What is a Catholic?

You’ve heard the old joke, “Is the Pope a Catholic?” The question of the hour seems to be, “Is he the only one?”

The implication of the rhetorical question about the Pope, of course, is that there’s a commonplace understanding of just what being a Catholic is. Whatever it is, so the common understanding goes, at least the Pope must be one.

From there on, the common understanding seems to falter. Take the question, “Is Tom Russell a Catholic?” For those who’ve ever heard of Tom Russell, responses would vary. Some would say, “Certainly!” Others would say, “I always thought he was.” Still others, “He may be a Catholic, but I’m not so sure he’s a good Catholic.” Some would say, “He may say he’s a Catholic, but if you ask me, he’s a Catholic in name only.” You get my drift.

I was always taught in catechism class that in order to be a Catholic, a person had to believe everything the Church teaches. If you rejected anything, it was out you go.

Then along came the idea, “Once a Catholic, always a Catholic.” That is, if you were “baptized a Catholic,” you were in for life. After that, you could become a “fallen away Catholic” or surely remain in “full communion.”

There were other gradations. We spoke of “good Catholics,” “marginal Catholics” and we had our share of “Saturday night sinners and Sunday morning saints.” I became acquainted with “C & Eers”: those who attended Mass only on Christmas and Easter. Another category was the “non-practicing” Catholic.

Anyone who wasn’t a Catholic was a “non-Catholic,” but it was only relatively recently that I heard about people who “used to be Catholic.” Used to be people were “raised Catholic” or “brought up Catholic,” but they couldn’t just quit. They “quit practicing their faith” or simply “stopped going to Church.” I’ve heard of people who were “supposed to be Catholic.”

People didn’t used to say of themselves: “I’m a member of the Catholic Church.” They said, “I’m a Catholic.” They were “members” of a parish.

It seems that there are all kinds of “modern Catholics” and today there are more kinds than ever before. We have “women Catholics,” “conservative Catholics,” “liberal Catholics,” “moderate Catholics,” “homosexual Catholics,” “charismatic Catholics.” A significantly distinct group has become known as “American Catholic.”

People of course used to “become Catholic,” but one could not simply “start going” to the Catholic Church and have that meet the sufficient “requirements of the faith.” Much more was involved, and that’s still true, at least I think it is.

Just how true, however, seems to have been called into question. I haven’t heard of any of the “requirements of the faith” being changed, but one thing I’ve noticed is that some people say they don’t have to believe certain things the Catholic Church teaches and can still be “a Catholic.” Another thing I’ve noticed is that the expression “fallen away Catholic” has fallen into disuse, along also with the general disfavor of the expression “non-Catholic.” The expression “former Catholic” has grown in popularity, and perhaps in this category reside those with selective disbelief in the teachings of the “Catholic Church.”

Whatever the “Catholic Church” is seems to be in question, but there is general agreement that whatever it is, the Pope pretty well fits the mold of what a member of it is supposed to be. He says that to be “a Catholic,” you have to believe the whole shebang. –T.R.

written by Thomas A. Russell
first published in the Lafayette Sunday Visitor on September 20th, 1987