What, exactly, is a Catholic?

There is a great deal—a great deal—of confusion these days as to what constitutes “a Catholic.” This is due in large part to very prominent individuals in our society who hold themselves out as Catholics, and whose religious views the media cover extensively, but who expressly dissent from doctrines of the Catholic faith. Ted Kennedy; John Kerry; Joe Biden; Kathleen Sebelius; the Cuomos; and Nancy Pelosi are such figures. Pelosi, in particular, in recent years has undertaken to teach theology, declaring that the Church has always been uncertain about abortion and when life begins, which earned her a rebuke from several bishops. In the last few days she declared that she will “stick with [her] fellow Catholics in supporting the Administration” in its decision to force the Church to pay for birth control and abortifacients. This, despite the fact that the vast majority of bishops in America have now denounced the recent HHS ruling.

            There are many other examples. Just today I found a blog entry on CNN in which a religion professor who claims here (

http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/03/my-take-real-catholics-not-opposed-to-birth-control/ ) that there are bishops, and there are “real Catholics” (presumably the ones Pelosi is siding with) and that “real Catholics” are fine with birth control. I read another blog here (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2012/02/10/my-take-why-im-a-catholic-for-contraception/ ) from a young woman who takes pride in her Catholicism and says it’s a huge influence in her life, but that she’s fine with being on the Pill since none of her Jesuit teachers ever said there was anything wrong with that. Quite the opposite: they encouraged her and her fellow students to be careful about spreading STIs (although there’s no indication that they told her that monogamy would solve that problem).

            These bloggers have a point. Huge numbers of people claiming to be Catholic do use birth control, and no priest or bishop ever told them not to. I myself have heard at least one priest publicly say he has given a parishoner “permission” to contracept. Does that make the practice OK? Does that mean that these people can be Catholics in good standing with the Church?

            Well, since Jesus created a hierarchy and gave its members power to do things like baptize and forgive sins, and to hold the keys to the kingdom, and from their very first days they did authoritative things like choose successors (Matthias in the book of Acts) and write books that the Church has always accepted as authoritative, we would have to say that adherence to this authority is kind of key to being Catholic. Unless, that is, you see this whole thing as a bootstrapping conspiracy theory designed for power aggrandizement and concentration in the patriarchal elites. If you take that view, then real Catholicism was a folk movement from the days of Christ’s ministry—we’ll call it The People’s Catholic Church--that was suppressed, or at best co-opted, by this evil authority from the very beginning.

            There are a few problems with this theory. The first is that most of the early Church leaders—including nearly every apostle and nearly every early pope--suffered torture and death for his faith. So if you were after power, there were probably better ways to gain it that to become an apostle or bishop.

            The second problem is that there’s no documentary evidence to suggest that The People’s Catholic Church ever existed. Of course, goes the theory, the bishops could have destroyed these documents, as they did the writings of heretics. But the early bishops didn’t have the kind of infrastructure necessary to carry out a program like that. Even when the Church became legal in the 300s, and thus more open and structured, it didn’t have these types of resources. We still have evidence of a whole bunch of early heresies that the Church tried like crazy to stamp out; Gnosticism, Montanism, Arianism, Modalism, Pelagianism, Donatism, Nestorianism, you name it. Is it likely, then, that there would be no evidence at all, not even a whisper, of The People’s Catholic Church?

            There’s no way around it. In terms of authority, teaching, doctrine, and structure, the Catholic Church was from the beginning hierarchical. (Even Nancy Pelosi presumably confesses, or at least pays lip service to, a belief in a Church that is “apostolic” unless she clams up during that part of the Nicene Creed.)

            So what has this hierarchy taught about membership in the Church? Wouldn’t that teaching be authoritative, since I hope I’ve shown to your satisfaction that there never was a People’s Catholic Church? Or, to put it another way, if you depart from the teaching of the Church hierarchy, are you really a member of the same religion as that hierarchy?

            It’s fine if you aren’t. I’m a firm believer in the idea that conscience can’t be coerced, and that there can logically be no such thing as a forced conversion. If you want to profess a religion in which  birth control is ok, then fine, go ahead, be my guest. I merely argue that if you do so, then you profess a religion that’s not what the Catholic Church—the real Catholic Church—has taught from the beginning. But if that’s the case, wouldn’t it be best for you not to refer to yourself as Catholic? Then people—me, you, your friends, the media, everyone--would be less confused.

            In my experience—and I borrow this from a homily I once heard from a great Jesuit ,Fr. Ray Gawronski—if you say “I’m a good Catholic, but . . .” followed by a statement that you dissent from one or more doctrines (such as social teaching, contraception, the Real Presence, etc., etc., etc., left-wing, right-wing, doesn’t matter) then you’re not a good Catholic, because you don’t hold the Catholic faith as passed down through the ages. Catholics can have hugely different opinions on a very great number of things, but the doctrines of the Church aren’t, collectively, one of those things. Dissent from that, or even any part of it, and you aren’t Catholic.

            That’s not me talking. That’s what the Church teaches, no matter how silent today’s group of mealy-mouthed American bishops are on the subject for fear of alienating someone (and thus seeing their collection plate revenues suffer). If you want a more complete definition, take a look at this excerpt from the article Church in the Catholic Encyclopedia, available at www.newadvent.org . You’ll note the importance of adherence to the teachings of the faith in this definition.

Members of the Church

The foregoing account of the Church and of the principle of authority by which it is governed enables us to determine who are members of the Church and who are not. The membership of which we speak, is incorporation in the visible body of Christ. It has already been noted (VI) that a member of the Church may have forfeited the grace of God. In this case he is a withered branch of the true Vine; but he has not been finally broken off from it. He still belongs to Christ. Three conditions are requisite for a man to be a member of the Church.

1. In the first place, he must profess the true Faith, and have received the Sacrament of Baptism. The essential necessity of this condition is apparent from the fact that the Church is the kingdom of truth, the society of those who accept the revelation of the Son of God. Every member of the Church must accept the whole revelation, either explicitly or implicitly, by profession of all that the Church teaches. He who refuses to receive it, or who, having received it, falls away, thereby excludes himself from the kingdom (Titus 3:10 sq.). The Sacrament of Baptism is rightly regarded as part of this condition. By it those who profess the Faith are formally adopted as children of God (Ephesians 1:13), and an habitual faith is among the gifts bestowed in it. Christ expressly connects the two, declaring that "he who believeth and is baptized shall be saved" (Mark 16:16; cf. Matthew 28:19).
2. It is further necessary to acknowledge the authority of the Church and of her appointed rulers. Those who reject the jurisdiction established by Christ are no longer members of His kingdom. Thus St. Ignatius lays it down in his Letter to the Church of Smyrna (no. 8): Wheresoever the bishop shall appear, there let the people be; even as where Jesus may be there is the universal Church". In regard to this condition, the ultimate touchstone is to be found in communion with the Holy See. On Peter Christ founded his Church. Those who are not joined to that foundation cannot form part of the house of God.
3. The third condition lies in the canonical right to communion with the Church. In virtue of its coercive power the Church has authority to excommunicate notorious sinners. It may inflict this punishment not merely on the ground of heresy or schism, but for other grave offences. Thus St. Paul pronounces sentence of excommunication on the incestuous Corinthian (1 Corinthians 5:3). This penalty is no mere external severance from the rights of common worship. It is a severance from the body of Christ, undoing to this extent the work of baptism, and placing the excommunicated man in the condition of the heathen and the publican". It casts him out of God's kingdom; and the Apostle speaks of it as "delivering him over to Satan" (1 Corinthians 5:5; 1 Timothy 1:20).

Regarding each of these conditions, however, certain distinctions must be drawn.

1. Many baptized heretics have been educated in their erroneous beliefs. Their case is altogether different from that of those who have voluntarily renounced the Faith. They accept what they believe to be the Divine revelation. Such as these belong to the Church in desire, for they are at heart anxious to fulfill God's will in their regard. In virtue of their baptism and good will, they may be in a state of grace. They belong to the soul of the Church, though they are not united to the visible body. As such they are members of the Church internally, though not externally. Even in regard to those who have themselves fallen away from the Faith, a difference must be made between open and notorious heretics on the one hand, and secret heretics on the other. Open and notorious heresy severs from the visible Church. The majority of theologians agree with Bellarmine (de Ecclesiâ, III, c. x), as against Francisco Suárez, that secret heresy has not this effect.
2. In regard to schism the same distinction must be drawn. A secret repudiation of the Church's authority does not sever the sinner from the Church. The Church recognizes the schismatic as a member, entitled to her communion, until by open and notorious rebellion he rejects her authority.
3. Excommunicated persons are either excommunicati tolerati (i.e. those who are still tolerated) or excommunicati vitandi (i.e. those to be shunned). Many theologians hold that those whom the Church still tolerates are not wholly cut off from her membership, and that it is only those whom she has branded as "to be shunned" who are cut off from God's kingdom (see Murray, De Eccles., Disp. i, sect. viii, n. 118). (See EXCOMMUNICATION.)

So, whenever you hear somebody say—either in so many words or in essence—“I’m a good Catholic, but . . .” take it from me—and the Church—he probably isn’t. Maybe that will help clear up the confusion.