Are Bad Catholics Still Catholics? (Jimmy Akin article)

[gordonhooker]

Whoa before you hit the report button, this is a piece by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin. I won't put up a survey because not everyone is Catholic in this forum (like yours truly).

A lot of words exchanged over the past week or so with Gov Cuomo gleefully signing a bill into Law expanding abortion to be a state constitutional right. We've seen the political threads and some Catholics calling for excommunication of Cuomo and pressure put on Cardinal Dolan.

Jimmy Akin addresses all of issues from a Catholic apologist perspective here is some of what he said in his titled piece "Are Bad Catholics Still Catholics?"
​

So, are such people still Catholics? Let’s start with the statement that Cuomo-type figures aren’t Catholics and that it’s an insult to say that they are.

This sentiment expresses a truth. When a public figure uses his fame and influence to betray the Faith, he is acting in an un-Catholic or even anti-Catholic way. And the profound contradiction between what he is doing and what he should be doing as a Catholic generates an objective insult to God. It adds injury to insult, for it wounds the body of Christ.

However, it isn’t literally true to say he’s not a Catholic. That’s hyperbole.

“But wait,” someone might say. “If someone betrays the Faith in this way, how can he still be a Catholic?”

To answer this question, we need to look at the Church’s official documents. According to the Second Vatican Council:
​

He is not saved . . . who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart” (Lumen Gentium 14).​

By losing the gift of charity, a bad Catholic ceases to be a member of the Church “in his heart,” but he remains in it “bodily.”

The Church thus recognizes that there is a sense in which a bad Catholic ceases to be truly or fully Catholic, but there is another sense in which he still is Catholic.​

So Jimmy is making a distinction here citing Vatican II between a 'bodily' manner and "in his heart' manner.

He continues:
​

Are there ways to lose that status altogether? Here the Code of Canon Law becomes relevant. According to it:

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age (can. 11).

By being baptized in the Church—or by being received into it after being baptized elsewhere—one becomes subject to the laws of the Church, and these obligations remain even when one betrays the Faith in fundamental ways. This even applies in cases where one has committed heresy, apostasy, or schism, which the Code defines as follows:
​

Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (can. 751).​

There are penalties for committing these crimes, including excommunication (can. 1364 §1). However, even excommunication does not mean that one ceases to be a member of the Church. Instead, as the Catechism explains, excommunication is “the most severe ecclesiastical penalty.” It “impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts” (CCC 1463).

This is verified by the Code’s explanation of the effects of excommunication (can. 1331), which lists the inability to participate in the sacraments and the inability to exercise ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions, etc. However, the canon does not list ceasing to be a Catholic or being released from the Church’s laws as a result.

A person who has committed heresy, apostasy, or schism may no longer identify himself as a Catholic, but he’s still bound by the Church’s laws—including, for example, the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday (without receiving Holy Communion, of course).

This brings to mind the old saying, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” There’s a sense in which that’s true, since the legal obligations we acquire upon being baptized or received into the Church continue to exist even if we renounce the Faith and no longer regard ourselves as Catholic.

It is even more clear that someone who still professes to be Catholic—even unfaithfully—remains so, even if it is purely in a “bodily” way and not “in his heart.”

Although there is no doubt that public figures—as well as private individuals—gravely compromise their communion with the Church when they reject key Catholic teachings and values, this doesn’t mean that they literally cease to be Catholics.

Bad Catholics are still Catholics. And that just makes their betrayal of the Faith worse.​

Jimmy Akin source link: Are Bad Catholics Still Catholics? | Catholic Answers

Don't know about you, but this second quoted area from Akin is not convincing. Considering in the history of the church (and as many Catholics argue here vigorously the church does not change her doctrines) we have this:
​

"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull​

Jimmy vs, Pope Eugene. Who is right here?

I would love to discuss this without flame wars because the problem set facing the Roman Catholic church is every Christian church's challenge. We ALL have Mario Cuomo's sitting in our pews, serving in government and even in the clergy and ministry.

So (1) Catholic thoughts on this and (2) Protestant/Evangelicals lets take the beam out of our eyes too as we 'know' this is our problem set too within the church.

God bless you all!​

I have not read the Vatican II documentation in its entirety but I am pretty sure the official Roman Catholic view on other faiths has changed and Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino Bull on this has been overturned.

 

[worshipjunkie]

Doctrines never change, though they do get more deeply understood. So when we read the proclamation that "Without the Church there is no salvation" uttered by the pope, what does it mean? Do you even realize that it came from St. Cyprian in the 3rd Century? Well, the Catechism of the Catholic Church explained this as "all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body.". So we have come to a deeper meaning of what is meant by 'the Church'.

And the definition as to who is part of the Church has been broadened to include just about everyone. People who were explicitly, dogmatically denied by previous encyclicals and bulls. It's not a deeper understanding if it, in the process, turns it into something else with only shreds of the original meaning remaining. It is a hop skip and a jump away from universalism.

 

[redleghunter]

I have not read the Vatican II documentation in its entirety but I am pretty sure the official Roman Catholic view on other faiths has changed and Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino Bull on this has been overturned.

You can't overturn a Pope!

 

[gordonhooker]

You can't overturn a Pope!

Apparently Church Councils can because they did.

Your are correct I cannot overturn a Pope and I see no reason why I would...

 

[redleghunter]

Apparently Church Councils can because they did.

Your are correct I cannot overturn a Pope and I see no reason why I would...

Which council overturned an infallible Papal teaching?

 

[worshipjunkie]

I have not read the Vatican II documentation in its entirety but I am pretty sure the official Roman Catholic view on other faiths has changed and Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino Bull has been overturned.

Yes to the first, no to the second. Even the Pope can't overturn a ex cathedra papal bull. They can, however, "develop it" out of existance, say it only meant for this small subset. A papal bull, written correctly, is an attempt to speak ex cathedra (or formal, definitive, and dogmatic) in other words, you probably won't get a papal bull from Pope Francis because liberals don't like to decree, declare and define. There were actually three very well known ex cathedra statements that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. Other doctrines have changed too: doctrines on the social kingship of Jesus Christ, doctrines on the Mass (not just the changes in the liturgy. I'm speaking doctrinally), doctrines surrounding Scripture (is it inerrant, infallible, and reliable in matters that it covers of history and science and not just religion and morals.). I am sure there is more.

 

[gordonhooker]

Which council overturned an infallible Papal teaching?

I said it in my original post. Vatican II was an ecumenical council.

 

[gordonhooker]

Yes to the first, no to the second. Even the Pope can't overturn a ex cathedra papal bull. They can, however, "develop it" out of existance, say it only meant for this small subset. A papal bull, written correctly, is an attempt to speak ex cathedra (or formal, definitive, and dogmatic) in other words, you probably won't get a papal bull from Pope Francis because liberals don't like to decree, declare and define. There were actually three very well known ex cathedra statements that there is no salvation outside of the Catholic church. Other doctrines have changed too: doctrines on the social kingship of Jesus Christ, doctrines on the Mass (not just the changes in the liturgy. I'm speaking doctrinally), doctrines surrounding Scripture (is it inerrant, infallible, and reliable in matters that it covers of history and science and not just religion and morals.). I am sure there is more.

You got the gist of it - in the end it was basically the same thing...

It was developed from a stance where everyone else was bound for hell - to maybe not everyone else is going to hell

 

[Mark_Sam]

Jimmy Akin: Bad Catholics are still Catholic, by virtue of their Baptism, and are still obliged to repent and confess their sins.

Pope Eugene: Bad and unrepentant Catholics won't be saved.

I don't really see a contradiction here.

 

[redleghunter]

I said it in my original post. Vatican II was an ecumenical council.

Now let's ask a Roman Catholic if Vatican II overruled or changed in any way an infallible teaching. The answer will be "no" I am sure.

 

[gordonhooker]

Now let's ask a Roman Catholic if Vatican II overruled or changed in any way an infallible teaching. The answer will be "no" I am sure.

All you seem to want to do is argue with people I will leave you with it.

 

[redleghunter]

Bad and unrepentant Catholics won't be saved.

Do you still give them a Catholic funeral?

 

[Mark_Sam]

Do you still give them a Catholic funeral?

The current Code of Canon Law states in canon 1184, §1:

Unless they gave some signs of repentance before death, the following must be deprived of ecclesiastical funerals:
1º notorious apostates, heretics, and schismatics;
2º those who chose the cremation of their bodies for reasons contrary to Christian faith;
3º other manifest sinners who cannot be granted ecclesiastical funerals without public scandal of the faithful.

So if they're bad enough, they'll be denied a Catholic funeral. However, what constitutes "grave signs of repentance" is up to the canonists to decide. Also note that apostate, heretic and schismatic are technical terms, and a Catholic can still be pretty bad without technically being a heretic or schismatic according to Canon Law.

So funerals can be denied, but at the same time, Canon Law states that all deceased members of the Christian faithful (read: members of the Church Militant on earth) must be given a Catholic funeral (can. 1176). And the Church is in the habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt these days.

 

[redleghunter]

And the Church is in the habit of giving people the benefit of the doubt these days.

Thanks. Teddy Kennedy comes to mind.

 

[tz620q]

I have not read the Vatican II documentation in its entirety but I am pretty sure the official Roman Catholic view on other faiths has changed and Pope Eugene IV Cantate Domino Bull on this has been overturned.

Gordon, in a sense you are right. There has been a lot of time between the time of the Council of Trent, with anathemas for those who had forsaken the Catholic faith to the Vatican II Council. Part of the change was a recognition that after 500 years, many are born Lutherans, Anglicans, etc. and continue in that denomination. These could not be held accountable for the decisions of their ancestors. So they had not left the Catholic Church, having never been a part of it to begin with. With that framework, VII tried to pierce the veil of past hatred and look anew at the current situation. From there it formed more ecumenical viewpoints with the hope of some form of reconciliation. To the hard line Catholics this was an abandonment of their view of the church and has led to small splits in the Catholic faith.

 

[Root of Jesse]

And the definition as to who is part of the Church has been broadened to include just about everyone. People who were explicitly, dogmatically denied by previous encyclicals and bulls. It's not a deeper understanding if it, in the process, turns it into something else with only shreds of the original meaning remaining. It is a hop skip and a jump away from universalism.

No, it's not. We believe God saves those he wishes. In human terms, yes, you must be part of the Church. That's the only way we KNOW we are saved.

 

[fhansen]

Whoa before you hit the report button, this is a piece by Catholic apologist Jimmy Akin. I won't put up a survey because not everyone is Catholic in this forum (like yours truly).

A lot of words exchanged over the past week or so with Gov Cuomo gleefully signing a bill into Law expanding abortion to be a state constitutional right. We've seen the political threads and some Catholics calling for excommunication of Cuomo and pressure put on Cardinal Dolan.

Jimmy Akin addresses all of issues from a Catholic apologist perspective here is some of what he said in his titled piece "Are Bad Catholics Still Catholics?"
​

So, are such people still Catholics? Let’s start with the statement that Cuomo-type figures aren’t Catholics and that it’s an insult to say that they are.

This sentiment expresses a truth. When a public figure uses his fame and influence to betray the Faith, he is acting in an un-Catholic or even anti-Catholic way. And the profound contradiction between what he is doing and what he should be doing as a Catholic generates an objective insult to God. It adds injury to insult, for it wounds the body of Christ.

However, it isn’t literally true to say he’s not a Catholic. That’s hyperbole.

“But wait,” someone might say. “If someone betrays the Faith in this way, how can he still be a Catholic?”

To answer this question, we need to look at the Church’s official documents. According to the Second Vatican Council:
​

He is not saved . . . who, though part of the body of the Church, does not persevere in charity. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but, as it were, only in a “bodily” manner and not “in his heart” (Lumen Gentium 14).​

By losing the gift of charity, a bad Catholic ceases to be a member of the Church “in his heart,” but he remains in it “bodily.”

The Church thus recognizes that there is a sense in which a bad Catholic ceases to be truly or fully Catholic, but there is another sense in which he still is Catholic.​

So Jimmy is making a distinction here citing Vatican II between a 'bodily' manner and "in his heart' manner.

He continues:
​

Are there ways to lose that status altogether? Here the Code of Canon Law becomes relevant. According to it:

Merely ecclesiastical laws bind those who have been baptized in the Catholic Church or received into it, possess the efficient use of reason, and, unless the law expressly provides otherwise, have completed seven years of age (can. 11).

By being baptized in the Church—or by being received into it after being baptized elsewhere—one becomes subject to the laws of the Church, and these obligations remain even when one betrays the Faith in fundamental ways. This even applies in cases where one has committed heresy, apostasy, or schism, which the Code defines as follows:
​

Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him (can. 751).​

There are penalties for committing these crimes, including excommunication (can. 1364 §1). However, even excommunication does not mean that one ceases to be a member of the Church. Instead, as the Catechism explains, excommunication is “the most severe ecclesiastical penalty.” It “impedes the reception of the sacraments and the exercise of certain ecclesiastical acts” (CCC 1463).

This is verified by the Code’s explanation of the effects of excommunication (can. 1331), which lists the inability to participate in the sacraments and the inability to exercise ecclesiastical offices, ministries, functions, etc. However, the canon does not list ceasing to be a Catholic or being released from the Church’s laws as a result.

A person who has committed heresy, apostasy, or schism may no longer identify himself as a Catholic, but he’s still bound by the Church’s laws—including, for example, the obligation to attend Mass every Sunday (without receiving Holy Communion, of course).

This brings to mind the old saying, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” There’s a sense in which that’s true, since the legal obligations we acquire upon being baptized or received into the Church continue to exist even if we renounce the Faith and no longer regard ourselves as Catholic.

It is even more clear that someone who still professes to be Catholic—even unfaithfully—remains so, even if it is purely in a “bodily” way and not “in his heart.”

Although there is no doubt that public figures—as well as private individuals—gravely compromise their communion with the Church when they reject key Catholic teachings and values, this doesn’t mean that they literally cease to be Catholics.

Bad Catholics are still Catholics. And that just makes their betrayal of the Faith worse.​

Jimmy Akin source link: Are Bad Catholics Still Catholics? | Catholic Answers

Don't know about you, but this second quoted area from Akin is not convincing. Considering in the history of the church (and as many Catholics argue here vigorously the church does not change her doctrines) we have this:
​

"The sacrosanct Roman Church...firmly believes, professes, and proclaims that..not only pagans, but also Jews and heretics and schismatics cannot become participants in eternal life but will depart into everlasting fire...unless before the end of life the same have been added to the flock; and that..no one, whatever almsgiving he has practiced, even if he has shed blood for the name of Christ, can be saved, unless he has remained in the bosom and unity of the Catholic Church.” — Pope Eugene IV and the Council of Florence (Seventeenth Ecumenical Council), Cantate Domino, Bull​

Jimmy vs, Pope Eugene. Who is right here?

I would love to discuss this without flame wars because the problem set facing the Roman Catholic church is every Christian church's challenge. We ALL have Mario Cuomo's sitting in our pews, serving in government and even in the clergy and ministry.

So (1) Catholic thoughts on this and (2) Protestant/Evangelicals lets take the beam out of our eyes too as we 'know' this is our problem set too within the church.

God bless you all!​

The truth is that God, alone, knows the human heart, and who is adhering to His commands and will and who is not. We have guidelines, and can judge to a degree by their fruits, but He, alone, knows.

To be Catholic is at once both a state of being, and a formal membership. But IMO the membership means nothing if our state is wrong. And this is also the teaching of the Church.

 

[worshipjunkie]

No, it's not. We believe God saves those he wishes. In human terms, yes, you must be part of the Church. That's the only way we KNOW we are saved.

So the previous understanding of the Church, God didn't save those who He wished? And is it something akin to Calvinism with an "elect". If the church still believed that you needed to be Catholic to be saved, they wouldn't have engaged in things like Assisi.

 

[Root of Jesse]

So the previous understanding of the Church, God didn't save those who He wished? And is it something akin to Calvinism with an "elect". If the church still believed that you needed to be Catholic to be saved, they wouldn't have engaged in things like Assisi.

I guess you don't know that God never changes, but our understanding of God does change as we come to know him, imperfectly as we do. We believe that in human terms, the only way we know is through devout Catholicism. But God does save whom he wishes.

 

[worshipjunkie]

I guess you don't know that God never changes, but our understanding of God does change as we come to know him, imperfectly as we do. We believe that in human terms, the only way we know is through devout Catholicism. But God does save whom he wishes.

We're discussing Church teaching here, not the unchanging nature of God. The unchanging nature of God is exactly why there is a problem with this concept of "development of doctrine" as it's now used especially since Vatican II, to show where A can become B.

A: The Church taught ex cathedra, infallibly, repeatedly, that non-Christians AND non Catholic Christians cannot be saved. (I've heard this teaching brushed under the rug by stating that it only really referred to infidels, but a very basic reading of the text can show that's not true)
B: The Church now teaches the Jews have a valid saving covenant of their own. Eastern Orthodox aren't even considered separated really anymore, and Protestants are seen as saved. Jews, Muslims and Christians are told they worship the same God. And on, and on; in infallible documents, in other forms of teaching, in the actions of the Popes since VII. Books have been written about this.

A is diametrically opposed to B. Any "deeper understanding" where A becomes B is not a deeper understanding, but a change. A sapling becomes a tree, not an elephant.