Introduction
The motivation for this mini review is as follows:
If you are a protestant who is willing to take the ACTUAL Red Pill and consider the possibility you have been told falsehoods about the Catholic Church, start with these books by non-Catholic scholar Rodney Stark:
1. Bearing False Witness
2. Reformation Myths
3. God’s Battalions
The actual Red Pill? How is that for clickbait!
Also, where is the recommendation to read “The Rise of Christianity?”
Well, since Joshua Charles is one of the most notable Roman Catholic apologist on Twitter these days, I have decided to “take the ACTUAL Red Pill” and do this review.
Bearing False Witness
Bearing False Witness is written to confront ten common myths about Roman Catholicism. Each myth is given as a broad-stroke generalization (p4-5). But, generalizations and summaries of broad historical events are almost always wrong on a strict, factual basis. In most cases, it is simply not possible to accurately describe a complex topic in a sentence or two.
The real question, IMO, is whether those generalizations reflect some more precise and accurate underlying reality or are “the exact opposite of the truth.” Stark asserts the latter, noting, quite emphatically, that “each is most certainly false.” Stark also claims he has not “attempted to ‘whitewash’ Church history” (p5).
Where I agree with Stark is in this:
Generally speaking, we wholeheartedly agree.
History and the Case of Leo
In his introduction, Stark recounts the story of how he was told that Columbus’ Roman Catholic advisors opposed his voyage because they believed that the earth was flat. But, this oft-repeated story is a lie (p.1). The origin of the myth was Washington Irving, who presented it as fact (p.2).
During the series on Papal Primacy, I noted Roman Catholic Lawrence McCready’s belief that Leo was guiding the council and that the council deferred to Leo because they viewed Leo as sitting in the rightful seat of Saint Peter. But, this oft-repeated story is a lie.
The historical evidence of Leo’s willful and unrepentant deceit is strong. We examined multiple pieces of evidence. For example, I showed that Leo knowingly put forth fraudulent versions of the Nicaean Canons…
- During the Apiarius of Sicca controversy
- At the Council of Chalcedon
- In his letter to the Bishop of Constantinople.
…and we will look at still another piece of corroborating evidence in tomorrow’s post.
I backed these claims up with a mix primary sources and other third-party references (including one detailed third-party citation). I also pointed out a bunch of other inconsistencies and errors, but we need not review them all now. For now, it suffices to say that the witness I have borne against Leo is firmly rooted in the historical account that we possess, historical accounts freely perpetuated by Roman Catholics.
There really isn’t any serious question of Leo’s guilt. The oft-repeated story of his greatness is a lie. The problem, for the Roman Catholic, is simple:
Extreme exaggerations like Pope Saint Leo the Great? Or what about the accusations lobbed against the Leo’s political opponents, which must be presumed to be false due to the massive abrogation of justice during the show trial. Or how about the frauds perpetuated against the Canons of Nicaea by Leo in service of the false doctrine of Papal Primacy?
Not All Falsehoods Are Lies
Bearing false witness: it is a serious charge, a violation of one of the ten commandments. It’s right up there with the capital crimes of idolatry, murder, and adultery. It is critically important not to spread false information when you know that it is false.
The framing of “anti-Catholic” is not the same thing as “bearing false witness.” Nothing about the former logically entails the later, unless one has presumed—via circular reasoning, tautology, or axiomatic precept—that Roman Catholicism is true, which Stark did not do (p.7), but many Roman Catholics certainly do.
Lying requires you to know that you are telling a falsehood. That’s why it is called a witness: a testimony about what one knows and perceives. Witness testimony does not include things that are not known or things that they believe incorrectly. One cannot bear false witness by accident, as I noted in “Lying to Combat Lying.” To wit:
I suspect that the vast majority of Protestants who perpetuate the lies described in Bearing False Witness are not, themselves, lying. They are not “bearing false witness.” They are, rather, making a mistake based on faulty information. In other words, they are the deceived, not the deceiver. They might be guilty of speaking recklessly, but not of lying.
Being deceived or speaking recklessly is bad, but not as bad as being a liar.
The problem is the conflation of bearing false witness—lying—with being deceived (e.g. stating something wrong). By that standard, the book’s premise would be guilty of bearing false witness about bearing false witness. But, of course, it is merely wrong.
This is why I had to show that Leo actively knew that his falsehood was wrong and that he chose to continue lying about it. It was not enough merely to show that what he stated was a lie in order to show that he was bearing false witness. I had to prove that he himself knowingly bore false witness against his fellow bishops.
Failing to individually prove that anti-Catholic persons have the intention of deceiving is itself knowingly bearing false witness through broad-stroke generalizations. Who can know the intentions of everyone’s heart? And, who can fail to know that they do not know? This is why individual proof (or a confession) is required. Otherwise the choice to accuse is not a mistake, but indeed risks bearing false witness.
Not All Lies Are The Same
The commandment against “bearing false witness” includes also the bearing false witness against someone for (allegedly) bearing false witness against someone. That’s right, you are not allowed to call someone a liar unless they are actually a liar. If you call someone a liar when they are not a liar, it is you—not them—that are bearing false witness.
A lie is bad, but a lie that makes you a hypocrite is worse. To bear false witness about bearing false witness is to attempt to shift your own sin onto another. Thus the one who accuses others of being false witness—especially in general, non-specific terms—should be examined closely. The harm such a person can do is much greater than simply the harm done by the lie alone.
There is another problem with lies. They require lies upon lies upon lies to defend them. Each lie has to cover for the initial lie and all the other subsequent lies. In a sense, it is the first lie that is the most important because it forms the basis for the whole thing. If the initial lie fails, this collapses the whole edifice of lies that are based upon it. Thus, the lies of the 4th and 5th centuries by the Roman Bishops are of significantly more consequence than the lies created in the Reformation or repeated by modern man. All truth is important, but not all lies are the same.
What’s in a name?
Throughout this mini review, I have been careful not to accuse Stark of bearing false witness. That’s because, despite the title, Stark doesn’t ever accuse anyone of bearing false witness. Within the pages of his book, he simply notes that some things are factually wrong and that various people—often Protestants—disseminate those views.
Stark never even once uses the term “false witness.”
So if you were, as I was, expecting a book full of the central thesis found on the cover of the book, you’ll be disappointed.
I suspect that the title of the book is clickbait. In my opinion, it is most probable that the publisher wanted something scandalous that grabbed the attention and sold more books. If that is the case, shame on them. But, I do not know who is guilty of bearing false witness about bearing false witness. The fact is, I have no evidence that would exonerate Stark. Ultimately, he chose to put his name behind that book and signed whatever contract allowed that author’s name and book title to be on the cover of the book, so I cannot clear him of the charge.
On Citations
I must act as if Stark is guilty of bearing false witness without presuming that he actually is. The title of Stark’s book undermines his own authority. This, unfortunately, means his citations are suspect. I am forced to question whether his historical citations are, in fact, honestly presented. If he can’t even present the title of his book honestly, how can we trust that he has presented the historical case accurately?
Stark’s book employs my least favorite citation style: the Chicago Style using superscript numbers referring to an endnotes found in the full bibliography at the end of the book. Virtually all of his citations are in this format. I prefer same-page footnotes containing actual quotations of the work being cited or else direct inline quotations (as I regularly employ on this blog). This format makes it virtually impossible for me to check the claims being made in any reasonable amount of time (and cost!). So, unfortunately due to the fiasco with the title, we can’t trust that he has accurately represented the citations he makes.
About Paganism
In Chapter 3, Stark debunks the notion that the early church persecuted pagans.
In addition, pagan philosophers played a prominent role in his court and depictions of the sun god appeared on his coins. Indeed, “Constantine directed his most ferocious rhetoric,” not against pagans, but against Christian heretics: Valentinians, Marcionites, and the “Gnostic” schools.”
Partly for these reasons, ever since Gibbon’s time, leading historians have dismissed Constantine’s conversion as an insincere political gambit. But, the most recent historians now regard Constantine’s conversion as genuine and cite the persistence of pagan elements in his reign as examples of his commitment to religious harmony. (p57,59)
In the end, of course, the pagan temples did close and Christianity became, for many centuries, the only licit faith. But to the contrary of early Christian and later antireligious historians, it didn’t happen suddenly nor did it involve substantial bloodshed—the latter was mainly limited to conflicts among Christians, which sometimes resulted in military action against various heretical movements. (p.67)
[E]ven in the cities…an elaborate mixture of Christianity and paganism flourished for centuries. (p.69)I’ve been saying this for years. In my opinion, any critical examination of the development of Roman Catholic doctrine will come to this conclusion.
Under Constantine, paganism was not meaningfully discouraged. Under Constantine, Christianity started to become syncretistic. Generally speaking, this continued under later Emperors until independent paganism died out on its own, being replaced with with the steady increase of pagan syncretism into Roman Catholicism. In particular, this adoption of paganism had a large contribution to the rise of Papal Roman Catholicism in the late 4th century and the doctrinal development found in later centuries.
Instead of discouraging paganism, the church (and state) focused on stamping out anyone it viewed as a Christian heretic. The church and state focused on persecuting Christians who didn’t tow the party line, through excommunication, banishment, intimidation, execution, or coerced recantation.
About Authoritarianism
Stark dedicates Chapter 9 to debunking the “myth” of Holy Authoritarianism, which he describes this way:
Until very recently, the Catholic view of the ideal state was summed up in the phrase, “The divine right of kings.” Consequently, the Church has bitterly resisted all efforts to establish more liberal governments, eagerly supporting dictators. (p.5)
[T]he belief that the Church favors tyrants lingers, fueled by its “history” of opposition to left-wing parties and revolutionary regimes. All of these charges are either greatly exaggerated or simply false … This certainly is not to claim that the Church was an early advocate of democracy … Mostly the Church dealt with the forms of government with which it was confronted, although it often acted to moderate and limit repression and exploitation by rules. In general, however, relations between the Church and state have been dominated by conflict—the state often seeking to control the Church, and the Church always asserting its independence. (p. 188)We can say, without any difficulty, that the final statement (in bold) is false.
I brought up the example of Leo because Leo’s “papacy” contradicts Stark’s central thesis on authoritarianism. As we discussed in Part 6 and Part 7 of the series on Papal Primacy, Rome actively allied itself with the Roman Emperor over the Eastern bishops, and used its political power to suppress dissent. Rome actively presided over a blatant show trial against the man who had excommunicated the Bishop of Rome. And, of course, we have a letter from Leo appealing to the Emperor on a theological matter.
And what about “How Pope Damasus Killed His Opponents?” Should we simply gloss over use of the Sword of the State to murder his theological opposition?
The very basis of Papal Roman Primacy is rooted in the authoritarianism of the marriage of church and state.
To be fair, Stark does recognize some of this. He noted that the Constantinian union of church and state turned the priesthood into a means to acquire power and wealth “on a par with the wealthiest senators,” noting that bishoprics turned into positions of the aristocracy and even hereditary succession (p.189). This includes Pope Innocent (401-417) who was the son of the previous Pope. Perhaps this is why Stark is not a Roman Catholic.
Stark opens Chapter 10 by saying:
As an ethnic Anabaptist, I didn’t need to read the chapter to know that!
Conclusion
We began this review with this challenge in mind:
After reading and reviewing the first four chapters of Bearing False Witness (all myths prior to the Crusades), I did not find anything in the early church that refuted any of the anti-Catholic material that I’ve written. But, what I did find in Stark’s analysis only confirmed the historical basis for the rise of Roman Catholicism in the late 4th and early 5th centuries. When one reads the prophesies of Daniel, Jesus, Paul, and John the Revelator, we find that Rome’s replacement would persecute Christians. And that’s exactly what Roman Catholicism did. It largely left the pagans alone.
It is curious and revealing that the common Protestant myth of the persecution of pagans actually hides the real anti-Catholic history. The anti-Catholic myth serves a decisive pro-Catholic interest.
I didn’t find the book title’s implied accusation of “bearing false witness” to be credible. If the goal was to try to make Protestants feel bad for lying, it failed spectacularly. The book described myths that Protestants sometimes spread, but just because the anti-Catholic myths are myths doesn’t actually mean anti-Catholic rhetoric is misguided. The anti-Catholic myths largely serve as a distraction that prevents anti-Catholic rhetoric—which is correct in a general sense—from being correct in a specific sense.
Stark’s book largely benefits the Protestant’s anti-Catholic thesis by cleansing it of poor arguments. If Protestants read Bearing False Witness, they should realize that they may have been making bad arguments at the expense of much better ones. The reason for this is simple:
I am not a Roman Catholic, and I did not write this book in defense of the Church. I wrote it in defense of history. (p.7)
And, well, history—when told correctly and honestly—is anti-Catholic. If you fix an honest Protestant’s historical errors, he’ll become more Protestant. Perhaps that’s the actual Red Pill.
In the final analysis, I tentatively recommend that you read Bearing False Witness. It is well argued, well documented, and quite interesting. But, don’t expect it to be about “bearing false witness.” Stark never mentions “false witness” even once in his entire book. Most important, it is hard to heartily recommend a book that is so obviously and blatantly bearing false witness. It puts a black mark on the whole thing. Reader beware.
Pingback: Who Writes the History Books? - Derek L. Ramsey