Pointers towards a response to James P Mackey

The Irish Times is running a series of 5 articles by James P Mackey which are supposed to reflect on the future of the Catholic Church in Ireland. Well, that's what the by-line says. Professor Mackey himself admits to a more polemic intention. Starting with the Papacy he says:

[I]n this and a further four columns, five features of church life and teaching that most loudly cry out for reform will be analysed.

Certainly not a case of 'accentuate the positive'... I won't deny the usefulness of non-Catholics presenting their critique of the Church and her constitution, but what I find offensive about this article is the way in which the author's criticisms are so detached from an accurate understanding of Church history and what the Church actually teaches about the Papacy. It's the kind of mud-slinging exercise which poisons the public discourse and upsets Catholics who haven't had the formation to see the blunders that Mackey makes.

Mackey's Reading of Scripture
Mackey begins with his reading of the Gospel scene where Christ appoints Peter as the Rock on which His Church would be built...

In the gospel scene in which the prophet, Jesus of Nazareth, is thought to have instituted papacy, Jesus is pictured choosing a leader for his group of close companions in mission. He wants to make sure the leader will know who Jesus is and what he is about.
Cephas steps forward and confesses that Jesus is the Christ and is duly rewarded with the new name, Peter or Rock, and given the keys of the kingdom of God. But at this point promoters of a Petrine papacy seem to stop reading and fail to notice that Peter is quickly fired from the job just offered him.
When Jesus went on to say that he must go up to Jerusalem and die for his message and mission, as prophets often had to do, Peter corrected him.
Jesus suddenly realised that Peter’s idea of the Christ was modelled on King David, the paradigmatic Christ in Israel’s history, who would reign over the same kingdom, now won back from the Romans, and reign as absolute monarchs are wont to reign, by threat of force both armed and punitive.

Beneath that analysis is a picture of a Jesus Christ who doesn't really know what's going on. Mackey presents Him as a wobbly and indecisive personnel manager rather than the Incarnate Son of God. Christ's rebuke of Peter is severe - Get behind me Satan - but if you actually read the Gospels AND read the writings of the early Christians, there's no indication that Peter's commission was somehow withdrawn at that moment. When dealing with the Apostles, the consensus of the scriptural and non-scriptural early texts of Christianity consistently put Peter in the role of leader.

Now, theologians can and do argue about what that role means for the future of the Church and the development of the Papacy, but Mackey's suggestion that Christ somehow sacked Peter just after appointing him is a novel and bizarre reading.

Of course, the Gospels do show Peter making a mess of things. They don't paint a rosy picture of him. (And this is a point in favour of their accuracy!) He can be blustering and impetuous, and when the moment of trial comes, He denies Christ three times. That is a moment where Peter seems to undo himself. However, far from being a moment where Christ dismisses him, it's Peter's own weakness which sees him fall short of the role given to him. And Christ knew that would happen. If we have a look at the 22nd Chapter of Luke we find:

"Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

Even after his failure, the task of strengthening his brethren would fall to Simon Peter.

And when he does fall, what's Christ's response? After He rises from the dead, he takes Peter aside...

When they had finished breakfast, Jesus said to Simon Peter, "Simon, son of John, do you love me more than these?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Feed my lambs." A second time he said to him, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" He said to him, "Yes, Lord; you know that I love you." He said to him, "Tend my sheep." He said to him the third time, "Simon, son of John, do you love me?" Peter was grieved because he said to him the third time, "Do you love me?" And he said to him, "Lord, you know everything; you know that I love you." Jesus said to him, "Feed my sheep. Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you girded yourself and walked where you would; but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will gird you and carry you where you do not wish to go." (This he said to show by what death he was to glorify God.) And after this he said to him, "Follow me." (John 21:15-19)

The three-fold denial is undone with a three-fold declaration of love, and even though Peter is more aware than ever of his weakness, Christ commissions him to feed His flock.

Mackey seems to side-step the importance of that passage by saying, "There is no scene in the New Testament that describes Jesus reinstating Peter as pope before he died; indeed in one scene of the arrest of Jesus, Peter draws the sword to bring on the insurrection." Note the qualification before he died. Is Mackey unwilling to deal with the 21st chapter of John because he doubts the veracity of the resurrection appearances or is he sneakingly trying to dodge the issue with a little equivocation. Is he hoping that the readers won't notice the qualification he makes and will overlook what Christ has to say after He rose from the dead?

Constantine and the Pope?
The rest of Mackey's article is flawed as well. He brings up the old boogey-man of the Constantinian papacy - the idea that somehow the first three centuries of Christianity led to the generation of a Papal monarchy. Even a cursory reading of Church History shows that Mackey doesn't know what he's talking about. Yes, things did change for the Church with Constantine. But, it didn't result in the immediate creation of some form of Papal Monarchy. Indeed, Mackey seems to be engaged in some hand-waving here... He points out:

The assimilation was consummated under Constantine, who himself as Pontifex Maximus was head of religion as well as state; just as Pope Benedict is absolute monarch of his Vatican statelet and simultaneously of the worldwide Catholic Church – and pretender to absolute rule over all other Christian churches.

Is he implying that Benedict XVI is - in some sense - a successor to Constantine? Well, he's glossing over the fact that Constantine wasn't Pope. Whatever was 'consummated' under Constantine wasn't some kind of Papal Imperium. Mackey seems just to want some kind of excuse to throw Benedict's name next to that of nasty ol' Constantine.
What Mackey is not saying is that from the time of Constantine onwards, one of the key battles of the Church has been to stop secular rulers from abusing the spiritual authority of the Church for their own advantage. Putting a limit on the claims to spiritual authority of Constantine and his successors - as well as preserving the Church's own independence from temporal interference - is one of the big themes of Church history for the millennium after Constantine. Scraps between Pope and Emperor pepper the following centuries.
The Papacy does develop over that span of time. Frequently some very unworthy men filled that office. Many of them could be accused of greed and veniality. However, the assertion of Papal authority which came under Pope Gregory VII (1073-85) is much more important in terms of defining the role of the papacy than anything that happened with Constantine. The Gregorian Reform, as it is known, was aimed at securing the freedom of the Church from the corruption of medieval nobles, a renewal of holiness and an affirmation of the spiritual mission of the Church. Now, the history of the Papacy is certainly painted in shades of grey and there's plenty there to criticise. However, the point I wish to make is that Mackey's historical picture is confusing and detached from the facts.
I'm also at a loss to charitably interpret Mackey's reference to the 'Vatican statelet'. Does he want us to imagine Benedict sitting on his sofa contemplating his absolute rule over a mighty empire of 110 acres? The Vatican City State could have been bigger, but during the negotiations with the Italian state in the 1920s Pope Pius XI refused to accept anything more than the current size of the Vatican to serve as place which guarantees the independence of the Papacy.

The Infallible Governor?
Finally, the sting in the tail, Mackay's assessment of Papal infallibility and his confusion between the Pope's teaching and governing functions:

The matter of papal infallibility is also relevant to the historical papal hunger for absolute power; as the promoters of that cause before Vatican II amply illustrate.
For even if an absolute monarch dictates to you, without need for your agreement, some harsh rule on what to believe, how to worship, how to live, you might still retain some slight hope that you could persuade him that this was a mistaken or at least a counter- productive move. If though he has decreed himself infallible, you are utterly helpless.

Speaking of the Pope as an 'absolute monarch' is a somewhat pejorative description of the Pope's role in the Church. Yes, he does have the 'last say', but to speak of him as an 'absolute monarch' without reference to the rights of the laity and clergy as set out in the Code of Canon Law, without reference to the governance exercised by bishops in their own diocese (something the Papacy is loath to interfere in) and without reference to how things actually work is a cheap shot. Additionally, the Pope's authority to teach infallibly on matters of faith and morals is not something self-declared. It's something taught by the First Vatican Council and (horror of horrors!) Vatican II. Mackay's article would be a lot more useful if it explored what that infallibility consisted of. It's not about infallible governance as Mackay seems to imply, but rather a special charism and responsibility to formally and authoritatively teach in matters of faith and morals. It's something which has been used sparingly and within a narrow scope. And, it's also worth pointing out, when the world's bishop's teach together on matters of faith and morals - either when they gather together in a council or when they teach separately but in harmony in their own diocese - they too have the charism of infallibility.
The appeal to infallibility has - in theory and in practice - very little to do with how the Pope governs the Church from day-to-day. It's an easy word to bring up when you want to have a pot-shot at the Catholic Church, but Mackay's article doesn't even try to engage with actual Church teaching about the Papacy or infallibility. Nor does it go into specifics about how infallibility has been mis-used. One would expect better from someone claiming to be a theologian.

Why not an honest critique?
There are issues to be discussed here both within and outside the Church. The ongoing dialogue with the Eastern Orthodox Churches will see the role of the Papacy debated and clarified. However, discussion cannot be based on the kind of caricature painted in Mackay's unworthy article. He presents us with a reading of scripture which has no support in the New Testament itself or in any early Christian reading of the scriptures that I'm familiar with. His reading of Church history is self-contradictory and doesn't even attempt to engage with the real (and sometimes murky, I admit) development of the Papacy's temporal and spiritual power. And, finally, his point about the Pope's role as 'absolute monarch' seems to based on a knee-jerk distaste for the term infallibility rather than an actual engagement with what, for example, Vatican II teaches about the governance of the Church or how things actually happen in real life.

Footnote:
A close reading of Vatican II's Lumen Gentium explains the make-up of the Church and the Pope's role. Likewise, the Catechism does a good job explaining the special mission of the Pope and the hierarchy.

Edited to add:
I drafted this post under the assumption that Professor Mackey was a non-Catholic. However, some Googling suggests that he might be Catholic. That's a puzzle, because I would expect a theologian with a Catholic background to understand things a little better.