Once a Catholic always a Catholic?

[QuoVadis]

A question has been raised on Facebook concerning the effects of baptism. A friend, Teresa, is arguing that once a person is baptised Catholic, it is all but impossible for them to not be Catholic.

If an individual renounces his/her faith and joins another religion, Teresa says that according to Church doctrine, “they would be Catholic, not the other religion.”

I’m pretty sure she’s wrong on this (what other possible meaning could excommunication have?), but would appreciate any insights/answers you might have.

 

[davidv]

A question has been raised on Facebook concerning the effects of baptism. A friend, Teresa, is arguing that once a person is baptised Catholic, it is all but impossible for them to not be Catholic.

If an individual renounces his/her faith and joins another religion, Teresa says that according to Church doctrine, “they would be Catholic, not the other religion.”

I’m pretty sure she’s wrong on this (what other possible meaning could excommunication have?), but would appreciate any insights/answers you might have.

Baptism marks us with an indelible mark (non-removable). This marks identifies us as an adopted child of God. So in most cases, “once Catholic always Catholic” is true. The Code of Canon Law does provide for those who wish to formally renounce this adoption.

Excommunication is not the “throwing out of the Church”. It is a discplinary tool designed to get the disobedient one to repent and return to full communion with the Church.

 

[Usagi]

As the previous poster said, baptism (and confirmation, and holy orders) impart an indelible mark on the soul. A baptized person who apostasizes, is excommunicated, or even goes to Hell retains the mark of their baptism forever.

In a highly technical sense, that does mean that a baptized person is always Catholic (though possibly in imperfect communion, in the case of those validly baptized in other Christian communities). It doesn’t mean that such a person cannot be a very poor Catholic and even wind up in Hell, though.

Usagi

 

[Usagi]

Note that the Church never rebaptizes a validly baptized person. Not even someone who was brought up in a viciously anti-Catholic tradition; not even someone who joined another religion for years before coming back; not even someone who was excommunicated and repented. Baptism sticks with you and never has to be re-done.

Likewise, one is a Catholic who has been validly baptized in the Catholic Church (or validly baptized outside full communion with the Church and received into full communion later) and who has never formally apostasized. Being a terrible example of a Catholic does not make one a non-Catholic.

One who formally apostasizes from the Church would no longer be counted as Catholic, and would have to be received back into full communion if he or she were later to return, but the baptismal mark would still remain and baptism would not need to be repeated.

Usagi

 

[rwoehmke]

One who formally leaves the Catholic Church by writing his Bishop is no longer considered Catholic, but still retains that seal of Baptism that marks him as a Christian. That cannot be erased.

One who formally leaves the Catholic Church is no longer bound by Church Disciplines like the necessity to marry before a priest or deacon to be validly married or attending Mass on Sundays, etc. Those moral implications of the ten commandments still hold however and I violated at the risk of one’s soul.

Someone who would formally leave the Catholic Church while convinced that it is the true church would be in danger of hellfire…

 

[Just_Lurking]

One who formally leaves the Catholic Church is no longer bound by Church Disciplines like the necessity to marry before a priest or deacon to be validly married or attending Mass on Sundays, etc.

Technically speaking, this is incorrect. One who formally leaves the Catholic Church is no longer bound by the requirements of canons 1086, 1117, and 1124, due to the explicit exception contained in those canons for Catholics who have defected from the Church by a formal act. Otherwise, so-called ex-Catholics are still bound by the disciplines contained in canon law, including the mass obligation (canon 1247), as well as various other marriage regulations. For example, a priest who submitted a letter of formal defection from the Catholic Church would still not be able to marry validly without papal approval.

 

[Chatter163]

Canonists on the board, would you please address what constitutes a “formal act”? My recollection is that this is a gray area.

 

[kage_ar]

I’m not a canonist - but, I do have a link that will point you to the appropriate documents.

jimmyakin.org/2006/04/formal_defectio.html

 

[PacoG]

I remember hearing the ignorant Dr. Laura saying when callers say that they are non-practicing Catholics that “being a Catholic is like being pregnant. You either are or you are not.” I never understood how a Jewish woman could make such pronouncements.

The door of the confessional is always open. Holy Mother Church’s arms are alway open to welcome us. Just because you miss a few decades of Masses doesn’t mean the door are shut. The Good Shepard is out there looking for His lost sheep.

 

[rick43235]

A question has been raised on Facebook concerning the effects of baptism. A friend, Teresa, is arguing that once a person is baptised Catholic, it is all but impossible for them to not be Catholic.

Unless the voted for Obama, in which case they are out!!!

(At least according to some folks on CAF.)

 

[dans0622]

Chatter163,

In order to defect by a formal act, one needs to express his desire to leave the Church, in writing, to his pastor or local ordinary (bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). That pastor or local ordinary has to receive that declaration and make an appropriate notation in the “defector’s” baptismal record. This was a gray area until April, 2006, when “the Vatican” gave an authentic interpretation of what this term means.

Just Lurking is right. Defecting only excuses Catholics from three marriage laws. A validly baptised Catholic is always, fundamentally, ontologically, Catholic. Those who are excommunicated (which, practically speaking, is what happens to someone who formally defects) are still Catholic. Nevertheless, those who do defect or commit apostasy, heresy, or schism would need to return to “full communion” in order to be a “practicing” Catholic.

Anyway, I don’t know Dr. Laura. But, she is basically right. How can someone be both Catholic and not?

Dan

Dan

 

[Chatter163]

In order to defect by a formal act, one needs to express his desire to leave the Church, in writing, to his pastor or local ordinary (bishop, vicar general, episcopal vicar). That pastor or local ordinary has to receive that declaration and make an appropriate notation in the “defector’s” baptismal record. This was a gray area until April, 2006, when “the Vatican” gave an authentic interpretation of what this term means.

Thanks. What is the source for this?

 

[Genesis315]

How does one define a Catholic?

Here’s a good definition of a Catholic
Vatican II:

They are fully incorporated in the society of the Church who, possessing the Spirit of Christ accept her entire system and all the means of salvation given to her, and are united with her as part of her visible bodily structure and through her with Christ, who rules her through the Supreme Pontiff and the bishops. The bonds which bind men to the Church in a visible way are profession of faith, the sacraments, and ecclesiastical government and communion.

Or here:
Pius XII:

1. Actually only those are to be included as members of the Church who have been baptized and profess the true faith, and who have not been so unfortunate as to separate themselves from the unity of the Body, or been excluded by legitimate authority for grave faults committed.

Or here:
Vatican II:

The Holy Catholic Church, which is the Mystical Body of Christ, is made up of the faithful who are organically united in the Holy Spirit by the same faith, the same sacraments and the same government…

Schism, heresy, and apostacy sever one from the Church, the Body of Christ. That’s what makes someone not Catholic. That person still retains the indelible marks they received (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders), but they are cut off from the Body
Pius XII:

For not every sin, however grave it may be, is such as of its own nature to sever a man from the Body of the Church, as does schism or heresy or apostasy.

CCC 817:

…The ruptures that wound the unity of Christ’s Body - here we must distinguish heresy, apostasy, and schism270 -

I’m not sure the context or authority of the above citation concerning a writing requirement (I am imagining it is for record keeping purposes not for defining the Church), but an obstinate heretic, schismatic, or apostate who decides to blow off his writing requirement as one final act of rebellion is just as cut off from the Body of Christ as one who mails in his piece of paper.

 

[dans0622]

Thanks. What is the source for this?

Hello Chatter163,

Go here vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/intrptxt/documents/rc_pc_intrptxt_doc_20060313_actus-formalis_en.html to see the whole document. The important paragraph, for our discussion on always being Catholic, is no. 7.

Dan

 

[dans0622]

How does one define a Catholic?

Here’s a good definition of a Catholic

Or here:

Or here:

Schism, heresy, and apostacy sever one from the Church, the Body of Christ. That’s what makes someone not Catholic. That person still retains the indelible marks they received (Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Orders), but they are cut off from the Body

I’m not sure the context or authority of the above citation concerning a writing requirement (I am imagining it is for record keeping purposes not for defining the Church), but an obstinate heretic, schismatic, or apostate who decides to blow off his writing requirement as one final act of rebellion is just as cut off from the Body of Christ as one who mails in his piece of paper.

Hello Genesis315,

I can’t argue, and don’t want to argue, with the citations you gave. My point is simply that a Catholic is always, fundamentally, a Catholic. This is the only way the “indelible mark” idea has any meaning and the only way we can legitimately say “simul catholicus, semper catholicus” (once Catholic, always catholic). Practically, someone can act in all sorts of non-Catholic ways and leave the Church. But, the foundational fact is that someone who was baptised a Catholic or baptised in another “church” and received into the Catholic Church is always going to be Catholic. These are the effects of baptism, which is what the orginal question was regarding. Certain acts can result in penalties like excommunication, etc., but these penalties only restrict the person’s rights, not his obligations as a Catholic. The only exception to this are the three marriage obligations from which a formal defector is excused.

Dan

 

[Genesis315]

The link you provided above helps me understand the previous citation better. I was approaching it from the idea that one ceased to be a Catholic when there was “a true separation from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church” as that document says in paragraph 2, rather than the Baptismal character which itself is a kind of permenant bond with the Church (which is why even the worst apostates, upon repenting, a welcomed back into the Church by the Sacrament of Penance and not another Baptism).

In addition it cleared up my misconception as to the requirements of that “true separation,” the external expression to the proper authority is needed to define the act as formal to make it fall under certain canons (rather than under the canons dealing with “virtual”), but those acts (with culpability of course) in and of themselves still separate one from the constitutive elements of the life of the Church by their very nature (apart from ecclesiastical law).

 

[dans0622]

Genesis315,

I’m glad some things have been cleared up. There apparently is a difference between being separated juridically (in terms of the law) and morally (in terms of grace/facts of life). Nobody, once incorporated into the Body of Christ, can definitively be separated in law or fundamentally–God, and His Church, still has you. But, we do have free will that lets us go where we will. These are contrary but not contradictory, I think, although I can’t really explain why.

Dan