Minn. archbishop: No 'lukewarm' Catholics welcome

[CMatt25]

No matter how differently, how badly, how lukewarmly, etc. Catholics are practicing their faith (or not practicing it entirely), they remain Catholic in identity. Only if they convert to another religion through a formal process, or notify the bishop in writing that they wish to renounce their membership in the faith, or declare themselves in public to be an apostate (literally, not indirectly through disagreement) are they then considered no longer Catholic. The Catholic himself cannot divest himself of his identity passively (through non-practice), and least of all can any other person do so on his behalf.

E, in relation to what you posted, what did Benedict mean though when he wrote “the definition and practical configuration of such a formal act of separation from the Church has proved difficult to establish, from both a theological and a canonical standpoint” and that he was eliminating these words, “has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1117); “and has not left it by means of a formal act” (can. 1086 § 1); “and has not left it by a formal act” (can. 1124).

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/apost_letters/documents/hf_ben-xvi_apl_20091026_codex-iuris-canonici_en.html

 

[estesbob]

I agree with this part. I’m glad you clarified. What it mostly produces (I think) is someone very conflicted about membership and thus not benefiting much from what is available as a member. They may lead some others astray, but frankly I’ve never seen anyone lead others astray who were not already in almost as much conflict & unhappiness. But at the very least what it mostly does is waste a lot of time for the unhappy activist. And unattended to, it can cause scandal if the person insists on acting out the dissent in some visible fashion, as opposed to discussing concerns privately with a priest, etc.

That’s just my experience. Yours may differ.

It is my experience that 99% of the time it is a difficulty in reconciling their political views with the teachings of the church that causes the problem. I have a little bit of empathy for this as I was a cradle liberal and even campaigned for George McGovern. Unfortunately modern liberalism stands in direct rejection of the coral moral teachings of the Church and there simply is no way a Catholic can truly rationalize embracing it.

You will note that usually the same people that are calling for female ordination and a more active role of the laity in selecting our leadership for example )are the same ones who are supporting abortion and homosexual marriage or at least supporting politicians who support these issues.

 

[CMatt25]

Then why be Catholic if you disagree with the teaching? You can do all those things listed above outside the Church.

Dale and Elizabeth beat me to it and already have done a fine job in answering your and St Lucy’s concerns about why be Catholic. And who is considered a Catholic by the Church. I really can’t add much more.

And certainly people do all of those things outside. But I might just add though it might not be possible for some to go outside if they don’t disagree with some teaching found inside. Or perhaps if they are unsure. So they remain. I hope all of our answers have helped! God bless you both along your lifelong journeys of faith and peace to you my sisters in Christ.

 

[Elizabeth502]

CMatt, Reading the full text that you referenced, this has to do with the relationship of church membership and practice (of Catholicism), with the canonical validity of that person’s marriage (which may have been to a non-Catholic). It would appear that the Pope is referring to someone casually ‘leaving’ the faith, marrying someone, and the difficulty determining after the fact whether the marriage was sacramentally valid and how to unravel that, but also with the grey area causing problmes of ‘leading to apostasy’ if the non-compliant Catholic is not clear on his or level of commitment to the faith, and in that questionable commitment is quite visible in a small worshipping community.

He made it clear that this has been a problem for potential full reverts and for people seeking to validate their marriages after the fact, because it has appeared to others that ‘those [non-formally-validated] marriages are getting a pass, so why can’t mine?’ i.e., it’s confusing not to have a consistent standard.

It appears (I didn’t look up the other canons he referenced) that he is asserting that Catholics need to make clear in their approaches to the sacrament of marriage, whether they are commiting to Catholicism or not, as an active member, and that it will not be asumed that they are not bound to the Church’s canonical marriage requirements just because they have not formally separated themselves. (A triple negative, I know.)

 

[corsair]

I would agree that even a Pro-abortionist can attend Mass (just don’t receive communion or any of the Sacraments.

 

[Impertinens]

Tigg:

Our pastor calls them cultural Catholics. You know, the robots who attend Mass at least twice a month and register their children for religious ed, but then allow them to miss half the classes.

I would be very, very careful about using such labels as “cultural Catholics” or “lukewarm Catholics”, let alone “robots”, for people in whose beliefs or actions we - or even the Church Herself - find fault.

Many of them may well pass ahead of us in the Kingdom of God: it is impossible for us to learn of the motivations and personal circumstances which drive their opinions and acts, and it is also impossible to know whether their personal faults are more unpleasant to God than our own. If someone is in the wrong concerning a serious matter of Faith or behaviour, I think that what we should do is pray that God will be as forgiving of their transgressions as we hope that He will be of ours.

And let’s be frank, all or nearly all of us are lukewarm Catholics: who here can sincerely say that he or she is following, to the absolute best of her or his personal abilities, all the teachings and the morals that the Holy Word and the Tradition gave us? I know that I cannot say that, for one, but maybe this is a forum of Saints (except for yours truly, of course ).

 

[estesbob]

CMatt, Reading the full text that you referenced, this has to do with the relationship of church membership and practice (of Catholicism), with the canonical validity of that person’s marriage (which may have been to a non-Catholic). It would appear that the Pope is referring to someone casually ‘leaving’ the faith, marrying someone, and the difficulty determining after the fact whether the marriage was sacramentally valid and how to unravel that, but also with the grey area causing problmes of ‘leading to apostasy’ if the non-compliant Catholic is not clear on his or level of commitment to the faith, and in that questionable commitment is quite visible in a small worshipping community.

He made it clear that this has been a problem for potential full reverts and for people seeking to validate their marriages after the fact, because it has appeared to others that ‘those [non-formally-validated] marriages are getting a pass, so why can’t mine?’ i.e., it’s confusing not to have a consistent standard.

It appears (I didn’t look up the other canons he referenced) that he is asserting that Catholics need to make clear in their approaches to the sacrament of marriage, whether they are commiting to Catholicism or not, as an active member, and that it will not be asumed that they are not bound to the Church’s canonical marriage requirements just because they have not formally separated themselves. (A triple negative, I know.)

It would seem to me that when somebody is constantly trying to convince you that they really are a Catholic perhaps in their heart of hearts they know their actions have placed themselves outside of the norms of the Church.

 

[estesbob]

I would be very, very careful about using such labels as “cultural Catholics” or “lukewarm Catholics”, let alone “robots”, for people in whose beliefs or actions we - or even the Church Herself - find fault.

Many of them may well pass ahead of us in the Kingdom of God: it is impossible for us to learn of the motivations and personal circumstances which drive their opinions and acts, and it is also impossible to know whether their personal faults are more unpleasant to God than our own. If someone is in the wrong concerning a serious matter of Faith or behaviour, I think that what we should do is pray that God will be as forgiving of their transgressions as we hope that He will be of ours.

And let’s be frank, all or nearly all of us are lukewarm Catholics: who here can sincerely say that he or she is following, to the absolute best of her or his personal abilities, all the teachings and the morals that the Holy Word and the Tradition gave us? I know that I cannot say that, for one, but maybe this is a forum of Saints (except for myself, of course ).

Can you not tell the difference between an imperfect man failing to live up to all the teachings of the church and rejecting flat out some of the teachings of the Church? There is a huge difference.

 

[Impertinens]

Is there? Would be young rich have been a worse person, or simply more honest with himself, if he had said “this is nonsense, Jesus has no right to ask me that”?

 

[maryj]

And let’s be frank, all or nearly all of us are lukewarm Catholics: who here can sincerely say that he or she is following, to the absolute best of her or his personal abilities, all the teachings and the morals that the Holy Word and the Tradition gave us? I know that I cannot say that, for one, but maybe this is a forum of Saints (except for myself, of course ).

I can! Praise God through whom this blessing flows. We are ALL called to be saints.

 

[Impertinens]

Congratulations then! But I would ask for a tunic count, per Luke 3:11

(In my case, that’s not even close: sure, dressing sharply is occasionally part of my job, but I have way too many ties. And I am not brazen enough to say that paying more than 50$ for yet another nice tie, or eating a big juicy steak at a restaurant, is 100% compatible with the contents of the Gospels…)

 

[Tigg]

I would be very, very careful about using such labels as “cultural Catholics” or “lukewarm Catholics”, let alone “robots”, for people in whose beliefs or actions we - or even the Church Herself - find fault.

Many of them may well pass ahead of us in the Kingdom of God: it is impossible for us to learn of the motivations and personal circumstances which drive their opinions and acts, and it is also impossible to know whether their personal faults are more unpleasant to God than our own. If someone is in the wrong concerning a serious matter of Faith or behaviour, I think that what we should do is pray that God will be as forgiving of their transgressions as we hope that He will be of ours.

And let’s be frank, all or nearly all of us are lukewarm Catholics: who here can sincerely say that he or she is following, to the absolute best of her or his personal abilities, all the teachings and the morals that the Holy Word and the Tradition gave us? I know that I cannot say that, for one, but maybe this is a forum of Saints (except for yours truly, of course ).

The sarcasm and hyperbole of my post was obviously missed by you… but if you haven’t noticed the serious loss of faith over recent years caused by mediocrity and non-catechesis, nor understand how confused and easily misled many are, then I barely know where to start in response to your comments.

 

[Hiskid1973]

You will note that usually the same people that are calling for female ordination and a more active role of the laity in selecting our leadership for example )are the same ones who are supporting abortion and homosexual marriage or at least supporting politicians who support these issues.

And I would say the same for the those in the non catholic churches…usually those passionate about their faith in Christ are also in the scriptures to study to shew them self approved as a workman unto the Lord.

They know leadership qualifications like "husband of one wife…
They know we are to choose life and He knew about them before they were born
Issues like the last days and having an unnatural affections…

Just knowing those lukewarm are going to be
“spewed out of His mouth” would cause you to be sure of their faith…We don’t love out of fear…His perfect love casts out all fear…

 

[Impertinens]

Tigg:

but if you haven’t noticed the serious loss of faith over recent years caused by mediocrity and non-catechesis, nor understand how confused and easily misled many are, then I barely know where to start in response to your comments.

I am not a good enough “faith accountant” to compute precisely this loss, nor to estimate how much of it is due to the actions of those that we - we happy, holy few - are calling “cafeteria Catholics” rather than by the blatant lack of sanctity of many - like me - who dare to call themselves Catholics or by other factors that are beyond our reach.

I can only pray that my personal contribution to it is as small as possible.

 

[CMatt25]

CMatt, Reading the full text that you referenced, this has to do with the relationship of church membership and practice (of Catholicism), with the canonical validity of that person’s marriage (which may have been to a non-Catholic). It would appear that the Pope is referring to someone casually ‘leaving’ the faith, marrying someone, and the difficulty determining after the fact whether the marriage was sacramentally valid and how to unravel that, but also with the grey area causing problmes of ‘leading to apostasy’ if the non-compliant Catholic is not clear on his or level of commitment to the faith, and in that questionable commitment is quite visible in a small worshipping community.

He made it clear that this has been a problem for potential full reverts and for people seeking to validate their marriages after the fact, because it has appeared to others that ‘those [non-formally-validated] marriages are getting a pass, so why can’t mine?’ i.e., it’s confusing not to have a consistent standard.

It appears (I didn’t look up the other canons he referenced) that he is asserting that Catholics need to make clear in their approaches to the sacrament of marriage, whether they are commiting to Catholicism or not, as an active member, and that it will not be asumed that they are not bound to the Church’s canonical marriage requirements just because they have not formally separated themselves. (A triple negative, I know.)

Elizabeth, I admit this is all a bit confusing to me. But was the formal act of defection achieved by writing to the bishop? And did it only apply to releasing the person from the marriage laws? Is then the formal act of defection by writing to the bishop even still an option if Benedict has eliminated the words, “has not left by a formal act”?

 

[Elizabeth502]

Elizabeth, I admit this is all a bit confusing to me. But was the formal act of defection achieved by writing to the bishop? And did it only apply to releasing the person from the marriage laws? Is then the formal act of defection by writing to the bishop even still an option if Benedict has eliminated the words, “has not left by a formal act”?

The Pope (as I interpret him) is saying that there was no formal or definitive defection, just a drifting way. Remember that the full links are not embedded in this precis, so to speak. So expanding or projecting from this condensed version, these decisions pertain to marriage canons, not to defection apart from a marriage decision or partner.

I do not interpret the document as Benedict suddenly saying that Catholics may no longer divest themselves of Catholicism by any means (including formally wriitng to the bishop, etc.) That would be a denial of free will. No, I think the document is limited to religious affiliation for purposes of marriage, as I summed up in the last sentence of my previous post on this. I think he’s trying to clean up (and make easier for Chruch officials and the laity) the procedures necessary, so that steps won’t be skipped and be later difficult to retrieve, retrace, sort out.

 

[BobCatholic]

I recall our Boss saying something about spitting out the lukewarm.