The Different Breeds of Catholicism

I have been meaning to write this blog for a while, now. It's amazing how group-oriented human beings are, and human beings of faith are no different. People of faith are grouped into different religions, and each of those religions are grouped into different denominations. I thought that it would be interesting (and humorous) to take a look at the denomination I know the most - Catholicism. There are so many different types of Catholics out there - one that I think they should all fall into and that the Church intends they fall into, and other types that I feel should not be considered Christianity, let alone Catholicism, at all. I also know that a lot of different Christian denominations contain some of these "breeds" as well.

So, without further ado, here is a bird's eye view of the species of Catholicism. Please keep in mind that I do not mean to offend anyone. I simply am expressing my opinion based on my experiences and what I've seen.


Catholic Christians

Catholic Christianity is the "true" branch of the Catholicism. Catholic Christians identify themselves as Christians who follow the Catholic denomination. Yes, they believe that Catholicism is the denomination that has most Christian truth, but they also see truth in all Christian denominations. While they believe there are some denominations that are more "true" than others, the important thing is that they all have truth in them. I sincerely believe that the current pope falls into this category, though I was once skeptical about it.

Santeria Catholics

A lot of Hispanic Catholics fall into this category. And when I say a lot - I mean the overwhelming majority. Santeria Catholics are those who put emphasis on Saints and the Virgin Mary more than they do on Christ. You can identify these people easily whenever you see God working in their lives. However, instead of thanking God for His grace, they thank San Lazaro, or St. Teresa of Little Flower, or Mary for their work. They believe the saints to be like the League of Justice. Whenever someone prays, they answer the call to save the day. There is a historical reasoning for Hispanic culture's saint-emphasized culture. When the Spaniards first introduced the faith to the Native Americans, they helped the natives understand this new religion by comparing it to their gods. Unfortunately, over time, Christianity got intertwined with spirits, ghosts, and ancestors, leading to this Santeria Catholicism.

I only pray that they learn that to pray to a saint, or to pray to Mary for that matter, is heretical. They are simply twisting what the Catholic Church teaches to fit a cultural need, which leads to the next group of Catholics.


Cultural Catholics

A cultural Catholic is someone who observes the Catholic practices as a cultural tradition rather than a spiritual exercise. Cultural Catholics may not fully understand the theology that informs the religion's rituals, or may reject part or most of the theology as outdated or irrelevant to modern life. Cultural Catholics may attend Mass less than several times a year, or may not practice their religion at all, but still regard their association with the Catholic Church as a defining aspect of their identity, much like how non-practicing Jews still consider themselves Jewish. It becomes more of a racial, rather than spiritual, aspect of society. Cultural Catholics regard the sacraments of the Catholic Church (such as baptism, first communion, confirmation and a wedding in a Catholic Church) as important milestones in life, without necessarily attaching much spiritual significance to the events. A lot of American and European Catholics fall into this category. Dane Cook is a famous example of this kind of Catholic, not necessarily because of what he says about the Catholic mass (I actually find it hilarious), but mainly because some of his other jokes in regards to sexual promiscuity.

These are also the same people who may say things like "I'm a Catholic, but I'm not a good Catholic." Since when are there different levels of Christianity? Isn't it that you are a Christian, or you aren't? They also say things like "I'm a good person. I haven't killed anyone or stole anything." Their assumption is right. They may be a good person. That's how God created them to be - good. The problem is that God calls us to be more than good. He calls us to be holy.

Cultural Catholic is a term generally synonymous with Cafeteria Catholic.


Cafeteria Catholics

The term "cafeteria Catholic" (also CINO = "Catholic In Name Only") is applied to those who pick and choose which doctrines and dogmas they want to believe in. Sometimes they may be theological (for example, they may believe that Jesus was the Messiah but that he was not free from sin) or political/social issues (like dissenting from Roman Catholic moral teaching on issues such as abortion, contraception, premarital sex, masturbation, and homosexuality). The term has no status in official Catholic teachings.

On April 18, 2005, Pope Benedict XVI preached about this in a homily:
"Being an adult means having a faith which does not follow the waves of today's fashions or the latest novelties. A faith which is deeply rooted in friendship with Christ is adult and mature."

In a similar vein, Pope John Paul II stated in his talk to the Bishops in Los Angeles in 1987:
"It is sometimes reported that a large number of Catholics today do not adhere to the teaching of the Catholic Church on a number of questions, notably sexual and conjugal morality, divorce and remarriage. Some are reported as not accepting the clear position on abortion. It has to be noted that there is a tendency on the part of some Catholics to be selective in their adherence to the Church's moral teaching. It is sometimes claimed that dissent from the Magisterium is totally compatible with being a "good Catholic," and poses no obstacle to the reception of the Sacraments. This is a grave error."


Traditionalist Catholics

Traditionalist Catholics believe that there should be a restoration of many or all of the liturgical forms, public and private devotions and presentations of Catholic teachings which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Vatican II (1962-1965). They are usually angry with the current Church in regards to many of their new teachings, such as the following:

1) They believe that the Catholic Church is the only true Church devoted to Christ and that all non-Catholic churches that are not in full communion with the Vatican are not true Christian churches. The Catholic Church now teaches what I wrote before in the "Catholic Christian" section - that all Christian churches have truth to them. The Catholic Church also teaches that one not need to convert to Catholicism to gain salvation while Traditionalists believe that one must be Catholic.

2) They believe that the Catholic mass should always be in Latin. Why? I'm not so sure. I mean, Latin is great, but I think that each parish should decide what they want to do.

3) They believe that the Church has enemies and disagree with the modern Church's efforts to seek peace with people of all faiths, including the secular world.

Mel Gibson and Pat Buchanan are prime examples of Traditionalist Catholics.


Anti-Protestant Catholics

Anti-Protestant Catholics are the exact inverse of Anti-Catholic Protestants. They believe in all the spiritual Christian truths, but feel that Protestant groups of Christians are not really Christians (just like those Protestants who believe Catholics to not be Christians). These kinds of Catholics, regardless of how devotedly they believe in Jesus, cannot be 100% Christian in my book - just like the Anti-Catholic Protestants. I feel that in order to be 100% Christian, one has to look past all the doctrinal differences between denominations and realize that as one church, they could get a lot more done. Instead of preaching the gospel to the secular worlds, they thrive on fighting amongst themselves.

Sunday Morning Catholic

A Sunday Catholic or Sunday morning Catholic (also Once-a-weeker) is someone who typically goes to church on Sundays but does not strictly adhere to the doctrines or rules of Catholic Christianity.

The term is most often used to describe someone who is lukewarm in the Christian faith. From some people's perspective, a "Sunday Christian" is attempting to cheat God by taking only those parts of the religion which are appealing or convenient without having to commit to anything. They believe the "Sunday Christian" is attempting to buy his/her way into heaven with a minimal amount of effort.

From another perspective, the person being labeled a Sunday Catholic may simply adhere to another interpretation of Christianity, one which may include greater emphasis on actions, attitudes and good will rather than dogma. The person might also being simply paying lip service, attending church for familial or reputation purposes while otherwise not carrying the beliefs of the church as their own.

The term may also be used to describe people who apply double-standards to non-Christians, such as a person who justifies their political beliefs through the Bible but only attends church so that their hypocrisies are not noticed. This also ties into the idea of lip service.

It is also worth noting that there is a large number of people who only attend Christian church service on Christmas and Easter. They are sometimes called Twice-a-years or C & E Christians, or Submarine Christians (so-named because they surface in Church only twice a year).


While there are many, many more breeds of Catholics, that's all I can muster up for now. Hope you had a good chuckle when you read this and thought to yourself: "I know someone like that."

"Sins of the Father"

That title is yet another of the countless examples that proves Channel 7 (WSVN) News are not really a news station; rather they are just another entertainment show. That title was used to introduce their lead story earlier this week about Father Alberto Cutié caught at Miami Beach with some woman. Since when was that sin? What he did was break a Church law - a man-made law. He did not sin.

Anyways, I feel that while one needs to stand his/her ground in order to be taken seriously, it is just as important to confess when a person feels that he/she has been proven to think and believe in a different way. The other day I blogged about Father Alberto's situation, and how I believe that clerical celibacy should remain a requirement. I have been convinced, through the comments people left on that blog, the things I was told at my small group last night (May 8th), and the front page story of the Miami Herald on May 9th that perhaps the Church should reconsider its position.

I finally found out why the celibacy requirement was instituted back in the Middle Ages (or perhaps even earlier as I have read recently). It has a lot to do with the corruption that was going on back then. A lot of priests and bishops who had sons were smuggling money out of the church's hands in order to give it to their sons. It's a little more complicated than that, but the Church decided to impose the restriction on families. While the church tried to do right, there times, such as with Father Alberto, where the ecclesiastic law - not doctrine - fails.

I realized that perhaps Father Alberto is not an idiot after all (like I mentioned on my last blog) because it would really be crazy to go to Miami Beach in public like that unless... ...you actually wanted to get caught and open up this can of worms. Here comes the gossip that I've heard! One of my small group leader's cousins knows the family of Father Alberto. And apparently, he had asked to be relieved of his clerical duties months ago (because he fell in love), but Archbishop John Favarola did not grant him that for reasons unknown (probably public perception).

But perhaps our Protestant brothers and sister have it right...in fact, it's probably not even a "perhaps" situation. Maybe clerical celibacy needs to be a choice, rather than a requirement. We would have a lot more EFFECTIVE priests if this ban was lifted, simply because many devout and charismatic Christians are frightened off from the priesthood simply because of the ban on marriage and family. While I am still under the belief that it's better to remain celibate when ordained, it should be a choice.

Now, all these people protesting at the steps of St. Francis Catholic Church are doing good by showing their support for Father Alberto. However, they must remember that he is just a man. You cannot follow a man, because when you die, you will not be facing Alberto Cutié. You will be facing the LORD.

Father Alberto has simply brought this question to light. Is the Catholic Church going to take a step back and try to re-examine itself, or is it going to allow itself to become easily distracted when a case like this happens instead of focusing on growing in faith and being of service to others?

I feel Pope Benedict XVI has done a really good job so far...hopefully that trend continues.

For the sake of the kingdom...

Clerical celibacy has long been a polarizing topic for those within, and even outside, the Catholic Church. The Catholic Sex Abuse Cases and the recent photographs of Father Alberto Cutié with a woman on the beach have brought the question back into the limelight: Should the Catholic Church continue its doctrine of clerical celibacy?

First of all, let me delve into a little history. The teaching of clerical celibacy was nothing official in the Church before the 12th century. While it was not official, it certainly was a tradition that was taught and practiced. Why did it become official, afterwards? Good question. I haven't got a clue. But it's a doctrine that I do agree with. I'll explain later.

Some people used (and still use) the Church Sex Abuse Cases as their reasoning to argue against the Church's doctrines. "If the priests were able to get married, they never would have molested those boys." First of all, I think it's ridiculous to claim that just because a man is unmarried, he all of a sudden will become a gay pedophile. The problem here never was relevant to clerical celibacy, it was merely a problem with men who obviously did not have what it took to become priests becoming ordained. So, if we're going to paint all, or most Catholic priests, as pedophiles, does that mean it's okay to label any devout Muslim as a terrorist? I think not. If clerical celibacy were really the reason for a man to dishonor his vow, a man would naturally find a woman to engage in relations with.

This leads to the newly-found situation with Father Alberto Cutié. I think that this priest was an absolute fool to do what he did. If you are as popular and recognizable as this guy is, why would you go to a public beach where anyone can see you with a woman, when it is known that you have taken a vow of celibacy? While I disagree with the course of actions he has taken, he has asked for forgiveness, and I grant him that. He is merely a human being who has made a mistake, and almost all sin is forgivable. If God has forgiven everything that I have done, who am I to not grant that to someone else who is in need of forgiveness.

So why do I agree with clerical celibacy?

As Jesus and St. Paul have hinted, or plainly have said, celibacy amongst clergymen and women is to be celebrated. While marriage is a beautiful thing, one has to realize that when a man decides to take the step to lead a church, he is married to that church. If a married man decides to lead a church, to which will he devote his full attention. Hopefully, it would be to his family, but then the church gets neglected. If he devotes most of his attention to the church, then the family will be neglected. If he devotes equal attention to both, then he will not be leading his family nor the church community with his fullest.

I know that most of my readers are not Catholic, and clerical celibacy is probably at least one of those things on their lists of "I Disagree with the Catholic Church about..." Experiencing both sides of the issue, I long felt that clerical celibacy was fine, but shouldn't be made a requirement. But hearing a story from a former Catholic-turned-Protestant-Christian, I have come to change my mind. This was a summary of that story:

An older Cuban gentleman that I know once told me that a friend of his was shot in the middle of the street in Cuba. While this man wanted to fetch a doctor for his friend, his dying friend pleaded that he find a priest for him, instead. So, the man went to the nearest church and knocked on the door until the parish priest answered the door. He told the priest what had happened, but the priest wouldn't budge, annoyed that this man had woken him up in the middle of the night. No matter how hard the man pleaded, the priest did not leave the church. By the time the man returned to see his friend, his friend had passed.

This is an example of a lousy priest. A priest is married to his church for a reason, so that if someone comes knocking in the middle of the night, he is there for them, since there is no family to leave alone. Now, if a priest was allowed to marry, and he took advantage of that, what would happen if someone came knocking on his door in the middle of the night with this plea to anoint someone who is dying? Do they leave their family behind, and possibly defenseless in the face of danger, in order to help their fellow man? Or do they decide to neglect their vow to serve others to make sure their family does not get left defenseless? While this would be the most extreme of cases, extremities must be taken into account when looking at something that is, to this blogger, something of the utmost importance.