I am not sure of the process, but I want to propose a new law.
Honestly, I am not sure if it would be a Canon Law, State or Federal Law, or even some rule in some bloated bureaucracy somewhere, but I want this law. This law has been brewing in my head for sometime, every time in fact that some matron in a muʻumuʻu claim to the Catholic priesthood was reported as fact. Today I was set off by Maria Shriver’s claim to being a Catholic “in good standing” even though she doesn’t believe what the Church teaches. Enough I say. So I am going to do something about it.
The law would go something like this.
The following proposal was prepared pursuant to a resolution issued by the Creative Minority Report on 20 November 2008, adopted following the Declaration of Independence from Catholics in Name Only (DIC-NO), and in accordance with a requisition from the CMR executive (me).
The first draft was forwarded to the Executive Committee (Matt & Me) during its session of 20 November 2008. In this session, the CMR Executive Committee decided to submit the proposal for broad discussion within Catholic blogging circles. Accordingly, the Legal Committee of the Creative Minority Report held a meeting over tea and Entenmann’s cookies (the small chewy ones) in my kitchen to examine the proposal. The meeting was attended by the acting president of CMR (me), the Secretary of the Executive Committee (my daughters cabbage patch doll named Clarissa), and by a number of legal experts residing in my house, namely nobody. It was agreed to publish this proposal to the general interweb thingy for commentary and feedback before submitting it to the proper authorities for consideration.
General Provisions
Article 1.1 Be it resolved that any person, whether ordained, religious, or lay may not refer to themselves as Catholics in Good Standing if they do not actually go to church or believe what the Church teaches.
Be it also resolved, in addition to the above requirement, that in order to be recognized in public as a Catholic the individual making the claim of “Catholic” is obligated to sign, in the presence of a journalist and affirmed by a duly appointed notary public, a copy of the Catholic Catechism while positively affirming belief in all things contained therein. This obligation should be taken freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion.
If the party fails to comply with any of the above requirements, the party immediately forfeits the right to identify themselves in public as a Catholic. Failure to comply constitutes identity theft and is thereby punishable by all the applicable statutes and by a substantial sojourn in the deepest and darkest recesses of purgatory (whether you believe in purgatory or not.)
Article 1.2 Be it also resolved that no person, acting in the role of journalist, may refer to a person, whether by way of written word or by way of broadcast media, as a Catholic without proof of the proper steps outlined in in Article 1.1 under penalty of loss of journalistic integrity and being forced to work in a dying industry. [The authors of this proposal understand that this penalty is typically previously self imposed and therefore generally toothless. This penalty clause may need strengthening. Suggestions are welcome.]
Be it further resolved that no person, acting in the role of journalist, may refer to a person as a “Catholic” priest, unless that person has actually been properly ordained and is still recognized by THE Catholic Church.
No other ecclesiastical authority, whether real or fictional,, may be substituted for the ACTUAL Catholic Church. Send any and all inquiries as to the status of any claimant to the priesthood to the Congregation of Divine Clery at 00120 Via Del Pellegrino, Citta del Vaticano.
Maybe we can have George W. Bush issue this as an executive order in the waning days of his presidency. I fully realize that GWB has no authority to enforce the purgatory clause, but let’s face it. Many of these folks (if they are really lucky) may be headed there anyway.
November 20, 2008 at 6:01 am
I like it. May I propose an amendment that defines the additional conditions that must be met for one to describe himself as a “devout” Catholic?
November 20, 2008 at 9:41 am
When it has reached the point where “devout” has been devalued as a word, should we use “ardent” instead?
Seems that once the CINOs are brought back into the fold (please) or at least called to account and no longer self-identify falsely, there don’t need to be any adjectives added to “Catholic”. That would be nice.
(Pedantic addendum)
Just be sure to capitalize “Catholic” when you mean the Church, and … actually I don’t see where in the resolution it wouldn’t be capitalized.
November 20, 2008 at 1:47 pm
You think Maria Shriver’s outrageous? How about Joy Behar, who doesn’t believe in God, yet still calls herself Catholic. How screwed up is that.
November 20, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Who declares one to be a “Catholic in good standing?” Is that a certificate they pass out in California — they seem to be the only ones making that claim these days. And maybe Massachusetts? They don’t have those certificates in Ohio.
November 20, 2008 at 1:55 pm
Rather than ardent, we could use “faithful” or “practicing” or even “confessing.” I do think there should be some restrictions on use of any of these terms – obviously, no use for bragging, putting others down, or elevating one’s own esteem. Perhaps they are best used in the third person?
I would like to request an additional clause, because I believe that some people who are genuine Catholics do struggle with some church beliefs/teachings. The difference is they don’t make claims (as none of us should) about how Catholic they are, or say that the Church is mistaken on the issues they struggle with. Perhaps we could include the following:
“Where a Catholic finds himself struggling with Church doctines, practices or belief, he may still refer to himself as Catholic if
“he refrains from advocating for opposing doctrines publicly or vocally in private;
“he acknowledges his trust in the Holy Spirit’s guidance of the Church in matters of faith and morals;
“he faithfully and prayerfully seeks clarity on the issue;
“and pledges to obey ecclesial authority.”
Someone who struggles but struggles faithfully shouldn’t be kicked out. Someone who touts his faith while also flaunting his disregard for any or all of its teachings is not in the same category.
I totally agree however on general principle. I’ve felt rather kicked in the teeth on a number of occasions when someone’s told me he’s Catholic, and I have all these associations and expectations, and then it turns out they like something about church but don’t believe in chastity/sanctity of life/Eucharist, etc.
~Zee
November 20, 2008 at 4:30 pm
I’m a fan of this funny blog but I am truly offended by this post. How dare you judge how good of a Catholic I or anybody else is. It’s un-Christian and you should apologize to every one of your readers and the entire Catholic blogosphere.
The beauty of Catholicism is that we have a rich history of Doctors and Father who we can read and study. There are many dissenting opinions even among them. It isup to our conscience in the end. If we simply submit our conscience to the Church then the Church could veer off wildly. Sometimes dissenting opinions are the best thing for the Church because it forces the Church to reevaluate constantly. We shouldn’t be afraid of dissent. In the end, it is dissent which purifies the Church. Please do not delete my comment. I have a right to be heard.
November 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm
I’m almost thinking that last comment above was a plant to elicit a reaction.
Anyway, the bishops are the ones who should be the arbitors of who is a Catholic, as well as a “Catholic in good standing” etc. Maria Schriver can on a personal level believe abortion is nice, Gay marriage is keen, the Death Penalty is wunderbar etc. But if she professes this publically contrary to church teachings on the subjects, participates in any of them and does not repent and submit to the final authority of the church, then there is a problem with her Catholic standing.
There are some good bishops these days, but precious few of them. Once again, they should be the ones to make this determination. NOT the hoi-poloi here.
November 20, 2008 at 7:29 pm
Deusdonat-
I’m guessing the same.
This blog doesn’t seem to attract the sort who holler that nobody can say who’s Catholic.
November 20, 2008 at 8:14 pm
I could think of a couple of prominent Catholic bloggers that would fall under that.
November 20, 2008 at 8:17 pm
One can most definitely have an opinion on who’s a “good” Catholic and who is not. You do know the tree by its fruit! Obviously, one should have good understanding of the proper order of things -what’s the tree and what’s the fruit…..
Truthfully, I am getting a bit fed up with the overused “don’t judge lest you be judged” interpretation. I have to judge all the time for my sake, my children’s sake, my family’s sake. I have to make a judgement on who my kids hang out with. And it so happens, that there are kids on the block that I do not want my kids to hang out with. Of course I have to make a judgement! “Sometimes dissenting opinions are the best”….? Please! By the same logic I have to say that it is the best sometimes for my kids to experiment with drugs…. Oh dear!
Mom26
November 20, 2008 at 8:40 pm
The anon post is a perfect example of the modern heresy of relativism disguised in the Catholic language of conscience. School yourself on it because it is the engine of all dissent. As Fr. Williams’s said when addressing this error:
Many today appeal to conscience as the final arbiter of good and evil. By this view of conscience, good and evil do not exist outside of our moral judgment, but are created by it. What I sincerely judge to be good and right becomes good and right because of that judgment. Sincerity is all that matters. By this logic, it makes no sense to try to tell someone else what is good or right, even, for example, if you are the Church’s magisterium. In the end, conscience would not apply an objective moral law that stands above it, but would supplant the moral law. Conscience would trump everything.
November 20, 2008 at 8:41 pm
It’s funny. These people come over here and the first thing they say is they’re big fans of the blog and then start spouting off such silliness. It happens so frequently now that whenever I see someone’s first line complimenting the blog I brace myself for some kind of anti-Catholic screed.
Normally I delete them pretty fast but since you guys already responded I figured I’d leave it up.
November 20, 2008 at 8:42 pm
Mom, let’s get this clear: of course you are entitled to your opinions. And of course you base your decisions around them in order to do what is best for you and your family. Not in dispute. But to say you “judge” implies you have some sort of authority on a given matter. Unless you are part of the magesterium, you simply do NOT have the power to judge in the matter of who is or who is not a Catholic/ one in good standing. Clear?
November 20, 2008 at 9:23 pm
That’s kinda irrational… if someone’s an abortionist, we can pretty clearly say they’re not a Catholic in good standing.
If someone’s a Wiccan priestess and a nun, we can draw the conclusion that they’re not a good Catholic.
November 20, 2008 at 10:45 pm
No, what’s irrational is thinking you know something when you don’t. Someone might appear to be a wiccan/abortionist/homosexual etc. And if they say they are, then most likely (note: not absolutely). But you are not privy to the conversations that take place between them and their confessors. There are just too many variables here. So, rather than dissenting from church teaching on the subject, you would do well to follow the church on this one.
November 20, 2008 at 11:16 pm
Deusdonat-
Please show me what binding teaching you are drawing the conclusion that one cannot say an abortionist isn’t a good Catholic?
November 20, 2008 at 11:30 pm
The comments show that we live in a world of confusion. No longer does it seem possible to claim black is black and white is white. Those that do see the difference are pounced upon and told not to judge. It is my understanding that those who pick and choose what they want to believe are in error according to the teaching of the Church. Sometimes they go as far that they excommunicating themselves, however it does not stop them from going to Communion, nor from claiming they are “good Catholics” Look at the many Catholic politicians that do this. Do the words “apostate” or “heretic” mean anything these days?
November 20, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Foxfier, it’s always tedious talking to you. Please go here http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02581b.htm Bishops are the only people in OUR church (this includes the pope) who can formally censure, excommunicate or issue any other punitive commands with regard to the church. THEY ALONE have the power of judge (judiciis ecclesiasticis) on church matters.
In other words, you are entitled to your own little opinion, but that’s all it is. And I know you are going to want to get in some last word (no matter how inane) so hop to it.
November 21, 2008 at 12:06 am
If we really want to mess with their minds, we should have all Catholics whose pastors can attest that they attend mass and confession be given a mark on their right hand or their foreheads.
That’ll send ’em packing.
November 21, 2008 at 12:18 am
Suggestion
Article 1.1 (a): Any person who self-refers to themselves as “Catholic” with the qualifier “ardent”, “devout” or like term, shall be presumed, in the absence of proof to the contrary in accordance with the below requirements,to have complied with any of the above requirements with mental reservation and for the purpose of evasion.
This presumption (hereinafter referred to as the “Pelosi Presumption” may only be rebutted by personal attendance on and certificate from their Local Ordinary.
Like that’s ever going to happen.