"Real Catholics"

[fnr]

I put the term in quotations because I’ve heard it from people who tend to think of themselves as being “real Catholics.” They tend to imply, though not say directly, that others who are unlike them are less than fully Catholic.

I heard a quote on Kresta in the Afternoon to this effect earlier this year. The speaker was Joseph “Jody” Bottum, former editor of First Things magazine, in an interview about his book, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America. When I heard this quote, I was apoplectic and downloaded the podcast episode on iTunes to be able to transcribe it:

“What’s interesting is the parishes actually kept a larger proportion of, you know, sort of suburban, non-super-involved people in the churches. And I think that’s actually good Al, because, I think that, well, of course it’s good to be going to communion – it’s always good… in another sense the people in church, in the parishes, are not limited to the ultra-involved, ultra-politicized, ultra-intellectualized Catholics who are forming this new subculture. There’s still that, however diminished, however weak in their understanding, there’s still a set of “suburban moms” who take their kids to church. There’s still a set of people who go to the parishes just because they always have…”

Mr. Bottum is not the only person I’ve hard espousing this distinction between an “upper caste Catholic” and a “lower caste Catholic.” I have heard somewhat similar comments from a local self-identifying Traditionalist and from a parishoner at a local charismatic Catholic church.

Am I alone in thinking that this sentiment is elitist nonsense? I understand that there are many Catholics who do not internalize their faith a great deal, but I think that if someone makes attending mass and receiving Holy Communion a part of their week, it’s absolutely wrong to say that they’re “a weak reed,” as Mr. Bottum referred to them.

 

[angell1]

I put the term in quotations because I’ve heard it from people who tend to think of themselves as being “real Catholics.” They tend to imply, though not say directly, that others who are unlike them are less than fully Catholic.

I heard a quote on Kresta in the Afternoon to this effect earlier this year. The speaker was Joseph “Jody” Bottum, former editor of First Things magazine, in an interview about his book, An Anxious Age: The Post-Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of America. When I heard this quote, I was apoplectic and downloaded the podcast episode on iTunes to be able to transcribe it:

Mr. Bottum is not the only person I’ve hard espousing this distinction between an “upper caste Catholic” and a “lower caste Catholic.” I have heard somewhat similar comments from a local self-identifying Traditionalist and from a parishoner at a local charismatic Catholic church.

Am I alone in thinking that this sentiment is elitist nonsense? I understand that there are many Catholics who do not internalize their faith a great deal, but I think that if someone makes attending mass and receiving Holy Communion a part of their week, it’s absolutely wrong to say that they’re “a weak reed,” as Mr. Bottum referred to them.

I agree with you, it’s ridiculous.

yes, we are all on different stages of our spiritual journey and need to help each other along but that’snot quite the same sentiment as being displayed.

I know exactly what you’re talking about, it’s attitudes like these that cause my scrupulosity to go on overload.

 

[blujazz25]

This is ridiculous. Everyone is the same in God’s eyes, we maybe different from each other in terms of our spiritual journey but to put us in boxes like that conjures up division and not unity, a far cry from what Jesus prays for.

That is why we need the community, to help each other grow. The Church is not meant for one person, that is why we are called as ONE, HOLY, CATHOLIC, and APOSTOLIC…we need each other.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Why do you assume that he was being insulting?

There are different classifications of Catholic laypeople. That’s not to say that any one is more important than the other, but to ignore distinctions is stupid. Every parish needs a combination all types of Catholics to function.

There’s nothing insulting in that statement at all…

 

[Book_Worm]

Why do you assume that he was being insulting?

There are different classifications of Catholic laypeople. That’s not to say that any one is more important than the other, but to ignore distinctions is stupid. Every parish needs a combination all types of Catholics to function.

There’s nothing insulting in that statement at all…

Who gets to make these classifications and distinctions? To what end?

 

[Emily2014]

There is a great danger in labelling or categorising people.
God created us all and gave us each free will.
There are “Many Mansions” in Heaven and many paths lead us to Our Beloved Lord.
God bless you.

 

[ProdglArchitect]

Who gets to make these classifications and distinctions? To what end?

Whomever observes the people around them, to the end of classifying people for easy association. Regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, you group people into various classifications based on several factors. It’s simply a way that makes it easier to understand our surroundings. None of these classifications have a positive or negative connotation until the individual doing the classifying assigns one to them.

There is a great danger in labelling or categorising people.
God created us all and gave us each free will.
There are “Many Mansions” in Heaven and many paths lead us to Our Beloved Lord.
God bless you.

Only if you start using those labels as an excuse for denouncing one group or another, or excluding a particular group. If you’re simply doing it as a way to easily identify a group of people then there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not like he’s saying “and these mothers, who just come to Church and don’t know much, we should just kick them out.” He’s just saying that there is a group of people in the Church who don’t take time to really learn about her teachings. It’s not insulting, it’s just an observation.

 

[St_Francis]

I’m for it and I’m against it.

I’m for it because we need to discern what’s happening in the Church. Are there a lot of Catholics who use and/or believe that using abc is moral? Maybe we need to do something about that. I seriously had a Catholic woman *in Mass *say that a mother with an unusual number of children should have surgery to prevent more.

Is it insulting to say that there are uncatechized Catholics in our pews? No. It is the truth, and we should not be afraid of the truth. If we know the truth, we can do something about it.

Are there Catholics who go to Mass simply out of habit and do not otherwise lead Catholic lives? Yes. If we accept this truth, we can do something about it, if only to say something like, Wow, going to weekly Confession the past few months has really helped my spiritual life, or, I’ve noticed my whole family gets along better when we pray the Rosary together each night. Of course, priests and bishops ought to be doing more, but we each need to do our part.

I’m against it because some will look at others and say, well, they never do anything during the week at church, so they must be some of those lackadaisical Catholics. That sort of judging is wrong and should be chastised.

But is the fact that some might use information to sin a reason to put our heads in the sand and ignore reality? I think not. I think the good that can come out of a realization that Catholic living has been lost greatly outweighs the bad of people’s possibly committing a sin which they would probably commit about a different topic anyway.

 

[Book_Worm]

Whomever observes the people around them, to the end of classifying people for easy association. Regardless of whether you are aware of it or not, you group people into various classifications based on several factors. It’s simply a way that makes it easier to understand our surroundings. None of these classifications have a positive or negative connotation until the individual doing the classifying assigns one to them.

Only if you start using those labels as an excuse for denouncing one group or another, or excluding a particular group. If you’re simply doing it as a way to easily identify a group of people then there’s nothing wrong with it. It’s not like he’s saying “and these mothers, who just come to Church and don’t know much, we should just kick them out.” He’s just saying that there is a group of people in the Church who don’t take time to really learn about her teachings. It’s not insulting, it’s just an observation.

I guess I don’t understand the necessity to classify people. Perhaps because at my age I’ve learned that some of those who are most active in the Church, involved in catechesis, group leaders, etc., are the least charitable, honest, kind, or generous. Time after time I’ve assigned someone to a category on my mind only to learn that my observations were false. People are too complex to be easily and accurately categorized and they often change over time.

So I don’t see what is gained by mentally designated as X when they may be Y, Z, or even A.