St. Peter's Sins vs. St. Paul's: Anti-Catholic Double Standard?

Some anti-Catholics (a tiny minority of all Protestants) make an argument that it was the "singular weakness of Peter" that caused Jesus to call St. Peter the Rock and say He would build His Church upon Him (or his faith, as they usually say). But it wasn't (by all indications in the immediate context) because Peter was weak and had to be given a "vote of confidence" from the Lord. It was because Peter proclaimed that He was "the Christ [Messiah], the Son of the living God" (Mt 16:16, RSV), to which Jesus replied: "Blessed are you, Simon Bar-Jona! For flesh and blood has not revealed this to you, but my Father who is in heaven" (Mt 16:17). And then He made him the Rock in the next verse.

Now, what does any of this have to do with St. Peter being weak or the one who temporarily lost his resolve (under the threat of possible death) to follow Jesus, denying Him? Absolutely nothing! Even those who don't like Petrine primacy and despise the very notion of a papacy freely admit that it was Peter's faith (before the Day of Pentecost, when all Christians were indwelt with the Holy Spirit) that led Jesus to change his name to Rock. And true faith has nothing to do with the weaknesses that we also all have. Critics of Peter (who in effect represents -- as the first pope -- the dreaded, detested Catholicism) love to bring up St. Peter's three denials. That was a matter of a strictly temporary weakness or cowardice, under the threat of possible death, as one of Jesus' followers. He made the denials, heard the cock crow, and then immediately "went out and wept bitterly" (Mt 26:75; Lk 22:62); "broke down and wept" (Mk 14:72); that is, he repented. The entire incident may have lasted no more than five or ten minutes.

Contrast that with St. Paul, who persecuted and actually killed who knows how many Christians. The Bible states that he was "ravaging the church, and entering house after house" and that "he dragged off men and women and committed them to prison" (Acts 8:3) and that he stood by "consenting" (Acts 8:1) when St. Stephen was stoned to death and was "breathing threats and murder against the disciples of the Lord" (Acts 9:1) and that he "made havoc in Jerusalem" (Acts 9:21). Paul himself says that "I persecuted this Way to the death, binding and delivering to prison both men and women" (Acts 22:4). It took God virtually forcing him to convert, with a dramatic vision, to stop the killing. This is why Paul described himself as "the foremost of sinners" (1 Tim 1:15), noting how he had "formerly blasphemed and persecuted and insulted" Jesus (1 Tim 1:13). We don't know exactly how long this went on, but it appears to be some significant length of time, and certainly more than Peter's ten or so minutes of fear and betrayal.

Anti-Catholic Protestants love to "minimize" and put Peter down any way they can. Hence, they also love the passage where Paul rebukes him for hypocrisy. Anything to "knock him down a rung" . . . But which sin was worse, between those two? An irrational bigotry exists towards Peter from anti-Catholics -- who endlessly bring up his denials of Christ, whereas there is no similar animus towards Paul, even though (if we are to compare) he was a far greater sinner before his conversion to Christ, and needed to be almost forced to repent by Jesus, so stubborn was he to accept the truth. If they insist on bashing Peter endlessly for his sin, how about also a little fair-mindedness and keeping in mind how terribly Paul sinned? Both repented, and both were mightily used by God. Both were martyred (Paul by beheading, which takes half a second; Peter by being crucified -- by his request -- upside down: many hours of the most agonizing torture). 

Another similar argument is made, based on this scene between our Lord Jesus and St. Peter:

Luke 22:31-32 "Simon, Simon, behold, Satan demanded to have you, that he might sift you like wheat, [32] but I have prayed for you that your faith may not fail; and when you have turned again, strengthen your brethren."

I've debated anti-Catholics who claim that Peter was singled out by Jesus, not because He wanted to make Him the leader of the early Church (just as he already was among the disciples), but rather, because he would deny Him three times not long afterwards. In other words, Jesus' prayer of Peter's restoration in Luke 22:31-32 anticipates Peter's denial. I respond with what Jesus also said about the disciples as a group (John was the only exception):

Matthew 26:31 Then Jesus said to them, "You will all fall away because of me this night; for it is written, `I will strike the shepherd, and the sheep of the flock will be scattered.' (cf. Mk 14:27)

John 16:32 The hour is coming, indeed it has come, when you will be scattered, every man to his home, and will leave me alone; . . .

According to this anti-Catholic reasoning, Jesus would have had to pray for all the disciples (save John), who would "fall away" and be "scattered" and "leave" Him "alone" when He was led away to His trial and passion and crucifixion. But He only prays for Peter (and I believe this is the only time the New Testament shows Him praying individually for a disciple, by name). We believe He did because Peter was the Rock, and he had to repent in order to fulfill his duties as the first leader and pope of the new Christian Church that Jesus built upon him. The "strengthen your brethren" implies (or is at the very least consistent with) this leadership. In other words, Peter was so important that the New Testament made it a point to show how Jesus prayed for him to have the strength to perform his ministry.