Rome Sweet Home

by Kimberly Hahn

  A short while later, I got a call from an old college friend. Apparently he had heard I was flirting with the “whore of Babylon”, as he put it. He didn’t waste any words.

  “So, Scott, are you worshiping Mary yet?”

  “C’mon, Chris, you know that Catholics don’t worship Mary, they simply venerate her.”

  “Really, Scott, what’s the difference? There’s no biblical basis either way.”

  I didn’t know what to say. Fingering my Rosary, I whispered to Mary for help. Emboldened, I replied, “You might be surprised.”

  “Oh, really, how so?”

  I just started saying whatever came into my mind. “It’s really quite simple, Chris. Just remember two basic biblical principles. First, you know that, as a man, Christ fulfilled God’s law perfectly, including the commandment to honor his father and mother. The Hebrew word for honor, kabodah, literally means ‘to glorify’. So Christ didn’t just honor his heavenly Father; he also perfectly honored his earthly mother, Mary, by bestowing his own divine glory upon her.

  “The second principle is even easier: the imitation of Christ. So, we simply imitate Christ not just by honoring our own mothers but also by honoring whomever he honors—and with the same honor that he bestows.”

  There was a long pause before Chris said, “I never heard it put that way before.”

  To be frank, I hadn’t either. “Chris, that’s just a summary of what the Popes have been saying for centuries about devotion to Mary.”

  He started back on the attack. “The Popes are one thing, but where is it in Scripture?”

  I fired back instinctively, “Chris, Luke 1:48 says ‘Henceforth all generations will call me blessed.’ This is what the Rosary does, Chris, it fulfills that Scripture.”

  There was a long pause, before Chris quickly changed the subject.

  From then on, I kept sensing how praying the Rosary actually deepened my own theological penetration of Scripture. The key was meditating upon the fifteen mysteries, of course, but I found the prayer itself imparted a certain theological outlook for pondering all the mysteries of our Faith according to something that went beyond (but not against) the rational powers of the intellect, what certain theologians have called the “logic of love”.

  This “logic of love” I first discovered by contemplating the Holy Family in Nazareth, the model for every household. This, in turn, pointed to the covenant and ultimately back to God’s own inner life as the one eternal Holy Family: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. This beautiful and compelling vision started to fill my heart and mind; but I still wasn’t sure that the Catholic Church should be identified as the earthly expression of God’s covenant family. A lot more study and prayer were needed for that.

  During this rime, Gerry and I kept up our phone conversations. One day he called to invite me to join him in a get-together with one of our more brilliant mentors, Dr. John Gerstner, a Harvard-trained, Calvinist theologian with strong anti-Catholic convictions. Gerry told him that we were seriously considering the claims of the Catholic Church; so he was more than willing to meet with us to answer our questions.

  Gerry made the arrangements. We could bring our Greek New Testaments, Hebrew Bibles, Latin council texts and whatever else we wanted; and we should be ready to debate anything, but especially sola fide.

  All three of us were to meet for supper at the York Steak House not far from Gerry’s home in Harrisburg. This meant Dr. Gerstner and I would drive together for several hours there and back. I was both excited and nervous to interact with such a devout and erudite scholar.

  As Dr. Gerstner and I drove out, we had four hours of intensive theological discussion. I was sharing this backlog of arguments that I had been storing up, all about the Catholic Church being the climax of salvation history in the Old Testament and the embodiment of the New Covenant.

  Dr. Gerstner listened carefully, responding to each point with concern and respect. He seemed to regard my arguments as somewhat novel; all the while he insisted they did not require anyone to join the Roman Catholic Church, which he referred to as “the synagogue of Satan”.

  At one point, he asked, “Scott, what biblical support do you find for the Pope?”

  “Dr. Gerstner, you know how Matthew’s Gospel emphasizes Jesus’ role as the Son of David and the King of Israel, sent by his Father to inaugurate the Kingdom of heaven? I believe that Matthew 16:17-19 shows us how Jesus establishes it. He gave Simon three things: first, the new name of ‘Peter’ (or Rock); second, his pledge to build his Church upon Peter; and third, the keys of the Kingdom of heaven. It’s that third item I find so interesting.

  “When Jesus speaks of the ‘keys of the Kingdom’, he is referring to an important Old Testament passage, Isaiah 22:20-22, where Hezekiah, the royal heir to David’s throne and King of Israel in Isaiah’s day, replaced his old Prime Minister, Shebna, with a new one named Eliakim. Everyone could tell which one of the royal cabinet members was the new Prime Minister since he was given the ‘keys of the kingdom’. By entrusting to Peter the ‘keys of the Kingdom’, Jesus established the office of Prime Minister for administering the Church as his Kingdom on earth. The ‘keys’ are a symbol, then, of Peter’s office and primacy to be handed on to his successor; thus it has been handed down throughout the ages.”

  He responded, “That’s a clever argument, Scott.”

  “So, how do we Protestants refute it?”

  He said, “Well, I’m not sure I’ve heard it before. I’d have to think some more about it. Go on with your other points.”

  So I went on to describe how the covenant family was the overarching principle or master idea of the Catholic Faith. It explained Mary as our mother, the Pope as our father, the saints as our brothers and sisters, the feast days as anniversaries and birthdays.

  “Dr. Gerstner, it all makes so much sense once you see the covenant at the center of Scripture.”

  He listened carefully. “Now Scott, I think you’re taking this covenant thing too far.”

  “Maybe I am, Dr. Gerstner, but I’m absolutely convicted that the covenant is central to all of Scripture, just as the greatest Protestants like John Calvin and Jonathan Edwards have taught; but I’m also convinced that the covenant is not a contract, as they understood it, but rather a sacred family bond between God and his people. If I’m wrong on either point, show me where. Please. You could save my career.”

  He said, “Let’s wait until we are with Gerry.”

  Once we arrived at the meeting place, we hacked away for hours and hours on many issues, but primarily justification, I was presenting the Catholic view that justification was not merely acquittal but was, in the view of the Council of Trent, divine sonship. For six hours Gerry and I argued various Catholic positions; none was refuted. We also raised many questions that were not answered to our satisfaction.

  At the end, Gerry and I looked at each other—we were both pale. This was a shock for us. We had been hoping and praying that someone could save us from having to undergo the humiliation of converting.

  When we were alone briefly, I said, “Gerry, I feel betrayed by our Reformed tradition. I came here thinking we were going to get blown out of the water. But the Catholic Church didn’t lose on a single point. The texts quoted from the Council of Trent have been taken out of context. Inadvertently, he’s been misrepresenting the canons by isolating them from the definitions stated in the decrees.”

  On the way home I talked a lot more with Dr. Gerstner. I asked him to show me where the Bible taught sola scriptura. I did not hear a single new argument. Instead he posed a question to me. “Scott, if you agree that we now possess the inspired and inerrant Word of God in Scripture, then what more do we need?”

  I replied, “Dr. Gerstner, I don’t think that the primary issue concerns what we need; but since you ask the question, I’ll give you my impression. Ever since the Reformation, over twenty-five thousand different Protestant denominations have come into existence, and experts say there
are presently five new ones being formed every week. Every single one of them claims to be following the Holy Spirit and the plain meaning of Scripture. God knows we must need something more.

  “I mean, Dr. Gerstner, when our nation’s founders gave us the Constitution, they didn’t leave it at that. Can you imagine what we’d have today if all they had given us was a document, as good as it is, along with a charge like ‘May the spirit of Washington guide each and every citizen’? We’d have anarchy—which is basically what we Protestants do have when it comes to church unity. Instead, our founding fathers gave us something besides the Constitution; they gave us a government—made up of a President, Congress and a Supreme Court—all of which are needed to administer and interpret the Constitution, And if that’s just enough to govern a country like ours, what would it take to govern a worldwide Church?

  “That’s why, personally, Dr. Gerstner, I’m beginning to think that Christ didn’t leave us with just a book and his Spirit. In fact, he never mentions a thing about writing to his apostles anywhere in the Gospels; besides, fewer than half of them even wrote books that were included in the New Testament. What Christ did say—to Peter—was, ‘Upon this rock, I will build my Church. . . , and the gates of hades will not prevail against it.’ So it makes more sense to me that Jesus left us with his Church—made up of a Pope, bishops and councils—all of which are needed to administer and interpret Scripture.”

  Dr. Gerstner gave a thoughtful pause. “That’s all very interesting, Scott, but you said that you didn’t think it was the primary issue? What, then, is the primary issue for you?”

  “Dr. Gerstner, I think the primary issue is what the Scripture teaches about the Word of God, for nowhere does it reduce God’s Word down to Scripture alone. Instead, the Bible tells us in many places that God’s authoritative Word is to be found in the Church: her Tradition (2 Th 2:15; 3:6) as well as her preaching and teaching (1 Pet 1:25; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Mt 18:17). That’s why I think the Bible supports the Catholic principle of sola verbum Dei, ‘the Word of God alone’, rather than the Protestant slogan, sola scriptura, ‘Scripture alone’.”

  Dr. Gerstner responded by asserting—over and over again—that Catholic Tradition, the Popes and ecumenical councils all taught contrary to Scripture.

  “Contrary to whose interpretation of Scripture?” I asked. “Besides, Church historians all agree that we got the New Testament from the Council of Hippo in 393 and the Council of Carthage in 397, both of which sent off their judgments to Rome for the Pope’s approval. From 30 to 393 is a long time to be without a New Testament, isn’t it? Besides, there were many other books that people back then thought might be inspired, such as the Epistle of Barnabas, the Shepherd of Hennas and the Acts of Paul. There were also several New Testament books, such as Second Peter, Jude and Revelation, that some thought should be excluded. So whose decision was trustworthy and final, if the Church doesn’t teach with infallible authority?”

  Dr. Gerstner calmly replied, “Popes, bishops and councils can and do make mistakes. Scott, how is it you can think that God renders Peter infallible?”

  I paused for a moment. “Well, Dr. Gerstner, Protestants and Catholics agree that God most certainly rendered Peter infallible on at least a couple of occasions, when he wrote First and Second Peter, for instance. So if God could render him infallible when teaching authoritatively in print, then why couldn’t he prevent him from errors when teaching authoritatively in person? Likewise, if God could do it with Peter—and the other apostles who wrote Scripture—then why couldn’t he do it with their successors as well, especially since he could foresee the anarchy that would come if he didn’t? Besides, Dr. Gerstner, how can we be sure about the twenty-seven books of the New Testament themselves being the infallible Word of God, since fallible Church councils and Popes are the ones who made up the list?”

  I will never forget his response.

  “Scott, that simply means that all we can have is a fallible collection of infallible documents!”

  I asked, “Is that really the best that historic Protestant Christianity can do?”

  “Yes, Scott, all we can do is make probable judgments from historical evidence. We have no infallible authority but Scripture.”

  “But, Dr. Gerstner, how can I be certain that it’s really God’s infallible Word that I am reading when I open up Matthew, or Romans, or Galadans?”

  “Like I said, Scott, all we have is a fallible collection of infallible documents.”

  Once again, I felt very unsatisfied with his answers, though I knew he was representing the Protestant position faithfully. I sat there pondering what he had said about this, the ultimate issue of authority, and the logical inconsistency of the Protestant position.

  All I said in response was, “Then it occurs to me, Dr. Gerstner, that when it comes right down to it, it must be the Bible and the Church—both or neither!”

  I got home early the next morning. When I shared with Kimberly the results of our day together, she panicked. She had hoped that the previous day’s conversation would end it all.

  She exacted a pledge from me. “Please don’t do this abruptly. It would be too painful.”

  I assured her, “If I convert, Kimberly, it won’t be until 1990 at the earliest, I promise. And I will convert only if it is absolutely necessary; if these conclusions become inescapable.” The year was 1985. That seemed like enough time to make an intellectually respectable move if I was going to convert.

  She said, “Okay. I can live with that.”

  After much prayer we saw that it was necessary for me to work on this full time. We decided the best place to go would be Marquette University, where I had discovered there was a team of outstanding Catholic theologians who loved the Church and taught the Church’s doctrine very well. In fact, there was a Jesuit professor of theology, Father Donald Keefe, who specialized in covenant theology. When we heard that Marquette had accepted me into the doctoral program in theology—and was offering hie a full scholarship with a teaching assistantship—we felt the Lord’s leading.

  Little did I know, little did we know, that our marriage was about to embark upon a time darker and stormier than we could ever anticipate.

  Kimberly:

  When we returned to Grove City, we were moving into our season of “fall”. The winds of change were beginning to blow. The colors were beautiful, but the changes they signaled were signs of dormition and death.

  There was a change of pace as we resettled our family. Scott began his nine-to-five job as assistant to the president of Grove City College. I focused on Michael and renewing friendships.

  Scott’s job enabled him to have evenings free to study for hours every night. He went into his study and closed the door, and I did not want him to open it. I was not interested in knowing what he was reading. As long as he kept that door shut, it was just fine with me.

  We were really beginning to grow apart in our convictions: in part I was busy, pregnant with our second child, and in part I was not interested. I was sure that he was going way out on a limb and that he was going to come back. The most important thing for me to do was to keep steady.

  One night he interrupted my sleep with an enthusiastic thought, “Kimberly, do you realize that we are surrounded right here and now by Mary, the saints and countless angels?”

  Quickly, I replied, “Not in my bedroom! No way!”

  What Scott had said had startled me. Mary? He was thinking a lot more about her these days. It seemed that Catholics focused on Mary the way we focused on Jesus: she was the approachable one—you could hide in her skirts rather than face the Father in his anger; Mary was the broad back door into God’s favor, while Jesus remained the narrow front door. Those thoughts were repugnant to me.

  I once read about a man in Rome who was repairing the ceiling of a beautiful chapel one day when he observed an American woman enter the church and begin to pray. He thought he’d have a little fun, so he called down quietly, “This is Jesus.” But the w
oman did not respond.

  So he called out a little louder, “This is Jesus.” Still no response.

  Finally, the man called loudly, “This is Jesus!”

  The woman looked up and yelled, “Be quiet, I’m talking to your mother!”

  My exposure to how Catholics viewed Mary led me to think they were substituting love, devotion and even worship of Mary for love, devotion and worship of Jesus. I voiced these concerns to Scott. And he challenged me with the almost total neglect of Protestants even to talk about her, though at the very least she was the chosen, most highly favored woman of all time, who bore the Son of God and gave him his human nature. Protestants probably thought they were compensating for the overwhelming attention she was given by Catholics.

  When I was approached to speak to the women’s Christmas dinner at church, Scott challenged me to speak on Mary. So I gave a Bible study on Mary as a woman of God, not at all sharing any Catholic notions about her (which I didn’t believe myself at that time). I cautioned the women not to fear honoring her as the Mother of our Lord because Jesus was both the Son of God and the Son of Mary.

  Immediately following my talk, the two pastors’ wives sang “What Child Is This”, deliberately changing the last words of the chorus to “the babe, the Son of God” because one minister had voiced concern just before the dinner that the line “the babe, the Son of Mary” gave too much honor to Mary. What a case in point to illustrate my talk!

  I was reminded of the lecture in seminary where Dr. Nicole had said that an ecumenical council had declared Mary to be Theotokos, Mother of God. At first we were all offended—she didn’t create God! But he quickly clarified the purpose of that affirmation—it was necessary for our salvation for Jesus to be fully human as well as fully divine—two natures in the one Person of God the Son. Therefore, since Mary was the source of his human nature, she was the mother of Jesus; and since Jesus is God, she is the mother of God. There was no need to be offended by this truth, Dr. Nicole had pointed out, because it safeguarded our salvation.