Archived comments from the post: "Are they Catholics?" (Musings, May 30, 2011) posted on Michael Liccione's Facebook page:
Fred Kaffenberger I dunno. These folk would seem to have more in common with many cradle Catholics I know than so many intellectuals who think faith is primarily the articulation of correct opinions...
[4 hours ago]
Michael Liccione You have a point. Anybody who believes that faith is a matter of holding correct "opinions" does not understand what faith is. But it doesn't follow that being Catholic does not require professing what the Church teaches as "de fide." It does, even when one is unaware of all that's contained in that category. The basis for wondering about the people described in this article is that there's no evidence they are even DISPOSED to affirm all that the Church thus teaches--leaving aside their obvious lack of AWARENESS of much of it.
[3 hours ago]
David Braine The question is also worrisome in such cases as Tony Blair who made public display of the same views on homosexuality after reception into the Church as before, besides cooperating in delaying the Lebanon cease fire in 2006 fo 28 days so that cluster bombs could arrive from the US for use before ceasefire, showing the same rejection of just war principles as before reception.
[3 hours ago]
Fred Kaffenberger so why would a person believe in everything that the Catholic Church teaches? What would even make a Catholic curious about what the Church teaches on this or that? The Church teaches that if they are baptized, then they are Catholic. Do we believe that they have been ontologically changed, or do we have another criterion for belonging than the Church does?
[3 hours ago]
Michael Liccione Fred, it is on the Church's authority that we believe that whoever is baptized Catholic is a Catholic. To accept the Church's authority on that point, but not on others of equal or greater importance, is self-inconsistent. And that state of mind is not compatible with being in full communion with the Church.
[2 hours ago]
Frank Palmer Purcell CL is OD for bad Catholics. Just as well. We are all pretty bad Catholics, but we still have God's work to do. Of course we Easterners are not only bad Catholics, but bad Orthodox too! You know Fr. Faber's spiritual conferences? He makes a pretty good case that it is worse to take scandal than to give it. Much worse. Life is too short to upset ourselves about whether other folks are in full communion, and if we are truly concerned, a little prayer won't hurt.
[2 hours ago]
Fred Kaffenberger why would anybody believe in the authority of the Church? And why does Blosser question it?
[2 hours ago]
Michael Liccione Your first question requires a book of apologetics as an answer. I'm sure you've seen some of them. As for Blosser, he does not question the authority of the Church. I know him personally as a totally orthodox and loyal Catholic. What he questions is the pastoral wisdom of receiving into the Church people who have not been adequately informed of her teaching and practice. People who are not well informed cannot give informed consent. I share his concern.
[2 hours ago]
Fred Kaffenberger Michael, if apologetics is your method then it would certainly take a library to bludgeon a poor soul into submission. :)
My wife, who was an avid Protestant when I met her, says no book or tract would have been good enough to persuade her. Instead, the only thing that convinced her was the testimony of someone who lived his faith without complicated rationalizations. As for who's a Catholic, the teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter is sufficient for me. I believe it was Cyril of Jerusalem who proclaimed "you are caught in the Church's net etc."...
[2 hours ago]
Fred Kaffenberger If apologetics were enough, then Charles Peguy's wife Charlotte would have been converted by the threat of anullment and arguments of Jacques Maritain instead of by Peguy's loyalty, profound faith, and death.
Michael Liccione Apologetics is never sufficient. For some, it is necessary--i.e., for people who raise the question you did.
[2 hours ago]
Thomas Gnau Who wants to reach the point where the only authentic Catholics are saints and (orthodox) theologians? That really wouldn't be a "catholic" church, would it?
[about an hour ago]
Michael Liccione Right. There is such a thing as 'implicit faith'. The question is who can be presumed to have it.
[about an hour ago]
Thomas Gnau And there's explicit faith that fails from time to time. Or more often, perhaps.
[about an hour ago]
Michael Liccione Not sure about that. I have found that usually, when explicit faith fails, it's more a failure of virtue than a revolution of intellect. In the spiritual life, one goes either forward or backward. In keeping with that, those whose faith does not deepen often lose it.
[about an hour ago]
Jeff Kantor I agree. But at the same time, people just aren't very logical. They don't know how to think. And the whole idea of authority is badly damaged.
[about an hour ago]
Michael Liccione People indeed do not know how to think. I'm in the business of trying to change that, one person at a time. But if people neither think nor accept authority, they're in pathetic shape. At least they can be brought to recognize that much, and hence the need for both.
[about an hour ago]
