Catholic Q&A: Why Bother Being Catholic

The following question was forwarded to me by a priest friend of mine.

Q:  Obviously, Catholics believe it to turn to body and blood.
. . .  However . . . what difference does it make?  . . . If non-Catholics can make it to heaven without eating the bread of life [which we believe], then what is the significance of the Eucharist except to grow in deeper intimacy with Christ? In fact, if non-Catholics can make it to heaven, what is the point of going through all that trouble to be Catholic?

A: First off, can I just say this is one of my favorite questions of all time? I was agnostic for years before becoming Catholic, and it was a long process of me trying to disprove Catholicism, and continually finding the Catholic answer was the better answer.

One of my final objections was essentially this question, I phrased it roughly thus: “if invincible ignorance can be a shield against damnation, ought we not to rather keep people in ignorance and thus inculpable (i.e., unblame-able), rather than share the truth but then leave them culpable?”

Heck, Jesus himself says of the pharisees, “If I had not come and spoken to them, they would not be guilty of sin; but now they have no excuse for their sin.” (John 15:22).

The answer comes in understanding the nature of sin and salvation. Sin is harm. Always and everywhere. So is stapling your finger. If I give my kids a staple gun and don’t tell them that it could staple their eye out, and then they proceed to staple their eye out, they may not be blamable (at least, the first time), but harm is still done. It would be better for that harm to not happen, and it cannot happen unless I tell them how the thing works. 

C. S. Lewis addresses this in this book, Mere Christianity, when he says (forgive the long quote):

The Second Battle SquadronThere are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual-when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another.

You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions.  Or, if you like, think of humanity as a band playing a tune. To get a good result, you need two things. Each player’s individual instrument must be in tune and also each must come in at the right moment so as to combine with all the others.

But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to, or what piece of music the band is trying to play. The instruments might be all in tune and might all come in at the right moment, but even so the performance would not be a success if they had been engaged to provide dance music and actually played nothing but Dead Marches. And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.

Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on: what tune the conductor of the band wants it to play.

You may have noticed that modern people are nearly always thinking about the first thing and forgetting the other two. When people say in the newspapers that we are striving for Christian moral standards, they usually mean that we are striving for kindness and fair play between nations, and classes, and individuals; that is, they are thinking only of the first thing. When a man says about something he wants to do, “It can’t be wrong because it doesn’t do anyone else any harm,” he is thinking only of the first thing. He is thinking it does not matter what his ship is like inside provided that he does not run into the next ship. And it is quite natural, when we start thinking about morality, to begin with the first thing, with social relations. For one thing, the results of bad morality in that sphere are so obvious and press on us every day: war and poverty and graft and lies and shoddy work. And also, as long as you stick to the first thing, there is very little disagreement about morality. Almost all people at all times have agreed (in theory) that human beings ought to be honest and kind and helpful to one another. But though it is natural to begin with all that, if our thinking about morality stops there, we might just as well not have thought at all. Unless we go on to the second thing-the tidying up inside each human being-we are only deceiving ourselves.

What is the good of telling the ships how to steer so as to avoid collisions if, in fact, they are such crazy old tubs that they cannot be steered at all? What is the good of drawing up, on paper, rules for social behavior, if we know that, in fact, our greed, cowardice, ill temper, and self-conceit are going to prevent us from keeping them? I do not mean for a moment that we ought not to think, and think hard, about improvements in our social and economic system. What I do mean is that all that thinking will be mere moonshine unless we realize that nothing but the courage and unselfishness of individuals is ever going to make any system work properly. It is easy enough to remove the particular kinds of graft or bullying that go on under the present system: but as long as men are twisters or bullies they will find some new way of carrying on the old game under the new system. You cannot make men good by law: and without good men you cannot have a good society.  That is why we must go on to think of the second thing: of morality inside the individual.

But I do not think we can stop there either. We are now getting to the point at which different beliefs about the universe lead to different behavior. And it would seem, at first sight, very sensible to stop before we got there, and just carry on with those parts of morality that all sensible people agree about. But can we? Remember that religion involves a series of statements about facts, which must be either true or false. If they are true, one set of conclusions will follow about the right sailing of the human fleet: if they are false, quite a different set. For example, let us go back to the man who says that a thing cannot be wrong unless it hurts some other human being. He quite understands that he must not damage the other ships in the convoy, but he honestly thinks that what he does to his own ship is simply his own business. But does it not make a great difference whether his ship is his own property or not? Does it not make a great difference whether I am, so to speak, the landlord of my own mind and body, or only a tenant, responsible to the real landlord? If somebody else made me, for his own purposes, then I shall have a lot of duties which I should not have if I simply belonged to myself.

Again, Christianity asserts that every individual human being is going to live for ever, and this must be either true or false. Now there are a good many things which would not be worth bothering about if I were going to live only seventy years, but which I had better bother about very seriously if I am going to live for ever. Perhaps my bad temper or my jealousy are gradually getting worse -so gradually that the increase in seventy years will not be very noticeable. But it might be absolute hell in a million years: in fact, if Christianity is true, Hell is the precisely correct technical term for what it would be. And immortality makes this other difference, which, by the by, has a connection with the difference between totalitarianism and democracy. If individuals live only seventy years, then a state, or a nation, or a civilization, which may last for a thousand years, is more important than an individual. But if Christianity is true, then the individual is not only more important but incomparably more important, for he is everlasting and the life of a state or a civilization, compared with his, is only a moment.

It seems, then, that if we are to think about morality, we must think of all three departments: relations between man and man: things inside each man: and relations between man and the power that made him. We can all cooperate in the first one. Disagreements begin with the second and become serious with the third.

You yourself wrote: what is the significance of the Eucharist except to grow in deeper intimacy with Christ? To which I must ask, what could be of more importance than that?

The nature of sin and salvation isn’t just about avoiding hell and getting to heaven, but it’s about deepening your ability to be filled with the grace of God.

Chalice of LifeI give this analogy in my RCIA classes.  We are designed, as human beings, to be like ornate chalices holding a fine liquid, where the liquid symbolizes grace, or the very life of God within us.
Original sin damaged the chalice to the point of melting it down into a ball of metal.  Pour liquid over it and very little will collect.  God, in his wisdom and mercy, has set into order the process by which we become again a chalice, by himself showing us how it is done, and giving us help in doing it.  Baptism is like striking that ball fiercely with a hammer, such that it takes on a deep impression – an indelible mark – that allows it to begin to collect grace again.
Over time, that grace deepens the well, and we are more and more able to hold the grace for which we were originally made.
To deny the ability to someone to know how to correct that situation is to, in a sense, willfully damn them (or at least not care about them, which is the opposite of love).  And St. Paul is pretty clear as to what our own faith means if we don’t have love.

No, God is not limited to the sacraments – because he is Love Itself and Mercy, he will not punish us for things completely outside of our control – but that doesn’t mean that damage isn’t still done, like the stapler above.

Photo Credits:
Fleet of Ships: Patrick McDonald
Chalice:  Omar Eduardo

Like us!

Oram.us is a growing community of Catholic bloggers from various walks of life. To get updates, click here to like our facebook page.