How important are the teachings of the Church to the ordinary Catholic?

[Mudgely]

I was googling about and came across some statistics. According to a Gallup poll of April 2010, 74% of US Catholics disagree with the Church’s position on contraception, and the majority ignore it, according to the NY Times. So, then I looked at the statistics on two countries where same sex marriage is legal. Two democracies, Brazil is 74% Catholic, and the largest Catholic country in the world. Italy is 97% Catholic, and has the lowest fertility rate in Europe, and also same sex marriage. From the Church’s point of view, I would think that this would be perceived as a crisis of some sort. From what I could tell, about 20% of professed Catholics go to mass weekly.

 

[BigFellaMick]

I wouldn’t pay much heed to a gallup poll. Especially from the NY Times. That’s practically an anti-catholic paper as it is lol There is certainly a crisis and the areas they bring up are indeed experiencing these difficulties but how can they determine 74% of people unless they grabbed a census and went door to door and polled each citizen individually? Statistics can never really be relied on for anything.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

The Catholic Church has always, or at least since Constantine (and his lesser known contemporaries in Armenia and Ethiopia who legalized Christianity slightly earlier), consisted of fervent believers and mere cultural Catholics for whom Catholicism is mainly just a matter of socio-political expediency or ancestral heritage. Note I say mere cultural Catholics, since cultural, cradle Catholics who are also fervent could be said to have the best of both worlds and should not be imputed with the faults of their less devout compatriots. Hilaire Belloc would be an example of the unabashed cultural Catholic who also intensely owned his faith.

Anyway, these days we are seeing the mere cultural Catholics letting their surface Catholicism inform their lives less and less and even abandoning the Church altogether, especially the younger generations. That is bad for the secular order, though it could be good for the Church Herself for the chaff to separate itself from the wheat of its own accord.

 

[amerrychase]

I knew very few Catholics in school, mostly Christians. I think what Aelred Minor said describes them, also- most of them didn’t let even basic Christian teachings inform their actions.

The majority of Catholics I have known disagree with official positions on a great many things, if they know them at all, and going to Mass is just the thing they do on Sundays, sometimes- it could just as easily have been any other church. I don’t think (but don’t know) that they consider the Eucharist to be anything special, and they don’t think of Confession at all.

This came from a Catholic on another message board I’m on. The OP is thinking of converting but has opposing views on abortion/euthanasia/etc.

I am Catholic, believe in what you believe and have no problems reconciling the two. What is the official word in Rome is not always the way it is in each and every Catholic church. For example, while Rome says “natural birth control methods” my church says, “the point is for the couple to involve God in the plan, whatever the birth control method chosen.”

Many people agreed with the poster. I agree that she accurately described her situation, but that doesn’t mean it is right. I wish priests would preach the nitty-gritty more, if only to alert people that they don’t really agree with what the Church teaches. How can the laity bridge the gap if they don’t know there’s a hole?

On the other hand, I know a handful of people my age that are “outed” Catholics- extremely devout, living a sacramental life, faithful to the Magisterium in every way, concerned and informed about leadership and current events in the Church.​

None of this is meant to be judgmental. It’s just my experience. People are either way in or way out of the Church, and I’ve known many more “outs”.

 

[MtnDwellar]

How important are the teachings? Not very important.

It’s sad.

 

[Mudgely]

The Catholic Church has always, or at least since Constantine (and his lesser known contemporaries in Armenia and Ethiopia who legalized Christianity slightly earlier), consisted of fervent believers and mere cultural Catholics for whom Catholicism is mainly just a matter of socio-political expediency or ancestral heritage. Note I say mere cultural Catholics, since cultural, cradle Catholics who are also fervent could be said to have the best of both worlds and should not be imputed with the faults of their less devout compatriots. Hilaire Belloc would be an example of the unabashed cultural Catholic who also intensely owned his faith.

Anyway, these days we are seeing the mere cultural Catholics letting their surface Catholicism inform their lives less and less and even abandoning the Church altogether, especially the younger generations. That is bad for the secular order, though it could be good for the Church Herself for the chaff to separate itself from the wheat of its own accord.

So, are you saying that you would prefer a church numbering only 25% of its current size, but that these people be more adherent to the doctrine, than the current situation?

 

[Mudgely]

The Catholic Church has always, or at least since Constantine (and his lesser known contemporaries in Armenia and Ethiopia who legalized Christianity slightly earlier), consisted of fervent believers and mere cultural Catholics for whom Catholicism is mainly just a matter of socio-political expediency or ancestral heritage. Note I say mere cultural Catholics, since cultural, cradle Catholics who are also fervent could be said to have the best of both worlds and should not be imputed with the faults of their less devout compatriots. Hilaire Belloc would be an example of the unabashed cultural Catholic who also intensely owned his faith.

Anyway, these days we are seeing the mere cultural Catholics letting their surface Catholicism inform their lives less and less and even abandoning the Church altogether, especially the younger generations. That is bad for the secular order, though it could be good for the Church Herself for the chaff to separate itself from the wheat of its own accord.

My observation is that there is a certain and growing narcissism in which informs our decisions (speaking generally). There is a resistance to submit to a higher authority which is taken for granted. In earlier times, there may have been more of a tendency to look to that authority for guidance.

 

[Mudgely]

I knew very few Catholics in school, mostly Christians. I think what Aelred Minor said describes them, also- most of them didn’t let even basic Christian teachings inform their actions.

The majority of Catholics I have known disagree with official positions on a great many things, if they know them at all, and going to Mass is just the thing they do on Sundays, sometimes- it could just as easily have been any other church. I don’t think (but don’t know) that they consider the Eucharist to be anything special, and they don’t think of Confession at all.

This came from a Catholic on another message board I’m on. The OP is thinking of converting but has opposing views on abortion/euthanasia/etc.

Many people agreed with the poster. I agree that she accurately described her situation, but that doesn’t mean it is right. I wish priests would preach the nitty-gritty more, if only to alert people that they don’t really agree with what the Church teaches. How can the laity bridge the gap if they don’t know there’s a hole?

On the other hand, I know a handful of people my age that are “outed” Catholics- extremely devout, living a sacramental life, faithful to the Magisterium in every way, concerned and informed about leadership and current events in the Church.​

None of this is meant to be judgmental. It’s just my experience. People are either way in or way out of the Church, and I’ve known many more “outs”.

My observation is that there is a certain and growing narcissism in which informs our decisions (speaking generally). There is a resistance to submit to a higher authority which is taken for granted. In earlier times, there may have been more of a tendency to look to that authority for guidance.

 

[Tietjen]

I was googling about and came across some statistics. According to a Gallup poll of April 2010, 74% of US Catholics disagree with the Church’s position on contraception, and the majority ignore it, according to the NY Times. So, then I looked at the statistics on two countries where same sex marriage is legal. Two democracies, Brazil is 74% Catholic, and the largest Catholic country in the world. Italy is 97% Catholic, and has the lowest fertility rate in Europe, and also same sex marriage. From the Church’s point of view, I would think that this would be perceived as a crisis of some sort. From what I could tell, about 20% of professed Catholics go to mass weekly.

What’s an “ordinary Catholic?” What you descibe above sounds like obediant vs disobediant Catholics. To obediant Catholics “the teachings of the Church” are very important. We strive to live by them even if we do not know or understand completely the “whys” of a dogma. We accept the authority of the Church and trust that the Holy Ghost will steer the ship (Church) in the direction it needs to go.

 

[thistle]

So, are you saying that you would prefer a church numbering only 25% of its current size, but that these people be more adherent to the doctrine, than the current situation?

I’m paraphrasing but Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, said if the choice is a smaller Church of faithful Catholics or a large Church of those not faithful he would rather have a smaller Church of those faithful.

 

[Mudgely]

I’m paraphrasing but Pope Benedict XVI, while still Cardinal Ratzinger, said if the choice is a smaller Church of faithful Catholics or a large Church of those not faithful he would rather have a smaller Church of those faithful.

Thanks. That raises the question in my mind, how does one decide whose practice is good enough for membership in a smaller Church? Wouldn’t that be a radical departure from a Church as it is today who welcomes anyone, even if imperfect in their religious practice?

 

[amerrychase]

Thanks. That raises the question in my mind, how does one decide whose practice is good enough for membership in a smaller Church? Wouldn’t that be a radical departure from a Church as it is today who welcomes anyone, even if imperfect in their religious practice?

I sort of always saw that quote going the other direction. Not that the Church would kick people out, but that people who are decidedly and loudly against Church teaching (not those that are struggling to bring themselves into line) would be honest and stop calling themselves Catholic and doing things in the name of being Catholic. Certain politicians come to mind.

A smaller, more faithful Church could present a united front to the world- always a nice thing in these troubled times- and would also be less frustrating for everybody. Less frustrating for the faithful, who don’t have to listen to arguments over and over, and for the dissenters, who don’t have to deliver the arguments over and over with no results because the doctrine won’t change.

 

[Mudgely]

What’s an “ordinary Catholic?” What you descibe above sounds like obediant vs disobediant Catholics. To obediant Catholics “the teachings of the Church” are very important. We strive to live by them even if we do not know or understand completely the “whys” of a dogma. We accept the authority of the Church and trust that the Holy Ghost will steer the ship (Church) in the direction it needs to go.

Is a Catholic someone who is born into the Church and baptized? It is dangerous to start casting anyone from a group. Maybe… average Catholic would be a better phrase, or type of Catholic who seems to match the majority of Catholics in religious observance…

Spain is 94% Catholic. Italy is 97% Catholic. At least that is how people identify themselves for census data.

 

[Mudgely]

I sort of always saw that quote going the other direction. Not that the Church would kick people out, but that people who are decidedly and loudly against Church teaching (not those that are struggling to bring themselves into line) would be honest and stop calling themselves Catholic and doing things in the name of being Catholic. Certain politicians come to mind.

A smaller, more faithful Church could present a united front to the world- always a nice thing in these troubled times- and would also be less frustrating for everybody. Less frustrating for the faithful, who don’t have to listen to arguments over and over, and for the dissenters, who don’t have to deliver the arguments over and over with no results because the doctrine won’t change.

I can think of a prominent Catholic politician who publicly advocates abortion. I have assumed that she has not been prohibited from communion because the bishop is hoping that she will come into line? I don’t understand why no action has been taken publicly. That would be one clear example of a self identified Catholic who does not observe Church doctrine.

Other churches have split over issues like ordination of gay priests. With such a diversity of views which are in direct conflict with the teaching of the CC, I don’t understand why people remain in the Church. How could a democratic country (Spain) which is 94% Catholic legalize gay marriage? Either the democracy is not representing the electorate, or the electorate does not care about the issue. I don’t get it.

 

[lizaanne]

I knew very few Catholics in school, mostly Christians.

You do realize that Catholics ARE Christians, don’t you? We are in fact the ORIGINAL Christians.

~Liza

 

[amerrychase]

You do realize that Catholics ARE Christians, don’t you? We are in fact the ORIGINAL Christians.

~Liza

I know. But I had no other descriptor. My friends were not Methodists or Lutherans or Non-Denominational. Simply Christian, and that’s what they called themselves. I was trying to distinguish them from Catholics, but I see that I was not particularly clear. My apologies.

 

[thistle]

I just want to correct my paraphrasing of what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said about preferring a smaller Church of faithful. It seems I took paraphrasing to a new level which distorted completely what was actually said.
Here is what was actually said during an interview with Cardinal Ratzinger and Mike Arroyo at EWTN.

"Raymond: … in such a powerful way, when they interact. Talk for a moment about the New Springtime. The Pope has talked a great deal about the New Springtime and you, yourself have laid out your own ideas. Your vision is a little different from some. Some see the numbers growing and everybody believing and dancing hand-in-hand (the Cardinal chuckles) into the millennium. You see a different picture. Tell us what that picture involves. How do you see this Springtime evolving?

Cardinal: As I do not exclude even this dancing hand-in-hand, but this is only one moment. And my idea is that really the springtime of the Church will not say that we will have in a near time buses of conversions, that all peoples of the world will be converted to Catholicism. This is not the way of God. The essential things in history begin always with the small, more convinced communities. So, the Church begins with the 12 Apostles. And even the Church of St. Paul diffused in the Mediterranean are little communities, but this community in itself is the future of the world, because we have the truth and the force of conviction. So, I think also today it should be an error to think now or in 10 years with the new springtime, all people will be Catholic. This is not our future, nor our expectation. But we will have really convinced communities with élan of the faith, no? This is springtime — a new life in very convinced persons with joy of the faith.

Raymond: But, smaller numbers? In the macro?

Cardinal: Smaller numbers, I think. But from these small numbers we will have a radiation of joy in the world. And so, it’s an attraction, as it was in the old Church. Even when Constantine made Christianity the public religion, there were a small number of percentage at this time; but it was clear, this is the future. So we can live in the future, just give us a way in a different future. And so, I would say, if we have young people really with the joy of the faith and this radiation of this joy of the faith, this will show to the world, “Even if I cannot share it, even if I cannot convert it at this moment, here is the way to live for tomorrow.”"

The entire interview is here:

ewtn.com/library/issues/ratzintv.htm

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thanks. That raises the question in my mind, how does one decide whose practice is good enough for membership in a smaller Church? Wouldn’t that be a radical departure from a Church as it is today who welcomes anyone, even if imperfect in their religious practice?

But is it truly welcoming to give the false impression that imperfection can just ‘stop there’ and not go on to perfection?

The Church does welcome all. The Church does know that all of us are imperfect.

But being ‘imperfect’ doesn’t give us a free pass to disagree with teachings (often loudly) or to pick and choose and (also loudly) proclaim that WE are Church and God is happy we just show up, doesn’t require us to do any more than that, and ONLY when we’re in the mood!

It isn’t a question of deciding what practice is ‘good enough’.

Let’s put it this way. If you were being put on trial as a Christian, would there be evidence enough to convict you?

 

[Mudgely]

I just want to correct my paraphrasing of what the then Cardinal Ratzinger said about preferring a smaller Church of faithful. It seems I took paraphrasing to a new level which distorted completely what was actually said.
Here is what was actually said during an interview with Cardinal Ratzinger and Mike Arroyo at EWTN.

"Raymond: … in such a powerful way, when they interact. Talk for a moment about the New Springtime. The Pope has talked a great deal about the New Springtime and you, yourself have laid out your own ideas. Your vision is a little different from some. Some see the numbers growing and everybody believing and dancing hand-in-hand (the Cardinal chuckles) into the millennium. You see a different picture. Tell us what that picture involves. How do you see this Springtime evolving?

Cardinal: As I do not exclude even this dancing hand-in-hand, but this is only one moment. And my idea is that really the springtime of the Church will not say that we will have in a near time buses of conversions, that all peoples of the world will be converted to Catholicism. This is not the way of God. The essential things in history begin always with the small, more convinced communities. So, the Church begins with the 12 Apostles. And even the Church of St. Paul diffused in the Mediterranean are little communities, but this community in itself is the future of the world, because we have the truth and the force of conviction. So, I think also today it should be an error to think now or in 10 years with the new springtime, all people will be Catholic. This is not our future, nor our expectation. But we will have really convinced communities with élan of the faith, no? This is springtime — a new life in very convinced persons with joy of the faith.

Raymond: But, smaller numbers? In the macro?

Cardinal: Smaller numbers, I think. But from these small numbers we will have a radiation of joy in the world. And so, it’s an attraction, as it was in the old Church. Even when Constantine made Christianity the public religion, there were a small number of percentage at this time; but it was clear, this is the future. So we can live in the future, just give us a way in a different future. And so, I would say, if we have young people really with the joy of the faith and this radiation of this joy of the faith, this will show to the world, “Even if I cannot share it, even if I cannot convert it at this moment, here is the way to live for tomorrow.”"

The entire interview is here:

ewtn.com/library/issues/ratzintv.htm

Thanks for looking that up. It makes more sense to me now.

I wonder if the dilution of the religious practice is a natural result of longevity and large numbers?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

We as Catholic Christians in the U.S. have been extraordinarily lucky in the last few decades to be able to practice our religion freely. Christianity has NOT always been freely practiced by its adherents.

And to some extent we have been lulled into a kind of security that as Catholics we are ‘entitled’ to all the ‘perks’ and none of the effort. If we were baptized Catholic (even if that was the only time we were ever in a Church!) then we will grab onto that identity as our ‘right’.

What I think will happen is NOT that the 'big bad Church" will suddenly start to ‘crack the whip’. No, not at all.

What I think will happen is that, using their FREE WILL, Catholics who do NOT agree with the teachings of the Church are going to (freely) depart. (Hopefully not for long). Instead of Catholicism being seen as something positive, it is going to be seen as something NEGATIVE. Heck, it already is presented so by most main stream media.

Now, there are still going to be some die-hards who, despite not agreeing with the teachings, will stay out of pure cussedness and still keep trying the same old 'woman priests and social justice" mantra. But fairly soon they will receive little or no support and (mostly being old) will die away (literally).

The cultural Catholics will have long departed from the “chauvinistic, male-dominanted, sexist, abusive, medieval, closed-minded, bigoted” Church (for whatever reason).

Who will remain?
Those who truly believe.

It is THEN that the miracle will come forth once again.

For despite the trappings of the world, the flesh, and the devil, those who left to ‘be free’ will in time see that all that glitters wasn’t gold, by a long shot.

And those few but true faithful will be on fire for God, and THEIR witness and even the blood of the martyrs among them --and it will come to that–will speak, just as it has countless times throughout history.

And those who left will find themselves longing to return. . .longing to embrace the teachings they once rejected but now see clearly were truth, not lies. Freedom, not slavery. Love, not bigotry.

So yes, temporarily the Church will purify itself and grow strong, and those who left will for the most part wind up returning, and becoming strong and purified themselves.