Why The Church Needs "bad Catholics"

[Amppax]

I came across this article the other day, although it was written quite a while ago. Although I don't agree with everything he said, it is definitely thought provoking, and something worth reading and discussing. So, phatmass, thoughts? 

[Nihil Obstat]

Hm. I am not sure what I think. Certainly well thought out and we'll written. And I always appreciate a favourable reference to Michael Davies.

[PhuturePriest]

Hm. I am not sure what I think. Certainly well thought out and we'll written. And I always appreciate a favourable reference to Michael Davies.

 

I concur.

[Amppax]

Hm. I am not sure what I think. Certainly well thought out and we'll written. 

 

Those were my feelings almost exactly. 

 

I was especially interested when he talked about the influence of Puritanism on culture in English speaking cultures, and the influence of that on Catholicism. I've heard this numerous times, but it was interesting how he used that insight in the article. 

 

It's certainly a very interesting interpretation of the state of the Church in the post-Vatican II world. 

Edited January 20, 2015 by Amppax

[Oremus Pro Invicem]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between a sinner and obstinate sinner, since the two are completely different.  The Church is not blind to the fact that we are imperfect and are constantly in need of being picked back up again- hence why we have the Sacraments.  In this the Church is very accommodating and encourages those who fight the good fight, to continue doing so.   The Church, however, cannot be accommodating to obstinate sinners, nor should it have to be.  It would be like expecting the Father from the parable of the Prodigal Son to install a pig pin on his property so his son could have the best of both worlds. Such a view would be ridiculous and incompatible with true charity.  Also since a relationship with the Church is a relationship with Jesus Christ, to be an obstinate sinner within the Church would be like a husband telling his wife she should allow his mistress to live in their home, eat their food, and use their money.  

 

The Church does not need obstinate sinners; obstinate sinners need the Church.  

 

 

[Amppax]

I think there needs to be a distinction made between a sinner and obstinate sinner, since the two are completely different.  The Church is not blind to the fact that we are imperfect and are constantly in need of being picked back up again- hence why we have the Sacraments.  In this the Church is very accommodating and encourages those who fight the good fight, to continue doing so.   The Church, however, cannot be accommodating to obstinate sinners, nor should it have to be.  It would be like expecting the Father from the parable of the Prodigal Son to install a pig pin on his property so his son could have the best of both worlds. Such a view would be ridiculous and incompatible with true charity.  Also since a relationship with the Church is a relationship with Jesus Christ, to be an obstinate sinner within the Church would be like a husband telling his wife she should allow his mistress to live in their home, eat their food, and use their money.  

 

The Church does not need obstinate sinners; obstinate sinners need the Church.  

 

I think his he is being hyperbolic to make his point. Obviously the Church doesn't NEED obstinate sinners, but, (and I think he's right in this diagnosis) people who are ensnared in a life of sin aren't being reached in the way they once were. Instead of persevering, they just fall away. I think he might have a point in some of the reasons he proposes. I don't think he's entirely right, but neither do I think he's that far off. 

 

I think there's significant problems with the vision it seems he might be proposing (sin Monday-Saturday, Confession, Sunday Mass), but it depends on exactly what he's proposing. I'm not entirely sure. Either way, I think there's some interesting things to consider. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I thought about it while I was getting ready for classes, and I think I largely agree. I like how the author drew a fine distinction between the necessity of grace, and the fact that grace itself is not a magic bullet. These 'bad Catholics', of the sort that are nearly extinct, are proof of that distinction. And they are a reminder for us, that we are not exempt.

This may shock some people, but I have a very real soft spot for the "accommodating", "tolerant", "decadent", and "lax" confessional practice. :hehe: As long as we recognize sin as sin and as long as we do not excuse sin, forgiving it is the easy part.

[Not The Philosopher]

It occurs to me that this really is about the virtue of hope and our struggles with its opposing vices of despair and presumption.

[Basilisa Marie]

Ooooh, I like this article. I must read more of this guy. 

 

I think he's on to something. I once took a class on the Catholic Imagination, and we read all kinds of stories and poems by Catholics, mostly modern people before Vatican II, and it was absolutely FILLED with "bad Catholics." The key differences between them and people who might be like them today is that they embraced the Church's standard of morality as an objective standard - that is, it was true, and that they had a clear understanding of their own failure to live up to that standard. Nowadays people not only think they're doing just fine, but they reject any standard that exists outside their own head entirely. 

 

It does seem to me that the natural solution to this problem would be the universal call to holiness (I had hoped the author would be going there as I read the article). Take people who understand the Church is true and give them some encouragement or confidence or whatever that yes, they actually can change their lives and become holy too, and POOF we have saints! Right? Sounds easy.  But what happened instead was people moved away from understanding the Church as the great standard of morality, embracing relativism instead. Combine relativism with "You can be holy too!" and you get cheap grace, grace that doesn't cost you anything or make you change the way you do things. 

So now what? 

 

There's got to be a way to navigate between our idea that conversion is a lifelong process that requires people to keep trying to avoid sin, and the idea that people need to conform their lives to Church teaching. The bad Catholic vs the obstinate sinner indulging in cheap grace. This might even speak to the heart of difficult pastoral situations where sin is involved. I fall in the camp that says if the person is really trying, making a good-faith effort, then we should do all we can to help them. But if a person isn't, then that limits us. 

 

Anywho. Great find, Amppax. 

[Amppax]

Interestingly enough, most of Aaron Taylor's blogging takes place at Spiritual Friendship, which is an interesting site to say the least. 

 

I thought it was interesting that he seemed to fault the way the universal call to holiness has been taught. I'd never thought about it the way that he was proposing it, but what he did with it was really interesting. 

 

Also, I can't take credit for finding this, a friend posted it on facebook, and I merely re-posted it here. Simply doing my duty. 

[Nihil Obstat]

Interestingly enough, most of Aaron Taylor's blogging takes place at Spiritual Friendship, which is an interesting site to say the least. 

 

I thought it was interesting that he seemed to fault the way the universal call to holiness has been taught. I'd never thought about it the way that he was proposing it, but what he did with it was really interesting. 

 

Also, I can't take credit for finding this, a friend posted it on facebook, and I merely re-posted it here. Simply doing my duty. 

Yeah, he raises a solid point. If the universal call to holiness has, against the prevailing expectations, actually led to a sort of indifference, maybe we should try a different angle.

[Amppax]

Yeah, he raises a solid point. If the universal call to holiness has, against the prevailing expectations, actually led to a sort of indifference, maybe we should try a different angle.

 

I don't think the problem is the universal call to holiness. I would say it's an objective fact, all are called to sanctity. I think, however, that we should certainly reassess how it is taught and how we think about it, if the result is a sort of indifferentism. 

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't think the problem is the universal call to holiness. I would say it's an objective fact, all are called to sanctity. I think, however, that we should certainly reassess how it is taught and how we think about it, if the result is a sort of indifferentism. 

Yes, I should have been more precise. 

[Amppax]

Yes, I should have been more precise.

Okay, I was hoping you'd say that.

[truthfinder]

I haven't read the article yet (maybe when I really hit my procrastination groove), but I think there are aspects of the universal call to holiness (in the way it's taught) that feels a lot like Oprah saying "you can be a saint, and you can be a saint, we can all be saints."  It neglects the fact that life is messy, we don't always feel like being holy, and sometimes we can just suck at being Christian.  Granted, I do have a sort of affinity for "bad Catholics" (though I'd never want to marry one).  

"Bad Catholics" was definitely a significant genre of writing.  Most people now writing about Catholics seem to fall into two camps: the vitriolic anti-, ex-Catholic, or the purer than the driven snow Catholic.  There is something rather alluring about In This House of Brede's main character having to knock back a couple whiskies before entering the convent.