This, from your fellow Catholic A.M. Hickman here on Substack, is consistent with my experience of the Catholic Church in America:
If you start going to a Church and notice:
No one ever greets newcomers
There’s no regular after-Mass fellowship
There are basically no young people or families
Almost no one dresses decently
The Priest never makes himself available and the Parish office never calls back
The process to convert, baptize, or marry is insanely bureaucratic and the vibe is “this will be a hassle,” or even: “why are you bothering?”
The music, liturgy, and decor is all 70’s-era instead of traditional
There’s never a line for confession (or confession is barely ever offered)
You will start to realize why so many people look at you like you have two heads when you exhort them to become Catholic. Note that there are thousands of Churches that are exactly this way in America. Many of them are seeing their Parish enrollments decline, cancellations of Masses, and many of them will be shuttered in the next ten years or sooner.
But at the council meetings at these Churches, people will repeatedly say: “What are we doing wrong? Where are the young people? What a tragedy it is that so few people come to Mass these days!”
Faithful Catholics (or those who aim to convert) who are stuck going to Churches like these carry a huge, heavy burden — they are bearing the Cross of their faith alone, without the friendship of their fellow Christians. Their own Church treats them as an annoyance; they have no fellowship or support system for when the going gets tough.
And, after a long enough period of carrying this burden, they one day step into an SSPX Church, or an Orthodox Church, or an ICKSP, or even a Protestant Church and someone says “hello” to them on their first visit. The Priest goes out of his way to welcome them. The other young Christians invite the newcomers along to a potluck, or a Bible study. That sticks with them. I understand why.
Our duty as faithful Roman Catholics is to stare straight into this challenging time in the Church’s history and never balk or fold. We must fix these problems in our Parishes. The mess we’ve inherited is daunting to imagine fixing — but leaving it entirely should rightly be considered unthinkable and even nihilistic. On the 2,000-year time scale of Christ’s Church, the fruit has been immeasurably good. His Church will never die. It is our job to hold the line, as unenviable a task as this may seem. We must hold the line even if we are alone, scorned, maligned, and constantly encouraged by others to give up.
This is our generation’s Cross to bear. God help us.
This is true. However, I have met many people who sacrifice, sometimes driving an hour to be part of a good parish, or even moving to be closer to the more reverent and strong parishes.
God has blessed me with a parish that is, even compared to all the Protestant Churches, the best church I've ever been a part of, hands down. I'm convinced our parish might be one of the best in the country. Either way, I agree with the post, but I have not been asked to carry this burden, yet.
I can give you a highly qualified “maybe” here. I think you’re trying to jump the queue, skip the hard work of explaining, defending the Roman Catholic Church, and presenting a simple proposition to the reader, one which, if he accepts, he must somehow make his way into the Church (despite the resistance she herself will put in his way), this bypassing a lot of hard work on your part.
If it were simply a matter of accepting your view of the Eucharist, I could adopt that view for the bread and wine at my Baptist church.
But no, you’re going to insist upon a special priesthood, a church hierarchy, Cardinals, a Pope, things that don’t seem to have basic Bible verses on their side.
Further, Jesus spoke of his body AND his blood. I’ve spent time in Catholic churches and have yet to see the chalice offered to the faithful. I’m told it’s brought out on occasion, but the “teaching,” again, is that both forms are equally valid. Except that Jesus says “unless you eat AND drink” so your patient, obvious application of Scripture verses doesn’t teach Catholicism as practiced.
You’re free to say, “we’re satisfied our interpretation does adequate justice to the Biblical text,” but the Baptist can say this too. Neither is following the text literally, which is what you are calling for.
But even if there were a valid priesthood, holy orders, etc., you have no reason to think that the lavender legion are saying Mass correctly. If the words of institution function ex opere operato, repeat these phrases exactly and obtain a mystical, supernatural result, why would a priest who hates you and hates the Church bother to say it correctly?
He’d leave the wafer unsanctified just to spite you. In your adoration chapel there is a mass-produced bread product under glass. You have no way of knowing it has been properly been spoken over, even if you otherwise accept all of Catholicism (because your priest does not).
Certainly Jesus Himself, from Heaven might sanctify the offering for you, but then he might do that down at the Baptist church for all you’d ever know
2. Your church uses bread and wine as a Baptist church?
In the end, Jesus associates eating his body and drinking his blood with eternal life. You don't have to say I'm "jumping the queue", it's just a purely scriptural argument.
I mean, I suppose you could believe that your elements of grape juice and wafers -- or in the unique case of bread and wine at a Baptist church -- would be turned into the body and blood of Jesus, but good luck leading small groups at your church with such view ;) Makes for an interesting thought experiment though.
You say, --> "You’re free to say, “we’re satisfied our interpretation does adequate justice to the Biblical text,” but the Baptist can say this too."
But there is a lot at stake for the Baptist. Jesus said if you do not do this thing -- eating his body and drinking his blood -- you don't have eternal life. From a wager perspective, I just wouldn't bet against Jesus on this one. If Catholics are wrong and Protestants are right, then it won't matter. But if Catholics are right, and protestants are openly rejecting this teaching, and essentially taking the position of the disciples in John 6:66, then I think that's a risk I'm not willing to take.
If you want a book on the subject, then I would check out Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. It's excellent. https://a.co/d/73SkTmo
Regarding your other points, yes priests do bad things, but that doesn't invalidate the Church any more than absent fathers invalidate the institution of Marriage. Priests take vows to minister to the faithful, if they don't do that, God's wrath will be upon them. Regardless of one's position, I'm pretty sure God deals very harshly with a priest who lied about a Eucharist in the adoration chapel.
You're correct, there is more theology behind the Church's teaching on the Eucharist. But that's probably something to discuss at another time. In the meantime, I pray you come into full communion with the Church.
I haven’t time to track back at present, but I think I meant by “jumping the queue” that while eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood” is indeed associated with our salvation, your particular view of this is not a simple Scriptural argument but requires much, much more: a priesthood, a sacrificial system, an ecclesial bureaucracy.
You might have missed my previous comment that the Catholics I know are also not “drinking His blood.,” that wine is not offered to the faithful, thus, on your interpretation, no less damned than the Baptist.
But is the Baptist damned? Jesus said what He said. But in terms of understanding what He said, applying it to our lives, are you going to now revert to Sola Scriptura and private interpretation to hold a view (Protestants are necessarily lost) condemned by your Church?
God’s wrath, as you say, may ultimately fall upon the erring Catholic priest. My point was that the Church’s wrath does not, that the most extreme, the most apostate priests, bishops are the ones promoted, celebrated, (or simply protected in the case of known abusers), while it’s those who uphold the historic legacy teachings of the Church who are persecuted by their own hierarchy.
No worries. I don't have the time to go all the way back either. So rapid fire here
All of these objections ultimately stem from who has the authority to teach. Every denomination is "teaching" what these verses mean, there will be consequences for those who get it wrong as is the plain meaning of the text. This authority is demonstrated in Acts with the verses of Exodus 12:43-50. Authorities have the authority to teach.
No Baptists are not damned necessarily. Salvation is up to God alone. What is clear is that salvation is tied to obedience though, which is what ALL denominations teach. We are accountable for what we know, both revealed and the undeniable (natural law). A Christian who reads John 6 and has no concept of the Eucharist is going to be judged on the revelation he has been given (see Cornelius in Acts). But like Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." -- John 3:36. Every teaching authority is going to have to explain to their faithful what it means to "disobey", and in the case of John 6, how "obedience" and "salvation" relate to this passage.
Your final point is no more an invalidation of the Catholic Church than the idea that Peter's scandals in the New Testament invalidated the first-century church, or that America's "teaching" in the constitution is bad simply because politicians abuse the power and offices which it established. Furthermore, Jesus was persecuted by his own religious leaders and followers. It's not uncommon for this to happen to any Christian in any denomination, but if we invalidated every denomination on the basis of its abuses by its leaders, there would be no denominations left.
Finally, an appeal to a scriptural argument is not a "scripture alone" argument. Scripture is not the only form of God's revelation. The Eucharist is instantiated by Christ, recorded/revealed in scripture, and implemented and taught by the Church. This formula, seems to me, to apply to every denominationally specific doctrine. If I'm dealing with a person who doesn't accept scripture, I'm going to use other tools. If I'm dealing with people who accept scripture, then I think a scriptural argument is fair to make.
But all your comments here ultimately are red herrings. You are not contributing your own interpretation of what it means to "not eat or drink" and its tight connection to "you will not have eternal life" from a Baptist / Protestant perspective.
I think we can disagree for the moment about precisely how crippling is the current chaos in the Catholic Church. The question of whether the visible, institutional RC Church daily teaches error, for example the traveling road show of the LGBTQ-affirming James Martin, S. J., who is welcomed by the Pope, is actually not a distraction, a red herring, in my view.
As for John 3:36, the “disobedience” in the second part of the couplet is related to the “believing” in the first part. This is not a Protestant innovation; the Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the King James here, rendering the text as
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
I’m not sure why my views, whatever they are, on John 6 should be of interest to you.
I was only trying to narrow down the options available to us. My point was, if eating and drinking correspond to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, then it’s not just a “refusal” to drink, the wine isn’t usually offered to the faithful at Mass, is it? So even Catholics aren’t able to “obey” Jesus here.
And on your view non-Catholics don’t have sacramental validity so even to eat the bread properly they must first join the Roman Catholic Church (the one whose priests won’t meet with you, that doesn’t return phone calls) that they may be unable to join for reasons of conscience.
And again, you’re on your own here, for your Church doesn’t officially agree with you about those outside not eating and drinking, if they are baptized believers.
The only stipulation is that such must not “know” that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church commanded by Christ, and I think I can assure you that we know no such thing.
You didn’t care much for this saving gospel of ignorance but I didn’t write the CCC. 🤷♂️
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here's a quick off-the-cuff response.
"I think we can disagree for the moment about precisely..."
1. Bad teachers are a problem in every institution and have no bearing on the discussion here. Injecting it here makes it a distraction from the original argument that Jesus' words have eternal consquences.
"As for John 3:36, the “disobedience” in ..."
2. Belief is the proper starting point. It would be difficult to obey someone that you don't believe is telling the truth. Which is what this means. It's not just "I think Jesus exists". It's do you believe his teaching, which ultimately comes to us through other teachers. No getting around that.
"I’m not sure why my views...on John 6 should be of interest to you...."
3. "I’m not sure why my views, whatever they are, on John 6 should be of interest to you." This does make me chuckle a bit. You are on a Catholic Substack, making arguments against the Church's teaching. It's only natural at some point to say, "Cool, I heard your arguments against Catholicism. Tell me what you think this passage means?" It's a conversation.
"I was only trying to narrow down the options available to us...."
4. This gets back to the idea about what it means to "teach", which necessarily invovles intrepration. Again, Exodus 12 demonstrates the range of authority the teachers may have. For example, do you believe that Jesus lied in the Gospel of John when he tells his brothers that he wasn't going to go to the party, but then he goes any way?
"And on your view non-Catholics don’t have sacramental validity..."
5. Not my view. The Church's view. Your Baptist doctrine is not YOUR doctrine. You submit to it, but you didn't invent it. Someone else did. But it sounds like you have had some bad experiences with priests or know someone who did? It's always tragic when teachers fail their flock, but God tells us this will happen also but to not abandon the Church when it does.
"And again, you’re on your own here..."
6. Again, you misunderstand what the Church's teaching is on invincible igornance.
"The only stipulation is that such must not “know” that the Roman Catholic Church..."
7. You should read up on the Church's teaching on Unintentional Ignorance...
"Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man." CCC - 1860
"To choose deliberately—that is, both knowing it and willing it—something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death" CCC - 1874
Now if the Catholic Church is wrong and you're right, there is nothing for either of us to fear. But if the Church is right, then it has an obligation to warn people because about the sins they are committing. If they are warned, told, evangelized, etc., but still they do not repent and obey Christ...even there it's not the Church that judges us, it's God.
Which is why the Church also teaches this..."However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God." CCC - 1861
This, from your fellow Catholic A.M. Hickman here on Substack, is consistent with my experience of the Catholic Church in America:
If you start going to a Church and notice:
No one ever greets newcomers
There’s no regular after-Mass fellowship
There are basically no young people or families
Almost no one dresses decently
The Priest never makes himself available and the Parish office never calls back
The process to convert, baptize, or marry is insanely bureaucratic and the vibe is “this will be a hassle,” or even: “why are you bothering?”
The music, liturgy, and decor is all 70’s-era instead of traditional
There’s never a line for confession (or confession is barely ever offered)
You will start to realize why so many people look at you like you have two heads when you exhort them to become Catholic. Note that there are thousands of Churches that are exactly this way in America. Many of them are seeing their Parish enrollments decline, cancellations of Masses, and many of them will be shuttered in the next ten years or sooner.
But at the council meetings at these Churches, people will repeatedly say: “What are we doing wrong? Where are the young people? What a tragedy it is that so few people come to Mass these days!”
Faithful Catholics (or those who aim to convert) who are stuck going to Churches like these carry a huge, heavy burden — they are bearing the Cross of their faith alone, without the friendship of their fellow Christians. Their own Church treats them as an annoyance; they have no fellowship or support system for when the going gets tough.
And, after a long enough period of carrying this burden, they one day step into an SSPX Church, or an Orthodox Church, or an ICKSP, or even a Protestant Church and someone says “hello” to them on their first visit. The Priest goes out of his way to welcome them. The other young Christians invite the newcomers along to a potluck, or a Bible study. That sticks with them. I understand why.
Our duty as faithful Roman Catholics is to stare straight into this challenging time in the Church’s history and never balk or fold. We must fix these problems in our Parishes. The mess we’ve inherited is daunting to imagine fixing — but leaving it entirely should rightly be considered unthinkable and even nihilistic. On the 2,000-year time scale of Christ’s Church, the fruit has been immeasurably good. His Church will never die. It is our job to hold the line, as unenviable a task as this may seem. We must hold the line even if we are alone, scorned, maligned, and constantly encouraged by others to give up.
This is our generation’s Cross to bear. God help us.
This is true. However, I have met many people who sacrifice, sometimes driving an hour to be part of a good parish, or even moving to be closer to the more reverent and strong parishes.
God has blessed me with a parish that is, even compared to all the Protestant Churches, the best church I've ever been a part of, hands down. I'm convinced our parish might be one of the best in the country. Either way, I agree with the post, but I have not been asked to carry this burden, yet.
Beautiful summary of Catholic teaching on the real presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. I’m going to share this with my family.
Thank you for reading, and I'm honored that you shared it. God bless!
I can give you a highly qualified “maybe” here. I think you’re trying to jump the queue, skip the hard work of explaining, defending the Roman Catholic Church, and presenting a simple proposition to the reader, one which, if he accepts, he must somehow make his way into the Church (despite the resistance she herself will put in his way), this bypassing a lot of hard work on your part.
If it were simply a matter of accepting your view of the Eucharist, I could adopt that view for the bread and wine at my Baptist church.
But no, you’re going to insist upon a special priesthood, a church hierarchy, Cardinals, a Pope, things that don’t seem to have basic Bible verses on their side.
Further, Jesus spoke of his body AND his blood. I’ve spent time in Catholic churches and have yet to see the chalice offered to the faithful. I’m told it’s brought out on occasion, but the “teaching,” again, is that both forms are equally valid. Except that Jesus says “unless you eat AND drink” so your patient, obvious application of Scripture verses doesn’t teach Catholicism as practiced.
You’re free to say, “we’re satisfied our interpretation does adequate justice to the Biblical text,” but the Baptist can say this too. Neither is following the text literally, which is what you are calling for.
But even if there were a valid priesthood, holy orders, etc., you have no reason to think that the lavender legion are saying Mass correctly. If the words of institution function ex opere operato, repeat these phrases exactly and obtain a mystical, supernatural result, why would a priest who hates you and hates the Church bother to say it correctly?
He’d leave the wafer unsanctified just to spite you. In your adoration chapel there is a mass-produced bread product under glass. You have no way of knowing it has been properly been spoken over, even if you otherwise accept all of Catholicism (because your priest does not).
Certainly Jesus Himself, from Heaven might sanctify the offering for you, but then he might do that down at the Baptist church for all you’d ever know
Couple things.
1. Thanks for being my number one commenter :D
2. Your church uses bread and wine as a Baptist church?
In the end, Jesus associates eating his body and drinking his blood with eternal life. You don't have to say I'm "jumping the queue", it's just a purely scriptural argument.
I mean, I suppose you could believe that your elements of grape juice and wafers -- or in the unique case of bread and wine at a Baptist church -- would be turned into the body and blood of Jesus, but good luck leading small groups at your church with such view ;) Makes for an interesting thought experiment though.
You say, --> "You’re free to say, “we’re satisfied our interpretation does adequate justice to the Biblical text,” but the Baptist can say this too."
But there is a lot at stake for the Baptist. Jesus said if you do not do this thing -- eating his body and drinking his blood -- you don't have eternal life. From a wager perspective, I just wouldn't bet against Jesus on this one. If Catholics are wrong and Protestants are right, then it won't matter. But if Catholics are right, and protestants are openly rejecting this teaching, and essentially taking the position of the disciples in John 6:66, then I think that's a risk I'm not willing to take.
If you want a book on the subject, then I would check out Brant Pitre, Jesus and the Jewish Roots of the Eucharist. It's excellent. https://a.co/d/73SkTmo
Regarding your other points, yes priests do bad things, but that doesn't invalidate the Church any more than absent fathers invalidate the institution of Marriage. Priests take vows to minister to the faithful, if they don't do that, God's wrath will be upon them. Regardless of one's position, I'm pretty sure God deals very harshly with a priest who lied about a Eucharist in the adoration chapel.
You're correct, there is more theology behind the Church's teaching on the Eucharist. But that's probably something to discuss at another time. In the meantime, I pray you come into full communion with the Church.
I haven’t time to track back at present, but I think I meant by “jumping the queue” that while eating Christ’s flesh and drinking His blood” is indeed associated with our salvation, your particular view of this is not a simple Scriptural argument but requires much, much more: a priesthood, a sacrificial system, an ecclesial bureaucracy.
You might have missed my previous comment that the Catholics I know are also not “drinking His blood.,” that wine is not offered to the faithful, thus, on your interpretation, no less damned than the Baptist.
But is the Baptist damned? Jesus said what He said. But in terms of understanding what He said, applying it to our lives, are you going to now revert to Sola Scriptura and private interpretation to hold a view (Protestants are necessarily lost) condemned by your Church?
God’s wrath, as you say, may ultimately fall upon the erring Catholic priest. My point was that the Church’s wrath does not, that the most extreme, the most apostate priests, bishops are the ones promoted, celebrated, (or simply protected in the case of known abusers), while it’s those who uphold the historic legacy teachings of the Church who are persecuted by their own hierarchy.
No worries. I don't have the time to go all the way back either. So rapid fire here
All of these objections ultimately stem from who has the authority to teach. Every denomination is "teaching" what these verses mean, there will be consequences for those who get it wrong as is the plain meaning of the text. This authority is demonstrated in Acts with the verses of Exodus 12:43-50. Authorities have the authority to teach.
No Baptists are not damned necessarily. Salvation is up to God alone. What is clear is that salvation is tied to obedience though, which is what ALL denominations teach. We are accountable for what we know, both revealed and the undeniable (natural law). A Christian who reads John 6 and has no concept of the Eucharist is going to be judged on the revelation he has been given (see Cornelius in Acts). But like Jesus said, "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever disobeys the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him." -- John 3:36. Every teaching authority is going to have to explain to their faithful what it means to "disobey", and in the case of John 6, how "obedience" and "salvation" relate to this passage.
Your final point is no more an invalidation of the Catholic Church than the idea that Peter's scandals in the New Testament invalidated the first-century church, or that America's "teaching" in the constitution is bad simply because politicians abuse the power and offices which it established. Furthermore, Jesus was persecuted by his own religious leaders and followers. It's not uncommon for this to happen to any Christian in any denomination, but if we invalidated every denomination on the basis of its abuses by its leaders, there would be no denominations left.
Finally, an appeal to a scriptural argument is not a "scripture alone" argument. Scripture is not the only form of God's revelation. The Eucharist is instantiated by Christ, recorded/revealed in scripture, and implemented and taught by the Church. This formula, seems to me, to apply to every denominationally specific doctrine. If I'm dealing with a person who doesn't accept scripture, I'm going to use other tools. If I'm dealing with people who accept scripture, then I think a scriptural argument is fair to make.
But all your comments here ultimately are red herrings. You are not contributing your own interpretation of what it means to "not eat or drink" and its tight connection to "you will not have eternal life" from a Baptist / Protestant perspective.
Hello. Been thinking on these things a bit.
I think we can disagree for the moment about precisely how crippling is the current chaos in the Catholic Church. The question of whether the visible, institutional RC Church daily teaches error, for example the traveling road show of the LGBTQ-affirming James Martin, S. J., who is welcomed by the Pope, is actually not a distraction, a red herring, in my view.
As for John 3:36, the “disobedience” in the second part of the couplet is related to the “believing” in the first part. This is not a Protestant innovation; the Catholic Douay-Rheims agrees with the King James here, rendering the text as
“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.”
I’m not sure why my views, whatever they are, on John 6 should be of interest to you.
I was only trying to narrow down the options available to us. My point was, if eating and drinking correspond to the bread and wine of the Eucharist, then it’s not just a “refusal” to drink, the wine isn’t usually offered to the faithful at Mass, is it? So even Catholics aren’t able to “obey” Jesus here.
And on your view non-Catholics don’t have sacramental validity so even to eat the bread properly they must first join the Roman Catholic Church (the one whose priests won’t meet with you, that doesn’t return phone calls) that they may be unable to join for reasons of conscience.
And again, you’re on your own here, for your Church doesn’t officially agree with you about those outside not eating and drinking, if they are baptized believers.
The only stipulation is that such must not “know” that the Roman Catholic Church is the true church commanded by Christ, and I think I can assure you that we know no such thing.
You didn’t care much for this saving gospel of ignorance but I didn’t write the CCC. 🤷♂️
Hope you’re having a great week!
Thanks for the thoughtful response. Here's a quick off-the-cuff response.
"I think we can disagree for the moment about precisely..."
1. Bad teachers are a problem in every institution and have no bearing on the discussion here. Injecting it here makes it a distraction from the original argument that Jesus' words have eternal consquences.
"As for John 3:36, the “disobedience” in ..."
2. Belief is the proper starting point. It would be difficult to obey someone that you don't believe is telling the truth. Which is what this means. It's not just "I think Jesus exists". It's do you believe his teaching, which ultimately comes to us through other teachers. No getting around that.
"I’m not sure why my views...on John 6 should be of interest to you...."
3. "I’m not sure why my views, whatever they are, on John 6 should be of interest to you." This does make me chuckle a bit. You are on a Catholic Substack, making arguments against the Church's teaching. It's only natural at some point to say, "Cool, I heard your arguments against Catholicism. Tell me what you think this passage means?" It's a conversation.
"I was only trying to narrow down the options available to us...."
4. This gets back to the idea about what it means to "teach", which necessarily invovles intrepration. Again, Exodus 12 demonstrates the range of authority the teachers may have. For example, do you believe that Jesus lied in the Gospel of John when he tells his brothers that he wasn't going to go to the party, but then he goes any way?
"And on your view non-Catholics don’t have sacramental validity..."
5. Not my view. The Church's view. Your Baptist doctrine is not YOUR doctrine. You submit to it, but you didn't invent it. Someone else did. But it sounds like you have had some bad experiences with priests or know someone who did? It's always tragic when teachers fail their flock, but God tells us this will happen also but to not abandon the Church when it does.
"And again, you’re on your own here..."
6. Again, you misunderstand what the Church's teaching is on invincible igornance.
"The only stipulation is that such must not “know” that the Roman Catholic Church..."
7. You should read up on the Church's teaching on Unintentional Ignorance...
"Feigned ignorance and hardness of heart do not diminish, but rather increase, the voluntary character of a sin. Unintentional ignorance can diminish or even remove the imputability of a grave offense. But no one is deemed to be ignorant of the principles of the moral law, which are written in the conscience of every man." CCC - 1860
"To choose deliberately—that is, both knowing it and willing it—something gravely contrary to the divine law and to the ultimate end of man is to commit a mortal sin. This destroys in us the charity without which eternal beatitude is impossible. Unrepented, it brings eternal death" CCC - 1874
Now if the Catholic Church is wrong and you're right, there is nothing for either of us to fear. But if the Church is right, then it has an obligation to warn people because about the sins they are committing. If they are warned, told, evangelized, etc., but still they do not repent and obey Christ...even there it's not the Church that judges us, it's God.
Which is why the Church also teaches this..."However, although we can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrust judgement of persons to the justice and mercy of God." CCC - 1861
Thanks for engaging.
God bless.