I’m all for consistency. Consistency is a great thing. I
imagine it’s comforting to view one’s faith as part of a grand ecclesiastical
tradition going back a couple thousand years. I suspect it’s reassuring to be
able to trace its leadership all the way back to Christ’s disciples. And if
there’s strength in numbers, how intimidating is a religious tradition that goes
by the name “universal”?
In any accusation against Roman Catholicism, the nagging question How can this many people over this many
years be wrong? seems an implicit rebuttal. And even
if the concept of infallibility is considered a bit much to ascribe to any
human institution, its historical dominance and sheer, massive scale suggest
that something in the order of “extremely likely to be correct” must
surely apply.
In comparison with Protestant factionalism, Catholicism
boasts an enviable appearance of solidarity. However, there are numerous and
visible cracks in the facade. For every unifying and stirring address from the
Pope there are thousands of practical departures from monolithic consistency at
the local, practical level — far away from Vatican City, where most Catholics
actually live. After all, before 1870, belief in papal infallibility was not a
defined requirement of Catholic faith. And in a 20-year old survey of 15-25
year olds, 81% Catholic, taken over a four-year period, only 36% affirmed that
the Pope has the authority to speak with infallibility.
So, cracks in the facade. There are many more. Still, it may
seem a little brazen to suggest that so many wise men with so much accrued
learning over so many centuries could be so wrong about so much. At least, it
would be brazen if the revelation of God began and ended with Romanism.
But it didn’t.