The Church of my youth had a clarity that served Catholics in a way that is not present today. In the 1950s Catholics knew who they were and what was expected of them in order to be recognized as active and practicing Catholics. To be a Catholic in the 1950s was to be set apart in a number of ways from common culture of the day. Catholics went to church every Sunday, they did not eat meat on Fridays. For devotion, they had crucifixes showing the figure of Jesus nailed to the cross, rather than simply a cross. Catholic children went to Catholic schools, and they wore distinct clothing, or uniforms, which stood out from the rest of children in the neighborhood. Although Catholics were neighborly, they most often associated with other Catholic families. Although Catholics did not proselytize or flaunt their faith in public, neither did they hide their faith from others. Everyone in the neighborhood or workplace knew who the Catholics were. Most Catholics knew their faith well and would not hesitate to defend it, even in public.
Much has changed in the last 65 years.
Today it is no longer easy to tell who, among the general population, are Catholic. The foundational cultural Judeo – Christian values that were apparent among most of the population in the United States in the 1950s are no longer practiced or even acknowledged. The rejection of authority and the rebellion of values, more common to teenage years, saw a huge societal insurgence in the late 1960s and early 70s, leaving in its dust years and even centuries of growth and practice among societies. The seeds for this bulge and rupture no doubt had been planted and grew for years below the surface. Now, however, it had burst and was in full light.
Today we have a Catholic president who is not shy about making it known he is a Catholic. He does this to the point of getting press coverage as he attends Mass and receives Holy Communion. However, in his political life, his actions are in complete contradiction to someone who professes to be a Catholic in good standing with his Church. As president, he does everything in his power to protect and advocate for a woman’s right to kill the unborn child in her womb. This is done even when another branch of the federal government has overturned that so-called right. Other examples could also be given. For example, concerning the sacredness of marriage and the family in which the president seems to be fighting tooth and nail to protect and advocate for the breakdown of the family. He not only allows but defends and whole-heartedly supports the destruction of marriage and the family unit. By his actions he completely ignores the dignity of the human person and the institution the family as established by God himself, which are fundamental truths of the Catholic faith.
In addition to what was said about our current president, could be also said about two Catholic politicians in California who profess to be Catholic. Yet, in similar ways to our president, they act in direct opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Church. One, who until recently, was the Speaker of the House in Congress. The other is currently the governor of the State of California. One of these Californians, while serving in the United States House of Representatives, was clear and outgoing about proclaiming to be a Catholic in good standing, while being brazen about standing up for positions in stark opposition to the foundational values of the American people which were shared by most Americans some 70 years ago.
What are people of good will to do?