Find essays by keyword, title, or author name

Why The Church Needs Bad Catholics

With the Extraordinary Synod on the Family having recently concluded, the news is filled with columns on the hot topics under discussion: cohabitation, premarital sex, gay relationships, birth control, and the issue that has been most heavily under the spotlight: whether divorced and remarried Catholics may receive Holy Communion.

Former politician Louise Mensch—herself a divorced and remarried Catholic—recently penned an article for The Spectator, provocatively titled: “I’m a divorced Catholic. And I’m sure it would be a mortal sin for me to take Communion.” Says Mensch:

It has never occurred to me to present myself for Communion when I have not sought – for various reasons that I won’t discuss here – to have my first marriage annulled. I know I am not a good Catholic …

People in my state are explicitly encouraged, in the Catechism, to attend church, and to make a spiritual communion, as I do each week. I have the hope that one day I will be in a state of grace and able to receive Holy Communion again. I hope that, despite my ongoing sin, God nonetheless hides me in the shadow of his wings; that Mary, hope of sinners, has her cloak of mercy cast about me. I am a poor Catholic but I am also a believing Catholic.

Mensch does not refrain from receiving Holy Communion merely because it is magisterial policy. Rather, she argues as a matter of conviction against any change in either doctrine or pastoral practice:

Catholic reformers are full of hope that … the bishops will liberalise the Church’s teaching on divorced and remarried Catholics. The liberal Tablet magazine devoted a cover story to the subject … called ‘The Case for Mercy’ and, reading it, I felt like [it was] pleading for us suckers who actually believe the basics: sin, confession, absolution, the Real Presence and the like. What Cardinal Kasper appears to want to do is to tempt a generation of people into weekly mortal sin. How is that merciful?

Reactions to Mensch’s piece fell predictably into two camps. On one side, “liberals” decried Mensch for being self-loathing, for not dancing to the beat of the modern, sexually enlightened drum. On the other side, “conservatives” were baffled as to why, if Mensch really believed the Church’s teachings, she would not abandon her lifestyle as an “adulteress.” What both critics share is the belief that Mensch’s situation makes little sense because one cannot simultaneously uphold a set of moral standards and fall short of those standards.

Yet, until fairly recently in Catholic history, women and men like Mensch were easily understood by others in the Church as conforming to a particular type: the type of the “bad Catholic.”

“Bad Catholics” knew the moral rules taught by the Church, and they broke—even flouted—them, particularly when it came to sex. They did not, however, argue that the rules should be changed to confer moral approval on their behavior. Despite their moral failings, bad Catholics also tended to maintain a high regard for the Church’s sacramental and spiritual rules and practices. They attended Mass, were devoted to the Virgin Mary, and expressed love for the Blessed Sacrament precisely by not receiving it in Communion when in an unworthy state to do so.

Sometimes bad Catholics confessed, made a half-hearted attempt to mend their ways, and then slipped back into their old sins like a comfortable pair of slippers. They were never, on that account, excluded from the Church. In countries where Catholicism and Protestantism co-existed it was the tolerant attitude to moral recidivism traditionally taken by the Catholic clergy that scandalized Protestants.

The Church never condoned the sins that made bad Catholics bad, but in traditional Catholic discourse the bad Catholic was nevertheless accorded a certain kind of qualified honor—seen in the fact that the figure of the bad Catholic is ubiquitous in traditional Catholic literature. Read St Alphonsus Liguori, for example, and you will come across scores of pithy tales about prodigal sons of the Church who wasted their lives in morally dissolute living only to be granted the grace of dying a penitent death because they always faithfully said a Hail Mary at bedtime.

Such stories appear to us now as quaint oddities, because the figures in them are no longer recognizable characters in the contemporary Church. Someone like Louise Mensch appears to us as a time traveler from yesteryear. The sort of person who, 70 years ago, would have been a “bad Catholic” will now usually end up either a “progressive Catholic” or simply an “ex-Catholic.”

Partly, this is because the de-Christianization of our culture offers bad Catholics other options than sticking with the Church. But it is also due to unfortunate developments within the Church that have pushed the morally weak out of the door.

The English traditionalist writer Michael Davies once said that the Church exists to get as many people over the threshold of purgatory as possible. This view of the Church’s mission corresponded to a tolerant attitude toward moral failure, as Ross Douthat observes:

In the longstanding, not-unjustified stereotypes of Western religious conflict, Roman Catholicism was generally seen as far more accommodating and tolerant – or, alternatively, more decadent and lax – than its Protestant rivals on matters related to the human body and the human heart … The emphasis that the church’s sacramental life placed on the cycle of confession-sin-repentance … tended to create a moral economy in which fallenness was taken for granted, and wider latitude extended to people who persisted in their sins than was sometimes the case in the sterner, Calvin-influenced precincts of Christendom. (The old Protestant image of Jesuitical confessors performing elaborate logical contortions to minimize the gravity of moral faults had – and has – some basis in reality.)

In other words, it was understood that the salvation of those caught up in sin would hardly be helped by driving them away from the Church. Since the Second Vatican Council, this tolerance has been effaced by the idea of the “universal call to holiness.” In itself this was sound teaching, but poor catechesis has meant that it is misinterpreted as teaching that the Church on earth is a club for holy people. As a result, in most parishes, Catholic morality is either softened and bowdlerized to reassure people that they are already saints, or it is put forward with such intolerant rigidity that sinners are driven out of the Church, made to feel that their mere presence in the congregation is a source of “scandal.”

The ecumenical movement and its closer cooperation between Catholics and Protestants, has also—despite good fruits—opened Catholicism to the toxic influence of puritanism,  especially in English-speaking countries where Protestantism is culturally ascendant. Take, for example, the increasingly rigid approach of American bishops to homosexuals who do not live up to the ideal proposed for them by Catholic teaching. It seems less characteristic of Christ’s Catholic Church and more of Calvin’s Church – where the morally weak who are not among “the elect” are chased out to maintain the purity of the congregation as a whole. It is an approach that says more about the cozy relationship between conservative American Catholics and evangelicals than it does about the integrity of Catholic moral doctrine.

The disappearance of the bad Catholic from the landscape of contemporary Catholicism impoverishes the Church in two ways.

First, it impoverishes the Church culturally and aesthetically. Many great Catholic artists and writers could hardly be categorized as scrupulous adherents of the Church’s moral teachings. To a certain extent this is to be expected. How can one write, paint, or make music about the great drama of salvation history—the dialectic of shame and grace—having only ever viscerally experienced one side of that dialectic? There is a reason that so few canonized saints have produced truly outstanding art, and that those who have—such as St. Augustine, whose theological writings in themselves constitute aesthetic masterpieces—are usually those who know what it is like to live a far from saintly life.

Secondly, and more seriously, the disappearance of the bad Catholic impoverishes the Church theologically. It is not a sign that Catholics are holier than they used to be. It is a sign that today’s Church is less capable of creating a space in which the individual can experience the reality of the human condition: that is, the frightening gap between the Command of God the Lawgiver and the deeds of a human life. And yet, the creation of such a space is essential to the Church’s mission. Without it, true conversion of heart cannot take place. Learning how to faithfully uphold a set of moral standards while consistently falling short of them is something all Christians must master, not just “bad Catholics.” Bad Catholics simply show the rest of the Church how it is done in a particularly illustrative way.

I am not a sacramental theologian. I offer no opinion on whether the divorced and remarried should receive Holy Communion. Nor do I have an opinion on what sort of recognition (if any) ought to be given to unions outside the boundaries of sacramental marriage (although my suspicion is that those who think radical change is imminent are likely to be disappointed, as they were in 1968).

What I do know—to take a cue from Jesus—is that “the sinners you will always have with you.” Regardless of what decisions are made about Catholics in second marriages, there will always be some group of people in the Church for whom the pain of not being able to receive Christ in Holy Communion, of not being able to conform their lives to Christ’s demanding teachings despite repeated effort, cannot just be swept under the carpet. The Church as a whole needs to learn again how to look on this pain, to feel at home with it, without fleeing from it either to the right hand or the left. If the Church cannot do that, it cannot enable people to grow morally.

I was impressed by Louise Mensch’s honesty, by her courageous willingness to refuse the cheap grace offered by Cardinal Kasper, but also by her evident refusal to consider the cheap grace offered by conservative apologists—Pollyannas and hucksters who tell everyone what a joy the Church’s teachings are to live out (St Paul, evidently, did not agree, to say nothing of Jesus), like used car salesmen trying too hard to make a sale. I hope that the Synod Fathers, too, have the courage to refuse cheap grace, in whatever form it offers itself.

 

Readers are invited to discuss essays in argumentative and fraternal charity, and are asked to help build up the community of thought and pursuit of truth that Ethika Politika strives to accomplish, which includes correction when necessary. The editors reserve the right to remove comments that do not meet these criteria and/or do not pertain to the subject of the essay.

  • RaymondNicholas

    I think one thing must be understood: there is no collective salvation, only individual salvation. In the end, each person must bear their own cross, deal privately with their sins, and present himself or herself to God on Judgment Day. At that time, we will stand alone, without the help of persons who feel sorry for us for no other reason than to assuage their own feelings.

    I often wonder at the very small lines at Confession and the large ones going up to receive the Host—are there folks in line living in grave sin? Do they think they are receiving the Grace to continue living in grave sin? Or is it a feel-good moment? My parish is half-white
    and half-Hispanic. In the white Masses virtually all go up to the front. In the Hispanic Masses, only about half go up to the front. Why do you think that is? Do Hispanic folks have a better understanding of sin and Church teaching? Or do they sin much more? I tend to admire the ones who hold back and do not engage in groupthink. I admire “bad Catholics” who understand their sin, have sought the counsel of the Church, and do what they can. I pray for God’s mercy for them on Judgment Day, as I do for all sinners. We are all sinners.

    I do agree that much more can be done pastorally for all manner of sinners. I do not agree that the teachings of the Church should be watered down or changes made to make a sin no longer sin, in order to conform to the signs of the times or to make some folks feel good about themselves. They need to worry about their own sins and not the sins of others.
    The goal is to feel good in Heaven, not to feel good on Earth.

    I also believe that persons living in unrepentant, public, grave sin should not hold positions of leadership in the Church. As they say in the ethical codes of professions and in business law, it may be either a real or an apparent conflict of interest. It creates confusion
    and real harm to individual souls.

    It is right that we have compassion and pray for mercy for all of us. It is right that the Church upholds the dignity of all created humans. It is not right to pretend that grave sin does not exist; therefore, it should be ignored when it happens.

    • p peter

      Thanks for your reflection. But the problem of short Confession lines is ultimately the pastors’ fault, not the faithful’s. Frequent Confession is not a practical option if no priest in your area offers it.
      Your point about moral probity among leaders is a very good one. If a bishop, orthodox or not, is known to have enabled sexual abuse or other gross immorality in the clergy, then you can be sure that he will not create the space for repentance the article speaks of.
      The point in the article about the ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ forms of cheap grace, and its link with Puritan influence, is very helpful. The only problem I have with the notion of the ‘bad Catholic’ is that, in our collective imagination, the bad Catholic was a layman, while in point of fact ‘bad Catholics’ have always been very well represented among the clergy. The occasional good bad priest in Catholic literature was the exception confirming the rule. Without the imagined holiness of clericalism and the props of the ethnic cultural ghetto, the bad layman’s already tenuous adherence to hard teachings has no chance. It will be up to disenchanted bad Catholics to create their own spaces for repentance.

      • Being in a parish and diocese that makes a huge effort to make the priests available, the fault does not lie with the pastor. The fault likely lies, with what Ratzinger identified, as the destruction of conscience. That is something the bad catholic has plenty of.

        • p peter

          If your priests are good, good for you. But the good priests are in fact few and far between, and perhaps it has always been so. And who do you think destroyed people’s consciences? In most cases, the pastors. The fish rots from the head down. For your one glowing anecdote, I think most readers could provide a dozen less-than-glowing.
          My point was not to point fingers at the clergy, but to emphasize that there’s no going back to the old days if we want to avoid cheap grace.

          • There are more reasons for hope today than ever before. If you want clericalism—wherein the clergy do solve everything for us—then you can have it. But the priests won’t solve the problem in the same way they did not cause it.

          • Nora

            No way do your opinions reflect my almost 70 years of being a Catholic. In point of fact, I have had NO “bad” priests. I’ve seen self-sacrificing, generous-hearted men everywhere I’ve been. There have been priests who have had personalities less at ease with their parishioners and more at ease in the library and classroom, but they are not “bad priests. ” I’m in agreement that many are angry at the Church because it has the unmitigated nerve to remind us that there is such a thing as sin, rather than an always-feel-good theology which says people just make mistakes. The idea is, we can always be forgiven, but we need to turn away from the sin… and that’s what we don’t want to do. In my area (DC metro) our churches are well attended, and we are blessed with hearing thought-provoking theology from the pulpit.

          • p peter

            Bravo to you. For you, there are no bad priests, just bad Catholics. How Catholics got so bad is a mystery, I guess, and their pastors are just the poor victims.
            ‘Lo, the world is full of priests, but rare indeed it is to find a worker in the hands of God’ -Pope St Gregory the Great

      • Ralph Coelho

        As one whose catechism was pre-Vatican II contemporary priests for many years have discontinued helping the penitent to explore why he or she continues to return to the same sins. This was an integral part of pre-Vatican II confession process.

        • Gustave

          And all those “pre-Vatican II” priests suddenly changed their minds on how to do things after 1963? More likely, the cracks were showing long before the council, and actually caused it.

    • Yes, in the sense of conscientiously abstaining from communion, clearly Ms. Mensch is a better Catholic than she claims. Those self-entitled of whom you speak, who receive the host without bothering with confession and repentance, are the truly bad Catholics.

      • Bruce Hamilton

        You are assuming that those who do not go to confession are not confessed. What about those who confess in their hearts (who are you to judge) and make a very very good confession, they may be close to tears, yet you cannot see this because, being in a church, they try desperately to hide their deep feelings – they feel people might be watching… They simply cannot abide speaking their sin to another Human. It does not work for them! You sound rather hypocritical to me.

        • I said confession not “go to confession” or “Confession”… which personally I agree, is better private than not at all. In case of Ms. Mensch I assume she is repentant and only lacking in formality of having not gained annulment, which nonetheless she respects together with sacrament of Communion itself, to abstain from the latter.

  • Very thoughtful piece. How helpful is it for the Church universal to discuss this problem within the context of the family? If there is another river feeding into the Catholic imagination, it is the idealism of the nuclear family. Your typical catholic family in America today is located in the suburbs, has the 2.3 children, two cars, etc. and is virtually indistinguishable from your typical protestant/secular family in their cultural affinities and life-style expectation. Beyond this surface-level syncretism, there is the sense that the suburban parish (like the suburbs themselves) are free from “those problems” of the cities (poor people, crime, and well….sinners!). Among parents there is a view that the parish and the Catholic life is very much a “safe environment” for my kids. And unfortunately keeping away the homosexual boogeyman seems part of this formula.

    Thus, is our view of the family a dangerously naive idealism also playing into these discussions and quite frankly, making the important points you raise difficult to assimilate.

  • Being about 14 years older than Ms. Mensch (assuming I found the right one in England from Wikipedia) and being from a different continent (I live in Texas, she in London, I believe), my comments may or may not be germane. I also have no idea of her personal situation and why she has not sought a declaration of nullity.

    However much I agree with your comments that the Church needs “bad Catholics” I would hazard that we all fall in that category. The Church needs all her children.

    What I think I see in her column is a realization that she is not where she needs to be, and an honesty that prevents her from seeking pretend solutions, and a warning to not do her any false favors. She is perhaps an honest example of “gradualism” in that over time she may come back into full communion, but not by being dragged along with exceptions and by the Church looking the other way. Rather, by whatever movement in her soul that she allows herself to be open to from the Holy Spirit.

    But, she also stands, perhaps, as a cautionary tale to those who do not take marriage seriously, to those who enter already having an exit strategy in mind while they are taking their vows. There are many many people in her situation, and it seems that she knows that it is her fault, and not the Church’s, that she is in her situation. A consequence of bad decisions, or perhaps an improperly formed conscience, or whatever, again, we all struggle with that daily. But our society used to, at least overtly by paying at least lip service to ideas of morality and proper behavior, help in that struggle. However, in the 60’s, society, at least here in the US, simply caved and adopted the “if it feels good do it” mentality, and I for one know what that did to my conscience, cradle Catholic though I was, and raised in private Catholic school.

    Having gone through a marriage, divorce, remarriage, dawning realization that I should not be receiving sacraments, determining to stop taking Communion, which determination triggered my finally seeking and obtaining a declaration of nullity, and now in full communion with the Church, I think I understand at least part of where she is coming from.

    And that is, basically and simply, The Truth Will Set You Free, but It Will Not Be Easy. Anything less than that is not mercy and it is not pastoral. It is the wide and easy path to Hell. We do well to see Christ in her and all of us, and champion her personal integrity with regard to reception of the Sacraments, while praying for her soul.

  • Helen

    For those who want change I suggest they change churches. Many protestant sects would welcome you with open arms. The world has changed say Pope Francis and that is very, very true……However, God has not changed nor has His Word!!!! This changing world can lead many straight into hell if not careful to remember Gods’ Word!!!

  • LibSoc@LibSoc.com

    This was a very thought-provoking article. I agree that the bad catholic is no longer a thing sadly. People need to realize that the road to salvation and redemption is rough.

  • naturgesetz

    For what it’s worth, here’s something that was posted by a deacon on a LinkedIn site for deacons:

    “This is a true story.
    Once upon a time, a diaconal candidacy class was in progress in a Midwestern diocese. These guys were in a three year program. At the end of the first year, they had an individual oral exam in front of a panel of priests on Sacred Scripture. At the end of the second year, they had an individual oral exam in front of a similar panel of priests on Morality.

    Here was the question for that Morality exam:

    “OK, Joe; we see you are from St. Ezechiel’s Parish and a lot of us here had said Mass there. If we recall, it seats 500 folks. Now place yourself in the pulpit; you have just proclaimed the gospel and now are starting your first homily there.

    Tell us please, how many of the 5oo folks looking at you are in the state of Mortal Sin?”

    No one in the class had any idea how t answer this question and there was a lot of stumbling and bumbling about. The team neutrally accepted whatever answer the candidate gave.

    In fact, after the team debriefed the class after the exam, the priests explained that no one had answered the question correctly.

    You see, the team of priests explained, the correct answer was NONE!

    They further explained that a sinner who clearly understood the level of evil he/she had done and the willful and wanton consent that was a part of that evil — thus making it a genuine “Mortal Sin” , the LAST place they would ever enter is a Roman Catholic Church.

    None of the candidates ever forgot that very had lesson — they all had to repeat their oral exam on morality but with a different set of questions.”

    I’m surprised by this, particularly that it was not one priest, but the whole panel who said that. But I do think that we tend to forget that grave matter does not put a person in a state of mortal sin. There must also be knowledge of the gravity of the evil and full consent of the will.

    This may have something to do with the short confession lines. People may not believe that something is a grave evil, even if they are aware of the Church teaching — artificial contraception may be an example for many people. And this is why simply repeating, “This is a serious sin,” —when people have already heard it — is unlikely to be helpful. And then there are people whose consent is less than 100% free, whose freedom is diminished to some extent. Lack of full consent doesn’t require that someone have a gun to their head: that would be nearly zero consent. There can be a lot of gradations between that and FULL consent. Examples of something less than full consent but more than absolute compulsion could be addiction, “uncontrollable urges,” strong peer pressure, and habit.

    So we shouldn’t conclude that, just because someone has preformed a gravely evil act, that person is in the state of mortal sin. To do so would be rash judgment.

  • James

    The ecumenical movement and its closer cooperation between Catholics and Protestants, has also—despite good fruits—opened Catholicism to the toxic influence of puritanism, especially in English-speaking countries where Protestantism is culturally ascendant. Take, for example, the increasingly rigid approach of American bishops to homosexuals who do not live up to the ideal proposed for them by Catholic teaching. It seems less characteristic of Christ’s Catholic Church and more of Calvin’s Church – where the morally weak who are not among “the elect” are chased out to maintain the purity of the congregation as a whole. It is an approach that says more about the cozy relationship between conservative American Catholics and evangelicals than it does about the integrity of Catholic moral doctrine.

    THIS. THIS. A thousand times THIS.

    I would add, though, that Puritanism in the Anglo-American predates the ecumenical movement. I remember reading an article from an apologist from the 1930s about dour and puritanical American Catholics were compared to the rest of the world.

    • James

      I also think that Pope Francis is HIGHLY suspicious of such puritanical Anglo-American Catholicism. He is especially suspicious of the political and foreign policy implications of this.

      Perhaps the Pope really is defending the faith.

    • Aaron Taylor

      I’m not surprised to hear that. The ecumenical movement as a whole, remember, predates by several decades the acceptance of ecumenism within the Catholic Church in the 1960s. And American Catholicism was way out in front of the rest of the Church in its syncretistic tendencies.

    • IRVCath

      Was it written by Fr Lord, SJ, perchance?

    • Anonymous Coward

      This part of the article is very on point. Often times, especially online, I see many Catholic narcissists that feel high and mighty nearly all of the time while proclaiming they are blessed by Grace; seemingly perfect, but somewhere deep down more fractured than myself. At times, I want to run from the Church because of these ‘holier than thou’ snobs. They try to make others feel inadequate, little do they know God still loves ‘bad’ people despite what they think or want for ‘bad’ people.

  • Thomas Storck

    I think the point of this article is excellent. There’s a quote I just tried in vain to find from Msgr. Knox that a Catholic will first lose his morals, and only later (if ever) his faith, while for a Protestant it’s just the opposite. Likewise your observation about the cultural influence of Protestantism on the Church is important. This influence takes many forms, and unfortunately by some Catholics is seen as utterly unproblematic, or perhaps is even welcomed.

    • Aaron Taylor

      Very interesting, thank you. I would love to find that quote!

      • Thomas Storck

        There may be other quotes that I half remember, but these are good. From The Belief of Catholics, “There is among Catholic sinners a familiarity which seems (to non-Catholic eyes) to degrade eternity to the level of this world.” and “…the Catholic takes the truths of his religion for granted, however little he lives up to them, whereas the non-Catholic unconsciously behaves as if there were a spell which would be broken if he treated his religion with familiarity…” chap 13, pp. 142-43 in the old Image edition.

        Also, you might find this interesting, it’s from a book I recently discovered, An American Dialogue: A Protestant Looks at Catholicism and a Catholic Looks at Protestantism, Doubleday, 1960. The Catholic section was written by Gustave Weigel, S.J., and is surprisingly good and hard-hitting on Protestantism. I thought it was well worth reading. On page 144 Weigel comments, “Strangely enough, the Reformers did not think that sin could be avoided but nonetheless they had little patience with it. In fact they were fanatically intolerant of it.”

        • Aaron Taylor

          Excellent, thank you!

  • OBJ15

    The universal call to holiness, as considered by a modern, “progressive” saint:

    “For a son of God each day should be an opportunity for renewal, knowing for sure that with the help of grace he will reach the end of the road, which is Love. That is why if you begin and begin again, you are doing well. If you have a will to win, if you struggle, then with God’s help you will conquer. There will be no difficulty you cannot overcome.” (St. Josemaria Escriva, The Forge, 344)

    • IRVCath

      The problem is oftentimes some in the Church push them out after having to restart one too many times, while others think the stumbler is already at the finish line.

      • OBJ15

        No one should ever be pushed out, for any reason. A proper understanding of the universal call to holiness, the one taught by St. John Paul II and St. Josemaria, holds that sanctity lies in the struggle, in putting up a sincere fight every day. So you have to struggle, you have to put up a heroic fight. Being lukewarm is to abandon the struggle. If Catholics are called to help one another achieve sanctity, it makes sense that lukewarmness be pointed out, in the proper fraternal context (spiritual direction and confession), as an obstacle to be overcome. The prevalence of lukewarmness (e.g. full knowledge of the moral law but no sincere struggle to fulfill its demands) is no reason to lower the bar of personal sanctity, the standard set by Christ himself (Matthew 5:48).

        • IRVCath

          But I’ve seen one too many times where laymen attempt to do so outside the proper fraternal context. It doesn’t help that it’s often wrapped up, rightly or wrongly, with political imperatives.

          • OBJ15

            Personal freedom is the key. In matters where Catholics may disagree, like public policy, freedom must be emphasized and protected. But in matters of doctrine and conscience, as taught by the Church, one-on-one friendship is the proper context in which laymen exercise fraternal correction. Friends don’t let friends become lukewarm. But the context must be one of sincere friendship (not political strategy) otherwise fraternal correction will have the opposite effect (and who can blame? No one likes feeling like a pawn in someone else’s chess game).

          • Aaron Taylor

            Again, I very much agree.

        • Aaron Taylor

          Yes. Agreed!

  • Wendy Murphy

    Dear me, how silly all this is. Grown up people tying themselves in knots over ‘sin’ ‘salvation’ whether they are ‘good or ‘bad’ Catholics. How about standing tall, looking the world in the eye and making your own decisions on morals and ethics, based on education experience and compassion? Why on earth do you need a ‘God’ or church to tell you how to think and behave?

    • bintalshamsa

      Why on earth do you need other people to adopt what works for you in order to feel justified in how you think and behave? How about standing tall, examining your own conscience and focusing on what it will take to convince YOU to be a better person?

    • Nora

      Why? Well,for starters, deciding on the basis of your personal experience has been and still is pretty unreliable! In India, among other societies, a person can feel perfectly ethical and moral in leaving a baby girl to die. After all, isn’t it obvious that a boy is necessary to please the husband, the I laws, and to be old age insurance? No one wishes for a girl. It’s perfectly acceptable. And so is polygamy, in so many social groups. Educated people often justify all sorts of things, even getting rid of whole groups of undesirables. A highly admirable civilization gave hemlock to an unsettling thinker to get rid of him. No one thought that was unethical or immoral. Fact is, we need God to teach us, not ourselves.

  • I think the change in the discipline of the Eucharist fast might have something to do with it. When the fast was from midnight, not going to Communion was not unusual, and there was a respectable reason for not going. Now the fast is so easy, everyone goes, so there’s a kind of pressure to go.

  • Martin

    For those who would wonder why a “bad Catholic” would continue living in a state of serious sin even though they KNOW it is serious sin; I would like to present a question: Why do you sin? Ever. Sin, remember, is an act of the will, so you don’t get out of it by saying you have a fallen human nature. Nope. Still your choice. Now you might answer that it makes sense because it’s not a grave matter, and that’s somewhat reasonable. But ask yourself this: is it a grave matter that you do not “love the Lord with ALL your strength, and ALL your mind, and ALL your heart”? Because if any of us really DID love God like that (and that is a pretty important commandment), we would never sin. Ever.

    Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to challenge the Church’s theology of mortal sin. At the same time, those of us who perceive ourselves as avoiding “the big ones” (murder, robbery, fornication, etc.) might do well to admit that we don’t really know exactly how far the whole “grave matter” thing goes. St. Francis of Assisi knew this. That is why he asked his brethren, with fear in his heart, to pray that God would receive him into heaven. We all know the murderers and adulterers don’t have their act together, but maybe we don’t either. That’s the real meaning of that “judge not lest ye be judged” thing. It has nothing to do with tolerating different behavior. Rather, it is about understanding that those who display unquestionably bad behavior actually aren’t much worse than us.

    • grumpycarrie

      In my case, it’s because I won’t make my husband, a non Catholic, get an annulment of his first marriage. He isn’t Catholic and I won’t make him live by our rules, so that leaves me in a permanent state of sin. We had a civil marriage and not a church marriage because of this. Very rarely do I attend mass anymore because I really feel like I’m being punished for having married a. Outside the church and b. A divorced man.

  • DJ

    The Church tolerated “bad Catholics” in the priesthood for too many years and the end result has been catastrophic, to say the least. I don’t think the problem can be simplified as good Catholics vs. bad Catholics. Certainly the Church is composed of sinners, and people who waste too much time worrying about the sins of others are generally neglecting their own. Bad Catholics we need, but that doesn’t mean they are fit for any role in the Church.

    The concern seems to be that “bad Catholics” are leaving the Church or trying to change Church teaching, rather than staying and recognizing their sinfulness even if they don’t want to give up those sins. I would suggest three cumulative factors behind this phenomenon.

    1) Lack of emphasis on truth. This comes from the pulpits. Too many pastors have become emotional about religion (how does it make you feel?) rather than acknowledging that the Church teaches Truth, which may be painful, unpleasant, and make one feel like a failure at life (a temporary but nonetheless very real part of the experience of many Catholics). Part of this is because they fear truth MIGHT make people leave, and part of it is because too many priests don’t actually have a solid grasp of philosophy. Pius X required all priests and theologians to have a grounding in Thomistic philosophy. A return to that policy would probably be worthwhile.

    2) Overemphasis on frequent communion, particularly with the format of lining up in an organized fashion from pews. Receiving communion has become more important in many minds than the Sacrifice of Calvary, and people told they cannot (or should not) receive communion if they have committed certain sins are more likely to feel that as a rejection because of the misunderstanding of what is happening at Mass. Better better catechesis would help, but perhaps changing the way we “line up” for communion would help so that those who don’t go don’t stick out like a sore thumb.

    3) The abandonment of Catholic practices. Praying the angelus at noon. Praying before meals. Abstaining from meat on all Fridays. Crossing oneself when passing a Church. Genuflecting on two knees instead of one when the Blessed Sacrament is exposed. Celebrating cultural feast days with certain foods or activities. Practices where a person would say “I do them because I’m Catholic” even if he didn’t understand more than that. Catholicism isn’t just a set of beliefs, it’s a way of life. When sin becomes a way of life, these routine practices can be what helps a person hold on to the Faith. Without them, it’s only a matter of time before the Faith is lost. Some of these require implementation at the family level, but others can be restored at the communal level and as cultural practices.

  • Bruce Hamilton

    Christ gave himself to us. In my view the church should not be arrogant enough to believe that IT is giving us Christ in the Sacrament during Mass but that Christ gives to us all of Himself. ‘Forgive them Lord they know not what they do’ I believe the church has a duty to teach that we are receiving Christ not as the ignorant mob but that we have a greater responsibility to ourselves (not to the priest) to be in the right frame of mind for receiving holy communion… If divorced or in sin in some other way we need a true sense of repentance and thoughtfulness, willingness to make amends etc So, IT IS UP TO US AS INDIVIDUALS. I have no doubt that many Catholics do this anyway and flout the churches teachings on this.

    • Nora

      How does a divorced and remarried person make amends for being remarried? That’s the big problem – they are not going to walk away from the second spouse, are they? So the wrong cannot be amended. And, don’t forget that Christ himself gave the bishops and St Peter “the keys to the kingdom of heaven,” and ” he who hears you, hears Me.” And St. Paul writes that he who receives the body and blood unworthily receives it to his own destruction. Christ didn’t just leave it all open for everyone to go their own way.

      • Bruce Hamilton

        I believe it is up to the individual and Christ, privately – ULTIMATELY. With God all things are possible and with faith likewise (re forgiveness).
        Not all divorce is wrong don’t forget. If divorce due to immorality then it seems we are off the hook of adultery. Remember how Christ dealt with the adulteress… He did not demand she go confess with a priest did He.
        As for receiving the body and blood of Christ unworthily, well what constitutes unworthy? Who is telling me I am unworthy? A priest? How does he REALLY know my heart.
        If I have faith in the forgiveness of Christ and a real desire to amend and repent, that faith is in Christ not in the priest or the church. Which is ultimately more important, church or our own private relationship and conversation with Christ?
        The fear of taking the sacrament and sinning again, the endless cycle, is keeping people away from the food that we all need to sustain us. I also blame the church and its dogma, not just ourselves.

        • Bruce Hamilton

          …Just read the sermon on the mount again. It’s a tough road alright. Not sure any of what I have written is truth or nonsense to be honest.

        • grumpycarrie

          I agree with you. My husband is divorced, non Catholic, who divorced due to infidelity on his wife’s part. We were not married in the Church because I won’t make him annul his first marriage. I know it wasn’t a valid marriage, in my heart, so why do we have to jump through hoops and spend money to make it official. This is the biggest reason I hardly ever attend mass anymore. I tried to stay faithful when our daughter was small and she made her communion but as she got older and realized how things are she refused to make her Confirmation because of this.

    • Aaron Taylor

      The Church doesn’t give us Christ. It *is* Christ, or rather, Christ’s Body, of which the baptised are “very members incorporate” as the Book of Common Prayer eloquently puts it. The only Christ you can have a relationship with apart from the Church is a false Christ.

  • Charles Russell

    Mr. Taylor, we meet again! As before, you offer an interesting take. Yet, I have some misgivings. Sin (or a “past”) is not necessary for beauty, and anecdotal evidence of the contrary hardly concedes its reality. Evil is not necessary for, or to know good. That is different, of course, from saying that one appreciates the sun after the rain, or any such analogy. Perhaps, you refer more to appreciation than necessity. Forgive me if I’m too frank, but this article really just seems to take a fine point about learning mercy from those who have learned, and learned, and learned, and makes it into a veiled pining after hearts and flowers, after a Church that no longer exists. Rather than decrying what used to be, let’s build up what is, making it better than days gone by. Having said that, I’m very glad you chose to use Louise Mensch’s piece! Peace and joy to you, truly.

    • Aaron Taylor

      We meet again indeed … thank you for your comment.

      I did not say that — epistemologically or metaphysically — one must know evil in order to know good. You’re confusing apples and oranges. Perhaps you would also like to correct Our Lord for being a sloppy philosopher when he said, “her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little” (Lk 7:27), since this is the principle at issue.

      And yes, let’s “build up what is” but let’s not confuse attending to present realities with a hidebound refusal to learn from our history, and let’s remember that “what is” includes the fact that a huge number of divorced and remarried people are alienated from the Church. These people are part of our present situation, not part of “days gone by.” Concern for their souls is not nostalgic pining.

      • Charles Russell

        Actually, in retrospect I was conflicted by your article, and am having difficulty articulating a response. I must assume I was acting as a firebrand. While on the one hand I agree with much of what you say, On the other hand I sense in it a taint of sentimentality for a Church that never was (in contrast to my previous statement about what the Church used to be). I believed you to be looking at the rosy past in a way that is unhelpful and inauthentic, a way that I see some traditionalists view it. Though I’m no historian, one thing I’ve heard from many people, and it can be gleaned as true from the Council documents, is that prior to the 1960s, holiness was for the clergy. From the content of your article, I think you’d find that notion flawed. That, however, is the reason bad Catholic were so tolerated. When people leave the Church in our era, it is often not because they were judged and found wanting, but because they have looked at the Church and, knowing the truth, judge themselves. Thus, they leave, rather than being pushed out. It’s difficult to stay when you don’t measure up.

        Perhaps there is a push to toward rigidity as a response to a hostile culture (for the record, those are words I don’t take lightly), which I abhor because it obscures the truth. Yet, there is also the reality that holding fast in a society that worships ‘fast and loose’ creates the appearance of intolerance where none exists. Still, aren’t we all bad Catholics? Everyone has virtue struggles. Everyone is in need of forgiveness. Those for whom virtue has been easier may be more liable to hyper-moralism and despise the reality of our humanness. Though these hyper-moralists in our Church might paint a picture that perfection is possible, you and I know that it’s not possible in this life. Sanctity is possible, but not perfection. I think that is why Pope Francis has been so popular. He incarnates what has been of great importance to my own spiritual life: deep and authentic humanity.

        With regard to critiquing Jesus, let’s look at Luke 7:47. The woman is anointing Jesus because she loves much, and as a recompense for her love she has received forgiveness. But it is not her love to which Jesus points that won her forgiveness, but her faith (Luke 7:50). It was her courage to approach Jesus (in a non-sacrilegious manner) in spite of her many sins, that won her forgiveness. Thus, of the one who has not been forgiven who loves little, it is because he is of little faith. This points back to my point, which in reality may not be different from yours, that it’s hard to stay when one doesn’t measure up. But in reality, no one does. Divorced and remarried Catholics are not alienated from the Church, but they do feel alienated from the Church. Both realities are extremely important. That bad Catholics are missing from the pews impoverishes the Church in only one way: members of the Body of Christ are missing. Again, perhaps we’re talking past one another.

        • Aaron Taylor

          I don’t think the fact that Louise Mensch-types may have felt more comfortable in church 70 years ago means the Church was “rosy.” Sin is not rosy, and we shouldn’t feel comfortable with it. My point is that the bad Catholics leaving is *not* a sign of improvement. They’re not leaving because everyone else is just so holy they can’t stand the contrast. I’m happy to stick my neck out and say maybe this is something we as Catholics were better at handling in the past, and maybe we could learn from our past on this *one* quite specific thing, without compromising the message that holiness is for everyone. Learning from what we got right in the past is not the same as nostalgic pining for yesteryear. Its just good common sense.

          • Charles Russell

            Please know that, although I’m not a traditionalist as the word connotes, I have a deep, deep reverence for tradition and for the past. But I think sometimes it gets skewed so that everything from the past is thought of as better. I was wrong in assuming you were taking that position. Let me ask you for your opinion: what can Catholics do, practically speaking, to correct the problem you see?

          • Aaron Taylor

            Sorry, I forgot to respond to this when you posted it.

            What can we do? Pursue holiness. This is always the answer to all of the Church’s problems. If people were holier, then they would have a greater awareness of their own depravity, and would be less keen to pass judgment on others.

            So the solution is simple, and, at the same time, not simple at all. It would be much easier in some ways if we could delude ourselves into thinking that the woes of the Church are capable of solution by Synods, “pastoral programs,” “initiatives,” and the like.

          • Charles Russell

            I like that answer. All the best!

  • Profiling

    Most Catholic bloggers, unlike yourself, love to lord it over the weak, fallen, or lapsed Catholics out there. The need to stop reading theology and start considering others as people. “Thank God I am not like the rest of men, especially this publican” is their favorite verse.

  • Anonymous Coward

    Bravo to Mrs. Mensch for not being a hypocrite.

  • fab4mattmarklukejohn

    I’m much encouraged by her example to acknowledge my own sins.