Types of Catholics.

Since the earliest days of the Church, there has been a certain degree of unfortunate division. We read in the Acts of the Apostles that there were those who insisted, "Unless you are circumcised according to the Mosaic practice, you cannot be saved" (Acts 15:1b). (1) The question of Mosaic practice and salvation in Jesus Christ soon became officially settled by the authoritative proclamations of St. Peter, in response to which "[t]he whole assembly fell silent" (15:12a). Before and even after this event known as the Council of Jerusalem, we can imagine disputes arising privately on this matter between Christians, even between the Apostles. "What kind of Christian are you?" one might say with a sneer. "I am faithful to Christ." "Well I'm faithful also to Moses." In his First Epistle to the Corinthians, St. Paul talks about these types of divisions within the Church, "rivalries" about whom one follows: Paul, Apollos, Cephas, or Christ. "Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Cor. 1:10-13) Such rivalries have continued throughout the life of the Church in different ways.

Today in the Church, especially in the West, there exists a similar phenomenon, especially on the local level. There are those who consider themselves "devout Catholics," and those whom devout Catholics consider "cafeteria Catholics." This is also framed in the all too familiar political language of "conservative Catholics" and "liberal Catholics." In light of the recent blessings that the Church has enjoyed in the graceful passing of the much beloved Pope John Paul II--a dear father and shepherd to so many and the election of the eminent Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger as Pope Benedict XVI, this rivalry has become newly prominent.

The error propagated by the media in many cases perhaps with no ill will--that the Church's positions on controversial issues have been simply the personal convictions of Pope John Paul II seems to have reinforced this tension within Christ's Body even more. "Maybe the next Pope will change all that," many have been wondering or even hoping. Or to state it using inaccurate political terms, "Maybe the next Pope will side with the liberal Catholics on this question, and less with the conservative Catholics." This categorization of Catholics is rather common in the popular forum, whether it is made by Catholics or not.

In this brief essay, I wish simply to identify the nature of current rivalries and to alert the reader to what I consider a destructive temptation to categorize Catholics into "types." To do this, it is important to identify a problematic posture before the teaching of the Church taken by some Catholics (so-called cafeteria Catholics), to highlight the temptation of some to call themselves "devout" (implying a certain spiritual superiority), and to emphasize the inaccuracy of the oft-employed political categories in the Church. The hope is to clarify our identity as Catholics, and to grow in our commitment to Christ and His Church.

'Cafeteria Catholics'

Within the Church there are many people who deem the teachings of the Magisterium to be simply propositions of aged celibate men. This does not in their mind automatically make these teachings false or insignificant, though. It does, however, dispose them to hear the Church's teachings as though they were primarily an object for one's personal criticism or consideration. When some people are told the teaching of the Church on a given matter, they frequently respond as though they were asked their opinion: "The Church teaches x about euthanasia." "Well, I disagree, because...." We might interrupt, "Has anyone asked you if you agree?" Instantly, the weight or value of the teachings of the Church become subject to private opinion. This is not necessarily arrogant or vindictive. It is rather a confused posture that thinks that all articles of faith are to be either accepted or rejected. In order to be an intellectually honest and responsible Catholic, they think, one must engage in a process of sifting through the Church's teachings, weighing them on a balance against the proclivity of the self. (2) These words from the introductory canons of Book III of the Code of Canon Law make little sense to those who think in this way:

Can. 748, [section]1. All persons are bound to seek the truth in those things which regard God and his Church and by virtue of divine law are bound by obligation and possess the right of embracing and observing the truth which they have come to know.

Can. 750, [section]1. A person must believe with divine and Catholic faith all those things contained in the word of God, written or handed on, that is, in the one deposit of faith entrusted to the Church, and at the same time proposed as divinely revealed either by the solemn magisterium of the Church or by its ordinary and universal magisterium which is manifested by the common adherence of the Christian faithful under the leadership of the sacred magisterium; therefore all are bound to avoid any doctrines whatsoever contrary to them. (3)

To the last clause of c. 748, [section]1, the "cafeteria Catholic" may heartily agree: "I have the right to embrace and observe the truth which I have come to know," he may say. If he has subjectively not come to know a given Church teaching as the truth, then he may think that he is free to disregard it. The rest of the canon, of course, betrays him. For, in the Church, there is always a correlativity of rights and obligations. Inasmuch as one has the right to embrace and observe the truth (and not be coerced against one's will and conscience; see c. 748, [section]2), one has the obligation to believe what is part of the deposit of faith. Such notions are in stark contrast with the so-called cafeteria Catholic, for whom the deposit of faith is ultimately subject to personal opinion or inclination. These words of the 1983 Code are immediately considered oppressive of one's intellectual and moral freedom; they constitute a plain imposition of ideas.

This tension in the cafeteria Catholic comes to the fore when he is confronted with teachings that are particularly uncomfortable and conflicting with his opinions and even his lifestyle. If he is told the Church's teaching about contraception, for instance, he thinks he has encountered the height of religious oppression. To him, this and therefore potentially every other doctrine, is to be confronted by one's own feelings on the matter: "Hmm. How do I feel about this teaching? Will I accept or reject it?" There appears to be little regard for the source of this teaching; namely, Jesus Christ and the Church founded by Him; this Church's teachings on such contemporary matters are founded on if not explicitly articulated by, "the orthodox, catholic, and apostolic faith" (Eucharistic Prayer I). (4)

Regardless, there are those who are moved to cast the whole of Sacred Tradition before the tribunal of their opining. If what is handed down is not pleasing to them, then it is suspect. Even with such a disposition, however, a person will call himself a Catholic. Such Catholics must question why they are and remain Catholic, and they must surrender anew their hearts and minds to Christ.

'Devout Catholics'

While some in the Church have been labeled "cafeteria Catholics" (even by themselves), others deem themselves to be of another "type" of Catholic: those that consider themselves "devout." Now, this term is more ambiguous than most may think. It is one thing to say that Sir Thomas More was a devout Catholic. For, indeed, his faith penetrated every aspect of his life, from his fidelity to his wife and children to the shedding of his blood out of devotion for Christ and His Church. It is quite another thing, however, to call oneself a devout Catholic. It is this latter usage that is our concern here. For this is the context of what I consider an unfortunate categorization of Catholics. It would seem to suggest that there is a legitimate category of the non-devout. What is one saying when he calls himself a devout Catholic?

Certainly this depends on the person who so labels himself. For starters, though, a Catholic might consider himself devout inasmuch as he agrees with the canons quoted above. That is, he believes the totality of the deposit of the divine and Catholic faith (not the portions of it that suit his fancy, as though he were in an a la carte line), including the teachings of the Magisterium. Divine revelation--in written and traditional form--together with the magisterial authority of the Church of the divine Founder together constitute the faith of the so-called devout Catholic. He is often quick to disassociate himself from the "cafeteria Catholic." He is different from him in almost every way.

Let us return, however, to a single word in c. 748, [section] 1. With respect to the divinely revealed truth, the canon refers to the servandi; i.e., the observing of the truth, which indicates, among other things, action. Is it really enough to believe the fullness of the deposit of faith in order for one to consider himself a "devout" Catholic? This almost sounds like a Catholic solafideism. As Catholics we are bound to do the truth, which is the life of virtue. Being a "devout" Catholic, then, entails not only believing the truth entirely, but doing the truth entirely, or living a perfect life of virtue. Who can claim for himself such an attribute?

If we insist on dividing the Church between "cafeteria" Catholics and "devout" Catholics, we should each for our own part be the first to deny that we are devout Catholics. Soren Kierkegaard, who himself was immensely serious about being a disciple of Christ as a Lutheran, stated that he was not worthy of the title "Christian;" for his life, according to himself, did not manifest what the word implied; he deemed himself a committed sinner, unworthy to follow Christ. Why should Catholics today be any different? "I am very Catholic," people say; or "I am a devout Catholic." The fruit of our self-reflection really ought to lead us to the unambiguous conclusion that we are hypocrites who are constantly being showered with the immeasurable, salvific love of the Triune God. "I am a Catholic, but tragically you might not be able to tell as much simply by looking at my life," we should say. How quick some have been to point at Senator John Kerry and say, "He's a bloody hypocrite!" I am not about to defend his political positions--don't get me wrong. Before saying any such things, however, I must humbly and honestly admit that I am the supreme hypocrite. And after realizing this, I am too covered with my own ashes to point out the hypocrisy of others.

Furthermore, we are quick to define the devout Catholic as the one who attends daily Mass, who says the rosary every day, and who goes to confession at least monthly. Without diminishing these venerable practices, we must reflect: is there no other way to be devoted to God as a Catholic? Take for instance our fellow Catholics of the Eastern Churches sui Juris (e.g., Ukrainian Catholics) who are just as Catholic as Latin Catholics. To them, the Divine Praises (cf., the Liturgy of the Hours), the Jesus Prayer, and the Divine Liturgy (Sunday and occasionally throughout the week) are the common acts of devotion and worship; surely they cannot be excluded from the company of the remnant devout. A legitimate diversity of expression of the devout life, then, can be admitted within the universal Church. Can such be admitted within the Latin Church? For instance, what if one faithfully participates in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass every Sunday with compunction and thanksgiving, anticipating it with longing throughout the week through a regular offering of the Liturgy of the Hours, (5) with spiritual communions, and withlectio divina. Could such a life be considered devout?

The fact is, that this or any spiritual program cannot be placed before the judgment seat of others. The expression of devotion in the Church fits into no uniform model. True devotion is that which draws on the Sacred Tradition and spiritual patrimony of the Church and, therefore, fundamentally requires a prominent closeness of the disciple to the Most Holy Eucharist and to Sacred Scripture-both being the very Word of the Father, brought to the human context by the Holy Spirit, through the Church.

"Devout Catholic," then, is an ambiguous and dangerous title, in as much as it seems to mandate a uniform expression of devotion, and, what is worse, it appears to be and may slowly become a subtle self-canonization, either for groups or for individuals. To be Catholic is to be devout: devoted to God in the Church.

A word about political categories

As we acknowledge this rivalry between the "devout" and the "cafeterial," we cannot help but consider also the imposition of political labels onto the members of the Church--namely, "liberal" and "conservative." (I say "imposition," because these labels have been forged onto the psyches of Christ's members by a shallow, secularist understanding of the Church.) This dichotomy falsely implies that there can be different types of Catholics: some who are more loose in their adherence to Sacred Tradition, and others who are more strict. If we wrongly insist on these categories, however, we must say that to be Catholic is to be conservative. We as Catholics must be faithful to Sacred Tradition. We are not on a little island of the Church. We are a small, contemporary part of the Universal Church (which is glorious, suffering, and militant, not earthly and temporal). This means that we have received Sacred Tradition, and that we are invited to express (not invent) it anew today for the sanctification and salvation of all.

Another problem with these categories is that they are deterministic; they reduce individuals to an end of the spectrum. One may say that he is "liberal" when it comes to the question of the ordination of women. How many of us then are quickly inclined to say that that person is a liberal, and therefore that all he says must be heard with suspicion? If this describes us, can we honestly deny that we are unwilling to hear the Holy Spirit speaking through whatever else they may have to say? And what a crime to quench the Holy Spirit!

Furthermore, favouring, for instance, the ordination of women cannot rightly be called "the liberal Catholic view," and the restriction of priestly ordination to men cannot rightly be called "the conservative Catholic view." It is quite plain that the latter is the Catholic position and the former is a non-Catholic position, concluded by someone or some group in spite of Sacred Tradition. (6)

Instead of these categories, then, we must insist on Aristotle's principle of non-contradiction: something cannot both be and not be in the same respect. One cannot say with integrity that he is Catholic, but his positions on euthanasia, and homosexual "marriage," and the divinity and celibacy of Christ are not Catholic. What makes him Catholic, then? Either one is a Catholic or one is not. If one is, then he believes the whole deposit of the faith including the teaching of the Magisterium. This does not exclude legitimate questioning, the resolution of confusion, "wrestling" with doctrines like Jacob in the desert, and tides quaerens intellectum. Such are a healthy part of the pilgrimage of faith. It does exclude, however, superseding one's private beliefs over received and divinely inspired Tradition.

Resolving the matter

In order to reach some kind of admittedly imperfect resolution to these rivalries among Catholics, several thoughts could be considered.

First, even though it makes for convenient shorthand, we must do away with the language of "devout" and "cafeteria," "conservative" and "liberal." For if such language is retained, members of the Church will continue to abide in the confused state of things; the notion that one can be either a liberal Catholic or a conservative Catholic, a devout Catholic or a cafeteria Catholic will be perpetuated. We need not be naive about the different opinions in the Church, but we ought to be unwavering and insistent on the fundamentals of Catholic faith and morals. If someone says, "That's what the Church thinks, but what do you think?" we must reply, "I am Catholic, so I believe what the Church teaches; not mindlessly, though; here's why I believe it...."

Secondly, we must remind ourselves that it is not our place to determine whether this person is devout or "cafeterial," and whether that person is liberal or conservative. He is a brother or sister in the Lord, whose soul has been gratuitously flooded with divine life just like the rest of us. If he is wavering in his fidelity to the Sacred Tradition, we must be with him in fraternal charity, and encourage him in the faith, as we hope he will do for us when we waver in our observance of life in Christ. It remains essential to be most critical of oneself. Whenever we are tempted to think of fellow Catholics as hypocrites, we must again disclose to ourselves our own hypocrisy.

Thirdly, we must trust in God's gift to the Church of Pope Benedict XVI. Have we any doubt that he has the charism of confirming the whole Church in her faith, from each bishop to lowly little me? (See Luke 22:32c) I am confident that he will build on the outstanding work of Pope John Paul II, and clarify further to each believer what it means to be Catholic. May there be no more rivalries, no more confusion. May all be truly devout, following the quiet prompting of the Holy Spirit. And may all do their part to witness to the truth of the Apostolic Tradition, and the splendour of being a disciple of Jesus Christ.

ENDNOTES

(1.) New American Bible, New York: Catholic Book Publishing Co., 1970, with revised New Testament, 1986.

(2.) This is not to dismiss the spiritually indispensable process of personally assuming and embracing the Church's teaching--a process that for some may require time, healing, and mortification. We are referring here more to an exertion of the self and of private opinions over Magisterial and Divine teaching.

(3.) Code of Canon Law, Latin-English Edition, Washington, D.C.: Canon Law Society of America, New English Translation, 1998.

(4.) "... orthodoxis atque catholicae et apostolicae fidei ..."

(5.) It seems that the divine office has in practice taken a second place to many popular acts of piety, especially the holy rosary. As a people of God, we must never forget that it is the Oratio Ecclesiae (Institutio Generalis de Liturgia Horarum, in Liturgia Horarum, vol. I, Citta del Vaticano: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2000, p. 24) and that the Council encouraged the participation of the laity, including groups and individuals (quoting Sacrosanctum concilium 100, see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed., Washington, D.C.: United States Catholic Conference, 1997, no. 1175).

(6.) It must not be ignored, however, that such language could be helpful in the academic sphere, where the questions being debated may not be fundamental to the faith, but more abstractly theological. For theological positions may be more conserving or more progressive without any detriment to the deposit of the faith. Much more commonly familiar is the division of which we have been speaking, namely, that among ordinary Catholics. It is also necessary to distinguish between matters dispensable and indispensable, whether in the academic or the parochial sphere. For example, while the terminology of "transubstantiation" is not indispensable to the mission of the Church and the essence of the Eucharist, the fact of the Real Presence is. One's views on such matters could legitimately be called conservative and liberal, if one wishes, in as much as they remain conformed to or depart from tradition (note the small "t"). See c. 218.

William L. Daniel studied classical languages at St. Mary's University of Minnesota, and is now studying for the Licentiate of Canon Law at Saint Paul University in Ottawa, Ontario, for marriage tribunal work in the Diocese of Winona, MN. He is an editorial assistant for the Canon Law journal (Studia Canonica). He and his wife Meredith welcomed their first child in May 2005.