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.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

Correction: I meant to say celibacy is a discipline of the Catholic Church.

BTW the current Pope has said the policy is always subject to change. I agree with the Pope.

[cothrige]

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.

It is apparent when one encounters the method of interpretation which entirely rejects any of that community's historic perspective on its own scripture. If the Bible were still considered a part of that tradition and community then tradition and community would be a part of reading scripture, but they aren't. The ultimate result is that scripture is seen as entirely independent of all else and is read as if it dropped out of the sky complete in red letter edition for all to read.

This perspective, btw, was apparent in your criticism of the Church above, which I responded to. In that it was clear that you saw the Church entirely from the perspective of one who did not equate it with the Bible but apart from it and out of a sense of a personal interpretation of what that book means and teaches. It is just odd to me. I couldn't do that or ever come to that, which is what I was saying. For those like me, who come at it the other way round, that perspective is just impossible to fathom. I am not attacking or disparaging it (notice I don't use the language you do with things like "tossed into a blender" etc) but I just don't get it. That is all.

[cothrige]

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.

I am sure you are right about that. On both counts.

Should a person be excommunicated from any Church if he does not agree with 100% of some of the teachings?

That's an interesting consideration. I honestly don't know, but perhaps it depends on what one means by "teaching" and how crucial or central that teaching is? We are all sinners and we all, I have no doubt, misunderstand or get some things wrong in our life. How could we not? But, can a person simply reject a defined truth of the faith and still be a Catholic? How far does it go? I worked with a woman who said she was Catholic, and was raised that way, but denied that our Lord was God. I don't think she was any more Catholic than the Dalai Lama, formal excommunication or not. But, does the same hold true for one who rejects the primacy of Peter? Or the Virginity of our Lady? Or the indefectibility of the Church? I couldn't say. Maybe, but maybe not. That is not for me to say, thanks be to God.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

OK......

1) I don’t agree that Mary was ALWAYS a virgin. She was married to Joseph and they had other children. The Bible ONLY states she was a virgin at the time of her conception. Someone made up this eternal virgin thing up.

2) I don’t agree the Church is perfect. It has made many mistakes over the centuries...naturally because it is run by human beings.

3) I don’t agree that priests have to be celibate. Married men are capable of doing the job just as well as single men.

I have always rejected the claim that if you don’t agree with 100% of what another Catholic says, you’re not a good Catholic and should not be part of the Church. I was taught by a Catholic priest that Jesus had brothers and sisters and this is written in the Bible. We should not be making things up.

[cothrige]

How about simply reading the Bible, instead of reading things into the Bible?

May I butt into this and make a brief comment? This seems a strangely provocative suggestion. The Bible is not, after all, a set of stereo instructions. It is a gathering of diverse, in both content and perspective, grouping of letters and books. It was written under the inspiration of the Spirit, but isn't automatically read that way, and attests itself to the inherent pitfalls and difficulties in interpreting what it contains. As the Ethiopian eunuch himself recognized, how can one understand what is read without someone to show him? Consider all the pharisees and saducees who had spent their lives in scholarly study of the scriptures, and yet were so completely misguided.

Your statement above strikes me as similar to what I was discussing with Elsie about the peculiar Evangelical approach to the Bible which sees it entirely apart from its place within the faith community. It sounds like you see the Bible as something you should read, determine what seems right, and then judge the entire 2000 year Church against. That is unnatural, if I may say. You say the Church reads into the Bible, but I see the Evangelicals as doing so, or at least reading it out of the Bible, so to speak. What you are saying here just sounds like a person coming to the Bible from the backside and then being shocked that others came from the front.

[Trapped Behind Enemy Lines]

“Then Jesus’ mother and brothers arrived. Standing outside, they sent someone in to call him. A crowd was sitting around him, and they told him, Your mother and brothers are outside looking for you.”

Mark 3:31

Must be nice when you can pick and choose from the Bible which passages you believe in, which ones you don’t, and then make up other things which simply aren’t there.

[Elsie]

It is apparent when one encounters the method of interpretation which entirely rejects any of that community's historic perspective on its own scripture.

It is not apparent; except to this strawman that you are attempting to create.

[Elsie]

In that it was clear that you saw the Church entirely from the perspective of one who did not equate it with the Bible but apart from it and out of a sense of a personal interpretation of what that book means and teaches.

This is apparently mindreading; or else Strawman 1012.

[Elsie]

...the peculiar Evangelical approach to the Bible which sees it entirely apart from its place within the faith community.

There you go again!

[Elsie]

Be prepared for some lengthy circular arguments to SHOW that your chosen religion is, if not WRONG, then mistaken in what it thinks it knows.

[cothrige]

Must be nice when you can pick and choose from the Bible which passages you believe in, which ones you don't ...

What a bizarre comment. You say I "pick and choose from the Bible which passages [I] believe in" and quote a section from Mark which I have never suggested is anything but absolutely true. The Lord's Mother and brothers were outside waiting for him, and somebody went in and told him they were there. What about it? I haven't denied it and it seems very strange for you to just quote a random verse and then say somebody is denying it, or at least imply that.

... and then make up other things which simply aren't there.

This is also odd. Let me ask you this, do you believe this verse: But there are also many other things which Jesus did; which, if they were written every one, the world itself, I think, would not be able to contain the books that should be written. St. John 21.25 If you do how then do you assert that nothing can be known or believed that is not in the Bible? Among the many things believed by Christians it has never been thought that the Bible was exhaustive and contained all that God has ever done in the world.

Of particular interest to me is the fact that nowhere in the Bible does it actually say that only what is in the Bible is true. Nowhere is it explicitly written that we are required to reject any teaching or tradition which is not explicitly contained in that text. If this is your contention then it would appear that it is you who are making things up which aren't in the Bible.

[cothrige]

It is not apparent; except to this strawman that you are attempting to create.

Why would I attempt to create a straw man? I haven't any axe to grind on this. I merely responded to something you did say about me and Catholics, and pointed out that it reflects a rather peculiar notion about the relationship between Church and Scripture. I am not trying to be defensive, or contentious, but simply pointed out that the way we appear to view these concepts and their connections creates something of a divide between how we can understand each other.

And, as for your quote above, why do you take offense at it? In my experience Evangelicals see the Bible as something standing alone, and to be interpreted generally only by other verses within its own pages. They see the historic Christian Church's perspectives and traditional understandings of that book as extra-biblical, and therefore not applicable as a matter of faith. This very conversation is proof of that. The "community's historic perspective" on the Bible is that brothers of the Lord is not to be seen as children of Mary. Evangelicals, in my experience, "entirely reject" this idea, and any like it, and insist on only biblical proofs or interpretations. So, how is it not true when I say that Evangelicals "entirely reject any of that community's (i.e. the Church's) historic perspective (i.e. traditional understanding and interpretation) of its own scripture"? I really don't think this is either a straw man or even confrontational. It certainly wasn't mean that way, but merely as an observation of how it is hard for people coming from two such very different views on the Bible to really understand each other. Nothing more.

[cothrige]

In that it was clear that you saw the Church entirely from the perspective of one who did not equate it with the Bible but apart from it and out of a sense of a personal interpretation of what that book means and teaches.

This is apparently mindreading; or else Strawman 1012.

Sorry, but I just don't see this. Or are you really saying that you do equate the Church's interpretation of the brothers of the Lord as biblical? If so, then I am sorry, but I would have to ask why you are then arguing against a perfectly biblical understanding of these verses?

[cothrige]

...the peculiar Evangelical approach to the Bible which sees it entirely apart from its place within the faith community.

There you go again!

I am sorry, but it appears to me that you are just being contentious. I have said nothing here except that you do not believe that the Bible is subject to Church interpretation. How is that wrong? And why do you keep snatching portions of sentences and trying to infer bizarre and confrontational ideas out of them? You really should just read the entire post as a whole, without carving them up into little bits which are no longer connected to one another. That is not how I am presenting them. That you can even manage to be defensive about posts which are nothing more than observations of how different our two perspectives are is actually a bit alarming. You seem to be getting a bit punch drunk around here, and are seeing attacks in everything. Not everybody is trying to cast aspersions at you. Some of us are just having a conversation.

[Elsie]

You seem to be getting a bit punch drunk around here, and are seeing attacks in everything.

I wonder why I'm like this?