On Being an 'Ultra-Catholic'

A friend wrote me about a school principal, a religious sister, speaking to a parent and requesting school funds. The gentleman was described as an "ultra-Catholic." My friend asked me: "What is that, do you know?" Evidently, the "non-ultra" principal thought it all right to siphon needed cash from the "ultra" parent. No strings were attached. Once the funds were donated, the non-ultra establishment would go its non-ultra way. The ultra was good for his cash, if he still had any. His ideas were, well, ultra.

Clearly, I cannot resist taking a stab at defining what a modern ultra-Catholic is. Some temptations are difficult to resist. Briefly, in today's multi-descriptor world, an ultra-Catholic is one who is a believing Catholic, a fairly rare bird. The country is full of ex-, disagreeing, non-practicing, right-to-choose, leave-me-alone Catholics. They tell us that they are better than their hapless co-religionists who naively think Catholicism is credibly the most intelligent thing on the public or private scene. In the public area, the most often cited "authority" on what Catholics believe is the dissenter. Catholics are the one group about which no one has to speak accurately.

A be-knighted ultra-Catholic holds the Nicene Creed as true. He thinks divine authority exists in the Church. He knows that he, a sinner, needs forgiveness. But he does not make his sins into some social-justice crusade. He does odd things like go to Mass on Sundays, even in Latin. He thinks it is fine to have children. He prefers to work for a living. He also knows that the Church is under siege in the culture. He belongs to the real minority.

The word "ultra" is Latin, meaning "beyond." We have things like ultra viruses, ultrasounds, and ultraviolet rays. In the Middle Ages, a pope was called "ultramontane" if he came not from Italy but from over the mountains. In France in the modern era, the ultramontanists were those Catholics who kept alliance with Rome. Jesuits, perish the thought, were said to belong to this alien group in the Gallican regime. Ultramontanists did not think the French government was divine. This latter view was considered to be rather extreme. I know this negative view of French glory is difficult for the average contemporary to grasp. We find divine authority neither in Rome nor in Paris but only in ourselves.

An ultra-Catholic today, however, is one who strives to do what Aquinas did: He distinguished between those who willingly practice virtue, because they understand that it is the noble thing to do, and those who practice it just to observe the minimum of the law.

In what is hopefully a pioneer endeavor, we even have a bishop explaining to a Kennedy what it means to be a Catholic. Bishop Thomas Tobin in Providence read what Congressman Kennedy said in the Congressional Record about his being a Catholic but still not "agreeing" with everything the Church held -- a highly unoriginal position, to be sure. The bishop wondered just what it was that the congressman did not hold, and whether these "un-held" things were central positions in the Church -- which, of course, they were. From the beginning, when this selective view of Catholicism first appeared, local bishops did not similarly inquire of politicians who invoked this fuzzy doctrine of themselves deciding what is Catholic, as if the politician were actually himself the pope.

Now about this ultra-Catholic character: We have all laughed at people said to be "holier than the Church." This latter remark is not a compliment. Unlike the congressman from Rhode Island, some Catholics add things instead of subtracting them, as is the current fashion. Usually, the additions are not really wrong or bad. Most devotions, like the scapulars, are additions in this sense. Aquinas said that adding to the law was not the problem; taking things away from it was.

In the contemporary world, the real enemy of the liberal culture is the "fanatic." He holds something. We have now reached the point where the fanatic is pretty much identified with the ultra-Catholic. What is dangerous is not some heretical notion of Christianity; it is Christianity itself, especially in its Catholic form. When many Catholics themselves do not know what they are and hold, we distinguish the Christian who defines his own beliefs from the one who holds the self-evident and revealed truths of the Faith.

When the non-ultra-Catholics identify themselves with a disordered culture, the ultra-Catholic is left standing by himself. The popes address their documents to "men of good will." We read in the Gospel of John: "I have given them thy word; and the world has hated them." Evidently, not all men have good will.

The USCCB would have us believe that there are 69+ million Catholics in this country. If the USCCB is sufficiently content with the "cafeteria" Catholics' faith to count them as real ones, why should we ignore those bishops who (supposedly) sit in authority over Catholics, and listen only to conservative instead? If one must be a weekly-mass-attending, sweat-the-details Catholic to really count, are the Catholics on FR prepared to admit that the size of the "real" Catholic Church in America is at best double the [professed] size of the Southern Baptist Convention?

Catholic tradition fading in US (Evangelical Protestants now outnumber Catholics)

"Roman Catholics, the largest U.S. church with a reported 69 million members, start counting baptized infants as members and often don’t remove people until they die. Most membership surveys don’t actually count who’s in the pews on Sunday. To be disenrolled, Catholics must write a bishop to ask that their baptisms be revoked..."
....it is possible, for example, to be born Catholic, married Methodist, die Lutheran and still be listed as a member of the 1 billion-member Roman Catholic Church....
"...The Catholic understanding of membership is that a person becomes a member upon baptism and remains a member for life," Gautier said. "Whether you show up at church or not is not what determines whether you're a member."
-- from the thread When It Comes to Church Membership Numbers, the Devil's in the Details

...let me once again share the four-pronged typology that a veteran priest here in Washington, D.C., gave me a few years ago. There are, he said, four kinds of Catholics in this country and, thus, four “Catholic votes” on almost any issue. Any news report that lumps these groups together isn’t worth very much.
* Ex-Catholics. Solid for the Democrats. Cultural conservatives have no chance.
* Cultural Catholics who may go to church a few times a year. This may be one of those all-important “undecided voters” depending on what’s happening with the economy, foreign policy, etc. Leans to Democrats.
* Sunday-morning American Catholics. This voter is a regular in the pew and may even play some leadership role in the parish. This is the Catholic voter that is really up for grabs, the true swing voter that the candidates are after.
* The “sweats the details” Roman Catholic who goes to confession. Is active in the full sacramental life of the parish and almost always backs the Vatican, when it comes to matters of faith and practice. This is a very small slice of the American Catholic pie.
-- from the thread Bare Minimum Catholicism

“Breaking of the Bread:

All: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: have mercy on us.
Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world: grant us peace.
[kneel]

[This text may be sung or recited, and may be repeated several more times until the breaking of bread and the preparation of the communion vessels is finished; but the last phrase is always “Grant us peace.”]

Communion:

Priest: This is the Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to his supper.
*************
All: Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word and I shall be healed.
************

The many called can either reject or embrace the Truth. I’d rather embrace the Truth.

It’s up to God to judge a person’s soul, not me. There is always Hope.

But it is up to me to see that the Truth is not compromised by others. The Bishops even shepherd errant sheep. ~Even errant Shepherds.

*Wow. Imagine, just imagine playing God and judging the state of another’s soul. Gives you the chills doesn’t it? Or rather a hot flash.

Is there an echo in here? The grave trouble with Rome is that their theology of "traditions" has supplanted the very Scripture that they claimed to have delivered to the world.

Nonsense. Your interpretation of Scripture might disagree with two thousand years of Church teachings, but this in no way invalidates Church teachings.

Of course, the rest of us know this is another self-aggrandizing pipe dream

What do you mean by "the rest of us"? Protestant groups are every bit as likely to agree with the Church as they are with another Protestant group. The ONLY thing that Protestants really seem to completely agree with each other on is their rejection of the Primacy of Saint Peter.

However, if they would read the Book, they would see that their cult was debunked centuries ago.

Again, that is simply YOUR OPINION based on YOUR INTERPRETATION.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.