Velasco on the Catholic Question

In your Mirror of Justice post, “What does it mean to be a Catholic?”, you ask:

Clearly , at some point, rejection of Vatican teachings separates one from the Church. Have most American Catholics already done so according to Father Araujo?

 

This is a very interesting question, but not one that is likely to lead to very good discussion or reliable answers.  The psychological cost of answering “yes” is too great.  If one were to answer yes, that would seem to make the person quite judgmental and self-righteous.  Most people do not want to feel that way, and certainly they do not want to be perceived in that way.  Thus, you cannot expect many “yes” answers. Accordingly, you cannot have much confidence in your “no” answers, which might be the product of dishonesty or rationalization/denial.

 

I don’t know what the answer is for others; I can only judge myself (and even that, imperfectly).  In doing so, I would ask, first, are the teachings in question “definitive”, and second, am I “knowingly and obstinately repudiating” them?  I am not a theologian, so I do not know the answer to the first question.  I assume that the Church’s teachings on the core sex-related issues (divorce, homosexual relations, masturbation, contraception, abortion, etc.) are, but there are many non-sexual issues which may not be so clear.  So, if I disagree with the Church, I ask myself whether I am “knowingly” repudiating the Church’s teachings.  Obviously, the answer at this point would be yes.  (If I know it’s definitive, then my repudiation is clearly “knowing”.) Then I ask whether I am “obstinately” repudiating them.  I answer that question by considering whether I insist that I am right, regardless of what the Church teaches?  If so, then I am probably obstinately repudiating the Church’s teachings.  On the other hand, if I merely do not understand how the Church is correct, but leave myself open to the possibility of correction and pray for understanding, then I probably am not obstinately repudiating the Church.  (This process has led me to withhold “final” judgment when I might otherwise disagree with the Church.)

 

So far, so good.  The real tough part comes when I know the Church’s clear position on an issue and cannot agree with it.  Although I leave myself open to the possibility of correction and pray for understanding, I do not, in good faith, believe the conduct to be wrong.  How am I to act?  I know that the Church would say that I should refrain from the conduct in question.  But I may not have the will or strength to do so – especially given that I do not share the conviction that it is wrong.  I think THIS is the real issue: not whether I agree or disagree, but how I act upon my disagreement. I am pretty sure that the Church’s answer would be that I must refrain from receiving communion if I engage in the conduct in question.

 

I won’t judge anyone else, because I cannot read their minds and hearts.  But I know myself.  I am a sinner.  I’m not proud of it, but I also am not squeemish about admitting an obvious truth.  And when I am sinning, I hope the Church – as teacher – will let me know.  I also hope that theologians (and others) won’t obfuscate the matter.

 

I wouldn’t go so far as to say that I’ve ever “separated myself from the Church,” because I always attend mass and consider myself to be a Catholic, however imperfect.  But there are times – indeed, long periods of time – when I cannot, in good faith, receive communion.  At least, not without confession.  It would not strike me as implausible that others might reach the same conclusion from time to time.

 

But, as I mentioned in the beginning, asking whether “most American Catholics” should avoid communion is probably not the best idea.

 

Regards,

 

Julian Velasco

Associate Professor of Law

University of Notre Dame

211 Law School

P.O. Box 780

Notre Dame, IN  46556-0780