Structures of Deceit

by Christopher Bowen

Papal Sin by Garry Wills is the latest in a long series of books condemning the gall of the Roman Catholic Church to continue to hold on to its beliefs and traditions in the face of modernity. The book starts off as a compelling look at the papacy, but by the end falls far short of its intended goals. Indeed, by the end, Gary Wills has destroyed most of his credibility through a series of factual errors and blatant logical fallacies.

Reading through Papal Sin initially, one is almost overwhelmed by the number of facts the author cites. Still, certain facts jump out from the page as either wrong or misrepresented. The most glaring example came across in his discussion of the Vatican's diplomatic objectives. Describing the Holy See's dealings with Mussolini, Wills states, "In 1937, however, at a time when Mussolini wanted church approval for his actions, Pius signed the Lateran treaty, in which the Vatican recognized the legitimacy of the Italian government." This will strike anyone remotely familiar with political events of the 1920s and 1930s as a little odd, and a quick Yahoo! search will reveal that in fact the date is 1929 for the signing of the Lateran treaty, not 1937.

In another example Wills states that "Five years after the letter, 42 percent of the priests in America thought that issuing it was an abuse of the Pope's authority and 18 percent thought it was an inappropriate use of that authority, leaving less than a third of his own closest legions to give it feckless support." Again, quickly adding up the numbers will reveal that indeed forty-two plus sixteen equal sixty percent, meaning that 40 percent supported the measure, more than a third. While a minor point, once again it demonstrates a lack of regard for accuracy that, coming from a supposed scholar, is very disturbing. One wonders what other errors might escape the lay reader.

The other, deeper problem with the work is the book's presumptiveness. Its entire tone and message center on the notion that the Catholic Church and the Pope have no right to hold certain doctrines, because, according to Wills, they do not conform to modern ideals. He also claims that the Church, if it continues to reject modernity, will face large decreases in membership and eventual irrelevance. One appreciates Wills' concern for the continued vitality of the Church, but to claim that the institution is somehow obligated to alter its beliefs and conform to his modernity is ludicrous--and would, perhaps, create a Church not worth preserving, a Catholic Church that doesn't take Catholicism seriously.

The other problem with Wills' analysis is that, especially throughout the second half of the twentieth century, those religions which altered their belief structures to fit the latest fads, as many of the mainstream Protestant religions did throughout the 1960s and 1970s, saw a rapid decrease in membership. Those that continued with their traditions, or reinvigorated their traditional commitment, were the ones that saw membership increases. It appears that altering a religion's dogmas to fit the mood of the times brings about irrelevance, not continuing tradition.

Wills' response to the Church doctrine can best be described as baffling. Responding to the Church's opposition to abortion, he states that since the Church does not advocate the baptizing of the fetus in any occasion, then the Church clearly does not consider the fetus a human and so it should not be subject to the same protections: "What is even more significant, Catholic authorities do not treat the fetus as a person by baptizing it. If, as the Vatican teaches, every fertilized human ovum contains a human soul, and each soul inherits original sin, and baptism is needed for a soul freed from original sin to enter heaven, then each fetus from the fertilized egg stage should require baptism." The statement is absurd. The Church teaches that there is a time and a place for every sacrament and that one's birth is the proper time to enter into the community of the Church.

Using Wills' logic, the Church must administer to every fetus first communion, penance, and confirmation in order to be consistent. More strangely, Wills' position would require that the Church preach that one need be a Catholic in order to receive protection against murder and other crimes. Only the baptized, says Wills, are even considered human, let alone worthy of protection. However, according to Catholic teaching, just because a human being is not baptized does not mean that one is free to kill him or that he does not have a soul. To kill a non-Catholic is just as bad as killing a Catholic. You don't become a human only when you're baptized, nor are the unbaptized somehow undeserving of security or unworthy of life.

One of Wills' largest pet peeves is the Catholic prohibition on masturbation. Wills uses surveys of priests in the 1990s that show that large numbers do in fact masturbate themselves. Thus, says Wills, the prohibition by the Church is out of touch with the modern world. But this is simple Argumentum ad Populum. If one were to survey priests and the population as a whole as to whether they ever lied, one would probably find that they have and they probably do so on a consistent basis. Just because a large number of people do it, though, does not make it morally correct. The Church, in fact, recognizes that priests are simply humans and are subject to lapses in their morality--that's why the Church created the sacrament of confession, so that one may ask forgiveness for one's transgressions. The notion that popular proclivities legitimate any sort of behavior is, surely, a bankrupt morality.

As we saw earlier, Wills appears to have trouble with addition, so his over-reading of surveys should not come as any surprise. The major problem with the surveys he uses is that they almost all come from the United States or other Western European states in which Catholicism has either been a minority religion or is dominated by liberal reform movements--in contrast to the rest of the world. Surveys and statements from the most liberal segment of the Church's population aren't a means to condemn the entirety of the Church, and don't exactly lead one to conclude that in the Church as a whole there is widespread discontent.

While Wills does have a number of interesting points and arguments, his basic approach and messy research undermine their validity. One cannot help but walk away from Papal Sin with an impression of Garry Wills as clearly more pundit or polemicist than researcher or scholar.