Pope: Half-hearted Catholics aren't really Catholics at all

cns ^ | June 5, 2014 | Cindy Wooden

[NYer]

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- Those who insist others pray and believe exactly like they do, those who have alternatives to every church teaching and benefactors who use the church as a cover for business connections may call themselves Catholics, but they have one foot out the door, Pope Francis said.

"Many people say they belong to the church," but in reality have "only one foot inside," the pope said June 5 at the morning Mass in the chapel of his residence.

(CNS/Paul Haring)

"For these people, the church is not home," but is a place they use as a rental property, he said, according to Vatican Radio.

Pope Francis reflected on the day's Gospel reading, John 17:20-26, and Jesus' prayer that there would be unity, not divisions and conflict, among his disciples. There are three groups of people who call themselves Catholic, but are not really, the pope said. Apologizing for making up words, he labeled the three groups: "uniformists," "alternativists" and "businessists."

The first group, he said, believe that everyone in the church should be just like them. "They are rigid! They do not have that freedom the Holy Spirit gives," and they confuse what Jesus preached with their "own doctrine of uniformity."

"Jesus never wanted the church to be so rigid," Pope Francis said. Such people "call themselves Catholics, but their rigid attitude distances them from the church."

The second group, those with alternative teachings and doctrines, "has a partial belonging to the church. These, too, have one foot outside the church," he said. "They rent the church," not recognizing that its teaching is based on the preaching of Jesus and the apostolic tradition.

Members of the third group "call themselves Christians but don't enter into the heart of the church," they use the church "for personal profit," the pope said. "We have all seen them in parish or diocesan communities and religious congregations; they are some of the benefactors of the church."

"They strut around proud of being benefactors, but in the end, under the table, make their deals," he said.

Pope Francis said the church is made up of people with a variety of differences and gifts, and if one wants to belong to it, he or she must be motivated by love and enter with "your whole heart."

Being open to the Spirit, who fosters harmony in diversity, he said, brings "docility," which is "the virtue that saves us" from entering the church half-heartedly.

[cothrige]

Appeal to Authority - Because an authority thinks something, it must therefore be true.

I am sorry, but where did you come up with the idea that I was appealing to authority? I said that the Church does not teach authoritatively that St. Joseph was an elderly widow, but that it was merely a very ancient tradition. I said that I accept it only so long as evidence does not exist which refutes it. I said that ancient tradition is ancient, which means it has a stronger pedigree than the speculation of somebody living 2000 years after the fact. Do you really believe that the people who lived 1900 years ago were not a bit closer to the events than somebody writing about these things today? Sure, some people insist that some scholar musing about the bible being the work of people hundreds of years after the Lord lived know more than the people of the early Church. I am not one of them. I will go with the view which dates to the nearest time of the events in question, and all of you who want to jump on the bandwagons of historical revisionism can spend your time chasing after those other trends.

[cothrige]

Well, if I may, I would not call that a tradition, but merely a very old model about how people imagined things worked.

Maybe YOU wouldn't; but ROME sure as Hell bet some BIG BUCKS on it!

What about it? Does that prove it is of the same type and quality as traditions such as those surrounding who wrote the books of the Bible or how old St. Joseph was? I don't remember anyone betting "BIG BUCKS" on those? They have merely discussed which of several competing possibilities is most likely. Questions of how the universe works may be a big deal, but such are obviously a matter of empirical reality and not of historical witness. The type of tradition I am speaking of is not of the same kind at all, and is merely a question of historical facts and various witnesses of contesting value and trustworthiness. I really don't see how you could confuse them.

[cothrige]

I’m no great fan of the current Pope myself. I have been turned off by his many misguided comments on economic policy.

Popes' have no particular guarantee to understand economics. I pay no attention to what clerics say about such non-ecclesial concerns.

But if I decided to excommunicate everyone in the Church who disagreed with my views, I think I would be the only one left in the Church.

Ouch! That seems to say something. I think I would have to stop and consider for a moment if I thought that were true about myself.

[cothrige]

What can I say?

Other than Missouri's state nickname fits me to a tee!

Are you a person of faith? If so how do you reconcile those two ideas? I have to tell you that, eventually, the one would have to impede on the other. After all, how do you know the Bible is authoritative?

[Elsie]

They have merely discussed which of several competing possibilities is most likely.

And then, by decree, said "This is it."

[Elsie]

Questions of how the universe works may be a big deal, but such are obviously a matter of empirical reality and not of historical witness.

It's hard to separate the tradition that is based on a WITNESS, from those that are not.

Empirical reality that went again the Church's teaching, could get a person KILLED!

[Elsie]

If so how do you reconcile those two ideas?

Easy!

If there IS evidence available, and I choose to accept it; what used to be Faith is now knowledge.

If I choose to ignore it, I become like so many Catholics: relying on the assumed veracity of the Church.

[cothrige]

Empirical reality that went again the Church's teaching, could get a person KILLED!

Empirical reality that went against the Protestant Church's teaching could get a person killed too. It means nothing. People are sinners, and they do horrible things when their worldviews are threatened. But, none of this has anything to do with tradition in matters of history. Nobody has ever been killed, so far as I know, for suggesting that St. Matthew didn't write the Gospel that bears his name. And more than Catholics accept traditional associations regarding people in the Bible.

[cothrige]

If I choose to ignore it, I become like so many Catholics: relying on the assumed veracity of the Church.

I make no pretense, but neither is there any contradiction. If you are a person of faith then you accept some authority greater than your own to witness to a reality which cannot, in this life, be seen. Some will say that they look to the Bible only, and others say they look to the Church. Though, of course, both of these views are really exaggerations since no Church follower doesn't believe in the Bible and follow it, and no Bible follower is not in some way a part of a church which they also listen to for guidance and interpretation. But, empirical evidence is not at question in either of these. It all just comes down to faith.

[cothrige]

They have merely discussed which of several competing possibilities is most likely.

And then, by decree, said "This is it."

No, this is fiction. It never happened. There are no such decrees. With your insistence on evidence why do you feel so comfortable simply asserting historical falsehoods, and even manufacturing fictional "decrees"? If these "decrees" are so known to you perhaps you can, following the nickname of a particular state, show them to me? I would love to see them myself.

[Elsie]

If you are a person of faith then you accept some authority greater than your own to witness to a reality which cannot, in this life, be seen.

Yup...

..but it is NOT going to be a bunch of folks who have come up with stuff that has no basis in Scripture.

---

The bible, tossed into a blender, and bits and pieces getting stuck together does NOT impress me.

[cothrige]

..but it is NOT going to be a bunch of folks who have come up with stuff that has no basis in Scripture.

Fine, though you really cannot do that. Scripture was, at some point, brought to the world via a "bunch of folks who have come up with stuff that ha[d] no basis in Scripture." It is unavoidable.

The bible, tossed into a blender, and bits and pieces getting stuck together does NOT impress me.

I am always intrigued by the Evangelical idea of the Bible. It is so completely strange to me. To think of it as somehow independent of the entire Christian tradition and community of faith is just so odd. How could it possibly make sense in that perspective? Personally, I view the Bible as inerrant and authoritative, but only because the Church witnesses to that. The Spirit lives in His Bride, and it is that which leads me to faith, and not the book. The book can only have its origin in the Bride, and it can never be otherwise, and so I could never think of turning these two around. I come to the Book because of the Church, and not the reverse. My approach is like that of St. Augustine, who said "As for myself, I believe the Gospels only because the authority of the Church had already moved me." Your statement above just doesn't reflect anything I can make sense of, and so I must think it is a product of that rather peculiar perspective that is itself so inexplicable to me.

[Elsie]

I am always intrigued by the Evangelical idea of the Bible.

I, likewise, am intrigued as to what that idea might be.

[cothrige]

I thought I was pretty straightforward in my response. What was unclear?

[Elsie]

What was unclear?

...the Evangelical idea of the Bible.

[Elsie]

To think of it as somehow independent of the entire Christian tradition and community of faith is just so odd.

I wasn't aware that Evangelicals 'think' this.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

How about simply reading the Bible, instead of reading things into the Bible? The Bible clearly states that Mary was married to Joseph. The Bible clearly states that Jesus had brothers and sisters. Why is it therefore wrong to conclude that Joseph and Mary enjoyed a happy normal marriage and that Jesus had brothers and sisters? We have no problem believing that Adam and Eve consummated their marriage. Why do we doubt that Mary and Joseph consummated their marriage? The Lord commands us to be fruitful and multiply after all. Physical intimacy between a husband and a wife is a precious gift from God.

[cothrige]

What was unclear?

...the Evangelical idea of the Bible.

Well, you'll get no argument from me on that one.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

You’re reading too much into that. Point is that there is always plenty of room for disagreement. No two people think the same way on everything. Should a person be excommunicated from any Church if he does not agree with 100% of some of the teachings?

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Celibacy is a doctrine of the Catholic Church.

There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Bible mandating celibacy as a requirement for service in the priesthood. To the contrary, priests and bishops in the Bible and in early Catholic Church were married men. Celibacy was introduced much later.