Our local newspaper had an article today on the furor within the Catholic Church over the invitation of President Barack Obama to speak at Notre Dame University and to receive an honorary degree. Because of the president’s pro-abortion stance, his being in favor of embryonic stem-cell research, and his support for the Freedom of Choice Act, his agenda is in direct contradiction of all the Catholic Church teaches; thus it is seen as very inappropriate for a supposedly Catholic university to confer any such honors on the president.
According to the article, many Catholics polled view the president in a favorable light and approve of his presidency so far. Many Roman Catholic bishops have become quite vocal concerning “pro-choice” Catholic elected officials, and “recommending” to them that they refrain from receiving Holy Communion as long as they support legislation which is contrary to the teachings of the Church.
Although there has been an evident rift in the Catholic Church between “Traditionalists” and, I suppose one could say, “Progressives” since Vatican II and the interpretation of its various promulgations and documents, we are seeing the rift becoming even more visible and more divisive. It has been interesting to note the newspapers choice of labeling two sides of the Church as “Observant Catholics” and those who are “nominally Catholic.” The “nominal Catholics” are described as those who do not always “follow the Church hierarchy on issues such as abortion, contraception or [interestingly put] political preferences.” They are also characterized as those who “don’t practice the faith” and “not regular church-goers not tied in with Catholic life in any meaningful way. Many of these people know nothing about what the bishops are saying about political matters because they’re not in church to hear them,” according to a J. Matthew Wilson, a political science professor who has studied the Catholic vote.
All this leads me to ask: What constitutes being Catholic? Is it a matter of what religion one is born and baptized into? Or is it something deeper? Could it be defined as someone who follows the teachings of the Church? Can one truly call themselves Catholic if they disagree with the teachings of the Church? Are they truly Catholic if they do not attend Mass/Divine Liturgy on Sunday, or just show up on Christmas or Easter? I cannot imagine any other denomination or religion considering someone to be a member if they do not do any of the above. And yet the media and the people themselves “non-practicing Catholics,” as if Catholicism is totally unrelated to the life of the Church. I have seen such a term before, in referring to a person as “an observant Jew,” and I have known Jews who did not believe, but this is a different category, since being Jewish is normally associated with persons of a particular ethnicity. “Catholicism” is not an ethnicity; it is not something of flesh and blood, of culture or background, or regional origin.
I believe that being Catholic is the latter and not the former. As I stated above, I cannot imagine the Baptist Church recognizing someone as Baptist if that person did not follow what is taught in a Baptist Church. I could not imagine Islam recognizing someone as Moslem if they did not follow the teachings of Islam. One is not Catholic simply because they were baptized in a Catholic parish and yet did not follow the teachings of the Church. Hallmarks of a Catholic include the understanding that the Pope, the bishops, and their duly appointed priests, are part of a hierarchy that extends back to the Apostles, and that their role is the same as that of the Apostles, to teach and lead the faithful in living out their lives in the Church; that being Catholic (and indeed, being a Christian of any denomination) is not belonging to an institution but rather being committed to a particular way of life. All the same, one cannot even be considered a member of any organization if they do not believe in or follow the rules and regulations of the organization. The very foundation of being considered a member resides in the fact that a person adheres to all the institution or organization stands for and was created for. As a result, how can one consider himself to be Catholic if they disagree with the teachings of the Church? The Church’s center is the teachings of the Church. It is an oxymoron to use the term “dissenting Catholic.”
It is interesting to note that those who dissent against the teachings of the Church are those who have been described as “non-practicing” and as those who “don’t practice the faith,” whereas those who are described as “traditionalist” or “conservative” are those who understand the Faith and adhere to the teachings of the Church: it is the ones who don’t know anything about the Church who are trying to delineate what is proper Catholic teaching, and those who have studied and really practiced the Faith who are most faithful to the Church and her teachings.
It is also interesting to note a similar division taking place in the American Episcopal Church and the Anglican Communion, where there is a “conservative” and a “liberal” side to the controversy. And although the Episcopal Church has indeed split into various jurisdictions, it is difficult to see a similar situation taking place in the Catholic Church since, when all is said and done, there is a central authority and hierarchy which also defines the Church. In the popular parlance, a hallmark of being Catholic is union with the Roman Pontiff. With the centrality of the hierarchy, there is also a centrality of the Magisterium, the teaching arm of the Church, to maintain a uniformity of teaching, of doctrine, of “right belief.” A parish or diocese cannot get its own way and still be considered part of the whole.
As a result of all that has been said, we come back to the beginning: to define a Catholic by saying that the person’s ancestors belonged to the church, or because a person was baptized in a Catholic Church is to misunderstand what the Church is and what her people are. Properly understood, the Church is more than an institution, it is a way of life, every waking moment of every day. It is not something we do but something we are. Catholicism is no different from any other denomination, in that you are identified with it because you believe what the Church believes and you honor the structures that define the Church. You cannot belong to something if you do not believe in its mission statement, its bylaws, or in those who preside in an official capacity. Being Catholic, partaking in the life of the Church and receiving her sacraments is not a right but a privilege; it is part of the life of the Church.
So, basic questions have to be answered by any and all who call themselves “Catholic”: do I believe what the Church teaches to be true or do I reject it? How do I reflect in my life that I am Catholic: is it in my participation in the life of the Church and in how I live my life once I leave the church grounds? And if you cannot answer these in the affirmative, then you can call yourself a “lapsed Catholic,” but no other label, “dissident” or “non-practicing” will work, because the words are meaningless.
Whither the Catholic Church? I cannot answer that question, but I do wonder. Does she somehow split up into warring “jurisdictions” as the Anglicans have? Will factions such as the Lefevrites continue to blossom? I believe things are coming to a head with the past controveries over “pro-choice” Catholic politicians being refused at the communion rail and now with this invitation to the president. Will more people leave the Catholic Church as some believe? And if these dissidents do leave, is it detremental to the life of the Church or does it mean that “the remnant” will be those who are true to the teachings?


Last week, on one of the late-nights, Steve Martin was one of the guests and besides plugging his new movie, he and a group of talented artists played a song from his new CD, “
Humility