2 disagreements so im not a real Catholic?

[E.E.N.S]

Herein is the rub. Who can rise to this level? The Church’s moral teaching alone is something we all struggle to accept, hence the need for Reconcilliation. Doctrine is so vast that it is easy to find one area where a person lacking in supernatural intelligence can fully understand the mind of the Church. Thus, the need for the Catechism teaching on conscience.

I think the best answer for the OP here is to understand that the Church does account for both our sin and unbelief. Our job is to keep our spirit humble and be willing to be taught. Some sin may be so pervasive they take a lifetime and beyond to purge. Some beliefs are so difficult to understand that learning them is a process of decades and we may not understand in this world. The Catholic Church is a hospital for the mortally sick. Just keep trying to understand the mind of the Church. Even if you give up, then keep receiving the Sacraments in order to receive the grace to overcome that sloth or weariness, and when you can, give it another shot.

Anyone can, and should, be able to give 100% assent to the teachings of the Church, even without having understood them 100%. You don’t need to understand to assent. Will you falter in your adherence to those teachings, sure, we all sin, but that is not the same thing as refusing to give your assent.

 

[benidict]

Anyone can, and should, be able to give 100% assent to the teachings of the Church, even without having understood them 100%. You don’t need to understand to assent. Will you falter in your adherence to those teachings, sure, we all sin, but that is not the same thing as refusing to give your assent.

So, we should be like this guy? God intended us to be like robots to just accept (name removed by moderator)ut, and not question?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

So, we should be like this guy? God intended us to be like robots to just accept (name removed by moderator)ut, and not question?

Um, no.

There have been many people. . .many saints, if you will. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Now there is a man who questioned and who searched. . .a man of great intellect, not a robot by any means.

He accepted the teachings of the Church 100%.

Is he a robot for doing so? Of course not.

You know it takes just as much rational thinking to make a decision of “yes I believe” as it takes to make one of "no I don’t believe’.

I can’t understand why people think that a person who decides “Yes Lord I believe” is not thinking as MUCH or as CRITICALLY as one who decides "No Lord I don’t believe.’

 

[benidict]

Um, no.

There have been many people. . .many saints, if you will. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Now there is a man who questioned and who searched. . .a man of great intellect, not a robot by any means.

He accepted the teachings of the Church 100%.

Is he a robot for doing so? Of course not.

You know it takes just as much rational thinking to make a decision of “yes I believe” as it takes to make one of "no I don’t believe’.

I can’t understand why people think that a person who decides “Yes Lord I believe” is not thinking as MUCH or as CRITICALLY as one who decides "No Lord I don’t believe.’

Hi my dear friend. If im not mistaken, you and I were talking about St. Catherine? She did not accept everything hook line and sinker. In fact she attempted to get some reforms in place, Correct? I could be wrong about her, I will admit. Im not well versed in her life. Intrigueing woman though.

 

[pnewton]

Anyone can, and should, be able to give 100% assent to the teachings of the Church, even without having understood them 100%. You don’t need to understand to assent. Will you falter in your adherence to those teachings, sure, we all sin, but that is not the same thing as refusing to give your assent.

Everyone should be able. We all theoretically can live without sinning. Yet we know we do not. Most of the rest of us have several areas in which we falter in adherence to Catholic moral teaching. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.

You say we can. I know that I can not. If you strive to be 100% faithful to the Catholic Church, then accept also that this same Church allows for imperfect creatures and men and women that are still in the process of understanding the Church (doctrine) and in adhering to this understanding (avoiding sin).

 

[pnewton]

Um, no.

There have been many people. . .many saints, if you will. Like St. Thomas Aquinas, for example. Now there is a man who questioned and who searched. . .a man of great intellect, not a robot by any means.

He accepted the teachings of the Church 100%.
’

I do not think I have ever read this in his writings. I have read a lot of Aquinas, but that is still scratching the surface. I do not think even the saints claimed perfection, only detachment from sin. Let us take someone who struggles with, say promiscuity. They may try and justify this sin, or try to fight it. Yet just because they are far short of following the Church teaching on the role of marriage and sex does not mean that they are less Catholic. There is always hope for such a one that they will, through Sacramental Grace, some day understand Church moral teaching better and throught the grace of God even arrive and sainthood.

 

[E.E.N.S]

Everyone should be able. We all theoretically can live without sinning. Yet we know we do not. Most of the rest of us have several areas in which we falter in adherence to Catholic moral teaching. That is why we have the Sacrament of Reconcilliation.

You say we can. I know that I can not. If you strive to be 100% faithful to the Catholic Church, then accept also that this same Church allows for imperfect creatures and men and women that are still in the process of understanding the Church (doctrine) and in adhering to this understanding (avoiding sin).

I am not referring to being able to understand 100% of Church teaching, nor am I referring to being 100% sinless either, what I am referring to is giving full assent to Church teaching.

Apples to oranges my friend. This shouldn’t be that hard to grasp.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Hi my dear friend. If im not mistaken, you and I were talking about St. Catherine? She did not accept everything hook line and sinker. In fact she attempted to get some reforms in place, Correct? I could be wrong about her, I will admit. Im not well versed in her life. Intrigueing woman though.

Ah, but the difference is that St. Catherine did not reject any TRUTHS. What St. Catherine worked on ‘reforming’ (not that that is EXACTLY the right word) were some non doctrinal practices or ‘extraneous’ things (such as the Avignon captivity whereby the Popes left Rome for France briefly). . .IOW, St. Catherine was rather ENCOURAGING people to ADHERE to the truths rather than to go astray. . .

You see, there is a difference between accepting the truths of the Church “hook line and sinker” and accepting, say, the clergy sex scandal. The scandal exists because some in the Church were NOT obedient to the Church’s teachings. . .and because some in trying to follow the teachings made personal errors of judgment regarding secular law, psychology, etc., or were told by EXPERTS that something should be done but the EXPERTS were themselves wrong. . .

So I don’t go around saying “The Church is perfect, therefore when certain clergy committed sexual actions on minors those actions were justified because the church is perfect.” That would be horribly, horribly wrong and stupid. Those wrong doings were wrong actions by individuals.

But I CAN say, “The Church is perfect, even if individuals within her are not.”

Do you see the difference? St. Catherine did. . .

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I do not think I have ever read this in his writings. I have read a lot of Aquinas, but that is still scratching the surface. I do not think even the saints claimed perfection, only detachment from sin. Let us take someone who struggles with, say promiscuity. They may try and justify this sin, or try to fight it. Yet just because they are far short of following the Church teaching on the role of marriage and sex does not mean that they are less Catholic. There is always hope for such a one that they will, through Sacramental Grace, some day understand Church moral teaching better and throught the grace of God even arrive and sainthood.

Exactly.

And another thing. . .St. Augustine, for example, had some pretty unChristian actions in his younger years (as some of us did, sadly). Anybody talking to him when he was 20 would probably have been astonished at the idea of this young man ever being a saint. . .

So many of us have struggled at some point. But we are not judged by one action, or one ‘year of time’, in our lives, where we sinned. . .just as we are not judged by one action or one year of time where we were ‘good’, but rather on our ENTIRE lives.

The person having strong doubts at age 25 may go on to reject everything at 50. . .OR he (or she) may have resolved those doubts and have 100% full faith at 50.

 

[curlycool89]

I could be mistaken here, and any of my Catholic brothers/sisters, can correct me. St. Catherine of Sienna. I guess she just should have sat down and shut up, instead of attempting to reform things she found wrong. She is not one ive studied in depth, so I will get back on this.

I hate it when people try to justify disobedience by pointing to a saint. So, what exatly in the life of St. Catherine of Siena do you see as justifying disobedience?

We can even read where Peter had some serious issues. When Jesus was re instating him, and asked if he loved him, he asked 3 times. he used 3 terms for the word love. Peter admited he could not love Christ the way Christ desired. He could only manage the love of friendship. Its been a long time since ive heard the whole teaching, so I will get back to yall on this. More was going on in this passage than meets the eye.

The 3 times Jesus asked Peter if he loved Him were to correspond with the 3 times Peter denied Him.

benidict, you’re going to just have to get over the intellect. Do you know the reasons why the Church teaches whatever the mysterious issues you won’t reveal. Do you understand them, or have you made an attempt to understand them? The way you say “I could not follow them” makes me think that you don’t understand them. Or that you have put up such mental blocks so as to refuse to.

I’ll probably get some flack for this, but does the issues have to do with you being a libertarian? Are you unable to reconcile these moral issues with your political philosophy? You know which one has to win out. You have to be willing to say “I’m willing to put anything on the alter of sacrifice”. You’re just going to go crazy if you keep ping-ponging the ideas back and forth across your head; there’s a point where you have to say “God, I trust in You”.

You’re American. I don’t claim to understand Americans and there are several things that I don’t understand about you guys (I’m Canadian for reference), but one of the things I always see is that you guys have a very strong independent streak. The American Dream, hoisting yourself by your own bootstraps and making your first million by the sweat of your own brow. And you’ve got to let it go. If it feels like you’re going to loose a part of yourself, then you’re doing it right. Get over it. God knows what’s best for us, that why we call Him Father.

If you’re faith is not changing you, then you’re doing it wrong. If you’ve reached a point where you say “stop, that’s enough”, God’s going to wait for you, since He is the Father waiting for the prodigal’s son. He’s going to wait you out, and He’s eternal, so you know He’s going to win. We humans have way to much fun fighting, and it seems so unnatural not to fight. Let go, let God. Sometimes we’re wrong; your ego will get over it.

 

[benidict]

Ah, but the difference is that St. Catherine did not reject any TRUTHS. What St. Catherine worked on ‘reforming’ (not that that is EXACTLY the right word) were some non doctrinal practices or ‘extraneous’ things (such as the Avignon captivity whereby the Popes left Rome for France briefly). . .IOW, St. Catherine was rather ENCOURAGING people to ADHERE to the truths rather than to go astray. . .

You see, there is a difference between accepting the truths of the Church “hook line and sinker” and accepting, say, the clergy sex scandal. The scandal exists because some in the Church were NOT obedient to the Church’s teachings. . .and because some in trying to follow the teachings made personal errors of judgment regarding secular law, psychology, etc., or were told by EXPERTS that something should be done but the EXPERTS were themselves wrong. . .

So I don’t go around saying “The Church is perfect, therefore when certain clergy committed sexual actions on minors those actions were justified because the church is perfect.” That would be horribly, horribly wrong and stupid. Those wrong doings were wrong actions by individuals.

But I CAN say, “The Church is perfect, even if individuals within her are not.”

Do you see the difference? St. Catherine did. . .

Thank you very much for the clarification and educational content. I shall have to study this remarkable woman. Peace

 

[Peepers]

My “assumptions” were based only on your words, in two successive posts, one of which directly challenged mine. I never assume what it is not logical to deduce from people’s writing. I’m trained to do that.

I didn’t think you were being condescending. I thought that (based on your posts) you have limited experience with how complex the faith journey is for the ordinary Catholic, and with how such Catholics go about seeking priestly counsel. Thirdly, you may be projecting that limited experience with priests more widely than is warranted. Some priests do selectively relate to people, and have chosen not to widen their familiarity with society since early entrance into seminary, but those are not the majority of priests. Most of them are not able to keep the world out for that long, due to assignments and due to the psychological need to be successful in their priesthood. Given current proportions of priests serving laity full-time, it is decreasingly true that priests are out of touch with modern society and its non-simplistic challenges.

Despite that, some priests - just like some secular counselors – have better communication and listening skills, better command of vocabulary, more developed patience (and other virtues), than others – regardless of level of awareness.

Yes, Elizabeth, you are quite right. My understanding of the faith journey of the average Catholic, or the average Priest, for that matter is meager. All that I can really handle is my own journey, which I could do much better at. My intention was only to echo your suggestion that several priests might be consulted, and I also threw in my opinion for what I would look for. What works for me, is only what works for me, and I reserve the right to change my opinion of that as I grow and gain experience in life.

I really apologize if I came across as judging, or as if I have some great knowledge or wisdom to impart. The only thing I have to share in this forum is my experience and opinions. I would encourage anyone to take freely of that anything which is of value, and to discard the rest.

 

[pnewton]

I am not referring to being able to understand 100% of Church teaching, nor am I referring to being 100% sinless either, what I am referring to is giving full assent to Church teaching.

Perhaps I do not understand what you are saying. It almost sounds that by “assent” you mean just an understanding that the Church teaches XY or Z. Or is it that we are to pretend that we agree even if we do not. The thing is, that if the Church teaches something, like Muslims may be saved through desire for God in a state of invincible ignorance, I can not help what I believe. I can study the issue, or pray about it. It can cease discussion. I can say that I am wrong, even though I do not believe it, but practically, what is “assent” if it is not following the Church’s teaching on such dilemnas. That is what I have covered twice. It has also been linked from the Catechism. No where has the Church said this can not be a process, at least that I am aware of.

FYI - You did use the phrase “adherence to those teachings”. If failing to adhere to the teachings of the Church is not a good working definition of sin, I do not know what is.

 

[pnewton]

And another thing. . .St. Augustine, for example, had some pretty unChristian actions in his younger years (as some of us did, sadly). .

I thought of him too. He is a good model for all who dispair of conversion of a loved one.

 

[Peepers]

Yes. And before we completely derail the thread please don’t start throwing out usury, slavery, Galileo, the Inquisition, the Crusades, etc. unless you are prepared to discuss these in detail and can document your claims.

I don’t wish to derail this thread, nor do I wish to get into an endless debate on the topic of the changes over time of the Church’s moral positions. If anyone is interested, there is a concise article published by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton on the topic of Theology. The author is John T. Noonan, a respected jurist and Catholic, who as an adviser to the Vatican during “Vatican II”. You can read Judge Noonan’s article here: ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf

Rather than ask me to back up my claims, you well find Noonan’s paper to be well researched and well annotated as to his sources. I was surprise to learn that Gregory I accepted a slave as a gift, and in turn gave that slave to a bishop. If you believe that the Church has not changed its position on slavery, then I would invite you to make the case for Benedict XVI accepting a slave as a gift. I would be very surprised if he were to do such a thing. Or you may choose to make the case that Gregory I was a corrupt pope, but I would disagree with you from what I know of him.

 

[benidict]

I don’t wish to derail this thread, nor do I wish to get into an endless debate on the topic of the changes over time of the Church’s moral positions. If anyone is interested, there is a concise article published by the Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton on the topic of Theology. The author is John T. Noonan, a respected jurist and Catholic, who as an adviser to the Vatican during “Vatican II”. You can read Judge Noonan’s article here: ts.mu.edu/content/54/54.4/54.4.3.pdf

Rather than ask me to back up my claims, you well find Noonan’s paper to be well researched and well annotated as to his sources. I was surprise to learn that Gregory I accepted a slave as a gift, and in turn gave that slave to a bishop. If you believe that the Church has not changed its position on slavery, then I would invite you to make the case for Benedict XVI accepting a slave as a gift. I would be very surprised if he were to do such a thing. Or you may choose to make the case that Gregory I was a corrupt pope, but I would disagree with you from what I know of him.

Peepers? Im pretty lenient where my threads go that I start. I think its relevant. We can do this here if you want. I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Peace

 

[Peepers]

Peepers? Im pretty lenient where my threads go that I start. I think its relevant. We can do this here if you want. I thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut. Peace

S.F. Benidict -

I have no intention of arguing about this one. “Hard core” Catholics will say that nothing ever changes in the Church. Moderates will admit that it does. Progressives will try to drive the Church forward in the direction which the moderates think it will end up anyway, and the conservative claim that it will never get to because it never changes.

But it is relevant to your original question, because if you believe that the Church’s moral code is utterly static, then there is not much wiggle room for issues of personal conscience which disagree with the Church. On the other hand, I see it as very dicey to try to predict where the Church will be at some point in the future, and rationalize one’s own views in that light. For now, my own choice is to accept the Church’s teachings on morality, and to recognize that the Church is a vital organ which does grow and change in time

The thing that differentiates us biologically from all other species is our ability to rapidly discover new knowledge and to pass large volumes of information from one generation to the next. Compared to the rate that DNA does this, we are growing at warp speed next to a snail. The Church is riding on the current of change as well. If it did not, then it would have drowned long ago. Even the most conservative Catholic, who claims that the Church does not change would likely find it tolerable if they were magically transported to 800 AD or so. At least, that is my opinion. Take it or leave it.

 

[benidict]

S.F. Benidict -

I have no intention of arguing about this one. “Hard core” Catholics will say that nothing ever changes in the Church. Moderates will admit that it does. Progressives will try to drive the Church forward in the direction which the moderates think it will end up anyway, and the conservative claim that it will never get to because it never changes.

But it is relevant to your original question, because if you believe that the Church’s moral code is utterly static, then there is not much wiggle room for issues of personal conscience which disagree with the Church. On the other hand, I see it as very dicey to try to predict where the Church will be at some point in the future, and rationalize one’s own views in that light. For now, my own choice is to accept the Church’s teachings on morality, and to recognize that the Church is a vital organ which does grow and change in time

The thing that differentiates us biologically from all other species is our ability to rapidly discover new knowledge and to pass large volumes of information from one generation to the next. Compared to the rate that DNA does this, we are growing at warp speed next to a snail. The Church is riding on the current of change as well. If it did not, then it would have drowned long ago. Even the most conservative Catholic, who claims that the Church does not change would likely find it tolerable if they were magically transported to 800 AD or so. At least, that is my opinion. Take it or leave it.

Agreed.

 

[Ignatius]

No - you should study the 2 issues and pray to understand why you are in error.

Amen! St. Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers and theologeans of all time said much the same thing. He disagreed with The Church for a many years, until he studied the matter to understand thoroughly why The Church teaches as it does on these matters and came to the realization that the error was his.

God bless.

 

[Peepers]

Amen! St. Augustine, one of the greatest thinkers and theologeans of all time said much the same thing. He disagreed with The Church for a many years, until he studied the matter to understand thoroughly why The Church teaches as it does on these matters and came to the realization that the error was his.

God bless.

At the risk of having rocks thrown at me, St. Augustine also believed that he could “prove” the existence of God with logic. The existence of God is known through faith. Logic may come into play, but if you rely solely on logic than all you can prove is that God cannot be proved, nor can God be disproved. The human mind is too feeble as a rational instrument to accomplish such a feat.