How Did Saints Love a Church That Caused Them Pain?

Brief Overview

• Throughout Catholic history, many saints faced rejection, misunderstanding, or suffering from Church leaders and communities, yet they maintained deep love and loyalty to the institution itself.
• Saints like Thérèse of Lisieux, Catherine of Siena, and Thomas More experienced considerable pain from Church authorities, yet their faith in the Church’s mission remained strong and unwavering.
• Their example teaches Catholics that loving the Church does not mean accepting everything without question, but rather staying committed to its spiritual purpose even when individuals within it fail.
• These saints recognized the difference between the Church as a human institution with flawed members and the Church as the Body of Christ guided by the Holy Spirit.
• Their lives show that criticism and correction offered with love can come from those who genuinely care about the Church’s welfare and spiritual integrity.
• Understanding how these saints navigated suffering within the Church can help modern Catholics maintain their faith during times of institutional difficulty or disappointment.

The Nature of the Church and Human Weakness

The Catholic Church stands as the Body of Christ on earth, a reality central to Catholic understanding of what the Church is and what it means to belong to it. The Church teaches that Christ gave His authority to the apostles and their successors, establishing a structure meant to guide believers toward salvation (CCC 857-865). Yet the Church also acknowledges that its members are sinful humans prone to failure, weakness, and sometimes abuse of power. This tension between the divine nature of the Church and the human weakness of its members forms the foundation for understanding how saints could love an institution that simultaneously hurt them. The Church’s official teaching does not pretend that church members always act righteously or that Church leadership remains free from corruption and error. Rather, Catholic doctrine holds that Christ Himself remains the head of the Church and guides it despite the failings of individual members. Many saints throughout history have understood this distinction clearly and have loved the Church precisely because they saw beyond the human failures to the divine reality underneath. This perspective allowed them to remain faithful even when they experienced significant pain and rejection from Church authorities. The saints recognized that the Church’s mission comes from God, not from the people who temporarily hold positions of authority within it. Understanding this basic truth about the Church’s nature helps explain why saints like Catherine of Siena could challenge popes while remaining devoted to the papacy itself.

Catherine of Siena and Prophetic Criticism

Catherine of Siena lived in the fourteenth century during a time of great turmoil for the Catholic Church, with the papacy in Avignon and the Church’s spiritual authority deeply compromised by political entanglements and moral failings. Catherine experienced visions and received what she believed were direct messages from Christ about the state of the Church and what needed to change. She did not stay silent about these problems; instead, she wrote to popes, cardinals, and Church leaders, often speaking with remarkable boldness about corruption and the need for reform. Catherine’s writings and letters were not always received well by Church authorities, and she faced skepticism, suspicion, and even accusations of presumption for a woman to claim such spiritual insight. Despite this difficult response from some Church leaders, Catherine maintained her deep devotion to the Church and her respect for the papacy, even as she criticized specific individuals and practices. She understood her role as offering correction in love because she genuinely cared about the Church’s spiritual health and mission. Catherine eventually moved to Rome and became an advisor to Pope Gregory XI, helping to convince him to return the papacy from Avignon back to Rome. Her work shows that loving the Church did not mean accepting everything uncritically, but rather speaking truth to power when necessary. Catherine lived and died a Dominican tertiary, deeply committed to the Church even though she had experienced resistance and misunderstanding from some within its ranks. Her canonization in 1461 and later declaration as a Doctor of the Church by Pope Paul VI showed that the Church itself could eventually recognize the value of her prophetic voice.

Thomas More and Conscience Against Authority

Thomas More lived in sixteenth-century England during a time when the Church faced serious external and internal challenges that tested the loyalty of faithful Catholics in ways both spiritual and political. More held high positions in the English government, including that of Lord Chancellor, which meant he had access to power and influence within both secular and religious spheres. When King Henry VIII broke with Rome and attempted to make himself the head of the Church of England, More faced an impossible choice between obedience to the king and loyalty to the Catholic faith and the Pope. More could not in good conscience accept the king’s supremacy over the Church because he recognized that such a claim contradicted Church teaching and the authority Christ gave to Peter and his successors (CCC 880-887). He resigned his position and refused to swear oaths that would have required him to deny papal authority over the Church in England. More’s refusal to comply with the king’s demands resulted in his imprisonment and eventually his execution in 1535. Throughout this ordeal, More remained a loyal Catholic and defender of the Church, even though the Church in England was essentially being destroyed by royal decree and many people abandoned the faith. He did not blame the Church itself for his suffering; instead, he recognized that his pain came from powerful people trying to destroy the Church rather than from the Church itself. More’s letters from prison show his deep faith and his continued love for the Church even as he faced death for his loyalty. His example demonstrates that loving the Church means being willing to suffer and even die rather than abandon it when pressured by external forces. More’s canonization in 1935 recognized him as a martyr and a model of Catholic faithfulness under extreme persecution.

Thérèse of Lisieux and Internal Spiritual Struggle

Thérèse of Lisieux, also known as Saint Thérèse of the Child Jesus, joined a Carmelite convent as a young woman seeking a life of prayer and closeness to God through the religious life that the Church offered. Thérèse’s spiritual journey within the Church was not one of constant consolation and peace; instead, she experienced long periods of spiritual darkness, doubt, and what she described as the absence of any sense of God’s presence. She struggled with feelings that God was not listening to her prayers and that her life in the convent might be meaningless and empty. Rather than leaving the Church or the convent, Thérèse remained faithful to her vows and her commitment to prayer, trusting that God was present even when she could not feel His presence. She developed what became known as her “little way,” a path of spiritual childhood where she accepted her smallness and weakness and trusted in God’s mercy rather than her own spiritual achievements. Thérèse wrote about her struggles with faith and doubt in her autobiography, showing honesty about the difficulties of living a spiritual life within the Church. She recognized that the Church taught truth about God and salvation even when she personally struggled to experience that truth in her own interior life. Thérèse’s love for the Church and her vocation remained constant even during the darkest periods of her spiritual struggle. She understood that faith sometimes means continuing to believe and to serve God even when feelings of consolation are absent and spiritual experience seems empty. Her life shows that loving the Church includes accepting that the spiritual life can be difficult and that periods of doubt do not necessarily mean that the Church or God has failed us.

Joan of Arc and the Church’s Complex Response

Joan of Arc claimed to receive messages from saints directing her to lead French military forces during the Hundred Years’ War, a claim that brought her into conflict with Church authorities who needed to determine whether her visions were genuine or demonic. Joan’s mission was ultimately political as well as spiritual, and her capture by English forces who had allied with the Burgundian faction in France put her in danger. The Church authorities who examined Joan included both supporters and skeptics regarding her visions and mission. Joan was tried for heresy by a Church court controlled by English interests, and the trial was conducted with procedures that we would now recognize as seriously flawed and unjust. Despite the injustice she experienced and the suffering that the Church’s official process caused her, Joan maintained her faith in the Catholic Church and her belief in the truth of her visions right until her execution in 1431. Joan did not blame the Church itself for her suffering; rather, she recognized that corrupt officials and political pressure had twisted the Church’s processes to serve worldly interests rather than spiritual truth. After Joan’s execution, the Church itself eventually reopened her case in a retrial that recognized the original trial’s serious flaws and affirmed the authenticity of her visions and her holiness. Joan was beatified in 1909 and canonized in 1920, showing that the Church could acknowledge its own errors and correct them. Joan’s life demonstrates that the Church as an institution can be used wrongly by individuals with power while still remaining the Church and still deserving the loyalty of faithful Catholics. Her willingness to die rather than recant her faith shows a love for the Church that transcended any specific judgment made by any particular Church court or authority.

Saint Athanasius and Institutional Opposition

Athanasius served as the Bishop of Alexandria in the fourth century during a period of severe theological conflict within the Church over the nature of Christ and the Trinity. Athanasius opposed the teachings of Arius and his followers, who denied that Christ was fully God and equal to God the Father, beliefs that contradicted orthodox Catholic teaching about Christ’s divinity (CCC 242-249). The controversy became so heated that Arius and his followers gained support from powerful people within the Church hierarchy, including some bishops and even some emperors of the Roman Empire. Athanasius found himself opposed not just by theologians but by Church authorities with political power, and he was exiled from his position as bishop multiple times throughout his career. Despite holding the orthodox position on Christ’s nature, Athanasius experienced suspicion, imprisonment, and repeated removal from office by Church authorities who had been influenced by his opponents. He could have compromised his beliefs to regain his position and avoid suffering, but Athanasius refused to do so because he valued the truth about Christ more than his own comfort or authority. Athanasius maintained his love for the Church even though the Church’s institutional structure and many of its authorities opposed him and caused him significant suffering. His motto, “Athanasius against the world,” reflected his commitment to truth and to the Church’s authentic teaching even when he stood almost alone against opposition from powerful figures. Eventually, the Church recognized that Athanasius had been right all along and that the positions he opposed were heretical and false. Athanasius was vindicated, and the Church honored him as a Doctor of the Church and a great defender of the faith. His life shows that sometimes loving the Church means standing against the Church’s own institutions when they have been corrupted by false teaching or abuse of power.

Francis of Assisi and Radical Church Reform

Francis of Assisi lived in the late twelfth and early thirteenth centuries at a time when the Church had become very wealthy, politically powerful, and in many ways far removed from the simple poverty and spiritual focus that Christ had emphasized in the Gospel. Francis received what he believed was a direct call from Christ to rebuild the Church, and he understood this literally at first, thinking he should repair physical church buildings that were in poor condition. As Francis’s spiritual understanding deepened, he realized that his mission involved calling the Church back to its core spiritual values of poverty, humility, and service to the poor and suffering. Francis’s radical commitment to poverty and simplicity stood in sharp contrast to the wealth and worldly power that the Church had accumulated over centuries. He did not, however, reject the Church or attempt to start a separate religious movement outside of Church authority; instead, he sought approval from the Pope for his vision of a religious community based on poverty and radical Gospel living. The Church authorities, including the Pope, recognized the spiritual authenticity of Francis’s calling and approved his religious order, the Franciscans, which became one of the great spiritual forces in the Church. Francis faced some opposition and misunderstanding from Church leaders who worried that his extreme commitment to poverty went too far and set an impossible standard for ordinary Catholics. Despite this tension, Francis remained deeply loyal to the Church and submissive to papal authority, even when his own vision of what the Church should be differed significantly from what the Church’s institutions and practices actually were. Francis’s love for the Church was expressed through his determination to help the Church return to the spiritual values that should define it. He did not attack the Church in anger or rejection; instead, he offered a prophetic witness to what the Church could be if it followed the Gospel more faithfully. Francis was canonized in 1228, just two years after his death, and the Church recognized that his radical witness had been not a rejection of the Church but a profound expression of love for it.

Anselm and the Conflict Between Church and State

Anselm served as Archbishop of Canterbury in the late eleventh century during a time when the relationship between Church and state authority was deeply contested and poorly defined. Kings in medieval Europe believed they had authority to appoint bishops and other Church leaders, a practice known as lay investiture that the Church authorities increasingly recognized as a violation of Church independence and spiritual authority. Anselm opposed the king’s claims to appoint Church leaders and insisted that the Church must retain its freedom to choose its own leadership according to Church law rather than royal preference. This conflict put Anselm in direct opposition to the king of England, his political superior in the secular realm, and resulted in his exile from his position and his country for extended periods. Anselm could have compromised with the king to avoid suffering and maintain his position of authority and comfort, but he believed that defending the Church’s independence and spiritual freedom was more important than his own personal well-being. He endured exile, loss of income, and significant uncertainty about whether he would ever be able to return to his position and see his vision of Church independence realized. Throughout his suffering, Anselm remained committed to both the Church and his role within it, working tirelessly to restore what he saw as the proper relationship between Church authority and worldly power. Anselm’s resistance eventually contributed to broader changes in how Church and state relationships functioned in medieval Europe, with the Church gaining more independence from royal interference. The Church recognized Anselm as a saint and a Doctor of the Church, honoring his defense of Church freedom even though in his lifetime he had experienced painful conflict and opposition. His life demonstrates that loving the Church sometimes requires standing up to powerful interests that want to use the Church for their own purposes.

Maximilian Kolbe and Suffering Within the Church Structure

Maximilian Kolbe was a twentieth-century Franciscan priest who was known for his innovative use of media and communications to spread the Catholic faith during a time when many Catholics were struggling with religious doubt and the influence of secularism. Kolbe established a radio station and a publishing operation to produce materials defending the faith and encouraging Catholics to live according to Church teaching. His work was creative and forward-thinking for his time, and he accomplished much good in spreading Catholic teaching and strengthening the faith of many people. However, Kolbe also faced criticism from some Church authorities who worried that his methods were too modern or too independent in style. Some Church leaders questioned whether his approach to faith communication fit properly within the Church’s more traditional structures and procedures. Rather than becoming defensive or rejecting Church authority, Kolbe accepted the corrections and guidance offered by Church superiors even when he believed his own approach had merit and value. Kolbe’s greatest suffering, however, came not from Church authorities but from the Nazi regime during World War II when he was imprisoned in a concentration camp because he refused to compromise the Church’s teaching or his own faith. While imprisoned at Auschwitz, Kolbe was eventually executed, dying as a martyr for the Catholic faith rather than submitting to the Nazi regime. His willingness to suffer and die rather than abandon the Church or its teaching shows a love for the Church that transcended any temporary conflicts with Church authorities over methods or approach. Kolbe was canonized in 1982, and the Church honored him as a martyr and a saint who had placed his commitment to Christ and the Church above his own life and comfort. His example shows that conflicts about methods and approaches within the Church are small matters compared to the greater reality of the Church’s spiritual mission and the faith worth dying for.

Understanding Suffering and Disappointment in the Church

Catholics throughout history have had to grapple with the reality that the Church’s human members, including its leaders and authorities, frequently fail to live according to the standards and values that the Church teaches (CCC 2064-2082). The Church itself teaches that all baptized Catholics share in Christ’s priestly, prophetic, and kingly roles in the Church, which means that all Catholics bear some responsibility for the Church’s moral and spiritual state (CCC 901-945). When Church leaders abuse their authority, when Church communities mistreat vulnerable people, or when Church institutions cover up wrongdoing, faithful Catholics experience real pain and real betrayal. This pain is legitimate and should not be dismissed or minimized by suggesting that Catholics should simply accept any behavior from Church authorities without complaint or critical reflection. At the same time, the saints show us that experiencing pain and disappointment from Church members need not lead to abandoning faith in the Church’s mission or in Christ’s guidance of the Church. The saints teach that we can hold two truths simultaneously: the Church has failed and continues to fail in many ways, and the Church remains Christ’s body and the means through which salvation is offered to the world. This balanced perspective requires maturity and spiritual wisdom, qualities that the saints developed through prayer, reflection, and submission to God’s grace. Many modern Catholics struggle with this balance, especially when Church failures involve serious sins like the abuse of children or the mishandling of abuse cases. The saints show us that struggling with these realities while remaining committed to the Church is not naive or foolish, but rather a sign of deep love for what the Church is called to be.

The Role of Forgiveness and Reconciliation

The Catholic faith teaches that forgiveness is central to the Christian life and that God’s grace enables us to forgive others even when they have caused us serious harm (CCC 2840-2845). Jesus taught His followers to forgive, and He emphasized that forgiveness should be offered repeatedly and abundantly without keeping score of how many times someone has wronged us (CCC 1933). The saints who loved the Church despite suffering at its hands learned to practice this virtue of forgiveness in concrete ways, letting go of anger and resentment even when they had legitimate reasons to feel hurt. This does not mean that forgiveness requires accepting abuse or staying in harmful situations without seeking change or correction. Rather, it means releasing the desire for revenge and the bitterness that can consume a person’s heart when they have been wronged. Saints like Catherine of Siena and Thomas More were able to critique Church authorities and refuse to obey unjust commands while still maintaining a genuine spirit of forgiveness toward those individuals. They recognized that Church authorities were also flawed humans in need of God’s grace, just as everyone else is, and this recognition helped them maintain compassion even while standing against wrong actions. Catholic teaching encourages believers to seek reconciliation with those who have wronged them when possible, and the sacrament of reconciliation provides a formal structure for this healing and forgiveness (CCC 980-983). The saints show us that this process of forgiving and seeking reconciliation should extend to our relationship with the Church as an institution when we have been hurt by Church members or leaders. This does not mean pretending that harm never occurred or that changes are not needed; rather, it means approaching the need for change from a place of love and commitment rather than from anger and rejection.

Institutional Reform and Prophetic Witness

Throughout Catholic history, the most important reforms and changes within the Church have come not from external pressure but from faithful Catholics within the Church calling it back to its authentic mission and teaching. Saint Catherine of Siena called for papal reform; Saint Francis called for return to Gospel poverty; Saint Athanasius defended true doctrine against false teaching that had gained institutional support; and many others offered prophetic witness by living according to values that challenged the Church to do better. These saints were not rebels or dissidents who rejected Church authority; rather, they were deeply committed Catholics who loved the Church so much that they could not remain silent when they saw it failing to live according to its own highest principles. Their prophetic witness came from within the Church, offered to Church authorities with respect and submission to legitimate authority even while criticizing specific actions and policies. The Second Vatican Council acknowledged the role of prophecy within the Church and called all Catholics to take seriously their responsibility to contribute to the Church’s growth and sanctification (CCC 911-917). This means that offering criticism of Church practices or calling for reform is not a rejection of Church authority but potentially an expression of deep commitment to the Church’s authentic mission. At the same time, the saints also show that criticism offered from within the Church looks different from the kind of criticism that comes from those who have rejected the Church’s authority and teaching. Authentic prophetic witness from within the Church maintains respect for legitimate authority, submits findings to Church authorities for evaluation, and ultimately accepts the Church’s judgment even if one’s particular suggestions are not implemented. The saints teach us that loving the Church means being willing to advocate for change and reform while remaining ultimately submissive to the Church’s authority and committed to its mission.

The Necessity of Faith in Christ’s Guidance

The foundation for understanding how saints could love the Church that hurt them lies in their deep faith that Christ Himself remains the head of the Church and guides it toward its ultimate purpose through history despite the sins and failures of individual members (CCC 816-828). The Church teaches that Christ promised to remain with the Church until the end of time and that the Holy Spirit works within the Church to preserve it in truth and to lead it toward holiness (CCC 770-778). This promise does not mean that Church leaders are always wise or that Church institutions never make serious mistakes; rather, it means that God’s ultimate plan for the Church cannot be thwarted by human sin or failure. The saints maintained such strong faith in Christ’s guidance of the Church that they could endure suffering inflicted by Church members without losing confidence that the Church itself, as God’s instrument, remained trustworthy and worth serving. This faith was not blind faith that refused to see real problems or real sin within the Church; rather, it was faith that looked beyond the human failures to the divine reality underlying the Church’s existence. Thérèse of Lisieux’s spiritual struggles did not shake her faith in the Church or in Christ’s presence within it; Catherine of Siena’s conflicts with Church authorities did not make her doubt that Christ worked through the Church despite its human problems; and Thomas More’s imprisonment and execution by those who wanted to destroy the Church did not make him question the Church’s fundamental holiness and mission. This kind of faith is available to all Catholics through prayer, study of Church teaching, and the sacraments, especially the Eucharist through which Catholics are united to Christ and to the Church (CCC 1325-1327). Developing this deeper faith in Christ’s guidance of the Church helps modern Catholics maintain their commitment even during times when they are disappointed or hurt by Church members and institutions.

Distinguishing Between the Church and Its Members

A fundamental insight that allowed the saints to love the Church despite suffering at its hands was their ability to make a clear distinction between the Church itself as the Body of Christ and the individual members of the Church, including its leaders and authorities. The Church teaches that the Church is at once human and divine, visible and spiritual, and that this dual nature means the Church includes sinful members even though it is united to Christ who is sinless (CCC 795-810). The Pope and bishops, despite holding leadership positions in the Church, remain human beings capable of sin, error in judgment, and moral failure just like all other people. The fact that a bishop or pope acts wrongly does not change the validity of the sacraments or the legitimacy of Church teaching; it simply means that a sinful person has betrayed the trust and authority entrusted to them. The saints understood this distinction clearly and used it to maintain their commitment to the Church even when they experienced injustice or pain from Church authorities. They did not expect Church leaders to be perfect or infallible in all their actions and decisions; rather, they recognized that Church leaders, like all humans, depend on God’s grace and are always in need of conversion and sanctification. This realistic understanding of the Church’s human dimension kept the saints from experiencing disillusionment when Church authorities acted poorly. They knew from the beginning that they were joining a Church composed of sinners like themselves, and they expected that Church leaders would sometimes abuse their authority and disappoint those under their care. At the same time, the saints maintained firm belief that despite these human failures, the Church itself remained God’s instrument for salvation and that Christ worked through the Church’s official structures and sacraments even when those structures were temporarily occupied by sinful people.

The Role of Prayer and Spiritual Practice

The saints who loved the Church despite its failures consistently maintained strong prayer lives and committed engagement with spiritual practices that the Church offers, particularly the sacraments. Saints like Thérèse of Lisieux and Francis of Assisi spent hours in prayer, meditating on Christ’s life and presence in the Church, and receiving the Eucharist regularly as a means of deepening their union with Christ and with the Church. Through prayer and the sacraments, these saints experienced Christ’s love and presence in a way that reinforced their commitment to the Church even when the Church as an institution was failing or causing them suffering. The sacraments, particularly the Eucharist and reconciliation, provide ways for Catholics to encounter Christ directly within the Church’s structures and to receive healing grace that enables them to forgive and to love (CCC 1324-1327; CCC 1468-1470). Regular engagement with these spiritual practices helps Catholics maintain perspective and remember that the Church is ultimately about Christ and His salvation rather than about the particular failings of Church members. When disappointment or anger toward the Church threatens to undermine faith, returning to prayer and the sacraments provides a way to reconnect with the spiritual reality that the Church exists to make available. The saints teach us that prayer in the face of Church failings should not be prayer that attacks or judges Church authorities harshly; rather, it should be prayer that entrusts the Church to Christ’s care and intercedes for those in leadership positions. Through prayer, Catholics can move beyond bitterness and toward a place where they can continue to serve the Church and work toward its reform and healing. The practice of reconciliation through the sacrament of penance or reconciliation is particularly important, as it provides a formal structure for releasing guilt, shame, and anger that may arise when we experience harm within the Church community.

Modern Examples and Living Witnesses

The patterns demonstrated by historical saints continue in the lives of modern Catholics who maintain love for the Church despite experiencing serious disappointment and harm from Church institutions and members. Many Catholics have remained faithful to the Church even after experiencing child abuse by priests or discovering that Church authorities covered up abuse rather than protecting vulnerable people. The courage it takes to maintain faith in such circumstances represents a modern form of the same virtue demonstrated by the saints of previous centuries who loved the Church despite suffering at its hands. Living witnesses to this kind of faith demonstrate that commitment to the Church is compatible with anger at Church failures, with a demand for accountability and change, and with the pursuit of justice for those who have been harmed. The Church’s recent acknowledgment of sexual abuse crisis and the suffering it has caused shows that the institution itself can learn from the witness of faithful Catholics who refuse to leave the Church while also refusing to accept or excuse serious sin and failure. Many modern Catholics have channeled their love for the Church and their pain at its failures into working for concrete changes in how Church institutions respond to abuse and protect vulnerable people. These modern witnesses show that the same kind of love that motivated Catherine of Siena to write bold letters to the Pope and Thomas More to refuse unjust commands can motivate contemporary Catholics to advocate for change while remaining committed to the Church’s mission. The lives of these modern Catholics provide hope that the Church can continue to change and improve through the faithful witness of those who love it enough to refuse both to abandon it and to accept its failures without speaking truth to those in power.

The Call to Holiness Within the Church

The Church teaches that all Catholics are called to holiness and to grow in virtue and sanctity, and that this call to holiness applies equally to all baptized members regardless of their position or role in the Church (CCC 2012-2016). The saints who loved the Church despite suffering at its hands responded to this universal call to holiness by working on their own spiritual growth and development rather than waiting for Church authorities to become perfect before committing themselves fully to the Church. They recognized that they too were sinners in need of God’s grace and that their own sanctification contributed to the Church’s spiritual health more than their criticism of others could. This is not to say that the saints never offered criticism or spoke out against wrongdoing; rather, they offered such criticism from a place of personal commitment to their own holiness and conversion. They recognized that their credibility and effectiveness in advocating for Church reform depended on their own visible commitment to living according to the values they urged the Church to embrace. Francis of Assisi’s calls for the Church to embrace poverty were credible because he himself lived in radical poverty; Catherine of Siena’s urging of Church reform came from her own deep spiritual commitment; and Anselm’s defense of Church independence was grounded in his own integrity and spiritual maturity. Modern Catholics who wish to love the Church in the way the saints did should similarly focus on their own holiness and sanctification as the foundation for any criticism or calls for change they might offer. The Church teaches that the path to holiness involves prayer, reception of the sacraments, study of scripture and Church teaching, and service to others, particularly the poor and suffering (CCC 2030-2051). By engaging in these practices, Catholics develop the spiritual maturity and grace that enables them to maintain perspective during times when they are disappointed or hurt by the Church.

Loyalty and Accountability Are Not Opposites

One key insight from the saints is that loyalty to the Church and accountability for Church failures are not opposed to each other but rather can and should go together. The saints were fiercely loyal to the Church as an institution and to its mission of spreading the Gospel and offering salvation to the world; at the same time, they were willing to call out serious problems and to demand that Church leaders live according to the standards the Church teaches. Thomas More was completely loyal to the Pope and the Church’s doctrine about papal authority while simultaneously refusing to obey an unjust command from the King; Catherine of Siena showed deep respect for the papacy while writing forcefully to popes about corruption in the Church; and Francis called for radical reform while submitting himself completely to Church authority. This combination of loyalty and accountability looks different from both blind obedience to Church authorities on one hand and wholesale rejection of Church authority on the other hand. It involves recognizing that Church authorities deserve respect and submission because of their role in the Church while also recognizing that these authorities are accountable to God and to the Church’s teaching for how they exercise their power. The Church itself teaches that those in positions of authority within the Church bear special responsibility for using their authority to serve Christ and the Church’s mission rather than for their own power or benefit (CCC 1551-1553). Faithful Catholics can and should hold Church leaders accountable to these high standards while remaining committed to the Church itself. In recent years, many Catholics have expressed legitimate demands for accountability from bishops and other Church leaders regarding how they have handled abuse cases and protected the institutional Church’s reputation at the expense of protecting vulnerable people. These demands for accountability represent a modern form of the prophetic witness that the saints offered within the Church, and they should be recognized as an expression of love for the Church rather than rejection of it.

Learning to Love Imperfectly

The ultimate lesson that the saints teach us about loving the Church despite its failures is that this love must be imperfect, conditional, and grounded in faith rather than in the Church’s performance or the virtue of its members. None of the saints expected the Church to be perfect or even to be particularly good in all its dimensions during their lifetimes. They loved the Church not because it deserved their love based on how it treated them or how well it lived according to its own teaching, but because they recognized that the Church exists as God’s instrument for salvation and that Christ works through the Church despite human sin and failure. This kind of love is available to modern Catholics as well, though it requires letting go of the fantasy that the Church should be perfect or that committing to the Church means never experiencing disappointment. When we accept that we are joining a Church of sinners led by sinners, we free ourselves from the kind of disillusionment that often leads people to abandon the Church when it fails to meet impossible expectations. At the same time, maintaining this realistic perspective about the Church need not lead to cynicism or to acceptance of serious wrong doing without protest. Rather, it can lead to the kind of mature, grounded love that the saints demonstrated, a love that is willing to suffer for the Church’s mission even while acknowledging the Church’s serious flaws. This mature love for an imperfect Church is actually more realistic and more sustainable than the kind of love based on the fantasy that the Church is or should be perfect. By following the example of the saints and learning to love the Church as it actually is rather than as we might wish it to be, modern Catholics can maintain faithful commitment to the Church even during times when it disappoints, hurts, or fails them in significant ways.

Conclusion: Following the Saints into Deeper Commitment

The saints who loved the Church that hurt them left a legacy of faithful witness that challenges modern Catholics to examine their own relationship with the Church and to consider whether they are willing to love the Church with the kind of mature, grounded commitment that these saints demonstrated. Their lives show us that maintaining faith in the Church during times of institutional failure, personal suffering, or disappointment is not a sign of naivety or weakness but rather a sign of genuine spiritual maturity and grace-filled commitment. The Church teaches that we should imitate the saints and follow their example in virtue and in faith, recognizing them as our models and intercessors (CCC 2683-2684). When we study the lives of saints who loved the Church despite suffering within it, we can ask them to intercede for us so that we too might develop the faith, the forgiveness, and the commitment that enabled them to remain faithful. Their example shows that it is possible to be angry at Church institutions and leaders without rejecting the Church itself; it is possible to demand accountability and change while remaining loyal to the Church’s mission; and it is possible to experience real pain and real harm from Church members while still maintaining belief that Christ guides the Church and that the Church’s sacraments and teaching are authentic expressions of God’s grace. In our current time, when many Catholics are struggling with disappointment in the Church due to recent scandals and institutional failures, the witness of the saints who loved the Church despite similar suffering offers both comfort and challenge. Their lives comfort us by showing that we are not alone in this struggle and that many faithful Catholics throughout history have maintained their commitment despite real reasons to leave. Their lives challenge us to ask whether we are willing to work toward the Church’s reform and healing from within rather than simply abandoning it when it fails to meet our expectations, and whether we can develop the kind of faith in Christ’s guidance of the Church that will sustain us through future difficulties and disappointments.