> The Catholic perspective on this kind of thing is more flexible and quite strange by comparison but tolerating hypocrisy around sexual behavior is definitely not new.

The Catholic perspective is not tolerating hypocrisy, it is a knowledge that we are all sinful and broken. I know what the right thing to do is, and if you ask me I will tell you what the right thing to do is, but often I won't do it. I'm not a hypocrite -- I know I'm wrong, I'm weak and a coward.

For sure. In this specific case, I'd add that because of Catholic belief on martyrdom (directly to heaven, no purgatory, no baptism required even), the standards are a lot lower to canonize a martyr. For instance they can (but don't always) skip directly to "blessed" status, skipping over the declaration that they were "heroic in virtue." Which makes sense--historically speaking the first saints that were involved in worship were martyrs. And many of those "converted" right before they were killed, not having led lives that were Christian at all. There is a sense one gets that martyrs are the ur-Saints and that other saints were only canonized "by popular demand."

(Former Catholic but not a theologian or anything. See discussion here on how canonization is not a declaration of virtue: https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02364b.htm)

> Protestant perspective, that religion is all about consistently following consistent doctrines

Isn't that a contradiction? I thought Protestants were all about grace over works (wasn't it Martin Luther who called James The Epistle of Straw because of it's emphasis on works?). Consistently following consistent doctrines would be works.

Martin Luther's perspective was more of a "Works in thanks of Grace". One is saved by Grace alone, and in thanks for that grace one's works should reflect the will of God as provided in the Bible.

Sounds like a better system is to be saved by Grace and rely on that Grace to continue to save you as you do whatever you want. Is doing whatever you want a sign of ingratitude? Sure, but fortunately grace can save me from my sin of ingratitude. It's the best of both worlds. I can do whatever I want in this world and get to go to heaven in the next world. Thanks grace!

There are sects that hold that position, mostly associated with Calvinism. In those sects, if you're not showing gratitude by good works, then you're probably not one of the elect.

If you're convinced that you're not one of the elect, and you've given up, then you've failed to have faith, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Getting faith doesn't guarantee you're one of the elect, but not having it guarantees that you're not.

So an attitude like yours might work anyway, if you happen to be one of the elect, but the odds aren't in your favor.

American Protestantism remains heavily influenced by Calvin and early Puritan groups who had very strict ideas of how one should act. One is only _saved_ by grace, but one should _live_ according to the will of God.

American Puritanism had a strong streak that grace was a cause of good works. It was predestined whether or not you are among the elect, but those among the elect would lead upright lives. Of course the argument of whether or not good works was sufficient evidence of grace gave us Rhode Island...

Remember that a significant amount of american Christianity involves pre-determinism, ie that you're either good or bad, and cannot change that, and the good people go to heaven and the bad people to hell. It has nothing to do with actions but is an inane trait you are born with.

If you believe the God is all-knowing, then it follows that He's not constrained by the linearity of time. This gets you out of the paradoxes that arise around predestination and free will. But I don't think the average Christian thinks about it that way, unless they are in the subset that reads Science Fiction. I've known a few like that.