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.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Brideshead Revisited too. The entire Flyte family is some form or another of the Bad Catholic™.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

There was a issue in this article that I found interesting, and that is the issue of conscience. Louise Mensch has, for reasons she prefers not to discuss, chosen not to seek an annulment to her first marriage. Instead, she chose to remarry without an annulment, going against Church teaching. She doesn't say she was denied an annulment (as has happened to many Catholics), but instead has chosen not to seek an annulment at all.

 

The whole subject of "conscience" within Catholic teaching is one that is of great importance to me, and I need to do more reading on the subject. If any of you have suggestions for good books or articles on this, I'd appreciate that.

 

Like Louise, I, too, have chosen not to seek an annulment of my marriage, for my own reasons of conscience. I have thought about the subject A LOT--in fact, asking a question about annulment is what brought me to Phatmass in the first place, so it has been almost five years.

 

Unlike Louise, I have not remarried, or even come close to meeting someone I would seriously consider remarrying. I have no idea if Louise's first marriage would be a candidate for annulment, but my marriage certainly would qualify for annulment on several grounds. I have resisted annulment because, despite its problems, my marriage FELT like a real marriage to me. "I" certainly got married planning to stay married forever and understanding as well as a couple can before actually marrying, the kind of love and commitment marriage entails. And, after all these years, I still love my ex-husband--I'm no longer "in love" with him--but I wish only happiness and the best for him.

 

Yes, I was clueless when I got married, and it turns out I was missing certain facts that, if I had known them, would have almost certainly caused me to break off the engagement. But, in many ways I don't feel like I was any more clueless than most young couples getting married. I had dated my ex-husband for four years before we got married, I was a month short of my 27th birthday when I married, and my ex and I were the oldest couple at our Engaged Encounter weekend. I felt that in many ways we were very prepared, and not any more clueless than my roommate at EE, who was an 18-year old woman who cried all weekend because it was the first time she had ever spent the night away from her mother.

 

Also, I think there is a good chance that my ex-husband also not even knew the missing information at the time we married (namely, that at age 40, he would so strongly want to lead a gay lifestyle that he was willing to give up our marriage to do so). I know that at the time we married my ex-husband was as committed to lifelong marriage as I was. And, I had NO idea that homosexuality was even an issue for him--or would be an issue later--it never even occured to me

 

Life is just ironic enough that my young roommate from my Engaged Encounter weekend is probably still happily married, while I am divorced. Like so many things, I felt very smug that weekend that my ex and I were well prepared for marriage. Over the years, God has proven me wrong about SO MANY things I was so smug about when I was in my teens and 20's. That makes it very hard for me to watch younger people who act smug about  something in their life--I don't want even the most annoying people I know to ever have to go through what I went through. I'm not pretending to be particularly wise now, but at least I know that when I start feeling smug about something, it's time for me to be wary. There is a reason that "Pride" is one of the Seven Deadly Sins. 

 

Back to the issue of "conscience." The reason I am not a Catholic is that my conscience will not let me join the Catholic Church as long as I still have so many questions. Important note: I am NOT saying the Catholic Church is wrong about ANYTHING. However, over the past few years, I have dug down to my deepest, core values and beliefs, and I can't in good conscience say that I KNOW the Catholic Church is right on all issues. My conscience won't let me become Catholic, because I can't "buy the whole package"--I'd be a "Cafeteria Catholic,' at best. I have asked God to make his will mine, and there have been times in the past few years when I KNEW God wanted me to take a specific action, and I did so. I am clinging to the faith that some day I will understand, and that in the meantime, God will be merciful to me, as long as I keep working to put my heart where God wants it, and trying to be honest with myself and Him.

 

BTW--As I have said before, if any of you want to pray for me to become Catholic, feel free to do so. If God changes my conscience, I like to hope that I will listen. But, as of right now, despite lots of prayer, my conscience will not let me become Catholic because of my questions. In the meantime, I desperately need prayers for inner peace and guidance from God on big decisions I need to make soon, such as selling my house, and moving SOMEWHERE. I'm totally in the dark about where that SOMEWHERE is, so I'm stuck. (It's a LOT more complicated than this quick explanation--there aren't obvious answers and lots of circumstances making this decision difficult.)

 

And, as I asked before, if anyone has read anything helpful on the role of conscience in faith, I'd appreciate it.

 

Sorry for going off track. My mind is like that. One side issue came up in the article, and I ran with it. However, in my defense, I think the role of conscience, and why Louise Mensch has chosen not to have her first marriage annulled, and thus has the problem of not being able to take Communion, is the critical issue that leads to the rest of the article. So maybe my thoughts aren't so "off track" after all.

 

Thank-you for your patience and prayers.

[truthfinder]

Iggy, I'm not sure if you state something more firmly and I missed, but is it Catholic understanding of conscience or your own conscience which you feel keeps you from Catholicism?

Just remember too, that Catholicism teaches following your conscience only applies when you have a well-formed conscience which conforms to the teachings of the Church.  Therefore, your conscience can indeed be wrong.

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

Iggy, I'm not sure if you state something more firmly and I missed, but is it Catholic understanding of conscience or your own conscience which you feel keeps you from Catholicism?

Just remember too, that Catholicism teaches following your conscience only applies when you have a well-formed conscience which conforms to the teachings of the Church.  Therefore, your conscience can indeed be wrong.

 

It's BOTH my own conscience, and my most likely my lack of understanding of Catholic teaching on conscience that keeps me from Catholicism. I know some about Catholic teachings on conscience, but I certainly could learn more. That's why I'd welcome any suggestions of books on the subject of conscience.

 

My understanding is that, among other things, the Catholic Church teaches that a person should not convert if he or she has serious doubts or questions.

 

My conscience could well be wrong, but I've dug down as deep as I can go into my values and beliefs. Right now, my questions are strong enough that I would be lying if I said I knew all Catholic teachings to be correct. And, I can't knowingly lie about something as large and important as that.

 

However, I haven't stopped listening and praying. I'm going through a time where my faith in God is pretty weak, but I'm hanging in there.

Edited January 20, 2015 by IgnatiusofLoyola

[superblue]

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? 

 

 

all the church really has are bad catholics.