@vienne
The Church has continuously taught the Gospel of Christ for over two millennia, preserving and spreading the teachings of Jesus as handed down through the Apostles. The Catholic Church, through its teachings, sacraments, and tradition, has always centered its mission on Christ. The Church proclaims His truth in every Mass, in its doctrines, and through the lives of countless saints who have lived according to His teachings. The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the Church's doctrinal teachings are rooted in Scripture and Apostolic Tradition, both of which convey Christ's truth to the faithful.
Matthew 7 does indeed emphasize that Christian identity is demonstrated through one’s actions, urging individuals to live in accordance with Christ’s commands. However, this passage speaks to personal accountability and does not invalidate the Church as an institution. It is crucial to understand that the Church's truth is not contingent on the moral failings of its members or leaders. Instead, it is founded on Christ Himself, who is the cornerstone of the Church (Ephesians 2:19-20). While individuals within the Church may fall into sin, this does not negate the Church's role as the bearer of Christ’s teachings.
The term "workers of lawlessness" applies to individuals who reject God's commandments and live contrary to His will. While some members of the Church have indeed acted sinfully, the Church as a whole is not defined by these failures. The Church is founded on Christ, who is the source of all holiness. Throughout history, the Church has also been a source of immense good, promoting justice, mercy, and the Gospel across the world.
Acknowledging the sins of individuals within the Church is not escapism, but facing the reality that the Church, made up of humans, is imperfect. However, this does not negate the truth that the Church teaches or its mission to bring Christ's salvation to the world. The Church openly recognizes and addresses the sins of its members, and it continually strives for reform and holiness. It is crucial to distinguish between the actions of individuals and the Church’s divine mission.
If the Pope falls into heresy, then he ceases to be Catholic and thus loses his papacy, but that does not mean that the Church loses its legitimacy—only that a particular Pope loses his papacy. However, if the Pope merely commits a mortal sin, it is his individual fault, and that's it. The faithful do not need to concern themselves with that; God will hold him accountable. This is the same situation that Jesus outlined in Matthew 23:1-3:
"Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples, 'The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat. So you must be careful to do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach.'"
What was "Moses’ seat" in the Old Testament is now "Peter’s seat," and the same logic applies.
The quote "You will know them by their fruits" could be a classic example of how a statement from the Bible can be taken out of context and falsely applied to a completely different situation. This is what the Watchtower Society does with the statement "God is not a God of confusion" (1 Corinthians 14:33) when they use it against the Trinity, interpreting it roughly as "a doctrine that is difficult to understand cannot possibly be true." However, this verse— as has already been pointed out—does not speak about the nature of God, but about the need for order in the congregation (i.e., He is the God of peace). The phrase "You will know them by their fruits" also falls into this category: it is not about identifying which denomination will have secularized Christians in the 21st century, especially since the Bible gives other criteria for recognizing the true Church, and this is not one of them. One only needs to read the full context:
"Beware of false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit, you will recognize them."
From here, it is entirely clear; there is no need for any magisterium—just read it with understanding: this statement is simply about recognizing false prophets (and false messiahs), not about some foolish denominational validation based on prison statistics, as you have presented here. Jesus teaches here that false prophets can be recognized by their fruits, and the fruit of a person who calls themselves a prophet is whether their prophecy comes true or not. In plain terms, Jesus was teaching that false prophets can be recognized when their predictions do not come true—so this statement does not validate the JWs; it even refutes it!
Even if you wanted to use this—by twisting the context of Jesus' words—to evaluate denominations, you still could not gain complete certainty. No human can fully understand another person's situation to know why they are the way they are. God examines hearts and minds; you have no right to pry into the hearts of others. God is our judge!
The analogy that applies much more to denominations: Even the most valuable soil can produce weeds and thorns. It would still be foolish not to appreciate good soil and blame it for the problems. Distorted and perverted growths can emerge from the soil of religion, but no wise person judges the value of things based on occasional distortions; rather, they judge based on what is the natural and normal development of those things. And that is not hypocrisy but a pure heart, honest character, and elevated spirit.
You could not gather a representative sample that thoroughly considers all circumstances. For example, you could probably show that there are more people baptized as Catholics in prison than Jehovah’s Witnesses—but this would be as meaningless as saying that there are more incarcerated people in China than in Luxembourg, ignoring the fact that China's population is "a bit" higher than ours: likewise, there are barely more than twenty thousand Jehovah's Witnesses in the country, whereas there are millions baptized as Catholics. Then there’s the matter of defining who belongs to a given denomination, so if you wanted a fair comparison, you would have to consider that different denominations define who they count among their members differently. On paper, formally, a person baptized as a Catholic is still considered Catholic even if they were baptized only out of tradition and have never set foot in a church; practically, they should not be considered in a study of "the state of Catholics" but only the practicing faithful. In that case, we would certainly find that a practicing believer here is no worse than one there.
And there are many other factors we haven't considered. By the way, we should also address this "sectarians are better people than members of established churches" "argument". Not to mention that among Jehovah’s Witnesses, there aren't "better people," since according to them, it's merely about human effort, "educated conscience," and obedience to the organization, whereas only God can make or change a person for the better through a transformation of grace, which, by their own admission, does not exist among Jehovah’s Witnesses. It's simply a matter of authority and church discipline restraining them, but that always leads to hypocrisy, as it will always result in escape into substitute actions. That's why it often happens that when someone leaves the Jehovah’s Witnesses, they start living an immoral life, because they weren't transformed by grace but just had a band around them. It's like when someone uses tight clothing to compress a big belly—it doesn’t make them any less fat, and as soon as they take it off, their belly pops out :-) Of course, they deceitfully and demagogically communicate this internally as proof that this is what happens to everyone who leaves, claiming that God abandoned them, etc.
But you can compare it, specifically with any denomination where justification is emphasized and where the Holy Spirit is believed to transform us. There is indeed experience with ex-Catholics: it is not common for someone who leaves the Catholic Church to immediately fall apart, as if church discipline was the only thing holding them together, whereas in the case of Jehovah's Witnesses, that is the only motivating force, since there the "holy spirit" is primarily reserved for the inner party, and at most, it helps the rest with "preaching."
Oh, and one more thing: living a Christian life is not the same as being "good" in a civil sense, especially since "no one is good except God alone" (Luke 18:19) in a Christian sense. You cannot equate justification/righteousness with what is considered "honest living" in human terms.
The JW attitude towards this reveals two things: JWs love to boast about this, as it has been mentioned here on the forum more than once, and they often quote in their publications that "even X.Y. said what good people they are." This kind of self-congratulation is what the Pharisees did, and it shows that it is not the love of God that motivates this, but rather a desire to impress people, so they can say, "Oh, how good these JWs are." This conceited attitude loves to hear how special they are.
However, pride is one of the greatest sins: in God's eyes, the sin of a thief who feels shame and stirs up sincere repentance in their heart is lesser than that of someone who has never stolen a penny in their life but whose heart is ruled by pride and self-satisfaction.
True Christian spirit, however, is characterized by humility (a word that the Watchtower also misinterprets), which does not mean some false modesty or feminine nonsense, but rather treating oneself appropriately. If we keep God's commandments, we do so out of love for God, not to earn the praise of pagans. If we are praised, we should accept it modestly within ourselves, not boast about it to others, saying, "Look, even this person praised me, see how good I am?"—and certainly not create self-praising, triumphalist collections of quotes like the Watchtower does.
JWs are not primarily "good people" because they love God and therefore keep His commandments (especially not in the true New Testament sense of justification!), but rather because their church discipline forces them to be (leaving out the mind control aspect for now), and because they seek to earn the approval of the outside world, so that others will say, "What good people these JWs are, unlike those filthy Sunday Christians!"—which they then note with great satisfaction and reference. This is not about God, but about showing how much better and different they are than others.
Hate, when it takes root, gives birth to the feeling that the group member is inherently moral and good, because if the enemy is as disgusting as they daily tell themselves, then obviously they are on the good side, and anyone who has any objection to them as a monolithic block can't be right about anything. The members of cults are made to feel that they belong to the elite of humanity. There is a very strong sense that we are special and that we are carrying out the most important actions in human history as part of a committed vanguard of believers, and as a result, we are capable of working hard for a long time and making great sacrifices.
We do not teach that just because someone is Catholic, they are automatically better than everyone else and can then look down on others.
Unfortunately, there are people who live in a religious community without having a living friendship with God. They see God only as the inventor of rules to be obeyed. Some can continue to 'serve God' under these circumstances, hoping to earn salvation.
The fact that you keep God's commandments is not something you can boast about in front of others. This is not a virtue; it is a duty. It's like boasting to your employer that you are doing your job properly. This is not a virtue of yours but a basic obligation, and it cannot be a matter of boasting, even if all your colleagues are slacking off. Renouncing evil is a duty, not a virtue! And we cannot boast about fulfilling our duties, as that is the minimum required.
Especially since, according to the Bible, "no one may boast before God" (1 Corinthians 1:29), and "Let the one who boasts, boast in the Lord." The Apostle Paul also said, "If I must boast, I will boast of the things that show my weakness," and "I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses." How far removed is this from the Watchtower mentality, which sees itself as a "triumphant organization" and, with the fervor of Stalinist propaganda, triumphantly lists its achievements: operating in so many hundred countries, distributing so many million copies, achieving so many billion hours of work, meeting such-and-such a percentage in the Stakhanovite work competition. Or like some global capitalist corporation, listing its achievements in its reports.
The sectarians' main sin is pride, the first of the cardinal sins, the root of all sin. From this stems their stubbornness, arrogance, which convinces them that they know better than the priest appointed by God to teach them. They alone understand and keep the Bible. The priest, and even the Church, do not understand it, but the priest is much worse than that, even if he did understand it, he would not respect the Bible. This self-confidence makes sectarians fanatical. They are by no means humble or obedient. They are capable of anything but that. They cannot, for example, exist without eccentricity, a craving for attention, and drawing public attention to themselves. They could have served God as Catholics and could have reformed themselves this way as well, and of course, they could have stopped swearing, lying, and smoking in this way. But if they had done this as simple Catholics, only their family members would have noticed their conversion, maybe the neighbors. But as sectarians, their cessation of smoking and swearing draws the attention of his entire community. This is how they satisfy their ambition.
It is certain that, even unconsciously, they are satisfying their pride, desire to stand out, and craving for attention when they do not want to serve God under the Church's wings, not as the majority and average do, not in the community, not under the guidance of their pastor, not obeying him like other ordinary church members, not quietly, modestly, and in anonymity, but in an extraordinary way, drawing everyone's attention to themselves, in an exceptional manner. They cannot and do not want to serve God like other people. They need to stand out from the rest so that they are noticed and admired as the model followers of Christ. With their limited intellectual capacity, they do not realize that they are not good people, but Pharisees, making an elephant out of a gnat, clinging to the letter rather than the essence. In sects and among their followers, despite all their piety, and often even praiseworthy zeal, the traces of satanism are clearly noticeable.
"The knowledgeable can immediately detect the false piety even in the better sectarians, or at least the lack of that true humility that makes virtue a virtue and which is such an attractive quality of Christ's true followers. Defiance, eccentricity, self-congratulation, and satisfaction with oneself, the weakness of thinking oneself better than others, and the fact that their actions are guided more by hatred than love, are all found in every sectarian. Even the most pious sectarian has the flaw of not being sufficiently intelligent or humble. They strive for good, their intentions are generally noble at their core, but they cannot rise to the heights of true Christian perfection. We do not find in them the pure love of neighbor, free from all base undertones, which is so characteristic of the saints, and especially not the attractive humility. They cannot exist without self-congratulation, and they cannot do good in quiet, modest obscurity, expecting a reward only from God. It is peculiar that although they constantly study the Bible, they do not notice the important advice in it: 'Do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing' (Matthew 6:3).
Indeed, Jesus taught this:
"Be careful not to practice your righteousness in front of others to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven. So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by others." (Matthew 6:1-2)
So the fact that there have been scandals within the Church, and your generalization based on that, is rather crude and unfounded, as if there have been no scandals in every human community. The Donatist argument is heresy, and in a debate, it is a sign of unethical behavior and an inability to argue properly. Moreover:
"It is impossible that no offenses should come, but woe to him through whom they do come." (Luke 17:1)
You see, woe only "to him", so that specific individual, not to the whole Church!
'What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!" (Romans 3:3-4)
"If we are faithless, He remains faithful, for He cannot deny Himself." (2 Timothy 2:13 )
So, even the legitimate Church could not lose its legitimacy if all its superiors bathed in the blood of babies, at most that would follow would be that those individuals would go to hell. It doesn't matter at all whether a member of the clergy, or even the Pope himself, is a good person, an intelligent person, whether they have done something good or bad at the moment. There’s no need to tear your clothes over what some clergyman has done or said again, and how outrageous it is, blah blah blah. So what?
Recognizing this truth is what it means not to be a Donatist. In fact, this is the ultimate guarantee that Catholics see God, not the clergy, in the clergy. Because let’s assume that a priest, or even the Pope, is a terrible theologian, or even let’s say a murderer or a pimp—how does that matter in terms of the Church's legitimacy and the validity of the sacraments? It doesn’t matter at all.
Now, one might be shocked and say, ‘What kind of people are these, for heaven's sake?’, but for a Catholic, it’s completely clear that when you look at the institutional structure of the Church, you shouldn't focus on the individual. Don’t even concern yourself with who they are, whether they are good people or hypocrites—it’s irrelevant to your faith. God can use even sinners to achieve His purposes and communicate His grace.
Therefore, in this media-driven world, when the press asks about the scandals of 'pedophile priests,' the answer (with a bit of a provocative tone) should be that 'pedophile priests belong in prison, and Donatists belong in hell.' (The 'pedophile priests' is a sensationalized meme created to attack conservative values, and it has been quite successful in Ireland, turning one of the most conservative societies into one of the most liberal within a few decades.) See:
The same thing applies to the BLM and George Floyd case. There is an event that needs to be slightly embellished and magnified, and then framed in the media to fit a politically convenient narrative.
What actually happened there? A repeatedly convicted violent criminal, under the influence of drugs, resisted arrest, leading to his death due to a chokehold performed incorrectly by the officer (applying pressure to the carotid artery instead of the trapezius muscle). That's the reality.
How did the media portray it? That an evil cop deliberately killed him just because he was Black, even though the indictment didn’t claim this.
How was it communicated? That the entire police force is collectively racist and that officers are deliberately killing people of color solely because of their skin color.
What was the goal? To stir up ethnic hostility, violently overthrow the establishment, and push and spread the extreme woke ideology.
The same goes for the "pedophile priests" as a trope. There’s a situation: pedophile sexual predators—unsurprisingly—seek positions where they have access to children. Statistically, the highest rate of sexual offenders is among gym teachers who coach children, yet no one says ‘the pedophile gym teachers, this and that.’ So these incidents happen in church-run boarding schools (and surprise, not in nursing homes or factory warehouses). How was this communicated? That practically every priest is a pedophile (‘this is just how they are’). What is the story about? It’s not about the victims or justice (that’s what the police, prosecutors, and criminal courts are for), but about a well-organized media smear campaign designed to hammer into the heads of even the to the most average and least experienced people that priests are collectively pedophiles. This required a few lies, like saying ‘in the Catholic Church, everything is resolved with a confession,’ when in fact, Catholic teaching states that confession is about reconciliation with God, not an exemption from earthly legal consequences, and the idea that the confessor would have a duty to report is absurd.
Why was this necessary? Because the Catholic Church is the largest Christian denomination, and as such, it has enough influence and authority to resist the woke transformation of society. Therefore, it had to be discredited in such a vile manner so that from now on, any Church statement would be met with inarticulate and childish mockery, like 'oh, and these people preach about morals.'
Pope Benedict XVI also noted, ‘it was impossible not to notice that the media was not just driven by a desire for truth in their coverage, but also took pleasure in stripping the Church bare and discrediting it as much as possible.’
The goal wasn't to give anti-Catholic sects like the Adventists or Jehovah's Witnesses such a cheap, Donatist trump card—that was just a collateral benefit—but to deliver a low blow in the political arena. The subsequent ripple effect of this story is that anti-Catholic shallow debaters can avoid substantive theological argumentation by merely blurting out that priests are all debauched.
Let me paint the archetype of a typical anti-Catholic church opponent. The church opponent is the rationalist rebel who shakes off "millennia-old shackles" and makes eternal dogmas the subject of ridicule. Naturally, by "Church," we mean only the Roman Catholic Church and the Vatican—his atheism and rejection of religion might extend somewhat (though to a lesser extent) to some other Christian denominations, mostly historical ones, but he is less bothered by other faiths. After all, we should still show some respect for our fellow humans!
No one cheers more for the scandals involving pedophile priests than he does. If only he had been a victim of such vile abuses in his childhood, or at least knew someone who was... but no. Even so, it’s disgusting what could have happened... and the Crusades, when they killed in the name of Christ, blessing the murderous swords and armies?! Conquests, the Inquisition? Should he follow these?
One group of church opponents is the universal liberal. He is a believer—mostly superstitious—who naturally prays regularly, believes in God—but looks down on other believers. He looks down on those who regularly attend church (those "bigoted" Catholics) and also on those who only occasionally attend mass (sunday Christians, fashionable believers... just midnight mass, baptism, wedding, and funeral...).
He has moved beyond all that: he doesn’t need a mediator, a church, ridiculous rules, or restrictions. He has built a personal, direct relationship with God, communicates with Him, and is in harmony. He doesn’t consider any religion as a standard: beyond the Holy Trinity, his faith can incorporate elements of Kabbalah, Buddhism, Taoism, and Hinduism—whatever he finds appealing. He is superstitious, believes in the supernatural, spirits, reincarnation, dream interpretation, extraterrestrials, numerology, tantra, conspiracies, and destiny. Just not in the Vatican and the "hypocritical false" priests.
Then there is the die-hard materialist, the learned person: the atheist—since everything in the world is matter and interaction. Physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics—these are the explanations for everything; everything can and must be mapped out. You just have to understand it. But our education system is terrible—it’s no wonder that after this, charlatans and false prophets can even exist and have a platform. In any case, he consistently writes "god" with a lowercase "g" (since there isn’t just one—there would be more, but in reality, there is none), even in occasional biblical quotes or references.
His main enemy is, of course, Christianity, specifically the plague of Roman Catholicism, the cause of all evil. He rebels against it, because the world and society are still solely "controlled, deceived, blinded, and exploited" by the Vatican. They are responsible for famines, wars, and they still maintain feudal society and its "outdated" conventions. They collect tithes, lord over the nobles and rulers—and of course, they are pedophiles and hypocrites. They drink wine and preach water.
Fortunately, there are still enlightened, progressive artists and public figures who have realized all this—and they are not afraid to share their revelations with us! They expose the truth, but ruthlessly: The Da Vinci Code, Stigmata. See, see? They fear for their power, their money, their influence... that's why they kept everything hidden from us for 1000 years! Because they knew that it would destroy their earthly kingdom. Though, of course, they themselves wouldn’t follow a faith without externalities and "material," but still.
