Am I still Catholic if I don't always agree with the church?

[Elizabeth502]

Today’s Catholics, I believe, have much greater awareness of Church teaching and rules, so that when they disregard any of them they do so in defiance of the Church. Choosing what you will believe and what you will not believe shows an independent spirit that has no place in the Catholic Church.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Glad to hear it.

But the point is you couldn’t possibly know this. No one could. It’s not as though my great-grandfather went around proclaiming his disbelief and failure to fully adhere. Why would I assume there weren’t many more like him? It’s interesting to note, as well, that his priest never refused him communion, though he clearly never saw my great-grandfather in the confessional.

The example I gave earlier in the thread referenced a Polish Catholic’s view of American Catholics’ obsession with being “so serious” (her words) about the faith. Her comment took place during a discussion about what you would call adherent Catholics and what my colleagues at the time called “real” Catholics. She was genuinely confused about why American Catholics invest so much time in chastising other Catholics for being less than compliant. I don’t offer this example as proof of anything, of course. But the rest of my colleagues who weren’t from North America (perhaps 8 or so, all Catholic) definitely and vocally agreed with her. I found that interesting but you certainly don’t have to.

Could be he didn’t see your ggf at confession because it’s behind a screen protecting one’s privacy. Besides, many people go to another parish to confess their sins for fear of being recognized by the priest and identified with his sins.

Interesting that she thought American Catholics are obsessively serious about their faith, when the statistics show that most Catholics don’t even attend Sunday Mass every week. That sure doesn’t bode well for European Catholics. I have heard it said that the real heart of the Church has shifted to Africa and other less westernized countries. Could be because many Americans, probably Europeans too, are too wrapped up in materialism/secularism to be all that interested in spirituality? What do they get out of church membership? A social venue? Something to assuage their consciences? Some feel good activities?

 

[JamesCaruso]

I think he was of the defiant variety. Lots of stories about that one.

But the question is, defiant against whom? The priest? The Church itself? The Pope? Among old-timers I have not met any who were defiant against the Church yet went to communion regularly. But if that’s what you say your ggf was like, I’ll take your word for it. He was ahead of his time.

 

[Elizabeth502]

But the question is, defiant against whom? The priest? The Church itself? The Pope? Among old-timers I have not met any who were defiant against the Church yet went to communion regularly.

Nor I. There were members of that generation who stated that they “disagreed with the Pope,” and “therefore” (they said) their own response to that was to stop partaking of the Eucharist. Self-awareness and self-policing are really what it’s all about. Unfortunately, we now have two full generations of Catholics who are largely (more than 50%) unaware of where, how, and why authority in the Church rests where it does, and what that authority requires of them as members of the Church. It is both a crisis of ignorance and a crisis of compliance.

 

[JamesCaruso]

Nor I. There were members of that generation who stated that they “disagreed with the Pope,” and “therefore” (they said) their own response to that was to stop partaking of the Eucharist. Self-awareness and self-policing are really what it’s all about. Unfortunately, we now have two full generations of Catholics who are largely (more than 50%) unaware of where, how, and why authority in the Church rests where it does, and what that authority requires of them as members of the Church. It is both a crisis of ignorance and a crisis of compliance.

Right. It’s not so much they are ignorant of what the Church teaches regarding the areas they do not wish to comply with, but ignorance of authority. They have become so secularized, they believe it is not only their right but in their best interest to follow their own way.

 

[Kevin12]

Thanks for the answers. I must confess that the reason I asked this question is my family is Catholic, and they said I can do anything but move to another religion. I don’t want to break their hearts or get in a fight with them.

It’s wasn’t because I hate the church, in fact I admire them and follow their sacraments(I believe in the Eucharist too). I just had a lot of questions about salvation according the Bible so I do plenty of research that lead me to answers conflicting with a few things in traditional Catholicism.

I would really really really really really really recommend you ask this question in the spirituality section of the Catholic Living subforum, or even the Apologetics one. This subforum…well, with all due charity, particularly with regards to the teaching of Vatican II that might be relevant to your questions…well, you might just want to ask about any specific issue in a different forum.

 

[Lormar]

Before the 60’s we had practicing Catholics and non-practicing Catholics. From the 60’s on we began to have a split in practicing Catholics between those who observed all the teachings and rules of the Church and those who observed those teachings and rules they thought were correct. So, as you said, many proclaimed to be practicing Catholics who in former days would have been counted as non-practicing Catholics. For the first time perhaps in the history of the Church, large numbers began to place their personal beliefs (some called it conscience) above Church teachings, and claimed communion with Christ in so doing. IOW, they and Christ were correct, the Church was incorrect. Well, there goes 2,000 years of teaching out the window! But not to worry. The Vatican did not surrender as some felt it would have to. Instead, it kept a copy of all its teachings in spite of countless warnings that they were outdated and could not survive the modern world. Today, large segments of the Catholic community may be on the verge of breaking away, or if the Spirit has its way, reverting back to Catholic doctrine. Those are the only two possibilities there have ever been. So-called practicing Catholics who reject some of Catholic teaching are already de facto outside the Church. It is now, and always was, an all or nothing proposition. You can’t have marriage and fool around a little on the side all the while claiming fidelity. If you don’t believe me, ask your spouse. The Church is not an open marriage. Fooling around is a grave matter, despite so many Catholics taking it lightly.

 

[Lormar]

But the question is, defiant against whom? The priest? The Church itself? The Pope? Among old-timers I have not met any who were defiant against the Church yet went to communion regularly. But if that’s what you say your ggf was like, I’ll take your word for it. He was ahead of his time.

My grandfather was an immigrant with the most rudimentary knowledge of Catholicism. He was also one of those “defiant Catholics.” He knew enough not to present himself for Holy Communion. He would drive my grandmother to Mass on Sunday and sit in the car rather than go in.

 

[mwic]

To publicly call oneself Catholic is to proclaim that one adheres to all the Church teaches.

Apparently, the answer to the Question in this Thread’s Title is:

No

Am I right about this? I got confused by side-issues about terms like:
disagreement vs doubt
a Catholic vs a “good” Catholic vs a “practicing Catholic” vs a “Catholic in good standing”

If Monkey1976 is right, then the simple answer “No” is all one needs, I think.

 

[Joe_5859]

Apparently, the answer to the Question in this Thread’s Title is:

No

Am I right about this? I got confused by side-issues about terms like:
disagreement vs doubt
a Catholic vs a “good” Catholic vs a “practicing Catholic” vs a “Catholic in good standing”

If Monkey1976 is right, then the simple answer “No” is all one needs, I think.

That is incorrect.

Here is the nutshell version.

A person is incorporated into the Catholic Church through Baptism. Through their Baptism, they become members of the Catholic Church.

Since Baptism imparts a permanent, indellible mark on the recipient’s soul, it can never be removed. It is a change on the ontological level. They will always be Catholic.

The Catholic Church has a set body of teachings that Catholics ought to believe. Further, there are certain obligations that the Catholic Church asks her members to fulfill.

Not all Catholics believe these teachings or fulfill these obligations. These would be the non-practicing Catholics.

I’m not sure why this question gets raised so often. Do people take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic even when they don’t accept all the teaching? Or do people take comfort in being able to strip this “title” away from those deemed undeserving?

 

[kozlosap]

That is incorrect.

Here is the nutshell version.

A person is incorporated into the Catholic Church through Baptism. Through their Baptism, they become members of the Catholic Church.

Since Baptism imparts a permanent, indellible mark on the recipient’s soul, it can never be removed. It is a change on the ontological level. They will always be Catholic.

The Catholic Church has a set body of teachings that Catholics ought to believe. Further, there are certain obligations that the Catholic Church asks her members to fulfill.

Not all Catholics believe these teachings or fulfill these obligations. These would be the non-practicing Catholics.

I’m not sure why this question gets raised so often. Do people take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic even when they don’t accept all the teaching? Or do people take comfort in being able to strip this “title” away from those deemed undeserving?

:thumbsup:Exactly - no matter how many want to judge who is deemed appropriate enough to be Caltholic, if you baptized Catholic, then you are considered Catholic for life.

 

[mwic]

Do people take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic even when they don’t accept all the teaching? Or do people take comfort in being able to strip this “title” away from those deemed undeserving?

Both, I think.

I see a lot of “you can’t call yourself Catholic” posts 'round these parts whenever someone questions a teaching. I was fascinated by the phrase “required beliefs”, so I googled it, yielding:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=392025

That thread ends with Christine77’s citation of the creed + 7 key themes of Catholic social teaching. There isn’t anything there about (for example) female clergy. But I also found:

… there is no debating this. This is infallible teaching, required belief for everyone, especially priests. Good luck and God Bless.

(forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=4945808&postcount=25)

This is just an example – I don’t want to debate female priesthood here. It isn’t immediately clear whether one could be a (practicing) Catholic and disagree with the Church about this issue. And this is just one issue of hundreds.

To return to:

Do people take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic even when they don’t accept all the teaching?

The answer is: of course! People take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic. If someone calls herself “American” and someone replies "You’re not a Real American because _______ … " she has to wonder

Is this person wrong?
Is America wrong?
Am I wrong?

 

[Elizabeth502]

People take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic. If someone calls herself “American” and someone replies "You’re not a Real American because _______ … " she has to wonder

Is this person wrong?
Is America wrong?
Am I wrong?

There are limitations to such an artificial analogy between a divinely authoritarian and authoritative religious system (based on absolute, not relative truth), and a secular political system (a strictly human institution) within a particular geography.

(1) Identifying as an American does not require assent to moral laws, let alone religious beliefs.

(2) Understanding what the core of American philosophy is, however, allows one to identify or not with what the country represents, which is not a bunch of random personal beliefs (“America is what I want it to be”) but rather certain common core values.

(3) You can be technically American by citizenship or residency or national origin, but be a lousy one, or lack sincerity about that identification. I’ve met all kinds in this group. They never have understood the central themes in our Founding documents, nor are they very signed on to participation in a representative democracy (=key American value), nor do they appreciate the value of opportunity (=key American value), nor do they understand both the ideal of equality and the limits of that equality – a concept which has been perversely -]“defined”/-] (hijacked and perverted) by the secular culture, many of whom are poorly educated in American social and political history.

For another example, a person can intellectually prefer an authoritarian monarchy, or even (on the other extreme end) anarchy – and I have met many such people IRL, especially the latter. I do not consider such people genuinely American in any meaningful sense of the term. They reject core American values; they want zero governance or a non-democratic form of governance, and they practice such a disdain for American values in their everyday lives as well.

Neither American citizenship nor a Catholic baptism is equivalent to a line on a resume.

When we do not live our Catholicism, we empty the term of its meaning, nor matter how much we want to “comfort” ourselves that our membership has any demonstrable value in lived lives – our own.

 

[mwic]

There are limitations to such an artificial analogy …

Quite right. The analogy just illustrates the similarity between the situations as felt experiences within “lived lives” – not as linguistically/technically correct use of the corresponding terms “Real”, “Practicing” etc.

You can be technically American by citizenship or residency or national origin, but be a lousy one …
They never have understood the central themes in our Founding documents …
… poorly educated in American social and political history.

Sorry for elliding so much, but I think this allows me to clarify what I am really searching for:

A Real American probably ought, at least, to consent to the “central themes” in the first few sentences of the Declaration of Independence, which are:
-equality
-right to life/liberty/pursuit of happiness
-right to revolution
-in extreme cases, a duty of revolution

I do not, however, agree that extensive education in American social and political history is necessary in order to call oneself a Real American. Such education is good, of course, and I highly recommend it for articulating the Core Themes further, for example settling questions like:

• Does “equality” as applied to religion mean freedom of conscience? religious non-preferentialism? non-establishment? accomodation? “separation of church and state”? Something else?
• To what extent does the right to pursue happiness include a right to acquire property? To what extent can any of these be property: objects? land? people/slaves? the means of production? ideas/creative works?

I would guess that one in a hundred Real Americans has even pondered questions at this depth; I didn’t until well into my thirties. Among the ones who have, there is substantial disagreement (even among the Founders there was disagreement on some of these). And I think there should be – because these are not Core American Values™.

When I was in college, a friend published an op-ed in our newspaper suggesting that our chaplain was not a Real Catholic because our congregation was in the habit of standing during the Great Amen of the Mass.

At the other end, people suggest that you’re a Practicing Catholic if baptized, even though you think the Church is the Root of All Evil (think Sinead O’Connor).

I think most people reject both of these notions, but I also think most people struggle at finding the “correct” spot on the continuum between these… I know I do.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Quite right. The analogy just illustrates the similarity between the situations as felt experiences within “lived lives” – not as linguistically/technically correct use of the corresponding terms “Real”, “Practicing” etc.

Despite emotions and subjectivity now being all the rage as a substitute for knowledge, in the Catholic Church – its being a religion based on reason (=core concept of Catholicism) means that “feeling” Catholicism does not determine how genuine it is. Not according to the Church, anyway. The degree of one’s authentic fidelity is not predicated upon feeling, and identity in our religion is very much linked to fidelity as opposed to emotion.

I do not, however, agree that extensive education in American social and political history is necessary in order to call oneself a Real American.

Many people, when they don’t have real argument, invent a straw man, which you just did. Neither an advanced degree in the above is necessary to be a valuable American (what’s your trip with “Real” American? – straw man #2), nor is a degree in theology necessary to be a faithful Catholic. But for both, essentials of knowing the faith are.

Such education is good, of course, and I highly recommend it for articulating the Core Themes further, for example settling questions…[snip] I would guess that one in a hundred Real Americans has even pondered questions at this depth; I didn’t until well into my thirties.

Which is a great loss to the country. You don’t have to “ponder them deeply” to understand them essentially. That’s merely a fallacy that assumes or states that such understanding belongs to the elite class or requires advanced degrees. Nonsense.

Among the ones who have, there is substantial disagreement (even among the Founders there was disagreement on some of these). And I think there should be – because these are not Core American Values™.

I’m not talking about interpretation on finer matters of constitutional law, which is reserved to the Courts. The Founders did not disagree on essential philosophy. They sometimes disagreed on some aspects of application of that, but that is, again, why they devised the system they did. You’re merely trying to divert the discussion to a technical one, or reduce it to one, and I am telling you that your assumptions about who is capable of what kind of basic knowledge are simply wrong. I have taught it. I would know.

One can be technically American, by title, by accident, and by “I.D.” So can one be Catholic by those. However, ignorance of the country’s ideals makes a poor American because that affects participation, the quality of that participation, the regularity of that participation,and the passion of that participation. Remaining in ignorance devalues that membership.

One can be technically American, or Catholic, and be hostile to the core ideals and central tenets of either, which compromises one’s spiritual identity, regardless of “felt experience.”

And of course, the bottom line is that your preference for sideshows (above) becomes irrelevant to Catholicism when one understands what is basically different between the interpretation of core American concepts and core Catholic concepts. We don’t need either personal opinion or college courses or secular courts to determine core (essential) Catholic doctrine: It has been defined for us, definitively, by the Magisterium, and their interpretations on matters of faith and morals are binding. Regardless of how we subjectively experience those.

So “my idea” and “your idea” of what is and is not sin, is and is not Catholic belief, is or is not binding doctrine and dogma, is irrelevant, because doctrine & dogma are not subjective but objective.

One can illegitimately interpret Church doctrine to be different from what it objectively is, and yet still be technically Catholic (not lose technical membership). However, to call those illegitimate interpretations Catholic interpretations is not objectively possible. They are not. They are heterodox interpretations if they are non-Magisterial.

The category of a person’s status does not give that person doctrinal legitimacy by virtue of an I.D. card.

And to actively embrace heterodox interpretations, or selectively reject established doctrine (yes, which includes the exclusively male ministerial priesthood) does compromise one’s Catholic identity. It is not a Catholic behavior or attitude. It is a single Catholic’s behavior and attitude, for which he or she is responsible.

Sincerity of heart and effort modifies the failings of all of us. There is a radical difference between those who attempt to submit with full mind, will, and action, vs. those who are so arrogant as to assign authority to themselves. The first category is legitimately Catholic, the second is not.

 

[mwic]

Despite emotions and subjectivity now being all the rage as a substitute for knowledge,… “feeling” Catholicism does not determine how genuine it is… the degree of one’s authentic fidelity is not predicated upon feeling

I don’t know whether you think I’m insincere, or that I’m ginned up for an attack on orthodoxy, or what, but none of this is at all implied by what I said. In review:

Question by Joe 5859: “I’m not sure why this question gets raised so often. Do people take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic even when they don’t accept all the teaching?”
My reply, in part: "of course! People take comfort in being able to call themselves Catholic … The analogy [to being called a Real American] just illustrates the similarity between the situations as felt experiences "

You hit on the word “felt” here and paint me as a fad-following (“all the rage”) and/or ignorant (“substitute for knowledge”) cafeteria catholic, or something. This is profoundly unfair.

I invoked “feeling” in response to Joe’s comment about feelings. I suggested that certain feelings explain why the question that forms the title of this thread comes up a lot. That’s it.

Many people, when they don’t have real argument, invent a straw man, which you just did.

You’re merely trying to divert the discussion to a technical one, or reduce it to one

your preference for sideshows (above) becomes irrelevant to Catholicism

I’m not trying to fight with you. I have just clicked “Find all Posts by Elizabeth502” and appreciate some of them very much.

Suppose I start over, and completely drop the Real Americans analogy.

The question that forms the title of this thread is one that I struggle with. This struggle is painful (sorry if I’m “feeling” again). I have three small Catholic-baptized children who are going to start asking why I don’t receive Communion any day now.

I found what looked like a clear answer (a “No”) to the title question. Joe said this is incorrect, and that “The Catholic Church has a set body of teachings that Catholics ought to believe” … I found what I thought was a list of the “Required beliefs” here:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=392025

… and at first glance, I hold all those beliefs. So am I done? There’s nothing there about (for example) a physical Hell, the exclusively male priesthood, birth control, or many other things that are said to be “non-negotiable”

All of the foregoing suggests that there are Grave Disagreements and Venial Disagreements, corresponding to Grave/Venial Sins? Venial disagreements might be those about Church governance, or practice, aesthetics, or some political matters? Grave ones would be about core faith and morals?

Depending on the answers to all these questions, I could answer my children honestly and correctly (or, even better, resume participating in Communion)

I come to CAF to try to solve a problem that I really have, not to score points off of people.

Final note: I know that talking to my priest is essential, and plan to do so. If I can sort this out somewhat-publicly, it might help others (such as the person who started this thread)

 

[gracepoole]

Sincerity of heart and effort modifies the failings of all of us. There is a radical difference between those who attempt to submit with full mind, will, and action, vs. those who are so arrogant as to assign authority to themselves. The first category is legitimately Catholic, the second is not.

It’s a mistake to identify all those who question the Church’s teachings as “arrogant” and wanting to “assign authority to themselves.” Questioning is part of faith development – true faith, that is, not blind faith. God works through the brain – He doesn’t expect one to shut it off.

I still can’t pretend to understand why anyone cares so deeply about whether their fellow Catholics are “adherent enough.”

 

[JamesCaruso]

It’s a mistake to identify all those who question the Church’s teachings as “arrogant” and wanting to “assign authority to themselves.” Questioning is part of faith development – true faith, that is, not blind faith. God works through the brain – He doesn’t expect one to shut it off.

I still can’t pretend to understand why anyone cares so deeply about whether their fellow Catholics are "adherent enough."

One reason might be lest others mistakenly believe that you are what these others are. Because I happen to have a beard and a motorcycle, I don’t want others to think I’m like one of the Hell’s Angels. That’s probably a poor analogy, but I think you get the idea, don’t you? They also don’t want non-Catholics to get the wrong idea as to what Catholics stand for. Before the meaning of the term “marriage” was distorted, the meaning of the term “Catholic” had already been degraded. Modifiers are now needed for both. Practicing Catholics works pretty well for me, although I believe a large percentage of the 25% who go to Sunday Mass, are also unbelieving of one or more essential Catholic doctrines. Maybe, “Vatican loyal” Catholics or “docile” Catholics would be more precise.

Questioning is one thing. Denying dogma is another. Questioning in the sense of attempting to understand the logic behind this or that doctrine is encouraged. But recalcitrance is not an acceptable Catholic position.

 

[gracepoole]

One reason might be lest others mistakenly believe that you are what these others are. Because I happen to have a beard and a motorcycle, I don’t want others to think I’m like one of the Hell’s Angels. That’s probably a poor analogy, but I think you get the idea, don’t you? They also don’t want non-Catholics to get the wrong idea as to what Catholics stand for. Before the meaning of the term “marriage” was distorted, the meaning of the term “Catholic” had already been degraded. Modifiers are now needed for both. Practicing Catholics works pretty well for me, although I believe a large percentage of the 25% who go to Sunday Mass, are also unbelieving of one or more essential Catholic doctrines. Maybe, “Vatican loyal” Catholics or “docile” Catholics would be more precise.

Questioning is one thing. Denying dogma is another. Questioning in the sense of attempting to understand the logic behind this or that doctrine is encouraged. But recalcitrance is not an acceptable Catholic position.

First, don’t worry – I hardly think the majority of non-Catholics are confused about the Church’s position on any subject that gets media attention. Second, if “docile” is a positive adjective here, count me out. I may be one of the flock but I’m definitely not a pet.

 

[JamesCaruso]

First, don’t worry – I hardly think the majority of non-Catholics are confused about the Church’s position on any subject that gets media attention. Second, if “docile” is a positive adjective here, count me out. I may be one of the flock but I’m definitely not a pet.

I knew some would take this word in an unintended meaning. Docile to the Church’s teaching is a way of saying that one recognizes the teaching authority of the Catholic Church and so opens themselves to its teachings as they would to Christ Himself. If one has not gotten to the point of accepting the Church’s teaching authority, he can hardly be expected to be “docile” and in fact, is already denying a tenet of the Catholic faith. And if being a pet makes me God’s pet, then count me in on all fours. I’d rather be his pet than Satan’s right hand man. I think I’ll be a lamb. That goes along with docile and further explains why docile is such a good word. Also, “Feed my lambs; tend my sheep,” addressed to Peter. Who are the lambs and sheep but the people of the Christ’s Church?