Assuming God already wants what is best, Him changing His mind would mean he's picking a lesser good. God's freedom does not look like our freedom. God is the supreme good, He has perfect freedom to pick the best good at all times without external constraints imposed on Him.
I don't know if this video from +Barron helps show him clarify his position: https://youtube.com/watch?v=1zMf_8hkCdc?si=_47urSM6NRvgHOXX
That said, I would like to pause and say that +Barron is presenting a very common Catholic philosophy but this isn't the only way of looking at things. Franciscan Voluntarism is probably a more familiar way of looking at it and it is equally Catholic. This also might be an interesting little web-book for you: https://www.absoluteprimacyofchrist.org/introduction/
The biggest thing I would like to impart, even if all else I say is nonsense, is that there are many valid theological opinions a Catholic can hold. The Church is able to define limits to what can be believed, and usually does in response to controversy. But until the Church says "This is outside the bounds of our teachings," there is room for a large diversity of thought. Bishop Barron has a very specific way of talking about God - through Thomism and a mix of more recent philosophers. But that's not the only way a Catholic can talk about God.
RE: Atonement - I think it's really a mystery. I really liked Cur Deus Homo which felt very logical, but even that is just one facet of many. The problem we face is that God really could have just snapped His fingers and forgave everything. Jesus' sacrifice is for us, to cure some deficiency in us. It was the best possible way to do it because of our weakness in a way that perhaps we really cannot grasp.
The hardest thing for me on Catholicism or more broadly Christianity in general is what the great awakening un-earthed. Racial Disparities as proof of structural issues makes a lot more sense in a Catholic worldview than explaining away disparities as a result of genetics. From a theological perspective what’s a good argument that human races have much different rates of grave sin? You can deal with sin at the individual level thru a need for free-will, but to say God created some humans that like to sin more feels very bad.
Of the major reasons I guess that is one of the very appealing things about Judaism. You can feel ok with rationalizing those issues as they are not the chosen people.
I don't know how you can determine if other races are actually committing a disproportionate amount of mortal sins, in the sense that do they actually know what they are doing is gravely wrong and do it anyways with their will? You cannot really examine any one else's conscience but your own.
Catholicism has a "For those whom much is given, much is expected" attitude. If there is a group of people who really do have a greater understanding of right and wrong and a greater self-control, then they will be judged by that. And if there is a group that is opposite, they will be judged by that.
Why does God create such variety? Those who are in Heaven do not all possess equal glory. When St. Therese of Lisieux puzzled on how this could be and yet all be perfectly happy in Heaven, her sister gave her two cups, a small and a large. Each were filled to the brim with water. The sister asked, "Which is more full?" The answer of course is neither. In another section of her diary, St. Therese mentioned how the saints were like a bouquet, the whole is more beautiful because the big flowers are mixed in with small flowers.
Certainly within race ability to do morality differs to. Augustine etc I would reason has greater ability than myself. And differing ability to morally reason would defeat the idea expressed below that individuals can morally reason and instead should just be papists and trust their bettors.
But reality increasingly seems to be pointing me in a direction that some races are pit bulls and have very little ability to morally reasoning on their own. So either my perception of the world is wrong or there is an important theological question without an answer. Europeans between 1492 did not live in a world that had to deal with this question.
And a Catholic would answer, if that was the case, such people would be the Baby's Breath of God's bouquet. They are not immediately damned, but will be judged according to their abilities and if they pass they will be the least in Heaven - but still in Heaven and more glorious than the greatest among us now.
Then how do you build the Kingdom of Heaven on earth if it is filled with pit bulls? You can put me in jail and punish me as deserving as a morally aware individual. But punishing pit bulls for being pit bulls feels mean? Obviously libertarians deal with this question too - it’s why the libertarian to fascists pipeline exists. And probably why Catholics have fascists tendencies. The Puritan city on hill with self-functioning people seems unrealistic in a world of pit bulls.
Isn't there some research suggesting that, specifically, Christian influence on
is part of what led to European civilization operating at such a highly functional level?
Backing up just a bit:
The biggest disparity in grave sins when dividing by immutable characteristics, it seems to me, is in gender, not race, so the question of the moral impact of immutable traits is not some new problem for Christianity, I don't think. Ditto for really pretty much any other religion or ethics system. It just seems particularly vexing because of contemporary social mores.
On this point I would say the Church is theologically correct not executing people for stealing a loaf of bed. Even murderers are tough to get to execution theologically. It was probably more the state that was doing this.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
After the Resurrection of the Dead, we will no longer have weakened wills, darkened minds, and rebellious bodies. Frankly, they are just not going to act the way you fear. You will discover to your surprise that there is a goodness inherent in their nature that was marred by original sin. That these weaknesses were caused by original sin and God will remove these impediments.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link