Sorry, but the Catholic Church beatified one such “hypocrite”, and yes, that was Blessed Mother Teresa. It was not just a feeling of spiritual dryness, and abandonment that she suffered. Read her letters from “Come be my Light”. She also suffered from doubts about the faith (heaven and God) for the decades leading up to her death and was “acutely aware” that “the mask”, as she called it, would be labeled as hypocrisy by others. In 1959, she wrote “If there be no God – there can be no soul – if there is no Soul then Jesus – You also are not true.” Hagiographers note that her spiritual darkness was of a magnitude that they had never seen in any saint before. Her interior life was wracked with doubts about God’s existence, but she chose to act differently. We are not judged by our feelings, because the movements of the sensitive appetite are amoral per se. (See Aquinas) It is what we choose to do with them, actively employing our reason and will, that we are held accountable for. With Mother Teresa, the fact that she was able to accomplish all that she did whilst suffering from the severe doubts that she had seems like it could only be attributed to supernatural aid a.k.a. divine grace.
I definitely do not think the term hypocrite applies to the original poster in any way. Follow through a few more of her posts, and you will see that she is earnestly seeking answers and is happy to receive any recommendations for reading material that might help her to believe. Her metaphysical orientation is still forming, it is not set in stone.
Plus, the reality is, non-theism is as much a system of belief as theism, and based on what she is writing, I don’t think she is convinced that atheism, or deism, or dualism, or pantheism, or secular humanism, or agnosticism, or any other version of metaphysical orientation is necessarily the belief that contains objective truth. Keep in mind that personally not knowing the answers is not agnosticism (agnosticism is saying that any metaphysical claims are pretty well universally unknown AND unknowable.) Because she is not convinced of any one position, then any position, whether one of action or even inaction towards her children, would be considered “hypocritical” right now by that standard, and yet she still has an obligation towards her children’s education. So if this were in fact “hypocrisy” (which I don’t think it is) and hypocrisy was the standard, then it would be a catch 22.
Luckily, hypocrisy is not the standard. To discredit or dismiss Catholicism based on an argument of hypocrisy is actually a logical fallacy known as “tu quoque”, or (surprise, surprise!) the “appeal to hypocrisy”. So for this reason, when an alcoholic/drug addict says “Don’t drink/do drugs. It’s bad for you and will make you unhappy long term”, the validity of his statement is not affected by his personal failure. His actions do not define the veracity of his statement, and the inconsistency between what he says and what he does does not negate the truth of his position. An overweight parent still has an obligation to ensure that his children are fit and healthy. Is it better if he himself is fit? Of course! Is it also better that if he himself is not fit, then at least he is striving to get fit and healthy? Of course! (And this is pretty much where the OP is in regards to faith—striving for truth!) But even if a parent is not fit, and not even trying to get fit, he still has that obligation to raise healthy fit children regardless…
Furthermore, don’t forget that if she raises her children Catholic, there will be other faith influences in their lives. They will encounter teachers, peers, chaplains, nuns, pastors, and parishioners. Godparents are also supposed to help raise the children in faith if the parents are unable to do so. (But obviously the original poster is more than willing to do so. Kudos to her!)
Finally, I don’t think the naysayers are giving Catholicism enough credit. Catholicism will either fall or stand on its own merits, and I am of the opinion that it will not crumble under a critical analysis. Yes, most people just have (and are happy with!) the “pablum” version of Catholicism—but if you search deeper, if you can critically think and apply the elements of a classical education, you will find that we have 2,000 years of brilliant thinkers and intellectual giants on our side. (And you know, there is that whole truth revealed by God thing!) To compare Catholicism to a belief in Santa Claus is actually kind of demeaning, because unlike Santa Claus, Catholicism is consistent with logic and philosophy, and will stand on its own merits. In the words of GK Chesterton, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting; it has been found difficult and left untried.”
